Yes, this was a great line. It's one that brings up the fundamental difference they have on foreign policy.

It was remarkable to hear Clinton basically make the case for the war. It's clear now that Clinton did not make a mistake in voting to authorize the President to go to war. It was what she believed was the right thing to do. That scares me.

Hillary kept bringing up all of the "reasoned judgement" that went into her decision to vote to authorize this mess in Iraq...but how reasoned could it have been if she DIDN'T EVEN READ THE NIE first?!?!

Barack should have asked her that.

Judgement beats experience everytime...

January 31, 2008 10:03 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Quite a number of US Senators and Congress members voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Robert Byrd, voted against it. Senator Kennedy voted against it. Senator Russ Feingold voted against it. Maxine Waters voted against it, so Hillary was the one who showed terrible judgment. Hell she even voted against Senator Carl Levin's amendment to require Bush to give the UN Inspectors more time. That vote shows that she was all for the Invasion of Iraq. Hillary can not bury her war enabling past, and she recently voted for the Kyl/Lieberman green light to attack Iran proposal.

She learned nothing from her Iraq war authorization votes, and now she wants to repeat the same stupidity with Iran.

That is a statement Sen. Obama has made before. It points of course to the facts that not only did he have better judgement on this in Oct. 2002, but he now is likely the only one to take on the problem of this militaristic mindset in America.

Sen. Clinton can't take it on. She has painted herself into a corner by stating she was voting for diplomacy and by implying she took the Bush administration at its word that diplomacy was what they were going to do. She won't be able to look into the national psyche on this because it makes her decision look bad.

Yes, Obama got Clinton at the end - ultimately it was all about judgment and the on Iraq he killed her

The title of the act in question that Clinton voted for was “The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution.”

Why on earth would Hillary think sane people would buy into arguments that keep sounding more and more like Condi's inane "but no one could have predicted" BS after 9-11.

Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq - That's pretty hard to mumble and parse and spin away.

Keith Olbermann: Who is getting the love in the blogosphere?

Me: Josh Marshall. Yeah, you heard me. Cheers, Josh. It's refreshing that major news is turning to real mandarins of journalism with D.C.-beat chops for analysis.

(I know this is Greg's thread -- all the TPM staff deserves love!)

To the topic at hand, Obama's answer tonight was a pretty good and pithy one, but it wasn't so fine a point that everyone would get it. With other Edwards voters out there trying to figure out where to go, it's curious whether the intellectual in Obama would allow his rhetoric to obscure his point on the GE trail by alluding to things that seem obvious to him but might not be to others.

I'm leaning toward Obama anyway: As someone who wants to buy a home in the next four years, freezing interest rates sounds frightening to me.

THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEM CANDIDATES

Judgement decisions involving life and death issues:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President..”
- Hillary Clinton 2002, floor speech right before the war authorization.

"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”
– Obama 2002

POTUS Judgement for the supreme court? You decide.

In the long run, I think we will look back and say that this was the critical line of the night. He finally crystallized what he means, at least in part, about "change".

This particular comment was the one thing Obama said tonight that gave me reason for hope. I'm still for Edwards, but this particular point is important enough to me for me to consider the possibility of casting a vote for Obama on Tuesday instead of for Edwards even though he has dropped out. As of this moment, I'm still voting Edwards, but as I said, that point on Iraq at least gives me some hope.

Line of the night and perfectly placed. And quite possibly the one that wins him the undecided support going into Tuesday.

*tap, tap*

Is this thing on?

where is everybody?

post, dammit, or i'm going to have to do some work.

The discussion of the Iraq war was a solid one. Obama's position is easier to boil down into a relatable sound byte, but all of the chatter about Hillary having a problem with her position is mystifying and disingenuous.

I have always understood her point and accepted it: She voted to give authority to go to war, so the inspections would be taken very seriously; she was also receiving more up-to-date briefings than what was in the NIE, so it was not the most useful or current information for her. As an anti-war Democrat, I have no problem with that position.

Frankly, the fact that Obama's campaign is pushing the Iraq stuff so hard after last night's debate shows that they don't have much to work with. They are going back to the well on an issue that most Democrats have already thought about carefully. Those who would not vote for Hillary because of her war vote were already in Obama's camp mobths ago.

And the clearer it is that McCain will be the Republican nominee, the more we need someone who does not come across as a Code Pink leftie. Hillary's position is more in line with mainstream public opinion, and makes her a nominee that will not be cowering on national security issues. Obama, on the other hand, will easily be painted as a left-wing flower child; that may sell well on leftie blogs, but not in a general election against a war hero.

My first post ever so you know things are tight.

Maybe everyone who has been posting really are just campaign operative :)

My biggest problem with the umpteenth iteration of HRC's rationale for her war authorization vote is that she chose to mislead.
She clearly said that Hussein had forced the UN inspectors out.
That is simply not true. We do not need this constant rewrite of history to support her.
The fact is it was Clinton who demanded that the UN pull the inspectors. This was the prelude to another US bombing campaign and it would not do to have the Inspectors caught in the fire in Iraq.
Yes yes I know that it was all caught up in Hussein's "obstructing" the inspections, obstruction based on his conviction that the inspection teams were a cover for US spying.
Hussein was correct, the inspections were a cover for US intelligence gathering. Intelligence, I might add, used by Clinton in targeting sights in Iraq.

To a large degree HRC's prevarications on the AUF are a cover for Bill's general war mongering over Iraq; there is some truth in the right's charge that Bill made regime change US policy; like it or not it was Bill who laid the groundwork for BushCheney's lovely little war.
I'm surprised that Obama has yet to incorporate that point. Perhaps it is just too far in the past?
Coulter comes closest when she says she'll vote HRC over McCain. Now there's an endorsement to covet!

But I remain an HRC supporter. To a very large degree I find Obama's claim to antiwar status bogus (his speech came when not in the Senate and not required to vote, even "present", on the issue) and thus his repeated use of the AUF vote as a cudgel is slightly distasteful.
After all, he did not use it against his bff Kerry when it might have mattered.
So the opportunism is rather blatant, yes?

very nice blogs .obama nice politics.
[url=http://www.tupbebegim.org ]tüp bebek[/url]
[url=http://www.sacekimmerkezi.org ]saç ekimi[/url]