A Handy Chart Of Hillary's And Edwards' Votes On Iraq

Comments (120)

Gwendyn wrote on April 6, 2007 11:48 AM:

I don't want to come across as too harsh against any Dem candidate, especially since I think we'd be in good hands with Clinton, Obama, or Edwards in the Oval Office. But I will say this: the difference between what Edwards says (which coincides a lot with where popular opinion is) and what he has done when in a position to do something about it, is an issue for me. I guess you could say that Obama has been more moderate about being anti-war in office than he was before but his fundamental stance hasn't changed. And he was anti-war when it was unpopular to be so.

This business of what they do versus what they say is something I take seriously. If I were a Republican looking at the Republican field, the disconnect in that area alone would make my head explode.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 11:55 AM:

Again, I think this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. What matters is how the record of the Dem nominee will affect the ability of the Dems to hold Republicans responsible for the war, and whether or not that record creates vulnerability to Republican attack memes.

Hillary: for the war before she was against it. Stiff necked as Bush and unwilling to admit she made a mistake.

Edwards: even more for the war before he was against it. Complete apology is good, but opens him to the attack that he was just chasing public opinion and has no principles.

Obama: against the war from the start, but has consistently supported the troops.

I find it amazing that so many in the blogosphere are more than ready to give Edwards complete absolution. Obama is the one with the best position on the most important issue of our time.

Don't take my word for it, watch some video of any of Obama's rallies. His best applause line time after time is, "this is a war that should never have ben authorized and never fought." Don't take that line away from the Dems by nominating the wrong person. I can just see Hillary trying to parse away her vote witha defensive tone, and I can see the ads attacking Edwards as a slicj trial lawyer chasing public opinion on the war. I am not saying that this is my view of HRC or Edwards, but it is certainly coming if we nominate the wrong person.

Minja wrote on April 6, 2007 12:29 PM:

upper left corner, no offense, but i think you're missing the forest for the trees.

despite the media narrative, which was somewhat adopted by Kerry, and says something like "We were right to invade Iraq, but the execution was wrong" or some such, most American people, according to my observations as well as the polls, fall exactly in line with Edwards.

They believed President Bush in 2002 and 2003 when he told us that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US, that it was developing WMDs for use against the US, and that it had ties with Al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11. Because they believed the President of the United States, they supported attacking Iraq. However, when it became apparent in late 2003-2005 (depending on how much and what you read) that Bush was full of $hit, people stopped supporting the Iraq endeavor. Most people don't buy this "we're spreading democracy over there" crap; they were behind the attack on Iraq because we were told it posed a danger to the US.

I don't see how it hurts Edwards at all to say that he believed the President in 2002.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 12:41 PM:

I think Obama's real position is "thank god I wasn't in the Senate because I would have had to vote for the authorization". Obama looks like a guy without the courage of his convictions. He's in a liberal district in Illinois, and as such, did not have the responsibility of representing consituents in a vote on the legislation.

This is one of the things the Obama supporters insist on saying that makes their guy look like insubstantial to me.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 12:45 PM:

Thank you for this and the other charts- this is such interesting stuff considering the various competing mythologies. Since supporting/opposing the war is a critical issue, I'd like to see how the candidates' voting on the war stacks up against the most publicly anti-war legislators in the Senate.

whit wrote on April 6, 2007 12:46 PM:

For the war? Hillary and Edwards were both for enabling Bush to make a credible threat that might force Saddam - who was doing a good job of faking that he had better weaponry than he had - to back down and fully open to searches for that weaponry. They wanted to give Bush a big stick; they didn't want him to get to the point of actually using it. They intended it to be a threat of force that would in the longer term prevent war.

You can say they calculated that badly; but you can't say they were "for the war," because factually they weren't. Simple slogans like that slaughter discourse.

bob5540 wrote on April 6, 2007 12:48 PM:

It hurts Edwards because he -- in the Senate -- should have known better. He should have seen through the bull. I did and I'm not in DC.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 12:55 PM:

"most American people, according to my observations as well as the polls, fall exactly in line with Edwards."

Is that true? My memory of the time is that the majority of Americans supported the resolution ONLY if we had the clear backing of the UN and our allies. Only after Bush invaded did Americans turn into a bunch of jingoistic sheep and get in line with the inevitability of the situation. That's how I remember it. I also remember thinking Bush was lying right from the start.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 12:58 PM:

Right - you didn't have constituents to represent - that makes a difference. If you're wrong - so what? No one gets hurt. But if the senators voted against it, were wrong and Hussein somehow managed a credible attack - as people like Kenneth Pollack believed was possible - then Americans would die.

That's why Obama's anti-war position is irrelevant. There was no cost to him if he was wrong. Sitting in a liberal state senate district, he had an obligation to represent his constituents on issues, and his constituents were probably opposed, by and large, to the war.

I don't care so much what a senator's positions at the time was. I care what they've done since and what they are proposing to resolve the war. That's it. And anyone who is making equal an individual's private feelings that had no bearing to the outcome of the process to a vote a senator, who represents constituents, had to make, looks to me like they are trivializing the raison d'etre of democracy.

Gwendyn wrote on April 6, 2007 12:59 PM:

I happen to think Obama would have voted against the authorization for war, as Senator Durbin and many other Democrats did at the time. I can't prove it, of course. And he's a Senator who represents Illinois, not a single liberal district. He was in the planning stages to run for statewide office when he spoke out against the war, the only Democratic candidate in the '04 IL Senate race to do so.

Back to the actual war authorization: It's not like it passed by 98-2 or something. The majority of Democratic Senators voted *against* the measure because they knew better. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards weren't among them. Either they showed poor judgment (which he admits and she doesn't) or they were calculating popular opinion because they planned to run for President someday. Hell, Edwards co-sponsored the thing.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 1:06 PM:

Minja, you make an interesting point. It is certainly true that Edward's position closely tracks the general public's.

However, think through the implications of your argument:

Edwards: "Even though I was a member of the Foriegn Relations Committee at the time and even though more than half my Democratic collegues voted to oppose the war, I was duped by the President's claims that there were weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger to the United States. I supported the war unambiguously until I left the Senate in Jan. '05. Gradually, I realized that the war was going badly and decided that the whole effort had been a mistake."

At best, he is a follower who either lacked the insight or the courage to oppose the President. He has little if any standing to hold the Repubs accountable for their horrendous mistake because he made the same mistake. At worst, he is pandering and chasing public opinion.

Obama: "Even though I was only a candidate for the US Senate, with no access to classified documents, I did not think the President had made the case that Iraq posed an imminent threat. I spoke out at the time (roll tape of Obama speaking in October 2002) saying that we faced an occupation of indeterminent length, and undetermined cost, with likely unanticipated consequences. Even though I opposed the war I was moderate enough to support the troops when I got to Washington and began looking for ways to responsible disengage."

Obama looks like a leader. He had judgement and prescience. To me, the difference is HUGE.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 1:07 PM:

You're wrong on a couple counts here - Obama was a state senator before he was a senator. As a state senator, he represents a single district. When he spoke out against the war, he wasn't risking anything - that's my only point. He represented a single, liberal district.

Perhaps you need to read up on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama

And no, the majority of Democratic senators did not vote against the authorization. A majority of them voted FOR the authorization. The House voted against it in big numbers and that allows us to say that a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Gwendyn wrote on April 6, 2007 1:17 PM:

My point was that he was in the planning stages of running for a state-wide office. Speaking out against the war was a risk to his political ambitions. Keeping his mouth shut in the 2002 - 2003/2004 time frame (or supporting Bush's war as Edwards and Clinton did) would have served him well no matter what his position.

I've done plenty of reading up on the issues already, thanks for the links though. You don't seem to think that the number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate who knew better at the time is a significant in judging the positions of Edwards and Clinton. I do.

Volum wrote on April 6, 2007 1:24 PM:

Edwards sure did miss a lot of votes.

And I don't believe for a second his line of being "mislead" by the President.

As someone else noted, I also didn't believe Bush's lies from the very beginning, and for someone like Edwards who had more information than any of us did, to go along with this war is dishonest at best, delusional or criminal at worst.

"If you're wrong - so what? No one gets hurt. But if the senators voted against it, were wrong and Hussein somehow managed a credible attack - as people like Kenneth Pollack believed was possible - then Americans would die."

You left out the most important point though:
If the senators were wrong to vote against it, they would be responsible for setting the middle east on fire, draining our treasury, and killing many innocent people.

And they were wrong. And now, five years into this war, hundreds of thousands have been killed, 3,000+ Americans, the middle east is on the brink of disaster, our military is depleted and our treasury is all but history.

Now *THAT* is wrong.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 1:24 PM:

Not to be petty, but I'm skeptical of your assessment since it was based on inaccurate information. You didn't know that Obama was a state senator before he was a senator - that's a pretty fundamental piece of information you were lacking. Before you support a candidate, you should have basic information as to what they were doing before they were in the Senate. You also didn't know a majority of Democrats in the Senate voted FOR the authorization.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 1:24 PM:

As experienced lawyers, I would imagine that Edwards and Hillary could have read the resolution and seen that it authorized war. If there were concerns, either of these two could have voted FOR amendments curbing Bush's "blank check". They did not. That counts.

Simply overlooking the 21 Democratic Senators who voted against this war resolution is to ignore exactly what this resolution did and just how broad it was. Perhaps you missed Hillary rushing to the Senate floor to state that Bush could not use the Iraq War Resolution to justify war with Iran? Does that tell you anything about how broad the Iraq War Resolution was in the first place?

Or perhaps you will explain Joe Biden wanting to end the war in Iraq by revoking the Iraq War Resolution?

Or perhaps you can explain to us why the Democratic opposition party had so much trust in the Bush administration? Or perhaps you can explain the reasons that the classified NIE was available to Senators--and yet only six actually read the entire resolution.

This level of judgment does not rise to the level I want in a President. There should not be another war based on this sort of resolution. Do you agree or not?

KenoshaMarge wrote on April 6, 2007 1:24 PM:

John Edwards cares about the things that I care about. If everyone who ever made a mistake was held to the standards some here think correct it is doubtful any human being could ever run for public office. I support John Edwards but will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. Even Obama. Not all of us think that because someone gives a great speech and has charisma that they would make a great president. Obama needs to show a whole lot more than the ability to raise money to convince me. Thus far, in my opinion he's a charming light weight.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 1:25 PM:

I remember hearing of a memo James Carville sent out before the vote to authorize, warning Democrats that if they hoped to win reelection they had better support the president. I suspect most who voted for the bill were thinking more about that than they were about whether Saddam was really a threat. Obviously, there were a few who put America before their careers. Unfortunately, Edwards wasn't among them.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 1:26 PM:

Lorelynn, have you seen the video of Obama's statements and interviews in 2002? He is totally clear that he did not think Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Your comment reminds me of BC trying desperately to parse Obama's statement to find some ambiguity so he can claim that HRC wasn't that different than Obama. It is completely disengenous and offensive.

You may not like Obama, and you may not support him as acandidate. But you should give credit where credit is due. He was totally on target on this issue.

P.S. I don't mind you disagreeing with me but, I find it annoying when people hand out 0, 1, and 2 ratings for well written and well thought out posts just because they disagree.

Volum wrote on April 6, 2007 1:27 PM:

"Obviously, there were a few who put America before their careers. Unfortunately, Edwards wasn't among them."

Damn straight, and that's why he voted FOR the war.

But still, why did he miss so many votes? Where the hell was he?

jcnetizen wrote on April 6, 2007 1:30 PM:

A recent comment was misleading and simply wrong. This doesn't take E. off the hook, but simply put complicates matters.

First, "more than half my Democratic collegues voted to oppose the war" ... honestly, his "collegues" were more directly the Senate. About 1/4 of them voted for the resolution, including HC and JK. This doesn't take him off the hook, but the comment looks like partial spin.

[Edwards was in the forefront with Lieberman. Obama was supportive of Lieberman in '04, opposing him only when it became clear a loyal Democrat simply could not support him any more.]

Second, "only a candidate for the US Senate" ... unclear that he was a candidate for Senate in '02, given his won in '04. Rather different situation. Plus, the resolution was passed in Oct. He would have been running against, cough, a sacrifical lamb.

I'm not sure what 'leadership' he had in this regard. Sen. Durbin, who voted against the resolution, showed leadership. Obama voiced a popular position for the district he was in. More power to him, but -- and others have noted this -- he acted a bit less forthrightly once he became a senator on various issues.

jcnetizen wrote on April 6, 2007 1:31 PM:

I meant to say only about 1/4 voted against the resolution, while those in support included those two.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 1:32 PM:

What constituency did the majority of Democratic Congressional folks who voted against this war represent? Yet, by your logic, we are to reward those Democrats who got the war wrong?

These votes are important--they enabled this nation to go to war. And it has cost American lives and treasure that is still going on. It has cost Iraqi lives. It has caused our reputation in the world to plummet to the depths.

Yet, with all this, the Democratic enablers are innocent and blameless? What universe do you live in?

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 1:33 PM:

Edwards (and everyone else) CAN lay claim to being misled on one point: the president lied--clearly and unequivocally--about his intentions.

"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

Obviously, he never intended to allow Saddam to comply with anything. In fact, they kept upping the ante as to what compliance meant in order to ensure that compliance would be impossible.

So Bush lied to Congress and to the American people, and some in Congress were naive enough or hopeful enough to believe him. Others were cynical enough and careerist enough to "believe" him.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 1:34 PM:

Then perhaps our Congressional Democrats who voted for this war should have not listened to rhetoric and instead actually read the resolution and listened to their colleagues who were offerring up the amendments listed in this chart.

There are a fair amount of lawyers in Congress who presumably could have understood the effect of laws...and that's exactly what this resolution is.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 1:34 PM:

"There was no cost to him if he was wrong."

If he had been wrong, his political career would have been over. He was the only one of nine Dem Senate candidates speaking out against the war.

Why do you keep making the same factually challenged argument? If you do not like Obama, fine. If you think some other candidate would be a stronger nominee, fine. But your argument seems very disingenuous.

benjoya wrote on April 6, 2007 1:36 PM:

and hillary was a senator from a very blue state. most new yorkers were opposed to the war, and she voted for it anyway. forget her.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 1:36 PM:

A mistake can be judged by the consequences. Are there no consequences for this level of mistake? Lots of lives and treasure have been spent in this endeavor.

Gwendyn wrote on April 6, 2007 1:37 PM:

Oh, good grief. Of course I knew he was a state senator before he was a U.S. Senator. I clearly spoke to the fact that at the time he was gearing up to run for the US Senate, the point being that the consequences of speaking out were different for Obama than for someone merely interested into holding onto a liberal state senate seat.

And I apologize for mis-speaking about the majority of Democratic Senators voting against the authorization. It was only a paltry 23 Senators altogether who were smart enough to vote against it. I think it's a significant number.

If you think my so-called ignorance invalidates my criticism of Edwards and Clinton feel free.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 1:40 PM:

I agree. If I knew Bush was lying and I knew they were setting Saddam up and I knew the inspections were working, how come Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and far too many others didn't? Because so far, none of the "secret intel" they supposedly had access to, much of which we have now seen as well, even approaches making the case that they're trying to make: that what they "knew" at the time caused them to cast the vote they did.

Heretic wrote on April 6, 2007 1:41 PM:

Lorelynn

I couldn't have said it better myself, though I have certainly been trying for some time now. No one besides diehard Obama supporters gives a crap about how he says he would have voted (keeping in mind that he also said at the same time that he actually doesn't know he would have voted if he was actually in the Senate). I also think that Hillary's votes while she and Edwards were in the Senate are far more meaningful than Edward's self-serving ex post facto apology. He is clearly much more conservative than she is at his core.

It seems fairly clear that all three of them would move to end the war and do a lot of other things most Dems want. I don't see how anyone can deny that. The thing that many despise the Clintons for is their allegedly poll-driven positions. However, in this case, the poll-driven positions are things like 1) get out of Iraq, 2) slow global warming, 3) universal health care, 4) affordable higher education, 5) alternative fuel, etc.

Its hard to imagine that a poll-driven politician would take action that runs counter to the majority view of the country. Hillary has proven herself to be a consensus-builder during her time in the Senate and before. You can fault her on playing the game, but it is clear that she will be able to get things done because of the allies she has made. Obama's time may come, and even if you believe his experience is currently adequate for the task (relative to the others), he definitely does not have the network of alliances among the powerbrokers in America that are necessary to make things happen. Perhaps that is a sad comment on our society, but it is reality.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 1:42 PM:

Alright, I like your post here so I'll respond sincerely.

What I find truly disturbing about Obama supporters - and there's more than a whiff of it in your post - is the fatuous, rapturious quality to the rhetoric that surrounds him. The idea that what he thought as an individual who has no responsibility to represent constituents is equal to the stand that must be taken when one does have constituents to represent is just preposterous.

We cannot know what would have transpired at Bush not received the authorization, but since they were willing to kick the inspectors out in order to invade, I'm left believing we'd be in a war anyway.

What I don't like about Obama's supporters insistence on pushing the idea that senators who voted yes should be regarded as more pro-war than Obama who wasn't in office at the time is that it pulls the rug out from underneath Democrats in general to Obama's benefit. And to me, that's an echo that I don't like of that disgraceful speech he gave at the religious convention where he dunned other Dems from shying away from faith (a charge that cannot be sustained) to his own benefit.

Lastly, I don't like how willing Obama supporters are to mislead people on substantive issues - like the woman whom I correspond with above who claims that Obama wasn't a state senator and that most Dems in the Senate voted against the war. Why lie about stuff like that?

Anyway, I apologize for rating your comment lower. But it wasn't because I disagree with it. It was for what I felt was the rapturous, insubstantial tenor of it.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 1:45 PM:

well, apparently not the fantastical one where you can draw outrageous, self-serving assumptions on a small post that you live in. LOL

Get a grip.

hadenough wrote on April 6, 2007 1:46 PM:

Have you seen Obama's vote against the Iraq war resolution?

Also since Obama has been a senator his voting record matchs Hillary's except for one vote. And that was for Casey as Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.

Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq

Where there is a record Obama and Hillary are playing the same tune.

Another example:

Clinton Plan to End War:

Reject the President's Escalation; Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481

Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_plan_to_stop_escalation_of_iraq_war_begin_phased_redeployment_of_troops/index.html

The biggest difference between the two is the date they would use to cap the number of troops. 9 days difference.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 1:49 PM:

It's not a question of leadership, it is a question of judgment. Hillary and Edwards did not exhibit good judgment at the time of the Iraq War Vote. Both were in a position at the national level to take a leadership role to oppose this war--neither did.

Obama showed good judgment and was not in a position to exhibit national leadership on the issue.

Soooo....I'm supposed to reward poor judgment by either Hillary or Edwards with my vote in the primary? Bad behavior equals good result? I don't think I'll go along with that.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 2:01 PM:

Ahh yes, "lightweight."

HRC and Repub attack meme dejour.

Lets see:

-Graduated magna cum laude from Columbia in Economics and International Studies.

-Graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, first African American elected as President of the Harvard Law School, considered by many as the most prestigeous honor at any law school in the country.

-Taught Constitutional law at U of C for ten years.

-Universally acknowledged as a whiz at policy by his peers in both parties in the Illinios Senate.

-Served as Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee as soon as Dems took the majority.

-Self authored two national bestselling books (I doubt Bush could even read them, let alone write them).

Don't confuse the fact that Obama, and his campaign manager David Axelrod, have chosen to introduce Obama to the public by emphasizing his biography and his desire to change the political process, with a lack of policy substance. Obama has to be very careful not to get boxed in on the left side of the Dem party and dismissed as "unelectable." The fact that he is trying to break the racial barrier makes this particularly important. Obama has the most liberal voting record of any of the Congressional candidates (ADA rating).

Activist Dems are rightly concerned with policy, but please be patient and recognize the astute political positioning that Obama is trying to achieve. He is trying to avoid becoming another Dean. Don't let our PC herd mentality get in the way of supporting a great candidate.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 2:03 PM:

Running for Vice-President

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 2:03 PM:

What you clearly did was get wrong and after getting called on it, claimed you were getting it right. This is why Obama supporters are creepy - too often they do stuff like this. You can't support your guy on the grounds that exist so you mislead people as to what the grounds are.

How about this:

"I really like Obama. He's an incredibly bright guy and as a private citizen, he publicly opposed the war." I have yet to see an Obama supporter with the backbone to say that. They all like to pretend Obama's opposition is more than it was while simultaneously pretending that the responsibility of actual voting senators was less than it was.

Obama supporters need to leave behind the scorched earth campaign tactics they're embracing. I don't want a Democrat whose supporters behave like that in office. You guys really should consider leaving behind misleading statements such as you engage in above, and quit attacking senators who had a responsibility to actually vote. Instead, judge candidates on what they're planning on actually doing with Iraq - but of course, Obama supporters don't want to do that, because once again, their guy lines up with Clinton, Edwards and everyone else.

The scorched earth tactics should go. Don't hurt the Democratic party just for what you fancy will provide you with a better shot of getting a guy with no real resume for the job in office.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 2:04 PM:

But what you really don't like about Obama's supporters, I suspect, is that they support Obama. Correct?

Here's what I've thought since the beginning: I think Hillary wanted Saddam gone. I think Kerry wanted Saddam gone. I think Edwards wanted Saddam gone. I think most American politicians wanted Saddam gone. And I think far too many Democrats said to themselves, "Hey--I personally wouldn't invade, but if Bush is crazy enough to try it, let's let him have at it. If he fails, we'll impeach him. And if he succeeds, we'll share in the glory." That's what I think.

I think they were wrong, and I think the chaos in Iraq and the rise of Iran prove that point. And I happen to believe Obama when he says that he was against the invasion. You know why? Because unlike Kerry and Edwards and Hillary, I've never heard Obama state that removing Saddam was "the right thing to do". Maybe he has said it. But I haven't heard him say it.

I'm sick and tired of the evasion and the diversion and the equivocation. They all say, "Removing Saddam was the right thing to do, but Bush bungled it." To that, I say NO--it was NOT the right thing to do. It was exactly the WRONG thing to do, and YOU bungled it by giving Bush the power to do something so mind-numbingly stupid.

I'll vote for one of them if one of them gets the nomination. But I'll never forgive any of them for voting to authorize. And I hope Obama gets the nomination so I don't need to vote for one of them.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 2:21 PM:

Thanks for the response.

You did not answer my question. Have you watched the video of his speech and his interview from 2002? If you haven't, then I don't think you should speak out on his position. He was totally on target, he even expresses concern about sectarian violence between the Shia and the Sunni. Go to BarrackObama.com and follow the links there.

I sincerely disagree that there is anything "rapturious" about my position. I am making a very cold, calculating argument about "electability." I am also talking about the ability of the Dem party as a whole to hold the Repubs accountable for this horrendous mistake. I believe this will have a big impact on the Congressional elections next year, and huge long-term implication for the party. Dems have been getting creamed on national security issues since Vietnam. If we can hang this turkey of a war around the Repubs neck, it should break the cycle.

To your other point. There is no reasonable way you can deny that Obama risked his entire political career to oppose the war. He was the underdog in a nine person Senate primary. If they had turned up nuclear weapons he would have been toast.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 2:23 PM:

I take Hillary at face value. She thought, as I did at the time, that inspections would stop the war if Hussein didn't have WMD (and I was confident he didn't else why would Bush be so willing to go to war), and if he did, would at least provide the world with the opportunity to destroy them before Bush could invade. Edwards - even though he's my pic for the nom at the moment - I have no idea what he was thinking, but speaking as the mom of a Marine stationed in Carolina, I can't imagine he had any ability to vote against the authorization. Criminey, they would have lynched him.

Obama votes in lockstep now with people who supported the resolution. How many times have I heard that Obama is the most "anti-war" of the Democratic candidates? His supporters present his position as a private citizen as the equal of someone who must represent an entire state. Just look at the vote in the House where legislators had smaller districts - the majority of Democrats there voted against the resolution. Why? Because they didn't represent entire states.

My problem with Obama supporters, as I said before, is the scorched earth tactics they're atttempting to deploy against the other candidates. If the candidate was for the resolution, then the subsequent war is their responsibility - not Bush's. The only person who beneifts if that view prevails is Obama - it hurts Democrats by making them equivalent to Bush who lied, and who (at least as far as I can tell) violated perhaps the letter but quite clearly the spirit of the law.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 2:34 PM:

"My problem with Obama supporters, as I said before, is the scorched earth tactics they're atttempting to deploy against the other candidates."

I'd love to see Obama get the nomination. I wouldn't mind seeing Edwards get it either. I also wouldn't mind if Chris Dodd got it (although I'd obviously prefer to see someone who could actually win get the nomination). But the one person I'm praying I never have to vote for is Hillary. And from me, she gets scorched earth. The others--not so much.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 2:35 PM:

Yes, I have seen it. He's very good. But everyone, everywhere, was talking about the potential for sectarian violence. That was the big concern - we take out Hussein, and the whole thing erupts into WWIII. I had an Obama supporter on Kos the other day tell me that Obama is the only senator she knew of that knew the difference between the Shi'ites and the Sunnies before the post-war debacle.

As for his anti-war stance and future career plans - any stand could derail you in the future. My only point is that you cannot compare the opinion of a private citizen who does not have constituents to represent to the vote of someone who does. You just can't. And as long as Obama's supporters make that claim, it's very hard to take any of them seriously.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 2:36 PM:

"No one but diehard Obama supporters gives a crap about how he says he would have voted."

Give or take 50 to 100 million. You are missing the point. Positions on the war go directly to things that matter to the voters: judgement, leadership, authenticity, courage. Go watch the video of Obama in 2002 and think about what kind of commercials it would make. Then think about Edwards flip-flop or HRCs many attempts to explain her vote, and think about how that affects their credibility.

To me this is Campaign Manager 101. It makes me wonder about the judgement of those who try to deny the obvious.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 2:45 PM:

As long as you continue to insist that Obama is a "private citizen" with no constituents, you're going to come across as something of a blockhead.

whiterosebuddy wrote on April 6, 2007 2:46 PM:

Hillary has proven herself to be a consensus-builder during her time in the Senate and before. You can fault her on playing the game, but it is clear that she will be able to get things done because of the allies she has made

this is sheer poppycock! Hillary has not at all distinguished herself as a US Senator, not on the floor, not in committees and there is NO legislation that bears her name to even think about let alone assert that she is a consensus builder whatsoever. Nada, Zip.  Hillary has a rightly deserved reputation as being a polarizing individual. Point of fact, what we do know about her is that she fails to win consensus and typically forgoes consensus in pursuit of perfection. that is why her health care bill was a colossal failure. Hillary's track record is that of a politician who knows not how to play well with others. She has no allies.

Obama's time may come, and even if you believe his experience is currently adequate for the task (relative to the others), he definitely does not have the network of alliances among the powerbrokers in America that are necessary to make things happen

You need to provide some actual facts, to support this glittering generality. The network of lobbyists, PACC's and corporate alliances that have bought Hillary's vote is nothing to crow about and if anything means she will not represent the interest of the citizenry. I am more than happy to have a President who does not have the 'experience' being steeped in the DC K-street money corridor.  If this is what you call alliances Hillary too rich for my vote.

whiterosebuddy wrote on April 6, 2007 2:53 PM:

Edwards (and everyone else) CAN lay claim to being misled on one point: the president lied--clearly and unequivocally--about his intentions.

This may be true for the public. It is not true for any sitting US Senator at the time of the AUMF came up for a vote. Every single one of those Senators had access to the NIE report which clearly stated that the Presidents assertions were highly dubious and lacking in real evidence. To the point, that both the ranking members on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Svcs, committee, Graham and Levin, respectively..both voted NO for the AUMF. 

Edwards also sat on the Intelligence committee, and had access to more information than most Senators. For Edwards to have voted for the war is even more inexcusable. Like Hillary if nothing else, both of them could have followed the lead of the ranking member Senator Graham who DID read the NIE report. They chose not to.

So, the public has much more of an excuse, particularly those who watch Fox news...but that is not so for any US Senator.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 2:55 PM:

Interesting, isn't it, that New York City was the place that was attacked on 9/11, yet New Yorkers didn't support invading Iraq? So many Americans knew invading Iraq was a diversion and a waste of time. How come Hillary and Edwards didn't?

whiterosebuddy wrote on April 6, 2007 2:56 PM:

Obama also has more experience as an elected politician than Edwards and Clinton combined.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 3:00 PM:

Thanks again for a thoughtful reply.

You did not, however, respond to my central argument which is about how the AUMF positions relate to electability, and to holding Repubs accountable.

You said, "my only point is that you cannot compare the opinion of a private citizen who does not have constituents ...to someone who does." I don't mean to be flippant, but why not? What matters is whether or not the judgememt was correct and whether the person was willing to express that judgement when it might have significant impact on his or her future.

In October 2002, Obama knew he would face voters in the spring of '04. Hillary who represented a very blue NY, did not have to face voters till '06. They both had a judgement and a political calculation to make. He was right and willing to take a risk. She was wrong and/or unwilling to take a risk. Edwards was planning to run for President in '04, arguably he had the hottest seat.

Again, the real point is electability and accountability.

zk0sm0 wrote on April 6, 2007 3:06 PM:

perhaps the next handy comparison chart ought to compare the candidate's votes to polling numbers at the time... and then we could break the numbers down by the polling numbers of the candidates actual constituents... and then cross-reference them to the lunar cycles...

or can we just guess that the votes (and publicly stated positions) of the candidates never strayed very far from the views of their constituents (or in the case of those who were campaigning for national office, from the views of the american people as a whole)?

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 3:11 PM:

I said "half my Democratic collegues." Meaning half of the Senate Dems. I believe the actual vote was something like 18 Dems supporting AUMF and 26 opposed. I think that makes my statement accurate.

Minja wrote on April 6, 2007 3:12 PM:

to clarify my earlier post, I'm not saying that I agree with Edwards's vote, or that it shouldn't be a consideration in assessing him. I just don't think it's the liability that it's being made out to be. 2002- Once Bush made the claims that Iraq had WMDs, and once Powell made that presentation, I think it was over. Remember- Bush was wildly popular at the time; very few people (I was one of them, I remember being very lonely) claimed Bush and his people were out-and-out lying. As for whoever made the claim that Edwards is more conservative than Hillary, what are you smoking? Hillary has been just to the left of Lieberman since taking office, whether it's pandering to the moral values voters on video games, or Iraq (which she still avers is the right vote), etc. One of the main reasons I'm an ABH guy is that I think Hillary is vulnerable in both the center (where a lotta center/right folks refuse to even listen to her, sadly conditioned by the 90s media blitz against her) and, just as importantly, the left, where she's turned off a lotta liberals and progressives. She's the only one of the 3 main candidates who engenders a response from lefties saying they absolutely won't vote for her (see, e.g., dailykos every day).

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 3:12 PM:

And Hillary is incredibly progressive on an awful lot of issues, and has the history of social action and the votes to prove it. Now, she isn't my first choice either, but I certainly approve of 90% of the stands she's taken - so what's the beef?

So you'd rather have Huckabee or Thompson appointing the next Supreme Court justice?

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 3:18 PM:

Ahhh, another Obama supporter who doesn't realize Obama was in the Illinois State Senate and not the US Senate at the time of the vote. Fascinating the number of people who have been hoodwinked on this particular subject.

Yes, Obama's opinion was the opinion of a private citizen. He was not rerpesenting any constituency on the particular issue at the time of the authorization.

dedelste wrote on April 6, 2007 3:52 PM:

At no point does Gwendyn claim that Obama was not a state senator, and there is nothing in any of her posts that in any way leaves that impression. Her claim that the majority of Dem senators voted against authorization is probably an honest mistake, and 22 out of 51 is a pretty substantial minority. What justification do you have for throwing the word "liar" around?

BTW, I'm an Edwards supporter.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 3:57 PM:

Obama was strongly against the Iraq War with the first public mentions I can recall in late 2002--around October as the war was being discussed.

He had made his intentions to run for the US Senate in May or April of 2002.

In fact, here is Obama on a local public affairs TV show:
http://archpundit.com/blog/2007/03/05/obama-p0rn/

His formal announcement was in the winter of 2003 and he denounced the war and then on the eve of the war he spoke at an anti-war rally.

I'm tired of whining by people who voted for the war that somehow its unfair that he had better judgment than they did.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:01 PM:

What exactly is scorched earth about pointing out that he had better judgment than she did?

Are you arguing it was a good thing to vote for this war? Let's remember the Senior Democrat on Intelligence at the time voted against this war too. Bob Graham did understand the problems with this administration and took action.

Suggesting that somehow someone might have voted differently with the burden of constituents is somewhat odd. The burden of constituents should have led them to be more critical of the lame arguments that led us to war. They are the ones, after all, who go off to die for the policy.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 4:03 PM:

Because everyone voting on the authorization had to consider, not only their personal point of view, but also the point of view of their constituents and resolve the two - and that resolution is their sacred duty as an elected official.

Obama did not need to resolve anything with his opinion. He was free to look at the facts as they were available, and draw a personal conclusion. Think about how angry the netroots gets when legislators vote against the wishes of a majority of their citizens. Isn't that one of the grounds on which we hammered elected officials most fiercely on the subject of Social Security reform? Isnt' that one of the grounds on which we advocate the creation of universal health care? The majority want it.

Just like you and I, Obama did not need to consider the majority when he came to his conclusion. Clinton, Biden, Edwards and Dodd did.

It is apples and oranges.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:04 PM:

That's not entirely true--in fact, I think Dan Hynes was only major candidate for the war, but I'd have to check.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:06 PM:

----ed (keeping in mind that he also said at the same time that he actually doesn't know he would have voted if he was actually in the Senate).

This is untrue. The comment you are discussing was made after he entered the US Senate to David Remnick at a conference. It was a way of directly criticizing his colleagues as a junior Senator.

He was clear in his opposition to the war from the fall of 2002 onward.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 4:08 PM:

No one is whining except Obama supporters. The fact remains that Obama held his opinion as a private citizen, not as an elected official who had to represent his constituents.

The whining going on is Obama supporters trying to convince people that legislators have no responsibility to represent anyone but themselves, and that Obama's well thought out personal position is the equal of people who had others to represent when they voted.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:09 PM:

===Second, "only a candidate for the US Senate" ... unclear that he was a candidate for Senate in '02, given his won in '04. Rather different situation. Plus, the resolution was passed in Oct. He would have been running against, cough, a sacrifical lamb.

It's not unclear at all. The Sun-Times was reporting his candidacy in April and May of 2002.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:15 PM:

And so how does this great burden of representing constituents lead one to vote for a stupid war?

Your argument is bizarre and your complaining about scorched earth tactics is weak. It's a policy disagreement and an analysis of one candidate's judgment against another's.

Now, explain to me how being in the Senate made it more responsible to vote for a war when the senior Democrat on Intelligence voted against the authorization?

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 4:16 PM:

The scorched earth tactic again is painting people as pro-war who voted for the authorization, and Obama, who did not need to vote as anti-war. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, it allows Republicans to paint our candidates as pro-war and shift the blame from Bush to them.

That is why the way in which Obama chooses to run his campaign and the way in which his supporters advocate for him is a moral disgrace.
To me, that is all I need to know about Obama's judgement. If he can't get the nomination, he's more than willing to participate in the destruction of the candidate who does get the nomination.

When choosing between putting responsibility for the war where it belongs, or having a slightly better shot at winning the nomination himself at a cost to the Democratic party - he goes with the latter.

How hard would it be for him to say, "hey, I opposed the war. But I wasn't in office at the time. I didn't have constituents calling me and lobbying. I didn't have to answer for anyone but myself. And i think we ought to focus on here is how do we get out. And to that end...."

But no, he doesn't have the integrity to do that, now does he?

DKC wrote on April 6, 2007 4:18 PM:

What did you do in the class war, Daddy? That's my question to all the candidates. Edwards is the most consistent class warrior and I have watched him grow in his foreing policy views from a red state hawk to a dove. I would like to see where Mr. Obama is on kitchen table issues. How will he fight for American jobs? And will he fight? Will he be be will to confront the powerful defense contractors who contribute to his campaign? Will he tell his finance chair, the Hyatt heiress, that union busting in hotels is a no-no? There is a war on our soil. Let's talk about that and the fact that our rural and urban poor are fighting in a useless war. Where were you in the class war, Mommy?

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them." Mark Twain. Time to take the radical step of conserving our democracy.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:20 PM:

Why is it hard for Hillary Clinton to say I made a mistake?

Seriously, the Senior Dem on Intelligence was making the same argument Obama was. Why is that not a legitimate point of difference?

It's not Obama's fault she made a dumb vote and it's not his responsibility to explain it. It's hers and she says it wasn't a mistake. Fine. That tells me all I need to know. She put her political future ahead of voting to stop a pointless war.

Pointing out differences isn't destroying a candidate. It's pointing out differences.

Does Hillary ever point out differences between candidates? Yes, she does.

MasonMcD wrote on April 6, 2007 4:21 PM:

Hillary has a built-in credibility problem with health care reform, for one. What her beliefs and voting records are are fine, but she's going to have to rely on her vision and persuasion to unite a nation.

The bastards can just trot out those same ads, write those same books, say those same things on FOX and people will say, "oh, yeah! I remember that fiasco!"

We need a new voice that doesn't have the baggage of the Clinton years without any of the upside. She doesn't have that believable empathy that Bill has.

Hillary can be secretary of state, or something.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 4:23 PM:

So did Bob Graham when he voted against the AUMF. Why didn't she listen to him?

Loki wrote on April 6, 2007 4:31 PM:

Edwards said he was sorry.

Clinton said if she knew then what she knows today she would not have voted for the resolution. Would. Not. Have. Voted. For. Resolution. (Yes, yes. She didn't fall to the ground ripping her shirt begging forgiveness. Big deal)

Obama didn't have to make the real choice of casting a vote. From the comfort of his Illinois home he said he would have voted against. However, he also said he understood that senators like Clinton, Kerry and Edwards may have had information about intelligence (false, misleading intel!) that he was not privvy to so it's hard to criticize them on their vote.

This is a ridiculous issue.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 4:31 PM:

I don't mean to get personal, but I think you are being incredibly obtuse. You are trying to explain away Hillary's miscalculation by manufacturing a distinction without a difference.

I am going to try this one last time and then we will have to agree to disagree. Both Obama and Hillary had a judgement and a political calculation to make. He was going to face the IL voters in the spring of '04, she was going to face NY voters in November '06. With all due respect, IMHO, all your stuff about "resolving" things and "sacred duty" is horsefeathers.

You still have not responded to my main points about electability and accountability.

Sorry if I sound cranky, I am finding it difficult to have a conversation with someone who will not acknowledge the obvious and will not answer questions.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 4:41 PM:

I understood your first post, and I agree with many of your statements about HRC. You didn't really respond to the substance of my post, you just said you didn't think it was a problem. I would appreciate a fuller explanation. Why do you disagree with the difference I pointed out in my post above? Thanks.

upper left corner wrote on April 6, 2007 4:47 PM:

Obama has been a very strong labor supporter. He has appeared at numerious SEIU events, at the Walmart organizing events, and has a strongly pro-labor voting record both in IL and US Senate.

Obama is not taking any PAC or lobbyist money. Why all the hostility? Your tone makes it sound like you think Obama is some kind of closet DLCer. Based on what? Have you been reading too many ultra-left Znet smear pieces?

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 4:51 PM:

Well, she does say this:

And he's a Senator who represents Illinois, not a single liberal district.

She's denying that he was a state senator at the time of the vote. I have no idea why she would do that other than she didn't know he was a state senator, or she was seeking to mislead people. I chose the more charitable interpretation that she didn't know, and she soundly debunked that idea.

And then, she says this:

Back to the actual war authorization: It's not like it passed by 98-2 or something. The majority of Democratic Senators voted *against* the measure because they knew better.

Which is, of course, a completely inaccurate representation of what happened. To what purpose would she be willing to mislead people in that fashion? Who benefits from people being led to believe that the majority of Democratic senators voted against the resolution with the exception of Clinton and Edwards? Hmmmmm.....

And that is why I don't like the campaign Obama and his supporters are running. It's a faith based campaign built, as are all faith based campaigns are, on lies and slight of hand.

moshplant wrote on April 6, 2007 4:52 PM:

Clinton didn't just have a different position on the war than Obama. She voted against the majority of the Democratic members of Congress, 60% of whom voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Now she wants to lead the party.

I've got no idea what I'm going to do in '08. I'm not particularly happy with any of the options. Edwards has come to God on the war, but he still hasn't explained why he supported the damn thing in the first place (he claims he wasn't tricked by George Bush). Something about Obama's tendency to get sanctimonious rubs me the wrong way. Clinton not only has that problem but she's been entangled in the Iraq mess. Both Clinton and Edwards are or have been in bed with the DLC, and those people voted overwhelmingly for the war. A quandry.

moshplant wrote on April 6, 2007 5:02 PM:

The majority of Democratic members of Congress voted against the authorization. 60% of them.

40% of the Democratic Senators voted against the AUMF. Not a majority, true, but not an insubstantial number. A majority of non-DLC Democratic Senators did vote against the AUMF, however

Slim majorities of Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees voted against the authorization.

Obviously the commenter made a mistake by saying "Senators" instead of "Representatives" (meaning House members) or "Congresspeople" (meaning both Senate and House members). Either of those words would have made the statement true.

I don't understand how you can read "And he's a Senator who represents Illinois, not a single liberal district" as a denial that Obama was a state senator in 2002. It's a sentence entirely in the present tense. Obama is a senator who represents Illinois. Illinois is not a "single liberal district." Your attempt to create some sort of error out of this makes your grasp of English grammar seems a little shaky.

archpundit wrote on April 6, 2007 5:04 PM:

===She's denying that he was a state senator at the time of the vote. I have no idea why she would do that other than she didn't know he was a state senator, or she was seeking to mislead people. I chose the more charitable interpretation that she didn't know, and she soundly debunked that idea.

Well no, go read what was written again. She points out that he was beginning his run for office right then. You are clearly taking it out of context and she makes it very clear that he was running for US Senate by the time the issue came up. This is true.

Trying to suggest a factual error is some sort of lie is silly in regards to how many Democrats voted for the war--you might correct her instead of trying to distract everyone with this bizarre tirade.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 5:29 PM:

"...it allows Republicans to paint our candidates as pro-war and shift the blame from Bush to them."

This is not just Bush's war...it also belongs to the Republicans. The second biggest issue of my lifetime--and both involved wars--and the Democrats field a bunch of Congressional enablers who voted for this war.

Nominating any of these folks will remove this issue from the 2008 campaign and then the Republicans can say simply that we have a candidate who is "no different". I simply won't lend my money, my canvassing, and my vote to such a candidate.

This was war, ma'am, and it's not pretty. Take a good hard look at the maimed men and women who survive their wounds; take a good hard look at burial sites and at grieving family and friends. Any one of these Democrats who blithely voted for this war voted for those results. This goes well beyond doing what one's constituents want at the time--if we wanted that we'd be a democracy and not a representative democracy, now wouldn't we?

So, yes, the Democrats will lose an activist, money, and my vote if such a candidate is nominated. I will not vote against my values again for "electability" and ignore what a candidate did on such a vital issue.

I suggest, ma'am, that you examine your own support for this war and simply admit that the judgment you made at the time was wrong. There's nothing wrong with that admission--I had to do it. Judgment counts and I will support a candidate who has the elusive quality that I was lacking at the time.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 5:34 PM:

Obama's had a time-line when he presented his bill. Hillary's did not; she only supported a time-line when the resolution was brought to the Senate floor when she voted for it. Until that point, dates were not in her bill and she had publicly said she did not support a time-line with dates.

Obama led on this issue and Hillary followed.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 5:35 PM:

You're reduced to assuming I support the war to make your point. Unfortunately for you, I was opposed to the war and due to the public wonders of the internet, can document that if you'd like. Other than touting your own superiority here, is there any substance to your post that needs addressing?

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 5:37 PM:

And I notice absolutely no answers to the questions that I raised.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 6:04 PM:

"I certainly approve of 90% of the stands she's taken - so what's the beef?"

I'm happy you approve. I don't. That's the beef.

hrebendorf wrote on April 6, 2007 6:14 PM:

"Obama was in the Illinois State Senate"

"Obama's opinion was the opinion of a private citizen"

Can you possibly understand how ridiculous it sounds to insist that both of those statements are simultaneously true? Sometimes someone says something so stupid that you can't help arguing with them. Other times someone says something so stupid that you realize that's there's just no point.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 6:16 PM:

No, it is not ridiculous that these votes put this nation at war with American and Iraqi deaths and injuries. And there is simply nothing ridiculous about American Democratic voters DEMANDING that Presidential candidates exhibit a high level of judgment.

There were Democrats in Congress who had access to the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE who voted against this war. Obama's statement has to be seen in that light.

Speaker Pelosi did not support this war and she was on the House Intelligence Committee. Bob Graham did not support this war and he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Please start by explaining how 21 senators had the correct judgment and 29 did not when the votes were counted to support this war. And please further explain to me the reasons I must reward bad judgment calls with the Presidency.

The very best way to win the Presidency and to boot nearly every damned Republican out of Congress is to have this Iraq War as an issue in 2008. The way to remove this issue is to have a Democratic candidate who cannot be separated from the Republican candidate on this war. How willing some of you are to remove the Iraq War as an issue in 2008....just because our field of candidates contain mostly folks who exhibit such bad judgment.

hadenough wrote on April 6, 2007 6:35 PM:

Obama's had a time-line when he presented his bill. Hillary's did not; she only supported a time-line when the resolution was brought to the Senate floor when she voted for it.

What! You are confused.

And I'm pretty sure you don't have an inside line to the Clinton camp so you would have no idea what was in Clinton's legislation before it was introduced.

And nobody voted for Clinton's leg. or Obama's yet.

cesar wrote on April 6, 2007 6:57 PM:

In the end, people want it both ways. A perfect Democracy AND a perfect Republic. They want the President to end the war today because it represents the will of the people, the majority voice of the nation's constituents. And they want a Republic where their representatives are infallible, no matter their constituents' opinion. They want a freshman Senator from a state that's had only one other Dem senator (1 term) in 25 years to go against the vast majority of his constituents' opinion.

These Senate votes don't take place in a vacuum. However, when elections come around, we treat them as such. And that's why a Senator hasn't been elected President since JFK.

Here's a list of the Dems that voted against the AUMF. How many of them are in (I hate to use this word) "red" states, and how many of them are Freshman senators? I've put Gore's 2000 popular vote margin and the senate terms in parentheses:

Daniel Akaka HI (+19, 3rd term)
Jeff Bingaman NM (+.01, 4th term)
Barbara Boxer CA (+11, 2nd term)
Robert Byrd WV (-6, 8th term)
Jon Corzine NJ (16, 1st term)
Kent Conrad ND(-28, 3rd term)
Mark Dayton MN(+2, 1st term)
Dick Durbin IL(+12, 1st term)
Russ Feingold WI(+.1, 2nd term)
Bob Graham FL(0, 3rd term)
Daniel Inouye HI(+19, 7th term)
Ted Kennedy MA(+27, 7th term)
Patrick Leahy(+10, 5th term)
Carl Levin MI(+5, 4th term)
Barbara Mikulski MD(+16, 3rd term)
Patty Murray WA(+5, 2nd term)
Jack Reed RI(+29, 1st term)
Paul Sarbanes MD(+16, 5th term)
Debbie Stabenow MI(+5, 1st term)
Paul Wellstone MN(+2, 2nd term)
Ron Wyden OR(+.01, 2nd term)

Are there any political heroes here for which we should add an extra chapter in "Profiles in Courage"? Mark Dayton was the only Freshman Senator voting against AUMF in a state that wasn't solidly Dem (although Nader had 5 percent in MN that election). By the way, Mark Dayton decided not to run for a 2nd term due to dismal poll ratings. Our hero had this to say at the time:

"Everything I've worked for, and everything I believe in, depends upon this Senate seat remaining in the Democratic caucus in 2007. I do not believe that I am the best candidate to lead the DFL Party to victory next year."

Words of a courageous fighter indeed.

chase wrote on April 6, 2007 6:58 PM:

I like John Edwards and his substantive positions, but I believe in accountability.

People want a president who is honest and will admit mistakes, but what they want above all is a president with good judgment.

John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee when he voted on the Iraq resolution. Hillary Clinton was not. The Edwards vote is of far greater significance.

John Edwards as my senator gave speeches about mushroom clouds. He not only voted for the resolution, he drank the kool-ade.

His position swayed many people who considered him credible at the time, including me.

He implicitly endorsed the preventive war doctrine, which showed a lack of judgment that was clear even to his supporters at the time,
including me.

John Edwards has apologized, but he has never explained.

I must add that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, Bob Graham, wrote about his vote against the Iraq resolution in the Washington Post on 11/20/05. In essence, he said that because of his position he knew the administration was lying, but that his Senate colleagues could not know. I fail to understand why he could not tell them. Because it was classified?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

While we are on the subject, I am still waiting for the Senate Intelligence Committee report on uses and abuses of the Iraq intel by the administration. The Republicans stalled it for years and kept stalling even after Harry Reid shut down the senate. It is time for the truth.

cesar wrote on April 6, 2007 7:35 PM:

John Edwards has apologized, but he has never explained.

"I was wrong...The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war." Op-ed, Washington Post, Nov 13th 2005.

I've read Graham's op-ed many times, and I don't get the impression that if you were on the Intelligence Committee, this was a slam dunk decision either way. In the end, Edwards got it wrong. Some people can't get over that he was and won't ever vote for him. I can understand that position, I just don't happen to agree with it. I don't have an exclusive litmus test. I think Edwards has the most substantive progressive platform of all the candidates, and I'm not going to give up on all of that for one, albeit hugely consequential, mistake. I also firmly believe Edwards has the potential to pick up formerly "unwinnable" states. My only wish is that if Edwards were to lose the nomination to other candidates based on Iraq policy questions, that they be pushing a lot harder for us to get out NOW especially since the other 2 are in positions of power in the Senate. I get why Hillary has to be hawkish. I don't get why Obama can't be the one leading the full court press on the President.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 7:43 PM:

Oh, so she'd be accurate except for the fact she got every wrong. Right.

Impressive.

That's kinda my point.

lorelynn wrote on April 6, 2007 8:12 PM:

Oh please - you cannot actually believe that a personal stand is the same as a vote. If you're going to really run with that, then I don't know what to say to you. I am addressing your pov - I think it's nonsense.

Hillary is standing behind her vote. Edwards' has apologized and distanced himself from his vote. Both of them have to face voters with that being part of their official record - that's accountability. Obama's official record puts him in the exact company of Clinton. That's what his supporters are running away from because without his personal opinion, there is no way to distinguish him from Clinton.

Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd were all honor bound to consider the wishes of their constituents when the voted. Obama had no such consideration to make. He had a political decision to make and that's it.

I will say it again - what i dislike about Obama's campaign is the fatuous, rapturous quality to the rhetoric surrounding him and the willingness of his supporters to pursue campaign rhetoric that will make it more difficult for another candidate to win the election, should Obama not get the nomination. I don't approve of scorched earth tactics against other Democrats and that's what this is.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 9:50 PM:

January 2007. Obama introduces a pending bill with a time-line.

February 2007. Hillary introduces a pending bill without a time-line and in an interview says she is against setting a time-line "at this time".

March 2007. In March, Hillary said in an interview that she would support the Senate resolution calling for a withdrawal of most Iraqi combat troops within a year. Hillary and Obama both voted for this resolution but it was defeated.

Does this clarify it for you?

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 10:09 PM:

And you apparently want a President who will follow every national poll and act accordingly.

eskimo wrote on April 6, 2007 10:29 PM:

Don't forget Jay Rockefeller. The fact that all the pols with presidential aspirations (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clinton, Dodd, Biden) sans Kucinich and Graham, who were never serious candidates, voted for the war is not a coincidence.

Obama was right that the case had not been made. Senior Dems on the Intelligence Committees voted against the war. The fact that Obama cut the Kerry/Edwards ticket a little slack is a testament to his party loyalty, not a weakening of his original conviction.

stlounick wrote on April 6, 2007 10:41 PM:

Only the Intelligence Committees had full access and could discuss classified material. Graham was furious that his colleagues outside of the intelligence committee would be denied a written report and demanded that a NIE be delivered to Congress. This classified report was delivered in early October 2002 and was made available to representatives and senators under supervision, without staff, and without note-taking. Those supervising this process indicated that only six senators and a handful of representatives read beyond the executive summary. Qualifiers and dissenting opinions were in the body of the document and not in the executive summary.

It is illegal to discuss classified material. It is legal for the Intelligence Committees to discuss classified material among themselves in a sealed committee room--no staff and no notes.

It is not, however, illegal to state an opinion as Nancy Pelosi, on the House Intelligence Committee, did. Pelosi led the group of House Democrats who opposed this resolution and stated emphatically that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to America. Graham was also not silent about his opinion on the war resolution.

Reid, BTW, has admitted that he did not read the full NIE report and he voted for the war resolution. With the Senate under Democratic control and with the majority of the Democratic candidates for the party nomination having 'yea' votes to their credit, I doubt we will see an assessment until after the 2008 election--if then.

kmk wrote on April 6, 2007 10:54 PM:

I disagree that they were "honor bound" to vote exactly the way their constituents wanted. Members of Congress have access to intelligence information that the general public does not. They are in the best position to make a decision about war, not the guy down the street. I would never support a candidate who voted to send another person to his/her death because they had to "face voters."

eskimo wrote on April 6, 2007 11:14 PM:

You're right. Obama's stand does not carry the moral and political weight of those in Congress like Clinton and Edwards. They were responsible for the well-being of their constituents. But how were their constituents served?

One hundred and forty-eight New York servicemembers have been killed in Iraq. Seventy-five North Carolinians have lost their lives.

Caving to political pressure is not responsible public service, much less leadership.

Spencer wrote on April 6, 2007 11:28 PM:

I don't really understand this argument. Obama has always been publicly against the war, even before the force authorization vote. How can you fault him for his position? Lorelynn insinuates that Obama might have voted for the war had he been in the Senate, but I see no rational basis for such a claim. The fact of the matter is that Obama was right about the war, is still right, and has nothing to apologize for. Edwards was wrong, is now right, and has apologized for his wrong vote. Hillary was wrong, is now straddling the fence, and has never properly explained her vote.

stlounick wrote on April 7, 2007 12:44 AM:

"She thought, as I did at the time, that inspections would stop the war if Hussein didn't have WMD (and I was confident he didn't else why would Bush be so willing to go to war), and if he did, would at least provide the world with the opportunity to destroy them before Bush could invade."

This is what you wrote. Bush had no authority to invade Iraq without this resolution in his hip pocket. This vote was not simply to require UN resolutions and inspections--it gave Bush the authority to wage war. It is this very resolution that continues to give him that authority.

If you dislike the tone of my replies, may I remind you that YOU started a smugly opinionated rant against Obama and his supporters.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:01 AM:

The rational basis is that he votes in lockstep with the people you condemn as being pro-war. Well, that an virtually everything he's said since them. Surely you know that other than the fact he wasn't in office when the authorization was passed, that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between he and Hillary.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:09 AM:

the authority to wage war is what got the inspectors back into Iraq. And those inspectors were our one last hope for preventing Bush from invading. You know that as well as I do.

Bush violated both the spirit and probably the letter of that authorization by forcing the inspectors to leave before they finished. No one anywhere forsaw Bush forcing them out.

I say, put responsibility for the war where it belongs - on Bush's shoulders. Bizarrely, the Dems who are supporting Obama are in favor of allowing Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Dodd to shoulder the blame.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:15 AM:

so good bye reproductive rights, good bye affirmative action, good bye fair voting rotes, good bye lesbian/gay rights - if Hillary gets the nomination, you'll pitch a temper tantrum and willingly allow the Republicans to destroy everything this nation has sought to build.

This is what I've learned about Hillary haters - most of them know next to nothing about what she has sought to accomplish and has accomplished in her life. It's very hard to believe that anyone who fancies themselves progressive would have a problem with the bulk of what she has done in her life.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:20 AM:

I'll say this really slow since you clearly have comprehension problems - Obama was a state legislator, not a federal legislator. The authorization was a federal bill. Obama's opinion on it, because he was not going to vote on it and represent constituents, was the opinion of a private citizen.

If you're under the impression that Obama was in the us senate at the time of the vote, you need to do some reading.

The federal government is not the state government - they are two separate entities.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:24 AM:

What an ignorant response. I did not say they were honor bound to vote "exactly" as their constituents want. I said they have to resolve their personal thoughts with the desires of their constituents.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:28 AM:

Go back and read my post and her response - she denies he was a state senator at the time and says he represents Illinois. That is, in point of fact, what she said. She then said that the majority of the Democratis in the Senate voted against the authorization - that is also wrong.

Just because you can construe a scenarior where if she hadn't gotten the facts wrong, she'd be right, doesn't mean she didn't get the facts wrong. She eithe didn't know he was a state senator or she lied - one or the other. She either didn't know that the majority of Dems voted against the resolution or she lied. One or the other. She says she knew he was a state senator so that means, I guess, that she lied. she doesn't bother explaining herself on the other one.

lorelynn wrote on April 7, 2007 2:33 AM:

Ask a better question, and I'll answer. I certainly haven't shyed away from discourse.

stlounick wrote on April 7, 2007 4:02 AM:

Nothing bizarre about where I put the responsibility in order of priority: Bush, all Republicans; and any Democrat who either voted for this war or supported the war at the time of the war vote and then runs for President. Add Richardson and Clark to your list.

Without Obama's candidacy, I would be forced to choose the "lesser of evils" as occurred in 2004.

moshplant wrote on April 7, 2007 4:08 AM:

...except for the fact she got every wrong.

That clause makes no sense. Like I said, you could use some grammar practice.

stlounick wrote on April 7, 2007 4:16 AM:

Who displayed the better judgment--Congressional Democrats who voted against the Iraq War Resolution or Congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraq War Resolution?

upper left corner wrote on April 7, 2007 9:25 AM:

"I say, put responsibility for the war where it belongs - on Bush's shoulders."

This is precisely why it is important for the Dems to nominate someone who was not complicit it any way in this war. You and BC and HRC can spin and twist and dodge as much as you want, but it is painfully obvious that Hillary authorized the President to use force.

My central argument, which you have repeatedly ignored, is that it will be much easier for Obama to hold Bush and his fellow Repubs accountable, because he can point to the videotape which clearly and unambiguously shows his opposition.

If Obama is the nominee, the narrative is simple and straight-forward enough that a first grader could understand it. If it is HRC or Edwards, the story becomes very murky and complex.

upper left corner wrote on April 7, 2007 12:39 PM:

The fact that Obama has voted to support the troops and provide funding is a seperate and distinct issue form the question of authorizing the use of force in the first place.

All the Dems who oppose the ongoing occupation have been struggling to find a constructive, responsible, and politically viable way to put pressure on the administration. Until January, Dems had almost no power to do anything. In January as soon as the Dems took control, Obama put forward a proposal for redeployment with timelines. His actions have been consistent. Your continued efforts to argue otherwise remain disingenuous.

upper left corner wrote on April 7, 2007 12:51 PM:

I don't hate Hillary. I will vote for her if she gets the nomination.

I do, however, think it would be rock stupid to nominate a candidate who is so polarizing, has huge unfavorables, has excess baggage, and has a compromised, muddied position on the most important issue of our time.

archpundit wrote on April 7, 2007 2:07 PM:

---I happen to think Obama would have voted against the authorization for war, as Senator Durbin and many other Democrats did at the time.

Nothing about whether he was a State Senator.

---I can't prove it, of course. And he's a Senator who represents Illinois, not a single liberal district.

Again, nothing about when he was a State Senator, but a discussion of the present.

===He was in the planning stages to run for statewide office when he spoke out against the war, the only Democratic candidate in the '04 IL Senate race to do so.

He was planning on running by the time of the vote as I've mentioned elsewhere though she did get wrong that he was the only candidate in the field opposed to the AUMF. That isn't a lie, it's a mistake just as her claim about the Seantors.

Where you are inventing this silly notion that she didn't know he was a State Senator is only clear to you if you haven't noticed yet. If you can show me somewhere in the language above where she says he wasn't, I'd love to see it.

archpundit wrote on April 7, 2007 2:15 PM:

This is rather painful logic--he was a candidate for the US Senate in 2002. The attempt to make some sort of distinction between what he said and what he would have done is silly.

The larger problem is that you are trying to make the case apparently that Clinton made the right vote. Is this your argument? If so, why was handling a blank check to this administration the right vote given Hagel, Biden, and Lugar were all attempting to tie the President's hands for more conditions?

Obama was running for the US Senate and had a position that was the President shouldn't be given the authority to attack Iraq. What was wrong with this position and why shouldn't someone in office have voted that way given people like Bob Graham did?

archpundit wrote on April 7, 2007 2:19 PM:

This is simply illogical as most of your posts have been. Preferring other candidates doesn't mean you hate Clinton nor does it mean you won't work for her if she is the nominee. It means that one thinks there are better candidates.

archpundit wrote on April 7, 2007 2:24 PM:

Many people saw him forcing them out and they said it loudly--I didn't, but I'm able to admit the people who did were correct.

But your historical revisionism is disturbing. If you recall correctly, there was a resolution put forward by Lugar, Hagel, and Biden that would have forced Bush to come back for further authorization before attacking. There was significant bipartisan concern about his path to war.

The inspectors weren't the last best hope. They were a smokescreen that if people like Gephardt and others had stayed firm wouldn't have mattered because the President would have been limited by a clear resolution by Congress that insisted he meet further standards--which he couldn't have done.

archpundit wrote on April 7, 2007 2:27 PM:

Except that pesky plan to remove the troops within 18 months that he advocated in November of 2005 and the ability to point out that AUMF was a mistake to vote for which Hillary refuses to concede.

archpundit wrote on April 7, 2007 2:34 PM:

Unless one thinks that the vote for AUMF was a good vote, it's hard to see how any of this makes sense.

Worse is the notion that by pointing out a really dumb vote that over 60% of the public agrees was a really dumb vote is somehow a scorched earth tactic that will make Clinton vulnerable in the general election.

It isn't that someone is pointing out that she is vulnerable is the problem, it's that she made a vote that makes her vulnerable. Regardless of whether other Democrats raise the issue or not, Republicans will do exactly as you suggest they will regardless of what other Democrats do. Hence, pointing out the vote as part of the entire package you get with Clinton is entirely reasonable.

Clinton's problem isn't that Obama supporters are pointing out her vote, it's the vote itself.

SandThroughTheEyeglass wrote on April 7, 2007 3:54 PM:

"...You can say they calculated that badly; but you can't say they were "for the war," because factually they weren't. Simple slogans like that slaughter discourse..."

I am one of those who believe they (the DLC incl. Hillary) were "for the war" or to be more precise - for regime change in Iraq, achieved by military means, regardless whether Saddam had WMD's or not.

It was only after the war began to go disastrously wrong, that the DLC'ers started to point the finger at Bush and complain at the way Bush was conducting the war,, however note, they never said they disagreed with the war.

E.g. Hillary's and Cantwell's line - (paraphasing) "if I knew back then what I know now, I would never have voted for the AUMF." Well, if they actually bothered, BACK THEN to look and think through the PNAC'ers and AIPAC war/regime-change strategy, then they would have known (like the other democrats who voted NO), the loss of life, stretching of our military to the limit, and guaranteed chaos that was going to be unleashed.

"...Since 2003, the PPI has issued repeated broadsides damning Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but it has never condemned the invasion. It has criticized Bush's failure to achieve U.S. domination of the Middle East, arguing that Democrats could do it better..."

eskimo wrote on April 7, 2007 6:34 PM:

Whoops. I had a nagging feeling about Rockefeller after writing that. I wouldn't want to be accused of being a liar, so I'll correct the record preemptively: he voted for authorization but has since said he regrets his vote.

The pattern still stands between presidential aspirations and a pro-war vote.

whiterosebuddy wrote on April 7, 2007 10:03 PM:

'Only the Intelligence Committees had full access and could discuss classified material"

Which makes Edwards, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Cmte, talk of mushroom clouds and yes AUMF vote even more inexcusable...and lack of explanation unacceptable.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)