If Hillary had OPPOSED the Iraq War ,

[bvar22]

...she would be President Clinton today!

Just some fodder for thought on the eve of Obama taking ownership of the WAR in Afghanistan, AND any Democrats who support his escalation.

Granted, this is speculation,
BUT it IS supported by many discussions on DU during the Primaries.
The two biggest reasons on DU for choosing Obama over Hillary:

1) He "said" he opposed dumb wars.

2) He "said" he opposed Health Insurance Mandates.

Other than those two issues, their position on "The Issues" was virtually identical.

[berni_mccoy]

1. Fail. Obama has always supported the War in Afghanistan and promised to increase troops

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7123044

[Jackpine Radical]

5. The OP was talking about Iraq.

Obama didn't say he classified Afghanistan as "dumb" war (even though it is).

[berni_mccoy]

7. The OP is actually talking about Obama.

And I agree with you on the differentiation of classification. Obama doesn't see Afghanistan as a "dumb" war.

[bvar22]

18. The OP was talking about negative political consequences....

...for supporting the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan.

[chimpymustgo]

22. And Obama would have voted FOR the war, had he been in the Senate at the time.

He's never made a vote that wasn't politically expedient. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards all made the vote they thought they had to make. And Obama has shown us time and time again, he would have done the same - or ducked the vote.

[bvar22]

6. That really does NOT address the OP.

*

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Hillary wouldn't have done any better in Afghanistan.

Actually, she probably would have "obliterated" Iran by now too.

[Neecy]

3. It's entirely possible

I probably would have supported Hillary during the primary season, but I couldn't get past her IWR vote. It was the deal-breaker.

[marmar]

4. True.....To use a car analogy (I am from the Motor City), Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are....

..... same make, different models.

And sadly, I think that would hold true for most of the Dems who had a legitimate shot at becoming president.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. The media and their owners impose pretty tight constraints

on the political range permitted in "serious" candidates. That's why a Kooch Primary victory was never anything more than a squelched fantasy. It's not just that they don't want a Kooch as President; they don't want his crazy, anticorporate message to get any airtime in a way that would cause people to even think about it.

[Robb]

8. Only if Hillary was running

...for President of DU.

[bvar22]

12. Possibly,

...and I admit I exist in the bubble of high information voters, but many people were energized in 2008, and even the Media was highlighting the two major differences between Hillary and Obama.

MOST of the people I talked to who chose Obama attributed their decision to these two issues.

[question everything]

21. You, certainly, were quite vocal in the way you mocked Hillary and her

supporters on DU.

I don't suppose you will be offering any apologies any time soon, though.

Still, as I posted downstream, I don't have any problem with Obama, though he was not my choice until Hillary finally dropped out.

[bvar22]

24. "quite vocal in the way you mocked Hillary"

You will have to post links to support your baseless accusation.

My problems with Hillary were issues related and her tight connection with the DLC.
I was a "fan" of none of the "personalities".
My support went from the most progressive on the issues to the lesser of two conservative Democratic evils (Hillary vs Obama), and final support for Obama was decided on the two issues highlighted above.

1) He "said" he opposed the Iraq War.

2)He "said" he opposed mandates.

The point of THIS post was NOT to criticize Hillary.
It WAS to illustrate that there WILL be political consequences for Obama and those Democrats who support escalating this useless WAR.

[mike_c]

9. I think she would, too-- her support for the wars was the main impediment...

...for many of us on the left. It was the single most important reason that I did not support her candidacy. Setting aside the question of whether another Clinton presidency would be good for the country-- I might have been reluctant to support her for that reason if she had opposed the wars-- I'm pretty certain that her candidacy would have been enhanced by outspoken opposition to the wars. For that matter, so would Obama's, because he would have been forced to the left by her opposition unless he wanted to brand himself as the "hawkish alternative."

[ShortnFiery]

11. Who cares?

And speaking about Clintons and WAR, why isn't Chelsea shagging her ass over to Afghanistan with the MPs? These ruling elites wouldn't be near as WARMONGERING if it was their children sent to kill and die for geopolitics. :grr:

[bvar22]

13. Who cares?

I believe that the decision to escalate the War in Afghanistan will have strong negative political consequences for those who support it.

[Forkboy]

14. But she wasn't. She was even more of a hawk than Obama was.

I have no doubt that she'd be doing the exact same thing, and probably more enthusiastically.

[bvar22]

15. The OP was "speculation".

But I don't disagree with your statement.
We would be in the same boat now.
The DLC Wing of the Democratic Party is firmly in control.

Election 2008 was a crushing defeat of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.


The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[Javaman]

16. shoulda woulda coulda. she lost.

get over it.

moving along now.

[bvar22]

17. I think you missed the point.

This is NOT an attempt to relive the Primaries.

Her support for an unnecessary war cost her The Presidency.
I believe that supporting this "escalation" will have negative political consequences for Obama and those "Democrats" who support it.

[Javaman]

19. So what, are trying to portray it as Obama had changed his tune?

Or that he had no tune to change?

The difference between Obama and Clinton is finesse.

He has never once said he would get out of Afghanistan.

An also he never once said anything about escalating the war. Just because someone doesn't say anything about it, doesn't mean they won't.

It appears to me that Obama lives by the very simple proverb, "better to be thought the fool than to speak and have it confirmed".

Yes, he is foolish for escalating the war. But who is the bigger fool? Him for keeping mum or us for not asking the right questions?

And to state that the only reason Hillary wasn't the nominee because she supported the war, is revisionist history.

bottom line, she lost, he won.

Moving along.

[question everything]

20. I recently watched the HBO documentary about the campaign

It almost did not matter what Obama said or his stand on the issues. He was a force of nature that no one could stop.

He was - still is - young, charismatic, articulate and brought an opportunity to elect an African American who was not Jesse Jackson or Sharpton. He was not another middle age white man who has been around.

Once he electrified the young, bright eyeed people in Iowa there was not stopping him without appearing racist. At the end, it was up to the Super delegates and no one was going to go on record as standing in the way of a historic vote. At least, his election would have been more historic than Hillary.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against him as a President. He certainly is preferable to any Republican, in contrast of many DUers imply. I pretty much agree with everything that he has done so far - given the conditions that he has. But during the campaign, he was a force of nature that to oppose him would have been a political suicide.

[Lilith Velkor]

25. Yeah, Hillary would have been just like all those other female Presidents we had.

"More historic."

[question everything]

26. White, older, established

She could not rally the young people that Obama did.

I supported Hillary to the end but while many were enthusiastic about her for her gender, as many were about obama for his race, many others reacted with their brain, liking her ideas and her background and track record while Obama had "a speech."

[question everything]

27. White, older, established

While many supported Hillary for her gender - as many supported Obama for his race - many, myself included, used our brains. We liked her policy, we admired her background and her track record. Yet, young people were more enthused about Obama. They saw him as something new.

She had the policy and he had "a speech."

And as we have seen with... Bill Clinton, voters have to really like the candidate. It has to be visceral while with Hillary it was more logical.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Health Insurance Mandates... I had vowed never to vote for Hillary again

after her vote for the IWR (in fact did not vote for her for Senator again) but would have voted for her if Obama did say he wanted health insurance mandates. His vote for FISA and confirming Rice as SOS really pissed me off. His stance on Afghanistan pissed me off too. So it was the mandates that were the deciding factor for me.