Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Both Clinton and Edwards have won great victories by being able to get most of the public to forget about their support for the Iraq war and move towards a pretty strong anti-war/pro-withdrawal position.  But Clinton, perhaps feeling desperate to catch up in New Hampshire has resorted to a pretty bizarre line: That, if she were president, she wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.  Now, to be fair to Clinton, if in bizarro-United States where we decided to become like Argentine and elect her, maybe she wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, but it’s a totally useless counterfactual.  All we do know is that as a senator, she voted yes on a measure titled “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.”  For that matter, so did Edwards. For all the Clinton’s team vaunted evil-genius and skill, the new lines they’re going with have all been pretty weak.  First it was calling Obama too liberal, then it was criticizing him for his Planned Parenthood approved abortion votes in Illinois and now it’s just obfuscating about Iraq.  For once, I agree with Matt Stoller: Clinton shouldn’t try to get dragged into this “change” debate, instead she should emphasize that she’s a “fighter”* who gets stuff done.  It’s really the only play she has left.

*Of course, when she tried to emphasize this point in the debate, the media turned on her and basically said she was a shrill, confrontational bitch — so she might be kind of screwed.