2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI've never understood why Kerry did not face the same level of wrath from Democrats over
his Iraq War Resolution vote. Or Biden for that matter. Or Edwards.
Hillary was the junior senator from a state that had JUST had the worst terrorist attacks, and we were assured that Iraq was planning another attack with WMD's. The IWR authorized war but only as much as to defend the US and after diplomacy had failed.
Yet when people criticize Hillary, it as though she is the ONLY democrat who voted for it, the ONLY person who personally organized the strategies to take Saddam down and have no replacement plans, the ONLY person who caused the disaster that is Iraq.
So called progressives plan on making deceased woman cards for her, when no such wrath was shown towards all the men who voted for this war. A lot of the same people who hold her personally responsible for every death in Iraq, were supporters of Edwards (Susan Sarandon comes to mind), and they didn't make such allegations about him or make him dead men cards.
I find it really bizarre.
jcgoldie
(11,584 posts)One of these democrats is not like the others....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)In a sane country with informed voters, it would have ended the career of EVERY politician who voted for it.
Hillary Clinton forever lost my vote (in Democratic primaries) in October 2002, as did John Kerry and Joe Biden.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)Were you at DU in 2002?
I was. We knew about the PNAC agenda. We knew the case for war was bogus. We Knew that once given the authority, Bush was going to invade.
The vote for the IWR was a vote for war.
Period.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Clearly the invasion and occupation was wrong, but voting to give the Prez authority "IF NEEDED" was not necessarily wrong at the time.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)I don't have time right now to go digging through archives, but if you were here at DU in 2002 you would have seen links about PNAC, how it became GW's official national security strategy, and many sources of information showing that the case for war was clearly bogus -- prior to the IWR vote.
Any sitting member of Congress who was ignorant of this information was unqualified to hold their office.
I highly doubt John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton were so horribly ill informed. They were either on board with the PNAC agenda or voted out of concern for their own careers in the post-9/11 political environment.
Anyone who actually believed Bush/Cheney would act in good faith was indeed a FOOL.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)She made it very clear in her speech that she expect Bush to continue diplomacy between the Iraqi Government and the Inspectors.
She was my Senator. This is all still vivid to me.
Response to KMOD (Reply #204)
Post removed
and snarky.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)... but True.
Politicians say and put their spin on a lot of things (like a controversial vote). When what they say is at variance with what is increasingly apparent, we have to use our own judgment and question the politician.
Anyone who was familiar with the PNAC agenda and could see the case for war was bogus had to know a vote for the IWR was a vote for war. Once given the authority, Bush was going to invade.
And he did.
Despite the UN inspectors being admitted full access and asking for more time to complete their evaluation, Bush forced them out and launched Shock & Awe.
If Hillary Clinton believed what she said in the speech you remember, then she was fooled by Cheney/Bush.
In the early months of 2003 when it became increasingly evident Bush was going to invade, can you find any statements by Hillary Clinton demanding that the UN inspectors be allowed to complete their work and that he stick to what she believed was the agreement in the IWR?
When Bush betrayed the members of Congress who trusted him to act in good faith, did Hillary Clinton stand up and point this out to the American people -- not years later when her vote became a political liability, but when these events were unfolding?
If you can find such statements by HRC, I will concede that she honestly believed her vote for the Iraq War Resolution was not a vote for war. This would, however, confirm that she was fooled -- very poor judgment, given the PNAC agenda and the bogus case for war the Bush administration was making.
But I don't think Hillary is that dumb.
She was either on board with the agenda (like the hawk that she is) or she thought at the time that appearing to be "tough" on national security would be good for her political career.
Take your pick; none of them are good.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)again, from her speech
Her position has never changed.
And she was one of the first Senators to criticize w's misuse and distortion of intelligence gathering. She faulted him for that horrible excuse to go to war.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)Those words of Hillary's you quoted proved to be wrong, because that is not what happened. If Hillary believed it, she was fooled into trusting Cheney/Bush to act in good faith. The fact is they didn't, and it was entirely predictable that once given the authority they would take us to war in Iraq. Many thousands of us were shouting it, pleading with our elected representatives to vote against the IWR.
In early 2003 did Hillary insist the inspectors be allowed to complete their work, before Shock & Awe was launched? Please find her statement to that effect.
Did Hillary stand up and assert that Bush had indeed taken us to war under the doctrine of preemption and against the rule of international law, when he did exactly that? Please find her statement with that criticism -- not years later when her IWR vote became a political liability, but at the time Bush betrayed the trust placed in him.
You found her quote easily enough, from her speech when she voted for the IWR. You should have no problem finding her speech from early 2003 when she insisted the inspectors be allowed to complete their work, or when she criticized Bush for a war of preemption that violated international law.
2003, not months or years later.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)December, 2003
I hope you take the time to read the entire transcript.
Bok_Tukalo
(4,322 posts)His characterization is not that far fetched.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)The rationale spoken by politicians to explain their vote is one thing, and the reality of what happened is another.
I can't speak for everyone who was here at DU in 2002, but I remember this was a place that called out the lies of the war propaganda prior to October 2002 and it was pretty damn obvious that if Bush was given the authority to take us to war in Iraq he would take us to war in Iraq.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and appeared on all the talking head shows angrily condemning Bush for misusing the authority granted to him in the "Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq."
.
.
.
.
Oh wait. That didn't happen.
Kerry was quiet, and Hillary was cheer leading the Invasion.
.
.
.
So much for your rationalizations and fantasies.
These Democrats were NOT "fooled" by the Bush Lies about the WAR,
nor were they fooled about the nature of the Bill on which they were voting.
Many called it a "blank check for WAR".
[font size=5]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled STAND against the rush to WAR in a Politically Hostile environment.
The Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq (AUMF)
AKA The Iraq War Resolution
In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
In the United States House of Representatives,
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democrats:
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu
(Apologies for the Loss of Data.
I'll have to fix that.)
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)Just profiteering.
We're stuck with compromises now, but back then, I was a Kucinich supporter.
I knew what was coming.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... she was always going on and on about Hillary's IWR vote and how she could NEVER support someone who voted for the IWR. Yet, flash-back to 2008 and you'll see that Susan Sarandon was one of his biggest supporters.
Weird huh? Why didn't it make a difference to Sarandon back THEN?
One word: HYPOCRITE.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I agree.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Same tone, same DLC corporatist boogeyman (but they weren't yet oligarchs or banksters apparently) and same futile poutrage.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It was a mess, IIRC.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)But I was there too, and it was not what it is today. Today, there is a more then decade insight to see the fail. 2004, we were not in the same place, did not spend that much $, lives, repercussions and those were not given to any of the others. Fuck, not even Bush.
Interesting.
But, what I have noticed with this discussion, .... We talk about that vote 15 yrs ago, as if the knowledge and insight today has anything to do with the conversation.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I think my memory on the whole thing is clear- I supported Kerry in 2004, because I bought into the whole bit about his vote for the IWR being "strategic and smart" due to 9-11, and the idea that his record as war hero would make him immune to Karl Rove attacks. (we see how that turned out)
I learned a lot, that cycle. After that I came to the conclusion that we genuinely would have done better with a candidate who could have articulated a coherent moral opposition to the central question of the war. I think Dean would have been at least a strong candidate as Kerry was. But hindsight is 20/20.
In 2008, I said up and down I wanted a candidate who didn't have an IWR vote to explain, and I applied that to Edwards and Kerry and Biden- who I have always had other problems with as well- just as I did to Hillary. So I think I've been consistent.
This cycle, look, I've said during the primary process I think it was an error in judgment, she has said the same... I didn't support her in the primaries but I absolutely support her as the nominee. It's been enough time and she has acknowledged her mistake, it's not a deal-breaker for me.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for me.... and proceed forward. I knew what was happening, it was going to happen regardless, the only position for the Dems was to make a strong statement.
They were on the out.
Europe had committed, the people in the U.S. demanded, Surely Clinton's state, New York....
I saw all this as it was happening, and at that time I said, Yea Sanders, he is safe, he can make a statement with his vote. In his position he was one of the very few that had that "luxury"..
It is this shit that bothers me. Now, it helps to see your perspective that you bought in, but the info was out there. It was clear what was happening, and the media directed it.
TWO weeks before the 2002 vote.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's worth noting that a number of Senators voted against the IWR, though. Not just Sanders.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)It really bothered him, too. Profoundly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)getting us into it. That is why I feel they stole in 2004. The military and that mentality in my area was so disgusted and embarrassed by Bush. I think they were as surprised and even disappointed that Bush won.
But, we used that as our campaign to reach these people to sway them over.
See the difference?
annavictorious
(934 posts)And it was only Hillary who faced demands for an apology.
Hillary was held to a different standard in 2008 and 2016.
People will accept imperfection from a male candidate. Women have to be perfect.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like I said, my posts are part of the record. I bothered to dig them up in one of these prior conversations, don't really feel like doing it again, however the gist of what I said- repeatedly- was that for me, for the primary I wanted someone without the albatross of the IWR vote. That nixed Edwards, Biden, Kerry and Clinton.
Obama was okay because he hadn't voted for it, of course he hadn't been a Senator at the time. My original choice for 08 was Gore. I believe I voted for Kucinich, though.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)I, for one, did not get how so many of his supporters were oblivious of his pro war 2004 positions. In 2004, only Lieberman was more for the war in late 2003.
His platform on most issues in 2007 looked more like the Kerry campaign in 2004 than his own - with Iraq changing to a position that was his, less well conceived, alternative to Kerry/Feingold.
In his case, the vote I most hold him responsible for was the bankruptcy bill of 2001. He was a very junior Senator, but he had been a trial lawyer and Elizabeth a bankruptcy lawyer. This went against the heart of their campaign. They knew how much worse this bill would make things. Politically, this was a bill that he could passionately speak of having voted against even in a purple state.
Rhiannon12866
(202,973 posts)People were at each other's throats and I was shocked at the aggressive nastiness. Some of the supporters of one candidate threatened to vote for Bush* if theirs didn't get the nomination and a supporter of another candidate came after me, sent me threatening PMs because I said something they thought was critical of their candidate. I found the whole thing very upsetting. I'm not saying this time around has been any better, but those were scary times.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)whenever I argued Clinton policy being the policies I prefer.
(I love, whatthehey, btw).
Squinch
(50,773 posts)know what is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's always "So---" followed by some shit I never said or don't believe.
lol.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Right or left, Clinton Derangement is a mental condition of the most virulent kind. Outside Bartcop the Bushes never even see or saw that level of concentrated venom and they are Republicans.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)It was full steam ahead for Kerry after the primary, especially given the Swiftboating by the Repukes.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This graph stops in 2014, but of course Bill's ratings remain high and Hillary's continues to drop as she heads toward the 2016 election (being piled with blame for all his actions as well as W's) same as it did leading up to 2008.
Cracking those glass ceilings is strictly for the very toughest and most competent, and most of them are taken out before one finally succeeds. And Hillary's busting through the thickest, highest ceiling of all.
jcgoldie
(11,584 posts)She's just as popular as her husband except when she gets uppity and tries running for office.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but like how dare she show ambition.
NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)but, it shows how she's been generally popular - except the year when she runs for office.
PatSeg
(46,803 posts)As Secretary of State, Hillary was one of the most admired women in the world, but when she runs for office, it is like she is a completely different person. I think as a society, we have a problem with women politicians.
NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)when she tries for "power" - her popularity sinks, but when she's actually in power (Senator, Sec. of State), her popularity recovers.
I've noticed that Hillary is very good at "being" whatever her position is (SOS, senator, etc), but campaigning is not her strong suit. It is a gift that not all politicians have, but it does not mean that they aren't qualified for the job they are seeking. And of course, there are some with outstanding political skills who really suck at their jobs.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)She had high ratings when running for Senator.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Meanwhile, his ratings remain high--except when he gets associated in the public mind with her periodic uppityness. Our glass ceiling problem runs way deep.
And if I think about it too much, I get so fcking infuriated. Between Trump, Republicans and the MSM, it's enough to put me in a permanent state of anger.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)She defined herself in the book and interviews as more hawkish than Obama. She really made it clear she would have been more aggressive in Syria.
I think taking those positions and being pretty negative about what Obama did do, flipped many on the left who had seen her as having been similar to Obama. Remember the question is favorable, unfavorable. If the last big thing you heard was her position on Syria, you might say unfavorable. At that same point, you likely hoped someone new would enter the race and catch fire.
March 2015 is also when the NYT first reported that she had her private server and the State Department had finally got her email back at the end of 2014 and were working to process it. Her many statements and some admissions that earlier statements were not the whole truth hurt.
In fact, given her staking out a foreign policy position she knew the base would not agree with and having the start of a major controversy, one measure of how strong she was (and is) is that she never lost the position of being the very very favored front runner in the race. That shows that Democrats did take her other positives into consideration.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is she stepped into the 2016 primary and the never ending, absurd attacks began. Clinton is a liar, untrustworthy, no bases to accusations.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)I agree that as it was clear she would run, there were Republicans who flipped on that question. I suspect for Democrats, it was the other issues mentioned.
However, you were here at DU. You had to have seen the reaction of Democrats and Allied lefties who really had problems with her on a more hawkish foreign policy.
The polls do not explain what caused people to change. I would argue though that nothing really happened in March 2015 to suddenly make more people think she was running than in say January 2015. It was not a well kept secret revealed that month.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)attacks that would have been against Obama started having Clinton's name, not Obama. That drew my attention and I started going into the threads I had stayed out of because there was no conversation. There was not open minded. It was very black and white. Even with accomplishment, Obama Repug, Oligarchy, whatever.
It shifted to Clinton. Clinton was no where on the radar, her polls were up significantly, then March, April the conversation switch from Obama evil, to everything Clinton's fault and evil. I am absolutely aware because it caused me to step into the conversation.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)supporter. But, I was seeing high polls and was surprised, having remembered '08. I was always Obama, but I certainly saw the glass ceiling. I said to self, self.... lol. We can do the first black, before we do the first woman, but ya.... it was there.
I was glad to see her start getting her dues.
All the way up into walking into the race, until Sanders entered.
I found that really interesting but I have never seen someone say it like you do. That is very clear. Thanks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what it is all about. Factions say we are playing the woman card. They can rant until they are blue in the face, I can list out that shit, in my lifetime. When you live to my age, you have done it all for so long, too tired, and finally get to the point of saying, ..... I ain't playing no mo.
That is when we become shrew. Well, hell, the is a role in the shrew, crone, hag. Lol.
I am feeling it today, Lol. I wasn't until I read your post, and now I am all like, Ya, .... That. Too funny.
I have to get my music on, and breathe.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)women don't know their place.
I seem to recall an OP right here about how Hillary was just fine until she overreached and ran for President.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)... which leads to the idea of sexism. It makes sense, when you consider the outrage she generates, versus everyone else.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)also thought to be lacking in communal traits, and are therefore considered less likeable. Men on the other hand are valued for being agentic (Heilman, 2012; Lyness & Heilman, 2006).
(that was my fancy way of saying yes )
PatSeg
(46,803 posts)As a woman, I can say this has been my experience.
mine as well...
PatSeg
(46,803 posts)when they keep their place, which would usually be one that has no power or influence.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)PatSeg
(46,803 posts)whathehell
(28,969 posts)I'm tired of women getting hammered for the same things that are all but overlooked in men -- double standards suck.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)plus she is still a big time hawk
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)she would still do similar things moving forward. Her hawkishness and her massive support and crafting of the TPP (I know she has flipped flopped now, but I still don't feel comfortable) are the 2 main reasons I am not excited about voting for her. I will do so to stop the monster that is Trump, and of course vote straight Dem down ballot, but I am not energised at all about Sec. Clinton. I do think its a very good thing to finally have a female President, but that alone would never be my chief reason to vote for anyone. It is far too reductionist for my taste.
My vote for her is the extent of my support (and my non stop anti-Trump projections).
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is being hammered.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)And TPP Zis his baby and she was SoS under him it was his adm he has last say.
bbmykel
(282 posts)because we were so desperate to get rid of W.
I believe the vote worked against Edwards in 2008, but he dropped out fairly early so perhaps it didn't seem to become as big an "issue".
mcar
(42,210 posts)Because Trump is a better alternative than W? I don't think so.
bbmykel
(282 posts)The choice in 2008 was Obama v. Clinton and folks for whom the Iraq war vote was important probably chose Obama.
The choice in 2016 was Sanders v. Clinton and folks for whom the Iraq war vote was important probably chose Sanders.
The original question was about why Kerry wasn't held to account for his vote, but Clinton has been by a certain segment of voters, and my answer is/was Kerry was given a grudging pass in the hopes of getting rid of W. And by the way, Kerry's vote did count against him in the primary as many supported Howard Dean instead.
Clinton will probably be given a grudging pass by many voters because Trump is crazy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not hopeful, that he would go after illegal of Bush, NSA/ATT/TSA. He gave a hint he might but mostly that he would not. That little comment had me choosing Obama over Clinton. I didn't blame Dems, and I wanted repercussions.
Otherwise they were pretty much the same as far as the politics, as Sanders and Clinton are.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)For me the evidence seemed obvious. Especially considering it was being pushed by Cheney/Bush
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)Women are held to much higher standards than men and this presidential race has brought out the heavy duty racists who cloak themselves as progressives. Even women hate other women who do better than themselves. I've always been surprised at women who hate other women; but I think that is from needing to have men approve of them. Of course, I could be very off base and I'm the odd one out.
radical noodle
(7,990 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)field. And where Clinton really teaches us all, is even with the obstacles, she just keeps pushing forward, so cool. I can respect that.
And I agree with women being supportive of each other. I think that is a lesson for most of us, being conditioned in the same patriarchy, culture, society.
sarae
(3,284 posts)I always feel more disappointed by women who act in misogynist ways, because it feels like a betrayal. But it's a deep-rooted systemic problem. I think a lot of people find ways to justify their sexism because they don't want to admit that's what they're doing...which is no excuse, really.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the right things out loud, with the women and girls around me. I focus on our young girls that are open to recognizing and starting the shift. We have a LOT of awesome young women well ahead of the eight ball. We are more recognizing the battle set up between, women against women, created by outside forces, and rejecting it.
But I hear you. I use to be flabbergasted. Not so much now.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I didn't vote for Kerry, Biden nor Edwards in the primary.
I did vote for Kerry in GE 2004, mainly as a protest vote against Bush.
I did vote for Obama/Biden in GE 2008 because I thought they were better than McCain/Palin.
But I did not want Kerry, Biden nor Edwards as president, and their IWR was a big reason why.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)I never heard this question from a fellow Democrat when I said I was voting for them: "Oh, so I guess you are just fine with murdering women and children, then."
Did any Democrat ever say that to you over your vote for Kerry or Biden?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Squinch
(50,773 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Bush beat Kerry partly because Iraq really got bad and fell out of favor with Americans after the election. People with more foresight (like Bernie) opposed it from the get go, but the war was still somewhat popular when Kerry was running.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)both houses of congress from Republican control, in the mid-term elections.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)were you here for the 2004 primaries? I was.
Trying to make this all about Hillary and folks being out to get her because she's female, is silly.
It's been long enough now that the IWR vote isnt a dealbreaker for someone like me, but in 2008 I held it against Edwards and Kerry just as equally as I considered it a strike against Hillary.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)60%-70% of the post were quite scurrilous of Hill during the primary, it wasn't quite that bad for Biden, Edwards or Kerry, IMO?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I wanted a candidate who didn't have the albatross of a pro IWR vote to explain. And I held the candidates equally accountable.
I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)I have not heard these phrases when applied to Kerry or any of the others then or now
She will have no problem sending your kids off to war
A picture of her laughing and a caption saying this is what she will do when sending your boys off....
On Mother's day I would wish her a happy Mothers day but I prefer someone who values children
etc.....
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)yardwork
(61,417 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)primary. If anything I'd say that it played a bigger role in the criticism of Kerry. With Clinton, it tends to get mentioned in with a variety of her other foreign policy positions (I probably hear Libya or Syria talked about as much as if not more than the IWR).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I disagree his vote was the big issue, against Kerry. Democrats was using Kerry's military and the mess in Iraq, bush's stupid, failed, Cheney shooting a man in the face, against Bush.
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)Of course I voted for Kerry in the general.
That said, I can see why it has become more of an issue for more people. Some of us were against it from the start, but to other people, the fact that the IWR was a mistake was much more evident in 2015/2016 than it was in 2004. Not just because we see what a mess the region has become, but also a lot more information has come out about exactly what was genuinely known at the time to those who were actually paying attention and had access to the information. We are long past the deceits of Judith Miller et al.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)we were desperate for anything breathing to replace him*.
but I was on DU back then and yes, people were pissed about him voting for the war.
I remember it well, but the other issue was that the right wing morons were so invested in swift boating Kerry, that the whole issue of him voting for the war, fell by the waste-side.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)That's a big difference.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)Demobrat
(8,916 posts)Not sure why. It was wrong of us, I know.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)bonemachine
(757 posts)You are viewing the events of over a decade ago through the prism of this election.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)bonemachine
(757 posts)Then document it. Give us some definite evidence that Hillary is actually receiving more criticism than Kerry did, and adjust that data for how much worse of a mistake we now realize that invasion was and show us the proof that she is getting the worse of it because she is a woman.
Otherwise your just presenting your questionable speculation as fact, and that's bogus.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)I'm curious to see the data the OP is basing this on.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Squinch
(50,773 posts)Kerry, Biden and Edwards all got passes on their vote. But somehow Hillary is Satan because of her vote.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You can be assured they have bought into the RW bigots view of resentment toward women and people of color. They defend talking about crotch stench and can't even admit to themselves the primary is over. It's self centered childish bullshit.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And they are right, just not for the reasons for which they make that allegation.
The Clinton's are held to a much higher standard, and any misstep immediately means they've perpetrated worst thing to have ever happened in human history.
mcar
(42,210 posts)The Clinton Rules always are.
oasis
(49,151 posts)NEVER
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)The IWR was the main criticism that Dean supporters made against Kerry. It's hard to believe that anyone involved in the primaries (or even paying a bit of attention to them) wouldn't know that.
Obama went after Clinton pretty strongly for it in '08. But in '16, a Sanders supporter was more likely to talk about economic issues than foreign policy when criticizing Clinton (that was one of the criticisms of him - "his only interest is in the economy" . If they talked about foreign policy, they were just as if not more likely to bring up Libya and Syria than IRW.
The idea that Clinton is now being held to a different standard regarding the IRW seems to be disconnected from the facts; it's unfortunate that there's little interest in them.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)It wasn't as bad for Kerry. Maybe because he was labeled a flip flopper saying he was for the war before he was against it. The flip flopper label got more coverage than war monger. Dems don't show videos of him as say he's going to kill your children. We have all seen these posts.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)If you're comparing '04 to '08, those are pretty different situations. Obama had much more institutional support than Dean, and was going in with a much higher name recognition (people were already talking about Obama running in '04, few even knew who Dean was in '00).
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)Nor was there a character assination of Kerry as a warmonger in 04 or after. Clinton has had to sustain attacks from 2006 on. Although Kerry isn't running now no other democratic senator who voted for IWR has had the sustained hatred applied to them as Clinton has for her IWR vote.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)It encouraged opposition to Kerry and Clinton somewhat in the '04 and '08 primaries, because opposition to IWR is important to a certain segment of the Democratic base (I'd say that's a good thing). But the public at large doesn't seem to care that much, and even within the Democratic party it isn't that important these days.
It simply wasn't a big issue in '16 - Clinton was only asked about it a couple of times, and the general consensus in the media was that foreign policy was Clinton's strength. Even people who dislike Clinton usually put it way down on their list of complaints about her, much lower than Kerry '04 or Clinton '08. Sure, you're more likely to hear Clinton criticized for it these days than to hear Kerry criticized for it - but that's because Clinton was running for president and we just had a primary. It's the same reason was you were much more likely to hear Kerry get criticized for it than Biden get criticized for it in '04 - not because people had a bias against Kerry or in favor of Biden, but because that's what happens when you run for a high-profile position.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)The public at large was not anti-war in 2004. But since 2006, the midterm elections where Bush lost big the public is becoming more war weary. Just take a look at tRump, would any repug dare to criticize Bush if they were still for war, in a repug primary, too. It can also be demonstrated in how tRump has commandeered some anti war and isolationist views as evidenced by him trying to revision his support for the Iraq invasion.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)but we'll see. Trumps success had a lot to do with stirring up xenophobia (and being able to state dog whistles directly); it doesn't seem to have had much to do with claiming to oppose the Iraq war. Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both much stronger opponents (and they weren't talking about invading again the way Trump is doing), and it didn't seem to help them in the party that much. It did seem to inspire a small group of anti-war Libertarians, but that group was never a big faction in the GOP. Polling shows that most Republican's don't view the Iraq war as a mistake.
And I'm not sure the current mood is anti-war so much as it's against large deployments of troops. There doesn't seem to have been much public opposition to bombing Libya or ISIS areas, or to supporting factions in the Syrian conflict.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)McCain ran from Bush's endorsement in 08. I agree that the orange tRump is using xenophobia as the main means to stir up support. But he is also trying to say he is better at fp by trying to revision his support for the Iraq invasion. But in repug circles the Iraq war was losing support. Bush's approval ratings from 06-08 went steadily downhill hitting a low of 38%. And yes, the repugs want to say they are the best at security while not sending out troops. It's an inherit contradiction and they have to be careful to draw a fine line, like walking a tight rope, one misstep and they fall. But I also think the base is more war weary than the establishment. For one thing some are viewing the war as making us less secure.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Then again, it's 14 years later and we're still in Iraq, and a few others as well. Hell, we're killing people in countries we are not at war with!
So much good our anti-war votes did
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Hence my reply to that post.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)In fact most Senate Democrats voted for the IWR. Its clearly a double standard.
geardaddy
(24,924 posts)I'm just glad my two senators at the time voted against
Paul Wellstone
Mark Dayton
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2016, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Many people in the House and Senate voted for that legislation, most voting under the premise that Saddam Hussein would back down and comply with all the UN resolutions. The fact is, he DID comply with most of them and was in the process of complying with the remaining UN resolutions when bush attacked.
Also, there were a number of conditions in the legislation that had to be met in order for bush to attack Iraq. Those conditions were never met, but he attacked anyway.
What is most frustrating is all the people who criticize some (not all) of those who voted for that legislation, blaming them for "voting for war", even though none of those people have ever really read what Congress passed.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)broadcaster75201
(387 posts)nt
Squinch
(50,773 posts)on that vote, and the one woman didn't?
rock
(13,218 posts)Then I think I know.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In retrospect, I think i was wrong, I think we would have done just as well or better with Dean, who could have articulated a moral opposition to the Iraq war without the albatross of the vote.
In 2008 i stated very clearly I wanted a candidate for the GE who hadnt voted for it, and I was happy when I got one.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)they were running for office.
Kerry did face the same attacks even though he spoke against rushing to war before it started. He argued that they had not exhausted diplomatic means -- and that and a list of other things not done, like preparing for the end of the war, letting the inspectors finish their work etc were repeated by him for months in 2003 and into 2004. There was - to my knowledge - no similar Clinton speech against going to war in early 2003 as the inspectors were finding nothing.
In the first half of 2003, the media labeled Kerry as antiwar -- including when he was the first to speak out when Abu Ghraib became known - he demanded Rumsfeld step down ... and Dean joined him later that day. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, in June 2004 while on his book tour, spoke against those on the left challenging how the was was being fought. Had, as many thought, the war been short and successful -- Clinton likely would have spoken of that vote as a tough, but correct, choice. Kerry because of his speeches would have been labeled as having been against the war.
Not to mention, he was John Kerry. For many in my generation the first time we saw him was as the guy only a little older than us speaking with great eloquence against the Vietnam War. His IWR speech in 2002, said he would speak out if Bush did not use the authority as he said he would --- and he spoke out in early 2003. ( Even though in early 2003, he was dealing with learning he had cancer and getting treatments.) His history, that speech and his speaking out in 2003 made me comfortable that if he were President he would not have taken the country to war. (In fact, his comments in wanting Bush to be able to leverage the fact that the country was behind him to get needed concessions to avoid a war presages his own negotiations that removed 600 tons of chemical weapons from Syria that would never have happened if strikes were not threatened.)
Likewise, in 2002/2003, HRC was not your average Senator. We all came to know her well in 1992 as the incoming First Lady. Just as Kerry's history gave his vote an importance to me, Clinton's past made her a very important player as well -- and it was not based on her seniority. NO ONE in the Democratic party had a bigger megaphone that they could have used than Bill and Hillary Clinton. I marched in DC and NYC with my then teen aged daughters and husband. The frustration was that the protests which were huge got little attention and the media was not covering any of the people speaking against the rush to war. So, if some people were disappointed in Kerry not living up to his past, they were disappointed that the Clintons - the ONLY people who could always be heard ... were silent .. or in Bill's case - almost siding with Bush.
Politicians ALWAYS use differences in records to their advantage. You could compare comments from Dean and Kerry before the vote and you would see that Dean in Sept/Oct 2002 was MORE aggressive than Kerry. Bill Clinton argued that when Obama and HRC were both in the Senate they voted in very similar ways (both voted against Kerry/Feingold). But, both Dean and Obama had the right to use the votes of Kerry and Clinton and they did.
In Iowa, Kerry won even the people who were against the war. It may well be that his history from 1971 or even reading antiwar poetry on the Senate floor in the time leading up to the 1991 war defined Kerry enough that many did believe that he was not a hawk. The differences are many. One is that one contest was 2004 -- the other 2008. Being tarred with that vote was likely worse in 2008 than in 2004. The other is that Kerry is harder to pigeon hole as a hawk than Clinton. The third is that Dean was a weaker candidate, who had supported Gulf War 1, than Obama.
As to Edwards - in neither 2004 or 2008 did he come even close to being a front runner. He was never really vetted. (Not to mention, he was genuinely prowar in late 2003 -- then tried to get the position of antiwar in 2007)
arcane1
(38,613 posts)"Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-kerry-debate-ii/
If "Saddam's WMD threat" was a Bush/Cheney lie, like everyone says it is, Kerry was just as responsible as Bush/Cheney for telling it.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)and the 1998 vote against SH that even Bernie Sanders voted for. Kerry had a long list of things that he said should be done before going to war -- as a last resort.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
-snip-
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
karynnj
(59,475 posts)and by 2002 -- 4 years later -- there was a 4 year gap with no inspectors in Iraq.
It was not a mistake to want inspectors in; it was a mistake to include authorization to war in the legislation without coming back to Congress.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...who forget history are apt to repeat it. 😉
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)But I completely agree with you that there is a difference between his reasons and post-vote behavior and Hillary's.
To her credit, Hillary has since admitted that her vote was a mistake. I think that vote alone should not be a total litmus test 14 years later.
Lancero
(2,980 posts)The longer the time that passes, the more people can reflect upon past choices and judge if they were for the best.
Same reasoning applies to why opinions on nuking Japan have changed a lot since the end of WW2 and today. More time to reflect on past actions.
Basically, hindsight is 20/20.
Still though, running with the reason that some people are saying is the cause - Obama hammered Clinton over her IRW vote in his 08 campaign. If sexism is the reason people want to call her on her IRW vote, then was Obama being sexist when he called her on it?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)100%
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Squinch
(50,773 posts)I was disappointed in all of them when they voted for the war, and I marched and protested against it.
But the thing is, I was equally disappointed in all of them. Not more disappointed in her.
And I believe her explanation, and support her fully now, even though I found the whole IWR so hurtful.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Not just because he voted for the invasion, but because when he was running for president he defended his vote, and said if he had been president at the time, he would've invaded too.
It immediately disqualified him for any public office, as far as I was concerned.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)successful move of the Democratic Party to the center, and for some progressives, they'd rather have lost 1992 and 1996, and never built the blue wall than cede ideological purity. Some of it is also dislike for Hillary because she's seen as a stronger supporter of Israel than the rest of them, and to the extreme left, Israel is bete noir.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)One of the reasons Senator Obama beat Senator Clinton in 2008 was that not only did he not vote for war in Iraq (I know he wasn't in the Senate at that point) but he was on record as being against going to war.
I'm heartily sick of all opposition to Hillary Clinton being portrayed as sexist. Some of us, despite her being a woman, just aren't all that crazy about her, her history, her policies, and so on. A man with all those would equally be unloved, at least by me.
Plus, it really does matter what year you're talking about.
And keep in mind, that what's really fallen off the radar is the notion of a dynasty as being a less than desirable thing, now that it looks like we'll have a second Clinton Presidency, just like we had a second Bush Presidency. If Jeb Bush were becoming the Republican nominee, that issue would be front and center at this point, but he's not so it isn't.
Along those lines, among the things that very much bothered me at the very beginning of this campaign, meaning by the middle of 2013, is that the only potential candidates that were being suggested in either party were mostly retreads. I honestly think what we (at least we Democrats) mostly need are a genuine new generation of politicians and leaders.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ellen Forradalom
(16,159 posts)by the Naderites in 2000. It may not have been the high point of his career, but what was not mentioned was that the vote was 98-2 to confirm Scalia's appointment to the Supreme Court. He was far from alone in this.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)It was one of the reasons Dean gained traction.
That said, I put Hillary in a slightly different category than the others because she didn't just vote for it - she went to the Senate floor and gave a long speech urging support for it. That's a lot different from Kerry, who made it clear that he was voting for it reluctantly and only doing so to strengthen President Bush's hand at the UN in hopes of avoiding war.
While I see your point about Hillary representing the state hit hardest by 9/11, it was obvious to anyone who paid attention at that time that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
I could forgive Hillary for her vote for the Iraq war 14 years ago, but it is not the only evidence that she is more hawkish than I am comfortable with. I will still vote for her and I want her to win, but her history of aggressively favoring military engagements troubles me.
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)like Sarandon actually elected Bush with their gore=Bush campaign. Bush literally started the wars that killed everyone. Sure blame one Democrat while giving all other Democrats who voted for the Iraq war a pass -conveniently forget Bush ET AL lied to Congress. and of course absolve the Republicans who actually did it of all guilt...you have to wonder why the greens,the Jack pine radicals and Nader types attack Democrats way more than the GOP.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)She and others like her attacked Gore mercilessly during the entire campaign. Gore = Bush....and it was not true. Secondly; Sarandon, the Greens, and Nader helped lose the 2000 election. If they were not in the picture, we would have won...despite any mistakes made by Gore. Thanks to them we got 9-11, two wars, United, and an economic meltdown. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson, but they never do. They helped unleash the hell that was Bush on this country. And Trump would be way worse. Of course, instead of attacking Trump, they attack the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. The Greens and Naderites have done nothing to improve this country ...just the opposite. And I would add that, the rhetoric spouted by Sarandon and Nader slandering Gore encouraged voters, including those in Florida, to vote for Bush.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)We don't like to see ourselves that way, but I can't figure out another explanation that matches what many see, such as the name calling and Nietzsche's "good and bad" mentality while we claim to use "good and evil" mentality.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If Kerry had been running against Sanders this year, you can believe you would have been hearing about it.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)and Clinton was not.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They lost to a bumbling war criminal because they had in fact bumbled along with him. Hillary on the other hand will overcome that bullshit and get elected, thus suffering less repercussions for her vote than they had for theirs.
Don't you think she will win, while Kerry lost a pathetic loss?
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)The other parts of the country were not anti-war and if you remember Bin Laden had his televised broadcast before the election bringing out fears of terrorism. Basically the soccer/security moms went for Bush.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)I've thought about starting a thread saying the same things but I figured WTF I would have to show all the Senators who supported it and get opinion polls from that time. You also have to figure that Sanders was from a small state which wouldn't have been a target unlike NY, Hills state.
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)I would have had to bring out graphs and opinion polls where none has been taken. Simply put no one has done a study of this, it is opinion. However, the anecdotal evidence is convincing enough, IMO. There are only 2 or 3 posters who have said well I held the IWR vote against Kerry or Edwards. No one came out and said they posted against Biden. And I don't remember unity being a "problem" in 2004 for Kerry, because of the IWR vote, or a group like JPR hanging over Kerry.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We knew more in 2008 and now than in 2004. In 04 we were calling out lies, by 08 it had all been confirmed. We know what the Senate knew - it was all bullshit.
Iraq's situation has continued to deteriorate, so the lack of foresight and judgment is made clearer every year.
The Iraq war had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and Hillary knew it at the time.
Also, many of us in 04 voted against Kerry in the primary, or would have given the chance, for that very reason. What where we going to do in the general, vote for bush?
DLCWIdem
(1,553 posts)However, first of all the Iraq war was couched as a defense of all terrorists and those states which supported terrorism. Second of all, the IWR was supposed to be implemented as cooperation with Bush so he could protect us against terrorism and so he could have more leverage against SH.
IMO, your post " and Hillary knew it at the time", kind of proves the posters point. She is being singled out. All the senators knew it at the time. They (all the senators) were not fooled, the way some of the public was, by the phrase well they attacked us: It is interesting that, again, you only singled Hillary out, and also implied that she was deceitful about her vote.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)They aren't all running for president. They all knew at the time bush was marching to war and that it was a vote for his war. No one believed, at the time, the vote was for anything but endorsement of his war.
Thirties Child
(543 posts)I was strongly for Clark, knew he was against going into Iraq. I came to DU in early 2004 when Clark dropped out of the race.
Personal note: In 2012 we moved, new computer, new server, new email address, forgotten password. I had to start over. I originally joined as Disorganized.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He did get a lot of shit over it in the primary, and his IWR vote was used against him to good effect by the Republicans (Remember, he was a "flip-flopper" because he was "for it before he was against it"?) He was seen as a staid, uninspiring "party insider choice" candidate against then-rambunctious Howard Dean. In the GE he was very definitely seen as a "lesser of two evils" campaign - remember how the fact he and Dubya belonged to the same social circles in college kept popping up?
So don't act like Kerry scooted by scott free on the issue; He didn't.
Biden got a lot of shit for it in his 2008 campaign. Edwards got an entirely different sort of shit in his '08 bid. Clinton is currently the only Democrat who voted for the thing who is running for president. If the fact people aren't railing against John Edwards or John Kerry in the 2016 presidential race mystifies you, well LLP, I really don't know what on earth to tell you.
Also, please stop with the "Clinton got fooled by Dubya!" argument. It does her no favors.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)maybe more so, or maybe less. Clinton has been their target since 1992. Kerry was out of their cross-hairs nationally until his presidential run. The Boston Globe truly loathed him and trashed him constantly in his Massachusetts elections and then nationally when he ran for President.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)That includes Kerry, Biden, Edwards, et al.
Voting to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq is inexcusable, and should be a disqualifier for anyone seeking higher office. Hillary Clinton, rather than learning from the catastrophe, advocated regime change in Libya. She is still a hawk.
Unfortunately, in a presidential election we are sometimes faced with a choice between a Democrat who voted for this war crime and a Republican who is even worse.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Clinton Derangement Syndrome and different genitalia, period.
I love Susan Sarandon ranting about Hillary's vote, when Saradon was AN EDWARDS SUPPORTER IN 2008.
merrily
(45,251 posts)was perceived (incorrectly, in my opinion) as more liberal than Kerry.
However, the DLC endorsed Kerry and media made the Dean scream a disqualifier and Dean made a deal for head of the DNC, so that was that.
When Kerry became the nominee, the other realistic choice was Dimson, and we have an even worse one now in Trump. However, I think, for various reasons, "the left of the left" had more residual confidence in the Party than it does now. So, fewer may be willing to continue voting LOTE now than they were in 2004. On the other hand, Trump is so awful that more Republicans may be willing to vote Democratic. Also, Millennials are more important now than they were in 2004.
What matters is not what happened to Kerry in the past, but how people will be voting in the near and more distant future. http://www.democraticunderground.com/127711022
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)You've provided no proof that such a thing happened.
There was plenty of vitriol when it came to Kerry.
In '08 the answer is much simpler. There were plenty who bashed every Democratic candidate who supported the IRW, Hillary really got the blunt of it due to the fact that she stayed in longer. If Edwards survived until California then he would have taken the brunt of it.
I supported Obama in '08 because he had it right from the beginning.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)In 2004, we had only just begun to pay the price and there really weren't any strong anti-war candidates, but it was a big plus for Howard Dean.
It was a fairly big deal in 2008. Obama was on record as a state senator against IWR.
I don't think it is strange that the American people have grown to appreciate how bad it was to vote for the IRW.
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,514 posts)Bush claimed that it was to force Hussein's hand on inspections. Kerry held him to that ... ever single day after it passed. And when Bush did not wait for the inspectors' reports, Kerry amplified his criticisms.
MBS
(9,688 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)But second, if you're right that he faced less criticism than HRC or others (and I actually doubt this) , I would guess it's because the non-wrathful contingent can see that he is not a hawk . From his 1971 testimony about Vietnam to his indefatigable diplomatic efforts at the State Dept. , he is a man who has consistently worked for peace.
I have always thought that he would have voted against the IWR if he hadn't been planning to run for President. Just a guess, of course, and I could be wrong. but the vote seemed so inconsistent with everything his career had stood for. .and His vote was ambivalent at best, and full of conditions, as he laid out in his tortured speech. . .plus he so clearly distrusted W . . this did not seem like a man who was happy with his vote. You may dismiss a vote based on presidential aspirations as one more mark against politicians. But politics is the art of the possible. And, given the post-9/11 atmosphere that still hung over the country in fall 2002, I would guess that a Democrat - especially one who was already targeted by Republicans for his opposition to the Vietnam war and more - who had voted against the IWR would never have stood a chance of winning the presidential election in 2004, or - if they were up for re-election that year- re-election to the senate in 2002. In scheduling that vote, the cynical Republicans knew that it would place any Democrat up for election or re-election in a politically impossible situation.(It would be interesting to see if in fact, there was a correlation of Senate Dem IWR votes with whether or not they were up for re-election in 2002, and/or were planning to run for President soon thereafter.(I was so pleased that Teddy Kennedy voted against the IWR, but I can't remember if he was up for reelection that fall, but even if he was, his reelection was pretty much assured. )
Yes, the IWR vote also probably cost Kerry the enthusiasm and support of those Democrats who hold up their candidates to an impossible purity standard, too. So maybe it was a lose-lose situation for Kerry, either way.. Anyway, I've always had sympathy for those Democrats --and, most of all, Sen. Kerry- who were placed in that impossible bind.
I was upset as I've ever been in that fall of 2002, as it became clear that W was determined to invade Iraq without any justification (and, worse, as things turned out, apparently also without any proper plan. I keep on thinking of Powell's pottery barn rule: "You break it, you own it". We broke Iraq, and we continue to pay the price).
But fourteen years later, I think it's high time we stop using the IWR vote as a litmus test for all Democrats who had the misfortune of serving in the Senate in fall 2002. What matters most is the larger context of these senators' service to our country..
First, what did these Democrats do before and after that vote in terms of foreign policy?. Some of the Democrats who voted for the IWR are genuine hawks, as you can see from their votes and actions since that vote. Kerry is clearly not a hawk, as his distinguished service at State, and the rest of his career, makes abundantly clear.
What also matters is the rest of their service. What other domestic policies have they worked for outside the realm of foreign policy? For most Democratic senators (yes, there are exceptions), they have done much to help our country.
Martin Eden
(12,802 posts)If John Kerry voted for the IWR to further his political ambitions, it is a huge mark against him.
It was also a miscalculation. I think it is very probable that his IWR vote cost John Kerry the presidency. The war in Iraq was a huge political hammer to use against Bush, but Kerry couldn't wield it without looking like a hypocrite.
In October 2002 our country desperately needed strong leaders to stand up and speak truth to power; to label the false war rhetoric and the lies for what they were; to make the case that our national security and our efforts against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 would be severely hampered, not helped, by shifting focus and resources to Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11 -- and away from the war we were already fighting in Afghanistan where al Qaeda had its base.
I looked to John Kerry to be that leader. He was the right man in the right place at the right time, given that he rose to national prominence as the leader of the Vietnam Vets Against the War. Seldom have I felt so heartbroken and betrayed as when John Kerry voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. He lost my vote then and never got it back, in Democratic primaries.
His career since then has had a measure of redemption. Not so with Hillary Clinton. She advocated regime change in Libya and is still a hawk.
The IWR is a disqualifier in my book, and always will be. I was here at DU in 2002. We saw through the lies and saw this war for what it was. We knew about PNAC and the neocon agenda BEFORE the IWR vote. Any member of Congress who knew less than we did was unfit for office, but KNOWING the case for war was a LIE and voting for it anyway out of political expediency or for whatever reason is even WORSE, in my opinion.
LAS14
(13,749 posts)liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...no matter when they got around to apologizing.
Those of us who failed to oppose war strongly enough also get a share. There's plenty of blame to go around at all levels, but it is true that Clinton shouldn't bear the scrutiny alone. No more than should any senator who decided to play it safe and dance to Cheney's war drums.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)Seems like that would be an even more pertinent issue for him in 2004 instead of for Hillary in 2008- and even less so for her in 2016.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)If you want your candidate to win, you try to find something about his/her opponent which the electorate, in this case the Democratic primary and caucus voters, probably won't like and keep saying it again and again. As been shown repeatedly, it doesn't much matter whether the charge is some distorted version of the truth or whether there is ample evidence that the actions of the opponent were completely justified. In fact what works best is simple statements like, "she voted for war" which require lengthy and nuanced explanations to refute. The simple state is easily heard and remembered and not many voters spend the time to listening to the long rebuttal.
Then add to that the naive opinion of some on the far left that any military action, regardless of the justification is immoral. I have seen on DU the statement by these clowns that the US should have never entered WW II and that we bullied the Japanese into attacking us. I have also seen other contend that the American revolution was a mistake. Others probably wouldn't go so far, but they firmly believe that any war is immoral and anyone who would vote to go to war is a war criminal. Therefore, attacking Hillary for her vote, regardless of whether or not she was justified or not is in their DNA.
LexVegas
(6,005 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)It was part of the whole 'flip flop' moniker he was tagged with.
Even a quick DU google search will show that it was discussed here ad infinitum.
I can't speak to the rest of the details in your post because it is based on a false premise.
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)andym
(5,441 posts)and Kerry was behind Dean, Clark and Edwards at various times. It was all about that vote and being a "flip-flopper"
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)has managed to not be tarred with the same brush that Hillary has over Bill Clinton's actions as president. Stephanopolous was officially on the staff.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Bias requires inconsistent and discordant responses to like things. Were the criticisms applied consistently, we'd have to be honest with ourselves... and bias denies honesty to one's own self.
Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)...held to a higher standard than others. People investigate every syllable she speaks looking for a way to shout "Liar!" It's bizarre. I doubt many politicians would survive the constant investigations. No wonder she speaks in so calculating a manner. She knows how people parse her every word...
surrealAmerican
(11,340 posts)... and mean it. If the 2008 election taught us anything, it was that we didn't have to settle for a candidate who supported that debacle. We could aim higher and win the election.
Time has not stood still.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Some on the left continue to fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)For his speaking the truth.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)- even though he was far ahead after winning the nomination. It was intense enough that he and his first wife were physically harassed. His first wife spoke of a brick being thrown through a window that landed in their infant daughter's crib.
The right wing has always attacked his speaking out and once he became a Senator they attacked his character and his work in much the same way they attacked the Clintons. The difference is that the Clintons had more visibility and a more powerful position to respond from.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)The Clintons had always the good fortune of having the party behind them
Kerry did not.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)fairly pro-peace record (including a leadership role in ending the Vietnam War).
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...nominee then you need to get over it.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)But your post is both inaccurate and sounds just silly. My support of Hillary is long documented on du.
Just because you don't understand a post doesn't mean it doesn't need to exist.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Oh, and I like the way you subtly imply that I don't have the capability of understanding your silly post. Nice way to insult and not risk anything. Very brave, too. Not.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]And just like Kerry I am going to vote for Clinton in the general despite that vote.
The ULTIMATE responsibility for the Iraq was falls on the GWB and the Republican party. Now and forever.[/font]
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Over their vote as Hillary has?
I never said there was no criticism, I just don't think the levels are comparable.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]is just a result of that one vote. Other positions she has taken have contributed to it as well.
That said, I will agree with you that she HAS been treated far more harshly than the other two have for having similar positions and it is not fair or right.
But, my point was that I, personally, opposed Kerry just as much for his position on that vote as I did to Clinton. [/font]