Read other letters about this article

• Monday, August 6, 2007 09:47 AM

  There's nothing wrong with HRC.

  Seriously. If you're a liberal, and can get past her support for the IWR, there's plenty to like about her voting record. I check the yeas and nays fairly often, and Sen. Clinton consistently falls on the right side of just about every issue I care about. Incidentally, she wasn't fazed by the Bush Administration's blatant fearmongering last week when the Senate passed the FISA bill the liberal blogosphere hated so much. Given that, I can forgive her her 2003 vote for the IWR.

  And we'd better. The IWR passed by a fairly large margin, if I recall correctly. Edwards voted for it, too. In fact, he was one of the cosponsors (along with Lieberman of CT) of the Senate version of the bill. What is the big difference between Edwards' apology for supporting the IWR and Clinton's saying she wouldn't have voted for it given what is now known about the prewar intelligence? Just how deeply must Sen. Clinton genuflect, what pennance would be appropriate, what words must be said (and in what order) to convince the netroots she's as sincere and as worthy of support as John Edwards?

  This is one reason I refuse to choose sides, as I did in 2004. Any of our top three can beat any of their top three. Would it be so bad if Hillary Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office? I seriously doubt it. So I urge my fellow Democrats to weigh the candidates on their respective merits, vote for the one they think is the best person for the job (not necessarily the one Ron Fournier thinks hates the least), and support the eventual winner.

  —djansing Read djansing's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel