i agree that what candidates say during a campaign is not a reliable indicator of how they will govern, and i agree that the phenomenon applies equally to obama and clinton. but the bottom line is that we gotta decide based on something. your comment does mean that we shouldn’t give up all hope that a candidate could beat our expectations, but i don’t think it’s all that useful in helping us decide who to vote for. none of us can see the future, all we got is the imperfect indicator of what happens during the campaign.

that argument would have made more sense if clinton hadn’t opposed the alternative bills that would have required the president go to back to congress or to the UN before attacking.

it also would have made more sense if it wasn’t completely obvious at the time that the vote was a vote whether to attack iraq or not. that’s how i understood the vote when it happened, that’s why i called my senators every day urging them to vote different (not that it mattered with santorum and spector), that’s why i marched on the streets against the vote, and that’s how the media presented it. the i-was-only-giving-bush-more-options argument has always been an after-the-fact explanation for what, in retrospect, was clearly a huge blunder.

and finally, there is the point that most democrats in congress voted against the resolution. somehow they knew better and were willing to avoid casting a vote that was sure to lead to the deaths of thousands of people.

the reason i think that clinton voted the way she did is because she wanted to remain politically viable. the consensus was that people who voted against the gulf war (like john kerry) got a lot of political heat for it. so everyone who aspired to higher office voted for the iraq war and staked out the most hawkish position available. and they did that because that’s what all the policial consultants told them to do. arguably the only reason the war was authorized at all is because of those damn consultants with their prevailing wisdom

and maybe obama would have cast the same vote. or maybe not. we will never know for sure. but what i do want to happen is to kill the prevailing wisdom of those consultants. if clinton, the initial favorite and the one who followed their advice, loses to a guy who makes his opposition to the war a central point of his campaign, it will make those consultants think twice next time we’re in a moment like the fall of 2002. that’s what i see as an added benefit of voting for obama.

but apologizing for her vote would have served little purpose because a vote is a vote and you don’t get them back

i thought john edwards did a really effective apology. he basically neutralized the issue and mostly won over anti-war dems. i don’t see any reason why clinton couldn’t do the same thing (except that once edwards did it, maybe that it would look like she was just emulating edwards)

I think that there is a world of difference between voting to ‘authorize the use of military force’ and actually using military force. In essence, there is a waiver for the president to use military force with or without a waiver and the authorization is a sign of support for the president.

I did always suspect that political calculation played a role in Hillary’s vote for the AUMF so I do somewhat agree but apologizing for her vote would have served little purpose because a vote is a vote and you don’t get them back. Obviously Obama understands this principle because he ducked the vote on Kyl/Lieberman and abstained on censure for MoveOn.org which suggests to me that you can’t count on him to be decisive at times when you need to be decisive.

If you’re so concerned with ‘fundamental character problems’ - There are enough to go around.

I am not sure if clinton’s was that good or if bush’s is just so terrible.

But of course, the Bush junta’s propensity to spitefully do the opposite of clinton no matter the issue would indicate that clinton had all the issues right…

bush had them right upon gaining office–thanks to clinton, implemented his own policy, fucked them up, and then–if lucky, reversed course back to clinton track and made them right again–sort of…

and this:

“If you were president on 9/12/01, your main job was to prevent another 911. If you ignored the threat that Saddam had WMD and might give it to Al Quaeda, you would be criminally derelict in your duties.

That is what Bush did but you will never acknowledge it and Obama could not possibly had sufficient info to make an informed and intelligent “judgement” about it. ”

is utterly ridiculous and false.

LOTS of people had this issue right–to include powell and rice who were saying saddam was contained and no threat just before 9/11 and even those people AFTER 9/11 who could see that the intel was a bunch of bullshit.

Hell, if you had just bothered to read the NIE you would have seen the weak case or even if you had just watched powell at the UN on TV you could see they had nothing.

The notion that there is all this secret info out there that we are not privy to that makes impossible for someone on the outside to make a proper decision is a tactic used by those wishing to cloak their decision making in secrecy and excuse poor decisions.

I worked as an intel specialist in the military and in most cases you could figure out what was going on by reading the NYT and WaPo as well as Jane’s and some more specialized publications.

Obama had the issue right just like Dick Durbin, HRC got it terribly wrong as she voted with her political career in mind.

Her pathetic excuses about it after the fact and her inability to forthrightly say “I fucked up, I am sorry” a la John Edwards only reveal once more some of her fundamental character problems…

I know there are still a few deluded souls who still buy the Cheney inspired lies about WMD and Saddam being in cahoots with Osama, but I never thought one of them would be hanging out here. Redstate maybe, but in Susie’s world? That’s just weird.

Trying to rebut that line of, ahem, “reasoning” reminds me of the quote about the basic unfairness of entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Half a million children died unneccessarily under the Clinton sanctions on Iraq. You could look it up. Half a million. Confronted with these nuimbers, Clinton Sec. of State Madeleine Albright responded, “We think the price is worth it.” We think the price is worth it. Yeah … rock solid. (There’s a special place in Hell for you, Madeleine.)

Hillary is not Bill, and I don’t hold her accountable for the above, but I couldn’t let it pass without comment. What Hillary IS accountable for is her vote to go to war with Iraq. She calculated that it was better politcally to vote for the war than not to vote for it (as did John Kerry, my Senator, to whom I wrote a scathing letter after his vote on this).

There IS no other explanation. Even I knew at the time that all the blather about WMD and Osama in Iraq was bullshit - if people like HRC or Kerry didn’t know it, it’s only because they didn’t WANT to know, chose not to know. Hillary voted for the war. Obama spoke out against oit at a time when it was by no means safe to do so, when people were being Dixie-Chicked and Bill Maher-ed out of their public positions fo speaking the truth.

Obviously Obama’s votes in the Senate on the Iraq war have been a major disappointment, as have Hillary’s, but it’s a lot harder to stop a war than it is to start it. Obama doesn’t get a full pass on this … he’s merely less bad - MUCH less bad - on the record than Hillary is on this crucial issue.

– –

Wendy Whinner - “If you were president on 9/12/01, your main job was to prevent another 911. If you ignored the threat that Saddam had WMD and might give it to Al Quaeda, you would be criminally derelict in your duties.”

I don’t know why I even bother responding to this. Once again, this is an old, settled argument … have you been living under a rock the last five years? A) There was no evidence to believe that Saddam had “WMD” at that juncture. (No, there wasn’t - I can elaborate if need be -you’ve been duped and still are). B) Why on earth would Saddam Hussein giive his ideological enemy Osama the mythical WMD … which he didn’t have in the first place??? You’ve been hornswaggled Wendy.

Those bloodbaths were productions of the same Beltway Warriors that advise both Clinton and Obama campaigns today. Sigh.

Link Here

And the point Halperin was making was that this is what John Edwards said…read the link.

Mock me all you want - the point I’m making…there is a perception that Obama needs to grow a pair of testicles.

This really isn’t about me.

dude: you’re citing mark levin, the guy is a right wing ding-a-ling with less credibility than woody fucking woodpecker.
that’s why heywood is mocking you.
and so am I!

Obama was NOT AWOL for vote to condemn MoveOn.org for Betray Us ad.

He abstained from the vote - a new high in leadership…no position.

Obama WAS AWOL for Kyl/Lieberman vote

Just hoping that he grows a pair…

What’s more, Obama never missed a war funding vote, but was conveniently AWOL on the GOP-sponsored resolution condeming MoveOn. But Hillary did, didn’t she? She also sent her campaign’s communications to defend DailyKos on The Factor when O’Reilly was all over Kos, didn’t she? Where was Obama then, and what did he do? Again, conveniently absent and silent. Well, not really. He found time to diss DailyKos and the netroots for promoting and supporting Ned Lamont against Joe Liebermann.

I know this is all not important to you, not liking Hillary as you do; but I just think it’s important people know the real Obama behind the facade - a calculating politician who would say and do anything to win. Obama is a politician to the boot, not a force for change or hope.

No really, go fuck yourself you fucking idiot.

Very sad, but true.

You’re right. First, I’m not terribly enamored with all of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy record, though it was, at the very least, executed competently. Second, Hillary is not Bill. I do not credit her for his successes or blame her for his failures. She is an extremely accomplished person in her own right.

It’s a leap of faith…I get it. At some point in time, we all have done the same thing, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

One things for certain…Bill Clinton’s foreign policy cred looks rock solid after the last 7.33 years. I won’t buzz you about the ‘not totally enamored’ bit because frankly, I am quite sure that you can’t pick a president with a better foreign policy record in your lifetime and yes, Hillary is her own person so she gets to make her own mistakes.

It’s not. I don’t think I ever said it was. I find the question odd because I never proposed any such thing. If I did, it was an error in my language. If you can point it out, I’ll correct it.

But that was a horrible judgment and that’s what I’m trying to get at here. That was a horrible, criminal mistake with horrible consequences and, in my mind, there should be political consequences for that.

I think that EVERYONE miscalculated at that moment, just how devious George and Dickie were and had no anticipation that they would simply act out.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Some people did miscalculate, but a lot of us didn’t. Now I’d be the last person to run around and spit in the face of everybody who was wrong about that. People were fed multiple lines of “you’re gonna die!” BS presented by very serious people 24 hours a day. Most people don’t have the time to sort through that and I can understand an inclination ( though I don’t share it) to assume that the Secretary of State is not lying through his teeth. I hold elected officials to a far higher standard and the only way I can register my displeasure, other than pissing and moaning on the internet, is to not vote for them.

I will simply say that my guess is that had Obama been in the Senate, he would have voted for the AUMF too.

But he wasn’t and he didn’t. I don’t base this on unknowns.

he thing that you’re not entering into your calculation is that the whole 8 years of Bill Clinton marked a consistent, sane foreign policy that kept us out of these kind of stupid things and away from those situations that could have escalated out of hand (i.e. Somalia).

You’re right. First, I’m not terribly enamored with all of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy record, though it was, at the very least, executed competently. Second, Hillary is not Bill. I do not credit her for his successes or blame her for his failures. She is an extremely accomplished person in her own right.

He asked a legitimate question…

How is voting for Obama considered voting against the war tomorrow?

Obama had a chance to prove his mettle on Lieberman/Kyl.

Hillary voted for the measure. All Obama had to do was show up and vote against it to prove he walked the walk. He was a no show.

Do you think that by the time he becomes president that he will grow a pair?

It should strike you as curious that Mark Levin quoted John Edwards as saying that Obama is a pussy.

thanks for contributing mightily to the intellectual discourse.

Is the readership really that bad here?

You’re an idiot.

I will simply say that my guess is that had Obama been in the Senate, he would have voted for the AUMF too.

I recognize that Durbin voted against it and would have strongly urged his junior Senator to likewise vote against it had Obama been the junior Senator from IL at the time.

I also believe that in Hillary’s mind, there was the ‘Authorization’ and there was calculation to actually make use of the authorization rather than simply use the authorization to force the inspectors back in.

I think that EVERYONE miscalculated at that moment, just how devious George and Dickie were and had no anticipation that they would simply act out.

So I think that your indictment is not as much of her vote for the AUMF, but for her lack of imagination that George would lead us into a war without provocation.

The thing that you’re not entering into your calculation is that the whole 8 years of Bill Clinton marked a consistent, sane foreign policy that kept us out of these kind of stupid things and away from those situations that could have escalated out of hand (i.e. Somalia).

A vote for Obama should be a vote that believes that he will make better decisions…myself, I’m not convinced.

Mr. Unity huckster hasn’t done a damn thing to slow the war down True. I’d like you to point out where I wrote that he did. I’ve been terribly disappointed in his, and just about everybody’s lack of leadership on this. We go into the primary with the shitty candidates we have, not the shitty candidates we wish we had.

Did you vote against Kerry too? In the primary? Damn straight I did. Didn’t you? Of course, the primary was all wrapped up by the time it got to Pennsylvania in 2004 so it didn’t matter worth a shit. I voted for him in the general, just like I’ll vote for Clinton in the general this time if it comes to that.

You’re a fraud. Just like Obama. Peace out, dude. Yeah, go fuck yourself.

Clinton has admitted to NOT EVEN READING the briefings available to senators before that vote. The spin that “she didn’t know” that Bush might actually use the authority given him, sounds eerily similar to Cheney’s and Rice’s inane “no one could have predicted” that planes might be used as weapons after 9-11. Both of these instances scream out, yes you should have known! You should have BOTHERED to know!

… and in anticipation of exclamations of how this was not really a vote for war:

The resolution in question did give Bush specific and unlimited power to start the war with Iraq. The title of the resolution was:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002:

The following text in that resolution fully and completely authorized the invasion and occupation of Iraq

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
…
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution

That is what Bush did but you will never acknowledge it and Obama could not possibly had sufficient info to make an informed and intelligent “judgement” about it.

Though I realize as I type this you will never even come cloe to agreeing with this point of view.