Does Clinton Sound Like Kerry on the War?

Ann Althouse thinks so. I see things a little differently. I commented:

Ann:
What Hillary Clinton is saying about Iraq reminds me a bit of what Eisenhower said about Korea in 1952 and Nixon said about Vietnam in 1968.

Eisenhower promised that he would go to Korea and that he would bring a rapid end to the war there. Ike's credibility was so enormous and his military credentials so impeccable that he could get away with what was, after all, a rather vague formulation. He did end the conflict there within six months, much to the relief of the American people, who had become disgusted with the conflict.

Although Nixon is often cited as saying he had secret plan to end the war, he never specifically said that. He spoke of achieving "peace with honor." He also frequently alluded to how Eisenhower, under whom he served as vice president, had quickly wrapped up the Korean War, implying that he would do something similar in Vietnam. Voters, disgusted with the management of the war, suspicious of the bases on which the US became engaged in it, yet still not in favor of immediate withdrawal, gave Nixon a mere 300,00-vote victory in the November, 1968 election.

Hillary Clinton's formulations are reminiscent of those of Eisenhower's and Nixon's. They needed to convince voters that they would manage their inherited conflicts better than the incumbents. But for both political and sound strategic reasons, they wanted to avoid divulging specific plans. (It's unlikely that either had such plans anyway.) Clinton who, as you say, is at least divulging more of her thinking than John Kerry, faces similar political and strategic imperatives.

But one thing that makes Clinton's discussions of Iraq today different from those earlier discussions is the existence of a large "withdraw now" contingent within the Democratic Party. Neither Eisenhower or Nixon had to placate such sentiments within the Republican Party of their days. Many Republicans, far from favoring withdrawal from either Korea or Vietnam, would have preferred deploying more troops, going nuclear, or doing anything to achieve "victory." There isn't a victory caucus in the Democratic Party.

Eisenhower could, politically, get away with a rapid end to the Korean conflict because he was a general and was massively popular. (Arguably the most popular public figure in the US since George Washington.)

Nixon though, had to play to his base, which is why his "peace with honor" formula was so shrewd. Everybody wanted peace. But "with honor" let his base--and the rest of the country which still overwhelmingly opposed precipitate withdrawal from Vietnam--know that the allegedly "new Nixon" was no peace-at-any-price pol.

It's interesting that Clinton, who served as a lawyer for one of the congressional Watergate committees and was a functionary of the 1972 McGovern campaign, appears to be attempting to swipe from Nixon's 1968 playbook.

Whether this will work for her or not, I don't know. Though she's trying to be Nixonian, the fact that she's Democrat, as much as the substance of what she's saying, may be a big reason that she's sounding like John Kerry to you these days.

Mark

What do you think?