I don't see what more Edwards can do to differentiate himself from Obama and HRC on Iraq, labor, trade, and UHC.  But especially regarding Iraq, it seems that no one is listening.

Perhaps HRC's strategy of trying to win the primary whilst not sabotaging herself for the general, by what she says during the primary, is working.

I think that Hillary may have maxed out her support.  When she entered the race, everyone already had an opinion of her.

I really do think that she will fall.

hillary's going to get a pass on this.  which puts me (at least) in a tough spot.  i'm not at all interested in seeing more american troops killed and if she's a beneficiary of that, so be it.  i would expect if the number of deaths start to rise again, she would be hurt by that, because it will bring it back to the forefront of people's minds.  that's my guess...

Since 2003, the majority of Americans have moved from being in favor of the Iraq war to being against it.  Why, then, should those same Americans fault Clinton for a similar evolution?

I also thought it would be a bigger issue. But it's really not--if it was, Obama would have 41% in the polls, not her.

I think voters just don't care about the war vote--they are really focusing on the future, and to my dismay Democratic voters actually seem to REALLY LIKE HER and are not deterred by a vote that ocurred 5 years ago.

People believe her and pretty much all the Dems when they say they will end the war. I think voters care more about what they say they will do on the war than what they did 5 years ago. And while she doesn't say that it was a "mistake" she does say she wouldn't have voted for it knowing then what she does now. I guess that answer just satisfies voters enough.

She was never perceived as the anti-war candidate so she does not have to explain why she does not advocate total withdrawal. She forced the Pentagon to brief the Senate on Iraq withdrawal plans, putting Cheney in his place.

Many people don't like her Iraq AUMF vote, but most Democrats want someone who has a plan and is making progress. Edwards is not in government, so he can only talk, and Obama talks a good game but has no accomplishments to point to. Neither of them are saying anything significantly different than Clinton with regard to Iraq withdrawal.

Iraq is a very touchy situation and has multiple angles at which it can be argued for and against. As with all wars. I can, to a certain degree, believe that Clinton could could've made both stances in the issue. Politics are not black and white. According to the Borgen Project however, we spent over 340 billion dollars in this effort and that is not acceptible.

She has been pretty consistant.  I don't have to repeat it - what she thought best, take responsibility, can't go back, look forward, etc.

It has worked I think because it is a clear message, it is one many can relate to, and she has stuck to it and not tried to change her message on Iraq and her vote a bunch of times.

That is just plain good politics.

It makes her look strong and pragmatic.  

I support in Candidate Clinton's stand on the war in Iraq and believe in her capabilities for restoring America's stand in the world.  I think America needs to prove itself and to the world that we are better than investing $340 billion dollars into a fruitless war.  According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to fight and reduce global poverty, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eliminate poverty across the globe.  However, our government is spending an average of $2 billion dollars a week in Iraq creating more poverty and hunger.  As Americans, we definitely need to support organizations such as the Borgen Project as well as candidates that recognize the importance of the issue of global poverty.

Senator Clinton is trying to have it three ways on Iraq, and so far, Democrats are letting her.  She voted for the war, unapologetically, but now says she will end it if elected.  Ending it somehow means leaving behind what in simpler times might have been called an "occupying army", but now goes by the term "residual force."

THEN

Clinton votes for war authorization.
Bad, but we can't really fire the whole Party

Obama was not in the same position of being forced to choose under high-stakes political pressure, but still he came out against the war before it started.
Good

LATER

Clinton refuses to admit she made a mistake in 2002, but tries to finesse the issue like a politician.
Who cares

Obama tries to make something out of Clinton's trying to finesse the issue, when it's obviously no big deal.
Looks weak

NOW

Clinton criticizes Bush, is a Senate leader on out-of-Iraq resolutions, but avoids details about her future plans for Iraq.
OK, but where's the beef?

Obama criticizes Bush, is a Senate leader on out-of-Iraq resolutions, avoids details about his future plans for Iraq, but mentions having been against the war before it started 10 times a speech.
Starting to remind me of Kerry's Vietnam schtick, as in OK, we heard you the first ten million times, we know you're a hero, let's move on already

Clinton shows a nuanced grasp of foreign policy.
Strong and ready

Obama shows strong leadership instincts, but botches or glosses over the details from time to time.
The future is bright

Clinton AND Obama: too smart to have started this war if it had been up to them, too smart to leave us in Iraq if either gets elected, and smart enough to make good decisions about how to handle the situation once either becomes President and gets full access to daily intelligence, military and diplomatic briefings.
So let's give 'em a pass on the details for now--whoever gets elected will know more once he or she is in the Oval Office.

I think that the nuances among the positions here just aren't that important to most voters.  They believe that Clinton, Obama and Edwards will work to get the troops out of Iraq, and they also know the wingnuts on the other side won't. That's the important distinction in people's minds.

Despite the popular trend for everyone to say they were against the war from the beginning, the simple fact is that most of the country supported the war at first because they believed Bush.  It isn't entirely unreasonable that many of our elected representatives believed him too.

Lest we forget, upwards of 70% of Americans believed that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 in late 2003, and in the summer of 2003, 83% believed in and supported the war. Why?  Because their president lied.  The VP lied.  Colin Powell lied, and did it with phony artwork at the UN. Condi lied.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/p oll.wars/index.html

John Edwards' apology means absolutely nothing to me. What I care about is that he knows he made a mistake, and he's on the right course now.  The same applies to Clinton and anyone else. I don't want your damn apology, I want you to act properly and do everything you can to end this slaughter.  I have no doubt that any of these candidates will start drawing down troops, and I have no doubt that Romney and Thompson won't.

Given that a  a majority of Americans were with George Bush and this war in 2003, unless Obama couples his,"I told you so" with a plausible,"this is what we do now" plan, then he isn't really going to make any dents into Hillary.  The war is a disaster and Americans know it's a disaster.  The people who are really find the IWR vote of Edwards and Clinton unforgivable are already in his or another like candidate's camp.  That leaves people who were ambiguous or maybe supportive of the Iraq war, but are now disillusioned.  Those people can appreciate that Obama was against the war, but I don't think they have necessarily seen an impassioned anti-war candidate in Obama.  He has only recently turned up the rhetoric on his opposiiton to the war, prior to this (i.e when Feingold resolution first came out) he kept a low profile.  It also didn't help that the initial plan that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama released weren't really all that different.  I think if he's trying to capture the anti-war mood of the country by talking about his initial opposition to the war, then he is missing the reason for the anti-war mood of the American people, which I think is because Iraq is a mess, there were no WMDs, and the flowers and candy Cheney promised are now wrapped in IEDs that kill our soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians.

Yeah, among those who feel like "leadership is "not doing", they want Hillary Clinton who offers nothing but the status quo.

People are so naive it's sad.

The FATALISTIC TRAIT will doom humanity.  It can't help but destroy itself for rather paying attention to foolishness like American Idol instead of the American Idiot in the White House.