Clinton Is Challenged on The Surge, And On The Lincoln Bedroom

Sen. Hillary Clinton faced criticism from a leading Democratic rival today and a leading Republican. Battered by the left about her status as a change agent, battered by the right about the war.

Sen. John Edwards, in a campaign theme speech about the culture of Washington, became the first Democrat to refer to the correlation between major Democratic fundraisers circa 1995 and their subsequent overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their Presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It’s time to end the game. It’s time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It’s time to challenge politicians to put the American people’s interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

Note: Rick Lazio used a version of this critique -- it didn't work. Democrats do not believe that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.

Sen. John McCain today accuses Clinton of changing her opinion about the success of the "surge" in Iraq.

"On Monday, Senator Clinton told an audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the surge of troops in Iraq was 'working.' Now, after taking heat from anti-war activists and her primary opponents, Senator Clinton says the surge 'has failed' and that we should 'begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.'

"The fact that the New York senator can reverse her position on an issue of grave importance to our national security in a few days sends the wrong signal to our enemies in Iraq and our own troops on the ground. We must continue to support General Petraeus and the new counterinsurgency campaign to give us the best chance to succeed. Following the path to begin an 'immediate withdrawal' would be a grave mistake."

Not to defend Clinton here, but there doesn't seem to be a conflict. The goal of the surge, as widely stated by the Bush Administration, was to produce a climate where political reconcilliation was more feasible. Clinton believes that the military has done its job marvelously and has rendered safe many neighborhoods where violence used to be a constant presence. But it's perfectly legitimate to simultaneously look at the political situation in Iraq and conclude that the surge isn't working.

Comments

Edwards needs fire to get back in the race. What'll he do next?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by paul | August 23, 2007 4:34 PM

Legitimate, yes. Coherent, not so much. It's weird for her to get caught in this kind of rookie mistake.

Posted by JC | August 23, 2007 6:52 PM

I don't think the point was that Hillary is corrupt. It's that Washington is both corrupt and rigged by special interests, and that Hillary isn't the person to change that. Edwards is making a strong case that he is the person to change it.

McCain on the other hand is beside the point entirely. I doubt he'll make to the holidays as a candidate.

Posted by AJ | August 23, 2007 6:55 PM

John Edwards did not say Hillary was corrupt. He said that she is an enabler of people that are corrupt. By taking special interest money she might as well be in bed with the lobbyist. Edwards is saying we need to change this and it should start in the White House. Hillary and Bill Clinton played the game when they were in the White House and Bush did it too only worse. Edwards says if you want to start over and have a new change in DC HE IS YOUR GUY.

Posted by rssrai | August 23, 2007 8:10 PM

wrong. there are many democrats, myself included who believe not only is Hillary corrupt but, Bill as well.
Don't always the spin and the polls. There are alot of us who are not counted or polled and therefore, do not get the chance to tell things in truth.
The clintons are not as beloved as the msm would want the average person to believe.

Posted by vwcat | August 23, 2007 9:39 PM

I agree, vwcat. I'm not a Democrat but I know more than a few who do think she is corrupt. In fact they think she is more so than Bill.

I certainly wouldn't say its a majority of the party. But I think the numbers might be higher than some folks think.

I think some of her supporters probably suspect she is corrupt, but don't care. They support her because they erroneously think electing her would be the final victory in the stupid partisan trench war.

Posted by Paul | August 23, 2007 10:40 PM

Clinton's presidency only looks good only when compared with the incompetence of George W. Bush's.

It's about time the other candidates are reminding us about the Clinton Administration's many faults.

It will hopefully make voters think twice about supporting Hillary.

Posted by Putney | August 24, 2007 1:26 AM

Did Edwards happen to mention the $500,000 he made from working for a hedge fund?

Did he mention his campaign contributions from trial lawyers and hedgefunds?

Did he mention the $800,000 he was paid by Murdoch for his "book"?

Didn't think so.

Sigh.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 24, 2007 7:06 AM

While the Lincoln Bedroom line gets all the press, the really important attack in the speech was against the Clinton presidency for not getting enough things done, and for trying to play by corporate rules and losing. Whatever good things one might say about the Clinton years, Bill and Hillary failed at fixing the health care system. Edwards spends a lot more time indicting that failure in the speech than he does talking about the bedroom.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 24, 2007 8:04 AM

Not sure how to split the surge hair, as she is... However, there is some history of polling causing a switch in HRC's positions on Iraq and Terrorism. Senator Clinton was for the war when there it was wildly popular and the pressure was on to vote yes. She continued to support the war for the next two years while it remained popular. However, when it and the polls started to go south, she "evolved".

If that was not sufficient, consider her more recent statements on "are we safer since 9/11?". First she says yes we are safer without conditioning it. Then her opponents take the other side of that position, so Clinton goes to something like we are ever so slightly safer.

I think given her track record, there is no need to defend her here. It is clear that her beliefs are closely tied to popular opinion.

Posted by C Gibson | August 24, 2007 9:43 AM

When did Murdoch become a lobbyist? And when was selling a book considered taking money from special interest. Working for a hedge fund is a lot different than taking moeny from PACs. And while we are at it what about the $1000 haircut of Hillary's??????

Posted by Rssrai | August 24, 2007 10:45 AM

rrsai - what the hell is wrong with you folks? does ending up in single digits make you go desperate and dirty?

hint...its wrong to abuse edwards for his $400 haircuts, so its also wrong to try to paint hillary with the same brush.

for edwards its wrong to attack hill for taking special interest money - when the majority of his $ comes in checks of over $1000 - much of it from triallawyers - a group that defines "special interests"

Posted by dem dem | August 24, 2007 12:41 PM

Edwards is a phony. What does he think trial lawyers are? A group of people looking out for the poor? What a hoot. They're as "special interest" as it gets. Even the NYT exposed one of his phony charities he set up right after the 2004 election, so he could continue to get money to pay his staff, so he could run again in 2008.

He's a phony through and through. Get use to it.

Posted by Jo | August 24, 2007 1:14 PM

Marc,

"The goal of the surge, as widely stated by the Bush Administration, was to produce a climate where political reconciliation was more feasible."

The goal? No, one of the goals of the surge, IS to produce a climate where political reconciliation IS more feasible. National political reconciliation Is (not was) a long-term goal of the surge. One of the short-terms goals of the surge is to drive insurgents out of neighborhoods, establish outposts there (previously we would return to our bases and the insurgents would return), and provide security to the population. Once established in the neighborhoods, another short-term goal of the surge is to provide resources to allow the rebuilding of infrastructure, allowing markets to reopen, and the reestablishment of local political structures. As the Iraqi people come to realize we are staying (and it is not just American troops, but INF and Iraqi police as well), we find the populace is cooperating with our forces. Because of the successes earlier this year that have come about in Anbar when the tribal sheiks aligned themselves with us against Al-Qaeda, many people mistakenly believe this coincided with the beginning of our surge strategy. While it is true we quickly moved to use tactics of the surge strategy in Anbar, the actually implementation of our surge strategy did not begin until the launching of Operation Phantom Thunder on June 15 shortly after the last of the surge troops finally arrived in early June. For the two months since the new American strategy has been implemented, we have had steady reports from various sources of success of the short-term goals of this policy. Does the present progress mean that the tide in Iraq has turned enough to guarantee “victory” if we continue the surge. Of course not. War is fluid. The enemy adapts. The problem with much of the Iraq discussion in the United States is that many have already decided upon their “narrative” of the war. They view information from Iraq through the prism of their “narrative” which means they only see what fits what they already believe. My goodness, I am constantly teaching my 7th grade math students to “question everything”. That certainly means questioning our own assumptions and positions as well. The news media has done a very poor job of informing the public about the goals of our surge strategy, mainly because many in the media only read and quote one another. Dave Kilcullen, senior counter-insurgency adviser to the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, has published the mission goals of our new strategy at www.smallwarsjournal.com , “Understanding Current Operations in Iraq”. It certainly seems to make sense to me that we should at least understand what the mission goals are before we start debating whether they are successful or not. And I certainly am not going to be dismissive of successful short-term goals because we have not met our long-term goal within two months.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 25, 2007 1:37 PM

I agree with richard foster. In my view the real goal of "the surge" (which is a tactic, not a strategy), is to provide a "decent interval" during which we, not necessarily the Iraqi government, can develop a way to proceed with at least a little unity of purpose. This will probably involve a re-deployment, with remaining forces focused on protecting our long term interests rather than being the Baghdad P.D.

Posted by bob powell | August 26, 2007 10:46 AM