Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

It\’s the first time in ten years. She\’s not coming empty handed.

Via
TPMCafe.

“I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq. “When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war,” the former first lady said. A Clinton campaign spokesman later noted that on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton stated that her vote for the resolution “is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose – all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people the throughout the world.” She said the Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the status of the war, she said, and for being “grossly misinformed” or for having “twisted the intelligence to satisfy a pre-conceived version of the facts. “Either interpretation casts grave doubt on their judgment,” she said. … .. Hillary: I didn\’t vote for \’pre-emptive war\’ (emphasis added)

Clinton was one of the many Democratic senators who handed Bush the keys to
the military kingdom, without any caveats. Campaigns can cover a multitude of
sins, especially when the other side offers nothing. But in debates Clinton
should have to explain the notion that she didn\’t vote for pre-emption or unilateralism,
because there was no clear and present danger from Saddam. So what was she voting
for with her vote? More time for inspectors? I don\’t think so.

It\’s a matter of judgment. Hillary and many of her colleagues thought they
could trust Mr. Bush and we\’ve been paying for it ever since. Standing up against
other Democrats on substance she\’s got a problem. Standing up against them dollar
for dollar she doesn\’t. Standing up against any Republican she comes out smelling
like a rose, in my opinion, but just about any Democrat does. It\’s all a matter
of what race she\’s in. The feeling I get is that she moves her message to
match her surroundings.

New Hampshire, you\’re up.

Since Take Back America last year, with every state she visits, Hillary tunes
in to the American channel with more clarity: out of Iraq is the broadcast, though she\’s still making up for a very bad vote. By this time next
year she could have it just about right.