The NYT’s Adam Nagourney takes an interesting look today at an issue that’s likely to play as big an issue in the [tag]2008[/tag] presidential race as it did in [tag]2004[/tag], if not more so.
With [tag]Iraq[/tag] looming yet again over an American presidential campaign, senators considering a White House race are at a disadvantage over governors who might run, forced to explain their votes — and in some cases, alter their views — on an increasingly unpopular war. […]
By contrast, governors are finding considerable maneuvering room when it comes to Iraq. And they are taking advantage of it for now, while realizing that their lack of foreign policy experience is a disadvantage in an election that could focus on international affairs.
It’s highly unlikely that Dem voters would automatically reject a candidate who supported the 2003 war resolution — especially in light of the Kerry-Edwards ticket in ’04 — but it matters a great deal how candidates address it now. Does a candidate support a redeployment plan? Complete withdrawal? Timetables and deadlines? Some Dems seem to have stronger lines than others.
John Edwards seems to have the best response: “I think I was wrong to vote for the war,” Edwards said in an interview. “Bush made this mess that we are in now. My view is what America needs to do now is make it clear that we are going to get out.”
John Kerry has also expressed regret for the vote and now supports a deadline for withdrawal. “There’s nothing that our troops can do — nothing — to resolve the fundamental differences between the factions,” Kerry said. About McCain’s support for the war, Kerry added, “He’s dead wrong. I think it’s the wrong war in the wrong place.”
Some likely candidates voted against the war (Feingold, Dodd), some publicly criticized the invasion at the time (Clark), some were governors and didn’t have to take a position (Warner, Vilsack, Richardson), and then there are several senators who voted for the resolution and have to make clear where they stand now (Clinton, Bayh).
It need not be terribly difficult. The notion that opponents of the war are “soft” in a post-9/11 era was never true, and is just absurd now.
So, how will hawkish candidates “evolve” on the issue? Very carefully.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, both prospective 2008 candidates, have encountered hecklers protesting their support for the Iraq war. Both responded with hints of recalibrations in the way they discussed the issue, with Mrs. Clinton telling Democrats who nominated her on Wednesday for a second term to “stand with me” in pressing the White House and Iraqis to develop a plan that would permit American troops to come home. […]
When Mrs. Clinton was heckled by war protesters last week, she said that she stood by her support for the war, but added that she was beginning to see circumstances where the United States would be able to withdraw.
An adviser said this could prove to be the start of an evolution that would lead to Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly distancing herself from the conflict.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack declined to say in an interview how he would have voted on the war — “I’m not going to get into that; this isn’t about what happened in the past,” he said — which is a pretty tough sell, while Virginia’s Mark Warner opposes deadlines for withdrawal, but has a relatively compelling pitch.
“We have been put in this extraordinarily difficult situation,” Mr. Warner said. “My sense is going out without a plan is just as bad as going in without a plan. So I have not been one of those people who say that come heck or high water, we are going to leave by a fixed date.”
Mr. Warner spoke empathetically of his potential rivals who as senators voted for the war.
“I don’t think any U.S. senator, regardless of party, if they had known there weren’t W.M.D., that we were going to get selected leaks, I don’t think anybody would have voted for it,” he said. “Second-guessing people who made a valiant attempt at judgment is not where I am at.”
That’s a solid answer, and I think most Dems would agree that’s not where they are either.
It’s probably worth keeping in mind that conditions in Iraq could deteriorate — or improve — by the time the primaries begin, so some of the people who have balked at redeployment and/or timetables may feel differently after the war begins year five. But one thing seems likely: there will be far less diversity among Dems on Iraq in 2008 than there was in 2004 (Kucinich on one side, Lieberman on the other).