Hillary will get the Democratic nomination but lose the general election to a Republican.

Jonathan,

I don't understand why this apology is necessary. If you felt that you had made a regrettable professional decision but that the decision was overwhelmingly influenced by the deceptions and scheming of a colleague, would you really think it necessary to say 'I'm sorry'. I know that I would be honest enough on self-study to admit that the decision was mistaken but if I felt that the decision seemed solid at the time based on the info at my disposal, I would not apologize. So what do you do with her apology - smirk at her in self-satisfaction? I would understand if she weren't stating that the decision was faulty. But in my book an apology would be far more important to me if I felt that she had deliberately set out to cause harm or had acted with reckless abandon. I don't think either is the case. So, please, please please tell me what the apology means to you.

Paul,

I think the apology is not what is required. I think we need to hear her say what others have said: "I was wrong", just because she was. In the build-up to the war in Iraq, my husband and I, although strongly liberal, thought it was right to go after Saddan for the WMD. My mother-in-law, however, said from the beginning that it was a bunch of lies from the Bush administration. If my elder mother-in-law could see it, why couldn't Hillary see it? She could, but she chose not to (and I will not attempt to explain her reasons). But she was wrong in that decision and she should acknowledge that now, if she wants the kind of vote that is not merely a dems vote for the primaries. I agree with Ames: if she doesn't change her blabla, she will win the primaries and lose to the republican candidate. I don't know which would be worse, honestly.

Paul --

I'm coming from two places. The first is one that Marcela references. I knew the justifications for war were bunk by mid-2002: the Bush Administration had no credibility because of past behavior, the U.N. and international agencies dealing with WMD had doubts on the necessity of war, there were questions about the veracity and legitimacy of some intelligence claims buried deep within the media; the idea of war as imperative *right then* even though it hadn't been on anyone's radar a year ago; the insistence with which key players in the Bush Administration had been pushing for war with Iraq for years; the strategic use of fear and terror warnings; the struggles of the economy and domestic policy that he Bush Administration needed to distract everyone from -- it all amounted to my eyes to be a clear case of a war created out of thin air for ulterior motives and then justified through an abuse of the intelligence community and pushed on the public through an aggressive and premeditated public relations campaign. (Never did I think I would be so right, by the way.) Some Senators and Congressmen believed the way I did and voted against the authorization for war. Hillary didn't, and while I realize that the Bush Administration was the party that (1) lied its way to war, (2) bungled the execution, and (3) failed to acknowledge its own failures until much too late, I still believe that some very small portion of the blame belongs to each lawmaker who voted for war.

I'm not asking Hillary Clinton to apologize for Iraq. I'm asking her to apologize for 1/5000th of Iraq, and I think these voters on the campaign trail are doing the same.

The second place I'm coming from is that of a political observer: I want Hillary Clinton to apologize so we can all get past her position on the war and see what else she has to offer as a candidate. I think she owes it to herself and to her candidacy to swallow her pride and move on.

Senator Clinton was for the war. She only regrets that it went badly. She rightly blames the Commander in Chief, bozo the clown, for the mismanagement. She could have voted against the war like some Democrats(and a few Republicans) but she didn't because she really liked to go to war. She believes that America should rearrange a few countries in the middle east for the benefit of some of your New York contributors.

Some Democrats(too few Republicans) believed that war without the EU and the UN buying in was inappropriate even assuming the information the Administration presented was true. Senator Clinton was not amongst these Democrats. Do we really want somebody like this as President? Vote for Nader.

"Sorry"...Yeah right. Sorry does not cut it. Sorry does not make the grade. Over 3000 dead soldiers and counting. Hillary Clinton, like most of Congress voted for the War in Iraq. They knew the war was an act of lunacy no matter how they try to rationalize their lack of integrity & moral courage.

Clinton, like many reps in Congress, made a conscious decision to say "yes" to the war. Why? I wonder why?

Just last week she said that anything/everything should be on the table on IRAN. That means she has learnt nothing, nada, zilch. That means she would send American soldiers to die yet again.

Say anything for campaign money. Special interest campaign money. Sad epitaph to a Constitution?

Money is a barrier to entry in business as it is in politics - evidence of a monopoly. That is how the American business elites keep out the rift raft...the common man or woman. American politics is a monopoly. Monopoly love making guaranteed cash flows and lots of profits.

The American religion: greenback, buck, Demand note, dead presidents.

Overheard in the halls of Washington capital building:
The best things in life are free
But you can keep them for the birds and bees
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

How could someone like Hillary not strongly suspect that the intelligence was flawed, and not know that the folks who were driving this agenda had come in to office in 2001 hoping to depose Saddam? A lot of people like me knew it and we had no special information or access to people in the intelligence community, as Jonathan Stein points out in his response to Paul Miller's post.
For Ms. Clinton to support the war looks like political calculus that it would be too difficult to go out and make the case against it. If she really believed what these people were saying, she is so terrifically naive she doesn't deserve to be president. That she never believed but thought she needed to look tough on national defense I find even more disturbing. Neither one leads me to believe she should be the candidate representing progressive values in 2008. I don't care about an apology, I'm looking for evidence of sound judgement supported by a clear thought process.

Jonathan -

Your points are certainly solid. I've slept on it and had another perspective. I have always disliked that W would not admit fault in the war, so I guess I can't obsolve Hillary Clinton of the same affront.
I was absolutely against the war from the beginning and remember thinking: this is bull roar. So Marcella Wagner's point is another valid reminder that Clinton's judgment was poor.
I wonder if having so much victive aimed at her through her long political career [as First Lady and since then] has caused Hillary to develop a self-protective mechanism. She probably is afraid to admit fault for fear that this will be the chink in her armor, but this is wrong because we don't need a knight for president, we need a [relatively] honest human being.
I think the love-hate spin with her is so tiresome. The media along with her own demeanor have made it easy not to see her as human - warm, strong and fragile. So, Jonathan, in that an apology would be a} the best ethical decision and b} a nice, cosy touch, I concede your point. Now you'll be able to sleep, I'm sure. ;-}

Sorry - I've been double posting for days because the new computer creates this hesitation and I think it didn't go through so I click again. Sorry, sorry.

Get a grip. This woman is not real.

there are candidates for president who were not stupid enough to have the wool pulled over their eyes by George Bush

there are candidates for president who don't need the excuse that Bush fooled them, as they were clear-sighted enough to side with the 'no' voters when it really mattered

seek these candidates out

support one of them

because anyone stupid enough to be fooled by George Bush, or to use such a claim in defense of such a stupendously bad vote, is at worst, too stupid to be president, or at best, too poor a judge of information and sources to be trusted in any position of power whatever

Yes, Hillary Clinton has blood on her hands. But I don't think she did it for the reasons people think. She didn't do it for Washington. She did it for New York and the majority of America. Yes, there were people who protested it all over the place. But, the majority of Americans wanted this. Now that it is done she has made an oath that she will seek peace to the American people. Obama can't win because there are too many people who still justify this ugliness and who are afraid of the middle east. What should we do? Hold her accountable if she comes up against McCain and even more so if she makes it to the White House.