MUST READ - The war in Iraq was not a blunder or a mistake. It was a crime

[calimary]

31. Actually, I did have a problem with her vote. I supported Barack Obama in 2008

much as I was as big a fan of Hillary's back then as I am now. That vote was the ONLY thing that separated them in my mind, and the ONLY thing that pushed me into the Obama column.

But since then, I have heard her explain why. And I can fully understand, accept, and sympathize with her reasoning - why she trusted dubya on this. She was misled, FOR SURE, on the Iraq War vote. But she gave him the benefit of the doubt based on previous personal experience, and it sounded completely valid to me.

Here's what she explained:
After 9/11, she, as a Senator representing New York (coincidence! That's where 9/11 hit!) went to the White House for funding for the first responders OF 9/11 - that they get the health care and all the assistance they needed, fully-funded, no questions asked.
Guess what happened? dubya was pResident at the time she made her request for that additional funding for the 9/11 responders.
He promised her personally that she'd get that funding.
Guess what happened after that? That same george w. bush, the asshole squatter in Al Gore's White House and future war criminal (whom we all despise for multiple good reasons, myself VERY much included) made good on his promise. She GOT that additional funding that she'd asked for, for this key group of her constituents and fellow New Yorkers. And right away, too, as she recalled.
She then concluded he had passed some sort of test - that if he said something, she could count on it - and in this case almost literally take it to the bank. Frankly, knowing how I personally feel about that bastard, I was surprised to hear this. I'd never heard it before. He kept his promise? He was true to his word and backed it up and delivered on it as he said? SERIOUSLY??? That doesn't sound like the dry-drunk I know. But that's what he did.
Hillary then explained that, based on this template, this experience she'd just had with him, she therefore had no reason NOT to believe him on other things. After all, he sure came through for her on this matter. Surprising, I know.
So when he presented his case for the Iraq War vote, she took him at his word, and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

She, and the rest of us, couldn't foresee that he would use that vote in bad faith, to go ahead with his already pre-decided plans to go straight to war.

All she had was first-hand experience where she asked for something and trusted him, and he came through for her.

Under THOSE circumstances, I would have to give HER the benefit of the doubt. She trusted him based on direct past personal experience of him having proven to be worthy of that trust. How could she know he'd do an about-face and pull a fast one - on her and on everyone else? WE certainly didn't trust him but then again, don't forget, WE'RE partisans. We're wired not to trust him. She had to work with him and he'd passed the test with her.

So, my friend, I have to accept that. I STILL disagree with her vote. I HAD, in the past, felt that she should have known enough not to trust him, and vote against it. But I have since learned that she DID know - enough, anyway, to give him the benefit of the doubt after that. I'm sure when it all started to shake out, she probably felt betrayed - that this wasn't the same seemingly sympathetic and even-handed dude she'd asked for - AND QUICKLY RECEIVED - funding assistance for her state's 9/11 first responders.

Knowing that context, if I were her, I might actually have done something similar.

I feel differently about her Iraq War vote now, having learned the context in which she decided to vote the way she did, and to trust that he'd do the right thing, considering those details of her direct experience with him, surrounding and leading up to it. When I learned what went into it, and WHY she voted the way she did, I changed my mind about it.