Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are national frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination. Yet, on the biggest issue of our time - Iraq - both use bold rhetoric on the campaign trail while failing to apply the same kind of passion to their votes in the Senate. Clinton is fond of declaring that if Bush doesn't end the war, she will (and whether that's true or not is up for debate). Similarly, Obama often states at debates and his campaign events that he was opposed to the war from the very start. But both Clinton and Obama have yet to use the power they hold as the frontrunners in the presidential race towards pushing for a true end to the conflict in Iraq.
If they are honestly committed to getting us out of Iraq, why are neither of them taking a prominent role in speaking out against the upcoming supplemental bill - one that will cost $200 billion, not the $50 billion that is being floated in the traditional media?
Clinton's position on the current state of Iraq is troublesome. In a recent statement on the escalation, she suggests that there are elements of the 'surge' that are working, such as in al-Anbar province. Phil Singer, her campaign spokesperson, tried to clear up what she really meant:
Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) comment that some new US "tactics" in Iraq are "working" should not be taken as an endorsement of President Bush's troop surge strategy, her campaign said Tuesday.
"She has said this before and was specifically referring to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against Al Qaeda in Al Anbar," campaign spokesman Phil Singer said in an e-mail to RAW STORY.
Despite the clarification that she was referring to greater cooperation from Sunnis as the result of the better conditions, the traditional media took the quote out of context and ran with it. The result? Clinton is now seen as someone who believes that the escalation worked. What's worse? She and her campaign have done nothing to actively combat that. In fact, at least on two occasions (at the August 7th AFL-CIO debate and her speech to the VFW convention), she has stated that we are making progress in Iraq without bothering to clarify what she has meant. While it may be parsing, it's important to note that Clinton has done very little to change the perception that she is now seen as someone who nominally supports the 'surge', even it is misguided. The battle on the supplemental will be won in the media, and Clinton has chosen to take a somewhat more hawkish tone before the Petraeus/White House report on Iraq and the vote on the supplemental.
Obama, meanwhile, has said similar things about Iraq, although he's much clearer that this is not a result of a better military strategy:
Q. What if Gen. Petraeus says he needs more time?
A. There is no scenario that I can imagine right now in which over the next eight weeks we see a magic transformation in Iraq. There's been progress in places like Anbar province. But you notice that the progress arises as a consequence of tribal leaders in that region making a decision that they no longer want to participate in the sectarian nonsense that has been taking place there.
Note how, because of Obama's phrasing, he wasn't pigeonholed the same way that Clinton was on the matter of whether or not the escalation has worked. That being said, he too has been silent in the run-up to the Petraeus' prepared testimony to Congress. I don't see anything on the front page of his campaign website about the upcoming battle in Congress, nor do I see anything on his blog or elsewhere in the media that indicates he is readying himself to take a leadership role on the supplemental when it comes up.
One can argue that it should be Harry Reid taking the lead on the issue, but it appears that he's already caved on the issue of seriously challenging the Bush administration on Iraq - even though he is one of the sponsors of the Reid-Feingold bill, which would enforce a binding timeline to remove troops within a year. But the reason I call out Clinton and Obama is that they are the Democrats most highlighted because of their status as presidential contenders. They are, by far, the politicians in our party who could rally their colleagues around a cause if they put real effort into it. But in the last vote on the emergency supplemental, both Clinton and Obama quietly cast their votes against it towards the end of the session. Neither released statements beforehand, and they were rightly called out by John Edwards in a debate about their lack of political will and courage to use their enhanced political influence to make a difference. Perhaps they believe that running as president entitles them to shirk leadership on legislation until they make the move to the executive branch. Yet that doesn't stop someone like Chris Dodd, who had this to say about the upcoming showdown:
Reporter: "Senator, there were reports this morning that President Bush will ask Congress for $50 billion more dollars for the Iraq war. What do you have to say about that?
Dodd: "Well, I'm not surprised and I'd be very resistant to that request. I think we've, as I said we're spending well over now half a trillion dollars in this conflict. And again, it's a civil war in Iraq. This is the middle of a civil war and those who have understood this issue have argued from the very beginning that there was never going to be a military solution to the civil war in Iraq. And so I'd be very resistant and I intend to fight any efforts here, I'll do whatever I can to support whatever our troops need to have a safe and secure withdrawal from Iraq. But I don't intend to continue to fund the war over there that I think has no end. As long as we're there, I think the Iraqis are not going to come together as a people it's about time we wound down our military presence there."
Dodd is the only senator who has put his mouth where his vote is when it comes to Iraq so far. He co-sponsored Reid-Feingold, and he spoke out against the emergency supplemental in strong terms before voting for it.
That's what leadership is about. Dodd, of course, is largely ignored because of his low poll numbers nationally and in the early voting states. But Clinton and Obama - the two who are the most visible faces of the Democratic Party at this time - have instead chosen to take a quiet seat in the back when legislation comes up for debate. If they are not ready to be leaders on the most important issue of our time when they are in Congress, why should we believe that they will be leaders if they are elected to the presidency?
Update: In the comments, kindertotenlieder notes that Clinton apparently said she will vote against the upcoming supplemental. I remain somewhat skeptical if this is what was actually said (the newspaper quote only references the last supplemental vote). Furthermore, does this mean she will take an active role in petitioning support against an open-ended funding bill? Lastly, I wonder why Clinton is set to vote against it without first voting for (or heck, sponsoring) a bill that would have a binding timeline in it.
One additional note: as inevitably happens, someone will point to a past diary I have written and then state I am a supporter of said candidate. But I would summarize my undecided status in the presidential race in the same manner that Chris Bowers does over at Open Left - namely that there are aspects of the presidential candidates that I like, but no one candidate that really does the trick yet. But I guess since he made a donation to John Edwards back in the first quarter, that means he is a hardcore supporter as well.