A May 9 Washington Times editorial, subsequently highlighted by the Republican National Committee, claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) “is in trouble with the far-left base of the Democratic Party” over her 2002 vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The Times cited no evidence to support this claim, and in fact, the Times' claim is contradicted by a WNBC/Marist poll released the previous day, May 8, at 6 p.m. The summary that accompanied the poll stated: “Hillary Clinton's position on the war in Iraq is also not hurting her among Democrats. Only 9% of Democrats say her position makes them less likely to vote for her, and 48% say it actually makes them more likely to support her.”

From the WNBC/Marist poll:

Does Hillary Clinton's position on the war in Iraq make you more likely or less likely to support her, or does it make no difference to you?

Registered Voters

More Likely

Less Likely

No Difference

May 2007

29%

27%

44%

Democrat

48%

9%

43%

Republican

5%

56%

39%

Independent

28%

23%

49%

Further, the Times misrepresented Clinton's vote in favor of the 2002 Iraq resolution as a vote “in favor of going to war in Iraq” and misrepresented the explanation she gave on the Senate floor preceding her vote as “a lengthy Senate speech explaining how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.” In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq for which Clinton and a majority of her congressional colleagues voted gave the president the authority to go to war in Iraq; it was not, as the Times suggested, a congressional declaration of war or a directive to the president to launch an invasion. Additionally, Clinton made clear in her Senate floor statement on October 10, 2002, that she did not intend her vote as a directive to launch a war against Iraq. She also expressed her hope that Bush would allow full inspections to proceed before resorting to war, and that the United States would not engage in “any new doctrine of pre-emption.” Clinton added: “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”

From the May 9 Washington Times editorial:

But most of the attention right now is focused on Mrs. Clinton, who is in trouble with the far-left base of the Democratic Party because of her vote five years ago in favor of going to war in Iraq, which was proceeded [sic] by a lengthy Senate speech explaining how dangerous Saddam Hussein was. But the war isn't terribly popular these days, so Mrs. Clinton is faced with a political problem: how to tell the left-wing base of the party that she opposes the war, while leaving herself plenty of wiggle room to pretend she is relatively “tough on terrorism” in a general election campaign in which Daily Kos and the Huffington Post will be much less influential. This insurance policy could prove essential if the new strategy put into effect by Gen. David Petraeus substantially improves the situation on the ground.