Posted on 04/22/2004 9:07:31 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, April 22 - In 1969, Hillary Rodham, then a student, wound up on the pages of Life magazine after giving a defiant commencement speech at Wellesley College that reflected the antiwar sentiment and political turmoil of the era.
"We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest,'' she said, taking aim at the featured commencement speaker, Senator Edward W. Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts who urged support for the Vietnam War in his address.
Fairly or not, Hillary Rodham Clinton's image on defense has been largely defined by her actions during the Vietnam War, when she organized teach-ins at Wellesley, as well as her association with her husband, who aroused great suspicion within the military circles as a result of his Vietnam draft record and his position on homosexuals in the armed forces. But these days, Senator Clinton, of New York, has offered a starkly different image, presenting herself as muscular on defense even when that puts her at odds with members of her own party.
Even as the war in Iraq proves unpopular with her core base of liberal supporters, not to mention some mainstream Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has emerged as one of the most prominent Democratic backers of the military activities. In recent months, in speeches and interviews, she has defended her vote authorizing the Republican president to wage war, argued for more troops in Iraq and sided with President Bush's contention that Saddam Hussein was, as she put it, "a potential threat'' who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them.''
Last week, with violence surging in Iraq, she stood by her decision to approve a Congressional resolution permitting military action there, though she did accuse the president of failing to build sufficient international support for the war and failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of Mr. Hussein's downfall. And she appeared to agree with President Bush's contention that the conflict in Iraq was part of the broader fight against terror, indicating that global threats like Mr. Hussein took on greater urgency in a post-Sept. 11 world. "After 9/11, a lot of threats had to be looked at with fresh eyes,'' she said in the interview.
Mrs. Clinton surprised even some of her closest advisers by taking a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee early last year, becoming the first New York senator, Republican or Democrat, to serve on the panel. She has used her spot on the committee to advance the kind of agenda commonly associated with lawmakers from conservative districts with military bases and large populations of veterans: seeking better pay and other benefits for soldiers, visiting troops abroad and arguing forcefully against military base closings. Her office says she has "voted for every defense appropriations bill since she entered the Senate."
Her motives have become a matter of conjecture within political circles. While she said last week that she was not interested in a place on the Democratic ticket this year, some think she may be burnishing her military credentials in preparation for a national candidacy in 2008.
Others suggest her actions reflect the true convictions of a woman who is no longer overshadowed by the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton, who had a strained relationship with the Pentagon.
Whatever her motives, Mrs. Clinton's actions have prompted Democrats and Republicans to view her in a different light, according to interviews with lawmakers and political strategists in both parties.
Senator Lindsey O. Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, indicated that Mrs. Clinton had defied political labeling, at least as far as her work on that committee is concerned. He noted that Mrs. Clinton had been a conscientious member of the committee, backing many initiatives - voting to provide money for new weapons systems, for example, and seeking better retirement benefits for military personnel.
"People may think she has an antimilitary bias or is not strong on defense,'' Mr. Graham said. "But I find her to be very reasonable. I think she has been very responsible in making sure the men and women of in the military are well taken care of.''
Senator John W. Warner, a Republican from Virginia who is the chairman of the committee, agreed. "She comports herself in a way consistent with the bipartisan reputation of the committee,'' he said of Mrs. Clinton. "I've not seen her try and grandstand.''
Mrs. Clinton's advisers contend that there are no ulterior motives behind her recent work on national defense matters. They argue that her involvement in military matters date back to her days in the White House, when she supported the use of American forces in the Balkans and pushed for an investigation into why thousands of Persian Gulf war veterans returned with various illnesses.
Mrs. Clinton said her record of accomplishments on military issues was not fully appreciated. "During the White House years, I actually did more work on these issues than anyone might have known,'' she said.
Her advisers also say that this is just the latest example of how Mrs. Clinton has defied expectations since coming to the Senate, where she has worked cooperatively with Republicans, including those like Mr. Graham, who led the effort to convict her husband on impeachment charges.
One Clinton confidant, Harold M. Ickes, expressed surprise recently over her decision to seek a seat on the Armed Services Committee, saying he was hard pressed to explain her motivation. "It was not a committee I would have thought she would be interested in,'' said Mr. Ickes, one of the architects of her Senate campaign. "I think it surprised many of her supporters.''
But another close Clinton adviser said her decision to tackle military affairs was very much in keeping with the methodical way she has gone about molding a new public image as she pursues a political career of her own: shoring up areas of vulnerability or weakness in her résumé.
Indeed, even before officially announcing her Senate candidacy in 2000, Mrs. Clinton toured New York for months presenting herself as a person eager to learn about a state she adopted as her home. Then, once she was sworn into office the following year, she carefully avoided the limelight, saying she wanted to get down to work and learn how to be a good senator.
"I think that armed services experience completely rounds her out,'' said the adviser, who asked not to be identified. "And that's good for business, whether she wants to keep her current job or whether she wants to run for something bigger.''
While some liberals have complained about her hawkish ways, it does not seem to have hurt her overall standing with Democrats. A recent poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, for example, showed that 71 percent of Democrats surveyed expressed support for her, compared with 65 percent garnered by another prominent New York Democrat, Charles E. Schumer, the state's popular senior senator.
Lee M. Miringoff, director of the polling institute, said those numbers suggested Mrs. Clinton's popularity among Democrats may transcend any position she might take challenging liberal orthodoxy. That, he added, was reminiscent of Mr. Clinton, who remained immensely popular in the party even as he defied liberal constituencies with moderate to conservative positions on issues like crime and welfare.
"The chemistry for the Clintons has always been different,'' he said.
No, really?
Therefore, she will cut in in this way..."Yes, I admit the Iraq war was a huge success. Now lets diverge from Bush in the way Iraq should be run in the future."
This is how her platform will diverge from Kerry's...and how she can steal the nomination from him, and at the same time threaten Bush in Nov.
OMG. Somebody get Sen. Warner a "Liz Taylor" blow-up doll.
No, Sen. Kerry, it's not your imagination, the rug under your feet is moving.
Just change the "We're" to "I'm" and we see not much has changed in other words.
I could have gone the rest of my life without having that visual put in my head. Please, be careful when you post.
She is constantly reinventing and repackaging herself for political power! Watch out for the Hillary/Soros alliance! And the Hillary/World Federalist Association (WFA) alliance! She is coming for every patriot and she won't rest until she brings America down! She wants to be the star who brought America to its knees - it is the marxist dream!
Many things have been different for the Clintons least of which is not the "meaning of the word 'is'."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.