On the matter of disqualifying people for president, are you really comparing Americans’ response to telephone surveys to a vote on the Senate floor? It wasn’t just Hillary’s opinion — she took action to mandate an invasion of a sovereign country without UN approval and without complete inspections. That’s not a the same as a response of “mostly favorable” to a one-sentence question about should we invade Iraq.
Besides that, yeah, I do think one vote that was that unbelievably bad should disqualify someone from being president. I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, and I have a very hard time believing Clinton didn’t also know this. The evidence was really solid that there were NO weapons, and the evidence of WMDs was ridiculous. Indeed, I ridiculed it in print at the time. Why shouldn’t she have to have been at least as right as me on a decision that changed the course of the world? How does she get let off the hook on that one? She has never stated that her husband’s policy of starving the Iraqi people to punish Saddam, the disobedient CIA operative, killing hundreds a million civilians in the process. Shouldn’t she have to do that in order to qualify as someone who can implement the same policy toward a country that upsets elite US interests? Wouldn’t you want to hear that the strategy of causing millions to suffer profoundly to achieve a political end is NOT going to be US policy? Shouldn’t a pledge to not target civilians for geopolitical ends be a prerequisite for your support?
As for opinions, do you think someone is qualified to be president if they don’t believe in evolution? Lots of Americans think evolution is bullshit, just like lots thought the Iraq war was a great idea — so should politicians who believe such a fundamental falsehood get a pass? How about if they state that they won’t heed international law (rather than just having a record of not heeding it). Would that do it for you?