The vote on the certainly is something that is a conundrum for Hillary, but you haven't really heard much about it in the campaign for a long time.

I think the AUMF was more endemic of the true problem for Hillary:

She guided her Senate terms as building a record solely for running for POTUS. I'm not sure she ever had a real policy direction or a core set of beliefs. This is the do-anything-say-anything to get elected part of her being that seems fundamental.

Is anyone sure of what Hillary stands for? The only issue where she has ever been clear has been Universal Health Care. The rest? It's like the driver license question at the debate. She gives whatever answer she needs to as a way of getting through the question.

I think Hillary's biggest mistake was not running in 2004. She has a real chance of winning against the Dem background and might have energized the female vote to defeat GWB.

But the Clintons have always been too clever by half.

I'm glad she made the miscalculation. We need to break out of our dynasty-mentality for the White House. (Historically, dynasty-mentality is a sign of a country whose power is on the wane.) This election will certainly put the kibosh on that.

Fair criticism of HRC's campaign.

I liked Hillary until just before South Carolina. I thought experience was worth a lot and she had more (perhaps not 35 years,) but certainly more than Obama. I do think she has been eyeing the White House for years and voting accordingly, but so has Obama. He just is more subtle about it than she is. Had the war gone well, his vote against it would have hurt him. Even his criticism of it was hedged, "I'm not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars."

What lost me was Bill's claims about Jesse Jackson's '88 primary win, followed by the Sudan outfit picture, the "he might be a Christian." She behaved like a Republican when it was unnecessary.

What sealed the divorce was Tuzla and her campaign implosion. If you run on experience, you need to have a solid campaign organization. At the end of the day he came with a better team and a better game plan. He had some moments (Wright, "bittergate"), but his fundamentals were more solid. Simple as that.

"{She gave him the opening by voting for the war"

"So spare me the stories about her being defeated by sexism or whatever. Democrats are dying to vote for a qualified liberal woman for President"

"But the war vote made it impossible for her to go unchallenged in the primaries which gave the immensely appealing and talented Obama his chance"

Pure bullshit! You don't know any of that.

Look MJ if this is your attempt at being graceful I can tell you that it is a miserable failure. And to bring up Ferraro and "busing" puts the icing on the cake.

If you are trying to be divisive at this late hour, you are doing a heck-of-a-job Rosy.

It is laughable that you say that the only reason Hillary had any opposition at all was because she voted for authorization. Most of those other candidates that ran against her voted for authorization too. But leaving that aside, you know very well why she was handicapped in her quest for the nomination because you were a card carrying member of the gang that orchestrated her defeat.

If you had an ounce of honesty in you, you would fess up that you and the rest of your media cronies had it in for her from the start. Pew research and other reputable media watch organizations have it documented . The TPM organization was a major part in the anti Hillary pro Obama campaign.

Apparently now you want to cover your tracks.

To think that Obama is some sort of prescient deity is bullshit. He has been voting for funding authorization all along so his so called “peace creds “ are pure myth.

You are a great bullshitter you know.

Now you are probably trying to throw cold water at a unity ticket.

That's the thing with you, we never know what your true agenda is. The propaganda style of your writing is obvious. One thing is certain you are hardly ever on the level.

If Hillary deigns to help Obama to avert a sure loss in November by getting on the ticket, it would be a sacrifice she would make for the good of the country, being that a McCain administration would most likely be a disaster for progressive goals.

Apparently that's probably what you are hoping for: a McCain administration, which I have suspected all along.

I think your slam of Geraldine Ferraro is absolutely wrong, but it's history, so why bother,

Obama won the small, early and what I would call the inconsequential for Democrats states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi etc. (as was posted earlier) because he captured the white, liberal anti-war vote and built momentum. But his 90% capture of the black vote since then could not possibly be because of Hillary's vote on the war and that 90% did not bring him much success since mid-February and in the big Democratic states.

But the point of your post - that you are a Kingmaker - did not go unnoticed.

I was originally a Hillary supporter, grudgingly discounting her 'political cover you ass vote to go to war.' But she also voted against the Levin Amendment and for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment.
These actions alone by Hillary caused me to stop supporting her.

When she later accepted a fundraiser from Rupert Murdoch, then met with Richard Mellon Scaife, I wondered to myself; "who the hell is this woman?"

I knew then that my withdrawing support earlier was right.

Hopefully, Obama will be our next President.

M.J. -- Great essay. The war vote is what cemented my preference for Obama over Clinton in the primary. Obama, for opposing the war then and opposing it now. Clinton, for voting for the war then, and refusing, like Edwards did, to admit in hindsight that her pro-war war vote was wrong. HRC made the same mistake that killed John Kerry's candidacy (remember Kerry's Sept. 2004 comment that he supported invading Iraq even if there weren't any WMDs there?). My congressman, Tom Allen (D-Maine), had no problem in 2002 seeing that the Iraq invasion was not supportable, so he voted against it. I do not understand how HRC was incapable of examining the exact same intelligence material as Rep. Tom Allen and reaching the exact opposite conclusion in 2002 as Allen did.

This is a test comment.

MJ: There is some truth in your post. Hillary's vote on the war definitely was a huge factor in motivating the "netroots," former Dean supporters, to find another candidate to support. After nominating the "safe" choice in 2004, the liberal wing of the party was motivated to make sure the same thing wouldn't happen again.

More important, though, than HRC's vote itself was her unwillingness to acknowledge that it proved to be a mistake. Perhaps the campaign was looking to the general election, perhaps it was an admirable refusal to pander on her part, perhaps it's just not in her character to back down on anything, but whatever the reason, this cost her dearly. While Edwards was able to put his vote behind him by admitting his mistake, HRC's refusal to do so kept the issue alive and solidified opposition to her candidacy. In the early stages of the race, Obama's stance against the war was, in my view, one of the central arguments that gave his candidacy momentum.

You also pay short shrift to the effect of sexism. Polls consistently show that the number of voters who would not vote for a woman far exceeds the number who would not do so based on race. Sexism also played a part in the consistently negative coverage she received in the press. That, along with Clinton fatigue and the simple fact that reporters don't like Hillary, made her run an uphill battle, all talk of inevitability notwithstanding.

The other mistakes of her campaign have been well documented and picked over on this site. But I agree that the hostility engendered by her authorization vote gave Obama the opening and the momentum he needed. The rest is history.

Way, way too simplistic to say Hillary's "vote for the war" cost her the election. The fact that Obama is black and got the support of 90% of blacks could have had a teeny weeny bit to do with it. Unless you are saying that if blacks had been split 50/50 Obama would still be the one who is slightly ahead. I hope you would never say anything like that.

Besides, Hillary never exactly voted for the war, and Obama only gave one speech against it. Once he was in the Senate he voted exactly the same as Hillary on all war issues. So again, you're being way too simplistic.

She voted for the war. 23 Senators voted "no." Had she voted no, she would have been nominated.
As for the black vote, had not the Clintons decided to use race against Obama, the black vote would have remained pretty much evenly split.