Source: Hillary Campaign Reaching Out Via Surrogates To Antiwar Members Of Congress
This is interesting: A high-level Democrat tells me that several of Hillary Clinton's senior advisers are reaching out to top Dem donors and other political leaders with connections in Congress to ask them to make Hillary's case on the Iraq war privately to highly-visible antiwar members of Congress.
The idea appears to be to get these go-betweens to suggest to prominent antiwar members of Congress such as Russ Feingold and John Murtha that they either back Hillary or vouch for her position on Iraq.
"They are asking people to try to reach out to members of Congress who are leaders in the antiwar movement, and see if they can be brought on board," the source says, speaking of Hillary's senior advisers.
The effort was described by my source as not completely formal or orchestrated, but as something clearly viewed as important by Hillary advisers. "Clearly it's a strategy they're pursuing," the source says.
The campaign is not so much to get outright endorsements from such members of Congress, the source emphasized (though that certainly wouldn't be rejected, of course). The goal is more to get visible antiwar Congress people to vouch for Hillary's antiwar credentials, which she's being quizzed about due to her backing for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war.
"It's about getting people in Congress to say, She's a leader [against the war] now, she's with them, she's on the same page," the source says, adding that Congress people who might not be able to bring themselves to okay her previous vote are being encouraged to "at least praise her for her current position."
While not terribly surprising -- the Clinton camp has every reason to get people to make her case privately to other members of Congress prominently associated in the public mind with advocating an end to the war -- it's a dynamic that definitely bears watching. No comment yet on this from the Clinton campaign.
HUH? outreach via cash or threats? You mean she's going out to the likes of Feingold whom she and the rest of her merry band of DLC'ers have continually screwed and belittled when he was trying to provide some oversight over this unitary executive 'surge' of Bush's.
Please can someone pay for Gore's bodyguards and drag him back into politics... please...
February 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton: Money trumps peace sometimes.
February 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, hasn't Feingold already said publically that he will only support Obama or Gore?
February 19, 2007 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One wonders why she can't find a fellow NY member of congress or one of the female anti-IWR members of the senate. Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York is a fairly prominent anti-Iraq voice as is Barbara Boxer (who's daughter was once married to HRC's brother). Are those relationships so poor that she needs to go through surrogates?
February 19, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No on should ever trust Hillary on the war. So far, she's been as hawkish as she can get away with being. Ever message she's ever sent has been hawkish. That's the way she's chosen to run, that's what she believes, and if you like that, support her. If you don't, don't.
February 19, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe AIPAC is getting worried that the war may be brought to a close and so are turning the screws on Hillary.
February 19, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is not only anti-war Dems the Hillary campaign is reaching out to.
A week ago today - 2/12 - Roger Hedgecock on the Rush Limbaugh show was defending Hillary's stance on the war against "looney leftists" and Obama. And the Limbaugh show - via Roger Hedgecock - was advising the Democratic party to lose those "looney leftists" if they wanted to win the '08 election. How touching to think that the Limbaugh show is actively working for Dem success in '08. ;->
Then on Friday, conservative journalist David Brooks came out with almost EXACTLY the same talking points as were on the Rush Limbaugh story. David Brooks: Hillary Clinton's war vote wasn't that bad
http://www.sacbee.com/328/story/124314.html
What's next? Getting CondiCondi and Dubyah to endorse Hillary?
February 19, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Here's the money line:
"It's about getting people in Congress to say, She's a leader [against the war] now, she's with them, she's on the same page,"
I'm not sure where this idea of her being a leader comes from. And which page is "the same page," exactly? It's a lot of letting bygones be bygones, but without requiring her to be complicit in her history at all. In fact, on further examination it's not about her being a leader at all; it's about "getting people in Congress to say" she's a leader. Ridiculous.
I hope I'm not the only one to hope that she is a bit more vocal about her change of heart (to whatever degree), but so far this story just sounds to be filler for whatever positive reviews she got for her anti-surge debate speech last week. "See, we did it once. Can we own the club now?"
February 19, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, they're just trying to set up some boundaries past which they would not like to see the country shift to the left. Hillary is just a more palatable Lieberman as far as the war goes, so you find hawks praising what open-minded Democrats they are to the degree that they validate the stances of the hawks.
David Brooks is saying that a crappy war vote like Hillary's is not nearly as bad as not going to war at all, so we see how self-congratulating that sentiment is. As long as we still get to be at war, this is where the dividing line between "Centrist" and "Radical Terrorist-sympathizing Left" lies.
February 19, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be shocked if Feingold fell for this trap. It sounds like desperation by HRC to me.
February 19, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually...
Reagan/Bush - Reagan/Bush - Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton
February 19, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will be shocked if Feingold's 'convictions' are priceless. HRC's campaign already has Congressional reps in SC coming out opposing Barack, in terms of the black vote. This tactic of 'name your price' seems to be standard politics.
February 19, 2007 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, maybe they'd like HRC to win the primary so they have an easy target in the general election. They've been practicing dragging her through the mud for years now.
February 19, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Feingold sell out to Hillary? It makes no sense.
February 22, 2007 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say he would.
I only remarked that I would be shocked, if there was not some political situation he is supporting that would be the right price for him to do so. That is typically how politics works in terms of advancing issues you are an advocate for....it is quid pro quo.
February 24, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink