Clinton, Looking Forward To General Election, Votes Like A Hawk

Clinton, Looking Forward To General Election, Votes Like A Hawk
by Helene Cooper

Sens. Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd voted against it. Sen. Barack Obama said he would have voted against it if he had voted. Former Sen. John Edwards implied he would have voted against it if he could have voted.1014 02

And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move - more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far - would intensify America’s continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say.

Part of the reason for Clinton’s vote, some of her backers say privately, is that she already has shifted from primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right.

That means she is trying to shore up her national security credentials against Republican candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, and is trying to reassure voters that she would be a tough-minded commander in chief.

By supporting the bill - sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jon Kyl of Arizona - Clinton also is solidifying crucial support from the pro-Israel lobby.

Clinton voted along with 75 other senators in favor of the bill “in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran,” according to a statement she put out after the vote. “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.”

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/14/4532/

The measure was far from hawkish, the IRG was ALREADY designated on the executive terrorist list, Iran hsa long been designated a state sponsor of terrorism. Further the measure was highly modified from its original form to remove any reference to the use of military instruments and added language that the policy should contimue to be one of diplomatic engagement with Iran.

It comes down to black and white politics, anyone who doesn't want Clinton for President wants to use this to attack her, including her opponents.

I agree that this measure has something to do with domestic politics. Any Democrat in the GE having to explain a no vote would have been a site to watch, as they were attacked for not agreeing with the facts in the resolution. Hillary did the right thing in voting for a resolution that contains facts and urges a diplomatic approach with Iran.

So please explain why you think her opinion is important?

I go to Commondreams often, that's where I found it and why I posted it. I had no idea what this writer's pedigree was.

so that you know where they're coming from. CommonDreams is good, but they don't always do their research either.

Certainly just being a writer with a byline from the NY Times is no longer a mark of unassailable integrity.

of people on DU who might just agree with her.

They should all do some research.

That's what we want, right? Diplomacy, not military aggression?
from the OP:
Clinton voted along with 75 other senators in favor of the bill “in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran,” according to a statement she put out after the vote.

She hasn't learned a THING.

The bill declared Iran's national army a "terrorist organization." We've never declared the army of a sovereign nation a "terrorist organization" before. Jim Webb, not exactly a dove, pointed out this danger during the debate. This isn't a declaration of war but it could be a first step in the that direction. We've heard this saber-rattling before. I know you Hillary fans are trying to justify this but come on. Gimme a break.

It's been done before.

Furthermore, this "bill" did not declare anyone anything. It was a non-binding resolution that called on the * administration to declare a portion of Iran's army (not the entire army) a terrorist organization.

Jim Webb is a fine man and an honorable one too, but he does not have the final say on this issue.

Not to support her.

is a good reason not to take you seriously.

It's one thing to disagree with the vote in question - it's another to take it to the extreme you have. Most reasonable people understand the difference.

That makes her a Bush War Monger!

'Nuff Said!

You know, that is just such a stupid answer that I'm going to put you on "ignore".

eom

Just sayin'

Don't you think...?

Can't you Hillary supporters at least admit she is working AGAINST progressive/liberal values once in a while?

This is reminiscent of our current administration who also has issues with admitting when they are wrong.

No offense intended, but DAMN.

And assuming I'm a Hillary supporter because I am for fair-minded analysis and less hate is out-of-line.

"can't you blah blah blah so-and-so's stop..."

C'mon, we're supposed to use our brains on this side.

...and you want to tie me to the administration for simply asking for an unbiased look at this strategy?

Hah!

No need to worry though. Once the Goddess of Peace is in office, her true liberal colors will shine through, she'll end the war, bring the troops home early, make peace, and Coca Cola will make her the centerpiece of their 2009 edition of "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" commercials.

Just you wait and see, sis. :smoke:

But based on a multitude of recent posts, many who would want a different Democrat in the WH will throw on the blinders for a good "negative" post.

do wonder who is wearing those blinders.

Hopefully we won't reward her by giving her the nomination.

ugh -

Still, I'm always hopeful America will make the right choice. And if Gore doesn't jump in, I have no doubt in my mind Obama is the best choice. He has the base and the money. And, best of all, he's got it going on in a number of ways. I do believe he's a contender, inevitability or not.

Today they were talking about how she's going to have problems with her "general election" votes when people start questioning her about those votes (like the Lieberman bill) and how it MAY backfire on her.

means that this is another piece in which the author pretends to be able to read Hillary's mind and assign sinister motives to anything Hillary does.

If Hillary voted against this the MSM would have said she did it to cave in to the kook fringe base.

She can't win with these people.

Perhaps Hillary voted for this because she thought it would be good for America? Prove otherwise?

she'll probably nominate some rightwing lieberman-esque dem for v-p, following the "wisdom" of the chris matthews crowd that she has the liberal vote 'locked up'

get ready to get taken for granted, people. if you were actually fooled by her overnight 'just for the primaries' antiwar lip service, you're in for a BIG surprise

as for me, the second she's nominated, i start working to get nader on my state's ballot. i won't be forced to vote for a warhawk. that's not a threat, hillbots. it's a promise. and there are millions who share my sentiment.

so take your inevibility shit and shove it up your ass.
for now, i'll continue to work do everything in my power to stop a james carville/dlc win in the primaries.

Vulture would more accurate...