Hillary lost because of her "yea" vote on the IWR.

It really comes down to that. Sure, Obama's charismatic and she's not. Sure, she has all kinds of hideous baggage and he doesn't. Yes, my Democratic mother can't stand the sound of Hillary's voice and my Republican baby-sitter is going to vote for Obama. But let's face it: it's really about the fact that Democrats are justifiably leery of running another candidate who was for the war before she was against it. The war is as unpopular as ever; if we want to differentiate our party from McCain's, we have to have a candidate who opposed the war from the get-go. Sorry, Hillary: your calculus on the IWR didn't work out too well. At all.

that she is not qualified to hold the office of the Presidency.

She lacks the principles and the conviction necessary to distinguish what is politically (seemingly, at the time) expedient from what is appropriate and in the national interest.

The OP's statement is correct, however your statement more precisely states my objection to her.

she KNEW that Iraq was not a threat, that the information they were using to push it was ginned up ... I freakin knew it, and she is a lot smarter and privy to more information than I am ...

So, why did she vote for it ???

A calculation with this presidential race in mind ...

She knew we would smash Saddam and his military, but like most us of didn't realize how big a can of worms would be opened by doing it ... She thought it would be a quick and definitive "victory" without the massive blowback within the country that has got us caught up in a complete no win situation ...

She did not want to do the right thing and vote against it, cause she WOULD have been beat mercilessly in the general election as someone to weak to back George W Bush's highly successful Iraq war ... She thought she had the primary in the bag and made the decision SOLEY to keep from giving the Rs the ability to bash her to death after what was surely going to be an easy military action ...

I was of the mind that she simply got beat by a better candidate, and she did, but after a number of these threads I have come around to agree, THIS was her "mistake" making a political calculation vs doing the right thing, and I do believe had she done the right thing, she WOULD have beat BO and it would not have been as close as this race has been ... Not even ...

She seems to have a certain lack of moral compass that I find troubling. Unfortunately, her behavior throughout this campaign has reinforced rather than alleviated that concern.

She COULD have claimed she was duped by Bush, but by refusing to distance herself from it she opened the door for Barack. He would have never run if she hadn't opened the door.

AND she'd be the nominee today...

AND McCain would beat her in November....

:(

Agree with us or not, at least show us that you understand where we're at, Hillary.

She couldn't/wouldn't do this, so either she was fooled by the IWR or she is complicit. Not good for Us in either case.

But the lion's share of credit goes to Obama's campaign team and the charismatic candidate himself.

His Magic Money Machine (thanks for the idea, Dr. Dean) didn't hurt a bit

so long as they apologized for it, as Edwards did. HRC refused to say that she was sorry.

to vote for Obama when she appeared at that gathering last years, saying (paraphrasing): "if that's what's going to make a difference in who your vote for in the primary, then there will be other candidates for whom you can vote, but I will not apologize for that vote nor will I run from it - if you think it makes me unqualified for office, don't vote for me."

And I saw a poll on CNN that seems to back it up. In a Montana poll, I think it was, the pro-Obama respondents showed that the number one issue for them was the Iraq war.

How could they (we) vote for Hillary?

All the crap we've gone through with Hillary, and it all came down to her decision to play politics with hundreds of thousands of human lives.

And she never did apologize for killing them, did she?

Fuck you, Hillary.

he deserved to win

But ultimately it was about real life-and-death substance, not just theatrics. That's kind of the irony, I think.

I think its still 'who would your rather have a beer with' for most voters.
And Obama was able to touch something deep inside of his supporters and he didn't have the baggage of Clinton

You might be right, but I like to think that people are kind of paying attention to the big picture stuff now. I don't think we're going to sleep-walk through this election again, as a nation.

I saw something about it earlier in the week but haven't had a chance to figure out what the BS was

He said that Obama's problem is that he wouldn't fit in at the salad bar at Applebee's, and he'd better do something about it. There are a lot of reasons why it's an asinine remark: first, it's kind of racist (why wouldn't he fit in at Applebee's or anywhere else?); second, apparently Applebee's don't have salad bars; third, I really don't think Americans are buying into the aw-shucks just-folks mythology about presidential candidates anymore. We tried that a while back and it didn't work out very well. We don't want a president who eats at third-rate chain restaurants: we want one who's smart and competent and has a coherent and expansive vision for the future.

does Brooks imagine McCain at Applebees?

Oh, wait. That's my imagination. Sorry.

Kerry or Bush Gore....but don't see how it works for Obama McCain.

McCain has no chance of winning this election.
But of course the Democrats always make a run for losing.

The reason democrats could lose is because they have failed since they took over Congress in 2006.
But they won't because of incumbency and greater anger at Bush and co.

as we did in '06. But I think it'll be a historic landslide, frankly, with huge turnouts that will also pull Dem super-majorities into both house of congress. I really don't think McCain understands what he's up against. If Hillary could have beaten McCain (and she probably could have), Obama will eviscerate him.

I'm not seeing it.
Its slightly possible in the Senate...but not as likely in the House.

of the sort that leads to generational change.

which to me meant 2/3 majority.

Poor choice of words on my part again. You're right.

for apology.

Its just another reminder to me how difficult it is for even like minded people to communicate clearly and understand accurately.
Imagine how much more difficult if we weren't self-selected like minded.

it was good planning and management. That's something else we need from a president, as well as good judgment.

And the charisma doesn't hurt a bit.

Poor choice of words on my part.

And that message has illustrated the differences between him and her on this issue and all other issues by implication: What else can you expect (on the issues) from someone who supported the chance of a War that should NEVER have happened?

That's what he has been saying about the IWR: it never should have peen passed, ergo what kind of pResident would someone who voted for it be?

It was a brilliant way to get his point across without attacking her character.

necessarily see her as being pro-war (obliteration remark aside) don't like the idea that she appears to have voted because of how her vote would look...rather than how she really felt.

Her voting record is one of endorsing what is good for corporate America and bad for the American people.

Her campaign has been run by a box of ferrets. Her judgment at choosing people, keeping them on, and paying such huge amounts of money was very poor. She has "nearly fraudulently" wasted the funds donated to her. She has lied and played the victim. The bigot-pandering and the assassination as a campaign strategy were probably the worst.

So it's not just one vote. It's her entire performance as a politician.

Mostly, I think, they voted on big picture issues and to some extent on a sense that Obama really was different in fundamental ways from the assholes who got us into this mess.

and that would indicate she should not be in the Senate, she should be in the Meals-on-Wheels program because she is clearly incompetent to review the information available and make appropriate decisions.

Or, her ethics, decency, or humanity.

Obviously, it's pretty hard to praise someone if those qualities are non-existent.

Before really grossing me out with her campaign.

Here's a song for her (with my apologies to They Might Be Giants):

This is where the primary ends,
I just cannot tolerate
You and your racist friends.
I know politics devour you,
But I’d feel like a hypocrite
Voting for you and your racist friends.

It was the loveliest primary that I ever attended,
If the Party’s really broken I’m sure it can be mended.
But I can’t really stand your nonsense and pretendin’,
Listening to some empty head and the madness that he’s shrieking.

Out from the primaries to the Rules Committee meeting,
You said there’d be compromise, that you could see it our way.
But since the compromise wasn’t all that you were seeking,
You shook the Devil’s hand and said you’d be appealing.

This is where the primary ends,
So now Barack is moving on
From you and your racist friends.
I know politics devour you,
But the Democratic Party will not stoop
And bow to you and your racist friends.

And Obama's team were/are extraordinarily effective. But one likes to think that issues actually matter for a significant number of voters, if not all. No?

this optimistic advocate of the Bill Clinton presidency, that is the truth.

I sent many e-mails to HRC's Senate website during the run-up to this war, urging her to vote against the authorization of force and to refuse to buy into The Lie. Those messages weren't even acknowledged, and we know what's folled. In my eyes that vote was pivotal in my deciding she wasn't Commander-in-Chief material.

I have no big ax to grind with her nor stars in my eyes re: Obama, but Senator Clinton did buy into the war-hype (to appease our upstate righties, I believe.) The -general- impression seems to be that she's been an effective Senator for NYS, so I wouldn't oppose her re-election here...but Oval Office, n'thanks.

In 2004, I had no choice.

This year I did and I vowed: no more support for war enablers, disemblers, triangulators!

Had they chosen Hillary, she would have been the nominee.

So stop beating the stupid dead horse that THEY were somehow responsible for not RESCUING her! The "Poor Nell" act was old long, long ago.

Sheesh!

I ddn't say any of that shit.

I'm happy for Obama and the country. Very historic moment.

Sheesh!!

it includes the vote, and the hawkish stand against Code Pink and Now, and the "we all need to support the troops" message on the day the war started and the hawkishness displayed for YEARS after the war started.

I don't give a lot of credence to the Wall Street Journal, but they do seem to have put together a chronology of comments from Hillary.

'• December 15, 2003. It is clear by now that no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton tells the Council on Foreign Relations that "Yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. . . . We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the President, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice."'

'• October 2005. Antiwar fervor on the left is picking up, and activist Cindy Sheehan compares her to Rush Limbaugh after Mrs. Clinton tells the Village Voice: "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

• November 2005. Mrs. Clinton posts a letter to constituents that marks her first dovish turn. "If Congress had been asked , based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," she writes. But invoking retired General Eric Shinseki's estimate of more American troops necessary to pacify Iraq, she demands not withdrawal but a new plan: "It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor--not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war."'

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009637

'Hillary the fighter' spent years (years. Not just one vote. Years.) fighting against the anti-war left and many of us are registered Democrats quite willing and able to fight back. We remember our enemies Senator Clinton, and we aren't fooled if they try to change colors for a primary race.

Sure, I'd still vote for her next to McLame. But I don't think that's why she lost.

She lost because she ran the wrong campaign. She came out as "Hillary: The Inevitable" with oodles of experience and Washington know-how. Her campaign didn't bank on the change that's been brewing since the 2006 election. Americans don't care if you're Democrat or Republican or White or Black or a man or woman; we want something different. Oh sure, those factors play into account with some voters, but by and large, most people are so sick of business as usual.

I'm being real - she could have won. If she came out swinging with a different message, no one would have looked for an alternative. The media, the pundits, the supporters were all on her side but lying underneath the surface were grassroots organizations centered around guys like Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama. Clinton's advisors should have taken the temperature. They should have figured out how to use the rules in their favor. They should have listened to the 50 state strategy. They should have planned for the chaos that was lurking around the corner. But they played it safe in a year where safe isn't good enough. Experience means nothing. Inevitability - a thing of the past.

Did Obama run a good campaign? Sure. But I also have my own theory why were here I've spelled out before. In my heart of hearts, I think the mainstream media did everything to bury Edwards because on paper, he was supposed to be her biggest competition. When no one was noticing, Obama snuck up from behind and delivered Iowa. Things stopped going according to plan and I don't think anyone knew what to do from that point on, especially the assholes on TV. To Obama's credit, he stepped up to the plate and managed to say and do the things necessary to win - and he had a plan. Clinton was busy trying to steer her ship off the rocks. And by Super Tuesday, it was all too late.

So here we are. Alot of credit should be given to all parties involved. It's been a great show even with all its up's and down's. But we're now here and we need to take here to there. Onward and upward!

But her "oodles of experience" meme was also partly a fiction: it just didn't match up with what the voting public knew about her, just as her IWR vote didn't match up with her alleged opposition to the war. So yes, if you're going to run on your experience, it's important to actually have some. In that sense you're correct.

I'm only pointing out that's what she came out of the shoot with. She should have said, and most correctly, I've seen what's gone on and we need to do something about it. She could have admitted she was part of the problem at times, too. Instead, she said, "I'm the one you want because it's my turn and the Republicans hate me."

The experience moniker was complete bullshit. I find it amusing that she hits us with 'I was in sniperfire' when in reality, no one gives a shit if you really were or not. But thanks for confirming what we already knew about you, sister ;)

Oh well. Have fun holding on to your senate seat.

It was a HORRIBLE capitulation. Horrible.

... nothing was, nor is, bigger. Her calculus on the IWR was dead wrong.

In 2003, she rolled the dice. She made a calculated political decision, hoping it would pay off in the future for her and hoping the war would, indeed, be "a cakewalk". (to make that decision on a political basis basis is reason for disqualification in my mind; but that is a separate issue)

She gambled, and lost. She lost this election in 2003.

One of the few times I agreed with Chris Matthews, one of his most coherent moments, was some weeks ago when it was becoming obvious that Obama would get the nomination.

He said he was going to go off on a "Keith Olbermann 'Special Comment'" for a moment. I felt like he was channelling my thoughts (scary huh?). He pointed out what you point out... that she lost when she voted for the IWR. That it was a calculation, a gamble, and she lost.

But MORESO, he made the connection which to me has always been obvious: People want CHANGE, and the change they are talking about is the IRAQ WAR.

Yes, the economy's bad, yes gas prices are high, etc. etc. But first and foremost, it's all about the WAR. THIS is the change people want; change from the ideas and mentality that have made us the bane of the world, put us in a quagmire that has taken thousands of American lives, and also contributed greatly to ruining our economy.

THIS is why Hillary Clinton cannot be on this "Change" ticket.

If pushed, I'd also cite several other anti-Constitutional
votes that she cast (such as supporting the USA PATRIOT Acts
I and II) but I *ALWAYS* use her IWR vote as the exemplar
of when I flipped from being an HRC supporter to being an
HRC *STRONG* opponent.

Even up to the NH Primary, she could probably have still
redeemed herself in my eyes by repenting her vote, but she
remains proud of it to ttoday's bitter end.

Tesha

If you vote to invade because you're afraid of appearing weak, then your political future pretty much hinges on the success of the war you enabled. If the war doesn't go well and is therefore unpopular, you can't repent your vote because you risk looking indecisive—all you can do is parse it by saying you voted to authorize, not to invade. Well, people are highly suspicious of that kind of parsing, especially coming from a Clinton.

She really had a total "take it or leave it" attitude with regard to that policy choice she made. It was very off-putting.

That and her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, which Obama wisely chose to avoid.

I don't say this in a snarky way at all- we are lucky that Obama was not in the Senate in 2002, since I think he probably would have voted in favor of it too (as did every single Senator with imminent presidential ambitions). We needed a clear distinction between us and the republicans on the Iraq War, and the only way we could get it was to nominate someone who voted against it or wasn't in a position to vote at all. Obama has other good characteristics as well, and if we can push him left on economic policies his adminsitration might be a pretty good one.

I just wish it had worked like this in 04 and we were instead focused on the re-election campaign of President Dean.

... is working. Listening to McCain today, he's damn near trying to sound like Obama!

"But we'll get recommendations from Petraeus in July... and we've already withdrawn X # of battalions... and I'm sure we'll remove more..." He's downright triangulating to merge his strategy with Obama's!

And I'm sure they WILL withdraw more troops before the election. They have no choice. Bush will make it so (regardless of what the generals say). But it's the DEMOCRATS, and OBAMA, who have been pushing for that. Moreso, the PEOPLE have been; and Obama is on their side... and McCain is not, until recently when he tries to be. But people are smart. They see how transparent that is.

Venting on this issue a bit more, he also said (and I'm sure will say throughout the campaign) that "Yes, we will draw down troops... but not based on some politician's idealogical agenda!"

Well my answer to that (as I'm sure Obama's will be) is that this war was STARTED "based on some politician's idealogical agenda"! I'm sure the American people see that as well. It's as clear as day.

Then it was her IWR vote, followed by her inability to admit that it was a mistake.

I found it interesting she had become the great female hope of women. I would love to see a female POTUS, and believe that I will, but I hope she makes it as the first in her family, not running on her husband's legacy. Finally, an end to bush/clinton/bush/....

her ties to the DLC did it for some,
her effectively pro-NAFTA stance did it for some
her position on only partial repeal of DOMA for some
the fact that she's a Clinton and we're not a monarchy did it for some

and for some, like me, it's a combination of all of these things.

edited for typo

That's when we saw a fakeness in her public image that we didn't want as President.

I'd have been one of her biggest supporters. Obama likely wouldn't have run. It all comes down to Iraq. No one could have even come close to laying a hand on her. It would have been over at Iowa.

But she voted "Yes". She voted yes and never could just simply say, "I was wrong. I should have done a better job in my Senatorial duty. I should have voted no." But she didn't and too many of us just couldn't forgive or forget.