Login Here
Every year I go to a fundraiser luncheon sponsored by group called Eleanor Roosevelt's Legacy Committee. It's a group that raises money, recruits and trains Democratic women candidates and give campaign grants to those running in New York.
Hillary Clinton has been a patron of this organization from the beginning, and is often the keynote speaker. As you can imagine, the lunch this year was Hill chillin' with her homegirls.
So, maybe it made her let down her guard? Or maybe she recognized that a group of politically active NY Dems is no place to advocate for residual troops, or maybe the polling after the last debate convinced her that being Joe Lieberman light is not playing well? Who knows?
What I do know, is that I heard her say that she would end the Iraq war immediately upon taking office. Lots of heads snapped up when she said that (and there was plenty of applause, even a little whooping) and the very politically plugged in person sitting next to me remarked that the statement was "completely new". She went on to say that the troops had already done everything they had been asked to do: got rid of Saddam, created a situation where elections could take place, surged to create political stability so the elected Iraqi government could do some legislating and work out a political solution (which she said they have not done) and that it was unfair to ask our troops to stay in Iraq and "play referee to an Iraqi civil war." She said there is no military solution.
I'm not a Hillary watcher, so somebody in the comments may want to contradict that, but it certainly is the first time I've heard that and is very different than what I heard her say in the last debate.
Some of the big applause lines were:
- She said she would "take the tax subsidies away form the oil companies, they don't need them anymore' and use that money to create a strategic alternative energy reserve.
- On pledging to change our posture and direction vis a vis other countries: "You can't lead if no one is following."
- "They say we can't be both secure and free. Yes we can, by following the Constitution."
- And she spent many minutes body slamming Bush on No Child Left Behind and for vetoing SCHIP.
In addition to the regulars who always come like Jerry Nadler and NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and most of the women elected from around the state, Sen Mary Landrieu of Louisiana showed up and I cannot figure out why. She didn't work the room, so I don't think she was trolling for donors and other than being asked to stand for applause, appeared to have no purpose there. It was slightly odd, or else ERLC is getting to be THE COOL KIDS CLUB. Who knows?
Share This 
Spotlight
LHP! Was this captured on tape or video?
I am absolutely beside myself.
I’m still skeptical, but LHP, it’s good to see you!
-S
p.s. So here’s the question — is she willing to go on the record in a larger venue with this? I’m no Hillary fan, but if she’s sincere about ending the war immediately upon taking office, she may get some votes as a result.
If we could only trust her words, I would love to see the oil companies get their gravy dumped in their laps.
Stunning political statements. I’m going to have to hear this more than once.
And why not? With the current numbers, she doesn’t have to steer to the right of the rest of the Democratic field — she’s already perceived as being to their right. And come the general election, the war will be even less popular. I’m amazed it took her this long.
Whoa!
Mary Landrieu? At a meeting of a group that honors Eleanor Roosevelt?
Maybe she felt she needed to learn how to have a heart in voting matters and not be so fearful of the reactions of those on the right.
My take on Hillary is that, in her heart, she’s a got decent liberal instincts. But as a politician she lets them become subsumed by triangulation in order to win.
Taking this into consideration, I think she’s someone who can be “pushed” in the right direction by a large-enough activist movement. Since most people in this country are much more liberal than any of our politicians, I think were she to become president we could very well see her inner liberal come out more. This incident may be a sign of that.
Now if HRC would only resign from being a Team Leader for the DLC. Do you think that’s coming?
puppethead @ 9
You think this is an “incident”?
LHP - thanks so much for the report. can you clarify a bit for me?
does this mean bringing home all the troops - not just “combat” troops? does this mean turning our bases over to iraqis?
thanks again… sorry to have to ask the questions, but i’m feeling a bit played (not specifically by clinton - today it’s the house dems).
LHP - I’m from New York State and I have to admit that I have never, ever heard of this group. I will have to send this on.
I like Gore. I like Edwards. I like Kucinich and Richardson.
wow
she better parse that, “immediately” doesn’t fly even with most progressives, myself included
she has to define “immediately” to be “as soon as practicable” or something similar
If that’s really the case, why on Earth would she want to wait until Jan. 2009 for the pullout to begin?
Having as much of the withdrawal and its messy consequences happen on the Republicans’ watch seems like a really good idea.
raven @ 11
In the sense that it’s happened once, in front of a select audience, sure. Let’s see her continue these messages in her broader campaigning before declaring her positions as being solid. As I said, she loves triangulating.
FUNNY!!
There is no mention of her stating she would ‘immediately’ end the war in the NYSUN ‘neocon’ rag - I believe they would have been the first to relay this piece of ‘astonishing’ news?
http://www.nysun.com/article/64593?page_no=1
allan_in_upstate @ 16
Uh, maybe because she can’t.
selise @ 12
Great questions, Selise.
Wow. For the last few months, I’ve been thinking that the person who wins the Democratic nom will be someone who pledges to end the war. My guess was Richardson. I never thought Hillary Clinton would even be on the list.
Errrrm, she can do it quicker than that if 1) she goes up to Pelosi and Reid and tells them to defund it; 2) cosponsors a bill with Feingold, and twists arms to get it passed; 3) Gets Bill to lobby for it
puppethead @ 17
Aha, gotcha. Might have been an “accident”.
You blew it on Iraq. You blew it the other night on Iran. And now this. Is this what your twenty-two consultants and Bill told you to do? Good gawd Hillary.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
Right on!
How very Kucinich of Hillary… Except Kucinich was correct all along and says so very publicly every chance he gets.. Oh and I will wager Kucinich read the intel reports before voting no on the war originally.
Every reason Hillary cited for ending the war, carrot, if elected, are all true now and why as a sitting senator she should not sleep while troops die one more day.
I say do something serious about ending the war now, Senator.
Similar reports of Hillary’s intention to pull U.S. troops from Iraq are here and inferred on Hillary’s web page
Hillary, you really needed to say somthing a long time ago.
Hillary is nothing if not attuned to the dominant political sentiment that surrounds her, and more than willing to do/say whatever it takes to play to that sentiment.
Given that, this is a stunning tribute to the netroots activism and the criticism she has taken for her earlier stance (which was IMO tailored to dispel any right wing talking points about her being “soft on terror” or “weak on defense”) and the overwhelming popular support for ending this occupation right now. Hillary knows on which side her bread is buttered.
We can only hope that this position morphs into the proper one of not leaving significant, or any, troops behind in Iraq, after the “war” is “over.” We can also only hope that she is sincere in her evolving beliefs, and not merely saying what she thinks people want to hear. I’m skeptical, but only time will tell.
“We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office” in January 2009, the former first lady said.
john in sacramento @ 22
Such an interesting comment, John. In that light, it then would be an “elect me” comment from Hillary, not a comment of deep conviction.
I think that we need clarification of just what she means by this statement before getting too excited. Nevertheless, it is encouraging.
I am less interested in where candidates stood in the past than what they commit to do in the future.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 10
Senator Mary “Lieberlovin’” Landreiu also goes way back with the DLC.
We still have one year and three weeks until the election, there is still a lot of room on the dance floor.
I’ve heard her say exactly that before, but I can’t cite where it was, but it was a while back.
You know what, though: I’m much happier with someone WHO IS WILLING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT THINGS.
It’s the damnfools who continue on thru hell and high water refusing to admit any possible other course that get me tetchy.
So I don’t mind this change. I’m wary, but **changing one’s mind is NOT a bad thing**!
Polling is likely telling the HRC managers and consultants that is time for a wee bit of a left turn.
Johnny and Barak are picking off stragglers, so HRC is told she’d better get the lasso out.
As for Senator Mary Landrieu, HRC volunteered to show her how “triangulating” is done by a Pro.
Mary desperately wants to learn this so as to retain her seat from LA.
Gonna be hard given the intellectual disparity, but HRC said she’d provide Mary a crib-sheet.
peanutbutter @ 36
There sure wasn’t that attitude when everyone was jumping ugly on Frank Rich yesterday.
I’ve said here before that I’d never vote for Clinton, even if she’s the Democratic candidate…
…but if I get the sense that this is something she’d follow through on, and that we don’t pull out of Iraq just to be in Iran, then I’ll change my position and vote for her. Not without some severe reservations, but this is enough to make my other problems with her relatively insignificant.
Please, let this be true.
Bustednuckles @ 34
Are the candidates doing the buck and wing, or is it the shuck and jive?
i haven’t read this yet (had bookmarked it to read later), but here’s senator clinton’s essay in the new foreign affairs journal, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century “
here’s what looks like the relevant bit (i’m not going to blockquote, because it’s already long, and blockquoting will just make it take up more space)…. doesn’t sound bad to me:
………………………………………………………………………………………
Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States’ global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul.
We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.
While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.
As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war.
Finally, we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs of this war. We must address the plight of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country and the two million more who have been displaced internally. This will require a multibillion-dollar international effort under the direction of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Meanwhile, the United States, along with governments in Europe and the Middle East, must agree to accept asylum seekers and help them return to Iraq when it is safe for them to do so.
As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region. These units will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working. I will also consider leaving some forces in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in order to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that have developed there, but with the clear understanding that the terrorist organization the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) must be dealt with and the Turkish border must be respected.
Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.
To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home. As the only senator serving on the Transformation Advisory Group established by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, I have had the chance to explore these issues in detail. Ongoing military innovation is essential, but the Bush administration has undermined this goal by focusing obsessively on expensive and unproven missile defense technology while making the tragically misguided assumption that light invasion forces could not only conquer the Taliban and Saddam Hussein but also stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe Hillary didn’t realize that LHP would be in the audience.
raven @ 38
Don’t recall commenting in that one.
peanutbutter @ 36
exactly right, none of us are always right…when we find out we are wrong we have to do something about it
this is actually why the republicans went after the big dog;
he took all of the very best republican brand and made progressive proposals
democrats wouldn’t vote against it because it was a democrat pushing and republicans couldn’t vote against them becuase it was their brand
therefor they had to attack him, they couldn’t go after his record
peanutbutter @ 43
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean you. There was a pile-on about his op-ed in the Times.
Mad Dogs @ 37
Don’t forget Al Gore unbound! He’s now in a position of someone who can move the political discourse in a direction like no-one else, even if he doesn’t run. He can put out more videos on policy and give more unbelievable speeches and people will hear him. He’s solidly an international figure now, and if he keeps things up it can’t help but push all of the Democratic candidates more to the left.
Hmmm. I think she means end the “war” (that undeclared one, that doesn’t really exist). Using the term “war” is so misleading, because what “it” is, is an invasion and occupation coupled with constant resistance violence. She has indicated that she will end combat, but that she will continue to have a presence there in the form of training the Iraqi troops, fighting Al Qaeda, and guarding US interests. The only war going on over there is a civil war. They are all, all over the place on this. Just a bunch of semantics.
What exactly does “end the war” mean?
When Hillary was a Barry Goldwater Girl, I was a Bobby Kennedy Boy.
raven @ 19
Can’t what? Can’t put her weight behind a withdrawal sooner rather than later?
I suspect this is due to Mark Penn’s superb reading of where the public stands on the war.
BTW,
Nice scoop LHP!
Looseheadprop and Hillary! What fantastic news!
A few days ago, in the middle of a (unrelated) tense moment in the comments, I urged firepups to celebrate the American military victory in Iraq. Wise guy, you know.
The Iraqi Sunnis have made it very clear that Al Qaeda has no future in Iraq, resolving that last rationale for our presence.
The U.S. military has won, bring ‘em home.
Now Hillary, about those Blackwater contracts…
Please let this just be completely true…no BS…just completely true. If she repeats this and clarifies it and flat out goes with it, I will be ecstatic!
Folks, I realize that there are a lot of folks who are extremely skeptical of anything and everything said and done by Hillary. but can’t we accept that just maybe, she has made a statement that she intends to follow through on? I mean, I know for many of you, that would mean you’d have to release a lot of pre-conceived opinions about her.
But I for one am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she just might have made the statement because she meant it. Hard as that may be to believe, it is always a possibility.
allan_in_upstate @ 49
If and when she is Commander in Chief she can direct a withdrawl. It’s sort of obvious she can throw her weight behind anything she wants and it won’t make a damn bit of difference.
I think she’s “preempting” a possible Gore run. I believe he’s already running in his non-conventional campaign. JMHO. On the other hand, I have no idea what Gore’s position on the war is.
Changing ones mind is admirable, however, we have been screwing the Iraqi genocidal pooch for seventeen years.. I wouldn’t call this change of mind sincere or leadership.
Cliff Varnell @ 52
Heh. My thought, too.
LS @ 56
I believe Mr. Gore was against going into Iraq. And I think he wants us out.
LS @ 35
I agree with you. I remember her saying that if Bush will not end the war before he leaves office, then she will end it when she’s President. (I believe that was in one of their very frequent debates.) But I hope everyone will chill out a bit. It is time to do some serious parsing of words. She said she’d end the war; she did not say she would withdraw the troops that are there.
Also, I wonder what she may have been responding to. On one of the Sunday shows they said that Obama needs to drag Hillary to the left. But it seems a little odd to me that she made this statement just at a time when Al Gore made a statement on what to do about Iraq. His view is that we should get the troops out as quickly as possible, being careful to do as little damage on the way out as possible. But the longer we stay, the more we are a magnet for further violence in a civil war. So who just dragged who to the left?
LS @ 56
Gore has been against the Iraq debacle from the beginning, and has condemned it on numerous occasions.
And thanks for reinforcing my point about Gore. If Hillary is reacting to a possible Gore run it’s exactly as I said, Gore can change the political landscape regardless of whether or not he runs.
Hillary, “Republican lite”, “Corporate Stooge”, “Friend of Big Business”…too bad her voting record doesn’t support the meme
link
link
link
link
I know, I’ll wake up tomorrow morning and my many consultants will tell me to say something different today and that will make eveything hunkie-dorie.
Eureka Springs @ 57
i’m no longer looking for sincerity or leadership. if a politician will do the right thing (for whatever reason), that is good enough for me.
Thanks for the visual,
Gore sticking his head out the window yelling BOO!, and the political paparazzi shitting their collective britches.
LS @ 56
Here is Al’s latest comment:
http://current.com/items/84986.....roops_home
But I want to be president so bad.
She is leaving out something important, that Israel must pull back to her 1967 borders and the right-to-return for Palestinians whose property was seized.
Before anyone gets too excited, let’s think about this: her statement doesn’t really contradict her other statement that she would leave some troops in Iraq through the end of her first term. Any of the current candidates could get good political mileage by saying that they would immediately end the war, because a case could easily be drawn that the war has already ended, and what we’re seeing now is an occupation. Remember - these are politicians speaking … every word that comes out of their mouths is carefully thought out ahead of time (or should be).
Well, well. Ole Gutless & Spineless Hillary is up to her usual tricks. Talking out both sides of her mouth; saying whatever her particular audience wants to hear. A page from the hubby’s playbook.
I don’t know much about this female yankee outfit that Ms. Prop is a member of. And I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of her reporting. But as to Hillary, I continue to have EVERY reason to doubt her.
Ole G&S Hillary: it’s getting to be time to either put up or shut up. Stop running your mouth every which way; depending upon which group you’re in front of.
G&S Hillary, if you really mean what you say, then get up off your ass and start shouting your position to the rooftops. As for me….I remain unimpressed.
Ghostman
Without we do something about global warming, nothing else will matter.
There is nothing random about Hillary.
dakine01 @ 54
it’s not just senator clinton. my lack of trust encompasses almost every politician.
wait… i take that back. i trust most Rs to do the wrong thing. it’s the Ds i generally don’t trust.
that said… i’m always looking to be proved wrong. would make me very happy.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 72
That is 100% true.
Delighted to hear this. Eleanor’s influence perhaps?
I am old enough to remember the living Eleanor Roosevelt and all the work she did for this country and the world after FDR died. She was, and remains, a great American patriot and visionary.
She was, is, and will always be mega-cool.
Mary Landrieu came to the ERLC because, not to put too fine a point on it, she needs all the help she can get.
It’s a pity. She is a smart person whose politics are not terrible, but she feels like she has to be a DINO, or she’ll get defeated. The thing is that a large number of black voters were in effect forcibly removed during Katrina and have no home to return to. This is likely to make the blue center of Louisiana, New Orleans, quite a bit more purple. Sen. Landrieu’s father Moon was a very popular mayor in the African-American community, and Mary got a lot of support by virtue of being her father’s daughter. Now many of those voters are in other states, and her chances of reelection are not good.
I would like to think that Bush’s neglect of the city had nothing to do with its historically Democratic identity, but everything with these clowns is politics. Everything.
When can we expect a radical statement on protecting the earth against global warming from Clinton?
Senator Clinton is not my first choice for Dem nominee for President. But I refuse to trash her and her record just so the RWNM and Trolls can comb through the foul mouthed fem blogs if she gets the nomination and proclaim with their insipid insincerity that “see, even the lefties don’t like/trust her.”
Do you really want to do their work for them?
Think about it this way. Is there any Dem pres candidate who, when elected, would want the US to remain in Iraq a moment longer than the time it takes to get out?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 59
Why don’t you stop by his site and see, OKK? He has a brief opinion video on this subject. In addition, many, many people are using the comments section after the video to, shall we say, encourage him to run. That may be precisely why the videos are there.
selise @ 64
My use of the word sincere means I would believe her, I don’t.. However I have worn the Clinton triangle for 30 years.. I am choking from the smell of the same old rat.
Why make excuses for a disastrously failed Senator who didn’t read the intel by her own admission and voted with the neo cons for this war/occupation. Not president worthy at all, imo.
What happened to by the end of 2013?
Valley Girl @ 79
i don’t know.
and that bothers me.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=645-i_3ZwHU
dakine01 @ 78
Trash her record? Check the links at 62 and see what needs to be trashed.
dakine01 @ 78
my first commitment is to the truth (not saying i succeed - just that’s my goal). i don’t like spin.
Gore would blow any Republican out of the water in 2008.
Well, I got down to comment 61 and no one has commented on this yet, so I will.
Valley Girl @ 20
I think most of us are reading too much into what Hillary said. By “the war,” I think she means offensive military operations. But it would still be consistent with what she said to leave thousands of troops behind (a) to guard to green zone, and (b) the huge military bases around the country (no, I don’t think that she means to turn them over to Iraqis.)
Guarding these places requires an offensive military posture to be defensive (got that?) That’s because you can’t just sit on a bull’s eye waiting for the mortar shells to land. You have to be actively patrolling (by air) the zone around the base out as far as mortar shells can reach. These bases are so large that even this limited “defensive” posture will require thousands of troops.
I think what this really means is that she has withdrawn to a position more closely resembling John Edwards’ stance, without saying so.
Bob in HI
Oklahoma kiddo @ 87
“would”Will.dakine01 @ 78
Well, if they want to comb through the blogs, they already have more than enough to quote. imo it’s a bad idea to self-censor, bec. honest views might be used against us. With that view, then FDL would have never come into being. And, the conversations at FDL over all are pretty civil, y’know.
Depends on the definition of what “war” is.
Steve-AR @ 85
Sorry Steve, I did check the links and that’s kind of why I said what I did. Those folks who buy the meme of Senator Clinton is Lieberlite, do NONE of us any favors.
So, what does Hillary know about Gore entering the race that we don’t know? Is this something pre-emptive?
Will she forever end illegal spying on Americans? Because it is clear that Congress isn’t going to do it…in fact, they intend to make the illegal LEGAL. The blatantly unconstitutional constitutional.
Will she do what Democraps in Congress simply refuse to do and roll back the whole ‘unitary executive’ nonsense? If so, then I will change my mind and actually cast a vote for her if she is the nominee. If illegal/unconstitutional domestic spying gets carved in stone with her blessing, then NO WAY do I vote for any Dems in 2008.
puppethead @ 61
I said last week that I thought he might be running kinda a stealth campaign and had been for a while.
dakine01 @ 92
I miss read your comment, I think we have the same feeling. If Hillary is going to be trashed at least be factual.
Valley Girl @ 1
Sorry, I’m late to the thread, I was in a meeting. Had to do something billable today.
Yes, there were all kinds of video cameras(the big TV kind) and print phtogs there