Bill Clinton: Obama's Candidacy Isn't The "Fairy Tale" — But His War Opposition Is
Bill Clinton just appeared on Al Sharpton's radio show, and was asked about his statements in New Hampshire that the media was pushing a "fairy tale" about Obama's candidacy. Bill insisted that he did not mean Obama's candidacy itself was the fairy tale.
"I have given hundreds of speeches on Hillary's behalf in this campaign," Bill said. "I don't believe I've ever given a single one where I haven't applauded Senator Obama and his candidacy. It's not a fairy tale — he might win."
Instead, Bill said, the "fairy tale" is the idea that Obama has always opposed the war. "We went through 15 debates and the Obama campaign has made the argument that his relative lack of service in the Senate was not relevant because he had better judgment than the other Democrats on the Iraq War..." Bill said. "And I pointed out that he'd never been asked about his statements in 2004 that he didn't know how he'd have voted on the Iraq War, and that there was no significant difference between his position as President Bush's."
Bill then speculated on what Obama might have meant at the time — perhaps he only disagreed with the conduct of the war, or how best to deal with it now. "The point is, it disproves the argument that he was always against it, everyone else was wrong and he was right..." Bill said. "I said, that story is a fairy tale, and that doesn't have anything to do with my respect for him as a person or as a political figure in this campaign."
Obama has said during this campaign that he hedged on his answer about the Iraq War authorization vote because he did not want to openly disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards, as they were the party's ticket at the national convention where he was speaking, and both of whom had voted for the war and yet to repudiate it.
Comments (167)
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 4:16 PM:If you listen to the original remarks in which Clinton used the words "fairy tale", it's 100% obvious that he meant what he is now saying here.
I was always baffled that anyone could pretend to interpret them any way else. It's almost as if there were politics involved.
mcc wrote on January 11, 2008 4:22 PM:Hm. Hasn't the recurring theme of this campaign been that negative campaigning keeps for some reason incurring a backlash? I mean, before Iowa the Clinton campaign was going more and more negative and Obama soared under the pressure, after Iowa Clinton finally made a comeback seemingly mostly because of the backlash when people started going negative against her. Now the Clinton campaign is trying to wrestle the negativity lead back from Chris Matthews, and the negative attacks seem more bizarre and desperate than any they've yet tried. Maybe they think that they're finally at a point where they can play Rovian politics and it will work for them this time? Maybe they're right?
Tapper wrote on January 11, 2008 4:22 PM:So let me see if I have this straight:
Obama "hedged" on Iraq not out of deeply held moral belief but for political expediency. Which one might add has paid off in his tag teaming partners.
Isn't this the same "crime" that Obama and his Obamaniacs have played "Ja Accuse Hillary" with?
I know, I know, any criticism of Obama just proves that I'm a racist or stupid just like any criticism of Israel proves I'm antiSemitic.
But really, now the Obama surrogates are telling us that the word "fairytale" is racist.
What do I tell my kids at bedtime?
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama noted that once the war
began, "...There's not much of a difference between my position and George
Bush's position at this stage." [Chicago Tribune, 7/27/2004]
WHAT OBAMA SAID
"Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush
administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to
administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.
'On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the
Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a
year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters
of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position
and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is
who's in a position to execute.'
Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, did not
dispute Obama's statement, but said the true comparison rests in the
differences over the past two years. 'If you look on paper, [Bush] has come
our way, but he has come our way at a significant cost in terms of blood and
treasure,' Cutter said Monday. 'Bush finally agreed to go to the
international community, but in voters' minds that doesn't change their
opinion as to why we're at war or how the president mismanaged the war from
day one.'
Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the
Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to
stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current
approach of the Bush administration.
The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international
community. 'How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three
different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of
life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?' Obama said. 'I am skeptical that
the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just
on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to
execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the
Bush administration acknowledges has to happen.'"
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/sweet_blog_special_at_harvards.html
I'm getting so very tired of the Clintons' tactics these days.
jeanba wrote on January 11, 2008 4:22 PM:I did not have sexual relationship with that woman!
john mccutchen wrote on January 11, 2008 4:23 PM:No Do-Overs!
Hillary Clinton on Iraq - by Stephen Zunes
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans – and even a larger majority of Democrats – believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.
Don't let Bill deceive you again.
We have a choice.
If the Democrats select another war supporter as their nominee in 2008, the result may well be the same as 2004. Large numbers of people will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee as part of a principled stance against voting for someone who authorized and subsequently supported the Iraq war. And Republicans will highlight the Democratic nominee's shifting positions on Iraq as evidence that their opponent is simply an opportunistic politician rather than the kind of decisive leader the country needs.
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052
Jessica wrote on January 11, 2008 4:25 PM:Once again Bill lies. First of all he only uses half of Obama's quote. He leaves of the last line in which Obama says something to the effect that with the knowledge he had at the time the case was not made. Second Bill claims that Obama has never been questioned about this - He was questioned about it recently on Meet the Press. Bill Clinton knows this he just would prefer to tell his fairytale.
Now Hillary's vote for the war that wasn't really a vote for the war - now that is a fairytale.
Tom wrote on January 11, 2008 4:26 PM:I think this makes it much worse for Bill. He is being very misleading with his attacks on Obama.
Obama was very clear with his war opposition. He just didn't want to attack our party's nominees, so he made that comment which didn't say he didn't know how he'd vote, but that he didn't know how he'd vote if he had seen the intelligence they did. As an Edwards supporter, I appreciate the fact that Obama stood up for our nominee like that.
And it angers me to see someone like Bill Clinton attack him for that, especially after he himself lied about opposing the war, for no reason other than to undercut Obama's opposition.
Dawn wrote on January 11, 2008 4:26 PM:Obama has funded the war every time he has been asked. That alone makes his stated good judgement in oppostion to it a fairy tale.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 4:26 PM:I didn't hear the interview, but i'm wondering if Al Sharpton challenged Bill's assertions. Not because Obama is black and Al should feel some obligation to defend him, but because Bill's assertions were flat out WRONG.
If you go back to Obama's 2002 speech against the invasion of Iraq, he said he was not convinced that Iraq had WMD, he believed the war would be far longer and more costly than the Bush administration was claiming, and he thought it would "strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Quaeda."
That's 2002.
Before the invasion.
Obama called it and he deserves credit. To see a former President intentionally smearing a talented and promising member of his own party is sickening.
Michael wrote on January 11, 2008 4:26 PM:Its an interesting tactic Bill is taking. He's simultaneously going negative, distorting the record, and playing the victim.
I think the goal is to try to avoid media backlash by cloaking the distortions/attacks as complaints about how the media is against him and his wife.
As others have noted, the problem for the Clintons is not that these questions haven't been asked; its that these questions have been asked and answered, and found to be lacking much substance.
Bill Clinton parsing "fairy tail" -- I guess it all boils down to what the definition of "is" is.
As demonstrated above, there was a context to Obama's remarks, which was the 2004 election, where he did not want to highlight Kerry and Edwards lack of leadership on the war question.
But then again, if you listen to Pres. Clinton, he was against the war from the beginning. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/27/post_214.html
SLKRR wrote on January 11, 2008 4:28 PM:It depends on what the words "fairy tale" mean.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 4:28 PM:Already i can see the perception game playing out.
It doesn't matter if what Bill says is true or not. All he has to do is repeat it enough times and people will THINK its true...
Where's Obama's response on this? Doesn't he have a "quick response team" yet. If not, he needs to get one really freakin' fast.
JHo wrote on January 11, 2008 4:28 PM:You're wrong frankly0. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Left the impression that he was talking about Obama's campaign. My faith in the American electorate continues to diminish. How can people not see through this??? Ask yourself - is this any way for a former president to behave? Say what you want about the Bush dynasty but George 41 never acted this way. No class. No dignity. No morals.
NH Dem wrote on January 11, 2008 4:28 PM:I believe that it is in fact Bill Clinton's recently declared from-the-beginning opposition to the Iraq War that is the fairy tale.
Projection, deliberate dishonesty and smear.
It's what the VRWC used against the Clintons for so many years.
It's what the Clintons are using against Obama now.
Just say no. To the tactics and those that use them.
Jeremy wrote on January 11, 2008 4:29 PM:Fairy Tale: Hillary Clinton's claim to have voted for "diplomacy" when she authorized war. She voted against the 2002 Levin Ammendment because she didn't want to look "naive" suporting more diplomacy.
DML wrote on January 11, 2008 4:30 PM:As someone put it elsewhere,
Mr. "I was for it before I was against it" endorses Mr. "I was against it before I funded it".
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 4:30 PM:Also...does anyone else see the Rovian tatics playing out?
they're taking obama's main strength and turning it into a weakness, or at least they're trying to.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 4:33 PM:Does anyone have a source for whatever Obama is supposed to have said in 2004 that Bill Clinton has been referring to? Was it maybe something Obama said in defense of Kerry's vote AUMF Iraq when he was out stumping for Kerry 2004?
DML wrote on January 11, 2008 4:33 PM:My god, if his main strength is that he was against the war from the start, any one of us are just as qualified to be president. Let's hope he has more than that.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 4:34 PM:For anyone bringing up the war funding issue:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p.php
loki wrote on January 11, 2008 4:35 PM:Keith...
As soon as you realize that the Clintons "tactics" are no different than anyone elses, including and especially Obama's...the better.
Really, are you this new to politics?
referen wrote on January 11, 2008 4:35 PM:The problem is that Clinton is misrepresenting Obama's words.
From a NYTimes article on this issue:
At that time, Mr. Obama said he had based his judgments on following the debate in Washington and on his gut. He did not have access, of course, to the intelligence reports that were provided to senators voting on the resolution. He brought up that fact two years later, in the 2004 presidential race, as he made clear that while he opposed the war, senators who voted for it were acting on other information.
Indeed, reporters asked Mr. Obama about the Democratic presidential ticket throughout the 2004 campaign, because Senators John Kerry and John Edwards had both voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.
"But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63
When is Bill Clinton going to stop playing dirty politics?
DML:
In regards to what differentiates him from the robot, his opposition to the war is his strongest point, policy wise.
DML wrote on January 11, 2008 4:36 PM:Obama was very clear with his war opposition. He just didn't want to attack our party's nominees, so he made that comment which didn't say he didn't know how he'd vote, but that he didn't know how he'd vote if he had seen the intelligence they did. As an Edwards supporter, I appreciate the fact that Obama stood up for our nominee like that.
Wow. So if Clinton is the nominee he will stand up for her in the same way? That's something!
ScanDroid wrote on January 11, 2008 4:36 PM:ZING!
Bill strikes again and turns the argument on its head. Way to go.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 4:37 PM:CalD:
I posted it above with links.
Tithonia wrote on January 11, 2008 4:38 PM:Bill Clinton? Isn't that the guy who waggled his finger at all of us and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky?"
He smeared her with that lie, and he would have gotten away with it, if not for a blue dress.....
Hillary should be cautious about letting Bill be her surrogate.
Hey I got a great idea for someone with the talent to do it. I'd do it myself if I could. We need to do a series called Bill/Hill Attacks. Similar to the Brave New Films "Fox News Attacks". It seems the Clinton's have fallen into a Fox News Mentality - who cares if it is true as long as it sticks. It would be great to piece the vids back to back. Bills "fairy tale", Hill's "LBJ" and "False Hope" and contrast them with Barack's real statements.
The people that are backing Hillary now are the ones who feel sympathy to her plight of being the Republican punching bag for all of those years. That doesn't make her good for the presidency. As a matter of fact, using the tricks she learned from the vicious GOP against another Dem (an inspiring one at that) is just pure lunacy.
Hillary can't "change" anything. She is way too jaded. It is time to move on and close the book on this nasty time in our history.
Vote integrity - Vote Hope - Vote Obama
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 11, 2008 4:40 PM:You're wrong frankly0. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Left the impression that he was talking about Obama's campaign.
If you haven't yet, watch the clip on YouTube. The entire discussion is Clinton's taking exception to the idea that Obama is the one Democrat in the race who's been a consistent opponent of the war and hence the one with the best judgment going forward. Is Clinton portraying Obama correctly? Maybe not. But "fairy tale" was a targeted slam, not an all-encompassing one.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 4:41 PM:The fairy tale is Bill Clinton's accusations that Obama flip flopped on the war. I can't believe his audacity in continually misrepresenting Obama's comments by taking them out of context and leaving selected parts out. Obama has pointed this out, and Bill keeps doing it. Why? Is it because Bill doesn't know he is misrepresenting the truth? No, it is because he is trying to get his wife elected so he will say anything about anyone even if he knows it is a flat out lie.
The truth is that Obama never changed his position on the war. Obama was smart enough not to criticize Kerry and Edwards on their war votes during their presidential bid, and so he answered the question diplomatically, just as any reasonable person would. If I was in his position back then I would have probably said something very similar to that, even though I too have been against the war from before we even invaded.
And as far as war funding goes, he has voted to fund the troops because he, like most Senators, believe that is the right thing to do regardless of what he thinks of the war in general. He has consistently called for troop withdrawal provisions in the bills because he wants to end this horrible war.
No amount of trying to rewrite history is going to change the simple fact that Hillary Clinton, his wife, voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, even though plenty of people knew (me, Obama, and quite a few members of Congress included) that it was a bad decision and that Bush couldn't be trusted with that power. The bottom line is that Hillary messed up (and no, she wasn't alone), she helped Bush start this war, and she backed him vocally for quite some time afterwards. To top it all, she did damn near the same thing with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which just shows her judgment hasn't gotten any better with "experience".
To think, I actually supported Clinton back in the 90s when everyone was calling him a compulsive lair. I'll admit it, I was wrong, they were apparently right. He will indeed say and do anything to get ahead (and to get his wife ahead). It makes me sick.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 4:41 PM:Loki:
Not new at all. I expect it from Republicans. Just don't appreciate this type of bullshit within the party.
DML:
If she's the nominee, I'm sure she won't want him within 1000 miles of the convention (for a variety of reasons).
I don't know how you folks take pleasure in a former president distorting the words of our potential nominee. I mean it's not 1992, we have Google. His words are readily accessible and can be hyperlinked in a couple of seconds. These folks have no integrity.
DML wrote on January 11, 2008 4:41 PM:Again, I hope that his main strength, policywise or any other way, is not oppositon to the war that he then softened to provide political cover for Kerry and Edwards. I really do hoppe he has better than that in his arsenal, since he is likely to be our nominee.
Tom wrote on January 11, 2008 4:41 PM:The more I see these kinds of dishonest attacks from the Clinton campaign, the more motivated I am to see them defeated.
Bill Clinton is tarnishing his legacy with his actions in this election.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 4:41 PM:"But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know..."
I'll bet it would have at least crossed his mind that maybe he should have the flu that day.
blatherskite wrote on January 11, 2008 4:42 PM:Bill Clinton may need to get reacquainted with the truth. Seems like he'd have learned his lesson from that quaint impeachment nonsense.
On the other hand, if he's still lying, this aggressively, maybe he's still getting extracurricular sex, too.
referen wrote on January 11, 2008 4:42 PM:Dawn wrote: Obama has funded the war every time he has been asked. That alone makes his stated good judgement in oppostion to it a fairy tale.
Tell me Dawn, does that mean Hillary Clinton's votes for war funding mean she's lying now when she says she's against the war?
This thing cuts both ways, Dawn.
RS wrote on January 11, 2008 4:43 PM:It's flatly untrue that he's never been asked about it.
I respect Bill, but he's too smart for this criticism to be anything but intentionally dishonest.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 4:44 PM:RS:
Why do respect someone who is intentionally dishonest?
jim wrote on January 11, 2008 4:45 PM:"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.
Despite being a much better president than W (not altogether that difficult a feat), does this man have any credibility?
He's proving himself the greatest shill of the Hillary Cultists. Although in his defense I can't imagine what home life-presuming he & Hillary live together-would be if he didn't. Be worse than living with anything portrayed by Roseanne Barr.
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 4:45 PM:And one more thing: At least Edwards later said he made a mistake when he voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. At least he has enough character to own up to it and admit he was wrong. Hillary has repeated refused to admit she was wrong and that she showed poor judgment, and apparently instead is just going to try to rewrite the history of her opponents to match her level instead.
We have endured 7 years of a president who is too stubborn to admit mistakes, and all too willing to rewrite history and facts to fit his political agenda. Do we really need 4-8 more years of that? Is that really the "change" we need..?
Tapper wrote on January 11, 2008 4:45 PM:
Q: Do you see this message of change as anything other than a rejection of your presidency?
BUSH: No, listen. If you’re running for office, you can’t run for office and not say ‘I am an agent of change.’ It’s just American politics. If I were running for office at this point, I’d be saying, ‘Vote for me. I’m gonna be an agent of change.’
Heh.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 4:45 PM:CalD:
What do you want to bet?
kucinich for prez wrote on January 11, 2008 4:49 PM:Neither said they will end the war. Kucinich will. And you know it.
EvanR wrote on January 11, 2008 4:50 PM:These attempts by Bill to confuse the public are cynical and dishonest as all hell. It's vastly more plausible in context to see that when Obama made that statement in 2004 he was simply trying avoid bashing prominent Dems -- including Hillary for chrissakes -- for screwing up so badly with their vote to authorize the Iraq war in October 2002.
At the time, Kerry and Edwards were in the midst of trying to unseat Bush. Obama actually took one for the team by choosing not to criticize Dems who had voted the wrong way. Way for Bill to repay him for that loyalty.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton (his own delusions to the contrary) did not do or say a damn thing in opposition to the Iraq War when it could have made a difference. He didn't do or say anything in opposition to any of Bush's startlingly wrongheaded, grossly dangerous policies. He was more interested in taking his place in the ex-Presidents club and making nice with George senior. It was simply too unseemly for an former President to stoop to participating political debates.
Except now that his own proximity to power is being threatened he's perfectly willing to savage one of our party's and countries best hopes. Obama's campaign, in Clinton's view, is hardly better than a charismatic but superficial TV commentator running for President. I volunteered plenty of hours for Bill in 1992 and 1996 but I've had enough of this garbage.
We're told on the one hand that Obama has been aiming for the Presidency since he was a kid, but on the other hand that his very clear, prescient and public opposition to the Iraq War in October '02 doesn't matter because he wasn't a sitting US Senator at the time. What a pathetic attempt to divert us from the fact that Hillary Clinton cast the wrong vote on the most important foreign policy issue before her, for one of two reasons: either she was so cynical and dishonest that she felt she had to make the safe political vote and then misrepresent it; or, she was actually taken in by Bush's manufactured faux-intelligence and hype. Neither explanation looks good for a candidate who is running on her supposed experience in foreign affairs, her ability to be ready "on day one".
Come on, whether Obama is your first choice for President or not, give the guy credit for getting the decision on Iraq right.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 4:50 PM:Actually both have said they will end this war.
Joe wrote on January 11, 2008 4:51 PM:Ok, just read Obama's statement before the war. Just read it. I dare anyone to find a more cogent, prescient or direct public strategic opposition to the war at that time. It is so clear it even gives the lie to all those people whose excuse is "everyone believed he had WMD..."
Obama's objections to the war are strategic. This is stupid strategy for America because it won't make us or the world safer (although Iraq may be a better place without Saddam). Leaders are to blame for bad strategy. Period.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 4:44 PM:
RS:
Why do respect someone who is intentionally dishonest?
We're getting into semantics, but I suppose I should say that I respect him in a number of ways, but this is a fairly dishonest and lame attack.
Charles wrote on January 11, 2008 4:53 PM:There is such a thing as going to the well too often. For Bill and Hillary, that time is now. The American people face very, very serious problems. Do we really want to see their faces on television for the next 4-8 years?
Reruns are rarely as good the second and third time around.
jim wrote on January 11, 2008 4:53 PM:>>Mr. "I was for it before I was against it" endorses Mr. "I was against it before I funded it".
This from Mrs. "I was for it when it was popular before I was against it when it was unpopular."
You know Hillary can use the same excuse with Iran: "Sure, I did everything in my power to enable an attack on Iran, but later on when the blatantly obvious disaster occurs, I'll be against it!" Bush has more "experience" than either Hillary or Obama, which surely trumps their judgment.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 4:53 PM:
Fair question: How is this accusation any different than the stupid emails being circulated about Obama (muslim, pledge of allegiance)?
John wrote on January 11, 2008 4:53 PM:Why do leaders in the black community always have to make comments that are obviously not about race about race? Doesn't Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et. all realize that by turning everything into a racial war it hurts their positions more than it helps them?
Bill and Hillary Clinton have never showed anything but the utmost respect for the African American community. To say they are racist is preposterous.
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 4:55 PM:referen
If I may, Obama represented a liberal/progressive district in Illinois. Being against the war may have been a principled stand but it was one with little political danger to him from his constituency. In fact, he might have been in more danger if he'd supported it. It shows good judgement, but I'm not sure about what...the war or the mood of his constituents.
Once they were both in the Senate they have both voted for funding and have both asked for benchmarks.
Whe the resolution to name the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization came up, Clinton voted for it. Obama did not vote. While I'm not wild about Clinton's decision I'm also troubled by Obama's non-response.
green heron wrote on January 11, 2008 4:57 PM:Too late Bill. Hillary has already lost the black vote.
Elizabeth wrote on January 11, 2008 4:57 PM:http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
or go to the Obama main web page, click on "Learn", and click on "Know the facts"
With the increase in accusations, smears and 'fairytales' that one can expect now (so sad to see the Clintons destroying their standing and respect ... and morphing into Karl Rove!), the Obama people should probably make that page more user-friendly and give folks a complete and constantly updated and linked "menu" of allegations to choose from.
"The end pre-exists in the means" (RW Emerson). In this context, to see what sort of presidency any of the candidates would have if elected, look at the way that candidate's campaign is being run. That's the way they will govern the country.
lestatdelc wrote on January 11, 2008 4:58 PM:My irony (hypocrite/bullshit) needle just snapped off on that one. Can we not recall just a few weeks ago the Cltinon campaign was furious abotu Bill's fruadlent claim about his "being against the war form the start"...?
Granted Bill Clinton is not the cnadiate running for office, but the last person on the planet who should be throwing stones or trying to spin his opposition agaisnt invading Iraq woudl be Bill Clinton.
That said, his BS attack on Obama is, well... BS. Obama clreay opposed the war form the get-go.
Furthermore, the spin that Obama;'s 2004 statement "How would I have voted? I don't know." is somehow waffling on the war let's unpack that right now.What Clinton backers are pushing is the exact same crap that Tim Russert tried, which Media Matters rightly called him on.
So what was the full quote Russert and the Clinton camp do not tal about?
"But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports, what I know is that from my vantage point the case [for authorizing the war] was not made." - Barack Obama, July 26, 2004, New York Times
So what intelligence reports could that mean? It might be the classified NIE that we now know contained all the dissenting footnotes that gave proof that there was no real evidence, that classified NIE that Clinton didn't even bother to read, despite the urging of Bob Graham who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who along with my own Senator who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, voted no on the 2002 AUMF (i.e. the 'Iraq War Resolution')
And that was quote said in the context of trying to bait Obama into criticizing Kerry and Edwards DURING the week of the Democratic National Convention where he was to give the keynote address.
So is Clinton seriously suggesting that Obama should have criticized Kerry and Edwards on the IWR vote right before he was to give the keynote address?
Yeah, that would not have been a shit-storm feeding frenzy. Karl Rove certainly would not be laughing his ass off over that.
And the Clinton campaign and Bill himself have the nerve to try and smear Obama on this and bleat that Obama's war opposition is a "fairy tale" when it is the same gotcha horse-shit Russert tried years ago which the Clinton campaign (and now the big dog himself) is pushing and the Clinton boosters are dutifully running with?
And people wonder why the Clinton's have problems with significant quarters of the Democratic Party and the liberal/progressive communities?
jim wrote on January 11, 2008 4:59 PM:Why do leaders in the black community always have to make comments that are obviously not about race about race? Doesn't Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et. all realize that by turning everything into a racial war it hurts their positions more than it helps them?
Let me translate the code: "Why do uppity negroes always play the race card? Don't they know what is good for them? How could anyone dare to claim that the Clintons would ever play the race card? They are good, liberal whites -- much like LBJ, who really deserves all of the credit for helping the poor negroes, not that uppity negro MLK."
There. Fixed.
John:
I appreciate where you are going with your comments, but here's the thing, there's a very distinct pattern developing here with respect to the Clintons and their surrogates.
Before this year, I would not have believed that the CLintons' would intentionally lie and distort another Democrat's position. I was wrong.
I don't think they are racist, not one wit. What I think they are is tone deaf. In their haste to beat back his charge, they are throwing whatever they can at him without (apparent) concern for how it might come across or be interpretted. It's either that, or that they recognize how will be interpretted byt don't care.
I chose the former initially, but their constincency suggests the latter is probably the case. This is beyond a partisan thing to me; this is about the integrity of the Democratic Party. Integrity matters.
Jessica wrote on January 11, 2008 5:01 PM:Lifelongdem,
Are kidding me? Do you remember what it was like back then? If you spoke out in anyway against the Bush administration you were aiding the terrorists and unpatriotic. Remember the Dixie Chicks, etc.
This was not an easy thing to do but it was the right thing.
CalD wrote on January 11, 2008 5:02 PM:Kieth,
I'd go 100 bucks, if there were any way to really settle it. A person would have to be able to read minds to ever know the answer for sure though. All we really know is that there are no "Present" votes in the US Senate.
pkoso wrote on January 11, 2008 5:03 PM:keith...good, even comments here. thanks especially for picking Obama's words and laying them down whole.
unrelated:
It's getting tiresome to read the tirades here and have to deal with a general lack of media literacy/savvy. Whether or not you're an Obama supporter, it's hard to make a case that he's been inconsistent or--as yet--participating in the same, lame politics of slash and burn that the Clintons are employing. I've been such a lover of Bill these past few years, but his arrogance...and Hillary's perceived sense of entitlement...are becoming a challenge. I'd rather just hear Hillary and Obama and Edwards, et al, talk policy.
Wouldn't be the first time Bill lied about tail. Oh, wait...
toM wrote on January 11, 2008 5:03 PM:Jessica, in all honesty it's very easy for me to imagine the same behaviour from Hillary if elected.
wes2 wrote on January 11, 2008 5:04 PM:Yikes. This is the Clintons "not going negative" -- misportraying the abortion votes, using GOP "tax and spend" frames, and now wilfully misquoting 2004 remarks? Just how irrational is Clinton-loathing under these circumstances? Seriously...
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 5:04 PM:Hey, if Lincoln Chafee, had the cojones to vote "Nay" in Rhode Freakin' Island, I think HRC could have found some moral courage to face New York state voters (generally moderate, maybe more so than a midwest farm state) to do the same.
Whether you support Hillary or not, you have to admit that Bill speaking on matters of trust to anyone elicits, at best, a cringe and at worst a huge laugh.
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 5:05 PM:Jessica,
Yes, I do remember what it was like back then. I was against the war living in Arizona. However I don't think my experience is the same as it would have been if I had been living in a progressive district. I understand your point, but I also don't think the Dixie Chicks, country musicians from Texas, are an equivalent example from which to extrapolate.
MNPundit wrote on January 11, 2008 5:06 PM:I would probably mind the Clintons less if their tactics actually worked against REPUBLICANS.
And what have you and Hillary done to shield us from the Republican monstrosity these last few years Bill?
I mean without us screaming our heads off about stupid things like the rule of law, common decency and the constitution.
zooguitar wrote on January 11, 2008 5:07 PM:By the way, LifeLongDem, I meant to address that previous post to you, not put your name in the author field. Sorry!
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 5:08 PM:Is this another one of the Clinton machine's arguments(gloria Steinem) about how it is more important to elect a woman than a black person?
Or was that just for 98% white New Hampshire voters?
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 5:08 PM:CalD:
That was my point.
jim wrote on January 11, 2008 5:10 PM:Let's consider the irony (or maybe, the sheer hypocrisy) here: Clinton is attacking Obama for one comment in which he supposedly "hedged" his opposition to the Iraq war, when HRC VOTED FOR THE WAR and enthusiastically supported the invasion and never once spoke out against it. And that's leaving aside the fact that he is deliberately distorting the Obama quote.
Wow.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 5:10 PM:A Question:
Do you think people who dont read blogs, people who aren't poltical elites, people who aren't paying attetion, will buy Bill's lies?
It worries me that they might, especially with super Tuesday coming up where it's no longer about retail politics.
Obama needs to respond to this. I can't believe he hasn't yet.
SC Progressive wrote on January 11, 2008 5:11 PM:"At one point, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vagina, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: "It tastes good."
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 5:12 PM:SC Progressive:
Whatever your intentions are you aren't helping.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:12 PM:Memo to Bill:
You can't just shuck and jive like that on national radio. Someone's going to call you out on it.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:13 PM:zooguitar
I got confused there for a minute. I don't know about a comparison there. She represents upstate NY which is really pretty conservative. I went to graduate school in Binghamton and probably would not have said a whole lot about it if I'd been there.
I do think its not a good idea for Clinton to have Bill talking for her. If she's going to live or die on this campaign I think she should rely on herself.
referen wrote on January 11, 2008 5:13 PM:LifeLongDem: Are you suggesting Hillary Clinton voted FOR the war resolution because she represented a conservative red state? If that's what you're saying, sir, you know nothing about New York.
I voted twice for Hillary Clinton to be my senator. After watching the lying, manipulative and disgraceful way she's run her presedential campaign, I will never vote for her for any elective office again.
The day Hillary Clinton rubbed her hands in glee and announced "now the FUN part begins," is the day I realized I'd made a huge mistake trusting her. I'll never make that mistake again in my life.
Barack Obama was given false information by Harry Reid as to when the Iraq resolution was scheduled for a vote. He didn't know the vote had been moved up until he was already in New Hampshire. While some have claimed the schedule change was done by Reid in collusion with Hillary Clinton, I haven't seen any direct evidence that's what happened. After watching the Clinton's dishonest tactics during this campaign, however, I'm beginning to think the others are right.
Audacious_One wrote on January 11, 2008 5:14 PM:Greg - This really does deserve an update from you:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_blog_extra_obama_on_meet.html
MR. RUSSERT: ... 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.Michael A wrote on January 11, 2008 5:15 PM:SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.
Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that's what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that's what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there. And since that time I've been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take. I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.
That's the problem Keith, the clintons have zero integrity and zero credibility. They will do and say anything to get h. clinton in the white house. You cannot believe a word they say and that is a similar problem we have with the king's administration. Does america want 4 more years of the same?
Justin wrote on January 11, 2008 5:15 PM:"Obama has funded the war every time he has been asked. That alone makes his stated good judgement in oppostion to it a fairy tale."
Unless of course he thought that Bush would actually leave the troops out there to die and/or that now we're there we need to stabilize the situation.
Some people think in a more complex manner than either NONONO or YESYESYES.
Too bad Bill is tarnishing his stature as a former president by openly attacking a Democratic presidential candidate with lies.
vena wrote on January 11, 2008 5:17 PM:Exactly who is running, Bill or Hillary? I'm hearing more about him lately then I am about her. Stick a fork in it Bill.
Alan wrote on January 11, 2008 5:17 PM:What is this crap about Hillary's "sense of entitlement" ? When did anyone let alone her say she was "entitled" to the presidency. She did not, but since her opponents say she did it must be true, right?
Senator Obama, with his thin resume is the one who must think he is entitled to the presidency because he makes great speeches. Great. Unfortunatley, he has not had a lot of time to make change the way Senator Clinton already has. He can in the future, but as of now it is not even close in this very progressive liberal's mind. It's Hillary all the way.
To some of you beating up on President Clinton with the same tired Republican talking points, what didn't you like about the Clinton years, the Peace or the Prosperity?
Here's Obama's response to Clinton's misleading attack:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/_by_frank_james_the.html
He does a pretty good job of rebutting it.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 5:19 PM:"Bill is tarnishing his stature as a former president by openly attacking a Democratic presidential candidate"
There really is no precedent for this. It's probably inappropriate for a former president to insert himself in a primary, not only favoring one candidate over another, but actively trying to destroy her main rival.
If Obama wins, it undermines and undercuts his presidency immediately, because all the country and world will know a former president of the united states didn't/doesn't support him.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:19 PM:Over the past weekend, Hillary told New Hampshire voters: "After 9/11, I would never have taken us to war in Iraq".
Bill Clinton has taken a page straight out of Karl Rove's playbook.
Whatever lingering regard I ever had for the man is gone.
DonnaG wrote on January 11, 2008 5:21 PM:Undeniable repeat pattern from the HRoveC campaign:
trash Obama in whatever twist of facts can be created, after the blow lands to intentionally bruise Obama by planting a false picture of him in the public's eye, thereby creating news for endless back and forths in the media and on blogs to further embed doubts of what is the truth [offering Hillcampers opportunities for lots of further trash-Obama talk] THEN.....
come back to parse, weave and bob the original words......'oh, sorry my sharp elbow hit you, didn't mean to do that at all....
So, it is time for a prayer and a call to everyone's better angels.
'Dear God, please shine the light of truth on this situation. If Barack Obama's position against the Iraq War was or is a 'fairy tale', please bring that truth forward in indisputable fashion beyond conjecture. If Hillary Clinton's campaign is engaging in intentional deceptions in their statements criticizing Obama's behavior, judgment and integrity, please bring that truth forward in indisputable fashion beyond conjecture. Thank you. Amen.'
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 5:23 PM:I got confused there for a minute.
I don't know about ca comparison there. I went to grad school in Binghamton, NY and upstate NY is pretty conservative. I don't know tha I would have said anything.
All that aside I agree that its a bad move to have Bill speaking for her. If she's going to live or die on this campaign I'd rather she used colleagues to speak to her accomplishments.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 5:23 PM:Alan:
The only people who seem to be engaging in Republican talking points/tactics, are your beloved Clintons. And, speaking for myself, this is the type of crap I didn't like from the Clinton years.
jim wrote on January 11, 2008 5:24 PM:If she's going to live or die on this campaign I think she should rely on herself.
If Mrs. "Super-feminist" did that, she wouldn't have a political career in the first place. It is slightly comic that she is supposedly a champion of feminism when her chief claim to fame is being someone's wife. Sorry, a single mother who has raised three kids has accomplished more as a "feminist" than a nepotistic ex-President's wife.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President kissed. She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth. Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area." While the President continued talking on the phone (Ms. Lewinsky understood that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator), she performed oral sex on him. He finished his call, and, a moment later, told Ms. Lewinsky to stop. In her recollection: "I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."
benjoya wrote on January 11, 2008 5:25 PM:bill clinton was against the war from the start. he just didn't tell anyone.
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 5:27 PM:referen
I lived in upstate NY (Binghamton) for 6 years in the late 1990s. I am aware of the state's make-up. NY would never be a red state because of the heavy population concentration in NYC. That doesn't mean it doesn't have very conservative areas.
Liam wrote on January 11, 2008 5:27 PM:That he pardoned fugitive swindler Marc Rich for the right reasons is a Bill Clinton Fairy Tale.
Yada wrote on January 11, 2008 5:28 PM:I was in NH last week working for Obama. Clinton people were denying that Obama ever opposed the war. They go straight for the bald faced lie. They act exactly like Republicans. That's the main reason why I will never vote for Hillary. And I cast my very first vote for Bill in 1996. Never voted for a Republican. But I may just sit this election out if Hillary gets the nod. Why reward Karl Rove tactics?
Marian Edelstein wrote on January 11, 2008 5:30 PM:I truly can't believ just how desperate they are. No wonder Karl Rove is endorsing them.
I have now lost all respect for someone with whom I used to greatly admire. He is now right up there with Joe Lieberman.
frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 5:30 PM:There really is no precedent for this. It's probably inappropriate for a former president to insert himself in a primary, not only favoring one candidate over another, but actively trying to destroy her main rival.
Did you notice the part about Hillary being Bill's wife?
No? Maybe it's time.
CPG81 wrote on January 11, 2008 5:30 PM:refreren: folks like yourself need to grow up and quit faking outrage everytime time a politician appears to enjoy politics. If you want someone who is politically inept, maybe you sohuld vote for your mailman. Hillary likes politics, SO WHAT!!! The only way you get elected is by being the better politician, and if you think Obama, or any of the other candidates don't enjoy it as much, you're either lieing to yourself or have the mentality of a 10 year old. As far as personal attacks, or "going negative", Clintons points are on Obama's policy positions, not his character. They're no worse than Obama continuely trying to portray Clinton as a stooge of D.C. lobbyist, out to short change her dem supporters.
Obama admits he didn't come out against Kerry's position, because Kerry was the parties candidate. If Obama was against the war as strongly as he says he was, he should have had the integrity to decline the invitation to speak at the convention, PERIOD!!! Or better yet, use the oppurtunity to speak against the war. He did neither, so as far as I'm concerned thats just as bad as approving the war, and doing so purely for POLITICAL motives. WOW, imagine that, something you might expect from A POLITICIAN!!!!
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 11, 2008 5:32 PM:Clinton's statement and his statement he made the
first go around had the same meaning. Only
those who insist on being confused can
be confused by it. Obama's full statement and as
it was amended by Clinton does not change the
meaning very much.
When it did not matter Obama opposed the war in Iraq.
When he actually had to vote on it his votes
and those of Hillary Clinton are identical.
When on candidate is claiming to be holier than
thou because he oppose a war and others did why is it "going
negative" to set the record straight? Why do
those who like Obama so opposed to him facing facts?
Here is how I am taking these racist charges against the Clintons, as political attacks intended to charge that Bill and Hill aren’t black enough and that Senator Obama is blacker, it I believe is meant to inflame and divide to conquer voters frankly I get that. And no surprise that’s and easy point to score certainly on the face of it.. I also understand the emotion or the perceived insult I have felt it many times this last week rage actually on blogs against outrageous just outrageous bigotry spewed at blacks and women. Fuuny or not when I first heard his statement I though it was code to compare Senator Obama to George Bush as an analogy Prince Frog ye know not experienced like Senator Clinton which I believe is a fair contrast. I for one supported and support Senator Clinton because I believe she is absolutely what I want in the next President ethical, strong and competent a Leader who is also a pragmatic policy wonk, for me she was absolutely stunning in the debates not small decider for me and I respect and admire her for many things and am absolutely thrilled that she is also female. I would not for a moment support her if she were a bigot who is prejudicial against any group, and I absolutely when looking at her body politics see nothing absolutely nothing that tells me she has a hint not even a hint of bigotry in her body unlike many others which is uplifting.
It feels like a major natural WEDGIE that can be exploited to divide and inflame passions like gays were used in the last election for Bush and CNN is already jumping on the band wagon god bless the cable, in this party in this country in this election this issue can swing both ways, no pun intended. Short term gains maybe but people will be hurt deeply.
I thought Democrats used to read and post on this site.
Looks like it has been taken over by a cult.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:34 PM:Barack Obama, Chicago, 2002:
I don’t oppose all wars. 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 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.
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…
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.
***
President Clinton, with all due respect, sir, you are a liar.
frankly:
yeah. Hillary is married to him. So?
Maybe he should give speeches saying why he thinks hillary would be a good president and not give speeches destroying the other candidates. Like i said, if hillary doesn't win, these attacks will only undermine Obama's presidency, which is probably why former presidents don't weigh in on primaries very often
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 5:35 PM:CPG81:
Why paraphrase when the article provides, the context? He declined to criticize them on the eve of the convention but reasserted his own opposition. How hard was that?
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.
And lecturing refreren on faux outrage, only to display your own is a pretty neat trick.
See, it's not Hillary as much as it is Bill. I don't hate either of them - I'm just sick to death of them. Frankly, I'd have less trouble with her if she'd thrown him out years ago. But the thought of him back in the White House on any level revolts me.
Isn't EVERYBODY sick of his lying?
If his argument is that Obama is just as dishonest as the Clintons are, then hell, I want someone new to lie to me. Obama '08 sounds fine by me.
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 5:36 PM:Obama deserves credit for his pre-war opposition - he made clear arguments and time has proved him right. But the amount of credit he deserves, and what it tells us about his judgment, is limited by the position he was in at the time. He did not receive the faulty intelligence. He was a state representative from a heavily liberal, anti-war district. He did not have to vote yes or no on the authorization. He had no responsibilities or obligations at the time. In sum, there were no consequences for opposing the war and being wrong.
Sitting senators simply didn't have that luxury. They saw the intelligence. They had a president you brought us to the brink of war. Had they denied authorization, it would have had real lasting consequences on the ability of U.S. presidents going forward to use an important tool for international relations. And Bush had not yet proved his utter dishonesty or incompetence. And they had to vote one way or the other.
Obama himself fairly recognized these real differences in 2004, as the quotes above show. He deserves credit for that admission as well. But does this somehow prove superior foreign affairs judgment over the two sitting senators at the time? Not really...or at least not any more than it would have if you or I made the same arguments at the time (which many of us were). And since the war went south and Obama became a national figure, his record is identical to HRCs. So Bill Clinton's point was that the notion that Obama's claimed "strong opposition" to the war demonstrates superior judgment is silly. And he's right.
The reason it is relevant to this campaign at all is that, unlike 2004, Obama now consistently touts his 2002 opposition as evidence of superior judgment. I don't blame him for greatly overemphasizing the relevance and importance of something in his record - that's just politics and all candidates have done it. But for him, or at least his surrogates, to turn around and accuse the Clinton's of vicious attacks, distortions, dirty politics, and even racism for calling Obama on his overemphasis is the height of hypocricy.
And yes Obama has occasionally been asked about it, and each time he claims his 2002 opposition as an example of judgment and dismisses his own 2004 characterization which is more accurate (as he did on Meet the Press). So it remains an issue for valid criticism.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:37 PM:Hey Bill-
You are definitely doing a great job in controlling your sexual addiction but maybe it's time to let one loose as it is obviously impacting your judgement.
Where's Belinda Stronach?
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 5:39 PM:Thank you, Mike.
Suzanne M wrote on January 11, 2008 5:40 PM:Should we talk about Bill Clinton's revisionist history when he claimed earlier on the campaign trail to have opposed the Iraq war?
These guys are right up there with Karl Rove. No wonder Rove endorsed Clinton in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 5:40 PM:Mike:
He doesn't dismiss anything about his 2004 statement. What he does is correct the faulty recasting of his statement by Tim Russert, Bill Clinton and now you.
The intellectual dishonesty being practiced in this thread is just breathtaking.
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 5:40 PM:Wow, as Ron Paul fades, his supporters are less noticeable on the web,so I guess Obama's supporters are trying to fill the vacuum. I respect the guy, but there is a huge difference between stating your opposition to the war from a safe seat in Illinois, and casting a vote that matters in the Senate. For what it's worth, I still beleive that if all of the Democrats in the Senate had voted against the resolution, we would have had about 60 Republican Senators following the next election. But I guess Hillary possibly making a political calculation around her vote is unforgiveable, while Obama holding his tongue to support the ticket is "loyalty."
And EvanR, if you're going to criticize Hillary for being "actually taken in by Bush's manufactured faux-intelligence and hype," perhaps you can tell us what steps she could have taken to determine that the intelligence was false. By the time it got to the Senators, it had been sifted and packaged. Was she supposed to launch her own intel operation? Read what Tom Daschle had to say, about how intimidating it was to be put in a room with a very limited time to look at the intelligence, and not being allowed to remove anything from the room.
Despite the opposition and skepticism of many people (including me, btw) there was a very strong war fever in the country. Why is it OK for Obama to make a political calculation during the 2004 convention, but shameful for many Democratic Senators to not take an action that would almost assuredly have cost them their seats, and weakened the Democratic party tremendously? I'm not saying we shouldn't ask Hillary to defend herself, but it's not quite as simplistic an issue as Obama's supportetrs make it out to be.
And if Hillary believes that she did the best she could under the circumstances, why does she have to do a big mea culpa and admit to "poor judgenment." Making such a statement to help her in the current election would qualify as one of those politically calculating moves she's so often accused of, wouldn't it? She's certainly not gaining any political capital from not making such a statement.
And by the way, I've watched the video and I thought it was clear that Clinton's fairy tale remark was directed to Obama's statements about being against the war, not about his whole campaign. Bill Clinton has said Obama's statement is not accurate. He has not accused him of flip-flopping, as far as I know.
Eric Noll wrote on January 11, 2008 5:40 PM:Ahhhhh....I missed the back tracking from Bill Clinton.
"Well what I meant to say...uh uh.."
Just like the good old days.
Barney F wrote on January 11, 2008 5:42 PM:Has anyone noticed that the Clintons are attacking Bloomberg now? They know that even if they are able to pull off the dem nomination using this gutter-level type of politics that many Dems, just like me, are going to vote for Bloomberg. So...they are trying to discredit him just like Obama right now.
Sorry you sleazebags but it ain't going to work this time!
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 5:43 PM:Chris O:
"But I guess Hillary possibly making a political calculation around her vote is unforgiveable"
Yes, it is unforgivable. She made a political calculation about the lives of our soldiers!!!
You dont send soldiers to die just so you can retain your senate seat. that IS unforgivable.
Bonnie S wrote on January 11, 2008 5:44 PM:"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
I am so sick of this bullshit! Go put your cigar somewhere, Bill.
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 5:44 PM:Keith,
I don't think Mike is recasting anyone's position. I do think he is providing valuable context for their relative positions.
Bupalos wrote on January 11, 2008 5:45 PM:Bill is trying to turn Obama's support for the 2004 nominee against him, which kinda just pisses me off. Obama's judgment is on record and it's consistent. He's always said that he opposed the war based on what he knew, and he said it pretty strongly. That's why people were interviewing him in 2004, trying to explore a rift. He tried to support the 2004 nominee by echoing Kerry as best he could, in the context of saying that he hadn't had access to the intelligence and so can't say for sure how he would have voted.
This whole thing kind of reminds me that the Clintons specifically DID NOT support our nominee in 2004 as best they could, and have never been anti-war in any way. They hoarded a war chest when they could have done Kerry hand dems a lot of good. But then, of course, HillBill couldn't have run in 2008. This stinks. Everytime I want to forgive the Clintons, they go right back to it. What happened to the "we're going to muzzle Bill" thing? Get this guy off stage!
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:46 PM:That Janet Napolitano endorsement today says it all. She is a smart and classy as they come. And she has said NO TO HILLARY just like George Miller (signalling Pelosi's position as well), John Kerry, Bill Bradley, and a few more even bigger names waiting in the wings.
P.A.M.B. wrote on January 11, 2008 5:47 PM:Mike,
Your comments were very welcome.
I think it is time to start ignoring the cult of Obama. It is not useful to respond to their stomping of their feet and holding their breath.
No matter what you say, they respond with "bill had an affair," "hillary is mean" "I'll vote for the republicans if she wins."
No way to fight a tantrum.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:50 PM:Keith,
How is this not dismissing his 2004 quote?:
"Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq."
Look, there are good substantive reasons to support Obama's candidacy, this just happens not be one of them. But it is a good selling point - so he pushes it and Clinton tries to counter. That's a campaign and both sides are playing it. The main intellectual dishonesty in the campaign is claiming one side isn't.
blatherskite wrote on January 11, 2008 5:50 PM:Why are Democrats even THINKING about putting his liar in arms reach of the oval office again?
" In the Jones deposition on January 17, 1998, the President denied having had "a sexual affair," "sexual relations," or "a sexual relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky.(19) He noted that "[t]here are no curtains on the Oval Office, there are no curtains on my private office, there are no curtains or blinds that can close [on] the windows in my private dining room," and added: "I have done everything I could to avoid the kind of questions you are asking me here today. "
Whether ha's having oral sex there or not, can't we move on from the nineties?
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:52 PM:Mike you make some decent points, but have you considered this? That if we select Clinton, who took the most hawkish route possible to her at every opportunity (including voting no on levin), we are ensuring the opposite of what you are saying here:
"In sum, there were no consequences for opposing the war and being wrong."
We will be saying there are no consequences for supporting the war and being wrong. There are no consequences for always giving the hawks the benefit of the doubt, because you think that's where political expedience for a democrat lies. To me, that's dangerous.
And also, on your point that voting no on AUMF would have somehow crippled the executive in a new and troubling way...Geesh. Talk Bush often?
P.A.M.B wrote:
"No matter what you say, they respond with "bill had an affair," "hillary is mean" "I'll vote for the republicans if she wins."
No, the response is that he LIED about it and he's lying now about another Democrat.
You may not mind replaying the nineties but a lot of people -- dems and independents especially, would hate it.
Republicans would love having Bill back in the White House however. We'll never hear the end of it.
LifeLongDem:
You both are recasting these events to fit your narrative that Obama's judgment was not unique--thereby blunting the substantive rebuttal he has to Clinton's experience charge. First you suggest that his opposition to the war wasn't principaled, it was a cynical political move. Evidence for this recasting, none that I can see. The next point is to read his statement out of context to say that he has no clue how he would have voted. Which reinforces your earlier recasting. So what if he the article says he declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards? Who cares if he reinforces and restates his opposition? He said he didn't know what he would have done, so that's what we are gonna go with! Now let's just sweep the rest of this stuff under the rug and hope nobody asks any questions
It's pathetic attempt to actually dismiss his judgment as nothing more than politics as usual--the normal charge levied against Clinton in her vote.
It's like you folks failed reading comprehension or something, or believe that the rest of us did as well.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:54 PM:Alan,
Obama is much more qualified to run the Country then Clinton or Bush. Even though both of them have more experience. Obama is smarter and has better judgment. If you have done any hiring in your life you will understand that experience is a component of of a qualified candidate. Ask Greg Case who at 42 became CEO of Aon Insurance. Your arguments against Obama fail on every point, considering Clinton is truly the "unqualified" candidate.
Tom wrote on January 11, 2008 5:56 PM:It is interesting that TPM has chastised the media for giving a truncated version of Hillary's comments (even though the full version doesn't really change anything).
Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that Clinton is leaving out a portion of Obama's response which significantly changes its meaning. They just leave Clinton's attack up there unchallenged.
LifeLongDem wrote on January 11, 2008 6:02 PM:Keith,
I never responded to Obama's explanation to the 2004 comment. I actually agree with that and see it as a plausible explanation. He was not actually in the same situation as Clinton, so he doesn't know how he would vote.
I did not imply it was purely a cynical move, merely that it was one without many consequences.
GHB wrote on January 11, 2008 6:02 PM:A week ago, Hillary Clinton had an emotional breakdown because she was deeply concerned that the next president might not have the experience to know how to move this country forward after the disaster of the Bush administration. But she and her husband are perfectly comfortable using the same cynical politics of Bush and Rove when they blatantly mis-characterize Obama's position on the Iraq war. I guess there's change and then there's CHANGE.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 6:03 PM:Keith,
If you didn't like the crap from the Clinton years why are you buying into it now ? Why are you repeating Republican Talking Points from the Clinton years? Do you think that the Republicans won't tear into Senator Obama because he isn't a Clinton. Where have you been the last several years?
The Republican Party is racist and sexist. How will Senator Obama respond to their attacks if he can't stand differences of opinion with Senator Clinton without him and his supporters whining about it.
Good for Governor Napolitano for endorsing Senator Obama. However that in of itself does not make her "classy"
If she had endorsed Senator Clinton you would be tearing into her as a Clinton hack.
Anon @5:50:
That's dismissing RUSSERT's allegation from the Nov 11 Meet the Press, that's not dismissing his 2004 statement. And why should he, the full statement softens the question/allegation and then restates his own opposition to the war.
"What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Jake wrote on January 11, 2008 6:06 PM:The Fairy Tale was Bill Clinton's claim that he was opposed to the Iraq War though in an editorial in the UK he green lit Tony Blair's rush to war.
freaktown wrote on January 11, 2008 6:06 PM:"How will Senator Obama respond to their attacks if he can't stand differences of opinion with Senator Clinton"
It's not merely a "difference of opinion" as you innocently describe it. Its a flat-out bald faced lie.
And its one thing to expect this kind of behaviour from republicans. its another thing when its comingfrom your own party.
We expect this from republicans. We expect better from fellow democrats.
Mr.Murder wrote on January 11, 2008 6:08 PM:It is what it is.
Barack said: "There's not that much difference between my position
and George Bush's position at this stage."
It is what it is.
"But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to
stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current
approach of the Bush administration."
Channeling his friend and adviser Colin Powell. "You broke it you own it." Welcome to the ownership society!
So after we went to war an no WMD were found Barack changed his tune. There's no independently confirmed statements from Obama in 2002 or 2003 against going there?
The Audacity of Audaciousness.
Mike wrote on January 11, 2008 6:11 PM:5:52 - when I said no consequences, I meant for the country, not for individuals personally. Cynicism is assuming everything is driven by the worst motives as you and so many others seem to be doing.
Keith: Same points go for you. I never thought nor said Obama's original opposition was political. I absolutely think he believed it. Moreover, his arguments capture my personal feelings about the war at the time quite nicely. The point is that it is a lot easier to have those feelings when you don't have to see the threatening intelligence or sleep at night after a vote. If you can't recognize that distinction, we have probably reached an impasse...so feel free to continue the personal attacks ...I'm done with the back and forth.
Keith wrote on January 11, 2008 6:12 PM:Anon@6:30:
I'm not buying into their crap now--I pushing back against it. I'm not sure where you are going with the Republican talking points, but just because others engaging in unconscionable behavior doesn't justify Clinton or anyone else from doing it.
Alan wrote on January 11, 2008 6:21 PM:Keith,
Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton are engaging in unconscionable behavior.
You have to say that because Senator Obama's resume is so thin that you can't make a case for him on what he has accomplished, so you have to tear down the Clintons by lying about them. That is the oldest trick in the Republican playbook. And yes many Obama supporters are using it.
referen @ 4:42 PM:
"Tell me Dawn, does that mean Hillary Clinton's votes for war funding mean she's lying now when she says she's against the war?
This thing cuts both ways, Dawn."
(sigh)... You know, it is possible that Dawn's is not shilling for Hillary, but actually criticizing Obama based on the record.
The assumption that criticism of Candidate A is nothing but underhanded support for Candidate B is getting more than a little stale. What is this, DailyKos?
Obama and Clinton are both powerful members of the Senate majority, yet the war continues. This fact reflects poorly on both of them.
Folks, this is meaningless. He says himself he was following Washington talk and his gut. His statements are as inconsequential as mine October 2002. And I thought the case for war had not been made (but in January with Blix's report I felt we were going to war). BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON. Clinton stated that she felt in the previous weeks that Bush had truly committed to trying to find a non-military position if reasonably possible. Did the 2002 NIE say Hussein was no threat (as Obama states he was)? No, it stated that there were doubts about the nuclear aspects of his WMD program. It was much more worried on the biological and chemical weapons front, especially if sanctions were dropped. But count the 5 months between that vote and the start of the war - a month later, the UN Security Council including Syria voted unanimously for inspectors to be returned, around 1st of December they did, and later Blix reported inspections did not go completely unhindered - one of the key demands. And then there's this post-invasion:
Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.
Punji wrote on January 11, 2008 6:37 PM:To Tapper:
First of all it's "J'accuse!"
Second, it's "fairy tale," and no one has called the phrase racist.
Third: Who cares what you read to your children?
ChrisO wrote on January 11, 2008 6:40 PM:I see a lot of forgiveness by Obama's supporters for not speaking up forcefully at the 2004 convention, because he didn't want to undermine the party's nominees. So if Hillary gets the nomination, can we expect Obama to say he understands why she voted for the authorization? Face it, Obama wasn't going to do anything to screw up his opportunity to make a big splash on the national stage. And I don't blame him. I'm getting a little tired of Obama's supporters contunually trying to portray him as somehow being apart from politics. You don't run for President without being calculating (or strategic, depending on your POV) and I'm sure Obama wasn't just thinking "wow, it'll be fun to be on TV." Kerry or Edwards would have had to personally take part in atrocities in Iraq before Obama would have criticized them and screwed up his opportunity. And if he hadn't made his speech, he probably wouldn't be running today, so it paid off. I'm not blaming him; anything else would have been stupid. But let's not pretend, OK?
It's interesting how Obama transformed from very specific and clear opposition to the war (for which I give him props) into this: "once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that's what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that's what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq..." It's a lttle different when you're a sitting Senator, isn't it? I wouldn't exactly call his position "Out now!" Let's stabilize the country, let's create a workable government, etc. And it took him until 2006 to realize that Bush wasn't about to get out? I respect the guy, but I think it's legitimate to point out that his own words don't exactly reflect a steadffasst anti-war stance. It seems to me that's what Clinton was calling bullshit on.
Jon Leslie wrote on January 11, 2008 6:43 PM:This is all so pitiful. Bill Clinton was a great president. Not because he was sweet and likable, or a liar and a whiner, or any other label you want to put on him. You have to ask yourself, were we better off when he left office? Are we better off now? All the he said and she said going on here is useless drivel. The question every person needs to figure out for themselves is; Who will be the best president?
Get over yourselves. Look at their records with your own eyes. Ignore the nattering. Make your choice.
who the fuck cares about 2002 and 2004?
WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE SINCE HE'S BEEN A SENATOR (2005-present) TO END THIS WAR?
where are all the rainbows and unicorns he's promising he'll bring to the table as president?
where are all his many accomplishments and proven successes in ending this war?
he's a damned senator and whatever he believed or said in 2002 and 2004 hasn't amounted to a hill of beans in bringing this war to an end.
OBAMA AND HILLARY HAVE BEEN ON THE SAME PAGE wrt THE WAR IN IRAQ FOR (at least) 3 YEARS NOW.
fuck them BOTH.
Um, to both of their credit actually, neither of them can accomplish a goddamn thing in terms of ending the war in their current capacity. And the "rainbows and unicorns" aren't here yet because he isn't president yet.
You can't blame them for being unable to end the war any more than I can blame you for being unable to end the war. Our government is deadlocked by Republican obstruction, and unfortunately our government was designed to be easily gridlockable.
And you can't assume Obama won't bring the rainbows and unicorns as president for the same reason. When he has the power to he will make them appear.
And to be clear, by "rainbows and unicorns" I mean everything he is promising to change when elected.
Any other questions?
Threegoal wrote on January 11, 2008 7:44 PM:First, I am an Obama supporter, so take that as you choose in evaluating my comments.
Having just slogged my way through this long and painful chain of comments, I have the following thoughts:
1. Te excerpts from the Starr report and the other Lewinsky-related comments left me cold. They wasted everyone's time, and I found it helpful to skip quickly to the next entry.
2. When I look at what Obama said in 2002, in 2004 at the time of the convention, and even more recently, I especially appreciate that he provides both a position and a solid line of reasoning. That's why I think he will bring a solid judgment to the job of "Decider".
3. To my way of thinking, Bill Clinton is undoing some amount of the good will and respect he has built up as an ex-President. I understand and can approve of his support and advocacy for the candidacy of his wife, but I do think that an ex-President has to work on a higher plane than that of an attack dog. He needs to restrict himself to being positive about his wife, and avoid taking shots at her opponents. He needs to especially avoid making nakedly misleading comments based on taking words out of context or abbreviating the quote so as to change the meaning of what is said. Ex-presidents are not supposed to be the reincarnation of Spiro Agnew or other such pit bulls.
4. Regarding whether or not the Clintons, or any of their supporters have an attitude of entitlement to the nomination and/or the office, it's all about how you interpret what they say and do. I do get that impression from some of the things Bill has said more than I do from what Hillary has said, and it ticks me off. To me it comes close to a "how dare you run against my wife and actually do well" kind of an attitude, and I think it further diminishes his office and ability to do well for the world.
I am beginning to think she needs to send him back to New York to work on his foundation, for both her and the Party's sake. Let's see how she does on her own.
dbh wrote on January 11, 2008 8:17 PM:B Clinton is becoming the fairy tale, because he's only repeating half of Obama's statement from 2004. The SECOND and unrepeated half says simply that while the other Senators were privy to information that Obama did not have, the case for war had not been made to him. It is disingenuous for Bill to keep repeating the half truth, but then Bill has always played a little fast and loose with the truth...
Pepp wrote on January 11, 2008 8:40 PM:..........one of the main stream media editors just said I believe white people should not discuss the MLK story hmmmmmmm, ok
Senator Clinton does have to accept in this race she is not Black enough compared to Senator Obama ......Obama is Blacker period,
Juts like if Senator Obama tried to be the Woman candidate compared to Senator Clinton he would not be Woman enough …move on
She has nothing to apologize for and the raging charges of racism are unconvincing……
Oh and former Governor Dean Chairman of the DNC really good choice you made their moving up the powder keg to the beginning of the primary with the promise of neutrality that was dumb in hind sight, yeah sucker………….
Um, to both of their credit actually, neither of them can accomplish a goddamn thing in terms of ending the war in their current capacity.
nonsense. there is plenty the senate could do, IF they wanted to. it is well within the power given them by the constitution.
You can't blame them for being unable to end the war any more than I can blame you for being unable to end the war.
horse shit. i am not one of the most powerful and important people in the united states and the united states government. clinton and obama are.
Our government is deadlocked by Republican obstruction, and unfortunately our government was designed to be easily gridlockable.
our government is 'deadlocked' because mediocre democrats like clinton and obama allow it to be. believe me, i understand the deliberative nature of the senate. but the president isn't the only one with the bully pulpit. obama has a bully pulpit RIGHT NOW and has had it for 3 years. but the truth is he's an incrementalist and afraid to get too far ahead of public opinion when he could be engaging in the LEADERSHIP he claims he'll deliver after he's elected president.
And the "rainbows and unicorns" aren't here yet because he isn't president yet.
And you can't assume Obama won't bring the rainbows and unicorns as president for the same reason. When he has the power to he will make them appear.
sounds like a faith-based position to me. either he's got rainbows and unicorns at his disposal or he doesn't. they don't just hand 'em out to you if you're elected president.
And to be clear, by "rainbows and unicorns" I mean everything he is promising to change when elected.onceler wrote on January 11, 2008 8:48 PM:the rainbows and unicorns aren't his promises but his ability to make good on those promises. the leadership and savvy to bring about the so-called 'change'.
Bill Clinton said that Obama's argument that he was against the war from the beginning is a "fairy tale", which is flat out false. Obama was in fact, against the war from the beginning and before. The statement Clinton refers to was obviously not a speech, as he said it was, but was rather an interview with Tim Russert, right at the time of the Democratic Convention in '04, where he made those hedging statements. He said that specifically so as not to grandstand and steal John Kerry's thunder, so to speak. He didn't want to give Russert ammunition to use bogusly against John Kerry.
Obama stated in late 2002 in an interview with Jeff Berkowitz, when asked whether he would have voted yes or no on the exact authorization ratified by the Senate, and he stated that as it was the answer was no. He would not have voted for it. His position, as that of pretty much all other Senators ever since, has been similar to Hillary Clintons', as hers has to his. Because there aren't exactly a lot of options are available once the war is on! Hello people!!
Bill Clinton's idea that he himself "opposed the war from the beginning" while Obama did not is the real fairy tale. He is acting in an absolutely disgraceful manner for a former President.
Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 8:50 PM:should be:
And to be clear, by "rainbows and unicorns" I mean everything he is promising to change when elected.
the rainbows and unicorns aren't his promises but his ability to make good on those promises. the leadership and savvy to bring about the so-called 'change'.
Mike Pridmore wrote on January 11, 2008 8:53 PM:None of what I see convinces me that Obama has been consistent on the issue of judgment. He said it 2004 that he might have voted for it if he had known what the others who were in office saw.
I notice that none of those who are eager to demonize Bill Clinton are willing to explain why Barack took his statement about the war off his website in 2004 or to admit something else that Bill mentioned, which is that President Bush and Condi Rice privately promised they would not go to war without exhausting all other possible options.
That is some of the info that Obama was not privy to that might, according to his own words, have caused him to vote for the war if he had been in office at the time. Obama supporters will no doubt quickly say that it showed poor judgment even then to take Bush or Condi Rice at their word.
But what Obama supporters seem unable to realize is that giving the benefit of the doubt to Republicans is at the heart of the changes that Obama talks about, "putting behind the tired partisan politics of the past." So if that really is how he feels, does it seem more or less likely that he too would have given Bush the benefit of the doubt? And is "putting aside the tired partisan politics of the past" really going to work now or will Obama also be lied to and then have to answer for why he was ever so stupid to talk so much about trusting Republicans in the first place?
Peter wrote on January 11, 2008 8:53 PM:it never mattered what Bill meant - all that mattered was that an SC politician found that by acting indignant at Bill's remarks, said politician would become more of a kingmaker.
Nell wrote on January 12, 2008 12:31 AM:Obama's war opposition a fairy tale?
This from a man who tried to tell us a month or so ago that _he_ actually opposed the war? Despite the evidence of our apparently lying eyes and memories?
I'm checking out of this until we have a nominee. They're all hollow shells, but the Clinton crowd shows such an appalling combination of ruthlessness and hackery that I'm risking my motivation even to vote to pay attention to them now.
rachelrachel wrote on January 12, 2008 1:22 AM:Obama was distorting things when he claimed that Democratic politicians voted "for the war," when in fact they voted for a resolution that authorized the president to take actions, which might include military action, had Saddam not complied with the UN resolution.
This particular claim, that voting for the Iraq War Resolution was voting for the war, is repeated by members of two camps: the antiwar left, who want a cudgel against Democratic politicians; and Bush and his allies, who are bolstering their claim that the war had bipartisan support.
Both sides are trying to define themselves in a flattering way and their opponent in an unflattering way. This is what politicians do, successful politicians, anyway. This is nothing but politics as usual. Neither has been strongly pro- or anti-war, but somewhere in the middle.
Lis wrote on January 12, 2008 1:22 AM:Hillary Clinton: “You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said.
Lis: "We've had a year, now, to pore over Obama's history, and a month left to take action alongside him."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Political Career:
It has been the rich and varied experiences of Barack Obama's life - growing up in different places with people who had differing ideas - that have animated his political journey. Amid the partisanship and bickering of today's public debate, he still believes in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose - a politics that puts solving the challenges of everyday Americans ahead of partisan calculation and political gain.
In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.
As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.
Whether it's the poverty exposed by Katrina, the genocide in Darfur, or the role of faith in our politics, Barack Obama continues to speak out on the issues that will define America in the 21st century. But above all his accomplishments and experiences, he is most proud and grateful for his family. His wife, Michelle, and his two daughters, Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6, live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.
One last note from Lis: Please take the time to click on the link of Obama's issues and read the 64-page PDF file of his Plan. Thank you.
the real fairy tale is Hillary becoming president without the black vote and the youth vote.
Sorry Mr. Never-to-be-first-husband, no do-overs. Bill will not shake the pile that he stepped in when he lied about his being against the war from the beginning-he wasn't. He's done a great job at reminding the country that they still have a bad case of Clinton-fatigue.
The man can't help himself and even with his best Karl Rove trying to turn Obama's strength (being against the war from the beginning) into a weakness won't work because the Lieberman-Democrat Hillary was and is in the Bush camp when it comes to war. Those Iraq and Iran votes show how in line she is with Republicans and Bush-Cheney.
Miss Triangulation (Hey, I'll vote with the Republicans for a Flag-Burning Amendment, so I'll look more like socially conservative nut and maybe be backed by Rush Limbaugh) is having her hole dug by her husband.
Al Sharpton should get his fellow New Yorker, former-Mayor Ed Koch on so he can talk about why he backed Bush in 2004, and is now working with the Clintons. She's a Bush-Cheney hawk, that's why.
Hillary Clinton will never be president.
Liam wrote on January 12, 2008 10:03 AM:Senator Obama addressed an anti Iraq War rally in Chicago, before the war began. Bill Clinton never said one word against the planned invasion of Iraq, before it began. Bill Clinton is the one who is telling a Fairy Tale. He tells us lots of Fairy Tales, such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Bill Clinton lied to us, because he did play Hide The Cigar with that Woman.
Sarah wrote on January 12, 2008 10:53 AM:Clearly the Democrats must nominate Obama. The Republicans will not be able to make any criticisms of his record without being painted as racist. Brilliant!
FZ in Edinburgh wrote on January 12, 2008 12:43 PM:Welcome, everyone, to the Hillary Presidency. (it will be just like this thread, but for 4 years and featuring Chris Matthews)
nrglaw wrote on January 12, 2008 5:20 PM:Getting back to the original subject of the post, Clinton characterized his remarks exactly correctly. His comments related only to Obama's record on the war. You may disagree with the substance of his remarks, but that is what he said.
nrglaw
pt bridgeport wrote on January 12, 2008 7:28 PM:Mike, you make many excellent points, and make them in a tone that helps lower the pointlessly high temperature on this comment thread. It's particularly important to remember the timing of the AUMF vote. When it was taken, Saddam was still resisting UN inspections, and Baradei and Blix had yet to explode the notion that Baghdad had any significant WMDs.
No one will ever convince me, though, that Hillary believed Bush and Rice's assurances that they would treat war as a last resort. If she did believe them, her naivete was more massive and dangerous than anything one could plausibly attribute to Obama, and that terrible misreading of character all by itself would disqualify her from the Oval Office. She is not that dumb.
No, just like John Kerry, she knew that Bush would take the vote and go to war with it, and made the political calculation that a "no" vote would doom any presidential run. In defense of both of them, it must be said that either "no" vote would have been futile; both because the whip count for war was too lopsided, and because Bush in all likelihood would have invaded Iraq even without an AUMF.
But did Hillary take George W. "I did not have torturing relations with those detainees" Bush at his word? I believe the operative expression is "fairy tale".
<