Bob Graham: Clinton War Vote Was Anchor Of Her Campaign

Sen. Hillary Clinton has every right to continue fighting for the Democratic nomination, says former Sen. Bob Graham, but it is time to put down her guns and begin the process of reconciliation with Barack Obama,

"It is not a matter of whether she continues the campaign it is how she continues the campaign," said the former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman. "Unless something unexpected happens and at this point it has to be something very adverse to Obama he will be the nominee."

Graham, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, said he fully expected Obama to emerge as the Democratic candidate. And while he didn't endorse the Illinois Democrat he did compliment him on showing personal and political strength throughout the primary and pursuing a "post-partisan" agenda. The former two-term Florida senator and governor even, reluctantly, played political diagnostician, offering analysis of where he thought the Clinton campaign went wrong.

"I think that [Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq War] was one of the biggest anchors that she had to drag around," he said. "The war was becoming increasingly unpopular, and I think Sen. Obama was able to take that vote and put it into the larger context and say it was a test of judgment and that she failed that test.

"It is probably a little early to do the autopsy," Graham continued, "But while I don't think it was true of Sen. Clinton herself, some of the people around her had a little hubris. There was this idea that she was the anointed candidate and that it was almost just a matter of allowing the Democrats to move the anointment to confirmation and she would be the candidate. And that may have cost them, particularly in a place like Iowa, to not be as aggressive."

While Graham said Clinton's decision to remain in the contest was ultimately hers to make, he took exception to the New York Democrat's argument that she, not Obama, is the only candidate who could secure the white working class vote and succeed in the key swing states.

"In the Democratic primary the voters have basically had two choices since February," he said. "And so that 55-year-old white male who is a construction worker has two choices. And there are a lot of very appealing things about Hillary Clinton. She is an extremely able person. She is a proven person. People could project with a high degree of accuracy how she would serve as president. So she is a very formidable candidate and a lot of people were drawn to those qualities. But they are choosing between two people: Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. When it is November there won't be that alternative. There will be the Democratic nominee versus John McCain and that is an entirely different picture for that 55-year-old construction worker... The choices are different and the things that will govern the decision are different. I think it is correct -- and I like John McCain -- but I basically I think he is running to be the third term of George Bush."

Graham, who left the Senate in 2004 following his failed presidential bid, famously opposed the Iraq War after saying that the intelligence presented by the Bush administration had not made the case. He remains a beloved political figure in the Sunshine State and a respected voice within Democratic circles. He did not offer or have solutions about what to do with Florida's primary vote - which was not officially recognized by the Democratic Party but which the Clinton campaign has stressed should be counted. But he urged for an equitable and quick solution to the issue.

"I am not going to stand on the balcony and sing 'Don't Cry For Me La Florida,'" he jokingly declared, channeling his inner Evita Peron. "I think Florida will be seated. It is important that it be seated in a way that will mitigate the bad feeling that exists -- which is not overwhelming but enough to have an effect -- towards the Democratic Party... This needs to be resolved in a way that will try to heal that wound. Because I think Florida is a very winnable state in November. It will be close, it is not going to be 2000, but it will be much closer than in 2004. And we can't afford to irritate even a fraction of one percent."

Comments

[zanamu]

As the wife of a naturalized citizen, I ONLY vote foreign policy for national elections. Senator Clinton did not lose my vote by voting for the war against Iraq which I opposed before it began. She lost my vote by not regretting it. Some 20% of the American population opposed it, whether or not they were elected to Congress, and we all had to put up with having our patriotism and common sense impugned. And I don't think any of us had crystal balls, just an understanding of history. I'm still hoping to be proven wrong. I just don't like and can't trust anyone who doesn't own up to human error. There is an important reason that Hillary Clinton is relying on the support of the "less educated" white Americans (I won't say "working class", because last I checked, black Americans work their asses off, too) but I don't fall into that "class." I will NEVER vote for anyone for President who voted for the war against Iraq.

[bbpenney]

Does anyone make more sense for Obama's VP than Bob Graham? White, southern, former Florida Gov. and Senator, with national security credentials and a Iraq War critic to boot who voted against the War in 2002.

That's your dream ticket.

Hillary and her anti intellectualism and race baiting are history. Time to move on.

[ZeroVoices]

I've had exposure to him for many years in FL. He was made to sound reactionary and out of touch on the 9-11 issue and Iraq . . . THEN! I said then, and I say now, he offers much to us, if we care to ask!

[mamacat]

In the debates, I was very disappointed that Hillary could not admit early on that voting for the pres. to have the ability to go to war if he wants to, was a mistake. She hemmed and hawwed, but spoke around it. Finally, she admitted it was a mistake.

I was also very disappointed that she refused to come out and say that the other candidates for the Democratic nomination were qualified.

At least for me, she has been less than stellar as a leader.

[surfcitysteven]

I remember that day and how I felt. I remember the impassioned plea by Robert Byrd not to do this. to shred the constitution and allow a moron from Texas to have the ability to declare war. The stupidest vote of our time. Hillary showed absolutely no politcal courage in this vote and very poor judgement. This alone is why I refused to support Hillary. I am furious at all who enabled this war.

[KarateKid]

She acted like a princess, expecting a coronation. Her staff annoy me with their hubris, their sense of entitlement, like we owed her something. In America, baby, you earn your way, earn your respect.

And when the coronation didn't happen, they decided to change to a negative, racial tone and try to damage Obama. Wrong move, Hillary. You underestimated the intelligence of white America.

Look where Obama won and Hillary was rejected: Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, No. Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Virginia, No. Carolina, Georgia......the heartland. And the last time I looked, there are a lot of 55 year old white men in those states, not to mention white women.

Obama would not be where he is without the white vote. What is Hillary looking at anyway?

[marignymitch]

Don't forget Louisiana and Texas.

[kellygrrrl]

for me, the final straw with The Clintons, came in '04

I could not believe they say idly by while a great man John Kerry was being Swift-Boated.

Every day, I kept thinking Bill was going to jump in start waggin' his finger and barking down the ridiculous Rove tactics.

but no, he sat back and planned '08 with Hillary.
It was shocking to me, and at that point, he fell off my Hero List

[OliverTwist]

Is Bob Graham a plausable candidate for VP on the Democratic ticket?

[dora rice]

Bob Graham, let me tell you this. First of all your face is strawberry red like you have high B/P
that isn't under control. So this just might is clouding you mind a little.

[highlyamused]

dora...........you seem to be fixated on what color peoples faces and lips are. What's up with that? In another post you wailed about judging women by how 'want to sleep with them they are'.........but you're the one pointing out Bob Graham's red face and Obama's 'purple' lips.
I've met Obama in person........trust me......his lips aren't purple. hahaha

[PennP]

Sen. Graham could have rosacea, or a naturally ruddy complexion. I think he looks just fine, and if his skin tone is affecting his thinking, I'm going to put on a bunch of blush today to see if it works for me.

[CarlyCorday]

"So this just might is clouding you mind a little."

The color of his face is affecting SOMEBODY'S "thinking," all right...

Dora, rent a proofreader hat and wear it whenever you get to TYPING anything. We all make typos, some major and hilarious, but let's hope when we're making the point that someone else's "thinking is clouded," we are TWICE as careful not to look "clouded" saying it.

[bbpenney]

I have to admit that I find a lot of pleasure in thinking that Hillary will never be President because of her vote in 2002 -- simply because I am convinced that the only reason she voted the way she did was because she thought she needed to be hawkish in order to be President. Irony and Justice all wrapped up with a bow.

[Doofus]

Certainly, having served both as Florida senator & governor.
Especially if he could bring over Florida's 27 electoral votes.
Only obvious draw-back is his age, 72 in November.
A solid, well-respected Democrat.

[Doofus]

By the way, Graham was near the top of the list for VP in 2004.
Main reason why he didn't get chosen, arguably, is that he
voted against the War back in Oct '02 when Kerry & Edwards, of
course, along with Clinton, voted 'in the affirmative'. Ironic, no?

So, Graham passes this part of the exam with high marks.

[Boadicea]

Her war vote is what caused me to give her a pass when choosing whom I would support. The way she has campaigned has confirmed for me that I made the right decision.

She voted for the war to look tough, in anticipation of her bid for the presidency. She'll say and do anything to win. That, in my view, does not say "presidential material.'

[highlyamused]

Bob Graham is right on.
The war vote and siding with Bush every chance she had. Remember during the 04 campaign when Kerry told a botched joke about young people ending up in Iraq if they didn't get an education? The remark provoked a torrent of criticism from Republicans who were quick to take it out of context and broadcast it as a slam on U.S. troops, rather than on Bush. Not only the republicans jumped on it, but so did Hillary. I was outraged.
With the Iraq vote. I recall wondering why the hell was she doing this? It has been her consistent rolling over for Bush that has driven me away. She's been more republican than I'm comfortable with. Meeting up with Mellon-Scaife and sucking up to Fox, saying McCain would be a better president than Obama and on and on.

I voted for Bill both times and can still remember watching his inauguration with tears and relief to finally be out of the Reagan/Bush years.
So it's with great disappointment that I've had to watch Hillary, a woman ( I have a woman's studies minor from college ) botch up her own political hopes by pandering to the right and pandering to us. I've never considered her a true feminist. Acting like a man doesn't make you equal to one. Think on that one.....
She's every bit 'Bush lite' as McCain is.

[dora rice]

why are we lying like heck. Clinton wasn


I am all woman I was told many times, and I say, Hillary never acted like a man. She acted like a
politician. To bad , this guys thinks you still have to make voters feel like they want to go to
bed with you , before they will vote for you, because you are a woman. This is not being asked from a man. No one watches what Obama wears. His hairstyle, if he had one. Personally I find his blue lips disgusting. But that's only my preference. To bad guys like this blog guy feel intimated by a strong woman. I guess because they all had a mother that told them for years what to do. They are finally free from her, or so they think, and now a woman again telling the morons what to do.
Hillary had some bagage like all politicians do. But her intelligence and her enthusiasm for politics more then outweight bagage as far as I am concerned. You got what you saw when you looked and listened to Hillary. Which Obama is a puzzle. All the talk without substance. We will see . I will stay home. I won't vote for a........k­isser,,,an­d I won't for the communist leftist. I live in America and not in South America. Although South America starts looking with every day better and better to me.

[Obamamo]

I like your first sentence:

"Why? Are we lying like clinton? Hell No, No one can!

PS: Your racist comments about Obama are the ones that are disgusting.

[highlyamused]

Who are you accusing of lying like heck? Because if it's my post.....I take offense at that. I laid out quite honestly why I won't and can't back Hillary.

"Clinton wasn" what? What's that mean?

This isn't about whether or not Hillary is a 'strong woman'. It's about how honest a woman she is. Being born female doesn't make you 'honest and upright" by default.

[STParker]

"South America starts looking with every day better and better to me" you and all the closet fascists who are running our government today.

You are clearly a sexist saying that grown men need to be ordered around like little children. It's not feeling "intimated (sic) by a strong woman" to expect to be treated as an adult by a presidential candidate who is running to be our employee and not our boss.

This attitude among Hillary supporters that if us guys would just get our act together and bow and scrape before ALL women qualified and otherwise everything would be okay.
It's high time that the supposed "feminists" who back Hillary stop treating liberal and progressive mmen as if they are children to be reared or competitors to be defeated, but as partners to work with.

I'm an adult, I have a mother. I want a president. They can be male or female black or white, but PLEASE don't act as if you are my parent or my boss.

[STParker]

oh, and your comments about blue lips and hairstyle are disgusting and racist.

[PennP]

This post made me think of a possible negative consequence of a Hillary presidency: gender divisiveness. A lot of her vocal supporters seem to be enraged women, and they may expect an us vs. them, female vs. male dynamic from a Hillary presidency. I'm not saying this of Hillary herself, but if her supporters vocalize a women's-is­sues-first mentality and are insistent enough, she may feel obligated to meet their expectations. Her record in the Senate does reflect a predisposition to focus on women and children. In and of itself, that's not negative; there are important issues that affect women and children that should be dealt with. But if it's perceived as bias, or given precedence over more significant concerns that affect the entire population, it could engender resentment among men and women who don't benefit, and convey a message of entitlement to those who do.

Perhaps this is the risk run by every candidate who's not a rich, white, church-going male with one to three children and a doting wife. But it does mean that the person who's the "first" in a given category--whether it's gender, race/ethnicity, or even religion--has to be the standard bearer, and shoulders a greater burden in avoiding the appearance of favoritism and bias to constituents in that category. This is why it’s vital to elect ceiling-breakers of the highest caliber, with excellent character and judgment, who will choose similarly qualified people for key positions in government.

[HumeSkeptic]

I hope that Bob Graham is right. I hope that the war vote cost her the nomination. That means that there is some accountability.

If there was ever a doubt, it has been abundantly clear that Iraq invasion was for control of Iraqi oil by US corporations. War profiteering by selected US defense contractors was and remains as icing on the cake. The stories about WMDs and supposed links between terrorists and Saddam Hussein were invented to trick the American electorate into agreeing to go to war. The Congress, including some Democrats agreed with the real objective of controlling Iraqi oil. Hillary was one of them. Additionally, Hillary considered recent histrory, and decided that a vote for the war would help her become President.

To the extent that the Democrats were fooled, it was not about WMDs, it was about how long it would take for us to finish the job. If we were not fooled by Powell’s sketches of Iraq’s weapons labs shown at the UN, you can be sure that our Senators and Congressmen were not fooled either. And Hillary was not fooled. If it would take only a few weeks, and without significant US casualties, nobody would be the wiser before the job is done, and all would be well. As we know, that didn’t happen.

Of course, Bush must take full responsibility for Iraq invasion. But I hope Hillary has also paid a price.

[dora rice]

if you feel that strongly, how come Bush , who is the one that invaded Iraq, is still President. It's just a dumb excuse not to vote for her because she gave a vote against Saddam as a last resort. We all know that. This administration lied to Congress and to the UN. And Hillary is now responsible? only a moron could think like that. Why isn't Bush infront of a criminal court? because you don't have the guts for it. It's easier to beat up a middle aged woman. lololo...what cowards.

[KarateKid]

Why? Because of stupid, uneducated, scared, xenophobic people like you.

[dora rice]

and what price did Bush pay? his price was an other 4 years term. ha ha...must be fun to beat up an old woman for what he is initially responsible. Very clever .

[jakie]

I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR CLINTON BECAUSE OF HER WAR VOTE. SHE SENT OUR TROOPS IN WHAT MAKES YOU THINK SHE WILL BRING THEM HOME. LIAR LIAR HILLARY

[jeffp26]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Jakie. Hillary has that callous serial murderer attitude about her fellow men and women, and she can't be trusted. She lies so often, she may actually need professional help.

[reggieb]

Hillary didn't read the NIE report. That was her 3 am phone call and she didn't even know the phone was ringing.

[Softnsweet]

I have to thank Obama for letting Hillary go on in glory. I was wondering why he keeps saying that Hillary will win with insurmountable leads in West Virgina and Kentucky. He is not campaigning in either state. He has been spending his time in Oregon. You can check it out for yourselves. Now I see what is going on. I hope you can see it.

[xcrunner77]

I think he realizes that even if he turns Hillary's 40 point lead in WV into a 20 point lead (a tall order even for Obama,with only a week of time available max) the media would spin the story the same way -- "why can't Obama win working class white voters". They would completely ignore that he cut her lead in half, just as they ignored his reduction of her lead in PA from 25 points to 9. If the media isn't going to cover the whole story, why should he bother?

The difference in delegates would be few. She may net 12 delegates out of WV in the worst case. Big deal. There are bigger fish to fry -- he can make that up in Oregon, which is why he is spending so much time there.

The media does not seem to notice that in the 32 contests that he has won, more than a few of those winshad to have come from working class white voters.Unless you're going to tell me that VA, WI, and SC are comprised of two populations -- blacks, and elite latte drinking, guilty whites. As George Will would say, that's just silly.

Some states are just different than others. To say that the whole country is like WV and PA -- the two most backward states that we have -- is to misread the electorate. And the results. If they were all like those two states, why did Obama win 32 of the

[fun2bfree]

PREDICTION:
Hillary wins WV big- (yawn for anyone paying attention)

Hillary camp claims HUGE VICTORY and comeback from the dead!!!! Media passes along message undigested and unchallenged in attempt to create drama where there is none. More hand wringing about Obama amongst the white working class....yadda yadda yadda.

So let's talk about something actually interesting...who will Obama pick as VP?

[gtt]

Senator Graham is truly a great political leader. I admire him so much. If only Gore had taken him on as VP in 2000.

[Nonamnesiac]

Graham is right, but he did not go far enough. Hillary might have been able to live down the vote, but she continually lied to justify the vote. She also articulated a cowboy, militarist mentality in dealing with the world -- constantly making unnecessary personal attacks on leaders like Putin and Chavez even though she would have to deal with both if she won, voting for the barbaric, stupid Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, responding to a stupid hypothetical by threatening to "obliterate" Iran -- and doing a "sniper fire" by acting as if she based her Iraq vote on the intelligence at the time. The last one is a lose-lose for her. As every informed person knows now and knew then the credible intelligence at the time showed Saddam had no WMDs and was an enemy of al Qaeda, and that removing him would cause a power vacuum that could be calamitious. If she voted for invasion based on the intentionally cherry-picked, lying intelligence provided by Bush, she demonstrated she lacks the analytical skills and ability to separate the when from the chaff when authorizing war. If she didn't believe the intelligence and knew what everyone else knew at the time, then her vote demonstrated she is willing to kill and maim our families for her own careerist objectives against the interests of the US.

Either way, she lacks the judgment to be President, even if she would have left Reverend Wright's church.