If HRC had voted no on IWR, wouldn't she have locked up the nomination months ago?

[joeprogressive]

She probably would have been my front runner from the start with Edwards and Obama as close seconds. I also think the chain of events that have led to the vicious cycle of negative campaigning would never have occurred because she would have continued as a front runner and would not have had to go negative; which has made her even more unpopular.

I can really see why she has such strong support among her faithful. She would have been a great candidate and I have defended her for years but actions have consequences and her mistake was colossal. It is sad to think she might be destroying her reputation permanently.

[H2O Man]

1. Interesting.

I think you are right.

[democracy1st]

35. if's come on ,

:wtf:

[JVS]

2. Yes.

[Exilednight]

3. She would have easily locked it up on Super Tuesday. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

4. Well that and ...

NCLB and .....

Hillary is a very astute politician but her core values are whatever is good for Hillary..

[Buzz Clik]

5. Perhaps, but her national polling numbers would be lower.

She voter for the war and she stood behind her vote early in the primary season because she was looking past the primaries and to the GE. She was certain that she would be the nominee and that her Democratic base would forgive her swing to the right.

[Exilednight]

8. But she never swung back. She swung right and stayed there. n/t

[joeprogressive]

10. I agree, she was in a Catch 22.

However, I think her national numbers would have been better than expected. She would have split many of the Indy's and new voters that have gone for Obama because many of these people are sick of the war.

[Peace Patriot]

52. 70% of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended...

...up from 56% just before the war started (Feb. '03, NYT poll; other polls 54-55%). If the issue is made clear, it would be a rout for anyone who supported it and/or wants to continue it. That is why the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and the war profiteers themselves and their bought-and-paid-for political representatives, work so hard to make it UNCLEAR.

That's the "why" of the Dean "scream tape" in 2004 (he was too clear on the war), and the black-holing of the Kucinich campaign and the fear and loathing of Edwards (and his genuine-seeming change of heart) in 2007-8. They don't want the American people to have a clear choice about the war, because they know what will happen. (And they knew it way back in the pre-war period when they saw that their propaganda wasn't working all that well, and passed the electronic voting (with 'trade secret' code) boondoggle bill, HAVA, in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution--Oct. 02--to try to keep control of the situation.) Do. Not. Let. The. War. Become. The. Issue. Do not let it be voted on by the American people.

Clinton is a fuzzer-upper of the issue. Obama really isn't all that clear, but, because he opposed the war early and publicly, the citizen activists who represent the majority of Americans, and the majority anti-war voters, and zillions of small donors, have flocked to his campaign in the hope of electing a president who is accountable to the people. If Obama makes the issue clear in November, he will whomp McCain--current 50/50 polls to the contrary notwithstanding. What Obama will actually do in office (or will be permitted to do), I do not know. I really don't. But what is VERY CLEAR--couldn't be clearer--is what the American people WANT. So if he sharpens up on this issue, and hammers McCain on it, he will win (Diebold or not--they will outvote the machines).

McCain's current 50% number is an artifact of media fuzzying of the issue, and using items like Rev. Wright to turn the Obama-Clinton struggle into a mud-wrestle that has absolutely nothing to do with the main issue, the war. If Obama is clear on the issue, word-of-mouth and the internet will overcome McCain's fuzz advantage, once we get out of this primary period. If he fuzzes the issue, he could well lose--because voters will become confused and unmotivated. If he clarifies it, he will win.

If Clinton is the nominee, however--especially if she gets it by insider maneuvering--malaise will follow. Voters sitting on their hands. Voters being bored (depressed, disempowered), turning it all off. The Democratic Party might even suffer a split, and a third party form. But November will be lost. That's my read on it. If the major national issue of the last five decades, and the biggest crime of the Bush Junta, and the biggest cause of our economic depression, continues to be fuzzed over by the Democratic Party, it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party, and for the country.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. She's not responsible for starting Bush's War in Iraq.

But that's what many democrats have been conditioned to believe.

[Exilednight]

11. But she enabled him and never apologized for it. You can't give the car keys to a person who.......

had to much to drink and then plead ignorance when they get in an accident and kill a person.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Wrong, and wrong.

Bush violated the terms of the AUF, and Bush did not need the AUF to attack Iraq in thew first place. Senator Clinton has said many, many times that if she knew then what she knew now she wouldn't have voted yes.

[joeprogressive]

21. That's easy to say now when it all turned to shit.

[Submariner]

24. "if she knew then what she knew now "

Hillary admits not reading the NIE. It is her own negligence.

Besides that, it was conventional wisdom here at DU that Bush's run-up to the Iraq invasion was all about oil anyway. WMDs were a ploy and Hillary should have seen that.

[joeprogressive]

26. Exactly. That is why it is hard for her to justify it now. She has to lie to

explain it. If others weren't duped, why was she? I'll bet the ones that voted "no" read the NIE. Just a hunch.

[Exilednight]

25. Yet many of has had the forsite to see that this was vote for war..........

Hillary played the political odds and got burned. Hillary was wrong. It was called the Iraq War Resolution, not the Iraq PREVENT War Resolution.

I knew we were going to war, millions of Americans knew we were going to war. What did Hillary believe?

Her explanation of voting for it while being against it doesn't jibe.

[Clovis Sangrail]

68. who are you trying to kid?

In the court of public opinion he absolutely needed the AUF.
That he actually broke it is largely irrelevant, because the take home in the press was that the legislature authorized him to use force.

Go ask random people (not at a Hillary or Obama rally) if congress authorized him to invade Iraq and see what they think.

As for not taking responsibility.. what Hillary has repeatedly said about her vote isn't an acceptance of responsibility, it's a weaselly attempt to pacify the anti war crowd without offending the pro war fuck heads.

How hard is it to say "I should have known better and I screwed up" or even "I made a mistake in voting for it" ?

[joeprogressive]

12. Maybe not, but she, among others could have prevented it. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

19. Bush, or any President for that matter, did not need the pre-approval of Congress.

War Powers Act.

[Exilednight]

27. They don't need pre-approval, but they need approval to keep troops in the area for .........

any length of time. It also doesn't explain why she voted for it. If you honestly believe your own writing, then why vote for something that you don't believe in? She could have voted no, and according to you, the President still would have sent troops in, but she could have been against it the whole time - just like millions of other Americans.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Oh then why exactly do they insist on obtaining such approval?

The War Powers Resolution requires post-approval, and every president since it was passed has insisted that it is unconstitutional while quietly adhering to its requirements. Which brings up the constitution, a document oddly clear on exactly where the authority to wage war rests, which authority has been blatently ignored since the day after we entered WWII.

[CTLawGuy]

67. the war powers act

was meant to curtail the war powers of the president, that's why Nixon VETOED it and Congress passed it over his veto.

[Clovis Sangrail]

15. not for starting... for enabling /nt

[Kahuna]

7. I believe she would have. nt

[EFerrari]

9. I don't think so. People seem to be ready for something new.

That's not her fault but, there it is.

[Clovis Sangrail]

13. depends

if a no vote on IWR was followed by similar behavior on other issues (ie:Iran) ... then probably.

I think I could have gotten past her IWR vote if she had just come out and said "I was misled and screwed up" instead of trying to pander to the pro and anti war folks at the same time while taking no responsibility.

[joeprogressive]

16. Agree, I forgave Edwards but HRC continued to play both sides.

[Saturday]

14. She's not destroying her reputation permanently.

As I said in another thread, almost 1/2 the votes cast in the Dem primary have been for her. If Obama doesn't have to apologize for continuing to fund the war he was against in the beginning then no one has to apologize.

[joeprogressive]

17. As stated in another thread. If Obama loses the GE, HRC will have destroyed

her reputation permanently.

[Clovis Sangrail]

34. exactly

if BO gets the nomination (very likey) and he loses, Hillary will quickly join Ralph Nader's lofty position in the esteem of most progressives.

[DevonRex]

20. Dems wanted their representatives to take a principled stand.

She didn't take the only principled stand there was. So yep, you're quite right. She only cared about positioning herself for the presidency. And she positioned herself right out of support from her own party.

[Zachstar]

22. If she had voted no she would be the nominee by now.

And if she had worked to urge fellow people in congress to vote against it. She would have been the nominee far before super Tuesday.

[ecdab]

23. Obama wouldn't have even tried to run against her

that's how clearly she would have had this race locked up if she had made the correct call on the IWR. Which is what makes her IWR vote so sad - she made it as a political move to prevent damage to her own career and it ended up being the key to preventing her from becoming the next President of United States.

[Kahuna]

64. I agree with this 100%.

:thumbsup:

[BeyondGeography]

28. It would have been pointless to oppose her if she had voted no on IWR

The package would have amounted to Experience + Judgment, pretty much unbeatable, even with all of her built-in personal flaws.

But, as a New Yorker who has watched her carefully for the last decade, I had no doubt she would vote for it. She didn;'t maneuver her way onto the Armed Services committee to be positioned as a dove. She always gave the impression of believing that, as a woman, she needed to be extra-hawkish whenever the opportunity arose.

[joeprogressive]

29. I definitely think she felt like she had to be a hawk in New York given 9/11 n/t

[BeyondGeography]

31. If she was going on the views of New Yorkers, she would have voted no

We held the biggest antiwar marches in the country and she was lobbied very hard by New Yorkers opposing the war. Many people were crushed when she voted the way she did. Many more swore they would never support her again.

Her vote was not at all about New York, it was a national play. And it backfired.

[Stephanie]

33. Absolutely correct.

One MILLION of us marched against the war. Hillary didn't hear us.

[Smarmie Doofus]

42. I don't agree. The war is still quite popular in these parts....

... and the state DEM party actually *defeated* a withdrawal motion from Iraq at the last state dem convention.

So when are we going to have coffee in Riverdale so I can further straighten you out?

[BeyondGeography]

44. LOL...when Obama gets the nom we'll have that coffee

Deal?

[Smarmie Doofus]

66. Deal? It's a done deal! You pick the place. nt

[BeyondGeography]

45. dupe

[stillcool]

49. still popular?

Why is that?

[Smarmie Doofus]

65. Ask them, not me. But if you want me to speculate....

... two main reasons:

1. perception that getting rid of Saddam would improve Israel's strategic position relative to the neighboring Arab states. Wrong again, guys.

2. combination of abysmal public education system in this area with oversaturation of nonsense "news" media that hyped and continues to hype the war. People in this town watch the idiot local TV news to find out what the weather is rather than looking out the window. I kid you not.

Since there is no TV news, people rely on RW rags like the Daily News ( Zuckerman) and The NY Post ( Murdoch) both HUGE war buffs... and of course the NY Times which as is now common knowledge was complicit in and integral to setting-up the WMD hoax.

[joeprogressive]

43. I agree that there is a strong anti-war sentiment in New York but she

thought New Yorkers wanted decisive action against the war against terror. Unfortunately, HRC chose the wrong battleground.

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. A little political courage would have been nice, too.

Sometimes you have to tell people "no". Even if it's unpopular.

She holds RFK's seat. RFK advocated for negotiations with the Vietnamese. He advocated sending blood to the Viet Cong. He advocated a coalition gov't including the VC in Saigon. All of these were unpopular positions amongst the average voters... including and especially NY.

Its a case of real leadership vs. hack mediocrity. See the difference?

[TragedyandHope]

30. Well, it would have made it that much harder for Obama to get his foot in door

[Stephanie]

32. Could be - she completely betrayed us with that vote.

The "activist base" turned elsewhere for representation after that.

[Smarmie Doofus]

36. Most certainly. nt

[shraby]

37. Not as far as I'm concerned.

I've had enough of Republican and Republican light in the White House. That would be the Clintons and the Bush families.

[shayes51]

38. probably

[patrice]

39. Many of us are fighting her because we know that if she gets in office she MUST justify that vote

and given any one of even remotely "appropriate" circumstances she will do just that. Remember PNAC is not dead and gone and the Neo-cons must resurect themselves politically. They've already been propogating that meme "If we have to go back to Iraq . . . ." HC has already demonstrated the tendency to color the facts to suit herself. So the question is who will be most vulnerable to these powerful factors and the answer is Hillary.

None of this would be true if she had not voted for the IWR.

[rock]

41. It really wouldn't matter

If she had voted against it, it would be argued that she didn't support the (Mis)administration in it's negotiations to ferret out the WMD's.

[stillcool]

46. she did lock up the nomination..

months ago. Something weird happens when people vote.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. But then she would not have been Hillary Clinton

Her vote on the IWR is a symptom of an essential part of her character, had she voted differently she would be a rather different person. I do note that Kerry had this same flaw and I supported him. Her vote was not disqualifying, her failure to fully admit that it was a mistake coupled with Obama's public position against the IWR and consistent opposition to the war sealed the deal for me.

[dailykoff]

51. Right.

She didn't just vote for IWR, she's hyped the lies and been on board the Cheney genocide-torture choo choo all the way.

[EFerrari]

54. Days like this I miss Paul Wellstone.

He wasn't perfect by any means but, man, he was so much more real.

[Toucano]

55. And John Kerry and John Edwards?

I don't think that's true.

A lot of Democrats voted for the war. I think they were doing what they thought the country wanted them to do. In that sense, yes, it was politically expedient.

This notion of Clinton as a sinister panderer is overplayed, IMO.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. I thought I was clear.

"I do note that Kerry had this same flaw and I supported him. Her vote was not disqualifying,"

[Toucano]

69. I didn't intend to ignore you're qualifier, only enhance the point.

What I mean to say is that it can't simply be the IWR vote that makes Hillary Hillary, as you say.

If that were enough, it would be what makes Edwards Edwards and Kerry Kerry, too.

[sandnsea]

70. Jan 2003 "Mr President Do Not Rush To War"

Kerry opposed the invasion as Bush shoved us towards war. Hillary told Code Pink Saddam had to disarm and she supported any action to make him disarm. Hillary supported the actual war, she continued to support it in Nov 2003 when she said we had to "stay the course". Hillary was the one creating the impression in the media that Dems and Bush were the same on Iraq. After the election, Kerry was one of the first to begin pushing for benchmarks in order to get out. He and Hillary are not the same.

[Toucano]

72. Kerry created the confusion himself.

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.”

Obama is doing better and will do better because he has been clear. Clinton and Kerry were (are) not as distinctly different as Obama.

[sandnsea]

73. Kerry had a proposal to get out in 2005

You didn't know that did you? No, because you're a dupe for gotcha games. That wasn't the question, and the IWR authority did not mean Bush had to invade without letting the inspectors finish. Kerry was very vocal in his opposition to invasion, Hillary gave inspections the same kind of lip service Bush did.

[Toucano]

75. I'm not sure why you're being an ass to me.

We were on the same side then and I think we're on the same side now.

Kerry voted for the war. To independent voters in the summer and fall of 2004, that made him as responsible as Bush. After the August "if I knew then" statement and the "I voted for it before I voted against it", it became impossible to talk about the issue with independents (and even some Dems).

I was on the porch of hundreds of homes in those months, and I'm telling you Kerry created confusion on his position by attempting to be too "technically correct". Clinton has made the same mistake.

Obama has an advantage on this issue because he has clearly articulated his position.

Of course you and I know that the only person responsible for the invasion of Iraq is George W. Bush and he would have done it with or without a resolution. But Rove was able to blur the distinction among those who don't pay close attention. Kerry inadvertently assisted him in blurring the distinction.

[sandnsea]

76. Dems being bamboozled by the media is the problem

I didn't have any problems talking to people. Yes, Kerry voted for an amendment that would have paid for the war. Wouldn't you be glad if we'd passed that amendment, instead of crashing our economy? Simple. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, plan to get out in 2005 - is that clear enough for you?

It wasn't hard because I knew what the candidate was saying, I wasn't holding my nose. And believe me, if I can't go out and talk for a candidate, 100%, I shut my mouth. Repeating talking points is worse than saying nothing.

Democrats do this all the time. There is always going to be something the Republicans throw, it's the nature of politics. Kerry got much less than most. And yet, we still couldn't stand behind him and muster an agressive response. When those purple band-aids came out - WE should have stood up. WE didn't. That's why the Republicans think we're a bunch of wimps and why they get away with distorting our candidates, time after time. It drives me batty.

[Peace Patriot]

50. Yes! nt

[Toucano]

53. I think so.

Kerry managed to neutralize the issue among Democrats in 2004 and ended up getting not only the nomination, but more votes than any person in history.


Among independents, I think, it hurt Kerry because Republicans could say he voted for it (before he voted against it).


But the war was new then.


In 2008, the electorate is so tired of the war, that they are far less inclined to forgive Hillary's or Edwards' vote. They want to blame someone besides Bush, whom they are also tired of.

This gave Obama a big advantage, I think.

[Melinda]

56. Agreed... she'd have danced to the nomination.

[crankychatter]

57. nope, because of kyl-lieberman, NAFTA and other issues

this rhetoric currently about Iran's "nuclear ambitions" despite NIE facts... is more of the same...

nope... she's almost always wrong and not believable, even when she's "right.'

[goletian]

58. yes, she probably wouldve won for sure and

she wouldve never had to show her true colors and alienate millions

[Occam Bandage]

59. Most likely. I'd have likely supported her.

[VotesForWomen]

60. Don't know; Dean was against the war in 2004, Kerry got the nom. O isn't even against the war

so it's questionable what the 'real' position of dem voters on this issue is.

[Kahuna]

63. "O isn't against the war?" Please explain. nt

[NJSecularist]

62. Yes, she would have.

She would essentially stolen a good majority of Obama's biggest supporters and a big part of his coalition. She most likely would have clinched on Super Tuesday.

[Tesha]

71. Yes. It was her vote on the IWR that turned me away from her.

It was her lack of acknowledgement of that coldly-calculated
political vote that has kept me away.

Tesha

[Lisa0825]

74. Not as far as I'm concerned.

There's still NAFTA, and the rest of the DCL BS.