Washington, D.C. — When Hillary Clinton took the stage at the Take Back America conference on Tuesday, the junior senator from New York could have announced she was prepared to lead a march on the Capitol that very moment to give the Dogs of War the “Old Yeller” treatment and she still would have been booed. And while John Kerry’s subsequent attempt to maintain some semblance of political relevance by apologizing for his war vote was better received, it was clear antiwar protesters planned to disrupt, whatever the context.
Before the sun had even come up, AlterNet transmitted its daily electronic update to liberal shock troops prominently featuring an article by Norman Solomon declaring himself “befuddled” at Clinton’s invitation to the conference, insisting that those who actually believe she is a “progressive” could “mostly be divided into two categories — those who are Fox-News-attuned enough to believe any non-Republican is a far leftist, and those who are left-leaning but don’t realize how viciously opportunistic Sen. Clinton has been.” Further, Solomon added, striking fear into the hearts of all who believe Clinton is plenty progressive enough, “In the interests of truth-in-labeling, shouldn’t Hillary Clinton be described as anti-progressive?”
On the spoiler Left, eager to upset any applecart not begun on their favorite blogs, there was clearly some agreement on this point — fueled by Markos Moulitsas’s Daily Kos, which had its own circus in Las Vegas last weekend where many speakers referred to Clinton with pure derision. And so it was that the masses, en route to the former Partner in Chief’s appearance Tuesday morning, had to pass a couple Code Pink girls with a large “It Takes A Bomb to Raze a Village” banner. Then there were a few rogue, unstylish protesters roaming around with less witty placards, festooned with slogans such as, “Support the War, Lose Our Vote” and “Hillary, End the War.” Some of these had buttons suggesting we “Draft Gore.” Widespread support was lacking if averted eyes of passersby were any indication.
Inside the building, security guards stood alongside a sign insisting on “no signs” while checking bags for contraband.
In fairness, while most reports have focused on the delicious-but-not-quite-accurate storyline of boos for Clinton and cheers for Kerry, Reason’s Dave Weigel got much closer to the truth when he wrote: “Code Pink and other activists have moved themselves up front, so it sounds like half the room is angry, but the ratio is more like one in 50.” The applause, indeed, was much heartier than the hisses and boos at any point.
The majority of Clinton’s speech was almost indistinguishable from every other Take Back America speaker. Tax cuts for the rich are irresponsible. Bush is turning back the progress of the 20th century. The Clinton surplus was going to solve global warming, the Social Security crisis and [insert issue pet liberal issue here] until Bush squandered it.
As Iraq loomed ahead in the speech, however, one young woman was so eager to protest that she prematurely began crowing “No! No! No!” during Hillary’s recitation of the requisite “support our troops” boilerplate. It got predictably worse when Clinton described the new Iraqi government as “something that many of us have been waiting for and pushing for.” A few more boos joined the small chorus. Clinton tried to balance the Iraqi castor oil with a handful of liberal rhetorical hard candy, railing against the “rush to war,” the “strategic blunders” of the Bush administration, how lack of diplomacy has “undermined America’s leadership in the world, and so on.
Seemingly eager to win over the crowd — or perhaps looking to improve her presidential prospects with far-left boos — Clinton returned to a mushy triangulation, saying, “I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain.”
As the scattered boos wafted up, Clinton said, “Sometimes this is a difficult conversation…”
“Let’s have it,” someone shouted.
“We have to reach out to people who may not yet agree with us and talk about a range of issues that are on their mind,” Clinton said, turning to the upcoming election in a clear effort to end on a more positive note.
Those people were close at hand.
First up was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who described the war as a “grotesque mistake” and the Iraq reconstruction program a “total failure.” John Kerry followed soon after, evoking Vietnam more during his speech than at any time since last year’s campaign, defending his 1971 Senate testimony and connecting his opposition to that war with Iraq.
All of this led, of course, to a denouement wherein, in an about face from his 2004 position, Kerry announced that he was prepared to “acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake, to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride.” And those words? “We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi resolution.” Pleased with his standing ovation, Kerry added, “One of the great lessons of life is that you cannot change the future if you’re not honest about the past. And we cannot have it both ways in the war in Iraq.”
“Tell Hillary!” someone shouted.
But who was Kerry talking to? Here’s what you didn’t see on TV: Within moments of Clinton’s exit, a quarter or so of the attendees filed out of the massive room, despite the fact that both Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry were moments away from speaking. Kerry may generate some buzz with his stunt yesterday, but Clinton has a star power he cannot match. Kerry’s apology might be affirming for the hardcore anti-warriors, but the seductive shine of that star is already eclipsing the dull light of a proven loser.
— Shawn Macomber is a staff writer at The American Spectator and runs the website www.ReturnofthePrimitive.com.