OT: So Hillary FINALLY sorta kinda regrets her IWR vote

[beachmom]

Hat tip to GDP. Here's the direct link:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/12/hillary_clinton.html

More than a year after Kerry and Edwards disavowed their votes. And, then, after the interview her spokesman wouldn't repeat what she said, so did she mean it or not? And it hardly seemed heartfelt. I feel like she's stumbling here. This all seems to have come out with a whimper instead of planned with a little P.R. effort (like Edwards's op-ed or Kerry NYT op-ed on a date certain for withdrawal).

I have to say I'm very surprised she's the frontrunner. Where is an example of her being a real leader and not just another follower?

[TayTay]

1. I think she is finally realizing that Iraq will not be solved

and that it can't be avoided either. She has to come out with some position. This is a mild rebuke of her vote that is pretty much what Kerry said in '04. But it is something. That much is good. We need all Dems onboard to get out of Iraq, even Sen. Clinton.

[sandnsea]

2. She is so worthless

Kerry made statements about the DSM and has constantly challenged Bush, moving from questions of being misled to outright accusations of lies. There's a difference between not voting for the IWR because you'd been lied to - and not voting for the IWR because you believe the country made an 'honest mistake'. Kerry is still the main candidate who hammers away at the war lies and the oil and reconstruction and corruption and all the real problems. In fact, if he doesn't think he can do that and run for President at the same time, I'd just as soon have him keep after the lies and corruption because we've got to end this arrogant attitude towards the world that keeps drawing us into these wars.

[wisteria]

3. She leads with money and her husband's name. n/t

[TayTay]

4. Sen Clinton is to be welcomed for changing her views

And to be encouraged to do more. This matters. We need more, not less, voices for peace. It matters to the families in the US and Iraq. It matters to the troops and it matters to the future of this country.

I don't believe we should belittle those who might be coming in late to this effort. We should welcome the Peacemakers and encourage them to go good. It matters.

http://tinyurl.com/y3rodw

[wisteria]

5. You are too good. Honestly. (meant in a good way)

For the sake of our soldiers and our country,I welcome her voice, but I question the sincerity behind it. HRC is one cold, calculating woman, IMO.

[TayTay]

6. So are any number of people.

That's politics for ya. (That old 'get a dog' advice has never been more true than it is today. LOL!)

Eyes on the prize here. There is a false debate about the IWR that flares up all the time on DU. The argument goes that someone is only good enough if they have voted against the IWR in Oct 2002. If a Rep or Senator vote for the IWR they have no moral standing to discuss Iraq. (The extreme views of this posit that these folks have no moral right to run for office anymore.)

These are silly and insulting arguments. Why bother with political debate, action, discourse or campaigns if all the moral questions were settled in the past and only past action matters? Human beings are wrong about things all the time. That is a part of being human. The moral question is not only what did a person do back then, but what did the person do when their minds changed, when the moral question became active and real to them. Did they do cold things that were only calculated for political effect or did they take genuine actions to show that they had changed their minds?

This is important. One side of that question leads to despair and the idea that no action is possible, no sin forgivable and no debate worthy because the past rules all. The other side of that argument posits that we must move forward, act as moral beings and do what it is within our personal abilities to do with things as they are now. There is a world of difference here.

We don't forgive those who made the wrong call in the past just because we are good people. We do so because we cannot move forward without this. We cannot remain chained to an immovable past, we must be free to take moral action in the future. So, we forgive, for our own benefit, as well as for the benefit of others.

[beachmom]

7. It's not a matter of forgiveness. I have a couple of issues here:

1. She said it but then her spokesman didn't want to confirm it. That bothers me.
2. She has been eternally touted as the frontrunner yet she didn't show leadership when the civil war in Iraq erupted. She has not shown leadership on Iraq at all.

I agree with you, however, that if this is how she feels, it's very good that she has said it. Still, does this amount to her supporting a timetable for withdrawal? Anything less than that means we're still going to be there.

I will forgive anyone who supported the war (which she did, unlike Kerry) who changes their mind. In fact, I'm not the type to blame Democrats in the Congress for the Iraq War -- it's Bush's war. I just feel like we needed her a long time ago and she wasn't there. Good she's there now.

[TayTay]

8. Those are political statements going forward

You said:

1. She said it but then her spokesman didn't want to confirm it. That bothers me.
2. She has been eternally touted as the frontrunner yet she didn't show leadership when the civil war in Iraq erupted. She has not shown leadership on Iraq at all.

These are political questions that imply future action. I agree with the political questions in them. What is she going to do, going forward, to use her power and voice to affect war and peace. This is a far different argument from that which seeks to silence those who voted for the IWR. This argument is one for paralysis, your argument implies that Sen. Clinton can be 'pushed' into doing more.

I agree with you. Debate what the 'more' is. But I don't agree with those who say that no one who voted for the IWR has the right to speak on Iraq or run for higher office based on the morality of that vote. That is a false argument.

[wisteria]

9. Oh, I agree, that debate over who did and who didn't vote for the IWR

is irrelevant and counter productive. They really do need to move on. Of course, my opinion of HRC is not just based on her vote for the resolution. And, yes, the get a dog if you want a friend in Washington is so very true, doesn't Sen. Kerry have two dogs? But, as cold and calculating as much of Washington is, most don't show it outwardly. HRC, well with her it is so obvious, it just seeps from her pores.
Obviously, I have strong opinions against this woman. LOL.