Why Is Clinton Losing? THE WAR. THE WAR. THE WAR. [View All]

[Stephanie]

In the last debate, where they were both vying for the congeniality award, she was actually winning the debate on points UNTIL the question of IRAQ came up and SHE DID NOT HAVE AN ANSWER

The answer is, of course, that she approved the war resolution out of political expediency, but SHE CAN NEVER ADMIT THAT. The greatest folly, the greatest lie, the greatest mistake of our lifetimes and she was on the wrong side of it and remains there. THAT is why she's losing. THE WAR.

Here's some commentary from The Nation >

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080212/cm_thenation/45284094_1

The Nation -- I don't normally put much stock in Mark Penn's strategy memos for the Clinton campaign, which more often than not contain more spin than substance. But this line in particular, about why Clinton is better prepared than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November jumped out:

With Hillary, the Republicans' national security argument blunted and the election debate will shift to healthcare and the economy - areas of decisive strength for Hillary.

This is exactly the same argument top Democratic strategists made to their peril in 2002 and 2004. By voting for the war in '02, Democrats argued, Iraq would be off the table and the election would be decided on the economy and healthcare. Wrong. By nominating a war hero in '04, Democrats argued, John Kerry would close the security gap with George W. Bush. Aides to Kerry claimed as late as October that domestic issues were "stronger ground" for their candidate. "We know that there are a lot of people out there who are more worried about their jobs and paying their health care bills than worrying about what's going on the other side of the world," Kerry strategist Joe Lockhart said. Wrong again. Kerry never succeeded in making the election a referendum on the war in Iraq and likely lost because of it.

In '06, Democrats finally ran strongly against the war and picked up seats across the board. A lot of factors went into the takeover of Congress but Iraq was always central to the cause. True, we've spiraled into a possible recession since then and voters now cite the economy as the top national issue. But with 150,000 US troops overseas, Iraq can never be taken off the table. Nor should Democrats want the war to fade to the background until it ends. You'd think Clinton would've learned that lesson by now.