Matthews likened position of "hawk" Clinton on war to Bush and Giuliani, contrasted with Hagel
On the May 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Washington Post reporter Lois Romano, "Do you think the Democrats -- do you think we're going to have a third-party candidate who's anti-war, like [Sen. Chuck] Hagel [R-NE], if [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] is the nominee? If that means two hawks running? Do you think the American people will be looking for a dove to run somewhere?" When Romano responded "everybody is kind of a dove right now," Matthews asserted that Clinton is "a hawk. I'm sorry, she's a hawk. The president's a hawk. Rudy's a hawk." In reality, Clinton has consistently supported Democratic efforts to limit the Iraq war that both President Bush and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani have strongly opposed. Her voting record in 2007 on significant Iraq legislation has also been the same as Hagel's, except for two votes in which Hagel sided with Bush and took the more "hawkish" position.
As the Associated Press reported on March 28, Giuliani "called the Democratic-controlled Congress' challenge to President George W. Bush's policy in Iraq 'a terrible mistake' and equated it with waving a white flag in the war against terrorism." Giuliani was referring to H.R. 1591, the emergency supplemental Iraq funding bill that included a timetable for withdrawal of American forces, which Clinton (and Hagel) voted for and Bush ultimately vetoed. Giuliani went further:
"I hope that the president vetoes it," Giuliani said. "The full focus of our energies should be on supporting the troops that are there and trying to act against terrorism, trying to create an Iraq that acts as a bulwark against terrorism instead of a headquarters for terrorism."
Additionally, while Hagel voted against S.J. Res. 9, which would have changed U.S. policy in Iraq and sought to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, Clinton voted for it. On February 5, Hagel voted to oppose a motion that would have forced a vote on S. 470, a bill that expressed opposition to Bush's plan to put more U.S. troops in Iraq. Clinton voted with the vast majority of Democrats for cloture (to end debate and vote on the bill). On February 17, Hagel voted with the Democrats and Clinton for cloture on a similar measure.
Like Clinton, Hagel voted in favor of H.J. Res. 114 in 2002, which authorized the president to use military force against Iraq.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the May 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Do you think the Democrats -- do you think we're going to have a third-party candidate who's anti-war, like Hagel, if Hillary is the nominee? If that means two hawks running? Do you think the American people will be looking for a dove to run somewhere, Lois?
ROMANO: I'm not so sure about that. I mean, because everybody is kind of a dove right now, don't you think?
MATTHEWS: No. No, Hillary is not. No, I'm sorry.
ROMANO: Well, she's not, but she's calling for the end of the war.
MATTHEWS: No, she's hawk. She's a hawk. She's a hawk. I'm sorry, she's a hawk. The president's a hawk. Rudy's a hawk.
ROMANO: She's calling for the end of the war.
MATTHEWS: A dove is somebody who thinks this war was a lousy idea, and they're trying to avoid getting in the hole any deeper.
ROMANO: Like [Rep.] Kucinich [D-OH]. No, I don't think so. I don't think there is going to be a dove in the race. People want protection. They want us to fight terrorism. They just want us out of this war right now.
Maybe Rush is right. Maybe this place is a front for the Hillary campaign. Why defend her when there are so many candidates out there that truly oppose the Iraq war? Chris Mathews is right on the money here, I'm sorry MMFA.
hillary's position on the war does not compare to bush's, which is what matthews is trying to say.
From what other's have posted, the guy who runs this site is a friend of Hillary's somehow and I think is bucking for a post in a Clinton administration. He used to be a hack writer for the Repubs but switched sides, so he backs the right-wing candidates like Clinton and Obama instead of the few progressives in the Dem Party. It's weird how non-Democrat liberals like me are praying for a Kucinich or Gravel nomination, while the Democrats themselves are backing the far-righties in thier party instead. Liberals, indeed.
It is that type of thinking that cost us the white house in 2000. Remember Rasph Nader? While I certaintly respect your willingness to adhere to your principles, we have come to a critical junction in our history. Choosing the lesser of two evils is what those in your political persuasion will need to do to get these crazy neo-cons away from the White House. We have to pick a candidate who can win. I don't think Hillary can do that. I could be wrong, but I think it is necessary to be realistic and as progressives, liberals, or democrats we need to ensure that we win. I think that means, Richardson, Edwards, or Obama. Gravel, Kucinich, or Hillary will undoubtedly lose by a landslide and we would have accomplished nothing.
"we need to ensure that we win"
'Winning' is a poor objective. It really, truly is. The Republicans wanted to 'win' and, as a result, they forced a guy in office that polled well enough but was completely incompetent and unprepared for the task thrust upon him. They lied, cheated, stole, and lied some more to keep him there, all in a desire to WIN.
Simply seeing a (D) behind the name of the person in office is absolutely meaningless - there are Republican candidates that will do a better job than some of the Democratic candidates. Ralph Nader certainly would have done a better job than Bush. It is all relative when it comes to party affiliation - there is nothing about the letter behind a guy's name that makes him immediately more qualified to do the job.
If the Democrats are so eager to "win" they need to provide candidates that will capture the hearts and minds of the moderates and the independents through a vision of a better America, and a vision that doesn't involve fear mongering or even hate mongering. If the DNC puts another John Kerry on the block, they will lose or - at best - squeak by, and they will deserve it. We as a nation deserve better than mediocrity from the one party that has any credibility in saying it serves the people of this country, and if all they have to offer is mediocrity and corporate whores, they will reap the filth they sow.
I couldn't disagree more. Winning is not a poor objective. Winning is everything when you are talking about the future of this great country. My point is that like it or not, people threw their votes away in 2000 and look what we got. If you want to stand on some idealistic principle during this upcoming election and vote for someone who has no chance of winning then you are effectively voting for the opposition. I think you misinterpreted my comments. I am not saying any democrat is better than a republican. What I am saying is that my personal beliefs more closely resemble thos espoused by the Democratic Party. If that is the case for you, then I think it would be in our best interest to choose a candidate who can win. What does it accomplish to support a candidate who may stand for everything you believe in but could never win? then you are stuck with a President who doesn't really stand for anything you believe in. George Bush is a good example.
"What I am saying is that my personal beliefs more closely resemble thos espoused by the Democratic Party."
I don't doubt that. In general, I agree with the assertion. Having said that, my beliefs and the beliefs of the party often do not line up with the actions of the elected who claim to represent said party.
Therefore, if I like the (D) general platform yet think the candidate isn't going to live up to the (D), I will not vote for the (D) and will instead hope that my vote to a third party will help contribute to the establishment of a stronger third party, which I do believe is key to restoring a flourishing democracy in this nation. If the (D) party and its supporters are campaigning primarily on the "at least we're not (R)s!" line, they're not going to hold power for very long, and will deserve every loss they get.
Yeah, that is a fair assesment. I do believe that the emergence of a viable third party or even a fourth party would be beneficial for everyone. I think that unfourtunately in the present that we can't afford to start a movement when so much is at stake. I liked your previous assertion that we need a candidate who can capture the hearts and minds of moderate americans. In terms of Hillary, I believe that she is more of a polarizing figure who is doomed for defeat. That being said, the reality is that we now have two choices, Democrat and Republican. I'll take my chances with a Democrat who can win rather than voitng for a third party candidate who has no chance, which could effectively give the office to McCain, Guiliani, or some of the other scrubs on that side.
Yet the Democrat Party has shown itself to be war criminal. It has supported Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, has supported the Israel occupation of Palestine, and has supported the corporate poisoning and repression of our population.
How can you say they are the ONLY alternative? They are no alternative at all!!! They are Republicans by another name. The only reason a third party will not win is because so many people like YOU refuse to take a stand against evil and vote for them. Instead you collaborate with the "lesser" evil and put evil back into power yet again. I will be voting to SAVE this nation from evil. I will NOT be voting Democrat or Republican because they ARE the evil we need saved from. I urge anyone who cares about the future of our people to do the same.
and once again i will quote you the words of the green party nominee in 2004. david cobb on npr, 7/9/04 discussing the 40 states that were "safe" for either party: "a vote for john kerry in those states won't help to unelect bush. in the other states, i'm acknowleding that there is a profound reponsibility on the citizens, and they should weigh their options and decide how to spend their very precious vote."
It's not fair to call Clinton a "hawk." She is both a hawk and a dove at the same time. Maybe they can call her a "hawve" or a "dawk".
Dawk..... I like it.
If it looks like a dawk and it quacks like a dawk..
"Maybe this place is a front for the Hillary campaign."
Yeah just maybe, you know since they didn't misrepresent her stance on the war, nahhh ->
Her voting record in 2007 on significant Iraq legislation has also been the same as Hagel's, except for two votes in which Hagel sided with Bush and took the more "hawkish" position-MMFA
She's a hawk - Matthews
Why defend her when there are so many candidates out there that truly oppose the Iraq war?
You call that defending?
Chris Mathews is right on the money here, I'm sorry MMFA
Clearly Matthews is clueless, I'm sorry Calvin-Kleins-right-testie
Maybe Rush is right.
Maybe Rush is off his rocker and high on his pills again, hey? who knows?
The "hawk" and "dove" pigeonholes are woefully simplistic and out-of-date. Anyone who's still hung up on them is not only pre-9/11, he's pre-1980.
I know you're right,Conchobhar, but can I still party like it's 1999?
Yes, but not when doves cry.
damn you! that's what i was going to say. just another example of the coarsening of debate and whatnot.
So who takes Chris Matters word for anything?
"hawks" "doves" "chickens" "eagles":
What do birds have to do with anything?
What about pelicans and sea-gulls... geese and ducks... do they go unrepresented in these matters?
Can't we find positions on National Policy to label with the names of those birds too?
What about parakeets and canaries?
Hillary was a hawk going into Afganistan, but was wary of the Bush drive into Iraq. She's not a supporter of the Iraq war, or how badly it was lost by Bush. I think many people understand the difference. She's a hawk in defending this country, period.
I don't know about that JFRIVER. She is on record as sying that she does not regret giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq. She has certaintly waffled on that recently. Why, because it is the politically expedient thing to do. I just can't see me supporting her for the oval office. there is no way we can win the white house with her as our nominee. Maybe she isn't a hawk, but she certaintly wanted to put forth that persona in 2003.
Senator Clinton has stated very clearly that if she is elected, she will pull our troops out of Iraq. How does that make her a hawk? Matthews, as usual, is more interested in listening to himself blather than in anything resembling a fact. Another fact, Clinton is the co-sponsor of a bill to overturn the act that authorized the Iraqi invasion and occupation. That is not "hawkish" either.
The problem isn't what her position is now. The problem is what was her position when the mistake could have been avoided?
As I see it, Sen. Clinton seemed to craft a very careful position early on with respect to Iraq, one that allowed her to fall either way depending on the outcome. She's basically saying that the AUMF was the right thing, but that the process was simply mismanaged by the Administration. This is eerily similar to the argument by some Republicans that the invasion was the right thing, but that the war was simply mismanaged.
I disagree that the Iraq debacle is simply a matter of mismanagement. The whole strategy was flawed, beginning with abdication of responsibility by Congress. Clinton's hedging and rationalizing may be politically expedient, but give me little confidence that, as President, she would have avoided the fundemental mistakes.
I agree wholeheartedly. If the majority of the American public was presently overwhelmingly in favor of this war I think she would be also. Her actions and statements before our invasion lend creedence to this notion.
Actually, her position is "redeployment", which is to leave half the troops in Iraq forever and attack other nations with the rest. She's more of a vulture than a hawk, eating her way thru the halls of power on the dead corpses of Americans and Iraqis.
Critics have leveled charges that no Democratic candidate seems to have any set plans that they would implement if elected, rather, the Democratic lineup has been accused of just launching criticisms instead of offering solutions. Hillary Rodham effectively terminated such irresponsible talk during a recent speech in which she assured voters that if elected she would fix health care, end global warming, stop the genocide in Darfur, and end the war in Iraq. Hillary has also stated that she would be willing to seize the profits from privately held corporations and apply them to social needs, all while maintaining our current free enterprise system. No other candidate can hope to accomplish such goals, but we have been assured that by giving Ms. Rodham the control of our executive branch, she will see to it that all of these matters are reconciled. Ms. Rodham also states she will end the genocide going on in Darfur. She recognizes that the United States should readily involve itself in the affairs of another nation when that nation is abusing its own citizenry, except in cases where such abuse is being performed by a certain Iraqi dictator. As such, Ms. Rodham makes perfect sense with her desires to stop the killing of citizens in Darfur, while supporting the withdrawal from Iraq and the Cambodian killing field affect that such a withdrawal will lead to. This position is so easy to comprehend that even the Kurds in Iraq know that having their ranks thinned by Saddam was not genocide as defined in Dafur. America was evil for stopping internal Iraqi bloodshed, and America is evil for not stopping the internal bloodshed in Dafur. Which brings us to our last point: the ending of war in Iraq. Ms. Rodham has agreed to stop the war in the region if we provide her with presidential powers. With her election, the warring factions have apparently agreed to lay down their arms and make no further threats against our nation and our way of life. We will be able to depart from the Middle East forever, simply because president Rodham will broker a truce that will mend the centuries old regional fence. We will be able to stop the war because the threat of terrorism will be halted, and the jihadists will finally realize that violence is not the right answer. It is even rumored that she can negotiate a deal whereby the Bin Laden family will pay to rebuild the World Trade Center.
It seems like such a bargain to obtain medical salvation, the manipulation of the sun, the end to the conflict in Darfur, the end of the Iraqi war, and the halt of global terrorism just for providing one individual with presidential powers. Surely an omnipotent being like Ms. Rodham has offered us enough for her part of the deal, though it is certainly tempting to hold out for another concession or two. Perhaps Ms. Rodham will toss in eternal life, instant weight loss, and a cure for baldness if we guarantee her two terms.
Loyal Democrat
You go ICEDOG. It is really amusing that she would actually say that she will seize coporate profits to be redistributed to social programs. You just can't win in the south and middle america with those notions. It will be an abject failure for the pary to nominate her.
She said all that...and you believed her? LOL! She hasn't done a damn thing as Senator except screw the nation over, you think she's gonna change her tune just because of a few LIES she's throwing out there? Wanna buy a bridge?
My apologies, I didn't notice the sarcastic tone of your post. Excuse my impetuousity.