Reply #67: How is this relevant now?

[nonconformist]

Seriously?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/cli...
<snip>
# Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. His Oct. 2, 2002, speech opposing the war stands in clear contrast to Clinton's vote later that same month to authorize military action.


# Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal.


# His Senate voting record on Iraq is quite similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both senators waited until May 2007 before they finally voted to cut off funds for the war, on the grounds that the administration had not agreed to a firm timetable for withdrawal. They both voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the redeployment of U.S. troops.
<snip>


I'm a whole lot more concerned at this point on what the candidates propose to do NOW, rather then focusing on a vote that can't be changed from years ago. And while I, as many on DU, were against the war from the moment it was first mentioned, digging my heels in and screaming "I told you so!" doesn't solve a damn thing now. You can make an argument about judgment... and that's a valid argument... but when compared to Obama's thin resume, it doesn't hold a lot of clout with me. So on this issue, I prefer to instead think in terms of who would be the best to face McCain... Mr. "100 years in Iraq" will get demolished on this issue by either of them, so it's moot.