MyDD :: Richardson targets weakest of Big Three: Clinton

Richardson targets weakest of Big Three: Clinton

by MeanBoneII, Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:48:24 AM EST

Watching how the trailing candidates behave is usually a good indicator of what their pricey internal pollsters and analysts are telling them.

For one of the second-tier candidates to survive after Iowa, he needs to knock off one of the top three. Bill Richardson's campaign apparently has identified the weakest link: Hillary Clinton.

Richardson Calls Hillary Clinton on Iraq Flip-Flop

For Immediate Release: 12/20/2007
Contact: Tom Reynolds
505.681.1832 | treynolds@richardsonforpresident.com

Richardson Calls Hillary Clinton on Iraq Flip-Flop

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA -- New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today issued the following statement on Senator Hillary Clinton's drastic change to her position on the Iraq war:

"Senator Clinton's statement that we could 'certainly get all the troops out within a year' is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along. She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

"In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it."

Since entering the race, Governor Richardson consistently has called for bringing all of our troops home from Iraq, a monumental diplomatic effort to reach a political reconciliation that could be enforced by a multinational peacekeeping force, and a donor conference to infuse the capital necessary to rebuild Iraq.

(I added the bold.)

Richardson has polled in fourth place in Iowa, usually in the high single digits, for quite awhile. If he's going to make a move, it has to be now, and he needs to go after the candidate who he thinks is set to underperform a week from next Thursday.

John Edwards has consistently polled above 20% in Iowa for two years. If his support was going to collapse, it already would have done so. The fact that two candidates with far more money and media coverage haven't been able to pull away from him is a pretty good indicator that his numbers aren't going down. If anything, he appears to be gaining strength, and he has a history of exceeding his poll numbers, sometimes dramatically.

Between Clinton and Barack Obama, which one is more likely to underperform? Clinton's lower second-choice numbers and older supporters (more vulnerable to bad weather) might be what Richardson's campaign is focusing on. If older women don't turn out on caucus night, and Clinton struggles to get support from non-viable candidates' supporters, she could nose-dive.

While a fourth-place finish for Clinton remains unlikely, a distant third could be just as damaging when the media perform the autopsy. The candidate with the money, the machine, and the media -- who is "in it to win it" -- can't afford to flop.

It looks like at least one of her rivals is now betting that she will.

Tags: Election 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Where's the change of mind? (none / 0)

"Senator Clinton's statement that we could 'certainly get all the troops out within a year' is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along. She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

There's no "change of mind".

If Al Qaeda in Iraq is no longer functional, there is no reason to keep combat troops to fight them.

Clinton has always said that any training mission would only occur if there were a functioning Iraqi government, which she considered unlikely. Clearly, there has been no progress towards such a government, so there would be no training mission.

US interests in Clinton's position has meant the embassy and US related contractors and NGOs. She has been on record as opposing US bases in Iraq and, in fact, proposed legislation in the Senate prohibiting long-term security agreements with Iraq.

Richardson is simply mis-representing her position. Given his performance on the campaign trail, I would just chalk it up to another good-faith gaffe.

by hwc on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 01:55:57 AM EST

Re: Where's the change of mind? (2.00 / 1)

Does anyone believe Al Quaeda in Iraq won't be functional next year?

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:59:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Richardson apparently had enough of the VEEP (none / 0)

talk, good for him!

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:08:41 AM EST

Re: Richardson targets weakest (none / 0)

Glad to see Richardson going on the attacks against Hillary...I hope he continues to bash her....If Obama is smart , he would jump on this to try to blunt Hillary's attack on him and hope to make it a big issue.

I guess Hillary couldnt promise Richardson the VP seat so he decided to attack her.

Also , you could be something about Richardson deciding to attack Hillary....Maybe his poll is showing her sliding...Why wouldnt Bill attack Edwards who's suppose to be polling the nearest to richardson?

by Prodigy on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:24:47 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

No one listens to him anymore- if they ever did. He is still banging the drum on Iraq when people want to hear more than just that one issue.

by reasonwarrior on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:55:10 AM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

I have a feeling you don't listen to any of the candidates, but rather just say whatever you want off the top of your head.

Richardson is one of my least favorite candidates, but I've seen some of his campaign events and he's definitely talking more substance on issues all across the political spectrum than anyone else. Particularly he's one of the few really emphasizing education, scientific research, and environmental conservation. I wouldn't vote for him because of some of the dumb things he has said, but I wouldn't deny he's offering a lot of substance on many issues.

by Progressive America on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Changing Her Position at 11th Hour? (none / 0)

What is going in with Hillary? My guess is that her internal polling is responsible for this latest flip-flop.

Richardson's website capably explains Hillary's flip-flop. It's worth a visit.

Look, in an interview in the New York Times, in March of this year, Hillary described her plan to continue occupying Iraq to accomplish six different missions:

(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(4) Preventing the Kurds from gaining full independence. (Something that 90% of their people want.)
(5) Having a military force in Iraq large enough to "respond" to Iran. (That will be a lot of troops!)
(6) Coming to the assistance of the Iraqi government if it needs help.

At the time, military experts suggested that accomplishing Hillary's six missions would require the presence of at least 75,000 troops.

Has Hillary changed her mind? Can she at least tell the voters that she has changed her mind? Probably not, and I am guessing the MSM will give her a free pass on something as "trivial" as her actual Iraq position. You think the caucus/primary voters might be entitled to a detailed explanation of her plans for Iraq before voting? Nah!

One of the curious skills that Hillary Clinton brings to politics is the ability to advocate opposite positions, to be on both sides of an issue, simultaneously. She has now told us that she will withdraw all troops within one year AND continue a war in Iraq with six different missions.

She will do both. Got it?

by Demo37 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 03:11:13 AM EST

hillary doesn't change her mind. (none / 0)

But the polling does change her rhetoric.

I have no idea what she really thinks about anything...except that she can't stand the thought of losing when it's "her turn".

by d on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 04:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the weakest would be Edwards (none / 0)

who has almost no chance of survival after IA.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 07:16:43 AM EST

Re: the weakest would be Edwards (2.00 / 1)

But Edwards is not the weakest in Iowa. Richardson can't afford to wait until after Iowa to go after Edwards. They need to make a stand in Iowa to have on on shot. I think the diarist makes a good point that perhaps the Richarson campaign sees that Clinton is the weakest of the three in Iowa. It could also be that while Richardson's campaign may see Obama as vulnerable in Iowa, they can't make the flip flopping charge on Iraq stick as easily with Obama as they can with Clinton.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I saw Richardson on Thanksgiving weekend (2.00 / 2)

Maybe the appearance I went to was not typical, but he did go after Edwards by name several times. He only referred to Clinton and Obama once each in passing. I figured he was trying to do one of three things:

1. peel away Edwards supporters

2. influence people who are undecided between the two candidates to go with Richardson and not Edwards

3. subtly communicate to his own supporters or leaners that Edwards should not be their second choice

If he has started criticizing Clinton more directly, maybe his campaign's internal polling is telling him Clinton is now weaker than Edwards.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.