The anti-war candidate

September 13, 2007

It seems paradoxical — of the top five Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is probably the most “hawkish.” Among Democratic primary voters, ending the war is the top priority. And somehow, the same voters who are staunchly opposed to the war are also backing Clinton over her Democratic rivals who seem to be more in line with the base’s thinking.

Gayle Moore, an Iowa nurse, wants U.S. troops “out, out, out” of Iraq as soon as possible. Darleen McCarthy of South Carolina fears that Iraq is turning into “another Vietnam.”

But when these two Democrats vote in January to help decide their party’s 2008 presidential nominee, neither plans to support the self-styled antiwar candidates. Instead, they are siding with the one top contender who voted to authorize the invasion and has refused to apologize for that — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. […]

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of voters in key early primary states reveals that Moore and McCarthy are hardly alone. They represent a paradox of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: Although a plurality of Democratic voters considers the Iraq war to be the most pressing issue facing the candidates, the more hawkish Clinton has found a sweet spot in the debate.

Remember all of those questions about whether Clinton would have to eventually apologize for her 2002 vote to authorize the war? Well, forget it; the vote no longer seems to matter.

In the LAT/Bloomberg polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the strongest opponents of the war were also the strongest supporters of Clinton. How can this be?

I have a theory.

If you look at the poll results, Clinton leads among voters who want U.S. troops withdrawn “as soon as possible,” followed by Obama, and then Edwards. Among Democrats who support more gradual withdrawal plans, Clinton leads, followed by Obama, and then Edwards. Among Dems who want U.S. forces to stay in Iraq “until the war is won,” Clinton leads, followed by Obama, and then Edwards.

It leads me to suspect that the candidates’ positions on Iraq, at this point in the process, don’t matter at all. Clinton is ahead on this issue because she’s ahead overall.

Consider another poll, conducted last week, from National Journal’s Hotline, which gauged whether Democratic voters know what the candidates’ positions are on Iraq. The results showed widespread misunderstanding.

Chris Bowers notes that 59 percent of Democrats believe that John Edwards is proposing to withdraw all US forces from Iraq within nine months. 71 percent believe that Barack Obama is proposing to do this. And 76 (!) percent believe Hillary Clinton is proposing to do so. Needless to say, none of them are, in fact, proposing anything of the sort — though I wish they would.

Some Dems are really engaged in the process, some are kinda sorta paying attention, and the vast majority has only a vague sense of who’s even running. In the Hotline poll, Clinton is the most liberal on Iraq, whereas Edwards is the most conservative. Obviously, we know that’s backwards, but we’re not the norm.

But therein lies the point: we’re looking at polls and wondering how people are coming to these odd conclusions that seem to defy reason. There’s a logical explanation: reason has nothing to do with the opinions registered by the polls. Right now, Dems like Clinton and oppose the war, so they necessarily attribute their opinions about Iraq onto Clinton.

As Christopher Orr recently put it:

The Democratic electorate, which favors withdrawal, probably isn’t choosing which candidate it likes on the basis of policy positions; it’s ascribing its favored policy positions to the candidates it already likes on the basis of name recognition and other unrelated attributes. That is to say, rather than the candidates’ popularity being a function of their positions, their perceived positions are, at this point at least, a function of their popularity.

I suspect some will suggest that this is an elitist attitude — I’m accusing the majority of people of being uninformed about the details. I don’t think, however, that’s elitist; I tend to think it’s a reality bolstered by the data.

I’m open to other ideas though. Why else would ardent opponents of the war gravitate in such large numbers to Clinton?

They feel she has the best shot to win the general election and, as such, being a Dem, will need to be responsive to and cannot ignore the will of the majority of America that wants to end the Iraq War, regardless of her more hawkish views?

  • This theory does raise the question as to whether Clinton’s lead will hold. Even if a majority of people speaking to those taking polls are currently uninformed of the candidates’ positions, this may change as we get closer to time of the vote. As we saw in 2003-4, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire didn’t make up their minds until just before they voted, and early polls were meaningless. Perhaps Clinton’s support will fall in the final days before the Iowa and New Hampshire votes as voters consider the differences.

  • Maybe the majority of Democrats want a strong, dictatorial leader who is a Democrat to counteract the weak, dictatorial leader we have.

  • Why else would ardent opponents of the war gravitate in such large numbers to Clinton?

    Because they buy wholesale into the self-serving, self-fulfilling prophecy of Corporate Military Industrial Media-blessed, antiquated landline telephone polls. Does anyone argue with my premise that a large percentage of voters often base their votes on “who’s ahead in the polls”?

    I know that I’m distinctly in the minority, but I don’t give much weight to the opinion of people who choose to answer their landline telephones and participate in these so-called “polls.”

  • At the expense of facing bitter retribution later, I just thought that I’d add that there’s no problem making the “anti-war” distinction on the Republican side, since Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate with an ‘R’ after his name.

  • I think you are missing the point.

    On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is anti-war and 10 is pro-war then the Democrats all range from about 1.1 to about 2. The Republicans, excluding Ron Paul, range from a 7.5 to a 9.9.

    So, in the sceme of things, it really doesn’t matter which Democrat or which Republican, excluding Ron Paul again, you support.

    Flip it around. Does anyone really think that they are going to vote for McCain over Thompson because McCain is more pro-war?

    Why should someone who hates the war think that it makes much different which Democrat wins as long as a DEMOCRAT wins?

  • Ron would be right in #2 if we had a media that gave a shit about America instead of the almighty dollar.

    We’ll have more haircut stories and fewer grillings about war votes. You watch.

  • I’m against the “war” (occupation) and Clinton is my favorite candidate among the Dems. Why? She’s pragmatic and smart. More than the other candidates, she actually knows what the hell she’s talking about. Intentions mean nothing if you can’t get things done. Plus she’s married to 42 and 42 was awesome.

    I’m voting for Ron Paul in the Vermont primary though. He’s the most anti-“war” candidate of either party.

    JKap- You are spot on regarding 9-11, but you’re way wrong on poll methodology. Clinton really is ahead, and she will beat Romney in the general election next year.

  • Ugh…Clinton may or may not know what the hell she’s talking about, but one certainly couldn’t tell from her campaigning. Replace Maliki? That position belies either dishonesty or a pathetically shallow understanding of the political situation in Iraq. Don’t rule out nukes against terrorists b/c the ambiguity is necessary for deterrence theory? Uh…deterrence theory doesn’t really work for stateless actors that are actively seeking out martyrdom. Etc etc.

    I can think of 2 explanations for her behavior:

    1-She knows what she’s talking about, but is all too happy to deliberately mislead the public about foreign policy issues in order to score cheap political points

    or

    2-She doesn’t know what the f**k she’s talking about, but has mastered the art of talking like an expert, using the appropriate catch phrases, jargon, etc, to sound like she knows much more than she actually does.

    I’m guessing it’s 1, but of course, that doesn’t earn her any favors with me, as it’s rather insulting. 2 is s distinct possibility.

    And Haik, might I ask: what the hell has she actually done that showed off any sort of talent whatsoever in “getting things done”? She’s passed a handful of milquetoast, pro forma bills and some stuff on children’s rights. And made a total debacle of health care. That’s it.

    Her entire candidacy is premised on smoke and mirrors. The pitch is aptly summed up here:

    she’s married to 42 and 42 was awesome.

    Always the best reason to elect someone leader of the free world.

  • I’m voting for Ron Paul in the Vermont primary though. He’s the most anti-”war” candidate of either party.

    I believe Kucinich edges out Paul in the anti-war column and is the candidate making the most sense but will always be overlooked. I’m not sure where the undercurrent of hard-ons for Paul came from but if he’s the answer for America then I’m Canadian.

  • As I have stated before, I refuse to cast my vote –in either the primary or the general– for HRC on the basis that she voted for the “Patriot” Act.

  • “she’s married to 42 and 42 was awesome.
    Always the best reason to elect someone leader of the free world.”

    Better than probably 99% of the reasons provided by those who vote for the GOP candidate, though. And maybe better than a lot of the reasons espoused by others who vote for the Dem candidate.

    Look at me, not even a Clinton supporter and two comments in her defense.

  • Here’s my theory:

    “It’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.”

    Voting isn’t rational. If you insist on analyzing it rationally, you’ll never get it.

  • Pingback: Center of Attention » The Moderate Voice

  • There are a number of reasons that might explain the apparent paradox between disgust with the war yet support for HRC. The most likely have already been given by Steve himself (ignorance) and Haik (the assumption that HRC generally has more experience which is valuable on all important issues).

    There are at least two others, although in all honesty my money is still on ignorance.

    1) It likely is no coincidence that the persons interviewed for the story appear by their names to be women. HRC has a huge gender gap right now that accounts for most of her lead over Obama nationally. It may be that Iraq is important to certain Democratic women, but the first realistic opportunity to elect a woman President may rank even higher as a priority.

    2) The “Only Nixon can go to China” theory. HRC has more credibility to change the policy in Iraq because she is not easily painted as a “knee jerk” cut-n-runner.

    I can’t say I am personally aware of anyone that fits either of those descriptions, but both would explain the polling paradox in a way that doesn’t involve assumingthe ignorance of the polled public.

  • Polls don’t matter. Reason doesn’t matter. Money matters. Hillary’s on top, not because of her beliefs — all of which are all crafted by bought-and-paid-for focus groups and highly paid consulting firms — but because she’s currently the darling of all the corporations.

  • So, the Democrats are closer to nominating someone who is fool’s gold? It may feel good but it won’t win you elections.

    Hillary is simply not electable. She has no experience and being first lady doesn’t count. She has, as others have pointed out, screwed up the one major policy initiative that the Clinton administration had — health care through her total lack of compromise, secretiveness, and paranoia. (Hmm, do those characteristics remind me of anyone? Let’s say, 43?)

    As senator, Hillary has carefully made no waves and made no impression on the U.S. Senate — she will leave the Senate and the United States in much the same way as she first arrived — hardly the marks of a great Senator or someone interested in the legislative process.

    The one major thing she ever did in the U.S. Senate was to vote for the war in Iraq. While she may have allegedly talked to various policy experts regarding Iraq, she singularly failed in her job when she voted for the war and did not even bother to look at the National Intelligence Estimate as Senator Graham begged her to do. Looking at that would have shown how shaky the grounds were for the war. She voted for the war out of sheer political expediency. This does not display presidential timber in my eyes. (In addition, I still remember the faces she made during the first presidential speech right after 9/11. You could see that she was making calculations that Bush had a huge political tailwind behind him and that she wouldn’t be able to run in 2004.)

    The only thing she has going for her is that she is married to 42. But does anyone remember the countless scandals that 42 had to endure? Including Whitewater? I don’t know about you, but there was smoke behind all the fires and, yes, in my opinion, the Clintons are ethically slippery. The Republicans and the national media will have a field day every day of the HRC administration.

    Exactly the last people we need to see in the White House after eight years of mediocrity, incompetence, and mendacity.

    Finally, I have a visceral distaste against political dynasties. We’ve had enough with Bush. Can we not have a Clinton dynasty as well? Can we return to our republican roots and find someone else instead of the Clintons sucking up all the political oxygen for other Democratic candidates?

  • I wish people would quit spouting that ridiculous claim of…” think their the best candidate to win the general election”…when in this presidential election it has nothing to do with it for once. Unless they self-destruct the Dems will win the presidency by default due to the horror of the Bush administration and the ridiculous GOP line up of presidential candidates. For once the Democrats can nominate someone based solely on their abilities and record and stance on the issues…period. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be the next president. With Clinton, Obama and Edwards we are going to get more of the same but with sanity. Kucinich is the only candidate that will bring the must needed real change we all are advocating for. Yet people are taking all that he stands for and attributing it to the other candidates.. Kucinich has already been there and done that on all the issues the way voters claim they want a representative to do and be but to think the other candidates will be that way is terribly misguided.

    I believe you are right that people are attributing the way they feel about issues to their most popular candidate under generalities like they oppose the war so they will withdraw the troops etc because they have not paid attention to the differences between candidates but because they have picked the name of someone they liked and decided surely they will do that. There is homework to presidential elections but it seems most voters just want recess. This is the only presidential election where “electability” is not an issue. Democrats don’t have to compromise on candidates and can for once get what they want. I wish more democrats would come come to this realization and quit using “electability” as an excuse to compromise what they want from their candidates.

    Kucinich/Edwards ‘08…the truth ticket…the real change…the correct change.

  • At this early stage, I still think national polls don’t mean much more than name recognition. The people truly engaged already in the campaign have decided, but I don’t imagine that Hillary is necessarily winning among them except in a split-vote situation where the anti-Hillary voters are all divided and she ends up on top. I still think she’s the weakest general election candidate for the Democrats, who should be able to win next year rather easily. It’s not worth risking it on Hillary. I think the overwhelming point of view among voters in both parties at this point is that they just want Dubya’s administration to be over. They’d be ready to give the keys to Carrot Top if it meant Bush was gone.

  • “The only thing attractive about the midget Congressman from Ohio is his wife.”

    That is not a fair statement, or a true one. Kucinich represents his district well. He fights for what his constituents support, not what his national party or the opposition party tell him to support. If more congressfolk, from both parties, represented their constituents to the degree that Kucinich represents his constituents then Congress would have operated in a much different manner than it has these past 12-14 years, probably to the betterment of this country and democracy as a whole. He is an outstanding legislator in that regard. That said, Dennis would probably be a disaster as an executive, due to his temperment and manner of governing. Not that he would support and push the wrong policies, but because he tends to fall into the dictator model of executives, ignoring any ideas that do not fall directly in line with his, and that does not generally result in good governance.

  • That said, Dennis would probably be a disaster as an executive, due to his temperment and manner of governing. Not that he would support and push the wrong policies, but because he tends to fall into the dictator model of executives, ignoring any ideas that do not fall directly in line with his, and that does not generally result in good governance.

    You just took a roundabout way to say that the only thing attractive about Dennis is his wife. Just because he’s a good Congressman doesn’t mean that he’ll be a good president. Ergo, the only thing attractive about Dennis is……

  • That’s quite a substantive, intelligent and mature opinion that you have of Kucinich, Lloyd George. It just makes me want to devour everything that you write because of your character and credibility.

  • I think Zeitgeist’s (@14) observation that “it’s the women”, is astute; a lot of women would like the idea of a woman president. The “funny” thing though… The women who are pro-Clinton tend to be in the less educated and/or in the younger set; the older/more educated women seem to be much less gung-ho on her. Which goes right back to the issue of emotion vs intellect when voting; the older set judges Clinton’s politics (ie votes, company she keeps, etc), while the youger set is more impressed by her achievements in the visibility arena (first lady, senator). She serves as a role model for the younger women but not so much for her contemporaries/closer equals.

  • “You just took a roundabout way to say that the only thing attractive about Dennis is his wife. Just because he’s a good Congressman doesn’t mean that he’ll be a good president. Ergo, the only thing attractive about Dennis is……”

    Um, no. Obviously your brain does not function well. You made a blanket statement about Kucinich and now, in typical fashion, you move the goalposts.

    I should add that even in light of Dennis’ defects as an executive, he would perform considerably better than any of the current GOP candidates for president. At least Kucinich would be on the correct side of the issues, isn’t bought and sold 100 times over by large corporate america, and would actually try to do what is right for America and all Americans. That is immensely better than what we have had these past 7 years and would be so much better than anything the current GOP candidates could provide this country.

  • This really isn’t as hard as you’re making it.

    There are a lot of uninformed voters out there. Not just uninformed Republican voters, but uniformed Democratic voters AND uninformed, self-labelled Independent voters. They’re uninformed because in their mind, politics is not central to their lives. They vote for candidates who they think are closest to their ideals, given the limited amount of indirect information they pick up on a daily basis – they don’t search the web for political news, but they’ll pick up tidbits on the radio while driving, or on TV during whatever other news they’re watching.

    These folks vote on narrative much, much more than on the facts. Narrative is what they’ve got to go on. The prevailing narrative is that liberals want troops withdrawn from Iraq and the war to end, conservatives want the war to continue “until we win” (whatever that means). The direction your sympathies lie in dictate which way you’re going to vote (if the war is important to you, of course – for some uninformed voters abortion, or tax cuts, or the price of gas might all be more important than a particular candidate’s war policy).

    The prevailing narrative is also that Democrats want to end the war and Republicans want to keep it going. This goes hand-in-hand with the liberal/conservatives split (and, indeed, many uninformed voters see NO DIFFERENCE betwen liberals and Dems or GOPers and conservatives – they’re the same thing in the minds of most of the apolitical). That narrative reinforces the previous one. Therefore, if you’re against the war you’re planning to vote for a liberal Dem.

    The prevailing narrative ALSO says that Hillary Clinton is a HUUUUUGE liberal – the most liberal of liberals ever to walk the earth. Nevermind her actual record, or things she’s said – she’s a HUUUUGE liberal. And a Democrat. Therefore, she must be against the war and therefore if you want to stop the war you should vote for her. Many uninformed voters will consider her to be the most liberal person on the ticket, because that’s what the media and the conservatives have built her up to be.

    It works that way with Edwards too – he’s Southern. And Christian. And White. The prevailing narrative is that White Southern Christians are conservative. Since he’s a Dem he must be less conservative than Republicans, but MORE conservative than other Dems. That’s the narrative.

    And it’s incredibly hard to break the narrative – Clinton has been trying to break the narrative (or, as the pundits say, “shed her liberal image”) for years. Her triangulating centrism (and, I’d argue, her disastrous take on foreign policy) is all about making herself not look like a HUUUUGE liberal so that she can get elected president. It would be ironic to me if she gained the nomination precisely because the underinformed Dem primary voters think she’s the liberal she’s been trying not to be for decades.

  • “I should add that even in light of Dennis’ defects as an executive, he would perform considerably better than any of the current GOP candidates for president. At least Kucinich would be on the correct side of the issues, isn’t bought and sold 100 times over by large corporate america, and would actually try to do what is right for America and all Americans. That is immensely better than what we have had these past 7 years and would be so much better than anything the current GOP candidates could provide this country.”

    Um, no.

    Kucinich would proceed to screw up the country just as bad as Bush is currently doing.

  • “Kucinich would proceed to screw up the country just as bad as Bush is currently doing.”

    I doubt that he could make it worse than it already is.

  • After thinking about it, I should take back my comments about Kucinich. It was mean spirited and for that I apologize.

  • NonyNony is absolutely right. The narrative fabricated by the press becomes the truth. Like Gore and wooden and the internet creator. Or Bush and good ole’ boy. The narratives are fiction, often the fictions which make it easier for us to stop observing the reality.

    I’ve never taken Kucinich seriously as a candidate. He has added a good gadfly element to the campaign as has Ron Paul and our democracy, what’s left of it, need good gadflies.

  • I think it’s quite simple. For many Dems, it doesn’t matter to what degree you’re against the war, but simply that you are. That policy stance is almost a given for each candidate regarding Iraq. So then you must look to the secondary or tertiary issues.

  • I like Hillary best, I’m anti-war, and I don’t consider myself uninformed (I read this blog every day, for example).

    I’m also educated (I have a graduate degree). If it’s true that less educated are more for Hillary, I would infer that’s because they are less exposed to and influenced by the propaganda.

    I think the huge gender gap in her favor is not about having a woman as President. I think it’s about that a lot of the attacks on her are specifically about her being female (Chris Matthews, for one). It gets my back up and makes me feel defensive about her as a fellow woman.

    I also think it takes a certain strength of character to “dare to compete” despite being the object of the most disgusting repulsive attacks over a prolonged period of time. While the right is crumbling (we hope) the most fervent object of their vitriol is still standing. Somehow it reminds me of Fidel Castro (not that I’m saying she’s like him.) The fact that she does her homework and knows her stuff is also appealing, especially considering the lack of seriousness and competence with George and Dick.

    The appeal of her husband for me is the role he played in trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland and also to Israel/Palestine.

    I frankly also think she has a point when she says she has a history of standing up to the right. While she may have taken the wrong lesson from her battles and become too conciliatory and cautious, what evidence is there that Obama or Edwards would have the strength of character to be any better? Didn’t Obama backtrack with that whole Pakistan thing, and end up implying that he’d nuke em till they glowed (and didn’t he also vote for the bankruptcy bill – where’s the difference with Hillary?) And didn’t Edwards vote for the war for the same opportunistic cowardly reasons? What evidence is there that they wouldn’t fold when it mattered?

    And she’s the best talker. I’m still not over the disappointment with Edwards’ performance in the 2004 campaign. Ever time I saw him he had nothing to say that was in the least way memorable. He still doesn’t have the gift of gab. And I’m really unimpressed with Obama’s feel-good kumbaya (sp?) and talk about all we need is hope. Puh-leez.

    She’s better than her rivals, except Chris Dodd, and he doesn’t have a chance.

  • Because the election is a popularity contest and Hillary’s popular. Most voters don’t know a damn thing about the candidates, nor do they bother to do the research before they vote, which is probably why Hillary’s not tanking, because if people did the research, they’d realize she’s completely obnoxious, inexperienced, and bitterly defensive. Just wait until she’s elected.

  • It’s absolutely the women!

    I would love to see the pro-war and anti-war numbers broken down by gender.

  • Pingback: Conseqeunces of Republicanism

  • Still makes sense if your a democrat to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary and then vote for which ever Democrat you choose in the Election. This way if paul wins the Republican primary the war mongers in the GOP are defeted and embarresed. Then you can go ahead and elect which ever Dem you choose. It’s a double whammy.

    • Comments are closed.