It's not the IWR vote, it's the reason Hillary gives for the vote and her statements on Iraq

[ProSense]

Hillary, Jan. 2007:

The senator described her philosophy about military power as one rooted in pragmatism. Regardless of the pressure from some liberals and antiwar Democrats, Mrs. Clinton said she was skeptical about embracing hard timetables and cutting off financing in Iraq, for instance, because they were not practically feasible.

“I am not for imposing a date — certain withdrawal date,” she said. “But don’t be mistaken, I am for ending this war as soon as possible.”

link

Hillary, Mar. 2007:

A vote on the Democratic-sponsored Iraq resolution expected to hit the Senate floor next week will mark the first time Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has embraced a legislative deadline for withdrawing from the war-torn nation, a step she has consistently resisted to this point.

<...>

But the stakes are higher for some senators than for others. Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has carefully laid out her Iraq views in a series of formal plans and speeches and has repeatedly rejected setting a deadline for withdrawal. Yet when and if she casts her vote, those pronouncements will be somewhat eclipsed by the Senate's binding action. That fact touched off an unusual scramble in which even Senate leadership aides are attempting to characterize Clinton's position as consistent with her previous views.

more

Hillary Dec. 2007:

Following up on what Ambassador Richard Holbrooke told us earlier this week regarding Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, we asked Sen. Clinton today if it was correct that Colin Powell had persuaded her that the resolution could be a vote to avoid war rather than a vote for war.

She replied: "No, it wasn't Colin Powell. it was Condi Rice. Condi Rice told me specifically when I was still weighing all of the evidence, and I had been to the White House one last time – I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was Oct. 8 -- and I'd had the whole presentation by the CIA and others and I hadn't asked any questions, I had listened. And I went back to my office, and Condi Rice called me and said, You didn't ask any questions, do you have any questions? I said I only have one: Will you use this authorization to put inspectors back in, so that we can find out whether any of this is true, how much WMD he still has or has reconstituted? She said, Yes, that's what it's intended to do. I think Dick might have

link

Hillary Jan. 2008:

CLINTON: And I am so -- I am so proud to have the support of leaders like Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is here with us tonight, who was one of the -- who was one of the original conveners of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Because it is imperative that as we move forward, with what will be a very difficult process -- there are no good options here.

We have to untangle ourselves and navigate through some very treacherous terrain. And as we do so, it is absolutely clear to me that we have to send several messages at once.

Yes, we are withdrawing, and I personally believe that is the best message to send to the Iraqis. That they need to know that they have to get serious, because so far they have been under the illusion that the Bush administration and the Republicans who have more of the same will be there indefinitely.

And I also think it's important to send that message to the region, because I think that Iran, Syria, the other countries in the neighborhood, are going to find themselves in a very difficult position as we withdraw. You know, be careful what you wish for.

They will be dragged into what is sectarian divisiveness with many different factions among the three main groups. Therefore, we need to start diplomatic efforts immediately, getting the Iranians, the Syrians, and others to the table. It's in their interest, it's in our interest, and it certainly is in the Iraqis' interest. few debates ago -- we've had so many of them -- to join with me on legislation which he has agreed to do that's very important to prevent President Bush from committing our country to an ongoing presence in Iraq. That is something he is trying to push.

(APPLAUSE)

And we are pushing legislation to prevent him from doing that.

He has taken the view that I find absolutely indefensible, that he doesn't have to bring any such agreement about permanent bases, about ongoing occupation. And if Senator McCain is the nominee, 100 years as stretching forward, he doesn't have to bring that to the United States Congress. He only has to get the approval of the Iraqi parliament.

<...>

CLINTON: You know, I think that, you know, that is a good try, Wolf.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then when it came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

link

(emphasis added)

[Dogmudgeon]

1. No, it's because you are strongly partisan

Most of us are.

--p!

[ProSense]

15. No, it's because she's been a weak voice on Iraq. n/t

[synesthesia]

2. .

It's SIMPLE. She does not want to come off as waffling. Like 50% of her appeal is that she comes off as 'steadfast'. She can't harm this.

It's really naive to think Hillary actually wanted to kill Iraqi babies. This is what she feels she must do to win in order to do what she feels she needs to do as president (that we don't know).

A female who is too dovish is usually a no go in politics. She might have miscalculated on this one though since this war is so worthless.

As to her being too calculating, THEY ALL ARE. She's not too good at diverting people from it though.

[BlackVelvet04]

3. There's nothing she can say or do that would satisfy

the people who dislike her. If she apologized she would be accused of pandering and flip flopping.

[Avalux]

5. At this point, no - there isn't anything she can say.

She had the opportunity to rectify it time and time again but chose not to.

[Avalux]

4. Correct. It was THE most important vote she's had as a Senator.

She presumably "trusted" those in the WH she spoke with then voted for the IWR. When their intentions became apparent, she should have spoken out and called them on the bullshit. She didn't and for the past 5 years has tried to justify what was clearly a mistake. Trying to blame Bush for her poor judgement doesn't wash.

[synesthesia]

6. .

Look Hillary is a sharp cookie. She knew the war was BS.

She also knew her vote was not a deciding vote, and it was going to get through anyways. She's a politician, like Obama, like Edwards, like even, gasp, Al Gore (remember the NAFTA debate with Perot?).

But the thing is, any politician who 'sticks to their ideals' outright, will lose. Seriously. You can be a gadfly like Dennis, but he knows he will never be president and is happy to have his niche.

Hillary did what she thought she needed to do to become president. Like they all do.

Now if the vote had been split, and it was up to her, would she have still voted for it. That is very difficult to predict. I'm split.

[Avalux]

7. Understood. BUT - if you read my post -

it's how she handled it after the vote, when she had ample opportunity to apologize and didn't. I don't want another president who can't admit to a mistake.

[synesthesia]

9. .

Like I said, apologizing will just make her seem waffling.

She needs to be a strong Thatcher steadfast leader, blah blah blah. Why does it matter if she apologizes? Even if she did, it'd only be because Mark Penn told her she needed to do it. You realize this right.

You realize nearly everything Edwards says is fed to him by Trippi and co? You realize Obama is parroting what Axelrod thinks is good strategy. This stuff really doesn't matter.

You have to vote for someone based on your best instinct at what lies behind the veneer of the candidate, which is all manufactured. How to do that? It's difficult.

But you can't base it on their 'public show'.

[Avalux]

13. Good to hear you say that. I've spent a lot of time researching the candidates.

My best instinct, coupled with all I've learned (outside of the MSM) tells me to go with Obama. I respect your decision and I hope your respect mine. :hi:

[synesthesia]

14. .

My defense of Hillary might make one think I'm in her camp. I really want Obama to win though. I think Hillary is a poor politician and can not convince independents to vote for progressive causes. I think Obama can.

I've done a lot of research on both of these candidates. It's pretty interesting to read about their lives away from the circus.

I'm a psychologist (not to sound like I have all the answers), and I'm fairly certain Obama is by far the biggest leftist of the bunch 'behind the show'.

The funny thing is, I think Hillary is secretely more liberal than Edwards or Gore. Edwards I doubt really has any coherent political idealogy.

People are really upset with the final 2, but they're actually much bigger leftists than any mainstream candidates the democratic party has had in a long time.

But they're both really politically astute, and 'means to an end' types. Obama has his roots as an 'agitator'. People should look into the Saul Alinsky link that binds Obama and Hillary ( I wonder what their 'real' relationship is like. The notion they hate each other for political circus is funny to me).

I think Hillary's leftism has waned in the past few decades though as she has become depressed and jaded about life and reality in general.

If the average American knew some things about Obama (for example, I think he's really pro-Palestinian, despite his pandering to AIPAC), they'd be shocked and reject him. He's too good of a politician to let it be known though.

[Captain Hilts]

8. And she EXPLICITLY said we should not invade alone or remove Hussein from power. nt

[suston96]

10. Reason she gave.....? Pretty sensible and forthright and very STRONG reason....

"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.

*****

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."

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[11 Bravo]

11. Find a tree or a brick wall and explain it to them.

You'll have better luck as you will find them more receptive to reasoned discourse.

[ProSense]

12. "I went back to my office, and Condi Rice called me and said, You didn't ask any questions..." n/t