Clinton voted for the Iraq War when even most New Yorkers opposed it.

[Fawke Em]

I'm getting a little tired of her fans saying she voted for the war because her constituents wanted retribution for 9/11 because it's simply not true:

Most New Yorkers were against the Iraq War and even the city council passed a resolution against it.

With a 31-17 vote, the New York City Council joined nearly 150 other cities and counties that have passed measures opposing war.

The vote in New York, however, was particularly significant given the deaths of nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center 19 months ago. The Bush administration has repeatedly invoked this atrocity as the principal argument for going to war, despite the absence of any evidence linking the regime in Baghdad to the terrorist attacks. In passing the measure, the council rejected this argument as well as explicit appeals to support the war in the name of the September 11 victims

Opposition to the looming war appears greater in New York City than in the country as a whole. Recent polls have shown less than 20 percent of New Yorkers supporting a unilateral US attack against Iraq and nearly half opposing war under any circumstances.

These polls, like the council vote itself, are a pale reflection of the overwhelming opposition that exists to the Bush administration’s policy of military aggression.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/nycc-m14.html

So, she didn't even vote for what her constituents wanted! She DID, however, vote for what was popular, nationally. She always had her sites on the presidency and didn't want to hurt her chances in redder states - she knew New York would vote for a Democrat for president - even if that Democrat is a DINO.

[Wilms]

1. That's an unfair characterization.

She represented Wall St. And they wanted the war.

[Fawke Em]

5. LOL. True!

Hadn't thought of it that way.

[AzDar]

2. She's no Leader ...

[sabrina 1]

3. I remember it well. I was here in NY at the time and was shocked when she

made her excuses for voting for Bush/Cheney's war. And no matter how they try to spin it, that is what that vote was for! War, based on lies, which most NYers knew but their Senator either didn't or didn't care.

[femmedem]

4. It's hard to imagine anything more cynical and abhorrent than sending people to die in a war

whose primary justification is political expediency and ambition.

[senz]

6. Her constituency was never the common people of New York.

Her constituency, as she made clear in the second debate, was Wall Street. They finance her, and she is loyal to them. The people do not figure into her calculations except as demographic "groups" (such as women) that she will need for the next election.

Don't forget that she was not a New Yorker prior to running for the Senate as a NY representative. She and Bill moved to that state as part of their broader plan, as you note, to take back the White House; this is why they were called carpetbaggers.

Now that she's running against Bernie, she's coming up with "policy positions" that are watered down versions of what Bernie has stood for his entire life. She is doing another kind of carpet bagging, an ideological carpet bagging. She is as sincere toward the people of the United States as she was toward the people of New York. That is: not at all.

I contrast her to Bernie Sanders who faithfully represented the people of Vermont (ALL the people) for a quarter of a century. As president, he will represent the people of the United States -- all the people. That's who he is. That's how he rolls. That's why I trust him.