Clinton blessed with inept enemies

I make no secret of the fact that I’ve always been an admirer of former President Clinton, but I’m willing to concede one of the secrets of his success: he benefited from having ridiculously awful enemies. This is not to say the president’s considerable skills didn’t serve him well, but even when he stumbled, he excelled thanks to the futility of rivals like Gingrich, Dole, DeLay, and Starr.

Seven years later, say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but her enemies are making her look good.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hit back Friday at a Pentagon aide who charged that her questions about Iraq withdrawal planning have the effect of helping the enemy — calling the accusation a spurious dodge of a serious issue. […]

Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman’s boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman’s charge [that debating Iraq policy benefits the enemy]. The New York senator said Edelman had ducked her questions and “instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning.”

“Undersecretary Edelman has his priorities backward,” Clinton wrote, calling his claim “outrageous and dangerous.” She repeated her request for a briefing — classified if necessary — on the issue of end-of-war planning.

The irony is, Edelman meant to smack Hillary down, and ended up doing her a huge favor. It should have been an easy one — a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the Secretary of Defense for information about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq. Instead of a substantive answer, the Pentagon asked a partisan hack from Cheney’s office to write an incorrect, inappropriate, and demagogic response.

Politically, this is a special kind of stupid. Say what you will about the senator, but Hillary Clinton and her team know how to swing at a slow, hanging curve over the middle of the plate — and that’s exactly what Edelman offered.

The result was the best of all possible worlds for Clinton: she gets to hit back hard against a bogus attack from the Bush administration, she gets to burnish her anti-war credentials, and she gets a couple of days of excellent press. The campaign really ought to send Edelman a thank-you note.

What’s more, I received an email from John Kerry’s office, announcing new legislation that Edelman helped inspire. From a press release:

During a joint conference call with reporters this afternoon Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) will announce their plan to introduce legislation that would force the Pentagon to prepare a report and briefing for Congress on contingency planning for redeploying troops from Iraq.

This legislative effort is a direct result of Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman’s unacceptable response to a Congressional inquiry on a matter of national security to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, asking for the Pentagon to brief the appropriate oversight committees in Congress on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, the Congressional inquiry asked for an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning. In response, Under Secretary Eric Edelman sent an unacceptable and outrageous political attack.

Forget the thank-you note; Clinton probably owes Edelman a fruit basket. And some flowers. And a box of chocolates….

Madame President.

  • …say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but her enemies are making her look good…

    And who thinks the right doesn’t want Hillary to run against, given her negatives?

    Anyone…?

    Bueller?

  • I said yesterday that the Edelman letter marked Hilary’s ascension to the Presidency, and for pretty much the reasons you outlined above CB. But in your list of benefits to Clinton, you forgot one major big advantage. By asking she showed she’s responsible and this has now burnished her credentials as serious on defense. We all know that somewhere in one of those bowels of the Pentagons wings there are very many people who are working or have worked up plans for the re-deployment of troops out, or God forbid, the rapid evacuations of troops and staff. And if there is not such a plan, then we need a cleansing Tsunami because it would be totally irresponsible to not have those plans in place before they ever embark on troop movemnts into a country. But this IS the Bush Admin, they aren’t known for the planning thing.

    Gates should have fired Edelman yesterday, as soon as that letter became public.

    Another question: Do you think Unka Dicky agreed to let Bush accept Rummy’s resignation, and allowed Dubs to nominate Gates, with the understanding that his guy Edelman wouyld be the #2 over there?

    That letter had Rove and Cheney scat all over it.

  • given her negatives

    That’s balderdash. The right wants anybody but Clinton. Whatever her perceived negatives, they won’t get worse. At the end of the day it’s a choice between two people. If Hillary is one of those these “negatives” people keep talking about will pale compared to the negative of electing a Republican to follow Bush. The “negatives” are a paper tiger. They’re moot.

    Hillary is a known commodity and a first lady.

    Don’t underestimate the protective amour of being a first lady. There’s a limit to how hard you can attack a first lady because to cross the line in attacking Clinton, an opponent will be seen as defiling the institution of first lady- I’m talking Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Mary Todd Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy, Betty Ford and Nancy Reagan-

    All of these ladies will be holding Hillary’s opponents accountable for what they say about her.

  • You are praising someone for being an idiot…shame on you.

    What I find truly amazing is the Pentagon sounds as if they have never even considered a withdrawal and redeployment option so perhaps this is what it took to get them to do so.
    They sound as prepared as they were for what happened after our successful invasion of Iraq.

  • Dee Loralei,

    I had similar feelings, though not as intense. If the Bush cronies keep attacking her, she’s only going to gain in stature. The wingnuts can’t hate her much more, but by making her a target – and giving her a chance to strike back – they’ll increase her standing.

    Besides, its not hard to look good compared to a typical Bush crony.

  • If she’s running for president they can attack her anyway they want. Who are these first ladies that are going to stick up for her? They are all dead except for Reagan. She won’t say squat. Plus this : defiling the institution of first lady? It didn’t stop them when she was the first lady.

  • Please don’t intimindate dick and dumbya, they will create a police state and rule out the upcoming election and remain in power for ever. Especially it either Clinton or Obama will likely be elected to the presidency of the USA.

  • I think she could have included the words “inept” and “unprofessional” in her response just to twist the knife even deeper, but she can do that in her response to the next moronic attempt at cleverness from Mr. Edelman or whoever.

    With these clown suits, you know it won’t be long before another chance surfaces.

  • Someone had a poll today showing 63% of the population thinks Clinton will be the next President, if she wins the nomination. That’s some hard numbers for any Rethug to get around.

  • Re#12, probably about 63% of the population thinks whoever the Dem nominee is, they’ll win the presidency.

    Anyone who thinks that Hillary won’t activate the hate-based morons (compared to her rivals) is deluding themselves. The right wing has been painting Hillary as Satan for decades, and although they will try to do the same thing to anyone who the Dems nominate, they won’t have ten years to do it. Believe me, if she’s the nominee, they will be activated.

    Add to that the left’s distaste for her continuing refusal to apologize for her vote on the war. Iraq is the issue, and she’s got a deep hole to dig her way out of.

  • Racerx

    Don’t forget her kowtowing to health insurers (granted, with the urging of their patrons in Congress and her husband) during the 1994 fiasco . That didn’t endear her to the left either.

  • “And who thinks the right doesn’t want Hillary to run against, given her negatives?”

    Well, sure, she has a lot of detractors. But there are two things to consider. The first is that it seems like every stone has been overturned. If they had anything substantial to nail her with, we’d have seen it already. Considering how they are likely to go into over drive, and how she does come across better than people give her credit for, the sure-to-happen absurd, ridiculous attacks that will begin if and when she wins the nomination could actually work in her favor. In the same way her husband didn’t appear to be the devil himself, she’ll likely be in the same sort of situation. The second is that people who are so dead set against her aren’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so it’s not as if we are turning away millions of potential votes.

    Of course, the right is likely to see greater numbers turn out if she’s elected. But a competent response from our side could neuter their turnout efforts.

    And take a look at this, from a post at TAPPED: “Forty percent of voters have a negative view of her, 40 percent like her, and the rest are undecided.” Perhaps this is an aberration, but perhaps at least half of the population hasn’t already made up its mind about her.

    http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=07&year=2007&base_name=post_4311#017303

  • If the Bush cronies keep attacking her, she’s only going to gain in stature. The wingnuts can’t hate her much more, but by making her a target – and giving her a chance to strike back – they’ll increase her standing.

    Okay, I’m actually starting to reconsider my “GOP wins if Hillary is the Dem nominee” position. I’m not recanting it yet, but I am reconsidering it. her campaign really is showing that she can hit back and hit back hard. Now can she move her negatives down a few %? That’s the big question. I need more evidence before I’ll come fully around.

    And I’m very suprised to find myself saying that.

  • Comments are closed.