As a Hillary supporter, and for the record

[Springslips]

50. That argument does not hold water, never did.

The democrats including Clinton voted for the war simply because they are week and cynical. They did not want to see an easy Bush victory causing a surge of patriotism while having a no vote on the record to use against them in elections. They figured that if it went wrong that the Bush gang would be to blame. To them the political selfish decision was simple. A yes vote played it save. This is the mark against Clinton, and it is a convincing criticism; she has no real position on issues except for what will advance her goals.

The AUMF argument is absurd to buy into. It is a weasely agrument for the pro-war dems to make. It only works when one swallows a whole bottle of cognitive dissonance. It is obviously fense sitting of the most ridiculous kind: war turns popular they can say they voted for it; war turns badly they can say the only authorized war under certain conditions promised by the admin. It like handing the keys to a drunk that promises not to drive; if you don't want him/ her to drive, don't hand over the keys!

The argument really blows up when dems say they want an office to oppose republican agendas. "Vote for me and I'll fight them." Good. But then I see they went along with repubs on the AUMF based on a promise. What? How can I be confident that they'll fight the GOP when all the GOP has to do is to make a promise to get them on their side? It can be framed, if you accept the AUMF argument, that they are way too nieve to be an effective opposition. I mean like Nigerian lottery nieve.

These are questions I have that Clinton will need to answer more clearly before she can win my vote. It will be a hard thing, because I have lots of questions regarding that particular war and the votes that went along with it.