(My co-blogger and friend,
Susan UnPC, wrote the following. I think it adds to the debate over the best Democrat for president and is worth a look.)
At the Sunday rally in Manchester, NH, Oprah Winfrey stirred the crowd:
“Ain’t you tired of the old way of politics,” Winfrey asked. The crowd responded “Yes.”
Barack Obama recently said:
”We’ve had enough of … triangulation and poll-driven politics,” he said. ”That’s not what we need right now.’
Obama is rising in the polls because he’s expressing FEELINGS that people WANT to hear. People are worn down by the last seven years, and they want to believe what they’re hearing from a hopeful, fresh candidate. The problem is, it’s just talk. Here are some pithy examples of (1) Obama as the triangulator extraordinaire, and (2) Obama as a do-nothing — yes, a do-nothing.
A do-nothing? You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee. That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.”
Shockingly — although his campaign has tried to beef up his thin international experience by citing his chairmanship of the subcommittee on European affairs — according to Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Obama has not held a single hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. It’s little wonder, then, that Sen. Obama’s Senate site doesn’t list his chairmanship.
Then there’s IRAQ, and Obama’s (and Oprah’s) incessant claim– as Oprah told the Des Moines crowd on Saturday, “long before it was the popular thing to do, he stood with clarity and conviction against this war in Iraq.”
In July of `04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of `04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. (”Meet the Press,” 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007)
“What would I have done? I don’t know” … “There’s not much of a difference” between him and George W. Bush … “some room for disagreement in that initial decision. …” If that’s not triangulation, I don’t know what is.
What about Obama’s speeches on Iraq in the U.S. Senate? “[H]e did not give a speech devoted to Iraq for 11 months, and waited 16 months to give his first floor speech dedicated to Iraq, which happened to express his opposition to Senator John Kerry’s troop withdrawal plan. …”
What about Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate on Iraq? TPM Election Central painstakingly compared every single vote on Iraq by Sens. Clinton and Obama, since Obama entered the Senate. Senators Clinton and Obama voted identically, except once: On the confirmation of “General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.” Why did Sen. Clinton vote against Gen. Casey’s confirmation?
During his nomination hearing to be Army Chief of Staff, I questioned General Casey about recent reports, both by the Department of Defense Inspector General and press accounts, that units and personnel lacked the necessary equipment. General Casey responded that was not aware of the problems cited in these reports and actually quite surprised at the reported shortcomings. In the Inspector General report’s summary, the equipment shortages were attributed to basic management failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Casey was not aware of this investigation or its recommendations that oversight must immediately improve to ensure proper distribution of equipment; as a result units and personnel are not able to perform assign missions. — From “Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Vote on Confirmation of General George W. Casey to be Army Chief of Staff,” Feb. 8, 2007
How did Sen. Obama defend his vote for Gen. Casey?
“It is a bit unseemly that General Casey is being made the scapegoat for a war that never should have been fought and for a failed strategy dictated by the civilian leadership in the White House. The President, Vice President and other civilian officials set forth an unworkable strategy with inadequate resources and did not listen to the advice of generals on the ground. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the current situation in Iraq. I hope General Casey will get more support for his new mission, which is so important to the country. I want to see General Casey use his experience in Iraq to ensure that the civilian leadership in Washington understands the challenges faced and resources needed by today’s Army.”
That’s it. That’s the entire press release. Not a word about Gen. Casey’s failure to know about the crisis in equipment shortages or the “basic management failures” during Gen. Casey’s own time in Iraq or the Inspector General’s shocking report.
What about the senators’ trips to Iraq? In his three years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has visited Iraq once. Sen. Clinton has visited Iraq and Afghanistan three times.
We Americans all love good orators. We yearn to feel our hearts soar with optimism. We flock to the “sunny” candidates like Ronald Reagan. We want to feel better about our country but — when we’re sober and reflective — don’t we really want the candidate who’s walked the walk.
Sen. Clinton has stuck her neck out — by voting against Gen. Casey’s confirmation, by voting against the attack-dog resolution against MoveOn.org and by voting on the Iran resolution. (Yes, the last was controversial, but remember that she was the first senator to warn Pres. Bush against taking military action against Iran and that she partnered with Sen. Jim Webb’s resolution to require Congressional authorization before any military action against Iran.)
Sen. Obama failed to show up for the MoveOn or Iran votes, and in effect lied when he lamely told Wolf Blitzer that he didn’t know the Iran vote was coming up and didn’t have time to get back from campaigning in New Hampshire. (In fact, all senators were informed the day before that the Iran resolution vote was to come up the next day.)
There’s more to say, but I’ll close for now with this from “Hillary Clinton: More Than Just Talk” at Huffington Post:
In an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Senator Obama served in the Illinois state senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any president since World War II, Senator Obama and his advisors have gone on the attack. They have criticized the role Senator Clinton has played in promoting American interests during her eight years as First Lady, seven years in the Senate, and four years as a member of the Senator Armed Services Committee.
Senator Clinton as First Lady was “America’s finest ambassador abroad,” Madeleine Albright’s office said at the time. Hillary Clinton did much more than “get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and security detail . . . . and get lunch” with an ambassador, as Senator Obama implied recently. As Newsweek reported about Senator Clinton’s diplomatic missions as First Lady, “She often travels to remote regions where no presidential motorcade would venture and where no secretary of state would have time to go.” Her 1995 speech at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she famously proclaimed “women’s rights are human rights,” remains an inspiration to leaders of the fight for women’s equality around the world. Long before others, she visited countries stricken by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria throughout the world, urging better prevention and treatment strategies, and returned to Washington to push for greater action within the US government. Her 1995 trip to India helped open the door to the transformation in relations between the world’s two largest democracies. She raised awareness on mine issues in the Balkans and led humanitarian efforts on behalf of Kosovar refugees.
As Senator, Hillary has fought to ensure our troops have the body armor they need while in combat, and she has passed laws so that returning soldiers are treated with dignity when they return home. She has placed education at the center of U.S. international assistance. She has been a leader in combating nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism. She has championed efforts to end the genocide in Darfur and been a leading voice in calling for action to end global warming. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she has visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan three times.
By contrast Senator Obama has been in the U.S. Senate under three years. His campaign has touted his experience as chairman of a subcommittee on European affairs, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, has not held a hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. Senator Obama has traveled to Iraq once, 23 months ago.
We respect Senator Obama’s opposition to the war as a state senator in Illinois. But when he was actually in a position to influence policy from the U.S. Senate, he did not give a speech devoted to Iraq for 11 months, and waited 16 months to give his first floor speech dedicated to Iraq, which happened to express his opposition to Senator John Kerry’s troop withdrawal plan. … READ ALL.
People want change. But change from Obama? It’s illusory. Hillary Clinton has brought change for decades, fighting for women’s rights in the 1960s and 1970s when it was far, far tougher than it is these days. Fighting for children’s rights long before it was a common practice.
Obama is infamous for voting “present” on too many tough votes when he was in the Illinois state senate. He has skipped tough votes in the U.S. Senate. How can he possibly be that “the-buck-stops-here” tough leader we’ll need in the White House?
Larry Johnson and Reed Hundt,
How about a little disclosure? If you are supporters of a particular candidate, can you just say so.
December 13, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
What difference does it make? Would such "disclosure" diminish the strength of any part of the support for his argument?
December 13, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not his argument. As he says in the prefatory paragraph, it's an article by his fellow blogger Susan Hu.
If someone is just a supporter of a candidate, then whether or not they disclose that probably doesn't matter. The only thing I think we have a right to know is if the writer has any sort of formal paid or unpaid position with a campaign.
December 13, 2007 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aSmRCedg5FG4
Should Hundt disclose that he is an Obama fund-raiser?
December 13, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of these breathtakingly weak Clinton surrogate attacks and slimy, misleading oppo research talking points have already been refuted.
The campaign has been going on for months now. Have you just started paying attention?
Clinton supporters are getting increasingly desperate as their poll numbers keep dropping. I guess that's why Hillary called cranking up the personal attacks the "fun part" of the campaign.
December 13, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This person is just making stuff up.
What did Hillary do in the 60s and 70s for women's rights? She was a Republican for most of the 60s and didn't graduate from Wellesley until 1969.
In the 70s she went to law school. Then she was in private legal practice at the Rose law firm and on the WalMart board while her husband was governor. Then she was first lady.
Hillary has a long record, and we are all familiar with it. She is no profile in political courage, as shown most dramatically by her Iraq AUMF vote (and the companion votes such as the Levin Amendment that she voted against), taken without even reading the key National Intelligence Estimate.
Then she did nothing for a bunch of years as the war went terribly until it was time for her to start her presidential campaign.
Seriously old news.
December 13, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has a CV a mile long. It's just silly to pretend she doesn't.
December 13, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A mile of nothing. What has she ever actually done on her own? She's always been in Bill's shadow and on his coat tails. While is fine, she's still an exceptional person. But I don't see how she's qualified to be President. The only way I'd vote for her is over a worse Republican.
Hillary's CV is stuff like sitting on the WALMART board and being first lady. Frankly, her CV is a lot like GW Bush's was in 2000. All connections and coat tails.
December 14, 2007 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to argue about this - I've posted lists of her accomplishments several times now, and if people won't bother to look it up themselves, that's just too bad.
People make these sweeping statements about the candidates and no matter how much evidence you present to them, they have their minds made up.
December 14, 2007 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've looked up her accomplishments, and sorry, it's just not Presidential material, except as relative to the wingnuts the Republicans are fielding. If Clinton wins the nomination, which is looking less and less likely, I'll only vote for her to stop another crazy Republican Admin. Otherwise, Clinton is a totally mediocre Dem candidate on the Kerry level. In fact her resume is very similar to Kerry's.
Like Kerry, she achieved early national attention by grabbing the spotlight in the 60's-70's counter culture environment. Which has served her well in liberal circles, and basically assured her career, but which doesn't play well with moderates or conservatives.
Her admission to Yale was surely influenced by connections and her independent academic and career achievements have been lacking by comparison to the top tier. She didn't really distinguish herself at Yale or tackle the big issues.
She, like Kerry, said the right thing at the right time and won some fame. But like Kerry, she's not really a first class intellect or leader, but has been trading on connections and maneuvering ever since. She's always been on boards, or First Lady, or in some role where her connections can be of use to somebody else actually leading. She's always been a step behind power and leadership. For example, she joined Rose, only AFTER Bill was elected AG.
Yes, she's very smart, but not on Obama's level, and she's always traded on connections. She might have risen on her own merits, if she hadn't been in Bill's shadow. But she made her choice decades ago.
For comparison to women who are truly their own person look at Thatcher. (Whose politics I can't stand, but was an Oxford grad, and undeniably got ahead on her own merits.)
For some perspective, Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar coming from poverty, and was known for leadership across ideological divides. Obama was a gifted student and the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, and he was known for finding consensus and leadership across idealogical divides. These are people who actually lifted themselves up by their boot straps on merits, and established themselves as natural leaders and exceptional intellects early in life.
As an example of her lacking intellect, she's repeatedly taken the wrong position on bad advice, which is a habit she's not capable of breaking because she's not going to be the smartest person in the room.
As another example of her mediocrity, she retains a degree of Republican conservatism, on the worst issues. For example the Clintons took all the wrong advice on NAFTA from big corporations, bought into the "free market" fluff and lacked the intellectual serousness to see it's strenghts and limits beyond a superficial level. They failed to heed warnings on international labor standards and competitive disadvantages, and they failed to protect human rights and factor in quality of life issues. But the corporations they listened to made tremendous profits at the expense of the global public and working class.
For another example of her bad judgment and conservative pandering on all the wrong issues, she's often sought out silly culture issues to attack, from video games to porn, reminiscent of Tipper Gore and that sort of empty political maneuvering and lack of real vision.
Another example of her lack of judgment is the habit she's assumed of cackling and talking over other candidates answers to questions, which is obnoxious and a tactic of an insecure person. In my experience those kinds of head games and power politics only happen in the worst companies that don't attract the best people. Typically companies like WALMART or ATT and such pursue bully tactics to maintain market share and their boards and executives reflect that mentality. But those head games don't cut it in innovation companies where one has to be the brightest, have really good ideas, and the best product at the end of the day.
It's a serious difference in regards to intelligence, judgment, and capabilities.
December 14, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 14, 2007 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
December 13, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
You got me there. But I'm still wondering how any such disclosure wuold diminish the strength of Susan Hu's argument. Voting records are a pretty solid support for challenging Obama's claims of being the best candidate for progressive change.
December 13, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but people usually like to know when someone is speaking in their own words, or is acting at the direction of, or as an agent for someone else. It would be a courtesy.
December 13, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's courtesy? Sorry, but I still don't understand why you need to know which side someone is on in order to appreciate the strength of their argument. If it's a lousy argument -- dependent upon weak premises, soft support, rhetorical embellishment, etc. -- then you will likely figure out if they are somebody's tool.
December 13, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complex arguments in favor of some particular candidate, or in opposition to some opposing candidate, generally rest on numerous initial premises which are simply asserted without supporting argument in the context in which the argument is presented to you, and in which you have to evaluate it.
Sometimes those premises are things you already believe, and the argument is an attempt to argue from some beliefs you currently have into an expanded set of views that are thereby supported by what you currently believe.
But quite often, the asserted premises are just purportedly factual claims about things you don't currently believe, and about which you have no significant prior evidence. Your only evidence for the premises, then, in the context of evaluation is the degree of trust you place in the speaker: your only basis for believing the premises is the speaker's say-so.
Given what we know about human nature and the psychological effects of partisan or candidate loyalty and similar affiliations, the conditional probability that a speaker is lying or embellishing, given that they are an agent of a campaign, will typically be at least somewhat higher than the conditional probability that they are lying or embellishing, given that they are not agents of a campaign. So the information that they are agents of a campaign is evidentially relevant to your evaluation of the argument.
Another reason for preferring that the speaker disclose whether they are acting as the agent for someone else comes down to the matter of respect. Suppose you are in a bar, and strike up a conversation about a recent book with someone sitting near you. The speaker describes the book in part, and extols the aesthetic merits of the book. Perhaps the speaker also tells you how attractive you are.
Later you learn that your conversation partner at the bar was actually employed at the time of the conversation by the book's publisher as part of a micromarketing campaign on behalf of the book. They were being paid to strike up just such conversations with strangers in bars as they had with you. Let's stipulate, however, that nothing they said was actually false. You read the book yourself and decide the description and aesthetic appraisal were accurate. And you actually are attractive.
Still, would you feel abused in some way? I think you would, and should. Although the speaker did not misrepresent the book, they did misrepresent the motivational basis for their own brief relationship with you, and misrepresented it in a way most people care about. Most people care about whether others find them interesting conversation partners or not. By failing to disclose the mercenary nature of their social interaction with you, they have treated you with a deplorable lack of respect.
I think its similar with blog posters who are agents for campaigns. If a writer presents himself as passing along information simply out of a spontaneous desire to share his opinion with you, but is in fact part of a campaign's rapid response team or micromarketing effort, then they aren't treating you with respect.
December 13, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
And if we eschew the intellectual equipment to evaluate those arguments, and rely on associations in lieu of reason, then we haven't earned that respect. Short answer: skepticism, good; cynicism, bad.
December 14, 2007 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not cynicism, and it's certainly not a case of eschewing of reason. We have actual evidence, drawn from abundant experience, that people are somewhat more prone to distort the truth when they have a partisan and other affective commitments than when we don't. Thus in evaluating the reliability of their bare testimony, knowing their partisan affiliations is relevant. Every argument contains premises, and quite often our only evidence for those premises is the testimony of the speaker. So any evidence we can bring to bear on the reliability of that testimony is relevant.
December 14, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
That is all well and good, but it is entirely beside the point. Partisan affiliation or other affective associations may be relevant as hell, especially regarding an election campaign, but I remain unconvinced that it is necessary for evaluating the merits of any given argument.
I must agree with Don Bacon on this point, Dan K (even while Don Bacon has hardly displayed immunity from indulging in guilt-by-association, either -- alas, no one is perfect). The pitfall in demanding prerequisite disclosures of partisan or campaign affiliation is that it makes us in the audience susceptible to cynicism, in the sense that it offers a lazy shortcut either to the rejection or the embrace an argument before one is even articulated. We ought to learn more through argument and debate, other than where to draw our lines in the sand.
December 14, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure, what do you argue about. It's a standard practice to disclose conflict of interests. In case of Hund, it's a must he is a fundraiser for Obama. Informal support is in gray area.
December 14, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Susan is not working for any candidate. She likes Dodd, Clinton, and Edwards. We're agreed that Obama is bad news.
December 13, 2007 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did she write the piece herself?
December 13, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right, I'm sure she just cut and pasted the email sent to her by the Clinton oppo research team, full of previously discredited smears that don't amount to a hill of beans.
December 13, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? You can't seriously mean for the reasons given above.
That's some mighty thin gruel.
December 13, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 2, 2002
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
December 13, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice that he didn't say anything about pending resolution in Congress, didn't ask Democrats to vote against that resolution.
He was correct here, but notice that he agreed with neo-cons. The trick is how " fight to make sure ..."?
December 13, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it: the anti-war credentials of the big three Democratic candidates are all very, very weak. Of the three Obama was the one with the early courage to speak out against the war...but he did so far from the halls of power. Both Edwards and Clinton voted for war. Both Obama and Clinton have done little to halt their party's endless string of Senatorial capitulations to the Bush administration. Each of the three seem best on the war when they are least able to actually do anything about it. None of the three are willing to promise that our troops will be home by 2013.
I can't decide what I find more depressing: the endless desire of surrogates and supporters of all three candidates to change the subject to the other two candidates (because frankly the negative arguments are better all around), or the willingness of progressive Democratic voters to play along rather than insisting on an actually progressive candidate.
Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and their supporters all richly deserve each other. America deserves better.
December 13, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama actually speak out against the war in Iraq at the time? He had no say in the matter as he was in the Illinois State Legislature. He did seem to keep it out of war with Indiana but without any responsibility for the decision being against, or for, the war is not very meaningful.
Since being in the Senate Obama, Clinton and Edwards were he was there all voted very similarly.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 13, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
ohiomeister,
My, what a coincidence, on October 2, 2002 President Bush held a press conference to announce that he and the House leadership had agreed on the Iraq Resolution, which Obama somehow failed to mention. Failed to mention!!
"I'm opposed to dumb wars." Obama said. Barack, all wars are dumb. If you'd ever been in one you'd know that.
December 13, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk is cheap - efective, but cheap. Sen. Obama makes wonderful inspiring speeches, but it bothers me that he too often for my tastes votes "present" or is absent in votes that count and it bothers me that his committee that would give him some foreign experience doesn't meet.
caveat: I'm not Democrat and so can't vote for any of these candidates in the primaries.
December 14, 2007 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great speech.
December 14, 2007 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it has been established that Obama gives great speech. The question remains is whether he has what it takes to back it up with the action required of genuine and effective leadership.
December 14, 2007 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just commenting on the speech, Zionista, I hadn't heard it or read it before - there was no implied criticism or praise for the speech maker in my comment.
December 14, 2007 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense intended. I was merely establishing that, if we can agree on anything here, it is that Obama is a tremendous orator.
In terms of leadership, we'll see. Today we have another opportunity to evaluate the leadership qualities in those Democratic presidential candidates now serving in the Senate if and when Harry Reid sells out the Judiciary Committee's FISA bill for the Intelligence Committee's legislation granting telecom corporations retroactive immunity from prosecution for turning over customers' data without a warrant. Chris Dodd has pledged to put a hold or filibuster such a bill, while Clinton, Obama and Biden have promised to support him on it.
December 14, 2007 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree
December 14, 2007 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Contrarians excepted, of course.
December 14, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m glad you brought this up, Zionista, and I realize I’m following it off the topic at hand, but it’s instructive as far as how we assess the candidates. I don’t think we judge candidates only on their speeches or character or experience and behavior, but through trying to divine their real motivation and intent using all of those indicators. As far as supporting Dodd against telecom immunity, I don’t see how the candidates could do anything but support him. I can’t see it highlighting any differences between them.
But I don’t need to evaluate the congressional leadership any more. Reid and Pelosi have no leadership problems. They lead quite well, thank you, as evidenced by their ability to get absolutely nothing done except more damage. It is quite apparent, after continued war funding of an illegal and immoral war, a Military Commissions Act stripping habeas, the fundamental basis of democracy, and a Protect America Act which is an attack on the rights of Americans, not to mention a political impotence that cannot even pass health care for children. They have shown that they are not going to oppose the Bush dictatorial program, except in appearance only.
They cry helplessness because the president will veto or the Republicans will filibuster. It’s true that Republicans have obstructed their “progressive agenda,” but they are only able to do this because the Democrats have squandered their political wherewithal by caving at every turn. I really wonder if Pelosi and others are only trying to keep their past complicity in illegal activities hidden. But these claims of being at the Republicans’ mercy are empty excuses as Reid’s actions on telecom immunity show. A hold is like a courtesy filibuster and Dodd’s hold only has to be honored as dozens of Republican holds have.
Reid is obstructing the will of the majority of Dems and the public by gaming the system against Dodd and Judiciary members who do not want to desecrate the constitution and common law by retroactively excusing the lawbreaking of these giant corporations. After watching the congressional leadership this year I wonder, how much of a hidden agenda do some of the candidates have? How much are they (beyond the usual politicking) just pandering to the wishes of the “base” (really the majority of the country) with no intention of governing from that position?
December 14, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point I've not thrown in with any candidate. I like Hillary, Biden, and Edwards. Those are my top three choices.
I'm worried about Obama. I asked what bonehead in the Clinton Administration pushed the neocon James Woolsey for CIA Director. Turns out it was Obaman's top foreign policy adviser. That scares the hell out of me.
December 13, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well all of Hillary's top foreign policy advisors, Albright, Cohen, Berger were wrong about the Iraq war, so you need to be very afraid.
December 13, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Albright, Cohen, Berger ultimately had no part in the decision to invade Iraq.
December 13, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
HA! These folks along with Holbrooke are the ones who advised Hillary to vote for the AUMF and to vote for the K-L amendment and who will be advising her if she is elected. Nothing but warhawks the entire pack.
Hillary listens to these advisors and did not even read the NIE report and voted against the ranking chairs of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Svcs cmte, Graham and Levin
December 13, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 13, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see. So, Albright, Cohn, Berger and Clinton are even more responsible for Iraq than Colin Powell.
December 13, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not.
Powell is not advising HRClinton. The warhawks are. The warhawks prevailed with Bush and HRClinton. If you are concerned about the direction of US foreign policy these individuals beleifs should be of major concern as Hillary listens to them and acts accordingly.
Ooops on second thought, I take that back. Hillary has talked about using Powell, no? I forgot Hillary doesn't value credibility. She beleives in baffling with BS since she can't dazzle with brillance
hahahaha, her judgment is totally whacked and unreliable.
December 13, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
We all know that the Democratic foreign policy elite supported the Iraq War and advised all of the Democrats in the Senate that if they didn't vote for it they would suffer serious political consequences, including for Edwards and Clinton supposedly never being able to win the presidency. That same foreign policy elite is chiefly found in Camp Clinton today and probably responsible for her vote on the hawkish Kyl-Lieberman Amendment about Iran.
Who is the top Obama foreign policy advisor Larry is referencing?
December 13, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you both: I think there are plenty of reasons for voters to be suspicious of all of these candidates on foreign policy. All seem happy to subscribe to the hawkish, beltway consensus.
Does anybody want to step back from the relatively easy job of bashing the other candidates and explain why they honestly believe that there's a snowball's chance in hell that their own candidate will conduct a progressive foreign policy?
December 13, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
will conduct a progressive foreign policy?
What that would be?
December 13, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it would start with dramatically reducing defense spending and signing on to Kyoto (or its successor) and the International Criminal Court (without any restrictions on the prosecution of US nationals).
It would also involve changing our Middle East policy. The Israel Lobby should have a voice, not a veto.
Free trade absolutism should be replaced with a fair trade vision.
We should move toward international nuclear disarmament (including the US), not merely selective attempts at anti-proliferation.
Dennis Kucinich's idea of a Department of Peace might also be an important step in the right direction.
December 13, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
start with dramatically reducing defense spending
Depending on your definition of "dramatically",
a candidaye advocating such policy is not going to be elected the President.
The Israel Lobby should have a voice, not a veto.
Its the case now, however any candidate with ani-lobby anti-Zionist agenda has very little chance to be elected the President.
Free trade absolutism should be replaced with a fair trade vision.
How progressive is let's screw poor countries?
December 13, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, there is no chance that any candidate who has the potential to get elected in 2008 will conduct a progressive foreign policy as I think you and I understand it. You might as well ask one to explain why they honestly believe that there's a snowball's chance in hell that their own candidate will provide free higher education for all, a 50% cut in military spending and a $500,000 cap on executive salaries. They won't, and there is no point in idle wishing for such a president in 2008.
This is America. We're firmly locked right now to a rigid two-party system and a corporation dominated imperial state. No candidate who has a chance of getting elected in such a system has a great deal of flexibility to alter this basic setup. At some point you just have to accept these sorry facts of life and choose the least bad of the realistically achievable options. Then you can hammer away at them after they are elected and try to push them into doing the most progressive things they can.
If you are in a political minority in America there is no point in fantasizing that if you just wish hard enough, hold your breath long enough and stamp your feet enough times you will make a majority of the rest of the country come over to your side in time for the next election. Life sucks that way.
December 13, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, if you are in minority, you are not in majority, you shouldn't complain about a rigid two-party system.
December 13, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. In systems with multiple parties, small left-wing parties are able to get a toehold in the system. One can elect just a few representatives from very left wing districts without empowering the conservatives, because the left-wingers can then enter into a coalition with moderate liberals. Over time, if the left-wing party has a strong message, it can grow. Our system is designed to never give new parties a chance. The barriers to entry are too high, and the rules governing those barriers are established by the two parties currently in power.
December 13, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very left wing districts today elects very left wing democtrats.
December 13, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
the barrier to 'new parties' is the Single Member District system, significantly more foundational than any 'rules' established by the two parties currently in power.
December 13, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
American politics is a lot more dynamic than you make it out to be.
You're entirely correct that no candidate taking these views will be elected in 2008.
But the way to make it possible for a candidate with these views to be elected in the future is by pushing the Overton Window.
Barry Goldwater lost by an enormous landslide in 1964, but movement conservatives didn't say "well I guess that means conservatives can't win, better spend the rest of our lives backing Nelson Rockefeller!" They worked for the long haul.
But progressives simply put their beliefs aside, figure that if they won't win now they won't ever win, and put their time and money behind candidates who pursue policies that, in their heart of hearts, they know are bad.
The longest journey begins with a single step. And, pathetically, no matter how bad things get, progressive Democrats are unwilling to work for their beliefs.
December 13, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes but while movement conservatives were building their movement, they also elected Nixon for two consecutive terms, and Richard "we're all Keynsians now" Nixon was no movement conservative - he was a centrist figure. Republicans might very well have won in 1976 too, if Nixon hadn't self-destructed and taken his party down with him temporarily.
Democrats on the left often seem to me to invest too much hope in presidential elections, looking for a quick immediate term fix. They always seem to be hoping some magic, charismatic hero is going to ride in and move the sentiments of the electorate sharply to the left through the power of his personality and charm. But presidential elections reflect social change more than they drive social change. If you want to build a more progressive America, it's not going to happen by finding some true green left progressive who can somehow trick a bunch of conservative and middle of the road Americans into voting for him, and then manage to trick a bunch of conservative corporate owned and operated members of Congress into passing a pile of green left progressive legislation.
If there is something the matter with Kansas, then where is the movement to change what Kansans think? Call it what you will - "propaganda", "proselytizing", "agitprop", "evangelism" - but what have left progressives done lately to transform the thinking of the US public, so that what are now distinctly left-wing views might someday be mainstream views?
There is some of this going on. Al Gore clearly knows how to proselytize, for example, and has had very tangible real world success. But we need a lot more of that. I don't just mean efforts to sell candidates and sell policies, which build on what people already believe. I mean an organized effort to convert millions of people to a sharply new way of thinking, especially people in key positions of power.
When I bring this up, I often get the impression that a lot of Democrats think there is something very unseemly or wrong with trying to convert other people, because that means you are "imposing your own views" on others - and this isn't liberal or something. But how can one possibly think there is a hope of changing the world if one doesn't even have enough confidence in the truth content of one's views to think that others ought to be persuaded to believe them too?
December 13, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say that - I work pretty damned hard for progressive causes and the democratic party.
December 13, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I intend to vote for some third option. The major parties need to know there are votes out there they aren't getting. As long as we vote to enable more of the same we'll continue to get more of the same, whine that we have no other option but more of the same, and the beat goes on marching ever further to the right. After all, after they are elected, they pay no attention to us whatever because they know we were suckered into voting for them before and we will do the same again.
December 13, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no, I don't think we should expect anything very progressive in our foreign policy.
December 13, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know I could not figure that out.
December 13, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't "all know that" - this is the first time I've ever heard this claim.
December 13, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are responsible for everything that has happened and ever will happen, including meteors striking the earth, volcano eruptions and the expansion of the universe.
December 13, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Ivo Daalder, an early signer on PNAC's letters of support for Bush's Iraq colonialization efforts is also advising Obama. Whatever form Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war took, silence was the form it took after the aggression. You could hear a pin drop more clearly and loudly than you could hear Obama's opposition to Bush's war policies. Until 2006. On the other hand Brzezinski is an adviser also and he has been outspoken against the Iraq policy from day one.
I know that Hillary has some real trash among her advisers, like the really dangerous and scummy O'Hanlon, Pollack and Penn. I know she wants the much "esteemed"
Colin Powell to be her emissary after her election. I know she used the same logic and justification for her support of Kyl-Lieberman that she used in 2002 to authorize the military option in Iraq. I know she has been consistent in her support of the Bush war policy up to 2006. Does anyone know ANYONE on her foreign policy team who seems the slightest bit decent? (serious question)
December 13, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties as of Oct. 2, 2007
December 13, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some helpful info, thanks.
December 13, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
V Lazlo regarding:
I believe Ivo Daalder, an early signer on PNAC's letters of support for Bush's Iraq colonialization efforts is also advising Obama.
HRC after making the gross error in judgment to provide Bush with carte blanche authority to wage war endlessly is the one who had a national platform as a former First Lady to speak out and oppose the war, unlike Barack who was a rookie sEnator. Had he used his rookie Senate seat as a bully pulpit, folks would have called him uppity and arrogant. What he did instead was co sponsor legislation for troop withdrawal and forge consensus for a withdrawal date in the Senate which is far more than the experienced Senator HRClinton did. Feinstein praised Obama for his support in the Senate in opposition to the war, not Hillary. Hillary backed GWBush and said the war was going well she even proclaimed we were safer as a result of the war. HRClinton has not EVER spoke out against the war nor has she voiced opposition to the war. Only Obama has and you seek to find fault with him? Riiight. Hillary has not shown any backbone on this issue not once.
Tim Russert misquotes Obama and then the blogosphere and Susan who Larry posted to start the thread uses his misqotes.
Brzeninski also endorsed and supports Barack Obama.
Nope. Which is why we should all be frightened.
December 13, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woolsey is not only an honorary neocon, he's just plain a bonehead himself. Doesn't he get credit for emphasizing satellite intel over humint?
But he really lost all credibility when he asserted on CNN, hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Look to Iraq" for responsibility. That was either idiotic or shameless.
December 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
That's a sleazy character attack, an unsubstantiated insinuation, and really grasping at straws.
Do you have a problem with a particular policy of Obama's where you see Clinton as better?
Do you disagree with Obama about allowing for the possibility of going after an AQ base, even in Pakistan's mountains, if it was the last resort?
Would you put the use of nukes on the table as Hillary says they should be?
Do you think it was wise to declare a segment of the uniformed Iranian military a "terrorist" organization as Hillary voted for?
Would you have voted to authorize the Iraq war without more Congressional checks, when it was clear Bush/Cheney were rushing to war, as Hillary, Biden, and Edwards all did?
Really, what's your problem? In regards to FP judgment, Obama is batting close to 100%, while Hillary is striking out again and again.
December 14, 2007 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that this is usually referred to as "throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks."
I think that Obama's July 04 statements can be defended by pointing out that he was not privy to the same classified intelligence briefings that Clinton and Edwards were, who voted to give the President the legal cover to go to war in 2003.
What is this, a pissing contest?
December 13, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's worse than that. It is written in slick, intentionally misleading way. While literally true, the inattentive reader thinks they are getting an apples to apples comparison, and instead it's apples to oranges.
Clinton's first trip to Iraq took place in 2003, before Obama was a senator. The second took place in February, 2005, three weeks after Obama was sworn in. Since then they have both taken one trip to Iraq.
Obama has taken an extended two-week trip to Africa. He visited Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union. Earlier the criticism was that he had traveled too much for a freshman senator.
This isn't even a serious essay. It's just the usual sort of campaign drivel that gives intelligent readers a headache. I'm surprised Larry thought it worth passing on.
December 13, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
You skipped over the good parts:
*Sen. Obama has not held a single hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago.
*“There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.”
*Obama voted to confirm [General George Casey, the loser general who couldn't pacify Baghdad in three years]
*Sen. Obama failed to show up for the MoveOn or Iran votes
December 13, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Don,
On the issue of the European Affairs Subcommittee, I think we need some more information, probably from Joe Biden, about exactly what guidelines, assignments and authorizations governed that subcommittee's work. Here's some background from the Senate web site:
Subcommittees are formed by most committees to share specific tasks within the jurisdiction of the full committee. Subcommittees are responsible to, and work within the guidelines established by, their parent committees. In particular, standing committees usually create subcommittees with legislative jurisdiction to consider and report bills. They may assign their subcommittees such specific tasks as the initial consideration of measures and oversight of laws and programs in the subcommittees’ areas.
Meetings.--Except when funds have been specifically made available by the Senate for a subcommittee purpose, no subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations shall hold hearings involving expenses without prior approval of the Chairman of the full Committee or by decision of the full Committee. Meetings of subcommittees shall be scheduled after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee with a view toward avoiding conflicts with meetings of other subcommittees insofar as possible. Meetings of subcommittees shall not be
scheduled to conflict with meetings of the full Committee.
The proceedings of each subcommittee shall be governed by the rules of the full Committee, subject to such authorizations or limitations as the Committee may from time to time prescribe.
Overall, Obama has been very active on the Foreign Relations Committee, even if not on this particular subcommittee. For example:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070628-obama_lugar_sec/
December 13, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
The Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative (probably written by the Pentagon)
“Much of this funding will prevent conventional weapons from being used against our service members in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan and from falling into the hands of terrorists and fueling civil wars around the world. . .For example, we want to ensure that our government has the capacity to deal quickly with vulnerable stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, otherwise known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS). Such weapons could be used by terrorists to attack commercial airliners, military installations and government facilities here at home and abroad. Al Qaeda reportedly has attempted to acquire MANPADS on a number of occasions.”
-- is just a little too late.
In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) attributes the looting of Iraq's arms depots to the "ovewhelming size and number" of these depots and “prewar planning priorities and certain assumptions that proved to be invalid." The report finds that the US military “did not adequately secure these [conventional munitions storage] sites during and immediately after the conclusion of major combat operations” and “did not plan for or set up a program to centrally manage and destroy enemy munitions until August 2003…” The munitions looted from Iraqi arsenals, claims the GAO, have been used extensively in the deadly improvised explosive device (IED) attacks that have become tragically commonplace in Iraq.
But the IED threat is only part of the story. Iraq's arsenals were also brimming with shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, thousands of which disappeared during the widespread looting of the regime's numerous arms depots in 2003.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/04/iraqs_looted_arms_depots_what.php
Anything else he's been "very active" on?
December 13, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, it's one thing to argue one doesn't approve of Obama's legislation, as you are. But it's another to argue that Obama is a "do-nothing". The article Larry forwards makes the latter charge.
December 13, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Dan,
We're looking for that 'certain something', anything, that indicates that Obama is a doer, not just a talker. Sponsoring a bill obviously written in the Puzzle Palace with obtuse goals doesn't do it. That's what this thread is about, show over substance. I imagine that if you or I were ever head of a US Senate subcommittee, it would be Katy-Bar-The-Door, breaking new ground. I know it would be if it were the Kervick Subcommittee.
December 13, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don this indicates Obama is a doer, got anything like this Hillary has done? Make sure it is as a Rookie Senator.
December 14, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think Clinton/Edwards had any kind of reliable briefing on classified matters? This president lied to everyone.
December 13, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had all the briefings I needed, from TNR, by the way. They explained very well that all WMD that Saddam could possibly have were not real WMD, and they were no real threat to anybody.
WMD were just an excuse. Saddam had the last laugh, he left no excuses.
December 13, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there you go! If davai could figure it out, why couldn't the coward caucus? There's my number 1 reason for opposing Hillary. I flat out do not believe she believed Bush. It was way too easy for any thinking, reading person to figure out there was no credible threat of WMD from Iraq.
December 13, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that Hillary thought that Iraq had some
WMD left from pre-first Iraq war. Most everybody thought that. However, that weapon was just excuse for Clinton administration to keep Saddam and Iraq in the "box". Let's don't argue if that was the wisest policy. So, how was it possible for Hillary to say, never mind, that excuse was only good for sanctions but not for actual war? However, would HIllary or Gore go to war alone like Bush did, no way. Could she or Edwards stop the war? No way. So I'll give them pass on this.
December 13, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both presidents? If Hillary learned so much from Bill why didn't she learn anything.
December 13, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go...
December 13, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voting for the Liebermann-Kyl amendment wasn't controversial at all, as long as you're a Republican. Which, you know, the more closely one looks at Senator Clinton, the more one wonders...
December 13, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must be really scary for you when you check their respective voting records at Progressivepunch.com and discover that Obama is reliably to the RIGHT of Clinton.
This is a guy so lacking in civil liberty instincts that he spoke about the Federal intervention in the Schiavo case as granting more due process rather than depriving Teri Schiavo of her expressed desires as best the established court system could determine it. This despite being a constituional lawyer.
This is a guy ready to vote for Roberts util informed that it would count against him politically. Clinton voted against in part because of Roberts anti-choice record.
Lieberman claims that Obama chose him as a mentor. Obama went out of his way to employ his rhetorical skills to give Lieberman a boost at the Connecticut Democratic state dinner during the primaries.
December 13, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 13, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are stating this misleadingly. Can you provide any facts or evidence to back up this claim? I don't see why speaking at the Connecticut Democratic state dinner during the primaries would necessarily benefit Lieberman.
December 13, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
O please, this is from MTP, it isn't triangulation at ALL it was SUPPORT for the Democratic nominees! Notice the date? Obama was doing what was in the best interest of the party. He was asked the question right before the DNC.Russert already tried to play this gotcha game out of context just as you are here. Nice try, it this is what you call triangulation ...no cigar.
So?. What you are trying to do is conflate his opposition to the war with his willingness to support the troops AFTER the war was commenced. This is would be like someone who was pro-abortion declaring they would not feed the child once it was born. That would be not only stupid but inhumane. Not to mention petty and mean as well.
The truth is that Sen.Clinton voted WITH Barack and others who voted against the war, not vice-versa. She switched not them. If it was Obama who had switched then all the others who voted against the war in Congress should have different voting records and they do not. This particular meme was sent out by Slick Willy for the simpleminded without the critical thinking skills to see that it was Hillary who switched to THEIR side not the other way around.
Because blaming the messenger is something that HRclinton excells at. Everyone who understands the military knows that Casey follows the orders of his Commander in Chief, and that Bush set the mission and the strategty he was not the culprit Bush was. Hillary however did what was politically expedient just like she voted for the AUMF rather than stand up aagaisnt Bush she also voted not to confirm Casey rather than hold Bush accountable for the orders Casey was obliged to fulfill as his duty as an officer.
How many times did Clinton visit Iraq before Obama was a US Senator? What difference do the number of visits make to begin with? It is not as though visiting Iraq is a productive effort to change the course of the Presidents policy. You do not need to attend a funeral to know the person is dead.
This is complete and utter bovine excrement. Clinton has not stuck her neck out for anything. Casey's confirmation meant diddly squat when it comes to this war. And that MoveOn. org resolution should have never been dignified with a vote whatsoever. The Iran resolution was nothing but another gross error in judgment on Clintons' part. Hillary lacks the courage of conviction to even take a stand against the war or to be accoutable for her vote and none of these votes change that basic lack of principles, integrity and moral clarity.
Obama did not fail to show up. He stated on record that it was not worth the Senate's time to vote on such a measure and he acted like a statesman and refused to engage such disrespect for the far more important business of governance than this sham of a vote. Obama never lied about why he was not there. It is in the Senate record that Harry Reid said there would not be a vote in the near future the night before. How about you look up the Senate record and stop lieing?
Hillary lacks experience she claims everyone elses, including Bills and Albrights as well as the Sec of Treasurer, what shameless self-promotion and deception.
Hillary Clinton has brought no change as an elected official. The one policy issue she was given as First Lady was a collosal failure. There is no legislation that you can point to where Hillary is responsible for it being enacted whether it is women or children's right. Point of fact, MarionWright Edelman thinks that Hillary's committment to children and families is utterly lacking and she told the Clintons so when Hillary backed that noxious welfare reform during Bill's administration.
This past July, Marian Wright Edelman was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. The subject was, in part, Hillary Clinton and welfare reform. Here is the exchange:
For the sake of looking tough on "welfare queens," Bill and Hillary sacrificed the well-being of millions, forced single mothers into underpaid, underinsured work and added further strain to many families.
Hillary believed, she claimed, that the third bill passed by Congress went far enough in its guarantees of medical benefits, child care and food stamps to warrant her and Bill's support. (Others, both liberals and conservatives, noted that the third bill was almost the same as the previous two Bill had vetoed.)"
This sort of self-deceptive justification sounds too familiar. When Hillary describes her vote for this blood-draining, money burning, illegal occupation known as the Iraq War, she likes to say the bill she voted for was for diplomacy. She's the only one who believes that.
Hillary Clinton lacks principles and has never stood up when it counted to advocate for anything to help women, families or the poor. Her supportors are nothing but talk, talk, talk right along with the eqvocating, oscillating, fabricating Senator herself.
December 13, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama oppose welfare reform? Is Obama advocating fixing broken welfare reform? If not, Obama "lacks principles and has never stood up when it counted to advocate for anything to help women, families or the poor".
December 13, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look it up. Get informed Davai. Know the issues if you want to engage in the discussion. You can start by visting Obama's website.
December 13, 2007 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's you who are comparing Clinton and Obama. If you are saying that Clinton is bad on an welfare reform, you should explain Obama's position.
December 13, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
False. If you do not know what Obama's positions are, look them up. If you have anything to rebut the assertions do so, don't think I am going to spend my time looking up what I already know for you.
Here is the salient point for you. Nothing I say about Hillary changes what Obama's positions are. Hillary needs to be accountable for what SHE has failed to do and how she has voted, all of which is independent of Barack. So either counter the information or read in silence.
December 13, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton can't be held accountable for what SHE has failed to do without holding Obama accountable for what HE has failed to do, or Edwards failed to do.
This is not a trial. This is election.
December 13, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is completely false. Every individual is accountable for their own actions, independent of what anyone else says or does. No one makes Hillary choices for her, and no one casts her votes other than her. No one makes her equivocate and lack conviction that is solely on her and has zilch to do with any other political opponent. Stop getting it twisted.
December 13, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have to choose between Hillary lack of convictions, Obama's lack of convictions and Edwards's lack of convictions.
Who has the biggest "lack"?
December 13, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you. i'm not an obama supporter but that part about the moveon vote and the accusation that he lied about it - and the glaring omission of any citation to back up the claim - especially irked me.
December 13, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, this is a good one, right on the money about another talk-talk candidate. Thanks for cross-posting it.
Obama: "From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent."
Obama, the "responsible" and "competent" candidate" unlike the ill-performing Bush who ran on "values"? Or just another 'outsider' telling us he's the feel-good candidate, while actually doing essentially nothing except run for office.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
December 13, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a huge pile of already-discredited Clinton attacks and oppo research.
Just to take the first example, who cares about some Senate subcommittee that no one has ever heard of before?
Ridiculously thin.
December 13, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
ohiomeister,
One would think that the chairman of that particular subcommittee would care, for starters.
December 13, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. All committees have chairs, but not all are important. Obama was given the position as an honor, but doesn't mean it's important.
He has been very active in the more important FP committees, and sponsored and passed legislation. Also, unlike the other candidates, Obama actually studied Foreign Relations and got a degree in it from Columbia, and had his first career in a FP analysis/intelligence company, long before becoming a politician.
Hillary, Edwards, and pretty much all Presidential candidates by comparison usually "discover" FP sometime in their 40's or later when seeking a higher office and needing to fluff the CV.
It's also worth mentioning that Brzezinski endorsed Obama, and paraphrasing him said Obamas the only one who gets how the world works now, in this globalized information age, while Clinton still speaks in basically cold war era dogma.
And that's also perhaps why Larry doesn't like Obama and prefers Clinton and Biden, two relics stuck in the 80's and 90's mindset, who'd probably still support the kind of puppet regimes and so called Realist FP that has been continually degrading our standing, and boosting anti-American militancy, for decades.
December 14, 2007 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Larry's post, but I didn't get from it what I know he wants me to get. Rather than feeling Obama is too reactionary compared to Clinton and others, I get simply that the Democratic candidates don't really differ as much as the blogosphere often thinks, that we can stop demonizing Clinton, and that we can thus support the candidate we most want. For me, that'd be Edwards.
I do get that Obama hasn't been effective as a senator, which is indeed a minus. Does that make him notably inferior to Clinton's fairly limited experience, where I don't see her taking the lead much either on anything I can recall? Am I willing to say that makes her more critical of the administration and more for peace, especially when she tried to pull the toughness card on Obama in such things as who'd negotiate with disturbing regimes? Am I willing to overlook the way she looks less compelling in polls on a general election? Well, no. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, I welcome Obama into national politics, and I have admiration for him. Meanwhile, I support someone else.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 13, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just curious, why nobody supports Biden?
He seems more thoughtfull than Edwards, Obama and Clinton combined.
December 13, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Biden's credentials myself. But donchaknow, Gore looked too you know, whatever it is..... and Biden I've been told looks a little like the Joker in Batman......it is all about how they look stupid!!!!!
December 13, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden thoughtful? You're kidding. Davai, you're so obviously a troll.
As is well known, Biden is experienced, and smart, but consistently balanced and thoughtful he's not. He's actually kind of a hot head; very emotional, too emotional, and has a tendency towards zealousness and lack of peripheral vision or prudence.
Psychologically, I'd say his formative experiences were tragic, emotional, and often required a sort of passionate determination to overcome. Unfortunately, as a side effect he's also become too emotional and excitable, and sometimes acts hastily without thinking and lacks reasonable judgment.
Biden is great in his own way, and he can be thoughtful, but he's too often prone to whims and excitability to have consistently good judgment. He's the consummate Senator fighting to represent one position, not an executive with Solomon's wisdom.
December 14, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm.
Meanwhile, at HillaryClinton.com ...
December 13, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
reticulant,
Hmmmm. You took up all that screen space with nothing, nothing that added any substance or countered anything that Larry wrote. But it is colorful in bold, blue and red.
December 13, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it does show that either Susanhu is seriously misinformed about the positions of her blogging partner, or someone is not telling the truth.
December 13, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
We can focus on the facts, or we can busy ourselves with relationships and motives. The truth, or touchy-feely stuff. When it comes to issues about presidential candidates I don't really care if a blogger is "misinformed about the positions of her blogging partner" and I'm surprised that you are.
The issue is Senator Obama. Is he an empty suit, or not? Is he talking issues, or telling us stuff we want to hear? Has he actually accomplished something as a US Senator, or has he been marking time? Those are Larry's questions, not the relationship between Susan and Larry, as interesting as that may be.
December 13, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
On December 13, 2007 - 11:43pm Don Bacon said: Dan, We can focus on the facts ...
Yes, we can. However, it's apparent either Johnson, Hu or both, cannot.
Fact, according to Hu: "Larry and I have posted items in support of Hillary Clinton. [Johnson and Lang] are backing Hillary Clinton."
Fact, according to Johnson: "I've not thrown in with any candidate."
Issue goes to credibility your honor. Especially Johnson's.
December 14, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
reticulant,
Obviously, "posted items in support of" and "thrown in with" have completely different meanings.
You just flunked logic 101. Next witness.
December 14, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
On December 13, 2007 - 5:03pm Don Bacon said: You took up all that screen space with nothing, nothing that added any substance or countered anything that Larry wrote.
Guilty. I usually try to avoid "anything that Larry [writes]" inasmuch as I try to avoid hydrophobia.
To wit.
On December 13, 2007 - 10:54am Larry Johnson said: A do-nothing? You can’t even find it listed at his Senate Web site, but Sen. Obama is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
One, we looked, we found. Two, Obama also sits on the following FR subcommittees: Subcommittee on African Affairs, Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Subcommittee on European Affairs, Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Subcommittee on Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection.
As a result, we don't dispute Greenland is a simmering hotbed of conflict. Unlike, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). But don't take our word for it. Consider Gayle Smith, who worries "successful legislation introduced by Senators Obama and Brownback" may actually "represent an important step in the right direction, as it calls for a comprehensive bilateral strategy coupled with increased multilateral engagement" to eliminate catastrophic violence; neglecting, admittedly, recent, emerging catastrophic violence in Denmark.
Or Sudan, where Obama and colleagues frivolously introduced divestment legislation that would sanction government complicity in genocide -- despite Obama's persistent neglect of Belgium.
Likewise India, where Obama & cohorts wasted considerable effort developing the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation & United States Additional Protocol Implementation Act, when instead Obama should have, as "European Affairs" Subcomittee Chair, contrived hearings and legislation to safeguard reactors in France.
There's more of course. Much more. More evidence of Obama's misdirected legislative priorities on international environmental protection, international development and foreign assistance, other related matters to East Asian and Pacific affairs when Obama should, according to Johnson, be ginning up attention to his subcommittee chair on European Affairs.
December 13, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
reticulant,
One, the proliferation thing I covered up-thread. There's nothing there, I assure you.
Two, Obama is interested in the DR Congo and the Sudan. That's good. Unfortunately China is even more interested in both places, but I credit Obama with trying. It's unfortunate that America doesn't care more about Africa. Perhaps Obama could have spoken out about the US-driven tragedy in Somalia, but that would be asking too much, with the US government being involved and all. It's better not to get too close to these things when one is running for office.
Gayle Smith? Who's that? Someone who likes Obama and Brownback, that's clear.
The India Act, which involves the US violating the NPT to give nuclear aid to India, which India's enemies China and Pakistan don't like, has thankfully been ill-received in India.
"There's more of course. Much more."--really? But you can't tell us because you avoid anything that Larry writes because you try to avoid a fear of water. Say what?
December 13, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: One, the proliferation thing I covered up-thread. There's nothing there, I assure you.
Thank you for "covering" the "proliferation thing." However, I assure you Lugar-Obama is not mentioned nor referenced in our response. S. 3709, The United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation & United States Additional Protocol Implementation Act, is distinct from S. 2566, the Lugar-Obama Act.
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: Two, Obama is interested in the DR Congo and the Sudan. That's good. Unfortunately China is even more interested in both places,
Thank you for sharing. Yes, there are rivers in Africa and China; and even, or so I've heard, birds. Obama is aware of China's "interests" in Sudan and elsewhere; has, among others, consulted with Chinese diplomats; did, directly, ask China to "step up." To this end, China has dispatched a peacekeeping contingent to Sudan and remains, at last report, committed to its mission despite Sudanese threats.
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: Perhaps Obama could have spoken out about the US-driven tragedy in Somalia, but that would be asking too much, with the US government being involved and all. It's better not to get too close to these things when one is running for office.
Better "not to get too close to these things when one is running for office?" Gosh yes, Better, much better, to feign, dissemble and triangulate.
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: Gayle Smith? Who's that? Someone who likes Obama and Brownback, that's clear.
I'm unfamiliar with Ms. Smith's "likes" or dislikes. I can confirm Gayle E. Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Founder of ENOUGH.
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: The India Act, which involves the US violating the NPT to give nuclear aid to India, which India's enemies China and Pakistan don't like, has thankfully been ill-received in India.
No, S.3709 specifically "bars the export of uranium enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing technology to India and instructs the President to create a program that shall include, as appropriate, end-use monitoring conditions to ensure that all items exported to India are used for peaceful purposes and to ensure U.S. compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It would require annual presidential certifications regarding India’s compliance with its commitments under the July 2005 Joint Statement, its Separation Plan, New Delhi’s Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol with the IAEA, the 123 Agreement and applicable U.S. laws governing U.S. exports to India. The bill explicitly states that any U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement would be terminated if India conducts a nuclear test (after July 18, 2005). Title II of S. 3709 would enable the President to ratify the U.S. Additional Protocol with the IAEA, which would provide the IAEA with increased access to, and information regarding, U.S. peaceful nuclear activities and sites."
No, the agreement originally conceived & outlined by President Bush was well-received in India. Yes, Congressional demands stipulated in the Additional Protocol to monitor and ensure IAEA, NSG, NPT compliance engendered resentment from the same.
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: "There's more of course. Much more."--really?
Yes, really,
On December 14, 2007 - 12:12am Don Bacon said: But you can't tell us because you avoid anything that Larry writes because you try to avoid a fear of water.
It's less a matter of not "telling"; more the reality of, evidence your response, not wasting time. Ibid.
December 14, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm rooting for Ron Paul; The current crop of democrats just don't get it.
To boldly go...
December 13, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's to get about Ron Paul?
Speaking strictly for myself, I am encouraged that Democrats don't "get" an anti-government, Christian supremacist gun-nut like Congressman Paul.
December 13, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink