I'm thinking, now, that I'd prefer to vote for a politician who had originally supported the Iraq war. Why? Because I remember the run-up.
No one talks about just how popular the war was, back in 2003. Yeah, there was a very loud anti-war contingent, and yeah, feelings on the war went south very fast. But at the beginning, there was a majority in favor of the war. (Wikipedia--sorry.) And don't forget--the Republicans were playing very nasty, very partisan hardball. They would have loved an excuse to lambast the Democrats for wanting the terrorists to win.
So when Obama attacks Clinton for voting for the war, and pointing out how he was against it from the start, well . . . he wasn't in the Senate until 2005.
Now, I like Obama. (Yeah, I know. It's called thinking.) He's a strong second choice, and I'd vote for him in a primary if Clinton were to get totally knocked out of the race. (Could happen) But I don't need Clinton to apologize for that vote.
I like Obama because I agree with more of his policies than the other candidates.ReplyDelete
Really excellent voting guide: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php
I supported the war before it started. Saddam Hussein was the sort of jerk who needed to be removed from power. The main reason the war has become unpopular is the horrible mismanagement and incompetence that has riddled it from before the start.
That voting guide amuses me. Kucinich comes in first, then Gravel. After that are Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson -- all within 1 point. Which confirms my suspicions: for me, the reasonable candidates are all equivalent, issues-wise.ReplyDelete