Would Senator Clinton be President if she opposed the Iraqi invasion

I am inclined to think that oppoing that war was totally crucial in Senator Obama getting the nomination.

What do others feel?

Would she have done better than Obama?

Would OBAMA be her VP?

Would the Republicans hate her even more?
 
I am inclined to think that oppoing that war was totally crucial in Senator Obama getting the nomination.

What do others feel?

"Would she have done better than Obama?"

I suspect so, but I'm only 60 % sure on that. Clinton was the overwhelming favourite in 2006/7 from what I remember, by which time the war had become unpopular. It might have made little difference for that reason.

"Would OBAMA be her VP?"

I suspect not, especially if Obama still enters the race and causes Clinton sleepless nights. However I could be wrong if the primaries are radically different in some way-say Obama fizzling early, or a close fight leading to a divided partty.

"Would the Republicans hate her even more?
"

Yes. I think she might be able to get more passed than Obama in OTL though, because of her longer time in the Senate, along with her 8 years as first lady.
 
It was almost unpatriotic to not support the Iraq war. Being a good politician, she'd have to be privy to pretty good evidence that Iraq would indeed experience its post-war chaos, and make valiant speeches in the Senate.

That way come 2007/8, she can post these speeches on YouTube and proclaim what foresight and foreign policy knowledge she had.
 
Didn't her husband make a big thing that Bush "should have let the inspectors finish the job"? Might Hillary have gotten some more cred from war opponents if he pushed this line hard?
 
Didn't her husband make a big thing that Bush "should have let the inspectors finish the job"? Might Hillary have gotten some more cred from war opponents if he pushed this line hard?
More like this:
You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over.
And, lest we forget, he was the guy in the White House when Hussein Kamil defected and told the world the WMD were destroyed. His response? Increased sanctions- and then bombing, just in time to delay impeachment.
Had Congress any spine and sense of honesty (plus someone who remembered or had internet access to CNN), Gore would have taken over in the Winter of '98 (Or, possibly Thurmond, since Gore approved too) and the forces in Iraq would be headed home, and sanctions would end. As a result- no 9/11.
 
THURMOND?!?!

Good God man, I don't need any nightmare fuel like that!

Besides if that did happen, the Speaker would come after Gore if he was somehow removed from office. And the whole impeachment? It was a load of bull and a big waste of time and money.

Yes, he should have manned up told the truth instead of using a flimsy legal defense (Personally I think oral does count as "sex" but handjobs don't). The whole thing might have blown over if he apologized, but as we saw during the 20th century a lot of the Presidents (including Nixon and Reagan) never felt the need to apologize.

Still the whole thing amounted to something between a witch hunt and the whining and tantrums of a bunch of overgrown brats.

But, I do agree with you on Desert Fox. From what I've read Iraq's capability to make nukes was gone long before the op, but they still had plenty of chemical weapons to play around with.

EDIT: Saddam DID NOT have a hand in 9/11. There was never any evidence supporting this "theory". Bin Laden was going to attack anyway, withdrawing forces from the Persian Gulf would have made no difference
 
Last edited:
Would Hillary Clinton be President if she voted against the Iraq War resolution?: Maybe.

It's easy to see issues as the driving force behind Presidential elections. In that case, the Iraq War issue can be seen as a decisive advantage for Barack Obama in 2008. But that's much too simplistic. I subscribe to the line of thought that presidents are elected because they set up well organized campaigns. The Clinton campaign's "Hillarycentric" leadership style along with over-centralization in Mark Penn bear far more responsibility for her defeat than her vote on Iraq. Had Clinton run a better campaign than she would have won, Iraq or not. The Obama campaign outplayed her, and she shot herself in the foot. The War in Iraq was merely Obama's "foot in the door." It gave him a wedge issue to use against Clinton. But it did not win him the Democratic Nomination.

P.S.: I believe very firmly that Clinton could have embraced her vote in Iraq and still won the nomination. Had her campaign invested in a ground game in Iowa, targeted young voters, emphasize her life story, and portray her as a strong and effective leader, than she could have easily won the nomination. The Iraq War could have been used as part of a narrative focused on strength and determined leadership. By waffling on the issue, Clinton legitimized Obama's opposition to the war and gave him a "win."
 
Top