Sorry, should be wwhat would it take for him to gain your trust?

Clearly, given your support for Sen. Clinton, the bar can’t be that high.

She said it was informed by living on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, by looking at it from a Presidential and historic point of view: When the President comes to the Congress and says he needs and asks for the authority to use force, what should the Congress do?

Exactly what Clinton did: Trust in the history of the Presidency, and give him the Executive power he requests but subject to checks and balances, which were an integral part of the AUMF. They required 60-day updates, and a review of the decision, they required regular oversight and control from the Legislative Branch.

Clinton could not know that after October 2002, Daschle would be out and the Senate and COngress in the vile, partisan, irresponsivbly criminal hands of Frist and Tom DeLay, and all the safeguards built into the AUMF would become nothing more than paper for Bush & Co. to wipe their asses.

She had a valid position, from a responsible US Senator’s point of view, at that point of crisis in time.

Barack had the luxury of being a local bit player at the time, with a total constituency of his local Illinois district of what, 100,000 people?

Senator Clinton had to look at precedents set, the Constitution, the impact on future history, and representing the wishes of a state of 20 million people, a majority of whom wanted action in Iraq when she made her decision.

I disagreed with her then; but then again I understand and respect the fact that neither me nor Barack nor Ollie were in the hot seat at the time.

This, of course, is central to my point.

I’m curious, merl. What would you have him do? What, exactly, would you have him do to show his opposition to the war?

And is there something Hillary or McCain have done that you can point to as an example?

What it came down to was this: I want Clinton to lose because I want the Democrats who supported the Iraq nightmare to lose.

It’s not just that they supported a disaster, that they acted without morals or principles, and that they displayed political cowardice. It’s also that they made Bush more popular. They enabled a cornucopia of right-wing policies that will take the rest of my life to reverse and correct.

What can I say about Clinton but that she failed, and failed and failed. And in keeping this campaign going despite the fact that the only way she can win is by mutual destruction she is failing again.

Is she all bad? No. But to support her I have to ignore Iraq and look at all those other things Clinton stands for or represents. What are they?

With respect to progressive policies, Obama will do as good or better. He will not have to carry all the baggage that Clinton brings with her.

Yeah, I don’t get that either. I’m no political expert, but I’m no neophyte either. I am under no delusion that Obama will say what he has to to get his points across. But I honestly feel he has been the most conscientious and forthright candidate, nay politician, I have seen in…I don’t even know how long. He isn’t willing to bend his views about things he feels passionate about, but he is willing to listen thoughtfully and respectfully to opposing views and weigh them against his own.

This is simply untrue. It is patently false. It is a lie. At the time Sen. Obama was running for his seat and criticizing the war before it even began,…
Agreed.

Page 293-294 of The Audacity of Hope

And on October 11, 2002, twenty-eight of the Senates’ fifty Democrats joined all but one Republican [my guy, Lincoln Chafee] in handing to Bush the power he wanted.
I was disappointed by that vote, although sympathetic to the pressures Democrats were under. By the fall of 2002, I had already decided to run for the US Senate and knew that possible war with Iraq would loom large in any campaign. When a group of Chicago activists asked if I would speak at a large antiwar rally planned for October, a number of my friends warned me against taking so public a position on such a volatile issue.
[...]
And so I made the speech. To the two thousand people gathered in Chicago’s Federal Plaza, I explained that unlike some of the people in the crowd, I didn’t oppose all wars–that my grandfather had signed up for the war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed and fought with Patton’s army. I also said that “after witnessing the carnage and destruction , the dust and the tears, I supported the Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance” and would “willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.”

So it was a decision he had to make; in light of increasing popularity to go to war, he decided to run for the US Senate in opposition to “a rash, dumb war.”

merl… I don’t know how you can read Oliver’s post and say something as inane as that. You’re parroting back Clinton talking points that are just… well… stupid. If Obama were in the Senate at the time when Congress voted on the war, there’s little doubt he would have voted against it (despite the blowing of the political winds at the time). As it is, he wasn’t. What else would you have liked him to do besides from strong vocal opposition? He’s never been anything but 100% clear on his stance on the Iraq war. Clinton, on the other hand, keeps lying in comparisons between her and Obama with respect to the war. And it’s Obama that you don’t trust. What the fuck kind of loony nonsense is that?

Oh, and why don’t you trust Obama’s supporters, pray tell? I’d love to hear why the lot of us are untrustworthy. I’m sure that you have a great reason for your opinion.

Christ, would you please think critically for two seconds before posting comments, so that you can avoid sounding like a complete idiot? Thanks in advance.