It's not women, its not race - the reason Obama is winning is one word: IRAQ

[Taverner]

He did not vote for it

Clinton did

She did not apologize

She promised to get out, and for that reason I would still vote for her should she win

But that is the real reason she is losing, and he is winning

Had she voted against it, this would be an open and shut primary

[panader0]

1. To me Iraq is THE issue

I know the economy is in the hole, but in Iraq we are losing American lives and over one million Iraqis have died. We all know the war was a lie. Get our troops home first! Stop the war first! Then tend to our domestic issues.

[tabasco]

40. H. Clinton showed terrible judgment to give madman Bush a loaded gun.

I am proud to say most Democrats in Congress voted against the IWR, which everybody in the world knew would lead to war.

[VotesForWomen]

46. where were you in 2004? did you vote for Kerry? if you did, save it. nt

[tabasco]

48. Kerry had the moral courage to admit his mistake.

He was the Democratic nominee.

Clinton has not shown the courage to admit her mistake and is not the Democratic nominee. Are you too obtuse to understand the difference?

[FrenchieCat]

2. That's the part that her team is missing.......

cause they are too much inside a bubble. They bought into the argument from the right, that on-forward is the only thing that matters.

[HockeyMom]

3. Absolutely

Her support of Iraq war has always bothered me, even when I voted for her for Senator. Now I have another option.

[JVS]

4. Someone earlier today said that the problem is that she calculated us to be dumber than we are.

They were right.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. Lets remind ourselves, the American people want to get out of

Iraq, shame they didn't think about it more before.

[mudesi]

6. I've been saying this for months

It is the reason I don't want her to win.

[juajen]

7. One word. REPUBLICANS

[Taverner]

9. Even Republicans are sick of that quagmire

Honestly - I think if we were to raise a victory flag and leave tomorrow they'd be happy

[shraby]

8. At first she was for bringing the troops home

but she said she would leave troops there to man the embassy and train Iraqis. The numbers she gave were too many, in the double digit thousands...can't remember the figure now. When people want the troops home they want them ALL home.

[goldcanyonaz]

16. I doubt Obama will bring all the troops home. There is a lot of cleanup to be done still.

We can't just leave them more fucked than when we got there. We must exit gracefully, or we are going to have even bigger problems than we have now.

[Taverner]

17. That's not the point

The point is she voted for it, he didn't. The fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time is irrelevant. It's all perception.

[rexy]

33. Definitely.

As much as we would love to have an immediate withdraw of troops, it would be reckless to do so. There needs to be a plan to get to that a lot sooner than in 100 years, however...

[Taverner]

38. Hell I'm all for - Iraq goes to bed one night

Next morning, POOF, we're gone! Completely!

[rexy]

42. Haha!

I think we'd all love that. I know that's how the majority of my family feels, especially considering we do have family members and friends in Iraq.

[Shine]

10. Well, that's certainly one valid perspective

Regardless of whether or not Iraq is the ONE main reason why she's not winning, I contend there will be many many threads in the future analyzing why her campaign failed.

You can count on it.

[Taverner]

13. Yes I agree

And really, who really knows what Joe Voter is thinking when they go into that booth...

But I would be willing to bet a 5-spot on this...

Don't get me wrong - I think Clinton would make a fine prez and WOULD get us out of Iraq - if anything so her legacy wouldn't get painted with Iraq.

[Shine]

26. The bottom line is, we'll get behind whoever gets the nomination

cuz that's the kind of good Dems we are....united in our desire to get the Repukes OUT.

I will be happy to vote for either of them.

Edwards was my guy, so I'm watching the drama unfold and keeping my popcorn hot and buttered! :popcorn:

:hi:

[RonaldK]

11. could not have said it better

if she had political courage, I don't think experience woulda become an anathema. She'd have won.

[Beaverhausen]

12. He wasn't in the senate when the IWR was voted on. He has voted for the war ever since

I'm sick of this shit with Obama "not voting for the war."

He wasn't in the senate at the time and has said he isn't sure how he'd vote.

I haven't seen a lot from him as far as trying to stop the war since he joined the senate. Have you?

[Johnny__Motown]

14. He made a speech against it when 70% of the country was for it, she just looked at the polls

[Beaverhausen]

19. He makes lots of speeches. He hasn't done a thing to stop the war

making a speech against the war when one is a state senator is all well and good, but it had no impact on anything at the time.

Serious- he has been in the senate for 3 years now- what has he done to stop the war and bring the troops home?

Don't tell me he gave speeches, we all know he's very good at that.

[VotesForWomen]

47. yep. nt

[Taverner]

15. That's irrelevant

She had a chance to vote against the war and she didn't.

Obama did not have the chance, but its all perception.

[goldcanyonaz]

18. I'm sick of it too. They're making up their own facts and running with them.

[Taverner]

22. You forget - its all perception

Honestly, I think both Clinton and Obama will get us out of the war. McCain will not.

But its the public perception that paints things...

[PassingFair]

39. He spoke out AGAINST IT AT THE TIME.

Sorry for yelling, but he did.

It's the truth.

While she authorized it.

And her CLUB, the DLC, cheerleaded and
pushed it forward.

[tpsbmam]

20. Iraq and much of the rest of her record....

Iraq is most definitely the biggest for me, but it's also her record in toto and the nature of her candidacy and campaign. Despite all of that, I remained undecided until fairly recently -- her campaign (particularly her take on delegates & superdelegates) was what made me decide to vote for Obama. Like you, I'm just tired of people insisting that people are voting based on race or gender -- they're not (says this woman who won't vote for Clinton in the primary).

[Taverner]

21. I dunno, save Iraq I think she's got a good record

Better than Kerry, even...

But Iraq damned her...

[tpsbmam]

34. She does have some adirable votes IMO but...

there were too many votes I personally thought were dead wrong. NCLB (teachers were trying to tell them what would happen -- they didn't listen). Continually funding the Iraq war (Obama is also guilty). Kyl-Lieberman (Obama is guilty of being absent on this one). The amendment (Senate 4882)to ban the sale of cluster bombs -- Obama voted for the ban, Clinton voted AGAINST the ban) -- Obama wins that one. IMO, Clinton "fled the FISA fight" and Obama did not. No, neither was there for the final vote but Obama at least voted to sustain Dodd's filibuster -- Clinton was a no show (and she was in D.C. when she failed to show for the final vote). While Obama may have said Rumsfeld was in the "mainstream" and may have voted to confirm him if he'd been in office then, Clinton did vote to confirm him -- I disagreed. I could go on, but you get the idea. Again, I do think some of her votes have been good votes, but the "bad" votes have been seriously bad IMO.

There's more and someone might fairly say I'm being nitpicky, but it's my nit to pick since none of them are going to vote on my behalf.

[Taverner]

37. They both have some admirable votes

I do hold the belief that there are compromises to be made. Sometimes a Senator or Congresscritter has to make the choice of whether to, say, make sure the troops have food for the coming month and whether to take on a war against an official who is (for all practical purposes) above the law.

I just want one of us in the White House. If we take back control of our government, however disparate a coalition, we win. Simply put.

[tpsbmam]

53. Amen to that!

I realize they have to compromise but it doesn't mean that I'll support the votes that they deem necessary to compromise. I can't be in their heads and know what they're doing because they believe in it, because they want to compromise, or because they're pandering. I can only read what they say (and believe or not) and look at the voting record. But I'm with you -- I just want a Dem in the WH and, though I have a preference at this point, either one will do!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. "just words"

:hi: you just made that too easy

[leftstreet]

24. It's about the $$$ being spent in Iraq

That's what the midterms were about, and that's what the GE will be about.

[Taverner]

25. Nope - its about Iraq straight up

Who is for it, and who is against it

Clinton will be given the "were you for it or against it" meme

Obama cannot, since he did not vote for it. Doesn't matter why

[Breeze54]

27. He couldn't vote about Iraq. Moot point BUT he voted for slavery

in Oman!!! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2924045

Right along with Hillary!! :woohoo:

:cry:

[dansolo]

28. It was one of the things that dragged down Kerry in 2004

Kerry couldn't effectively debate Bush on the war because of IWR vote.

[mtnsnake]

29. If that's the case, then he has conned the people who put him in this position

because he CLEARLY is not that anxious to put his ass on the line in getting out of Iraq if he votes YES to every frigging vote that comes up to fund the war and keep it going forever.

If what you say is true, then Dennis Kucinich is the one who should be on the verge of becoming our nominee and not anyone else.

[A Brand New World]

30. That's what convinced me to vote Obama. I saw the MSNBC special on him

on Sunday night. Heard it with my own ears him say back in 2002/2003 (?) that he was against the invasion. The next day I early voted in Ohio for Obama. I was against the invasion 100% and have not been thrilled with Hillary's stance on the Iraq war or on the possiblity of war with Iran.

[MoJoWorkin]

31. That has ALWAYS been my number one issue.

[Thrill]

32. No he is winning because he has a positive message and he is new and refreshing

People have seen enough of the Clintons

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. Obama's PRO_WAR RECORD........

Then there’s the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many “progressives” seem to need to believe) an “antiwar” candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial “war on terror” of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part? Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama’s U.S. Senate voting record recently sent to me by the Creative Youth News Team (CYNT 2007), a progressive African American advocacy organization:



“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2”



“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”



“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”



“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”



“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 ”



“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 .”



“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”

“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 .”



“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. .”



“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. ”



“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 .”



“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 .”



“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 .”



“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 .”



“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 ”



“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 ”



“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183.”



“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 .



9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 ”



“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 .”



“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 .”



“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 ”



“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 ...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”





Wow. I might have worded things a little differently than CYNT at times, but that’s a damning bill of indictment.



Obama’s intra-Democratic political record also defies those who insistent on wrapping him in an antiwar flag. In 2006 Obama lent his celebrity and political finance assistance to neoconservative war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-Connecticut) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama supported other mainstream Democrats fighting genuinely antiwar progressives in primary races, collaborating with Democratic muscle man Rahm Emannuel’s campaign to marginalize “peaceniks” within the party (see Sirota 2006, Silverstein 2006 and Cockburn 2006).



In a November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama advocated “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” and made repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency.” This language meant continuation of the war (Ford and Gamble 2005).



Earlier that same year, Obama shamefully distanced himself from his fellow Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo (Street 2005; Cockburn 2006).





And he still refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (Gerson 2007). As Kucinich pointed out during last night’s debate, this is what Obama’s comment that “all options are on the table” in regard to Iran really boils down to: the potential first black U.S. President is willing to seriously consider the launching of a thermonuclear attack on that country. Debate participant Mike Gravel (a left former U.S. Senator of Alaska)was thinking of that horrific possibility when said the following about the leading Democratic candidates (Obama included of course) last night: “these people scare me.”



http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=1268...

[Marrah_G]

51. This is the truth many do not want to see. Be careful of High Pedastals

[LucyParsons]

36. As I already posted, there are many, many reasons I don't support Hillary, but, yes

Iraq is the final straw.

I was living in the UK from 2001 through 2005. During the last general election there, in which Blair maintained his position as PM but suffered heavy losses in his Parliamentary majority, I gave silent thanks that I was not eligible to vote. I thought the Liberal Democrats, despite their democratic socialist platform (which I broadly applaud), were too fast in their insistence on change, and being very naive about immigration (and, as an immigrant, I felt I had a special insight on that); the Tories would put Britain's head even further up Buschco's ass; and, yet - Tony Blair spearheaded the drive to war, was Bush's poodle, showed no moral courage or political foresight, acted against the overwhelming majority of his people - you know the story. I was glad I didn't have to vote, because I didn't know if I could make myself vote for the sadly diminished Tony Blair.

And now Hillary. If she's the nominee, I may have to abstain.

How dare she compare Obama to Bush, painting him as inexperienced and suggesting quite baldly that he might get us involved in another, similarly disastrous (not to mention immoral and illegal) war? How dare she say, "We can't let that happen again."

Where was her "leadership" and "experience" and, as Nader would ask, "moral courage" when she voted for the IWR? The PATRIOT Act? The Bankruptcy Act? Etc., etc., etc.

She was a material abetter to the invasion. SHE made it happen, not Barack Obama.

How dare she.

[Mooney]

41. I don't know if it's the only reason she's having trouble

...but it's definitely causing her some headaches.

I know that her vote on the IWR wasn't a vote specifically to go to war and nothing else, but I think the intricacies of her position, as she's trying to put it across today, makes it difficult for her to make a coherent, easily understood argument. It's the same problem Kerry had in 2004. People only saw it as an up-or-down vote FOR or AGAINST the war, and the argument that she was voting for diplomacy with the threat of war to back it up is lost on most people. It's too convoluted a position to put across, particularly when you're talking about an issue that people feel as strongly about as the war.

[Califooyah Operative]

43. I think you're on to something... nt

[Jersey Devil]

44. Yes, her IWR vote did it for me

Otherwise I probably would have supported her.

[VotesForWomen]

45. dems supported the war in 2004, now they don't? that will go over well in the GE. nt

[PassingFair]

49. Most dems DID NOT support that war.

The majority of Democrats in the House voted NO.

23 Senators voted "NO".

Of the SITTING SENATORS still in Washington, the
MAJORITY VOTED "NO".

MOST Democrats were AGAINST the war.

Stop spreading false information, please.

:hi:

[Marrah_G]

50. He wasn't there to vote for it. He has continued to vote to fund it.

[casus belli]

52. He has answered this.

I'll paraphrase, "Once you vote to drive a bus into a ditch, there's only so many ways of getting it out. Voting to drive the bus into the ditch in the first place is a very different matter."

He answered the question quite well in the last debate. You should watch in its entirety and see if the answer satisfies you as well.

[Marrah_G]

54. See post 35.

He cannot claim the high road on this topic.

[casus belli]

56. Whatever you say. Also, the creator of post 35 is on ignore, so... n/t

[electron_blue]

55. He's voted to continue funding the war. In action, he's no different from her.