If the nomination came down to judgment on the IWR...Obama was prophetic, Clinton Naive!

I will take sound judgement over "experience".

Hillary's great experience was poor political judgement on healthcare. and great naivete on Iraq.

Then if he actually was able to vcte on it, he probably would have voted "present" - so as not to "offend" anybody (anybody but gay persons, among others, based on his past RECORD)...

Please explain. Thanks.

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

Kind of makes Hillary look like a moron, doesn't it? The rest is here: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

IWR and war in Iraq.

Both were against war. Both gave speeches opposing war.

Obama said he does not know how he would have voted on IWR as he was not in the senate and not privy to the stuff the Senate was.

...the short name for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

If you're against going to war, why vote to authorize war? This bullshit parsing of votes to authorize war into votes "against" war is, frankly, an insult to voters' intelligence, just as it was when Kerry tried to do it. Twenty-three Senators had the foresight and courage to vote against the goddamn thing; why didn't Hillary?

Stop lying.

Obama said later - the fellow who does not make statements based on the political need of the moment - that if he had the information other Senators had at the time of the speech, he did not know what he would have said.

You clinonistas keep trying to mislead by leaving that part out.

23 senators could see through it. and Hillary couldn't.



It is about judgement.. Hillary Failed misserably.

Easy to be a critic during the big game with a beer and a hot dog in your hand instead of a bat and a glove.

Senator Clinton is pretty shrewd. Furthermore, it WAS understood in intelligence circles and by at least some congress members that Iraq had effectively disarmed by the mid 1990s at the latest. Iraq had already agreed to resume inspections, and Hans Blix expected to eventually certify Iraqs compliance with the post-war U.N. disarmament mandate. Finally, Iraq posed no credible threat to the U.S. or to anyone else in the region. There was simply no justification for the IWR at all. Remember, a significant number of democratic party congress men and women voted against the resolution. If we're not to question their patriotism, we have to acknowledge that there were good reasons to oppose an invasion of Iraq and they knew it.

Nonetheless, MANY congress men and women with apparent ambitions for higher office supported the invasion of Iraq, as did others who-- I think-- were simply swept up by the war fever being trumpeted by the administration and the media. Invading Iraq was POPULAR with many Americans-- it had been popularized by the administration and an unrelenting anti-Hussein and pro-war campaign orchestrated by the media. The invasion of Iraq looked like a good political bet-- it would be quick, cheap, guaranteed successful, and someone was going to ride the wave of public enthusiasm to higher office.

At best, I think that was cynical, not naive. At worst, it was criminal.

come to the conclusion that she is a war-mongerer and liar? Such shit is strickly from the Rovian play book.

How is what she said much different than what Obama ssid in his speech. In fact, some words are almost identical in the beginning of their speeches.

Here is an excerpt of HRC"
"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President."

All wars are bad to me. Obama has said that he is not against all wars, just "dumb" wars. I would say that no war is merely dumb, just dumbly carried out. War is serious and some times it is necessary. Does that make me a war-mongerer?

But, I ain't giving a her pass.

Obama continues to vote for war funding.

Obama withdraws some troops but would continue anti-terrorism operations.

They differ on K-L vote/absence.

Edwards withdraws all troops except the Marine embassy guards.


Yes I know that Obama gave a speech five years ago and Edwards is the soon of a mill worker.

and it isn't Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

And I agree.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty state, a drop in the medium income—to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thorough the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I am opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.”

Obama went on to explain that “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequence of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequence. I know that an invasion of Iraq without clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.”

What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty state, a drop in the medium income—to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thorough the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I am opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.”

Obama went on to explain that “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequence of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequence. I know that an invasion of Iraq without clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.”

I was not aware that whalking throughtthe Sanate Cloakroom made you stupid.

What's you point?