Hillary dodges questions on Today about Obama and their "fundamental differences" in 2002 on Iraq.

[flpoljunkie]

Asked, not answered

When Barack Obama was asked the other day about Bill Clinton's suggestion that there's not much difference between his voting record and Hillary Clinton's when it comes to Iraq, Obama shot back: "Well, I suppose that's true if you leave out the fact that she authorized it and supported it and I said it was a bad idea."

The former president and the Illinois senator are both right here: Obama and Clinton do have very similar voting records on Iraq, but Obama -- who was not in the Senate at the time -- spoke out against the war when Clinton was voting to authorize it.

On the "Today" show this morning, Matt Lauer asked Hillary Clinton two questions about Obama's comments. See if you can find an answer to either:

Lauer: What do you think about that? Was there a fundamental difference -- is Senator Obama correct -- a fundamental difference in 2002 between you and him?

Clinton: Well, you know, Matt, I think the important point is for the Democrats to be united in trying to either persuade or require this president to change direction now. That's what all of us in the Senate are trying to do. Those of us who have the responsibility to try to make these decisions today are really focused on trying to pass legislation to require the president to start bringing our troops home. I've been saying that for a number of years. I've put forth a number of approaches. I've voted for different ways of trying to persuade the president to do that.

And I don't think there is any doubt that all of us who have the responsibility today have the same opinion, which is that we've got to try to persuade this president to change direction. I said, you know, if the president doesn't extricate us from Iraq, when I'm president, I will.

Lauer: But your husband did say this, and I'm quoting here: "This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him" -- and he's referring to Senator Obama -- "to become the raging hero of the antiwar crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate," end quote. But is it really inaccurate?

Clinton: Well, you'll have to ask him exactly what he meant. But I think he was referring to the voting records that most Democrats have. We have all voted the same way when we've had the responsibility to vote. And that has been to try to begin to reverse course in Iraq. I think most people are really intent upon us moving out of Iraq as soon as we reasonably can. And that's what I've been focused on for a number of years, and that's what I'm going to continue to vote on and talk about and try to urge that we get together and do.

-- Tim Grieve

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/05/21/obama_clinton/index.html

Link to the videos from The Today Show. The Hillary Clinton segment is after the Jimmy Carter segment and the above exchange begins about 3:05 into the tape: http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=32134226-aaee-47a5-b298-94d9766f73c1&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/&fg=

[Missy M]

1. The problem with the question is Obama was not a.....

US Senator in 2002. What would his vote have been if he were in the senate at that time. No one will ever know.

[Tellurian]

3. Not only that-

Lauer asked her to answer a question that was a statement made by President Clinton. She did absolutely right in not answering. Lauer tried baiting her into speaking for her husband. Which as we all know is a definite, NO-No! She gave a generic answer which reflects their almost mirror voting records in the Senate.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Obama spoke out forcefully against the war when he was campaigning for US Senate, and when Saddam

statue was being torn down and Bush's approval stood at 60%.

[Missy M]

9. That still does not change the fact that he was not in the....

US Senate when the vote took place. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in the senate then. As I said, we will never know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Who knows what he would have done?

Um... he wouldn't have voted for the IWR.

[Missy M]

12. How do you know that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Because Obama's always been against the war.

Unlike Clinton, who just follows the polls.

[Missy M]

15. Obama said he isn't against all wars......

he is against dumb wars. If he had been in the senate at the time who knows what he would have done. I could say the same thing about Obama following the polls. He knew the war was unpopular, specially in Illinois and used it to his advantage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Neither am I.

This war in Iraq has always been a dumb war.

"I could say the same thing about Obama following the polls."

Except you'd be wrong, because Obama was against this war when the polls were for it.

[Missy M]

21. He made that remark at an anti-war rally.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Obama also spoke out against the war in 2002 on a public access tv show

[mckeown1128]

41. so I guess it doesn't count

as being against the war because he made an anti-war comment when he spoke at an anti-war rally. ok.. whatever

[Dawgs]

18. "No one will ever know"

Couldn't you say that about any non Senator that's running for President? The answer is yes.

What we can go by is Obama's own words. Watch them here--> http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid416308493/bclid769443934/bctid659820802

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. So what? He opposed the war in 2002

Roughly half of the Dems in the Senate voted against the war. He would almost certainly have been in that group given his position on the war in 2002. HRC supporters are making a weak claim when they say Obama may have voted for the war if he were in the Senate. However, HRC supporters are on surer footing when they compare their records on Iraq since 2005. Obama was far better than HRC and practically everyone in the field, aside from Kucinich, on Iraq in 2002. Is he still better in 2007? That should be the question, not his position five years ago.

[zulchzulu]

46. Why didn't Senator Clinton call it a "dumb war" in 2002?

A conclusion that Senator Clinton made in 2002 about the vote to go to war:

"...I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Apparently, she was implying by her comments that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

---

What Obama said at about exactly the same time:

"I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

A difference in opinion on the war? It's pretty obvious if you have your eyes wide open.

[Adelante]

2. It's the best answer possible

For anyone who voted for the IWR. What else could they say except they all agree and are all trying now to undo what was done?

[wyldwolf]

4. go to google and type Obama dodged question

[Tellurian]

5. There were 46,900 sites for Obama dodged question

And the sites are all in this link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama+dodged+question&btnG=Search

[flpoljunkie]

7. And there are 80,900 entries for "Hillary dodged question." What does that have to do with OP?

[wyldwolf]

11. the OP makes an issue of Clinton dodging questions... as if that is unusual for a politician

[xkenx]

57. Hillary dodged THE question, which is why did she votefor IWR, knowing,

or should have known the intel was bogus?
Now Dick Durbin has come out and publicly stated what Carl Levin has been saying privately---that ALL congresspeople had ALL the intelligence reports pre-IWR vote to know that Bushco's claims of WMD were bogus or unsubstantiated. I attended a conference in 2005 where Levin was asked why Dems. voted "YES" when he, Kennedy, Graham, Boxer, Durbin, and 18 other Dem. senators voted NO. He tried to cover for them but pretty much said they were substituting political calculation for courage. The aftermath horror show is still going on for our troops, untold innocent Iraqis, and our treasury, with Dems. lumped in with Rethugs for the war's inception. For any Dems who voted "YES" to claim that they were misled by the intelligence is a flat out lie. To claim "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it" is more bullshit, because they knew then. That vote marked their lack of moral courage and speaks volumes about their characters. I cannot vote for someone so absent in character to take the chance that they will again be in a position to make the same mistake again. Make no mistake, the next president will be called to make major decisions in the face of uncertainty. The job is too important to trust to anyone who has proved their lack of courage.

[wyldwolf]

71. where in the OP was that question asked?

[xkenx]

73. Touchy, aren't we? How do you get to make the rules here?

Hillary is going to get her share of pointed questions from people a hellovalot more visible than I. Welcome to the kitchen, Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

74. Not making a rule, just asking a question. Since this thread is about specific questions asked...

... on a TV show, where was that question asked?

[xkenx]

75. Rigid, aren't we?

[wyldwolf]

76. Just following established DU rules and discussion protocols.

[xkenx]

79. Truly an amazing comment, coming from you. However you can have

the last comment here; I'm saving my 1000th post for something important.

[wyldwolf]

80. does Wes Clark wear a toupee?

[mtnsnake]

81. No need for you to get bent out of shape just because you can't answer post #71

Just saying.

[Ethelk2044]

8. Actually they need to type in Hillary dodge question

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hillary+dodge+question&btnG=Google+Search

[wyldwolf]

13. Or even Edwards dodge question - - 917,000 entries

[mckeown1128]

22. WoW!!!

wyldwolf and Tellurian and all the other clintonistas in here you really got obama on that one I mean. Obama didn't announce his support for capping troop levels until January 11th of this year. Luckily her almightiness announced her support of capping troop levels on January 10th. I guess that means she wasn't avoiding the same question of capping troop levels before the 10th. :sarcasm:

Did it cross your minds that Obama might of preferred a different method of ending the war instead of troop caps. It probably did but this pesky logic just gets in the way of bashing obama. Besides you should have stuck to the illogical assumption that even though Obama came out against the war when it was political suicide, that he secretly supported it (even though you don't have the evidence unfortunately because he wasn't in the senate at the time.) Keep telling yourself that lying obama couldn't be honest in his support of the Iraq WAR in the same way that Clinton was honest and proud of her support of it. :sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

27. Nice try at Triangulating the issue..

and the sarcasm ploy really sucks!

[mckeown1128]

32. lol...

Don't respond to any of my points just make fun of my use of sarcasm....here is a suggestion for your next reply """"what points"""" that will really get me.

[Forkboy]

62. Lamest.Defense.Ever.

That is truly pathetic.

[wyldwolf]

72. not. a. defense. But a reminder of how questions are often dodged.

You were that kid who sat in the back of the class makeing smart-ass remarks, weren't you?

[Forkboy]

82. Second.Lamest.Defense.Ever.

[Honeycombe8]

17. I like her answer. What's wrong with it? She's refusing to attack another Dem.

I like that. BTW, I'm not a supporter of any particular candidate.

It's not helpful for the Dems to go after each other. Pointing out differences is fine, but I really don't want to see the Dems go after each other's throat the way the Republicans are. It's important for the Dems to be united. Which is what Hillary Clinton is saying, I believe.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Yes, but I would argue that their difference on invading Iraq in 2002 is a crucial one

And her husband Bill already attacked as her surrogate in attacking Obama.

One candidate supported the invasion of Iraq, and voted to give Bush the authority to do so--and the other thought it was a "dumb idea." I choose the latter.

[wyldwolf]

20. someone who says they were against the war, yet still voted for the war bills in the Senate...

... has a bit of a credibility problem.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. You mean like HRC continues to do?

;)

[wyldwolf]

28. Hillary has been consistant. Obama has not.

[Ethelk2044]

33. What are you drinking give me some please

She has been all over the board with her explanations. If it was my daughter I would wash her mouth out and then make her stand in the corner.

[wyldwolf]

34. Obama: "I was against the war, but voted the same as Hillary on all the Iraq Senate bills."

[jefferson_dem]

40. Obama: "I was against the war..." :::: Hillary: Voted for the IWR.

Therein lies the difference...with a distinction. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

44. so you're saying that since 2005, Clinton has had a "progressive" voting record on Iraq?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Yes, HRC has consistently supported and voted to finance the war

[wyldwolf]

45. as has Obama

[flpoljunkie]

59. "Consistent" is not how one would describe Hillary Clinton's positions on Iraq...

Italics mine.

Iraq War

On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War.

During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

But, she said, the Bush Administration "really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

In a November 29, 2005 letter to her constituents, Senator Clinton said, "There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict Administration triggered ... I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."<38>

On June 8, 2006, Clinton said of the US airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: "I saw firsthand the terrible consequences of Zarqawi's terrorist network when Bill, Chelsea and I visited the hotel ballroom in Amman, Jordan last November where Zarqawi's followers had detonated a bomb at a wedding, killing and wounding innocent people. We owe our thanks to our men and women in uniform and others in Iraq who have been fighting Zarqawi and other insurgents and who are responsible for today's success.

On June 15, 2006, Clinton charged that President Bush “rushed to war” and “refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world ... There must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home.” But she also said, “I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain.”

On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

By February 2007, Clinton made a point of refusing to admit that her October 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it, as anti-war Democrats demanded. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Clinton told an audience in Dover, New Hampshire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War

[flpoljunkie]

60. And then there is the latest equivocation on Feingold/Reid...

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., indicated Wednesday that her cloture vote in favor of a Feingold amendment which would cut off funding for major combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008 was not tantamount to supporting the underlying legislation.

“I am not going to speculate on what I am going to be voting on in the future,” Clinton told ABC News in a follow-up to a question posed by the New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny. “I voted in favor of cloture to have a debate, we weren’t successful. . . So I will take the votes as they come. . . You know, if we were making progress, if I thought the Iraqi’s were ready to make the tough decisions, you might have seen a different vote. I don’t see that.”

Going forward, look for the Dodd campaign (out in the open) and the Obama campaign (more quietly) to use Clinton’s Wednesday straddle on the issue to curry favor with ardent opponents of the Iraq war.

“We're as confused as anyone on Senator Clinton’s position,” Dodd spokeswoman Christy Setzer told ABC News, “and frankly it's hard to know whether it's indecision, miscommunication, or simple word games and political gamesmanship we're dealing with.”

The more restrained Bill Burton of the Obama campaign passed on the chance to criticize the former first lady while affirming Obama’s support not only for cloture on the Feingold amendment but also for the underlying policy of cutting off funding for major combat operations after March 31, 2008.

“It has been Obama’s position that he supports the Reid-Feingold measure and he would vote for it” as a substantive measure, Burton tells ABC News.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/some_curiositie.html

(Clinton's position by the end of the day was that yes, she did support the underlying bill.)

[mckeown1128]

30. you mean the credibility problem one gets..

by allowing funding in the hope that peace can be established in a country ravaged by a war that others(i guess I don't need to name them) voted for. What about the credibility problem of voting for the war and bragging about ones support for that war only to switch 180 during the run up to an election when the polls say the war is no longer popular? What about that credibility problem??? And try to answer without mentioning obamas secrete hidden desire to support this war in 02-03. :sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

31. Identical voting record in the Senate since Obama's election.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. She is getting a former president to do it for her...

[Tellurian]

29. It doesn't alter the fact, he's officially her campaign manager..

and it's part of his job, because the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[mckeown1128]

35. he is her campaign manager

and yet according to her response she can't talk for him. plain and simple she dodged the question not that it is that big of a deal

[Tellurian]

37. When he made the statement, he was speaking as her husband..

[mckeown1128]

38. Do you feel that fact...

or is there some evidence behind it.

[Tellurian]

39. I'm saying it without the use of unctuous sarcasm..

if thats what you mean. He just announced his position as campaign mgr. about a week or so ago.

[mckeown1128]

48. so in fact she did get

a former president to attack a fellow dem... you can't have it both ways. Was he her campaign manager or the bill clinton?

[Tellurian]

51. The issue is Obama "dodging an answer to a question posed in March"

May 18, 2007

Obama Disputes Claim of Sharing Clinton’s Stance on War

By PATRICK HEALY

Senator Barack Obama yesterday directly challenged former President Bill Clinton’s assertions that Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton hold the same essential positions on the Iraq war.

Throughout the spring, Mr. Clinton has privately told his wife’s donors and supporters that it was unfair for Mr. Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, to be regarded as more antiwar than Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Clinton has focused on the similarities in the two senators’ voting records on Iraq since 2005, when Mr. Obama entered the Senate, and not on their positions before the war, when Mr. Obama opposed it while Mrs. Clinton voted, in 2002, to authorize military action in Iraq.

“This dichotomy that’s been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the antiwar crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate,” Mr. Clinton told a conference call of supporters in March, according to The Hill newspaper.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, was asked in an interview on MSNBC yesterday about Mr. Clinton’s point that the two senators have voted mostly the same way on Iraq.

“Well, I suppose that’s true if you leave out the fact that she authorized it and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea,” Mr. Obama said. “You know, that’s a fairly major difference.”

Mr. Obama then suggested that a fundamental question of judgment was at issue.

“I think very highly of Senator Clinton,” he said. “I think she is a wonderful senator from New York, but — and I think very highly of Bill Clinton. But I think that it is fair to say that we had a fundamentally different opinion on the wisdom of this war. And I don’t think we can revise history when it comes to that.”

Mr. Obama has repeatedly noted on the campaign trail that he opposed the Iraq war as far back as the fall of 2002, when Mrs. Clinton was voting to allow military action. But until yesterday, Mr. Obama had not been so direct in contesting Mr. Clinton’s claims that there was little difference between the two hopefuls.

Mr. Obama and the Clintons have traded relatively little direct fire in the last few months, and Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman responded to Mr. Obama yesterday by emphasizing her desire to look ahead on Iraq and not return to the 2002 authorization vote.

“Senator Clinton is focused on uniting Democrats and ending the war,” said the spokesman, Howard Wolfson.

Mr. Obama took the shot at the Clintons a day after Mrs. Clinton was pressed by reporters about whether she supported the idea of cutting off financing for major combat operations next spring. She voted on Wednesday for such a proposal (as did Mr. Obama), then said she would not speculate on how she would vote in the future. Later Wednesday, however, she told reporters that she unequivocally supported the plan to end war financing next spring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/us/politics/18dems.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[Adelante]

64. Is he?

How'd I miss that? :dunce:

Good choice on her part.

[TeamJordan23]

52. She didn't even answer the question!

It's a very fair question that is not about attacking Obama, but to differentiate her decision than Obama.

[Honeycombe8]

65. I take it to mean her campaign strategy is to talk about her positions, ...

her voting record, etc., rather than directly contrast herself with others, leaving the voters to do that, and leaving others to speak for themselves. Just because someone asks her something doesn't mean she HAS to answer that specific question.

I like that. Works for me. It also doesn't bother me what Obama said.

She appears to be having Bill doing the contrasting (or he's doing it on his own). That's fine. She's using an advantage she has....Bill Clinton. Seems to have worked for Bush, having others do his negative talking for him, keeping it distant from himself (example - the McCain trashing, the Kerry trashing).

Obama may need to find someone to do his contrasting for him. But who can put it better than himself? He's pretty eloquent and direct. I like that, too.

I don't think the public will have a problem with either of their answers to that question.

[AtomicKitten]

36. answering a question in a way you don't like doesn't mean she ducked it

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

66. Only the problem with your anaysis is that Hillary obviously ducked the question.

[AtomicKitten]

68. No she didn't -- you just glom onto anything that disses Hillary.

She said on the votes they made concomitantly, they had a similar voting record. That is not to exclude her IWR vote because Obama wasn't in Congress then.

The fact that she wasn't dragged into a pissing contest by the likes of Matt Lauer :eyes: is to her credit.

The truth is you and other HRC-haters here at DU are willing to bend any scenario like a pretzel to find the downside for Hillary. And in that vein knock yourself out.

[flpoljunkie]

70. No, the truth is she ducked the question-- something which you Hillaries refuse to see.

[AtomicKitten]

78. Wrong again.

Clearly you are too blind to see the forest for the trees. I, in fact, do not support any of those in the primary that voted yes on the IWR as I have stated here repeatedly ad nauseam. Apparently anyone who isn't with you is against you; that kind of mindless deduction is eerily reminiscent of something one would read on FR.

Good luck on your campaign here at DU which is anorexic in its transparency. You will find, however, that other than rallying the faithful haters like you, you are having quite the opposite effect on others to whom truth and fairness mean something.

[DemDem07]

43. Hillary says...

Please try to forget my pro war past.

[wyldwolf]

47. She has had a "progressive" voting record on Iraq since 2005, hasn't she?

[DemDem07]

49. Progressive isn't a term that comes to mind when I think of Hillary

:shrug:

She supported the war until it was safe to oppose it.

Deal with that fact, or not.

[wyldwolf]

50. She has had a "progressive" voting record on Iraq since 2005, hasn't she?

[DemDem07]

53. I stopped molesting children in 06

Can I watch your kids tonight? lol

[wyldwolf]

55. you can't answer that, can you? Because you know where it will lead

[DemDem07]

56. At this point I'm not sure where you'll end up.

Nor am I really interested.

[wyldwolf]

58. I think you do.. but if you're not "interested," we can leave it at that

[TeamJordan23]

54. Don't forget Obama's fellow Senator Durbin Voted against War in 2002

I strongly believe Obama would have voted against the War in 2002 just like his good friend Durbin. There are many quotes of Hillary praising/supporting the war in 2002/2003. What Obama was doing back than was considered political suicide. His judgment was right. Hillary's judgment was wrong. It's simple as that. So you cannot characterize her views on the war as the same as Obama.

She clearly dodged the question today. I hope she gets asked this again at the next debate.

[edwardsdefender]

61. Question, should Obama boast about the IWR if Edwards can't talk about current bill options?

According to some non-thinkers, anyway.

Edwards isn't in the Senate, so they criticize him for saying what the Congress should do.
Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, but no one criticizes him for talking about a vote that he didn't have to cast, even though he has voted for every funding bill since he got there.

At least Edwards voted against the $87 billion.

[LBJDemocrat]

67. Yeah

For the first time in a long time, the left-most viable candidate also happens to be the most electable of the viable candidates. That's Edwards. Too bad we might be fooled into nominating someone without clear stances on the issues.

The fact is that Edwards is sacrificing a lot of Wall Street support by being so adamantly in favor of FDR-ish ideals. His rivals simply do not make the same sacrifices. As far as I can tell.

[wyldwolf]

77. now THAT is a good point.

[Forkboy]

63. While I totally disagree with Hillary's vote on the war...

I'm not impressed by someone saying they wouldn't have voted for it when they were never actually faced with that decision.It's VERY easy to say the right things when you know you won't have to actually make that choice.

About Hillary's (non)answers in the OP: I can't say I'm surprised by this.I don't buy for a second that she doesn't want to speak ill of another Dem.While technically true that no candidate has to say anything directly about another,it's another easy thing to say when you have a team of attack dogs that will do it for you.I find it disingenuous,at best,when a candidate says stuff like that,and Hillary is not alone is this tactic.Damn near all of them engage in it,which is why I'm not buying the argument here.

To me she's still just trying to put her head and the sand and hope it's not so big of issue that she can escape dealing with it in the primaries,expecting that people will rally around her as the nominee whether they like the vote or not.That's questionable from a lot of what I'm hearing,but it could just as easily be correct thinking as well.I think it's cynical thinking on her part if that is her plan.

[flpoljunkie]

69. Arianna weighs in on Hillary's "Attempt to Rewrite History" this morning on The Today Show

Arianna Huffington
05.21.2007

Another Chapter in Hillary's Attempt to Rewrite History on Iraq

In a 1939 radio address, Franklin Roosevelt declared, "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." When it comes to Iraq, Hillary Clinton is doing everything in her power to prove him wrong -- repeatedly trying to rewrite history and belatedly catch up with public opinion against the war.

She did it during the first Democratic presidential debate, and she was at it again this morning on the Today show.

The issue was former president Bill Clinton's campaign trail complaints that it's unfair for Barack Obama to be characterized as more antiwar than his wife since they hold essentially the same position on the war.

Matt Lauer quoted Obama's retort that that was true "if you leave out the fact that she authorized and supported the war there and I said it was a bad idea" and played a clip of him saying "I think it is fair to say that we had a fundamentally different opinion on the wisdom of this war. And I don't think we can revise history when it comes to that."

Lauer then asked Hillary, "Was there a fundamental difference in 2002 between you and him?"

Instead of honestly explaining her transformation from pro-war supporter to cheerleader of the war's progress to tentative opponent of the war to her current incarnation as long-term opponent of the war, Hillary skipped right over the unpleasant past and tried to talk only about the future: "Well, you know, Matt, I think the important thing is for the Democrats to be united in trying to either persuade or require this president to change this direction now -- that's what all of us in the Senate are trying to do." Sure, why answer the question when you can divert attention and blur the differences between you and your opponents?

Hillary also dutifully hit her talking point that she's been "saying for a number of years" that we should bring our troops home -- trying to rhetorically paper-over the fact that for most of those years she was actually trying to have it both ways on Iraq: dipping her toe in the rising anti-war tide by voting for a phased redeployment of troops while steadfastly arguing against setting any kind of deadline for bringing our troops home (for instance, less than a year ago, in June 2006, she said she did not "think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country").

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/another-chapter-in-hillar_b_48982.html

[IndianaGreen]

83. From Slick Willie we'll go to Slick Hil

Haven't we had dynasties already? If we put another Clinton after this Bush, won't we have to deal with another Bush after this Clinton? Let's abort this baby!