Hillary Clinton risked being outflanked in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination yesterday when she revised her stance on the Iraq war but failed to go far enough to satisfy anti-war critics.
Clinton, who voted for the war in 2002 and has so far refused to repudiate that, took to television and radio studios for a media blitz on Wednesday morning to set out a new position after a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan last week.
But she still remains well out of step with the other main potential Democratic candidates — Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, and John Edwards — who all have clear anti-war credentials.
Her shift came as opposition gathered momentum in Congress against US President George Bush’s planned 21 500 troop increase. Democratic and Republican congress members published a draft joint resolution, to be voted on in the next few weeks, saying ”it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating US troop presence”.
Clinton, at a Senate press conference in the afternoon, expressed support for the resolution. She promised to introduce draft legislation of her own, a purely symbolic move that has no chance of being passed, proposing that US troop levels in Iraq be capped at 132 000, the number on January 1.
She also proposed a six-month deadline for the Iraqi government to take action to stop sectarian violence.
”I think we will eventually have to move to tougher requirements on the [Bush] administration to get their attention,” Clinton said, arguing that she wanted ”a change of course, not adding more troops pursuing a strategy that, under present circumstances, cannot be successful”.
Although she is one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination and has already accumulated sizeable campaign funds and an experienced election team, she is in danger of misjudging the speed with which the public mood is shifting against the war, and the strength of anti-war feeling in the Democratic party.
On Tuesday, Obama formed an exploratory committee, the first formal move in seeking the nomination. He was not a member of the Senate when the vote on the Iraq war took place. Edwards was, but has since renounced it.
In an apparent dig at Clinton’s Iraq record, Obama said on Wednesday the troop increase was ”a terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002”.
Clinton is in danger of suffering the fate of previous Democratic contenders, such as Edmund Muskie, the clear favourite for the Democratic nomination in 1972 who lost out in the anti-Vietnam war fervour to George McGovern.
In order to protect her hawkish reputation, which could be useful in a presidential election campaign, she suggested that troop levels in Afghanistan be increased.
She is expected formally to make her decision on joining the race for the nomination within the next few weeks.
As part of her plan for Iraq, she is proposing penalising the Iraqi government if it fails to begin taking action to stop sectarian violence within the next six months. ”I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions,” she said.
The Republican senator Chuck Hagel, who last week described the troop increase as the biggest US foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, worked with the Democrats on the resolution condemning the troop increase.
Democrats, including Clinton, are united in support of the resolution but divided on whether to move beyond that to block funding for the increase, a tactic used by Congress to stop the Vietnam war.
Bush met Republican senators, both loyalists and potential dissidents, at the White House yesterday to discuss a counter-resolution.
Tony Snow, the White House press spokesperson, said resolutions passed by Congress will not affect Bush’s decision-making. ”The president has obligations as a commander in chief. And he will go ahead and execute them.”
The arrival of Obama means that Clinton, who has enjoyed front-runner status for many months, will now face competition for funding from Democratic donors.
”He’s going to have an effect on our fundraising no question about it,” said Sim Farar, a Clinton fundraiser in Los Angeles, told the Los Angeles Times.
Obama’s campaign team, in a conference call on Tuesday with fundraisers, estimate he will need to raise about $70-million to fight the primaries in January next year. – Guardian Unlimited Â