I considered giving this post the title "Hillary can give strong speeches too"

Obama had his eye on the ball then. He was thinking of the pressing needs for health care, poverty, corporate scandals.... which have only increased since his words were spoken.

Thanks for this little crib sheet.

It seems that most of Hillary's decisions are more political than anything.

In addition to her vote for attacking Iraq she voted against 3 amendments that would have curbed Bush's rush to war. One of which was submitted by Dick Durbin (D-Il) that would have compelled Bush to demonstrate "imminent threat" prior to invading Iraq.

The second was Levin's amendment. Granted Levin's bill called for the UN's approval before force could be used, but it also reinforced America's right to defend itself even if the UN voted against it. Therein nothing in that bill was an impediment to the US in any way. Yet Hillary claimed it would have made the president "subordinate" to the UN.

So basically her vote against Levin's bill meant she was against international support and the UN's consensus. Moreover her votes would be relevant only if she believed that Bush 41 had been wrong to go to the UN for international support and approval.

Although the amendments were defeated Hillary had 3 chances to slow down Bush's rush to war, but chose not to!

Publicly she was fully supportive of Bush's war until it became politically risky.

Hillary also shifted her policy on torture. At first she said she would seek "legal" exemption to saying her current position, "torture cannot be American policy."

It is also obvious she did not learn anything by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman bill. The bill, similar to the AUMF, although she disputes it, according to what I've read gives Bush almost carte blanche to attack Iran.

The only issue nagging in my mind is that he was not actually in the senate when the vote was taken. since then he has missed the Iran vote and some other crucial votes. This seems like politics as usual maneuvering.

Unless I am missing something HRC was very clear on how she voted. She never voted to rush to war, and I am a veteran and had three children and a son-in-law in the military. She has been given a bad rap.

That spin only makes sense if you think that President Bush is the sort of president who would handle "awesome responsibility" in a responsible fashion. It only makes sense if she thought that Bush was honest enough that she could trust him when he said that he would treat war as a last resort.

Hillary supporters don't even agree on which spin to adopt, because all of them are bad. If she was bamboozled by Bush, she's too gullible to be president. If her votes and rhetoric did not reflect her real views, and she was simply letting herself be blown about by the winds of polling data, then she's too wishy-washy and/or too dishonest to be trusted as president.

But the worst interpretation is the one with the most evidence to back it up. She was saying these things repeatedly long after the vote for the AUMF. Until she went into campaign mode she was a big supporter of the war. She said as recently as last August that the surge is "working." She was in favor of legal torture under some circumstances, until she had to back down on that one. On the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, she said she thought it wasn't a vote for war but a vote for diplomacy, even though you can guess how likely that is to be true just from the names of the sponsors. The most likely interpretation is that the votes and pre-campaign rhetoric show how she really thinks. She's a hawk, and worse, a hawk who likes the neo-con version of hawkery.

Is Hillary Clinton a Slinky? She seems to be able to bend and move every which way and still come out ok.

Senator Clinton's vote on the war is one of the reasons I don't support her. I think it shows a terrible lack of judgement and a tendency to make important decisions based on political not practical concerns. I want my President to be worried about making the right choice, not avoiding making a wrong one.

Are you serious? Apparently having access to "intelligence" didn't help Senator Clinton make the right decision. Didn't help her support campaign finance or ethics reform either.

Bottomline, I think she's a manager, not a leader.