Yesterday, in response to Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she never voted for pre-emptive war, we asked, “what, exactly, she thought President Bush was going to do with the authority to use military force against Iraq?”
This is likely to be the biggest issue facing Clinton’s campaign in the coming months.
Matt Yglesias is reaching the “don’t lie to me like I’m Montel Williams” stage of incredulousness:
The interesting question is why Clinton’s campaign thinks she can get away with it. Most presidential candidates at least feel the need to nod in the direction of the anti-war liberals who will cast most of the primary votes. Team Clinton, however, seems to think that the liberal base – particularly African-Americans and women – are so entranced by her starpower that they’ll swallow anything, including the bizarre up-is-downism implicit in her revisionist history of the war.
…that’s a bit different than simply stubbornly refusing to apologize for your support; it’s trying to deny that you have anything to refuse to apologize for! And it’s kind of pathetic. Hillary’s had a long time to think about what she’d say in this situation. Not even her husband could get away with that much slickness.
Edwards has already jabbed at Hillary over the war. I wonder if, or when, Obama will take a shot at this fairly easy target.