A lot of people are upset with her "authorization" vote.  That's been evident in this primary and by the support by the "moveon"ers toward Obama.  Seems to me to be a single issue nomination.

Besides a speech, when marching did Obama do? What protests did he lead? What action did he take to end the war? Where are his letters, protests, bills introduced to stop the funding?

Hmmm... his resume in that department looks mighty thin.

You may have misread my point.

Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

I also worked against the IWR from the very start.  Unfortunately a whole lot of people in Congress voted for it.  Personally I'm fairly certain Obama would have, had he been in there.  The thing is, I've voted for people who have not always done as I would wish.

politicsmatters,
Where the heck do you get your info? Do you simply repeat what you hear? I'm not very familiar with your postings but I'm under the impression that you're a much sharper tack then you've let on in the last comment..
If you're really interested in what happened leading to the invasion of Iraq - please skip  David Corn and Noam Chomsky, okay?
And read this - and if you're like some Obama supporters who think Pat Lang is a racist because he had the nerve to write historically about the Confederate Secret Service, please don't bother. And I will be disappointed in you.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_l ang.asp

OK, for starters let's say I'm not thrilled about the AUMF yea vote and I will say Hillary, like others was duped. And I'm proud both of my senators, Levin & Stabenow voted nay. Hillary made the mistake of believing GWB, a sitting president would not lie and pull the inspectors out before they were allowed to finish their job.
All the dissensions were taken out of the 27 page NIE. The INR & the Dept. of Energy's dissension[s] Energy were removed.

From Drinking the Koolaid..

First, there was the consistent refusal to provide witnesses and information to the U.S. Senate, especially regarding the projected costs of the war and the lack of opportunities to question key players such as General Jay Garner, who was appointed by the Defense Department to be the first head of the U.S. provisional authority in Iraq. There was also the subtle hiding of the objections of the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) in the NIE of October 2002. One congressional source explained that the classified NIE was made available in its entirety to only a select few members of Congress. There were verbal briefings and an elaborate process to access the document in a secure location. But it was never clear that the 27-page unclassified version that was available to every office was missing any crucial information.

There were also false statements to Congress about providing the U.N. inspectors all the intelligence that might have helped them locate the Iraqi WMD and programs. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has accused the administration, and especially CIA Director Tenet, of withholding information because "the truth" -- that the United States had withheld the locations of 21 high - and middle-priority sites -- might have slowed down the drive for war. The truth might have convinced Congress to take action to delay military action until the inspections were completed.

The March 7, 2003, appearance by the chairmen of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) and the IAEA (Mohamed ElBaradei) before the U.N. Security Council was a disaster for the neoconservatives. The Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had "accelerated" cooperation with the United Nations, said Dr. Blix. Blix told the Council that Iraq had made a major concession: they had agreed to allow the destruction of the Al Samoud ballistic missiles. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks," Blix said. "Lethal weapons are being destroyed. . . . The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -- indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Now the Al Samouds were very expensive to make for a country under sanctions and under the watchful eye of Centcomm. Saddam allowed unprecented access to the inspectors and the Samouds were destroyed until the inspectors were pulled out.

The the mission of disarming Saddam was being accomplished.
And on Mar. 7, 2003, ElBaradei blew the neocons out of the water and destroyed their story completely with his revelation of the forged documents and the aluminum tubes.
Col. Lang says..

But it was after the next presentation, by IAEA chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, that "all hell broke loose" in Washington. ElBaradei, in his statement, sank the U.S. intelligence community's prestigious NIE, President Bush's State of the Union address, and Colin Powell's February 5 address to the U.N. Security Council with one blow. ElBaradei was calm in what he had to say: "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which form the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic." The Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. Then, ElBaradei told the press that an IAEA staff member had, in fact, used the common search engine Google to determine, within hours, that the Niger documents, which had been passed on to the U.S. embassy in Rome through an anonymous source, were fakes! Members of Congress then began to grumble. In light of the contradictions, a bill was introduced demanding that the administration disclose the intelligence reports that were the basis for the statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell about the Iraqi WMD threat. It was still locked in committee when the war began.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.ir q.un.transcript.elbaradei/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Yet at that point, it didn't matter. This WH had other plans and betrayed the trust of congress, the UN and the American people. Bush simply said the destruction of the Samouds was proof of the duplicity of Saddam. Blix, ElBaradei and others were aghast.

Then Illinois state Sen. Obama took a guess. He has admitted it but it is a far different story from what some of his followers say. Good for you for marching - and may there always be those that do - but neither you or I knew of the stunning level of duplicity. Ask Joe Wilson.

A woman or a black man couldn't get away with an apology for that vote.  Actually, now that I think about, even white men didn't get away with it.  Because I don't see Edwards or Kerry in the White House.

Maybe Hillary really believes that it was a vote to empower inspectors in Iraq.  It's just that it was never ever a good idea to trust the chimp for even one second.  But whatever.  If I could vote for Kerry, I can vote for Hillary.  In spite of their AUMF votes, neither of them would ever do what the chimp did.

What's that got to do with it?  Barbara Boxer wasn't an option, either.  I'd love to have voted for her as president in 2004.  Heck, I'd have loved voting for Gore for a second time.

Say again?

Well, it appears from his track record, should any papers be found he'd claim he'd never seen them and that staffers had signed his name.

and so has any investigation.

it took her the texas debate to finally admit her vote was a mistake.

yup she really does take responsibility

I have to admit that Mr. Obama is a handsome looking man, but why are people posting so many pictures of him in such lame star-like fashions?  Oh, I forgot this is once again a popularity contest.  

No offense, but who cares who you trust. Clintonites are now irrelevant. Make way for President Obama.

You trust Hillary Clinton, so your judgement is worthless.

that Clinton is perfect.

I'll take the candidate that exhibits a little humility every now and then.

So you finally admit he will be the nominee!!!

WELCOME ABOARD!

Why waste the effort? It would never change your mind...ever. So there is no point in trying to persuade someone who will either directly, or tacitly, support a Republican in November.

Please describe sponsoring and pushing for?

Then apply those same standards to HRC.

Asked and answered multiple times. You just refuse to listen.

BTW, isn't there a "ragekage" over at freeperville? And what's the name of your other sock puppet over on the Great Orange Satan?

I've never seen her acknowledge that sentiment, unfortunately.

I've seen your moniker around here.  You are always anti-Clinton.  I'm guessing that makes you pro-Obama, but I don't hang out in Obama cheerleading diaries.

Well said rage. I'd give you mojo but Obama suporters aren't allowed to on thsi site.

what I see is a pattern of non-apology apologies where he says sorry....so and so made a bad mistake. I see no "leadership" from him in this or, frankly, on any other issue.

June 2007:

" Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday disavowed a memo criticizing rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's financial ties to India, blaming his campaign staff for a "dumb mistake."

December 2007:

"A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out."

Course that one doesn't even appear to be true-but did he admit he did fill out the damn form...

April 2008:

"Politico received an amended copy of the questionnaire with notes on the front page written in Barack Obama's handwriting.  
    Through an aide, Obama, who won the group's endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn't prove he completed, approved -- or even read -- the latter questionnaire. "

Do we need to revisit Rev Wright? No, except to note: he never knew Wright said anything controversial, 20 years of bland sermons for him, then the Rev resurfaces and he's denounced for his extremist views which do not seem to have changed at all from what was first reported.

Bittergate though, will be the gift that keeps on giving. I agree with George Packer in the New Yorker on this:

"But Obama's devotees, who have an unattractively worshipful tendency to blame his mistakes on everyone but him, would do their candidate and the Democratic Party a favor by acknowledging the damage he's done to both. It wasn't accidental. Obama betrayed his own and his Party's essential weakness, and in the process handed the opposition a great gift. He won't be able to turn this weakness into the kind of strength that ends eras and wins elections until he understands what happened over the past few days."

No, you don't read Alegre's diaries. If you did, you'd see she consistently documents Hillary's accomplishments. You don't rec Alegre's diaries, either, as evidenced by the rec history.

To paraphrase your words, "I don't like trollish comments by Obama supporters who do nothing but shit on our most progressive nominee."

Instead of personally attacking the diarist, why not write your own diaries documenting the accomplishments of Obama? It's a pretty thin list, but have at it.