I would like to emphasize (strongly!) that Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Therefore, her closing statements in the Austin debate were highly contradictory. She said that the challenges that tested her in her life were nothing compared to those of the military personnel that she saw who had been wounded in Iraq. She voted to send those people to Iraq where they were wounded! Her attempt to play on the compassion of voters in the upcoming primaries, to make them see her as kind-hearted, failed with me. If she’d said, for once, that she was sorry for her vote or sorry that these young people have to live the rest of their lives maimed because of a decision she made, then I would have a lot more respect for her. Clinton’s play for sympathy for herself by using the example of the Iraq wounded was sordid, nothing more than a naked political ploy to garner votes.

Exactly! Well said. Thank you.

She didn't vote for war. She voted to give a President the power to go to war. Hillary did not make the decision to send troops to Iraq. She abdicated her responsibility as a Senator to uphold her Constitution. I don't know if that's any better, really, but the fact is that she (like most of the US Congress) was duped and for a while forgot some very important principles because she was afraid. I don't think we can blame her for the casualties. It was Bush and his administration that screwed up Iraq, and the responsibility for the prosecution of the war lies on their soldiers.

Are you seriously that cynical that you can't believe that a human being can't feel for another human being? How can you believe in Obama's ability to bring change if you can't believe in everyone's basic decency? Seems contradictory. On the one hand, we think Obama will be able to work bipartisanly with the "old guard," but on the other hand, we think they're all a bunch of calculating, unemotional robots. So...how's it gonna work then? Doesn't make any sense. Also, why don't you read her 2002 speech on the issue: which clearly states that we should only use force if Saddam Hussein resists weapons inspectors and we have the UN on board with us:

<link>

The Senate did not want to rush to war. I wish they would have made the bill more specific in order to control Bush and his cronies who obviously just wanted to take Saddam out (but let's face it, did anyone want Saddam Hussein to stay in power? Even I knew they were going to go to war, I was against it, i was angry about it, I just hoped it would be over quickly).

But I think it's important to consider the position that the Senate was in at the time:

If I were in that position, I don't know what I would have done. If I voted no, and we went in and it was a huge success and brought peace and democracy to the Iraqi's, then I would be the person who was too afraid to do anything. I would be blamed for advocating that the Iraqi's continue to live under Sadam Hussein. If I voted yes and it was a huge success, then I would be the person who had the foresight to act to free a people from a dictator. If I voted no and it was a huge debacle, like it is now, then I would be seen as having foresight and wisdom. If I voted no and we didn't go it at all...there's just no way of knowing period. Sadam Hussein would still be in power, and the future would be the great question mark. If we ended up getting attacked again, or if he had WMDs, or developed WMDs, and attacked us or his neighboring nations as he had done in the past, well..I would be partially at fault for that.

What's really interesting about the war argument is that, the force of Obama's position is that his opinion was in the minority of opinions, and the strength of it comes from the fact that we went in anyway. If he had come in and actually voted, and it had turned out differently, how would we feel now? If he had come in and actually voted, and we didn't go into Iraq, would he have the chance of winning this election? Would any Democrat?

The above is absolutely correct. Before the vote in the Senate, the entire U.S. population was being fed a feast of information, much of which was either found later to be fabricated or misanalyzed. The majority of the information pointed toward justification for going to war. I recall at the time being very concerned that, regardless of what we were being told, the rest of the world was strongly disagreeing with us. It bothered me that we would even consider going to war, an illegal war in the eyes of the United Nations, without the backing of any significant ally outside of GB. Members of the Senate were between a huge rock and a gigantic hard place. Like us, they were lied to. I voted for Obama in the Illinois primary, but don't fault Clinton in the slightest for her vote. The vote was to give the president the authority to declare war if he believed it to the be correct course of action.

I would much rather have the congress vote for what they think is right (think it through people---Saddam was not a threat to us---we don't always save people under cruel dictatorship) not what will make them look smart, cool, with it or whatever reason other than what is right for our country. Asking about how we would feel about Obama if he was wrong is moot--he wasn't.

Often times doing what is right is the minority opinion, it takes courage and conviction and if more members of congress, including HRC had the courage and conviction to say no or put the breaks on this thing instead of thinking about their political futures, we would not be in this mess.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, for all of the reasons I listed above. Politics is about perception and opinion. The only thing that sets Obama off now is that he can be seen as correct in his assertion. If the war had been a success, he would never have a chance at the white house. We would all be a much happier people, and Bush would be a hero, not a villain. If we had not gone in at all, he would not have a chance at the White House. We would be a happier people, and Bush would be a nincompoop, but we wouldn't be so desperate for "change" (unless he wanted to argue economic policy, but that's not his strong suit). A Republican would take the White House because they tend to have economic policies that people tend to like more.

Mercadia writes:

"If we had not gone in at all, he would not have a chance at the White House."

If HRC was not married to a former president, she would not have a chance at the White House. Also---this is why so many people are seeking change, b/c too many people feel like doing the same things for the same things is the only way to do anything. I