Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Explains Iraq Vote in Berlin, N.H.

BERLIN, N.H. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) arrived here this morning to address an overflow crowd that included the committed, the interested and the skeptical.

"I'd like to like her," said Nathaniel Gurien who drove from North Conway to see Clinton. "Now that she is running she has to show us what she's made of."

After arriving 15 minutes late, Clinton spent the next hour answering questions from the assembled throng who packed the Berlin City Hall on a frosty Saturday morning. (The reason for her late arrival? She was meeting and greeting late-arrivers in an overflow room at the Berlin Boxing Club across the street.)

Clinton used her opening remarks to tout the accomplishments of her first term in the Senate and to explain her positioning on the war in Iraq. She defended the Senate's attempt to pass a non-binding resolution condemning President Bush's surge plan ("The way the Senate works, it's a first step."), but drew much louder and sustained applause when she declared that not only would she never have begun the war in 2003, but, if elected president, she would end it.

Many of the questions were in Clinton's sweet spots -- the rising cost of college tuition, universal healthcare -- and she fielded them easily while demonstrating a deep knowledge of the subject matter. Clinton also sought to emphasize the idea of her campaign as a conversation with voters. She polled the audience about their preferred method of receiving healthcare. "I am not going to rush to a specific plan because I want to have this conversation," she said.

But, Roger Tilton a Democrat from Nashua, asked Clinton to apologize for her vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, which she chose not do. "Knowing what I know now I would never have voted for it," she said. "I have taken responsibility for my vote." Tilton was not satisfied; "Until she takes responsibility for her vote, Barack Obama and John Edwards have her on the war issue. Until she says it was a mistake she won't get my vote."

Clinton did criticize the Bush administration's "obsession" with removing Saddam Hussein and what she called its "gild[ing] of the lily" on prewar intelligence. She also insisted that her vote in support of the 2002 use of force resolution was a vote to send inspectors back into Iraq, not a vote for "pre-emptive war."

A few other notes from Berlin:

* Clinton provided a bit of blue humor for the crowd at the start of the event. As she was being introduced, Clinton sought to tell the crowd that she hadn't been miked up. "I'm not turned on yet," she said. "I wish."

* She passed an early test of local knowledge. She correctly pronounced the name of the town ("Burr-lin") without batting an eye.

* Clinton reaffirmed her support for the primacy of New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary. "Doing it the New Hampshire way is good for candidates and it's good for our process," she said.

* One woman recounted standing in line for 12 hours to get former President Bill Clinton's signature on his new book. "I waited for him a lot myself," Sen. Clinton said to laughter.

Now the Clinton road show makes its way south for another townhall event at 2 p.m. in Concord. The Fix will be there.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 10, 2007; 10:55 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On the Eve of Clinton's Visit to N.H.
Next: Iraq Issue Follows Clinton to Concord


We are not as enthused or impressed with Hillary Clinton as we were when she served as "First Lady" under (and above) her husband, President Bill Clinton. She has some good ideas, but she's not what we thought she was. Maybe she never was.

It is our well informed opinion that Mrs. Clinton will say anything and pander to any group to get $ellected to the White House. Mrs. Clinton is a consumate politician who is addicted to power and position. She's hungers to control others because she can barely control herself.

Here's what we think. Anyone who conveniently bends to political winds to $uit their personal agenda at the expense of the common good and the common wealth is not to be trusted and has a weak moral character. Have we not had enough of this in $ewertown (Washington D.C.)?

We prefer Al Gore. He's been there and done that. He writes his own books. And though he may be more comfortable and better as a professor (in lieu of being a $lick politician), he'd be a good president... and we trust him.

The current naked nitwit emperor in the oval office/orifice (George W. Bush)... is a mendacious, myopic, dry drunk $ociopath who is destroying the U.$. military and bankrupting the country. He is unequivocally the most corrupt and inept leader in the history of the American republic. His administration has planted the $eeds for a world wide economic depression... and quite possibly a nuclear war that will kill billions.

Posted by: Guy Fox | February 12, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

We should elect Hillary to the Presidency when she was gullible enough to believe what the Bush Administration was saying.
She never listened to the millions worldwide who were against war in Iraq and she doesn't know enough to ask for forgiveness for being so stupid. She also thinks we are stupid enough to believe her when she says she'll end the war there. Sort of like when she and Bill were going to provide everyone with health insurance.

Posted by: Helen Crowe | February 12, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton voted for the war; Has not explained a clear HealthCare Plan while pushing away the Universal One... She would have to live with some other insufficiencies from her White House's background as first lady, the first emotional "adviser" to Bill Clinton; which the "RepubliC" party would use as weaknesses in the debate.

Former Sen. Edwards has lost a strike with his 2003 vote FOR the war, so as his seat in the US senate... And the one called "trial lawyer", according to Bush, might come up with the same song from his failed last ticket the "vicious" republicans would nail him with.

To my sense, Democrats (All racial backgrounds, including "old" Dems folks of the breed of Joe Biden) need to pull it together and put in the nomination of the rising and shining star, Barack Obama, the gentleman from Illinois for the 2008 ticket.

Dems ought to spend money to get more minority voters and young voters in, to educate, to inform, and to rally them to respond to the past polls experience. This would help adding to the 2004 rising voter numbers, especially "young" or/and students voters in states like New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa and else where.

We are just tired of another "Kerry"'s portrait with incoherent arguments on foreign policy or "questionable" and/or vulnerable past political experience on a debate that will oppose Dems to "unfavorable" but politically "articulate" Republicans like Giuliani or McCain. These guys won't sit back and let us win, because they are strong candidates!

So, let us get over that "old" debate with who Obama is, because Abraham Lincoln with a his "little" past political background in his race to the white house, gave an ultimate legacy to our country, abolishing slavery.

It doesn't matter what's Obama's background is... not of a big deal in this America today, nor about his color! The man can even draw in many states more Republicans to vote "Blue" this time !!!

Forget about these cynical and wealthy adepts of the "opportunism" who run for president because "my husband" was one, who seek to be commander in chief because "my father" was one too... Or even those who choose to run for presidential office because i have a "City or a State Governor's legacy in my family" besides just their own "known" family or dynasty names.

America voted for Bush (even some Dems...) because they knew his "name" or he appeared tougher than Kerry...And this led us to a disaster. This is not a movie, let's get real, people!

A new "face" in America from the New Majority, a bi-partisanship spirit in leadership, and a pragmatic and hopeful vision in US politics is what America needs to get everyone to work; to agree on paying equitably our middle class workers, to care about our Katrina forgotten ones, to fairly reward our Social Security recipients, to secure our borders, to stop our dependency on foreign oils, to end the "invasion" war in Iraq, to pursue the "real" war on terror by all other means: diplomatic, intelligence and alliances...and restore our name in the world. Franklin

Posted by: Franklin | February 12, 2007 6:50 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | February 12, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

She may explain her pants suit, or her tastes in husbands but not her voting on Iraq. Please. She is going to have that around her neck for a long time and may be her un-doing.

You gots lots of plane ing to do, Lucy.

Posted by: L. Frogg | February 10, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse


The penultimate sentence in the speech she made on the floor of the Senate before the vote was as follows: "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."


Here's a link to a copy of her speech:

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like those withholding their vote for Clinton until she makes an apology are actually advocating that politicians hold all information suspect until it is independently verified.

Posted by: farmasea | February 10, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I am not troubled by Hillary's 2003 vote. Yeah, there was political calculation there.

Saddam was agreeing to more aggressive inspections and after troops began to amass at his borders reportedly on the brink of agreeing to the presence of a UN force to back up the inspections.

What if Bush was a smart sensibile reasonable guy? What would Ike or GWH Bush have done? Probably stood down at that point and declared victory. Saddam would still be in Iraq (though emasculated), but the country would be together.

How, then, would opponents of the resolution had been perceived? Unfortunately, Bush is an overaged frat boy who wanted to avenge (or best) his daddy.

Posted by: Dave | February 10, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"If I knew then what I knew now I wouldn't have voted for it" says Senator Clinton today. But didn't we know at least a year ago what she knows now? She was supporting the administration even recently.

Since she aspires to be the President (unlike most of the Senators), shouldn't she have had the personally responsibility to determine the authenticity of the WMD claim, and/or have the judgement of many patriotic Senators not to vote for the war?

If she did not do her homework and voted, because she was mistakenly convinced about WMD, why did she allow to send 145,000 of our brave troops to the threshold of Saddam who then could have easily applied the WMD on them?

What was her response to "clear, hold and build"? Can we "hold and build" for political reconciliation within a few months when the Shias and Sunnis are fighting for 1300 years without any religious reconciliation?

She says that she wants to "cap" the number of troops which means maintaining the status quo. What is her opinion about putting our troops on the cross-fire of bullets coming from ten directions from eleven factions in these civil wars? Are they trained for this? Do they know their languages? Are they properly equipped? Why should we maintain the staus quo?

We will be facing a real tough time in the future. We want to elect a leader with a clear vision, broad based education and experience, foresight and of course, humility to admnit mistakes and the correct them.

Posted by: CG | February 10, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"George Allen is thinking about running for governor of Virginia again when Democrat Tim Kaine's term is up in 2009.

Virginia governors cannot serve consecutive terms but can subsequently run for re-election.

"A lot of supporters are thinking about his running for governor as well," says a close friend. "He enjoyed being governor more than being senator. He was one of the best Virginia governors of the century."

"There's no one in the Republican base who wouldn't be excited about George Allen running for governor again," says Gary Marx, who worked as a local party chairman to get Allen elected senator in 2000. "Everybody still loves him."

another racist retread loser of the GOP

io can see it now -- governor macaca

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

'US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. '

While it's very possible the attack will occur in March, as Israel and Saudi Arabia are urging [and hence... dick cheney, their operative].. they may well wait until just before the elections, so that the disastrous and collosal stupidity of such an attack [and the many casualties we will suffer from it] will not yet be apparent to all.

Funny, isn't it, how dick cheney is the puppet of the sunni regime [home of bin ladin] where the 9/11 attackers were schooled, financed and trained?

He thinks american young people should die because the saudis won't fight for themselves... I think that's kind of treacherous, don't you?

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

Mr Cannistraro worked for the CIA and the National Security Council.

Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.

In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true."

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Based on her husband's experience, Hillary Clinton should have had a built in skepticism about a president who asks for a blank check to start a war. Bill Clinton's mentor was Senator Fulbright. To the Senator's eternal sorrow, he was deceived by Lyndon Johnson into leading the Senate to endorse the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that led our nation into Vietnam. Bill Clinton worked for the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Fulbright led an investigation that proved that the second so-called attack on an American destroyer, which Johnson used as an excuse to ask for the blank check to go to war, never happened - as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Surely before the Senate vote on Bush's Iraq resolution Bill and Hillary had conversations about the Tonkin Gulf precedent for presidential deception. With this background, why wasn't she more skeptical? What is past, unfortunately, was prologue once more.

Posted by: J. Norvill Jones | February 10, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

'We will visit your house soon to send you to Gulag, conscript your offspring and send your spouse to work on a collective farm!'

it's only a matter of time, comrade -- who do you think is going to fight this war we're about to have wiht Iran -- if not your offspring?

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

In the UK Guardian today: "Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring.

"Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.",,2010086,00.html

Never believe anything from the Bush administration until it is officially denied.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 10, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey KBG -- it already does -- thanks to your president who put the Constitution in a shredder.

We will visit your house soon to send you to Gulag, conscript your offspring and send your spouse to work on a collective farm!

Posted by: KGB | February 10, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"Evidence Grows That White House Planned To Release Cooked Intel On Iran

The New York Times today published a front-page story by Michael Gordon which recites administration claims about Iran's involvement in Iraq "without the slightest questioning, investigation, or presentation of ample counter-evidence." Greg Mitchell notes, via Glenn Greenwald, that it was Gordon "who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion."

The Times story comes even as evidence grows that the administration planned to release contained cooked intelligence in a "briefing" on Iranian involvement in Iraq .

In little noted comments on Feb. 2, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley acknowledged that the Iran briefing washeld back because it was "overstated" and not "focused on the facts."

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

'An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week shows that Congress' public image has improved slowly but steadily since the November elections when Iraq, corruption and partisan fighting drove congressional approval ratings below those of President Bush.'

Posted by: in your face | February 10, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

'Monday, September 9, 2002.

U.S.: Iraq Is Hunting for Nukes
By Michael Gordon and Judith Miller

WASHINGTON -- More than a decade after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has intensified its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, U.S. officials said Saturday.

In the past 14 months, Iraq has tried to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium...'

Well, they're at it again... only this time the anonymously-sourced, un-substantiated, un-rebutted reporting is on Iran providing the 'deadliest bomb in Iraq' --

right up there on the front page, laughably gullible and credibility-free.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

'Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for Pakistani militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.

The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.

Posted by: al queda is in pakistan | February 10, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"If she knew then what she knew now she wouldn't have voted for it; is an apology, an acknowledgement"

I'm sorry, but this is no apology. This her saying that she wasn't wrong, that it wasn't her fault that she voted for the war. Not every Senator voted for the war back in 2003. HRC was among those who did. While the intelligence she had was faulty and cherry-picked, even with that, there was still no clear case for going to war with Iraq.

I want her to stand up and say "I cast a vote in support of this war. It was the wrong vote and I made a mistake in judgement", period. Don't give me BS about if she knew then what she knows now blah blah blah. You can't erase a mistake by wishing that you could've had the benefit of hind sight.

Like I said, if she really believes that we shouldn't be in Iraq, then she should be coming up with a concrete plan to get us out ASAP. Where is her plan?

We need a President who will take full responsibility for their actions, not another George Bush, who has every reason in the book for why he wasn't really wrong about anything or why it was somone else's fault.


Posted by: Peixegato | February 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

'At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.'

Posted by: laff it off, jerk | February 10, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

'The fact that Rudy is pro-choice makes things tough enough for them; if religious conservatives learn that he was for partial birth abortion before he was against it, things will likely get even tougher. Now the remaining question is whether other big news orgs will hold Rudy accountable for his glaring flip-flop on the issue.'

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK--New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller today announced that the paper's longtime staff writer Michael Gordon is not an actual person, but rather a voice-activated tape recorder.

"I'm not sure why everyone didn't figure this out before now," said Keller, pointing to the fact that, in Gordon's 26-year career, all of "his" stories have consisted entirely of transcribed statements by anonymous government officials.

According to Jill Abramson, the paper's Managing Editor, Gordon was purchased for $27.95 at a Radio Shack on West 43rd Street. Describing the situation as "a prank" that had "gotten slightly out of hand," Abramson said the paper had decided to acknowledge Gordon's identity because--after the tape recorder's front page story today, "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says"--there "was no place left to take the joke."

Keller described how he and Abramson "really had a good laugh" while editing the Iran story, which is based on the following sourcing:

'U.S. Says...United States intelligence asserts...reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies...civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided...military officials say...The officials said...The assessment was described in interviews over the past several weeks with American officials...Administration officials said...according to the intelligence...According to American intelligence...Some American intelligence experts believe...they assert...notes a still-classified American intelligence report...a senior administration official said...according to Western officials...Officials said...An American intelligence assessment described to The New York Times said...Other officials believe...American military officers say...American officials say...According to American intelligence agencies...Assessments by American intelligence agencies say...Marine officials say...American intelligence agencies are concerned...Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week.'

"You can't deny that's funny," said Keller, adding that the lack of skepticism displayed by Gordon was "literally inhuman." Keller and Abramson asserted that the Iran article is "even more hilarious" than Gordon's 2002 stories on Iraq's purported nuclear program, written with Judith Miller.

Posted by: catapult that propaganda, NYTimes | February 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton can explain away, but I don't think it will make a difference at the end of the day. Senator Obama is the real deal. He is 10 times the person Hillary is on her best day, and Hillary doesn't have that many best days.

If you saw the announcment speech this morning, Barack is simply too good.

I am a lifelong Democrat, and I am fully on board the Obama campagin now. Today's announcement was flat out the best political event I have ever seen.

Posted by: Steve | February 10, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I too would like to support HRC, but her refusal to admit her vote in 2003 was a mistake pisses me off. She comes across as someone who refuses to admit she made a mistake. That's the last kind of person we need as our next President.

How can she say she never would have started the war if she was one who voted to give the Pres the authority to do it??? Talk about riding the fence. She sounds like another flip-flopping politician (and yes, there are many Dem AND Repugs who are guilty of this), changing her opinion based on the shifting winds of public opinion polls.

If she really believes this war is wrong, then she should be coming up with a way to bring our men and women home ASAP! We want action, not speaches about "how things work in the Senate"

She's an opportunist...just like McCain.


Posted by: Peixegato | February 10, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

robert, i don't know that anybody really though obama was a rising star back then. I'd never heard of him... hillary had a lot more to lose. and she may also have been privy to [false] information he didn't have. there were some in congress who were given info not available to all...

of course it was fraudulent, but like the [totally fabricated] case presented by colin powelll, may have looked authentic and nobody wanted to be repsonsible for another attack.

we were all lied to and suckered, including the congress.

however, i would be happy to support obama too, only i really haven't heard him say anything specific enough to make me comfortable....

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey KBG -- it already does -- thanks to your president who put the Constitution in a shredder.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we want Hillary for president. The Hammer and Sickle can proudly fly over that imperialist building on pennsylvania avenue

Posted by: KGB | February 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The idea that CC would even report on a politician being 15 minutes late is really odd. Has he ever been to a political meeting or rally before? I've been to tons -- but never one where the speakers were on time.

Hillary's note my favorite, but I think it would be nice if people could cut her a little slack on the war vote. ;If she knew then what she knew now she wouldn't have voted for it; is an apology, an acknowledgement. I remember the mood of the country then --bloodthirsty for revenge of 9/11 -- don't you? There were wanted posters up for bin ladin everywhere -- reward for kill or capture, even in my small liberal town.

I don't think any politician could have bucked the president then. And the neocons knew that. The resolution for use of force was sold to all of us as a bargaining tool, not a fait accompli, as you may recall.

The choice is going to be Guiliani vs. Clinton. The important radical right machine players like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are already falling in line behind Rudy and strarting to soft sell him to their social con listeners. Rove is backing him.
He'll be the one... unless someone from a TV station lets loose with some of the really damning video of him, like the time he loudly encouraged a group of uniformed cops down by city hall to protest the election of David Dinkins by turning over cars and setting them on fire. Oh yes, it was on TV and I watched it.

Then there was the time Rudy went on the TV news to announce he was divorcing his wife to marry his girlfriend -- only he had not told his wife yet. She found out by watching the news.

Then there's his flipflop on abortion and gays and every other weasel he's going to pull in the next year to try to appeal to fascists who want the government to make ALL your decisions for you.

This is your f'amily values' candidate the repugs are going to field. So thank you, given that choice, I will happily vote for Hillary.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, I may be wrong on this, and please correct me if you think I am. But my recollection is that in 2002, the conventional wisdom among Democratic politicians was that the *safe* thing to do was to vote to authorize war in Iraq. They figured they couldn't get in trouble with voters for backing the president in his so-called war on terror. In 2002, it took a lot of political courage and sound judgment for a rising political star of unlimited potential to oppose war in Iraq. Senator Obama has that, plus a long record of accomplishments in the state and federal senate. Just off the top of my head, I could easily recite 10 accomplishments he has had as a legislator - on issues that will still be important to him once he is our president.

Posted by: Robert* | February 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

'The Democrats thought way back in 2003 that this war was going to a replay of Gulf War I with all the parades'

Where do you buy your crack? The Dems thought this? Sorry, no. that woud be Dick Cheney. Clue: he's a repug.

Posted by: drindl | February 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

("The way the Senate works, it's a first step.")

What HOGWASH! If Hillary had any intestinal fortitute, she would offer a bill to defund the war today! She can do this but she is too afraid of the polical consequences. So it might mean that she will never be prez, so what!

Posted by: Billy | February 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Will the Fix be in Keene tomorrow?

Posted by: Nathan E. | February 10, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Just more disembling from the politicians who voted for the war and now oppose it.

It's not like the information wasn't in front of all of us. You didn't have to go to conspiracy sites, etc. All you needed to know was in the Main Stream Media. All a politician had to do was connect the dots. The only thing which was missing was the 'smoking gun" which is coming out piece by piece.

"she never would have begun the war," then why did she give the Commander-In-Chief the power to do it?

It's just all B.S.

If the vote was wrong, but it was made because the politician was afraid of being smeared as unpatriotic, then it was an act of political opportunism, which when it comes to war is an act of cowardice.

I'd like to see her (and the others who did the same) explain it one-on-one with some of the 1,4300 families of the KIA's.

She comes down another notch in my book.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 10, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

is the media going to let her have it both ways on the war?

The code pink meeting with Hillary in March 03 before the war started shows she said saddam had to be disarmed and war was the only way

Posted by: Hillary Hawk | February 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is not my choice though being 15 minutes late doesn't seem newsworthy or remarkable. Guess CC just can't help himself.

I agree with Andy R and also with Molly Ivins who said a year ago about why she wouldn't support Clinton for president: "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation..." on the war and other issues.

And, enough Clintons and Bushes. We don't need dynasties, or "Deciders".... we need to turn away from the politics of the past. And Hillary is the past.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | February 10, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats thought way back in 2003 that this war was going to a replay of Gulf War I with all the parades. It would glorious, fast,decisive, and for everchanging the Middle East. Everyone believed the myth. Now reality sets in and no one could have envisioned the position the US is in early 2007. The history of Gulf War I reads like a movie script: short and victorious. The Iraq War just the opposite and it has erased all of the memories of the Gulf War I. The Democrats vision is definitely 20/20 in hindsight.

Managing failure is never fun and it's hard to find good people who will. Hillary can now jump ship because her party is out of power in the White House but she believe the parade scenario war too.

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel | February 10, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Roger Tilton couldn't have said it better. Until she Apologizes for her extremely poor decision to support the war resolution she will not get my vote either. We have had 6 years of a President who won't apologize and I don't want another.

Posted by: Andy R | February 10, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company