Reply #3: You have to seperate them on this to an extent

[Tom Rinaldo]

There is a strong political cultural expectation in the U.S. for ex-Presidents to not act as opposition leaders to sitting Presidents. Why would be a long and interesting discussion. That is just begining to break down a little more now, with Jimmy Carter as a prime agent of that change now vis a vis Bush, but even Carter was not overly visible as an opponent of the President who replaced him - Reagan, and he bacame friends with the President he replaced - Ford. George Bush Senior did not show clear opposition to Bill Clinton either during Clinton's two terms.

Bill Clinton certainly for the most part held his fire against George W. Bush and was cordial on a social level with him. There were minor exceptions, but the biggest one came when the Republicans tried to pin the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton Administration prior to the 2006 mid terms. Bill came back swinging on that one and instead pinned the failure on George W. Bush's failure to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

Hillary was not bound by that Presidential tradition however, especially after she actively entered politics by becoming a U.S. Senator. I know you asked for a focus on terrorism and the Iraq war, but it should be acknowledged that Hillary Clinton's overall voting record in the U.S. Senate is rated as very liberal, so obviously there are a host of issues where she stood in clear oppostion to Bush. I have long complained, as one of Hillary's constituents, that she did not raise her voice as a leader in opposition to Bush nearly often enough, even when she ended up voting the way that I wanted. As a Senator from New York with a safe seat and relatively liberal population she represented, she had the liberty to be speak out more than she did. I strongly suspect that she has used her term and a half in office to re-position her image in an attempt to appeal to centrist voters in an upcoming Presidential Election. I supported Jonathan Tasini against her in the 2006 primary for that reason.

I don't have time to do research right now, but I believe most would say that Hillary has been a clearer consistent oppositional voice toward Bush policies regarding terrorism than she has been regarding the Iraq war. But I would not call her a supporter of that war either, in the sense that she certainly did not cheer on the invasion itself. I know that the war in Iraq is often seen in stark black and white terms at DU, with many feeling anything other than a fixed plan for a rapid full withdrawal from Iraq is identical with full support for that war and virtually identical with the neo con position regarding it. However there are many for the most part conservative Democrats in Congress who have been much more supportive to Bush's decisions regarding Iraq than Hilary Clinton has. And there are many progressive Democrats in Congress who have been more sharply in disagreement than has Senator Clinton.

Hillary Clinton in my opinion has been running for President since she entered the Senate, though she did honor her vow to voters here that she would finish out her first full term in the Senate if elected and was careful not to make a similar vow about a second term. It is obvious to me that she consciously chose not to take on the role of opposition leadership when she became a Senator, feeling a need instead to stress that she could be a team player in the Senate, both among other Democrats and with some bi-partisan initiatives also. That was her strategy and it is not one I am happy with, but time will tell if in fact it was an effective strategy. If she ends up getting elected President and doing a good job there, much will be forgiven.