Voting "no" on the Iraq war isn't a "protest vote".
It's "doing the right thing".
She's getting eviscerated for her vote now. So she had a tough choice to make; vote no on the war and take the hit (such that it would have been, I guess?) for it back then, but be vindicated by history, or vote yes on the war and look good for going along with the crowd while it was popular but take a hit later on, with the added wrinkle of having a tougher time being vindicated for her decision.
It stinks either way! It's a tough choice, but that's what politics is, and I don't think she made the right one.
+6
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
2) She's Hillary Clinton, a person well known to the nation and politics at large, so if she voted no--regardless of what state she was a senator of--it'd be much more noticeable than say an Independent Representative from Vermont voting no.
So, again, at a time when her leadership position in the party would have made her vote particularly visible and meaningful, she failed to lead -- at least, failed to lead in the right direction. And now she is running to be the leader of the country.
Hachface on
+6
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
also lol at the complete cavalier sleaziness of "it seems to me like you won't accept or believe anything she says on this issue" in response to me directly stating "I am looking for her to say anything on this issue so that I can change my position"
just, wow
She's discussed the issue, at length, a number of times. What's she's on record saying isn't enough for you and your example of what you would accept as a response isn't all that reasonable either.
I don't think it's all that sleazy to come to the conclusion, that given those two conditions, there isn't anything she can do on this subject to change your opinion.
+2
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
This thread is due for a break. There will not be another one for a time. I encourage purportedly intelligent people to use that time to learn how to tamp down the out-of-control shittiness and passive-aggression that has seized them.
Posts
It's "doing the right thing".
She's getting eviscerated for her vote now. So she had a tough choice to make; vote no on the war and take the hit (such that it would have been, I guess?) for it back then, but be vindicated by history, or vote yes on the war and look good for going along with the crowd while it was popular but take a hit later on, with the added wrinkle of having a tougher time being vindicated for her decision.
It stinks either way! It's a tough choice, but that's what politics is, and I don't think she made the right one.
So, again, at a time when her leadership position in the party would have made her vote particularly visible and meaningful, she failed to lead -- at least, failed to lead in the right direction. And now she is running to be the leader of the country.
not only has she not said this, she has been asked the question in debates already so there's really no need to look forward to them
she said she believed giving Bush the go ahead would be used as leverage, not to actually start a war, unless they found good reason
call that whatever you want but she was asked and it was answered.
She's discussed the issue, at length, a number of times. What's she's on record saying isn't enough for you and your example of what you would accept as a response isn't all that reasonable either.
I don't think it's all that sleazy to come to the conclusion, that given those two conditions, there isn't anything she can do on this subject to change your opinion.