CLINTON: The Anti-Kucinich

[Flabbergasted]

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/327_another_one.html


CLINTON: The Anti-Kucinich

Matt Stollermusings on why Hillary Clinton remains the front runner despite recent remarks "that she will continue a military mission in Iraq" had lefty bloggers comparing the Iraq positions of the Dem big three. Stoller argued: "There is just no way that she can say that she will end the war and that she will continue a military mission in Iraq to contain extremists and ward off Iran. Those are mutually exclusive. ... Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country. ... I'm just wondering why Clinton is getting a free pass on Iraq."

Ed Kilgore responds: "There's one big problem with Matt's anathema: it would also apply to Barack Obama, John Edwards, and quite a few other Democrats generally considered to be unimpeachably anti-war. ... Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan explicitly calls for a "residual force" to stay in the country to fight terrorists and deter foreign intervention. John Edwards, who has emphasized the need for immediately withdrawing half the current troop deployment, has also talked about a continuing if limited military commitment. ... Dems who basically want to forbid U.S. military force commitments in the Middle East ought to be supporting Denny the K."

Matthew Yglesias basically agrees the big three have no substantive differences on Iraq, but still comes out strongly against HRC: "Now, in a big picture sense, what this emphasizes is the extent to which it would be good to have a president you trusted. ... To me, what separates Clinton from Obama and Edwards on this front is that Clinton appeared to be saying that one mission of her proposed continuing presence in Iraq would be trying to intimidate Iran which sounds more like loophole territory than prudence territory to me." Yglesias also concluded by invoking Kucinich: "If, however, you want the United States to more-or-less entirely abandon the project of projecting military power in the Middle East you really do need to back Kucinich."

MyDD's Chris Bowers was having none of the suggestions that there are no substantive differences between Clinton and Obama on Iraq. Instead he identifies some reasons why HRC is still winning including: 1) Most Democrats do not make Clinton their first choice; 2) Obama actually is making up ground; 3) Clinton still commands the most attention; 4) Clinton camp blurring the lines on Iraq; 5) Obama and establishment media, allowing Clinton to brand herself as anti-war; and 6) It is also important to keep in mind that many voters do not even consider policy questions when selecting a candidate, and instead prefer personal qualities / characteristics.

[NYCGirl]

1. Ed Kilgore is a leading DLC guy — pretty funny stuff. NT

http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/2007/03/bad-anti-war-litmus-test.html

[Flabbergasted]

2. Thanks.

[Jack Sprat]

3. I support Denny the K

At this point, many of us are just contemplating the field. I would not read much into these ultra-early polls.