There's been some discussion in the news and on the internet about Sen. Clinton's weak performance in this week's debate in Philadelphia. Maybe I've just missed it, but I haven't seen a lot of references to what seems to me the major 'faux paus,' to use a nice term, of the senator's presentation. This came when she was 'explaining' her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill, under cited criticism from other Democrats who contend that the passage of the bill will enable the Bush administration to attack Iran and claim that the Senate had given an OK. Check out the last paragraphs of Clinton's reply in this section from the debate transcrïpt:

"MR. RUSSERT: We're going to get to Social Security in a little bit, but I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton.
As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only member on the stage here who did that. Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war.

Why did you vote for that amendment, which would -- calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?

"SEN. CLINTON: Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage and one of the very first in the Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February and say George Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran.

Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So some may want a false choice between rushing to war -- which is the way the Republicans sound; it's not even a question of whether, it's a question of when and what weapons to use -- and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy, and I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We use them with respect to North Korea. We use them with respect to Libya. And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is not anything other than an expression of support for using economic sanctions with respect to diplomacy.

You know, several people who were adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, like Senator Durbin, voted the same way I did and said at the time that if he thought there was even the pretense that could be used from the language in that non-binding resolution to give George Bush any support to go to war, he wouldn't have voted for it. Neither would I.
So we can argue about what is a non-binding sense of the Senate, and I think that we are missing the point, which is we've got to do everything we can to prevent George Bush and the Republicans from doing something on their own to take offensive military action against Iran. I'm prepared to pass legislation that -- with my colleagues who are here in the Congress, to try to get some Republicans to join us, to make it abundantly clear that sanctions and diplomacy are the way to go; we reject and do not believe George Bush has any authority to do anything else."

Uh oh, I don't think she QUITE intended to segue from 'Kyl-Lieberman is not a warrant for military action' to 'and I didn't think the IWR was a warrant for military action either!' You're not supposed to float your alibi until AFTER you've (supposedly) been snookered, Senator. How about voting against the resolution in the first place, if you think it's likely to be used by the Bush administration to enable an attack? Wouldn't that be an essential and obvious part of doing "everything we can to prevent George Bush and the Republicans from doing something on their own to take offensive military action against Iran"?

As for a new resolution to (supposedly) qualify the first one, let me guess what the line will be: 'Oh, gosh, we just couldn't get enough votes this time! Darn those Republicans, it's all THEIR fault!'