Dem '08 hopefuls and IWR vote at CNN.com

[globalvillage]

2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls could be punished for Iraq vote

Monday, October 17, 2005; Posted: 2:29 p.m. EDT (18:29 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq could face a political problem -- they supported a war that their party's rank-and-file now strongly view as a mistake.

Their pro-war votes -- cast three years ago -- could haunt them as they seek early support among die-hard Democrats and gauge whether to launch formal candidacies for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.

"For a lot of activists, this could be a threshold issue. They may be looking for somebody without any taint for prior support for the war," said John J. Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina are mulling over running for the Democratic nomination. All voted in October 2002 for a resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq.

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/17/democrats.iraq.ap/index.html

#1 I don't care anymore what Donna has to say.
#2 This story is a lot of words that says almost nothing.
#3 You think the writer could have explained the difference between the IWR and the War in Iraq? Might have added some substance.

Read it or don't. Nothing much to see here. Just CNN trying to deflect blame from bush*.

[Mass]

1. Not even CNN - This is the usual AP article with no substance at all.

[TayTay]

2. Let's paraphrase that a bit.

John Kerry and all the rest voiced exactly what the polls said the American thought in 2002. The American public favored the war, favored sending in the troops in order to get a threat to their person and security out of the way. The polls were based on what was known at the time.

We were all lied to. The American people are starting to get this. I seriosuly doubt that they are going to hold it against the Senators who voted yes to the war, when they themselves supported it at the time.

[ginnyinWI]

3. I think you're right--at least I hope so

If/when it is clearly established that they lied us into the war, it shouldn't matter who voted for what. In 2004 most people had not turned against the war, thinking that it was keeping them safe. It's only now that it's beginning to dawn on the average American. That's why the CIA leak and everything connected to it is so important, because it will pull back a lot of curtains.

[jillan]

4. Bush told them that going to Iraq would keep the peace.

Does anyone have his speech where he says that?

It is so screwed up. Bush lied. And people like Kerry are getting beat up on because the believed the POTUS. It's almost at the point of being ridiculous. And Kerry said a zillion times that he was told war was the last resort. Why doesn't anyone get it but us?

[LittleClarkie]

5. See, that's the point. They're trying to boomerang it back onto the Dems

we can't let them. Bush lied. The Dems voted for a lie.

But then our own lefty freepers in the party don't get that, so why should the AP.

[sandnsea]

8. They didn't last year

I do think they punished the Dems for being divided over leaving or staying though. I think people would still be inclined to vote for a success strategy Democrat over an out now Democrat. I think that's why Boxer uses the word success strategy. But as long as the party appears confused, leaving people unclear as to who a candidate would be loyal to, we're going to suffer for it at some of the polls. Not all, but maybe enough to matter, like Ohio and Tennessee and Missouri and Montana and Florida. The places we need to win next year.

[JI7]

6. Claremont McKenna is a conservative college

i'm guessing this guy views the typical Dem or liberal through a stereotype.

[sandnsea]

9. I wondered about that

I wish more people would consider the source.

[JI7]

11. some people would take any source

as long as it backs up their own position.

the fact that Hillary has a large amount of support and with KErry,Edwards and a few others who voted for the iwr come out to a very large majority should be enough to show that most Dems can think in more than black/white terms.

of course the author calling it a "pro war" vote says a lot also.

[paulk]

7. an MSM attempt at dividing Dems

that's all this is...

it's working pretty well over in GD/P where this article was posted, but that's to be expected, I suppose...

it's ... frustrating that so many on the left have swallowed the right wing PR on the IWR... and then use it as a club to bash Democrats with.

[ray of light]

10. the party splitters, the bashers, and the kerry haters are out in force!1