And don't forget that the whole situation was caused solely by Hillary's vote to authorize the President to invade Iraq, so it's really not fair of the press to be asking me this question. Ask her.

It passed 77-23 in the Senate and passed in the house. And Bush chose to invade. Hillary and no other congressperson made that choice.

The press is asking you what question?

I should have used the sarcasm icon. This is the impression I get from reading posts on DU, however.

she probably would be president today.

It was a huge mistake. It cost her the presidency.

As for the garbage OP, someone take it outside, please? It stinks.

... during the 2008 Primary Wars.

I remember a LOT of issues posters had with Hillary - and being an Obama Girl, I made note of all of them.

And yet I don't remember her IWR vote being mentioned at all. I stand to be corrected - but if it was mentioned, it certainly wasn't mentioned enough to be memorable.

So to say that had she voted "no", she would probably be president today is rather absurd. I've seen this meme raised here a few times - how Hillary's IWR vote cost her the nomination in 2008. And yet, it was definitely not a big topic of discussion and I have yet to see any evidence that it ever was.

His opponent was not. He won. It was on DU. It was one of the main reasons she lost.... she was seen as someone who supported the Iraq war with bush. Lots of people were very pissed about the Iraq war. I could see if one was not pissed they wouldn't remember others talking about the matter.

You weren't.

I invite you to do a site search and find a post from the 2008 DU Primary War that mentions Hillary's IWR vote as being a reason not to vote for her.

Believe me, there were MANY posts about why HRC shouldn't be the nominee - I know, I wrote some of those posts myself. But her IWR vote was not an issue.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that "one of the main reasons she lost" was due to an issue that no one here even thought to raise. If it was one of the "main issues", surely people would have spoken up about it at the time - dont'cha think?

And yet they didn't.

... that demonstrate HRC's IWR vote being an issue?

whose anti war vote did not mean anything. And one could only guess how he would have voted had he been a U.S. Sentaor.

Most Americans supported the war in Iraq. As a start, thus Hillary and the rest of them voted according to what their constituents wished.

But he was against the war and invasion. That is the main reason he had such establishment support. They could just not bring themselves to support H> who voted to let bush invade.

And NO. Most American did NOT support the war in Iraq in 2008. Do you even read what you write? WTF?!?!?!?

The media was selling the war and made it look like it had support. I see you bought the spin. Half the Democrats in congress were not stupid and did not get sucked in. Those were the establishment Dems who said no to H>.

and it's what put Bill Clinton on the attack when Clinton called Obama's ant-war stance a "fairy tale" in NH (which the MSM took out of context)

But this isn't about Obama's anti-war stance.

It's about the revisionist history that HRC's IWR vote "cost her the nomination". The truth is that her vote was not an issue in 2008 - plenty else about her WAS an issue for many people (myself included). But the IWR vote wasn't.

As I said, I stand to be corrected. If anyone wants to do a site-search and post the links to the 2008 OPs where HRC's Iraq vote was cited as a major reason for not supporting her, I invite them to do so.

back to Nov-Dec 2007 for that...it was Obama's win in Iowa that was the catalyst for the black community flipping from Clinton to Obama...after Iowa, it became about race, for the most part.

It was featured in the very first Dem debate in 2007 and it was the issue that only Obama (among the major candidates) used to gain traction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2824746

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3126392

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4288269

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3269044

Even Edwards took an anti-war stance against Clinton (like....REALLY?)

And here's one critical DU post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4327360

... to find the links.

But again, I was not talking about who was for/against the Iraq war, or what was said about it during the 2008 Primary War here on DU.

I am talking about the way the Bernistas have been posting post after post about it now, and pointing out that HRC's vote was NOT a big topic of conversation in 2008.

The links you've provided tend to prove my point. There are a few replies to the effect of "I wish she'd apologize for it", or, "her vote will haunt her".

But you don't see any posts like you see here now, where Hill is being called a warmonger responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, how she contributed to the rise of ISIS, how she has the blood of every dead Iraqi and soldier on her hands, etc.

Anyway, it was interesting to look back on DU posts of that period, and be reminded yet again of how this used to be a place that invited civil discussion on any topic, rather than over-the-top vitriol on literally every topic.

considering how vitriolic the 2008 primary was though, I kind of it get...there was comparable vitriol...simply not about the Iraq War.

But nowhere near the way things are now - not just during the primaries, but every day.

Of course, DU enforced the TOS in those days and, as a result, people did their best to remain civil - even when they really didn't want to be civil.

Nowadays, anything goes here.

It was most certainly a sticking point for a lot of DUers.

What's important is that after Dean lost a lot of Deaniacs did join support for Kerry (or at least didn't resort to attacking him). Yes, some Deaniacs did lose it, but DU was 90% Dean back then, but, in the end DU was 99% for Kerry.

In 2008 there were massive PUMA purges, many of Clinton's supporters were right wingers or conservatives anyway (and there may probably be some this go around if she gets the nod, as well).

This wasn't like Obama in 2012 where attacks against Obama happened all the way up until election day.

... who was against the war, and who benefited from being against it.

What I've said is that I don't remember HRC's IWR vote being made an issue then the way it is now.

I messed up though because I was thinking of that other 2004 post bashing Kerry. Yes being anti-IWR was always bad but we rallied around Kerry and if Clinton got the nod instead of Obama we would've rallied around Clinton.

... the way it's being made into an issue now.

If you have any links from that period that show otherwise, I'd appreciate seeing them.

He voted for the war and publicly recanted and said he was sorry. And then constantly needled Hillary to do the same.

In 2008, pro-IWR Hillary Clinton got 18 M votes. Anti-IWR Barack Obama got...18 M votes.

The difference in delegates was due to tactical decisions like dealing with caucus States.

from Libya ended up in Syria after Gaddafi was taken out.....

And going off about income inequality. He has his comfort zones and it's extremely apparent

pitched a fit when he found out they were going to talk about Paris so he knew what was coming.. why didn't he prepare?

Circumstances change on a dime and they do it exponentially when you're POTUS.. Bernie is showing he's not capable of handling that.

both are tied to our oil addiction

Hillary is a woman that is all you need to know.

was that Obama was black.

Yes, many, on DU and in public said that that was enough. Jesse Jackson Jr. - still in jail? - went after members of the Black Congressional Caucus for them to support Obama, to pledge as super delegates. And this was his reasoning, because he was "a brother."

Bernie was trying to imply that heat and drought conditions and fewers crop growing areas had lead to harsh living conditions, near starvation and Isis. Whatever.

"You will each have one minute for an opening statement to share your thoughts about the attacks in Paris and lay out your visions for America."

The author is criticizing Sanders for complying with the moderator's instructions. When they got into the actual questions about ISIS, Sanders correctly pointed out that the current crisis is largely of our own making and that regime change has a poor track record when it comes to delivering the hoped-for result. And Sanders is right about climate change being a factor contributing to terrorism in the ME, too.

The greater the inequality, the greater the conflicts. Such a simple true explanation for the problems of the world. Now if the Hillary people could just see who is producing this inequality and note she works for them? Go Bernie!

that even now he knows next to nothing on foreign policy. Well that's not fair. Climate change causes all terrorism so there's that.

Wars are economic and terrorists fight for an increasing share of the resources, whether that be money, land, gold, or women. Leaders use the call for Jihad to satisfy these desires, and the more unequal people perceive the situation either through reality or through hatred, the more war ensues. Sorry you and so many others just do not get Bernie and the truth. Please keep working on it, the country needs all of us to defeat the 1%. Go Bernie!

I can see how uncomfortable he was with foreign policy. Unfortunately you couldn't speak for him. He was a deer in the headlights when it came to that topic. He definitely wanted to stick to what he was comfortable with. Domestic issues only.

You say Bernie is a Larry David inspiration. This highly insulting caricature of Bernie with limited pairs of underwear as a badge of honor is based on a racist joke about Asian women in the countries involved in the Vietnam War. Saturday Night Live and Larry should be ashamed. But in any case, Bernie is certainly not inspired by Larry David, but rather the other way around.
You also imply that Bernie quoted global warming as the greatest threat as somehow related to a David impersonation which happened days later. This is basically an impossibility since Bernie did not know what David would say at the time Bernie spoke. But more importantly the greatest threat we face is global change and that change will exacerbate tensions and conflicts across our planet as we all struggle for what will become more limited resources, water, arable land,clean air, clean nutritious food, tolerable temperatures etc.. All this is related and your inability to see that the wars going on now just as all wars of the past are over resources and wealth does not make Bernie's answer any less true.
Hillary and O Malley proudly pointed out the detailed know;edge they had and Bernie said he agree woith much of what they said but he encapsulated the situation as it really is and will continue to be suggesting that combating the need for desperate competition for resources is what is most important.
I realize you may not know that economics and politics were originally taught in the same school of a university since they are intimately related and not really divisible, and Bernie like most of us know economics is the basis of political action. And we also know Big Corporations use politics as a weapon to assure the economic policies they favor at our peril become institutionalized.
So life and politics are economics, so we must discuss economics if we want to discuss current and future events including Paris and ISIS. Sorry if that inconvenient truth bothers you. Go Bernie!

He seems to be able to handle it.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/208634-obama-ties-between-climate-and-terrorism-ripe-in-poorer-countries

They don’t have a lot of margin for error, and that has national security implications. When people are hungry, when people are displaced, when there are a lot of young people, particularly young men, who are drifting without prospects for the future, the fertility of the soil for terrorism ends up being significant," Obama said, "and it can have an impact on us."

He also said that climate change can lead to wars by fostering conflict over resources.

"Entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves, and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that — that gets your attention," Obama said. "It’s not just the actual disasters that might arise, it is the accumulating stresses that are placed on a lot of different countries and the possibility of war, conflict, refugees, displacement that arise from a changing climate.”

When Friedman noted the four-year drought in Syria, which spurred the uprising there, Obama said it is a sign of what happens when countries "are just barely hanging on."

No question about it.