On War: Boos for Clinton, Cheers for Kerry

At the Campaign for America's Future "Take Back America" conference in Washington Tuesday, two U.S. senators with 2008 presidential ambitions addressed a large audience of mostly liberal Democrats from around the country.

New York Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted for the 2002 Senate resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, told the crowd, "I have to just say it: I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country."

Clinton, who otherwise earned a warm reception, drew boos and hisses for that remark.

Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, who also voted for the 2002 resolution, followed Clinton to the podium later in the day. He offered the crowd a decidedly different line. "Let me say it plainly," the Democratic party's 2004 presidential nominee began. "It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict's execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake, to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride. We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi resolution."

Kerry, whose failure to use such language during the 2004 campaign frustrated anti-war Democrats, has recently joined Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, another potential 2008 contender and scheduled speaker at the "Take Back America" conference, in advocating for an exit strategy. At Tuesday's session, he spoke of the need to "end a war in Iraq that weakens the nation each and every day it goes on."

The Massachusetts senator drew sustained cheering and applause for acknowledging past errors and for advocating the course correction that Hillary Clinton still refuses to support.

Comments (15)

1. "Unfortunately" Mr Nichols, if you'll remember...

   even though Kerry is now "Dean", and Clinton is now "Kerry"...

   Kerry, not Dean, won Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond.

   Posted by Mask at 06/14/2006 @ 07:16am

2. What is Sen. Clinton suggesting? It's not a good idea to be open-ended, but we shouldn't set a date either? Is there another option that I'm missing? This is quite interesting; most presidential candidates try to satisfy multiple constituencies by expressing support for multiple conflicting options, not by being against both of two mutually exclusive options.

   As for Sen. Kerry's statement: a quote from the most recent Mark Helprin book, _Freddy and Fredericka_, "They say you've revolutionised American politics merely by not being dumb." It seems that losing presidential candidates somehow, afterwards, gain the chutzpah they completely lacked during the campaign - witness Al Gore. Maybe this has to do with not seeing poll numbers several times a day. It seems that politicians, especially liberal politicians, forget who they are and what they believe when they go on the campaign trail.

   Posted by twocinc at 06/14/2006 @ 07:41am

3. The only leading Demo who has any credibility on the occupation (it is not a war) is Feingold, who opposed the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Kerry and Edwards are just political weathervanes who know the country has turned against this disasterous Iraq debacle. Hillary may as well climb in bed with Bush. (Her husband won't sleep with her)

   Posted by philbq at 06/14/2006 @ 08:32am

4. Kerry was vague and I don't get why the tin foil hat crowd cheered. Does Lurch mean that his plan is to say "We were wrong" and leave now? Cut and run? Stay 6 months?

   Posted by woodyee at 06/14/2006 @ 09:26am

5. WOODYEE,

   They don't have a plan, never did, and never will...it is all about Bush. Period.

   I do understand the tin foil hats tho, fits them perfectly.

   Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2006 @ 10:27am

6. Someone earlier said that the Democratic Party was history because Hillary spoke "the truth". My question is - when did Hillary learn to identify the truth? She twists in the wind trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing more than most Repugnicans do...and she's supposed to be one of us. Although I am an atheist, I go to bed nightly praying that we are not dumb enough to run that two-faced witch as our candidate in 2008. Doing so will ensure at least 4 more years of Repugnican rule - and I dont think what remains of our democracy can stand that.

   Posted by Curlew at 06/14/2006 @ 10:38am

7. Tin foil hat crowd---I like that

   Posted by Len Mosse at 06/14/2006 @ 10:41am

8. Frei, that's all you got? talk about mental laziness.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 12:46pm

9. Two, I remember the 2000 campaign well, I thought Gore handled himself well, in comparison with Shrub, extremely well. and he didn't lose that election.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2006 @ 12:48pm

10. WOOD -- Kerry is inded a lurcher but he did say that he'd introduce a bill to get all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/14/2006 @ 1:44pm

11. John Kerry takes a big risk by portraying himself as a victim. Why on earth would the US ever elect a man who admits to being snookered by Chimpy W Hitliar? How can Bush simutaneously wear a dunce cap while also masterminding conspiracies to fool the American people in to war?

    No wonder the Democrats can't win elections.

    Posted by TonySnowJob at 06/14/2006 @ 3:39pm

12. literally the best "good cop, bad cop" duo I've seen. You either gimme what my friend Kerry wants, or I'll sick RHL on you!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 06/14/2006 @ 4:37pm

13. I agree with TONY - the GOP is too good at snow jobs and will forever fool and baffle the Democratic party and the American people. The Dems still don't have a prayer. Long live the right-wing! Zieg Heil!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 06/14/2006 @ 4:39pm

14. I agree ZERO, it is somewhat of a cop out to suggest anyone was actually fooled by Bush. We knew in 2000 as he ran for office what a bold-faced liar he is. Nothing changed between then and 2003 that we should suddenly start believing Bush's outlandish suggestions.

    But, politically and marketing-wise, GOP won! If Campbell's Soup is "Mmmm-Good", it doesn't matter whether that statement is true, or not. Similarly, if the GOP claims that the Marvel Comic Book (TM) drawings of a convertible biological lab is "true", all that matters is that everyone believes it's so, even if it makes no sense, at all.

    So, I think you should cut Kerry and the rest of the nation some slack. The GOP is a smooth bunch of liars: much better than anything a Democrat could pull off.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 06/14/2006 @ 4:48pm

15. Even under Hillary Clinton, America would recover, it is the relentless attack against America brought on by George Bush and the Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and all their cronies.

    Which the Conservatives have the temerity to come here and to defend, what a disgrace. I am tired of Conservatives saying Liberal this, Liberal that, Liberal Liberal Liberal. What you are defending, Conservatives is an attack against Americans like nothing we have seen in our history, by the worst criminal administration in our history. Yet you come here, and defend this idiot and the mess, the harm, the squandering of our greatness as a nation. What a shame, what a farce.

    Posted by conshame at 06/18/2006 @ 11:19am