It's The Iraq, Stupid

If it's true, as Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argues here, that there isn't that much substantive difference between Sens. Clinton and Obama on foreign policy, why have so many more grassroots liberals flocked to the latter rather than the familiar Clinton brand?

There are some general reasons, of course. Sen. Clinton represents the party's (recent) past; Obama, its future. After a President Bush, then Clinton, then an even worse Bush, many are reluctant to bookend that with a second Clinton. She's too compromising. Etc.

For me, personally, there was one big deciding factor... Iraq.

Barack Obama is on record as having opposed the invasion from the start. If you watch that linked video, you'll see that, from about 00:28 to 00:43, he correctly predicted back in 2002 the problems that would occur. This is important to me not only because I believe (unlike the media, where antiwar pundits are rare) in rewarding those who got it right over those who got it so deadly wrong, but because of something more important... foresight.

We will face many challenges in the coming years, and I want a leader who has the foresight to think about the consequences of the actions we take. We've seen with President Bush that when a man acts rashly and with emotional appeals (whether it's starting wars based on lies, or the tax cuts and housing bubble he used to cheat his way to a 'good' economy), the results are disastrous. Dennis Miller said in a 2006 standup special that what he hated about John Kerry was that he seemed like a chess player, always thinking several moves ahead. He preferred George Bush because he saw him as a guy who'd just smash his fist at a country we didn't like and worry about the consequences later (or never). We need a chess player.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, voted for the war in 2002 and continued to support it verbally until late 2006 (why, just when she was preparing her presidential run!). Now she is attempting to blur that past. Just this past weekend, she said-

"After 9/11, I would never have taken us to war in Iraq," she said. "I would have stayed focused on Afghanistan because the real threat was coming from there."

Well I agree in the general sense that a Democratic president (say that Al Gore fellow) would've stayed focused on Afghanistan rather than get bored and start a new war to fulfill Dick Cheney's fantasies, Clinton cannot pretend she was a passive observer in this war. She was a U.S. Senator, asked along with all the others to vote on the matter. Unlike 23 of her braver colleagues, she voted in favor of the very thing she now says she would've opposed.

I got into a debate with a Clinton supporter at LJDemocrats yesterday when he said, "Her Iraq vote was good politics. Obama's opposition to the Iraq war, believe it or not, will HURT him in the general election if he becomes the nominee." When called on this-- not only how wrong he is on the politics, but how disgusting it is to play politics with war-- he starts flopping all over the place. There's no good defense, just a lot of excuses. Indicative of how weak the position is.

So, yes, both have somewhat similar withdrawal positions now. But with a matter this important and delicate, I have to trust the man who came to the right conclusion before it became popular to do so.