Hillary Flip-Flops at debate

The New York Daily News has the details:

“It cannot be American policy, period,” Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn’t know where it was.

[. . .]

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”

She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said.

Typical Clinton, say what you think the audience wants to hear and reconcile it with your past statements later.

UPDATE: More from Ben Smith at the Politico

Hillary’s Iraq Straddle

This LA Times article seems to indicate that Hillary Clinton’s straddle on Iraq seems to be working:

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of voters in key early primary states reveals that Moore and McCarthy are hardly alone. They represent a paradox of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: Although a plurality of Democratic voters considers the Iraq war to be the most pressing issue facing the candidates, the more hawkish Clinton has found a sweet spot in the debate.

Many of those voters who want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops support her candidacy and consider her best able to end the war, as do many who back a more gradual drawdown.

[. . .]

The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be “the best at ending the war in Iraq” — 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.

The article also notes how Hillary campaign is effectively handling the issue:

Analysts said that Clinton’s strength even among war opponents resulted from a perception that, as a senator and a former first lady, she has the best experience to be president — a category she dominated in the three early states surveyed by the Times/Bloomberg poll.

Several respondents said Wednesday that they liked her for other reasons that trumped the war: her husband, the former president; and the idea of electing a woman to the White House.

Also, the survey reflects the Clinton campaign’s efforts over the last six months to refocus the Iraq debate on a future of troop reductions — an area of agreement among the candidates — rather than on her 2002 vote. As a result, the debate over the war has shifted from a potential disadvantage for Clinton to an asset, her advisors say.

Hillary has used her rhetoric to appeal to anti-war voters and yet her more balanced statements in debates and other forums also appeals to more moderate voters. She has successfully portrayed herself as the candidate with the experience to get things done. She seems the most competent and sure footed. Add in her husband’s popularity with some Democrats and the fact that she would be the first women president and you have her advantage.

It all comes down to a mix of electability, campaign discipline, and a desire for a women president. It isn’t really issue based in a pure sense, but rather an impression and assumption based on the candidate’s backgrounds and personas. If her opponents can’t convince voters to reassess these key areas where Hillary has successfully positioned herself, she is unlikely to lose.

The risk is that she will win the primary but face much tougher opposition in the general election. Remember John Kerry was supposed to be the electable one too.

Kos on Hillary

UPDATE: Hillary issues a statement that makes Kos feel better.

Kos himself has a post over at Daily Kos on Hillary and Obama. It reveals the level of mistrust involved between Senator Clinton and the leftist base:

So where are the two “front runner” candidates on Iraq? Have they conquered their fear and actually said something of substance regarding the pre-emptive capitulation bill?

[. . .]

But what about Hillary, who could earn some brownie points for finally leading on a key issue shared by not just the Democratic Party primary electorate, but by ALL Americans?

Well, nothing on her blog about Iraq. We have video about what a wonderful time some Hillary supporter had with her after winning some “spend some time with Hillary” contest. But did they have dinner together like Obama and the winner of his campaign’s contest? We get a ton of posts about how Hillary’s two decades in Washington mean she’s the person to bring change to that misbegotten town, all the while pretending to ignore the irony.

On her press section, it’s mostly a bunch of people endorsing Hillary. Oh, and a statement about the latest toy recall. Because that’s apparently more important than anything having to do with Iraq.

So it’s Friday, and the two front-runners are still refusing to lead.

Helen Thomas Doesn’t Trust Hillary

OK, I know it’s Helen Thomas, not exactly a person I would be disposed to quote favorably, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day, right? Anyway, here is what one of the most notoriously liberal journalists has to say about the former first lady:

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.

Hillary lacking principles? You don’t say. Blowing hot and cold on important issues? No! Its called nuance!

Thomas notes how fast Hillary can change her mind:

It doesn’t take her long to switch her stance on the war – even in 24 hours. On Tuesday, 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.

Yep. Clinton has been dancing around the issue and you don’t have to be a “journalist” like Thomas to notice. Not surprising given her far left sympathies, Thomas recommends “two California Democrats – Rep. Barbara Lee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi” as role models for Hillary.

But Thomas redeems herself by asking the right question to end her column:

The question still lingers: What does Clinton stand for?

Now that’s a good question. Even from Helen Thomas.

Hillary’s Foreign Policy Tightrope Walk

The New York Times is once again highlighting one of the central themes of the Democratic presidential primary: can Hillary Clinton find a way to appease the virulent ant-war base of her party while still holding on to the centrist hawk reputation she has built up over the years?

The article, Is U.S. Safer Since 9/11? Clinton and Rivals Spar, highlights the jockeying of the D’s to be seen as the most anti-war anti-Bush candidate. Clinton, however, has worked hard to build a reputation as a centrist who isn’t afraid of using military force and who isn’t beholden to the loony left that makes up the base of her party. This reputation give her important credibility with the media and with the intellectuals and policy wonks that support her.

But this is not an easy balance to strike:

In a televised debate on Sunday night, Mrs. Clinton, who has tried to minimize her differences with her rivals on commander-in-chief issues, bluntly disagreed with a main rival, former Senator John Edwards, who had just said that the administration’s so-called war on terror was little more than a slogan.

“I believe we are safer than we were,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We are not yet safe enough, and I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should be following.”

Nice moderate statement, right? Exactly, so the other candidates pounce:

The campaign of her other chief rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sent supporters and reporters a memorandum on Monday titled “America Is Not Safer Since 9/11,” which cited research from the State Department and other groups that described terrorism as an accelerating threat. Advisers to other candidates, meanwhile, argued yesterday that Mrs. Clinton might be misjudging Democratic primary voters, who are loath to credit the Bush administration with much of anything.

[. . .]

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards, Mark Kornblau, said yesterday: “George Bush’s disastrous foreign policy has made America less safe in the world, according to his own State Department. His long list of failures, topped by the war in Iraq, has left us with more terrorists and fewer allies.”

The article goes on to note that Hillary’s campaign believes that “the vast majority of Democratic primary voters, and Americans, would agree with Senator Clinton.” I am not so sure about that. I would agree that a majority of American’s would probably agree, but I wouldn’t wager that the “vast majority” Democratic primary voters think that way. To them Bush is a greater danger than terrorism; to them the country is well on its way to a theocracy built on the blood of innocents. Somehow I don’t think sensible moderate statements like this are going to go very far.

And there lies Hillary’s problem. How can she compete with Edwards for the anti-war base and yet continue her statesmen like pose? The answer could very well determine the outcome of the primary.

Hillary and Obama appease anti-war left

Hillary is a centrist Democrat, right? She is supposed to be the candidate with the most foreign policy experience and something of a hawk. That may be, who can tell what Hillary really believes, but she knows that the liberal base is virulently anti-war so she will tell them what they want to hear. And apparently vote that way too:

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

“I fully support our troops” but the measure “fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,” said Clinton, a New York senator.

Sure, Hillary “fully supports” the troops she just doesn’t want to stop using them as a bargaining chip to use against the President. She knows the bill will pass and she can burnish her anti-war credentials. Nice.