Clinton Won't Come Out Against Torture

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 11:37


Ah, change.

"That's what I intend to do," she said. "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."

The whole article of the Clinton interview is similarly depressing.  She won't commit to protecting Social Security.  She won't commit to withdrawal from Iraq.  And then there's this.

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

To me, these two paragraphs get to the heart of the Clinton-era political model.  Clinton believes that the top-down political model of her youth, of the early 1960s, can be resurrected.  She cannot handle a political system where one party is acting in utter bad faith, and ultimately turns to bad faith herself.  That's why she will not come out against torture by the CIA, since she cannot bring herself to believe that the government could do something so awful, that the Iraq invasion was done for no good reasons whatsoever.  And so she ratifies the horrifying behavior, and will continue to do so as President.

I hope Obama can actually challenge her, but it's not clear to me that he's any different.  There will be leverage under a Clinton Presidency, but 2008 has been so far a tragedy of boomer-dominated cynicism.

UPDATE:  I'm with Mark Kleiman.  Clinton doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this.
Matt Stoller :: Clinton Won't Come Out Against Torture

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Won't Come Out Against Torture | 16 comments
Did you really think .. (4.00 / 1)
she was gonna say anything? ... she won't say anything even remotely controversial .. face it .. David Broder must be dancing with delight reading that story
coming out against torture is controversial? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
How much .. (0.00 / 0)
did she come out against it? .. Even with the clarification .. she muddied the waters way too much
[ Parent ]
Oh Dear! (4.00 / 1)
No wonder the entire establishment media is lining up behind the "Hillary is unstoppable" narrative. She's one of them and they relish the idea of a Hillary presidency. In their minds, it's going to be just like Bush's presidency, only competent.

I just don't understand why so many Democrats are lining up behind her when she is so openly and transparently NOT AT ALL PROGRESSIVE.

I too hope Obama can mount a successful challenge, but he's going to need to take more risks as we get closer to the nomination, attack Hillary more directly, and actually distinguish himself from her positions and values.

Was Clinton 1.0 this bad? (0.00 / 0)
I am going back and trying to find good interviews with Bill C. during his first run.

Was he so bland?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

minority control (0.00 / 0)
Tangentially on topic - I really think you identified an important problem, Matt, on your appearance on Bob McChesney's show, which I just heard.  Why IS it that here in America generally, as within each of our political parties, the decisions made so poorly reflect the overwhelming desires of the public, and how can it be that nominally democratic institutions so closely resemble nondemocratic institutions in this respect?  A question well-formed is a question half answered, and I think that was a pretty well-formed question (better formed in your words than in my paraphrasing).

Thus, how can it possibly be that Hillary can seem so inevitable when her views are so far from the very Democratic primary electorate who would be the ones to put her in place?

No Viable Alternative (0.00 / 0)
"Thus, how can it possibly be that Hillary can seem so inevitable when her views are so far from the very Democratic primary electorate who would be the ones to put her in place?"

The Democrats can depend upon their good little partisans to vote for whatever non-Republican the "leadership" deems "electable".

The slogan from 2004 comes to mind: "Anybody But Bush".  Emphasis on ANYBODY.  Doesn't matter what they say - as long as it isn't controversal - because the main point is: The Democrat is NOT a Republican.

Can Hilary Clinton win without support from the non-aligned left?

YES - because the Fundamentalists on the Right will be sitting this one out, as well.

The "anti-war" and "progressives" are as irrelevant as the religious right- based on the empirical evidence.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
A kinder, gentler head-slapping hand? (0.00 / 0)
The Democratic "alternative" to the Bush Junta is somewhat non-existent.  Might as well put Cheney in a dress and let him run the country.

Color me unimpressed.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Matt (4.00 / 1)
So you if running for office would come out against something that you had no idea of the details about? That may be something we would expect out of Repubs because they tend to talk before thinking and even easily say things that they know are not true or don't really care if they are true or not. A responsible person or organization does not do those things. Clinton said she does not condone torture - what is it you don't understand about that very clear statement?

As for centrist government there are a few things to take into account with that approach considering the political times we are in. Number one is that there is no way a President could govern strictly from the Left and expect congress to vote through that type of agenda. It isn't going to happen today. Maybe it will in 10+ years or so if we can elect the right House and Senate members but not today. So in order to do the business of the people some type of compromises will be necessary. That said Clinton having a very clear and high Liberal rating will be able to pull the current congress more to the Left by virtue of the bully pulpit just as Bush has been able to pull us to the right. Additionally the public is ripe for a more Liberal government that takes into mind their long term social needs. So while we may not get as left a government as we would like to see it will be much further to the Left under Clinton than others will admit to.

Another reason for a centrist approach is that like it or not there are different political ideologies in our country as always has been and always will be. Both sides want to have some of the things they want. If you govern from just one side as Bush has done then the majority of the country moves against your ideas, the political center being the swing votes that tilt that scale. So if we do a reverse-Bush then that will just restrengthen the radical Right as they will be able to point to people who are getting left out that they need them - which is what is happening today in the reverse. Ideally in any group there is compromise. Even in the left Blogosphere there are differing points of view and as such in order to get things done you guys compromise. Why should government be any different? If we were able to govern from the center and still move the country socially to the left and keep us out of unnecessary wars then that would weaken (but not kill) the radical Right and their agenda. If we give voters on the Right some of the things they want while at the same time showing them them wisdom of our policies in todays open and global world then we can govern for a long time. But if we are as divisive as Bush has been then the pendulum of power will keep swinging back and forth.

She won't commit to protecting Social Security.

Well Matt you are being a bit partisan in your comment I think. People here will hopefully read what Clinton actually said in the article:

She also said she will take no position on how to fix Social Security and made it clear she does not regard it as a front-burner issue.

"I do not believe it is in a crisis," she said of the retirement program.

So here again you expect here to take a position when in this case the opinion of others count also. As a business owner when I or other business owners need to change something that is going to require the input and approval of others the last thing I want to do is show my hand. I want to hear other peoples thoughts and suggestions first and then either gain allies who think like me or - gasp! - hear a better idea than mine. If that is the way reasonable business people do things then why shouldn't t government be the same?

Clinton was pretty clear in the quote above saying that she didn't think Social Security was in a crisis and not a front burner issue. What more do you need to hear? CW says that SS can be easily preserved and it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see she is saying the same thing. But yet you want to make Lemons out of Lemonade.

For some reason you left out these quotes from the article:

Her economic proposals included what she said would be a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline, higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and programs aimed at easing economic uncertainties among middle-class families. They include housing assistance, making college more affordable and the universal health-care plan she outlined last month.
...
She said she has begun to attract support from contributors and voters who may have been skeptical of her in the past. Criticizing Bush, she said he has pursued a "50-plus-one" strategy "instead of saying, 'You know what -- there may be some people we will lose if we reach out' " to create a broader coalition.
...

Nothing to talk about there right? Nope you can hardly criticize those things. Perhaps of Obama said those things they would be noteworthy? But as you said about him: "but it's not clear to me that he's any different." Maybe there is a reason that the country has chosen them as the two front runners. Maybe the public is wise in recognizing that a populist Edwards would just swing the pendulum too far to the Left at this point in time. Maybe he just attracts a smaller segment of the population.

Clinton on Iraq:

"...I want to be as committed to getting out as quickly as I can, but as clear that I have to look at all of these problems we're going to face."

Perhaps she is not saying what you want her to say but she is not being non-committal as you suggest. Perhaps just a little more responsible than you'd like to see. But she is certainly clear in her commitment to get out - as quickly as she can - and responsibly, so we do not have to go back in again. Not having to go back in again is something I think we all want. If in order to do that requires a little more time and thoughtfulness is that a bad thing? Or would it be better to get the troops out ASAP ans then have to send them back into a bigger mess?

Voting records (4.00 / 1)
Note, I plan to vote for Edwards but the facts don't support the Hillary narrative here.

Using the Progressive Punch scores, Hillary Clinton is the most liberal of the four Senate Democrats running for President.  She has the best score for lifetime voting (91.31%, 14th in the Senate), 2007 voting (93.87%, 19th), and 2007 clutch voting (91.82%, 20th).

More importantly perhaps, Hillary has moved left in her 2007 Senate votes like 34 of the 42 Senate Democrats who were around before the 2006 election.  All three of her Senate opponents (Obama, Biden, and Dodd) have moved to the rigt.  Significantly, 33 of 38 non-candidates moved left while only 1 of 4 candidates did.  We see the same breakdown on the vote to authorize military foece in Iraq.

The most disappointing of the group is Obama.  He's slid from 14th IIRC to 21st overall and ranks 35th among 51 Senate "Democrats" this session and also ranks 35th in the clutch.  Obama's score for 2007 is 86.01% vs. 93.87% for Clinton.  In other words, from a progressive standpoint, Clinton makes half as many bad votes in 2007 as Obama.

The only thing I can think of is that polls and focus groups in Iowa and/or New Hampshire (far more likely in Iowa) show some huge yearning from centrism, playing together, and all those things that haven't worked since Everett Dirksen helped push through civil rights over 40 years ago.  That is crap.  Ask most Democrats and they don't like that, don't want it.

Bush's plant against Dean (the old coot who spent 5 minutes lecturing Dean to be nice to Bush) has really long tentacles.  Nixon was impeached for doing the same stuff to Muskie. 

I'm just getting so tired (4.00 / 1)
of these gratuitous generational put-downs.

What Hillary Clinton says or does is NOT necessarily representative of the generation she is a part of, and these stupid generational insults detract from the valid points you make.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

I'm just getting so tired (0.00 / 0)
of these gratuitous generational put-downs.

What Hillary Clinton says or does is NOT necessarily representative of the generation she is a part of, and these stupid generational insults detract from the valid points you make.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

Sorry for the double post (0.00 / 0)
I'm blogging from Haiti, where I'm on TDY for my work, the connection is slow, and I hit the button twice because I didn't think it worked the first time.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.
[ Parent ]
Not as vague (4.00 / 1)
If you the full passage was printed, you'd see she wasn't vague at all (hat tip TPM):

HRC: Well I think I've been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing, we're getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so I think we have to draw a bright line and say 'No torture - abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that.

I think we should start making sure we have the whole story before we start bashing our own (and very well likely our nominee)

The quote is presented out of context (4.00 / 1)
Greg Sargent is all over this.  The WaPo's actual question and Clinton's answer are reprinted there in full and should alleviate some of the concerns raised here.

But don't take my word for it -- follow the link and see for yourselves.

Uh... Matt. Looks like you owe Clinton Campaign an apology (0.00 / 0)
While you're at it, you can apologize to your readers for your shotty, knee-jerk blog.

http://www.talkingpo...

Q: Can I ask you a follow up? You mentioned Blackwater, you've said that at the beginning of your administration you'd ask the Pentagon to report. When it comes to special interrogation methods, obviously you've said you're against torture, but the types of methods that are now used that aren't technically torture but are still permitted, would you do something in your first couple days to address that, suspend some of the special interrogation methods immediately or ask for some kind of review?

HRC: Well I think I've been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing, we're getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so I think we have to draw a bright line and say 'No torture - abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that.

Clinton Won't Come Out Against Torture | 16 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox