Clinton Defends Iran Vote In Iowa Mailer

In an unusual campaign mailing sent to voters in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton defends her vote in favor of the so-called "Lieberman-Kyl" resolution on Iran, calling it a "vote for stepped up diplomacy" and not permission for the Bush Administration to invade the country. (Full mailing here and here.)

Two rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, have compared the September vote to the 2002 authorization granting President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, accusing Clinton of another failure of judgment.

That Clinton takes pains to explain the Lieberman-Kyl vote, which declared Iraq's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization and linked the structure of U.S troop presence in the Middle East in part to the Iranian threat, suggests that the Edwards-Obama charges have gelled, if only a bit.

A copy of the mailing was obtained from a Democrat in Iowa.

"Let me clear on Iran," Clinton writes. "I am opposed to letting President Bush take any military action against that country without full Congressional approval." Clinton notes that she -- "long before others" -- that is, long before Barack Obama -- supported legislation requiring the president to get Congress's permission before such an invasion.

A second page of the letter includes validation testimony from Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and from Sen. Dick Durbin, who has endorsed Obama.

Comments

I don't think the charges are gelled, the campaign is just getting into defensive mode since they know that Obama and Edwards will use this to castigate her and she needs to pre-empt them and explain her facts before anyone else does.

However, this does show signs that the Clinton camp is somewhat worried about the vote and its potential implications to an anti-war, dovish, "defeatist" mentality.

Posted by Pennsylvanian | October 20, 2007 10:04 PM

There goes all respect I once had for the Clinton operation.

Really, how could they? "XYZ, for a change" was cute the first time we heard it 20 years ago, but now every hometown State's Attorney and County Register of Deeds challenger campaign uses some variation on that. This is amateurish and seems uncharacteristic of her otherwise excellent campaign.

For what it's worth, I've been very impressed with Obama's mail.

Posted by willie | October 20, 2007 10:21 PM

Is that like her thinking she was voting for diplomacy when 'bush lied to her' in 2002?
And if she was so sure she was voting for diplomacy this time why is she now running to Webb for cover?
All I can say is: what a piece of work.

Posted by vwcat | October 20, 2007 10:34 PM

Sounds like she was against the resolution before she was for it. Kind of like she was for Iraq before she was against it. Kind of like she was against making blanket statement on uses of nukes in Iran before she was for making blanket statements on the use of nukes in Iran.

I didn't realize triangulation meant running in circles.

If democrats think nominating someone so easily portrayed as a flip flopper is smart politics, apparently they have learned nothing from Kerry in '04.

Posted by RKA | October 20, 2007 10:50 PM

Do not vote for Hillary!! She belongs to the Republicans.With her as President, God only know when this war would end!!!

Posted by Mary | October 20, 2007 10:52 PM

I don't see why it should be a point of pride for Hillary to be behind the bill requiring Bush to obtain Congressional approval before invading Iran. The constitution already requires it, and if the vote somehow does not pass, for example by being filibustered, can't Bush then invade Iran without Congressional approval, confuse the public, and say "Congress itself could not pass a resolution saying I needed to go to Congress"? I'm happy to be corrected on this if I'm missing something.

Posted by RaymondA | October 20, 2007 11:08 PM

"a stepped up vote for diplomacy"

isn't this what she said about her vote for Iraq? How stupid does she think people are?

Posted by Josh Medeiros | October 20, 2007 11:09 PM

Hillary is a very polished politician. She wouldn't be a bad leader for our country, BUT, votes like this make me wary of her abilities. My question is (and I can't get it out of my head), is she the BEST we have? I must say, my gut tells me no. I believe Senator Biden has all the qualifications America needs right now.

Posted by JDS | October 20, 2007 11:49 PM

It's increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton is maintaining an allegiance to the neo-cons who led President Bush into the Iraq war. The neo-cons continue to want US forces to become involved in total war in the middle east against the enemies of the state of Israel.

Senator Clinton has refused to admit her mistake in voting to authorize the war. She has refused to call for the early withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Now she has provided a pretext for the administration to launch a war with Iran. It was no mistake that the motion was co-authored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, a strong supporter of US military action in the Middle East.

Wake up, Democrats! Hillary Clinton will support the neo-con agenda.

Posted by Doug | October 20, 2007 11:57 PM

I think JDS is right that she is a very polished politician. I also think that Biden has far more experience than she does. The problem is the cash. If he had nearly as much dough as Obama, he would have closed the number gap right now. But, the immature amateur has the cash while the experienced dog has none. This is our democracy!

Posted by Pennsylvanian | October 21, 2007 12:01 AM

According to Biden, who is the chairman of the SFRC, Iran is a very poor country that is years away from developing a nuclear weapon. We have plenty of time for diplomacy.

Threatening Iran is not diplomacy.

Hillary was my second choice for the nomination.
Her vote on this amendment changed that for me, along with her ties to weapons manufacturers and other shady fundraising practices. She can explain all she wants to about why she voted for this, I don't care. The only way I will vote for her is if I have to.

Posted by Jillian | October 21, 2007 1:04 AM

sorry for saying this: the situation, the options , the president, the candidates for presidency, the main parties to this democrasy ... all... SUCK!

Posted by tim | October 21, 2007 2:05 AM

HRC is disappointing and disgusting. Fellow Americans.. think.. think about all she says at different points. She has no definite plan or stand. She does things to win money or vote. I have processed her answers and soon enough find that she just contradicted herself few months back or later. Where does she stand?. No clue. The people who support her do so with the desire of seeing a woman in office or they are people who have money and want to retain through her friends. But think.. is the presidency a SEXIST issue or should we put a DECENT and TRANSPARENT person there?. I understand that OBAMA has the issue of winning people like "pennsylvanian" but I rather put a person who has good judgement and strong values. He has proven himself in many areas. No one ruuning in this race has experience of a HEAD OF STATE but whats needed is the ability to reach and understand people and work on common interests. That Barack has done. I HOPE SENSIBILITY PREVAILS AND WE VOTE OBAMA IN TO THE OVEL OFFICE.

Posted by Paul | October 21, 2007 2:12 AM

Hillary...the "shape changer". Is she not looking more like a Republican?? Now here we go "strong arming" Asians in America..for contributions. DE JA VU?? All I can say, with Bush being the "puppet" of the Religious Right..and their belief it seems that Bush is the one to bring ARMAGEDDON..and then of course JESUS...Oh wake up people...our "religious fanatics" want one thing.."the END TIMES" and Bush is their "boy". And considering what's coming out of the mouths of the current candidates..our journey to Armageddon won't be stopped with the next Election...becaues I doubt Al Gore is going to run.

Posted by Don Roberson | October 21, 2007 7:29 AM

Hillary's trying to slice-and-dice her Kyle-LIEBERMAN vote illustrates how cowardly the Democrats are at standing up to the war and neo-con lobbies: Nancy Pelosi specifically gutted a House Bill specifically demanding Congressional authorization befor the president may have US forces attack Iran, at, we are told, the specific request of a last minute call from a well connected AIPAC lobbyist. American democracy has no answer for the corruption of shipping billions of taxpayer dollars off to Israel, only to have large sums of that money turn around and come right back to undermine our democracy (through lobbying). By the same token, the Catholic Church in Rome spends millions of dollars every two years trying to influence American politics on the abortion issue. Wllm Safire of the New York Times once wrote that it was "beyond the pale" for VP Gore and Pres. Clinton to accept campaign donations from a Buddhist temple in America (or businesses with China connections) - yet every year, the New York Times, Washington Post, and "major media" refuse to follow the money trail from intensive FOREIGN CONTROL of American election politics....

Posted by Lj | October 21, 2007 8:50 AM

That anyone at all is considering voting for this woman tells me not many have been paying attention to her. I have, and for a very long time.

This is EXACTLY what she claimed with the IWR (or was it that she was fooled, or was it that it was a good war executed badly...hard to keep track of what her Iraq war vote explanation is this week).

Hillary changes her position with the wind depending on who she's talking to at the time and what will benefit her politically. For a so-called brilliant strategist, this was not a clever move. Unless, of course, you are the queen of triangulation and can get enough of the hawks and doves to think you're on their side without either knowing exactly where you really stand. Even worse is her 'Rural Americans for Hillary' lunch at a Monsanto lobbying firm in D.C. Monsanto!! Not even sure how she will spin that one to Iowa farmers..but I'm sure Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign's ethical equivalent to Karl Rove, will have something up his sleeve.

Her money problems don't begin and end with Hsu, as the latest Chinatown revelations only hint at. Our pathetic excuse for a responsible free press may be conveniently turning a blind eye to the Clinton money shenanigans for the most part, but you can bet the White House that the Republicans aren't. If she is the nominee, I have no doubt that they have a huge file built up to use against her.

I'm truly tired of hearing how having a woman president will be such a wonderful thing for our daughters. From this 56 year old woman and feminist, we didn't fight the long hard fight to have the worst traits of male power dressed up in heels and lipstick. I expect a president with integrity and honesty who is more interested in what's best for the country than what's more beneficial to their political future. That would be a good thing for our daughters, and sons.

Hillary Clinton is not evil incarnate. Absolutely anyone on the Democratic side would be better than what we've had under this administration. But considering you couldn't really get much worse, is this something we want to settle for with so much that needs fixing? Can she fix it? Would she fix it? How do you know? Because she says so...this week? What will she say after she's there? Worse yet, what will she do? The answer is, nobody can really say for sure. And THAT's the biggest problem.

Posted by Terri | October 21, 2007 9:54 AM

I don't understand what is so bad about this vote.
She's not supporting military action. She's not advocating for any action in Iran.
She's simply acknowledging that she believes The Revolutionary Gaurd is a terrorist organization. Am I missing something?

Posted by confused | October 21, 2007 10:49 AM

Dear Confused -

Go to www.senate.gov, and look up the wording of the bill. I actually did this, and after using a dictionary to translate the "legalese" into common English, basically states that Congress sees Iran as a player in the Iraqi insurgents, and that we (i.e. the White House) can do WHATEVER IT TAKES to stop them, including military action, as part of our efforts to secure peace in Iraq.

That reads of a blessing for war with Iran as far as I can tell.

But, it also says the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, so we can do all of our "spy stuff" against them as well.

What I can tell is that this is one of those "politically charged" resolutions, so however you vote on this it may come back to haunt you - you are either a total hawk or a total dove on terrorism.

Does that help?

Posted by Dr. Greg | October 21, 2007 11:12 AM

Yes, you're missing something...

The anti-Hillary crowd is looking for ANYTHING to try to bring down her and her candidacy. The difference, however, between her and recent Democratic candidates is that she is too politically savvy to let the opponents define her. This is why she is the BEST candidate (Democratic or otherwise). If we want the White House back, we vote for Hillary. Period. Can't we finally get a pragmatic, intelligent person back in the White House. The only one we've had for the past two decades was some guy named....Clinton....

Posted by Ken | October 21, 2007 11:16 AM

Obama copped out on his vote, didn't speak out before the resolution and didn't say a peep until half a day later. The Obama-pologists claim he missed the vote because of a conspiracy involving Harry Reid and seven degrees of Kevin Bacon. That NINETY-EIGHT senators were able to be there makes that excuse world-class lame..

Obama co-sponsored with Clinton a BINDING resolution with even stronger language about the Iranian guards.

The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/the-obama-disse.html

Today's Washington Post Editorial says it best;
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102000984.html

As the days speed along and Obama continues to get tinier and tinier in the rear-view, the Obama attacks will grow more desperate and even more foolish in nature. Here's a good suggestion for him;

"A few years as governor would boost senator's presidential aspirations"

www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/612757,CST-EDT-HUNT21.article

"A few years running the state would give Obama the kind of executive seasoning that the electorate likes to see in candidates for president. It's a lack of experience that has been perceived as the Achilles' heel of his White House bid."

Good advice.

Posted by George Brenner | October 21, 2007 11:24 AM

I got a Clinton-Gore t-shirt my freshman year of college when Bill came to speak at my school in September 1992. Its slogan: "Leadership for a Change."

Guess she had to tack on that Experienced thing to cover her flank.

Posted by shelbinator | October 21, 2007 11:33 AM

Voters rely on the news for information so that way manufacturing consent is an easy formula: Hire executives and CEO's from the largest PR firms in the world (Bursom and Marstellar and Glover Park Group) which represent among others Rupert Murdoch, Exxon, .. next spin, finally have your connnections write the reports suited to your personal ambitions. Watch and laugh as the public eats it up.

That's not political savvy that is blind and crooked ambition. Barack Obama has been on three fronts. First, demonstrating his charisma and ideals. Second, for the last six weeks he laid out lots of policies. That's not big news but a big foundation of substance. In the last two months it will be time to go for Hillary's jugular and expose her for what she is.

If you think Hillary is on the up and up. Find out about Peter Paul. Another quick example, Why would she call her fund raiser this week "Rural Americans for Hillary" when the party is in Washington D.C. and hosted by Monsanto. Two examples of huge deception. There are many more. It is how she operates. She needs to be exposed. The Republicans will have a field day on her if she wins the primary. We need to bring back honesty. Don't count on MSM for your primary sourse of information. Wake up Democrats.

Posted by jdr | October 21, 2007 11:38 AM

Republican-Lite Hillary is like lipstick on a pig.

The more you look, the more you begin to realize that Edwards, Obama and Dodd are the serious Democratic Party candidates and Hillary is the media celebrity. (remember, celebrity can elevate anything even Paris Hilton)

With all the free press and excitement some would wonder, do we even need to vote? Any day now I expect to hear the media talking about her first year!

Listen folks, Hillary is a weak General Election candidate and is the candidate hand picked by GOP (who has been preparing for this since the Clinton Admin).

Time to wake up Democrats and elect an a Democrat for the Democratic primary...

j

Posted by Jim | October 21, 2007 12:16 PM

"Experience"?? Senator Clinton doesn't seem to learn from her experiences if her recent answer to the Des Moines register is any indicator. The Register asked the exact same questions to all of the candidates.

The question, "How do you verify the truth of what you're being told?” was for me, the most telling indicator of each candidate’s decision-making process and leadership style. Because weighing the information provided in briefings, determining the validity of that information and then making a decision is the "work" of a President. The difference in the answers between Senators Clinton and Obama is striking and very clearly shows two very different decision-making processes and leadership styles. Both their processes and styles tell voters much about how they would make decisions as President.

Senator Clinton - "I'm lucky, I have great staff that do extensive research and backup, and we try to be as scrupulous as we can about what I say and what information is given to me. At the end of the day I have to sort it all out and make a judgment."

Senator Obama - "Multiple sources and seeking out people who disagree with me. One of the things that has always been helpful to me is to actively engage those with opposite views and test out what they're saying, in my own mind and see if it makes sense."

For me, Senator Obama's decision-making process shows why he got the most important foreign policy decision of our generation right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. The closed process (relying only on her staff) she describes is the same one she used in the healthcare initiative in 1993. Based on her recent answer to the Register, that decision-making process has not changed. Senator Clinton’s “experience” does not seem to have taught her much if she is using the same process for decision-making.

Posted by teach53 | October 21, 2007 12:34 PM

From the article above:
Sen. Hillary Clinton defends her vote in favor of the so-called "Lieberman-Kyl" resolution on Iran

Since when was it the so-called Lieberman-Kyl resolution? Isn't that what it is?

Posted by Roberta | October 21, 2007 2:31 PM

The ONLY reason to have ever voted for this hag for president was that she was not a Republican. She half lost that benefit of the doubt with her IWR vote and subsequent mealy-mouthed "explanations". She now has lost the other half with the Iran vote and subsequent double talking.

If this is the best the spineless Dems have to offer I will exercise my right NOT to vote and let the crap fly where it may.

As for designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, well that's just plain macho stupidity that plays right into Darth Cheney's hand. I can't wait for Russia or Iran to declare our Marines or Navy Seals, who are currently operating covertly in Iran, terrorist organizations. Then the bloody fun will begin.

Posted by pesfb | October 21, 2007 3:07 PM

Hey, Pennsylvanian - I am against this dumb ass war - and you're going to call me a "defeatist?" I'm right next door in Ohio, and would like to hear you say it to my face - you'd get a chance to personally experience defeat.

Anytime.

Posted by Mark | October 21, 2007 3:37 PM

To teach 53: do these bland answers really paint a huge difference between two candidates? Do you really think each candidate hasn't got multiple viewpoints represented on staff and in thier campaigns? Do you really think both and all the candidates with money don't poll issues before formulating policies and decisions? Wouldn't that indicate both Hillary and Obama have what can be characterized as open decision making processes and closed processes? Be fair. Referring to the health care debate, you should also be fair: she had huge forums with divergent opinions, some on television. She had huge meetings with a lot of different stake holders. Some of those were closed. It failed because of the huge K street machine descended and said everything it could to scare the hell out of Americans who after all are pretty easy to scare.
The central difference between Hillary's vote 5 years ago and Obama's is that Hillary had a vote and Obama didn't. Obama made a crazy ass speech when he didn't have a vote, when he was nobody, when he was just talking to folks in Chicago and it didn't mean anything. Also remember that Hillary did not make the deciding vote. Also go back and think about the newspaper headlines in those weeks around the vote. Most of the people who are against the war now as it turned out these past 5 years were for it back then: the polls bear that out quite readily. Hillary did not take us to war. As she points out Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld did that. We let them. The opposition wasn't in place: it was pretty half-assed and small in number. Hillary voted to let Bush rattle a saber just as Bill needed to rattle a saber at times, just as future presidents will rattle a saber at times. No wonder she doen't feel the need to apologise.
Remember that Obama has voted for the war over and over and over since he's been in Washington as a senator, funding it and funding it and funding it endlessly: because its the impossible political bind democrats who want to remain credible need to do. Only crazies like Kucinich and bullet-proof folks like Sanders in Vermont can vote against funding.
So obama the say hey kid keeps pointing at the crazy ass speech he made when he was nobody and didn't have to answer for the vote (because he had not vote!). He can't point at his votes in the Senate against the war because there aren't any- his record and Hillary's voting record for funding this crazy ass war are exactly the same.
Emphasizing one without admitting much about the other makes him look craven and dishonest to some of us. And the fact that he was nobody five years ago should give us pause: we ought to care more about who we stand for than to stand for someone who was nobody. Who did he win against? Alan Keyes who didn't even live in Illinois, Alan Keyes who is so crazy and off the radar that they won't let him on the debate stage anymore, even though he is running again: do you really want to give naive little obama still wet behind the ears the run of us? He thinks two good minutes of a crazy unfortunate speech makes him ready?

Posted by Michael | October 21, 2007 3:44 PM

Regrettably, Hillary's pendulum swinging antics lack cohesive political logic, responsible cultural integrity, and most importantly -- personal consistency and sincerity. More than anything else in the upcoming Presidential election, America needs to find its moral/ethical center, and to do so we shall require candidates who answer questions directly and fully, and do not play a Janus faced script.

Posted by Pauline | October 21, 2007 4:53 PM

The Iran vote and now flip flopping about it is a typical example of Hillary's strategy: Support those who give you money and say anything to please the crowds.

Even the Ex-Prez Clinton was the one that did Kosowo , the one that we bombed bridges with children on it and said ooops it was a mistake.

Hillary is best choice for the Pro-war hawks and all the military industry. Don't get fooled. That is why all the republicans presume she has won, they want her because it is the best win-win alternative to a republican!!!!

Sleeping in the same bed as the President of United States does not constitute Presidential experience.

Posted by George | October 21, 2007 4:58 PM

Here is Obama's 2002 speech, which some deem to be "crazy," but in fact was remarkably prescient:

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Some of us want a president with foresight, not just hindsight.

Hillary, on the other hnd, "took the president at his word" that he would give the inspectors a chance before going in. She didn't read the intelligence, and mimed Bush's talking points and cast her vote "with conviction."

I think I know why she was so hesistent to agree to negotiate face to face with rogue dictators (before she flip flopped, of course)...it's because if you take her at her word, Hillary is the most gullible person on the planet...believing Bush when he said he was going to avoid war if he could. Seriously, this is the person we want to negotiate with other countries on arms or trade? If she can't discern the intentions of Geroge Bush, what makes her qualified to discern the intentions of anyone else?

Posted by RKA | October 21, 2007 5:43 PM

That Clinton takes pains to explain the Lieberman-Kyl vote ... suggests that the Edwards-Obama charges have gelled, if only a bit.

Much more than "only a bit." HRC would never have sent the note if the charges were gelling "only a bit."

Two other candidates -- Obama and Edwards -- are making the charge. If together, they get over 50% of the vote, and this is cited as a major reason, her campaign could be in big trouble -- even if she squeaks out a victory.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 21, 2007 5:49 PM

This is what she (HRC) has been saying (lying) about her vote authorizing the Iraq - it was designed to boost his (Bush) diplomatic push at the UN. She authorized a war that killed thousands of Americans and Iraqis for her own politicial future not because of principle or protecting the national interest of the nation. It looks like she is at it again.

Posted by Jabe | October 21, 2007 5:50 PM

"Barack Obama has been on three fronts. First, demonstrating his charisma and ideals."

Sorry, I don't see it. Barack has a nice smile, but I don't feel any desire to follow him. Also, I think charisma is way overrated. Hitler had charisma. Bush had charisma. Charisma is a non-rational means of choosing a leader based on how personally attractive he or she is perceived to be. Yeah, Barack's got ideals, and lots of policies. Dennis Kucinic has higher ideals, and even more policies.

It seems to me that thus far John Edwards has been driving the debate in the Democratic primary race. It's his ideas that are being adopted by some (including some by Obama) and discussed by everybody. If you don't like Hillary because she's too corporatist, consider that Edwards' career before he ran for office consisted of suing corporations and insurance companies on behalf of ordinary people. Barack is a good candidate, but he's way too conciliatory for me. Edwards is opposed to corporatism on a philosophical basis.

Hillary clearly has the most reason to revenge herself on the neocons and that "vast rightwing conspiracy" called the conservative movement which is the primary source of anti-democratic behavior in this country today. If you think she's really a nasty bitch, maybe that should be thought of as a plus, as long as it's directed against the neocons.

Posted by Querent | October 21, 2007 6:02 PM

George Bush was not "led" into the Iraq war "by the neo-cons"--- ALL of the people in his retinue--- wanted to attack and control the Middle East for their own selfish reasons. The only ideology of those who support attacking countries who have not attacked us, is, simply, greed.

Posted by quadspect | October 21, 2007 6:04 PM

The Democrats are not weak, they are complicit. Any portion of their electorate and their congressional representation who are against torture, preemptive strikes, suspension of civil liberties, immoral and illegal wars, and killing of civilians are in the distinct minority and will only represent the splinter group needed to get elected instead of the Republican candidate. Which is why elected Democratic members of the house and senate are so disingenuous. They will never be proactive, they will never block, they will always go along with the Bush administration because that is whose pockets they are in. And if Clinton gets elected, it will be just more of the same ruinous foreign policy and disregard for human rights that the United States has shown for the last 60 years.

Posted by Richard Bentley | October 21, 2007 6:05 PM

George Bush was not "led" into the Iraq war "by the neo-cons"--- ALL of the people in his retinue--- Israeli extremists, Israeli defense industry, Israeli oil dealers, Neo-Cons, U.S. and British oil and defense profiteers---wanted to attack and control the Middle East for their own selfish reasons. The only ideology of those who support attacking countries who have not attacked us, is, simply, greed.

Posted by quadspect | October 21, 2007 6:05 PM

The last I looked, greed is not an ideology...though it seeks to masquerade as high-minded political, religious, national, or economic, idealism

Posted by quadspect | October 21, 2007 6:07 PM

This is equal to all of the non specific answers to any serious questions GWB gave during two (2) campaigns. It's called pandering to the voters, "I'll tell you what you want to hear, just elect me." Unike GWB, I think HRC (or any woman for that matter ) would do a better job than these males offered up at this point in time. I would even vote for Eliz Dole (ugh) against any of the good ole boys on their ticket. Get real not a single person running for this job has any more insight into the details of what can and can not be done, than HRC. GWB has gutted the constitution and BOR and just wait until the GOP guys get into the oval office and we'll really see power excercised in lock step. As long as the neocons exist, Bill Kristol and his ilk will repeat on a daily basis their view for the world. As a liberal living in a quite, small southern town full of repugs and rednecks, the idea of Obama geting the nod from the party is as scary as seeing George Wallace and Reagan get shot on TV. Unfortunately not all Americans are as evolved as "most" big city folks are. He's a great guy and I'm sure would make a great leader but I don't think our partisan world is ready (sadly) for him as POTUS.

Posted by Beckylu | October 21, 2007 6:29 PM

Maybe now she can defend her failing to read the NIE before voting to authorize war???

Then she might defend her support of Bush and the Iraq War for the first two year???

Then she might defend why she only turned against the war when public opinion nosedived???

Then she might defend why she has been unable to apologize and admit she made a mistake voting to send our young men and women into battle!!

Posted by Will Gibbs | October 21, 2007 6:39 PM

Incredible how anyone who calls him/herself progressive could think about voting for Clinton.

She is the best candidate big money can buy.

There are only two candidates on the Dem. ticket and one on the Rep. ticket who offer any meaningful change to our thoroughly corrupted political system; but after reading these posts it looks like we're going to be in for 4 more years of Bush lite...

Posted by Paul Christie | October 21, 2007 6:52 PM

I think there are many women who would be good presidents. Hillary is not one of them. So many of her wrong decisions have been because she has felt the need to appear macho to be president. She caved to the neocons in '02 and authorized a war she kew to be wrong because she felt she had to as a woman. She is now doing the same thing with Iran. What does is benefit the country to get a woman president if she feels she has to be overly pro-war just to appear macho and tough?

Imagine if, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack during the next presidents term. The neocons will push for an imprudent overreaction of some sort. The terrified public will support them just as they did in the traumatic aftermath of 9/11. Does anybody really believe that Hillary will have the courage to do what is right in that situtation? Or will she sit down with Mark Penn and decide that she needs to go along with the neocons for her political future, regardless of what is right and what is wrong? How many people will have to die for hillary to prove that she is "man enough" for the job? I think a woman president is a great idea....but one who feels like she has to support wars against common sense in order to get the job is downright scary. Bill Clinton himself gave away the real motivation behind Hillary's decisions. He once said, "It is better to be strong and wrong than weak and right." We need a president who is both strong and right and that person is not Hillary.

Posted by RKA | October 21, 2007 6:53 PM

Well at least she showed up to vote and went on the record. Obama FAILED to show for this vote and it was no mistake or because of campaign schedule. He DID NOT want a record of this vote.. so if Bush does something stupid he can say see what happened because of Hilary's vote... or if it starts a dialog with Iran he can say I would have voted for it.

Posted by LE Smykal | October 21, 2007 7:16 PM

HILLARY is demonized in these blogs . I think that those who demonize her , likely dont understand "daily" politics. Politics is not always a fight for ideas. It is more frequently a fight regarding means. Please stop these "idealistic" attacks ; they r self-defeating. Neither Hillary nor Bill r or were card carrying communists ; ther r and were liberal Americans. If the'd agree with ur steady leftish cticism they'd be accused of being communists and they'd have no chance of getting to the Presidency

Posted by JOJO | October 21, 2007 7:34 PM

Is she reverting to her days as a young Goldwater enthusiast?

H.Clinton has made one bad decision after another as senator. She'd do the same as president.

Elect someone with more integrity and sense.

Posted by hjalmer | October 21, 2007 7:34 PM

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 but I will never, ever vote for her. In fact I will immediately reregister as an independent and do everything in my power to see her defeated in 2008 even if that mean another 4 to 8 years of the NeoCons.

Enough is enough. The ends no longer justify the means. The Democratic party and democratic primary voters can go F%$# themselves. I've had it.

Posted by Josh | October 21, 2007 7:43 PM

I've had enough of the crap being peddled by HRC. I now understand why the right hates her. Hell, I'm beginning to hate her and I'm a progressive!

This will be one of the worst elections for me. I'll have to vote while holding my nose and then keep holding it for next 4 to 8 years. The candidates that we have just suck.

Gore please!!! Even my republican friends are willing to vote for you. Please!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Sick and Tired | October 21, 2007 7:46 PM

A large part of journalism is photographic. The saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words..." is one of the truest I've known. Let alone the fact that images imprint on a person 110x greater than printed language. My question in this regard would be...why the hell is every picture posted here of Clinton looking as goofy as humanly possible? She's not the only one getting "the shutters" either. Ethical publishing is supposed to be unbiased, informative and not slanted. Taking journalistic responsibility includes responsibility for photography that casts a certain light on a subject - be that good, bad or indifferent. Catching the split second that a person looks like a moron (...or in Obama's case angry as hell...or in Guliani's case a psycho)soley to get people's attention is well...I thought the post was above that. It may be thought that my thought process is naive - I think it's naive to think these images don't equal a bias and a sad attempt to use images that should lay on the cutting room floor to gain readership and loyalty instead of just plain honest reporting reporting. Although most of us here read the words that follow...we are sorely outnumbered (and, YES, they vote!).

Posted by Frustrated Journalist | October 21, 2007 7:52 PM

People are accusing Clinton of triangulation here. Good.

But many are forgetting that we voters are forced to play our own version of that game by our intractable two-party electoral polling system.

Clinton is a "polarizing" figure, thanks in part to the opposition's determination to keep her one (as they did, and do, Gore). But seriously, if their argument is that liberals don't know which Hillary Clinton they are voting for, just look at their own lineup of political schizophrenics!

The underlying problem, in my opinion, is that third parties are a third rail for any candidate. Opting not to run with the elephants or the asses basically means that you are running to make a point, not to get into office and do the hard work.

I'd like to see instant run-off ballots used in national elections. Commonly used in local elections, these ballots don't waste your vote if your first choice doesn't get a majority. Your chad is punched (or whatever) for your first column choice. And then you punch two more times for the same seat, for your second and third candidate choices.

If your fave punch doesn't pan out, your vote automatically goes to your second choice -- and then to your third, if you're a loser who couldn't handicap a race between an eagle and a slug.

The point is, even if you ARE a loser, your vote is not wasted in instant run-off -- as it is when you vote for Kucinich (still the best positions for my money), but no one else does. Not the least, whoever wins after these cascading counts will know very well that he/she owes their victory to those candidates that made it through the first round but not the second and third.

That's because the common thread in all of those votes is that they DID NOT vote for the first-round higher-profile candidate.

The electoral voting system would of course have to be changed as well, since the main point of it is to polarize the vote for one of two parties. No loss there -- we no longer have to send our delegates to Washington by horse, and wait weeks more to hear who was voted in. We don't have to settle for that interposed layer of representation, with its inherent abstraction and distortion of citizen intent.

We can all vote one day, and hear by noon the next day who will be in charge of the Oval Orifice for the next four years.

Posted by Dan Mortenson | October 21, 2007 7:54 PM

Could we call this a preemptive comment to justify another vote for a preemptive war? This is my problem with supporting her, I don’t think I can ever support someone who still supports the concept of EVER fighting a PREEMPTIVE war.

Posted by TampaCT | October 21, 2007 8:01 PM

To Michael
Both candidates were asked the same question - "How do you verify the truth of what you're being told?". I think their "bland answers" are very revealing of their decision-making processes. Senator Clinton said she relied on her staff. Senator Obama said he sought opposing views.

In my opinion Senator Clinton's decision-making process (as she descirbes it) is similar to that of the current occupant of the White House - a reliance on close personal advisors with little exposure to opposing views/information.

Posted by teach53 | October 21, 2007 8:30 PM

Hillary needs to explain how voting for Kyl-Lieberman actually helps this administration to step up or improve on diplomacy with Iran. We've already threaten to blow them up and increase sanction; if that doesn't encourage the Iranians to negotiate to our liking does she think that some Congressional resolution will?. Clinton is still trying to apply logical solutions to an illogical and reckless administration.

We should not attack Iran, Period. If we think al-Qaeda is bad; then imagine Iranian sponsored asymetrical warfare.

Posted by FrED | October 21, 2007 8:46 PM

Hilary's fine -- intelligent, hard working well-meaning -- until the critical moment when none of these things matter and you have to relay on an instinctive grasp of the big picture. And twice now -- in giving Bush his Iraq war and now, possibly, his Iran war, too -- Hillary has shown she just doesn't get it.

Doesn't she realize that the vote on Iran's Revoutionary Guard was not about legislative details -- what sections were in or out -- but about how the entire bill would be USED? (Fool me once . . . )

Joe Biden on the other hand, has vast experience, gut political instincts and the ability to see it -- and tell it -- llike it is. He's got my vote -- and I live in NH.

Posted by deborah solomon | October 21, 2007 8:49 PM

There is a choice. H/O/E are not ordained, no matter what the we-know-better-than-you-how-to-run-the-world-because-we-own-it crowd would have you beleive.
Dennis Kucinich says simply that he will not use war as an instrument of national policy. This country has been so infected w/ the neo-con, neo-lib mental illness that most think being crazy is the normal way to be. Kucinich knows better. He has not sacrificed his humanity, or his ability to tell the truth, to his ambition. He is not afraid to say that imperial policies have no clothes.
You have all been told by the huffpo style left that "yes, Kucinich is right on all the issues (60-70% of America want us out of Iraq and want universal health coverage and want to protect American jobs) but the smart money is on H/O/E so don't stick w/ us. We know best."
These are the same people who say impeachment is off the table, who are such weak leaders they can't even override an SCHIP veto. (There are plenty of repubs who could have been told, " Vote w/ us on this or you will never see another red cent of gov money spent in your district. LBJ knew how to do that!)
There is an actual progressive candidate and he can win if progressives decide so.
Kucinich. He is the One!

Posted by john in california | October 21, 2007 8:52 PM

As a liberal Hillary Clinton is the last person I want for president.

She is so tainted and controlled by the same people that control the Bushies/neo-cons/Israel supporters, whatever you wana call them.

She is disgusting!

Posted by James Dawson | October 21, 2007 9:04 PM

Sure, it's easy to bash Hillary for being a calculating, selfish, military-industrial-complex promoting war-pig; but don't forget that Obama made a Big Deal about supporting Joe Lieberman, last year, in his re-election race against Ned Lamont. We can all thank Obama for doing his most to return LIE-berman to the Senate, as a "Democrat"? No, as an Independent(repthuglican). Thanks for supporting the Democratic nominee, there Barak! And more inportantly, thanks for supporting someone (Lieberman) who has been the most vocal about bombing Iran ASAP. Third Party, please!

Posted by shortfuse | October 22, 2007 12:32 AM

I have no problem with Hillary's vote on the Kyl/Lieberman Resolution. I have a great deal of respect for both Hillary and Bill Clinton and they don't come any smarter or anti-war than General Wesley Clark and Senator Dick Durbin (who also voted as Hillary did).

Obama has plateaued in the polls and he's basically running on empty so attacking Hillary is all he's got.

Bottom line: He and Hillary have almost identical positions when it comes to both Iraq and Iran.

Posted by Allan Lee | October 22, 2007 1:09 AM

Don't give any step to BUSH ,why Hillary still supporting the Kyl/Lieberman Resolution and G BUSH ? Bush is campaigning for HILLARY .......HILLARY is confused woman because she is getting old 60 years...No mistake again we must win this election.She cant do the JOB ,GOOD for OBAMA..

Posted by alain | October 22, 2007 3:40 AM

Senator Dick Durbin is he GOD ? Who said he cant make a mistake ? The resolution is nothing to do with VOTE , nobody trust BUSH again 4000 people died, 3000 wounded , DON'T GIVE ANY STEP to BUSH ....HILLARY DOESN'T HAVE GOOD JUDGMENT that is all.

Posted by alain | October 22, 2007 3:48 AM

Anyone who would vote for anything authored by Lieberman and Kyl is no democrat. Period.

Posted by rbe1 | October 22, 2007 6:00 AM

I See Obama Must Have A Spell Worked On Some Of You People,It's Common To Attack Hilliary These Day's Seems Like That's All Anyone Wants To Hear.(I Wonder, Would You Have Been Just Or Would You Have Been A Tyrrant) (I Would Have Been What You Taught Me Father)Come Lets Go Talk And Pretend That, I'am A Good Father) (And I'll Pretend That You Are A Good Daughter).Mrs Clinton Was Not The Only One To Vote For The Iraq Or The Iran Upgrade,They Are Terrorist And They Are Killing And Maiming American Soldiers,If The Administration Is Going To Tie One Of The Military's Hand Behind It's Back Like Nam Then We Will Exit The Same Way Which In This Day And Age Is Unacceptable.When This War First Started I Remember Around About 80% Of Americans Were For Military Actions,As Well As A Big Majority Of The Democrats,But I've Noticed That Hilliary Is The One & Only Person Being Blamed & Taking All The Heat For This Entire Predicament, Mr Bush,Congress,The Senate,Cheyney,Rumfeld,& Condi Rice,But I Don't Hear Anyone Blaming Them So Why Hilliary,What Personnaly Did She Do,Other Than Run The Best Campaign Up Until This Point.Hilliary Is Not The Reason That Mr Obama,Mr Edwards,Richardson,Biden,Are Lagging Behind In The Polls,It's Because They Don't Have Any Desire Or Want To Earn It, On Their Own Merrits They Would Rather Sit Back And Critizide Every Vote And Choice That Mrs Clinton Makes,At Least She Has The Courage To Present A Vote,Wrong Or Right She Makes One And I'am Not Saying That She's Perfect,But I'am Almost Sure That All Of You Know That Hilliary Is Not Responsible For The Last 7 Years Of This Country's History.And As For As Mr Obama,He's Flip Flopped On His Entire Campaign From Hope & Change To Search & Destroy,But I Give Some People Some Credit That Are beginning To See Him For What He Really Is A (LIAR).

Posted by Captain-Sky | October 22, 2007 8:08 AM

She is a very polished politician but... evokes painful memories of many similar claims during the early seventies of Tricky Dick's political acumen and shrewdness despite his criminality and disregard for human life.

Posted by gregor | October 22, 2007 9:04 AM

What a quandary! I believe Hillary/Billary is the Dems' only chance of outwitting the Right Wing Slime Machine and the Vote Stealing Republican apparatchniks. They've defeated them twice already and I just can't imagine that Barack or Edwards or anyone else is capable of going up against the Republican Monster.

And our Republic can't take any more of Dick Cheney style empowerment of a warmongering, Military-Industrial-Complex loving Executive Branch. Our Constitution is at stake, everything we we taught about our what it means to be an American is at stake.

There is only one choice, as awful as it may seem to so many of you and that is the Clintons. Hold you nose if you must. I've got my fingers crossed based on the mostly liberal record of accomplishments of both Hillary and Bill throughout their lifetimes.

Posted by Joandarc | October 22, 2007 10:13 AM

HRC is backtracking now because of the tremendous outcry related to her vote on Lieberman-Kyl. Her support of the aggressive posture towards Iran has contributed to the continuation of the threatening stance taken by the U.S. to the rest of the world. First, George Bush uses the support to reference World War III. Now Dick Cheney continues his aggressive stance. No one should be surprised.

HRC is lying about her belief that she voted for diplomacy, just as she lied about her intent for the Iraq war vote. Here is paragraph 4 of the original Lieberman-Kyl amendment:

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

You will note that removal of paragraph 4 also removes the words that encourage diplomacy. The rest of the amendment is a condemnation of Iran and it's military.

Would you be willing to engage in diplomacy with someone who condemned the U.S. military? Hillary is really off base on her vote, and now we can really see what kind of judgement she would have as president. It would be a disaster.

Posted by Sharon | October 22, 2007 10:34 AM

Shortfuse, Obama supported Lamont not Lieberman.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/26/lamont_gets_lift_from_obama_lieberman_campaigns_with_landrieu/

Teach53 is right Michael. Hillary is formulaic and calculated. How the two reason differently is relevant.

Querent, You say that Obama is "way too conciliatory" and that Hillary being a "bitch might be a good thing because she can take on the neocons." That's garbage. Simply, the neocons are on the way out, most are already gone. It is time to be conciliatory.
You also don't buy charisma as any sort of virtue, because "Bush and Hiltler had charisma." Well a lot of smart people were bad people, you don't want someone smart. Obama is an exellent writer and communicator. That helps in clarity to share vision. That is part of consensus building.
Edwards you say "took on corporations and insurance companies for the ordinary citizens," he is a nice guy but can you say ambulance chaser. Compared to Obama any way. Go take a look at Obama's last twenty five years. Querent, no offense but your arguments are about as sensible as Captain sky's.

Posted by jdr | October 22, 2007 10:40 AM

Hillary's tactic is to show her testosterone
throughout the nominating process and into the GE.

Because?

1) If the Dems do manage a pre-election pullout and Iraq goes totally genocidal, the Right will spin it worse than it is, if that's possible, and point to the Dems as the cause, naturally! Can't you just hear Limbaugh ranting?

2) Hillary has to look tough to outwit the "Daddy" Party. When the Repugs look the other way and let another 9/11, pre-election, happen and sit poised to benefit again from the fear factor, Hillary must look tough. She has to be our next "Daddy", or else.

Posted by joandarc | October 22, 2007 10:45 AM

Hillary can explain/defend/rationalize her vote until she's blue in the face, but it's not about her intentions. The real issue here is what Bubble Boy might do, based upon his view of the Lieberman-Kyl resolution. Might he interpret it as granting him authority to attack Iran?

Do we really have to wonder what Dumbya's inclinations are? The reality-based community does not, and that's why we're so enraged and disgusted at Hillary's vote.

Posted by scurvybro | October 22, 2007 11:28 AM

Re: Josh: I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 but I will never, ever vote for her. In fact I will immediately reregister as an independent and do everything in my power to see her defeated in 2008 even if that mean another 4 to 8 years of the NeoCons.
Enough is enough. The ends no longer justify the means. The Democratic party and democratic primary voters can go F%$# themselves. I've had it.

DITTO!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by greejambri | October 22, 2007 12:03 PM

Test

Posted by chirps | October 22, 2007 2:09 PM