HILLARY’S CONFUSION ON IRAQ MIRRORS THE POLITICAL CONUNDRUM FACING THE DEMOCRATS

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has a problem. By all accounts (except, explicitly, her own) she wants to be the next President of the United States. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A lot of great men (and a few not-so-great) have wanted to be President. It is only fitting that in the 21st Century a few great women (or not so great...history will be Hillary’s final judge on that score) should share that desire as well. Her desire, therefore, to be elected the first female President is not the problem. Neither is the fact that she has only held one elected political office (her current one). It’s not even the fact that she is a woman (although that has relevance to her most significant problem). No, Hillary’s problem is the same one plaguing all the Democrats, and all the Republicans too, including the current President. Hillary’s problem is the Iraq War.

Dick Morris explains the politics of it all very neatly in his most recent column. The bottom line is simple...a woman cannot be elected President unless she is perceived as being tough, especially in wartime. I cannot conceive of a woman candidate shattering age-old stereotypes about women and war unless she is perceived as tough-as-nails. Think Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir. Even Democrats realized in 2004 that they needed a candidate who could allay the concerns of heartland voters about toughness and resolve in the face of an uncompromising terrorist enemy, which is why they came to their senses and chose John Kerry with his Vietnam War experience over Howard Dean. As we’ve seen, Republicans do not face a similar problem. Since the Vietnam War the GOP has consistently out-polled the Democrats on the issue of national security, which is why George W. Bush’s lack of combat experience hurt him less than it would a Democratic candidate.

Back in 2003 Hillary seemed to realize this when she voted to authorize the President to use force against Saddam Hussein’s regime, and when she made numerous statements strongly supporting the operation. It even had some wags predicting that she would be the most uncompromising wartime President in American history. Unfortunately for her, political reality is now intruding in the form of a growing anti-war revolt percolating up from the left. The recent statements by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq have only galvanized the feelings of those folks who are at the core of Democratic primary voters. They perceive, correctly, that their efforts are succeeding. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quickly joined with Murtha and said half of her caucus supported the position (which I do not doubt). Other Democrats came out equally as strong against a quick pull-out.

Which brings us back to Hillary. As a member of the political elite of the country, she has certainly educated herself through briefings and policy papers about the geopolitical realities of the war on terrorism, the Iraq War, and the Middle East in general. I believe she knows full well the possible consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. She also knows that no one will be elected President who advocates such a withdrawal, as enough Americans who will see it as surrender or retreat will join with those who support the operation to make a majority. Even after all the negative news, most polls still show a majority against an immediate withdrawal.

Certainly, if over 100,000 American troops are still in Iraq in 2007, when the Presidential race really gets started, and the country still seems to be wracked by suicide bombings and sectarian strife, the political reality here at home will be different. An explicitly anti-war, bring the troops home platform will have greater resonance. But, if there are less than 100,000 troops in Iraq, with more coming home all the time, and the Iraqi government seems to be stabilizing and dealing effectively with the insurgents, then anyone who joined the immediate withdrawal crowd in 2005 is going to have a hard time getting elected as Commander-in-Chief.

Thus, the question for Hillary (and all the Democrats thinking about the presidency) is simple. Should I play to the fervent anti-war crowd now in an effort to be seen as their champion, which would almost certainly put me in the driver’s seat for winning the nomination? Or, should I stick with my pro-war views, in the hope that by 2007 the situation will be seen as heading in a positive direction, and I can take credit for advocating a tough course, while offering an intelligent critique of the way the administration has handled it, and alternatives for the future prosecution of the war? I think it is this analysis which has led Hillary to muddy the waters about her Iraq War position (as well as Kerry, Edwards et. al.).

If I am right, here is how it might play out. Someone will, like Howard Dean in the last cycle, come out of the weeds and offer the anti-war base of the Democratic Party some true, 100% pure anti-war juice. They will drink it up with gusto. That man (maybe Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)) will build a winning operation, irrespective of how things go in Iraq. I say irrespective of how things go in Iraq deliberately. The anti-war left doesn’t care about victory in Iraq. They believe the war from the beginning was immoral and illegitimate. One typically does not want the immoral designs of evil men to succeed, does one? For them, all that counts is fealty to their view. Any Democrat who wants to be President and doesn’t toe the line on this issue faces some serious heavy lifting when we get to the retail politicking of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2007. For Hillary, that’s a problem.