I think it is entirely fair to oppose Hillary on the grounds that we don't want her people back in charge of the DNC. These dipshits embarrass their candidate and make a mockery of of our Party.

If you don't want these people installing Harold Ford as Chair, polling on the best way to triangulate, legitimizing Fox, ending the 50 State Strategy, and again losing congress then oppose Hillary.

Tragic indeed are Mr. Stoller and the anti-Clinton acolytes.  Mr. Penn spoke the utter truth: Senator Obama was not at the time in a position to have voted on the incursion, and had he been, to the neutral observer (not the blogger acolytes) it is rather obvious that his position would have resembled Senator Clinton's.

Whereas we who believe that Senator Clinton's progressive credentials are as exemplary as any of her peers, and whereas we who endorse her candidacy can see the extraordinary qualities of any of her Democratic presidential rivals, the same cannot be true of the puritanial opposition.  

They loathe all things Clinton, as did their predecessors, prior to and for the duration of the administration of President Bill Clinton.

As I often posted, I have recollections of all administrations since Eisenhower's, and would match the progressive legacy, the summit achievements in foreign diplomacy and fiscal solvency obtained in the Clinton terms matched against any from Ike onwards.

Much of the rest of the world already acknowledges the great success of the Clinton terms.  If there is a miasma of hate in this country surrounding the Clintons, that is only because the opposition has an inability to cope with their success and with the limitations of those they are wont to embrace, without objectivity and balance.

I still don't get why everyone thinks  she's ahead, HRC has topped out at 35% in the polls and at this point she's not getting any new supporters, she's in deep trouble and Marc Penn knows it, as low info dem voters learn that she voted for the war and Obama was agianst it from  the start she will further collapse unless she's successfull in muddying the waters with lies and halftruths unleased by trash like Penn.

The HRC people are attempting a move from Rove's play book: go after your opponent's strength.  Substantively, Sen Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war is his only major substantive claim to fame, and the one thing that his supporters can point to as a rational reason for backing him.  If the HRC can dent Sen Obama's I-was-against-the-war armor, perhaps they can slow his momentum in the Dem primary.  Although, frankly, I think that Sen Obama's narrative is pretty well solidified by now -- HRC people should've gone at Sen Obama on this along these lines sooner (caveat: it is waaay early, so there's plenty of time for things to change).  Let's not completely dismiss the substance of the case that HRC people are making, though: since assuming his seat in the Senate, Sen Obama's position on Iraq has not been significantly different than HRC's, and Sen Obama has certainly not gone out on  a limb to stake a visible anti-war position since he assumed his seat.  Now, yes, Sen Obama did not have to cast a vote on the Iraq war resolution, and he did make some strong statements against the war before he entered the Senate, so, yes, "That's a far cry from actually voting for the war in Iraq, as Clinton did."

For a certain percentage of Iowa caucus-goers, having voted for the war resolution is an absolute deal-breaker. Working my precinct and my circle of friends in 2003/2004, I knew plenty of Dean and Kucinich supporters who were there mainly for that reason.

At the same time, I knew a fair number of people who were for Dean in the spring and summer of 2003, telling me there was no way they could support anyone who voted for the resolution. Several of them ended up caucusing for Kerry or Edwards, to my surprise.

When I talk to Iowans who are supporting Obama or leaning in his direction, a few say it's because he was against the war from the beginning.

A larger number say things like "I like the way he talks" or "When he talks, it makes me proud to be an American." Some of these people can't tell me anything about Obama's positions or why they prefer him to Edwards, the candidate I am supporting. I was with one friend last week, telling her why I am backing Edwards, and she said, referring to Obama, "Well, I'm an average Joe, and I like the way he talks." I swear that is a direct quote!

Obama talks, people feel good. I think there is a Reaganesque quality to his candidacy right now. Before Obama fans start flaming me, no, I am not saying Obama is another Reagan--just that many people are drawn to him as a charismatic speaker without knowing much about where he stands.

In the netroots, probably most Obama supporters think Iraq is very important. In the grassroots, I am not convinced it's as important.

.... two or three bona fide candidates on Iraq. Edwards and Clinton in authorizing the war showed that one or both of the following guided their decision making....

(1) The pre-emptive invasion of a foreign country is a valid means of safeguarding the nation AND exhibited poor judgment in trusting Bush with such an onerous task.
(2) Were afraid that voting against a military operation would put them on the 'wrong side' of the national security debate

Am I missing something here? They either lack political courage or have poor judgment. I don't care that Edwards apologized. I'm not looking for a President who makes Iraq-sized mistakes and apologizes. Get it right the first time.

Obama wasn't really in the spotlight during the Iraq debate and I still say that we don't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate.

Unfortunately, on Gore and Dean have any credibility on Iraq and neither of them is running. What's my point? Supporters of the 'Big Three' are wasting valuable oxygen having an Iraq debate amongst themselves.

are not the ones who will lead us out.  

This paraphrase from my favorite ad of 06 comes from Jim Webb.  

It is fair to say that those who created this mess ought not be given the chance to clean it up.  For me, this means Hillary and to a lesser degree Edwards.  While it is true that Obama was serving in the State Senate at the time,  over half our party, half our members in the House and the Senate had the wisdom to vote against this war- and it was a vote for war.  If your only defense was "I got tricked by Bush" I do not intent to flame but that is one lame ass talking point.  

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-YVDOO61f7Q

Two articles on the same subject:

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902165. html

Clinton (N.Y.) voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war, while Obama (Ill.), then a state senator, publicly opposed the war. The exchange marked the most substantive clash to date between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and reflected frustration among Clinton advisers over the Illinois senator's use of the issue to distinguish his candidacy.

Penn, responding to a question about Clinton's vote for the resolution, used the opportunity to attack Obama, arguing that he had said in 2004 that he was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the Senate.

"Obama said he didn't know exactly how he would have voted in Congress because he didn't have the full intelligence," Penn said.

Axelrod quickly interrupted Penn and disputed his interpretation of events, charging that the Clinton strategist had distorted the meaning of what Obama had said at the time.

"I really think it is important, if we're going to run the kind of campaign that will unify our party and move this country forward, that we do it in an honest way and that was not an honest" statement, Axelrod said.

Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin gton/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_s hows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

WASHINGTON -- As Senator Hillary Clinton continues to take heat for her vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, her presidential rival, Senator Barack Obama has used his long-running opposition to the war as a cornerstone of his campaign, telling enthusiastic supporters that he opposed the war from the beginning -- a claim neither Clinton nor the other top-tier Democratic contenders can make.

But a review of Obama's record during his 26 months in Congress reveals that he has taken a more nuanced and cautious position on the war than the full-bore opposition.

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.

Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.

Though liberals want Congress to stop funding the war in order to end it, Obama has indicated that he will vote for the latest $95.5 billion Iraq appropriation when it comes before the Senate this spring.

Aides say the senator's opposition to the war has been strong and consistent. They said he opposed the initial $87 billion as a Senate candidate because the White House wanted to set aside $20 billion of it for reconstruction, and Democrats feared the money would be distributed in no-bid contracts.

Obama has voted for war appropriations because he wants the troops provided for fully, said Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman. Aides said that Obama has criticized the war several times early in his Senate career, but that he delayed rolling out specific plans and major Senate speeches while learning about his new office.

I actually think this is something the Clinton campaign has to do to neutralize Obama's advantage on Iraq. The other thing is to pose the question, probably in one of the debates if the format allows, what did Obama know about Iraq and WMD's that the US intelligence community, the senate, the house, the us military, and foreign intelligence agencies didn't know in 2002? Obama, while being against the war from its inception, hasn't really acknowledged that there was indeed overwhelming (albeit wrong) intelligence on Iraq. Would he, in the face of that intelligence (we didn't know it was wrong at the time), do nothing while the US was being threatened?

Expect the Clinton campaign to go on the offenseive regarding Obama and Iraq. They have to. If they don't, they will lose ground in the primaries.

But, Iraq isn't Hillary's only problem. Her biggest problem, in my opinion, is that she's an establishment Democrat. She's a professional politician, seeking to gain power for power's sake. And that's where Obama's biggest advantage is, he's an outsider. A fresh face offering fresh ideas and a new way forward. I don't see how the Clinton camp can counter that. It will be interesting to see if that alone will be enough to put Obama over the edge, i doubt it though.

I'm not sure how well that'd play out, actually.  There were lots of people across the ideological spectrum who were very skeptical of the war before it started.  The idea of going into Iraq seemed so absurd on its face I couldn't believe we'd actually go in until I saw it on TV.  It took no great leap of imagination to understand that giving up on bin Laden and pulling most of our forces out of Afghanistan before it was stable was a really, really bad idea.

If anything, I think the "What did you, a state senator from Illinois, know that people on the Senate Intelligence Committee don't?" could very easily backfire if it's reframed as an insider/outsider thing.  Obama could say, essentially, he didn't have his so head filled with bullshit by spending the past decade in Washington that he could spot bald-faced lying when he saw it.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/i raq/

I love the response from Obama's site.  Video of him in his own words in 2002.  A well stated and "clean" account of his stance, as well as the interactive "Timeline of Opposition."  While the Hill Shills can try to blur the war and her vote all they want, we have seen once again that Obama's team is ready to play hardball and drop the hammer.  What I am looking forward to, and if I worked for Obama this is would exploit, is this October- five years to the date of the Senate vote.  I can see Obama blanketing Iowa and NH with ads and mailers that mark his "Timeline of Opposition" as well as Hillary's evolving timeline of weak-kneed pandering.  

I would guess that as time goes on, people are going to be more and more impatient about the war and thus more and more receptive to Obama's position, so doing everything possible to undermine it as a legitimate counterpoint to Clinton is vitally important for HRC's campaign.

Note the anti-Clinton hatred of these several posts.  Note the fundamental difference: a Senator Clinton supporter can note the qualities of her opposition, whereas her opposition cannot note the qualities of her.

Note, as well, what occurs when one points out that regardless of the argument, hindsight is very easy.  Unless one were in a position to vote yea or nay on that Iraq incursion, all the rhetoric advancing that one would surely have voted nay will remain ever just rhetoric.

Dare to digress from the virulent anti-Clinton group which permeates this and other sites, and be prepared to be called a "dumbass."

Of course, one with a more mature perspective and a more mature vocabulary, would never need to utilize that expression.

And therein is the great weakness of the Clinton opposition.  They believe that if they slash and burn their way to a nomination, that all their collective invective directed toward the Clintons, singly or in tandem, will then be forgotten as they slash and burn their way to a general election campaign.

It cannot be forgotten.  For every Clinton supporter they label a "dumbass," that memory will linger.  They are oblivious to the fact that in truth they are taking on a huge political base whose center is the only successfully reelected Democratic President since FDR.

For them, this does not matter.  They believe so strongly in their need for evisceration, for "cleansing" the Democratic Party of anyone outside the framework of their own self-defined purity of position, that they haven't the forethought to understand that are creating a whole army of disappropriated.  

That legion of disappropriated cannot be brought back to a group who never ceased to hurl insults and invective.

This is not the fault of the highly educated and well-spoken Senator Obama.  It is squarely the fault of those who would post epithets like the "dumbass" comment of above.

For those of you more level-headed and less intolerant of diverse political views, remember this as you witness who finally does emerge triumphant in 2008 and in 2009.

This is what we who believe in Senator Clinton, like President Clinton before her, understand all too well.  To achieve a general election victory, one cannot be an ideologue.  One cannot engage in evisceration with the expectation that those eviscerated will return to the fold.

Mr. Penn argued quite persuasively that it is futile to argue what would have been one's vote cast from the perspective of hindsight.  That is an axiom, not an opinion.  A more mature political voice would not have found it necessary to counter with the word "dumbass."

My beef with Clinton, and every other now anti-war Dem who voted for the war, is that none of them ever checked out the feasibility of hiding a nuclear weapon program from U.N. inspectors aided by U.S. satellite photography.  You do this by consulting with appropriate nuclear engineers.  Basically, a significant program can't be hidden.  (Disclosure:  I earned my first degree in engineering physics in 1959, and promptly left the field, obtaining a doctorate in mathematics.)  Even without practical experience, I still know there is only one economic way to build a nuke -- use plutonium milked from the fuel rods of a nuclear power plant.  The Israelis destroyed Iraq's only such plant before it was operational several decades ago.  Small nuclear piles work only slowly, and leave a radiation signature at the site even if they are dismantled.  The alternate technology, separating U-235 from U-238, requires thousands of expensive vibration-free centrifuges.  The investment is massive, the technology is difficult, and, again, there is a radiation signature.  But I'm not asking anyone to rely on me.  There are enough people with current technological expertise.  No politicians seem to have looked for such a source, and neither did the editors or reporters of any major newspaper.  That is a disgrace.      

i'm not convinced the candidates' differences in presentation on the war reflect any concrete differences in policy. both clinton and obama would withdraw combat troops but preserve an american military presence and establish permanent military bases. both candidates have adopted an aggressive posture toward iran. to my knowledge, neither is calling for a large reduction in our ridiculous military budget.

neither clinton nor obama oppose the war because it's immoral to invade another country or because the US has no right to dominate other parts of the world. quite the opposite, they oppose the war because it's weakening america's power. they are both comfortable with continued american control over the middle east and american interference in countries all over the world. it's beyond me why people are seizing on this issue since clinton and obama have equally unacceptable foreign policies.