"But the other reason may be that she actually believed in what she was doing. "

Yep.

blogs.abcnews.com/.../retired-general.html

[Kennedy said, "I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership." And, she added, "I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.' I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal under a plan led by the military and defense secretary. I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq. That is a very important idea and the point of that group is to create incentive and assurances that will keep the neighboring countries from becoming involved and entering Iraq. That's a much more sophisticated thing than saying, 'I oppose the war.'"]

"arguing that an apology would be a gimmick." Wow, I never imagined there was a gimmick the Clinton's would not pass up.

Please, Hillary voted for the war to shore up her military creds and because she didn't want to be painted as a weak pacifist after she would win the nomination in 2008 or 12 (if a Dem would win in 04, which I don't think she believed in the era of Bush high ratings was possible). But, regardless of her motivations, she never did come out forcefully why she supported the war, instead came out with this incredibly weak "I supported the threat of war to open Iraq, not the actual war itself" which is absolute horseshit since no one in their right mind believed that after getting a magnificent army laid out in the sands of Kuwait that George wasn't going to use it.

She was running a general election campaign from the beginning up until it was too late.  In the Clintons' world, that meant aping the Republicans on security policy.  If her demise shows the folly of that strategy, all the better.

It's completely correct that not apologizing for her vote cost her, but doing something like that - admitting she was wrong at anything - simply isn't in her character.  That at least cost her enough votes to have kept her in the game.

Yes, Mike--and Edwards' "I was wrong" made me and probably a lot of other folks give him the benefit of the doubt, which allowed us to hear some of the other things he was saying.

And given that the next President will be replacing someone who apparently fears that admitting error will trigger in himself fatal anaphylactic shock, knowing up front that his replacement is capable of such a display of both wisdom and integrity blows like a cool breeze through the Sahara of our recent memory.

If she really believes that voting for the war was the right decision, fine, although I don't think it speaks very highly of her judgment.  If it was a tactical move, then she badly misjudged the electorate.  This isn't 2004.  People don't want a leader who will stubbornly stand by bad decisions.  They've had 8 years of that and they've seen where it gets you.  A President Hillary Clinton would have made mistakes, just like McCain or Obama will and just like the 42 previous holders of that office did.  It's important to recognize those mistakes, act to rectify them, and learn from them.

I agree with EricWitte -- she intended to run a Republican campaign right from the beginning. She's watched them win in 2000 and 2004, and decided she better be on the side of the war if she is going to be President. She never expected to be contested in this race, assumed that the people she had to fight were the Republicans, so she thought this issue would look good. Which is why she still hasn't given it up. If she thought it would get her the nomination to apologize for this vote, she would probably do so at this point, except that she's worried it would hurt her in the general. I don't think her decision to stick by her vote has anything to do with integrity. It's all about strategy and what will get her votes in the short term, to hell with the long term consequences of how she gets those votes. We have seen this over an over in this primary. She'd probably sell her soul to the devil if it would buy her the presidency.

WaltB, yeah, she is like Bush in that way, even when she was nailed as the lioness of Tuzla she got defensive and said she is human contrary to what others say about her, no humility or modesty in her non apology apology.

scire, too late, both Clintons had to hock their soul for the first eight years, I wonder how much pressure they are placing on Chelsea "c'mon honey, you will like Hell, you can be with us. It will be like Arkansas without all of the incest."

blackton: roflmao

I recall saying a year or so ago that I thought that Hillary was positioning herself too far rightward for the upcoming primary season. John Edwards was doing the opposite.  I believed that his populism might play a bit better than it did but I remarked to a friend that he would have difficulty scratching his way to the center, if he got the nomination. It is likely that Hillary believed that she would be coronated and was already looking far ahead to Labor Day of 2008 and the fall campaign. Whether she was just positioning herself politically or if she really believed her position on the Iraq war was correct, her vote for the war and her subsequent repudiation cost her. But say, as a thought experiment, that she had repudiated her vote oh, about last November. She might have pulled more of the triple mocha latte and Volvo crowds and wound up on top but then she would be excoriated like ("I voted for it before I was against it) Kerry in 2004 in the general election. It looks to me like she was damned if she did, damned if she didn't.

Another 'what if' came from ex TNR editor Hertzberg earlier today.

What if HRC had run from Illinois (which is where she's from) instead of NY for the Senate seat?

Hee hee hee...

hotshot22,

a 'What If' indeed...

HEE HEE HEE.

oh liberal, poor Hillary! damned if she did, damned if she didn't.

Maybe she shouldn't have cast a cynical vote for the war resolution in the first place, together with a speech that pretty much explained why she shouldn't be voting for it, the perfect CYA combination.  If she had had any principle in the first place, maybe she wouldn't be damned.  Our kids are dying in the desert for nothing.  It is going to take an awful lot to make me feel sorry for Hillary Clinton.

Roidubouloi: I wasn't defending Hillary here. I just meant that given Hillary did cast her vote for the war, she was trapped in that logic within the context of the Democratic primary season. And maybe Hillary did believe that it was the right thing to do. World affairs are more complex than they often appear to armchair strategists.  Like Jonathan Chait and other at TNR, I too supported the war initially. Valerie Plame Wilson writes in her book that she believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was a judgement call.  Only people who let their fingers do the walking on computer keyboards can afford moral certitude.

Come on Michael, I would hope you know exactly what Hillary Clinton was doing when she and all the other Democrats voted to invade Iraq, when they well knew it was entirely unnecessary, they were blowing with the political winds and catering, specifically catering to the military-industrial complex in this country which didn't think Afghanistan was a big enough fight. They needed to expand the war in order to turn real profits, and King George, with a little urging from the Dark Prince Dick, was more than happy to oblige them.  Bald-faced capitalism was at the heart of George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq, for who can deny that billions have been made, billions which were extracted directly from US taxpayers and slurped up like soup at a homeless shelter by the war profiteers and the big corporations who've made out like bandits at the expense of every American, and at the expense of our children, and the expense of our children's children.

You've gotta be some kind of seriously uninformed idiot to think that the recession we are in now is not directly tied to the Iraq nightmare, which goes on and on and on mercilessly grinding up human life and funneling billions into a few select pockets. If Hillary had become president we would certainly have stayed in Iraq throughout both her terms, because the people who put the money in her pockets during this campaign want it that way.  Clinton is running her campaign on the money she's gotten from those who made their money in Iraq, a kind of blasphemous public financing if you will, the kind which can only be found in America.  No wonder she's out of money, a whole host of villainous mustache twisting middlemen have taken their cut of OUR money before it got to Hillary.  The greedy bastards sopped up all the gravy before passing the plate to the Clinton campaign.  In truth it was their insatiable greed that has helped bring down the Clinton campaign.

The responsibility for the Iraq con job/war crime is just as much on the Democrats as it is on George W. Bush, they were entirely complicit and bear an equal measure of responsibility as the president and the Republicans.  Christ, the people in this country made it clear to our representatives in 2006 that we wanted out of Iraq, so why do you think they haven't listened to their constituents the American people, it's because they don't work for us anymore.  Instead the media, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, all started telling us that things are going swimmingly in Iraq, and just like TNR continually ignore the daily body count of Iraqis as well as Americans.  

America has almost single-handedly tripled the net per capita income of every Iraqi by paying them tens of millions every month to be our allies, but it looks like that's collapsing even before the general election, which Bush and the Republicans were hoping it would last through, so they would have at least some chance of competing with the Democrats.  Most GOP conservatives have entirely given up on the possibility of a Republican win in November, at least the smart ones have, and gotten behind Hillary Rodham Clinton, supposedly their one-time sworn enemy, because they see her as their last best hope for keeping their little moneymaking war machine and corporate free ride off the backs of the American people going. All their dreams of riding this never-ending payday into the sunset go right down the drain the moment Hillary drops out of the race.  If you look closely you can almost see their ghostlike legions standing behind Clinton, begging her to keep going, imploring her to do literally anything to get that nomination.  That's it Hillary, threaten the lives of the firstborn child of every superdelegate if you have to, just for God sakes don't let the People's Insurgent become president.

Folks talk about Obama being the Messiah, well when it comes to reclaiming the People's sovereignty in this nation he may be our last best hope, nay are only hope.  I imagine that when he becomes president dark forces will ally against him, no doubt they already are, powerful entrenched establishment forces flush with Iraq blood money preparing to do everything in their power to cast him as a false prophet, bring Obama down by any and all means. Hell, I have no doubt they would bring down the entire American economy and throw us into a genuine 21st-century depression, just to make him look bad.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we all get a front row seat as the first black president is crucified on the White House lawn, a lynching of biblical proportions may just be in the cards for Barack Obama. I hope not, but I'm a cynic, and I know America, we have always been our own worst most dangerous enemy. Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism doesn't scare me one whit, I laugh at them, hear me laugh, Ha Ha Ha!  But the unbridled capitalist greed of Americans, now that scares the holy shit out of me.

libref writes, "given Hillary did cast her vote for the war, she was trapped in that logic within the context of the Democratic primary season."

I couldn't disagree more. The one thing that being a famous presumptive frontrunner really gives a candidate is freedom of action. If Hillary had come out of nowhere to win a New York Senate seat in 2000 and then run for president this year, and therefore lacked inside access to a former president's political machine (meaning, access to the deepest pool of money and loyalty in the party), then her vote for the war would have trapped her within a certain limiting logic.

But as the presumptive frontrunner, with essentially unlimited early resources of money, loyalty, and attention, Hillary had complete freedom of movement. She had a chance to completely reframe herself and her consistent record of pro-GOP votes on the war, on civil liberties, on the Constitution, on financial regulations, and so forth. She was in a position where boldness would have been rewarded. Which is to say, she had a chance to lead. Instead, she chose caution. Which is to say, she chose to follow. Which is usually a fatal thing to do when you're the person standing in front. She had total freedom of action, and yet she chose to strap herself into the straitjacket of reactionary caution.

Another perfect post rhubarbs.  In a very important sense, Hillary triangulated herself into defeat.  I have criticized often her campaign theme being about herself ("tested, vetted, blah, blah") rather than about the American people and the future of the country.  Very bad politics.  I took it as a sign of her ego problems.  But perhaps it was really an indication of her extreme political over-caution, the unwillingness to place any bet that might not pay off, preferring instead always to take the path that, for the moment, seems like the path of political lease resistance.  Or maybe this fundamental flaw in her campaign is due to both.  I suppose too that this reflects what I see as her complete lack of conviction about anything.  It is difficult to make tough and/or risky choices when you have no core principles to guide your thinking.  Everything is merely a political risk or opportunity.  Nothing is every about anything of value or importance.  Yup, that sounds like Hillary.  

Say this about Bush.  At least he knows that the reason to be in the White House is to steal.  It seems to me that Hillary just wants to be there, period.

Once in the Senate, Hillary wouldn't do anything that wasn't calculated to get her votes.  I truly believe that she along with Kerry, and Edwards voted for the war, because they planned to run for president and didn't want to be on the wrong side of the vote.  WIth Kerry being tarred as a flip flopper, there was no way she was going to say it was a mistake.  

What I find even worse than her original vote was her explaination that ing granting Bush the tools he needed to deal with Iraq, she never thought he would actully use the use of force authorization to invade Iraq.  And she claims she has the experience.

I wonder where we would be today if every member of congress voted their conscience on the war instead of their presidential asperations.

Roid, Rhubarbs, others,

Piling on to Hillary on the war, now, is just plain wrong -- from a historical, ethical, and tactical/political perspective.  

Yes, it turns out that those who opposed the war resolution because they mistrusted Bush were right.  But Hillary's principled position was not crazy -- if the Commander in Chief says that superior negotiating authority can help him avoid war and avoid nuclear proliferation, that is not something to be taken lightly.  Hillary also had had personal experience in a White House when the legitimate and liberal use of force had been deployed very effectively in Kosovo, and she was concerned about the precedent it would set internationally if a President's negotiating authority with someone like Saddam was undermined by Congress.

Again, it's true that she turned out to have been wrong.  She was wrong because she overestimated Bush.  But, if you subtract his current approval ratings from his then-approval ratings, you'll see that the vast majority of people over-estimated Bush.  And how could you blame them?  Who could have seriously contemplated the level of criminal incompetence that he demonstrated?  Only the far left was right on this one -- which at least gets them on the board in what would otherwise have been a shutout vs. the rest of the country.

All of the above is just to say that there's a strong, completely reasonable case to be made the Hillary was acting in good faith.  Whether you actually believe that (as I do in this case), or you just want to give her the benefit of the doubt, or even if you want to be skeptical -- it's just not necessary to immediately and forcefully conclude that she was sticking her finger in the winds, or lying, or throwing the Democratic party under the bus.  I know a lot of people, such as many good folks at the Truman Project or the author of The Good Fight, who are passionate Democrats and patriots and who believe that the failures of the Iraq war were primarily stunning competence and execution failures by the Bush Administration, not strategic dishonesty by original war backers such as Hillary.  

And if you're Obama supporters seeking a new kind of poltiics, or progressives who ally with the Democratic party, shouldn't you be walking the walk of extending some good faith to your defeated Democratic primary foe?  

Paul Krugman, who takes a back seat to no one in the ferocity of his criticism of this Bush White House, made some great points about how Team Obama can unite the party -- many of which should apply to the tone and tenor of these anti-Hillary posts:

www.nytimes.com/.../09krugman.html  

Aaron Brown,

"Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism doesn't scare me one whit, I laugh at them, hear me laugh, Ha Ha Ha!  But the unbridled capitalist greed of Americans, now that scares the holy shit out of me."

I used to read and maybe even believe the hard-line critiques of capitalism.  But I also read about every other human system that's ever been tried, and it turns out that greed, combined with checks and balances and certain individual liberties (economic and personal) are the least-bad system our species has ever developed.  Commerce and trade have had a civilizing effect.  The nations that were once run by Vikings and Nazis are now run by bankers and bureaucrats.  As a Jew, I prefer bankers to Nazis.  Bankers may frustrate me, but the last time I checked, they were unlikely to slaughter me and my entire family simply because of who I am.  

Unlike al Qaeda.  They are seeking nuclear weapons to wipe out millions of Westerners in a single blow by detonating a nuclear device in Moscow or London or New York.  They are also part of a movement that throws acid into the faces of women who go out in public without covering their faces.  

Wake up.  These guys are truly evil.  Republicans in America sometimes do evil things, so do powerful businesspeople, so do others.  You and the other members of the "progressive" alliance who see conspriacy everywhere, and think that self-interested commercial actors will plunge the economy into recession and harm their own interests just to make a point, and who think that Republicans or even centrist Democrats are worse than Islamic fundamentalists -- you need to wake up or shut up.  That's just insane.  

dmelhorn.

I do not doubt Hillary Clinton's good faith or believe her to be a totally unprincipled cynic because I dislike her intensely.  I dislike her intensely because I do not believe in her good faith and do believe her to be a totally unprincipled cynic.  I was a supporter of hers when she ran for the senate.  Hillary, and only Hillary, has persuaded me otherwise.  I soured on her long before Obama came along and threw the Democratic party a lifeline.  Take a look at what I wrote in response to your question on the Alan Wolfe thread giving you my reasons, numbered paragraphs 1-8.

Of course Islamists are a huge threat.  And you cannot fight a real enemy with either Republican stupidity or neo-con ideological fantasies.

Everyone tends to forget that Senator Clinton didn't just vote for the Iraq war.  I could forgive that.  What I CANNOT forgive is that she ALSO voted against the Levin amendment, which restricted the authorization ONLY to the case where Saddam Hussein was dragging his heels about letting in the inspectors.  The Levin amendment provided a tailor-made mechanism to restrict the Iraq war to a situation where there was a credible threat of WMD.  If HRC truly only wanted to "open the country to the inspectors" there is NO WAY she would have voted against the Levin amendment.  

Why should she apologize? The war's going fairly well now and we have things under control.  That's why you leftie freaks haven't had the ammunition to constantly hammer home the drone about bringing our troops home (as if you people give 2 shits about our soldiers).  If the war does take a turn for the worse, she'll be the first to start screaming apologies.

You people don't seem to understand that most Americans, even the lefty sort who don't follow politics closely don't want America to be defeated and run home with its tail between its legs.  Now while that may make you feel great and "justified" that Bush lost, in the long run, that's bad for the entire world save terrorist groups and axis of evil countries.  America is the one stabilizing force in the world against tin pot despots trying to take over their neighbors.  They have to watch their backs lest an aircraft carrier steams up their delta.  America as an impotent nation would bring rise to a host of problems that you pot-smokers don't seem to comprehend.

IIRC, in the days before The Vote, it was reported that Kerry was advised by Clinton to vote for the resolution, that not to do so would hurt him if he decided to run for President in '04. I supposed that it was a true account, since it made total sense for a political friend and ally to caution him against voting with the nays when it would leave him exposed and more vulnerable to attack from the other side.

But I also took it from an interview with Bill Clinton post 9/11 when Iraq first came on-screen that he and Hillary both knew that Saddam would have to be dealt with sooner or later. I take it as a strong probability that Hillary was siding with the hard liners by choice, and not expedience only. I still think it's the most plausible explanation. It's also what I think many if not most other Senate Democrats.

That's the extent of my benefit of the doubt in Hillary's favor. I don't think her calculus was only cynical, and I don't believe she is wholly cynical in her outlook. But I'm a born and bred benefit-of-the-doubter.

However, I think and believe there was plenty of evidence, way more than merely adequate, to instill reasonable doubt that the case of Bush v. Saddam was full of holes; G-d knows the wobbly, cartoonish way the evidence came together, not to mention the reasoning to present it were red flags.

When time came to vote, I thought surely some voice in the Senate would argue for a little more time to consider their vote, breathing room to search the conscience and not fall to the temptation of "now or never." (Harry Byrd did so argue, passionately, in the final debate.) But lemming time had arrived and over the cliff all but the lonely few went.

I vowed then, that very day, I would not vote for or support any Democratic officeholder or candidate for whatever who supported going to war then. Period. I still feel that way and Clinton obviously comes under that rule. That's the sum of my attitude toward Clinton, and the extent of my benefit of doubt.

I don't excuse Hillary, apology or not. Talk is cheap.

jwl2672,

I give more than two shits about our soldiers.  It plain breaks my heart to see the lives of our young people sacrificed pointlessly because chest-beating, self-proclaimed super-patriot idiots like you are too stupid and obsessed to know the difference between strategic reality and your own juvenile, cowboy movie fantasies about power. It obviously wouldn't bother you a bit if their sacrifice is for nothing so long as you can continue to indulge your own self-righteous self-importance.

Go find your rock and crawl back under it.  Serious people are here thinking about the well-being of the nation.  You are not among them.

DMelhorn: Excellent critique of AaronBBrown. You know the type, you have seen them before. Parlour radicals, loggorheac revolutionaries. If a real revolution up and outed them they would run the other way. Bankers may annoy the hell out of me, too, but they are not drunk on some toxic ideology and are not in a homicidal frame of mind. The hilarity of it is this - ABB is obviously way to the left of the big O and he stakes his hopes on a guy who - gasp! - takes money from Wall Streeet and who is - never mind his demagoguery - basically a free trader.

JWL2672: Are you like, maybe 15 years old? This is the ethic of the schoolyard: I can't back down because then I"ll really be in for it. Grownups can admit that they make mistakes. Withdrawing from a disastrous war is not to be conflated with cowardice. As for caring about our soldiers, we have a cretinous administration that didn't provide the proper armor for them, that , when they were wounded got substandard care at Walter Reed and those who suffered from stress- related conditions were told that they had their maladies for a long time before the war and were denied benefits. Sunshine patriots, Tom Paine called such people.