Thank you so, so much, Matt.  Please keep pushing on this.  President Clinton really will be a disaster.

I think many leading Democrats are pro-war in the Clinton style or simply don't care.

Lets define the war as it exists today.  

the iraq war as we know it:  american soldiers policing a civil war.  fair definition??  I think so.  if you don't think so, come up with a better one.  this is what we all want to end, right?  I do..   It's an unconscionable, tragic way to use the u.s. troops.

So that's what we know the war to be.  american soldiers trying to stop sectarian violence/civil war in iraq.  

So.  what does vilsack say. He says...

She's going to put an end to the war in Iraq.

As far as the War as it's defined, the War as we know it as it exists right now, that is true.  It is the policy of all Democratic Party Candidates.  And that's not parsing anything.  That's calling the war what it is, and saying it will end.  got that?  good.

Now.

hillary says we still have security interests in Iraq.  She says it does actually matter if Iraq becomes a failed state where terrorists can recruit and train more terrorists literally at will.

She's right.  If you think she's wrong.  if you think those are wrong statements, then say so.  but know that you will be disagreeing with other democrats like jim webb and brian schweitzer on that issue.  

does obama think we will no longer have anything at stake in iraq?

does edwards think we will no longer have anything at stake in iraq?

if they do, they're stupid.

the point is wether or not one can tell the difference between continuing the war in iraq and making some effort to clean up bush's disaster in iraq.  if you think there is some responsibility america has to do that, then you should look to the democratic candidate who is most concerned about doing that and stop worrying about wether or not a candidate meets standards of being anti-war that only slide back and forth anyway.

if one can't tell that difference, then the answer to the rhetorical questions you pose above might not be very flattering.

I know you hate Hillary but llok at Obama's plan.
This from barack obama's web site. He says the exact same thing as Clinton.Note the last sentence.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

From barackobama.com:
Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

However, she is for permanent bases, none of the others have said that and EDWARDS does not want permanent bases and Obama does not either.

Progressives must watch out for candidate fever, just as all Dems must be careful. You can tell you are coming down with it when you argue appearance or electibility.

Or, what the candidate looks like to other voters. Or, giving style points for appearances for energetic, confident, in-command of issues type speaking. Next stop, earthtone clothes, bad hair, lethargic, troubled, stumbled badly, people say, has a reputation for, not what Americans want anymore...blahblah. I say this because we try so hard to spot propaganda and bury it. But we get the fever when we forget that we learned the difference between appearance vs. reality.

Instead of trying to fit the person's appearance onto my projected image upon the wall, I try to hear their speeches as a serious job interview. First I must know the job requirements so I can do a good hiring job, that's my duty. Next I listen for the one who matches the qualifications; next I join the effort to hire my guy.

First question: What's your plan for bringing home the troops?

Hillary has been campaigning on about four things.

One, she is a woman and could be the first female President.

Two, she is married to Bill Clinton and electing her would put him back in the White House.

Three, she is inevitable.  She has the money, she has the poll numbers, she has the campaign staff, she has Bill.

Four, she has been there and can handle the likes of Gingrich, DeLay, and Rove.

All of these will wear thin after a while(and some already have...got news for you Hillary, Rove, Gingrich, and DeLay will not be there after 2008) as people realize that she has failed on a major candidate question.  It is the same question that killed Teddy Kennedy's campaign in 1980.  Why do you want to be President?  I can go to Obama's announcement, I can go to Edward's announcement and they both say why they are running for President.  When I go to Hillary's what do I find?  Nothing.  Why are you running Hillary?  

I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation -- with you, with America.

She's running so she can have a conversation?

Perhaps the situation here, Matt, is that many do see that the United States has "vital national security interests" in Iraq. Abandoing Anbar providence to a state of anarchy would allow Al Qaeda to operate with immunity there until a central government grows strong enough to drive them out, or unless the sunni tribes get serious about removing them, neither of these scenerios are likely to occur any time soon. This prospect is enough to give anyone pause, and the fact that Clinton appears at least to recognize this, despite activist support for withdrawling despite the consequences, is somewhat refreshing in that she's not pandering to a part of the electorate and foresaking her views on national security.

I believe we need to pull all troops out of Iraq IN 18 MONTHS.

We still have bases in Kuwait and the surrounding area's as well as naval forces in the gulf

I served in Vietnam and all of the experts said if Vietnam fell all of SE Asia would fall.

They were wrong and we have a good relationship with Vietnam today.

If we followed Hillary's advice for Iraq WE WILL BE THEIR AT LEAST 20 YEARS AND APPLYING THAT TO vIETNAM WE WOULD STILL BE THEIR TODAY.

I've been ranting, off and on, for three years about  the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.  They exist. They're designed to hold about 50,000 troops. Every senator running in this race knows about them.  The plan was, from the beginning, to replace the Saudi bases with Iraqi bases. That plan, as far as I can tell, is unchanged.  It may be the case that Hillary is just telling a truth.

Now the House bill did expressly ban permanent bases.  But I would still like to hear a clear stand, and an answer to the question of the 1) disposition of those bases and 2)how iraq can have a defense force with no armor and no air power.

If she's talking about leaving 15-20k troops outside of Iraq, essentially to contain whatever happens there from spilling over into a regional war, then I don't think it's fair to call her "pro-war" in the same sense as GWB.  In point of fact, I agree that it may well be in out "interests" to mantain that level of troops in the region.  

If she's talking about mantaining a larger presence of troops, or envisions using troops stationed outside of Iraq to actively continue missions within the state, then that's something else entirely.  Honestly though, I would be hugely surprised if that's what she's talking about.  Hillary is far down my list of candidates -- in part b/c she's so hawkish -- but reading what's cited here I have a hard time implying what Matt seems to see.  Maybe I'm wrong though -- wouldn't be the first time.  

I know one thing, calling Democrats "stupid" for supporting Hillary Clinton isn't going to sway anyone.

People seem to accept the fact that Barack Obama is doing well in large part due to his charisma and charm, since he's relatively green politically. Why can't people accept the fact that, to a lot of people, Hillary Clinton also possesses that "rock-star" persona. A lot of Democrats just really, really like her as a person, and when you're drawn to someone in such a way, you'll forgive their various other shortcomings.

It's not rocket science.

She is talking about leaving a force in Iraq outside of Baghdad with permanent bases, according to the NY times article.

Pentagon estimate of her plan woule be 50-75,000 troops.

Sen. Clinton saw what Lieberman did in Connecticut and probably said, "if it worked for him it can work for me."  

"I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I've spoken about that on many different occasions."

Does anyone disagree with this? Seems obvious to me that we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, given how we, y'know, turned the place in a civil war-torn terrorist breeding ground. Also, we destabilize the region. And there's lot of oil. So, yes. No?

"I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda."

I think it matters, too. Not saying what should be done about this, but anti-war people particularly think this matters.

"It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

Yes, I agree that having sparked a civil war in Iraq, and serving as a breeding ground for terrorists is in opposition our interests and the interests of many other regimes.

"So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists."

An over-the-horizon military presence, a la Murtha, along with a certain number of in-country troops? (Wasn't that the Murtha plan?) I don't know much about military issues, but Murtha does. Maybe CLinton isn't talking about the Murtha plan, and maybe I'm mixing up his plan with something else, but on its face, this isn't necessarily anti-withdrawal-from-Iraq. Could be over-horizon and limited-training-and-gov't-protection stuff.

"I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy."

Yes. Bad to screw the Kurds again.

" I think we have a vital national security interest -- if the Iraqis ever get their act together -- to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don't know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it."

I hate, hate, hate this idea that those lazy Iraqis just aren't serious about not having a civil war. They have silly disputes, and should simply put them aside. We aren't to blame for all of that: who know that if you put a cobra and a mongoose in a cage, they'd fight?

"And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq."

Sure. How we try that is a good question, but it's certainly in our interest to prevent Iran from actually unwrapping this amazing gift we gave them.

I'm wholeheartedly against candidate Clinton. I think she learned caution too well, and she woos the right instead of the left. I think she's suffering from political Stockholm Syndrome. I think she'd undermine the progressive movement with a fairly comprehensive completeness.

But I'm not sure this is quite the mushroom cloud Matt says. (And if it wasn't for Chris's recent post about how mydd avoid sycophantic posts, I would've written about a half-dozen to Matt in the past month: he's on fire! Maybe I am being stupid, but I don't this is so far from the other candidates' positions.)

"I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I've spoken about that on many different occasions."

Does anyone disagree with this? Seems obvious to me that we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, given how we, y'know, turned the place in a civil war-torn terrorist breeding ground. Also, we destabilize the region. And there's lot of oil. So, yes. No?

"I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda."

I think it matters, too. Not saying what should be done about this, but anti-war people particularly think this matters.

"It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

Yes, I agree that having sparked a civil war in Iraq, and serving as a breeding ground for terrorists is in opposition our interests and the interests of many other regimes.

"So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists."

An over-the-horizon military presence, a la Murtha, along with a certain number of in-country troops? (Wasn't that the Murtha plan?) I don't know much about military issues, but Murtha does. Maybe CLinton isn't talking about the Murtha plan, and maybe I'm mixing up his plan with something else, but on its face, this isn't necessarily anti-withdrawal-from-Iraq. Could be over-horizon and limited-training-and-gov't-protection stuff.

"I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy."

Yes. Bad to screw the Kurds again.

" I think we have a vital national security interest -- if the Iraqis ever get their act together -- to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don't know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it."

I hate, hate, hate this idea that those lazy Iraqis just aren't serious about not having a civil war. They have silly disputes, and should simply put them aside. We aren't to blame for all of that: who know that if you put a cobra and a mongoose in a cage, they'd fight?

"And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq."

Sure. How we try that is a good question, but it's certainly in our interest to prevent Iran from actually unwrapping this amazing gift we gave them.

I'm wholeheartedly against candidate Clinton. I think she learned caution too well, and she woos the right instead of the left. I think she's suffering from political Stockholm Syndrome. I think she'd undermine the progressive movement with a fairly comprehensive completeness.

But I'm not sure this is quite the mushroom cloud Matt says. (And if it wasn't for Chris's recent post about how mydd avoid sycophantic posts, I would've written about a half-dozen to Matt in the past month: he's on fire! Maybe I am being stupid, but I don't this is so far from the other candidates' positions.)

 When was the last time Americans had to alter their lifestyles to pay for a war? World War II? And what we went through then doesn't remotely compare to what Europe went through.

 The Iraq war, like every war since WWII we've been involved in, has been personally painless for most Americans. And the fact that most of us don't really directly suffer the costs of this war is what skews our perspectives as a nation -- war is just another foreign-policy tool.

 Americans have forgotten that war is hell. And because of that, Americans flock to warmongers like Hillary because they seem "tough".

 Organized religion also needs to be held accountable. During Vietnam, most of our churches were powerful voices in eventually exposing the injustices of the war; today's churches, for the most part, have hid under the bed, if not flat-out supported the invasion. Pope Benedict has kept a remarkably low profile regarding Iraq, quite unlike his predecessor.

  So as long as war is perceived as just one of many painless options, pro-killing candidates like Hillary Clinton will retain their popularity.

  It took the complete destruction of Europe in WWII to finally change that continent's attitudes toward war. The human race is just inherently evil; not much we can really do about that, really...

While I agree, we have to remember where our elders came from.  Since 1968 (at least), the Democrats were K-I-L-L-E-D on national security issues.  And for Democrats running for President, the perception that Democrats were weak on national security was a bar to success (think Dukakis in the tank).

Then came Bill Clinton in 1992.  He was militaristic and aggressive on all manners of foreign policy, including trade (forcing free trade, that is, fair trade is something different).  And for the first time in almost 20 years, a Democrat became President.  So, the narrative became, "to win as Prez, a Dem has to be like Clinton."  What, you think that Hillary would ignore that kind of narrative when she helped craft that very narrative.  Of course not.

We have to remember that everything has changed.  10 years ago, Jim Webb wouldn't dare to go near the Democratic Party, much less become one of its progressive anti-war leaders.  Think about that.  I can't think of a bigger change in politics in my lifetime.  

But Clinton is still stuck in the 90's.  She still believes that the media is mostly liberal, that the left are reviled, and being pro-war is the best place to be.  And what we as the progressive blogosphere have to do is bring all politicians like Clinton into the 21st Century (kicking and screaming if we have to).

This administration has lied about every important issue in this war so far. Here is a small sliver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TugPlEo ho

No wonder Bush doesnt want his Chief of Staff to speak under oath. They always lie.

Clinton's statement raises some difficult and somewhat uncomfortable questions, but I think Matt is well over the top in the conclusions he draws from it. What I want is to hear Clinton explain that statement, and that won't be enough, either; I want to get a real sense for her understanding of the situation in Iraq and the Middle East, and I want to get a real sense of her understanding of the modalities available to the U.S. to positively influence the Middle East and to salvage the best possible outcome of the disastrous Iraq adventure. I also want to hear the same explanations from Obama, who has indeed said things about Iraq that aren't that far removed from Clinton's statement.

I won't be ready to choose a candidate until I hear a good bit more from each of the contenders. But as for right now, I am quite comfortable that electing any of the 6 or 7 top Democratic contenders would be a massive improvement over the current government, and in fact that the idea of repudiating the current Republican philosophy of government by crushing the GOP at the polls is significantly more important than what seems to me to be the minor variations on themes that differentiate the Democrats from one another.

I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm more alarmed by hysterical over-reactions to statements by any of the major Democratic candidates than I am by anything any of those candidates have said.

Finally, let me say one more thing: whichever Democrat gets elected--and I'm pretty cocky about our chances at the moment--I DON'T want the new President to feel locked into an all-troops-out-in-90-days policy or anything resembling that. I would like to see an honest broker who is not wedded to saving face for the Bush Administration turn the full analytical and diplomatic powers of the United States on the problem to come up with the best possible solution to try to get us out of the hell we have created.

I would start from assuming good faith on the part of the new President and giving him or her some leeway to work. Although my current feeling is that we are doing more harm than good by staying over there, I am quite open to the idea that an entirely different diplomatic approach to the world, the region, and the political sectors within Iraq might lead to a solution that could actually work and that involves our maintaining at least some portion of our occupation forces in Iraq for a significant period of time.

You people are completely f*cking insane.

Of course, we have vital interests in Iraq.

Of course we have a responsibility to our allies.

Of course, we will need to keep some troops in Iraq.

Guess what? Obama has said the exact same thing.

They understand the situation. Damn near all Democrats understand the situation.

It's only you idiot liberals that can't seem to get your heads out of your asses.  

"she's not sorry for her vote"

Geez Louise, how much longer do we keep having to hear this canard?  Hasn't it been disproved about a million times now?

She views her vote as a mistake.

She said that if the actual intelligence had been known, there wouldn't even have been a vote to apologize for because it would have obviously been insufficient.

What more do you want?  Do you insist on a groveling abasement, like Meryl Streep's Baroness Blixzen in "Out of Africa?"  What does it take to get you to quit smearing one of your party's own candidates?  Don't the Republicans do a good enough job of that without your helping them?

Crimeny.

"Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate.  So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is."

So is your position that only anti-war candidates who fit your definition of what it means to be "anti-war" are not "dangerous?"  I think there's plenty of measures by which Hillary can be seen as an "anti-war" candidate, first among them being that if she had been President in March 2003 we most likely would not have troops in Iraq right now.  Just what do you mean when you say Hillary is "dangerous?"  Dangerous to whom, exactly?  Dangerous to the Democratic Party?  Dangerous to Progressivism?  What?  And in what way?

You imply she's dangerous because of "her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party."  What "demonstrably bad" policy choices?  Her advocacy of universal health coverage?  Her opposition to the Bush surge plan?  Her autism bill?

If Hillary gets the nomination, are you going to refuse to endorse her?

From what I have read most of the Democratic field have similar positions that include keeping a military presence in Iraq. Even the Kucinich plan includes protecting our interests and those of our allies and stability for the region.

If Clinton, Obama, or Edwards are elected what I think would happen is they would end the combat operations but keep a military presence in Iraq for a number of years to keep the oil flowing, to stop it from becoming a terrorist base, etc. There is very little difference in the direction that any Democratic president would take because there are just not many options at this point. The differences between what each candidate would do are very minor.

I think polling shows that more voters label Clinton liberal than label Edwards liberal.  (And more label Obama liberal than label Clinton liberal.)  Clinton is around 50% among women.  How many prefer her because of the progress it would make/represent to have a woman president?

I think nominating anyone with contradictory positions on THE issue in American politics is dangerous, but then I'm a man with a graduate degree. (See Brownstein on warrior v. priest dynamic in the Party.)

Matt, if you were running the Edwards or Obama campaign, when would you start attacking Clinton's ridiculous Liebermanesque con on Iraq?  I would do it today and do it using the candidate, not surrogates.

Thanks Matt for an excellent post.  I agree that thus far Clinton's stance is more pro war than against.  References to essential "strategic interests" reflect this, and to me imply a longterm military presence in Iraq.  However, one issue which hasn't been explicitly addressed much is the extent to which she is forced to the right of the other Democratic candidates on the Iraq issue, in order to deter insiduous attacks from Republicans suggesting that, as a woman, she would be weak on national defence.

I don't think Hillary is any more "pro-war" than the other candidates. I have no doubt in my mind that she would not have started the war in 2002 based on the intel we had. Saying that the president should have the authority to initiate military action is very different than actually invading a foreign using faulty intelligence. Obviously no one likes war, but it is an option that should never be taken off the table.

Her position on a military base in Iraq for the foreseeable future is not any different than the other candidates. IMO, it's a responsible approach to the unfortunate reality on the ground. The new president in 2009 will have to deal with the repercussions from the war.

Yes, Democrats are that stupid.  The left has this fatal hubris of acting as if Democrats are much smarter than Republicans, that progressives are much smarter than conservatives.  The truth is that they're not and pretending that they are doesn't do the Democratic Party any favors.

What we need are the other candidates themselves to go negative with attacks against Hillary Clinton and take the lead is asking the questions that you think need to be asked. The anti-Hillary 1984 ad was great.  Kudos to the first candidate who uses a picture of Hillary Clinton and Joe Leiberman together as a fundraising tool.

I am in no way a Hillary supporter. Here, at DailyKos and elsewhere I have repeatedly and harshly criticized her for being an unprincipled, pandering, weak and cowardly sellout to the DLC and her ambition, who must not be allowed to become our nominee for president. No need to go into why--we all know why.

However, I am nevertheless confused by how you can reconcile your implied assertion that she is a pro-war Democrat with the following excerpt from a speech given on the floor of the senate during the Iraq War Resolution debate held earlier this month, by a well-known Democratic senator:

...Congress cannot wait for the President to change course - we need to change the course ourselves.

This resolution recognizes, and acts on, that reality. It would effectively terminate the misguided resolution authorizing force in Iraq, while allowing a minimal number of troops to remain to perform very limited functions: protecting personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. The latter provision is a particular priority of mine, which is why my legislation includes the exact same language. Clearly, the U.S. has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al Qaeda and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and breeding ground for terrorism. And we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists...

The senator who gave this speech? Russ Feingold. And I don't hear anyone accusing him of being pro-war or weak on the effort to end it.

Again, I'm NOT trying to defend Hillary's refusal to apologize for her war vote let alone the vote itself, or her position on just about anything. But in this matter, it seems to me that, at face value at least, her statements on what she thinks our long-term military involvement in Iraq are not all that different from that of the rest of the party, and even its most liberal elected members.

I posted a similar comment on this in response to a recent similar diary by Matt on this issue, and am still not sure how Hillary's STATED position on this is all that different from that of the rest of the party. And yes, I know, what Hillary says and what Hillary means might well be two different things. Duh. But I'm referring to stated policy here, not what only a mindreader can know with any certainty other than Hillary and Bill (and I'm not convinced that even they know, given how she seems to base her every move on what the latest focus group says).

And yes, I realize that the title of this diary is about whether the Democratic party itself is pro-war, but since you decided to single Hillary out--which seems to contradict its title--I was just looking for some clarification on how you reconcile this with how just about the entire caucus appears to support a similar policy of keeping limited forces in Iraq for limited and specific missions.

And note that I'm not trying to debate whether that is a good or bad policy (personally, I agree with Feingold on the need for limited forces for these limited and specific missions, but that's a whole different discussion), but simply whether it's fair to single Hillary out here. As I asked in my previous comment, what am I missing here?

I mean, outside of the activist base.  I'm not personally anti-war, I just think it's impractical in most cases.

Whatever Hillary and the other candidates thought of Iraq is now in the past, she and all these candidates have a position on Iran that is practically identical to that of Bush on Iran and on Iraq.

All these candidates will jump through hoops to adopt the policy that AIPAC takes. Unless enough of us speak out in every forum possible to make it clear that we think that these candidate's policy should reflect what we think, and not that of AIPAC, it will continue

If we can Stop Iran War we should try:

please consider visiting http://www.stopiranwar.com and participating in
their Action-Alert Petition

If we can Stop Iran War we should try:

http://www.stopiranwar.com

EXCERPTS:

Wes Clark: Silence. That is what worries me.

With every passing day that the administration won't talk to Iran, we come closer to an Iranian nuclear weapon, and the time at which the decision must be made whether or not the administration will use its military option.

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush's saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran's nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration's rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

Cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialog, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region?

Could not such a dialog, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't't it easier to undertake such a dialog now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

I don't think we will get a very different policy no matter who is the next Democratic president.  There are limited options right now because Bush is refusing to do ANYTHING that would make it easier to get out of Iraq.  Bush is doing none of the political negotiating, not talking to Iran or Syria, not convening a regional meeting and showing zero leadership.  

Whatever Democrat wins in 2008, he/she will have to seek military advice from the same set of commanders.  There will have to be political negotiations and a plan developed for pulling our troops and equipment out.  Withdrawal can be a dangerous military maneuver and requires careful planning to avoid massive casualties in the processs.  Even if they started on day one, it would take AT LEAST 9 months to get everyone out.

The Democratic rank and file is antiwar -- and Hilary Clinton is pro-imperial power, meaning, in the situation Bush has created, she'd be smarter, but essentially no different than Bush. Plus she'd have all the additional perks of the Imperial Presidency as claimed by GWB.

If she is the nominee, folks will have to ask themselves whether having a smarter monarch is enough of an improvement to justify legitimating the process by participating. It will be a close call.

Democracy is dead -- killed not by the criminality of these individuals, but by the needs of global capitalism.

And yeah, I'll probably come around and work on the campaign, but I don't expect much from it.

Yes, Hillary is that pro war because she supports the corporations even if they only exist to make war.  "What is going on with us Democrats?  Are we really that stupid? "  Yes, we keep letting the Democrats take us for granted, over and over and over.  They say "where the hell else you gonna go?"  We say yeah, we are stuck.   This is why I have drawn my own line in the sand this election cycle.  If its Hillary, I'm not voting for her.  I'd rather have a Republican WH and stalemate in Washington than having elected Democrats being forced, or not, to kiss HRCs ass.  She will roll the Party, and we will have 8 more freaking years of Ronald Reagan.

Senator Clinton probably noticed that Lieberman got back in the Senate by BSing his position on Iraq.  Maybe she thinks it will work for her.

What's going on with us Democrats?  Well, what's going on with a lot of the commentary on Hillary Clinton is old-fashioned sexist piggery.  Period.  As in double standard.  The hysteria over her failure to apologize (just Hillary, not all war-voting Democrats) should be sufficient evidence that the Hillary-hating on the progessive blogs was about more than foreign policy and national security. That kind of hate comes from the gut, not the brain.

Clinton says that she will end the war.  She says that we still have "interests" to protect.  She says she will deploy American troops out of combat and into support and standby roles.  This is all mainstream stuff, and none of it contradictory.  After 10 years or so we still have troops in Kosovo.  Are we at war in Kosovo?  Doesn't it make sense that we could put an end to bloody combat in sectarian warfare, and still have troops stationed there? Iraq is in a volatile area of the world.  It probably will require policing and peacekeeping for the foreseeable future.  Accepting that likelihood is just realistic, not demonic.    

I wish that Hillary Clinton was a product of a truly democratic system built on grassroots institutions.  She is not.  There was no such system when she entered public life, so she adapted to the world as it was then and is now.  She is what she is, and she is one of the best representatives of that political tendency. This is why she is basically liked by the public, even after two decades of demonization by the right wing, and now the lefties as well.

Hillary Clinton functions now and has functioned in a political culture that is seriously flawed, but she has been and continues to be - in that context - a change agent.  She should be credited with having made small amounts of lemonade from the mountain of lemons before her.  Failure of otherwise smart commentators to understand and accept this is a particular kind of blindness called SEXISM.