Of course, she should have said she made a mistake. Everybody did. Voters would have taken her admission and not missed a beat.

We all felt there were WMDs in Iraq and nobody anticipated the blood letting that's happened there since. An admission of error by Hillary would have killed the issue.

Why didn't her advisors prevail on her to admit it?

Because they are scared to death of Hillary's fury, rage, tantrums, and, ultimately, of being exiled.

So Hillary refused to say "I'm sorry." As a result, she has brought herself no end of woe as she tries to appease her anti-war constituents.

Great idea, Hillary. I had already thought of it myself!

Jan Knaus

What makes you think that Hillary has ever held convictions similar to your own? I think people have unfounded ideas of who she should be. Or rather, they think that she's "changed" for the worse now that the presidency is within her grasp. I think she's the same as always, and she's always been somewhat conservative--on another post today someone pointed out that she was once part of the Republican student group at Wellesley. Am I missing a liberal/leftist episode in her past that should lead any of us to believe that she's better on policy and principle than she seems to be?

on another post today someone pointed out that she was once part of the Republican student group at Wellesley.

She was President of the group and a Gloldwater Girl, as well.

Kinda like Mitt Romney only in reverse.

Hillary is simply following her husband's advice: "It is better to be strong and wrong than weak and right."

Bill Clinton was talking about how Republicans win elections even though their ideas are bad. They talk tough, they don't back down, and voters respect that even if they don't agree with their policies. I guess Hillary is thinking that refusing to apologize will make her seem tough, even if she is wrong.

I don't think it's gonna sell. It sure didn't help Lieberman in the Dem primaries in CT.

But has she ever really presented herself as more left than she is? I feel like we may have all made this up in our own heads. I used to feel disappointed about her policy decisions--thinking that she was being ultra-calculating--until I realized that I never really had any reason to expect anything else from her. There's no reason to think her unwillingness to apologize is just posturing either. She may very well believe she has no reason to apologize. She's already explained herself, and everyone should move on, as she's told us.

Brad makes excellent points. Here might be some other technical points.

The resolution gave the President authority on a wide range of options regarding Iraq. At the time of her vote, she could not have known what the president would do with that resolution in hand.

Arguably, one could have predicted that the President was going to take us to war in Iraq no matter what. I did. I don't think that many could have predicted how he would totally bungle the job.

But the guy you really have to admire is Al Gore who has been consistently right on the larger issues concerning our future.

So here is perhaps what Mrs. Clinton is saying: Given the explosive atmosphere we were in after 9-11, giving George Bush the authority specified in the resolution, was not an unreasonable thing to do AT THE TIME. In retrospect, knowing what we know now about this administration, we would NEVER have given him this authority. Not being clairvoyant, she did not know how events would unfold.

As far as gushing mea culpas like Edwards, I don't think that does us any good in this extremely sensitive time we are in in our foreign affairs.

I do think she's under a stronger microscope as a woman candidate for the presidency. But I still wonder, as I mention below, whether any of us have any real reason to believe that she is moving now toward the center or right to get to the presidency? Is there some event I've missed where she presented herself as a candidate of the left and not the center? I ask honestly.

You are right on a few key points. One, she has the best democratic strategist alive sleeping next to her every night. OK, he returns her voicemails promptly.

Two, Bill's political team are the most experienced and keenest democratic campaigners there are.

Three, the part you mention about being strong. She is not running for primaries, she is running for the general. She has even let it be known she will skip some early caucuses (cauci?). She also plans to take red states that have not been touched in years, like the Rockies and plains states. Her consultants have conveyed to her she must run to the right of all of her Democratic opponents, at least until the last minute. She is keeping the democratic field as close to the center as possible so she can be prepared for external events to not control her campaign.

Bob Shrum will not be on her campaign and She will be prepared in case, like Kerry OBL releases a video 3 days before the polls open. For those that believe this will be her position in the homestretch, don't take it personal. She gets no national bump for apologizing right now, she gets a great bump in March or even June of 2008, and then she uses it to fire up the engines and go after her Republican opponent full force.

Fourth and Finally, She is a woman. Any one that thinks she hasn't studied the only real life model for her canidacy, Margret Thatcher, is underestimating her husband and his team. Margret Thatcher was not just an advocate of a strong military, She was the Iron Lady. This was a foil to her femininity. She was the strong mother figure protecting her people. The British in their collective memory had a template for this in Queen Victoria and other warrior Queens.

Hillary has to build this from scratch. I am not saying she will emerge as some war monger rambo in a pants suit. I am saying her handlers are telling her to appear as engaged in foreign policy and the potential for the use of force as possible until the position becomes untenable, because you can only flip, you can not flop.

In a campaign against a Republican, especially a strong executive like Rudy or Romney, running in a campaign that revolves around understanding the use of force, she has to appear to be tough, but not foolhardy, and smart but not wonkish. If she gives off a JFK image of being torn between conflicting forces, but making the right decision to disengage in Iraq, she appears as one who is willing to fight, but smart enough to know when not to fight. If she comes across as a kneejerk end the war at all costs candidate, she won't have anything to talk about regarding the defense policy.

Why all the puzzlement?

She's doing as her husband did: stick with the wrong story until the country gets ashamed of its selfimportant hypocritical moralizing and faux standards. Then you make your move.

Personally, I'm sick of all the hypocrisy too.

Her people circulated that she's no fool about Iraq and of course considers her part in the thing a grotesque mistake, long ago. Late 2004, iirc. But there is part of the Party that wants to see her humiliated- and if/when she does as they demand, they'll refuse to flip to her because of Bill.

"So what gives with Hillary?"

She won't apologize because she thinks the war was a good idea. That's why she's becoming this cycle's Joe Lieberman.

The Vienna Summit followed in June, 1961. JFK had his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev:

“Khrushchev threatened to sign a peace agreement with East Germany that would impinge on Western access to Berlin by turning over control of the access roads and air routes. Kennedy was shocked at the tone and threats made.”

Khrushchev told Kennedy, "Force will be met by force. If the US wants war, that's its problem." "Its up to the US to decide whether there will be war or peace." "The decision to sign a peace treaty is firm and irrevocable, and the Soviet Union will sign it in December if the US refuses an interim agreement." Kennedy replied, "Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war. It will be a cold winter."

Nuclear winter? At any rate, a rather chilling exchange.

SeeDee

I wonder if Hillary's adamant refusal to admit her mistake in the 2002 vote (and by any measure, it WAS a mistake), stems from her concern for the views of some of her mega-buck campaign donors?

It is also equally possible that, while she had a non-race for her re-election in '06, she was, after all, contending in New York, where opposition to the Iraq debacle was not as pronounced as it now is.

AIPAC, for instance, does not seem to share the same level of conviction that prevails in much of America regarding the idea that the Iraq war was a BIG mistake.

Why does anyone think Hillary Clinton believes her vote was a "mistake"?

The vote was a ceding of war powers to the White House. She's a strong lady, and if she gets to the White House, she's going to expect to exercise the full panoply of presidential powers among which war making powers are the most seductive.

Admitting that she made a mistake would be to re-cede presidential powers which have been built up over the past 50+ years back to the Congress, something she'd be loath to do even on her most left-leaning day.

Margaret Thatcher? You ain't seen nothin' yet!

P.S.  Didn't notice stlounick's comment, above; he said it better.

This whole debate is amusing. The Clintons are regularly accused of not actually believing in anything. Now the demand is that Hillary Clinton reverse not what she thinks now, that war in Iraq be ended, but that an action she took four years ago.

The moment Hillary says she made a mistake, if she did it was not in being for getting rid of Saddem in this it is the anti-war Left that is mistaken, but in trusting Bush, she will be denounced for not believing in anything.

Having spent Sunday with a number of womem all politically interested and liberal Democrats it is obvious that only those who do not care if Hillary wins in November or just don't think want her to say she made a mistake. Everyone of them, not all supporters of Clinton, said as a womam if she said she made a mistake she would be pounced upon as weak.

Krugman seems to confuse what Hillary did with her vote and her ability to change policy once it is shone not to be working. This is what Bush has been unwilling to do. The smug insistence on an apology is a rather typical Leftwing and Rightwing juvenlie approach to politics.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

No, Ellen, you said it quite well, thanks. I'm not sure I would say that she's seduced by the lure of expanding presidential war powers, but I do think she would be a strong leader and I also think she is guided by her experience inside the White House.

Gore is 2 for 2- supported Gulf War I, opposed Gulf War II. Obama is 1 for 1. Clinton and Edwards both were wrong about this war- but only one has had the courage to admit it.

Imhofe !

Thank you, M J Rosenberg, for raising an issue that is almost invariably papered over: the nature of the 'mistake' of the US Iraq invasion: 'as disastrous as it was morally and for the national interest.' Yes! The key problem of the Iraq invasion was that it was wrong,not that some organizational or operational error was committed. If this distinction is not made, then everyone can have his own view of what the 'mistake' was--not enough troops, not enough planning, etc etc, thus paving the way for the next invasion.

If I try to rob a bank, and the robbery goes awry, what was the mistake? That I didn't have enough help robbing the bank? That I didn't plan it out properly? Or that I shouldn't have robbed the bank in the first place?

Iraq was a poor, defenseless country that posed no threat to anyone, above all the US. The invasion was morally like Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. That's the 'mistake.'

Unless that's clear, imperialists can argue for a US invasion of Iran--just plan it better, bomb more and use more troops.

So, Mr Rosenberg, you have raised an important point! Thank you!
Peter Miller

"What is Hillary thinking? Why in God's name would anyone not apologize for voting for this war? I am genuinely perplexed."

Come on. You're better than this.

Hillary's line over the last several months has been that Bush (and Cheney and Rumsfeld) severely messed up the execution of this war. The reason therefore why she isn't apologizing for her vote is because, in terms of her current narrative, she'd be apologizing for something that is not her fault. Which is hardly indefensible or perplexing.

And it has very little to do any feminist psychobabble or AIPAC considerations, and actually does not come across as a famous Clintonian triangulation. It is a simple matter of taking a position at this VERY early stage, that pretty much nobody would disagree with.

She stands to gain nothing by making statements that enable opponents to put labels on her (flip-flopper, anyone), cast her as weak on defense, or anything else that could become an albatross around her neck over the electoral marathon.

Although you may be more favorable to what Edwards and Obama have said to date, that doesn't mean there isn't strategic sense to what Hillary is doing. She may well have to be more forthcoming nearer Primary Time, but she can probably bide her time for now at least. But she's decided to cast herself as the anti-Bush candidate in terms of competence - again, a largely uncontroversial position - and the non-apology is rational in this context.

Edwards and Obama, in contrast, are vying to be the leading anti-Bush philosophy candidate. In a years time or so, we'll see who made the better call.

She is not in Arkansas anymore and she may suffer more serious consequences for her triangulation than she would have when she lived in the South. I hope so. She completely disregarded her obligation to represent the will of the people who elected her, and felt little compunction, about it, apparently. I don't think this was politically wise.

I suppose she is trying to tough it out as people are suggesting above -- and reaching out to the (virtually non-existant in this polarized climate) center outside the Northeast. As a New Yorker, it does make her feel like a carpetbagger.

I could imagine voting for her against, say, Giuliani, probably, but I do think her feet should be held to the fire.

I agree to a large extent. However, I think all we've seen since the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR imploded has been a continuation of America's Cold War strategy. "Us" versus "them" and "democracy" versus "communism" still continues as "us" versus "them" and "democracy" versus "non-democracy" (or perhaps just not democratic enough).

It's certainly true that we have to continue diligence on the development of nuclear weapons, but are we still stuck in a bi-polar world? Are our only changes to be hard-edged as Bush has been or softer-edged as Senator Clinton would be? Doesn't the underlying strategy have to be re-examined in light of transnational issues like globalization, terrorism and climate change? Do we continue on the road of grading democracies--sending a congratulatory telegram to Venezuela in support of a coup overturning the democratically elected leader comes immediately to mind? Who decides on the form of government each country should have--us or the folks who live there?

Democrats and Republicans supported the Cold War Strategy. If it needs to be changed in light of our world today, then this is a conversation all Americans need to be participating in.

Hillary told us in a speech recently:

"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence.”

Notice she didn’t say tax the profits. She just said “take.”

P.J. O'Rourke simply said “Hillary Clinton is Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit.”

He’s right. They are both out to nationalize oil companies for their own personal power. Chavez is just more honest about it and that sort of honesty eludes our would-be Madam President.

By comparison, Chavez accelerated his mad rush toward state control early this year by nationalizing the telecom and electricity industries and taking over four oil production facilities, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it,” Chavez said.

The difference is simply one of power. He has it. She doesn’t … yet.

It was very helpful to me to go back and read her speech at the time of the war resolution vote. Before I read it, it seemed clear that she was digging in; but she clearly stated in the speech that she was trusting Bush not to go to war without a UN mandate. She didn't want to throw up another obstacle in addition to the UN. At the time, Bush was reassuring Congress that he intended to seek UN support, and that the authorization for force was almost a formality.

I didn't trust the president at the time, but HRC did. I think I turned out to be right in retrospect, but I'm not sure, *at that time*, for HRC as a Senator to come out and say, I don't trust you to do what you say you are going to do would have been jumping the gun. And I think she is correct to emphasize that this is Bush's war; he owns it. So I forgive Hillary for this.

But I do agree with others above who say that HRC's "inability" to admit a mistake is troubling. I think she should admit that she mishandled the health care initiative she spearheaded in Bill's first term.

AndI also agree with Erica above that she has really given us no reason to believe that she is liberal in any sense of the word, nor that she would be much more cautious in taking us to war. If she's the candidate against any Republican I can think of at the moment, I would support her, but not in the primary against Obama or Edwards or Kucinich

Speaker Pelosi led a significant number of Democrats in the House to vote "no" on this resolution. If we need a tough woman to look up to, we have one in her.

Senator Clinton has defined her position and it is one that predicates her support for this war on "flawed intelligence" and/or competence in waging war. I expect no apology because this is her position and I extend her due respect for stating her reasons.

That does NOT mean that I agree with her underlying philosophy--pre-emptive war is okay and a unitary executive is a dandy thing. I reject her position. That does not make me anti-war, a pacifist, or one who does not appreciate females or want them to lead our country.

Getting rid of a murderous tyrant and replacing him with an infinitely worse situation is definitely worthy of apologizing for. Iraq was far better off under Saddam, using any indicator you want to choose.

I agree. I don't recall the Princeton Project discussion although it sounds like it would have been interesting.

I don't believe that Senator Clinton is going out on a limb with a hawkish foreign policy because it has support for all sorts of reasons--one being it is perceived as a good campaign move. But I don't believe that Senator Clinton's position is born from cynicism or political calculation or is a lightly held position. I think she is a bit perplexed by the calls for an apology and I further suspect it will be "written off" as bleating from pacifists and "anti-war" somewhat nutty folks who will not determine the general election results and may not have the numbers to determine the primary.

It may come down to casting a vote in the general election to ensure a win by a Democrat. But we need to have the national conversation focused a bit on our overall post Cold War strategy, whether it is one implemented by the GOP or by Democrats. I desire the shift.

Edwards had a role but I suspect that Senator Obama has done more to push the "pro war" label on Senator Clinton.

Aren't two things being conflated here? Isn't admitting the mistake of giving the Bush Administration the power to go to war different than "apologizing" for it?

I could care less if she "apologized."

I cannot figure out why she cannot even come to say her vote was a big mistake, 5 years now after the fact, and 4 years after we saw how unprepared the Bush Administration was. Not to mention we now know the extent of the lies...

Not being able to admit a mistake reminds me exactly of our friend G. W. Bush.

I think we've had enough of "resolute."

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Hillary won't apologize and I am not holding my breath thinking she will.

As many others have noted already she believes in a strong, borderline aggressive, foreign policy along the lines of what the neocons advocate.  Neo-Conservatism was an offshoot of liberalism.  She believes in using America's military might, even unilaterally if necessary, to right the wrongs of the world when she believes the wrongs are serious enough to warrant it.  Like I said on numerous other threads I reject that philosophy.

And many of her big $$ donors, mainly from AIPAC, want the US government to address the threats to Israel militarily.  So she is giving her money supporters what they want to keep the money coming...

She fully believes in democratic nation building even if by force.  She is just saying Bush and the Cabal's goals were good but their planning and implementation was fatally flawed...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Infallability, and the corresponding inflexibility, can be such a heavy cross to bear...I'd hate the pressure of never being able to be wrong.  That much (and a predisposition to use the US military in lieu of diplomacy) is what her and the current president have in common.

And please note that Gore was "out of step" with the majority of democrats in both Houses on both of those votes. Unfortunately, his ego is so in check and squared away that he won't run in 2008.

Wow. Wandered over to MyDD (quote WaPo), and I see even more Bush sound bites:

Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those."

What a profoundly stupid thing to say. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I took issue with the idea that her position was perplexing. I don't think it is

We agree, neither do I.

I find her stance troubling, it may turn out to be politically fatal, but not apologizing at least holds consistently and seamlessly with her focus on Bush's disastrous handling of the war.

So, not being accountable is Ok with you?  You are willing to accept, 'this is my story and I'm sticking to it'....the same line a cheating spouse uses to deflect from their perfidy?

Hillary used her power to benefit her, not the nation. Now I will use my power to benefit the nation, not her, by casting my vote against her candidacy.

Totally unbelievable, if your post is actually trying to be serious? With war you can't just switch it off? War is a last resort, people die, you 'create' hatred, if you can't understand that then I'm truly truly concerned the state of our Party with these Hillary love-fest junkies. She gave Bush, Bush of all people a loaded gun with no safety catch... what part of that don't you get... Don't look at her statements, look at the freakin resolution!!

Plus, the terrorists were in Afghanistan not Iraq!! review 2002 and the statements of those that voted against the resolution and were right.

(I think I'm going to have to start doing generic cut-&-past answers with links, coz we certainly have some critters coming out of the woodwork without any critical thinking skills.)

All politicians construct frames around their positions.

hcberkowitz: I agree with almost everything you wrote although I do think she would be a good President and I'll be damned if I vote for a Repub or a spoiler if she is the nominee. I thought we should have outright declared war on Afghanistan for what happened on 9-11: after all, this happened with the aid and support of the Afgani government. And I would like to see us use the old Declaration of War by Congress more often than we seem to want to post WWII and stay away from Presidential action on a unilateral basis. And I agree that the terror war is mainly for special ops, Black ops and forums for negotiations and understanding and the like, and not raw military might.

I guess what I am saying is the heck with an apology, its not worth anything. What matters is what people do, not what they say they might have done in retrospect. And I think we are all so very brave to criticize everyone's war vote today and forget what the climate was like in 2003. I do not forget. The press was almost 100% behind this as were most elected reps. Everyone agreed that it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam. You were a traitor if you argued against it or voted against it, the right wing press was in full display and power. I dont fault anyone who gave W the power to use force with the caveat that all negotiated resolutions and solutions, a strong inspection regime and UN action should first be exhausted, with the threat of force the stick to ensure compliance. I fault W for what he did with that power.

I maintain again, and challenge anyone to argue against it, that a President Hillary would not have invaded Iraq, would not have gone to war there, and would not have left us in the rat hole we find ourselves in.

I'll try to be brief - Hillary's line on Iraq at the moment does not seem to leave room for her to apologize for her vote. This strategy might make no sense to you, you might strongly object to it, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the strategy.

And a final point on accountability. I take Hillary's line to be that she is accountable for the fact we went to war, but not for the way the war was conducted. You and I may think this is a bullsh*t distinction, but again, someone who argues this line can't credibly apologize for their vote.

Hillary's Iraqi war vote doesn't leave 'the' room, because it is part of the current Iran package. I.E. The continuation plan to regime-change the ME, maybe you need to be reminded that is also part of AIPAC's package too!

Regarding the apology, I agree we have come to the next stage now... What is Hillary's plan to regime change the ME? She obviously doesn't think the vote was a problem, so let's discuss her and AIPAC's national 'regime-change' security strategy?

Well before the invasion, I argued that invading Iraq was strategically irrational: it diverted attention and resources from a real problem, and, even if Saddam did have WMD, he did not present a threat to the US with them. (No, even if he did, I don't believe he'd have provided them from terrorists).

I've said that in my opinion, the attack was unjustified by any real threat. What is your reasoning in declaring it wrong? Kellogg-Briand?

There is a very wide spectrum in which military forces (as distinct from military force) can be used. Eisenhower's 1958 sending troops to Lebanon, at the government's request, was, to me, rational. The troops in 1958 were able to defend themselves, as opposed to the Marines killed in an ill-defined "presence" mission in 1983. Also in 1983, the Grenada operation fell somewhere inbetween: a consensus of countries in the region, but not an immediate threat. The 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic, which was joined after the fact by multiple countries of the Organization of American States, again is arguable, but had more merit than did Iraq.

Training and development missions not intended to enter combat sometimes do, but training is also a valuable element of foreign policy. No, it does not always lead to human rights abuses. Some critics of human rights abuses after US involvement, even in training, fail to notice that some countries had a bad record of violations before any US involvement, and the violations may have decreased but not disappeared. In other cases, the US involvement made no difference. There are cases where it made the matter worse, and US representatives should have been charged with criminal offenses.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Yep, that's how Senator Clinton would be portrayed by the GOP in a general election. I can certainly accept that she would cast that vote based on her position as a New York Senator--and one who had been booed at Ground Zero. I can also sympathize with Senator Clinton's caution so the right doesn't have more ammo to use against her.

BUT...now she wants to be President. And I am not from New York and she is not my Senator. She does, however, want to be my President. And I can look for those clear moments that show leadership that is good for America.

Her vote for the Iraq War Resolution is a clear moment....a very simple yes/no. I can examine and understand all of her reasons and then decide if her "yes" vote was good for America. I contend that it was not and I will not support her candidacy in the primary.

"President Hillary would not have invaded Iraq, would not have gone to war there, and would not have left us in the rat hole we find ourselves in."

That is what she says too, over and over and over again.

You wrote:

"We all felt there were WMDs in Iraq and nobody anticipated the blood letting that's happened there since. An admission of error by Hillary would have killed the issue."

With respect, I don't know who "we" are but it certainly doesn't include me or the thousands upon thousands who vocally and visibly opposed the war on the streets of every major city in the United States. WE all knew from day one that the whole WMD thing was nothing but a scam. All you had to do was read the newspaper for God's sake and trust the United Nations officials who were clearly saying that there was no evidence to suggest WMD's in Iraq. The UN officials had no ax to grind, were/are the best in their fields and they fiercely did all they could to help this nation avoid Bush's catastrophic invasion. It's just as weird as can be to me when I hear people say or in this case write that they think that everyone in the country bought the same pig in a poke that they did. Well, we didn't.

As far as not anticipating the bloodshed all I can say is there again we did too. We protested in the streets, we did everything we could to get the attention of all you sleepwalkers but you didn't listen to the UN, you didn't listen to France, you didn't listen to us or the millions worldwide who took to the streets protesting this madness and the awful consequences of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Hillary should have known better than to believe that bunch of criminal thuygs in the White House and she got taken. She ought to say so, just admit it and be done with it, but she has a problem admitting mistakes clearly. It will be her downfall.

So, I say it is totally unacceptible to insult someone because you don't agree with them.

Your response is that anybody who supports Hillary Clinton deserves to be insulted.

Please!

Uh-Oh. I think we've got a "red diaper" grandbaby in the house!  :-)

The idea that a Senator's speech is equivalent to Bush's "signing statement" is shocking. Senatorial speeches go back to the first Congress. Bills are complex and few Senators agree with every word -- yet they must vote a simple yes or no. The speeches serve to clarify the nuances of the issues.

But Bush has tried to use these "signing statements" to make law, a power the president does not have, and so tries to subvert the Constitution.

So there is really no similarity. I suspect that the real issue here is that you simply do not want to confront Clinton's actual words, you want to deal with her as an (evil) abstraction. At the time she said "This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make" Doesn't that make you cringe?

Are you hiring? :)

"I believe that her judgment was tainted by her personal ambition"

In Hillary's case I think it is so much more than personal ambition (though that is part of it, of course). I really agree with Dan K above that she is double and triple thinking everything with an eye to how it will look, how it will be interpreted, because she is a woman, and because of how she has been attacked by the right wing.

And she needs to stop! Right away! I don't know how she will come across exactly if she stops, but at least she will be genuine.

I sometimes -- on my more charitable days-- feel terribly sorry for her and relate to her as a woman who is in a setting still very much defined by men, and she is desperately trying to figure out how to act, and it is all made so much worse by all the years of vicious attacks from the right wing. A person would need to be very very comfortable with who they were to get through all this without being made crazy.

(Which makes it all the more interesting to me how comfortable Obama is in his own skin, so to speak. He doesn't appear to be worrying about how he will look, how he will be interpreted.)

Although I relate to Hillary as a woman, and feel bad, and know that as the first woman to have an actual chance of being elected, she is a pioneer and is taking it on the chin for all the rest of us-- still, I am supporting either Obama or Edwards over her. I hate to say that, I remember the goosebumps I got hearing Geraldine Ferraro speak in 1984, hell, even Joe Lieberman as the first Jew on a major party ticket. So I'm sorry not to support Hillary.

But she comes across phony and calculated and uncomfortable with herself, and I don't think those are good qualities in a president (or a candidate!). The comment about what she might do to win a second term is really alarming!

And add to that, she either voted to authorize the war a)because she thought it was politically expedient or b) she believed Bush over the UN weapons inspectors. Either of which shows very bad judgement, as has been demonstrated by subsequent events.

How could I support someone who made that mistake and won't admit it at this late date? Only if all the alternatives were worse.

Again, every Congressmember who voted for the Iraq AUMF is simply unqualified to be President. This is because Congress did far too little, far too late, to gather and to analyze the intelligence on Iraq. Please recall that no one -- including, of course, Bush! -- asked for a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq until Sen. Durbin's letter on 9/9/2002. The CIA published the NIE on 10/1/2002, and Congress voted on the Iraq AUMF 11 days later.

With so little time available to produce and to analyze the NIE, it was a foregone conclusion (a) that it would be a piece of garbage; and (b) that Congress's examination of it and the surrounding data would be, at best, perfunctory.

Thus, everyone who voted for the AUMF didn't do his or her homework before making one of the most important decisions he or she ever could be asked to make.

That irresponsibility cannot be excused by cries of "Knowing what we know now...," "We were misled," or even "Bush lied to us!" The Constitution gives Congress -- not the President -- the power to declare war. And along with that power comes the responsibility carefully to acquire and thoroughly to analyze the relevant information. Yes, Bush lied, and when he didn't lie, he bungled. But Congress didn't catch him at it, and didn't even make a weak attempt to do so. That's abdication, and everyone involved in it has thereby shown his or her unsuitability to assume the responsibilities of the Presidency.

HRC and others tried to have it both ways. They figured if Bush invaded and was successful (ala the 1991 Gulf War) they couldn't be tarred as opposing another successful Bush incursion into that area of the world. They also knew that if didn't work they could cover their butts by saying we didn't authorize war we only authorized the threat of force to give Bush more clout in confronting Hussein. The whole thing was a despicable display of moral irresponsibility..

TOM

It clearly is no longer a bipolar world. While I disagree with some of Samuel Huntington's conclusions about the need for conflict, his model of eight "clashing civilizations" gives one, perhaps oversimplified, view of polarity. Cross-cultural experience, as with, for example, a Confucian-influenced culture, may make democracy less important than other societal values. I remember a comment by a South Vietnamese ambassador to the US, "Dignity: it is more important to us than your freedom."

One crude division of cultures is into "guilt" and "shame" societies. Western civilization, with subcultural variation, is generally "guilt", where people are expected to have a code of ethics and follow it, even if no one is watching. In a shame culture, one's reputation or "face" is more important than how well one follows abstract principles. Muslim cultures are not consistent here; reputation, to the extent of "honor killings," is present in Arab and some African Muslim cultures, but not in others.

Take an example such as Turkey, where the military has traditionally been the guarantor that the state stays secular, even if the popular will would vote it into being Islamic. Is this democratic but with protection for minorities? A military state? How does this fit with the reforms being undertaken to join the EU?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You were right, and almost all alone, but hindsight is not wisdom.

Every prominent, elected Democrat argued long and hard for the removal of Iraq's sadistic dictator, not just Hillary. Her husband was also a big advocate of removing him before the "smoking gun was in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Remember all the oration on the Senate floor and from the White House in the 1990s?

It was only when the war became difficult that Hillary determined she had been duped by the wiley Bush...about the same time as the polls shifted.

MJ, Your post is wrong on so many levels and self contradictory as well. This is one of the best examples I have seen in some time how the Democrats misread the Republicans, fail to understand their strengths regarding their appeal to voters, mischaracterize their behavior, and then walk off the cliff.

For starters, McCain is more likely to be accepted on the Democrat ticket than the Republican ticket [no sarcasm]. He is not going to win the nomination. Zero chance. If you imagine that his appeal is that he frequently sides with democrats and undercuts Republicans, that might make him appealing to you, but it makes him about as likely to win as Zell Miller winning the Dems nomination.

Regarding Kerry who you claim to have been the most brilliant candidate in decades (or was that Gore you were referring to). Kerry's August 2004 anti-bounce and mis steps were not Karl Rove's invention. In the opinion of the most brilliant people in the Dem party, the Clinton people, by Labor day he had torpedoed his own best chances. The Republicans only capitalized on his errors.

If you look at Rahm Emanuel's and C. Shumer's successful 2006 race, you will see how Kerry could have won. They decided to stop mocking and deriding red state voters and instead attempt to win them over. If thats a hard pill to swallow, that has been the road to victory in '92, '96, 2006. That has been the ONLY road to victory.

The self contradictory part here is Kerry was all about "worrying" about what republicans would say. It was his decision to make the War the central issue of the campaign, not Rove. It was his idea to have his staff use the word Vietnam Hero at the beginning and end of every sentence. His Strategy was a one dimensional "innoculation" strategy. We heard political experts repeating that Kerry is a war hero, so he can be against the war and nobody can question his courage. America didn't care. They were forgetting that the American people didn't care who won a game of "Grandpa, what did you do in the war". America wanted to know who had a clear plan for Defense. He put all his eggs in one basket, oversold the basket and when the basket didn't comfort American's concerns about Security, they turned away. He chose the field of battle and then failed to mount an offensive on that primary issue, because he was worried about what Republicans would say. In brilliance, putting Kerry in the same league as Clinton is laughable. In the next year, I think we will remember why.

The other race card remarks that you made are really disgusting unless you are joking, which I don't think you are. First of all, regardless of our Multicultural ideals, Obama's name and Religious Journey is something Americans will consider not because they hate Muslims, but because they imagine how it will be viewed by the world. Just as some wondered how Misogynistic countries would accept Albright as a Sec. of State, it is something to consider, but in the end Albright was our representative and they have to accept it. Is his name high on anyones list if he is good, of course not. We have Terry Moran of ABC asking if Rudy is white enough, but did anybody ever say that about Dukakis.

Convey the "N" word???? Who has been throwing oreo's at Black Republicans, who calls Clarence Thomas a house boy, Who made comic strips this fall of Condi as a poor black mami? Who put Joe Lieberman in black face? Just saying that makes you complicit with the Race-baiting of the left. No one in the GOP has mentioned his race, but the left keeps on talking about how he cleans up well for the cameras. The left veils their own prejudice by claiming they have to work around the prejudice of others.

Regarding the other candidates you mentioned. Hillary is applying for a job. Hillary's association with scandal deserves scrutiny. If you are voting Democratic, ask your self if another democratic candidate with 4 years of no scandal in their Presidency would be more appealing. Forget what Republicans say in the campaign, how would you feel if Hillary won and bounced from scandal to scandal when you could have had another Democrat. I am not saying she will, but you should be analyzing these issues for your sake, not how they play in Des Moines.

Edwards is a trial lawyer, you're right. Only Journalist and used car salesman ranks below that in popularity. If Americans don't like that is it their unfair bias against shysters or is it something Edwards needs to overcome. Regarding Richardson, I don't know what you mean by Frito Bandito. Does that mean they will make fun of his Mexican heritage or his criminal investigations or what? If you want to say the GOP hates Mexicans, say it. I think recent history would prove you wrong. I don't remember the last administration overflowing with Hispanics outside of Richardson. Regarding his legal issues. Yes, Richardson does have some major skeletons in his closet. He was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Wen Ho Lee case up until a few months ago when it was settled.

He was the leaker that unleashed the media on Lee to have him chained to the floor in schackles in Solitary confinement, because of his Chinese heritage as a scapegoat for the administration. He also mishandled the Taliban when he visited them in Afghanistan at the same time OBL was bombing our embassies. When Dems talk about how "articulate" he is, it makes me wonder if they think he cleans up well too.

Do democrats make mistakes, yes. Are Republicans horrible people to point them out? ...to you yes. Because it makes you angry, and your need to blame somebody leads you to blame Republicans for every mis-step (Karl Rove, Karl Rove, Karl Rove) or call them liars or racists, is doing exactly what you are preaching not to do. You are externalizing all your garbage and defering responsibility.

Bill Clinton, who unlike Kerry was actually Brilliant, realized, Americans have a sensitive radar for a candidate that blames only, but provides no coherent plan to fill the gap. He formulated plans and when he didn't have plans he made them up. When he got in office then he pointed fingers, but as a candidate, he had a plan for everything. Thats why moderates and Independents voted for him.

They voted for him, because they are afraid that Democrats are predictable, anti-wealth building, big government, tax and spend, weak on defense push overs. Bill convinced them that they are not. If you don't like these images they have of Democrats, you can rail against them and blame them on Karl Rove, or engage in the politics of the possible and overcome them. Clinton did. If you didn't think some of these stereotypes of Democrats have stuck, then you wouldn't be running around with your hair on fire that with a small effort Republicans can demonstrate their validity.

One thing Hillary said last week, and she said it on 60 minutes in early '92. If you don't like it don't vote for us. Two thirds of America just loves when she says that. They love it because she is giving whole hearted respect to their power to make the decision and she is saying she is willing to lose to stand by her principles. Unlike your flip flop charcterization, Hillary has only got to flip, not flip flop. The troops have to come home some day. Tony Blair is claiming to have commited troops, acheived a goal, declared victory and now bring them home. Hillary can too. If Dems security platform is so brittle that they aren't capable of withstanding a GOP criticism on that, then they do have a weak image regarding defense.

The far left hate that because they want her to be intimidated enough to adopt all of their positions and they don't want to admit that another election cycle passes and Liberals can't just be Liberals and garner a majority. McGovern is the latest icon to be primped for extreme legacy makeover. Why don't you try it one more time. Just let it all hang out. Just be yourself, fight for every Nader supporter, sidestep Red states, stop pandering to the small town hicks, and just let your candidates be who they are...let your freak flag fly.

If you lose, you can always blame it on Karl Rove and throw Oreo cookies at a person of color who you think betrayed the movement.

Well, then it's a slur on Ralph Nader. Either way it is Bush-like nastiness.

Tom

Why is it a slur if that is what Nader believes?

Getting stuck on a Vietnam meme is indeed problematic, definitely so for Kerry, and, while there are both similiarities and differences to the Iraq situation, not understanding the nuances can be equally problematic.

Even during Vietnam, some realized that certain things would not want to be thought about thirty years hence. For example, I worked on engineering various automated sensors to detect people on jungle trains. One of the most technically promising -- and I am not making this up; it came from the Army Night Vision Lab at Fort Belvoir -- was the scout bedbug. You see, certain species of bedbugs are exquisitely sensitive to human bodies. Someone had found a type that would start shaking and vibrating when a human came within 5 feet. The bug's excitement would trigger a vibration detector, which, in turn, triggered a radio signal with the location of the sensor. The bedbug was likely to be thrown clear of the bomb and shell bursts.

A wise colonel, however, rejected the idea. He said troops would not be willing to work with a device that caused them, when asked "What did you do in the war, daddy?" with "I was a bedbug wrangler."

More seriously, you have some insights into the Democratic potential candidates. Obama has star quality, but is it the kind that endures, like an RFK had? I don't think we know as yet, although we probably had a better handle on RFK's liabilities.

Hillary? I just don't see her as an inclusive leader. The 60 Minutes statement you quote is, however, good positioning.

With Richardson we will have to see; he has positives and negatives. Edwards is also something of an unknown for the top spot.

If you will, all of these, to some extent, are "known unknowns". I have a hunch that the eventual Democratic nominee may not be one of the above, but a governor or senator that comes into the race after the leaders have eaten one another.

You point out, correctly, that the Democratic candidate must be positioned as being a positive alternative, rather than an anti-republican. That's along the lines of what I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. While he has chosen not to run, someone like Mark Warner, who can point to real jobs and wealth growth under his Virginia governorship, and identify his actual role in creating that, has a strong message.

Jim Webb might build from his Virginia base, strong military and executive branch role, and, if he can spin his party change effectively, demonstrate he can work with both parties. Webb's military role, from Annapolis to distinguished combat eventually to Secretary of the Navy, is probably not assailable like Kerry's.

So far, I don't see the far left making as much of a difference in the electoral process as does the far right. Things could get very interesting if there enters a good organizer on the far left, and Nader doesn't become a spoiler.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Oh dear lord where have you been for the last five years? Please get in touch with reality. Bush's invasion in March 2003 was stupid, insane, irrational, and counter-productive.

Tom

"... the United States must stabilize Iraq..."

The US military can stay there for a hundred years and the United States will not stabilize Iraq because our military presence is a destabilizing factor.

Tom

A number of Hollywood types are on record as saying that not only does one not want to be David Geffen’s friend, you sure don’t want to become his enemy. He is said to be one of those creepy, power-crazed billionaires who doesn’t like not getting his way.

Not only did he slam the Clintons by embracing the Illinois senator, but at a fundraiser for Obama recently, he poured gasoline on the fire by saying, “Everybody in politics lies (but the Clintons) do it with such ease it’s troubling.”

He went on to tell Maureen Dowd of the New York Times that Bill Clinton is still having trouble keeping his pants zipped up around flirty women and that Hillary’s candidacy is a train wreck.

It doesn’t take a political policy wonk to imagine what kind of shrieking and gnashing of teeth took place in the Hillary-for-President camp.

It’s highly unlikely that Madame Hillary smiled politely and said something like, “Oh, that darn David Geffen, he’s such a rascal” when she heard his slams. No, a more likely scenario involved plenty of obscenities being hurled and a few lamps hitting some walls.

He went on to tell Maureen Dowd of the New York Times that Bill Clinton is still having trouble keeping his pants zipped up around flirty women and that Hillary’s candidacy is a train wreck.

Especially given that , generally, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In this case, we all know that Bill has long standing zipper issues, and Hillary would not be married to him if she did not tolerate his 'equal opportunity zipper access'. The question is does the country want to have that in the WH again, even if Hilliary is willing to tolerate it?

I do not think the nation is prudish about her marriage. I think the country sets a higher standard  with regard to the behavior of those people who are officially representing the nation.

That one facet does make the candidacy  a train wreck.

I know, but you go back to 2004 and the vote and I still wonder if it wasn't only the republicans that put the warmonger back!

Mark Crispin Miller had an interesting meeting with Kerry where he was told that those in the upper tier (no doubt Hillary's DLC'er) told him not to challenge the vote.

There was some strange crap going on with that campaign, not least of which the weird 'professional' connection between Carville and Matalin 'lightly' touched on by Woodward?

Trust is not a word that comes to mind with the republican-lites within the Democratic Party.