What keeps nagging at me about the "one speech" is this: Obama was right, Clinton was wrong.

[Brotherjohn]

I didn't think it was out of line for her to bring it up as an answer to the experience question. I even posted here to defend her on the grounds that that's all she was doing. I did think it was REALLY bad strategy, strategy that hurts the (probable) eventual Democratic nominee by dismissing him as being such a lightweight compared to the Republican nominee. Bad strategy, and bad politics... but politics, nonetheless.

The nagging thing though, is that every time Clinton says Obama's foreign policy experience amounts to "just one speech", I think: “But he was RIGHT about Iraq in 2002. And Clinton was wrong, about Iraq in her statements, and in voting for the IWR in 2002.” She can't run away from that. In fact, she repeatedly reminds us of it every time she uses the tactic (another thing that makes it REALLY bad strategy).

Sen. Hillary Clinton could have given that same speech from the floor of the Senate in 2002. She didn't. Senator Byrd did. Others in and out of the Senate did. Millions marching in the streets did. But she didn't. Yes, Sen. Kerry voted for the IWR. I still supported him when he was the eventual nominee. I will still support, and vote for, Sen. Clinton if she becomes the nominee. But a nominee who was more unequivocal in his/her stance against the war would have, in my opinion, been a stronger candidate in 2004, and this goes doubly in 2008.

One can hypothesize all they want that Obama may have voted for the IWR if he were in office. Though it flies in the face of reason given his publicly stated stance at the time, and his repetition in 2004 that he would not have voted for it, one could do that. But that's just guessing. His "one speech" says otherwise.

One can say all they want that he's voted the same on every war funding vote, and that their position on the war is identical. One can say that they are both voting for political expediency given their eye on the presidency. But the difference is this: Perhaps Obama AND Hillary have BOTH voted to continue funding for the war for political expediency, so that they might eventually be elected president, so that they might END the war. But Clinton voted to give Bush the go ahead to START the war for political expediency, so that she might eventually be elected president.

I assume that's why, anyway. I can't figure out any other reason. I knew the aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges based on what I could read at the time. I knew the effort to obtain uranium ore was a concocted and debunked story. I knew that the threat from balsa wood drones was silly. I knew the "proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" was nothing more that a figment of Condi Rice's imagination. I knew then that this was a war that should NEVER have been started. I knew this not based on my access as a Senator to Top Secret intelligence information, but from my access to newspapers and the web. I did not decide it based on some political and emotional aversion to war, but from my reading of objective information from all sources.

I knew this. Obama knew this. She either did not or she did and decided to vote to give the go ahead anyway. My personal belief is that she felt she needed to portray a more hawkish image, with an eye on a future presidential run, and (like many others) did not honestly think the war was going to be so difficult. She may have also held out hope that GWB would not invade. I don’t think she’s a horrible person for this (maybe naïve). I just think she made a calculated gamble, and it blew up in her face.

But if ever there was a time for a “protest vote”, October 2002 was it. THAT was the time to chuck "political expediency", electoral future be damned! Not the umpteenth in a never-ending series of war funding votes after the war is underway. Nevertheless, as I said, I would still vote for Sen. Clinton is she is the nominee, because I think she would be better suited than any Republican nominee to lead the nation out of this war and through these tough times.

But given his "one speech", his CLEARLY STATED pre-war stance, I think Obama is better suited to lead this nation out of this war. I believe he is better suited to do this both from a standpoint of practical politics and moral imperative. He will be more able to pull people together to end it because he can state unequivocally that he has been against this war from the start. His words will have more moral and political clout. He will also be more capable of ending it because, frankly, I think he has a better chance of beating McCain due to a stronger divergence from him on this issue than Sen. Clinton. When Clinton debates the merits of the war with McCain, all he has to say is "But you voted for it! And you voted for every war funding bill since then!" Hell, she would not even be able to debate him on the merits of this war, because she is on record as saying it was merited. When Obama debates the merits of this war with McCain, he can quote his "one speech" verbatim, and every word will register as strongly as a response now as it did as a speech back then.

We are in a war. A questionable war which has cost thousands of American lives, and which the American people en masse are rightly questioning themselves. A drastic change is needed... a change that will be risky no matter what happens. We have been left a royal bloody mess by George W. Bush, and that is something about which I think no candidate has been honest enough.

People need to be given a shot of courage to take this bold, dangerous step, and they need a leader who can be unequivocal on the issue, one who they feel more strongly about getting behind.

The thing about Sen. Clinton's IWR vote is this: It means she can never be that leader.

The thing about Sen. Obama's "one speech" is this: It means he CAN.

This election is not about how this war should have been carried out. This election is about (indeed, it’s the proverbial elephant in the room) whether this war should have been fought at all. Obama has had the courage to state clearly, from the “one speech” in 2002 right up until the Democratic debate in Austin in 2008, that it should not have been.