Why Can't Obama Get His Facts Right on Iraq?
I am familiar with the tired litany that Barack Obama represents "new" politics and a break with the past. Well, count me unconvinced, particularly in light of his preposterous claim that he was showing courage in 2002 because he spoke out against Iraq in the midst of a heated "U.S. Senate" race. It may make for an inspiring story but it is simply not true. When Senator Obama spoke in 2002 he was not making a courageous stand nor marking out an immovable position. Instead, he was pandering to the most liberal district in the state of Illinois during his state senate re-election campaign.
This is one of the issues that came up in last Tuesday's debate and no one in the press seems to have the slightest interest in fact checking.
Senator Clinton said the following:
SEN. CLINTON: . . . And every time the question about qualifications and credentials for commander in chief are raised, Senator Obama rightly points to the speech he gave in 2002. He’s to be commended for having given the speech. Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn’t have responsibility, he didn’t have to vote; by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn’t just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war?
And Barack responded:
SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.
Here's the problem. Barack made the speech in 2002. He did not announce for the U.S. Senate until 2003. Now I understand that politicians can misspeak. Hell, John McCain said he was a liberal Republican just the other day and quickly countered that he meant "conservative." But on the issue of Iraq, where Barack insists his judgment is sound, why can't he get his facts right? We're told repeatedly he is a brilliant constitutional scholar. Really? Then how did he forget that he gave a speech in 2002 that had nothing to do with a hotly contested U.S. Senate race that he did not start until 2003?
This has nothing to do with solid judgment on foreign policy. It does reveal a shrewd politician willing to pander to his base when it serves his purpose. That also explains why he fell in line with most other Democrats when he did finally arrive in Washington. He declined to man the barricades with Russ Feingold and the few Democrats who wanted to pull the plug immediately on Iraq. Nope. He voted like Hillary and Harry Reid and Joe Biden.
So why does the media allow this guy to get away with this nonsense? Saying something that is demonstrably inaccurate. Looks like willful blindness to me.
Comments (183)
Larry,
As a Hillary supporter I have to ask you to please stop trying to help.
Don't you think he knew in 2002 that he'd be running for senate in a couple of years? Don't you think he knew he was establishing himself as a national figure? The guy's really ambitious.
But maybe I'm just being naive.
It STILL doesn't help for you to present pre-invasion anti-war sentiment as pandering to liberals within the party. Especially around here. If more of us anti-war people had been pandered too when we were right a lot of people wouldn't be dead right now.
Whose side are you really on?
February 29, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So words don't matter? Hmm. That's not what Obama says. But please explain how you can be in the "midst of a U.S. Senate campaign" when you have not announced for said campaign or filed papers to run. That ain't semantics.
February 29, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I just don't understand campaigns but I figure I'd have it well in mind by 2002 if I'm going to run for senate by 2004. I think the profile of Obama in the current Vanity Fair backs me up on that point, says it was in the works for awhile.
February 29, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was not a profile in courage -- he was playing to the majority of the Democrats. Thomas Edsall nails this aspect:
The argument that Obama does not deserve credit for being courageous goes as follows:
1. In 2002, Obama was a state senator representing one of the most liberal districts in Illinois encompassing Chicago's lake front, Hyde Park, the University of Chicago and African American neighborhoods in the southern half of the district.
With two years to go to the 2004 Senate election, according to this view, there was no risk to Obama in opposing the war in his state senate district; in fact, his anti-war stand probably had majority support among his constituents.
Statewide, polling conducted in 2002 suggested that Illinois voters were less pro-war than voters nationally:
The Illinois electorate "is not ready for military action against Iraq," the Chicago Sun-Times wrote in October, 2002 about its survey. "More than half of Illinois voters want additional proof that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction before the United States launches an attack. And they want the U.S. military to take action only as part of a broad international coalition of allies....[The poll] puts Illinois somewhat at odds with the nation as a whole."
Among all Illinois voters, 17 percent said the U.S. should attack Iraq with or without allied support, 51 percent said an attack should be initiated only with the backing of allies, and 18 percent said the U.S. should not attack at all. Among Democrats, only 8 percent backed a unilateral invasion of Iraq, 59 percent said the US should attack only with broad allied support and 23 percent opposed any military action.
That same year, the incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator, Dick Durbin, was one of 23 Democrats to vote against the war. Durbin easily won re-election (60-38) in November, 2002, paying no serious price for his opposition.
From:
1. Thomas B Edsall: The Attempts To Discredit Obama's Iraq War Stance Have Begun
HuffingtonPost.com | Thomas B Edsall | August 9, 2007 08:53 PM
March 1, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
Sure, he may well have been thinking about, even planning, a run two years hence. But is it really reasonable to say that a speech given 2 years BEFORE he runs for the Senate is a STAND that takes courage, given how short political memories are in this country? Really, WHO was paying attention to Obama in 2002--outside of folks in the party and people in his district?
He deserves credit for having made the speech. He deserves credit for having been right.
The question is, HOW MUCH credit does he deserve? As Larry and others have pointed out, when eyes were truly on him, and when he had to take a vote in the Senate, he was relatively TIMID on this issue.
My beef with Edwards was that it seemed he had a LIST of votes he was apologizing for and "retracting." That's fine, as far as it goes. But it also says that when Edwards actually had to take a VOTE--take a stand--he voted differently from the views he ended up espousing when he was campaigning for president.
I'm not sure how much this should count in one's evaluation of the candidates. If Edwards has a change of heart, great. If Obama had the correct insight about the war then, great. But I don't think either of these guys should be given a "profile in courage" because of these particular issues.
It's good as far as it goes. But it's a weak reed on which to base one's claim to foreign policy acumen and courage. And I am a maxxed out Obama supporter. I just think the harping on this one speech--this one time he was right when virtually nothing was at stake--is going to get tired awful fast in the months ahead.
March 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But is it really reasonable to say that a speech given 2 years BEFORE he runs for the Senate is a STAND that takes courage, given how short political memories are in this country?
Right. For example, the Bush Campaign could never get anyone to attack John Kerry's war record from 35 years ago....wait...
March 1, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment.
However, if this were the rule, then ANY statement and ANY action made or taken at ANY time prior to an unknown and unknowable future event--such as running for the Senate or presidency at some point in the future--would, of necessity, be considered an act of courage.
The fact that any act or statement can be twisted retrospectively by opponents doesn't mean it was an act of courage.
The future has a way of changing the consensus interpretation of past events or actions in unknowable ways. If the future turns out one way, an act seems insightful and prescient. If the future turns out a different way, the same act seems in hindsight to be cowardly.
If Iraqis had greeted the US with flowers, we'd be "looking forward" to a 100-year Republican reign.
You could say that this fact, the unknowability of the future, makes Obama's stand even more courageous--except that the inability to predict history's retrospective verdict falls evenly on all acts (almost) without regard to their content. This would make all acts and statements of any moment courageous.
As I recall, Obama got a huge leg up in that race because the Republican candidate blew up over a sexual scandal. And Keyes was barely an opponent. So, Obama's was an improbable victory only because the Republican (a moderate) was originally expected to win handily before his ex-wife told on him and the scandal took him out of the race.
March 1, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, if this were the rule, then ANY statement and ANY action made or taken at ANY time prior to an unknown and unknowable future event--such as running for the Senate or presidency at some point in the future--would, of necessity, be considered an act of courage.
I'm afraid I don't follow this.
March 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
The Clinton debate remarks you cite make reference both to Obama's position in 2002 and his position on the war in 2004. In his response, Obama does not say that he made the speech you are referring to during his US Senate campaign. But he does say he objected to the war during that camapign. And indeed he did:
On Oct 12, 2004, during a Senate campaign debate, he said:
Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there.
and also:
Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder.
If a driver of a car, your car, drives it into a ditch, there are only so many ways to pull it out.
In the same debate he also blamed the war itself for making Iraq a hotbed of terrorism that had not existed in Iraq before. And this point reflects one of the objections he had registered during the 2002 speech:
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.
So it is quite clear that in 2004, Obama still opposed the decision to go to war, and was still unabashedly referencing his 2002 speech as an explanation of his reasons. The only changes in his position between 2002 and 2004 were about what to do next, and were due to the fact that since the war had already been launched, and the chaos had already been unleashed, we had a limited range of options for getting out.
I think you need to both read more carefully and do more homework before embarrassing yourself dumping this sort of garbage here.
February 29, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry:
I, have supported HRC at the Cafe and in real life and I continue to do so. And I'm glad that management has tried to offer an alternative to most of the posters on here who support Obama. But your argument is silly and it definitely does not help the candidate I have and will remain loyal to. I complain quite a bit about posters on here who I feel are unfair to varying degrees about Hillary. I complain more than I care to admit frankly. But that doesn't mean that I want to see a supporter of HRC doing the same thing I complain about.
I don't mean to join the gang of critics But I don't think you have served Hillary Clinton well with this post. And I can also tell you, and it may sound selfish to you, but you haven't made it any easier for those of us at the Cafe who have tried to promote Senator Clinton in a positive way.
February 29, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry's a goon. He pretty much is GW Bush, minus the trust fund and connections, plus a Cesar hairdoo. Larry is former CIA, lifelong Republican, GWBush supporter, and donor, by his own admission on the NEWS HOUR.
He's here only because Wilson/Plame got burned (by the administration he voted for) and he happens to know them, which led to him becoming thier mouthpeice when they weren't able to speak for themselves. Otherwise, who cares about Larry?
Speaking of judgment, Larry should have realized what a goon GWBush was before he predictably screwed the military and intelligence community in too many ways to count, and burned Wilson/Plame who were just collateral damage in the overall wreckage he's wrought. But had it not been for a personal connection, I'll bet Larry would still be a big Bush supporter and still does support much of his bad policies.
btw, Now that Larry has once again made an ass of himself by revealing his lack of political thought process, he'll soon feel the need to justify his existence by posting some CIA scuttlebutt composed of (at best) half-truths and half-baked faux Le Carre intrigues. Presuming of course he has any left to trade on, or his imagination (and self respect) haven't run completely dry yet.
March 1, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
Here's my theory about the Hillary candidacy.
I think Hillary scared the shit out of the Republican hierarchy as they felt, for whatever reasons, they couldn't beat her in a Presidential race.
So, about a year ago they set out to destroy her candidacy. Using the formidable, but rarely mentioned "conservative media", and confident in the MSM's eagerness to run with anything that comes out of Drudge, Limbaugh, conservative blogs and the RNC we witnessed their first meme;
'People don't like dynasties. They don't want 24 or 28 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.'
then;
'Hillary feels she's entitled to be President.'
She thinks she already has the nomination sown up'.
and
'The Republicans are salivating with the idea of running against Hillary. Her candidacy will bring the Republicans out in droves, she can't win.'
then
'Hillary is divisive, she will divide the country even more.'
and
Right wing columnists start writing glowing columns about Obama. Conservatives on TV speak well of Obama.
finally,
Obama looks to be the Candidate, the one they want to run against, and as I read Eric Boehlert in Media Matters today, these same Republican/right wing columnists are now turning on Obama.
It worked against Gore, it worked against Kerry, and now its worked against Hillary.
Obama will be next. As I said in another post, the Repugs have already dusted off the Willy Horton picture, and the MSM is on stand by, making a list, checking Drudge twice.
March 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
It's a repeat, for sure.
March 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This might be a 'gotcha', but it's a pretty small one. Obama made the speech being referred to in October of 2002. He announced his run for the US Senate in early 2003. So while he may have been considering a run, it's probably safe to say that this was before his campaign officially began. However, he was in the midst of a campaign for the Illinois State Senate. And it's not like he's changed his stance on the war since.
So, it could be that he simply misspoke. I guess it could also be an out and out lie, but it's no bigger a lie than the way Clinton portrayed her dejectanouncifying the support of the Independence Party.
March 1, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, Larry, Larry. So sad. Did it ever occur to you that Obama made more than one statement against the war?
March 1, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry doesn't care. He's too busy imagining how his brilliant and wholly original argument destroyed Obama. :rolleyes:
March 1, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
More likely, he's just scavenging Taylor Marsh's site for more unoriginal and half baked talking points he can recycle.
This complaint about Obama's response to Clinton's Iraq comments during the debate was already posted on Marsh's site on February 28th by someone called "BluestBlu." BluestBlue also led off with the line that Obama "just can't seem to get straight with the facts, and the truth," which Larry reworks as the title for this post.
Larry's just a loyal follower here, not a leader.
March 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Chicago. I went to a fundraiser of his in May, 2003. He said the exact same stuff. It's not like he started singing a different tune a few months later. So he WAS saying those things "in the midst" of the U.S. Senate campaign, even if that exact speech came a few months before it -- while, of course, he was trying to consolidate support for his run. In any event, he made his anti-war stance a major plank in his campaign, so who cares whether he also opposed it before he announced?
Also, Barack was the ONLY major candidate for U.S. Senate that year in Illinois to strongly oppose the war. And there were a bunch of candidates -- Blair Hull, Gery Chico, Dan Hynes, and others. Everyone else gave the Hillary line.
Whether that took political courage or not is another story; if I were his advisor at the time, I would have said, "No one is seizing this mantle; you should." But that doesn't mean he somehow didn't.
March 1, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
February 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It STILL doesn't help for you to present pre-invasion anti-war sentiment as pandering to liberals within the party."
Exactly. It is frankly insulting to be told that the millions of us who were suspicious of GWB's intentions from the outset were somehow deluded, and being led by the nose -- especially when it turned out in the end that we were right, and the vast majority of other Americans joined us in our anti-war sentiment.
March 1, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not really fair. I think the point is that Obama's "antiwar" speech gives him some kind of claim to purity. Hillary's point, as far as I can make out, is that that speech at that time was incomparable because Obama wasn't in the same position as a U.S. Senator. His answer was that he was running for the Senate. That was demonstably false, and it is relevant that he's voted to fund the war and stated that he would have voted the same way.
For those that consider Obama heavily antiwar a la Feingold, this should at least be a wake up call. I marched against the war in New York, it was a HUGE demonstration and the only one that covered it was CSPAN. The networks paid brief lip service to it and as I recall, ridiculed the protestors. A lot of us got arrested for stepping off the sidewalk and other stupid reasons. We had rifles pointed at us. Where was Obama then?
I'm glad Larry chose to come back to provide some balance here. It seems to me we have two pro-Obama posters spouting nonsense about the Iraq War causing the economic slowdown, and I don't see the level of slapdown and disrespect I see here.
March 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
While Obama had not yet officially announced his run for the US Senate, he was, in fact, in the midst of a campaign for the Illinois State Senate.
The vote and the speech are not an apples to apples comparison, but Obama did correctly see the push to get into Iraq for what it was: the fulfillment of what the PNAC signatories now running the country had been calling for publicly since 1997. And he called them out by name.
I was out in the streets in San Francisco getting run down by a squad of SFPD thugs on dirt bikes (so much for the liberal image the rest of the country has about the City by the Bay.. the summer of love was over a long time ago.) Barack Obama wasn't there with me either, but he was speaking out against the war and he damn sure wasn't standing in dereliction of duty by not reading the NIE on Iraq and rubber stamping an illegal war... and then trying to tell America that this was the most difficult decision of his political career.
March 1, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, as I've said elsewhere, the argument about the past can't really be answered one way or another because it isn't a fair comparison. Let's talk about a choice he had to be "antiwar" while he was in the U.S. Senate.
He didn't back Lamont, the actual antiwar candidate in Connecticut. Pity. Instead he came to Hartford to campaign for Joe Lieberman. Believe me, that was a stunning blow to his popularity among the liberals in this state. Think Joe Lieberman is good for Democrats? The democrats in MY state didn't think so, but that wasn't good enough for Joe or Obama. He ran as an independent in the general and won. Barely.
Seems to me like Obama changed his mind on being antiwar. At least, by the same standards his supporters require of Clinton.
San Francisco is pretty liberal. I worked there, my daughter was born there. You think it's bad there...try anywhere else.
At least the city didn't turn down the request for a protest permit like they did in New York.
March 1, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wish Obama hadn't supported Lieberman, and that's a totally valid criticism against his record which, in my estimation, is still better than that of Clinton on this issue.
As for SF, the reason that there 50 thugs in riot gear armed with assault weapons on dirt bikes was precisely because they wouldn't let us march on Market. So, if you think that's liberal, I guess, but given SF's reputation for being the most liberal city in the US it should serve to take a little steam out of your assertion that Chicago was a bastion of antiwar sentiment back in 2002.
March 1, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't assert that Chicago was any kind of "liberal" bastion. It is a matter of record that they were more antiwar than the country at large. In all fairness, it's true that most of the large cities in America were probably more antiwar then the general population, as their populations tend to be more liberal than the general popultion.
Thanks for the (mostly) fair hearing.
March 1, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but I think to localize it to Chicago is to rob Obama of what he did in speaking out. As someone involve in trying to stop the war before it started, I remember very distinctly the nearly universal lack of voices. The drums were beating loudly. I also recall a quote from Dan Rather about that time: "It is an obscene comparison - you know I am not sure I like it - but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism."
So, I guess I feel like simply writing it off as politically easy because he was in Chicago really matches up with the climate that I remember. Wasn't it something like 80% of the nation that wanted to go to war?
March 2, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think you're thinking post invasion. As I recall we were split (as usual).
March 2, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
it was always going to be an issue in his Senate campaign, so I find his point valid. the fact he made it early is incredible considering that at that time almost EVERYONE was in GWB's pocket. by 2004 things were already looking bad for Iraq, but in 2002 there was still the prevailing idea that it was going to be a breeze, that the mission would be accomplished in short order and we'd go back home as triumphant liberators.
February 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The majority of Congressional Democrats did not vote in lockstep with George; the majority opposed this war. The minority of Democrats was over-represented in our primary but these folks held the MINORITY position in Congress in 2002 when the Iraq War vote was held.
February 29, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're lost in semantics Larry.
Note to you and many many others: when you get indignant about one of these "why don't people notice this?" things, ask yourself if you can explain your criticism in one sentence. If you can't, it will have no effect on the electorate.
February 29, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Senator Obama gave his anti War speech in 2002, over 70% of the people in Illinois were in favor of what George W. Bush wanted to do. Senator Obama went against where the overwhelming number of voters in Illinois stood at that time.
His anti war stand, at a time when a vast majority of his state and the nation were swept up in a tidal wave of war fever, makes Senator Obama A Profile in Judgment, Wisdom, and Courage.
February 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly.
More like 8%. It wasn't politically risky to be antiwar in Chicago in 2002.
March 1, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whom do you trust? Did Obama or Clinton demonstrate better judgment in October of 2002?
Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator:
What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, 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.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
February 29, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, if Mr. Larry Johnson were to be really truthful, he would have to openly admit that when Senator Clinton cast her vote for the Iraq War, it was because she had been running for President for a long time, but had not declared, and she was casting what she thought was the prudent vote. Remember now folks: Bill Clinton has told us about how far back the Clintons started planning for Hillary to one day run for President.
In 2002, Senator Obama was a Profile in Courage, while Senator Clinton was a Profile in Jello!
February 29, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
February 29, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, you keep ranting and Hillary keeps dropping in the polls. Obama was right on Iraq. Hillary was wrong. That's going to defeat Hillary and it's driving you and Hillary nuts.
February 29, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 3:00 am; a phone is ringing in the White House. It's Ahmed Chalabi with urgent information about Iran. He reaches an intern. The intern says "It's nobody baby", and hangs up.
It's 3:30 am; a phone is ringing in the White House. It's Ahmed Chalabi again with urgent information about Iran. This time he gets through to President Hillary Clinton.
It's 4:00 am; a phone is ringing in the Pentagon; it's Hillary Clinton authorizing CENTCOM to nuke Tehran.
It's 4:30 am; a phone is ringing in the White House. It's CENTCOM with the message "Mission accomplished, Madame President."
It's 5:00 am; a phone is ringing in the White House. It's the CIA with the information that the 3:30 call was a crank call.
It's 5:30 am; a phone is ringing at the Washington Post. It's Mark Penn saying that Clinton only meant to authorize nuking Tehran, but didn't intend for CENTCOM to actually nuke Tehran. He adds, "Iran doesn't count; it's a red state."
It's 6:00 am; a phone is ringing at the Obama household. It's Hillary Clinton with the message "I wish you had won.".
It's 7:00 am; a phone is ringing at the Obama household. It's America. America says, "We wish you had won too!"
February 29, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant!
March 1, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, Dan, your scenario is impossible. At 3:00 am the call would have gone unanswered because the interns would all have been occupied with Bill.
March 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I really don't care what forum Obama was in at the time. I don't care if he didn't do anything other than plop down a soap box, stand up on a street corner, and shout out to whoever would listen that this war was a bad idea.
The fact is he was right. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. And I am sick to death of voting for people who voted for the damn war.
February 29, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
I am also sick and tired of hearing those who, rather than acknowledge a mistake, go on, and on, and on, and on... spinning the fact that they screwed up.
It all goes back to tactics that play on words and try to put a veil on what is evident:
- "What is the meaning of "is"?
- They are not "Super", they are "Automatic"?
- And dozens of other manipulating statements such as this one:
- "If Obama doesn't win Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, he has a problem."
After her March 4th she will be way behind, but she won't concede, she is going to continue in the race. They need to spin and spin in their effort to pull the wool over our eyes and have us believe that Obama is losing and there is no reason for her to quit.
With each one of these dirty tricks she loses more and more votes: We are not idiots and we are sick and tired of dirty tricks!
March 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That narrows your choices.
The point is that if you want to vote for someone that ACTUALLY voted AGAINST the war, the only choice you have is Ron Paul.
Obama did not VOTE for or against the war, and furthermore, says he WOULD have voted FOR it.
I'm sure you don't mind overlooking that, and hopefully, this, which is supposedly some large difference, will be acknowledged as a moot point.
Let's look at where their actual differences are and argue THOSE.
March 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Clinton's Senate record. She didn't start opposing the war until last year. Last year. It took her four years to get it. That's an entire term in office. And she's still unapologetic about it, continuing to repeat the BS line about how it was the best decision made with the information made at the time, which is, incidentally, the same thing that the Condi and the rest of the Bush administration.
She could have read the NIE. She didn't. She could have listened to UN inspectors like Scott Ritter who was saying as early as 2000 that the inspections were working and that Iraq had largely been defanged. She didn't. She could have listened to what the PNAC signatories in the administration, including Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Armitage and Woolsey, had been saying for five years. She didn't.
Some of us were against the war from day one. You obviously don't think this is a big difference, but some of us realize that it is.
I love what Ron Paul has done in terms of being a voice for the anti-war movement, especially in this campaign, but the GOP won't nominate him and he won't run as an independent. If you're anti-war, Obama is the only viable choice this season.
March 1, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, how do you explain Obama's record of funding the war and backing pro-war Democrats like Jow Lieberman?
He was again' it before he was for it before he was again' it?
I'm sorry, Obama isn't really antiwar when push comes to shove as far as I can tell.
Maybe words matter, maybe they don't.
ACTIONS trump them everytime.
March 1, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's anti-war, as he said clearly in the speech in question. He said he's against stupid and illegal wars at the behest of neocon thugs. He's also repeatedly said that now that we're in we have an obligation to do whatever we can to get out of the way of the Iraqi people while assisting them with minimizing the violence in the meantime.
As for action, what about Clinton's record?
I've said many times that I'm not a Democrat and I judge Obama to be a better candidate overall, which amounts to adding up a number of ways in which I judge him to be only marginally better. I don't see a huge difference between the two candidates, but there are several key differences that favor him in my view and this is one of them.
March 1, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough.
March 1, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that actually should have said he's not anti-war, but it seems like you picked up on that.
March 2, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Antiwar' usually translates into 'anti-Iraq-war.' That much is understood. Obviously no one rules out war in certain circumstances. Iraq didn't meet that threshold by a long shot.
March 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you, balta 1701. that is exactly how i feel. my question to Senator Clinton has always been "if i knew, how could you NOT know?"
February 29, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That actually applies to just about every politician in congress at the time and is not really specific to Hillary.
So I guess that Obama fans can't vote for ANY democrat except for Obama, because, after all, the democrats all voted for the war.
February 29, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, there is some house cleaning to do.
February 29, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
BS. The majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq War. Just because our primary was over-represented with those who supported George's war with their vote, simply does not change this fact.
February 29, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This rant from Larry, the latest in a quite tiresome series, distorts facts in such a Rovian way as to constitute a lie. Further, it is a blatently transparent lie.
I speak only for myself, but my feeling has always been that it is an act of transcendental disrepect for one to lie when one knows that one's audience knows that one is lying.
You're quite unlikely to convince a lot of Obama supporters to switch to your side by spitting in their faces and telling them they're stupid, Larry. Frankly, your posts have gotten to the point where they are embarrasing both you and your candidate. Do yourself and Sen. Clinton a favor. Blog where people who actuall are stupid might be swayed.
February 29, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry has long been a proponent for Hillary's bid for president. He's made no attempt to hide this fact. What this post sounds like to me is damage control - damage control on all fronts.
Hillary stepped in it with that phone-call ad. Obama smacked her down good for it. We are heading into the weekend with a bruised Hillary and a confident Obama with the country having witnessed the entire exchange. This post just feels like the response to a situation where someone gets caught in a compromising position (one of their own making mind you) and the angry lashing out which follows such embarrassment.
The irony of course is that any - I repeat ANY - reference to the Iraq War makes Clinton look crummy. Period. No matter what other angle a person might be trying to get at. It's inconceivable why anyone in the Clinton camp would want to bring it up...ever. If anyone wants an example (beyond the vote for war of course) of Hillary Clinton showing poor judgement I'd say swinging around the Iraq stick and hitting herself in the face with it might be a place to start looking.
February 29, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many Democrats voted against the war including the two Senators and Congressman who represented me at the time. In particular, Paul Wellstone, who was up for reelection in 2002, had the courage to vote against the war.
But Hillary's vote is extra special because Hillary is making a claim to 35 years of experience and including the 8 years she spent in the White House. If all that experience and insider knowledge didn't guide her vote what did? I think we know what did - political expediency.
Unfortunately for Hillary, her plan run a general election campaign instead of a primary campaign is about to do her in -- I hope!
February 29, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, political expediency. Hillary Clinton was -- literally -- willing to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of lives solely to further her own political career.
I think I have good reason to hate her.
March 1, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Larry, I guess you've hit on the really important issue. It's not which candidate spoke out against the war in 2002, right? That's just not the point. The point is whether he accurately stated during which senate race he made the statement. That's the real sign of character. Got it!
February 29, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me, it is the totality of Hillary's problems that has driven me away from her candidacy. Had she acknowledged later that it was a mistake, a la Edwards, I could have overlooked the original vote. To top that, she voted for the Iran authorization, knowing full well how this warmongering Bush is itching to start another fight. She can say all she wants that it was NOT an authorization to use force, but once bitten twice shy should have been the guiding principle when such enormous stakes are concerned.
I was at a July 2007 convention where Hillary was supposed to be the keynote speaker in Santa Clara, CA. She ditched at the last minute. Her televised appearance from New Orleans was really poor and ill received. Now her degenerating campaign is making me doubly sure that voting for Obama is the right thing. No human being is perfect, so we should not expect that from Obama. But Hillary has strayed far from the grassroots Democratic ideals that define the party (see the article in The Nation on how her team tried to shut out Dean and his 50-state strategy; she has also denigrated voters in many of the states she did not win). Her campaign has mismanaged the finances - there was a report of her $25,000 Las Vegas bill for ordering high end amenities during the Nevada caucuses. Her last minute whining about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, her threatening the state of Texas Democratic party for the caucus rules. The Texas caucus rules might be stupid, and deserve to be changed, but she should have raised the objections much earlier. Bill Clinton played by these rules twice earlier, so it is NOT as if she did not know.
I feel sad because had Obama not been in the field, I could visualize really being energized by the first real female candidate for POTUS! She can still come out of this a winner - not in the nomination race, but as a person of integrity and a leader of the Democratic party. Larry Kissel and his ilk don't seem to understand this and she is getting bad advice from people like him and Mark Penn and James Carville.
February 29, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry please give it up. Your Republican roots are showing.
February 29, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
February 29, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
how naive I am. I had thought New York State, where I was born and raised, was one of the more liberal states in the US. I guess Hillary did not want to face the far right wing fanatics in Brooklyn. Or was it Buffalo? Suffolk? Nassau? Let's cut her some serious slack here.
February 29, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
della Rovere,
Ain't.
It's a rather curious myth. Our two senators are proof, if you need any. Locally we have our choice of one Republican in town elections for any office but more particularly a Russ Feingold would never likely be elected to any statewide office in New York.
True liberals come mostly from the Midwest and South. Liberalism is a hardy weed indeed that seems to survive best under adverse conditions;.
Barack Obama is a case in point. He is turning out to be far more liberal than I suspected despite an unseemly caution.
Best, Terry
March 1, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just her vote in 2002. Has she since spoken out against the war and the policies from which the aggression derives? (I mean before her campaign began). Where is her leadership AFTER the war vote? In her refusal to admit the vote was wrong? In her vote for Kyl-Lieberman? In her choice of advisers Mark Penn and on National Security, the odious and dangerous and dishonest Michael O'Hanlon?
February 29, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interests of balance, I think Taylor Marsh should be extended an invitation to weigh in on this critical issue here at the Café.
Not Worth A Dime vs The Cure That's Worse Than The Disease
.
February 29, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re the link above that lists 100 reasons to support Hillary:
Reason #1 to support Hillary:
In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system - taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled schools on how to improve public education.
I googled state education rankings, and Arkansas is 32nd out of 50. What was it BEFORE she single-handedly rescued it?
I had to laugh at this one:
Reason #21 to support Hillary:
Will end don't ask, don't tell in the military, "Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight." November 2003.
Who started "Don't ask; don't tell?" I believe it was her hubby -- or maybe it was one of her programs as first lady that she is counting as her experience.
What's this about?
Reason #51 to Support Hillary:
Called on Bush to "Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares." (Aug 2007)
That sure was specific and effective!
OK, this proves that we are deep into "pad the resume territory" :
Reason #82 to Support Hillary:
"Karl Rove is obsessed with me because I take Republicans on & beat them." (Aug 2007)
And the grand finale:
Reason #100 to Support Hillary:
In October, 2006 - called for "Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately."
Well, THAT was successful and heartfelt; that was BEFORE she voted for Kyle Lieberman, giving Bush the green light to attack Iran.
Nowhere in this 100 reasons was an example of a crisis she had to respond to. Nowhere in this was a vote or a position that was risky or brave. Nowhere was an explanation of why she didn't read the NIE's before she voted to give Bush the right to attack Iraq.
She said she was "briefed" and so it wasn't necessary. She said she didn't know he would go ahead and attack. I ask: Who did the briefing (someone Karl Rove approved of, no doubt), and why did I know he was going to attack and she didn't?
I'm done!
February 29, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now the Obamamaniacs at TPM are divining what Obama was up to in 2002--when he made his speech-- and that therefore when he says that he was against the war "in the midst of his senatorial campaign" he was not misspeaking but was--in a weird sort of Obamaword kind of way--telling the truth. Give me a break guys. You are simply constitutionally incapable of seeing Obama's blemishes and slick politicking. Let's call it Obamarrhea.
Of course he was embellishing the facts. Larry is absolutely right. If Hillary had said an equivalent thing you guys would be calling for her a devious liar.
No it is not Larry's Republican roots that are showing at the TPM. It is the absolute irrational worship of Obama and the incapacity to see him as just another politician doing EVERYTHING HE CAN TO GET INTO POWER.
Larry is absolutely right in pointing out that Barak Obama once elected to the Senate did say that had he been in the senate at the time of the vote he would have probably voted just as most Democrats voted. And that sentiment was expressed AFTER Iraq was not looking all that great for us.
Get Real!!
Not only did he say he would have probably voted the same way but he went on to vote for all the funding bills that Bush requested. (Oh yeah now that the bus is in the ditch we have to put the driver in another bus so he can drive IT into the ditch too, or some other twisted logic that Obama dishes out and you guys garf up)
The delusion of you TPM denizens is that you look at the ex post facto situation and indeed things have gone terribly wrong, and somehow magically think that Obama KNEW at the time he made the speech in 2002 how the situation would evolve. That's nonsense.
Iraq was a mistake but it was not Hillary's mistake. Obama and his sycophantic minions keep on implying that Iraq was Hillary's mistake not GW Bush/Cheney. Her vote was basically pro forma and was not decisive in any way.
Yes Feingold and Wellstone stand above the crowd. They actually voted against the invasion, something that Obama admits he would not have done had he been in the senate.
But this is all irrelevant to you guys. Because you are Obama sycophants.
I have heard nothing but the "mistakes" that Hillary has made and continues to make with every move she makes. You have her in your crosshairs and mostly invent wrongdoings that she supposedly is engaged ; ( in a long career you are bound to make some. A Neophyte like Obama is basically an empty vessel for your fervid imaginations to fill with wondrous powers... Oh I forgot, he was a community organizer..yeah that’s the ticket)
I have heard absolutely NO criticism of Obama at all. As far as you guys are concerned the guy walks on water. That is the characteristics of a cult. God help us!!
February 29, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 1, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
pardon my spelling
March 1, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spinning, spinning, spinning... You can quit now: more and more play on words will not make us forget the facts:
- Even after 35 years of experience, she has not proved good judgment.
March 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, you'd better sharpen your reading skills. As Larry quoted above, Obama said "a US Senate campaign" not "his senatorial campaign."
Dick Durbin was running for re-election to the US Senate from Illinois in 2002. It was his senatorial campaign that Obama was referring to.
March 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll accept your comment that once Obama was elected to the Senate, he stated that he probably would have voted with the majority of his party. I've never read that anywhere, but I'll give it to you.
I don't know exactly why he would say that, because he clearly stated in an interview on 11/25/02 that he would have voted "nay". See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0BzRhtAcd8
I've heard some say he made his later comments in an attempt to show support for the party's presidential nominee. I don't know. So I suppose this shows a level of inconsistency, but not much. He was right in 2002, which is when he would have been making such a decision. So how would he REALLY have voted? Watch the video and see what he said in 2002.
March 1, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a compelling argument, but it seems to me it is also an indication that Obama bows to pressure from without.IOW: an argument that might make Obama look good, or make him look bad, depending on the scenario.
Personally, I'd rather talk about the actual--perhaps to some, meaningless--differences that they do have.
As far as protecting the soldiers insofar as possible, I do prefer Hillary's plan to Obama's, and I think I read that the soldiers do as well. I wish Larry would adress that as he's been to Iraq and talked to them.
That is the kind of thing I'd be interested in debating, not woulda coulda maybe scenarios. Also, what they plan to do to help our fellow citizens that have lived in hell for the last 6+ years. Bush has done nothing. I want some new GI Bill.
Of all our fellow citizens, they've been the most abused and that is a big deal to me. I'd think others would feel the same way, but I never see anyone addressing that here.
March 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right there with you on the GI Bill. To Obama's credit, he did work with Republican Senator Kit Bond on an amendment to the "Defense Authorization Act" the purpose of which was to put safeguards on discharges based on personality disorders. Essentially, the military was trying to discharge soldiers for personality disorders which they deemed to be been pre-existing, thus denying them benefits.
It's a good move, but it's not enough. The issue of how we take care of our soldiers is obviously much broader and deeper than this.
March 2, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm glad someone out there is concerned, too.
I suspect that if it's brought up, the pols will comply.
March 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. ... .."
Hmmm
February 29, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is strange that, after months of snarky headlines impugning every kind of scandal to the Clintons on TPM and in the media generally, this story is relegated to A-26, small-print, he said-she said status or otherwise excused. An