and thus marked the end of Ms. Clinton's campaign. tune in again next Democratic primary season, when perhaps she learns that a true leader knows how to apologize.

Unfortunately there are millions of dollars that have more influence than honor or common sense.

Jan Knaus

I don't follow you.

She made a mistake. She knows it. We know that she knows it. And she knows that we know that she knows it. So for her not to acknowledge that mistake is the equivalent of a lie. She's not even president and she's already lying to us.

She's still on script.

You said a mouthful! The "script" she follows is for the most stereotypical, banal, and phoney political candidate that you could see in any movie. From her "boy voice" to her head-nodding, she looks like a bad actor using every shallow overused technique she can imagine.

And THOSE are her GOOD qualities! When it comes to actual substance she is nothing but fake. She says, "Vote for me! I have experience as the wife of a former president! I can hit the ground running!"

She is as unqualified as Rudy, who could also say, "Vote for me! Everyone in the city I was mayor of hated my guts until 911 when I acted like a grown-up for a few months!"

Hillary has shown some real signs? I just don't agree. If her name were Harry Martin, with her experience (and without her millions) she would not be considered for a moment. And it is because of her marriage and her burning ambition that she feels entitled. That is not enough. The Presidency is not a prize to be awarded someone who wants it badly enough. Too many people look at it that way.

Jan Knaus

I agree. They don't get it. Should we suggest they tune in to TPM? Where can we write to let them know the lay of the land? I see Terry McCaullif and others talking like Hillary is a done deal; like she is the accepted front-runner. They need to hear from us.

Jan Knaus

It will be either Edwards (my first preference as he's the only one addressing the economy/jobs and the unfair trade deals) or Obama. Getting our troops safely out of Iraq, is also important to me. So is health care, worker's rights, protecting our constitutional rights and our sovreignty as well as dealing with the environmental crisis. I don't think I could even hold my nose to vote for Clinton, because she is in the pockets of the corporate interests and she's more about power than representing the people.

I'll say this, I do believe that those grinding the axe regarding the vote are more about power than they are about dealing with ending the war. No large group of Americans even listen to them, in fact they probably even helped empower Bush longer than he would have been if there was sane, reasoned discourse on the subject. But then again, the "blogosphere" isn't about sane, reasoned discourse. It's allowed itself to become as hate-filled and corrupted as the right wing is.

As to Medea Benjamin, the woman's a hypocrite and lusting for power.. code "let them eat cake" is more appropriate. She's turned Cindy Sheehan into a pariah.

You are missing a huge point here and being quite short-sighted by insisting Sen Clinton say she made a mistake.

Look at this from a Rove point of view.

If Sen. Clinton says, "I made a mistake and I'm sorry", what do you think will be the whole theme if she wins the Democratic primaries?

I can tell you: ...just like a woman; can't make up her mind; weak; makes mistakes; for it before she was against it; ad nauseum. Remember the cookie baking brouhaha?

What this most reminds is the 60 minutes "Gennifer Flowers" interview that she and her husband did before the '92 New Hampshire primary, where she said that anyone who was bothered by it shouldn't vote for her husband.

That actually helped Clinton at the time because he got on national TV and boosted his name recognition. It was like "Theres no such thing as bad publicity." The other candidates were upset about it.

But she already has 100% name recognition so maybe voters will analyze what she's actually saying, which amounts to, "The hell with you."

Yeah, me too. Will do, Hillary.

Jan/CVille and Dan K take up my feeling that 2007 is where we are, that the mistake in 2002 was too widespread in America as well as the senate, and that Clinton is nonetheless too scripted and not cutting it. I wouldn't quite put it their way, that she's inflexibly pro-military, however. More of too much flexibility.

I have no trouble taking her at her words on several things recently. That she said in 2002 that her vote wasn't simply to go to war. That better info on WMD would have changed it. That she's opposed to the surge and supports the Dems in seeking debate on Iraq. That she wants Bush to get us out of there. That she wouldn't have got us in and would get us out. That she favors negotations with Iran. I suppose that characterizes pretty much all Democrats except Lieberman.

I won't dwell, to be consistent, on why the 2002 vote parts aren't enough, since I thought there were WMDs (and UN inspectors) and opposed war. But it's more that I see her as too careful, looking always for words to please everyone. She's not a Neocon. And in all fairness to her, her 2005 ADA rating was 100 percent, way better than Joe's and also better than Pelosi's.

So I hope we don't turn her into the devil incarnate. Let's just hold her and others to our convictions, and with luck we'll get someone we like better, which means anyone else. 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

"Know thy enemy."

Our enemy is the Republican attack machine. As historic and significant as the 2002 vote was and is, I am more concerned with how the various Dems' positions on Iraq will affect their vulnerability to attack in the general election next year.

The Pubs don't just attack the actions of Democrats, they will make-up narratives about the character of whoever wins the nomination. In 2000, Al Gore was a serial liar with delusions of grandeur. In 2004, John Kerry was the flip-flopper. The question we should be asking is, how do the positions of each Dem candidate on the war fit into likely Republican attack memes?

Obama: The Pubs will likely attack Obama as "inexperienced and superficial." The fact that he was right on the war from the start and precient in his comments about the problems of an occupation and the broader effects on the Middle East, makes it tough for the Pubs to make their attack stick. Obama has been right; he has been clear; he has been consistent; and, he had the guts to state his position when his political career was on the line (running in the Dem primary for Senate).

Edwards: The Pubs will likely attack him as a slick trial lawyer who lacks foriegn policy experience and can't be trusted. The fact that he voted for the war and supported it vigorously for two years and now strongly opposes it after the war has gone badly can be construed as chasing public opinion. He is the trial lawyer telling the jury what they want to hear. Edwards does get points for a clear, unambiguous apology, but he is still damaged by his lack of initial judgement and vulnerable to the "flip-flop" charge, as the grilling he took on Meet the Press clearly indicates.

HR Clinton: The Pubs have attacked her as calculating and consummed by ambition for over a decade. HRC can spin her vote as much as she wants, she may even be honest about not intending her vote to be an authorization for war. The fact remains, however, that in the public's mind, she supported Bush's position. She was either guilty of incredibly poor judgement, or she was guilty of triangulating. The fact that she remained a war booster for over two years, and now has gradually ratcheted up her criticism as it became politically necessary to do so, effectively reinforces the Pubs attack meme. Add to this her refusal to apologize and she looks a lot like the stubborn, petulant, current occupant of the White House.

IMO, of the big three Dems, HRC is the most vulnerable, and her position is the most objectionable. I believe her lack of principle, on the most important vote of her career, can and should cost her the nomination.

I prefer Obama for a number of reasons. He has to show, however, that he is ready to lead the country, and the polls have to show that the country is ready for him. If he stumbles, Edwards is a strong alternative.

Well Hillary can think this is just about the Iraq vote, but it isn't.

The AUMF was a vote for the Senate to relinquish their constitutional power of accountability and oversight of the executive branch. That she, a Yale educated lawyer, failed to comprehend the enormity of that with or without faulty intelligence is frankly unbelievable. Particularly when she voted against resolutions, at that time, designed to curtail the blank check for executive power and exercise the power  and constitutional duty of the Senate and Congress of  oversight as CO-EQUAL governing power under our system Democratic governance.

Now we can add to this vote, her also  voting for warrant less wiretapping, the Patriot Act, as well as torture, and want emerges is a political will that is the antithesis of what America needs  in the WH if civil liberties and aggressive diplomacy are in the best interest of all American citizens.

For icing on the cake we have her speeches to AIPAC and pro-Israel lobby/audiences where she basically says that she too is willing to declare a pre-emptive war on the 'existential' threat that Iran represents to Israel. Not America. But Israel.

All this adds up to a GOP primary candidate, along the lines of Hillary being a Goldwater girl and President of the Students for Republicans at Wellesley.

It's a chilling thought but I suspect, we can expect Hillary to nominate Lieberman as her running mate if she is nominated.

Overall on her Iraq vote what we have is Hillary's mea culpa of:

 "I was betrayed by two Presidents'

Hillary is nothing but a female Tricky Dick Nixon.

Fair enough, Senator Clinton. I hereby pledge to support a true anti-war candidate during the primaries instead of you.

If you are unable to admit that your vote was a mistake, if you are unable to see that you are complicit in starting this war through your vote, then you're no better than the current president who also never admits a mistake and takes little responsibility for his own actions.

Why is Clinton "scripted" but Obama and Edwards are not? Please, Edwards wasn't exactly pushing anti-poverty legislation while he was a senator. Obama says nice things that everyone wants to hear and doesn't seem interested in staking out explicity positions on controversial issues.

Whether you agree with her or not is beside the point. Why is she "scripted" while the others are not. The others seem more scripted and less pandering than Clinton (who btw, isn't my top choice).

 I said HRC trusted the President of the United States to tell her the truth.
Then I said that President George W. Bush did NOT tell her the truth.

blah, blah, blah

Overall, you are saying  Hillary's mea culpa of:

 "I was betrayed by two Presidents'

I believe Bush made a mistake by pushing our country into an unnecessary war.

I believe Hillary made a mistake by authorizing this President, and the circle of neo-con advisors telling him what to do, to start that war.

Bush is at fault for his actions and will be held accountable by history.

Hillary is responsible for her actions and will be held accountable by the voters in the Democratic primaries next year.

I fully understood what you meant. My point is that the idea that Hillary's judgement should not be faulted because she trusted the President to tell the truth is a bit humorous. Sorry if my sense of humor is occasionally a bit perverse.

I don't expect Hillary to apologize for her vote on the 2002 resolution because I can only believe that she knew exactly what she was doing. Twenty-three senators were not convinced by the Bush administration's Iraqi WMD 'evidence.' Inspectors had been unable to locate any traces of WMD in Iraq despite open access to all sites. US intelligence agencies were quibbling among themselves over some of the evidence, e.g., the infamous aluminum tubes. Everyone knew that this resolution would lead to a US invasion of Iraq, and not further UN inspections. If Hillary wants to admit to being 'fooled' by Bush, then she is admitting to a serious lack of investigational vigor by herself and her staff. My only guess as to why she voted 'aye' on the resolution is that she felt a 'nay' vote too risky politically for a 2008 presidential run (remember the nationalistic fever in 2002). I hold her accountable for that vote and hope that she isn't the nominee of the Democrats in 2008.

When it comes down to it, Clinton is in the worst position of the Big 3 Dems, as she is the only one who will have had to vote on these matters then and now. I like Obama and Edwards and remain undecided at this early point. But I was thinking this morning, before coming across this discussion, how it was easy for Obama to take a gamble opposing the war in 2002 when he wasn't going to have to vote on the authorization. And it's easy for Edwards to call for de-funding when he won't have to vote on it in 2007. Hillary is the only major Dem candidate who will have taken stands on both issues. Sucks to be her.

That said, I think her statement in New Hampshire was probably her best choice. As others have pointed out, bowing down to the Netroots will only make her susceptible to Republican attacks if she wins the nomination. In the greater scheme of things, it's more important that she appear reasonable (and strong) to the wider electorate than to the vocal and active but relatively small percentage of registered voters who participate in discussions like these. And I think many voters will find her statement to be reasonable. She may not have apologized, but she has conceded the error of her ways, something Bush et al have refused to do.

Bemused

Just one question. You say "bowing down to the Netroots will only make her susceptible to Republican attacks if she wins the nomination". I have been under the impression that all ofthem are susceptible to Republican attacks no matter what they do and who they are. I think Kerry was a war hero, Bush a chickenhawk of the worst type who just blew off the special military service his father arranged for him. When the Republican slime machine was done, Bush was a war hero and Kerry was an elite coward. I think it is more important to figure out how we are going to go on the offensive then how we will parry Republican lies and misrepresentation and character attacks. The latter are incoming, no matter who is out there. Part of that is to have passionate supporters who will counterattack energetically and immediately. I am not sure that is what Clinton is preparingfor.

"The stance [Obama] took was still at great political risk given that he stated his opposed during his campaign for the US Senate."

With all due respect, Obama's Senate race was a joke, and I say this as a former Illinois resident who happily voted for him. There was no way nutjob Alan Keyes was going to win that election, so I don't think you can say Obama took "great political risk" as it related to his Senate campaign.

Bemused

Obama was facing what became a nine way primary in the fall of 2002. He faced a statewide officeholder, a Chigago machine endorsed pro, and a multi-millionaire business-man. He trailed in the polls until three weeks before the primary election. Furthermore, in 2002 he had no idea that Jack Ryan would implode leaving the Pubs unable to field a candidate stronger than Keyes.

Oof. We're back to the old Clinton obfuscation and parsing until words don't mean anything. Was the Iraq War a blunder or wasn't it?

I'm very concerned by the part of the article that said she thinks the Congress should be deferential to the President. Thats really why we're in this mess; the Congress bowed and scraped to Bush.

Yes Hillary - there are other candidates we can choose.

Her attitude seems to be, "See how much money I've raised - just try and stop me." She'll change her mind and say her vote was a mistake once she realizes her biggest mistake was in sticking to it. By then it will be too late.

Hillary has frontrunneritis. She's playing it safe and figures she can glide to the nomination through political calculation. She thinks it's more important for her as a woman presidential candidate to seem tough on foreign policy - and not to be seen as changing her mind (a woman's prerogative). But it's really more important for her - or any other candidate - just to tell the truth. If she can't do that, she won't be able to form the connection of trust with Democratic voters that she needs to win the nomination. She doesn't have the charisma of her husband, and the only way she can connect with voters is if they know she's saying and fighting for what she really believes - and not just because she wants to be a president like Bill.

IMO - If Hillary is as much a defense hawk as she often likes to portray herself, then she isn't the right candidate for the Democratic Party. But if it's all just political calculation on her part, then she's not the right candidate period.

Calling and rating everyone a troll who disagrees with you is childish. It only shows a mind that can't handle respectful disagreements of opinion.

Hopefully you're here not only to be heard, but also to listen. Try it. You might learn something.

Jan Knaus

This only matters if she becomes the candidate. As others have written, Senator Clinton has an international relations position--and it is one that is much more aggressive and confrontational than I will agree to in a Democratic candidate.

We have to confront our failures as a people and as a nation in the post-Cold War era. I do not support a unitary executive theory, pre-emptive war, or even our right to declare "regime change" throughout the world. I do not view any of these as a defensive posture; instead I view them as a bullying strategy. I have had enough of all of it.

I want consensus with our allies and conversation with our "enemies". I am not a pacifist since I continue to support our military efforts in Afghanistan--in fact, I would state that I support more of a military effort there than even Bush is willing to support.

Senator Clinton has made it clear that there are other candidates in the primary. I now intend to make a complete efffort to support another candidate....with time and with money. I will not look back.

"I just can't understand those of you who believe Hillary Clinton has made some "mistake" that she needs to apologize for.

She actually trusted the President of the United States to tell her the Truth "

Yeah, that would be the mistake.

And no, we will not "get over it and move on." We will use this, if we can, to sink her candidacy and nominate another candidate in 2008.

We are now in the Primary campaign, not the general election campaign. Now is when we get to help determine who should be the next President. I am belaboring the obvious because I can't understand how anyone could believe that our activities should be limited to just voting for someone in our primary election.

All of us have a few dollars. So all of us are potential donors to a campaign - I will be a donor to someone other than Clinton.

All of us can work on the campaign locally. I will be working for someone other than Clinton.

Part of campaigning is to point out why the candidate we prefer is preferable to those we don't prefer. I don't prefer Clinton because she has proven to lack the judgement and integrity to stand for what should be her principles, chosing instead to try to ingratiate herself to the independent voters by guessing what they want and acting accordingly.

Hoppy in Sacramento

One thing you must say for the Clintons: when they blow their own foot off, they do it in the grand tradition.

How could anyone have been dumb enough to trust George W. Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. in October 2002?

Tom

Her spectacular failure of judgement on the biggest vote she has cast in six-plus years in the Senate: the 2002 vote on the AUMF.

OK, you think she is guilty of a failure of judgement for that vote, and that's a perfectly legitimate criticism to make.   But if Sen. Clinton herself doesn't think it was a failure of judgement, it's silly to keep demanding that she say that it is.  Criticize her for a serious failure of judgement and leave it at that.

Have a nice day.

What's with the sarcasm?  You remind me of the people I was arguing with before the war started. 

including her recent disgraceful attempt to say as a NY er she has a greater right to support an illegal, immoral, unnecessary war than others.

When on earth did she say that? Sources, please. (Why is it I suspect that you are engaged in a twisted verbal construction of your own?)

I know people are going to conclude that I am one of Sen. Clinton's staunch supporters, and I honestly am not; I think overall, she has done a commendable job as a senator, but I have some serious concerns about her as a candidate for president. It's just that this discussion reminds me of something Molly Ivins once said regarding Bill Clinton:

I have wasted more time and space defending Clinton than I care to think about. If left to my own devices, I'd spend all my time pointing out that he's weaker than bus-station chili. But the man is so constantly subjected to such hideous and unfair abuse that I wind up standing up for him on the general principle that some fairness should be applied. -- Molly Ivins, introduction to You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You

... which says a lot about how many imperceptive and/or cowardly representatives we had in October 2002.

Tom

I didn't make it clear, but what I meant to say was that some things (U.S. casualty level) were not anticipated, but some things were obvious (Iraqi casualty level). Those who supported the war had to know what it would look like for the first while when the obvious tactic was massive bombing and missile attacks before troops entered. There is no way there would not be thousands upon thousands of deaths from that including many civilians. If that is to be justified there needs to be a very, very urgent reason for it and obviously to everyone even then there was not.

global citizen

I didn't call someone a troll because they disagreed with me. I called someone a troll because they twisted my words to misrepresent my point of view.

Well, I certainly did not twist your words and you troll rated my posts on this thread. So, if it wasnt disagreement, what was it as you failed to post a response to the posts you troll rated. Was it an error?

On 10/10/02, in Hillary Clinton's Senate speech before the Iraq war vote, she said:

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

So you are right slb, VLaszlo has done a little twisting here.

It's difficult to understand why she is positioning herself in the way she has. Two thoughts occur to me:

1. She is a Senator from New York, which has a huge block of Jewish voters.

2. She may be taking the nomination for granted and moving toward the center ASAP to be better positioned for the general election.

Thoughts?

Read Paul Krugman's article in today's NYT.

Tom

She moved to the center-right long ago. That was the whole point of her vote in the first place. She's been running a general election campaign since at least 2002. She isn't running to lead the Democratic Party into the White House. She's running to get Hillary into the White House.

Sheesh, don't you see what we're going to be stuck with if she wins? We've been stuck with Dubya trying to work out his father-son rivalry by invading Iraq and if we elect Hillary we're going have to watch her try prove she can do the job better than Bill.

Move on people. Make another choice!

Once again you refuse to credit her words, and instead find the worst possible interpretation. I see two simultaneous meanings. One of the major themes in American history is isolationism vs internationalism, or as Clinton says, "risks of action versus inaction." There are risks in both directions. Hell, Roosevelt, a true internationalist, was not able to wage WWII until -- Italy conquers Ethiopia, Japan attacks China, German troops annex Austria, Germany invades Czechoslovakia, Germany invades Norway and Denmark , Germany invades Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France capitulates, Italy attacks British in Egypt, Japanese attacks Indochina, Italy invades Greece, Germany invades Greece and Yugoslavia, Germany invades Soviet Union -- were all history.

Also I think she means, if Saddam really did succeed in building that bomb, NYC would be a likely address on the package.

Read Bob Somerby's rebuttal of Paul Krugman's article in today's NYT.

IIRC, they said basically the same thing: they did the best they could with the information available.

It is probably foolish for me to respond to you, again, since I claim you "find the worst possible interpretation'" of one's words.

No of course I don't believe "Saddam's (nonexistant) mushroom cloud was equivalent to" Europe pre WWII. I just mentioned a case where the US erred very very far towards the risks of inaction. Risks of inaction was the topic.

Neither do I think that Clinton was "conflating 911 and Iraq." In the SAME speech she said "there is apparently no evidence of (Saddam's) involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." Again, read her words please, not your imagination.

You are very good at certainty after the fact. But remember that as low as 19% of Americans at one time thought "the U.S. made the ... wrong decision in using military force against Iraq" according to the Pew poll www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm. That was back when we all believed that the WMD would soon turn up. I thought so. Bill Clinton's entire administration thought so as far as I can tell. Didn't you?

No, I was in that 19% that the military force was the absolute wrong decision. There were weapons inspectors on the ground until Bush pulled them out. There was NO WAY that Saddam was an imminent danger to our country.

But I get that you did believe it. I don't think you are a troll, or that you are lying. I just think you are/were wrong, and that you believed a bunch of hooey that I never did swallow. I also don't think you are stupid or evil. I just disagree with you.

Jan Knaus

Both Bush's and Congress's institutional irresponsibility on Iraq is badly underappreciated.

The fact is that no one asked for a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq until Sen. Durbin broached the subject in a letter to CIA Director Tenet on 9/9/2002. The CIA published the NIE on 10/1/2002, and Congress voted on the Iraq AUMF 11 days later.

With so little time available to produce and to analyze the NIE, it was a foregone conclusion (a) that it would be a piece of garbage, and (b) that Congress's examination of it and the surrounding data would be, at best, perfunctory.

Given this background, anyone who voted for the AUMF already has shown that he or she lacks the judgement and the courage to be Justice of the Peace in Nowheresville, let alone President.

"A legislator should not have to discern if the President of the United States is cherry-picking intell or not."

Who should then, pal? I spent just a few of my hours in 2002 DISCERNING that Bush was completely FULL OF SHIT when he steamrolled us into war! And since I was just a law clerk, and not a LEGISLATOR, my fact-finding was extra-curricular.

Of course it would be nice if we could all trust everyone to always tell the truth, but since a legislator's job is to RUN THE FUCKING COUNTRY WE LIVE IN, then yeah, I feel that they ought to include a few minutes of thoughtful DISCERNMENT in their busy schedules.

I have to give you credit for your strangely high opinion of the office of Chief Executive. You must really enjoy Presidents Day!

Quite right. If the OP's argument held any water, the Constitution would have given the power to declare war to the President, not to Congress.