I would consider Hillary more highly if she apologized for her support of the war?

...and her judgment.

with a March 2008 exit date from Iraq, and stops entertaining any thoughts of keeping US troops and bases in Iraq beyond 2009.

If she did that I would work my butt off for her. I appreciate her attitude towards health care and the New Yorkers seem to love her. As I'm on the other side of the country that carries a lot of weight with me. But, and it's a big but, she seems like almost a split personality when it comes to the war.

We'll see what happens, though.

her but she never will so it's kinda moot, no?

Her stubborn, unapologetic stance toward what seems to me to be a cruel and opportunistic vote that led to the death of tens of thousands and has damaged our already unstable economy heads my list of why I don't trust HRC. Folks who simplistically cry "Hillary haters" are demogogically trying to change the subject.

Apologizing for her vote at this point in time would only make people like you start polls asking if she's a hypocrite for apologizing after she became a candidate and when the polls told her it was politically safe to do so. That's the only reason the other ones apologized, because at the time each of them had presidential aspirations written all over them.

Its best not to look back, just look forward.

And it's too late for words. We need action now.

...on the war--it's her lack of VOICE during the past several years--as BushCo has
desecrated the constitution and shredded our civil rights.

Where is she on torture?

Where is Hillary on Guantanamo? Does she want to keep it open?

What's her stance on illegal wiretaps and Bush circumventing the FISA court?

What's her stance on Iran? Most recently, she's been parroting the BushCo talking points on Iran. That's disturbing.

Does it bother Hillary that Junior can read our email and open our mail?

The fact that we even have to PONDER what Hillary thinks and believes on these issues--is
revolting.

Either you're for the Fascism and the destruction of our democracy--or your against it. Saying
nothing is compliance, and I for one--wouldn't vote for her for Pres under any circumstances.

She may be a good Senator. She may toe the line on some of our important Democratic issues. However,
so does Joe Lieberman. We need a rock-solid, ticked off warrior who is very vocal and committed to
fighting these perverse neocons. Being pro-choice and solid on environmental issues is important, but
if we don't have our democracy, our civil rights and a government run by "We The People"--then we have
absoultely nothing.

We can do much, much better than Hillary, during this time in our nation's history--a very desperate hour.

She has not proven herself a leader, she spent her term as Senator playing it safe and being very quiet so as not to have her words come back at her during the Presidential campaign. Not what we need. I will however vote for her if she is the dem nominee because any of the alternatives are worse. I would be very happy then to be proven wrong but right now I don't see how she is the best we have to nominate.

She has nothing to be sorry for. If I had been in her position, I too, would have voted for the Iraq war. If I was President, I would have wanted the authority to attack Iraq. If I or Hillary had been President we would have concentrated on the people who attacked us and that was not Iraq.

That's 22 Democrats and 1 Republican. Were they simply delusional? What did they know that HRC didn't? Did she listen to the impassioned speech of Robert Byrd, who realized he'd been hoodwinked by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and vowed never to let it happen again?

No, she realized that voting "No" would brand her "soft on defense," plugged that into the cold calculus of her political aspirations, and realized that it would harm her Presidential chances. I don't admire that sort of calculation. For heaven's sake, even LBJ supported (and signed) the Voting Rights Act even though he realized it potentially meant the loss of the South (and he was correct) because he felt it was important to do what was right, not what was expedient. I want a leader, not a weather vane.

and I don't blame you if you didn't know that the war was a lie, many people knew but many more didn't. Many felt that once we were in Iraq that it was necessary to back the war to show support for the troops. Senator Clinton though was in the Senate, she is supposedly a very intelligent person, she should have known. The arguments were presented in the Senate very eloquently against this war at the time. She made the wrong decision.

Maybe sometimes you do what you think is right and it turns out you're wrong. Happens to me!

You wrote: "A lot of them made the wrong decision--and they're all pretty intelligent."
They certainly are intelligent. But even more important: They can analyze polls, and read the current of the feelings of the voters. They know how to appeal to short-term emotional needs of the electorate. Things like facts and ethics play no role in their thinking.

You wrote: "Maybe sometimes you do what you think is right and it turns out you're wrong."
In that case, you pay the price for that. Life has risks. Sometimes you die. It's time for anyone who voted in favor of the Iraq war to politically die (meaning: career-ending move, I'm not advocating any form of violence). Same goes for patriot act.

that any of the Dems really want to end the Iraq occupation? After all, maybe they're just reading the polls and picking up on current public "emotional needs"? Maybe they don't give a crap either way? My point is, I don't care how pure or impure someone's motives are here--I would like someone to end the war. Maybe that ending will, in fact, be the next Holocaust and the Dems will be blamed for bloodshed not seen in a century--THEN do I turn around and blame them for responding to public sentiment to get out of Iraq? I try not to be too harsh in my judgment of mistakes candidates have made in the past, as long as they're willing to get back on track and rectify the mistakes.

And she hasn't demonstrated that she has good judgment.

I was certainly against the war from the start, but I have never been a Senator, I have never been a celebrity, I have never run for office. It's so easy to sit here and say what I would have done. I HOPE I would have voted against it but I will never know for certain, because I do not KNOW what it is like to be that famous, in that situation, getting that intel, and I never will.

I wish she would apologise, but I do not think it would matter much now.

Yes, I would. She needs to apologize. What for? For the fact that she voted in favor of the war. Even though "everyone" knew that there are no WMDs, and that the administration made up all the "reasons" for the war. She could have known that, for example by reading the NY times regularly.

But what she really needs to apologize for is being a spineless politician. She needs to say: "After 2001, I looked only at opinion polls, not at what is right or wrong. The polls said that many voters are mad about 9/11. I thought I could gather some more support by feeding those voters raw meat. I ignored the facts, and was driven by electioneering and pollomongering only."

If she says anything else, she is being dishonest. She is adding a big lie to an already festering pile of lies. But if she says this, she is politically dead. From an ethical point of view, she is now in a bind. That's too bad, but life isn't always pretty: In my book, by voting in favor of the war, she made a career-ending mistake. That happens, and I feel sorry for her, but it doesn't change that in politics, one big mistake can be fatal.

In my book, any democrat who voted in favor of the DMCA, or of the patriot act, or the Iraq war resolution, is dead.

In addition, I happen to be a gun owner and target shooter (which is my humble opinion is compatible with being left, liberal, and a democrat). Her long track record of vitriolic anti-gun rhetoric makes her unsupportable for me. Sorry, game over.

go Hillary!

Forgetting that she'll never do it ("you know, if that's the most important thing for you, there are other candidates in the race"), IWR was the biggest pile of legislative shit we'll probably ever see in our lifetimes. A trap door served up before the mid-terms in the post 9/11 nationalistic and paranoid hothouse that BushCo had created for itself. I'm 1000% certain that Hillary (who is much smarter than Edwards) voted for it for purely political reasons. I almost give her credit for lying in the bed she has made for herself. It shows a certain toughness, which is the only virtue she can attach to her vote at this point. An apology would undermine even that.

write my thoughts about HRC and the constant negative statements by those that do not support her. For some reason, some Democrats in here can't say, "I prefer Edwards or Obama." No, that won't do - that would take a measure of adulthood. It is always something negative about HRC, but that is your right to express exactly what you desire. but I too get to write what I feel....

I wonder if these same folks that respond to anything HRC puts out are the same ones that say she must apologize for her vote on Iraq and in some way claim she is enabling this war? Ask yourself how stupid it would sound to say,Max Cleland's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Joe Biden's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Tom Harken's enabling the Iraq war disaster, John Kerry's enabling the Iraq war disaster, Chuck Schumers enabling the Iraq war disaster.(On the Joint Resolution those above(H.J.Res. 114 voted Yea)

You see? It's no fun to hold Harken or Kerry responsible for BUSH's disaster, but the freshman senator from New York, SHE's responsible for BUSH's disaster all on her own. It was HER vote thats killed 3300 soldiers and Cleland, Kerry and Edwards had NOTHING to do with it.

If this is not you, then why is it that folks keep up the rant that HRC must apologize.....This fever reminds me of the GOP's impeachment fever back in 1998. Bill's impeachment was like a criminal assault and battery. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever.
The GOP was "caught up" with impeachment fever - that's all they could see or hear. Bill's approval rating was in the 70s - and voters clearly didn't want him to be impeached, but like the criminal who can't stop until he assaults enough, it was GOING to happen.

Hell, the GOP lost seats in November of 1998 - but that didn't matter to them. NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever. They lived and breathed impeachment the way some people are now living and breathing "Stop her!"

IF YOU,LIKE ANOTHER CANDIDATE BETTER THAN HRC,VOTE FOR HIM OR HER...... But when I read some of the vitriol directed towards HRC, you got the fever and that tells me something.

And to THOSE DEMOCRATS, "I'll vote Republican before I'll vote for Her," then Democrats need to worry because your "Stop her!" fever is turning you into what the GOP was in 1998.

.... lies of omission. It is not just the vote that has people upset. It is the fact that she continued to support this war long after it was remotely reasonable to do so.

If fact, she only stopped supporting the war when it became politically infeasible to continue the support, i.e. the majority of Americans went against it.

So please spare us the revisionist bullshit and false analogies, we are not stupid.

Article title: Why I Hate Her

"This fever reminds me of the GOP's impeachment fever back in 1998. Bill's impeachment was like a rape.
NOTHING was going to stop that impeachment because they had the fever.The GOP was "caught up" with impeachment fever - that's all they could see or hear. Bill's approval rating was in the 70s - and voters clearly didn't want him to be impeached, but like the rapist who can't stop until he climaxes, it was GOING to happen."

(It reads easier without all the deranged rape and masturbation references.)

http://www.bartcop.com/1941.htm

in addition to apologizing for her past support for the illegal invasion and occupation

Whatever other good qualities they may have, voting for the war is being on the wrong side of one of THE major issue of the new century. It's really hard to make up for that.

And I want my Vote Counted TOO!

People of New York, Consider yourselves Lucky to have her, even if she does occasionally pander to her base or the Center.

I find this demand for apologies from those that voted 'yes' on the IWR such absolute nonsense.

Rating their performances - and make no mistake, the backtracking/apologies/tap-dancing/explanations are most definitely performances like dancing monkeys before the leftie mob - is tantamount to scoring an Olympic event.

It is the epitome of narcissistic bullshit to pretend that an apology makes a damn bit of difference. "My bad" doesn't cut it in matters of war and death.

This is just another pretense to slam one candidate in particular over the others that committed the same egregious error.

I will not support anyone in the primaries who voted for IWR. Judgment in crisis is what I rate, not apologies. I will vote for the Dem nominee in the GE.

and it reeks of political opportunism when an "I'm sorry," is almost immediately followed by...and I want to be your president. At least Hillary's being honest, and I give her points for that.

If she did it now, I would know she was lying.

And she wouldn't mean it anyways.