With her IWR vote, Sen. Clinton will encounter only the same problem Kerry did. Plus, Miagi wisdom.

You want to see 2004 all over again? Support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Her greatest vulnerability is, oddly enough, exactly the same as Kerry's. She voted for the IWR, and has not adequately atoned for it. Such issues are those on which voters demand great clarity- they will not put up with wishy-washiness when the Republicans take up the "flip-flopper" meme once again and start pounding the airwaves with the fact that while Clinton now is (apparently- is she? who knows) "against" the Iraq War, she "voted for it." And inevitably some reporter will put a question to her, or many reporters will, regarding that vote. Would she have voted the same way if she knew then what she knows now? Yes? Then why are you supposedly "against" the occupation today? Or- are you? If you supported the war then, why not finish it out? Or- will you?

The lack of clarity will become apparent.


This is the vast political difference between other candidates who made the same mistake Sen. Clinton did, and Sen. Clinton. Other candidates, such as Edwards, have totally disowned their vote. And that will work, ultimately- just as so many voters themselves have disowned their previous support of the Iraq War. But Sen. Clinton, in her "pride" (and perpetual political ignorance) is walking right into the same trap that Kerry did. Just like Edwards and Dodd said at the debate before last, some learned the hard way (including Kerry)- but some just didn't learn at all.

It's like Mr. Miagi said in the Karate Kid:

"Daniel-san, must talk. Man walk on road. Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk down middle, sooner or later, get squished- just like grape. Same here. You karate do 'yes,' or karate do 'no.' You karate do 'guess so,' just like grape. Understand?"

John Kerry did karate do "guess so," and got squashed like grape.

Let's not do that again.

I think the GOP will always "define" our candidate with manufactured BS, and the BS on Kerry was that he was a "flip-flopper." So it was his statement that he 'voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it' that was hammered home, and beyond the "flip-flop" nonsense the way it hurt him was in voting "no" to "supporting the troops."

I think the IWR vote might hurt any of them in the primary. (Makes no difference to me the extent to which any of them "disavow" it now.) But I don't think it would hurt them in the general.

of the war itself.

He didn't make it entirely clear to voters which side of the fence he was one with regard to the war, and I think that was what hurt him the most. The money statement was just kind of the topper on the whole thing because of the way he phrased it.

In the debates, it could not have been clearer. How could that possibly have been unclear??

The IWR was already water under the bridge. Again, I think a lot of Democrats had a problem with it, but it was hardly a major theme in the general election -- particularly when running against the asshat who created the mess he did.

how Kerry was characterized, why he lost.

He easily won the nomination - which is where that vote could have hurt. In the general election, it did not hurt him. He got the anti-war vote and part of the vote that was not sure about the invasion or though Bush was incompetent.

In 2008, had Kerry NOT run in 2004, Kerry could have positioned himself better than Edwards, Clinton, Dodd or Biden - unlike any of them he DID speak against the invasion and he was by far the leader among them in defining the need to set a deadline and withdraw. By 2008, what you did in 2006 (Kerry/Feingold) should have as much bearing as 2002, especially as he spoke out in 2002 and 2003.

As Biden said in August on the Senate floor, Kerry has been consistent in his position of what to do since before the invasion. Biden, having been an author of Biden/Lugar which was a better bill might be able to defend himself better than the others.

in making claims against the war- in the primaries. I agree that that is the main problem- but I think where it hurt him was in the general election. Because that was where he was trying to create opposition to Bush not with his own voters, but with the country as a whole. And he needed to establish independent credibility. He couldn't do it outside of the party.

Hell, he could hardly do it inside the party. It just got really bad once it came to wooing independents. People wanted Bush out so bad, but Kerry just couldn't make it over the hump with regard to the Iraq issue.

Bush was very near 50% approval - some of the disapproval was on the RW side - with people like Pat Buchanan. Kerry got the anti-war people. the people he needed to win were in the middle. He needed to convince them that he could resolve things better.
The concern of many voters was that Kerry would NOT stay in Iraq. Kerry was seen as more anti-war than Bush.

How can you say he "could hardly" do it inside the party - he won the nomination with landslide like votes. Dean polled about 20 points behind Bush when he was polled in December 2003 and January 2004. No poll showed that anywhere near 50% of the population was for immediate withdrawal. (In fact, until 2006 - even a one year dead line to withdraw was not favored - until Kerry sold the idea.

they WEREN'T voting for him was because they didn't feel like they could trust him. They didn't think he had the conviction to be President. It was the flip-flopper meme, not the fact that he was anti-war.

He might have actually won if he had been stronger against the war. In fact, he had the opportunity to affect the polling on the support of the war itself. He didn't make use of it.

He was saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". He was saying Bush misled us to war. The fact was IT was strong.

What more could he have said. He spoke against going to war from mid 2002 on.

That doesn't really change anything, though.

I think it will be domestic issues... economics, health care, and our border problems.

and that will ultimately be decisive because of the figurehead role of the President.

Written up in huge letters on Bill's/Carville's whiteboard. Reagan - Do you feel better off today than you did four years ago?. A large part of how good Americans feel involves personal finances. Barring a major new military (mis)adventure, if gas prices are $2 more a gallon in a year's time it's completely over for the Republicans for four years.

it a harder sell for anyone advocating a "stay the course" effort. I think the country has had enough, and will be less likely to support a Rep because of the war. It seems, to me, that they would be smarter to point the debate towards any perceived weaknesses of Clinton (or whoever we nominate).

Guess we'll know soon enough. :)

about war, and force Clinton into one-upping them on warhawkishness.

you can take that to the bank.

very specifically, depening on who they nominate. Security with Rudy. Fundie values with Hucakbee and Romney. Crazy old Uncle issues with McCain, etc. :)

I think that "war" is a harder issue for the Repubs to deal with than it would be for Clinton this time around because the majority mindset seems to be "get the troops out". The Repubs are out of step with much of the country, for the time being. PROVIDED there isn't some new catastrophe, of course. If something "happens", then the dynamic changes.

I think that everything seems to be pointing to the economy and the border issue being of primary concern to the country right now.

to the war as an issue of framing.

"Republican Land" where I live, and the media coverage I'm seeing... :)

:P