Obama on IWR: The vote was a difficult test he didn't have to face.

[Maddy McCall]

Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

November 2006 interview, New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?printable=true

[still_one]

1. but the following Democrats did face it:

akaka
bingaman
boxer
byrd
chafee
conrad
corzine
dayton
durbin
feingold
graham
inouye
jeffords
kennedy
leahy
levin
mikulski
murray
reed
sarbanes
stabenow
wellstone
wyden

They knew the consequences of over-riding the War Powers Act, which is what the IWR did

It wasn't to authorize bush to go to war, he could do that without the IWR, it was so the War Powers Act would NOT kick in after sixty days, and require Congress to become involved

NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE THAT VOTED FOR IT

It wasn't a question of being misled, it was a question of removing accountability, and checks and balances

[cali]

11. a small correction: Chafee was a repug and Jeffords and indie.

[George_Bonanza]

2. Obama had nothing to lose? Think again

Misconception #1: Obama was not a U.S. senator, and therefore had nothing to lose

Look, the Dixie Chicks weren't senators either, but they were excoriated for their anti-war stances. I'm sure that back in 2002, Obama had at least vague notions of national ambition, and even though he was just a state senator at the time, a vocal "peacenik" stance could still haunt him in future political runs such as his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama was just a state senator, and he could've remained quiet just to see how events unfolded and play both sides of the fence, but his conviction won out and he was willing to tell everybody where he stood. You think being a Black anti-war politician with a name that rhymes with Osama is an identity to be envied? Ha!

Misconception #2: Obama was from a liberal district of a blue state, therefore it took little, if any, moral courage

Hillary's from ever-blue and ever-liberal New York, and she still couldn't find the conviction to oppose the war. John Kerry was from MASSACHUSSETTS and still voted for the war. So even when representing very liberal constituents in very liberal states, there were many politicians who could not find their moral voice.

Misconception #3: Obama is a sellout because he voted to fund the war

As Obama said, once you drive the bus into the ditch, there are only so many options to go from there. Once you're in a war, the troops are going to be getting shot at no matter what, so you better provide them with some armor and bullets.

Misconception #4: Obama probably would've voted for the war if he were a U.S. senator

Nope. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

[still_one]

3. He spoke out when the whole country was going on its patriotic zeal /nt

[napi21]

6. There's no point arguing this because there's no way to prove what

was in someone's mind 5 years ago. Let me just say this. Hillary's husband had recently left the job of President, and she trusted his judgement. If HE would have asked the Senate for the the authorization to use force so when he went before the UN, his threats wouldn't appear hollow, I'm sure she would have wnated the Senate to approve his request. I think she was trusting the NEW President and took HIM at his word.

I remember the first time I heard about LIHOP & MIHOP. EVEN I said out loud "Ohhh I don't believe that. NO American President would ever do that!" I've changed my mind, but remember, we are talking about a vote from a long time ago, and Shrub wasn't in office long enough to show what a dishonest creature he really was!

[ScottS]

4. ok...

[sandnsea]

5. She kept the same advisers after she failed

So not only did she rely on the wrong people in making her decision, she is still relying on them. Kind of like another stubborn President I can think of.

[msongs]

7. Obama has made up for it by voting to support and fund the war/occupation since nt

[seaglass]

8. The IWR is not a point in Obama's favor, the best that can be

said about what he would have done if he was in the U.S. Senate at the time is "I don't know."

Not a big Hillary fan, even less of an Obama fan.

[Rageneau]

9. Obama made ONE speech to a sympathetic crowd in 2002 and we should make him president for it?

[BeatleBoot]

10. Armchair Quarterbacks Rarely Get You Over the Goal Line.

But they talk a good game.