If the war in Iraq had been a cakewalk, Obama's candidacy would be untenable

[Recursion]

Even in the absence of WMD's, he, Gore, and Dean would have been laughed off the political stage, not just by Republicans, but by a resurgent and vindicated DLC if the Iraqi population had been willing to live under US occupation, or even if there had just been a workable postwar plan. Bush would have gotten a Crassus-like triumph (I think there is still 36 million allocated for that parade), and Clinton or Kerry would have then trounced Bush in 2004 (the US has a history of switching parties in the white house after successful wars).

But, when Clinton and Kerry were calculating that they would be on the wrong side of a cakewalk, Obama staked his national political career on the belief that the war was wrong. That's why it wasn't an unimportant speech (actually, several speeches). If the war had gone well, every pundit and politicians from both parties would have branded him an isolationist and an accommodater who didn't vote for a war against a dictator whose last name was the same as his middle name. As far as that goes, he was almost staking his identity as an American.

It was a courageous stand, it was the right stand, and he would have paid for it if he was wrong. Now, another thing about America is that we hate people saying "I told you so", so I don't expect him to get a whole lot of credit for having been right. But to take a cheap shot at the person who was right is, well, cheap.

[johnnydrama]

1. I agree 100%

The idea that it was safe for him to make that speech is laughable.

He would be nowhere today, if he was as wrong as all the warmongers said he would be.

And he wasn't just against the war, he actually laid out every bad thing that he thought that would happen that is exactly what we've seen.

Being safe wouldn't have led him to specifically say all the disasters he saw waiting for us.

Do you think the opposite is true as well? If Hillary had been against the war, and made a speech like Obama's, would she already be the nominee?

[Recursion]

4. If Hillary had been against the war

If Hillary had been against the war, and made a speech like Obama's, would she already be the nominee?

A consistent anti-war candidate beats the guy who started an unpopular war.

Kerry was swiftboated, but he also swiftboated himself by voting for the war. Why was he called a flip-flopper? Because he did check the political winds and voted for a war he didn't really believe in. The electorate is ignorant but not stupid: they knew perfectly well what that vote was about and they didn't like his trying to squirm out of it -- in particular they didn't like his voting for the war and then voting against funding it (I know, I know... but he should have known there was no way around that charge being made against him).

I have a lot of very conservative "red state" friends and family. They despise both Clintons for being "liberal". But you have to consider what they consider "liberal" to mean: pro-corporate (yes. really), unprincipled, and interested primarily in getting and retaining power. Frankly the Clintons have done a lot to earn that reputation, and to brand the rest of us with it.

The pro-corporate bit surprised me and confused me for a long time. But I've started to come to realize why that makes sense. Yes, it seems ridiculous to us that people would vote Republican to "get even with Wall street" (the book What's the Matter With Kansas really helped, too). There are several issues here:

1) We are so used to thinking we're the "party of the working people" that we have forgotten to actually do much for them in the past 40 years or so.

2) What people saw, and didn't like, was Clinton essentially selling access, nights at the White House, coffee with the President, etc., to anyone who could cough up the dough. It felt like prostitution of the office. And in some ways it was (Bush, for instance, does that kind of fundraising at Crawford.)

3) Conservatives (by which I mean, "the conservatives I know and talk politics with") greatly preferred Dean to Kerry. Why? Because Dean is very clear about his principles and beliefs and willing to stand up for them. They admire that. These people vote a lot more about a gut sense of trust than on issues. What they perceive of the Team Clinton record is an unending series of triangulations, compromises, and co-opting of the Republican agenda. Again, people are ignorant but not stupid: when Bill Clinton said "The era of big government is over" (lest people forget, that was Bill Clinton who said that, not Ronald Reagan) they saw that pretty much for what it was: a somewhat spineless caving to the GOP program by a President with an electoral gun to his head.

So, anyways, I think if Senator Clinton had opposed the war, she would have swept the primaries (I doubt Obama would have run except possibly in hopes of getting the VP nod). Whether that would have erased the reputation she got in the 1990's and allowed her to win the GE, I'm not sure.

[Angela Shelley]

2. I give him credit for being right,

and I give every American credit who was against the attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Maybe we hate people saying "I told you so", but only when we should have known better.

There are billions of people on this planet who are against the US occupation of Iraq. It´s only the American public who can´t seem to collectively realize what´s going on and what´s going wrong, and what the necessary steps are to turn the situation around.

[rug]

3. Tremendously brave. He may have lost his seat in Springfield.

[JimGinPA]

5. As Opposed To Being A Cowardly Carpetbagger Enabler Put In Place By A Guilty Husband?

[rug]

7. Guilty of what?

Being the Democratic candidate you voted against?

Or did you enable him?

[BlueManDude]

6. Bottom line - nominating someone who voted for the IWR is suicide.