There are areas where I like Clinton slightly more than Obama - his talk about “fixing” Social Security is certainly worrisome to me, if he really means it, which … who knows? But then there’s that 800 pound gorilla again, Hillary’s bellicose mentality. She’s a war hawk - it’s how she’s voted and it’s what she proclaims as well. Obama just doesn’t have those same … credentials … as a cheerleader for the military industrial machine. It remains to be seen how he’ll act as president, but I’ll take my chances with those unknowns over what I already know about Clinton.

Can we at least find a new dead horse to flog?

Here’s another one. I’m a pacifist, I’ve donated $$ to anti-war organization, and I come from two generations of conscientious objectors (including my father, who faced a criminal trial for refusing to fight in Vietnam). I don’t appreciate having my anti-war credentials questioned. And yes, I voted for Clinton. Her vote for the war did trouble me, for sure, and I understand why many people voted for Obama for that very reason. At the same time, in weighing the two candidates, I also considered other issues of equal importance to me. For example, people die every day due to lack of health insurance coverage, and Clinton is stronger on that issue. That’s important, too. It was a tough decision. But just because I voted for Clinton doesn’t mean that I’m indifferent to the war or the suffering of the Iraqi people.

no dog whistling there eh, just actual policies enacted and laws signed!

separate but equal YEAH!!!

You could perhaps compare it to Hillary cozying up to Richard Mellon Scaife and his nasty right wing media machine in Pennsylvania, except that Hillary’s move on that was more overt. In any case, those all pale next to the war vote and its consequences, which is the main point I’m making.

“I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.”

My understanding is that Donnie McClurkin (to whom I assume you’re referring) only performed, as a gospel singer (for which he’s reputed to have some talent), at one concert in the S.C. events, which Obama didn’t even attend. I could be mistaken about that, but that’s the story of it that I saw. Obama has marched in gay pride events, he’s very clearly not a homophobe or anti-gay. Better if this Mclurkin fellow hadn’t appeared at all, but honestly … rather small potatoes compared to voting for a war which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the waste of God knows how many billion dollars. There’s just a sliiiight difference there in magnitude, no matter how you spin it.

Did you believe Maximum Leader Genius’s campaign speeches decrying Clinton’s interventionism? I didn’t. And I can see Mr. Obama’s senate record, and it isn’t the ponies and cake that’s being promised right now.

And the difference between him and Ms. Clinton? He consorted with homophobes to win South Carolina, and she didn’t.

And no matter how you spin it about what Obama “might” have done, the fact remains that he spoke out against the war when it was not a safe thing to do for a politician with national aspirations (or for talk show hosts and country singers, or for people selling “French” fries). While Hillary … voted for the war. And continued supporting such efforts right along. They simply have a different record on this, no matter how much spin is applied to it.

Hillary has gone on to reinforce this streak in her political philosophy, saying quite recently:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. ” “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Alrighty then! Considering that Iran doesn’t even HAVE nuclear weapons, and has never attacked ANYONE IN THE LAST CENTURY (”You could look it up!”) that’s quite a statement from good ol’ shot ‘n’ a beer Hill … “totally obliterate them”. If there were any lingering doubt remaining that her vote to invade Iraq was some sort of aberration, I think it’s been erased. She’ll do it again, given the opportunity. As will McCain, clearly.

Obama … might do it, if that becomes his job, as it were. But the chance remains that he might not. He’s certainly repudiated such bellicose rhetoric a number of times, and has advocated dialogue and face to face talks instead. Certainly a better starting point. Reason enough to vote for him, in my book, along with other things. There actually is a difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on this. Factually.

For a pre-primary glimpse of factors at the core of Clinton’s disrepute among many lefties, consider this:

http://susiemadrak.com/2008/01/14/15/44/i-will-not-support-hillary-clinton-for-president/

Whup! There it is! It’s not that Obama is some knight in shining armor who will stand up for truth justice and the American way. It’s just that Sen. Clinton is so VERY not that person, as has been true for many years. There are real, substantive reasons to prefer Obama over Clinton. As I’ve said before, I think the great divide in these primaries is between paople who marched against the war and those who didn’t. If you marched against the war, chances are slim to none that you support Sen. Clinton.

And yes, I’d hold my nose and vote for Clinton in the general if it came to that, as I did with John Kerry, though I voted against him in the primary (”I was against John Kerry before I was for him” … no, wait a minute, that can’t be right …)

oh, i agree. but not all people who don’t support clinton have a seething hatred for her. indeed, most of the obama supporters i know told me they would be quite willing to work for her if she became the nominee. i know i would.

to expand on what i said in comment #1, the article talks about how clinton hit a “perfect storm” that derailed her candidacy. there have been a bunch of articles talking about how clinton went from being the presumed front runner to (probably) losing the nomination. i’m just puzzled by how no matter how many i read, none of them seem to mention the main reason that i had trouble supporting clinton: her support for the war.

that’s what it had to do with the article. i realize lyons didn’t mention the war, but that’s my point.

It’s the Tinkerbell strategy, except instead of clapping louder everyone yells “sexist” at the top of their lungs and the bad vote disappears.

Goodness noz, don’t you see? Accountability is SO 20th century.

I’m a Hillary supporter. I think she might well make the best president. But I keep my eye on the Big Picture: Elect a Democratic prez and a Democratic Congress. If Hillary gets the nod from the voters she gets my vote. If Obama gets the nod, he gets my vote. The show must go on.

i realize that sexism also played a role. but clinton also benefitted from an anti-sexist backlash. a lot of clinton supporters i know cite the way she was treated as the reason they ended up voting for clinton. her early support for the war has no such countervailing force. why do so many monday morning quarterbacks ignore it?