For a long time there has been in circulation a theory that Republican political leaders favor Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race because of her negatives. Now there’s a theory that Bush actually prefers Clinton among the Democrats because she would be the most likely Democrat to do what he would do in Iraq and the Middle East. I still haven’t decided on a candidate, but, for the primary phase, I’ve ruled one out due to her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

And as far as I know she is the only Democratic candidate to explicitly put nukes on the table.

Oh yes - and then there is her record on Bush’s Iraq adventure, which only became truly and actively negative AFTER it became clear that she needed to be negative on it for her campaign.

A Hill veteran sends along the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran (.pdf), saying it may come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. “In particular, take a look at Section (5) in the Operative portion.” He adds, “This will be a hard amendment for Members to oppose … because a no vote can be spun as ‘You don’t care about Iranian munitions killing American troops.’”

Tuesday Update: “Votes got postponed until tomorrow morning, but Kyl-Lieberman is on tap for tomorrow. Schumer allegedly working on a side by side. Levin will likely vote yes, while … Reid is likely to vote no.”

At a press conference this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the hawkish amendment on Iran being offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is now being revised prior to a Senate vote on the matter:

REID: There are efforts being made before we vote on them to modify those two amendments, because people have issues with both of those amendments. So, until we finalize what they really want to do, I think it would be unwise for me to say that I support Kyl-Lieberman, or don’t support it. I think I have to wait until I see what they are finally going to come up with, because some people have some real substantive problems with what’s in that Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

You know Susan, my theory about the fall of the USSR had more to do with Jeans, Coca cola and rock & roll than anything Ronnie did..
I think the young people of Iran want the same things as our kids do.
Now there is the internet..let’s let nature take its course…We go start a war with iran, all bets are off…

Btw, by framing the Lieberman/Kyle amendment as a vote against a “terrorist organization,” it is difficult to senators to vote nay.

I’m still wondering what became of Jim Webb’s Senate bill to force Bush to get Congressional approval before any military action against Iran. He tried, but his bill got sidelined.

Politically, it appears that all the candidates are viewing any statements about Iran as very precarious. Last night, PBS Newshour featured an in-depth interview with Bill Richardson, who is terrific on diplomacy and all for talking to our enemies. He said he’d have no problem, as president, talking directly to the leaders of Iran, No. Korea, Venezuela, etc.

But then, when asked about Ahmadinajad in NYC, he said it was right to deny A. the visit to Ground Zero because it would upset the families of those who died on 9/11, and that it was unwise of Columbia U. to invite A. to speak. WTF? So it’s political dynamite to say otherwise? Huge sigh.