Patterico's Pontifications


Hillary Clinton Tries to Prove Herself to the Liberal Left

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 11:36 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

… by voting against a Senate resolution expressing support for General Petraeus that specifically repudiates “the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group”

… and by calling Vice President Cheney “Darth Vader.”

She needs one more for a hat trick. My guess is it will involve criticism of President Bush.


25 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Tries to Prove Herself to the Liberal Left”

  1. Uh, this is the same General Petraeus that was confirmed with the full support, trust and respect by a Senate vote of 81–0 on January 26, 2007, right? And this would be the same Senator Hillary Clinton, who gave one one of those 81 affirmative votes, right?

    Dana (b4a26c)

  2. I hope she keeps it up. I’d love to see the wind in her claims of being a victim of ‘the politics of personal destruction’ die off.

    She is providing great material for TV ads against her.

    MagicalPat (4d4753)

  3. Hillary is courting the Ahmadinejad wing of the Democrat party.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  4. Now she can legitimately be called the “Senator from” – a moniker I hope is hung her at every opportunity.

    “Hsu Hillary – move on already.”

    Horatio (564fb8)

  5. She’ll earn the hat-trick by blaming all of the controversy on the “vast Right-Wing conspiracy”.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  6. I seriously thought that Hillary Clinton was more intelligent than this.

    I still think that the showdown between Clinton and the Netroots/Moveons is coming. Obviously the time is not ripe. But I didn’t think she’d stoop this low in the meantime.

    Glen Wishard (b1987d)

  7. Well first of all, she was one of 24 Democrats and one Independent who voted against a Republican resolution (3 were not voting). It contained a few conclusions that one may reasonably see as uhm, rather politicized:

    (8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group,, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

    (b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–

    (1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

    (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

    (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group

    Hot Air

    On the other hand, all 48 voting Dems voted for a resolution introduced by Senator Boxer:

    a) FINDINGS — The Senate makes the following findings:

    (1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;

    (2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;

    (3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as “reprehensible”;

    (4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a

    Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;

    (5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as “dishonest and dishonorable.”

    (6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and

    (7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.

    (b) SENSE OF SENATE. — It is the sense of the Senate –

    (1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

    (2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.


    Could that one be seen as rather politized? Sure. Is it as inflammatory? I don’t think so, but I’m sure others have their own view.

    In the end we have politicians politicizing a current event for all it’s worth. Stop the presses!

    Itsme (8393b5)

  8. Itsme:

    (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group

    I assume this is the section of the Senate Resolution that you consider politicized, right? The other two numbered sections don’t seem politicized to me but, if they are to you, I’d like to know why.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  9. Itsme – The big picture surrounding the Petraeus ad and the Cleland ad were remarkably different.

    JD (c3bb88)

  10. Oh, grow up, Itsme. The first resolution was far less politicized than the silly and grossly hypocritical resolution that the Democrats introduced.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  11. JD #8:

    For one thing, I think equating criticism of statements made by one general with attacking the honor and integrity of “all members of the United States armed forces” and repeating it for effect is inflammatory and its use is political.

    Just my opinion.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  12. Sorry, that last was to DRJ.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  13. Itsme,

    So your concern is with sections 2 and 3?

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  14. JD #9:

    The resolution condemned “attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces” – which I think most would agree applied to all three examples.

    I’m not pitching the resolution, just pointing out that the two parties have their reasons for introducing the language they do.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  15. DRJ #13:

    I think the whole thing was couched in ways that politically loaded ways, like referring to the “liberal activist group” MoveOn. Come on.

    Look, think what you want about the relative merits of the two proposals. I just think it’s silly to criticize someone for voting against something so obviously loaded.

    I mean, do you think every Republican who voted against the Boxer amendment approved of the Chambliss ads or the SBVT business? For that matter, do you think they were FOR the Petraeus ad, which the resolution condemned?

    I don’t blame Hillary for voting against the GOP resolution and not setting herself up for accusations that she accepted their money but thinks they’re a “liberal activist group” that impugns the honor and integrity of all US armed forces. Just guessing. At least she had the gumption to vote, unlike Obama and Dodd.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  16. #6
    She will pander to them until she secures the nomination. Then she has nine months to position herself as a centrist.

    voiceofreason (ff729f)

  17. Itsme,

    Seriously, what’s objectionable about “liberal activist group”? is liberal and probably proud of it, just as I’m proud to be a conservative. Neither one is a dirty word unless you decide to see it that way. It is also an activist group, and I don’t see anything objectionable about that term either.

    I understand your concern in item 2 re: the implication that an attack on Petraeus is an attack on all troops, but to me that doesn’t tarnish the resolution so much that I couldn’t vote for it if the situation were reversed.

    Frankly, I assumed your problem was with item 3. It surprises me that you have – or also have – a problem with item 2.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  18. DRJ #17:

    My point is that the whole thing is politically loaded. It is full of trigger-words that mean something to certain segments of the voting population.

    What could be so objectionable about a resolution that named three incidents in which honorable veterans suffered personal attacks, and condemned all personal attacks against veterans? Including the Petraeus ad? Yet every single Republican voted against it.

    Politicians do this all the time. Let’s say someone puts out a resolution saying this nation was founded on Christian principles, and as such included “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, despite the fact that commie symps are attacking that very foundation by trying to take those words out of the pledge, and we hereby support the pledge of allegiance.

    People vote against the resolution. The proponents get to say, “So which are you against, God or the flag?”

    Happens all the time.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  19. Correction re #18:

    Actually Hagel, a Republican, voted for the Boxer amendment.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  20. Correction #15:

    Biden didn’t vote, not Dodd. Sorry.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  21. Itsme,

    I understand your point but this is Congress, not a courtroom. They have to make a decision – for or against, or abstain – and by that standard sections 1 and 2 were pretty tame.

    DRJ (ec59b5)

  22. Exactly, DRJ. It’s Congress, not a courtroom. Politicians do things for political reasons.

    And all of the Boxer amendment was pretty tame, yet it was voted down on party lines.

    I’m trying to pack for the weekend and watch Mad Men as I check the thread, so sorry if I get distracted. If I don’t respond it’s because…hey, I left town for the weekend. Look forward to reading your response when I get back.

    Itsme (8393b5)

  23. Sorry, but Senatrix Clinton can’t prove herself to the liberal left, since she has denied being a lesbian. :)

    [Warning: Shameless link alert!]

    Dana (3e4784)


    Here’s how patraeus got his numbers. 8ullshit.
    You want attacks on military brass TPM has an article from the national review you should read.

    blah (863566)

  25. I’m not excited about the US Senate setting itself up as the judge of newspaper advertisements of any political movement.

    Unfortunately for the GOP, Iraq is so obviously FUBAR no one cared much about Petraeus’ Happy Talk and no one is going to run screaming from MoveOn.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (501712)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2393 secs.