One of the things I like about Hillary Clinton is that when the time came to do the right thing in Iraq, she did it. She voted for the war, ignorning the nutbars in her party and instead following the desires of over 70% of the country who were demanding something be done.

What went down afterward notwithstanding, it took a great deal of courage for all the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war to do what they did. Oh sure it was the popular opinion, but they followed it at great risk to their political career. While people like Bonior and McDermott were coddling Saddam Hussein and riling up the anti-war left, some Democrats had the spine to do what needed to be done (81 in the House and 29 in the Senate) based on the information we had at the time.

Some have looked back on that decision and tried to spin it. Knowing what we know now, and how little was found in Iraq (not counting what mysteriously and unaccountably vanished according to UN inspection chief and god-of-the-left Hans Blix), it’s easy to look back and say we shouldn’t have gone, but the one thing that isn’t so easy is admitting you’re wrong without flip-flopping on it.

Barack Obama has based most of his candidacy on the fact that he has been “against” the Iraq war from the beginning, bringing up on numerous occasions that he spoke out against it and would never have voted for it. Many of his supporters have latched onto that as proof that he has some kind of amazing vision and is destined to be President because he’ll make the right choices for America.

I’m not impressed, though.

It takes exactly zero courage to speak out against the war when there are no political consequences for doing so. As much as Barack Obama and his army of mindless supporters trumps up his disagreement with the war, there was not even a potential cost in him doing so. If the Iraq war succeeded or failed, people in Illinois were not voting for Barack Obama based on his position on Iraq.

It really is that simple.

Secondly, when 70% of the country wants something, as a representative for those people, you’re almost obligated to do it. Save for a few exceptions, this country was solidly behind the war in the lead up to it. Voting against it would be a direct contradiction to the will of the people that put you there. Obama would’ve stood directly against the will of the people of this country because of his own personal objections. He didn’t have the benefit of Federal government intelligence (no matter how right or wrong, he didn’t base his judgment on it because he never saw it) and he didn’t base it on briefings by generals and other officials because, again, he wasn’t in the Federal government. Instead, Barack Obama proudly admits that he would’ve stood up against the war, based on nothing but media reports and such, in direct contradiction to the desires of his country.

Is that the guy you want running the country?

You’ll understand if I don’t get all giddy about that.