Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are being treated with disrespect by the Democratic base. Obama is being given too much lee-way. Clinton is being given too little.
They are both flawed candidates. They are both great candidates.
I do not see how it serves our purpose to use a double standard in our analysis of their record.
For Barack:
He is given the benefit of the doubt that his (wonderful) speech condemning the war would absolutely, positively, without any doubt, have translated into a vociferous nay vote had he been in the Senate.
He is given a pass at what one might consider politically motivated equivocation when he stated he wasn't sure how he would vote because that question was asked the night before his key note address.
He is allowed to justify his votes in support of war funding with the incredibly jingoist notion that he had to support the troops once they were (mistakenly) sent. I find this offensive whenever a Democrat, any Democrat, spouts it. It's admitting that the administration has them hostage. It is abrogating the Congressional mandate. It's foolish (and politically expedient).
Yet for Hillary:
It is assumed that her comments now attempting to give some reason for her vote then are spin. They are pure "Clintonesque" politics. They can't possibly be true, despite the fact that her statements at the time support her contentions that 1) she was given assurances that inspections would be pursued and 2) that she opposed pre-emptive war.
She is condemned for not reading the NIE, and it assumed she is lying when she says she was getting MORE information and more reliable information by sitting across the table from the authors.
Her contention that she had a network of other experts to survey -- people from other countries and previous administrations -- well, that's just spin. Can't be true.
It just feels that anything Barack says is automatically sprinkled with magic sincerity dust, and anything Clinton says is automatically tainted by "I did not have sex with that woman."