Clinton: do not vote for me

By Todd Stadler · Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:58am

In a recent New York Times article, Hillary Clinton laid out a fairly convincing case for why I should not vote for her.

First of all, let me express my gratitude for this. I was always pretty sure I wouldn't vote for Clinton, but now I know. And, of course, knowing is half the battle. I assume the other half of the battle will involve some sort of caged, hand-to-hand combat between Sen. Clinton and myself. Or possibly a meaningless primary vote. Either way.

Clinton's main argument against her candidacy was laid out in New Hampshire, where she pointed out that "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that [2002 Senate vote authorizing use of force in Iraq] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." Point taken.

This is all the more true when one realizes that Clinton could not, grammatically, be a candidate who "has said his vote was a mistake." Maybe this is why she has a hard time talking about that vote — she is not aware that the noun "mistake" can, in fact, take a female, third-person pronominal modifier.

But beyond this simple, powerful argument, Clinton lays out a two-pronged case for why people should vote for her (at least those not already ruled out in the above case):

1. She is not like George W. Bush.
2. She is a lot like George W. Bush.

For example, according to her advisers, Clinton "believes it's self-evident that the Senate Iraq resolution was based on false intelligence."* Bush also thinks bad intelligence was a problem. And like Bush, she doesn't feel that she's personally wrong for ignoring the contrary intelligence and going ahead with the war. However, where they differ is that Clinton feels that Bush was wrong to ignore the contrary intelligence and go ahead with the war.

Clinton's advisers also said "she would not cut off financing"* for Iraq — a position Bush agrees with, though his administration has made clear that "Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously ... to cut off funding." In contrast, however, Clinton submitted a bill in the Senate to block sending more troops to Iraq, putting her at odds with Bush, and also seemingly with the constitutional notion of the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, not that the Constitution is running in 2008.

In all fairness to Clinton, her positions on the issues of funding (Congress' role) and control (the President's role) of troops may stem from some confusion as to whether she is already the President or perhaps still a member of Congress. As one adviser noted, "Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president."* I could see why it would be confusing.

Clinton's advisers say she "doesn't want to be [seen as] vacillating [or] flip-flopping"*, choosing instead to highlight "her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom,"* — all positions she shares with the President. Bush and Clinton differ, however, in that Bush is a Republican. But Clinton's bipartisanship transcends such political labels and, in apparent homage to Bush, sees herself as strong and tough, an image that "apologizing might hurt."*

Like Bush, Clinton "believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority."* And though "she would want the same deference as president [that she has shown to Bush], ... she has said she would not have sought authority to go to war if she had been president."*

The similarities with Bush extend beyond mere politics, of course. Like George W. Bush, Sen. Clinton likely would be a political nonentity if she did not have a family member who had previously been president. However, even in this similarity, Clinton has differentiated herself in that she is not the son, but rather the spouse, of a former president — a role that Bush has so far rejected for himself.

So, in summary, Clinton believes Bush's surge is wrong, but thinks Congress should abdicate its constitutional authority over funding for additional troops, while (unconstitutionally/pointlessly?) attempting to control troop movement. However, Congress should give the President the benefit of the doubt and deference. Her vote to authorize force in Iraq was not a mistake, though it was based on faulty intelligence, and she would not vote the same way today. But Bush was wrong to act based on that faulty intelligence, although he should have the benefit of the doubt.

To summarize further, "Look, just vote for me, okay?" Or, as a someone once said to the contrary, "there are others to choose from."

*These quotes are of the cited New York Times article itself, and not (necessarily) taken verbatim from an individual's speech, as most of the article tends to summarize what Clinton's advisers said.