Cythera: "I'll give you an example, merely an anecdote. My aunt and uncle totally supported the war when it began and railed against some Senate Democrats (and antiwar marchers like you and me) for opposing it. They are lifelong Democrats, think FDR is in heaven on God's right hand. They are now rabidly antiwar. But they aren't particularly concerned about who got it right at the outset--because *they* didn't. They just want out now."

Thanks for at least being civil in this post.

I think the important thing to realize is that your aunt and uncle have day jobs that don't involve being on top of all the latest information about politics, foreign policy, history, etc. So I fault people like them a lot less than I fault people who are elected to lead the nation and make decisions for which the lives and deaths of thousands of people hang in the balance.

Many people I knew back in 2003 didn't have a clue about the war either. They thought everything was hunky-dory when Bush flew in for his "Mission Accomplished" speech. They were completely dumbfounded when I told them, over dinner, that most people in Baghdad had limited access to potable water or electricity. They thought I was nuts.

But people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were specifically elected to know very well what was going on, know all the ramifications, and make sound, leadership decisions on the matter.

There is good reason to believe that Hillary Clinton knew full well that Bush was going to go to war no matter what. How could anybody not know?

I think Hillary made a calculation that this Iraq War would go much as the first one had -- a quick, resounding victory. Then there was supposed to be a light clean-up and the installation of Chalabi as a puppet.

Clinton didn't calculate in the Bush Administration's utter incompetence, and that is much to her shame. She also didn't calculate in the difference between an air war, based mostly on bombing raids, and an occupation -- which anybody who's paid attention to history (Israel, Algeria, etc.) knows is all the difference in the world.

Then there's the matter of fixed intelligence, which Bush already had established a track record on. Sure, Clinton can say she believed the intelligence reports, but even then she should have known of the CIA maneuverings and shake-ups in the Pentagon when Donald Rumsfeld wasn't spoon-fed the evidence he wanted in advance. (The first thing Cheney asked after 9/11 is -- how can we tie this to Saddam?)

When it comes down to Obama vs. Clinton, I think Iraq should be an even huger issue than it is.

I totally agree with Obama's argument that we're better off having president who's been on the right side of the argument all along. You can be sure that in a debate, McCain would consistently focus on Hillary's Iraq vote to take all the air out of whatever arguments she makes against McCain's side.

As Obama keeps winning in caucuses all over America and as pundits and political experts tell us to wait for Texas and Ohio, I wonder if Democrats are experiencing a Rudy phenomenon on the left. In politics, first there is money, then momentum, then victories, and then--suddenly it may be too late. Texas is one of the few states where the economy is doing very well. It also one of the states where Latinos are much more integrated into the state (as George Bush the ex-governor of the state told us), and they do not experience some of the problems found in other border states. As a result,they may be more receptive to Obama's message. Similarly, Ohio has a huge Afro-American population which will vote in large numbers for him. Obama will be marching into both these states with a lot of momentum and a lot of wins. I think it is a big mistake to assume that these are automatic Hillary wins. If Hillary has a firewall, it's more likely to be Pennsylvania, and by then it may be too late.

Yes, but Hillary is not related by blood to Bill--even though they ARE from Arkansas!

Look, I am stating facts and if you can't handle the truth that Colin Powell was the one who went to the UN and showed all the world the pictures of so called WMD's, the trucks carrying the so called WMD's, the warehouses the so called WMD's were being stored in and the maps of where the so called WMD's were, then that is your fault.

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

I guess it is easier that Obama and his supporters put all of the blame on Hillary.

Yes, it is so much easier to always blame someone else.

I guess you better hope they don't vote.

And that's because Obama's rheotric has no appeal at all to Latin voters, working class families or much of anyone besides unhinged neolibs and racist blacks. If Obama weren't black all he'd have is you neolibs.

Hey, I'm not a neolib, and I'm not unhinged, but thanks for thinking so; if Clintonites are the voice of sanity, yipes! And, for the record, I'm not a "latte liberal," either (don't even drink coffee). Just had to be said, since the talking points keep regurgitating that last one as an attack on pro-Obama folks. I don't buy your talking points, either, Anonymouseketeer, the usual venom spat by your lot.

The Blue Island strategy of the DLC is a defensive ploy that gives them (and not the Democratic Party as a whole) the most leverage, as the most turncoat-inclined of the Democrats who "mediate." It gives them a role as the power brokers between the true-blue Democratic minority and the red tide of the GOP, lets them turn the spigot on the watering-down of the Democratic platform, so they're invested in it, sure. Joe Lieberman is the ultimate DLC-type "Democrat," who took it to its logical conclusion by becoming "Independent" in the worst sort of way -- I'd call him "Independent in Name Only" because of his obvious love for the GOP. The DLC are full of those types, and as long as the blue state/red state narrative dominates discourse, they'll work hard to maintain that fiction, and nothing will get done, while most of the country turns purple (whether from a blending of ideologies and/or from rage will remain to be seen; maybe both, or one will feed the other, compelling change).

It wasn't blue-island Democratic strength that won 2006; it was voter rage at the GOP overreaching. And Democratic underreaching by way of a Clinton campaign is going to further enrage/demoralize/alienate voters. I like the idea of the Democrats playing offense, and moving past their blue islands and winning the White House by moving past the blue islands, and I think that's the only way it's going to happen, and the only way it'll happen is through Obama, who will outflank the GOP, who are historically weak going into 2008.