I'm not really disagreeing with anything you say. All I'm saying is I think Obama and his supporters would be better off arguing why he's a better candidate on economic issues, health care, etc., than continuing to crow about him being right on Iraq from the start. Unless I'm missing something, he's preaching to the converted--when what he needs to do is convert some of the constituencies he's losing now.

Anonymous: "As shown there, almost 70% of the public approved of the Iraq war."

Approving of the war at the time, and caring about politicians' positions on the war NOW, are two different things. I think people do care that Hillary Clinton was in a position to avert this disaster, and failed to do so.

Anonymous: "It was not until June 2005 (!) that the American public realized what a mess it was turning out to be. If that is not the will of the people, not sure what is."

Where do you get June 2005? The insurgency was already a major problem within just a few months. Contractors were being dragged through the streets in summer 2004, I think. 70% of Fallujah was leveled in fall 2004. Abu Ghraib shit hit the fan in spring 2005.

So where do you get "the public didn't know it was a mess till June 2005"?

Anonymous: "And this debate (and Obama's candidacy) would have been moot if there indeed had been WMD in Hussein's arsenal. OR even without WMD's if the neocons had actually planned the occupation in advance."

But it's not moot, and here we are -- in the midst of the worst international disaster the U.S. has seen since Vietnam. So it does matter.

Ncawley: "Why are you in disagreement of Colin Powell's role in this war?"

What on earth are you talking about? Look, I totally agree that Powell ALONG WITH EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION is primarily to blame for Iraq. My position on Hillary's involvement in that is a little more nuanced than you might be capable of comprehending, but I am criticizing Hillary Clinton for not taking better leadership in realizing that the Neocons were incompetent, warmongering screw-ups and averting their march into a severely ill-conceived war.

The only thing I don't understand about your posts is why you're focusing on one person instead of the entire group of them. Why is that? If you can't answer, then don't even bother replying. (It's not like I don't know what you're really up to anyway.)

As soon as Clinton or Obama gains the upper hand in a very real way the party leadership will have a little talk with the other just like when those Republican senators took that walk over to the White House to tell Nixon it was over. If which ever one of the two is told to step aside decides to give a big "fuck you" to the party they're dead politically. This could be over with Texas and Ohio or Pennsylvania even it the nomination is not actually "wrapped up." Both Clinton and Obama want careers left in tact after the dust settles. If either is told to back off, I can't see either refusing.

Screw you.

You're right, other people should (and probably can) focus more on Obama's domestic strengths. He seems to have many from what I've read, and a lot of people in here have mentioned the fact that Obama and Clinton have many areas in common domestically.

Iraq is a bit of a pet issue for me. I have some friends who have recently been deployed (in fact, I am about to attend the birthday party for the 1-year-old daughter of one of them).

but screw you anyway.

Actually, my contempt is not for those who happen to lack college degrees, who work hard and quietly go through their lives as productive citizens. I wish they were more interested in politics, and therefore more likely to argue in favour of their chosen candidate.

They are not the "Salt of the earth", they are people with their own opinions and own reasons, and deserve more respect than to be termed a cowardly breed of noble peasant.

My contempt is for the people who rely the "salt of the earth" bullshit myth to bolster their candidate.

It is for people who seem to think that an education, which is the primary disqualifiar against being "Salt of the earth", is a personal flaw.

My contempt is towards those who speak sneeringly of intellectual elitists, and then expect me to think that they aren't the same people who spoke sneeringly of intellectual elitists being against Bush.

I too have friends and family serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan). I hope those you care about come home safe and sound.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But then, I was never much on all that book learnin' (spits tobacco).

Before the Iraq Invasion the Public was SQUARLEY for letting the U.N. finish it's business and not invade beforehand.

The public ONLY decided to stand behind the President once soliders were in Harm's Way, as people do.

So so true, moofadashaka. Democrats tend to take the high road, and suffer repeatedly for it.

I'll answer all your questions and nobody is paying me to do it. I live on the other side of the world and I don't have a blinkered vision as you seem to have. The American election has'nt yet generated intense interest in Europe. It was after Christmas (that's what I call it) that I took any interest and I wandered on to this site. For a whole month now I've read the cacophony of "Hillary Clinton is divisive!, "Hillary Clinton is polarising" with no explanation whatever accompanying these bald statements. I began to wonder about the motives of people who were spurred on to repeat such hateful thins with monotonous regularity. The night I saw Barack Obama with downcast eyes, muttering "You're likeable enough, Hillary", I decided "I don't like you, Barack" because at that moment the Obama mask had slipped. Apart from that, the level of vilification coming from Obama supporters (Huffpo is "the pits" altogether) further turned me off, including the accusation that I'm a troll (a word I refuse to acknowledge as having anything to do with standard English). I read, over and over, that Hillary Clinton had voted for the war in Iraq but I knew, because it was extensively covered in Western Europe, that it was your Head of the Chiefs of Staff of the American Armed Forces who had made a vehement argument for military action in Iraq. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, believed him and sent British troops to Iraq to support yhe American invasion. Prime Minister Aznar of Spain believed Colin Powell and did likewise. So why is it so wrong for Hillary Clinton to have believed the pre-eminent General (Colin Powell) who was lokked on as a person with moral authority? Both London and Madrid suffered for supporting the US with many innocent passengers on their sub-ways killed and mutilated.

Now Mr, Hutman I have two very small questions for you. Colin Powell was two months short of his 66th birthday in February 2003 and what political career would you envisage at that age for a man with no political experience whatsoever? I'll try to be polite, but I think you're making all this up. You also claim that Hillary Clinton "partly led" support for the war. Which part was for and which part against? I believe in facts and not a whole load of rubbishy chatter about "divisive" and "polarising", as I'm sure you do too. So I eagerly await your answer on Colin Powell's putative political career, whilee hoping that he got a good pension for his service to the State. Your explanation of "partly led" will also be welcome. It's getting late here, in this part of the globe, so a reasonably quick reply would be much appreciated.