Paul Krugman notes the 32-59 split on the question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq was worth it and remarks with satisfaction “the fact that we’re not squandering lives at the same rate we were a year ago (we’re still squandering money as fast as ever) does not seem to have convinced people that the war we were misled into was a good idea.” Hasn’t convinced people, that is, except for hard-core Republicans and Hillary Clinton who Krugman keeps telling us is preferable to Barack Obama and his unsound deviationism. Or is it that Clinton didn’t think invading Iraq was a good idea but despite her 35 years of experience fighting for change didn’t realize the significance of what she was voting on?
I’m quite certain I’d be happier with the foreign policy Hillary Clinton would conduct in office than I’d be with the one John McCain would conduct, but her actual record on this count seems like a pretty sufficient reason to support a viable alternative in the primary. After all, if neither Clinton nor Obama had decided to run in 2008, it’s hard for me to imagine that a lot of people would have been sitting around early in the cycle saying “you know what the party really needs in a nominee? — an Iraq War supporter. Those people look really substantively and politically savvy, and I want to ensure that their hawkish gamble pays off to encourage future legislators to act just like them.”