EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
As Clinton Flip-Flops, Where Does She Stand?
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has great political skills, but her war-and-peace compass leaves something to be desired.
Clinton has blown hot and cold on Middle East issues, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. She is at best pragmatic. Principles? Well, that's another story.
Before and during her early years in the White House, she supported Palestinian statehood, but she apparently forgot this after successfully running for senator from New York as a Democrat.
The rest is history. She obviously had to cater to a new constituency, make the ritual trip to Israel and forget any sympathy she once had for the Palestinians. But is her 180-degree flip-flop on that festering issue a portent of her leadership if she attains the White House?
As for Iraq, she voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to do what was necessary to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Unlike former Sen. John Edwards, she has refused to say she made a mistake when she voted for the war.
She cannot claim she was misled. During the lead up to the war when she was briefed on the latest U.S. intelligence about Iraq, Bush was shouting from the housetops that he was going to attack Iraq.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld often strutted before reporters at the Pentagon two years before the invasion and bragged about the attack the U.S. would wage against Iraq.
Clinton is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post that will allow her to embellish her credentials as a possible future commander-in-chief to show she would not hesitate to make tough military decisions.
As a member of that committee, she visited Iraq in 2005 and said U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. But she also criticized the administration for making poor decisions about the war.
In 2007, she voted in favor of a war-spending bill that required Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; the President vetoed the measure.
But Clinton then voted against a compromise war-spending bill that tied funding to progress by Iraq in meeting certain benchmarks.
It doesn't take her long to switch her stance on the war -- even in 24 hours. On June 19, Clinton told a union audience that she favored keeping some troops in Iraq "to protect our interests" there after a major pullout. But the following day, she told an activist anti-war gathering that she wants U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq.
On that day, she dazzled the "Take Back America" conference by declaring: "We're going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home."
A woman has a right to change her mind. But we're talking about war and peace. After dealing with the conflict now in its fifth year, Clinton ought to know where she stands. She has piously stated that the U.S. had given the Iraqis a "chance for free and fair elections" by ousting Saddam Hussein and has provided the Iraqi government the opportunity to demonstrate that it would "make hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future."
And get this: "So," she added, "the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people."
What gall! The U.S. invades and occupies a country, destroys its infrastructure, tries to privatize its national oil industry, kills and wounds thousands of Iraqis and now tells the ungrateful Iraqis, "It's your problem."
Pretty soon she will echo Bush in saying we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy"!
It's great that a woman is being taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency for the first time in history -- and is even viewed as the front-runner.
She has suffered the rough and tumble of politics.
But Clinton should look to two California Democrats -- Rep. Barbara Lee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- both of whom had the courage to vote against the first resolution authorizing the President to go to war.
The question still lingers: What does Clinton stand for?
Helen Thomas' e-mail address hthomas@hearstdc.com.
© 2007 The Times Union
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllI cannot say she has inspired any confidence in me, toward her.
And that is regrettable.
I think she has the intellect, but lacks the moral fiber that I hope Edwards and Obama both really have, but I fear either of them, should then win, will collapse under the power of Bilderberg, and the likes, once in office.
Actually, I fear any since uncorrupted one will end up crushed, collapsing under this power that truly runs not only our nation, but the world, and will unquestioningly be our ruin, which no doubt is its intent.
Hillary is really a liberal and a progressive. She's just playing along so she can get Murdoch's money. Once she's president, she's going to change and give progressives all we want. It could happen.
another corporate whore
What does Clinton stand for? NOTHING!
Where does she stand? Follow the money.
Personally, I would love to see Cheney and Bush impeached, thus installing our nation's first female president: Nancy Pelosi.
If she is the nominee, all it would take is a fair sized terrorist attack or even an "almost" attack and people would file into the Republican camp.
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton
I dont think so.
I'm encouraged to see so many others saying that what Hillary Clinton stands for is Hillary Clinton. In my view, when her husband was president the two of them acted as if the office were a mom and pop business. So that's my view. But at the moment it appears to be a minority view. Absent a very powerful alternative who actually campaigns for the nomination, she will be the Democratic nominee. Who are the alternatives? With all due respect, Cynthia McKinney is not one of them -- if I haven't heard of the person, a majority of US voters hasn't either. Dennis Kucinich is not an alternative. Nor is Ralph Nader. Who is? I don't know. At the moment, I know of no one remotely capable of gaining the nomination, let alone winning the presidency, who approaches Gore in merit. So I hope everyone will do one of two things -- figure out someone better than Gore who can win, or, failing that, work like hell to get Gore to run.
"What gall! The U.S. invades and occupies a country [WITHOUT CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, IT'S A WAR CRIME], destroys its infrastructure, tries to privatize [STEAL] its national oil industry, kills and wounds thousands [HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS] of Iraqis and now tells the ungrateful Iraqis, "It's your problem.""
Thanks for speaking truthfully, Helen. You'd make a much better president than Hillary Clinton.
Hillarious question, Helen; Billary LIES with the worst of 'em!
If Hillary wins the presidency, this country will be ruled by two families for over a quarter century. Are we a democracy or an oligarchy? If Hillary wins the democratic nomination, you can bet the regressives will use that kind of rhetoric to their advantage while the demos act like sheep being herded for the slaughter.
WHY is this person first in polls? O.K. it has to be said: SHE'S FEMALE! (And has the Clinton name sans Rodham now also!) Geejus Cryst, People. I'd love a female President very much...BUT NOT THIS ONE!!! ARE YOU LISTENIG, N.O.W.!?!?
What does Clinton stand for?
Clinton. And her precious power.
I pray AL GORE decides to run and he rolls right over her in a landslide.
A poll taken in New Hampshire this past week shows that she lost 25% of her support with the GORACLE in the race. That is a massive loss of support.
Lets face it! the Democrats are a big part of this problem. They are in partnership with the Republicans and the [ mainstrean] Press on this path to Fascism.
God help America!
Make no mistake. If elected, Clinton intends to stay in Iraq forever. She is a complete whore of Big Oil and Israel.
It's really very simple--Clinton stands for Clinton. She'll go with the money every time, and right now a lot of that money is coming from pro-Israel supporters. If she's this biased and corrupt even before gaining the highest office in the land--imagine the possibilities afterwards! And then there's the problem of what we'll call the new breed of pro-Israel, AIPAC-panderers under a Clinton administration--neo-Dems?
God help America!
Amen to that!
Understand this about Hillary; she is the (Democratic) establishment candidate. The DLC pick. The powers that be would be fine with Hillary as president (altho they'd rather have another Republican NOT named Ron Paul). She's totally in their pockets.
So, is that what we really want? Another president who is taking care of the interests of the rich and powerful (and Israel soley)?
I say NO!
The mainstream media is already breathlessly telling us constantly that Hillary being the Dem nominee is inevitable.
That is the proof that she is the establishment Dem. candidate.
Helen Thomas, if you read this: THANK YOU for the outstanding coverage you give us. You are one of the absolute best and most honest in the business!
Hillary stands for exactly what Bill stood for. Accumulating as much power and money into her own grubby little hands as she can. She couldn't care less about what's best for Americans now what's best for the people in the Middle East. Its all about Hillary. Any statement she makes is only weighed on how its going to play to a particular audience or how well its going to hurt or advance her slimy little path towards even more power.
Since everyone knows she's a liar who will say anything to anyone to get elected, no one should listen to anything she says. If you want to know what Hillary stands for, look at her 8 years in the White House and her years since in the Senate and look at her ACTIONS. Those will show what the Clinton's actions have always shown. She is a center-right, pro-war, pro-corporate tool who just like Bill will ALWAYS suck up to money.
America definitely DOES need a female President.
I propose a real progressive Democrat called Cynthia McKinney.
Brown I think she is number one in the polls because the polls are rigged.
As for where she stands isn't it obvious? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvuzMWcz0kU
Key quote in that nice long interview. Hillary on Iraq. "I think we have a remaining military ... mission."
Hillary ain't going to get us out of Iraq.
The answer regarding Hillary is blindingly obvious for true progressives and other antiwar types: do NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Not in the primaries, not even in the general election should she be nominated.
If they lose again maybe by 2012 the Democratic leadership will get the message (but I doubt it). Voting for Hillary is a sellout, plain and simple.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will NOT vote for her. I will stay home if I have to.
CoMarc: Key quote in that nice long interview. Hillary on Iraq. "I think we have a remaining military … mission."
Hillary ain't going to get us out of Iraq.
I don't think she is talking about Iraq the remaining military mission is Iran!
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html
If you like it, shes for it. Hillary will be whatever you want her to be.
To Hillary fans: New York is the last stop.
More of the same? No thanks!
What does Clinton stand for? Oral sex, giving or receiving. It don't matter to her. She's a political whore who can bend with the wind. So come on Helen, push the button. Say it. Don't sit on that fence. We need the wood. Say Hillary is a product of a system that equally rapes all those who choose to participate. Say anyone who is willing to be manipulated, as long as they were born in America, can be a politician. Say Paris Hilton and Hillary are both distractions. Say the real problem is political whores. Politicians who will trade their integrity for some kind of physical, or mental gratification. Say the problem is not Hillary. Hillary is just a scab on the sore that is our political system. The problem is that system that allows people like Hillary to exist. And after you say all that you better start looking for a new job. I hope you find that challenging.
Hoa binh
"Yes, but the Hamas victory in Palestine is hardly a ringing endorsement of Jeffersonian democracy in action in the middle east, and we pushed HARD for elections that were free and legal."
Not sure how to interpret that statement. My comment would be
I don't think the "elected" government was given a chance to exercise
its democratically elected position. Perhaps given a voice without
sanctions, etc, we might have seen progress (perhaps not), but neither
we nor the world were given the chance to see if that happened.
As I've said before, no way I will vote for Clinton or Obama. I
don't trust them. Since I haven't voted for a winning president
for something like 30 years (only once in my life), I have no
problem voting third party again. As "bdrube" said earlier, maybe
with another loss in 2008, the Democrats (DLC) will see the error
of their ways, though even then I'm not sure I would trust them.
gore? you've got to be f'in kiddin' me!
www.wsws.org
Most, when prompted, will only recall Cynthia McKinney as the congresswoman who had the kerfluffle with the capitol cops when she entered the building without her ID pin. She certainly did not cover herself in glory at that time.
Al Gore at least is an intelligent man with some of his own ideas and is as far left as the MSM will allow. He seems to have learned a lot the past few years, probably making him too smart to run again.
Face it, Progressives - Kuchinich best mirrors our values, but he's a non-starter, as is Gravel; Ron Paul is a warmed-over libertarian (and a Republican) with nothing to offer us but an anti-war stance; Nader is a dilletante who'd be swallowed whole by the system, good only as a spoiler; Edwards and Obama are well-meaning with some good ideas, but are in over their heads. Gore is the best we can hope for in 2008, and he's miles better than most. (Theoretically, of course - Cheney has no intention of letting us vote for our next president, er, dictator.)
I agree with you Hector, We will have to make a choice when the time comes. If Gore runs and wins the nomination he'll have my vote. I don't agree with everything he says. So what?
I sure don't agree with any of the Republicans. There would only be one choice for me. A third party candidate will not win. Sad, but that's reality.
I'm with Eastcoast. Though today I was thinking (hmmm,
again while mowing), if Cheney bites the dust after his
operation (would rather see him live to be impeached, but),
then it would only be monkey-boy left to get rid of and
then Pelosi would be in. Don't trust her either, but
certainly a lot more than Clinton. (Problem there is
chimp might have time to name/(get confirmed) a new
vice-prez.)
Look at her take on Darfur " Lets creaate a no fly zone and shoot 'em down if they fly in it". Great more let's use war to make peace.
To prove she's as tough as any man, she'll unleash more dogs of war and have Iran attacked. Besides, it's what Israel wants, and she's a servant of Israel. Same thing for Lieberman-loving Obama. I wouldn't trust either one of them.
The main question we have to ask is - why all the money? It seems a little disingenuous to demand that Clinton toe the line, but give her no way to compete in the race without the money necessary to win. Has she been an effective Senator for New York? That is important, since they sent her to Congress to make THIER wishes known. All of our Senators answer to the people who elected them in their state, not the whole country. She is making New Yorkers happy, and that is what they have sent her to do. In case it has missed anyone's attention, there is a strong Jewish lobby in N.Y. They believe that Israel is necessary for Jews to have a safe place in the world. Past world history is on their side, not ours. We sat by and let the Holocaust happen, even turning away boatloads of people and returning them to Germany to be murdered. An inconvenient truth, but true. Do I dissagree with the current government? Yes, but the Hamas victory in Palestine is hardly a ringing endorsement of Jeffersonian democracy in action in the middle east, and we pushed HARD for elections that were free and legal. This board is starting to sound a little like Amadinijad and his argument for turning part of Germany into a Jewish homeland. Are we to transplant the Jews one and all to Germany, and then force the Germans to comply because of their past history? How about Russia and the Pograms?
Reason has to make an appearance here, no matter how sick we are of the current administration. ALL U.S. administrations have supported Israel; it is doubtful a president could be elected without such support. Remember, the Fundamentalists are adament that Israel exist. I am not saying a Palestinian Homeland is not possible, but you have to be realistic about the government that would currently inhabit a homeland like that. More Hamas? A terrorist training country that is a mere satellite to Iran, and now Iraq?
They ALL flip-flop. I personally could do with a little compromise instead of all of the d**k-swaggering that I have been subject to in the past 7 years. Again, we are all hoping for a custom fit in an -off-the-rack world. Hillary is not the enemy: BushCo is. Anyone who thinks that Hillary is a blood-thirsty bitch who can't wait to push the button is watching too much Glen Beck and Tweety. Those men are WAY too interested in her sex life. Creepy.
If Hill was talking peace, she would not be tough enough on Crime and Terror, and she would be crucified for that. If she talks tough, she is a cold-hearted snake that will kill us all. Sounds like she can't win. Too bad for all of us if she gets the nomination but then can't get our support to win, all because we swallow the lines fed to us by people who hate ALL progressives. Four years of Rudy, anyone?
See Michael Moore's new movie 'Sicko'..it's fantastic, and gives you a good example of another Hillary Clinton flip-flop on health care. Follow the money indeed.
I love Cynthia McKinney for her honesty and personal integrity, (see the movie 'American Blackout', but she's not running.
I don't know what more you'd want in a candidate than what Dennis Kucinich has to offer. He's the only Dem running who's for true universal health care--the kind people in every other western country get. Not to mention, he'd take our trade and our foreign policy in a new and necessary direction. Why not have a Gandhi Peace Prize winner in the white house?! I'll support him in the primary without question.
Unless Gore enters the race, Edwards is the only electable Democrat currently running. The only reason Hillary is tops in the polls is that she's got the most name recognition (most people aren't paying attention at this point, other than us). I hope Edwards wipes Hillary and Obama off the map in Iowa and NH (unless Gore runs, then it's 2000 redux, the way it should have been).
Now, now, it's not fair to ask what Clinton stands for. That'd be called "scrutiny." The DLC can't have that!
If there's scrutiny, how can she rub elbows with Rupert Murdoch and all the corporate CEOs to whom she needs to sell favors in return for contributions? If there's scrutiny, how will she get elected by advocating the perpetuation our occupation of Iraq? Scrutiny would mean that she would be held accountable for not doing everything in her power as a Senator to oppose the war instead of putting the full weight of Clinton political capital behind a law against flag burning.
No sir, scrutiny is just not part of the DLC playbook, and you folks aren't playing along! No fair!
She's not flip-flopping, she's triangulating. There's a difference. Flip-flopping means that you changed a position because presumably you got smarter. Triangulating is telling each constituency what they want to hear even if it's contradictory, relying on the fact that exposing contradictions requires scrutiny the media will never provide, and which doesn't matter anyhow because in the end you'll always do what's best for you at that moment in time regardless what any constituency thinks.
Thank God for Helen Thomas. And God damn the media that is handing this nomination to this principle-free political prostitute.
Andrewsac said: Reason has to make an appearance here, no matter how sick we are of the current administration. ALL U.S. administrations have supported Israel; it is doubtful a president could be elected without such support. Remember, the Fundamentalists are adament that Israel exist. I am not saying a Palestinian Homeland is not possible, but you have to be realistic about the government that would currently inhabit a homeland like that. More Hamas? A terrorist training country that is a mere satellite to Iran, and now Iraq?
I don't have to be realistic and vote for people who endorse apartheid and further wars overseas. When I do exercise my democratic right to vote it will probably be third party. Here in America some of us believe in the protest vote.
I have to admit that I just want to spit on the ground everytime Hillary's name gets mentioned. As the First Lady I used to sometimes think it'd be great to have this woman as our first woman president! Now I just shudder at the thought.
Elizabeth Warren, a professor of law at Harvard University, an expert on bankruptcy and the author of "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke" was interviewed for the PBS show Frontline a few years ago and this exchange took place:
WARREN: Sen. Clinton, when she was first lady, [was] responsible for stopping the proposed bankruptcy legislation. The White House had been quietly supporting it, and it was First Lady Clinton who talked with her husband and persuaded him that the bankruptcy bill was hard on women, hard on families, hard on older Americans, and was a bad idea in general. And the last act that President Clinton took with Congress was to veto the bankruptcy bill. Mrs. Clinton took credit for that in her autobiography, and by golly, she deserves it. She stood up --
FRONTLINE: And today?
WARREN: Sen. Clinton, when she was elected, the financial services industry brought this bill back. And so one of the very first bills that came up after Sen. Clinton had taken office was the bankruptcy bill. Oh, [there were] a couple of cosmetic changes to it, ... but it was the same bill that had been there at that point already for four years. And Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the bill.
FRONTLINE: Better bill?
WARREN: No.
FRONTLINE: Why?
WARREN: The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it's powerful on Capitol Hill. It's a story of how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that ... they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that.
Trippin: Well stated, solid points.
Gandydancer: Thanks for sharing this interview segment. Of course part of the blame for political selling out goes to the lobby system, and the cost of running for office. That takes us back to the l996 FCC deregulation of media, wherein a far better deal might have been fostered allotting FREE air time to candidates in exchange for the mega-broadcasters' use of the PUBLIC air waves, and new digital frontier bandwidths.
Yeah Siouxrose, so where are we at? Is the only electable candidate the one that is willing to sell their soul to the corporate conglomerate, as Hillary has done?
Let's not forget to "thank" big-mouth Chris Matthews, a Republican, for making Hillary's bid a daily part of his widely watched show. Almost all guests are asked for their input (ad nauseum) on the woman he declared the front-runner before she even announced. My theory is that Mr. Matthews gives her that gratuitious, repetitive front-runner mantra of his because he and his corporate media owners want a Dem who can't possibly win the big one. Repeating a lie makes it true for voters in the "herd state" who don't think for themselves and have collective amnesia for her record.
Gandy: We are on the Titanic... I don't think the boat, as is, has too much time left. The factors for bailing out are many, but given the complicity of powerbrokers, the ship of state cannot maintain its current course. Would I like to see Kucinich in office, of course; but like others, I don't realistically see this occuring at this time. Will military leaders mutiny? Will China call in its debt and tank the US dollar? Will oil scarcity and/or idiotic aggressive moves directed at Iran boost the cost and throw the world into recession? Will Cheney's pacemaker default? Will NATURE kick ass? LOTS of variables... but the political equation stinks to high heavens, I happen to believe forces higher than our own are pretty aware. CHANGE is on the menu, but I can't pinpoint HOW it will operate.
Bless Helen Thomas: she sees things clearly and she tells it like it is. I have been deeply disappointed in Clinton's flip flops on Palestine and Iraq, and her abject surrender to the anti-Castro extremists on Cuba is disgraceful. All these (and things like the flag amendment) auger poorly for the American national interest if she should become President. We desperately need changes in many policies, and she is too prone to abandon principle when currying favor with pressure groups to make these difficult changes. No spine!
Hillary is a mugwump. Her mug is on one side of the fence and her wump on the other. Nothing good comes out of either side. Satin
Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate. She is the corporate fall back if they can't get a Republican to win or steal the election. The media likes her too because she has a vagina and Bill is back in the picture for wall to wall BJ watch.
Triangulation is very attractive for the corporate elite because they can buy the triangle to make sure that things like single payer universal health care are not given serious consideration.
No way I would vote for Clinton now, there *may* have been a time when I would have considered casting a ballot for her
.
She showed absolutely no analytical skills when she went along with King George's lust for war. She voted for further funding.
Now she is swaying with the new wind.
She will go where the winds of politics take her. Just don't need any more like her.
Riki
The only possible explanation in my mind for the unelectable frontrunners in the democratic party is that rich Republicans must have given a great deal of money.
Clinton clearly stands only for her self aggrandizement. She can get elected in New York, but I'd be surprised to see her win a national election. Sadly if she won, I think she'd be only marginally better than her Republican opposition.