Why Is Clinton Losing? THE WAR. THE WAR. THE WAR.

[Stephanie]

In the last debate, where they were both vying for the congeniality award, she was actually winning the debate on points UNTIL the question of IRAQ came up and SHE DID NOT HAVE AN ANSWER

The answer is, of course, that she approved the war resolution out of political expediency, but SHE CAN NEVER ADMIT THAT. The greatest folly, the greatest lie, the greatest mistake of our lifetimes and she was on the wrong side of it and remains there. THAT is why she's losing. THE WAR.

Here's some commentary from The Nation >

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080212/cm_thenation/45284094_1

The Nation -- I don't normally put much stock in Mark Penn's strategy memos for the Clinton campaign, which more often than not contain more spin than substance. But this line in particular, about why Clinton is better prepared than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November jumped out:

With Hillary, the Republicans' national security argument blunted and the election debate will shift to healthcare and the economy - areas of decisive strength for Hillary.

This is exactly the same argument top Democratic strategists made to their peril in 2002 and 2004. By voting for the war in '02, Democrats argued, Iraq would be off the table and the election would be decided on the economy and healthcare. Wrong. By nominating a war hero in '04, Democrats argued, John Kerry would close the security gap with George W. Bush. Aides to Kerry claimed as late as October that domestic issues were "stronger ground" for their candidate. "We know that there are a lot of people out there who are more worried about their jobs and paying their health care bills than worrying about what's going on the other side of the world," Kerry strategist Joe Lockhart said. Wrong again. Kerry never succeeded in making the election a referendum on the war in Iraq and likely lost because of it.

In '06, Democrats finally ran strongly against the war and picked up seats across the board. A lot of factors went into the takeover of Congress but Iraq was always central to the cause. True, we've spiraled into a possible recession since then and voters now cite the economy as the top national issue. But with 150,000 US troops overseas, Iraq can never be taken off the table. Nor should Democrats want the war to fade to the background until it ends. You'd think Clinton would've learned that lesson by now.

[underpants]

1. + continuation of the Lamont and 2006 national election casting off of the DC way

[PassingFair]

20. You left out the "L"..... n/t

[hiaasenrocks]

2. I think that's one of two major reasons she's going to lose.

The other being that people (from all parts of the political spectrum) are sick and tired of The Clintons.

[Stephanie]

3. I can't argue with that

Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton Clinton. It's insanely depressing to contemplate.

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. War Peace War ... Oops ... no, I won't go down a liar's path

HRC promised NYers a full term and played well w/others. Obama said he would and lied. Chicago may accept that, but I see desperate people and I don't trust desperate people. HRC waited out the last cycle ... she may wait out another, but as in Arkansas the Clintons are a patient, faithful family who serve in and out of office.

[Whisp]

58. Clinton is desperate to keep the keys of information

away from the public.
Anyone else roaming about the WH may have some serious questions about the relay race, baton passing between the clintons and bushes over these years.

I'm sure the BCCI thang is worth fighting hard for to keep under wraps. just for one.

[progressive_realist]

84. You left out the Bush VP years

Bush Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton Clinton

That would be 36 straight years with a Bush or Clinton in the White House. :(

[blm]

10. They burned many a Dem AND their camps when they undermined them. Karma.

Gore's people weren't happy about it:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711

And neither was the Kerry camp:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


Clintons didn't care about any other Dem or the pain of ALL Dem voters in 2000 and 2004.

[soleft]

12. Despite Clinton fatigue, I would have probably voted for her

If not for the IWR. And yes, watching that debate, I was on the fence, ready to possibly vote for her until she could not answer the question on her IWR vote.

She made a horrible mistake. But it wasn't a policy mistake based on faulty intelligence or faith that Bush would do the right thing. It was a political strategic mistake believing that she needed to appear strong on defense and could not afford make a stand against what was clearly an illegal and immoral path to war.

When I read the Iraqi war resolution, I knew we were invading that country and that hundreds of thousands of innocent people would die.

All the smarts and experience and moxy and likability and progressive plans and policies cannot overcome her Machivalian miscaculation.

[Carolina]

26. that plus the fact that the kitchen table issues

are in large measure affected by the trillions of $$$$ spent over there.

So all of HRC's plans and proposals mean nothing because of the depleted treasury.

Her vote, like the Dem losers before her who also went along to get along and get ahead (Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd), was pure political calculation and it has blown up in all her face. We expected the repukes to go along with the squatter/thief in chief but some Dems with presidential aspirations caved for no good reason other than personal gain!

War is destruction (in so many ways and on so many levels).
Iraq was NEVER an imminent threat.
Ergo, those who supported pre-emptive war against an innocent nation then (2002), don't deserve to lead now.

[personman]

99. I don't think it's even the Clintons so much as elites...

Bushs, Clintons, etc.

We like new faces because it's easier to associate happy thoughts with someone whom you don't recall being bent over by.

Then the realization gradually sinks in: "ugh, politics as usual..." and yet no one understands why president's poll numbers always trend downwards as they're in office.

[Tellurian]

4. Stephanie...why spin a non-issue into something it isn't?

The only one complaining about Hillary's vote and her non-apology are Obama and his supporters. People who actually care about Iraq, and that is most of us, are more concerned about getting the troops home.

Why hasn't Obama's campaign focused on getting the troops home and tell us how he intends to accomplish the task, rather than lying to people for their votes?... Obama claims he hates the past or the past is irrelevant to him. But he continues using the importance of a War vote as determining who should be the next president.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. I respectfully disagree

I'm not committed to either of the remaining candidates (though I'm beginning to lean towards Obama for the pragmatic reason of electability). I listen to what people say when I go around northwest Arkansas. What I'm hearing is a lot about the Iraq war and Clinton's pro-war votes. This is from people who are not supporting any candidate at this time.

[Tellurian]

41. It isn't a secret how we got into this War...Bush LIED to everyone...

It's unanimously unproductive to stand at the barn door and cry because the horse got out. It is however productive to get the horse back were he belongs and figure out how he got loose later. At least, that is what successful people do.

All Obama is doing and saying is for his OWN political expediency.. and why he continues to dodge debate appearances.. I see nothing presidential about Obama. He has fallen far short of the esteemed accomplishments of past presidents.. (excluding Bush)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. Let me clarify

I was responding to this statement you made:

The only one complaining about Hillary's vote and her non-apology are Obama and his supporters.

My comment was that the complaints I hear are from ordinary folks, not Obama supporters, that's all.

[Tellurian]

48. OK, thanks..

My intent was speaking to logic..

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

75. over 50% of democrats in the house and senate voted against IWR

it was only conservatives and those looking at running for president (Clinton, Edwards, Kerry) that were conveniently "fooled" by president Bush

[krkaufman]

94. Well, given that similar choices would be faced by the next President ...

... how one responded in the past *does* merit consideration. Hillary chose the path of political expedience and military hawkishness once, so it is reasonable to posit that it wouldn't be beyond her to do so again.

Vote 'Yes' on peace. Vote 'No' on Hillary.

[Mountainman]

21. I disagree, there is a whole world of people who want to examine why and how we went to war so that

hopefully we won't do it again. That has so far prevented a war with Iran. Remember, those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

The repub meme is this, forget about how we got into the war, that is past, lets care about now only. It is the way they want us to view things so that they don't have to take responsibility for getting us into the war in the first place.

Oh yes! Most people care about the IWR!

[Dinger]

23. Yes, This Could Hurt Her, BUT

I wish/hope they'd debate the war and what they'd each do if elected, instead of her vote, poor choice that it was.
It's like some want her to say "uncle," as it relates to the war and probably this primary. After all, this is hardly a done deal at this point.

[Carolina]

29. oh really

the only ones complaining...

That explains why she's winning, eh?

Her vote on IWR, like the Dem losers before her who also went along to get along and get ahead (Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd), was pure political calculation and it has blown up in all her face. We expected the repukes to go along with the squatter/thief in chief but some Dems with presidential aspirations caved for no good reason other than personal gain!

War is destruction (in so many ways and on so many levels).
Iraq was NEVER an imminent threat.
Ergo, those who supported pre-emptive war against an innocent nation then (2002), don't deserve to lead now.

And that is why HRC is LOSING. Past is prologue. Why should she be trusted now when she failed the biggest test of HER 7 year political career (not Bill's 12 years as AR Gov and 8 as POTUS when she was First Lady)?

Ready on day one? I think not and so apparently do many other voters!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

79. The war may be a non issue to Hillary, but it was a big issue to familes of dead soldiers and Iraqis

Its a huge issue, huge.

[personman]

92. Caring about Iraq = Bombing it?

"The only one complaining about Hillary's vote and her non-apology are Obama and his supporters. People who actually care about Iraq, and that is most of us, are more concerned about getting the troops home."

So let's see if I have this right, you either support the candidate who authorized war on Iraq, or you don't care about Iraq?

"Why hasn't Obama's campaign focused on getting the troops home and tell us how he intends to accomplish the task, rather than lying to people for their votes?"

How? I don't care if it's standard-issue ruby slippers and heel-clicking...the point is do it...who gives a shit how...give them mopeds...give them segways...have them ride piggy-back on POWs, I'm sure the POWs are just happy to see some sun and get a break from the genital tazings and sexual assaults. "How?" is a stall...I'm pretty sure we sent them over there with vehicles...

"We don't have to cut and run, we can cut and walk...cut and swim...cut...but get out." - Howard Zinn

[sampsonblk]

121. Vet and long-time Hillary supporter. I strongly disagree

This is the only really big drawback I had against her. Her IWR vote was pathetic. She really sold us out on that one.

[coalition_unwilling]

128. Excuse me, but HilBilly tried to make the campaign about who had

the most "experience" (and, by extension, who did not have enough). So if 'experience' is all it's cracked up to be, how did we wind up in Iraq-nam???? Obama's counter to the "experience" claim of HilBilly is that judgment is as important or more important than credits on a resume.

If you bothered to read Obama's speech against the war before the invasion (when it was a very risky stance to take and potentially politically suicidal), you would see that Obama's words seem almost prophetic in light of what has passed since March 2003. I'm at work and cant' find the link to the speech. But Obama's pre-March 2003 antiwar speech demonstrates that he possesses sound judgment.

On edit: In my opinion, sound judgment is way more important than 'experience'.

[speedoo]

5. Lies can get you only so far.

Especially lies that end up costing so may lives and so many trillions of dollars.

Hillary will never be president. It remains to be seen whether she can be a good senator, but her failure to vote on yesterday's FISA bill does not give me much hope.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Do You Really Believe That? LOL

Not ONE person I know who is for Obama, is doing so based on that whatsoever. Not one of them.

Now sure, there might be some fringe lefties who don't support her for that reason, but their impact is relatively small as is their percentage makeup overall in the electorate, so there's no way they would be the reason why Clinton is losing. It just makes zero sense.

The reason she is losing is for no other reason than that Obama is a fresh face with an inspiring voice that is drawing people into him. It really isn't too much more complicated than that.

[Stephanie]

13. "fringe lefties"

You really haven't changed at all. Why are you still here?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. You Heard Me Right.

It is those on the fringe left that mainly squawk about her IWR vote etc. But overall, that's one of the last things that the general voting population are talking about, as it relates to Obama vs Clinton and why Obama has skyrocketed with support. That's a fact. Deal with it.

[Stephanie]

22. Wrong

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/national.poll/

The economy ranked as the most important issue to 44 percent of those surveyed, while 20 percent cited the war in Iraq and 16 percent identified health care. Illegal immigration was the most important issue to 10 percent of respondents, while 8 percent cited terrorism.

"Clinton has an advantage among registered Democrats on most issues, including the economy and health care, but Obama is seen as the candidate who would best handle Iraq," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. You're Still Wrong, And I'm Laughing At Your 'Evidence' LOL

So basically, what you just posted was that 80% of those surveyed had higher priorities than Iraq. Gee, that in ITSELF totally thrashes your own argument! God I LOVE when people defeat themselves. Too funny!

But what's more, is that the non-chalant quote you supplied has NOTHING to do with your OP AT ALL! You are saying it is her IWR vote that is causing her to lose. Can you show me where it says anything about that? Oh, you can't? LOL

What that's saying is that when comparing the two, they feel Obama would be a better leader on handling the CURRENT and GO FORWARD situation there. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that years ago she voted for the IWR. You're just reading into it in ways that don't exist, due to a skewed perception and intent to see what you want to see. But whether you like it or not, it just simply does not say AT ALL what you are saying in your OP. Even more, with the only 20% claiming Iraq as the most important issue (which already completely destroys your own argument), it is likely that most of those 20% hold that position based on wanting to get the heck out, and there is NO evidence in what you posted that would infer that many of those 20% feel the vote on the IWR to begin with is key in their decision.

So all in all, you did less than supply nothing. What you supplied, was the rebuttal to your own argument, that now leaves you with almost no leg to stand on. Too funny!

:rofl:

[Stephanie]

31. honestly i thought you gave up being a jerk a while back

Sorry to see I was so sadly mistaken. I'm not interested in your opinion because you're still so obviously trolling here and I have no idea why you continue to do so. I can't imagine where you even find the time.

The WAR is the issue that Obama beats Clinton on. Period. The poll shows it.

I pity you. I honestly do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Why Do Facts Offend You So Much? And How HILARIOUS Was Your Response? ROFLMAO!!!!!

So basically, you couldn't rebut ONE DAMN THING in my post whatsoever, couldn't even BEGIN to overcome the logic thrown at you, and couldn't even BEGIN to defend against it. Instead, all you were left with is totally weak, shameful and petty namecalling, followed by a parrot statement with NO legitimacy or supporting evidence.

Your OP said the IWR vote is why she's losing to Obama. Not only did you post an article that COMPLETELY REFUTED your claim (and it's hilarious that ya did), but now you're trying to deflect by broadening it to the war in general or somethin. But that ain't what ya said; is it. You referenced the IWR, yet have provided NOTHING that supports your own argument. Yup. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

If you're going to post an OP that issues a DECLARATION as if FACT, then you should probably want to do a better job at not only being a bit more accurate in your assumption of such fact, but also at being prepared to show supporting evidence for your declarative claim. You failed to do that here, period.

[Stephanie]

42. You are the first and only DUer ever to go on my Ignore list

I've never done it before or since but I'm done with you for good. I seriously believed you had gained some humanity in the past year after all those heartfelt posts, and that you would stop with this trolling nonsense, but I was dead wrong. It's deeply disappointing. That you can you continue this nonsense when DU was such a friend to you is just astounding.

One word in response to your post above. Please read the thread title: THE WAR.

And now I'm done with you. You're IGNORED, now and forever. Good bye and good luck.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Oh For God's Sake Get Some Thicker Skin. Since When Is Competent Rebuttal Being A Troll?

You're embarrassing yourself here. Do you truly get so emotional when adequately challenged that when the poster does nothing more than refute your argument soundly and legitimately, that you have to throw a tantrum and put them on ignore? How sad for you.

You posted a claim that has been refuted. That's not my problem. You should've given more careful thought to your own topic prior to posting. You should've been more prepared to defend it prior to your posting it. Don't blame others for your shortcomings. All I did was thoroughly and handily refute your premise and ever since, all you've been able to do is throw tantrums and call names. You've been ridiculous.

You've rebutted nothing and haven't even begun to defend your position and flawed declaration in the OP. Yes, your title said 'WAR', but you went on to clarify that her IWR vote for the war and her lack of direct apology for it, is what is completely doing her in. You did that. You narrowed the scope that way. Deal with it. Furthermore, even OUTSIDE of that, the fact that the 'war' only made up 20% of the primary reasons for wanting Obama, meaning 80% of people had more primary reasons, TOTALLY DECIMATES your argument in and of itself!

So enough of your childish name calling already. Either refute the FACTUAL points made or concede your defeat for having posted a completely inaccurate declaration. It really is quite that simple. :hi:

[stillrockin]

37. jeeze, get a grip.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. I'm The One With The Grip.

Do facts and strong logic offend you too?

Don't answer that. I really don't care. :hi:

[stillrockin]

72. Of course you don't.

[Carolina]

32. the war impacts the economy... duh!

Kitchen table issues are in largely affected by the trillions of $$$$ spent in Iraq.

So all of HRC's plans and proposals mean nothing because of the depleted treasury.

Her vote, like the Dem losers before her who also went along to get along and get ahead (Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd), was pure political calculation and it has blown up in all her face. We expected the repukes to go along with the squatter/thief in chief but some Dems with presidential aspirations caved for no good reason other than personal gain!

War is destruction (in so many ways and on so many levels).
Iraq was NEVER an imminent threat.
Ergo, those who supported pre-emptive war against an innocent nation then (2002), don't deserve to lead now.

[Whisp]

51. so whoever 'squawked' about Bush and the war is fringe as well?

??
or is it just that we are to be so divided that if Hillary supported it, no big deal. ho hum, no one cares. not important.

I prefer the treatment Bush gets here - his rightful treatment of distain and distrust and revulsion.
Hillary should be getting her fair share of that because she earns it by being dishonest and complicit.

[krkaufman]

96. yes, that fringe 65% of the population that thinks it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

I was baffled by the previous poster's comment, until your post alerted me to their identity. Same old tripe.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. Pay Attention.

The context isn't in reference to who does or doesn't support the war or think it was right to invade. It is quite easy to see that the context is in reference to those who would hold Hillary's IWR vote as the PRIMARY reason for going to Obama.

Sheesh. All it takes is simple common sense and 3rd grade reading skills to comprehend the context. I'm amazed that are those that are messing it up so badly LOL

[krkaufman]

116. You give your own reading and writing skills far too much credit.

The OP's context was Hillary Clinton's IWR vote and how she has never owned-up to it being a mistake, and how her continued dissembling on the Iraq war exacerbates her problems with an electorate that has evolved to the opinion that it was a mistake to invade Iraq -- and that a political strategy dependent on hawkish triangulation was proven flawed in the last Presidential election.

As for whether "The War" is the sole reason for her falling behind in the nomination race, it is easy to declare it is not so -- just as there are a myriad reasons why George Bush was inaugurated in 2001, in place of Al Gore. However, Clinton's positions on the war, and her continued hawkish triangulation as demonstrated by her Kyl-Lieberman vote, *are* a major factor in differentiating between the two remaining Democratic candidates -- which was the point of the OP, contrary to your selective interpretation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. Twist It However You Want. The Declaration Is Pretty Clear.

The thread title itself speaks for itself. The declaration was that the War, and specifically her IWR vote and lack of apology for it, are THE reasons why Obama is so popular and why she's losing. That declaration is quite simply false. Nothing you can say can change that. The statement is just simply false. My posts were responding to that declaration and rebutting its accuracy, as was necessary to be done. It is all quite straightforward and obvious, and you and others who keep twisting this are doing so in a monumentally foolish matter.

Simple concept: Hillary is NOT losing primarily because of her IWR vote and lack of apology for it. That's a fact. Get over it. Deal with it. My God.

[Arugula Latte]

16. You are wrong, OMC.

I talk to many Democrats about who they prefer between the two candidates. The IWR almost always comes up. It's not a deal breaker for all (some of my gay friends think Hillary would be stronger for them), but it is always a black mark against her that they weigh.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Why, Cause You Say So? Sorry, But I Don't Think So.

I'm talking about regular people. Just regular every day people. They make up the majority of where Obama's support is coming from, and their allegiance to his side has quite little to do with her IWR vote, and FAR more to do with his charisma, sense of freshness and inspiration.

[Arugula Latte]

28. Oh, I guess I don't know any "regular people." So says you.

Gosh, these people I know who go to their jobs to try to pay the mortgage, shuttle their kids to soccer in mini vans, mow their lawns, and volunteer in the public schools are such off the charts freaks it's a wonder they're allowed to roam in society.

Get over yourself.

[personman]

87. "fresh face" "inspiring voice" "charisma, freshness and inspiration" aren't issues

They're meaningless news/PR babble bullshit pundits use when they don't want to talk about issues.

There are probably a few walking brain stems who might cite those...what...stances? heh

I give the people a BIT more credit than that...(even considering the money and effort that goes in to keeping them ignorant)

[Lilith Velkor]

59. So military families = "fringe lefties"?

EVERY Obama voter I know cited Kyl-Lieberman as the deal-breaker against HRC. Her refusal to admit IWR was a mistake didn't help either.

Just because your social set has the luxury of being able to ignore the war doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the primary.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. LOL I Love When Other Posters Try And Make Up Their Own Context As If They Had A Point LOL

Hey.... psssssttt. Lilith.... News flash...

We're not talking about Kyl-Lieberman here. Using that as your main reference is just, well, a bit odd as it relates to the context.

We're not talking about whether or not her refusal to admit the IWR was a mistake was some factor somehow.

We're not talking about the war in general, as to whether or not it's been a 'factor' in the primary.

No. We're not talking about those things.

What we ARE talking about, is a blatantly declared in a falsely factual tone message in the OP that the WAR, and specifically her IWR vote and lack of apology for it, is THE MAIN or PRIMARY reason why Obama has surged as he has, and why she hasn't. Well, sorry there lilith, but in THAT context, the OP is laughable and quite simply WRONG.

[Lilith Velkor]

61. Not as laughable as your premise that only "fringe lefties" care about the war

And your characterization of the OP is a ridiculous strawman. She never said there are no other factors. The war just happens to be a major one, due to 70% of the voting population being sick of it. Since Obama is the only other viable candidate left, he reaps the benefits of that. Sorry if you don't like it.

The reason I brought up Kyl-Lieberman is that that vote is a huge heap of icing on the IWR cake, if you will.

FWIW, I think the main reason he's popular is the media hype/bandwagon effect. But to pretend that the war is a fringe issue is totally wrong. It's not 2003 anymore, and no amount of bloviating can obfuscate that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. More Mischaracterization.

I never said that only fringe lefties care about the war. The point was that generally only fringe lefties care about the IWR vote to such a degree that it is the MAIN reason they are supporting Obama. That's true, ya know.

And my characterization of the OP was spot on. The argument put forth in a FACTUAL sounding way was that the war, the vote for the IWR SPECIFICALLY, was THE MAIN reason for why Obama is surging. News flash for ya pal: That's flat on its face absurd, and even YOU admit that the MAIN reasons he has so much support are NOT that.

My response to the OP is quite SPECIFIC in its nature, so please try and focus. That is that quite simply saying that the WAR, and the IWR vote specifically, is the MAIN and glaring reason why Obama has the support he does and why Hillary is losing, is just quite simply wrong and that saying it in such a matter of fact way was quite humorous. I'm not wrong there.

[Lilith Velkor]

66. No, your point is false

Military families, for example, care about the war. So do fiscal conservatives.

You stated in your response to the OP that the war is not a factor at all because you don't know anybody to whom it's important. I hate to break this to you, but you do not know every voter in America who is not a fringe lefty, and to pretend you do is to indulge in a degree of idiocy that is breathtaking even for this forum.

I find that rather amusing, so it's all good.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. No Point Of Mine Has Been False, And You Continue To Skew Context.

Please, pay attention. I'm really sick of repeating myself already.

THIS THREAD SAID THAT HILLARY IS LOSING (I.E. OBAMA WINNING) PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF HER IWR VOTE AND LACK OF APOLOGY.

Did you get that? Please, read it again. Got it now? Please? Cool.

See, the context of my reply is in direct relation to THAT premise. My post is saying that NO ONE I KNOW would say that their PRIMARY reason for being an Obama fan is because of her IWR vote. I then say that generally only those on the fringe left would say that was their PRIMARY reason for going with Obama. Guess, what, that's pretty much fact pal.

I NEVER said that military families don't care about the war. I NEVER said that fiscal conservatives don't care about the war. In fact, I NEVER said whatsoever that anyone for any reason doesn't care about the war.

All of your responses have been completely skewed in their context and perception of what MY context is. If anything, that's what's amusing.

Not one of my points is wrong. The OP is a joke. It really is that simple. Nice try though! :hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

69. If you were truly sick of repeating yourself, you would stop.

But keep on flailing. It's quite entertaining.

No matter how often, or how rudely, you assert your false generalization about antiwar voters, it's still false.

However, you are right about the primary reason for Obama's popularity. The pretence that that weakens my argument makes it all the funnier.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. On Every Other Tuesday In Every Other Month, The Sky Is Purple.

See, just because you SAY stuff, doesn't make it true.

The stark contrast between my replies and yours, is that I actually address context, offer rebuttal and give substance supporting my position. Your replies; however, are nothing more than surface statements with no backing behind them whatsoever. Just because you say something, that doesn't make it true. See, ya kinda need to actually offer SUBSTANCE to go behind it, in order to support your position. Otherwise, you become nothing more than a talking header.

You have rebutted nothing and have only skewed the context of my posts. You call it flailing, but the objective and intellectual eye calls it having totally decimated not only your, but the other poster's as well, argument. And yes, you both have been bested, regardless of your snarky and highly likely to again be void of substance yet still skewed reply that is sure to follow.

And hey, before I go, just a quick last tidbit: "you are right about the primary reason for Obama's popularity."

That's all this was about from the get go. I'm right. The OP was wrong. End of story. You're done. :hi:

Nitey nite!

[Lilith Velkor]

74. 'Night OMC

Your continuing assertions that talking shit is the same thing as substance never fail to amuse. :toast:

"objective and intellectual eye" :rofl:

[Binka]

88. This OMC Asshole Actually Said The War Is Not A Factor

Because he doesn't know anybody to whom it is important. Hey fuck YOU OMC I gave you your first star on this board and I felt bad for your loss last year, but I almost lost my son in THIS FUCKING WAR, and his best friend died in that fucking hell hole.

You clearly are a mother fucking asshole troll. This fringe lefty says fuck yourself shit head.

[Stephanie]

93. Hi Binka!

:rofl: :hi:

[Binka]

95. I Hate That MOFO

Can you tell? :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. That's Cause You're An Irrational Mess.

Irrational people generally tend to not be overly fond of me. No biggie though. I still wish nothing but good things for ya anyway. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. Roarrrrrr!!!!!! Grrrrrrr!!!!!! Rowwwwwrrrrrr!!!!! Swipe Swipe. Booga Booga Booga Snarf Snarf.

:rofl:

Pipe down there will ya? You're gonna hurt yourself.

I never said the war is not a factor.

And take your outrage and stick it. I said a very simple concept: The OP stating that the IWR vote is the Primary reason why people have flocked to Obama is just quite simply wrong. And it is. No, that does not make me a troll to say that. No, it doesn't even come close to your feigned and borderline insane level of outrage for my having said that. Your post is a melodramatic mess. Get a grip for God's sake.

[Lilith Velkor]

122. It's a scam alright

See post #119.

You'd think they'd be a bit less fucking obvious about it, ya know?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

127. The Only Thing Obvious Is That I Bested You, And You Don't Much Like It.

But in time, you'll be certain to get over it...

[Lilith Velkor]

132. The only thing I have to get over

is a possible injury sustained from laughing at you. But I'll be careful. :hi:

[krkaufman]

97. Her Kyl-Lieberman vote demonstrated that she hadn't learned from her Iraq vote.

She just continued her hawkish posturing, at the possible expense of more lives. No political courage, all political calculation -- and faulty calculation, at that.

[Lilith Velkor]

119. You know that and I know that

Apparently, it suits the purposes of the DU admins that their little protected troll pretends he doesn't.

Think about it. The site gets more page view$ if they allow one idiot to repeatedly violate the rules in presenting his dumb fucking arguments.

[krkaufman]

120. I dunno about the motivations for admin's judging the appropriateness of their posts...

... but I can agree with your opinion re: the quality of the poster's submissions.

[Lilith Velkor]

124. That one's a lolcow to me

I'm pretty heartless, but fucking with military moms like that is way over the line. He'd have gotten ye olde banhammer years ago if the rules applied to him, so what other explanation is there?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. You're Blathering About What Now? I Did What To Who Now?

I fucked with nobody, so I have no idea what on Earth you're talking about.

And if you're referencing that disgracefully dramatic, against the rules, tantrum like and completely inappropriate post by Binka above, then you seriously need to take your blinders off. That post was a monumental disgrace. Course, who am I kidding. You're part of the 'I can't debate with intellect so let me throw out unfair and against the rules personal attacks instead' clan. :hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

131. !

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Are You Really That Bitter That I So Handily Decimated Your Empty Arguments Above?

Wow. Talk about thin skin...

You and the others little childish tantrum attacks really don't phase me though. Fact is, I've supported my position. None of you have. You've mischaracterized and attacked like gradeschool bullies, but you've all done piss poor jobs of substantiating your positions. Course, that's what made it so easy to blow all your positions out of the water and all. :hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

130. Blah blah blah

Yes, your status as a legend in your own mind never fails to impress.

[goodgd_yall]

63. Totally agree

It's his magnetism and his momentum at this point. I think more people are concerned about getting out of Iraq and they don't care how a candidate voted back in 2002 as long as he or she has a plan for getting out.

[krkaufman]

100. I care how our candidate voted in 2002 ...

... and how later votes reflect a continuation of the 2002 mindset ... because those votes *should* be a differentiating factor between our candidate and the Republican candidate. Unfortunately, as in 2004, we may be offering Republican-lite on this front, and so will be unable to take full advantage of the weakness that is Republican warmongering.

[goodgd_yall]

64. An attempt to add more weight to the phenomenon of Obama support

is this idea that he's winning because Hillary voted for the IWR. Those pushing this BS are trying to rescue their candidate from the perception (more truthful) that his appeal is based on oratory, charisma, and style.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

80. Hill's vote for the war made me look for ANY candidate but her

I couldn't make up my mind, Obama or Edwards, but I knew for darn sure that Hillary
had done the worst thing she could - vote for that crapping war, and had the gall to
refuse to admit she screwed up.

Edwards' vote for the war, although he admitted it was wrong - caused me to hesitate about him.

I am in a state whose primary doesn't matter, cause it is in May, so I never had to
choose between Obama and Edwards.

[krkaufman]

101. Same boat. I preferred Edwards because of his economic, anti-poverty message ...

... which was so central to his campaign that I allowed it to override my earlier (2003-04) thoughts on his own IWR vote; but once Edwards was out, Hillary's IWR vote -- and her demonstration that her mindset hasn't changed, by way of her Kyl-Lieberman vote -- became a major deciding factor in choosing between the remaining two, relatively similar candidates.

[girl gone mad]

85. I would probably support Hillary..

if it wasn't for her IWR vote, and I'm far from a fringe lefty.

Judgment matters. Hillary demonstrated piss-poor judgment. The war was a failure on every level, and by virtue an enormous political miscalculation on her part. Democrats cannot afford to elect a leader whose personal political strategies could leave us vulnerable to such catastrophic policy mistakes.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. The war is still a very important issue to many voters

and those who worry about the economy can trace many of our economic problems back to the riotous spending in Iraq. With McCain saying we'll be there for 100 years, Iraq cannot be "off the table" in the election. It should be squarely on the table, with blame settling where it belongs-on the GOP. This can be done most effectively with a candidate who did not vote for IWR, imho.

[krkaufman]

102. Right. As someone recently said... we need to change the mindset that got us into Iraq.

And we can only attack the Republicans on that front with a candidate who can differentiate themselves on support for going in.

[rndmprsn]

9. it's the WAR stoopid...

[Arugula Latte]

14. It's so ironic, isn't it? The vote for political expediency might have ruined her politically.

Yes, there are many, many factors going into the somewhat lackluster support being demonstrated for Hillary around the country. However, that IWR vote really showed us that she is not to be trusted to fight the good fight against bad ideas.

[Stephanie]

17. Exactly. It was a poltical calculation but she MIScalculated

And that vote and her subsequent inept defense of it have come back to bite her. Quite ironic. A good lesson.

[Carolina]

36. TOUCHE!

she is not to be trusted to fight the good fight against bad ideas! Add Patriot acts I & II, Bankruptcy bill and not standing up and shouting out about Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, habeus corpus...

[krkaufman]

103. ... coupled with her support for the war during its first few years, her failure ...

... to ever admit her vote was a mistake, and her Kyl-Lieberman vote demonstrating that her IWR mindset remains firmly in place.

[Mountainman]

15. Correct, Dems who voted for the IWR were afraid of losing their seats if they didn't.

Funny thing was some who voted for the IWR lost and most who didn't won. I remember that time very well. I was always apposed to the war and was pissed at so many Dems who caved out of fear of being defined by the Repubs rather than standing up and saying what was the truth and what was right!

[bigtree]

24. where's the proof?

It may account for your own vote, but Iraq is not in the forefront of most voters' minds, according to polls taken. Maybe you have some other evidence other than this critical piece?

[Stephanie]

25. see my post #22 above

[Whisp]

49. the economy now may be because Iraq has sucked

so much cash out of the system
and stuffed it right into the pockets
of the kinds of people Hillary likes to hang out with.

so the economy may be foremost on most peoples minds, sure,
but it relates back to bad decisions untrustworthy reps like Hillary made to go to war.

[OHdem10]

30. Because Democratic Activisists are so blinded by this one

vote, they are willing sacrifice the party's future to get even
with HRC.

[krkaufman]

104. I'm not sure how nominating another candidate is sacrificing the party's future.

The only thing I see possibly jeopardizing the party's future is if one of the remaining nominee's uses the superdelegates or invalid delegates to overcome a substantial pledged delegate gap to become the nominee.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. K&R

[zalinda]

34. It's because of the media

Obama has become the media darling. The average American doesn't even know there is a war going on, and as long as it doesn't effect them, they could care less. When was any lengthy coverage of the war on TV? And I will bet that the majority of people don't know we are still in Afghanistan.

No, the media has decided that Obama is wearing the white hat and Clinton the black hat, and has skewed their coverage to reflect that.

zalinda

[incapsulated]

35. PROJECTION, PROJECTION, PROJECTION

You are simply wrong and are projecting your own issues onto this race.

When people are asked why they voted for Obama, they don't mention THE IWR.

[stillrockin]

38. DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL

[goodgd_yall]

65. That's for sure: it's all "change" and "hope," not Iraq.

[krkaufman]

105. Then they haven't asked me. n/t

[Stephanie]

44. Maureen Dowd cites the same quote I did recently on the war question ->

I posted the same NY Mag quote. Posted it twice in fact. Hi MoDo! :hi:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Those close to Hillary say she’s feeling blue. It’s an unbearable twist of fate to spend all those years in the shadow of one Secretariat, only to have another gallop past while you’re plodding toward the finish line.

***

As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can’t take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.

Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says she’s learned from her mistakes, but that’s not a compelling pitch.

As a senator, she was not a leading voice on important issues, and her Iraq vote was about her political viability.

She told New York magazine’s John Heilemann that before Iowa taught her that she had to show her soft side, “I really believed I had to prove in this race from the very beginning that a woman could be president and a woman could be commander in chief. I thought that was my primary mission.”

If Hillary fails, it will be her failure, not ours.

[jillan]

68. WHO really cares what Maureen Dowd has to say?

She is slime.

[Stephanie]

73. I do. I think she trolls here looking for material to use.

She has borrowed from me more than once, and others too I'm sure.

[AtomicKitten]

45. It's the war, stupid. Always has been. Always should be.

All the ugly - torture, rendition, warantless wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. - have occurred as a direct result of the IWR.

I will not reward anyone with my vote anyone that voted to abdicate their Constitutionally-mandated war-declaring powers to an idiot. Period.

[VotesForWomen]

77. apparently it wasn't the war in 2004, when dems picked Kerry over Dean. what message are they sendi

sending now? "Hey, we screwed up before, but now we got it right." the time to make a stand on the war was 2004. dem voters chose not to.

[Cameron27]

98. Exactly

Kerry/Edwards both voted yes to the IRW, and one of them even co-sponsored it, so if that wasn't an issue 4 years ago, why is it an issue now? Clinton stongly cautioned against invasion in her floor speech, and she voted for Byrd's sunset provision that would have ended the war within a year.

How disengenous of Obama to promote the ticket in 04, by making a speech in which he claimed that he didn't know how he would have voted if he was in the senate, and then in 08 he attacks Clinton for the very same vote.

[EFerrari]

47. That's more or less what Rachel said the other night on MSNBC.

The most important vote of her career and she voted the wrong way.

[Stephanie]

50. And she did it for reasons she cannot state

That's the real tragedy. If only she were believeable when she says, "I was misled!" But she's not because it's not true. She knew what she was doing. She did it because she felt she needed to be a hawk to win. She was wrong.

[EFerrari]

52. Not only to appear hawkish, I think. Our politicians depend upon

the defense industry and its satellites. She also made the calculation that she'd need that money down the road.

It's the same calculation that makes Diane Feinstein possible.

[Stephanie]

53. I had never thought of that

You could be right.

[EFerrari]

55. Sometimes I think that the arguments we get to hear

are just CSPAN Theater. The undercurrent, the tension, is all about money, about the deal.

That's why they had to kill Dean's campaign -- he went straight to people. And the Democrats killed it just as much if not more than the Thuggery did.

I used to be so furious at Feinstein that my eyes crossed. Then I realized that you can't throw a rock around here without hitting a Defense Department supplier. All the major cities in CA are ringed with them. She has to forward their projects. That's how she's stayed in power.

[Kolesar]

56. All of the Ohio Democrats in Congress voted against the war

One went on to the Senate and another is now the Governor (Brown & Strickland). I don't think it is the campaign contributions. I think Hillary was just trying to cover a position for her presidential run. She is taking us Democrats for granted in November. If she gets there.

[HeraldSquare212]

70. Lincoln Chaffee, then Senator from RI, says they voted for it because they thought the war would be

over quickly and gas would be cheap and they didn't want to be on the wrong side of that. So not only were they craven and self-serving, they were just plain stupid.

[krkaufman]

106. Except that her more recent Kyl-Lieberman vote shows she's still of the hawkish mindset ...

... and learned nothing from her IWR vote.

As for her being misled, she allowed it. Sen. Bob Graham implored his fellow Senators to read the full, 92-page classified Iraq NIE, but only 6 did, and Hillary wasn't one of them. Had she read it, she would have clearly seen the opposing opinions that had been filtered-out of the unclassified version and might have steeled herself against those mischievous Bushies so bent on misleading her.

[closeupready]

54. she visibly bristled on 60 Minutes the other night when Katie Couric mentioned the IWR.

She seemed to be almost frightened to have to deal with that issue "yet again".

And unbelievably, she continued to defend her vote on it. :mad:

[DrFunkenstein]

57. McCain Harldy Seems "Blunted"

If you think McCain will allow the conversation to drift away from Iraq, you're crazy. We need someone who is willing to say that his idea of "tough" has led us into a massively expensive and bloody ditch - from the inception, not the way it was handled.

Ps - I think that Obama is the only one of the candidates who ever got blunted, back in his wayward youth.

[VotesForWomen]

76. How come dems picked Kerry in 2004? they're stupid? could be. nt

[krkaufman]

108. That was my opinion, at the time. We had several good anti-war candidates from which to choose ...

... but we opted for one with minimal differentiation.

[VotesForWomen]

78. the time to make a stand on the war was 2004. dem voters chose not to. nt

[Lilith Velkor]

82. We will pay for that mistake for the rest of our lives.

Kerry of all people should have fucking known better.

[Kolesar]

86. It was a "make up" vote from when the Dems almost prevented the 1990 war

That war went well -ahem- and some Dems did not want to be on the wrong side of the IWR-2002 vote. This time it was after 9/11, and not after some obscure invasion of the Kingdom of Kuwait, or whatever they call that dictatorship. This all totally stinks.

[krkaufman]

112. Great signature. Failure to read the full Iraq NIE is *another* reason ...

.... that Sen. Clinton's IWR vote remains relevant, to me.

[Kolesar]

115. Thanks. I found Clinton's quote on Salon.com sometime last year

What I could not find was the old DU stories where Senator Clinton ejected the antiwar activists from her office before the vote. Clinton had constituent contact to tell her what she "claimed not to know".

[Stephanie]

123. here you go >

http://www.listenhillary.org/article.php?list=type&type=115

[Binka]

89. Take your one month here and three hearts and go troll someplace else

Jesus you fuckers are annoying.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

129. You're A Real Nasty One You Know That?

Shame on you.

[Kolesar]

134. You won't win any Mr. Congeniality contests around here. eom

[krkaufman]

110. Nice thought, but every election is the time to make a stand on the war ...

... from November 2002 through every election until we're out of Iraq. And a politician's responsibility for getting us into Iraq is worthy of consideration every time we enter the voting booth, even beyond our involvement in Iraq.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Agreed. Her inability/unwillingness to acknowledge that voting for the IWR was a mistake is huge.

Always has been.

[dailykoff]

83. The real problem is it wasn't a one-time "mistake."

It's part of a pattern of appeasing and enabling neocons and everybody else who can pay to play.

[krkaufman]

113. Exactly. See her Kyl-Lieberman vote for evidence that Sen. Clinton still suffers ...

... from her IWR vote mindset.

[MethuenProgressive]

90. Only a fool would blame Bush's War in Iraq on one Senator.

What extraordinarily lazy intellectualism has been displayed by those agreeing with the OP.

[coalition_unwilling]

133. Who is blaming Iraq-Nam on HilBilly? She was one of a group of

conservative Dems who participated in the Rose Garden concordat Gebhardt and Daschle negotiated with the White House in August 2002, the thinking being that going along on the IWR would take the issue off the table for the upcoming mid-terms and allow Dems to focus on the economy. (Read that and weep Max Cleland.)

I think of HilBilly more as a Bush enabler, not as a prime architect. But I'll be damned if I pull the lever for a Bush enabler. Her vote for the IWR, coupled with her refusal to apologize for that vote and her lame explanations of it since ("I was misled", "I was voting to give inspectors time," ad nauseum), when added to her vote for Kyl-Lieberman creates a pattern that shows very poor judgment when good judgment is most necessary.

[suston96]

91. "THE WAR. THE WAR. THE WAR."? Bullshit! She has been confronted with.....

...the first viable black candidate and Americans in rising numbers like the idea of a black president in preference to the first woman president.

Sorry, your "war" theory is stale and meritless.

[Thepricebreaker]

109. WRONG - Its been the same shit for 20 years - they want difference..

Its been the same shit for 20 years ---- Bush, CLinton, Bush... now another clinton?

[elixir]

118. You neglected to mention Obama's change of heart on the war in 2002. Hmmm?

Horowitz-HillaryClinton1H_0.jpg

[psychopomp]

135. Well, I think books will be written about this campaign

but I do not think the war will be the only reason claimed for Sen. Clinton's poor, perhaps hopeless, campaign effort. It is one of the reasons that I am against her candidacy, though.