Is it possible for her to do that, by definition, when her co-President pushed for NAFTA? Granted she's farther left than he is and would never likely have done the same thing if she were in the arrogant state she was prior to the 1994 elections.

She, as former co-President, would be hypocritical if she now tried to damage NAFTA, or, for example, tried to repeal post-1994 welfare reform, or replace “government-business partnerships” (saving money and gaining efficiency by subcontracting some of what Washington currently does in the public sector) to appeal to the giant government employee union membership. However, none of this (accompanied perhaps by a sign with “THIRD WAY” overlaid by a red circle and slash) would be anything of a surprise. But any retrogression on NAFTA or any other earlier-Clinton-era steps taken would be hypocritical.

He had had one in the past. He also had been developing, and had used, WMDs.

The rabid anti-war people are anti-US-success, made especially foamy-mouthed out of deranged hatred for Bush that they've had since the 2000 election. There is no glory, much less any honor, in fringist cause-celebre causes like this. Iraq is not another Vietnam, and so much of the opposition to the Vietnam war was also opposition to the USA and action in favor of and on behalf of its adversaries. Just as we have at times seen now with Iraq. [scowl]

As for Clinton vs. Obama, “Hill Shillers” is already old and past its time and Obama is hardly innovative on foreign policy if he is relying on Carterist and Carter-era R E T R E A D Brzenziski. Would he bring back Madeleine Albright to State, too? A “Guaranteed Framework” (promptly to be cheated upon) with Iran? etc.

Actually, Saddam really wanted Iran to think that. That was the whole reason we propped him up there in Iraq in the first place: to act as a counterweight to the increasing regional power of Iran.

2004 Chicago Tribune article, Sen. Barack Obama “said there wasn't much difference between his position and George Bush's position on the [Iraq] war.”

Nonetheless, even though the campaigns are spending time on this, the Dem primary polls don't suggest the general electorate is anywhere near as fired up about Iraq as TMV commenters might be.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll, finished a couple of weeks ago, asked Ohio Democrats to name the most important issue in their choice of a presidential candidate. Thirty-four percent said the economy and jobs. Thirty percent said health care. Nine percent said the war in Iraq, by which they most certainly meant a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops. Three percent said ethics and honesty in government. Three percent said “change.” Two percent said education. And one percent said terrorism and national security. (The Post and ABC asked the same question in Texas, and the answers were similar; one percent named terrorism and national security as the top issue.)

I could provide a link to NRO for you but I know you don't want it to appear in your browser history.

“There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much.

I'd need a cite to that claim because it contradicts all I've read. When did Obama claim he would have voted to give Bush authorization?

And finally this.

The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign

So should we just assume that Obama misrepresents and panders while campaigning? Or that both he and Senator Clinton are currently misrepresenting and pandering during a campaign and therefore, nothing either says can be believed?

Almost everyone in Washington thought Saddam had a nuke program…because Saddam wanted everyone to think that. Whether or not you believe Bush Co. lied to Congress etc is beside the point on this question. Clinton was going with the best available knowledge.

Obama has made a remarkable number of foreign policy missteps in a short span…NAFTA, NATO etc. Clinton is clearly stick-handling the NAFTA puck deftly, in contrast to Obama's heavy-handed lumbering.

I am writing from Toronto at the moment, and in Canadian business press no one is worried about Clinton re. NAFTA. However, there is much anxiety about Obama – and surprising unity of both the Liberal and Conservative Party wanting him to cool the rhetoric.

BTW I think Obama has no excuse about the NATO thing and Clinton should rightly hammer him on it. Also, Obama's speech against the war (just like Sen. Webb's and Al Gore's) was hardly populist anti-war rhetoric. It had specific reasons for being against it that I don't associate with knee jerk Liberal (he meant peacenik) arguments.

Here is the one he sponsored

Here is the Kyl-Lieberman amendment

Specifically, the Counter-Proliferation Act states “States that nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran.”

By contrast, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment says:
” (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies”

The 4) worries me because it does not seem to have an appropriate scope (OK, I have to admit, really Obama should be all over getting the AUMF authorized after 9/11 to be revoked. That is a monstrosity.) Moreover, Wilson leaves out that the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was scheduled on very quick notice and that Obama tried but couldn't get back in time and immediately released a statement against it (Clinton has done the same thing at times and gotten unfair criticism too). Also, a letter to the President after the fact has absolutely no legal meaning. Why didn't she try to get a specific resolution passed that limited the scope? In fact Obama stated that the reason why he didn't sign the letter was because he was working with Sen. Feingold to introduce such a resolution.

As far as Joseph Wilson's other points about Senator Obama “too busy running for President”, how has Senators Clinton and McCain handled their senate duties? This is why I have disdain for our current election process. It's too long and causes an already elected official that's running for POTUS to lose focus on their other duties. Just think if all three Senators were in their elected offices full-time. Campaign speeches, town halls, and debates would be limited. And a candidate that wasn't tied to an office would have an unfair advantage.