I invite Salon to go back and re-examine Clinton's position on the war. It seems to me that she supported the war early on and continued to support it for quite some time before she adopted her current position. Did she change her position as a result of the November elections, or did she change earlier? If she wants our support, she should provide a full accounting of her record on the war rather than trying to avoid addressing the issue. To win in 2008, Democrats need to be responsibile for their actions.

How's this for an explanation:

"I had my reservations regarding the resolution at the time, but sometimes my responsibilities as a representative include honoring the overwhelming opinion of my constituents. Not only was there overwhelming support for the war across the country, but in my state of New York in particular. In this instance, I chose to put my reservations aside, and abide by the wishes of my constituents."

Sure, it's a cop out and and I don't agree with it, but it's probably the best spin one could put on things. My personal preference would be an all-out mea culpa, but even if she did that now, it might be too late. However, if she's for real as a candidate, she should be able to absorb the fallout from such an apology.

To err is human, we all made mistakes. It takes courage to admit them. It also takes courage to fulfill the tasks of the presidency. It seems that having courage to admit your errors is a prerequisite to deserve the job of President. Coming clean could only help.

Generally, I also find Hilary to be too political in how she positions herself and her answers. But I have some sympathy here: if her vote was based on the intelligence (and if she believed that the intelligence was true and that it justified the war--a big if), then her vote may have been misguided, but it was not technically a mistake.

I know this sounds like so much hair-splitting, but I cringe a little every time Democrats acknowledge the vote as a "mistake." They were misled. Lied to. Why is it not enough to say "I regret that I trusted the intelligence"? Or "I regret voting for the war knowing what I know now"? Why is admitting that the vote was "a mistake" the exact pound of flesh we want from them? It's getting bizarre to see how some are treating the actual word "mistake" as if it's a fetish.

I'm all for someone admitting when he or she is wrong, but whenever a politican--especially a Democrat--says that he or she made a mistake in voting for the war, I worry that the the admission detracts from the gravity of the administration's lies, suggests that there is enough blame to go around, and lessens the pressure the public is finally--finally!--putting on the Bush cabal.

Sure, Hilary could just say she made a mistake, get it over with, and watch her admission disappear into the ether after a few news cycles, rather than have the issue continue to dog her. But just as I resent a leader who won't admit to a true mistake, I would also resent one who does so disingenuously, just to score points.

Admitting you made a mistake when you genuinely believe that you made one is a sign of character. Saying you made one when you don't believe you did is its own subtle form of cowardice. It doesn't say much for your judgment or your courage or your ability to learn the right lessons from the past.

I would support Hillary before any republican. However she should be pushed mercilessly on this issue because she has been evasive and because she is a politician. When 'we the people' can learn to hold the democratic politicians feet to the fire when will then become strong enough to go after the republicans who are far better at manipulating us and staving us off via misinformation and misdirection and worst of all outright lies.

I don't have much hope that the republican conspiracy, yes I said conspiracy(if it looks likea conspiracy and smells like a conspiracy then damn it it is a conspiracy) will ever be fully or even halfway exposed.

The rethugs are able to totally and successfully wqrap themselves in the flag, religion and national security(fear mongering)and smearing everyone who disagrees or questions them in any way. And the MSM has been corrupted into helping them via MSM greed for consolidation and profits.

We must never forget that where the republican party is concerned America and 'we the people' come last or not at all in their equation/agenda for themselves. As Karl Rove said 'we will abolish the democratic party', paraphrased but very close to what he said. Abolishing the democratic party means the end of our two party system which in turn means the end of our 'system of checks and balances' which in turns means the and of democracy in America. And we are already very close to that.

In order to take back our gov't we need to attack the "three Pillars of The Republican Party". They are Big Religion(Catholics, my religion but not me and white evangelical Fundamentalists)Big Neocons and Big Corporatocracy.

Any issue endorsed by these three pillars/groups should be highly suspect and considered doubtful; unless they can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that their point of view is correct. And even then endless suspicion by us should be a hallmark of our thinking.

Republicans are radical right wing FUNDAMENTALISTS and we must burn that concept and everything it means into our collective memories.

There are two reasons why this excuse should disqualify a candidate:

1) I knew at the time that the reasons for war were a lie, and I am no intelligence insider. Press reports of experts from around the world indicated that the threats being presented were bullshit at the time. It is a flat out lie that "everybody thought there were WMD in Iraq at the time."

2) Regardless of the evidence on WMD, there was already plenty of evidence that trusting Bush with a blank check for war was akin to trusting Calvin of the comic strip with chain saw. Bush had already shown himself to be a reckless unilateralist with low regard for checks and balances, or democracy for that matter - whether in Iraq or here at home. Whatever problems face a legislator, real or imaginary, it is self-evident that giving George W. Bush a blank check is not a solution.