About

Blog for Democracy is a group weblog, all about progressive politics in the peach state. The opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any group(s) with which they may be affiliated.

To email an author, click on their name on the upper left sidebar of the main page.

« Guest post from GOPeach | Main | Sunday blog roundup »

February 17, 2007

Regarding Hillary

icon_blog.gifWhy does Hillary (unlike Edwards), refuse to admit she was wrong on her vote for the War in Iraq? Why does she claim to have been "mislead", instead of taking responsibility for her vote? There's a good discussion going on Democratic Underground today on this question. Here's a sample:

It could be that she believes that for 210 years the President held a certain amount of trust to execute the will of the Congress and therefore the people. The Congress voted to allow the President to use his discretion and judgment and THIS PRESIDENT violated that trust. It was a game of chicken, and Bush chose to ignore all the precedent, all the trust, and all the judgment that is required for a functional democracy. HE chose dictatorship, HE chose a "unitary executive", and HE chose to disregard the will of the community of nations. It is unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Posted by Mel at February 17, 2007 3:04 PM

Comments

Amen! I haven't been a fan of Hillary's war-vote answers but only because she hasn't done a really good job of explaining that point, not because I'm going to shun her until she caves into the "I must repudiate my vote" camp. Right now, Congress is arguing amongst themselves about whether these resolutions "give comfort to our enemy" and "embolden" them. It's hard to say how Congressional posturing affects a group so amorphous and psychotic as al Qaeda and random insurgent clans; however, when dealing with a state, under the fist of a fairly calculating military dictator, it made the most sense to present a united front when trying to call his bluff. I think many Democrats voted for the authorization to use force not because they wanted us to end up in a stupid war, but because they knew that it made no sense for the president to point a gun at Saddam if Congress wasn't going to let him put any bullets in it. They just didn't expect the president to be so trigger happy. You know they have a saying, I think in Senator Clinton's district, I know it is in Texas, that uh, fool her once, shame on - shame on her, but fool her - she can't get fooled again. 'N' stuff.

Posted by: shelby [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2007 4:30 PM

The answer to the question posed is found in the following article from following 2-7-07 article in The Washington Times:

As the Democratic Party presidential aspirants finished their speeches last week to the party's winter meeting, the early big political fact is the dangerous populist and anti-war pull that the candidates feel. This is particularly dangerous for Sen. Hillary Clinton as she ratchets-up, almost weekly, her anti-war Iraqi rhetoric and policy.

She has shrewdly understood, at least since she entered the Senate in 2000, that the Achilles' heel of every Democratic presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972 has been the appearance of weakness regarding American national defense and national security. Only Jimmy Carter after the Watergate scandal and her husband after the fall of the Soviet Union got a pass from the American electorate on their national-security shortcomings.

Posted by: Sid Cottingham [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2007 5:28 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)

(Just hit the Post button once and be patient. If you have problem commenting, email: mel[at]georgiafordemocracy.org.)


Remember me?