ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Is Hillary getting a free pass on Iraq?

Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:43 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: ,

From NBC's Mark Murray

The 2004 presidential campaign taught us many lessons, and one of them was this: Being seen as a flip-flopper can be politically devastating. John Kerry's now-famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" furthered the GOP narrative that Kerry was a weak, indecisive politician willing to say anything to get elected. And so far this election cycle, we've seen the press and pundits attach the flip-flopper label to Mitt Romney (on abortion, guns, and immigration), Giuliani (on partial-birth abortion and the public funding of abortion), and even Mr. Straight Talk John McCain (on taxes and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell).

But Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton -- who was for the Iraq war before she was against it -- has been getting mostly a free pass as she's morphed into an antiwar candidate. Just check out today's Des Moines Register's coverage of her speech yesterday on Iraq. There's a picture of Hillary standing behind a lectern that says "The Plan to End the War." Then there's her quote: "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month, but today." Yet the article doesn't mention that just a year ago, she said that setting a "date certain" for withdrawal was a mistake, which produced boos from the liberal audience that heard the speech. It also barely mentioned (in just one sentence) her 2002 vote to authorize the war.  

And it's just not this Des Moines Register piece. When Clinton was asked at CNN's debate last month about her new antiwar views, she simply changed the subject. On her last-minute vote against the compromise war-funding bill, Clinton answered: "The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused." And when asked why she voted for every previous war-spending bill until that one, she responded: "Unfortunately, we don't have a president who is willing to change course. And I think it was time to say enough is enough… Everybody on this stage, we are all united... We all believe that we need to try to end this war."

"The coverage of Hillary on Iraq is a travesty of American journalism," a aide to a rival campaign tells First Read. "It is horrendous."

Of course, most of the Democratic presidential candidates have shifted their views on Iraq in the past few years as it has become more unpopular. Biden, Dodd, and Edwards also voted for the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and all are antiwar now (some more than others). Even Obama, who opposed the war when he was an Illinois state senator, voted for all appropriations for it until the very last supplemental -- just like Clinton did -- since he joined the US Senate.

But none of these other Democrats 1) is leading by double digits in the national polls, 2) is a famous former First Lady with a famous husband, and 3) is largely getting such a free pass on the nation's biggest issue -- Iraq. 

Her campaign, in fact, deserves plenty of kudos in making Clinton sound like Dennis Kucinich when it comes to Iraq. As of now, they have turned a major weakness into a strength -- which comes at the same time as Clinton has increased her lead in the polls. And if she goes on to win the Democratic nomination, it will be one of the big reasons for her success.

*** Update *** A Clinton campaign spokesman tells First Read that Clinton simply "got out ... and explained to people that the president has fumbled this thing so badly, we had to put an end to it. I think the Americans would agree with her."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Speaking of Hillary. Seen this? hehhehheeh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
I think Hillary and Obama figured it'd be too politically damaging amoung the Democratic primary voters to vote for a bill that was going to pass anyway. They certainly did flip flop..but having a D by their name I figure that is where the press expected them to go anyway. But it is interesting Hillary did a total 180..she never apologized for her vote(not that she needed to), but she never said one thing about her change of mind.
amen to this todd and mark. i wish you guys would be a little bit more critical of hillary. are you guys scared? (not your personally, but your fellow journalists).
why jump on Hillary because she makes all the men look like flip-floppers?And the media(Hannity<Carlson ,Rush,etc.etc.etc.plus the right wing newspapers and even Huffington go after Hillary.Get a grip----maybe she is smarter----than you want her tobe
There is a big difference between flip-flopping for political gain and changing your stance because you were lied to by the Executive branch.  Hillary Clinton, as well as the American public, were lied to. There is no shame in her change of opinion.
Will some please, please please send this to the Obama and Edward campaigns!!! She is getting a free pass and that's ridiculous!!! Fortuanately, it's still WAY early.  If she's peaking--it's much to early and I think that could spell disaster come the fall.
Basically it will come down to whether Democrats just want her. If they do, she'll get the pass from them on her initial Iraq vote to authorize. If they don't, this will keep coming up.

Much in the same way both Bushes got a pass on their politically expedient conversion to pro-life views. The Republicans just didn't want to go there, so they collectively pretended both Bushes really are pro-life.

We'll see how this develops. My sense is that she'll not be wanted by a majority of the party, and we'll hear more of her calculating and flip-flopping. And the media will follow suit.
Hillary had the wrong judgment about Iraq in 2002, what makes any voter think she'll have the right Judgment when the next problem like Iraq arises. Her vote for the Iraq war fundamentally disqualifies her for the Job.

Her incessant refusal to apologize makes it worse.  Her plan for Iraq is to have a "do over" vote. We need a leader who is above these childish political games.
She wasn't lied to!!! Hillary Clinton did what she thought was politically expedient to do because she wanted to run for president and she thought it was the only way she could run.  This is important because it's ONE indication of leaderhship.  She put her ambition before what was good for the country. I'm no expert, but I don't think that's the type of leader we need after 8 years of Bush!!! Shame of Hillary Clinton for not taking a stand when the country needed her to!!!
I'm more interested in the Republican silence; The GOP doesn't want to rock her boat (yet), because they know they can smear her to pieces and make her a guaranteed loser in '08.
YES, she is getting a pass on her vote, while we constantly hear from chuck & mark ( among other's)about  $400 haircuts ( daily)& ties to resko ( I think).MSM is scared of their behinds to report anything that may bring into question, her vote or anything else that WE the voter's feel are RELEVANT. We, the voter's had 1 annointed onto us. We will not be taken advantage of in that way AGAIN."DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"
HMT / "why jump on Hillary because she makes all the men look like flip-floppers?" hmt explain how gender has any relevance concerning the "flip-flop factor" of a candidate, I am women hear me roar
Amen Guys...so what are you going to do about it?
she didnt even read the intelligent report about iraq! she can say she was lied to all she wanted, but the fact that a) she didn't read the report and b) there were MANY other congressmen that voted AGAINST the war doesn't bode well for her.  and look at it this way. if she can be fooled by george w. bush, do you really want her leading our country?!
If the MSM would focus on important problems we have instead of a persons haircut she may not get away with it.  Do your job First Read and go after the story in detail.
Before the war before she was against???  Surely you're kidding.  90% of the people were for the war before they were against.  They are clearly not all flip floppers.  Come to think of it I certainly don't recall Todd warning against war in Iraq.  Taking in new information and reassessing your position should not be something we condemn in this country.  
MK - its obvious we're going to see the gender card played over and over by Clinton supporters.

John Reynolds - that's just it. Was a change of mind or an example of political expediency. A lot of us only see political expediency from Clinton. That's my take. She's just too much like Bush in several ways, this being one.
John Reynolds wrote "Hillary Clinton, as well as the American public, were lied to".

Get a brain!!!

The last time I checked, Hillary and Bill (get two for the price of one) were the presidents for 8 years. She had access to intelligence like no other person. If she can be lied to, then she doesn’t deserve to be the president.
Hillary was lied to by Bush who was lied to by Bill Clinton's CIA director which means once again Bill lied to Hillary.
IF and that is a big IF she wins be prepared the Republicans won't let it go unnoticed.  That's why they are setting back.  They want her to win.  They have so much on her it would fill an ark.  On her part she thinks if she wins all the Dems will ralley around her anyway.  Well I got news for you GIRL.  No way you are just Bush in a dress.
Hillary is getting a free pass on just about everything.  I think the media wants to see Hillary as the frontrunner for the democratic party.  The problem with that is that the American people won't give her a free pass in the general election.  She is shown time after time she really needs her husband to lead her into battle when it comes to her record, the problem is she has no record.  She will be judged based on her husband's record, which is pretty shameful as it is.  What has Hillary really done?  With the exception of her disastrous health care plan back in 1993, she really has not distinguished herself either as a first lady or as a senator.  She won New York basically because she was running on her husband's name.  Without Bill Clinton, there is no Hillary Clinton period.  When the debates begin with her republican challenger, her weaknesses will be more refined and more sustained and the liberal press will eat it up.  There is no way she can take on Rudy or Mitt Romney in a debate.  Her community playhouse performances with the other democratic players shows she is not ready for Broadway.  
I completely agree MJ. Why is reassessing one's position a negative?  If one was wrong initially, is working to right that wrong a bad thing? The same people who lambaste Hillary for "flip-flopping" (or whatever!) are the same people who accuse Bush of being too rigid and refusing to listen to the will of the people.  The vast majority of people in this country (as well as many legislators including other presidential contenders) have changed positions on this war.  If I'm not mistaken, a majority of Americans supported this war and Bush had quite high approval ratings in 2003.  But the vast majority now oppose this mismanaged, ridiculous war and Bush's poll numbers are in the pit.  Don't we want a politician who will actually listen to the majority of people in this country who want this war over?  Isn't that what we expect politicians to do - listen to their constituents even if it means changing a position he/she ones held?  I think it is far better to have someone who has changed positions and since become a vocal opponent of this war than to have someone like Bush who refuses to listen to the people, the Iraq study group, or even reason!  But, no, others will continue to simply focus on the fact that Hillary voted for the war initially and give no credence to the fact that she is now working diligently to end it.  The anti-war folks (of which I include myself in) would be applauding any Republican who changed his/her position and challenged Bush.  But not Hillary.  No, she's simply a flip-flopping, poll-driven, ambitious, crazy woman who is only doing this for political positioning.  Give me a break.  
Well, well now.  I heard Hillary was going home to bake cookies for the troops.  She just can not take the heat so she is going to the kitchen.
All this dissing has beaten her down.
So okay you guys happy now?
I think you made her cry.
I feel real bad about that so I will VOTE for her.

Update: A Clinton campaign spokesman tells First Read that Clinton simply "got out ... and explained to people that the president has fumbled this thing so badly, we had to put an end to it. I think the Americans would agree with her."

So Clinton now is taking yet another position... the same position we've heard from Republican candidates... that the problem with the war wasn't in its initial concept but with the Bush Administration's mishandling of it?

Ohhhh, this one could come back to haunt her. My guess is watch for another statement from the campaign correcting this one, and blaming it on a staffer, very soon.
Let's not forget as a senator she had access to information that the general public did not. Also, 23 senators voted NO for the invasion. How were they able to get it right and Hillary got it wrong?? She states her experience as her strength. Where was her experience back in October of 2002??
Exactly, Jayson.  I was against this war from the start, but I'm not going to hang my hat on a single vote.  She urged the president to let the inspectors finish their work and she signed on to the Byrd amendment that would have sunsetted Bush's authority after just one year.  The war was a disaster but Bush's managing of it made it worse than it had to be.  I'm not interested in quibbling about the past, I listening for a way forward, and Hillary's sounds pretty good to me.
Jayson, Boston...Seems some of our very own are high on the weed these days.
We know she will make the very best President.
We will be proud Americans once again.
H P  Boston, Ms. Clinton's cookie recipe has chocolate chips in it.  It's not a good idea to send chocolate to the troops; it melts in the heat over there and becomes bitter, icky, nasty stuff.  
Paul Miller
YA think?
Bad staffers, must be going around, Obama caught some too.
I agree with Jayson! The majority of America flip-flopped about the war.  She shouldn't be attacked for trying to correct the situation, that is exactly what we want our candidates to do!
Bear with me for being way off topic--but because of the problem I'm going to be describing, I have no idea who to contact.

Has anybody attempted lately to get into NBC Nightly's blog, Daily Nightly, today? I have, and something called "Community Server" comes up.

Because you have to join "Community Server", I provided my "alias", a password, and my e-mail address. After I did so, I received a message that I'd be receiving an e-mail with my name and password.

Well, now it's about an hour and a half since I did this. I have not received an e-mail--and I've tried to sign into "Community Server" with my "alias" and password only to get the message that my account is "pending approval."

Has anybody else tried to get into "Daily Nightly" to have "Community Server" come up? And have they been having the same problem I've been having--namely a long wait during which their account has been "pending approval"? My apologies for being off-topic--but I thought someone on First Read might know what was going on.
Also, her campaign sends the message that everything her husband did in the White House she supported.  Does that include her husbands bombing of Iraq?
Olivia, That is strange. What you are describing is how we administrators log in and post updates and comments on these blog. You shouldn't be seeing that page when you log in. I'll try to log into the Daily Nightly -- as a regular surfer -- and see what I get. Thanks for the message.
The blog looks fine to me. Be sure to use this address.... http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/
bush and cheney have staff infections too!!
Looking at current facts and deciding to change your position - your course - based on those current facts IS NOT flip flopping.  It is called thinking.  Smart people do it.  Hillary Clinton is smart.

Have we grown so stupid that we expect our pols to map out a position and then stick with come heck or high water, be it 2, 4, or 6 years down the road?  Thats dumb.  Thats why Iraq is the mess it is because Bush can see the current situation for what it is and change course.  His mind is stuck in 2003.

MEL...I think they are oatmeal riasin cookies cause they are so nutritious. That is the kind I send..don't know who gets them though.  I hope they like em.
Mmm glad to see my post was not over YOUR head. lol
There were a lot of people out there that voted for bush/cheney. Now he is at 29%. Are those voters all flip floppers?
The criticism here is BS and unfair.  Hindsight is great; but where was Mark Murray on the issue prewar?   Where were the rest of the MSM including those supposed bastions of liberalism and the country's conscience, the NYT and Wash Post? Hell, they were leading the charge with that wacko chick that was sent to jail over the Plame affair leading the pack with misinformation fed to her by Rove and the boys.  Over 70% of the country thought invading Iraq was a great idea based on the mushroom cloud of Condy Rice and other lies.

It's like Germany after the war.  No one had ever been a Nazi and everyone knew all along that Hitler was  a monster. Now, to hear the vast majority of Americans tell it, they thought the war was a bad idea from the get go.  Pure BS!

If Hillary were so cold bloodedly political, the best move would be to go lockstep with all the rest of the gutless wonders that now apologize for their vote. Obama sanctimoniously says he would have voted no.  Easy to say, much harder to do.  Who knows what he would have done.

I believe Hillary did the best she could under trying circumstances and with the information available.  She has said that if she had known  what we now know she would not have voted the way she did.  Just like all but the brain dead would have been against the war had    the Shrub and company not lied through their teeth.  I had great admiration for Collin Powell and he was duped and lost his honor by trusting the President.

I can truthfully say that for many reasons, but in large part as a Vitnam vet and historian with knowledge of the Middle East, I was against the war from the outset.  But once we got into it, I was in the same boat as Hillary.  We had to hope for a time that there could be some successful way to
extricate ourselves without suffering the consequences of a geopolitical disaster in the Middle East.  Now and for sometime, it has become apparent that any way you slice it there is no good slice.  We have to damn the consequences and get the hell out. Hilary has come to that inevitable conclusion also.

Go Hillary in 08!  
Right on RICHARD FLATTS.
Hillary is smart and we are going to vote for her.
She can take the attackes just like all the other candidates. She is an excellent politician, she is extra experienced in the field. Been there done that.
Lots of people have changed their minds about this war, but I think the 'free pass' post doesn't get at some important issues.

Why did Hillary Clinton vote for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution in the first place?  Did her "White House experience" help her come to that decision? What was her thought process?  Why didn't she listen to more experienced Senators like Bob Graham? If she had been Commander in Chief in 2002/2003 would she have pressed for war in Iraq?

What caused her to change her stance on timetables?  On the war in Iraq as a whole?  

Some of her explanations on her 2002 vote don't make sense. I'd love to know why she (and other 08ers running for president) voted against the Levin Amendment. (Roll Call of the vote: http://clarkiw.wordpress.com/2002/10/10/levin-amendment-roll-call-vote-october-10-2002/)

As Lincoln Chafee describes it:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1184299200&en=eb667e8da70c312f&ei=5070)
"Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened."

HRC said in her floor speech that Bush should have used more diplomacy, but she still voted against the Levin amendment.

Hillary's problem on Iraq isn't just that she voted 'wrong' in the eyes of liberal voters.  It's not that she voted for funding it. It's that she's never shown any leadership on the issue ever until 2007. It's that her explanations are hollow. It's that it undercuts her 'experience' argument. For all of Hillary's 'experience' she got this one wrong, and we still don't know why.
Mark Murray I got the same page as Olivia got, and my bookmark is too the nbc nightly news blog. I always come to first read from there.
OLLIE  
Staff infections too!  I love it. I am still laughing!
Did the people who wrote in support of Hillary Clinton even read the post on First Read??  Fine, you think she's the best candidate but thinking she was misled by Bush on this war is just dead wrong!! She didn't even read the intelligence report--OK fine..lots of senators didn't, but some senators VOTED NO after reading that report. Hillary Clinton wants to be leader of the free world not the president of the local PTA. Come on people!!! If experience and leadership are her strenghts, where were they in October 2002?? Do really think she's able to SAY let alone DO unpopular things for the betterment of the country???  It seems to me that she's only interested in the betterment of Hillary Clinton!
Nick - Clinton didn't even bother to read the information available.
Thanks, Mark. I just tried the link you gave and it worked.
Mark,

Are you having journalistic guilt? Why even bother to ask the question you know the answer to--YES, SHE'S BEEN GIVEN A FREE RIDE ON IRAQ!!!  In fact, she's been given a free ride on EVERYTHING, from her Iraq war vote and continued advocacy until Obama forced her to change course; to her corporate ties (number two Senator in contributions received from the insurance industry); her relationship with Rupert Murdoch; hypocrisy on the Scooty Libby pardon, etc etc.  Liberal are going after Giuliani because he was endorsed by the Senator on the DC Madame's phone list, but NO mention of the potential ramifications of Clinton's endorsement from LA Mayor, Villagrosa who was recently caught in an extra-marital affair.  Bill Clinton, Commander and Cheater, hangs out with the guy.  But I guess Bill didn't know about it or participated?  Yeah right!  The media is trying to dig up dirt on Senator Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko, but only a few in the Chicago Press mentions that Hillary Clinton received a fund-raiser from one of Rezko's partners.  Hillary Clinton even attended a fund-raiser in New Orleans hosted by the infamous Sheriff who ordered his officers to hold Blacks, who were trying to reach dry land, at bay by gunpoint because he didn't want that "element" in his county, but the national media ignores it.  John Edwards gets an expensive hair cut or two, and it's an unending story, but Hillary Clinton, a so-called progressive Democrat, is on the cover of Fortune Magazine touted as the candidate of big business and no one calls her on it.  I hope you guys are going to start playing fair!
God I hope she was being politically expedient with her vote. None of the people I hang out with were fooled in 2003 by these NeoCon criminals and we are not the sharpest tools in the shed. I believe her to be a brilliant and qualified candidate but if she insists that she was fooled then I guess I have to take her at her word. I find that to be a serious flaw. I hold every Senator and Representative responsible for this vote. They all need to apologize for their part in this disaster.

What is wrong with people today? Now we’re pissed because she changed her mind?  We are wasting our energy on this. Our anger, frustrations and disgust belongs with Bush.

Here we have a President who is pretty much giving everyone (other than Barney and Laura) the finger. He has and is making it very clear he is ‘king’ and whatever you think means s--t to him.

He doesn’t represent us or our interest and looking back I don’t think he ever did. This has always been about oil and money, lots of it. Why else are they so determined to continue with this war?

Thank God other Republicans are finally awake, it only took six years but awake you are. Welcome!

Thank God she has the ability to change her mind, look what happens when you have a President who can’t change his mind no matter: a) how many have died b) what the country wants c) our country’s integrity d) our weaker armed forces e) weaker nation, good God the list goes on......

As President (man or woman) you should be able to look at any situation and determine if you are obligated to change your mind.

America is becoming a Nation of too much talk and not enough action. This empire too will fall. It’s been 200 + years. Check your history.....
Two points:  First, as for the Democratic senators who voted against the war, if they're are such great leaders, why are none of them running for President?

Second, the reason why Sen. Clinton is not getting hounded for thinking the war was the right thing in 2002 and the wrong thing now is because that is what 90% of Americans believed then and believe now--at least the honest ones.

Anyone who thinks Sen. Clinton is getting a free ride from the press and that Obama is getting treated roughly is delusional.  Truth is, Obama is a creature of the media, which is against whoever is up because what they want is a contest.  Folks like the rube who wrote this article give the media way too much credit:  they assume Sen. Clinton must be doing well because of the way the media is covering her.  At least consider one other possibility:  she's running a very good campaign and has shined in all of the debates.  So will you Obama and Edwards folks please stop the whining?  Its really unbecoming.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=266007

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google