I'd vote for Hillary, but I won't work for her.

[RiverStone]

My loyalty to our big blue DEM party is bigger then my dislike of Hillary; but it's a close call. That saddens me, because I hope to find myself in 08 attending weekly meet-ups, working the phone bank at DEM headquarters like crazy, manning the DEM info booth at the county fair, and just generally being passionate about my party's nominee. That won't happen if it's Hillary.

Again, when the dust settles on the primaries, if HRC is our nominee - I'll vote for her, but it would be a quiet vote.

At times debating the IWR with Hillary defenders feels like arguing about religion. I simply don't get it or they don't get it - and never the twain shall meet. I will always see her (and other DEMS) who voted yea on the IWR as putting political expediency above personal conviction. When 23 Senators, 133 House Reps and millions around the world in protest KNEW Shrub would take us into a immoral and reckless war of aggression - my sense is she knew too, though did not have the moral conviction to vote against it. The intelligence was suspect at the least, outright lies at worst - and so many of us could see that in plain sight. So YES her IWR vote is a relevant discussion, because I seek a President with the kind of moral conviction which a NO IWR vote represents. There is the DLC/corporate connection concerns with HRC as well, though for me personally; the authorization to give Shrub a trigger is the most compelling point of concern.

So between now and the final votes for nominees at the DEM convention, I'll do all I can to support a candidate that was against the IWR from the get-go. Obama, Kucinich, Feingold, Clark, Gore - - - all I'd work for like hell along the way and even harder after the nomination as our party's choice. Of course, only 2 out of that pack have even declared intent to run (so far).

I'm a loyal DEM, so if it's Hillary - I'd vote for her; and from the moment she accepted the party's nomination I'd still my criticism of her because above all, I want a DEM to occupy the White House - though I'd be hard pressed to rally around her.

In the fall of 08, I hope to see my little pick-up truck stacked high with yard signs to distribute to my DEM neighbors, my schedule packed with rallies and DEM party meet-ups, waking up early to write Op Ed pieces for our local papers - all to support a NO IWR candidate. My heart would be in that fight all the way!

If it's Hillary, my pick-up truck would be empty and I'll quietly vote for her against any rethug, but it would not be near as fun.




RiverStone

[LSK]

1. thats good, but we have 10 Senate seats to capture

Work to get one of them then.

[LynneSin]

4. That's how I see it - working the big picture

Ultimately on election day you're working for the blue team. So if you're out there campaigning for a senator or representative in the area, hopefully that'll pull whomever the 2008 dem nominee along for the ride

[RiverStone]

6. Yes - I will work for the DEM party - always.

But here in the state of Washington, there are no senators up for election in 08.

That's why I mentioned the yard signs - and my hope to be distributing really cool DEM ones :)

[Danieljay]

2. I'll support her only if shes our presidential nominee. n/t

[cosmik debris]

3. She is my last choice

But I always vote a straight ticket. (but I wouldn't discriminate against a gay ticket :) )

[Nite Owl]

5. I so agree it's like I

could have written your post!

May I cosponsor it? lol

We will likely have a rerun in our congressional seat here so I will work on that. The primary here in NY is so late that we won't even have a say in picking the candidate for '08. I haven't chosen who I will back yet but all I can really do is travel to NH to knock on doors there and do some phone banking for whomever it is.

[dogday]

7. Since my guy Russ won't run, I don't have

anyone I am able to get behind... I will keep an open mind on all the candidates....

[John Q. Citizen]

8. I think Hillary was in favor of attacking and occupying Iraq. I don't think she

put political expediency first in her IWR vote. I think Hillary is an imperialist and fully supports projecting American dominance throughout the world, by whatever means necessary, including military means. By letting bush do her bidding, it gave her cover if the whole thing went South.

Hillary's political expedience comes into play now that she's running for the Dem nomination. She has to try to convince the rank and file that she didn't vote her conscience.

[RiverStone]

15. Then here is a question...

Your placing Hillary at the same moral level as Shrub, and as much as I dislike her --- I won't go that far. Though I do appreciate your view.

Then John Q Citizen, I have a question(s) for you if ya have a sec:

If HRC turns out to be our nominee (and we BOTH hope not) would you still vote for her against any rethug for Pres?

Do you have a DEM favorite for Pres at the moment?




peace~
:)

[John Q. Citizen]

35. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say the same moral level,

but I would say she's a neo-liberal and quite comfortable with imperialism as an economic system.

As to Hillary over a Repo, in a New York minute. I'll always take what I can get, even if it isn't anywhere near what I'd like.

Hillary has a pretty good voting record over all as a Senator. She tilts a lot more liberal than most particularly on social issues. For instance, she would vote to spend more for healthcare for the troops needed to maintain an imperialist system than bush would.

I like Kucinich as the race stands right now. I could also support Gore should he enter. Clark seems pretty good also.

[earthlover]

23. so that's what she means....

...when she says her vote was not a mistake!

[John Q. Citizen]

36. That's what I think. n/t

[jobycom]

9. Who would you support if you were me?

I sincerely believed at the time, and still believe, that many Dems who voted FOR the IWR were trying to stop Bush from invading Iraq. Bush had already declared he was going to invade, he had declared he did not need Congressional approval, or UN approval. The IWR was a compromise attempt to reign Bush in. The Repubs voted for it for a number of reasons, ranging from outright militancy to a desire to reassert Congressional authority (and yes, they were saying as much before the resolution passed). Some Dems, like John Edwards and Joe Biden, were gung-ho pro-war, others, like Kerry and Clinton, were following Wesley Clark's advice. Clark advised in his appearance before the House Armed Services Committee in August of 2002 that Congress pass a bill authorizing Bush to use force if all negotiations failed. He asked them to pass it as nearly unanimously as possible, believing that such a resolution would force Hussein to comply, and would avert war. Bill Clinton said the same thing after the Resolution passed.

So the Arkansas Triumvirate were on the same page, that passing this resolution was the best way to avert a war. You said you could support Clark, but not Hillary, who followed his advice. That's inconsistent.

The IWR made Bush go to the UN and seek approval. It forced him to lie to invade. If Congress had followed up on their responsibility, he would have been impeached for that. That was a lot more than we had before the IWR. If it had failed, Bush would have invaded, more quickly and without all the other formalities. He was already bombing, as we now know.

So what would you do if you believed like me? And I will point out that I followed this very closely as it was happening, so my opinions are informed. I think we both agree that candidates who were gung-ho for the invasion and then changed their minds as it became popular to do so are out of the picture, if for no other reason than for showing bad judgement. But many Dems voted for the IWR in an attempt to head off the invasion. You can read Hillary's and Clark's speeches and determine for yourself, they are both posted on line (although Clark's has gotten harder to find, for some reason). Should I refuse to support someone who I believe (with evidence and good cause) tried to avert the invasion in the only avenue they saw possible (remember, Republicans controlled Congress, and there was no chance they would flat-out tell Bush he couldn't. It was the IWR, or a blank check.)? Or should I vote for someone who voted against the last chance to stop Bush's invasion so they could look good for their voters? I do believe that some (Feingold, Kennedy, Graham) had more clear vision than the rest when voting against the IWR, but for others it was just a chance to please their constituency. Or should I vote for someone who just assures us he or she would have voted against the IWR if they had been in Congress, even if they had been privy to the same secret misinformation that the rest were privy too? I don't trust any politician enough to believe how they would have voted.

I won't rule Hillary Clinton out, because I know what she voted for. Gore and Obama I can give the benefit of the doubt to, especially since Gore was speaking out before the invasion. There are others I will still consider, but there are a couple I won't work for. I won't bash any candidate specifically, but there are some who now seem anti-war whose message, and more importantly their judgement, has not been consistent.

The bottom line to me is this: Who do I believe would have refused to invade if they had been the deciding factor? I believe Hillary would have refused. Gore, too. Obama, I'm not sure on, but he's got my ear, at least. Most of the rest, I believe would have voted to invade if the invasion had come down to their vote.

That's where I stand. I consider myself extremely anti-war, and would not vote for a candidate I believe would have led us into this war on their own. I may rule out Hillary and Obama, too, based on statements on Iran they have made (and based on whatever Hillary ultimately declares as her plan for withdrawal from Iraq). But as of now, I don't rule her out, and that long rambling thing above this sentence is why.

I haven't mentioned Kucinich yet. He's still in there, too, though he hasn't shown me any electability yet. And Dodd.

[RiverStone]

13. I thought Clark was opposed?

Thanks jobycom for such a thoughtful response. Regarding-

You said you could support Clark, but not Hillary, who followed his advice. That's inconsistent.

On Clark, I thought he was opposed from the get-go, of course, there is grey area in all of politics, so many one of us is confused?
Here is my case in point - from Larry King's interview with Kennedy on 4/20/06:


* * * * * *

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview With Edward Kennedy

Aired April 20, 2006 - 21:00 ET

<snip>


KING: You called Iraq the overriding issue. You voted to go there or not?

KENNEDY: No. The best vote I cast in the United States Senate was...

KING: The best?

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

<snip>

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html


* * * * * * *


Can any Clarkies out there help me on this?


peace
:)

[jobycom]

16. Here's the speech.

First, my comment. You have to clear your mind of the idea that the IWR was a vote to go to war. It was not. That was my point. Clark's comments demonstrate that. He was opposed to an immediate invasion (notice Kennedy doesn't say Clark was opposed to the IWR). Clark also recommended that we not invade unless we had a clear plan to set up a government, and had identified the factions in Iraq that would need to be included. But Clark did call for that resolution. Some of those who supported the IWR were also opposed to invading Iraq. Here's the quote from Wesley Clark's speech, September, 2002, before the HASC:

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

snip

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm
-----------

Now, Hillary Clinton's speech before the IWR vote:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

snip

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

snip

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

snip

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

snip

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

snip

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

-------------------------

[RiverStone]

21. On balance - seems Clark still opposed the IWR intent and outcome...

WHEW! Too bad we are not debating the nuances of this in a political science class :) With all I'm reading about Wes's opposition to the Iraq war (lots more below) it seems the IWR which passed, was not consistent with what Clark was even talking about supporting originally? Here is a great link which sums up most of Clarks ANTI Iraq war sentiments:

All the below quotes and many more are organized from here:

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/what_wes_clark_said_prior_to_t.html


Gene Lyons interview on Wes Clark with Buzzflash-

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02


On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02


On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02


On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02


On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

* * * * * * *

So after further review jobycom, I'm still under the impression that on balance, Wes was opposed to elements of the IWR or at least opposed to the final product. Of course technically, he never did vote for the IWR at all (not in a position to vote).

I'm open to being wrong about a candidate - yet given ALL the evidence - it still feels like Clark consistently was in opposition to both the war and the insane actions taken by the BushCo regime since.

OK, thanks for the informative debate...time to go get some exercise!




peace~
:)

[jobycom]

32. You've missed the point entirely.

Clark was against invading Iraq at that time, but as you can see from the speech to the HASC in September 2002, he was also against taking force off the table as an option, and he called for the passage of a resolution authorizing Bush to use force if all diplomatic efforts failed.

Which was my point. The IWR was not authorization for war. It just wasn't. It was an attempt to force Bush to the negotiating table. Wesley Clark, who you've just demonstrated was against the invasion and the concept of the invasion from before the resolution was passed, was calling for just such a resolution just months before it was passed. Hillary Clinton, when voting for the IWR, used the same arguments and even similar phrasing as Clark in explaining why she was voting for the IWR.

That's my point. She didn't vote for war, any more than Clark called for war.

[RiverStone]

37. Not according to...

I tossed our friendly debate out for the view of a Clarkie and got the following response from WesDem:


Your facts are straight

Wes never supported the war or the IWR. He lobbied in Congress against the IWR and finally, when it was clear the IWR would pass, he lobbied in favor of the Levin Amendment, which would have forced Bush to return to Congress for a second vote after the UN. Every single person who has spoken of Wes's influence in relation to the IWR, and there have been several, including Carl Levin himself, voted NO. Hillary did not follow Clark's advice, nor did Kerry. Those who have said they were influenced by Clark all voted NO. (To repeat myself.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=235&topic_id=9259&mesg_id=9260




peace~
:)

[Adelante]

39. Clark backed the Levin Amendment

The Levin Amendment would have necessitated a SECOND vote by Congress once the administration had gone to the UN.

This may be a helpful guide to some reading this thread:

Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush's Preemption Doctrine
URGENT ACTION ALERT!

Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq. For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).

Implore your Senators to support the Levin Amendment. Finally, if the amendments and motion to recommit fail, urge your Representative and Senators to vote against final passage of the President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.

Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org



UPDATE: House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote “No” on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work “through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A “Yes” vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on “President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War”).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution – H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments



UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.

Don’t give up! To resist is to win!

Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102

If you look at a list of those who voted both for the Levin Amendment and against the IWR, there are several names, including Wellstone, Levin, Graham, Boxer, and others, who credited Clark with clarifying the issue for them so that they voted NO on the IWR. I have never heard of a single IWR-voter who credits Clark with convincing him or her to vote Yes.

Levin Amendment:

YEAs
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

IWR:

NAYS
* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Richard Durbin (D-IL)
* Russell Feingold (D-WI)
* Robert Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* James Jeffords (I-VT)
* Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[Jai4WKC08]

46. No, you're missing the point so far you can't even see it from where you're standing

Regardless of what the IWR was (and personally, I think it's nothing more than gross rationalization to say the IWR wasn't an authorization for war... it's very title is WAR RESOLUTION, and it clearly gave the president sole authority to determine whether its conditions were met), the simple fact is Clark testified AGAINST the IWR and Clinton voted FOR it.

Clark may have been willing to keep force on the table, but he said over and over again, "don't give the president a blank check." The IWR was a blank check. Even if you believe Clinton and the rest didn't think it would be a blank check (again, hard to believe they were that naive), there is NO DOUBT AT ALL that Clark knew it would be and was against its passage.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Your entire emphasis on what Clark said are the wrong ones.....

Let's do over that exercise of highlighting what is important in what Wes testified to....

But this time, I'll do the highlighting...with the exact same text:

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein’s current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

snip

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.
----------------------

Wes Clark was asked about a resolution on CNN on 9/16/02, and this is what he said:

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

Further, remember that article in where the headline read "Clark would have voted for war" that asshole NYT Adam Nargourney wrote after the first interview Clark ever held as a candidate? The one that was written with the intent of sinking Clark's campaign before it started (and did a fine job of it at that)? Even that article clearly states the it was the Levin Amendment that Clark was talking about.....

4th paragraph
"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

and so in fact, Wes Clark did end up supporting the Levin amendment......but was never "for" the blank check IWR.

[earthlover]

24. That's bunk!!!!

Clark testified AGAINST the IWR as it was. He had the common sense to know that the IWR, as it was written, was wrong. Clinton may have her reasons for supporting it, but don't blame it on the arguements AGAINST the IWR! This is Orwellian!!!!!

[jobycom]

33. Read post 16.

Apology accepted.

[earthlover]

40. APOLOGY NOT GIVEN...SO BACK OFF!!!!

What in God's green earth gives you the arrogance to accept an apology that has not been made? How friggin rude and arrogant!

Clark did NOT advocate the IWR. Hillary willingly voted FOR it. AGAINST the advice of Clark. Read All OF Clark's address, please don't just give us the parts that support your view. That's what Repukes do....

If you think Hillary did the right thing to give Bush this power to wage this war, then give me your reasons. But please don't associate Clark with Hillary's decision.

[KoKo]

10. Hillary won't need our help if she gets the Nomination. She has a "machine"

behind her. It will be a quiet election with the Media doing their job.

[PhilipShore]

17. That machine -- will work for her -- as long as it works out for Repukes...

in the long run. Then they will around a week before 2008 -- run only pro Jeb Bush or Pataki News (infomercials) -- for president.

[earthlover]

27. Denial there?

With Hillary, one thing it WON'T be is quiet. Unfortunatly if the media does the job it likes to do, it won't be to go against their corporate Republican backers....

Since when is a "machine" a good thing? Are we friggin robots?

[AndyA]

11. I feel the same way, pretty much.

I will vote for Hillary and work to get her elected if she is our nominee. Until that point, however, I am going to keep an open mind, although John Edwards is my favorite right now.

Someone else mentioned Russ Feingold, he would be my dream candidate, but he isn't running, and we don't know about Al Gore, except he really acts like he isn't going to run. I don't blame him for waiting, no doubt it's much better to enter late. Raising money will not be a problem for Al, of that I'm sure.

We'll just have to wait and see. I do hope our Dem candidates don't beat up on each other too much, though, as the GOP does a good enough job without any friendly fire.

We need to focus on the big picture: We must have Dems in office in 2009, the more the better. I will always vote for a Dem, even if I personally don't like them, because I'd rather have the worst Dem in control rather than the best GOPer.

[Onlooker]

12. I like Hillary

I'll support Edwards or Obama in the primary, but frankly I'll be fine supporting Hillary in the general election. If we're ever going to have a woman president, it's going to be one who's tough and won't let the media or political groups push her around. I also think she's generally progressive. Her Iraq vote was clearly wrong, but by not apologizing she's making herself appear more centrist than I think she is. She's playing things very smart. (The other thing about Hillary, if she wins it's the biggest f-you we could possibly give to the radical right. (Maybe she'll make Kerry Sec'y of Defense!)

[William769]

14. I'll vote for whoever the nominee is.

I'll work my ass off for the Democratic party though if it is Hillary Clinton.

[nam78_two]

18. I would vote/work for the Dem nominee no matter what, but

the degree of enthusiasm with which I would do so would vary :-/....

Then there are also the senate seats to be worked for. I don't think this country/or the planet can afford a Republican any longer. There are Dems I am lukewarm to, but the Rethugs just scare the hell out of me.

[Bucky]

26. That's fair. I feel the same. Sometimes you have to suck it down and work for the team.

A Democratic windsock beats a Republican blowhard any day of the week.

[JNelson6563]

19. Here's my view

I won't do anything for Hillary either, one person is not the party. I am sure though that there will be other races worthy of my efforts. Carl Levin is up in 08 and then there will be state and Fed House races along with county commission races.

And whoever the nominee is my local party will make buckets of money off of swag from the campaign so I won't be complaining.

Julie

[cooolandrew]

20. I just find Obama the most passionate candidate and that's what it's going to take..

if he makes Richardson vp, there are no claims of inexperience they can level at him.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Just think Supreme Court.

Justice Stevens is 86. It is critical we have a Democratic president in 2008 to appoint the next nominee. I will work my fingers to the bone and donate til I bleed for whomever the Democratic candidate is. But that's me.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Yup, the Supreme Court is the most overlooked issue in the elections

[Bucky]

25. My advice: never take half a shit.

If you'll vote for her, it's because you think she'd be less worse than her Republican (and probably Green) opponents. Or at least the Republican is more worthy of being kept out of office. If you think the country needs the Republican kept out of office more, why would you work any less for her victory? That makes no sense.

Bottom line: politics in November is about choosing between alternatives, not getting your preference. Not working for the better outcome, which Mrs Clinton would almost certainly be, is a failure of citizenship.

[RiverStone]

28. I'd rather flush her away.

I'll only vote for her by default to support the DEMS and yes - keep a rethug out of the Blight House.

Though why I would work less for her victory is easy - I'd work less because I can't defend some of her key positions (IWR, Bankruptcy Bill, DLC/Corporate pandering, WA insider) and because I don't believe she reflects the essence of DEM values.

To me it is the difference between running a race and winning either $10.00 or $10,000. Which would you train and work harder for?

As others pointed out in this thread, one can still bust ass working for our party - working to enhance our majority in both Houses -and be very much a responsible citizen. So I disagree with your characterization of failure there. Remember, I'm just talking about the presidency here. I'll work hard for our party, but never for Hillary. I don't like her and don't think she is good for this country as a President (she makes a better Senator).

In the end, she would have my vote - but not because she earned it.

[mvd]

29. I would vote for her and support her

She's not my favorite, but a Romney, McCain, or Brownback would certainly motivate me to support her a lot.

[WI_DEM]

30. If she is nominated I will work for her and vote for her

because I'd rather have her as president than anybody on the GOP side.

[More Than A Feeling]

31. Agreed, except I don't know if I will still my criticism of her.

She'll get my vote, but I will NOT be happy about it.

[fujiyama]

34. She should be lucky to have many of our votes

simply because we'll vote the party...

I have no "interest" in voting for her but will do so - as I'll be voting against whatever thug is going against her. Not only will I not work for her, I won't even defend her against the inevitable attacks she will face...She's not worth the time...

[eridani]

42. That's a pretty good summation of my feelings

I'll be working for the Dem nominee, but if it's any saber-rattling triangulator, it will have no joy in it at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. My feelings though in the very recent past

I have had the feeling that something has to give with the whole poltical system, PERIOD

[Skidmore]

44. That's exactly what they are counting on.

After the last two elections, I don't want to hold my nose to vote. I want change and not be expected to vote the establishment candidate because that's what is expected of me. The party needs to change.

If it's Hillary and her DLC crowd that is the choice, I will write in a Dem with positions that I can support in on the ballot. I will support the Democratic party with a vote for change.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. this is a conversation my brother in law and I have

been having increasingly and how uncomfortable the DLC establishment types make us