"you can say any damn thing you want, as long as you say it about the Clintons."

[MethuenProgressive]

I was googling around in response to the usual Free Republic stuff being echoed here and found this interesting write up about Edwards and Clinton's votes on the IWR:

BLITZER (8/29/04): When you voted for that resolution, like almost everyone else, you believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

CLINTON: Right, right. Well, indeed I did. And if someone asked me that if we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote. You know, no administration would have come to the Congress and asked for a vote that would have authorized any kind of action based on what we now know.
-snip-
EDWARDS NYT (11/13/05):
The intel was wrong, Edwards said. “Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.”

D.H.: But Clinton had already said, fifteen months earlier, that no one would have “voted for this war” because there wouldn’t even have been a vote.
----------
Can it be the DU memes regarding the IRW votes - are wrong?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011807.shtml

[TwilightZone]

1. Many of the memes about Hillary have little factual basis.

Hyperbole and hysteria are more important than facts.

She's a right-wing fascist, which must explain why ontheissues.org identifies her as a "hard-core liberal".

She's a conservative, which must explain why Progressive Punch lists her as one of the more progressive members of the Senate.

On the "apology" issue - as if an apology would make any difference. It's not going to change any opinions. If she did apologize, the people currently demanding the apology would then declare that it was insincere or a flip-flop or that she didn't go far enough.

Makes for a convenient talking point, though.

Edwards apologized, but should that make him any less culpable? I'm amazed that so many seem to believe that it should. Actions are more important than words.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. It's the Noise Machine at work: Say it loud enough, and it'll echo forever

DU is an enabler of the echo chamber.

[Sparkly]

3. I agree with both of you (sorry to say)

If this were 1999/2000, we'd be hearing how Al Gore is a "serial exaggerator" and "stiff" and "reinventing himself."

It's very, very disappointing.

[TwilightZone]

7. We'd probably be hearing that if he'd entered the '08 campaign, as well.

Many have opined that the only reason Gore's support has remained high on DU was simply because he didn't enter the race. Had he entered, he would have become a threat to other candidates, and many of the same "debate" tactics would have likely been turned on Gore, too.

[Auntie Bush]

8. It's not only disappointing...it's sickening!

I hate to see how many Democrats think and act just like Republicans...and I hate rethuglicans!

[TwilightZone]

4. Loud enough and often enough

It's not only applied to Hillary, of course, but she does seem to be the most popular target. Front-runners or perceived front-runners tend to attract the most attention.

The closer the primaries get, the shallower the conversations seem to be, to the point that many have devolved into a series of one-liners. I find myself wanting to say, " 'I know you are, but what am I' is not a solid debate tactic."

[Tellurian]

6. Say it OFTEN enough and it becomes the "new" Truth..

To be fair..This is the only foolish cudgel the Obama camp has to constantly berate Clinton with. Otherwise, as we all know, Obama mimicked 99% of Sen. Clinton's Vote! I call Obama's cudgel foolish because he most likely would have voted "present" because as he so often demonstrates, he's afraid to take a stand on important votes.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. It's the new "truthiness" - "I keep reading that...", "Some people say..."

"You hear everywhere that..." and so forth.

[zbdent]

14. Don't forget, she's detached from the working person because she didn't

leave a tip ... but she's trying to buy votes because she left a $100 tip on after a $164 meal (link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200711100003?f=h_top) ...

[Bitwit1234]

5. Yep....that's what the Hillary bashers do even tho the stuff they

post and say has been proven wrong. It just goes to show, tho, the character of these people. They talk about bush lying......well.......

[SOS]

10. Some of us are consistent

in that we won't vote for anyone who voted for the IWR.

[MethuenProgressive]

11. There are candidates who couldn't have voted - you give them a pass?

Not all our candidates were in the Senate at the time.

[SOS]

12. Will vote

based on the candidates position stated prior to March 2003.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Say someone claimed he was against it, but voted with Clinton on every Iraq vote since...

would you still support him on what he said about a vote he wasn't asked to make?

[SOS]

16. "claimed"?

"I don't oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics

Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

-Barak Obama, October 2002

The message could not possibly be clearer. Once this insane invasion and occupation were under way, the vast majority in Congress chose to fund the troops. Would you be happier if Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd had all voted against funding?

So for this NY voter, it'll be either Obama or Kucinich, depending on how things look in February.

[CyberPieHole]

15. Obama would have voted for it or he would have voted "present"...

his voting record shows that clearly.

[SOS]

17. Obama would have voted for it?

Please read post #16, Obama's speech in October 2002.
You really think he would have voted for it?

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Certainly - since in the Senate he's followed along with Clinton on every Iraq vote.

His 2002 talk was mere pre-positioning for his Presidential run.