Greg, you still ignore Iowa polls showing a close race. Obama doesn't have to convince everyone right now, just the Iowa caucus-goers (and maybe NH primary voters).

Daniel:

Please stop these horeshit comments. He missed the vote because Reid said tabled it and said it wouldn't be up for a vote for the foreseeable future and then brought it back on short notice the next day (McCain and Obama missed the vote because they were campaigning). The bill he co-sponsored didn't link our presence in Iraq with countering the threat posed by Iran.

If the TRIANGULATOR has the goods, spell out how her vote doesn't give the President a justification for going into Iran. No need to misconstrue the facts...

This would be more convincing if he had voted for against the bill himself, or actually spoken out against it before Edwards started getting traction with it.

Is the criticism too late? I doubt it based on what I'm collecting as data when canvassing my neighborhood. The majority waver undecidedly between Hillary and Obama; and a clear minority has decided firmly for Obama. I have encountered no Hillary supporters yet. I encounter Republicans who simply don't want to talk about their candidates and who say they will be voting Dem in the primary.

And, good grief, Hillary has blurred the questions about her judgment and that whole mess needs to be brought right back into public awareness. Good for Obama and Edwards for doing that. This poor judgment simply confirms that the time for the Hillary--and Bill--leadership has passed. It's time for another leader as president.

Do you honestly believe that Bush needs the feeble political cover that this resolution putatively provide in order to justify an airstrike on the Revolutionary Guards? Bush is simply not concerned with domestic political ramifications at this stage in the game. If two parallel universes were set-up, one in which this resolution passed and one in which it failed, the probability of Bush launching some sort of surgical strike would be equal. Stop hyper-ventilating about the principles behind this and just ADMIT that you're using her vote simply as political fodder. Leave the hyperbole to the Republicans.

Even the most loathsome and bellicose portion of the text constrained any counter-measures to Iraqi territory.

The problem that Obama has is Edwards not Clinton.
His attack on Hillary will probably help Edwards not him, just as
Edward's attacks on Clinton help Obama. With no one
candidate emerging as the anti-Hillary candidate it makes in very hard
in a multi-candidate field for anyone to move up on the leader.

Revisionist History? Why doesn't he read Hillary's floor speech on her vote, in which she explicitly says that she's authorizing force ONLY AFTER INSPECTORS GO IN. Stupid reasoning. His goose is cooked. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Read the last three paragraphs, it's plain to see.

As elections get closer, it's really disturbing what a bunch of sore-loser, single-issue wingnuts the netroots folks are. How could any sane person think that on issues like minimum wage, the environment, stem cell, abortion, etc. that Hillary would be anything like a repiglican. Oh, I guess I answered my own question. You people are insane!

...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

From Hillary Clinton's floor speech before she voted for war.

Well, obviously Obama has to ratchet things up at this point in the race, no problem with him coming out swinging. This is getting boring compared to the Republican race.

However, again, nothing new in this issue. Hillary's Iraq authorization vote has been out from the beginning and it just doesn't seem to be getting much traction. (I hate that vote of hers, so spare me! - everyone knew Bush was going to war - congress or no congress - and Hillary has explained her vote. You (we) might not buy her explanation but it's out there and done with)

It's old news now and it's Bush's war not Hillary's - no one but the slicers and dicers supporting not-Hillary try to look at it this myopically, and Hillary says she's going to end it if it's still going on when she becomes president.

I believe she will (she'll have to - if nothing else). And most Democrats also seem to think so, and by a large margin to this point.

Again, that said, Obama and Edwards need to come out swinging at this point if they don't want to fade away. Really it's starting to look like one or the other (Edwards or Obama) will have to bow out early and throw their support to the other for either to have a chance in this race.

The 30-50% of Democrats who supported the Iraq War in October '02 need to look in the mirror. You were spectacularly wrong. Stop blaming other people for your poor judgement, stop excusing politicians who had the same bad judgement, and wake up.

The AUMF/Iraq substituted the judgement of the President for the judgement of Congress in the matter of war. There is no confusion or caveat that changes that reality.

GQ Martinez:

You're right. The AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 was about providing kittens and puppies to Iraq.

Silly Senator Obama, what was he thinking when he dared suggest the TRIANGULATOR was being duplicitous in explaining her vote.

stlouneck said:

"the time for the Hillary--and Bill--leadership has passed. It's time for another leader as president."

I think that is the feeling of many. It might behoove one of the other challengers to simply start articulating that idea more. It's one of those points that an opponent cannot really respond to effectively and would really put the Clinton camp on the defensive.

Hillary's supporters are conveniently ignoring the differences between K-L and s 970 that have lead a number of Dem, not just Obama, to support the latter and not the former. Similarly, they are conveniently ignoring Hillary's 02 votes against forcing the president to come back to Congress for authorization based on the findings of inspections. Furthermore, they are ignoring Hillary's own statements on WMD propaganda and alleged ties between Iraq and aQ, statements that many Democrats at the time new were false. Maybe if Hillary had read the NIE she would have reached the same conclusions. Of course, when you have all that experience you can just go with your gut instead of making an evidence-based judgment.

I didn't like Clinton before she voted for the Iraq War. She's a corporate shill with no real principles.

Was there an election that I missed? There are 8 Democratic candidates. Until some voters verifiably speak, could we hear from the liberals too? I've seen no proof or even indication of accuracy in American Research Group's polls.

Keith:

I don't think the 2002 AUMF "was about providing kittens and puppies to Iraq."

Likewise, I don't think the 2007 bill Obama cosponsored, which declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "a terrorist organization," was about kittens and puppies either.

You don't need to include language explicitly linking "our presence in Iraq with countering the threat posed by Iran" to see where things are going. In terms of preventing another war in the Middle East, I don't yet see much difference between the two.

gqmartinez, you are not an idiot, so stop playing one in the comments.

Congress vote to authorize military force. Clinton could have voted for amendments, including Sen. Levin's (D-MI) Amendment to force Bush to come back to Congress after going to the U.N., but as you know, she did not.

Thus, Hillary gave Bush a blank check, which was a stupid thing for her to do because we all knew at the time that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq.

I think this is just wonderful, really. Obama's politics of hope brings fact-based judgments as compared to Hillary's history-rewrite image makeovers.

Now, Hillary campers might not like that clarity, but a lot of the public already gets the difference between pandering hype and truth-telling hope.

In the last posting on EC [about Hillary beating Guiliani in 3 swing states] the pollsters asked respondents to express their opinions on whether the leading candidates make decisions based upon a] principles or on b] what's popular.
a] In that survey, the comparisons between Hillary and Barack in each of the three states and in five subgroups [Rep, Dem, Ind, male, female] except one lone category {women in PA gave them equal scores], Barack scored higher than Hillary on 'decides on principle'.
b] And in every category, with no exceptions, more respondents saw Hillary Clinton as basing decisions on 'what's popular' than they saw Barack Obama as basing decisions on 'what's popular'. Some of the differences were stark, especially among independent voters who almost 2-1 saw Hillary more likely to base decisions on 'what's popular' than Barack.

FWIW, that survey also had Hillary's negatives higher than any candidate of either party.

What Seems To Be Obama’s Problem Getting African American Votes?

Why is Hillary Clinton doing better than Barack Obama when it comes to getting the Black vote? According to the polls, she is winning both the black and women votes.

I asked a friend of mine, who is black, why the African Americans weren’t supporting Senator Obama. This friend is by no means a political nutcase like I am. She said, “Some people (all races) I’ve discussed it with, seem to think they will get two-for-one with Hillary & Bill. A few are worry Obama would be killed if he won because of his race. And I’ve also heard that the next president will inherit a mess that can not be cleaned up in the next 4 years, so why should the first black person ever to be elected, be the fall guy for President Bush’s failed policies.”

Wow! These comments took me for a loop. Sure, I can see where most Democratic supporters are thinking a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. This is unfortunate in my view. Once Bill’s ‘past scandals’ are brought back into American’s living rooms via GOP television commercials -- they will most likely decide they do not want to re-live that history.

I can even see where they might be concerned for Obama’s life. Unfortunately there are still racists in this wonderful open, diverse and free society of ours. However, I’m sure the Senator and his wife, Michelle, have discussed this possibility at lengths.
They have two lovely, very young daughters remember......

READ MORE....Coonsey's View (political blog and forum) http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Obama Ratchets Up Attacks On Hillary: "Too Willing To Give President A Blank Check"

This is exactly what it appears to be: a political "hail Mary" move designed to put a break on rapidly falling poll numbers. It smacks of desperation... But let's talk about "blank checks" for a minute. Is this the same guy who is running around the country telling who ever wants to listen that he was the only candidate who showed "good judgment" because he'd come out against the war, while he was still an obscure State Senator and was not in position to vote for or against the war, and had publicly admitted that he is not sure how he would have vote if he had been a US Senator? And is it the same guy who, after being elected to the US Senate, voted repeatedly for funding Bush's war at the tune of billions (with a "b") of dollars, while he could have voted his conscience and show his opposition to the war by cutting off funding? What did he think he was doing when he voted "yea" for war funding, giving Bush a check to go shopping at Wall-Mart? Senator, those were "blank checks" you were giving Bush so that he could continue his disastrous misadventure in Mesopotamia, that war that you ate so proud to have been the only person to oppose.

And Senator, if you are going to pontificate, at least be in the habit of showing up to cast your "ney" or "yea" on important issues that you feel strongly about. It is why the good people of Illinois had sent you to Congress, remember?
Is this the new "kind of politics" that you've been promising your supporters...Well, it seems like the same ol', same ol' to some of us, as is clear in the following pointed remark:

May I remind you guys that Obama missed the Iran vote and that he co-sponsored a very similar bill last April??

Dcshungu:

You are spot on. How dare he remind people just how politically craven the TRIANGULATOR is and will always be? So what if he was against the war when it was politically expedient to do so, he wasn't elected to the Senate for a full 4 years so STFU! He's comments have no substance, he's just throwing up any bullshit hoping it will stick.

Seriously, the war funding bit, is a non-starter. The TRIANGULATOR isn't on any firmer ground there. And you already KNOW why he missed the vote and how Senate Bill 970 is dramatically different from the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. So please spare us the poor attempt at deflecting the criticism, it's not going to fly.

What I don't see, in anything you wrote today, yesterday or the day before (or any other member of the Triangulation Triad), anything that defends the bullshit attempt at TRIANGULATION by the TRIANGULATOR. Seriously, I'd like one member of the TRIANGULATION TRIAD to defend this on substantive grounds.

Don't worry, I'll wait....

Will somebody tell obama its 2007.

Good gravy what a disappointment he is.

You all sound like a bunch of Nader's raiders with your alternate attacks on the 3 Democratic frontrunners.

Remember this: Kucinich had a better war position than Dean in 04, Dean better than Edwards and Edwards better than Kerry. Who got the nomination? Kerry and he lost because he was attacked as weak.

This year Clinton's is the most warmongerish and she's at the top of the polls. Edwards is the most electable in the general by most polls (could it be becase he's white and male?...gee) and what is the Republican noise machine saying about Edwards? He's a girly man of course.

With Edwards out of the way after the primary, lets all watch the "Remember
Willie Horton citizens for truth" step up to remind our color blind society of Mr Obama's pigment and slight build, or the "Burly Hunky Military Protectormen for truth" tell us how a commandress who keeps hair appointments and sits down to pee would be fine in theory but with life and limb on the line, she's really a protectee not a commander of protectors.

Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and of course George Bush, etc. are textbook examples of the nearly infallable strategy for sucess in US politics. Feign kick ass toughness and never admit weakness or defeat.

Since 90% of male voters would lose a fight with your average 16 year old second string high school football lineman, they love it when small, awkward and/or paunchy old guys get to bully their way to the top. As for why some women fall for this phony machismo, as a male I've got no clue.

Hate to be cynical, but reality includes considering the historically obvious.

How do we win? Blast away at the Republicans with the truth on everything, vote for who you like in the Dem primary and rally behind the candidate once we've chosen him/her. It's not bean bag.

What I don't see, in anything you wrote today, yesterday or the day before (or any other member of the Triangulation Triad), anything that defends the bullshit attempt at TRIANGULATION by the TRIANGULATOR. Seriously, I'd like one member of the TRIANGULATION TRIAD to defend this on substantive grounds.

Don't worry, I'll wait....

Will you stop obsessing with this triangulation business, making it seem as you were saying something very dirty. The last time triangulation was used it was very effective! It allowed the triangulator to triangulatethe LWNs and enact legislation that helped regular folks and spurred the longest economic expansion in US history. Triangulation was a Good Thing for the country. It neutralized the vocal elements of the far left, and allowed centrism, where most Americans live, to reign supreme. If triangulation would give me 8 more years of peace and unprecedented prosperity, I'll take it any time over the left and right wingnuts' linear and oppressive thinking.

Dcshungu:

I'm just calling'em like I see'em. So now back to the question at hand: defend the substance of her vote and the non-defense, defense (it's Bush's fault for messing up the war, I was voting for diplomacy).

I'm still waiting....

I'm just calling'em like I see'em. So now back to the question at hand: defend the substance of her vote and the non-defense, defense (it's Bush's fault for messing up the war, I was voting for diplomacy). I'm still waiting....

I have written lengthy essay-posts on that vote and I am sick of it. That vote does not bother regular center-of-the-road folks. The effect of that in this election has been "quantified" by numerous polls now and found to be non-existent. So, as I said before, I refuse to be drawn into a senseless argument over that vote. This is Bush's war, not HRC's.

Reductio ad absurdum:
Remember that 50+% of Dem Senators voted for AUMF. So, why don't we just throw all of them bums out and give control back to the Repubs, who voted nearly 100% for AUMF.

If that vote bothers you, then you are a leftwing nutcase, and part of a loud and "passionate" but minor group. Most people are in the center and that is why HRC will win the nomination regarding of that vote, which I have no need defend. Senators cast votes all the time that they will live with or die by. If the voters want to punish HRC for the AUMF vote, they should do so, but I am happy that she did not apologize for it for political expediency like Edwards...

James, and other Hil apologists:
There's no need to read the last three paragraphs of her floor speech. Instead, read the title of the document: "Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ."
Either Hillary is rewriting history in that oh-so-slippery fashion of hers, or she was the only sentient being in America who didn't realize that the resolution was for War.

I agree with your analysis 100 percent truthwillout. I just hope your right. If she is the nominee, we'll be singing hail to the chief to either Mr. 9/11 or Mitt the flip and we will have another catastrophic 4 years of this nightmare.

I'd respect her more if she just admitted that she messed up on this one.

Edwards has apologized ad nauseam for voting for a bill, the AUMF, that he had co-sponsored, becoming a serial apologizer. What good did it do him? He is stuck at the bottom of every national poll (meaning that folks like you and the 'netroots', whose respect he earned by apologizing serially for political expediency, are but a small minority.) In fact, should Edwards win the Dem nomination, which would be nothing short of miraculous, his serial apologies for that vote will be featured by the Repub smear machines in ads that might go like this: "John Edwards, he co-sponsored the AUMF bill and voted for it before he was against it...for it...against it...for it...against..(here they'd show him windsurfing and twisting wildly in the wind)."

HRC's position on the war vote is not only principled, but also good politics. I had written a long essay-post on it a few weeks ago...

Dcshungu:

I didn't say apologize for the vote, because it wasn't a mistake--she intended to vote for the measure. I said ADMIT that she dropped the ball. But you know why she can't? Because it draws into question her judgment. Judgment isn't outcome determinant; it's about the process by which you make decisions. And this vote exposes the weakness of her judgment.

How did she arrive at her "principaled" position? By not doing her homework? By not voting for the extra measures to INSURE Bush exhausted all of his diplomatic tools? That seems at odd with the multitude of excuses she's proffered to EXPLAIN her principaled vote. It's not her fault that Bush misled her (except the full NIE was available to her and she declined to read it). She only authorized diplomacy (except the title and text of the bill and her floor speech make it perfectly clear what she was voting for).

This isn't a leftwing rant, this is, about who she is as person and how she makes decisions. She wants to occupy the center, at all cost. Problem is there is no center. You either made a decision or you didn't. You either did your homework or you didn't. Any post-hoc rationalization she proffers just underscores her reed-like ways . . . .

She doesn't make decision, she makes political calculations. Unfortunately, on this one, her math doesn't add up....

If she wins the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but there are better choices and America deserves better than another person who can run a great presidential CAMPAIGN, but can't understand what it means to be PRESIDENT.

I'm commenting here on Greg Sargent's post about what Hillary "really" said in WaPo about whether the interrogation practices in which this administration is currently engaging should be put to a stop. Should the full context of her quote change our mind, Sargent asks?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/did_washington.php

No, it absolutely should not. The point here is that we *do* know what's going on. We (the public, to say nothing of Democratic leadership in Congress) already have confirmation from *multiple* sources regarding what is happening and where. More specific details from the WH are needed, of course (and indeed should be demanded immediately). But it is beyond doubt that this administration is violating international law as we speak. Why else would Perino offer up the administration's view that it's "always been our understanding" that it is up to each individual participating nation to interpret what, precisely, the Geneva Convention means (that is, to interpret what constitutes "torture" and what doesn't)?

I refuse to believe that HRC is naive on this point (and I *know* that TPM and its core readership is not). Rather, what we have here is yet another example of her persistent failure to engage in political discourse on any question that can possibly be categorized as "hypothetical."

Sadly, most of her fellow democratic candidates have followed suit, which brings me to why I'm posting this comment here. So cowered and intimidated the other candidates are by the reputation of the Clinton political machine -- and the proven success of the "triangulation" strategy -- that they seem unwilling to revisit the merits of the strategy, even in the face of a rapidly changing political environment. Instead they simply mimic it, and in so doing, fail to gain traction against the frontrunner.

To be sure, triangulation made sense in 1992 and 1996. And a scientific and statistically modeled approach to building a campaign platform -- while cold and disheartening to those of us who perpetually yearn for a "Mr. Smith" candidate -- may always have some value. But the facts on the ground are plain to see. The nation is more polarized politically than we have been since Vietnam. In large part due to the tactics of Bush/Rove/Gonzo et al., there is no longer the sizable "middle" there once was. You love George Bush, or you hate him. You support the war in Iraq, or you want it to end (either because you were against it from day one, or because the volumes of information that have come out since the AUMF conclusively establish that there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, that Saddam had not reconstituted WMD programs, etc.). The people have taken sides, and they demand the same from their candidates. In today's political environment, as a great sensei once said, "you karate-do guess so... squash like grape."

HRC does not appreciate or understand this, in part because she doesn't *need* to (given her sizable head-to-head leads in national polls over each of the leading GOP candidates). But the same cannot be said for her competitors in the Democratic primary (which is rapidly shaping up to be the only vote that will matter). Their success in unseating HRC is hinged upon realizing the need to appeal to this ever-growing majority in the party who is simply fed up with the baby-splitting days of yore. Yet they still persist in playing it "safe." Edwards and Kucinich would seem to be two admirable exceptions, but if Edwards can't get traction (we know Kucinich can't), the solution is clear, my friends. Draft Al Gore!

I thought I had underscored this point in my previous post, but I had not: since when are presidential candidates not supposed to engage in "hypotheticals"? Every question asked of a presidential candidate comes with the inherent hypothetical of "if you were President," why should they not be asked to give us their reactions about what they might do in a given scenario?

The reason they do not is obvious: they can't prep for it. They can't deliver their canned remarks on an issue if the issue is one which they have not, to that moment, considered. And what it means to "consider" an issue differs by candidate. For certain, HRC's method of consideration (like her husband's) is to feed the issue into the Triangulator machine, see what it spits out, and then adopt that position. So it is easy to understand why HRC would not want to give a response to a question that she has not had a chance to statistically analyze: it would require her to tell us what she *actually thinks*!

Here's a question for ya hungu:

Where's the data on how many of Her Ladyship's supporters have decided they won't vote for anyone else and this is their final decision?

Yeah, thought so.

"She has a lead" isn't the same as her supporters are strongly for her. It isn't even close. That's why you and the other koolaid sippers are so anxious to get everyone to believe this "inevitability" crap. Most of her support is so soft it's mushy--as is everyone else's. There won't be any real sense of where votes are going until just a few weeks prior to the first primary contests.

Adios!

Clinton's Iraq policy can be summed up in two words: poll numbers. She puts her finger in the air and follows the wind, whichever way it blows. I don't know how pro-war or anti-war voters could support her.

We need a leader, not a poll watcher, as president.

Also, we need to put an end to the Bush-Clinton dynasty. It's bad for democracy.

TC wrote: "Clinton's Iraq policy can be summed up in two words: poll numbers."

Those two words pretty well sum up Hilary on all issues. I full believe she would register as a Republican, divorce Bill and vote to attack the U.K. if the polls told her it would help her get elected.

Greg Sargent and other Hillary is inevitable drumbeaters hope that her 2002 Iraq vote is behind her. Its not about Iraq, or her vote, the concern is about her horrible lack of sound judgment. In her recent vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution Iran, she showed it again. Hillary is not a leader. She is a corporate-owned follower, qualified only as Bill Clinton's wife and surrogate for election to a third term. Bush-Clinon-Bush-Clinton is a scary status quo. We need change.

dcshungu said "Let me try this one last time and see if it would show you why it is not very smart to judge HRC's or anyone's fitness for the presidency based on a single vote."

Let me type this slowly dcshungu in hopes you can follow it. Hillary faced arguably the most important decision of her career on the Iraq vote. She said she studied the intelligence (a lie, but give her the benefit of the doubt) and talked to her most trusted advisors from Bill's administration and outside it. And she voted to enable the worst foreign policy disaster in American history. And recently with the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, she voted to enable a potentially disastorous exercise of the Bush Doctrine again, this time against Iran, no push over government.

It is not about one vote, or two votes. Its about her lack of sound judgment on major issues affecting the nation. Hillary is not qualified to be president, commander in chief, leader of the world. What a horrible disaster she would be.

kjoe (way up thread), I agree somewhat. I split it between Cold War and Post Cold War, though. The Balkans lies in the Post Cold War column.

There was at least a rational argument during the Cold War that a declaration of war would bring the other side of the Cold War to declare war and we'd be in the soup.

I don't know of any rationale for Post Cold War resolutions and the like. Seems to me it needs to revert to war declarations.

Let me type this slowly dcshungu in hopes you can follow it. Hillary faced arguably the most important decision of her career on the Iraq vote. She said she studied the intelligence (a lie, but give her the benefit of the doubt) and talked to her most trusted advisors from Bill's administration and outside it. And she voted to enable the worst foreign policy disaster in American history. And recently with the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, she voted to enable a potentially disastorous exercise of the Bush Doctrine again, this time against Iran, no push over government.

It is not about one vote, or two votes. Its about her lack of sound judgment on major issues affecting the nation. Hillary is not qualified to be president, commander in chief, leader of the world. What a horrible disaster she would be.

Just when I thought that I was out, they pulled me back in!

The Iraq war is ex post facto (in hindsight)the worst FP disaster in American history... I am quite sure that had Bush managed to wage the war and its aftermath brilliantly, resulting in peace all over the region, you would not be among those hyperventilating to have HRC be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her "yea" vote.

But I suppose you are smart man. So, I am sure that you'll be able to make sense of the following morass:
As an obscure State Senator Obama had "opposed" the war; however, after going to Washington as a US Senator, where he could have expressed this opposition more substantively 'ney' votes, Obama instead voted repeatedly for funding to perpetuate the war. Where is the "good" judgment, and how credible is his purported "opposition to the war? Edwards was co-sponsor of the war bill, voted for it, and then, to preserve the viability of his candidacy for POTUS, he caved in to pressure from the lefties and netroots, he became a serial apologizer for his vote...Apologizing for a boo-boo for political expediency: hardly the picture of a principled politician (is that an oxymoron?) Sens. Levin and Durbin were repeatedly cited as folks who epitomized good judgment because they'd voted against the AUMF bill; enter the Kyl-Lieberman bill and both Levin and Durbin vote for it. The only politician, whose vote and position have been consistent has been HRC, agree with it or not! And, as I had said before, if you imagine the scenario where HRC still cast her "yea" vote, but Bush wages the war brilliantly (with the US having the most powerful war machine in the history of mankind, trouncing Iraq and making this seem like a "cakewalk" was not unthinkable before the war!), and just like that the vote/judgment pretext is gone. Conclusion, regardless of how individual senators might have voted, this is Bush's war. He went to war and messed it up, making the vote look like bad judgment ex post facto.

I am out this time...

Maureen Dowd is always so insightful. Regarding Hillary's Iran vote and bizzare accusations to a Iowa Democrat's question on it: "Hillary lost her cool at last. Sparring with a voter on Iran, she sounded defensive and paranoid."

Hillary is increasingly defensive and paranoid as she tries to be all things to all people and defend the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo to Democratic voters who want change.

Hillary's supporters paint the world as "us against the Hillary haters." Many of the people who oppose Hillary don't hate her, they just love America and want it to have an honest, competent president interested in and capable of leading more than 50 percent of the nation. Hillary can't do that.

She needs to understand that people have looked at her and don't want her to be president, and it has nothing to do with Richard Mellon Scaife hiding behind every tree.

Hillary's vote is Hillary's vote. Deal with it. Facts you ignore...

As an obscure State Senator Obama had "opposed" the war; however, after going to Washington as a US Senator, where he could have expressed this opposition more substantively with 'nay' votes, Obama instead voted repeatedly for funding (read: gave "blank checks") to perpetuate the war. When the Kyl-Lieberman amendment came for a floor vote, Obama conveniently skipped town rather than to vote 'nay' on a bill quite similar to one he'd co-sponsored this year! Where are his principles, where is the "good" judgment, and how credible is his purported "opposition" to the war? Edwards was co-sponsor of the war bill, voted for it, and then, to preserve the viability of his candidacy for POTUS, he caved in to pressure from the lefties and netroots, and became a serial apologizer for his vote...Apologizing for a boo-boo for political expediency: hardly the picture of a principled politician (is that an oxymoron?) Sens. Levin and Durbin were repeatedly cited as folks who epitomized good judgment because they'd voted against the AUMF bill (which is why I mention them); enter the Kyl-Lieberman bill and both Levin and Durbin vote for it. The only politician, whose vote and position have been consistent has been HRC, agree with her or not!

And, as I had said before, if you imagine a scenario in which HRC still casts her "yea" vote, but Bush wages the war brilliantly (with the US having the most powerful war machine in the history of mankind, trouncing Iraq and making it seem like a "cakewalk" was not unthinkable before the war!), and just like that the vote/judgment pretext is gone. Conclusion, regardless of how individual senators might have voted, this is Bush's war. He went to war and messed it up, making the vote look like bad judgment ex post facto.

I am sure that you will conveniently avoid addressing why it is that the other candidates' inconsistent, cowardly and/or pandering positions on the war bills get a pass, and Hillary's consistent - and yes, principled - position, agree with her or not, is a lapse of judgment that disqualifies her from being POTUS. If you are going to be a judgmental pontificator, then be consistent and use the same standards across the board in judging, otherwise go do something else that you might be good at, and leave political analysis to others.