Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clarification re: IWR vote. Why did it hurt Clinton more than Kerry?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 02:59 PM
Original message
Clarification re: IWR vote. Why did it hurt Clinton more than Kerry?
Or did it?

I don't recall the same amount of animosity toward Kerry during the primary campaign for his IWR vote.

I, personally, thought Kerry's vote was opportunistic and calculated because just two weeks or so earlier I had seen him oppose war against Iraq on Hardball's college tour and argue vociferously against it to those students.

So did the people who say they could never support Hillary because of her IWR vote also oppose Kerry?

Consistency is desirable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. I was a proud Kerry-hater back in 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kerry should've voted against the IWR. That was his biggest weakness for me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Cause the war
had only been going a year. People weren't as pissed as they are now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. After the intial IWR vote Kerry actively tried to end the war
Clinton always tried hedging her position (outside of admitting it was wrong in the first place) so she looked good to both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. That is the exact same way I see it, too.
Hillary hedged her bets and played both sides...it was an issue of political expediency with her.

Kerry, on the other hand, admitted the mistake he had made and tried to rectify the situation.

Clinton and Kerry on their IWR votes? Like comparing apples and oranges.

JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Actually, consistency isn't all that
It wouldn't account for four more years of blood and bankruptcy. I know I've hardened over the past four years and I can't imagine there aren't more like me. In addition, I respect Senator Kerry more, if not for his IWR vote, which was wrong and he knows it, but for opposing the invasion and the occupation before they happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. The top 2 in the '04 primary after the first States had voted
Kerry and Edwards - both voted for IWR.

Before that, many supported Kucinich, Dean, Clark and others.

By the time the election came to Ohio, it was pretty clear Kerry was the nominee.

It was Kerry or *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jean627 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Kerry apologized for his vote
As soon as the lies started being exposed and he began speaking out against it. He even urged on the Senate floor that everyone read "Fiasco" and "Cobra II".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
8. It isn't animosity so much as it is a deciding factor
Obama and Clinton's positions on most issues are not very far apart, they both occupy a 'centrist' position that I find not particularly appealing as I view it as 'center-right'. So after my first and second choices failed to mount viable campaigns for the nomination (kucinich and edwards) my choice between Obama and Clinton was initially determined primarily by her IWR vote.

I did not give Kerry a free ride on this either. He was not my first choice and I supported him, and ignored what I thought was a terrible position on the war (the badly managed we can do it better position) because he was the nominee. I would support Clinton if she were the nominee and ignore her IWR vote.

I have come to dislike Clinton because of her wretched failed playing openly for 2012 its all about ME campaign over the last two months. Before that, as I said, I did not see much difference between the two and didn't dislike either of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Clinton is still under the illusion that voting for the IWR was a reasonable position
Also:
1. Despite saying it was a vote to get Bush to allow inspections and go through the UN, Bush cut short inspections when they started proving our case for war was wrong, and bypassed the UN. Clinton supported the invasion anyway.
2. A THREE TRILLION DOLLAR albatross has been hung around my generations neck partially thanks to her.
3. Approximately a million people have died, and millions more have been refugeed.
4. Despite all of the above she doesn't believe she has made any mistakes wrt the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Doesn't she say that it was a mistake?
She says that she voted for it to give * clout when he went to the U.N. It was characterized that way by the Bush WH.

Doesn't she say now that was a mistake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Not that I have heard.
People always mention the IWR vote, but what pisses me off the most is the months after the vote leading up to the war. They all gave speeches about how this was only to get Bush to go through the UN and let inspections go on. When Bush got fed up with the UN for not buying into his bullshit, and the weapon inspectors started debunking the case for war, Bush bypassed them all completely. Nobody who voted for the IWR protested, they all just fell in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecdab Donating Member (834 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. I supported Dean, but fell in behind Kerry just as I would have fallen
in behind Hillary.

But the differences are many fold between Kerry and Clinton.

In 2004 many saw the weakness of having a candidate that voted yes on the IWR, and didn't want to repeat that mistake in 2008.

Kerry also spoke in much more aggressive terms about the short comings of his IWR vote and did so much sooner than Hillary did.

In 2004 Kerry was seen as "more viable" because of his status as a war hero - Hillary didn't care such an advantage into this race.

Kerry also had a lot of positives with the anti-war crowd due to his actions during Vietnam - Hillary had no such record to fall back on.

And that's only scratching the surface of the differences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklynChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. public opinion about the war is very different than 4 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. Absolutely
I supported Dean. I could not support any candidate who voted for the IWR, then or now. What I don't understand is how many Kucinich supporters are drooling over John Edwards, when he co-sponsored the damn thing. I held my nose and voted for Kerry, and would have done the same for Hillary, if she won the nomination legitimately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. There were not as many dead in 2004 and we were not as broke
and having been in the military, he was given a pass by many for maybe "understanding" something about the war that ordinary people did not.. Most of the "stuff" about the war came out AFTER the 04 election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. There was alot of animosity here on DU.
But the nomination was settled much earlier in the process last time around, and once he was the presumptive nominee, it was no longer acceptable to attack Kerry here. Lots of people who couldn't accept it got tombstoned, and the same thing would have happened this time, no doubt, if Hillary had emerged as the nominee. Most of the people who didn't like Kerry's IWR vote, were still willing to support him in the election. It would be the same way for Hillary too. I really don't see any inconsistancy here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. It Was My Reason For Supporting Dean nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. Jan 2003, "Mr President Do Not Rush To War"
He didn't give Bush a pass on the yellowcake. He wasn't saying "stay the course". He expressed genuine horror at the invasion. Hillary and John Kerry are nowhere near the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
20. Because her last name is Clinton and with that we associate a certain kind of power.
Edited on Sun May-11-08 03:34 PM by Writer
So when that power decided to vote against something that many Dem's opposed, her vote became especially egregious in many Dem's minds.

Personally I think it's an incredibly unfair attack. She was the Democratic senator for the state of New York following one of the worst terror attacks on American soil - in Manhattan. It's crap to trash her on this - she was representing her state. She always has been held to a much higher standard in this regard. The truth is, there would be no Democratic majority in 2006 if many Dem's HADN'T voted for that resolution.

~Writer~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. Well, her inconsistency and now her "obliterate" comment
Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.


Kerry in 2003:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link


Kerry has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war, and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency.

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link


In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. Because Kerry Was Selected as the Party Nominee
In 2004, the party didn't feel it was safe to field an anti-Iraq War candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. It's called voting.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greguganus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. Kerry was a war veteran. Clinton was just a war monger. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
24. Did he admit his mistake?
Because that makes a world of difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Yes, he did. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
25. It killed Kerry in the GE. He should have never been the nominee in the first place. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George_Bonanza Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:50 PM
Original message
More people were supportive/tolerant of the Iraq situation in 2004 than in 2008
Iraq was a mess in 2004, but it was nowhere near the debacle it is now. People still had illusion that Iraq could turn out to be a positive operation back in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
27. Kerry said it was a mistake and he did not support the war when it started.
He said in his speech that he would onl support the military action under certain circumstances. When they were not met by the start of the war, he said he did not support it.

Clinton on the other hand, supported it when it started and continued for several years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
28. If Hillary had locked it up in February
like Kerry did, she wouldn't be taking nearly as much grief about it. Imagine the routine shellacking over the IWR Kerry would've endured if he and Dean were still neck and neck in May.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
30. Voters know a lot more in 2004 than they did in 2008.
In '04, Iraq was still seen as a defensive response to 911. Now it's widely understood as an elective oil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC