I still believe she (along with many other Democrats) was misled by a corrupt administration. It would be much more difficult to mislead her if she were in charge. And again, if you've read or heard her speech, you'll see that she didn't intend it to be a vote for preemptive war.
However, she should admit it was a mistake and apologize.
Well, we respectfully agree on your last point. My assessment of her vote, at the time, was that like many Democrats she was hesitant to oppose a successful 'shock and awe' campaign that was popular in the electorate. Thing is it didn't turn out that way. We ran a nominee in 2004 who voted for the AUMF, why would we do that again? The distinction between Obama and McCain on this issue is clear, that between Clinton and McCain less so in spite of her positioning and revisionism since.
My major objection to US foreign policy for a long time has been that it has been subsumed to domestic political calculation, while seemingly inevitable this must cease. We need leaders, not poll-driven micro-trenders. This is the major reason I was attracted to Obama's candidacy and nothing he has done has diminished my loyalty, I think he gets it and is actively asking us to do likewise.
As for Hillary, parse her statements as you like I watched the whole sad imbroglio with great interest as I was vehemently opposed to the war with good reason at the time and she was my junior senator. I was profoundly disappointed in her choice then and her posturing on the subject since has done nothing to increase my respect or confidence in her position. The Kyl/Lieberman vote, for example, demonstrated that she had not learned the lesson of that unfortunate war.
