On the Dick Cheney 2005 energy bill, Obama voted yea, while Hillary voted nay. This bill was widely known to be written by lobbyists. Hillary stood up against harmful and wasteful corporate tax giveaways and industry false euphemisms like "clean coal".

This was clearly a mistake on Obama's part. However, the league of conservation voters has given Obama a 96 LCV Lifetime Score, and they've given Clinton a 90 LCV Lifetime Score. Obviously, Clinton's made her own mistakes and more of them. You can go to their website to see why each one of them merit the scores they received.

Bill Clinton has been trading favors with murderous dictators in Ukraine and Kazakstan. These are goons who have murdered their political opposition. Christ he even helped Nazarbayev in Kazakstan become head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. And for what? Over a hundred million dollars in donations for his foundation from his buddy Frank Giustra who got billions of dollars in uranium mining concessions from Nazarbayev.

That's just one instance. There are dozens of others, look at their finances. It clearly shows just how amoral the Clinton's pursuit of money is. They'll do business with anyone, it doesn't matter how many American jobs are lost in the process or how much blood is on their partners' hands.

I expect that kind of crap from GHW Bush's Carlyle
Group and other Republicans. I don't accept it in
Democrats and it'll come back to haunt us if she gets the nomination.

This is more desperate than the "Trading Places" Santa Clause.

crumbye's point that Iraq is not the only issue is a fair one, even if it is one of the biggest issues. I find it strange though to unfavorably compare his willingness to take responsibility. The only mistake that Clinton has acknowledged was her health care plan. It's pretty hard to avoid taking responsibility for that one. Meanwhile, she hasn't apologized for her Iraq vote, which I find strange. Edwards apologized very forthrightly, and I give credit to him for that.

A word on the energy bill. It included a big ethanol package. I come from corn country where it's political suicide for legislators to vote against ethanol. Tom Harkin (IA) is one of the most liberal legislators in the Senate, but he voted for the Cheney bill, and he always votes pro-farm, regardless of who sponsors the bill. It might seem cynical, but if you think about the fact that his constituents overwhelmingly favor ethanol bills, and he is supposed to represent his constituents, it's not unreasonable.

For the record, here are Obama's own words on the matter. He voted yea, but he clearly had reservations:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama Friday voted in favor of the comprehensive energy bill, saying it will help Illinois and start America down the path to energy independence by doubling ethanol use, greatly increasing the availability of E85 ethanol pumps, and investing in combination plug-in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, as well as clean-coal technology. However, he warned that bolder action is required if lawmakers are really serious about dealing with the high energy costs that are plaguing American consumers.

"This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," said Obama. "It requires that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be mixed with gasoline by 2012. That's 7.5 billion gallons of fuel that will be grown in the corn fields of Illinois, and not imported from the deserts of the Middle East. The bill will also help triple the number of E85 ethanol fueling stations in the next year by providing a tax credit for their construction. This will help the millions of people who already drive flexible-fuel vehicles to fill their tanks with fuel made from 85 percent ethanol that is 50 cents cheaper than regular gasoline."

"I am also pleased that the bill includes funding I requested for research into combination plug-in hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, as well as more investment into clean-coal technology."

The Energy bill will do the following:

- Create a Renewable Fuels Standard that will nearly double the amount of ethanol used by 2012.

- Provide up to a $30,000 tax credit for the construction of E85 ethanol fueling stations.

- Provide a $1.8 billion tax credit for investments in clean-coal facilities.

- Provide $85 million to Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, and the University of Kentucky for research and testing on developing Illinois basin coal into transportation fuels.

- Provide $40 million for research on combined plug-in hybrid and E85 flexible fuel vehicles that have the potential to drive 500 miles per gallon of gasoline used.

- Provide incentives to promote biofuels from agricultural resources.

While voting for the bill, the Illinois Senator also said he believes that the legislation still falls short of what could and should be done to put America on the path to energy independence.

"Although this a step forward, it's not a very big step," said Obama. "The Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation says this bill will do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it won't reduce the price of gasoline paid by hardworking Americans. Even President Bush and supporters of the bill in Congress concede as much."

"We could have done more today, and we should do more in the future. We must accept and embrace the challenge of finding a solution to our dependence on foreign oil as one of the most pressing problems of our time. It won't be easy and it won't be without sacrifice, but we owe it to ourselves and to our children so that we can bring down gas prices, protect our environment, and strengthen our national security. This should be one of our top priorities in America."

"So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence."

Even if we accept everything in this post, Clinton voted for the war.

So, apparently neither candidate has a lock on "judgment."

OK, then what?

Obama, to be fair, was not tested in this way. He had little to lose by coming out against the war, since he was only a state senator at the time.

I don't really think that's true. If the the war had gone as the Neocons predicted this stance would have come back to haunt him -- and might have limited his political future.

Seriously - how many politicians spoke out like this at the time? I can only think of a few. It was a courageous thing to do, and a politically risky one -- particularly given the climate at the time.

This, to my mind, is as good a measure of Obama's executive judgement as any:

Last year he took on a candidate, in Hillary, who had nearly 100% name recognition, who had in essence been the co-face of the party for 15 years, who had every conceivable institutional advantage down to a husband was an increasingly popular former president, and in the months since has evaporated every one of those advantages.

Hillary's campaign is, at this point, defined by its failure to make use of its advantages, by its infighting, by its regularly shifting messages, by mismanagement -- in short, it looks downright amateurish.

Obama's campaign, in the meantime, has been extraordinarily disciplined, focused, drama-free, and successful. Note that it's still working the message it began with.

Based on these snapshots, who would you trust as your president?

NG these examples of lapses in judgment have been discussed repeatedly. Anyone who has listened to the debates and read post-debate discussion is already familiar with these examples.

Got anything new?

Moreover, I think these lapses in judgment even collectively pale in comparison to the fundamental lapse in judgment of our Democratic senators who voted for war.

Obama stood out publicly against the war in the most eloquent language and showing wonderful insight on the eve of his run for the US Senate. You don't go out on a limb like this when you have serious political ambitions unless you believe fervently in your position.

Barack Obama speaking publicly in 2002 before the invasion of Iraq:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war....

A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics....

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.

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.

Give us a break NG. Now that's judgment.

1. "On a bill to limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent, Obama voted nay, while Hillary voted yea. Hillary stood up against predatory lending."

Hillary single-handedly screwed up the opportunity to have single payer health care system and by this handed the Congress to the Republicans.

2."On the Dick Cheney 2005 energy bill, Obama voted yea, while Hillary voted nay. This bill was widely known to be written by lobbyists. Hillary stood up against harmful and wasteful corporate tax giveaways and industry false euphemisms like "clean coal"."

Hillary voted for war in Iraq (i.e. 4000 Americans and on the order of 500,000 Iraqis dead), but never admitted her mistake.

3. "In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day."

In 1978 and 1979, Hillary engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months.

----------------
If you would like a Republican Congress, or if you think those half a million Iraqis did not deserve to live, then voting for Hillary is the correct choice.

If you think a 100x return is normal, then why are we still losing time here, let's go get rich together. If the Clintons can do it, so can we.

MsJane: You left out the most important part of the speech -- his actual conclusion. His speech was a profile in bad decision-making -- a judgment rendered without any of the relevant, classified facts.

Senator Obama, in your 2002 speech opposing military intervention in Iraq, you concluded that “I know” that Saddam Hussein poses no direct and imminent threat to the US. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
But you later admitted that you were not “privy” to Senate intelligence reports, and that you do not know what you would have done if you had access to such reports.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

How was it possible for you to conclude that “I know” Saddam was not a threat, without access to the intelligence reports available to Congress, and is this the kind of decision-making that we can expect from an Obama administration?

Senator Obama, if you do not know what you would have done had you been given a classified briefing, how can you second guess Members of Congress (such as Sens. Clinton and McCain) who did have access to classified briefings?

You keep saying that Hillary has made more mistakes than obama. Whose been on the scene longer? Wouldn't that account for the imbalance you are suggesting to make him look better?

I am very grateful that issues on Obama’s judgment and inexperience have been raised. To put a twist on Socrates, (“an unexamined life is not worth living”) I think an unexamined politician is not worth supporting. As a Green Party member, I was not sure on either Obama or Clinton. I started researching and found them to be rather close on most positions and both equally environmentally aware.

However, as I researched, I was amazed at some of the information I dug up on Obama. Despite his claims of being a Washington outsider who is going to reform D.C. with some sort of new paradigm, I find him guilty of the same transgressions as Clinton. What is most distasteful about him, for me, is the hypocrisy of his stance that if he is so different. This in not a major transgression, I know, but I still think that if we are going to be educated voters, we should raise questions about his judgment. I am going to raise three points.

1.) On Feb. 9, 2008, the Seattle post-intelligencer ran a column by Kimberly Mills titled Snark Attack. Below is the column:

They all do it. Even Barrack Obama, the bearer of change. In literature handed out at the Winslow ferry terminal this week, prospective caucusgoers were treated to a fair amount of, well, let’s be charitable and call it hyperbole. As in: “He passed $100 million in tax cuts for working families” during his years in the Illinois Legislature. Sorry, not even a governor can do that by himself. And. “He reformed a death penalty system that had sent 13 innocent people to death row.” Again, it takes more than one state senator to achieve that.--Kimberly Mills.

Why did he and or his campaign resort to this sort of cheap exaggeration when he was ahead by double digits in Washington Polls?

2.) If you are as anti the Iraq war as Obama claims he is, why seek out Joe Lieberman as your mentor in the senate? Even worse, why campaign for Lieberman, in person, while the Democratic party of Connecticut is at odds with Lieberman precisely because of his pro Bush pro war stance?
pieceofmind.wordpress.com/ 2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/ - 25k

3.) Why make neocon-like statements advocating unilateral preemptive strikes by the US on Iran and Pakistan? (Obama did this more than once between 2004 and 2007) . These statements (see my sources below) were received badly in the middle east and worldwide. They lacked both diplomatic and strategic military savvy. In 2007 Pakistani radicals rioted and burnt US flags in the streets partially because of Obama’s comments. Bush, of all people, had to reaffirm to Pakistan that the United States respects Pakistan as a sovereign nation. This came when Pakistan officially complained about Obama’s stance. The USA is wildly unpopular in Pakistani even with moderates. It is clear that Obama did not help this situation with his diplomatic gaffes.
www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/ obama-an-opportunistic-h_b_59645.html - 60k -

www.counterpunch.org/frank02072007.html - 88k

www.reuters.com/article/ domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801 - 84k

www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_520565.html - 30k -

muslimsfornadercamejo.blogspot.com/ 2004/10/barack-obama-update-hawk-from-illinois.html

hotair.com/archives/2007/ 08/01/messiah-hey-lets-invade-pakistan/ - 45k -

relentlessliberal.blogspot.com/ 2007/08/obama-hawk-and-dove.html - 63k -