af40's Blog

On October 11, 2002, 12:50 am Eastern Standard Time, one hundred US Senators sat in a full Capitol chamber, eagerly awaiting the results of what by then was already a foregone conclusion: that the Iraq War resolution would pass by a wide margin. But the real question on most of the Senators' minds that night was not the end result but exactly who would vote against giving President Bush the authority to wage war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Voting 'Nay' was widely perceived then as tempting political suicide.

The final tally, 77 Yeas to 23 Nays, was a telling sign of the times, a time when National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was telling Americans of potentially impending "mushroom clouds", Vice President Cheney was warning of the links of Saddam Hussein to Islamic terrorism and even 9/11, largely on the basis of circular leaks to the press (his office would leak false intel to the press just prior to his Sunday morning TV appearances, and then report it as third-party corroborative evidence), and Colin Powel was getting ready for a momentous UN speech where he'd outline evidence (now proven false) that Saddam had tried to procure uranium from Africa.

Over five-and-a-half years later, Americans know that a significant amount of the information they were told during those heady fall '02 days was false, and a significant proportion of those feel they were misled on purpose.

Of the Senators who sat in the chamber that October day, several would eventually go on to run for national public office. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who would become the surprise nominee of the Democratic Party in 2004, went against the opinion of his fellow senior state colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, and voted 'Yea'.

In fact, nearly all the Democratic Senators who would run in the 2004 election- Lieberman (D-CT), Edwards (D-NC), Kerry (D-MA)- voted in favor of the resolution. A lone Bob Graham (D-Fl) was the only Senator to run for the 2004 Democratic nomination who voted against the resolution.

 

In hindsight, the Iraq War resolution is certainly viewed as a mistake among the vast majority of Democrats as well as many Republicans, and thusly a majority of Americans. But in late 2002, the Bush bandwagon seemed the safest place to be. President Bush was not only extremely popular- he'd recently waged a successful war against the Taliban in Afghanistan that helped train some of the 9/11 hijackers- but he was still enjoying an "era of good feelings" that stretched across partisan lines. And, more importantly, Americans firmly believed that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. Surely, most of the early 2004 hopefuls thought, voting 'Yea' was the best option. Few people could imagine that the Iraq War would still go on even into the second election cycle following 9/11. But that is the power of hindsight.

 

Yet what about Hillary Clinton? In 2004, Hillary had been a US Senator for just under two years- about the same amount of time Senator Barack Obama was in office before he launched his presidential campaign. A fresh face in a Senate where many faces were old- it was a time when a nearly centenarian Strom Thurmond (R-SC) had struck his almost final vote in a career spanning over five decades- Hillary Clinton seemed to be in no position to go against the grain and boldly vote 'Nay'.

 

Or at least that is what most of her advisers probably told her at the time. In the years since her 2002 vote, Hillary has proven one thing quite evidently: far from being the maverick she had once appeared to be, as the first First Lady to champion significant national legislation with her 1993 healthcare proposal, she has actually proven to be a down-the-middle, moderate Democratic Senator. The highly touted fears in 2000 by her opponents that she'd become some left-wing extremist once in office proved unfounded. In a Congress dominated by Republicans, and with strong support for a Conservative ideologue President, being moderate, and supporting the "war on terror"- which included Iraq at the time- was the safest place to be. And Hillary was there.

 

But at a time when Congress is no longer Republican, and the President is viewed as nearly a lame a duck as his father was in 1992, and most importantly, a time when the Iraq War is one of the most unpopular wars in US history, being moderate somehow seems dated, and Hillary is now on the outs with many Democrats. 

 

This is somewhat peculiar at first glance because most of the Democrats who disagree with her 2002 vote disagree not so much on her capacity to lead- she has, in fact, a slight edge on Obama when it comes to foreign policy matters- but on her unwillingness to be contrite and straightforward, to apologize for a vote that every other former Democratic candidate apologized for a long time ago.   

 

The fact that Hillary has never uttered the "s" word for sorry, or even a simple "I regret", has caused a lot of Democrats to see her as the very political opportunist most Republicans had long pegged her out to be. After all, argued those like uber-conservative and talking head Rush Limbaugh, why else would she stick by an obvious philanderer like her husband Bill, unless she simply wanted to use his coat tails for herself at some later point? Many Democrats refused to see her as a political opportunist in January 1998, when the allegations of her husband's impropriety with former intern Monica Lewinsky broke news. Many remember her devout protestations against the media- her near-heckles against the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was out to get her husband on an appearance on the 'Today Show'- and viewed them as an example of her strong marital devotion. She was a deeply hurt woman for many Democrats, especially women, and her ability to stand firm in a trying time showed that she was all the more fit to hold office herself some day.

 

But that view has been tarnished in the eyes of many once strong supporters, and one of the main reasons has been her refusal to show her own contrition, as much as her husband had once refused to show his, for a decision that is now a political hot potato. The fact that she has yet to apologize for her vote - she has thus far alleged that many were "misled" but has not taken personal responsibility- makes her singular Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, seem fresh and even profoundly visionary, by comparison. Although Barack Obama was only a state senator from Illinois at the time of the 2002 vote, he had made public his disagreement with the war at the time. Of course, as a state senator, one is much more insulated from the national pressures that befall a US Senator.

 

In fact, Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama- that he has not gotten his feet wet in the tumultuous waters that are foreign policy- is a legitimate argument against a Senator who has barely completed the bulk of one term.  But this doesn't insulate Hillary herself for her bad choices.

 

Had Hillary been a more dynamic and engaging candidate- perhaps even a little more in the populist vein of a John Edwards- who has apologized for his 'Yea' vote- she might get away with a little more. But the fact that she comes off as stiff, rehearsed, and formulaic, causes many younger Democratic voters to see her as just part of that rigidly parochial Washington establishment that has failed them so miserably. By contrast, the youthful, hip, energetic and off-the-cuff Obama appears to embody the Kennedy-esque ideals, of new visions and new frontiers, and certainly, much needed change.

 

Once holding on to a commanding lead in public opinion polls all across the US, Hillary now has a razor-thin lead nationally, but lags far behind in many states individually.

 

In Texas- home to the Alamo- and where many argue Hillary could have her own last stand, she is barely a few points ahead of Obama. This state is critical for her hopes because not only does it have a lot of delegates, but it operates by proportional voting, meaning that even a one or two point win will amount to nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory. On the other hand, in almost all the states he has won, Obama has won by wide margins, giving him a sizeable lead in contested delegates. If he continues to have successes, many of Hillary's pledged "super" delegates might jump ship, diminishing her tally by several hundred votes while giving Obama the right to claim both an electoral and a political mandate.

 

Things might very well turn in Hillary's favor in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where bread-and-butter union support might swing in her favor. But even that once solid blue collar support has been whittled away by the Obama charge. Unlike Clinton, Obama speaks about the damage NAFTA has caused so many American workers and its once world-class industries, about the export of American jobs to places like China and India, about corporate greed, and about endless back-room lobbying in the halls of Washington. Clinton's husband was the prime supporter of NAFTA, and it was under his tenure that the first major wave of outsourcing, and the concomitant corporate corruption, began.  As with Gore in 2000, Bill Clinton might end up being the spoiler, but for somewhat different reasons.    

 

In 2000, Gore had ignored Clinton's pledge to campaign, as at the time the impeachment proceedings made the once-popular president seem to be a problematic choice on the campaign trail. Many political scientists believe that Gore's decision to diminish Clinton's prominence in his campaign was a mistake, because Clinton was still very popular among many moderate Democrats who liked his performance on critical domestic issues.

Eight years later, it might be Clinton's over-campaigning, and especially his negative-sounding rhetoric, that might come off as unpalatable to Democrats yearning for a break with the past. If Hillary won in 2000 largely on her husband's seemingly undying Democratic popularity, she might end up losing because she hasn't yet come to terms with the end of that crumbling Camelot. 

 

But Hillary can blame no one but herself if she loses. Whether or not her husband Bill uses the race card, or makes foolish comments about Obama's preparedness, is of less consequence to Democratic voters than her own image. She cannot cast herself in the image of someone like Obama, because that is not who she is. But Americans have never demanded that their leaders be who they are not, or perfect for that matter.    

 

Most Americans accepted the rather parochial, stiff Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the US forces in Europe in World War II, because that is who he was, and being a strong father figure was a good thing for an era when America's dominance was still uncertain. They accepted the nervous, brooding Nixon- Eisenhower in fact couldn't stand him personally- because he had proven himself strong on communism, and he seemed to be just what was needed in a time of seeming lawlessness and social disarray. Americans have never had a specific "type" when it comes to presidents, even if the great or near-great ones like FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan have tended to evoke a special optimism that their less stellar counterparts have not evoked.  

 

Americans are a forgiving people, and they certainly accept that their leaders aren't perfect. They accepted, for example, the fact that Texas Governor George W. Bush was once an alcoholic and drug user. But Bush wisely and immediately came to light with the facts about his problems, and admitted his mistakes. What could have sunk his own campaign became a quick non-issue because he simply apologized. 

 

Hillary Clinton can yet earn back some of the support she has lost if she simply tells Americans, "I am sorry, I was wrong in my vote to authorize the Iraq War." She doesn't even need to qualify her apology, or to say that "Everyone else made the same mistake." For one, everyone else did not make that mistake. But more importantly, lots of people did make that mistake, and they were forgiven for it. It is better to make a mistake and learn from it- which is what an apology represents to begin with- than to ignore it and fail to appear to have learned from it. Saying "I'm sorry" will show that she isn't but an opportunist, but a contrite human being who recognizes that much has been lost to a bad decision that she was once a part of.

 

Even the greatest figures in history have made remarkably bad mistakes. Lincoln was a great politician, but an awful Commander in Chief. Yet we don't remember so much his military losses because he won the bigger war.  In an era where brand imaging, focus groups, and polling seem to be the most important assets in a politician's war chest, it seems almost counterintuitive that basic honesty and human forgiveness should curry greater public support.   

 

Then again, it may be the case that all the polls and focus groups fail to summarize what one's gut feeling about a person can summarize in an instant.   More and more people are drawn to Obama because he comes off as natural, comfortable, and honest. For Hillary to have a chance to win the nomination, she must do what for her is the most difficult thing in the world: to admit she was wrong. To admit mistakes sometimes takes the greatest courage.