The more I read and post here, the more I realize Hillary Clinton cannot win the White House.

[Brotherjohn]

I am sorry to say that and flame away. I think she would make a great president. I think she or Obama SHOULD win the White House. I would place both her and Obama light years ahead of McCain as far as their positions on the war, and anything else.

Keep in mind that most of what I say below is playing Devil's Advocate. But it is exactly what she will face should she come up against McCain.

Her IWR vote damns her. It's that simple. She cannot effectively distinguish herself from John McCain in the most important issue of this election, and the most important issue this nation has faced in many many years. She can equivocate and excuse all she likes, but she voted to give GWB authorization to go to war. She can say until the cows come home that she was misled, but millions of us in less of a position to know were not. At best she was naive, and at worst she voted for a horrible war that has killed untold thousands and risked our very nation for political expediency.

No, she did not come up with the idea. No, she did not start the war herself. Yes, Bush misled and still did not even follow the letter of the resolution, and the war is arguably illegal under U.N. Statutes. But from a political and practical standpoint, she gave GWB the go ahead, as anyone paying attention at the time realized. In essence, in this respect, she is no different than McCain.

It's the one thing that most severely weakened Kerry's run, even though the war was less unpopular then.

Yes, Obama was "under less pressure" to take a stand. Nonetheless, he took one; and not a popular one. And it wasn't as though he was a talk show host or celebrity. He WAS a state politician at the time, with an eye on a run for U.S. Senate. And his words both then and now back up his opposition to the very idea that we should have gone to war. He is not saying "the planning was inadequate" or "the war's operation was bungled". He is saying "This war was WRONG!"

Maybe it's a lot easier for a presidential candidate to say that now. But he IS saying it. And I don't hear Sen. Clinton saying it.

Yes, he has voted to continue funding for the war. But Mr. Bush's invasion has left no politician... indeed, no American... in an easy place. A Senator voting for funding is a far cry from voting to authorize the war itself. The IWR vote was the time to stop the war. Whatever her reasons or assumptions, Clinton failed on that count. While not in the same position, Obama did all he could at the time and spoke out against it. To say "things would have been different" were he in the Senate then is all conjecture. That may or may not be, but the record we have indicates otherwise.

Whomever takes the White House will inherit one royal MESS thanks to GWB. It is easy to start a war. It is far harder to stop one. Obama will be in a much stronger moral and political position to stop this one.

[mirrera]

1. I agree! Nicely put. n/t

[KLee]

2. I agree.

There is a stark difference.

It lends more credibility if you are trying to stop a war that you never helped authorize vs. one that you did.

[butterfly77]

3. I am beginning to believe this also...

the hate I have seen here and on other sites really has convinced me of this. I believe the only way the rightwing will try to use to bring Obama down will be pitting the races against each other and I see more and more of it each day on these rightwing talking head shows...

[Omega3]

4. this is rediculous, she voted the same way McCain did, how is she at a dissadvantage to him?

and it's not the most important issue in this election, the Economy is.

and by the way, she voted for authorization for the war just like BHO endorsers Kerry, Dodd and Uncle Teddy did. It was Bushies decision anyway.

I'm sorry, but BHO WASN'T IN THE US SENATE at the time, he's said he didn't know how he would've voted and since he's been in the senate he's vote THE EXACT SAME WAY AS SHE HAS. The funding would go through so if he's so anti-war why not a protest vote???? because it wouldn't be politically expedient for him that's why. He has been so CALCULATED in his votes it's sickening, and you are all falling for it.

oh yes, he "took a stand" and then took that now infamous speech off his website???? why?

bottom line: there is no difference in their voting records. PERIOD. NONE. get over it. This aint the 60's.

He going to stop the war? is that before or after he adds 100,000 troops like he said he wants to.

[Brotherjohn]

6. A) It makes her no different than him. Why "change horses in midstream"?

(much as it galls me to paraphrase Ronald Reagan). It also gives antiwar vote less to vote for.

B) You don't think spending trillions on Iraq has damaged the economy?

C) No. They (Hilary and Obama) are not very different. I agree on that. But this is a big one, even if it's only in principle.

D) If he's so afraid of his stance, why did he clearly state in the last debate that this war was wrong? (no, I don't have the exact quite at this time, but he said it and the distinction was painfully obvious; anyone help me out here?)

Do you think Hillary's votes to continue funding have been all for political expediency, or perhaps continuing to provide troops in the field with protection and food and shelter is a bit more difficult to draw the line on? As I said, neither she not Obama nor anyone are in as easy or clear of a position on that count. Unless they can instantly end the war and bring all the troops home, which they can't w/o endangering thousands of American and Iraqi lives, then they can't just willy nilly say "no".

The rest of your points have already been answered in my original post. Except who endorses him. Farrhakan (sp?) also endorses him. So what?

[Omega3]

8. change horses? there's no sitting prez or veep so there will be a change, again, if you as a Dem are

willing to conceed the terror/war/strength/security vote to the repukes then you're thinking like, well, a typical dem, we don't need that anymore. We need to start winning a few elections. The Dems need to show they too can keep the country "safe". I don't like either but it counts, the repukes will play to it and we need to show our "strength" too.

B: again, he voted for the spending so he's just as at fault as she, I'll repeat: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THEIR VOTES RE: THE WAR, THEY HAVE VOTED THE EXACT SAME WAY.

C: his campaingn as 'anti-war" is the biggest lie he's telling, the Principal is based on faulty premesis. second is how he never takes money from lobbyists but that's another debate.

D: HC said in the last debate that she would have voted differently, something BO supporters were screaming for, now she's done it. Of course she realizes the war was a mistake but ultimately, it was bush's decision. It wasn't a tied vote left up to her to decide. All of the canadates standing on the stage , outside of Kucinich, who had a vote did vote for it so no matter who's left you have the same problem.

[Brotherjohn]

10. I'm not thinking like a typical Dem; but I'm teling you (IMHO) many moderates and independents will.

At least many more if Hillary is the nominee. No there's no incumbent running. But the incumbent party is, with a stong war supporter. We need someone who can most strongly counter that; sad as it is to say, to give people the courage to change course.

As w/ 2004, I fear people are still "afraid"... I didn't make it so, Bush did. And if they're going to make a drastic shift against the war, I think they're most likely top do so w/ someone who more forcefully can agrue for it.

Hilary's now claiming her vote was wrong was commendable, but it is not being made in a vacuum. It is made in the heat of a campaign in which she is losing ground to a perceived anti-war candidate. She has not learned anything new since two weeks ago that now suddenly leads her to believe the vote was wrong.

Yes, I think there voting record IS different. You can discount all you want that Obama wasn't in office during the IWR, and assume that he would have voted the same. But again, that's conjecture. And if he would have voted for the war in October 2002, why in the world would he have said nearly everything he said in that speech in October 2002?

[Omega3]

11. conjecture? it's not conjecture as , and here we go again, HE SAID HE IS NOT SURE HOW HE WOULD HAVE

VOTED ON THE RESOLUTION IF HE HAD A VOTE. GET IT? he is using this anti-war thing for as much political capitol as he can muster but it's contrived. He's not sure how he would've voted b/c he also doesn't want to offend anybody (like indies and soft repukes) who wanted the war. This is him, like always, talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to everyone. Who really is Barack Obama??? According to ppl like you HC is a strong war supporter as well.

there is no difference in their positions, they both want out of Iraq, both want to pull troops out within a year (remember him copying her answers during the debates) they both want to stop spending money in Iraq and spend that money on the economy.

[Brotherjohn]

12. It's not conjecture to say we don't know how he would have voted.

We don't. It's conjecture to say he would also have voted FOR the war.

And even if he is saying "he doesn't know" for political benefit, it's a far cry between walking the middle line in a campaign on a hypothetical to try to garner as many votes as possible (that's politics), and casting a vote that has real life and death consequences to try to garner as many votes as possible.

I agree with your last paragraph completely, they're hardly any different at all. I like Hillary (though I don't think she's run a great campaign). Yes, Hillary has had a harder course to plot, and WAS in a tougher situation.

I just think her vote harms her, if not cripples her, as related in the OP.

[Brotherjohn]

14. "..a war that I believe should have never been authorized and should have never been waged"

Austin debate, Feb 22, 2008 (http://polstate.com/?p=5254).

Strongest statement I have heard from anybody short of Dennis Kucinich.

[Omega3]

15. again, talking out of both sides of his mouth after saying he doesn't know how he'd vote for it if

he had a vote back then.

[Brotherjohn]

19. Again, not the same as voting for it. Politics is politics; it's an election..

Voting in the Senate guided by politics has real consequences. What Obama's doing and saying now has no real consequence other than to win or lose an election. How he'll govern is what's important. He can try to appear as moderate and strong as he likes in his campaign; he can waffle, flip-flop, pander, whatever; and they all do. It's up to the voter to decide after all that who they trust more and who they feel reflectes their values and positions more.

Besides, despite such statements (could you post a link so I can get context?), making such a clearly antiwar one in the latest debate is pretty strong. It's not as though he's trying to hide that he was against the war. And everybody and his uncle knows about the 2002 speech, whether he took it off his web page or not.

[suston96]

5. You mean the IWR passed because of Hillary Clinton and no one else?

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

*******

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.

That the vote you are talking about?

[Brotherjohn]

7. I'm not saying she agrees, nor agreed then , with Bush. I'm saying she can't make the same moral...

... or political case now to end the war. At least not with as much moral or political force. And if she can't do that, I fear she'll lose to McCain.

Plus, until that vote, Congress had the power to start war should it see fit to. They gave that away, as she clearly states in your quote.

[suston96]

30. Bigger problem here...balance of power and checks and balances....they do not work....nt

[Omega3]

9. all she will say is , she, like many others, voted for authorization and the decision to go to war

was rushed and a bad one. Also the management of the war was illconcieved, something the Senators have no power over. He's the commander in chief, not a senator from NY.

if she's the nominee and didn't vote for the war McCain would jump over that much more saying she's not strong enough to lead in times of crisis.

[Brotherjohn]

16. Agree with most of what you say. But the Senate DID have power over that vote.

Although one Senator did not, and it was a Repub senate. As I've said, she has had a harder road to follow.

I also agree that McCain, had she voted against the war, would have attacked her for it. But I believe, at this stage in the war (maybe not in 2004), a vote against the war in 2002 would have helped her in 2008, not hurt her.

[bigbrother05]

13. I'm going to chance the subject here for a minute

Clinton stated on the 700 Club this that her TOP PRIORITY is HEALTH CARE, That kinda shook me. If she goes up against McCain, with this being her top priority and fighting a war machine. I'm not saying she can't handle it, it's just going to get messy. Now flame me all you want. No I don't have a link

[Omega3]

18. how's it gonna look with a pacifist against a "war machine" You're concerned about it with HC but

not BO? what the heck do you think McLame will say about BO: "he isn't tough enough to fight the extremists, he won't hunt 'em down there to keep us safe here, he's against rooting out the evil" blah blah blah, you know it'll happen. what can he say about HC "she voted for the authorization like I did, she voted for the funding like I did, she's tough as I am"

it's gonna be messy no matter what.

ps healthcare, or lack of ins. therefore, is the leading cause of bankrupcy in the US. HC has a policy that covers all, and contrary to popular belefe it's not mandated, she has expeience doing this before, I know, take a cheap shot that it didn't work but you know she's learned from it and is in a better more experienced postion becuase of it.

[bigbrother05]

21. Obama has already taken McCain's lobs

and turned them right back on him, I don't think that will be a problem, but since you asked. Hillary has not shown her strengths in this campaign, there is no doubt in my mind that she can go up against Mccain, but she appears not to be prepared.
Yes we are one of the strongest nations, and we can loose everything, because we are not healthy, There is not much diff. in the health care plans, either would work for me

[grantcart]

25. 700 club - is that pat robertson's show?

[bigbrother05]

27. Yes it is, someone posted it

one clip about the health care, and then they posted the whole interview,
but I could not watch

[grantcart]

29. I find it hard to believe or understand that HRC would be on a show like that

[bigbrother05]

31. I know,, Obama was on there about a month ago

[grantcart]

32. wow this is the kind of preacher they should be seen with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8IITf_jgfo

[bigbrother05]

35. I have always admired Dick

but can you imagine what our society would say, baby steps
Go check Shame post, hubby added a little video just for you

[Forkboy]

17. I think when it comes down to just two either Obama or Hillary can win.

Bookmark this. I'm only optimistic once a year, and I think this is it. :)

[Brotherjohn]

20. You know, I often lean that way too. Hey, this is just a post (one of thousands today).

Earlier, after posting on one thread a few times debating who's anti-war and who's not, are they any different, etc. etc... I just started to feel that Obama can make the anti-war case more, and that making that case is what's going to win the election.

I also have this nagging fear we all have that we were here before, in 2004: "There's no WAY Bush can win." I sometimes feel "There's no WAY ANY Republican can win in 2008!", but then again...

You're probably right, that either Dem can and will beat McCain. Hillary IS tough and road-tested, and as someone pointed out above, it'll be messy either way; and she can claim "I'm just as tough as you McCain!" (plus her party didn't trash the economy, the Constitution, etc., etc.) And I think Obama being a relatively new face helps him, as he also represents a change from the mass destruction of the last 8 years, as really, any Dem does.

But a big part of me today is thinking we need the strongest anti-war voice possible.

EVEN IF a large part of that is perception. Perception counts for a lot in politics.

[bigbrother05]

23. thank you BrotherJohn for your well spoken words

I agree with your opinion, I think it's going to war vs anti-war

[Brotherjohn]

26. It has to be. I think that's why we lost last time, b/c it was not cast as...

... war vs. anti-war. (that and maybe Ohio)

[11 Bravo]

22. I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but DU is not a microcosm of the American voting public.

[Brotherjohn]

24. That's practically my entire point.

The electorate in general perceives Obama as more anti-war because of his ability to say he was against the war at the beginning. Perception is important. And the electorate is in an anti-war mood.

Hillary cannot say she was against the war from the beginning because of her vote. Despite his votes to continue funding, he can still say that.

I don't think for a second that most here find his stance on the war all that different from hers.

[bigbrother05]

34. Exactly Jack Cafferty's point a few minutes ago

It will be status quo vs. change and that's a battle that Obama wins over both Clinton and McCain.

[rock]

28. I disagree! But it was nicely put. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

33. I agree. Well said. nt

[paulk]

36. I don't think the IWR is going to be as much of a factor in the GE

more people in the general will have had the same position that Hillary did - she was lied to, believed the President, gave him the benefit of the doubt, and came to realize what a clusterfuck the whole thing is. The difference is that McCain wants to stay there -she doesn't. That's something that can be campaigned on.

Not everyone out there places the same importance on the IWR that certain segments of the left has. They realize that this war is solely the responsibility of George Bush and his minions.