People only care that Hillary voted for the IWR because she's not slick and they don't like her

[synesthesia]

Their feigned outrage over the vote is largely just an excuse to find a rhetorical device to bash Hillary with (similar to the feigned outrage over Obama and Donnie McLurk).

People first decide who they like on personality, then work backwards and try to attack the other candidate with what they think will stick.

Most of them don't really care about Iraq though (there's a good 10% who actually protested in the streets and do care, but it's a minority).

Let me explain why.

John Kennedy is probably one of the most responsible people on Earth for the escalation of the Vietnam War. This is MUCH MUCH worse than a Senator voting to go into Iraq. He's a god though because he was slick and charismatic.

John Edwards co-sponsored the IWR, he didn't just vote for it. And many of the Hillary bashers idolize Edwards. But he 'apologized' for it when the polls turned. Whatever, give me a break. He was a big fan of free trade with China.

Al Gore was the biggest advocate for NAFTA of them all. Remember the debate with him and Perot over NAFTA on Larry King. He pushed really hard. But people 'like him', so they pretend it never happened. He didn't just go along with it. He fought for it almost as hard as he does for global warming now. See this link about the 'great NAFTA debate' from the 90s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8PJ2KT0RVI

NAFTA killed untold numbers of people and cost as much money as the Iraq War (if not more) over the long run; it was THAT BAD with companies pouring all their toxic waste in central american countries so the children are born with thyroid cancer.

---------

Look, I'm not trying to say any of these guys were bad. They did a lot of good progressive things too.

I just think the selective bias over Hillary's record is pretty hypocritical. I don't believe her bullshit about letting the inspectors do the job, she definitely knew she was sending people to go die in Iraq; but she's no guilty than anyone else.

For the record, I'm voting for Obama. But I'm cool with Hillary too as a far 2nd choice.

These are politicians.

You know why people pick on Hillary. Not sexism. Not at all. It's because she's a bad politician. She isn't charming or slick like Bill or Edwards or Kennedy. She's not a 'natural'. So she doesn't bullshit and mesmerize you guys as good to overlook her record. Which is why Obama should win; Hillary can't sell independents.

But please, enough with the, Hillary voted for the IWR stuff. Unless you're actually part of the 10% who actually care other than just a device to attack her with.

[ugdude]

1. ORRRR.....

They care because she voted for the war in Iraq. It's pretty fucking simple people. It's not advanced math.

She voted for a bill that cost us more than you can every imagine. I'm sickened that you're even tryinjg to defend or justify it.

I'm hoping she apologizes for it.

[synesthesia]

2. *

Please read what I said though. I don't mean to dismiss you.

But how do you feel about NAFTA Gore, or Vietnam Kennedy, or China trade Edwards?

This, Edwards apologized thing, is really absurd. Does apologizing bring back the dead?

[Egnever]

4. No it doesnt

And it was one of the biggest things stoping me from supporting Edwards too. I like edwards message but all of his judgement was called into suspect because of that vote. Same with Kerry and same with Hillary.

[synesthesia]

9. well

I'd say you're actually consistent and part of that 10% that truly are outraged that i described.

Why, because you realize Edwards and Kerry are full of hot air for their 'apologies' and draw a line in the sand for supporting pro war candidates.

But you'd probably also agree Kennedy and his brother Robert were war mongers worse than Hillary.

I guess one could parse over Obama funding the war, but ehhh, that's shaky territory. I'm not exactly how sure the whole funding thing goes with the leaving the troops high and dry or if that's spin or whatever.

[Egnever]

20. Fair enough

[ugdude]

6. No it doesnt bring back the dead. But atleast he knows hes wrong and is making amends

I dont want bullshit political maneuvering that hillary is offering.

Thats why I support Obama. Was never for the war.

Gobama

[pathansen]

21. Edwards, Kerry and many other Democrats voted for that war

And its not any of their fault because they were all lied to.
And John Kennedy started a war as President which was worse than just voting for it.

So lets finally be fair to Hillary and stop picking on her.

[synesthesia]

22. *

Well Kennedy didn't really start the war, it had been going, but he turned it from a small operation into the East into an all out war, and for bullshit reasons.

As for, 'they were lied to', whatever. They knew what was going on. But they're politicians, and people expect too much from the worst group of people on the planet (historically).

I just want people to be consistent and admit Hillary is no worse than Edwards or Kennedy or Gore, etc.

Obama can have a higher moral ground...for now. If he becomes prez, just wait...

[Alexander]

3. I guess I'm one of your 10% who protested in the streets and do care about IWR.

I took part in the February 15, 2003 protests in Phoenix against the war. I was and still am 100% against it and I made damn sure everyone knew it back then, regardless of what they thought of me.

I did not vote for John Kerry in the 2004 primary, in part because of his vote on the IWR.

I instead voted for Howard Dean.

Kerry won in the end, and he got my vote and support in the GE. Edwards too.

I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary, in part because of her vote on the IWR.

I instead voted for Barack Obama.

Whichever candidate wins will get my vote and support in the GE. I'll be happier if it's Obama.

It is not my only criteria for choosing a candidate but it's a pretty significant one.

[Egnever]

14. I protested as well

I distinctly remember a fighting in a restaurant with a friend over the war vote before it happened and it was a heated conversation. Lots of stares in the restaurant that night and it was me who was getting them for daring to question our leaders intelligence.

The news was there refuting damn near everything that came from Bushes lips at the time you just had to dig for it. DU was a wealth of information at the time. The latest breaking news page caught all the stories that were buried.

your voting record reflects mine exactly except I am enthusiastically behind Obama but pretty much opposed to Hillary. The IWR is only one reason I don't want Hillary though.

[lapfog_1]

26. Me too.

And when I was protesting in the "home" front (sister, brother-in-law, etc) one of the things they kept throwing at me was "Hillary was in favor of this war" (a "gotcha" subtext because, to them, Hillary is the very definition of a progressive liberal... so how could *I* be against what she was for!).

Ann Coulter said that she was supporting Hillary over McCain because she always votes for the conservative.

It would be laughable if there wasn't just a little grain of truth to it.

I didn't support Kerry in the primaries last go round... (remember the "flip flops", the "I was for the war until I was against it")

I didn't support Edwards either time... though his apology I accepted.

I won't support Hillary (who refuses to admit it was a mistake and apologize for it).

As for the whole JFK / Bobby being FOR the Vietnam war, the OP really needs to go back an reread history books. Yeah, JFK did send some advisors in, but he also wanted to reach out to Ho Che Minh. He was not happy with the French and their treatment of the "Vietnam problem" at all. oh, and btw, Ho Che Minh was NOT a communist until we made him look elsewhere for support to overthrow the corrupt regime in Saigon.

LBJ is the one that took us to "war" and started THAT with a lie as well (Gulf of Tonkin).
I've never been a big fan of LBJ.

[synesthesia]

5. *

The inconvenient truth is, anyone truly outraged with American imperialism would not be a Democrat for any democrat.

The party is only slightly more complicit with the military industrial complex than the Republicans.

Some people realize that it's the best viable party we have, and can choose the lesser of the evils. But then you have to accept your candidates will probably support the complex.

[sandnsea]

7. Or because she supported the war

until it was clear she couldn't win the nomination until she changed her tune, then she voted for Kyl-Lieberman and ridiculed Obama for advocating a much needed change in foreign policy.

It could be all of that.

And a whole lot more.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Who in the fuck are you to tell others that their outrage is "fake"?

Did someone crown you "corner market on who's thinking what"?

I didn't even read past your first sentence....cause I figured the rest wouldn't be anymore than some righteous arrogant bullshit.

[ugdude]

13. Exactly. Fuck war supporters. n/t

[BringBigDogBack]

16. Bingo.

[synesthesia]

23. *

Your name is 'Bring Big Dog Back'.

The same Bill Clinton who raided the Iraqi people with sanctions and bombs for 8 years?

The same Bill Clinton who threatened sanctions on South Africa for offering cheap generic AIDS drug to protect Big Pharma companies?

He's just as bad as Hillay, if not worse (that we'll find out).

I don't mean to personally attack you. I just wish people would think more critically about things.

[Skittles]

10. I'm part of the 10%....I have been consistent from the start

I don't understand how anyone could excuse that vote (I don't give a CRAP if they "apologize") - I never will.

[BringBigDogBack]

11. Yeah, that's it.

Jesus Christ. What the fuck is wrong with some of you people?

This used to be important to all of us. Now everyone tries to diminish it's importance, and the scope of what it has done to our country, our men and women, and millions of Iraqi's?

That's almost as unacceptable as not admitting to the huge fucking mistake in the first place.

[synesthesia]

25. *

Bring big dog back, .....

re: iraqi deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

remember operation desert fox?

it didn't start with George Bush you know?

[gmudem]

12. FEIGNED OUTRAGE???

This is the biggest issue facing the country today and has caused a ton of strife in this country over the last 5 years.

You know what, fuck it, if you think people have feigned outrage over her support of the war and refusal to admit that she made a mistake, just keep livin that dream.

[synesthesia]

17. *

You have a John Edwards icon for goodness sakes!!!!!!

He co-sponsored the IWR and went on every Sunday show to argue passionately for the case.

How is he any better than Hillary? Apologizing doesn't mean a damn thing. Actions, not words. He apologized when the polls on the war turned. give me a break!

[Dogmudgeon]

24. They won't listen. They're on a crusade.

If it wasn't the IWR, they would have some other reason to be outraged at Hillary. This crap has been going on for two decades; it long precedes the IWR vote. And it's not a strictly Hillary-v-Obama thing; the two have been friends for years, and probably will remain so after primary season is over.

They won't look at anything that doesn't make HRC look like the devil in a skirt. Not HRC's Senate floor speech, not the rest of her voting record, not Edwards' record, and not Obama's record of support for the war and for Bush's policies. To them, it's a simple issue, and no insight is required. It's like with anti-abortion crusaders -- "How can you not be outraged? Candidate X voted to kill innocent babies!"

And if you DO try to get a little perspective, you're an "enabler". The therapy-speak goes into overdrive with some of the ranters. It's nuts. It's a complete loss of the ability to reason. I can only hope it ends at the convention. Then the Republicans can go nuts.

My family has lost two friends in this meat grinder, yet I have never seen ANY of them act this way. Some are voting for Hillary, some for Obama -- and two are voting for the Republican nominee.

I love a good political fight as much as anyone else. But some of this stuff makes me wonder.

--p!

[synesthesia]

15. *

People, please read what I said, especially you Frenchiecat.

I'm fine with people voting for Obama (although I don't understand why they'd want to compare him to John Kennedy, considering his Vietnam record).

But this place is mostly John Edwards/Gore lovers from what I can tell. And that's a bit ridiculous (as is the unbridled love for Gore or Kennedy (Robert or John).

Ted Kennedy actually has a good record from what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), but not his brothers.

I'm sorry they were killed, but that doesn't excuse the amount of Vietnamese they were responsible for the deaths of.

As for Obama, he will probably dissapoint people in the future, but so far he has been good (although the war funding thing, I'm not sure about).

[calmblueocean]

18. I'd like to see some stats on the NAFTA-related deaths if you've got them.

The war in Iraq has killed between 100,000 and 1,000,000 people, depending on who's answering. I'd like to see how the NAFTA deaths compare to that. Thanks.

[synesthesia]

19. *

Here's the point I was trying to make re: NAFTA.

The deaths aren't as direct and obvious as a bomb exploding over some child.

But you have these corporations running out of Nicaragua that are able to buy off the local officials and pollute and warp the place so far out of it's mind it's barely liveable anymore. Cancers develop from such things.

That's how our inter-connected world works. There's a million tentacles to any one action, and NAFTA has created extraordinary wealth for a relative few with the flipside of ruining oh so many lives.

And then if you watch that debate Al Gore had where he tried so hard to sell the American people on NAFTA, and consider how intelligent he is , and yet DU still treats him like a God but will be selective in pointing out Hillary's record, it's hypocrisy.

[DrDan]

27. what an absolute load of crap

I am leaning toward Hillary - far from an ardent supported - but leaning toward her.

Her IWR vote and continued funding support bothers me. The fact that she has not "apologized" as did Edwards leads me to think she would vote the same way today.

And guess what - you are also wrong about independents. I became one within an hour of the IWR vote.

[ugdude]

29. Agreed sir

Have you thought about Obama as a candidate? I'm sure he would love your support. He has been against the war from the beginning.

[synesthesia]

31. *

I said in my original post that I'm voting for Obama, but I will be okay with Hillary as a distant second choice. I'm okay with it because I realize the Green Party or whatever will never win. And I'm pragmatic. Less war is better than a lot of war, even if there will always be war.

But I'm not really voting for Obama just because of the war thing. I think among all the usual talking points, he's smarter and better experienced than Hillary (experience in Washington in which you push around papers lobbyists wrote for you is meaningless to me, a third grader could it with ease. The experience of seeing what life is like for Indonesians first hand...that really sharpens perspective).

Still, Obama is no pope. He votes for most of the trade agreements, etc, et. Whatever, he's a pol and the best of the evils, so I'm totally cool with it.

[synesthesia]

30. *

Edwards only apologized because he was the under-dog, and underdogs need to get funding from the net roots, so they have to go far left. His reinvention as Che, LOL if you really think that's the authentic John.

If he had been in the dominant position like Hillary, he'd be campaigning like Hillary.

You have to be naive to think otherwise.

She won't apologize because it would hurt her politically. Which is smart.

Edwards will apologize because it HELPS him politically. Which is smart.

They're targeting different demographics.

Both of them, though, I'm sure, regret the fact the Iraq war has gone so poorly, secretely.

To think Hillary LOVES this war while John doesn't. Please.

[cali]

28. There's certainly a good deal of that and I can only speak for myself

but I decided four years ago that I couldn't vote in the primary for anyone who had voted for the IWR. It's upset me for 5 years. I agree with Pat Leahy who said it was the most important vote any of them would cast in their senate tenure. Do you know how long he's been in the Senate? 34 years.

The IWR was more important than NAFTA to me. I agree with my Senator. It was the most important vote any of them will ever cast. As Leahy said, it was a blank check; it was a Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

I did march in the streets of DC. I took overnight buses three times to DC to do it. Back the following afternoon to Vermont. And I don't think Clinton's vote was any worse than Edwards. And her not having apologized isn't a big deal to me. But the vote itself? Very big deal. And to me, a much bigger deal than NAFTA.

Furthermore, you are wrong to say that people's anger over McClurkin is faux outrage. That may be true for some, but I'm convinced that a great many people feel genuinely betrayed. It was what kept me from supporting Obama for months.

Believe what you will. I don't particularly care. I certainly don't think Clinton is evil, but for me that vote eliminated as a possibility for my primary vote anyone who voted for it.

[synesthesia]

32. *

I think the Donnie thing is a legit issue with some gay people. But there's a lot of Edwards/Hillary/et. partisans here who don't give a damn about gay people, or gay rights, but just like to use it as a wedge. Not everyone, but most of the people who bring it up. Especially considering Clintons/DOMA, and Edwards stance on gay issues. None of them are very gay friendly, is what I'm saying. Obama is so 'clean' though, that thats what they have to use, that and Rezko, which is LOL. A politician friends with corrupt people. WOW? (sarcasm)

next point

Leahy is a decent dude. Not a narcissist like most of them. A guy like him should be president, but it'd never happen obviously.

I could be wrong, just my instinct. Feel free to alert me to his 'shady' doings I'm ignorant to :)

[Tatiana]

33. I guess I'm a 10%er.

This was was a very personal issue to me. I called my only Democratic Senator (Dick Durbin) on a weekly basis to urge him to vote against the measure. His staff clearly articulated to me why it was a horrible measure (they had done their homework and Durbin actually read the NIE) and why Durbin was voting against it.

I protested with like-minded individuals I had met on this very site against that war. Both Clinton and Kerry (along with Edwards) have been rightly taken to task over their votes. People cared about that vote and what it represented: namely the abdication of Congress' duty to declare war and the shuffling of that responsibility to a reckless and corrupt president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3909946

A choice post from that thread:

Lexingtonian (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-21-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
28. Yikes, so much Puritanism

Sometimes I think I'm the only person who remembers what 2002 was like around here.

No, war supporters did not care whether Bush employed halftruths or empty promises.

Yes, war opponents were seen as niggling about technical details and seen as talking about a prolonged occupation and prolonged war. But the "plan" being talked about was a war more or less imagined to resemble the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982- zip in against little resistance, smoke out the Evil Dictator, and withdraw while leaving an occupation force and a puppet government and middling level of chaos behind.

I think everyone saw that the Bush people were conducting an operation that wasn't deeply planned out in the aspects that bored them. They were convinced that massive superiority in firepower and enough money thrown around as bribes was going to settle all problems. (Hey, it worked in Afghanistan...sort of.)

What war opponents forget is that we had 10 years of 'low intensity' warfare with Iraq that preceded this third and final act. Iraq was a thorn in the flesh of American pride, specifically the conservatives' mythology of themselves and this country.

The national polling was clear: 30% opposition, pretty much all hardline Democrats. There was 70% support- all moderate Democrats, Indies, and Republicans. As a Democratic politician you had to decide which was the more important constituency on the votes involved - your own party's liberal hardliners, or your own party's moderates and Indies.

Plus, it made no difference on the outcome which way you voted- Bush had all Republicans and a lot of moderate Democrats in Congress on board from the start, he was going to have a majority.

So it was ultimately a gamble- not on the evidence or detail, just on whether Bush would succeed well enough for long enough. Well, on Election Day Bush had 54% of the country thinking, or at least hoping, he did.

And here's another post, entitled "Sorry, but I WON'T be Voting for a Pro War Democrat":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4233950

[bklyncowgirl]

34. Edwards also supported the IWR I couln't bring myself to support him either.

There are very few issues that I would consider a litmus test for a candidate but for a politican who was in a postion to have all of the available facts, to fail to read the entire intelligence report in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--you know, the part with all of those boring "maybe's", and "CIA thinks but the energy department disagrees" clauses, makes ME want to fail to vote for that person.

This vote helped set the stage for the disasterous circumstances we face today and I insist on holding the people who voted for it accountable.

[boston bean]

35. Luckily those outraged at hillary for this are in the minority. nt