Are We Seriously Going to Nominate Someone who STILL can't Say She Made a Bad Decision?

[Bullet1987]

I mean c'mon...her answer on Iraq is going to eat her alive when the pundits get ahold of this. Dammit, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards all said they made a mistake and she still can't do that this far in. I can't see how people don't see through that shit.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. It's a non issue. Nobody but some misguided "progressives"

care about that. Hell, McCain can't even bother with it.

[K Gardner]

10. Wow.

[neutron]

66. Krugman Tears Apart Obama's Economic plan

Responding to Recession
by Paul Krugman

<snip>
Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?
In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.
<snip>
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

Responding to Recession
by Paul Krugman

<snip>
Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?
In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.
<snip>
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

[Mojorabbit]

14. It is not a non issue to me

and I don't have a prefered candidate before you start.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. It's not a valid campaign issue.

What's McCain going to do with it?

[Mojorabbit]

26. It is a valid issue

because we have to pull the indys and some of the other side to win big.

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. Against McCain? Come on.

[Mojorabbit]

35. Yes

I am looking at this clearly and it is being spun as a lack of judgement. McCain is for war forever. She voted for it and says the war was a mistake and wants out and implies that she was tricked. It will be spun that way. I was a Biden supporter and these two are the last on my lists so I am watching it dispassionately.

[shadowknows69]

48. It's a valid leadership issue

Haven't we had enough of a president that won't allow themselves to be held accountable to anything?

[knight_of_the_star]

39. Its not the vote at this point that is the issue

The way she has been handling it IS the major issue here. That she keeps trying to have it both ways will NOT look good when voters go to the polls this November.

[Yossariant]

40. Nobody much cares about IWR. She and Edwards were wrong.

So it goes.

We broke it, We bought it. She'll fix it.

She didn't send the troops to Iraq, but she'll bring them home.

[BringBigDogBack]

68. Fuck that.

[calmblueocean]

2. I totally agree. The IWR vote is her achilles heel, and she has shown she doesn't know how to fix it

Her war vote undercuts her too much, imo

[Whisp]

20. appears she likes blood.

wonder how her Halliburton/Blackwater stocks are doing for 'the family'.

[Ravy]

23. Oh, so saying "It was a mistake" would fix it for you????

Saying she would have voted differently if she knew then when she knows now is not enough, but saying "It was a mistake" are the key words you are looking for to make this all go away?

I think here IWR vote was the right vote to make at the time. There where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying because of the stupid UN "containment" sanctions.

Weapons inspectors needed to go back in, if they discovered WMD then they would be destroyed, and if Saddam wouldn't allow it, then war would resume. That is what the IWR said. It is not what Bush did. Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out and invaded.

To do nothing, however, was to allow inhumane sanctions to continue indefinitely.

I wish the Levin amendment had passed, but I also understand the political ramifications of allowing the UN to be able to make a determination on our use of troops.

[calmblueocean]

30. She was lax in the most important duty the Constitution bestows on the Senate

You wrote: Saying she would have voted differently if she knew then when she knows now is not enough, but saying "It was a mistake" are the key words you are looking for to make this all go away?

CONTRITION MATTERS.

The way she words her responses always puts the responsibility on W. She's not sorry she voted for IWR, she's just sorry Bush used it to take us to war. I find that response completely unacceptable. That resolution gave Bush far too much latitude and far too much power. I wouldn't have voted for it, and nearly a quarter of the Senate -- those I respect most -- refused to get on the war train and voted against it.

Thousands upon thousands are dead, tens of thousands will live with devastating amputations, brain injuries, and more... I'm not going to trivialize that.

[Ravy]

33. She is making the point that the IWR could have worked well.

I agree with her.

The reason it didn't is because Bush pulled out the weapons inspectors and invaded even though Saddam Hussein was coming into compliance with the UN Sanctions.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying as a result of our sanctions. It was the last, best chance to end an untenable situation. Bush deserves the blame for not letting it work. Hillary deserves blame for not being clairvoyant.

[calmblueocean]

36. What kind of logic is that?

I'm sorry, but you don't just vote to give someone unlimited power and *hope* they use it well.

The idea that "It could've worked" is just so profoundly irresponsible I can't imagine why you even suggested it.

The truth is that she was played masterfully by Bush, who knew that many Dems would succumb to the fear of being labeled "soft on terror" and so provided them with exactly the excuse Hillary is using now in order to extract the authority he wanted.

[Ravy]

43. Leaving things alone was profoundly irresponsible as well.

And, I don't think that a lack of a resolution would have stopped Bush from attacking.

[Alexander]

61. Clinton voted against the Levin amendment, too.

Why didn't she want Bush to be held accountable to Congress? Who knows.

[Unsane]

3. Bush does the same crap

[thunder rising]

4. Yep, you'd think that being able to admit a mistake would be a test of character

especially one that go sooooo many people killed. Does she hear them at night in their death scream? See their faces? sooo soo many.

[Iwasthere]

5. I agree

If she continues this way it will be the end of her chances very soon. And I it is now too late for her to own up imo

[joshcryer]

6. Yes.

It'll be interesting to see the fucking haters' heads explode when she does get the nomination.

[OHdem10]

7. Actually only activists care about this sort of thing.

The Focus group said Hilary won and 60% said they would vote for her

We strain over things the American people do not give a darn about.

[KittyWampus]

8. depends on which focus group you watched. Fox had Obama winning.

[MADem]

13. Well, duh--Murdoch's paper has endorsed him... nt

[earthlover]

9. She also disengenuously said she voted for IwR to give UN inspectors more time....

That is bunk. The same day as the iwr, Hillary voted AGAINST THE LEVIN AMENDMENT which would have basically sent the issue to the UN, and would only have authorized force upon a second vote. So, Hillary can't in all honesty say she wanted to give more time for the UN because she voted against the amendment that would have done just that!

Will she be able to get away with this? Obama needs to call her on that. Her voting against Levin is in my view even worse than for the IWR.

Here is an old DU thread on the Levin Amendment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

[MADem]

16. Shame on her for putting the US sovereignity issue FIRST, and not ceding authority to the UN!

:eyes:

Please. She explained that rather clearly, too.

You don't like her vote. Fine. But let's not be disingenuous and twist what she said quite plainly this evening. I don't want the fucking UN deciding US policy either, thanks much.

[earthlover]

28. BOy I thought the issue was Iraq's sovereignty which was destroyed!

The Levin amendment would not have destroyed US sovereignty. It would have bought time. If the congress wanted to the next day it could have voted for another war resolution. DUH!

Problem is Hillary was trying to say she was trying to give the UN inspectors more time with the IWR and that was BUNK because she voted against the amendment that would have done just that, bought time for the inspectors (the big bad UN inspectors who I guess in your fantasy world would destroy US sovereignty....OMG).

If you really feel this way, why don't you join the isolationists who would want us to withdraw from the UN. They, after all, base this on destroying our sovereignty....

[MADem]

32. You can never cede our Constitutional Authority to an international body.

That's what she was saying, but it doesn't really matter. You don't buy time making 'slippery slope' accomodations with our Constitution. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but look what has happened with BushCo wiping their ASS on our Constitution.

You don't toy with the document. We don't cede our sovereignity to ANYONE. Her Levin vote was correct, and it was the vote of a lawyer who stayed awake in law school.

You can work in conjunction with an international body without giving them carte blanche, so your last statement was a bit disingenuous.

If you don't like HRC, you don't like her. You can pretend that her vote is the sticking point, but it really isn't. It's a good excuse, is all.

[earthlover]

44. The levin amendment did not cede our power to the UN....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

It would have bought more time. It allowed that a future resolution could authorize war....with our without the UN

So all your ramblings about the UN destroying our sovereignty is irrelevant.

Again, if you believe that the UN takes away our sovereignty you are using isolationist rhetoric that has been used by (mainly) Republicans to oppose the League of Nations, the United Nations, and for that matter Kyoto.

Since, last time I checked, the United States has a friggin VETO on the United Nations....I think any arguement that the United Nations damages our sovereignty is pathetically lame.

In any case, if that is how you feel there are some right wing organizations you can join with the "Get the US Out of THe United Nations" if you wish. I used to see billboards like that alongside the Impeach Earl Warren ones when I was growing up.

[MADem]

46. It put the UN in the "decider" role and we don't do it that way.

And THE VETO "is" the PROBLEM--not OURS, others. You can't rattle an empty scabbard. The UN often does not have the sabre.

Of course, if you understood Clinton's position, you'd know that. But you don't understand it, plainly, even though she's made it clear, time, and time, again.

It would have HAMSTRUNG us should force have become necessary. We would have been CONSTRAINED from acting without looking like we were wiping our asses on the organization.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706220010

CLINTON: Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

And I'm not rambling, but you aren't discussing, you're being shirty, you're violating DU rules by making those asinine, personally insulting and childish "right wing" comments, so you 'have a nice day,' now.

:eyes:

[earthlover]

55. The Levin Amendment would not have prevented a future resolution to authorize war

So the arguement that it would destroy our sovereignty is totally absurd. All we would have had to do is pass another resolution. The UN did not prevent us from passing the IWR in 2002, and it similarly would have not have prevented it from being passed a few weeks later.

What Levin WOULD have done is bought some more time for the UN inspectors to do their work before we rushed into war. This is what Hillary SAID she wanted to happen. But she voted AGAINST the amendment that would have done this.

Your argument that the UN strips us of sovereignty but at the same time is an "empty scabbard" is self-contradictory. You have not shown how the USA is stripped of its soverignty in any way by being in the UN and even less by the Levin Amendment.

However, you are free to oppose the UN on the basis of sovereignty. You have some interesting company, however. I suppose you also oppose Kyoto?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

[MADem]

59. Oh please. Kyoto is a different kettle of fish.

War is an action of one nation against another. Kyoto involves the air we all breathe.

[earthlover]

60. If you are going to argue national sovereignty, kyoto could be opposed on this grounds

as could any treaty, for that matter.

Those obsessed with national sovereignty are basically isolationists. By definition.

This is absurd. The USA is the strongest nation militarily in the world. Yet we have isolationists whimpering as if we would be weakened by a resolution that would buy some time before a rush to war, requring a second resolution to actually authorize war.

The case for war with Iraq was NOT met before Hillary voted for the War Resolution (IWR= WAR Resolution, even in its title!)

I believe that we should not go to war with so skimpy a rationale. It should only be at a last, last possible resort.

There were several amendments to the IWR that would have bought some time, Levin being among them. Hillary voted against them all.

More is the pity.

[MADem]

67. National defense is a different matter from environmental issues, like it or not.

Conversely, your argument says that we have to trust an international body to take appropriate actions with regard to our national defense before we can trust our own President, no matter his (or her) promises to act responsibly. Your argument gives our leader a "pass." I say put the blame where it belongs--on BUSH. He's the one who fucked up. He's the one who let the American people down. He's the one who didn't "play it out" properly.

He was handed the correct tool to do the job, and instead of using it in the appropriate manner, he turned it into a blunt instrument and broke it, and us.

[pampango]

56. It has little to do with UN inspectors, Levin amendment, etc. We can argue those all day.

All of the Dem senators with presidential ambitions, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden, voted for the IWR for political reasons. They needed to CYA against charges that Dems are "weak on defense". Obviously, no one ever admits that they vote for or against something for political reasons. They provide any number of plausible arguments.

Of those Dem senators who voted against the IWR, Kennedy, Wellstone, Boxer, Feingold and many others, none of them have since run for the presidency.

Public sentiment at the time was behind Bush and the Republicans were playing the "Democrats are weak on defense" ploy at every opportunity. The first Gulf War had been militarily fairly quick and easy. Any Democratic senator with larger ambitions had a difficult choice to make.

You can make the argument that voting for the IWR was a "political necessity" to take that arrow out of the quiver of the Republicans in future national campaigns. Or you can argue that voting for the IWR was poll-driven, political ambition at its worst.

What I wonder about is whether your view of a "Yes" on the IWR determines your choice between Clinton and Obama or if your choice between the two determines your view of the "Yes" vote.

[earthlover]

64. Wellstone voted against the IWR (and for the Levin Amendment) and he was up for reelection ...

in a tough fight. Makes no difference whether he later ran for president. According to what was the popular position at the time, he was basically committing political suicide. For principle. Something Hillary obviously did not do. She did not have the courage. She didn't care enough about the hundreds of thousands of casualties that would ensue with this war, including more American deaths than died on 9/11.

Can you honestly say that it was a moral or even human thing for someone to do, to vote for these deaths, injuries, maimings, etc out of fear of their own political consequenses? What moral and principled cowardess!

Was it leadership for hillary to not even READ the intelligence estimate?

When I think of the thousands and thousands of people who are now dead as a result of this political calculation, I bet every one of them wish that more politicians had more courage, enough courage to vote for what was right for humanity instead of just trying to save their own political asses.

Cowardess is not a family value.

And the ironic thing about this cowardess...if they had fought as hard for what was right as they did to further their own political hides, they would be better off politically today as a result! Hillary, in the name of selfish personal ambition, hurt her chances due to her refusal to stand up for what was right.

I am sick and tired of politicians putting their own political hides on a higher plane than the safety of the troops who devote their lives to defend us. This is not supporting the troops. it is supporting their own sorry asses.

The ironic thing, too, is that Wellstone actually went up in the polls after taking the unpopular stand of opposing the IWR.

[pampango]

65. We are actually in total agreement. I was merely pointing out that Clinton was not alone

in voting for her own political future rather than showing leadership and doing what was "moral" and "human".

What really bothers me it that Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards were just as smart and had every bit as much reason to mistrust Bush, as did Wellstone, Kennedy and Feingold, but the first three were "fooled" by Bush or "trusted" Bush, while the latter three saw through the intelligence and Bush, himself. It was just bald political ambition that motivated Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards to vote "Yes". They wanted to run for president and they knew that the Republicans would play the "soft on defense liberal" card, so they did a CYA.

Ironically, in some sense they were right (in terms of their own presidential ambitions) to vote in favor of the IWR. Even today, Hillary is fairly successfully able to spin away political damage from that "Yes" vote. Many posters here at DU, which up until recently was about as anti-IWR place as you could find, minimize the importance of that vote and want to "look to the future, not the past." What's more if she does win the nomination, she will have ammunition to use against the inevitable RW "soft on defense liberal" attack.

It's no wonder she doesn't want to apologize for her IWR vote. It seems to have accomplished exactly what she wanted it to. (Even though many of us will look at her more as being guided by personal political calculation than by morals and principles.)

[MADem]

11. She has explained her vote a hundred times. Those without ears cannot hear.

If you don't like it, you aren't going to like it any better if she kisses your ass and boo hoos about her vote.

You're gonna leap on her with a big old "AH HA!!" She's not giving you that, so just get over it.

She doesn't have you and she'll NEVER HAVE you, apparently. You aren't going to get what you want, so give it up, already.

[MercutioATC]

18. She blames Bush for her vote...that's not a valid explanation.

Only an idiot or a political opportunist would trust Bush to "do the right thing". Even if one wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt as a rookie, he'd surrounded himself with a Cabinet that basically authored PNAC.

She was wrong and she should just admit it.

[MADem]

22. Well, she doesn't. She takes responsibility for it. But you believe what you want. nt

[MercutioATC]

25. Then why hasn't she simply said "I was wrong"?

It's always qualified with some version of her trusting Bush to use an authorization to wage war as just a threat.

[MADem]

31. Because she wasn't wrong. The idiot who misused the authority that the Congress gave him was wrong.

There's nothing wrong with giving a President a sabre to rattle. It conveys a strong message. The only time it's a problem is when you give it to a skillful fucking liar who says one thing and does another. She didn't do this alone, either. Amazing how many people act like she did.

If you don't like her, you don't like her.

If she bowed down and begged your sorry forgiveness, you'd call her a flip flopper. She wouldn't/couldn't win with you.

She's not going to change her mind, so either deal with that and accept that's the way it is, and if it is a dealbreaker for you, step off smartly.

[MercutioATC]

47. Believe me, I have stepped off....

I wouldn't hand an idiot a gun, nor would I consider one who did a leader.

That's exactly what she did.

[MADem]

50. Well, most of the Hill did the same. But only she catches shit for it.

Funny how that works.

[MercutioATC]

51. I agree...they all deserve blame...

...but Clinton is the only one of them running for President who hasn't owned up to her part of the blame.

[MercutioATC]

12. Well, it's an important issue to me.

I think it speaks to integrity, leadership, and decision-making ability.

I kinda look for all three in a President.

[intheozone]

15. Oh please, get a grip.

[bigdarryl]

19. Bush also never made a mistake so he says

[Barack_America]

21. I'm done with politicians who think they're infallible.

Sorry, but I am.

[calmblueocean]

24. Yes, yes, yes!

There's no bigger or more obvious mistake than voting for IWR, and if Hillary can't admit this one, she'll never be able to admit she's done anything meaningful wrong.

It's a matter of trust for me, and I don't see why it isn't for more people.

[Barack_America]

29. Oddly enough...

So, to be forthright, I'm an Obama supporter. And, oddly enough, it was a policy that I disagreed with him on that moved me to support him.

He's against gay marriage and I'm for it. But I read a quote of his (Audacity of Hope?) where he said something to the effect that he was trying to keep his mind open regarding gay marriage, in case his beliefs against it have been shaped more by societal prejudice than religion.

I was just blown away by this. Here's a guy who obviously considers issues so profoundly and isn't just willing to admit when he's wrong, but is actually searching within himself for those instances that he is wrong.

I found this to be such a refreshing contrast to the current attitude in Washington.

[Auntie Bush]

34. What the hell difference whether or not she says, "I'm sorry I voted for the Iraq war?"

It's just a wedge issue Hillary haters like to spout so the can call her a flip flopper when she did. It makes absolutely no difference one way or the other! Can you go home now?

[calmblueocean]

37. Contrition matters. And I don't "hate Hillary".

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee.

But I can't get behind her emotionally the way she talks about the IWR today, as if she is blameless for the outcome and it's all simply W's fault. That's disingenuous and insulting.

[Auntie Bush]

41. Do you think her vote changed the outcome. The majority of Dems voted for it too.

But why is Hillary the only one guilty of being a killer?

Now if it was a close vote ...that would be different.

Her vote meant nothing one way or the other. Believe you me... a women would never have had the opportunity to run for president if she had looked soft on defense.

[calmblueocean]

42. I'm sorry, but that logic disgusts me.

Her vote meant "nothing"?

It meant something to the thousands of families who lost their sons and daughters in this war. And it means something to me.

You do not play politics with people's lives.

[earthlover]

52. If you think one vote means nothing....then don't vote in elections!!!!

After all, one vote does not affect the outcome except in extremely rare cases.

Your reasoning is totally absurd.

People need to take responsible for their actions. It makes no difference if other people also did the same thing. What Hillary did was vote for the IWR. She can't get off the hook by saying "other Senators voted for it". We are human beings, not lemmings, and we need to be accountable as such.

[earthlover]

53. So it is all about Hillary....a woman or man killed in Iraq will never be president either

[suston96]

38. Real Democrats don't give a shit. Just desperate Obamatisticators

[sab3rX]

62. Real Democrats do give a shit; IWR was a moral choice and she chose wrong

The other Democrats who did vote for it have come out and said so; at least they're honest.

[pampango]

45. I guess politics means never having to say you're sorry. n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

49. Taking Responsibility is a Sign of Weakness

Never let them see you admit a thing!

[sab3rX]

63. Taking responsibility also means you have moral character and are honest.

[Political Heretic]

54. Bugs the hell out of me, and is one reason I went to Obama from Edwards.

At least Edwards just simply said he made a mistake and he was wrong.

[TexasObserver]

57. It does remind one of a certain Bush.

It is troubling. Failure to acknowledge mistakes is not a good leadership trait.

[daleks not included]

58. Why don't you

ask the same question of all of those democrats that came into Congress in 2006 but

continue to fund the war

continue to get fat off of pork

continue to take money from lobbyists

continue to shortchange the American people especially the working poor <;is the middle class[br />
continue to allow illegal immigrants to come into this country and drive down wages.

continue to give the President what he wants

continue lie to America people and blame the republicans for their own lack of a backbone.