Hillary just wants to be able to tell her supporters that she voted for both the war in Iraq and the war in Iran.

HRC voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that many consider the gift card Bush/Cheney were looking for to ramp up their war machine against Iran and you want us to give her credit for backing an amendment that she KNOWS won't get past cloture?

Instead of linking to MyDD, I would highly recommend reading the ENTIRE speech before you decide that Obama is a walking echo chamber. That, or just declare that you are supporting HRC (which is cool, but full disclosure would be fair no?).

Do you think it galls Bush a bunch of people a lot smarter than him are searching for ways to clean up a monumental fucking mess he's made? Deja vu all over again. It's his life cycle repeating itself again and again and again. Daddy must wonder how many goddamned times he can choke on that silver spoon.

Seeing as how YOU supported the Iraq War, Kevin, the reasons for your position are obvious.

Hits a little too close to home doesn't it, Kev?

Don't like being reminded of your poor judgement do you?

"Most people react negatively to blowhards who are always reminding their friends about how smart they were on some previous occasion, and maybe that's how this sounds to a lot of people. Especially people who themselves might have supported the war back in 2002 and don't really appreciate being reminded about it."

You supported the war back in 2002. Are you speaking of yourself here? Or are you just demonstrating the effectiveness of the Barack Obama Thinks He's Too Good For The Rest Of Usâ„¢ meme?

I'm not sure what you want him to do. Obama has one big advantage: that on the single biggest issue in the last generation, he was on the right side. To fret about how this plays pre-Iowa is silly. For Obama not to play a winning hand as well as it can be played is like laying down a royal flush.

This is just a case of useless close observer fatigue. I'd bet the majority of the country doesn't know how Obama stood on the war, if they even know which house of Congress he's in. Those who follow every daily pronouncement will surely get tired of the same message, but in this case you and Todd are casually forgetting how hard it is to reach a sleepy, inattentive electorate.

It is about judgment. And Obama is right to keep hammering. The comparison with Kerry is silly. Half of all Vietnam veterans hate Kerry. Obama doesn't have that kind of baggage. Invading Iraq was (and continues to be) the biggest geopolitical strategic blunder in U.S. history. Hillary, et. al., approved it because it was the politically expedient thing to do at the time. Sorry. Obama should keep saying what he's saying every single day.

Excuse me, but Obama was still in the Illinois State legislature when the vote on the Iraq War took place. Yah, I know, he says he was against it, but this is not the same as having to vote. No pissing off interest groups or having the White House and the nutty wing of the Republican Party coming after you. I'll give him half points for being against the war, not the full points senators who actually voted against it get.

I'm seeing echoes of 2004 here, when John Kerry apparently thought that if he just talked about his record as a Vietnam vet often enough it would innoculate him against charges of being soft on national security. Needless to say, it didn't work.

Nothing can "innoculate" a Democrat against charges of being soft on national security. But Kerry probably got a tremendous boost from his war record. It just wasn't enough to put him over top, and it left him vulnerable to Karl Rove's judo tactics.

I like Obama a lot, and he'll be a great president--whether in 2009 or down the road a ways. But this dog won't hunt. Voters will credit Obama little, either in terms of courage or judgment, for opposing the war from the floor of the Illinois state senate. If anything, voters will be reminded of how obscure a figure Obama was at that historical moment not so long ago, by contrast with Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd.

Now, leave Kevin alone. You guys know that Kevin has never allowed his terrible judgement on supporting invading Iraq stop him from posting on this, and even, scolding the media on this subject. Now, blocking the IP addresses of people like me who have ribbed him about it, THAT's a different matter.

Everybody knows a teenager who was right about something years ago and will never let you forget it. Does it make you want to move over and let them drive?

That's exactly how Obama's "judgment" shtick is going to go over with a wide swath of the attentive electorate.

See Obama's stock chart in the Iowa Electronic Market. When did he start to surrender massive market share to Hillary? July 23-30. The YouTube debate, and the week of afterplay.

Obama still has a ton of potential, and he had better angles than the ones he's tried to ride. Maybe next time.

David Axelrod: Tone deaf.

fafner1: "Yah, I know, he says he was against it, but this is not the same as having to vote. No pissing off interest groups or having the White House and the nutty wing of the Republican Party coming after you."

Because that's where the hard choices really come in -- "Do I vote to authorize an unprovoked war, or do I piss off all those lobbyists & the RNC?"

Decisions, decisions.

Kerry lost because he listened to his inner-Michael Dukakis - and Bob Shrum - and didn't respoind to the Swift Boat smear for eight freakin' days. Then he couldn't bring himself to have his Lloyd Bensen moment in the debates. He had Bush on the ropes, but he wouldn't go in for the kill.

One thing I like about Hillary, Obama and Edwards is they will not let that happen again. Whatever yours or my feelings about her, Hillary is especially good at dealing with attacks. The smears will come, of course (one thing you can count on from the right), but at least they won't go unanswered like last time, and the time before, etc.

Obama was in the Illinois Senate at the time, and even though he hadn't announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate, he certainly planned on doing so. Therefore, if the war turned out well, his political future would have been severely damaged and he wouldn't be in the Senate now, much less a presidential candidate, so he had a lot riding on his statements.

The point he should emphasize is that he staked his political future on doing what was right, while HRC quite obviously determined that the downside of giving Bush the go ahead to invade was very minimal, while the downside of what anyone with a brain knew was the right position would be that she would never become president. She chose to preserve her political career and showed absolutely no courage. Although there is some truth to the point that she is seen as being overly ambitious wherein a man wouldn't be seen as such, on this point, there is no question that she chose what was right for her career over what was right for the country. Obama should make that point over and over.

"Todd Beeton wonders whether Obama is getting anywhere by harping on this so relentlessly." There is a simple answer to this simple question. The Lieberman-Kyl Let's Bomb Iran Resolution. It looks like she just made the same mistake again, proving she has piss poor judgment. Either that or the beltway Democrats don't think we can handle the truth behind their support of Bush/Cheney.

"Therefore, if the war turned out well,"

Yeah, that was a real coin tosser. 50-50 odds.

not.

I seriously recommend that you read the entire speech, this snippet is just a small part of what he had to say. Truly a masterful speech.

I like Obama, but agree that we need to hear more than this. It is a lot less annoying than Rudy's 9/11 Tourette Syndrome, but in the same family.

What have you done for me lately? And blowing off important votes in the Senate is not helping.

Obama is in the Democratic primary race for two reasons:

1) To marginalize Edwards

2) To accept an offer he cannot refuse from Hillary to unite the party

Its just not couragious to make a public stand when no one is paying attention. Now if Obama had made an unpopular stand on local Illinios issues, that would be more impressive.

I like Obama, but he has to try a little harder.

Kevin, you get no credit for having good judgment?!? Everyone who knew anything about Iraq b4 the war thought it was a terrible idea; even 1994 Cheney knew it would be a quagmire.

I'm sorry Kevin, I love your site, but this post strikes me as highly irrational. He did the right thing for the right reason and he shouldn't bring it up?!? It's called leadership.

Obama will not be Hillary's VP. A woman and a minority on the same ticket will be disasterous. I've experienced racism and know many women who experienced sexism. Combining the two is a political loser at this point in time. I like to believe we could tolerate one or the other, but I'm not so sure about both.

Kyle-Lieberman was gutted of its war authorizing language so the amendment wasn't that big a deal. Besides, if Obama were so clear on his judgement, why didn't he make the vote (or the anti-MoveOn vote)? Missing these tough votes repeatedly does his "judgement" argument little good.

1. Edwards' does that all by himself.
2. No way in hell HRC is going to put him on her ticket if she's the nominee. He's WAY too popular for that and he's not going to see quietly while she triangulates and determines the most poll-centric response she can.

This speech isn't more of the same. If you haven't read it and you're making comments that he's got to do more, then I suggest you read the entire speech. There's PLENTY more.

What about Hillary telling select supporters she not only thinks Jerusalem ought never be divided
but the US should move it's embassy there from Tel Aviv? This is so far rightwing even Bush doesn't support it. She's running for US president not the Likud party chairmanship. She ought to start acting like it.

If Obama wants to be a hero, he'll do everything he can to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. If he doesn't want to do that, and he doesn't appear to want to, then he should go back to the hellhole known as Springfield and allow us Illinois Dems to elect somebody to the Senate who will help our country.

I am a former Obama supporter, but I'll go back if he does something bold about the war.

Let's nip this missing the vote meme in the bud. Reid had originally scheduled the vote for Tuesday night. At around midnight, he tabled the vote and said that it wouldn't be up for a vote for the forseeable future. Barack is off campaigning in NH when Reid calls for a vote at or around noon eastern. That's how he missed the vote.

Obama's point on judgement is obvious--in fact, Clinton helped make the point for him by voting for Lieberman-Kyl. And Kevin wants to give credit to Clinton for her "make-up call" in supporting legislation that has already failed to pass?

"A smart move"? Try "typical cynical DC politics"--and the reason so many progressives have a hard time supporting the Clinton campaign.

"I want to be straight with you. If you want conventional Washington thinking, I'm not your man. If you want rigid ideology, I'm not your man. If you think that fundamental change can wait, I'm definitely not your man. But if you want to bring this country together, if you want experience that's broader than just learning the ways of Washington, if you think that the global challenges we face are too urgent to wait, and if you think that America must offer the world a new and hopeful face, then I offer a different choice in this race and a different vision for our future.

The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war."

From his speech today.

You're absolutely right, gq. That ain't gonna happen. She'll have to go with a white Southerner or Midwesterner. It will be hard enough to elect a woman (much less a Democrat, a polarizing former First Lady, etc.). She will not commit political suicide. And America is less unlikely to elect a woman than a liberal African-American. Hell, we barely once elected a Catholic, and look at what happened to him. Too many folks on this site look at America through rose-colored glasses and what they wish to see, ignoring the elections of the past 40 years.

Obama's judgement in 2003 and Edwards' lack of it are the only things keeping me from being in Edwards' camp.

Keith, has he done anything concrete since becoming a senator to bring about an end to the war?

I want to believe, but I'm very very skeptical.....

all those who supported the war are hypocrites not worthy of a vote. The trouble with America is it's welfare dependency on the Military/ Industrial complex for jobs,contracts that are not tendered, and the usual nefarious activities that allows America to forget that they have killed far more than the all purpose bogeyman " Al Queda"

It was america that was responsible for 3 million deaths in Vietnam based on lies. Your secret bombing of Cambodia left one in 3 dead and led to the Killing Fields.

OBAMA did not support this criminal war. Hilary is a washed up oppurtunist and America is despised

IED's work!!!--tough luck to a nation of insular bores that supported this war

GH: Has anyone? I'm not going to make excuses for him not making more of any issue about Iraq before, but recall this: up until 2006, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. He's been relatively vocal on the issue since Democrats took over, but the cynic (in me and others) will note that it dovetails with his presidential candidacy. Guy's not perfect, but he's playing to his strengths (like every politician does).

Bragging about your good judgement on an issue over which you had no say and thus no constituents to answer to just does not cut it with most people in the real world. My reaction is. Show me some leadership NOW when it could do some good.

You need to read the whole speech. It is excellent, and worth reading, as was his speech in New York City. I'm sick of the blogs, as well as the MSM, nit picking and making an issue of minor parts of speeches, while ignoring the important arguments that are being made.

Well, she voted for war in Iraq, after being given ginned-up reasons which looked false and were later proven so.

She still defends that vote.

Not sure exactly why anyone would think making her vote again would prevent us from going to war in Iran on ginned-up reasons, too.

I wouldn't say that Obama hasn't gotten anywhere by harping on the Iraq war resolution issue. In fact, it is largely responsible for installing him in second place in most polls.

Obama's problem is that he has reached the limit of his appeal on that one issue alone. There are only so many people who care so obsessively about that one issue, and they are all now voting for him.

He'd need to show some quality beyond this to win over other voters. But where's the differentiation, beyond that issue? "Bipartisanship"? Who buys that line nowadays? What else is there?

Obama is making a rookie political error, helping Clinton on the main issue by attacking her on a secondary one.

It's sorta like the movie Victor Victoria. Remember when Julia Andrews tells Robert Preston that there is NO way the audience is going to believe that the character she is playing is a real count, a man in drag who had to flee to Paris to become a female impersonator since his noble family rejected him for being gay? "It's a stupid cover story. The audience will know he's a phony," she tells Preston, who snaps back that the fakest part will sell what's important -- a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman: "That's right, they'll know HE's a phony."

By attacking Clinton for having voted for a war, Obama is reminding every American that a Democrat voted for a war -- and won't apologize for it.

Democrats have historically been vulnerable on national security. By attacking Clinton for her Iraq vote, Obama is helping to cast her in the mold of Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher -- the latter, btw, having nailed down her place in history for responding with overwhelming force when British territory was attacked. (It is quite likely that by defending the Falklands against Argentina, Thatcher prevented a bloody war in Central America -- there is evidence that the genocidal Rios Montt might have moved on Belize, had not Thatcher demonstrated what a bad idea that would have been attacking what used to be "British Honduras" would have been.)

Americans like to elect Presidents we are confident will fight back when we're attacked. There is a still a lingering distaste for the Carter example -- read the Siege of Mecca, and be appalled.

We're not happy about Iraq, but we're EXTREMELY unhappy about 9-11. The prospect of being attacked again because Bush never got bin Laden, cuz Afghanistan hasn't finished well and Iraq isn't finishing at all -- none of these make us isolationists nor fill us with confidence in those who say they're gonna be soooooo right next time cuz they were so right last time. We want somebody in the White House we know is willing when the time comes to blow the living shit outa somebody. That's primary; having been wrong about Iraq in 2003 is secondary. It's not like his prescription for the future is all that different from his, which means he's not exploiting a vulnerability, he's hiding one.

Obama's helping Clinton more than he's hurting her.

My own belief is that if Obama had not been able to bring to his side virtually every Democratic voter for whom the vote for the resolution was essentially a litmus test, then John Edwards would have made a much, much better showing.

Edwards problem is that he has designed a campaign that should mostly appeal to the left wing of the party -- but Obama has sucked all the air out of that room.

Too bad, because Edwards looks at least to be a genuine agent of change.

War experience was Kerry's main theme. He and the party in general failed to join the debate as he was being attacked on his main theme. In fact many dems were seen on nightly news repeating repugnicon talking points. Contrast that with Obama... being right is not Obama's main theme. It is one of several tacks he has taken to address the experience attack from H.C.. So all your comparisons about Kerry and teenagers really mean is that you need to get out of your own echo chambers a little more often.

Oh and I'm not for Obama or H.C.. At least not yet. There is only one of those whose judgement I don't like and that one voted to enable the administration's lies about Iran and make it easier for the administration to start another war not on terror.

Obama: "The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately."

Posted by: Keith

This is the money quote. Being right 5 years ago means nothing without this promise. He is doing a great service to dems and all Americans by forcing the discussion to be about ending the war immediately.

Obama's effort to turn his pronouncement about Iraq into the defining moment of the campaign is a loser. Most voters are interested in now, and how to solve the problem we have now.

Further, if you examine his point for a moment, it doesn't hold up well. Being on the outside talking about how you would use the power given you and actually having to make the decisions about how to use that power are very different things. I also am able to talk to the television about whether the next play should be a run or a pass, but I'm not in the middle of the field getting pounded, with 50,000 people gathered watching. Big difference. And if he keeps on using this, at some point (one hopes not in the general election campaign) someone is going to make the point I just did in a way that reveals Obama as stunningly underqualified.

Obama was in the Illinois Senate at the time, and even though he hadn't announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate, he certainly planned on doing so. Therefore, if the war turned out well, his political future would have been severely damaged and he wouldn't be in the Senate now, much less a presidential candidate, so he had a lot riding on his statements.

But the reality was that if had backed the war resolution at the time, he would have pissed off his actual constituents in his heavily liberal district, as opposed to any merely potential constituents he might have if he were to become US Senator. Moreover, to become US Senator, he first and foremost needed to win the Democratic primary -- and that of course required a far more liberal, anti-war message than the general election might. And it's worth remembering too that the Democrats in Illinois -- the bluest state in the midwest -- had a decided advantage in the Senatorial race. Winning the Democratic primary was the key step. (In fact, of course, whom did he run against in the general? Alan Keyes. Not exactly a formidable opponent.)

How one can compare Obama's "courage" to that of sitting Senators who had to vote against the resolution is not something I can understand. If you want someone who took a vote that really cost him his popularity, you might think about Bob Graham of Florida.

Obama's helping Clinton more than he's hurting her.

Posted by: theAmericanist

Up until today, that was true. But with this stand, he changes the debate completely:

Obama: "I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. ... Let there be no doubt: I will end this war."

That's what the American people want to hear: a promise to end the war NOW. If HRC equivocates, she's toast in Iowa -- and New Hampshire.

Is this bizarro world?!? Being right about the most important issue in the last 40 years is wrong to run on and helps your political opponents who got the issue wrong. Every expert on Iraq knew a ground invasion would be a disaster. Anyone remember Richard Clarke's book?

Obama makes the point pretty convincingly that war is not the answer. How can anyone still think that bombing the shit out of everyone is still a good policy after the disaster of the last 6 years is amazing to me.

Anoregonreader:

I love great analogies, but unfortunately your's isn't one of them. He's not sitting at home talking to the tv. He ran for the Senate and now he's running for President. If he was giving this speech outside of the Sears Tower (as a common citizen), your analogy would be on point. He wasn't and your analogy isn't. Next....

.

During Vietnam I once went to a draft-card burning ceremony held in the Rockefeller Chapel at University of Chicago by Rev. William R. Coffin. Very moving.

The next week I happened to be in New York, so I and my wife took the train up to Yale to hear him speak to the kids.

We lay around on the lawn, ate our picnic, and heard the man speak. At the end of it, having listened carefully to all the conversation around us, I said to my wife "I feel like enlisting: these kids are only against the war because they are afraid to serve."

The angry feeling of the American right is easy to understand; your question is, what do we do to give them a decent politics they can go to bat for?



.

So what if he was right five years ago? Edwards apologized for his mistake so he's neutral there and Hillary is the blood crazed warmonger of the three so he was already opposite her.

Is Obama going to be right next time? How will he choose? That's what I care about for all the candidates.

Frankly0:

If I recall correctly 2 of his opponents in the race backed the war against Iraq. And as I recall a substantial majority of Americans did as well. So it wasn't so much COURAGE in the Senate, as reading the prevailing winds (recall Bush saying you don't roll out a marketing campaign in August (or something to that effect)). Lots of Senators did (including Edwards and Clinton).

Also, Obama ended up running against Keyes because his heavily favored (at least that's what I recall,I could be wrong), superior funded Republican candidate had some unsavory information come out about his divorce proceedings. He pulled out of the race in the 11th hour and none of the Illinois Republicans wanted to throw their hats in the ring (so they drafted Keyes). Just so we are all clear and how he ended up running against Keyes.

Being RETROSPECTIVELY right isn't worth much, in politics or anything else in life (except investing, provided you actually did buy Microsoft in 1986.)

Politically, having been right on Iraq only helps if folks are confident you're right NOW, and will be right in 2009... or 10, 11 and 12.

I don't think Obama has made that sale, and I doubt he will move the needle much even if he pledges, like McGovern, to go to Iraq on his knees.

Given that many voters still think HRC is the most liberal on the war and likewise on Iraq, I think one might make the case that Obama should keep hammering the theme up through the point that the rest of the US (not just the news-obsessed) actually wake up and decide to give a flip about the election.

"Stop pounding that point home, son. Everyone who is paying attention has already heard it. Pay no mind to the fact that 90% of America hasn't heard it yet and thus hasn't let it affect their vote."

How about this explanation: a good track record only helps you if (a) you can document it and (b) you use it to support something.

The best Obama can do on (a) is "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." (That's from his 2002 speech he keeps touting.)

He never says "We should not attack Iraq"-- he suggests giving the inspectors time to inspect and waiting to see what they find. Not exactly Howard Dean.

On (b), he says he wants to start "withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

We have 20 brigades in Iraq. How many does Obama define as "engaged in combat operations"? He doesn't say.

Sorry, but I get a little skeptical of qualifiers that don't include a definition. As General Betrayus's definition of "Sectarian Violence" showed, often the qualifier is more important than anything else.

What about the brigades NOT involved in others (which, for all I know, might be 19, by Obama's definition)? When do they go?

I don't know how many will be there. But I know, from his statements in the recent debate, that he's not willing to say they'll all be gone by 2013.

OK, Mr. Obama... You were right about something or other five years ago, guy-- if I read it right, it was "War is Bad. Usually." (read the speech)

And now you're saying "I will pull some troops out, but I can't say how many go or how long it takes."

Very like the lady who says "Yeah, I guess I could imagine dating you eventually." Be still my beating heart.

And it reminds me of John Kerry, too. I couldn't get a one-word answer to questions like "What color is the sky?" from him either.

Of course, I'm not sure that it's a better answer than:

1. "I think we all know what color the sky is-- and I'll tell you right now that I'm going to work to make sure we keep it that way!"

2. "It depends on where you're looking from-- the penthouse or the outhouse."

You guys can match those quotes up with the speaker, right?

I always thought the highest polling candidate would be the one who was most against the occupation of Iraq. I am disappointed the polls are not showing this, but it is possible the national polling and the primary voting will not correlate. I saw something on the news this AM about Romney polling poorly nationally but leading the polls in several early primary states. So to with Obama. He did not receive as many donations as Clinton, but has a whole lot more donors. I am curious to find out what will happen in the primaries.

If I recall correctly 2 of his opponents in the race backed the war against Iraq.

And so what if this were true? It hardly implies that most Democratic voters in Illinois were in favor of the war. I doubt that most Democratic voters anywhere who were likely to vote in a primary -- obviously tending toward the activists -- were in favor of the war.

Where's the political courage?

Comparing Obama to a sitting US Senator with national ambitions is simply comparing apples and oranges.

The real distinction over who supported the Iraq invasion isn't whether someone was right or wrong. I find it impossible to believe that any member of the US Senate (unless they and their staffs haven't discovered the internet yet or unless they're unwilling to do a little independent research) had any serious belief in what was recognized as a propaganda campaign against Iraq by millions the world over. It simply wasn't hard to find out with 99% reliability what was going on at the time. Two charges can be made against those who voted for the resolution. The first is that these senators were simply doing the politically expedient thing. The second, and much more important, is that these senators philosophically back the imperialistic, aggressive foreign policy put in place in the last half of the 20th C and view such policy as legitimate use of American power. I won't be supporting either Clinton or Edwards.

Just to argue my point a bit more, I think that it seems pretty clear if one attends to the issue of political safety, then Obama's choice to oppose the resolution was, at that time, clearly the safest thing for him politically.

As I mentioned, Obama was at the time an Illinois State Senator from a very liberal district. Had he NOT opposed the resolution, he would have seriously pissed off his actual constituents. Now, in terms of the safest thing to do as a politician, one must favor the bird in the hand over the the two birds in the bush. He would clearly have to opposed the resolution to have the best chance of maintaining his job and good relations with his constituents.

But it must have been clear to Obama that opposing the war would hurt him little if any in the Democratic primary for US Senator, given the general disposition of Democrats against the war. Perhaps it would be a problem under some circumstances in the general, but he also knew that in Illinois the Democrats had a significant advantage in the general in any case.

So, on balance, what was the safest thing to do? Well, I'd think that opposing the war would be the safest. Yes, in principle it might hurt him way down the line as he sought higher and higher office. But those were only birds in bushes further and further away. And the safe thing is always to discount the prospect of such prospects, because of their relative riskiness.

prospect of such prospects

in my post above should be

prospect of such possibilities

Again, if you want real political courage in the vote on the Iraq war, go to Bob Graham in Florida as a true example.

"I would have voted against the war in Iraq If I hade been in a position to vote." is not very convincing, but states what he believed.

He could heve voted on the MoveOn & the Kyl/Lieberman bills, but ducked instead. That makes his earlier statement a sham, wouldn't you think? Oh. Crap on that stuff about campaigning in NH, btw. We are paying him to be a Senator.

As far as Kevin originally supporting the war? Well, I've been posting on blogs for about 10 months. Over that time my viewpoints have changed according to changing events & perceptions. It is called learning from our mistakes. I would like to see more of that here as too many from all angles of the political spectrum still spout the same old shit.

It isn't just that Obama was right, it's how he was right. He made the right judgement about the relative risks of leaving Saddam in power and invading. He made the right judgement about the risks of sectarian violence, and a protracted occupation. He pointed out the folly of diverting our attention from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden. His opponents chose not to be vocal about any of those things -- they did not even bother to read the classified NIE report.

If voting for the greatest strategic foreign policy mistake since Vietnam is not a disqualification for the presidency, at least it requires some explanation for how one came to be so wrong. Just blaming the intelligence is not enough -- if the intelligence had been perfect it still would have been a mistake, and we'd still be stuck in Iraq today. The next time there's a terrorist attack in the U.S., or the day Iran builds its first nuke, or the day Pakistan's government takes a radical turn, there will be all sorts of political pressure to do something stupid. I want a president who can do the right thing even when everyone else is calling for the wrong thing.

For Obama - repitition is the key to success, and

For HRC who supported Lieberman-Kyl Sense of the Senate to support the Administration's bombing of Iran - she was FOR military action against Iran before she was AGAINST it

*

Add braggart to Obama's character deficit of also being a plagiarist. The man is a one-trick-pony and annoying and snippy on top of that.

Look, what Obama said before the war could have been irrelevant. But he made it SUPER relevant today by promising to end the war and bring the troops home in a year and a half. That's "immediately" in political terms.

If Obama loses in Iowa, it's over. Iowa is an anti-war state. So Obama changed the debate today in Iowa. He went after HRC as strongly as he possibly could: She gave Bush a blank check and, guess what?, he cashed it.

The ball is now in her court. Does she whine about him engaging in "dirty" politics or clarify her position? That's what this debate is supposed to be about. If HRC insists on running as a war candidate, let her do it now -- in the primary.

For the record, I'm willing to support either of them -- or Edwards -- but NOT as a war candidate.

Obama's message works for me. Anyone who fails to see the logic in it is either in denial about Hillary's hawkish positions, or just making excuses for her past fuck-ups.

Watching Democrat lawmakers fluttering around in the congress attacking talk show personalities is almost painful

Apocalypse alert! I agree with mhr about something.

But you left out the part about the Republicans swooning about the MoveOn ad. How is that any less pathetic?

Watching Democrat lawmakers fluttering around in the congress attacking talk show personalities is almost painful but reminds us all how utterly ridiculous modern Democrats have become.

Huh. Interesting observation. Devoid of fact, but interesting, none the less.

Here is something I just realized. MoveOn ran their ad, and unable to refute the charges therein, politicians and poltroons got their noses out of joint about it all.

Then Rushbo stepped on his itty-bitty dick, and the politicians and poltroons of the Republican lunatic fringe are commending the lowlife; and soldiers step up and speak out, denouncing the fat, impotent chickenhawk.

Interesting, huh?

If Obama had some real achievements perhaps he wouldn't have to continually flap his jaws about "I woulda if I coulda". The only reason he is in this race is some superficial pundits who are impressed for some ridiculous reason by him and Republicans who realize he's their best bet to continue their dominance.

Can someone please ask Obama why he is not calling for an immediate withdrawal if he was/is against the iraq war?

I agree with Frank Rich's Sunday NYT take on HRC:

"...Is she so eager to be all things to all people, so reluctant to offend anyone, that we never will learn what she really thinks or how she will really act as president?

So far her post-first-lady record suggests a follower rather than a leader. She still can't offer a credible explanation of why she gave President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq (or why she voted against the Levin amendment that would have put on some diplomatic brakes). That's because her votes had more to do with hedging her political bets than with principle. Nor has she explained why it took her two years of the war going south to start speaking up against it. She was similarly tardy with her new health care plan, waiting to see what heat Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama took with theirs. She has lagged behind the Democratic curve on issues ranging from the profound (calling for an unequivocal ban on torture) to the trivial (formulating a response to the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad)..."

HRC needs to be held to account for her votes and positions...What does she REALLY stand for?

Fuck Frank Rich and Moron Dowd. Fuck them.

Kevin has been really annoying me about Obama lately. Stop listening to the MSM dude! They loved Obama for a long time, and now is the natural part of the cycle where they make up something to hate about him.

I'm sick of liberals harping about how they want change and then nitpicking the candidate (Obama) who has clearly shown throughout his career and campaign that he is about the change that we want. Whereas his main opponent (Hillary)proves over and over again that she is not about change! Did the Leiberman/Kyle debacle not make it clear enough for you? Kevin sounds like the Dean f'in Broder talking about how "smart" she is to cosponsor the Webb bill. I've had enough of that kind of "smart" out of the Democrats.

For Gods sakes act like the Republicans for once and line up behind the candidate that actually advances our interests! The contrarian impulses that Kevin and others display is counterproductive.

Just listen to Obama and what he has always said and done. Ignore the noise. Thats all I ask.

Here's more of Frank Rich on HRC and the other Democrats:

"...As was proved again in [last] Wednesday night's debate, her opponents have not yet figured out how to seriously challenge her. Now the story line of her inevitable triumph is gathering force. At the same time, her campaign works relentlessly to shut down legitimate journalistic vetting of her record. In the latest example, Politico.com reported last week on the murky backstage machinations by the Clinton camp before the magazine GQ killed an article by Joshua Green, whose 2006 Atlantic Monthly profile judged Mrs. Clinton a practitioner of "systematic caution" with "no big ideas." The donors' list and first lady archives at the Clinton presidential library remain far from transparent..."

NYT is a front for the GOP. All big juicy stories like white water, iraq intel leaks etc..started there. Rethugs know they can use NYT to advance their causes so stop refering the whores working for NYT. Once upon a blue moon NYT allow Rich to write critical piece about Bush so they can look normal but don't buy the shit coming out of NYT.

House calls to pull troops out of Iraq but at the same time they vote for more money for Bush's war $150 Billion to be exact, Now what kind of Idiots do we have in Washington at fisrt I was fooled thinking it was only Bush and Cheney and now I see it is by for more spread than I first thought. Kick all their corrupt azzes to the curb and lets start over, this includes Democrats as well as the Republicans.

Shorter me -- Obama was right on the substance & politics of the most important foreign-policy decision of the century. Clinton was wrong on both. But she's still my girl.

Conscience: Obama wasn't right. HE WASN'T EVEN THERE. He cast no vote.

"...whose 2006 Atlantic Monthly profile judged Mrs. Clinton a practitioner of "systematic caution" with "no big ideas." The donors' list and first lady archives at the Clinton presidential library remain far from transparent..."

-- Frank Rich

If that's true, I might actually vote for Hillary. Whenever politicians get big ideas, the world becomes worse. I mean look at the big ideas of the past decade:

Medicare Part D
No Child Left Behind
The Patriot Act
The Iraq War
CAFTA

All pieces of total bipartistan "excellence".

And I'm aware Hillary was a supporter with most, if not all these. But that's just because she floats with the political winds. And I WANT someone who floats with the political winds, because right now those winds are blowing in the direction of a government that remains in static and leaves us the hell alone.

Obama got it right only if you analyze his position with the advantage of hindsight.

Given that as best we knew Saddam was developing nuclear weapons for terrorists, Obama wasn't all that prescient.

McCain is on Hillary, what a joke McCain is, if you all want our troops in Iraq forever then vote for this dumb piece of SSSSHHHHIIIAAATTT.

If that's true, I might actually vote for Hillary. Whenever politicians get big ideas, the world becomes worse. I mean look at the big ideas of the past decade:

Poor ignorant concern troll brian--you forgot to look at the dismal incompetence of this President and list all of his "big" ideas so that we can see what happens when a mentally challeged man with no curiosity or self-awareness tries to govern.

As for me, I'll take my politicians with big ideas, if you please. One cannot fathom why Republicans so desperately need to be in power when it is the government itself they hate more than anything in the world. Beware the man who wants to have control over the thing he professes in public to despise. You forgot to mention:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Civil Rights
Putting a man on the Moon
Giving the vote to women*

Wow, those big ideas sure have fucked this country sideways and left us gasping for air, haven't they?

Pardon me while I roll my eyes in disgust at your unbelievably obvious little attempt at making a comment about this country. Do you live in America? Or do you crawl in the filth inside of a sewer somewhere and pretend to be some sort of superhero in tights whose only "power" is to point out that things like CAFTA haven't worked the way they were intended?

---------
*One cannot help but point out that Ann Coulter now thinks women should not vote--what a big idea that is. She's one of the best minds of her time, so long as her time is 879 AD and she's shrieking from the inside of a cage. What a waste of the human spirit.

Keith: "HRC voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that many consider the gift card Bush/Cheney were looking for to ramp up their war machine against Iran ..."

It was not an amendment. What ultimately passed was a non-binding resolution reflecting the sense (or in this particular case, the senselessness) of the Senate. It has no legal wieght, and authorizes nothing.

Best you learn the difference between an amendment and a non-binding resolution, lest you drive yourself and / or others to distraction over such things that are legally meaningless.

I know it is often repeated, but it bears doing so again

The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. -

P. J. O'Rourke

Brian, government works. Republicans don't like that. They undermine government, which is why they don't deserve a seat at the table. Their only idea is welfare for the wealthy. Same as it ever was.

Pale Rider: "She's one of the best minds of her time, so long as her time is 879 AD and she's shrieking from the inside of a cage."

That's hardly fair, let alone true. Ms. Coulter hails from a much later era, somewhere around the period of the Spanish Inquisition.

After 6 years of chickengeorge bush I am getting tired of being told what "I need to understand".

On this score, Hillary Clinton's decision to cosponsor legislation preventing military operations against Iran without congressional approval seems pretty smart.

Now how did I know that the Obama-bashing was going to magically evolve into Hillary-fluffing at the end? Yet another pro-Hillary post from Kevin. If you're going to support Hillary you should come out and officially endorse her--and stop pretending that you're offering objective analysis.

President Howard Dean was also right on the Iraq war.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com