Here's a shocker. Or maybe not.

Hillary's in a no-win situation with regards to the war issue. If she apologizes for her vote, as John Edwards did, she'll get called spineless. If you voted for an illegal war, what good is an apology other than as pandering? Yet if she doesn't apologize, she is accused of lacking the courage of her convictions and not taking the politically painful position. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I think it is probably harder to do what she's doing, not apologizing and continuing to take the heat, than to do what Edwards did. It would be easy to apologize like Edwards. It would take the heat off of her. But evidently she doesn't think that it would be the right thing to do. It doesn't sound like a political calculation to me. It sounds like she thinks she'd have less integrity if she apologized.

Hillary will not admit to a mistake for several reasons: 1) To demonstrate to the war machine (e.g. Boeing) she is willing to play ball. 2) To capture all the votes to the right of center. 3) To apologize would show fallibility, a human trait uncharacteristic of a corporate entity. 4) There was no mistake, she voted exactly as she intended to. 5)Arrogance.
Of course now she's allegedly announced her 90 Day Plan to begin withdrawal. This gives her an aggressive appearance towards peace without ever having to admit she made a mistake.
Which way will the wind blow next?

Maybe she's not apologizing because she doesn't think that vote was in fact a mistake based on what information they were given by the White House at the time. Were they supposed to be mind readers and automatically tell that the Bush administration and intelligence officials were lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Were they supposed to be able to read Bush's mind and automatically know about this whole other agenda? Every one of those senators who voted for this authorization were played for fools, but is that their fault? Or is it Bush's?

Hillary seems to be saying that it is Bush who needs to apologize, not her or anyone else who voted in the Senate. He knew the truth, they didn't. A leader stands behind his/her votes, regardless of whether they were right or wrong. A leader doesn't apologize and say "whoops I'm sorry" the minute public opinion changes in the other direction. That is what Edwards is doing. Hillary is taking the more principled position, she regrets her vote but she won't apologize for it, she'll stand behind it right or wrong.

A majority of Senate (and House) Democrats voted against the AUMF. What did they know that Queen Rodham did not?

This isn't leadership. Leadership is what Edwards did - saying he was wrong, and moving forward with a clean slate. Queen Rodham isn't capable of that; but then again, as she says, there are other candidates, featuring what are known as "principles". Or at least, other and better ones than "It's my turn to be President".

Besides, again, this is about positioning herself as not being a panderer. That would inspire the HillaryBots with visions of leadership; but that's not what this is. This is leadership, the televsion series. A fake.

To some, the act of John Edwards apologizing for his vote on Iraq reeked of political opportunism. He was running for president again and looking to position himself to the left and gain favor with the netroots, so apologizing for his vote was an easy thing to do. It was a way to get absolved of all his sins in one act so the left could embrace him. The thing is that he had left the senate so he no longer had constituents to whom he had to answer. This unlike Hillary, who is still in the senate and who still has constituents, particularly upstate, who support/supported the war and who have kids serving in the war. To them, any act of apologizing for her vote would seem like a betrayal.

Also quite frankly the issue of the war in Iraq has become a tool by some of the more active on the left to wield power over the candidates. The way it is being portrayed now, candidates for president on the democratic side are being told they must come forth on their hands and knees before the left wing powerbrokers and apologize for their votes and beg for forgiveness or they will be demonized. Some of the posts I have read on daily kos by markos and others for instance have all but demanded this, as if they want to force this apology to show the power and influence of the netroots. I fear that the netroots is thus causing the war issue to overshadow all the other important issues that are out there. As if national health care and post-Katrina racial issues are somehow not nearly as important as Iraq.

I think Hillary will gain points from the center by not apologizing, because the more they demand it and the more she refuses, the more she will be seen as refusing to bow at the altar of the netroots left. The more she will be seen as refusing to pander. If Markos and co. can't make her apologize, how much power after all do they have over her? Edwards came to them begging forgiveness. He kissed their asses. Hillary did not. Voters are going to remember that.

do you mean? I seem to be here all by myself so just ask what *I* think, no guessing required! I think all the apologizing in today's culture is bogus and annoying, and most of the rehab too.

(I feel like that line in the original Star Wars -- if there's a bright center to the universe, we're on the planet that it's furthest from!)

By the time 08 rolls around, regardless of the pictures coming out of Iraq then, there will be plenty of returning veterans, disabled and ignored. Voters will be acquainted with the fact.
Apologies, platforms, and eulogies will not mean anything on the campaign trail.
The candidate who is championing the returning veterans' cause will have more to bring in votes than Senatorial grandstanding.
I suggest we hold House members responsible to the task of working on the problem of severely disabled veterans, as well as on returning Guard members whose lives have been negatively impacted, NOW!
In 06 the people spoke. Let presidential candidates frame their arguments. We have things to do now to help those who can't wait for yet another election.

of veterans' support groups? I could do some homework but I'd rather have some help. My best source has been Wes Clark's page, but I can't blog with everyone. Who is aware of what he is doing?
I prefer to blog, not with a political operative or candidate but with some groups who can tell you what is really at stake. Any suggestions?

An apology from Hillary for her vote, or her admitting she made a mistake, serves no purpose. You can't go back and change the past. All an apology is going to do is perpetuate the image that she is beholden to this interest group or that interest group within the party. If the netroots is perceived as holding her feet to the fire and she is seen apologizing, it will appear as if she is giving in to that particular group's demands. Even if their demands are right, that doesn't change the negative perception that would be created by her giving in to them. So Hillary is doing a very smart thing by not apologizing, because it is creating the impression that she cannot be controlled. Unlike Edwards, who not only apologized for his war vote, but also was just seen trying to kiss up to BOTH sides in the controversy over those two bloggers. Here's a guy who's trying to please everybody and pleasing nobody. IMO he let those two girls twist in the wind, you couldn't blame them for quitting. Edwards has seriously damaged his presidential hopes IMO. Nobody wants a candidate who is bending over backwards to be all things to all people. If the perception given by Hillary not apologizing, and Edwards apologizing, is that one candidate is willing to sell out and the other is not, which candidate does that benefit? Edwards is a weak candidate, he's running a poor third. Obama is the candidate Hillary's folks are sweating, not Edwards.

I'm part of the netroots, I hate this war and one of the reasons I'm leaning to Obama and not Hillary is consistency on the issue, but I can respect the fact that she made a decision and does not want to apologize for, back down from or even admit it was a mistake. Hindsight is 20/20 and every legislator is going to have votes they made in the past that they may regret or that look worse in retrospect than they did at the time. But if they made those votes in good conscious and accepted those votes for what they were at the time, they don't need to disassociate themselves from those votes in the future. People are going to respect Hillary far more for standing her ground in the face of the heat of primary voters than they would if she groveled before them and apologized as Edwards has.

to her and following her campaign, can you explain what ground she's standing or giving re: Terri Schiavo?

This isn't rhetoric, I'm really asking because I am curious and have no idea. Michael's new blogpost quoting Molly Ivins made me wonder, if you happen to know?

... all things to all people."

Yeah, that's Hillary's problem in a nutshell right there. Kind of like saying that she wasn't wrong in voting for the war, but now she's introducing sure-to-fail legislation to start a drawdown in ninety days. Probably because even Hillary knows - maybe, especially Hillary knows - that Americans oppose the war 2:1.

"Hey, primary voters! Look at me! Over here! I'm doing something against the war! Over here!"

I don't know what's more pathetic, this charade of "leadership" or the HillaryBots that fall for it.

The Schiavo example really makes clear what Hillary is: afraid to show leadership. Not a peep out of her on that, even though this was one of the clearest cases of the wingnuts over-reaching in memory. But Hillary was probably afraid, even then, of alienating the hard-right voters she thinks she has a snowball's chance in hell of persuading to stick with the dynastic method of elections.

Michael:

I agree with you that Hillary's ship is WAY too tight to leak a discussion abotu this or anything else. That's one of the reasons that I support Hillary Clinton: message discipline, staff discipline, staff cohesion and staff loyalty. OOps, that's FOUR reasons!

Most Americans are MUCH more concerned that Hillary shows determination and conviction, which is a character issue, rather than concern over the semantics of her apology on Iraq. Once again, refusing to cow-tow to anti-war forces over something that doesn't make any difference anyway substantively is a good way to show that she is not beholden to any constituency. Antiwar forces should look at the good side of this: If Hillary is nominated, this dust-up will help her win the Presidency instead of Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich!

That this report appeared in this way in the New York Times shows that Hillary's team is very media savvy and will make use of media in highly sophisticated ways. You won't see Hillary riding in tank to show that she is resolute.

Now, somebody faulted Hillary above for not showing leadership on the Schiavo thing. Is it realistic to expect a Democratic senator to lead a Republican Congress? Think about that for a moment. Can a Democratic senator lead a Republican majority, or is that role more likely to go the the Republican Senate Majority Leader or somebody like that, in the context of a Republican Congress.

What people really mean is that they wanted Hillary to raise her voice all the time, even if her proposals and objections had virtually no chance of becoming law or preventing laws, in the context of a Republican Congress. Women who raise their voices in a futile manner all the time are called "shrill". They're called "unrealistic", and sometimes they're even called "whiners".

Hillary did her part to elect a Democratic Congress, and that's the kind of leadership I wanted to see from her, and I think she made good on that.

www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com

First of all, if you want a President Newt or a President Giuliani, keep on supporting Hillary, because that's the best way to get there. Ask any political strategist who hasn't been paid for by that campaign, and they'll tell you the same thing. A poll just came out today showing Giuliani beating her - Rudy effing Giuliani, the scumbag who divorced his wife via a press conference.

Second, based on your remarks above, you have a very opportunistic, triangulated sense of leadership - the kind that doesn't need to be exercised if there's the slightest chance it might not work. That's actually typical of Hillary, so it's not surprising that you support her.

Lastly, if you're here to perpetuate the repug talking point/stereotype of netroots as 'nutroots', that is screaming un-American communists, because you happen to prefer your judgment on the nominee over that of everyone else, and use sleazy rhetoric instead of persuasion, you won't feel very welcome here for very long. And yes, implying that support of a candidate other than yours has to do with racial animus or a desire to keep down black people is deeply, irredeemably sleazy and un-American. I can see why DKos and MyDD didn't warm to that. I'm not, either.

Read David Brooks column from the NYTimes about this, he's got a point:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/article/view/?id=1336

Actually most polls now have Hillary beating either McCain or Guiliani or anybody else. Here's a Quinipiac poll showing Rudy couldn't even beat Hillary in New York:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/16/112043.shtml

But more importantly, polls have her steamrolling any of the other democratic candidates. The only one within twenty points of her is Obama. So I think progressive democrats need not spend the rest of the year preaching how likely they think Hillary is to lose the general Why? Is it because she's a woman and well the country isn't going to elect a woman commander in chief? I think the country's ready to elect a woman.

Also I keep pointing out that Bill Clinton is her secret weapon. He is still very popular within the party and a lot of people won't want to turn their backs on him or see him lose (even lose by proxy with Hillary running) There are even those in the media suggesting that if Hillary were elected president, that he agree to take her seat in the Senate for the duration of her current term. I'm sure Spitzer would appoint him if he wanted to do that. Then he'd immediately be elected senate majority leader by consensus replacing Harry Reid. Wouldn't that drive the GOP crazy

Sorry, you lost me at David Brooks. I'm not taking advice in the Democratic primary from repugs. Instead, how about Paul Krugman, who came out strongly against Hillary yesterday.

HillaryBots. They shamelessly quote repuggery. Doesn't that say everything that needs to be said?

With due respect to those who want to pick the ideal Dem candidate for 08, I'm barely keeping up with problems of Feb 07. I asked about organizations who help veterans and I see some have been mentioned.
After seeing Dana Priest (WP) give an interview on PBS, where she described their 4 months of investigative reporting, I decided to find out what I could about helping NOW! Below is the organization and data I found on one of my searches.
"The Ten Worst Senators" up for reelection in 08 came to my attention. I carried it through to a story which I quote below. I used Alexander as an example because he is my Senator.
If others agree with me, it is important to actively campaign for enough Democratic Senators in 08 to break the stalemate (quagmire) we are in.
HERE'S THE ALEXANDER info:
www.empoweringveterans.org
Headline from the Tennessean - Senator Alexander Take a Stand and Address this Failure of a War
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/OPINION03/7022...
NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND IS NOT SERVING THEM NOW
* Awarded a Grade of D by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
* Awarded a Rating of 0%in 2004 by the Disabled American Veterans
* Awarded a Rating of 50% in 2005 by the Disabled American Veterans
* Awarded a Rating of 40% in 2006 by the Disabled American Veterans

The Lives of Military Personnel OR Tax Cuts for the Rich Alexander voted “NO” to:

* $25.41 Billion for increased military procurement of equipment.
(S Roll Call 008, 02/02/2006)
* $16.9 Billion for increased Army maintenance funding.
(S Roll Call 008, 02/02/2006)
* $4.5 Billion for increased Marine Corps maintenance funding.
(S Roll Call 008, 02/02/2006)

Although Senator Alexander was not in the Senate when the tax cuts* for the wealthy were enacted his voting record is clear that he fully supports these tax cuts and has voted consistently to sustain them at the expense of members of the Armed Forces and their families and veterans and their families.* The top 1% of wage earners (Average $1,171,000) received 25% of the tax benefit according to [need source here].

* Depriving the Armed Forces of equipment and resources to stay safe and alive in War Time.
* Providing Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans in War Time.

Alexander Votes AGAINST Working Families, FOR Corporate Welfare

* “NO” to allowing the government to negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs under the Social Security Drug benefit. (S Roll Call 302, 11/03/2005)
* “NO” to prosecuting corporations for dealing with sponsors of TERRORISM. (S Roll Call 203, 07/26/2005)
* “NO” to consumer protection from price gouging during energy emergencies. (S Roll Call 334, 11/17/2005)
* “NO” to oil company excess profits tax to fund energy relief for the poor. (S Roll Call 339, 11/17/2005)

Alexander votes FOR the Wealthiest, AGAINST Working Families “YES” to the Wealthy

* $39.7 Billion in Reductions to MEDICARE to sustain war time TAX CUTS for the wealthy (S Roll Call 0363, 12/21/2005)

“NO” to Working Families

* Increased Katrina relief for food assistance, bankruptcy relief, and tax help. Many of the Katrina families are veterans. (S Roll Call 234, 09/15/2005)
* $5 Billion to increase funding for Elementary and Secondary Education (S Roll Call 269, 10/26/2005)
* $4 Billion to increase funding for educational services for children with Disabilities (S Roll Call 273, 10/26/2005)
* $836 Million to increase PELL Grants for poor college students (S Roll Call 268, 10/25/2005)

Alexander consistently votes against needed improvements in Veterans’ Health CareAlexander voted:

* “NO” to authorize $21.9 billion for the VA for compensation and pensions; medical care and hospital improvements. (S Roll Call 007, 02/02/2006)
* “NO” to increase VA funding for the increased demand for VA services due to the Iraq War. (S Roll Call 251, 10/05/2005)

Alexander’s Voting Record Hurts Veterans & their Families 30% of returning veterans diagnosed with mental health problems and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD):

* 82% of New Patients need intensive PTSD treatment.
* 20% of VA PTSD treatment programs are full.
* 40% of VA PTSD treatment programs are near full capacity.
* 42% of VA primary care clinics have NO mental health staff.

VA Advisory Board (Feb. 2006) stated: “VA cannot meet the ongoing needs of veterans of past deployments while also reaching out to new combat veterans (Iraq / Afghanistan) … within current resources.” Increasing Demand for VA Services:

* Enrollment since 2002- UP 48% due to Iraq War
* VA patient load since 2002 – UP 28% due to Iraq War

Veterans are experiencing increasing delays for earned services:

* Veterans waiting for their first appointment for VA services doubled for the second year in a row.
* 500,000 Veterans awaiting decisions granting benefits since Jan 2006.
* 368,000 of these Veterans are awaiting disability determinations.
* 151,000 appeals are backlogged.

Not surprising to note that one of the senators targeted on that site, along with Alexander, is Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman's the former Democrat who turned Republican and went conservative, and only got elected because Paul Wellstone (who was a great senator, my roommate in d.c. worked for him) died in a plane crash right before the election. Coleman is up for re-election finally, his is one seat the Democrats should definitely target to take back. And we have a candidate in that race too, radio talk show host/author/former head writer of Saturday Night Live, Al Franken!

So what if Al's a comedian, he's a terrific outspoken liberal (author of "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot!") and he'll raise hell in D.C. Since we don't have a competitive senate race next year in New York State, lets help Al Franken in Minnesota:

www.alfranken.com

You do remember the great Minnesota governor, former wrestler? If Jesse could do it, anyone could.
There's more pablum than salsa in Minnesota's diet. Yet, because they have good economic conditions and acceptable social laws, they know about the outside world. My niece says that the largest minority in her Minnapolis suburban school are Somali's. The Mungs found acceptance some years ago. Through it all, when I visit her I see Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegone. Curious folks, those flatlanders!