Hillary is not a critic of the war. Hillary simply bashes and blames Bush. She does not criticize the war, she slams how it was executed. That is the distinction between her and Hagel and Obama. Both Hagel and Obama, stake out clear positions in opposition to the war altogether. Hillary tries to straddle the middle. Bill needs to shut up on this, it is nothing but a losing issue for Hill. Keep bringing it up Bill, this is the second time and every single time, it reminds folks of how the most serious vote of all, Hillary did what was politically expedient. She was unable to exercise good judgement about what was in the best interest of America, she was simply ambitious and craven. But keep talking Bill, we all know, you were the one who advised her to vote like she did, and now this is your pathetic attempt to make up for that advice. It ain't working.

The Obama camp is spot on with their release - who has "the judgment to avoid strategic disasters like this in the first place".

D-Day: Hey, quit your blubberin'. When I get through with this baby you won't even recognize it.

Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.

Flounder: [crying] That's easy for you to say! What am I going to tell Fred?

Otter: I'll tell you what. We'll tell Fred you were doing a great job taking care of his car, but you parked it out back last night and in the morning, it was gone. We report it to the police, D-Day takes care of the wreck, the insurance company buys your brother a new car.

Flounder: Will that work?

Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.

The consultants that hover around Hillary Clinton giving bad advice are 'Otter'. Bill Clinton is D-Day, trying to make the best of a disaster. Hillary is Flounder. Fred is the voters.

This new line out of the Clinton campaign about the AUMF/Iraq vote doesn't strike me as very persuasive but it's got to work better than the truth.

Wasn't Obama an Illinois State Senator at the time of the resolution in Congress, representing a very heavily liberal district?

He should get great credit for "courage" and "wisdom" when all he had to do was put up his finger in his neck of the woods, see which direction the wind blew, and express the exact same views held by his constituents?

Please.

Obama was a candidate for the US Senate in a very crowded Dem field. He put his entire political future on the line to support a minority position. He continued to question the war throughout 2003 as the "victorious" President stood on the aircraft carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished" and before the insurgancy had really taken hold.

At the time the resolution came before Congress, he occupied what is probably one of the most liberal districts in all of America (an inner city neighborhood with a university community). Moreover, it was over a full year before the Nov 2004 election. Obama had to appeal to DEMOCRATS to win the primary for the Senate seat, right?

Don't you just think that if the main thing you have to do is appeal to Democrats to further your political ambition, then opposing the resolution is not exactly a profile in courage?

And of course once he stated his opposition to the resolution, he couldn't exactly renounce that opposition a few months later, could he?

The point is, Obama ALWAYS went with his views exactly where his political ambitions would take him.

If Obama has EVER done anything politically courageous, it would be big news to me.

If he wanted to take on controversial and possibly unpopular positions, he could do so today, by, say, taking an actual concrete position with regard to national health care, as, for example, John Edwards has done (not that I so much agree yet with Edwards position).

Instead, we get nothing but brainless, toothless platitudes.

Excuse me if I'm unimpressed with the man.

Greg, I think your statement saying Bill questioned Obama's anti-war bonafides is a little misleading. He's questioning what he perceives as the double standard; it has nothing to do with what Obama said.

BTW, his point about Hagel is well-taken.

"Well I can see how Bill Clinton would question Barack Obama's bona fides on the war"

Bill isn't going to hammer Obama on those votes because Hillary voted the same way.

C'mon folks, it's ludicrous for Dems to claim Hillary, Obama or any other Dem are willing pawns of George Bush. We all look dishonest, self destructive and stupid when we do that. Blame the people who deserve that title: Republicans.

I like Obama because he has not only good judgment but the potential to be a truly great president. Go read his books. This guy has more candlepower than the whole Republican party combined. He's got a hell of a lot more going for him than just his stance on this dumb war.

As an Obama supporter I see no reason to tear down any other Dem. I'm fully confident once the American people get to know him they will agree that he's not only the best candidate for president in 2008, he's the best candidate from either party to come along in a long, long time.

Wheelchair,

what is the double standard you think Clinton is complaining about on this loser vote Hillary made?

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” (Bill) Clinton said.

Certainly not, but I think it is fair to say that people who voted for the resolution enabled this war.

yes. and he is correct that obama and clinton are not 'polar opposites' on the issue as much as the media would seem to portray it and as much as obama supporters would want to believe it.

Yes, the AUMF vote empowered the executive branch to engage the USA in war. It is the duty and responsibility of Congress to empower the CinC by authorizing the decision to take America to war. The executive branch does not just get to decide to take us to war. That decision must be authorized. Only Congress can authorize it. That authority is the greatest power vested in the Congress, under our Constitution, as they represent the WILL of the people. No vote is ever more important to our national interest or American lives than to go to war.

It doesn't matter what the elected official wants, it matters how they voted. Hillary voted to give carte blanche, unfettered power to President Bush to make war unceasingly, and he is using it to even take us to Iran.

Who cares what she wanted? It is what she DID that counts. Hillary makes this exact same case agaisnt Bush. She does not criticize Bush for taking us to war, she blames his execution of the war!

actually i would have a stronger argument if i suggested that tpmcafe is where the obama camp comes to campaign against hillary. but i'm not so simple as to suggest that's the case.

i prefer obama to hrc but the endless torrent of (often simplistic) anti-clinton and anti-dlc vitriol i have to slog through here everyday is overwhelming.

I have yet to hear Hillary say that Iraq is a dumb war. I have yet to hear Hillary say that her vote gave the President carte blanche power to make war on end. I have yet to hear Hillary acknowledge any error in judgement on regarding her vote to grant Bush all the war making power vested in Congress. I have yet to hear Hillary explain why she did not read the NIE report before she voted.

The only thing that Hillary and Obama are similiar on is funding the troops that are there. Hillary sounds like Bush and the neo-cons when she talks about Iran and how they are a threat to America and how she would not hesitate to go to war.

So the talking point for today for Hillary campaign must be how can they align themselves with Obama on the war? Hillary the frontrunner wants to seek shelter under OBama's outstanding judgement, she wants to cloak herself in his leadership on the war issue? How can the Hillary campaign create a perception that they are more in line with the war issue like Obama, because she does not want anti-war protestors at her fundraisers?

I suggest, she tell them to vote for someone else, just like she told the rest of us when she refused to concede her huge error in judgement.

No Hillary you are not like Obama when it comes to taking America to war...you simply want to say you will clean up the mess after making decisions which are detrimental to the lives of American citizens and sending our sons and daughters to die for your political ambitious.

I want a candidate that does not get us in a 2billion dollar a week, 3K dead Americans mess.

I've had my morning caffeine and decided my original post was full of errors.

frank, I actually understand your position. I would, however, have to accept your assessment that all politicians vote based on their own political calculations for their future.

Essentially, Obama in 2002 had won an uncontested race for the state senate and, being free of future political considerations, could speak his mind without fear of causing harm to his political ambitions. This allowed him to speak out against the Iraq War honestly without any fears of voter retribution.

You opine that IF Obama had the same political considerations that Hillary--or other Democratic folks aspiring to the Democratic nomination--had, then he would have voted for the Iraq War. Of course, you also fail to bring into your equation the fact that the majority of Congressional Democrats actually voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

It is merely opinion about what Obama would have done in the exact same circumstances. We know that Obama opposed it. We know that the majority of our 2004 and 20008 Democratic folks aspiring to our presidential candidacy did not oppose it and we also have all of their statements as to the reasons for the original vote and the reasons for any "nuances" they have made since that time.

It just comes down to you not agreeing that Obama is "genuine"...he's just "another politician" in your cynical world. A lot of folks will agree with that--but only because their world view includes this cynicism and not because their logical arguments are stronger or better.

I think Obama is genuine. You do not. So be it.

Now if there's a problem with this reasoning, I'd like to know it.

Okay. For starters, let's see some objective support for this claim:

When Obama declared his opposition to the resolution, he was, as I said, representing one of the most liberal districts in all of America.

This is an opinion presented as fact. If you have a news article or poll that supports your opinion, please provide a link.

I couldn't agree more with this. I think people do tend to say that Hagel is principled, etc, Clinton isn't, while there isn't much daylight between their positions.

The mainstream media just doesn't engage in much critical thinking any more. For Bill to suddenly start objecting to that is a bit disingenuous.

And whoever wrote earlier that Bill has had plenty of time to come out against the war, forcefully, he hasn't taken those opportunities. Hillary really hasn't, either. So forgive us all if we're a cynical about Clinton.

And what difference does it make to this discussion board if people happen to be rabid supporters of one or the other candidate? I learned something about Obama's voting record that I didn't know. It's not going to make like Hillary Clinton any more, but it's interesting.

Yeah.

But, who ever said that Hillary wanted this war? This is just patently absurd, and the classic straw man argument of the sort Republicans have perfected over the years.

Z,

The posters who come to TPM cafe and BASH OBAMA are very recent members, and that is why they appear to be hired political hacks by HRC. The posters who respond to those attacking posts, are long standing members of the TPM cafe. Not recent joiners of the site.

So far from being stronger, your argument has even less credibility.

This site is comprised of folks who have been following HRC for at least 16 years, just like Geffen. HRC has wrought what she sowed.

What long standing members are observing at the site is a pack of 5-6 posters
(like this one:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/23/tom_vilsack_to_endorse_hillary#comment-224337)

who simply bash Obama and do not answer any queries or provide substantive content in their posts. Typically that type of poster is troll rated. That SOP has been suspended for the primary political season seemingly to encourage diverse views/opinions.

As a long standing member yourself, you probably are well aware of this.

Re Oman. I think the foreign policy considerations of supporting a country in the Middle East are more compelling than the very small economic impact on the United States with the removal of these tariffs.

After the last miserable years, I want practical solutions to our Middle East dilemma and not one based solely on ideology. I find it compelling that deepening a relationship with a country in the vicinity of Iraq is of more practical importance at this time.

I agree that Hillary didn't want this war and also the quite sad fact that she, as well as others on the Democratic list of possible candidates, unfortunately enabled it or approved of it at the time.

I have tried to engage you in constructive dialogue on several occasions. You have not responded to any of my replies.

I have a life and a full-time job. Don't take it personally.

who do you support?

I'm in the process of eliminating candidates now. I've been looking at Clinton, Obama, Edwards, & Richardson. I'm all for supporting a woman candidate but not sure that Clinton is the woman I want to support. Obama is 2 years in the Senate, then decides he's running. If I were one of his constituents, I'd like to know why he decided to bail out on a full term. Edwards is taking a second crack at running and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Richardson has executive experience as a governor as well as foreign policy experience but I need to learn more about him.

On the basis of platforms, Edwards has the fullest and best articulated campaign platform out of the 4.

Continuing to take sniper shots at Obama, while refusing to answer questions, is troll behavior.

As my dear old mother used to say, "Who the hell died and made you boss?" You have my answers. Don't like them? Too bad. There's nothing you can do about it.

I think what a lot of people fail to take into account with the both of the Clinton's attitudes towards the war is the nature of the intelligence about Iraq that they were privy to during Clinton's presidency, things that they might not still be able to reveal. (It is the same with Tony Blair.) What Bill and Tony knew and what Hillary might have known through pillow talk as first lady or later informed in pillow talk as Senator might have made them more susceptible to giving Bush administration's arguments the benefit of the doubt.

People forget this:

Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned

The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq dropped far more bombs during the sunset of Bill Clinton’s presidency than under President George W. Bush in the run-up to war in Iraq, RAW STORY has found.

Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein....

1999 saw heaviest pre-war bombings

In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombs—just shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war.

By August of 1999, American and British pilots had fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets—that year alone.

RAW STORY has found that Clinton, like Bush, authorized a change in strategy with regarding to attacking Iraqi sites.

Defense Secretary William Cohen told reporters in March 1999 that he’d changed the rules of engagement to allow coalition pilots to attack Hussein’s communications infrastructure....

I used to make it a point to watch for this possible "special" situation in the public statements by both Bill and Hillary.

Bill always seemed to be carefully calibrating and hedging supportive statements on things like appearances on Larry King Live. I got the impression that he felt that after the spilt milk of the invasion, which he probably would not have done, that there was a substantial risk for the country in being negative about what followed.

As for Hillary, I still distinctly remember watching the very interesting March 9, 2004 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with George Tenet and Admiral Jacoby. (Anyone know where one can get a transcript of the public part of the session online? I can't find where you get those!) Hillary was very aggressive in her questioning and there seemed to be a very special sort of anger behind it, at least to me. I recall she grilled George Tenet very angrily on a possible missed opportunity to bomb Zarqawi in order to use his existence to promote invasion, and she also seemed to offer him a chance to complain about Bush and Cheney by asking about recent statements by David Kay. I also recall that the references by several Senators and Tenet and Admiral Jacoby to what would be discussed in the closed door session after the public session seemed mighty intriguing.

Al Gore is another one to bring up here because he was very engaged in Clinton administration foreign policy (arguing, for example, for more aggression in the Kosovo situation than Clinton preferred) and may have been privy to certain intelligence. His strong public objection on the war topic seemed to start with Abu Ghraib, that was when a line was drawn for him?

I just don't think that Hill and Bill can tell the full story on all this yet and they may not feel it appropriate or healthy for the country to do so for a very long time. I'm not presenting an opinion on whether that's right or wrong, I just feel we might not have the knowledge to truly judge what's going on with all this. In a way, that in itself is an argument for me against supporting her in running for president, because she may not be able to be honest about any resentments about what the Bush administration did. I'd rather have a president who comes to the intel record fresh and gives it new insights. Conversely, for the same reasons, I do like her being a powerful Senator, however.

Thank you.

Obama's phrase of a "dumb war" resonates with me. None of us would be discussing how to get out of Iraq if we hadn't made the strategic blunder to go there in the first place. Nancy Pelosi opposed the Iraq War Resolution and led a majority of Democrats in the House to oppose it. Obama exercised the same judgment. Since Speaker Pelosi is not running for President, I have decided to back Obama because of his judgment and because of his ability to use sound reasoning in arriving at that decision.

I recognize that Obama's statements of "I would vote against funding in 2003" can SEEM to crash against his current positions on providing funding. Just as the vote on the current House appropriations bill was a difficult one, I think all of our paths to a coherent way to exit Iraq continues to be a difficult one.

Obama has certainly said that there are only bad and worse options regarding Iraq. There will be no easy or painless exit. I want America to do the honorable thing for the Iraqis on whom we foisted a "Bush-approved government of exiles safely stashed in the Green Zone". America broke lives in Iraq and we will have to craft a way to make amends while we are exiting. It won't be easy, cheap, or pretty. Trying to force this radical administration down the exit route is one that is proving quite difficult.

I simply do not accept--from either Bill or Hillary--that the fall 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was not important in enabling such a bad strategic decision. I will not reward that appalling lack of judgment with my support for Hillary's candidacy. (BTW, that applies to any other candidate who supported this war either while in Congress or in statements away from Congress.)

It seems to me that Bill's continued involvement (and it's entirely understandable that he would be involved--wasn't he quoted yesterday as saying something to the effect that without politics, he'd evaporate?) could be a major bonus for the Republican wingnuttery media machinery if Hillary wins the nomination.

You vote for Hillary, you get BILL CLINTON. Talk about a great motivating factor for the all-important conservatives, who, frankly, don't have much to cheer about right now.

And the more Bill is involved, publicly, now, the more ammunition. I don't know who I'm supporting just yet, but I see this as a tactical mistake by the Clinton campaign, and one that might haunt them later on down the road.

Thank you for responding. No one died and made me boss. I have no such pretensions. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with my analysis or my opinions.

Obviously, you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot, it is also clear that you are a bright and very well informed person. In fact, it was the unusual specificity of information in your posts combined with the fact that you have posted exclusively in opposition to Obama that raised a warning flag in my mind. Perhaps my suspicions were misguided.

I come to TPM because I wish to share my thinking with others and because I wish to learn from others. Your limited comments about the four candidates you mentioned don't say a great deal. You did mention in an earlier post that you feel there is a disconnect between Obama's actions and his rhetoric. I, on the other hand, have been consistently impressed with his integrity and authenticity. Based on what happeded to Gore and
Kerry, I believe authenticity is of prime importance in selecting a Dem nominee.

I hope that my suspicions prove to be misplaced, and I hope that in the future you and I can come to cross rhetorical swords with mutual respect.