Text size:

For Democrats, Iraq war a minefield

Politicians, such as Clinton, positioning themselves to avoid paying a price for voting to invade Iraq

BY GLENN THRUSH | Newsday Washington Bureau

August 9, 2006

A year ago, several of Hillary Rodham Clinton's advisers predicted that the Iraq war would be winding down by the summer of 2006 and pooh-poohed the idea that Iraq would dominate the 2008 presidential election.

"It's going to be far along the road to resolution ... we should know pretty much how it's going to be going this time next year," said a person in the Clinton camp, speaking on condition of anonymity last summer.

That tune isn't heard much in Hillaryland these days.

Hopes for a quick withdrawal from Iraq have been shattered by sectarian violence. And the notion that Clinton won't pay any political price for her war support may have faded with the rise of Ned Lamont's anti-war revolt against Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. Lieberman conceded victory to Lamont in the Democratic primary last night, but the senator has said he will run as an independent in the November election.

"Democrats who supported the war are being put on notice that the voter discontent with Iraq is for real," said consultant David Axelrod, who worked on John Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign.

Clinton voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion and refuses to call for an end date for U.S. troop deployment. She backs the start of a phased withdrawal by the end of 2006.

Instead of renouncing her war vote, Clinton has stepped up criticism of the Bush administration. Last week, she lashed out at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a Senate hearing, bemoaning administration "incompetence," a move widely interpreted as a response to the Lamont backlash.

The broadside might not be enough to pacify peace Democrats and Internet grassroots groups like MoveOn.org, if she runs for president.

"If you voted for the war, you can't just be saying, 'Oh, I voted for the war but we didn't send enough troops,'" said Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank founded by former Clinton administration officials.

"When you invaded Iraq you took on something that was impossible to do," Korb added. "The sooner you come to grips with that, the better off you'll be politically."

That message hasn't been lost on Clinton's potential 2008 presidential rivals, including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Edwards, who are both calling for a quick Iraq pullout.

Clinton's anti-war Democratic primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini, hasn't come close to matching Lamont's success, garnering low double digits in recent polls. Primary voters are punishing Lieberman but letting Clinton off the hook because Lieberman is widely seen as President George W. Bush's top Democratic defender, Axelrod says.

"Joe's being punished not just for supporting the war but because he's close to Bush," he added. "I don't think Democrats doubt Hillary is willing to stand up to Republicans."

Howard Wolfson, a Clinton political consultant, says the senator is "sticking with what she believes in" despite opponents who "want her to renounce her vote or to call for the immediate withdrawal" of troops.

"Sen. Clinton is very much in the mainstream of Democrats on this issue," he said.

One Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that might be a smart strategy - if the United States gets out of Iraq quickly.

"Who knows, maybe Clinton's people were right about the war being a non-factor by 2008," said the consultant. "Things are happening so fast over there, it may all be over by then."