The more I read and post here, the more I realize Hillary Clinton cannot win the White House.

[Brotherjohn]

I am sorry to say that and flame away. I think she would make a great president. I think she or Obama SHOULD win the White House. I would place both her and Obama light years ahead of McCain as far as their positions on the war, and anything else.

Keep in mind that most of what I say below is playing Devil's Advocate. But it is exactly what she will face should she come up against McCain.

Her IWR vote damns her. It's that simple. She cannot effectively distinguish herself from John McCain in the most important issue of this election, and the most important issue this nation has faced in many many years. She can equivocate and excuse all she likes, but she voted to give GWB authorization to go to war. She can say until the cows come home that she was misled, but millions of us in less of a position to know were not. At best she was naive, and at worst she voted for a horrible war that has killed untold thousands and risked our very nation for political expediency.

No, she did not come up with the idea. No, she did not start the war herself. Yes, Bush misled and still did not even follow the letter of the resolution, and the war is arguably illegal under U.N. Statutes. But from a political and practical standpoint, she gave GWB the go ahead, as anyone paying attention at the time realized.

It's the one thing that most severely weakened Kerry's run, even though the war was less unpopular then.

Yes, Obama was "under less pressure" to take a stand. Nonetheless, he took one; and not a popular one. And it wasn't as though he was a talk show host or celebrity. He WAS a state politician at the time, with an eye on a run for U.S. Senate. And his words both then and now back up his opposition to the very idea that we should have gone to war. He is not saying "the planning was inadequate" or "the war's operation was bungled". He is saying "This war was WRONG!"

Maybe it's a lot easier for a presidential candidate to say that now. But he is saying it. And I don't hear Sen. Clinton saying it.

Yes, he has voted to continue funding for the war. But Mr. Bush's invasion has left no politician... indeed, no American... in an easy place. A Senator voting for funding is a far cry from voting to authorize the war itself. The IWR vote was the time to stop the war. Whatever her reasons or assumptions, Clinton failed on that count. While not in the same position, Obama did all he could at the time and spoke out against it. To say "things would have been different" were he in the Senate then is all conjecture. That may or may not be, but the record we have indicates otherwise.

Whomever takes the White House will inherit one royal MESS thanks to GWB. It is easy to start a war. It is far harder to stop one. Obama will be in a much stronger moral and political position to stop this one.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

1. I disagree - what matters is what they will do NOW & in the future.

They both will get us out and that's what is important.

[sandnsea]

2. He was running for US Senate

He was in the middle of a 7-way primary fight that he was not expected to win. That's when he gave that speech against the war AND, much more importantly, against the Wolfowitz/Perle neocon agenda that was taking us into the war.

[mohc]

3. I'm an Obama supporter, but I disagree on the IWR issue

I think Clinton's IWR vote has seriously hurt her in the primary, but I honestly do not think it would (could) have hurt her much in the general election. If McCain were not bat shit crazy when it comes to Iraq, you may have had a point about not being able to draw distinctions, but McCain is off the deep end with his "100 year war" strategy. Clinton wants to bring the troops home, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise based on her IWR vote. There is an enormous difference between keeping troops in Iraq for the rest of our lifetimes as opposed to bringing them home in the measured timeframes Clinton is suggesting.

[ContinentalOp]

5. Yes but it makes it hard to debate doesn't it?

If Clinton gets the nomination, every time the issue gets brought up in a debate, McCain and the moderators are just going to repeat time and time again "but you voted for the war." No amount of logic, framing, parsing, and tortured explanations will make that little problem go away. And then, faced with two candidates who both supported the war but one who wants to "cut and run" (as they will surely call it) Americans will again pick the republican.

I mean, I can't believe we're even discussing this. It's an exact replay of the last election but even worse since Hillary is not a war hero, McCain sort of actually is a war hero, and McCain can sort of legitimately pretend to be pursuing a new course in Iraq in a way that GWB couldn't.

[ContinentalOp]

4. That's why it boggles my mind that any Democrats support Clinton.

Hey, I know, let's take away the one issue that has damaged the Republican party over the past several years by running a candidate who voted for the war! That's a sure way to win the general election!