The headline from last Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the only two candidates remaining after John Edwards ended his campaign earlier this week, are something just shy of BFFs who got together at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood with a few thousand of their closest friends to discuss select topics of the day. Really. At least, that’s what they wanted to convey.

Obama stated in his opening remarks, “I . . . want to note that I was friends with Hillary Clinton before we started this campaign; I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over.”

If I were a cynic I’d say the level of “nice” was saccharin, to say the least. That is, it was synthetically sweet in a joint move to appease the viewing public and promote party unity. Does anyone actually buy that they aren’t trying to kill each other–at least at the polls? The debate took place a mere five days before the cluster of 24 primaries and caucuses known as Super Tuesday and new polls showed that Obama had narrowed the gap behind Clinton to three points in California, the state with the most delegates. If ever there was a time to get testy, this was it. I have two words in case anyone has a short memory: South Carolina.

Although there were no fireworks, Obama did not fail to remind the audience what this primary contest is about. “I don’t think the choice is between black and white or it’s about gender or religion. I don’t think it’s about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future.”

The debate, sponsored by CNN and Politico.com, was moderated by the cable channel’s Wolf Blitzer with questions coming from Blitzer, the Los Angeles Times’ Doyle McManus and Politico‘s Jeanne Cummings. For the debate’s first question, McManus asked Clinton, “What do you consider the most important policy distinction between the two of you?”

Clinton responded, “Well, I want to start by saying that whatever differences there are among us, between us now . . . the differences between Barack and I pale in comparison to the differences that we have with Republicans, and I want to say that first and foremost, because it’s really a stark difference.” This was a recurring theme throughout the night.

However, she said there are differences, including their approach to foreign affairs. “I believe that we’ve got to be realistic and optimistic, but we start with realism in the sense that we do have serious threats, we do have those who are, unfortunately and tragically, plotting against us, posing dangers to us and our friends and our allies.”

In answer to Obama’s repeated assertion that we should talk to people and countries who don’t necessarily like us as opposed to simply shooting at them, Clinton countered, “I think that we’ve got to have a full diplomatic effort, but I don’t think the president should put the prestige of the presidency on the line in the first year to have meetings without preconditions with five of the worst dictators in the world.”

Obama agreed with Clinton’s view that one of their differences was foreign policy; particularly, Iraq.

“I was opposed to Iraq from the start,” he reminded. “And . . . I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely.

He continued, “It is true that I want to elevate diplomacy so that it is part of our arsenal to serve the American people’s interests and to keep us safe. And I have disagreed with Senator Clinton on, for example, meeting with Iran. . . . [T]he national intelligence estimate, the last report suggested that if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior. And we can do so in a way that does not ultimately cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and hurt our reputation around the world.”

The Politico‘s members later voted to ask Clinton a question they felt went to her judgement in voting for the Iraq War. Specifically, they asked about her vote against the Levin amendment–an amendment to the bill authorizing U.S. military action in Iraq introduced by Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin.

To understand the question, it is important that one understand the proposed amendment. In a speech delivered October 4, 2002 on the floor of the Senate, Levin explained what it said:

• It urges the U.N. Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that:
  • Demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be destroyed; and
  • Within the same U.N. resolution, authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states to enforce such resolution in the event Iraq refuses to comply.
• It also specifically authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms, provided the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with such U.N. resolution.
• My resolution affirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action.
• My resolution affirms that Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not adopt the resolution mentioned earlier.
• Finally, my resolution provides that the President report to Congress every 60 days on the status of efforts to have the U.N. Security Council adopt such a resolution and, if such a resolution is adopted, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution.

The point of the amendment was to unite world opinion into one voice against Saddam Hussein and avoid the appearance of the U.S. “going it alone” without giving diplomacy a chance. However, had the Security Council failed to act, Congress could “consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq.” Ultimately, the amendment was defeated 24-75.

In justifying her vote, Clinton made the most controversial statement of the night. “The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don’t think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.

“You know, I’ve said many times if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given President Bush the authority,” Clinton added, almost wistfully. “It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given. He abused that authority; he misused that authority. I warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today.”

Her assertion that the Levin amendment would have subordinated presidential and congressional judgement in favor of that from the U.N. Security Council has been widely disputed in the aftermath of the debate.

“This was not just a vote about Saddam Hussein. It was about the United Nations and international support,” former Congressman Tom Andrews told The Huffington Post. Andrews, who now heads the group Win Without War, explained, “It did not, in any way, impede or impose on the sovereignty of the United States.”

John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World further clarified, “It basically said we should go to the United Nations and get approval as the first George Bush did… Levin was correct and Hillary Clinton is incorrect in what she said last night. It would not have hamstrung the United States. “

Analysis in the Checkpoint column of the February 2, 2008 edition of the New York Times gives the most concise explanation I’ve found so far:

The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”

Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”

“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.

Chaffee recalled that the vote took place only four weeks before midterm elections and that the vote to authorize military action, which took place the same night as the vote on the Levin amendment, was practically a mirror image of the latter–approved 77-23.

Later, Clinton described the atmosphere that permeated her reasoning. “I think that if you look at what was going on at the time — and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

“The idea of putting inspectors back in — that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.

“I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.”

That last statement–that no one could have appreciated how obsessed Bush was with going to war–led CNN’s Blitzer to ask if she was saying that she was naive in trusting the president, leading to a non-answer that attempted to shift the focus to subsequent Senate votes once troops were on the ground.

“The point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then when it came to the Senate, we’ve had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush’s action.

“Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War,” she obfuscated.

Then, in the night’s surest WTF moment, she went on to rationalize, “Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.”

No one asked a follow-up question, however, if one takes Clinton’s words at face value, she was afraid that Hussein would get jealous of bin Laden and pull something horrendous simply to get attention. That logic boggles the mind.

When Obama finally had the opportunity to address Clinton’s rather obtuse reasons for voting to authorize the Iraq War, he reminded the audience, “[T]he authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.” In actuality, the title was “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” but he was close enough.

Clinton will never be able to explain her vote to anyone’s satisfaction. Her only hope in getting out from under this is admitting her mistake, especially since she’s now against the war. As long as she keeps trying to explain her actions with increasingly bizarre rationalizations, she will always be open to criticism from any opponent, regardless of what side that opponent is on. That she voted for the war in the first place and then refused to admit her mistake speaks directly to her judgment as well as to her style of leadership. We currently have a president who steadfastly refuses to admit his errors, simply continuing down the same path whether that path is right or wrong. Some view this inflexibility as strength, however, I submit that an enlightened and mature leader admits mistakes and moves on. Clinton cannot move on because she has yet to admit her mistake even while she says she’s now against the very action she authorized. If that doesn’t speak to her judgment, I don’t know what will.

Perhaps an oft-used line from the Obama campaign is instructive in its insight as he offers, “Senator Clinton, I think, fairly, has claimed that she’s got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I’m making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one.” (Emphasis mine.)

Truer words were never spoken–BFFs be damned.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, campaign ’08, candidates, debate, democratic, hillary clinton, legislation, iraq war