If Hillary apologized for her IWR vote, would that actually satisfy you?

[More Than A Feeling]

In my observations, Senator Clinton's failure to apologize for her IWR vote seems to be an oft-repeated and strongly felt objection to the possibility of her candidacy, and of supporting her. I'm no Hillary partisan (I object to her on the grounds of her support for the criminalization of flag-burning), but I do wonder whether the reason why she hasn't apologized is that by now, she thinks that it would just be seen as a political ploy, and would hurt her more than it would help. I'm not asking whether she is justified in assuming that stance (it could be that apologizing would be the right thing to do, regardless of the politics of it), but I do want to test whether if she thought that, she would be right.

[Radical Activist]

1. I don't think it would do her any good to apologize.

The biggest objection to Hillary is that she doesn't stand strong for principles, that she has her finger to the wind. Apologizing for her vote will only reinforce that impression. She'll gain nothing from it politically.

[Tellurian]

115. I agree..

She's too late to the dance. Early on if she had taken the initiative and faced the administration's manipulation to get her vote head on, no one would have held it against her. But fence sitting does have a price and that price has been exacted by a unilateral constituency.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. That window has closed.

An apology now, after the collapse of the neocon adventure is an acknowledged fact, would be an act of craven opportunism.

[Howardx]

3. an act of craven opportunism.

so youre saying she will do it?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I left that as an exercise for the student. nt.

[Cha]

64. Still, if she doesn't ..then she

will be like bush who won't apoligize as he being swallowed by the fires of hell.

[Mojambo]

4. The war vote is only a small part of my problem with her.

[musiclawyer]

10. Agreed

the war vote is just a part of it. That she has no authentic, principled voice of her own is the bigger problem. But I maintain my prediction that no dem senator who voted for the IWR will ever be POTUS. Even if such dem wins the nomination, they will lose to whoever the pubs run out there. It's that big a deal. Apologies don't matter. Intricacies about how the IWR was not really an authorization for what Bush did don't matter. The only thing that matters is that moderates and independents will see a yes vote for IWR and will associate it with the fiasco that ensued. They'll say he or she must either have been ignorant or stupid, and I don't want such a person as president. period. Hillary is done. Edwards, done. I think KOS must have made the same analysis before making his prediction that it's Obama's prize if he wants it (unless Gore gets in).

[bluescribbler]

6. My biggest problem with Hillary

The main reason why I do not support her for the Democratic nomination has nothing to do with her IWR vote. Her problem is that she is so hated by the Freepers that she would be the best fundraiser the GOPigs ever had. They would empty their bank accounts to prevent her election.

[samfishX]

7. Hell no.

Let's face facts– most of the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war WEREN'T misled. Christ, most of the Demos in the house voted against it, IIRC.
They voted for the authorization powers because they had no spine and were being politically calculating. They didn't want to be called "weak on terror" at a time when the entire country was hearing about this crap..at least not until the weapons inspectors went in and said, "There's nothing here!" and were kicked out by that vampiritic chimp.
The Spineless Brigade includes Kerry and Edwards, too. They allowed themselves to be bullied by the RWNM...but Hillary Clinton is the face of calculating political moves.

No. No more spinless war mongerers in 2008. If a war-Dem wins the nomination, I'll sit it out. Simple as that.

[Nite Owl]

8. I wouldn't support her for

numerous reasons but apologizing would be the right thing to do.

I think we need a leader and Hillary hasn't shown that quality.

[SaveElmer]

9. She has no reason to apologize...

She did nothing wrong...

[More Than A Feeling]

11. Incoming! Into the bomb shelter!

Just teasing, but I can guess what is about to happen. :-)

[SaveElmer]

12. SHe should not have to apologize for doing her job...

She made a judgement based on the evidence she had and made a decision about the best way to go. SHe has since acknowledged that had the actual evidence been presented rather than the lies the Bushies ginned up she would not have voted the way she did...

If you ask me it is political cowardice to apologize for doing your job...it implies you did not take your original vote seriously!

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Just curious if you think Sen. Clinton

has ever done anything wrong? Ever made a mistake?

[SaveElmer]

21. Sure...

The IWR vote in hindsight was a mistake...but she didn't take the vote with malicious intent...and it was reasonable given the evidence and situation...so an apology is not appropriate...

Do you think she has ever done anything right? Ever?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Oh sure, I agree with lots of her votes.

For example her vote against the flag desecration amendment was a good vote.

However I really doubt that she voted honestly on the IWR. Take off them rose glasses. Not malicious intent, political cowardice, and she certainly was not alone. Others have stood up and said simply that their vote was a mistake.

[SaveElmer]

34. As has she..in her letter to her constituents...

Mistake yes, but an apology imples you did not take your original duty seriously...and sorry but I do think she took her vote seriously, as I think the vast majority of Democrats who voted for it did. I have looked at every one of their floor statements on this topic and they all make the same points and make basically the same argument as to why they voted as they did.
It was not an unreasonable position to take at the time though in hindsight of course it was the incorrect thing to do...

[karash]

24. .

"based on the evidence she had."

What a crock of feces. Hillary Clinton spent 8 years in the White House with her husband, watching sanctions destroy Iraq's ability to feed itself, much less produce assault rifles, much less even attempt to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Any random citizen on the street with use of 5-year-old library books could know that Iraq had been disarmed, and Hillary was in a far better position than most. She wasn't fooled by Dubya's phony evidence. She made a political decision, and apologizing meaningfully for it would have to involve apologizing for the entire destructive process, not just offering crocodile tears for being "tricked" into voting for war.

[SaveElmer]

37. That is simply wrong...

The evidence they had was coming from intelligence sources they had no reason not to trust at the time...there were numerous wways WMD's could have been acquired even during the sanctions regime...as Saddams continual efforts to evade inspections testifies too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. How is it, then, that so many of us saw the truth of it and she did not?

IWR is a big thing. But even at that, there's also her corporatist leanings, flag burning, video games...

There's a lot more about her than IWR to object to.

[SaveElmer]

39. Ugh

FLag burning is BS...she does not support a flag burning amendment...never has. As has been noted here many times, she supported a law that would have banned flag burning on federal property with the intent to intimidate others...she did so clearly to head off a flag burning amendment which was headed for potential approval in the Senate..

As to her corporatist leaning...why don't you enumerate those for me...apparently the U.S. CHamber of Commerce disagrees with you as she achieves a low rating from them on a pro-business scale...lower in fact that corporate enemy Henry Waxman...she also gets very low ratings from anti-tax groups etc...she voted against CAFTA, and made clear in a speech she would have voted against the bankruptcy bill (she didn't vote because she was attending Bill in the hospital the day the vote was taken)...

And I cannot possibly think of a stupider reason to oppose her than she approves of rating video games...lets burn her at the stake!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Are you saying that her flag desecration law

only banned desecration on federal property and only with intent to intimidate others?

[SaveElmer]

41. Yes...

She cosponsored with Sen. Bennett of Utah and a couple other Democrats (Dorgan or Conrad, cannot remember which)...

[Warren Stupidity]

45. The proposal seems a bit broader than that

"SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST USE FOR PROMOTING VIOLENCE.

(a) In General- Section 700 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States

`(a) Definition of Flag of the United States- In this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, in any size, in a form that is commonly displayed as a flag and that would be taken to be a flag by the reasonable observer.

`(b) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(c) Flag Burning - Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning , or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

`(d) Damaging a Flag Belonging to the United States- Any person who steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to the United States, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag , shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(e) Damaging a Flag of Another on Federal Land- Any person who, within any lands reserved for the use of the United States, or under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, steals or knowingly converts to his or her use, or to the use of another, a flag of the United States belonging to another person, and who intentionally destroys or damages that flag , shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(f) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to indicate an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The chapter analysis for chapter 33 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 700 and inserting the following:

`700. Incitement; damage or destruction of property involving the flag of the United States.'."

http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/pol/s1911.htm

[SaveElmer]

47. Don;t think so...

Intimidation is the key...and this only applies to federal property

[Warren Stupidity]

55. (b)

`(b) Actions Promoting Violence- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.


Nothing at all about federal property there.

[SaveElmer]

58. I'll find the link...

There is an extensive analysis of the bill along with coments by the sponsors which shows the scope that they were going for...

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Uh - you've got the text of the bill in front of you.

The language ain't that difficult.

[SaveElmer]

66. Section (d)

Is clearly refering to federal property...and it has something to do with what was already deemed unconstitutional....however it is possible I am wrong...wouldn't be the first time.

However, the point was she supported this to head off the amendment from passing...

btw Howard Dean has expressed support for a flag burning bill as well..

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Right one section refers to federal property

the other sections clearly don't, but you run around claiming that the bill is restricted to federal property and it isn't. How about you stop making that claim?

[SaveElmer]

72. Did you rerad my post?

"however it is possible I am wrong...wouldn't be the first time."

I was going off my memory of the news discussion and reports at the time...I am looking back to see where the confusion may have been since I have heard this numerous times...may have been that Dick Durbin was the one proposing to make flag buurning on federal property a crime...and I confused the two efforts...am still looking to clarify it.

If I am wrong I will of course stop making the claim about federal property...however my main point...that being that she supported the law to head off an amendment is true...

[rhett o rick]

90. Oh please. nm

[rhett o rick]

74. There are only two reasons for her to support the horrible GWB war

one, GWB fooled her with his lies. two, she knew better but thought she would look not patriot so acquiesced. Don't give me "the evidence at the time" bulls***. What evidence at that time? There wasn't any. Maybe some testimony by people either tortured or paid. All of the intelligence agencies agreed that there were no WMD.

Her job was to represent, to look very very hard at the evidence. Especially when GWB was pushing it. She is either a fool or opportunist.

[SaveElmer]

78. Do you believe...

Max Cleland was a "fool or an opportunist?"

He came to the exact same conclusion as Hillary Clinton did...

[Warren Stupidity]

79. fool.

And probably an act of political cowardice as well. At least Max could claim that he was facing a tough political battle for re-election, a battle that he lost. And Clinton's excuse for her vote was?

[SaveElmer]

80. So Max Cleland was a fool?

How about Tom Harkin?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. How about Clinton's excuse?

You really seem to want to change the subject. Clinton was not facing re-election in 02. She won by a landslide in 06. She has no excuse for her vote.

[SaveElmer]

83. She doesn't need an excuse...

She made a rational decision based on the evidence...just as opponents did...

Are you saying she needed an excuse, but others who saw the evidence the same way she did didn't need an excuse...

Are you seriously telling me that Max Cleland, a man who had his limbs blown off in VietNam, who still suffers the physical and emotional trauma from that to this day, would willingly sacrifice American soldiers, to cause them to suffer the same way he has...all for political advantage...

Are you really saying that?

[Warren Stupidity]

88. Oh sheesh what nonsense.

But this is hopeless. You just won't admit that she was wrong here and you do her a disservice by continuing to argue nonsense like "She made a rational decision based on the evidence". There was no evidence. None.

[SaveElmer]

112. ...

And your answer is indicative of the typical left-wing bury your head in the sand mentality that comes when someone...anyone disagrees with your position...

When you have taken the time to research the topic come back...

Until then any further discussion with you is pointless

[Printer70]

100. Invoking Cleland is not a justification

Cleland, in this case, exercised bad judgment. While I like him, would he run for President, I would have grave reservations about his foreign policy decision making. Just as I do Hillary. Judging by the volume and nature of your posts, I don't think anything I could say would convince you.

[SaveElmer]

113. What I an trying to get people to admit too...

IS that it is possible Senators were trying to do their jobs rather than engaging in some sinister Machavellian plot to further their careers...

Since Hillary is the whipping boy of the left it seems to be easier for them to make that claim about her...but when asked to make that same argument about Max Cleland none will do it...

Exposes hypocrisy in their argument and is indicative of a pre arrived at conclusion!

[rhett o rick]

121. The Senators did NOT do their jobs. That is the crux of the problem.

Their job is to represent us. They were to look at the "evidence at the time", closely, with a doubting attitude. Their job was to make sure Bushco wasn't pulling the wool over our eyes. They were to insure there was evidence so very compelling that it was necessary, not only to go to war, but to preemptively strike. They failed at this. No one, neither republican nor democrat has revealed the "evidence at the time" that was so compelling. There was no such evidence. It is a lie presented by the Bushco Admin and used by the guilty democratic Senators. Hillary and the others failed us in most likely the biggest mistake in this Nations history. The middle east is ready to explode because our Country meddled. May God forgive those democrats that failed us, I won't.
Peace, for what it's worth.

[rhett o rick]

91. Read my f******** lips, everyone that bought the GWB lies are fools. nm

[rhett o rick]

122. I apologize for the outburst, but I am very passionate about this issue. nm

[roody]

97. Tom Harkin disappointed me terribly.

[rhett o rick]

89. Sooo??? what kind of argument is that? I believe that anyone fooled by

GWB is a fool.

[Printer70]

99. Scary

This is one of the scariest things I've ready today. It read almost word for word like a Repub's justification for Bush's actions except replace the excuse of Bushies giving bad intelligence, to Bush getting bad info from the intelligence agencies.

The world saw thru the Bush smokescreen; we saw through it. Many Democrats saw through it. That Hillary didn't (or did and voted for it anyway) speaks volumes.

[Kashka-Kat]

13. DEPENDS.

There are apologies and then there apologies. Just as with a friend or personal acquaintaince, it has to be convincing. Just gushing about "oh I'm so sorry" won't cut it. The question becomes-- what are y ou gonna do NOW to fix it? Finding a solution, mitigating the damage-- not only shows sincerity but gets the job DONE, resolves the issue...

[Demobrat]

14. The only way I will ever vote for Hillary

is if she runs on a promise to bring the troops home the day she is sworn in.

[rhett o rick]

92. Or if the voting machine malfunctions.. nm

[Zenlitened]

15. No way! She would still be...

... an intelligent, articulate, accomplished woman.

And THAT is unforgivable!




:eyes:

[high density]

16. Zero red states turn blue under Hillary

Which is why the MSM is so happy to be pumping her as a candidate.

[paulk]

17. she's not going to apologize

why should she? this poll is already proof enough that it wouldn't help her. In fact, the shrill squawking of the Hillary hating extremist left will help her if she does decide to run. The small number of votes she would lose to third party candidate or those that just stay home will be more than made up in the center.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. "the shrill squawking of the Hillary hating extremist left"

that would be those of us who think that a vote for the IWR was a serious error in judgement?

Do you think a yes vote on the IWR was a serious error in judgement, a mistake?

[paulk]

29. I don't think the IWR is going to matter in the least.

It didn't matter in the 2004 election, with both the Democratic candidates having voted for it, why should it matter 4 years later?

And, once again, I don't think the opposition of this group is going to hurt her candidacy at all - I think it will help her.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Unresponsive.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think a yes vote for the IWR was an error in judgement?

[paulk]

42. I was disappointed in not only HRC's vote, but in several other's

votes as well. Over time I came to understand and accept their reasons - well, for most of them, anyway. Lieberman, I think, was wrong.

So - let me answer...

No, I don't think a "yes" vote was an error in judgment, even though I didn't agree with that vote. I believe most voted based on the info they had, info they had no concrete reason to believe was false (though some may have suspected). Perhaps it seemed better to err on the side of caution? In any case, it was Bush who violated the provisions of the IWR, and I don't understand this need, so often displayed on DU, to blame those Democrats who voted "yes" for the consequences of Bush's actions.

[rhett o rick]

94. THERE WAS NO F******* EVIDENCE. I AM SO SICK OF "THEY BASED

THEIR ACTIONS ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE." THERE WAS NO SUCH EVIDENCE. YOU THAT KEEP USING THAT AS AN EXCUSE ARE DELUSIONAL. TELL US WHAT THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD AT THE TIME THAT WAS SOOOOO VERY COMPELLING TO GO TO WAR AND KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. TELL ME WHAT THAT EVIDENCE WAS. THERE NEVER WAS ANY SUCH EVIDENCE.

[paulk]

101. feel better now?

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

106. I do appologize for my outburst. But I get sick and tired of people

rationalizing voting for the WAR because of the information at the time. There was no such info.

[Tellurian]

129. What in the World do you think the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame Lawsuit

is all about?

Bush, in the SOU Address, claimed he had hard evidence Saddam purchased
yellow cake uranium from Niger to construct WMD. Congress was bombarded
with Lies and misinformation stating our country was in dire peril and
he (Bush) needed the tools to protect the country by issuing a preemptive
strike to stop Hussein.

How soon we forget the nasty details.

[dansolo]

108. Of all of them, Lieberman is actually the most understandable

Lieberman wanted to go to war, period. He was more honest than people like Senators Clinton and Kerry, who made elegant speeches opposing the war, only to then vote for the IWR.

[sandnsea]

22. Aargh!!

I don't like Hillary and I'm hardly a member of the 'shrill squawking extremist left'!! Most days the DU left would like to see me banned.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Can't we have you banned?

Just kidding. Then again I'm on the libertarian left so I don't want to ban anyone. You probably meant the do-gooder-at-gunpoint authoritarian nanny state leftists. They probably want you banned. Stalinist cattle.

Maybe DU ought to have a random banned for a day robot. That way everyone could feel hated every now and then.

[paulk]

28. but, you wouldn't vote third party or sit at home if she was the

nominee...

I really do think it's part of HRC's strategy to piss off the extremist left, much like her husband's "sister souljah" moment. I think that's why she has refused to apologize for her vote. And I really do think it's going to help her a lot more than hurt her.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Which would make the senator a manipulative

dishonest opportunist, willing to do or say anything to get elected. Oh and by the way, most everyone here on the shrill extreme left will fight like hell against the senator in the primaries and if unfortunately she is our party's candidate we will fight like hell for her in the general election. Them's the rules.

[paulk]

36. well, you have just described 99% of the politicians on the planet

it doesn't bother me that much, it's what I expect. And to be honest, I don't want some choirboy leading the country.


-------------------

I've never said that Hillary Clinton was my first choice, but if she gets the nom., I will back her. There are quite a few people on this board who have stated otherwise, however.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. There were members of our party who stood up and voted NO.

Members of the Senate who voted against:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

And there are several who voted yes who have since stood up and said that doing so was a mistake.

[paulk]

44. And I'm sure, on any given day, some members of this

website will find something to fault with every single one of them.

[More Than A Feeling]

35. Don't smear citizens who want their country back from elitist, aristocratic

cynical, beltway politicians and pundits, 'kay?

[paulk]

43. I don't understand your point n/t

[sandnsea]

51. I've got nothing to do if she's the nominee

People have made up their mind about her and about the Clinton years. They'll weigh that against the 'vision' of whoever the Repub is - and vote. There will be little to nothing I can say to change someone's mind about Hillary. The only thing I could do is campaign against the Repub, and that doesn't really make for a very good Presidential campaign strategy. I'll vote, but I don't see where I'll have much more to do than that.

[rhett o rick]

96. HRC is very smart. She knows she screwed up totally with her vote.

An apology will be sooo very hollow.f

[SOS]

85. The center

voted Democratic in 2006, in part because they are disgusted with the failure in Iraq.

So let's, for argument's sake, have a McCain v. Hillary 2008 choice.
We'll have one gung-ho Iraq war supporter vs. a wishy-washy Iraq war supporter.
The center and the independents are not going to flock to Hillary because she opposes open-ended commitment and withdrawal at the same time.
The "small number" of Democratic votes lost based on her support of Bush's Iraq fiasco would be around 10-15% (based on polls of Democrats who would "never" vote for an IWR yes voter. - Jonathan Tasini took 13% of the Democrats in NY in the primary).
An admission that her vote was a mistake is her only hope to differentiate herself on Iraq and appeal to the same independent/centrist voters who voted in the mid-terms a few weeks ago.
Although as a number of posters have pointed out, it's already too late. Acknowledging that the vote was an error after the ISG report will just look like opportunism.

The right hates her. The center will find her position uninspiring. The consistent anti-war vote will stay home.

So how exactly is she supposed to win?

[paulk]

86. well, she has admitted that her vote was a mistake -

this thread is about her unwillingness to apologize for that mistake. But, really what's the difference? Your post is a perfect example. You don't even know what's she's said or didn't say.

And it's not going to be 10 or 15%, it's going to be the same two or three percent of malcontents who could live with a McCain (or Bush) just for the self gratification of being able to pat themselves on the back over their own moral superiority.

How does HRC win? Well, a good start would be the left wing of the party actually finding out what her real positions and votes on the issues are instead of blindly repeating the RW spin. But, considering that that left wing did the same thing to Kerry and the same thing to Gore, I don't have much hope in that respect...

[SOS]

87. Interesting

A google search of "Hillary-Clinton Iraq war vote mistake" shows one hit. It's Newsmax.
Why is no media outlet reporting this?
They say it was sent to her supporters in an email?
There's also no direct quote to the "mistake" in the article.
What did she say? The Newsmax article is dated 11/29/06, just a few days ago.

A repudiation of that vote would change my view of her, although I still prefer a no-voter or someone unassociated with the greatest strategic mistake in American history.

Moral superiority? Nope. It's consistency. I was among the half million protesters on 2/13/02 at the UN. At the time we were called everything from 10-per-centers to Osama lovers.
It was an unpopular position and the hatred directed towards the protesters was disturbing and somewhat sickening. Staying true to that stance has nothing to do with any sense of "moral superiority", but rather it's a consistent, informed and realistic stance.

Hillary is my Senator and I know her positions quite well. (Other than ones circulated only in emails).
The squawking left-wing extremist haters did come out and vote for Kerry. 2004 was the highest vote tally for a Democrat in US election history.
Yet he still lost, partially due to the lack of clear choice on the war. The coveted "center" wasn't motivated.
Do we really want to go through that again?

[antiimperialist]

95. Right

And note that a 13% for Tasini might translate in a higher number nationwide, if we consider that NY is blue-er than most states.

[sandnsea]

20. Iraq isn't even DU's #1 issue

Health care is, based on a DU poll a few days ago. IIRC, Iraq was way down at 4 or 5 - so I frankly think all this voted for the war stuff is a smokescreen anyway.

[nolabels]

117. IIRC was a sure way to keep things like health care off the table

The GOP made sure they sopped up any surplus GDP the US would ever produce. When a REAL congress takes the reigns it will become quite obvious that was a major part of the plan all along. The gutless politicians sold the rest of us down the river a long time ago :shrug:

[AZBlue]

25. She could get in a time machine, turn back to that date, change her vote and they wouldn't be happy.

She could cure AIDS, eradicate all types of cancer, rebuild the ozone layer and give each human being on earth a million dollars and they'd criticize her for being opportunistic and insincere. The Anti-Hillary Coalition has drunk a lot of kool-aid, there's no helping them.

[AtomicKitten]

50. perhaps

if she rescued more kittens in baskets they might re-think it ....

[AZBlue]

110. Anyone who did that would get my vote!

[rhett o rick]

116. That's absurd. She willing gave GWB the ability to kill thousands of American troops

and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. It doesn't get any simpler than that. She did it because she was a coward and yielded to pressure of not looking patriot. She and the others that enabled this incompetent dictator to gain dictatorial power are worse than GWB. We relied on her to stop this madman. A half-assed apology won't bring back the dead or the trillions of our money that could be spent on much needed things. There are those that didn't follow GWB into hell but she did. She need to pay the piper.

[Fridays Child]

31. So far, 36 votes for "I won't support her for the nomination whether she apologizes or not."

I wonder if sentiments, here at DU, have proved to be reliable indicators of the feelings of the Democratic/liberal public, in the past.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Self selected samples are a reliable predictor of nothing. nt.

[Fridays Child]

46. I imagine that the number crunchers would say you're correct.

My curiosity is more general and nonspecific, and my question was not really intended to elicit a statistic--or any answer, for that matter. :hi:

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

48. According to this only 10% would support/likely support her

Damn wait until pundits get a hold of this bit of info.

[AtomicKitten]

49. the vote I find ironic

is that which indicates people wouldn't forgive her based on thinking it's politically motivated.

Is there anyone that seriously thinks any of the subsequent retractions aren't politically motivated? That would be some seriously selective reasoning.

[paulk]

53. good point

and really -

any politician who doesn't make "politically motivated" decisions ...

isn't a politician for long.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. That's a great point, also one of the reasons I really like Gore

As I stated below, Senator Clinton has repeatedly failed to show any outrage about this war despite her virtually unlimited access to the media. All of her statements make her sound like a calculating politician.

When Gore gets infront of a camera he says loud and clear that he's so fucking tired of what Bush has done to this country that he can't take it anymore. The kind of emotion Gore displays on camera these days can't be faked (at least not without years of acting school, which I'm pretty sure Gore doesn't have under his belt).

If Senator Clinton would go on TV and show some emotion then I might actually believe that she was doing something that wasn't politically driven. And hell maybe it would still be politically driven but at least it's what I'd want to see her doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. No it was motivated by one of:

political cowardice, as in she knew it was wrong and voted for WAR anyway, or because she was an idiot and actually believed the transparent bullshit from the executive branch, or because she is a vile person who knew it was bullshit but wanted to go conquer Iraq anyway. Take your pick.

[AtomicKitten]

57. spread the love

Democratic Senators who vote to authorize the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Absolutely.

I've never said Clinton was alone in this. Somehow her backers think she ought to get a pass on it though. The time to have renounced one's vote on the IWR has come and gone. Clinton made her choice and she chose to not back down.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. No, but maybe if she showed some OUTRAGE about this war

Then it might sastisfy me. Gore and Kerry have shown time and again that they are deeply upset about what is going on in Iraq. I haven't seen any emotion on this particular issue coming from Senator Clinton.

[Buzz Clik]

67. Nicely said.

One cannot take the "vote for the war" out of its original context. Damned few people didn't vote for it, and that's water under the bridge.

What we have is Hillary sneaking ever so slowly to the political middle say that she can have the best chance to be elected President of the US. So, she treads a fine line, waffles too often, and risks pissing off her base.

Such is life in the land of politics.

[mtnsnake]

61. She could walk on water, part the Red Sea, withdraw all the troops, provide

us with free health care, and give us all a brand new car, and the crybabies on this forum STILL wouldn't be satisfied.

[AtomicKitten]

63. You talking Yugo or Lexus?

[mtnsnake]

65. I'd like to say Lexus, but it'll have to be a hybrid

so nobody gets bent outta shape ;)

[area51]

62. Tata

Among other things, H. Clinton has sucked up to Tata Consulting, and has no problem with supporting offshoring/inshoring & keeping Americans unemployed.

[election_2004]

68. For me, IWR isn't a dealbreaker

I will not be supporting the corporate media's "controversy-darling."

The MSM wants 8 years of President Hillary vs. the Right-Wingers, to distract national attention away from the real issues.

[Imagevision]

69. Kerry Edwards and others have apologized for vote to go to war

Hil, will apologize when the time is right and when she can spend at least 25-35 minutes with it. Remember Bush & cabal knew and had access to war intel the Senators didn't so everyone has a right to use it for a cop-out!!

[Warren Stupidity]

71. The "I made a mistake" window has passed.

Clinton did not make that step when it meant something and it is too late now. Lots of us out here in the hinterlands knew that the whole war story was bullshit and we didn't have access to any secret intelligence at all. The I was lied to cop-out is crap, anyone using that excuse is not being honest.

[AtomicKitten]

103. that window closed BEFORE the 2004 election

when retracting that IWR vote would have meant something. But, yet again, they continued to be manipulated by the GOP having them by the short hairs and remained steadfast in clinging to their yes vote.

On edit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

IMO too many people give those that voted yes and then retracted way too much credit; in fact, I actually have more respect for HRC for not demonstrating the ability to be a weathervane when it comes to convenient retraction in policy when the polls allow or dictate. None will be rewarded with my vote in the Democratic primary.

[Heewack]

73. No need to apologize, for me.

She did what she was elected to do and that is make decisions with the knowledge she has.

[antiimperialist]

98. She had no knowledge of anything

Neither she nor any other congressman was presented with convincing proof that Iraq had WMD or was capable of building one in the near-future.
Or that in case we illegally invaded Iraq (which is terrbile as it is), we could win it.

[rhett o rick]

75. If she gets the nomination, it will prove to me that there is no hope for our

democracy. Big money owns Congress and the Presidency. We must nominate and elect someone willing to fight the big money control. Sen Clinton isn't the one.

[Larry Allen]

76. She should vote to repeal it

[LWolf]

77. Satisfy me?

No.

Would that apology bring back the lives lost? No.

Where is the satisfaction in an apology after the fact?

Hurt, help, whatever. I'd like it if she'd stand up and speak her mind, speak truth, regardless of whether it would help her or hurt her politically. THAT, I could respect, even if I didn't agree with it. She's not going to get my vote, but she could earn my respect.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Kerry and Edwards have apologized for their IWR vote

Kerry has gone further by opposing Bush's unconstitutional power grab, and introducing a troop withdrawal resolution in support of John Murtha's call to bring the troops home.

As Saint James warned that "faith without works is a dead faith," we must insist that words without deeds are empty words.

[AtomicKitten]

104. right

They bravely retracted after the 2004 election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

Some think better late than never. A retraction when polling dictates or allows isn't particularly impressive. The deed that mattered was already done and a retraction is only self-serving politically.

I'm infinitely more impressed with a 'no' vote when it mattered. But that's me.

[zulchzulu]

84. If Mrs. Clinton apologized to Kerry for demanding an apology for the "botched joke"

...maybe I would consider her a little more respectfully. I won't hold my breath though. She's an Carville-driven opportunist. And we know about Carville's little whisper to his jangly wife on Election Eve...

[antiimperialist]

93. I agree. She should have asked him to clarify

The botched joke confused some people, but it was not intended to insult the troops. Most right-wingers knew it was a botched joke, but they pretended not to understand this.

Hillary demanded an apology which was not necessary.
A clarification would have sufficed.

Hil is an opportunistic fox. I don't like her.

[Imagevision]

102. Hillary will help to make Obama look even better....

[Tactical Progressive]

105. Nothing to apologize for - she made the right vote

[wuushew]

123. Please explain

the doctrine of pre-emption as condoned by the members of the U.S. Senate is correct?

[TheFarseer]

107. No, I dislike her for a whole list of reasons

If she did apologize at this late stage in the game, I would think it just follows her long history of pandering.

[GreenArrow]

109. Is saying "I was wrong" the same thing as an apology?

Is saying "I was wrong" or "I made a mistake" the same thing as an apology? I've always thought that when you made an apology you said "Im Sorry". I really don't remember hearing any of the (I Wannabe President) retractors saying that; they've all couched their mea culpas in the terms of being wrong, or having made a mistake, never in terms of being sorry.

[sampsonblk]

111. Yes, I would absolutely be fine with that

As long admits that she knowingly voted for something she thought was unwise. I am good with that. They all went along with this stuff knowing full well what they were doing.

[Zhade]

114. It would be a start.

But just a start.

[sendero]

118. We know where her heart is ..

... on this issue. An apology would not be enough. Perhaps active involvement to end this fiasco would.

[LynneSin]

119. If Hilary promised to do your laundry & dishes for a year would you support her

I love all these random 'what-if' polls. One day the rest of DU will wake up and realize that you can't reason with Anti-Hillary crazies here.

I'm not keen on the woman as my nominee but if she's nominated I'll be there 110% with a damn big smile on my face. But I have about 15 months to make that NOT happen

[enough already]

120. Apology AND a lead role in de-funding the war

An apology is crap at this point. If she's serious she needs to get this abortion stopped right now.

[robertpaulsen]

124. Other - it would be a nice start.

It wouldn't automatically change my vote, but it would make me more inclined to support her candidacy. The next step after that? Work to garner support in the Senate for the Murtha plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

125. If it made a difference when others apologize, guess she should get the benefit....

the War started 4 years ago...whether one apologized 3 years ago or just now, doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. I will forgive, but I won't forget how wrong there were....and if I have to decide who I want in the White House, it sure ain't gonna be somebody who didn't know any better when they oughta.....

So yes, apologize Hillary....like the others did....and like the others, I will give you forgiveness, but no fucking rewards. Sorry! :shrug:

[mrgorth]

126. Kerry and Edwards both voted for the war...

I don't support Hillary because she will be crushed in the general.

[hughee99]

127. Apology or not...

and whether she is genuinely apologetic or not, as I see it she was completely wrong on this issue, and though many in her own party (constituents and fellow politicians alike) understood what was going on, Hillary did not. This sort of failure, and her inability to even acknowledge a mistake for such a period of time afterwords shows me that this is not the person I want to be the next president (I've had enough of this). While I may personally be inclined to forgive her (not that she needs or gives a rat's ass about my personal forgiveness), I would not support her candidacy. If she wins the primary, I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but I'll spend my time, energy and money on other Democratic candidates (congress, governors, etc...).

[MH1]

128. Not even remotely, since that was never my problem with her.

I was always concerned that she is an opportunistic political -----.

I found out at the end of October that I was right. She has absolutely no compunction about lying, manipulating, or underhanded tactics to achieve her political ambitions, regardless what it means for other Democrats, the Democratic Party, or this country.

Until she convinces me that she regrets her behavior in attempting to "take Kerry out" just before the 2006 elections, I will never see her any other way.

Let's be clear though - since all republicans who might run in 2008 seem to have similar fundamental character flaws, she would get my vote in the general, if god forbid she were nominated. That is probably all I could bring myself to do for her.