I was struck, though, by how much I prefer Hillary Clinton to the Hillary Clinton Campaign

Me too. I keep wanting Hillary Clinton to break out of the constraints of her campaign. Some, she obviously won't -- Iraq, obviously -- but it frustrates me. I think it's easier for Obama to plant his feet more firmly on terra firma than for Clinton to break out.

In health wonkery, I wish that Hillary had been prepared, given the substantial nature of the debate, to talk about adverse selection and the pragmatic advantages of universality in being able to deliver affordable coverage. That's one rebuttal to Obama's argument on penalising non-participants. But there you go.

It's not like he didn't try to get some sniping started. They just refused to play. I'm so proud to be a Democrat tonight.

That was really, really good stuff. I hope that they're both on our ticket this November; Clinton to fight and wonk out, and Obama to give speeches and make everyone feel good about democrats.

The health care section really seemed like a draw to me. HRC larded up her answers with more factoids, but that didn't really seem impressive. It is annoying that health care is apparently the only domestic policy.

OBAMA = DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT

My Case for Barack Obama

The best reason for the Democratic Party to nominate Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency is that he generates extraordinary turnout at the polls among two demographic groups that have traditionally under-performed; youth, and African-Americans. Younger people are voting in the Democratic primaries at three times the level of prior years, and most of their support is going to Obama. The numbers for black turnout in 2008 far exceed previous years, and I think it is reasonable to expect that the participation rate of both youth and African-Americans will increase even further in the November general election if Obama is our nominee. The hotly-contested 'swing' states of Ohio and Florida both have significant concentrations of minority voters, and Obama's presence at the top of the ticket will likely put both of them in the Democratic column.

If we take the Democratic base of liberals, enviros, labor unions, and various progressives, and add in a huge youth componenent, plus millions of newly energized black voters, plus the rapidly growing Latino consituency..... Voila! We have the recipe for a tidal wave that has the potential to make the Democratic Party the dominant political institution in this country for the next century and beyond. With Obama's ability to drive voter turnout there are also favorable implications for all of our downticket races, from the White House through the Congressional contests, the Governorships, State and County officials, all the way down to local municipal races. We have seen many close elections in recent years that would have gone our way with stronger turnout.

There is no equivalent scenario on the Republican side; their 'big tent' is already in tatters, and they simply cannot produce the sort of turnout that Obama can. And whatever her other qualities might be, Hilary Clinton does not attract huge numbers of previously disenfranchised voters into the pool the way Barack Obama does. The Obama campaign raised a spectacular $32 million in the month of January alone, and he has received powerful endorsements from many of the most visible and respected Democratic politicians, which will lead to further endorsements, and an enhanced ability to raise money down the stretch. 90% of Obama's donors have given less than $100, which tells us that the Obama movment has populist roots that translate into real votes.

After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the GOP is struggling to raise money and its members are disillusioned. Many of their sitting Senators and Representatives have chosen not to run again. The prospects for a Democratic takeover of Congress are encouraging. This is not the time to do the Republicans a favor by nominating the one candidate (Hilary) who pushes their buttons and who would surely serve as a lightning rod for right wing organization and fundrasing. We should also be aware that the media have a well-documented love affair with John McCain, and their bias would be a powerful weapon against us should Hilary be the nominee.

If Hilary Clinton were to be elected President and serve two terms, it would mean that the Bush and Clinton families could boast of an occupant in our White House for thirty-six consecutive years, beginning with Reagan's first term in 1980 and stretching until the year 2016. The sequence would look like this: Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton. Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy.

The end of the Bush-Cheney era will be a beautiful thing to behold, but I think we ought to aim higher and leap at the opportunity to have a transformative, once-in-a-millenium election that dramatically alters the voting dynamics in this country for the long term, and Obama offers us that chance. The Republican strategists who are looking at the electoral landscape for the coming decades ought to be shaking in their boots, and we are damn fools if we don't seize the moment and make the most of it. There is some contrast between our two candidates on the issues, but the principal difference lies in Obama's ability to dramatically expand the base demographic for the Democratic side, thus winning the general election in November and reducing the Republican Party to a quaint irrelevancy for the forseeable future.

I was struck, though, by how much I prefer Hillary Clinton to the Hillary Clinton Campaign, or the Hillary Clinton Campaign as represented by Bill Clinton.

Indeed. This is exactly what I thought, and generally what I think whenever I actually see Clinton. In the intervals, I gradually become consumed with irrational hatred, but when I actually see her (and she's not in attack mode, like she was in the last debate), I tend to like her a lot.

WRT the health care vs. Iraq debates, I generally agree with your assessment. I will say, though, that in the general election I think that on balance this makes Obama the stronger candidate. The kind of criticisms that one can make from the left of Obama's health care plan (no mandates, and such) are not the kind of criticisms that a Republican is in any position to make. Even if Obama's position is a bit weaker and more politically cautious than Clinton's, there's no real grounds for a Republican to attack it on that basis in the general.

On the other hand, as we saw with Kerry in 2004, Clinton's position on Iraq is enormously vulnerable to attack, especially from McCain. I didn't catch the whole Iraq exchange, but what I saw was very much "Oh, no, haven't we been through this already?" It was bad, and it genuinely worries me for the general election, much as my opinion of Clinton was generally improved by this debate.

I found the debate positive and encouraging that maybe we can go above the slime.

One point I want to make is that the campaign did not need the old geezer white guys, Bill, Ted, Kerry etc, to interject themselves. The American people and the two candidates can figure it out.

And you Obama people need to drop the Obama was right on Iraq. He was expressing an opinion, he did not make a vote. When he had to vote, he voted along with everyone else. He did not risk anything and he did not take a heroic stand when he did go into Congress. It really is a vindictive and destructive position.

stellaa,

Whatever Obama may have said or done about Iraq, his record is a lot easier to defend than Hilary's. For chrissake, there is video footage of her giving Bush a fricking standing ovation just the other night when he was trumpeting his Iraq 'success story' in the SOTU address. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Obama clearly knows California will provide all the momentum to the nomination. He pandered away from his base to the hispanic voters (this is NOT a criticism) tonight. He knows that whatever happens on Tuesday, if he wins California he will get the momentum.

Still is a sort of longshot, but if he gets a big endorsement by this weekend, then he could just pull this off!

cousin vinnie,

Defend to whom? In the General Election? I think this is a blogowhim of an idea. Yes we are pissed they took us to war, but there is no evidence, other than in the Obama followers that he would not have done the same. It does not matter. You need to drop this one. The issue is: the economy and how we get out of the war. This is getting pedantic and infantile. The Dems don't win if she says she was wrong, the lose.
Bill was right, with all due respect. Obama did not have to have to cast a vote, he made a speech. Did he lead an anti war movement? Did he fill busses of people and march on Washington? NO. He did not risk anything. This was an opinion, sentiment, not a judgement. Judgement is what he did when he got elected. I

stellaa,
Well, for one, he put his reputation up on the line when everyone one was else was out trying to put the most flag lapels on their jackets to show how much of a patriot they were.

We can't assume anything about Obama's position other than what he actually did. And long before it was in fashion, and with very good insight into what could possibly happen, he said starting a war with Iraq was a bad idea. What did Hillary risk? Virtually every big name Democrat voted for the war. She had plenty of cover.

we can argue back and forth if Obama did or did not take a stand and if Hillary should or should not apologize...that was then and this is now...and NOW Hillary is the one that went to the Pentagon to demand their exit strategy...she took the heat for that...Hillary is the one who is sponsoring legislation to put the brakes on Bush and his plans to keep his war going after he leaves office and Hillary had the grace to ask Barak to co-sponsor the legislation with her...Hillary is the one that is taking a proactive position to stop and change the direction of this war...let's get into present time and go forward and stop the petty bickering...

I agree tonight was a good night for Democrats...let's build on this...

This is genuine, the he was right she was wrong is not.
Senator Obama
"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." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06]

Most of us in DC, to be sure, have heard these positions 62 times now, and have read not only the underlying white papers, but the coverage of those white papers, too.

Boy I hope you're not falling into that trap. "Most" of DC is no more aware of the candidates white papers and policy positions than are "most" of Biloxi.
Your circle of journalist and think tank friends and colleagues is not "most" of DC.
And some of us in California have been paying attention too.

stellaa -- to a certain extent, you're right that we shouldn't obsessively dwell on what happened in late 2002 and early 2003. It should be noted, but it's not the #1 concern.

At the same time, I don't think that most critics of Clinton who hold her foreign policy views against her are just upset about her vote on the AUMF. After all, John Edwards also voted for the AUMF, but most people in the circles currently critical of Clinton didn't regard it as a fatal flaw. They were disappointed, of course, and may have regarded his vote as something of a mar on his record, but not something that, all on its own, made them opposed to his nomination.

What worries us is that Clinton seems to believe that, while Bush made a mistake in his policies, she never made a mistake in hers. She believes that the fundamental processes and methods that she employed when she made her decision were sound, even if 20/20 hindsight makes it look bad in retrospect. Clinton also seems to hold views on Iran that are worrisome.

In some ways, then, Clinton's vote on the Iraq AUMF is regarded as emblematic of her foreign policy views in a way that, say, Edwards' and Dodd's votes was not.

In short, looking at Clinton's overall foreign policy perspective, including but certainly not limited to the Iraq vote, is not vindictive and destructive. It is an aspect of her policy views that must be appraised and, if we disagree with it, criticized, if we are to talk about the candidates in a meaningful manner.

Have to say they both did well tonight and made it easier for this former Edwards supporter to vote for either in the general (though still undecided for the primary).

Something in Obama's "Health insurance for those that want it," could backfire though. What if it's too expensive to "want?"

stella.. the point Im dropping will most certainly not be that Obama made a better and more supportable choice then Clinton.

The quote you give simply clarifies that Obama is a thinking reasoning being. This in contrast to someone like Bush who will stare directly into contravening factual evidence and indignantly hold to the same opinion regardless.

Clinton has not stated that she had different or different intelligence available to her, or that any such intellgience was a reason for her vote. One excuse she did give it that she thought it would allow for Bush to put inspectors back into Iraq, and that was all that would happen.

So even taking her at her word this was incredibly short-sighted, and shows her lack of judgment on a number of levels. 1. about how such broadly stated legislation has a tendency to be abused. and 2. estimating her political adversaries intentions.

She wants to run her campaign based on her experience? ..well our experience with her has been one of bad choices.

Sorry you just cant finesse it to say anything other then before the war, when there was a chance to keep it from happening at all without risk to US servicemen, without risk to people we are now responsible for (Iraqis), Obama was publically against it, and Clinton voted for it.

..and a young, ambitious, state senator going against the political grain, risking calls of being 'unpatriotic' was very risky. He chose an unpopular position at the peril of his political future. On that alone he risked not being where he stands today.

Its a false argument to say they have the same record. Its like arguing to not go on the family trip.. your family decides to go and takes you with them. When you're on the plane you can either make a go of it.. Maybe you can go home early? or try to take the plane down by any means necessary. (Even though you will most certainly fail in doing it yourself.)

Once your already involved it doesnt make sense just to go nuts and end it by any means possible.. At that point it becomes an issue of HOW it ends, and what the consequences are afterward. Much different then asking if the thing should have started in the first place.

david b

Many of us who have been against the war all along suffered consequences wherever we spoke out; Obama does not get the credit of a Senatorial "no" vote against a Clinton "aye" for it.

Further, because he later voted to approve funding, he would be susceptible to the same "flip flop" accusations she would in the general.

I didn't really see a difference between them on health care. He is going to provide subsidies and have a public provider to allow every American to have insurance. She is... going to do the same thing. Now presumably she also wants to have a "mandate" but she didn't clearly explain how that would work differently than Obama's plan. What is her plan going to do to force young invulnerables to buy insurance? She didn't say although Obama did reference the ideas of garnishing wages or imposing fines.

hillary voted for the kyl-lieberman amendment, so i dont see a change in her thinking, even though the other democratic contenders would not vote for it.
her continuing justification for voting for the war in iraq, is a way of evading responsibility for a great error in judgment, (that discounts the virtue of all of the experience in the world).
she did the same thing in addressing the failures of her early efforts at health care reform last night.
she cannot take responsibility for her mistakes.
her husband's defining moment in his presidency, was when he chose to lie, rather than accepting resonsibility.
misguided judgements and mistakes are human.
but holding oneself above accountability is dangerous in a leader.
we have now had two presidents that place self over principles.
unfortunately, this hamartia was the fatal flaw for bill clinton, george w. bush and hilllary clinton has the same hamartia.
this is the fatal, unchangeable flaw in leadership and not a quality that we can have again in a president.

generally what I think whenever I actually see Clinton. In the intervals, I gradually become consumed with irrational hatred, but when I actually see her (and she's not in attack mode, like she was in the last debate), I tend to like her a lot.

I think this is a little-remarked upon strength of Hillary Clinton. People think they hate her way more than they actually do. The right (with an assist from Obama supporters) have demonized Hillary to such an absurd degree that when people actually watch her debate she's going to come off really well. They're going to come away with a positive impression of her, not so much because she's that great or whatever, but because she's not nearly as bad as they thought.

The reverse is true for McCain. His reputation is vastly inflated, so when you actually see him debating or giving a speech, it is a very underwhelming experience. Not to mention he looks like death warmed over.

"Something in Obama's "Health insurance for those that want it," could backfire though. What if it's too expensive to "want?""

There's not going to be any health care reform.

Trust me.

Jason C.:
You know what I don't like about Hillary? It's that she won't lead(Obama has the same problem). Why leave it up to Dodd on FISA? Why leave the issue of poverty up to Edwards?

There WILL be healthcare reform because corporate CEOs and the rest of America now want it. The only faction left that is against it is the insurance industry. It will lose this time - probably.

A president Obama has a better chance of getting it through the Congress than a President Hillary.

Neither plan as currently outlined in the campaign will make it to the finish line. We'll ultimately get some camel of a plan. But it is an idea whose time has come.

You know what I don't like about Hillary? It's that she won't lead(Obama has the same problem).

Yeah, I think that's pretty accurate. It's actually one of the reasons I prefer Hillary over Obama; neither of them is likely to get out in front of progressive issues on their own, but I feel like progressives will be more scrupulous about holding Hillary's feet to the fire because of their natural skepticism of her. With Obama, a lot of progressives seem to have fallen in love with the guy, and have taken leave of their rational faculties, so I worry that they'll spend more time apologizing for Obama than pressuring him.

*****

A president Obama has a better chance of getting it through the Congress than a President Hillary.

And you know this because...

Many of us who have been against the war all along suffered consequences wherever we spoke out. Obama does not get the credit of a Senatorial "no" vote against a Clinton "aye" for it.

That is nonsense. If you opposed the war before its start your opinion is not diminished by not having cast a vote.

Last night Clinton said
I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of
Saddam Hussein.
Due diligence? She didn't even bother to read National intelligence reports.

so I worry that they'll spend more time apologizing for Obama than pressuring him.

There is this odd general wariness that Obama will turn out to be too much like a...Clinton. I would support Hillary in November with the genuine belief that she will do a better job than her husband or her own Senator-self. But surely that is as audacious a hope as any in the campaign.

Not for nothing, but on both the liberal and conservative talk radio stations I tuned to this morning had people saying that if Hillary is the nominee, they are voting for McCain.

Just saying...

I also feel that if Barak is not nominated that we risk a fractured party, with all these new new Democrats being so turned off we could not just squander the moment, but hurt Democratic chances for years to come.

"That is nonsense. If you opposed the war before its start your opinion is not diminished by not having cast a vote."

nor is it elevated to a senatorial "no," especially when you supported funding later; it is, rather, somewhere between the two, and Obama will certainly be called out on flipping...ANY nuance is trouble

jj,

Absolutely not, many Senators who voted against the war regularly vote for funding, because it is a separate issue.

You did not address why Clinton says she did due diligence, but failed to read the NIE.

'with all these new new Democrats'

What 'new new Democrats'?

Either you agree with Democratic policies, or you don't.

Republicans and 'independents' can get bent.

They voted for bush (twice in most instances), and NOW we must submit to their whims on our choice of nominee?

Um...NO.

Democrats threatening to stay home if Hillary is nominated can get bent right along with the rest of them.

'and Obama will certainly be called out on flipping...ANY nuance is trouble'

Absolutely correct.

jj:

No rational person would say that opposing a war before it's started obligates someone to register impotent opposition when troops are in the field.

Obama could have been more of a leader among the Democrats in trying to end this war. But, as it played out, he would have had zero support, even in his own party. Think about how many times Reid and Pelosi caved on even the most timid assertions of congressional authority over the funding and conduct of this war.

Instead, he took the most responsible course he could both before and during this war.

Finally, does your candidate really wnat to argue over Iraq for the rest of this primary? Even if she can somewhat blunt Obama's strength on this issue, it's hardly a winner for her.

You need to drop your nonsense. Only fools and Hillary's most extreme supporters continue to defend her cheerleading our rush into the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

'You did not address why Clinton says she did due diligence, but failed to read the NIE.'

As Bill Clinton explained in the now infamous 'fairy tale' clip:

Members were briefed by the whitehouse.

Condi Rice LIED to Chuck Hagel and assured him that the whitehouse would allow the inspection process to continue . (or the whitehouse lied to Condi, have to ask her about that one)

John Kerry claims to have read the NIE, and still voted in favor of the Iraq AUMF?

All the while Obama stood by and stayed mum during the 2004 elections? Did Obama spare is criticisms of AUMF voters to help advance his political profile?

Obama supporters pushing the meme that Obama was 'always against the war' seems to suggest that Hillary was FOR the war. Which is a distortion in and of itself.

The focus ought to be on the whitehouse's treasonous actions that led members of congress to believe they were negotiating in good faith.

hindsight being 20/20.

willyjsimmons,

Bill Clinton did not explain anything in the fairy tail clip.

23 senators managed to see through Bush's BS on the war, Hillary did not. Obmaba did.

"Obama could have been more of a leader among the Democrats in trying to end this war. But, as it played out, he would have had zero support, even in his own party. Think about how many times Reid and Pelosi caved on even the most timid assertions of congressional authority over the funding and conduct of this war."

brewmn,

So, when Clinton voted to authorize the resolution, she was shamelessly pandering for votes, but Obama's cowardice is o.k., because Reid/Pelosi have it too? Nice try. Conviction means actually sticking to your position, regardless of popular support or future ambitions.

The fact is neither nominee can claim pure opposition to the war in Iraq.

Still undecided for the primary (was voting Edwards but currently BOTH Obama and Clinton looked good to me last night), but the blind Obama idolatry partnered with insults for dissenters does not help his case.

jj,

Blind idolatry? This from the person who thinks Obama was against the war, but it doesn't count because he was not in the senate.

Fahey,

yep

'23 senators managed to see through Bush's BS on the war, Hillary did not. Obmaba did'

And continued to vote to fund the war...

and we've come full circle.

For his supporters, Obama's notional opposition to the invasion holds a totemic power. Almost infinite significance is attached to it. I have actually witnessed someone point to it as definitive evidence that Obama is to the left of Hillary. They see it as the ultimate argument stopper.

This is, of course, silly. Let's be clear: in 2002, Obama's opposition to the Iraq war meant about as much as mine did. Which is to say none. That wasn't his fault, but it simply puts a cap on how much significance his opposition can be given.

The situation might even be different if he had acted differently afterwards. If he had used his Senate seat to wage a relentless anti-war effort, he'd have more compelling foreign policy credentials. But he didn't. Since taking office, he's taken exactly the same line as Hillary.

Obama-ites are quickly falling into the patterns of those loathsome relics of the 1960s who see everything through the lens of what was for them personally a seminal period. A lot of young-ish people seem to have come of age politically around 2002-03, and they are stung by the betrayal of the Democrats. Which is understandable. But they are too often consumed by it, and unable to see past it.

But here's the thing: the majority of the American people followed the same path that Edwards and Hillary did with respect to Iraq. Most Americans supported the invasion initially and then soured on it. That's just a fact. So for Obama to say that basically your judgment is forever tarnished by getting Iraq wrong, even if you've come around, is to basically insult the majority of voters.

But here's the thing: the majority of the American people followed the same path that Edwards and Hillary did with respect to Iraq. Most Americans supported the invasion initially and then soured on it. That's just a fact. So for Obama to say that basically your judgment is forever tarnished by getting Iraq wrong, even if you've come around, is to basically insult the majority of voters.

Given the number of folks who were against the war at that time, and the number of folks who are supporting Obama now, there are some folks who are willing to get over that.

Obama: I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place
That's called leadership.

"So, when Clinton voted to authorize the resolution, she was shamelessly pandering for votes, but Obama's cowardice is o.k., because Reid/Pelosi have it too?"

Are you arguing that Clinton had no chance to stop the war, so she was obligated to help start it?

The people that equate Hillary and Obama on Iraq are simply too stupid to argue with. I vainly post the common sense replies because otherwise their bullshit will fill up the entire lefty blogosphere.

But's that's OK. Keep supporting Hillary's cheerleading of our rush into the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

'The people that equate Hillary and Obama on Iraq are simply too stupid to argue with.'

Audacity of HOPE!!!!

Uh?

are you arguing that since Obama couldn't stop the war, he had to help fund it?

have another brew, mn

I think Obama "won" (probably for the first time) and here's why I think it

He basically held his own against HRC in what is widely considered be to her biggest "strength" - the wonk factor.

He proved he could wonk it up with her - and given that's her biggest strength, she's way behind him almost every other barometric (appeal, likeability, change component, bringing new people into process, etc)

I can tell you the Republicans are scared shitless of Obama.

I will say this about HRC though despite my visceral dislike for her (she was far more likeable, I despise her when she gets shrill, like fingernails on chalkboard) and she is clearly a very very sharp, smart and tough as nails woman.

if McCain (whom I happen to like) doesn't snap out of his Rudy like "islamic fascist terrorism" turrets syndrome, she will absolutely destroy him (or Romney- who's a cheap empty suit) in any debate.

This isn't hard. Starting the Iraq war was bad for America, bad for Iraq and bad for the world. Exiting precipitously because Congress halted funding would also be bad for America, bad for Iraq and bad for the world.

At best, voting to end funding would be a symbolic gesture. At worst, it would be an irresponsible one.

Obama got that one right. This is hugely significant because McCain isn't identified with Bush generally, but can be identified with the war. HRC can't make the argument, but BHO can.

I would also have thought that "liberals" wouldn't like a candidate who deliberately inflames racial animosity. I wouldn't vote for David Duke no matter what his health care plan looked like.

Obama: I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's called leadership.

No, that's called empty rhetoric.

The people that equate Hillary and Obama on Iraq are simply too stupid to argue with. I vainly post the common sense replies because otherwise their bullshit will fill up the entire lefty blogosphere.

In other words, you don't really have a rational argument; people are just "too stupid" to agree with your dogmatic assertions, aka common sense.

I would also have thought that "liberals" wouldn't like a candidate who deliberately inflames racial animosity.

You mean like when the Obama campaign accused Hillary of not caring about Katrina victims?

Oh, and what's your position on pandering to homophobes?

I guess I'm just too stupid to realize that Hillary Clinton is just like David Duke.

More and more, Obama supporters remind me of the Ron Paul-ites; driven by emotion rather than reason, and bitterly hateful towards anyone who doesn't jump on board their bandwagon.

..and in what way is equating not starting a war, with trying to stop one through funding measures a logical reasoned argument? They may both be things to be fought in your opinion, but they certainly are not equal.

Jason C
"as much as mine did. Which is to say none."

Ah.. so in 2002 you were a senator or other highly elected official representing a US economic hub and one of the largest metro areas in the country? ..nice! where would that be exactly?

This kind of conversation is one of the things that Obama actually manages quite well. He thinks about these things, and is willing to talk about them in interviews.

His opinion and influence in 2002 mattered. If it did not there would have been no crowd paying attention to him at that anti-war rally. He affected a lot of people at that time, and many people heard his name for the first time as a result.

Turns out it didnt matter enough, in the end we went to war anywat. But the time to stop the political, military, economic, strategic, and diplomatic blunder that was Iraq was before the invasion began.

Once it had begun, the whole calculus changed.

What happens if he votes to deny funding and it works.. we leave Iraq precipitously. Rather like we abandoned afghanistan after the Soviets left.

People we dont like would gladly step in and 'help' out the Iraqis. ..a certain organization we like to call Al Quaeda got empowered this way. Given a riteous cause to fight against the US who abandoned the afghans to poverty once we got what we wanted.

The few allies we actually do have in the 'coalition of the willing' *choke* would be abandoned. They would be forced to leave as well, facing political fallout at home. there would likely be no support from us here, so we've hurt several smaller countries that were looking to align with us.

Iran would hold even greater influence over a larger share of oil .. prices would likely raise, having economic consequences.

Once again every country would see what we do to people that we help out, and those we 'liberate'. People will see that we liberate them long enough to get our jollies, then leave them out for the wolves as soon as possible. They would know that we have no intention of sticking with somone once we begin to help them.. Of course the Iraqis were always nervous about this, after Sadham's crushing of the Us provoked uprising. ...but they have no choice in the matter.

I scoff when I hear the republicans liken pulling out of Iraq to the end of days. To think there would be no consequence however is just daft.

Ok so what if Obama fails.. and manages to garner the 'he doesnt support the troops moniker' from the republicans. there goes the presidency right there. (Course thats your goal right there seemingly)

What if he votes for funding our troops, and going with the better of all the evils. Gets elected president.. then can direct the withdrawl in a sane thoughtful manner.. Hey theres a thought. Much better then having the chimp in chief show us his incompetence in a whole new way by forcing him to leave Iraq under his own power.

It is not totemic.. not all powerful, nor does it absolve him of all sin. It does however prove, that Obama had more wisdom and forethought about the 'need' for this war then Hillary. ..with public and outspoken video proof no less.

..thats what it is right there. People are so shocked that a pol. actually has a reasoned opinion on something, and is willing to stake himself to that position that this speech has become something. ..a symbol of inspirational leadership
.

too funny jasonC

we all know HRC voted for the war for political purposes (to cover her big ass) and to burnish her "foreign policy/national security" credentials.

if yuou want to call that the triumph of "reason" over "emotion", that's a very interesting way of looking at it.

but indeed it WAS very "Clintonian" of her.