Democrats: do you care if Hillary says her vote was a mistake?

[iman]

Why is it assumed that Hillary's vote was political? Was Edward's vote political? Was Edward's mea culpa political? Virtually all of the Democratic Foreign policy honchos supported the Iraq War, Holbrooke, Albright, and Biden, as did many journalists like Tom Friedman. Conservatives like Buchanan, Novak, and William Buckley opposed the war.

Why are Hillary Clinton's motives more suspect than anyone else's? Why the double standard?

The point is that there were valid reasons for supporting the war and valid reasons to be opposed to it which cut across political and ideological boundaries.

There is plenty of blame to go around, most of it among Republicans. I realize that pillorying consequential women for the plague that befalls the town is a fine old english tradition, but it has no place in the modern Democratic Party.

 

[khushibagh]

She and her campaign brain-trust have calculated this hard line and are gambling us dirty hippy anti-war folks will just go away.

Steve, I guess I would ask "What do you really want from her?" I mean she's said that knowing what we know now, the war was a mistake and she's said that the administration handled the run up to the war and the administration of Iraq after the war very badly. What she is not saying is (A) if what the administration had said in 02/03 was true it would still not have been good enough for war - i.e. we should wait until we get hit before we hit back or (B) the Bush people were so untrustworthy that vis a vis Saddam I shouldn't have given them the benefit of the doubt.

Now, I opposed the war from day 1 because I believed (B) in my gut, but lots of people in this country labored and still labor under the delusion that George Bush is something other than a war addicted sick twist. I don't think that either (A) or (B) is really politically saleable in states with 270 electoral votes so you are left with what Hillary says. The perverse thing is that people who were right in '02 are basically unelectable if they explain why they came out where they did.

 

[Lostlover]

She and her campaign brain-trust have calculated this hard line and are gambling us dirty hippy anti-war folks will just go away. But it's more than that, she's displaying Bushian stubbornness and adopting a "no apologies" persona. Haven't we had enough of that?

I'd rather have her refuse to apologize than to apologize for just for votes in the election...

Not that she will get my vote anyways.

 

[NW007]

This fixation on how Hillary voted just amuses me. All of the Democrats new what they were voting for plus the political winds were in that direction at the time. Now that the going has gotten tough and the political winds and polls have shifted in the other direction, everyone is trying to take political cover.

There is still alot of time between now and November 2008 and who knows, just pretend the situation got better in Iraq and Iran in the next 18 months. Can you picture Hillary and all the others running back in the other direction to say that there original vote was the correct one.

That is a problem I have with many politicians in all parties. They base toom many of their decisions on polls and the political winds rather than deeply held political philosophies.

 

[Kurn]

Roosevelt attacked Germany, they had never attacked us.

Not true. The Germans of that era attacked and sank American merchant vessels.

 

[iman]

So, as I understand the argument being made by the town folk; Hillary is motivated in all she does by expediency and power, she is devoid of any virtue and the other candidates are men of character and high morals. Therefore, Hillary Clinton should admit to consorting with the devil in the form of a goat so we could burn her at the stake and return the town to godliness.

I must admit, there is historic precedence for that point of view.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not true. The Germans of that era attacked and sank American merchant vessels.

I was wondering who would point that out.
It was all a very elaborate political dance.

Hillary is a political dancer -- she'll spin whichever way she thinks will take her the way she wants to go. The questions are, Will she get to have her war? if so,will she win it?

 

[Kulindahr]

So, as I understand the argument being made by the town folk; Hillary is motivated in all she does by expediency and power, she is devoid of any virtue and the other candidates are men of character and high morals. Therefore, Hillary Clinton should admit to consorting with the devil in the form of a goat so we could burn her at the stake and return the town to godliness.

I must admit, there is historic precedence for that point of view.

No, they've ALL been consorting with the goat, but Hillary has done the dirty with him.

 

[KennyD]

I think that those who vote for an independent will just be throwing their vote away as an independent cannot win ... so why not vote for the better person of the Democratic or Republician Parties who really do stand a chance of winning the election ..

 

[Kurn]

America---and the rest of the world---needs to get away from working with sound bites and we need to form the habit of looking at the whole political ecology.

On such serious matters Mrs. Clinton would be disinclined to frustrate Bush's strategy. She did not know that Bush & Co. would give us such a barren, witless strategy. She, like many other citizens went along with him. She, like many others thought, 'well, maybe he knows what he's doing.' In 2000, 2003 and 2004 the American people couldn't find the wisdom to say No.

As much as I find it difficult to find anything good about the Bush administration---a few mediocres, a few wisps of intelligence here and there, but a chamber of horrors as a rule---the fault lies with us for not doing our homework well enough. If we take everything we might say and assemble it to make sense out of the whole puzzle, what do we have? We must see that we have to change course. Press the RE-SET button and stop talking in terms of left/right, lib/con. Deal with Reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that those who vote for an independent will just be throwing their vote away as an independent cannot win ... so why not vote for the better person of the Democratic or Republician Parties who really do stand a chance of winning the election ..

"Better" presumes "good" == you know, good - better - best.


Richardson might be 'good' -- I don't see any other Democrat who could qualify, then, as better.
Ron Paul, on the Republican side, is good, and so could qualify as better.

That's it.

 

[Sbaraglia]

America---and the rest of the world---needs to get away from working with sound bites and we need to form the habit of looking at the whole political ecology.

On such serious matters Mrs. Clinton would be disinclined to frustrate Bush's strategy. She did not know that Bush & Co. would give us such a barren, witless strategy. She, like many other citizens went along with him. She, like many others thought, 'well, maybe he knows what he's doing.' In 2000, 2003 and 2004 the American people couldn't find the wisdom to say No.

As much as I find it difficult to find anything good about the Bush administration---a few mediocres, a few wisps of intelligence here and there, but a chamber of horrors as a rule---the fault lies with us for not doing our homework well enough. If we take everything we might say and assemble it to make sense out of the whole puzzle, what do we have? We must see that we have to change course. Press the RE-SET button and stop talking in terms of left/right, lib/con. Deal with Reality.

I have to quibble with one point: in 2000, the American people DID find the wisdom to say no: Al Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million. Al Gore received more votes for president than any candidate in U.S. history except for Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984. Let us not forget...

 

[lifeisamazing]

We all make mistakes and look back on them in regret. All we can do is move on from it.

 

[Sbaraglia]

We all make mistakes and look back on them in regret. All we can do is move on from it.

Does that go for Bush too?

 

[springboksfan]

Not true. The Germans of that era attacked and sank American merchant vessels.

This, of course, is dismissing the Atlantic Charter and all the elaborate behind-the-scenes machinations of Churchill and Roosevelt to give the US a justifiable reason to enter the war. Regardless....

My opinion is this: Senator Clinton has made more than clear her reasons for making the decision she made. As with everything, look at the context of the time. The American people were clamoring for a response to 9/11 and those who weren't deceived by the Administration's patently false assertions were urging direct action against Iraq. Unfortunately, those of us who were not scared senseless by the Bush Brigade were a minority voice to whom very few listened (I believe someone posted 23 Senators voted against the bill).

For the Senator to take back the statements quoted above would be ridiculous in the extreme and serve only to create fresh fodder for the Republican Propaganda Cannon. She has explained her vote. It's done. Let us look forward now.

 

[iman]

Let just continue to follow the same corrupt polices of both the Democrats and Republicans. Let's keep the status quo the way it is, just because we believe the misconception that only Democrats or Republicans can get elected. Well, I got news for you, nothing will never change unless the electorate sends a message that they're tired of the same old politics. If the right independent runs, I think it is possible. As for the choices right now, it just seems like the same old political game all over again IMHO!

For now anyway, I will support Bill Richardson! Let see how serious the Democrats are when it comes to change!

This idea that Mr. Smith is going to Washington and will change everything is a popular American myth. Mr. Smith would need so much money and so large an organization that he would end up beholden to the same folks as the Party nominees.

Whatsmore, it is the parties that enable any President to get anything done. There is enough of a difference between the two parties for most people to select a general direction that they want the country to go in. The personality of the President is important, but not as important as the beliefs of the party supporters (witness the machinations of Republican candidates to please their party base or the concern Bush has shown to that same base).

If one is a Socialist or Libertarian it won't matter who the candidate is, most voters don't agree with you. Support the party that best represents the direction you think is best, don't waste your vote for the guy on the white horse, the country does not want someone on a white horse - ask General MacArthur.

 

[Lostlover]

As a new generational Republican it's very easy to take sides. Democrate or Republican, our "leaders" have to vote their hearts. That's all there really is in the end. I don't think she has to say "I'm sorry", she voted the way she felt at the time. In light of things happening, she might have changed her views. That's how democracy works. It's an
ever growing entity. It's what makes democracy work. Democrate or Republican it just goes to show that this whole situation is not an easy call for anyone and we should cut them some breaks. They're only human, they make human choices. As a Republican,
I'll admit right now...I'm going to have a really hard time not breaking the party and voting for her. I don't think there's anyone else out there offering a better option from either party.

It was an easier call for the democrats. 22 out of 23 that voted against the war were Democrats with one independents. The Republicans blindly voted for the president.

100% voting with the president is not independent thinking IMO.

Saying that they politicians are "only human" trivializes the tragedy that it was to start this war.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and thousands of soldiers are dead but it's only "human choices" ?

 

[Centexfarmer]

With everything that's wrong with the war in Iraq, with everything that's wrong with the civil some other website in this country, with everything that's wrong with out perceived "lack of direction" in foreign policy, with everything that's wrong with out National Health Care, Education, and with every REAL threat to our nation's national security; dependence upon foreign oil, N. Korea, Iran, not to mention those countries that we've sided with, the question is about how Hillary answers one question.

We need to pull our heads out of our asses, stop allowing "the powers that be" to dictate to us what's important, and start thinking for ourselves.

I don't give a flying rats ass how she answers that question.

As Americans were were ALL LIED TO, she voted based upon lies.

Why isn't Bush and those who supported, and continue to support him, held accountable NOW?

Why is how Hillary answers that question such an issue?

 

[Kulindahr]

This, of course, is dismissing the Atlantic Charter and all the elaborate behind-the-scenes machinations of Churchill and Roosevelt to give the US a justifiable reason to enter the war. Regardless....

My mom was cracking up over a book recently -- it seems Churchill was playing a game and not letting Roosevelt know how he was trying to manipulate the U.S. into the war, and worrying whether it would work and if it would be soon enough... which has been openly known for a while --- but at the same time Roosevelt was doing maneuvering he didn't want Churchill to know about, to get the U.S. into the war with a "legal" excuse, and all worried about repurcussions if Churchill found out (and the press). I bet they had some good laughs togetheer at Yalta and stuff, when they realized the way they'd been each trying to maneuver the other.

My opinion is this: Senator Clinton has made more than clear her reasons for making the decision she made. As with everything, look at the context of the time. The American people were clamoring for a response to 9/11 and those who weren't deceived by the Administration's patently false assertions were urging direct action against Iraq. Unfortunately, those of us who were not scared senseless by the Bush Brigade were a minority voice to whom very few listened (I believe someone posted 23 Senators voted against the bill).

For the Senator to take back the statements quoted above would be ridiculous in the extreme and serve only to create fresh fodder for the Republican Propaganda Cannon. She has explained her vote. It's done. Let us look forward now.

My respect for ger went up a notch when she stood firm. I have little doubt it's maneuvering and not integrity, but either way it's a bit gutsy.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I think you've got some good insights there, except we didn't "inherit" that 3,000 year-old (and oft renewed) war, we blundered into it because our leaders were seeing things through left-over Cold War triumphalist visions instead of historical understanding.