Obama And Bill Duke It Out Over Obama's 2004 War Quote
Yesterday, as part of his racial damage control tour, Bill Clinton took a shot at Obama that he's frequently taken during the campaign, charging that the Illinois Senator's criticism of Hillary's support of the war is disingenuous in light of something Obama said back in 2004.
Bill pointed out that at the time, Obama said that he could not say how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate himself in the run-up to the invasion. Bill has repeatedly pointed to this quote to cast doubt on Obama's anti-war bona fides, and it's become part of the conversation of Campaign 2008.
Obama defended himself against this criticism a few days ago, recalling that at the time he didn't want to criticize the war votes of John Kerry and John Edwards in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign. Obama accused the former president of cherry picking from his past quote:
He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war...obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don’t know what -- you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.’ He always leaves that out.
As it happens, Obama is right. Here is the actual Obama quote in question, from a New York Times article on July 26, 2004 (via Nexis):
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.''
So, clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees. It's perfectly clear that Obama was in fact against the war at the time. His position then -- as now -- was that the case for war had not been made and that the invasion wasn't justified.
Comments (169)
Tom wrote on January 12, 2008 9:45 AM:Thanks for pointing this out Greg.
I know you and TPM have been getting some heat from readers lately, but I think you guys have been doing a good job of covering this increasingly hostile primary.
If you're looking for a "pattern" in the Clintons' comments, intentional misrepresentation is it.
On Pro-life votes, the Patriot Act, the War, and Healthcare it's all "damn the truth - full spin ahead!"
Next time someone tells me I'm voting for Obama because I'm "in love" or some such nonsense I think I'll bring this up.
No, I'm voting for Obama because he doesn't lie through his teeth for personal gain.
timbnyc wrote on January 12, 2008 9:49 AM:Obama did the right thing for the party nominee, and, of course, Bill distorts and exploits it. It's outrageous that Clinton would attack him for something that Obama did to help the party win the WH and get rid of Bush.
"Me vs. party loyalty....me vs. party loyalty...me vs. party loyalty..." We know how that conversation always ends with the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 9:53 AM:No, you're missing the point:
Obama said two contradictory things in the same interview (with Russert).
He said he didn't know how he would have voted, as Clinton claims, and he also says that he didn't think the case had been made, as you point out.
Obama's not consistent, even in the course of a single interview.
TimBNyc: let's take your comment a bit further. It appears that since Obama was elected to the Senate, he has put party loyalty (or his own ambition) over ending the war. Obama doesn't deserve to get a pass on this issue.
Anton wrote on January 12, 2008 9:56 AM:Of course the Clinton's told half the story. That has always been their modus operandi. Obama has a hell of a fight ahead of him.
But if he wants us all to believe that he would not have voted for the war by referring to something that he said in 2004, I'm not buying it. It was easy to say that in 04, a much different thing to have to cast a vote 2 yrs earlier.
I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children." -- Barack Obama
Obama has been friends Tony Rezko since 1990. Rezko has raised at least $60,000 for Obama's campaigns. In return, Barack arranged an internship in 2005 for John Aramanda, the son of a Rezko business associate Joseph Aramanda, who himself gave Barack $11,500. In June, 2005, Obama bought a house in Chicago for $1.65 million. The same day, Rezko bought the vacant lot next door for $625,00. Seven months later, Rezko sold Barack a slice (1/6th) of his lot so the Obamas could have a bigger yard. There's no evidence that Rezko bought the vacant land for any other reason than to do Obama a favor. Among other problems, Rezko is under indictment in a federal government corruption case for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, another politician that Rezko has befriended and donated to. (Rezko is also under indictment for shaking down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich. The guy takes care of his friends.) In fact, Joseph Aramanda is an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the kickback cases.
Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world." it's just a matter of time before St. Change Agent Obama will have to get a little more specific about his nebulous change agenda and expose his inexperience and decided liberal bend.
Obama is a major scam artist who has done nothing for his constituency.
I also really dislike the way this con man has unnecessarily brought race into this campaign. It was not long ago his wife Michelle was on national television spouting that blacks "will wake up and get it" and vote for Obama. She went on to suggest that it is unreasonable for blacks not to vote for Obama. But now he's saying that people should "look beyond race." I guess that line is for the mostly white audiences only.
So using his wife's disgraceful "vote your race" philosophy, I guess it's not reasonable for whites to vote for Obama either then. The Obama's have mistakenly brought race into this campaign in the oddest, and most arrogant, condescending and illogical ways possible.
Obama's divisiveness is NOT the direction we should be moving in this country.
Isn't Bill Clinton the guy who said just a couple weeks ago that he "opposed this war from the start"? Talk about disingenuous.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 9:58 AM:Obama admits campaign/PAC donation linksBad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 10:12 AM:Anonymous (9:53 AM),
Obama is consistent here because he's saying he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate and seen the intelligence Kerry and Edwards saw.
However, from his perspective outside the Senate, the case was not made and so he'd vote no based on that.
So it's two different situations he's talking about.
And if Kerry/Edwards had won, the war would probably already be over, so he was acting both in the interest of his party and the interest of getting out of Iraq.
Cy Guy wrote on January 12, 2008 10:28 AM:Greg, how about a more accurate headline?
It seems whenever the facts are in Obama's favor, Greg still manages to put enough pro-Hillary spin in the headline that the overall impression is neutral. Well, when you try to make a story that should be negative for the Clinton campaign neutral, you are in fact spinning FOR the Clinton campaign.
An accurate headline would be "2004 NYT Article Shows Clinton Campaign Distorting Obama on War Quotes"
I don't see how Obama correcting Bill's distortion in any way represents Obama "Duking it Out" with the Former President.
We need a President (and a First Spouse) who are part of the reality-based community. We've had 28 years of White House spin rather than the truth. If TPM considers itself a responsible press organization, it needs to report facts without partisan spin.
Barack Obama:
"What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Hillary Clinton:
"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."
John McCutchen wrote on January 12, 2008 10:38 AM:Congratulations to Greg on a fair post.
Bill and Barack each also failed to mention the fact that while Barack did not see the 2002 NIE because he was not a senator, Hillary didn't bother to read it even though she, of course, was a Senator at the time and one of Bush's key war supporters at the time, there being no do-overs in politics
Unless your name is Clinton
grover_rover wrote on January 12, 2008 10:38 AM:jack, you might want to look at your own candidate's past shady ethical dealings before trying to paint her as cleaner than Obama, because anyone who knows the Clintons can tell you that is impossible. The Clintons are desperate to throw mud on Obama's shiny record, so theirs doesn't look as dirty, but no matter what they throw at Obama, he will still have much less skeletons in the closet than the Clintons, so give me a break you hypocrite.
Secondly, this is old news (more proof that he has been "vetted" and that this stupid thing is all they could find), and Obama has stated that yes, he made an error in judgment, years ago, when he had contact with Rezko. The evidence is all circumstantial, and Obama has never been mentioned in the investigation of Rezko's wrongdoings. Obama did nothing illegal.
And as for your candidate, you might want to take some time to learn about their dealings. Hell, I don't even have to go years back to find something even more dirty than the Rezko thing, its called Norman Hsu, who illegally raised a ton of money, much of it for corporations, to give to Hillary's presidential campaign. And when they tried to arrest him, he fled. Oh, and it turns out Clinton knew about what kind of person he was long before this, because he already had a warrant out for his arrest from years ago for fraud. That is just one of many dirty financial dealings that the Clintons have in their closet.
You know why I knew about the Rezko thing? Because I actually took the time to research the candidates, instead of just choosing a candidate and supporting them no matter what without really knowing anything about them. I suggest you get off your ass and take a look at the ethics of your own candidate before you go trying to throw mud at probably one of the cleanest politicians in Washington, someone who in Illinois and DC has lead monumental efforts at ethics reform and government transparency. How dare someone who supports a unethical and shady duo like the Clintons try throwing mud at someone who is clearly committed to ethics and has held himself to a higher bar than the Clintons could even dream of. Clinton is bathing in lobbyist money and she thinks that is just fine. She is the number one recipient of arms manufacturer money and health insurance money out of any candidates, in either party. Anyway, how about you actually learn what you are talking about so you can stop embarrassing yourself by being a complete hypocrite.
As usual, throwing stones from glass house
JoeCHI wrote on January 12, 2008 10:38 AM:Obama was against the war before he was for funding the war.
upper left wrote on January 12, 2008 10:39 AM:This disingenuous, misrepresentation is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the Clinton's:
1) BC has to know this is parsing bullshit. He chooses to do it over and over again;
2) This is pure Rove: go after your opponents biggest strength and try to turn it into a negative. Obama was right on the war, "so lets try to confuse the voters and convince them he is a flip-flopper;"
3) Rather than take responsibility for your mistakes, try to weasel your way out of it. "I did not have sex with that woman," becomes "I will not admit that I voted to authorize this war."
This incident shows you everything you need to know about the Clinton's. Their approach to politics and their style of argument is very "Rovian." Their policies may be different, but their process is similar.
To those of you who support HRC, how do you justify this garbage? I would be embarrassed. If we want change, we have to stop supporting Dems who act like Republicans.
Mary wrote on January 12, 2008 10:40 AM:Guess What, I just went to the gas station last week an filled up my tank. Then the clerk, later that day, was arrested for stealing. Although I did not personally know this clerk, I guess I was aiding and abetting a known theif, huh?
The whole Tony Rezko thing is a sham. There was a lot next to Obamas house for sale. If you know Chicago, you know the lots are pretty small. So he purchased the lot next to his house - he has 2 little kids you know - they like to have room.
Then Tony Rezko gets arrested and all of a sudden the Clintonites are associating Obama with aiding known criminals?
Boy I'd better turn myself in for the gas station purchase.
John McCutchen wrote on January 12, 2008 10:41 AM:I never thought much of Hillary as a candidate, at least in terms of her skills, but for most of the past year of the 2008 race I was among those who were in awe of the efficiency of the Clinton Campaign machine
No longer. They cannot win in November
grover_rover wrote on January 12, 2008 10:42 AM:And yes, Bill and Hillary have been lying to the public about Obama's record left and right in order to sway voters and get ahead. They are just like Republicans, they will say anything and do anything to get back in power, even if they know damn well that it is false. Just like the ethics thing, they have a shitty record, so they try to attack other candidates who have better records, to try to make their opponents look more like them. No matter how much Bill lies, the fact is that Obama opposed the war from the beginning and ever since, and Hillary and Bill both supported it until it because unpopular.
Obama absolutely made the right decision to speak diplomatically when discussing the war vote and the democratic candidates' records. I would have said the exact same thing, because we didn't need to be attacking our own party. This wasn't shady on Obama's part at all, he continued his opposition to the war, and kept the pressure on the Republicans. Anyone who says otherwise are being disingenuous or frankly, naive and ignorant.
static wrote on January 12, 2008 10:45 AM:If the reason Obama said that in 2004 was to be supportive of the Dem ticket, why did he basically state the same thing in an interview in the New Yorker in 2006?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3
In both instances, Obama is trying to highlight his anti-war stance while simultaneously ensuring people that he isn't some liberal pacifist. It had nothing to do with supporting the ticket.
Obama was certainly against the Iraq War but he hasn't been entirely consistent on the matter. He's been alternately for and against withholding funding, for and against setting timetables and for and against a quick withdrawal from Iraq.
Clinton blew the AUMF vote. Her campaign is better off comparing the record since Obama joined the Senate since their votes have been the same.
upper left wrote on January 12, 2008 10:49 AM:jack,
Amazing, here is a thread about the Clinton's using Rovian tactics of misrepresentatin to falsely attack Obama. So how do your respond?
With more Rovian smears. This approach to political discourse is fundamentally, intellectually dishonest.
You and your candidate are charlatans. We don't need this garbage in out party.
Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 12, 2008 10:54 AM:If the reason Obama said that in 2004 was to be supportive of the Dem ticket, why did he basically state the same thing in an interview in the New Yorker in 2006?
Yup, Obama was against the war before he was for the war.
I'm sure the Obamaniacs will come up with many more lame, tortured explanations to show that their messiah is still pure. Oh, and by the way, Obama is for "Change"!
Now I have to go change the litterbox.
uppert left wrote on January 12, 2008 10:57 AM:stateic,
I followed the link. To me it sounds like he is just being honest and self-effacing. Rather than chest thumping, he is acknowledging the reality that he and HRC were in different positions. This is not a flip-flop or a waffle on the war, it is a politician being unusually honest.
So now you want to use that honesty against him? You want to try to twist this to provide political cover for your candidate? Your approach seems far less honest than Obama's.
tangolin wrote on January 12, 2008 10:57 AM:it should be no surprise to anyone, in the 90s Bill proved that he was very comfortable with lying to the public (and grand juries), he obviously is very comfortable with that still. Hillary has been lying left and right as well...the Clintons obviously don't care what they have to do to get ahead, they obviously have no shame.
and to think, back in the 90s when all of the conservatives (and some Democrats) were attacking him for these scandals and calling him a pathological lair, I defended him...but obviously I was wrong. The Clintons have no morals, and they will do and say anything to get back to the White House. I'm disgusted by them.
read the papers wrote on January 12, 2008 10:59 AM:Mary
Do you consider lying to help Senator Obama your duty or are you just badly misinformed?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0611010273nov01,0,1188525.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1
"Obama is trying to highlight his anti-war stance while simultaneously ensuring people that he isn't some liberal pacifist."
Is there something wrong with that? I thought the war was a terrible idea from the beginning, and I'm not some liberal pacifist, either. If I was running for national office I would also try to highlight both of these things.
Josh wrote on January 12, 2008 11:07 AM:I'd like to thank TPM for offering an honest analysis of the situation.
I think people can draw their own conclusions about why these tactics are being used, but it's refreshing to read a story that doesn't just print statements from both camps and call that "balance."
So, thanks for that.
RonK, Seattle wrote on January 12, 2008 11:11 AM:Interesting. John Edwards -- who was in the Senate -- reported used the same words in private deliberations at the same time: "the case is not made".
However, in consideration of his presidential prospects, he voted for teh resolution.
What would Obama have done in identical circumstances? We'll never know.
Jeremy wrote on January 12, 2008 11:13 AM:It's also perfectly clear that Hillary's vote for the war authorization was not a vote for diplomacy. She voted against the 02 Levin Amendment.
nell wrote on January 12, 2008 11:16 AM:Obama is trying to get credit for not voting for the authority to use force that Senator Clinton did vote for.
But he can't take credit because he was not a Senator.
Can something be done by TPM to stop Hillary's haters from spamming these threads.
DonnaG wrote on January 12, 2008 11:24 AM:I just re-read the transcript of the NH democratic debate held a week ago, and took notes.
From my notes, it certainly appears to be that Hillary and her team are consciously, methodically meaning to inject negative memes about Obama into the national discourse as a way to compete against his rise as a front runner. I take Bill Clinton's behavior to be a part of that strategy.
In that debate, Edwards took shots at Hillary as part of the status quo in DC, and Hillary took one shot at Edwards [fighting for change doesn't mean actually working for change], and she three times stole Edwards' time by interjecting her answers to a question asked of Edwards [Edwards eventually got to give a shorter answer]. But, mostly, Hillary devoted herself to a pattern of planting negative memes about Obama:
1] "Hard to know where he stands"
2] "[he's] not vetted"
3] "He could have a good debate with himself"
4] "He changed positions over the course of four years on a range of issues'
5] "I'm not just running on a 'promise' of change"
6] "don't need to be raising 'false hopes'"
7] "Can we have a 'reality' check here?"
8] "Words are not actions"
9] subtly likening Obama to Bush, "In 2000, George Bush....said he was a 'uniter, not a divider', said he had intuition, said he was going to come in and transform the country"
In contrast, notice Obama's words:
1] "You're likeable enough, Hillary" [taken as a diss by some folks]
2] "I think Senator Clinton has done some good work"
3] "I give Bill Clinton enormous credit"
Lastly, I will post the quote I went looking for when I re-read that transcript, as it seemed to be directly relevant to the issue of which candidate is promoting 'identity' politicking.
Hillary said, "But, I think that I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think that having the first woman president is a huge change."
I defy anyone to find a comparable quote from Obama to the effect that 'huge change' is a matter of a change in the president's gender or race.
I am an Obama supporter, and never even think about his racial make-up or Hillary's gender. But, now those are supposed issues, both of which are intended to be divisive, IMHO. The really significant possibility that Obama brings to the party and the country is, in his words, "build the majority and coalesce the American people".....words the opposite of divisive.
Bill R. wrote on January 12, 2008 11:31 AM:Pure Rovian tactics... As a former supporter of the Clintons, even when Bill betrayed us all with his zipper problem, I am floored and disgusted at his behavior and Hillary's in this campaign. This is just another example of distortion and lies about Obama's positions, their use of surrogates with "plausible deniability" using racial innuendo, in order to promote Clinton Dynasty 2.0. Bill Clinton brought about a Republican majority and his behavior damaged Al Gore's chances at election. I will be glad when we are rid of both of them and the Democratic party can cleanse itself of Clinton dominance.
static wrote on January 12, 2008 11:32 AM:upper left
Obama is being honest in stating he doesn't know how he would have voted if he was in the Senate.
I think he is being disingenuous however about why he made those statements in 2004 since he made similar statements in 2006, two years after the election.
I am not using his honesty against him, I am calling him dishonest.
His changing views on funding, timetables and withdrawal since he joined the Senate are all well documented.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3414.html
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/12/214957/09
My statement could be false but it is certainly more honest than Senator Obama's dissembling.
Tom wrote on January 12, 2008 11:38 AM:Sure, Obama has changed his position on funding and withdrawal, but so has every other Senate Democrat who voted against the war plus some (like Hillary) who voted for it. I don't see how that's relevant to this issue unless you're somehow confusing the decision of whether to give the President the authority to go to war with the decision of how to get out.
static wrote on January 12, 2008 11:40 AM:PJ
There is nothing wrong with being against the Iraq War and also not being a liberal pacifist. The problem comes when Senator Obama fudges on why he made those statements in 2004. I prefer the 2002 version of Mr. Obama where he is very clear that he isn't anti-war just against the Iraq War. His campaign has decided to go in a different (and to my mind dishonest) direction however.
loki wrote on January 12, 2008 11:40 AM:Holy Roman Umpire said: No, I'm voting for Obama because he doesn't lie through his teeth for personal gain.
Yes, yes...good pure politician that Obama. No you're not too enamored! Completely rational and sober, you. Heh.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 11:40 AM:Bill said he wasn't running for a third term.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 11:41 AM:Tom,
There's no reasoning with Hillary's supporters. On every blog, they are the ones willing to purposefully mislead people and stretch the truth.
I guess they take their orders from the top down.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 11:42 AM:The headline should honestly be:
"Bill Clinton only gives half the quote"
You are playing the MSM game of he-said, she-said, which is something that you would normally reject absolutely.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 11:43 AM:Thinking bill and hillary would run a fair and honest campaign?
Now THAT'S a FAIRY TALE!
I fail to see how the entire quote changes anyhting. The fact remains that Obama has undergone major shifts in his views on the war, shifts that just happen to line up perfectly with what was in his political interest at the time. Before he was running for President he was Dennis Kucinich on the war. After the was running for President he has become Hillary Clinton on the war. Before he was running for President having voted for the war was a perfectly acceptable mistake that shouldn't be held against a candidate, now that he is running for President it is not. Anyone can see that Mr. Obama's positions on the war are driven by the politics of the moment. I am glad to see TPM is now officially part of the give Obama a free pass media.
colonpowwow wrote on January 12, 2008 11:51 AM:What Obama said or didn't say way back then isn't important.
What's important is that once he was in the Senate, Senator Mahatm . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Obama has emerged as a powerful voice and leader through his actions in opposition to the war (like Dennis Kucinich) by voting against its funding and by clearly differentiating his from Senator Clinton's position - and especially when he actually showed up on the Senate floor.
upper left wrote on January 12, 2008 11:52 AM:Jeremy said,
"Can something be done by TPM to stop Hillary's haters from spamming these threads."
1) I don't hate Hillary. I respect her intelligence, discipline and perseverance. I think she is a decent, committed Democrat who would be far better than any Repub;
2) Who is spamming this thread? The HRC supporters have come in and posted trying to put forward additional smears in a thread about how BC has been misrepresenting Obama's statements about the war.
What I do despise is the use of Rovian tactics against a fellow Democrat. It is extremely divisive and does real damage to our party. It will hurt our nominee in the fall. It hurts the brand of our party, and it makes it easier for the the Repubs to smear our candidates by creating an atmosphere of "everybody does it."
If we want real change, we have to support candidates who do not act like Republicans.
loki wrote on January 12, 2008 11:53 AM:RJ...your analysis is dead on. And don't forget the "Stop me before I vote again to fund the war I'm against!" part!
One exception though...your TPM part. I honestly don't see a free pass from TPM to either candidate.
David B. wrote on January 12, 2008 11:57 AM:The headline does not represent the facts. Bill Clinton has been deliberately leading the public about Barack Obama's record. To pretend its a simple he said, he said thing is to ignore the facts.
static wrote on January 12, 2008 12:00 PM:Tom
I am not the one who is confused.
Senator Obama's changing position on funding, timelines and withdrawal are what President Clinton derided in the "fairytale" comment setting off this entire brouhaha.
No one is really following congressional races these days (which is very understandable) but two new polls out yesterday paint a very interesting picture: Chris Carney, one of the most endangered Democratic incumbents, has a big lead in PA-10, but in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell appears to be improving his situation.
John Tully wrote on January 12, 2008 12:06 PM:OT
Hilarious!
Bill Maher’s first show back for 2008.
Tony Snow confuses “Voter Fraud”with “Election Fraud”
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 12:08 PM:Thanks Greg for pointing this out. So what's next on the HRC hit list....
upper left wrote on January 12, 2008 12:09 PM:static,
I have heard this line of reasoning many times in the past year, I find it far from compelling.
There have been two different issues on Iraq:
1) Whether or not to go in. HRC voted for the AUMF and against the amendment to require another vote before sending in the troops. Obama spoke out against the war. He admitted that his position was different, because he was a candidate rather than a member of the Senate.
2) The second issue was when when and how to get out of Iraq. Obama decided to vote "for" funding because he thought that an abrupt cut off of funding was not the right way to get out and because he realized that it would not a politically viable position. It was not until Bush had made it abundantly clear that cutting off funding was the only way to oppose the war that he changed his position to vote against further funding.
The fact that HRC and Obama have taken similar positions on the second issue does not negate the fact that they took very different positions on the first.
I find your and the Clinton's attempts to blur these two issues politically expedient and intellectually dishonest.
It is amazing to me how this race has lost any pretension about being about issues that matter to the voters. Can anyone remind me when was the last time that we heard substantive debates on the relative merits of the candidates' respective health care plans, FP positions, or approaches to addressing voters' real concerns about the tanking economy?
I have searched this and many other sites in vain for posts about substantive "issues", and that is a sad commentary/b>
upper left. Note the important grammatical difference between "Hillary hater" and "Hillary's haters". The latter spammed the thread with the Rezko nonsense.
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 12:11 PM:At least Hillary would have never gone into Iraq after 9/11. And was against the war from the beginning . . . of her campaign to POTUS.
Robert wrote on January 12, 2008 12:14 PM:I became a political junkie at age 14 and basically took Bill Clinton's positions as my own. I idolized the guy. Since Iowa though, both Clinton's have disgusted me. If Hillary wins the primary, I'm writing in Obama in November or just won't bother voting. American politics cannot afford four more years of the same Cold War/Welfare State paradigm. Times have changed since the 40s, and we need a pivotal President in the mold of Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. If we're not to have one, I really don't give a damn if he or she is a Republican or Democrat. I know a Democrat would be better, but this a moment of real urgency and nothing will get done so long as Washington remains polarized, which it most definitely would in the Hillary era. If she wins, I just cannot afford to invest any emotion into American politics. I think I'll just become a hedonist in Europe.
hadenough wrote on January 12, 2008 12:15 PM:Let's call it ignorance. Of course when a reporter reports they know they should have some facts and or be clarifying/enlightening readers. But still let's go with ignorant. The Big Dog gives a list of obama quotes. Not just one. Here is Clinton's full quote. greg's a newbie so he won't have known to include that:
""Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/_by_frank_james_the.html
One obama quote The Big Dog refers to:
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. "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."
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jul/27/ln/ln03a.html
So:
"As it happens, Obama is right. Here is the actual Obama quote in question"
is not the actual quote in question. obama nad greg are wrong. greg maybe there is a big person nearby that can help you straighten that mess out.
hadenough, as it happens Clinton, who is already of questionable credibility, fibbed by exclusion on both quotes.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 12, 2008 12:29 PM:I have participated in all manner of internet discussions over the last couple of years on all manner of topics. One thing that I know is that almost no one ever changes his or her mind about any issue based on an exchange on the internet. Quite the contrary, in my experience - arguing about something with a bunch of faceless names simply serves to make each individual hunker down more emphatically in his own opinion.
As such, I rather have to wonder what the Clinton partisans here are attempting to do on this thread. With a brother stationed in Iraq, the war is the largest single issue for me, and it is the largest single reason (albeit not the only one) that I am voting for Sen Obama. His is, in my estimation, the only credible anti-war voice in this debate. This is the issue which I have investigated most thoroughly, and none of the half-quotes which Pres Clinton has provided have done anything to change my mind on this issue.
I can certainly see, however, why he might take this line to convince folks who have not much researched the subject. There are so few folks on this forum, however, who fall into that category that I am hard pressed to understand why anyone might be attempting to use that line around here. There are a million good reasons to vote for Sen Clinton, but this is not one of them, and I guess that I am puzzled that her supporters should waste their time on so futile an approach.
hadenough wrote on January 12, 2008 12:30 PM:Jeremy,
You are too funny!
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 12:32 PM:hadenough:
Here's the quote relating to the same position as George Bush.
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]
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.'
[snip]
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 sure this will be met with an acknowledgment that President Clinton is misconstrue Obama's words to make some political points.... Yeah right.
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 12:36 PM:That should be "Clinton is misconstruing".
The point here is that Obama was agreeing that the US had to stabilize Iraq or the Pottery Barn theory. How this is evidence of his support of the war is beyond me, but I know that won't stop many of you from trying.
Have fun.
neilario wrote on January 12, 2008 12:49 PM:Interesting conversation.
I am a supporter of HRC. BUT I agree that BO spoke out against the war in 2002. For me, the issue/ question IS about what happened since. He injected it into the campaign meme by making this 2002 stance a central theme regarding his judgement. And perhaps he has good or even better judgement. But I am tired of dems no ACTING. so the fact that he did not speak with feingold or spoke against Murtha when they were on line early refuting the war is my problem. I am happy to commend his 2002 judgement but I do criticze his actions since then. we have needed leadership here for a long time. A voice like his speaking out 3 years ago even would have been a huge help. once he was on the national stage it could have made a serious difference.
I am not comparing the two here. Clinton is not saying I was against the war but just kept in inside. [HRC at least] that to me is the difference. He has made it a n example of his prescient judgement so I am critiquing it since there was no followup action when he could have done it and we desperatley needed it.
So that leads me to the prime concern I have with BO is about ACTIONS. if he can't translate good judgement or hope or desire intop courageous tangible actions than I have concerns.
I wish I could find a path to support BO. I am very open to it but I am not seeing it in his actions. HRC could have spoken out also. But she is rightfully taking hits on her votes and not saying she was anything than she was.
thats all for me.
By Greg Sargent - January 12, 2008, 9:40AMYesterday, as part of his racial damage control tour, Bill Clinton took a shot at Obama that he's frequently taken during the campaign, charging that the Illinois Senator's criticism of Hillary's support of the war is disingenuous in light of something Obama said back in 2004.
[....]
As it happens, Obama is right.
[....]
So, clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees.
Hadenough January 12, 2008 12:15 PM: Good post but I think that you are too subtle so I have to ask Greg Sargent explicitly if he did not do "selective editing" in making an issue out of what Bill Clinton had actually said, which was [full quote thanks to 'hadenough' above]:
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
Dear Mr. Greg Sargent:/b>
Do you see why it looks like the media is working overtime to manufacture controversies just for their amusement, while ignoring their civic (heck, make that "constitutional") duty to try to educate the voters about issues that actually matter?
Also, I have gone several times over the Clintons' so-called 'racist' statements and found those to be just as taken out of context as the ones posted atop of this thread.
Now, can someone tell us about the status of the debate about the relative merits of "mandates" in ensuring universal health care...or is that too boring to be of interest to voters?
hadenough wrote on January 12, 2008 12:58 PM:dcshungu,
Thank You.
Actually I'm off the hook. I have followed greg's writing for years. Never could have imagined he'd end up like this. Really disappointing.
upper left wrote on January 12, 2008 12:59 PM:Greg,
Your comment is a good one.
I think perhaps the HRC supporters take their dogmatic line in order to quiet what must be the loud cognitive dissonance in their heads. They must on some level be deeply troubled by the Rovian tactics of their candidate. In order to quiet those doubts that have to engage in spewing a constant stream of self justification.
"Lying is bad. Believing your own lies is dangerous!"
paul wrote on January 12, 2008 1:04 PM:I lose more respect for Bill every day. I voted enthusiastically for him in the past - and was livid about the lies told about him and Hillary. Now it's the Clinton's doing the lying. Sad.
frankly0 wrote on January 12, 2008 1:09 PM:What's the matter, Greg, can't stand the heat anymore from the Obama mob, and you gotta give them a call?
Obama is distorting what Bill actually said, and Greg is just backing him up.
Look, the bolded sentence below appears to be the only relevant portion of what Clinton said in the context of the "fairy tale" comment:
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
Now is Bill's assertion that Obama said he "didn't know how [he] would have voted on the resolution" a fair one, given Obama's assertion? I certainly don't see how you could claim it wasn't. Clearly, Obama in his original statement is saying precisely that, if he knew what those in the Senate knew, he himself might have voted in favor of the resolution. That is essentially equivalent to saying that had he actually been in the Senate, rather than on the outside, he might have voted in favor of the resolution. I don't know how you can get around that clear logical entailment. Whether he was being "polite" is irrelevant here: it's what he's saying, whatever his motivation might be. (And how does it excuse things if it's politeness that was the motivation? Where is the courage in that, the ability to speak hard truths he and his followers fancy as one of his great virtues? Doesn't it sound a little more like cowardice to know something crucial about a matter of life and death and keep your mouth shut out of politeness of all things?)
In any case, Greg, your inability to see the correctness of Bill's claim, as he stated it, is duly noted. I don't expect much out of the Obama's slathering horde around here, but I do expect more out of you. What's the matter, Greg, can't stand the heat anymore from the Obama mob, and you gotta give them a call?
Obama is distorting what Bill actually said, and Greg is just backing him up.
Look, the bolded sentence below appears to be the only relevant portion of what Clinton said in the context of the "fairy tale" comment:
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
Now is Bill's assertion that Obama said he "didn't know how [he] would have voted on the resolution" a fair one, given Obama's assertion? I certainly don't see how you could claim it wasn't. Clearly, Obama in his original statement is saying precisely that, if he knew what those in the Senate knew, he himself might have voted in favor of the resolution. That is essentially equivalent to saying that had he actually been in the Senate, rather than on the outside, he might have voted in favor of the resolution. I don't know how you can get around that clear logical entailment. Whether he was being "polite" is irrelevant here: it's what he's saying, whatever his motivation might be. (And how does it excuse things if it's politeness that was the motivation? Where is the courage in that? Where is the ability to speak hard truths he and his followers fancy as one of his great virtues? Doesn't it sound a little more like cowardice to know something crucial about a matter of life and death and keep your mouth shut out of politeness of all things?) And isn't Bill's basic complaint a fair one -- that, at minimum, it was inexcusable of the media not to have pressed Obama in the debates to explain his comment?
In any case, Greg, your inability to understand and observe the correctness of Bill's claim, as he stated it, is duly noted, nor is your inability to detect and state that Obama tried to turn Bill's comment into meaning something else. I don't expect much out of Obama's slathering horde around here, but I do expect more out of you.
Lee wrote on January 12, 2008 1:10 PM:From early days in this campaign Obama has attacked Hillary repeatedly and obsessively for her vote, suggesting she "helped to engineer" the war. Why is it that this keeps getting free rides? He is a snake.
Carl wrote on January 12, 2008 1:10 PM:Oh, it pains me to be reminded of the Clinton rhetoric - we had almost forgotten how they "play" it, during these awful last 7 years. but they are back at it... From "rolling the dice" (in my opinion, HRC's vote for the war without reading the supporting 200-something pages (which should the 'certified genius" not have taken too long) while knowing that no one on her staff had the clearance to do so, is the Ultimate Dice Roll. And I hope the Obama campaign is armed for the attacks from someone who dares to state that the 'truth" depends on how you define "IS"?! I am cheering for HRC to become an effective and very senior senate leader - we clearly need that one - but my main reason for opposing her is 3-fold 1) she is a true uniter - but of the rep. party - the down-ticket harm for the house and senate can effective lame the next congress, no matter who is 'ready to lead from day 1" 2) she has a definite ceiling in her own party, NO cross-over appeal, and very limited independent support, so she could actually lose the general election, which is unthinkable and 3) should she be able to eke out a close win, the country will be even more divided than it is now, and with a possibly weakend legislature, the inflamed GOP will be able to block any initiative. She cannot heal, and it's always and ever CLINTON FIRST, no matter the cost, even for the party. Plus, another selfish motive: I really want my children to grow up under a president they can admire for his character, without distractions of Lincoln or other bedroom or office desk stories. BTW, Chertoff has a complete record of all of Bill's doing of the last 7 years - and this can leak out, one drop at a time....
Can we move on, and vote for someone with personal judgement and integrity, who "wants to put and end to the tactics of swiftboating, and not perfect them". Kerry's best line! Thanks for thinking about these things....
Oops, sorry -- somehow I cut and paste two times into my post above.
Use the occasion to read it twice!
benjoya wrote on January 12, 2008 1:18 PM:he wants us all to believe that he would not have voted for the war by referring to something that he said in 2004,
actually, obama quite vociferously opposed the war before it began. it's not obama who would like history to begin in 2004.
if obama has, as some posters suggest, become more supportive of the war as it has become less popular, and was only really opposed to it before it started (when it was popular), well that's twice a profile in courage, innit?
you might say he is loath to start a war, but loath to stop one as well. unlike hillary, who would do either at the drop of a hat, depending on the prevailing winds.
Lee wrote on January 12, 2008 1:18 PM:From early days in this campaign Obama has attacked Hillary repeatedly and obsessively for her vote, suggesting she "helped to engineer" the war. Why is it that you all keep giving him free rides? His conduct in the New Hampshire debate was well beneath the standard we need presidential candidates to embrace. The press and Obama and Edwards have behaved disgustingly, and the race thing is yet another attempt to smear the Clintons. Yet it is the race hysteria on which you dwell. You need to do better.
stlounick wrote on January 12, 2008 1:24 PM:Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraqi War in 2002. Senator Clinton joined the minority of Congressional Democrats in 2002 when she voted for this resolution--the majority of the Democratic Party voted against it.
Senator Clinton had the opportunity to read the 92-page NIE (National INTELLIGENCE Estimate) in 2002 before this crucial vote. Senator Graham (now retired) insisted that this NIE be made available to Congress. Only members of Congress had clearance and were allowed in the room--staff could not read the NIE. Few read the entire NIE. Senator Clinton was not one of them; she is on record of being asked if she read it and answering "no".
Did Senator Clinton then have access to the Senate intelligence that Obama refers to? Yes. Did she take advantage of that opportunity to read the material? No.
When asked early last year after her announcement for the reasons she would not apologize for her Iraq War vote, she was caught on video and widely quoted with her response. If you don't like my position in 2002, find another candidate. A whole lot of us stampeded from her campaign--to her apparent chagrin--and found our place in the Obama campaign where we found superior judgment on the Iraq War issue.
WryPoster wrote on January 12, 2008 1:25 PM:First looks like Bill and Obama are the contestants in this primary, huh?
Second Clintons should watch out, pulling out all these canards (Obmama's War comment seen in full context is more or less the same as Hillary War vote seen in full context) and cards (race? gender?) they may think they'll win since "in simple numbers there are more white women than black men" but end up losing when they discover where this will lead comparing "white women and non-white men? or white women against non white men and women?"
JubleJohnson wrote on January 12, 2008 1:28 PM:This is what we can expect if Hclinton wins the Presidency,Bclinton going on a rampage against anyone who questions the Commander-in-Chief ?Is this what we want to have BClinton wagging his finger again at the media for another 4 yrs ?As if they did not damage the Dem party enough.It will be the 90 all over again if HClinton gets in ,so much for change & moving forward.
Shine wrote on January 12, 2008 2:04 PM:There's a lot a rancor on these boards b/w Obama and Clinton supports. Trust me, if it were Obama v. anyone else, no matter how close you wouldn't be reading about this kind of sniping. And from my view (a blue state right of center republican, btw), most of this is generated by the Clinton camp. It's how they operated eight years ago, and with a Clinton restoration, its how the next four years will go. Good for Chris Matthews and MoDo, I guess. Bad for the country.
Republicans seem to be thinking somewhat straight and it looks good, for now, for McCain, despite some positions he holds, like immigration, that make the wingiest of the wing-nut element of my party go into seizures. Why? Because he looks like the best candidate in the general election. They know the evangelicals will stay home if a Mormon is nominated, they understand that Rudy too much of a one-note candidate, and they see that no one who lives outside the Deep South would ever consider voting for Huckabee.
Hey Dems, please understand this (and I say this with affection, since the love of my life is a true blue Democrat): If Clinton is nominated she will, whether she wins the general election or not, most definitely hurt her Party Down ticket. Red States that are slowly turning pink or purple, like Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio will turn beet red again. Despite all her "experience" nothing will be accomplished in Congress because of an energized opposition. All the gains you made in 2006 will be wiped out, and then some.
You want a Clinton Restoration? You'll get a Rove Restoration instead (if it's not already in place. Awesome use of surrogates to slowly chip away that one of the brightest stars in you're Party. Karl is proud, judging from the WSJ editorial.
Obama and Edwards people, for the most part, seem to understand this. Clinton supporters, at least from the comment boards, seem to relish to a return of the Clinton Wars. It's almost as if Sidney Blumenthal writes all of the Clinton supporting comments on the liberal blogs. They seem to want four more years of sniper fire. Okay, fine, but note that we are much more accurate in our aim than you.
American voters are not going return to four more years of Clinton craziness, not after eight years of Bush incompetence. Maybe Hillary is disciplined and intelligent and deliberate and all that. But blame her husband for the rap she gets.
Please also remember that over 50 million people voted for the Republican nominee in 2004. Those people are not going to vote for a Clinton. They probably aren't going to vote for an Obama either, but only a Clinton can energize them. Nominate Clinton and you hand the Republican Party the greatest gift ever since, well, ever.
Shine wrote on January 12, 2008 2:05 PM:There's a lot a rancor on these boards b/w Obama and Clinton supports. Trust me, if it were Obama v. anyone else, no matter how close you wouldn't be reading about this kind of sniping. And from my view (a blue state right of center republican, btw), most of this is generated by the Clinton camp. It's how they operated eight years ago, and with a Clinton restoration, its how the next four years will go. Good for Chris Matthews and MoDo, I guess. Bad for the country.
Republicans seem to be thinking somewhat straight and it looks good, for now, for McCain, despite some positions he holds, like immigration, that make the wingiest of the wing-nut element of my party go into seizures. Why? Because he looks like the best candidate in the general election. They know the evangelicals will stay home if a Mormon is nominated, they understand that Rudy too much of a one-note candidate, and they see that no one who lives outside the Deep South would ever consider voting for Huckabee.
Hey Dems, please understand this (and I say this with affection, since the love of my life is a true blue Democrat): If Clinton is nominated she will, whether she wins the general election or not, most definitely hurt her Party Down ticket. Red States that are slowly turning pink or purple, like Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio will turn beet red again. Despite all her "experience" nothing will be accomplished in Congress because of an energized opposition. All the gains you made in 2006 will be wiped out, and then some.
You want a Clinton Restoration? You'll get a Rove Restoration instead (if it's not already in place. Awesome use of surrogates to slowly chip away that one of the brightest stars in you're Party. Karl is proud, judging from the WSJ editorial.
Obama and Edwards people, for the most part, seem to understand this. Clinton supporters, at least from the comment boards, seem to relish to a return of the Clinton Wars. It's almost as if Sidney Blumenthal writes all of the Clinton supporting comments on the liberal blogs. They seem to want four more years of sniper fire. Okay, fine, but note that we are much more accurate in our aim than you.
American voters are not going return to four more years of Clinton craziness, not after eight years of Bush incompetence. Maybe Hillary is disciplined and intelligent and deliberate and all that. But blame her husband for the rap she gets.
Please also remember that over 50 million people voted for the Republican nominee in 2004. Those people are not going to vote for a Clinton. They probably aren't going to vote for an Obama either, but only a Clinton can energize them. Nominate Clinton and you hand the Republican Party the greatest gift ever since, well, ever.
WryPoster wrote on January 12, 2008 2:09 PM:clarifying my second point above:
If you look at HRC's white women base and BO's black male base HRC's base may seem larger, but this slicing and dicing and micro-trending may be self-defeating...
Obama, if smart could appeal to a much larger base of perhaps non-white men?
Or an even larger base of non-white people, men and women!
Do we want to go down that route as a country - oh leaders, lead us!
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 12, 2008 2:11 PM:The Clintons are a disease which may prove fatal to the Democratic Party unless the primary electorate has the wisdom to cure it. Despite my support for Edwards and my gratitude for the service he has done in forcing the other candidates to address some of the major issues, I'm about ready to conclude that he needs to drop out so the anti-Clinton vote can unite.
DonnaG wrote on January 12, 2008 2:17 PM:Lee wrote on January 12, 2008 1:18 PM:
[referring to Obama], " His conduct in the New Hampshire debate was well beneath the standard we need presidential candidates to embrace."
Umm, Lee, why don't you read my comment at 11:19 am, which totally puts the lie to your obvious-projection statement.
Well, at least your inane and false statement offers another example of the sort of blatant disinformation that has become a pattern from Hillary's fans.
BTW, anyone else hear about the vote-suppression tactic just taken by the Hillary camp in Nevada?
dcshungu wrote on January 12, 2008 2:24 PM:Today's Must-Read: Hillary and Racism
The following excerpted TNR piece might be a bit too erudite for most in this forum but please take a look anyway. Hillary's LBJ/MLK/JFK comment could not possibly be interpreted by anyone with any gray matter between the ears as a racist remark. Hillary is no racist, and nor is Bill. The remark refers to the fact that great ideas/proposals/policies (e.g., civil rights act of 1964) need their champions within the government in order to ensure their passage into law - a truism that only a racist would think is a racist remark, and I mean that. I provide just the end of the piece but it is worth reading in its entirety -- if it is the only thing that you read today, make that piece be it.
The New Republic
by Sean Wilentz
To understand Hillary Clinton's "race problem," we must better understand the history of civil rights.
Post Date Saturday, January 12, 2008
[...] Martin Luther King led the movement; Lyndon B. Johnson supported that movement, played the politics, guided the legislation, and signed it into law. Both were indispensable to the civil rights successes of the 1960s. To acknowledge both denigrates neither man. Describing such an acknowledgment as a denigration of Dr. King is, at best, bad history. At worst, it is a manipulative and inflammatory racial appeal concerning a crucial era in American history--an era that needs very, very careful consideration indeed. Either way, the current heated rhetoric demonstrates that the utopia of post-racial politics has hardly arrived.Michael A wrote on January 12, 2008 3:05 PM:
I am really, really getting sick of hearing mr. bill and h. clinton. I already have major clinton fatigue.
Let me see if I understand all the distortions and manipulation by them over the last week or so. They are both very intelligent, there is no doubting that. They have both been involved in politics pretty much their entire adult life. Not doubting that one either. However, notwithstanding all this political experience and intelligence and political machine that they are operating, they want people to believe that uh, I misspoke, or uh, that's not really what I meant, or uh, that person intimately involved with the campaign and big time supporter said xyz without our authority or was flying solo.
Sorry, I don't believe any of this. They are pretending to be amatuers in order to set a theme of playing to sterotypes and people's unjustified fears, whether racial or terrorism related. If you believe their manipulation, lies and triangulation, then I have a bridge in NY up for sale.
I wish they would just go away. They are causing more damage to the democratic party and this country as every day progresses. Hopefully on 2/6 she is doing a concession speech and I hope that obama doesn't let mr. bill within 100 yards of the white house. He is forever tainting his legacy with this nonsense.
On the obama's war stance. Mr. bill is LYING. Simple, he is blatantly LYING. Why doesn't a reporter point out that he is LYING??????? It really is pathetic. Mr. bill is almost at the king's level in my book with his bs, and that's pretty low.
A: give speeches wrote on January 12, 2008 3:11 PM:Q: What has Obama done to end the war?
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 3:16 PM:Probably the reason Obama has not been asked about this in any debate, is that the plain meaning of his words are clear. It is only when you are actively trying to misread his words that there is even the hint of backpedaling. Also, he was asked about this on Meet the Press (November 11, 2007).
If you want to deconstruct his words to derive a different meaning, be my guest. But you have the oneous of demonstrating that your tortured reading is correct. So far, you all are coming up empty handed.
To Gives Speeches wrote on January 12, 2008 3:20 PM:More than Senator Clinton who voted to authorize the war without reading the NIE.
Not Good wrote on January 12, 2008 3:22 PM:Let's be honest. This is going to be a really tough road to hoe for Obama. He's got to get through both Hillary and Bill. He has to defend himself very carefully, b/c they're already playing as though they are against the Republicans. It's really saddening quite frankly, b/c the Clintons are just as sleazy as Bush, Rove, Cheney and Co., not that Obama is perfection, but I just feel that the people are getting the raw end of the deal and it's not fair. If these people are willing to throw candidates from their own party under the bus, why should we trust that they'll do any better for us?
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 12, 2008 3:23 PM:I'd like to point out that Obama isn't president yet, so obviously he can't single handedly end the war yet. Quit being a dumbass, seriously, it is embarrassing. What has Hillary done to end the war? What has any candidate done to end the war? Nothing more than support withdrawal resolutions because thats all they can do at this point. At least Obama had the good judgment to oppose the war from the beginning and not give Bush the "benefit of the doubt". No amount of lying on the part of the Clintons is going to change the fact that Obama was right and she was wrong. Obama has better judgment and that is that. Her hyped up experience hasn't done her a damn bit of good, and that is that.
Common Sense wrote on January 12, 2008 3:24 PM:Here's a thought: Let's pretend this is John McCain (and not Bill Clinton) making this claim. I don't think any of you would be arguing that John McCain's reading is remotely correct. That he's, at best, ACTIVELY and INTENTIONALLY, misreading Obama's statement.
Now of course, I know this won't be persuasive to the HRC supporters that are heavily invested in defining Senator Obama in a way that is comfortable for them. That being said, it should place these "attacks" in proper context.
MariMuri wrote on January 12, 2008 3:26 PM:I think Al Franken needs to write an updated version of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and this time he can include a special Democrats chapter highlighting the Clintons, because they are starting to put the GOP to shame with their lies and dirty campaign tactics.
Even the Bush/Cheney campaign against Kerry/Edwards wasn't as dirty and full of lies as this...I'm appalled at the Clintons. Appalled.
Jeff wrote on January 12, 2008 3:26 PM:I agree with Clinton on this one. While, in his campaigning, Obama has been consistent with the letter of his NYT interview quote, he has not been consistent with the spirit of it:
He is the candidate who continues to use one's stance on the war vote as a quality of leadership issue. Sometimes I think he hints at it being a question of integrity, as well. Obama's opposition to the war is, he persuades us, a demonstrative sign of his independent character and maturity to lead. He also uses Clinton's vote to authorize the invasion as a sign that she, if she has experience at all, makes bad decisions.
Given how much mileage he gets out of this issue now, I am really quite surprised to see that he soft-pedaled his opposition to the war, presumably for political gain, in the past. Learning this makes me question his judgment, if not his integrity.
static wrote on January 12, 2008 3:27 PM:upper left
Are you a simpleton, a cog in the Obama campaign or a person with such a crush on the man that you feel compelled to spin for him?
Your disingenuous misrepresentation of what I wrote and Rovian doublespeak do no credit to Obama. Throughout this entire thread you have been fundamentally intellectually dishonest. How do you justify posting this continuous stream of misinformation. You are nothing more than a charlatan.
Jeff:
To sum up, you agree with Bill, but you don't really know why. Thanks for sharing.
A: One wrote on January 12, 2008 3:35 PM:Q: How many Iraq War funding resolutions has Obama opposed?
Common Sense wrote on January 12, 2008 3:39 PM:Has anyone else noticed that each of one of the "quotes" that the Distorters are bandying about as proof that he backed off of his opposition to the war, were all in relation to Senators who voted for the war? That he was declining to attack a fellow Democrat on the issue. Interesting.
A: Senator Clinton wrote on January 12, 2008 3:46 PM:Q: Who voted to authorize the war without reading the NIE, but claimed she had studied the matter closely? And didn't oppose the war until it became politically necessary to do so? Who now claims that she was against the war from the beginning?
This is fun.
A: The Clintons wrote on January 12, 2008 3:47 PM:Q: Who's attacking a fellow Democrat for not attacking fellow Democrats?
jbentley wrote on January 12, 2008 3:48 PM:As a former president and the most prominent and popular statesman of the Democratic Party by far, Bill Clinton should not be in the business of criticizing, and in many casing parsing and misrepresenting, the record of one of the party's brightest and most talented stars. If he wants to champion Hillary's record and her agenda, that's fine, and if somebody else in the Clinton wants to parse and criticize Obama's record, that it also fine. But it is unbecoming, indeed revolting and embarassing, the way he whined to the media and trashed Obama in the weeks leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire.
He should realize that as a former president and the most prominent party elder statesman, he commands a degree of respect from the common voters and a bullhorn to the media that nobody else in the Democratic Party enjoys. It is unfair and beneath him (not that he ever did have much class), to use that status to trash Obama and divide the party.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 12, 2008 3:51 PM:Why can't you all just get along? I mean just because Bill was mean to Obama doesn't mean that you have to be mean to one another.
Why don't you volunteer some time at a soup kitchen so I don't have to eat catfood again tonight?
Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 3:51 PM:It really doesn't matter. Obama said Hussein wasn't a threat at all, which was factually untrue - and certainly not knowable by state senator. The nuclear part of the NIE was overblown. The chemical & biological less so. But much of the NIE was guess without our people in Iraq (not Curveball). The vote in October 2002 wasn't to go to war, it was to allow enough real military pressure to force Hussein to allow inspectors to return and to prove that all was in order since 1998, based on fears from 9/11 that we could be hit hard even by poorly funded terrorists. It was 5 months from vote to war, including more info from inspectors on the ground. Even after invasion, it was recognized that Hussein could have and would have quickly rebuilt his programs had sanctions been dropped. The reason Hillary is stronger nationally is because she takes the terrorist threat more seriously than Obama, and that's still very important in the general election. She didn't apologize - she'd seen her husband play the same drawn-out game with Hussein, and while she didn't trust Bush, she had to balance our national security with her distrust for the President. That's one of the reasons why her being US Senator 4 years longer is more important than Obama's less critical decisions as Illinois Senator. He can talk all he wants about how he "would have voted", but it's irrelevant - he might as well have been a kindergartner in Indonesia at the time - the effect of his opinions would be about as powerful.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 3:56 PM:The Clinton supporters' arguments illustrate major cognitive dissonance.
To wit, they are making the case that Obama can't be trusted and is dishonest?
So they are supporting the Clintons?
LOL!
Publicus wrote on January 12, 2008 3:58 PM:Just so everyone knows what Desider is talking about, here's a quote from the 2002 Speech.
"[snip] Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So there you have it. Desider says Obama says Sadaam was no threat. And the 2002 AUMF was not to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Don't read the title or the resolution, read Senator Clinton's floor speech. She explains it all there. Apparently, her speech is binding law....
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 4:03 PM:http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/The_Vegas_lawsuit.html
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 4:04 PM:Here's an exercise for the Clinton folks. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've effetively dirtied up Obama, taken two things (Rezko and the half-quote about how he would have voted on AUMF) and made us all decide that those TWO things mean he is too dishonest and untrustworthy to be President.
Now, build me a case on how the Clintons ARE honest and trustworthy, unlike that scoundrel Obama. It seems to me that by eliminating Obama over a little (your little, not mine), you are eliminating the Clintons over a whole fucking lot.
Do you not agree? Use this opportunity to build the case about how honest, forthright and trustworthy are the Clintons.
Jane wrote on January 12, 2008 4:06 PM:Ned Lamont ran against Joe Lieberman because Ned was opposed to the Iraq War. Obama backed Lieberman in the primary. That says all I need to know about the sincerity of Obama's war opposition.
How Clinton voted would have made no difference whatsoever since Bush had an overwhelming majority in hand. If Obama had not encouraged Democrats to vote for Lieberman you might well have had the 5% swing necessary to remove Lieberman from office.
It is incomprehensible to me that in March of 2006 Obama said "I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf. Boston Globe
The prediction was accurate in part because of the cover that Obama provided to Lieberman.
This also goes to Obama's judgment: he expects reciprocity from people like Lieberman. When push came to shove, Lieberman backed McCain -- his ideological soul mate on the war -- thereby drawing independents away from Obama.
Ned Lamont would never have done this as is utterly proven by the fact that he endorsed Obama. But Obama has to live with the fact that his own bad judgment in backing Joe Lieberman may have cost him the Presidency.
It is one thing to reason and cooperate across ideological lines with some dignity to achieve shared goals. It is another thing to help an ideological opponent to a position of power and Obama does not seem to know the difference.
Jane:
Obama backed the sitting Democrat during the primary. So more evidence that Obama is supportive of his fellow Democrats.
Who did Obama back in the General?
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 4:26 PM:Here's an exercise for the Clinton folks. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've effetively dirtied up Obama, taken two things (Rezko and the half-quote about how he would have voted on AUMF) and made us all decide that those TWO things mean he is too dishonest and untrustworthy to be President.
Now, build me a case on how the Clintons ARE honest and trustworthy, unlike that scoundrel Obama. It seems to me that by eliminating Obama over a little (your little, not mine), you are eliminating the Clintons over a whole fucking lot.
Do you not agree? Use this opportunity to build the case about how honest, forthright and trustworthy are the Clintons.
Jeremy wrote on January 12, 2008 4:28 PM:Jane:
Of course, that doesn't stop you from trying to use him against Obama. That's no surprise given the precedent set by Hillary's campaign. They used that waitress from Iowa in speeches without finding out who she actually supported. Now they's running around talking about how after 35 years Hillary has finally "found her voice" in a conversation with a woman who ultimately supported Obama. You know why? Because after finding her voice for about half a second and choking up a bit she lost it again and went into her same old phony attacks on Obama. Not unlike Bill "I opposed the war from the start" Clinton's phony attacks.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 12, 2008 4:38 PM:Obama backed Lieberman in the primary. That says all I need to know about the sincerity of Obama's war opposition.
Bill Clinton also campaigned for Lieberman in the primary. So did Howard Dean. So did Chris Dodd. So did Barbara Boxer. So did Harry Reid. So did Joe Biden. So did Max Cleland. So did Daniel Inouye.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Dick Durbin, Ben Nelson and many, many others all endorsed Joe Lieberman in the primary.
1) How does this tell us anything about any of these folks' opposition to the war?
2) How does this campaigning by Sen Obama tarnish Obama but not the Clintons, who were every bit as supportive of Sen Lieberman as Obama was?
frankly0 wrote on January 12, 2008 4:47 PM:Probably the reason Obama has not been asked about this in any debate, is that the plain meaning of his words are clear. It is only when you are actively trying to misread his words that there is even the hint of backpedaling.
Look, let's even grant that Obama's explanation that it was because he didn't want to say something offensive to the Democrats running for President that he made his statement, and refused to contradict them directly on their vote.
Don't you think that the American people deserve to have him come out and make that very argument, in the context of a debate for our Presidential nominee?
After all, if Obama "really" knew better about the Iraq war, and "really" knew it would very likely end terribly, don't you think that politeness is hardly a good reason to refuse to oppose those supposedly enabling that very war? How on earth does Obama's behavior here exhibit anything but the most cynical of political expediency? How is his act one of courage, and not, as it would seem, of abject cowardice, given that the lives of thousands of Americans and perhaps 100s of thousands of Iraqis might be at stake?
Now maybe Obama has an answer for that (though I seriously doubt it). But I should think that the American people deserve to hear that answer, and his opponents deserve an opportunity to challenge any spin Obama may seek to put upon it.
SC Progressive wrote on January 12, 2008 4:47 PM:In the hallway by the study, the President and Ms. Lewinsky kissed. On this occasion, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he focused on me pretty exclusively," kissing her bare breasts and fondling her genitals. 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."
Captain Obvious wrote on January 12, 2008 4:49 PM:My guess is Jane won't be responding to any of you folks.
jack wrote on January 12, 2008 4:54 PM:obama is right. he was misquoted, not contradicting himself. it's crytal-clear that obama was&is much more forcefully imposed to the war than the almighty mrs clinton who we must, of course, all blindly worship because her husband was such a popular pres.+ladies' man+because she's so decidedly fake, flippant&self-serving. obama was+is more worldly+discerning+he caught on to how that'll spiral iraq into a civil war - something called well-based+extremely intelligent foresight+intuition, not just the "hollow charisma+idealism" billhilary purports barack obama to be. behind great actions are wise decisions. and what about hilary's "deep+abiding opposition" to the notion of nuking la quaida? she said she wouldnt rule that out. is that not similar to bombing every country you think the wmd's were hidden in? how about nuking al quaida+starting a little thing called ww3? then we could thank hilary clinton. or thank her for senselessly penalizing those who can't afford healthcare. i suppose that if health costs are lowered+poor ppl still can't afford it, then, going by hilary's wise judgement they are not affording it rudely and "on purpose"+must be punished?
Tapper wrote on January 12, 2008 4:55 PM:Obamaniacs have taken up the Bush mantra.
ANY criticism is seen as "hatred" and "attack". Of course Obama adds "racism" to his all purpose mud throwing.
And while Obama has what? an organization? HRC has a "Machine"! Well it could be worse, they could call it her death star.
My point is not that Hillary is a saint and Obama not.
My deep contempt for Hillary's politics is based on her politics, not on the Obamaniacs brand of snarky misogynist mud slinging.
And sorry, Obama is no saint. His record is replete with horrendous choices and corrupt, dishonest actions. He has certainly not led an opposition to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan nor to the Bushit war on civil liberties and rule of law here.
Does this make him evil? Hell no!
But he has size 16 feet of clay folks.
Can we at least postpone the hagiography until after his loss?
And get back to discussing policy...
Frankly0:
The only American people that seem to be concerned are named Clinton and their supporters. If you want to defend the Clinton's tortured reading of his statements, then be my guess. But Senator Obama doesn't need to defend that which is plain.
Let's start with, why does Bill Clinton refuse to give the full quote or the context in which the comment was made? He's aware of the full quote, it's on HillaryClinton.com (Fact Hub or whatever it's called). I think the American people deserve an explanation.
The More You Know wrote on January 12, 2008 5:02 PM:Tapper:
Your meds are on the table. Please, for your and our sake, take them.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 5:03 PM:Here's an exercise for the Clinton folks. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've effetively dirtied up Obama, taken two things (Rezko and the half-quote about how he would have voted on AUMF) and made us all decide that those TWO things mean he is too dishonest and untrustworthy to be President.
Now, build me a case on how the Clintons ARE honest and trustworthy, unlike that scoundrel Obama. It seems to me that by eliminating Obama over a little (your little, not mine), you are eliminating the Clintons over a whole fucking lot.
Do you not agree? Use this opportunity to build the case about how honest, forthright and trustworthy are the Clintons.
Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 5:06 PM:Thanks Publicus,
Just to be clear, I in part agreed with Obama's statement - Hussein was not a military threat that could defeat his neighbors. Sanctions had done their work. But hijacking planes into buildings and the anthrax mailings (would be nice to know who was behind those) of 2001 upped the importance of non-military threats much more than the Cole bombing of the previous year. We invaded Afghanistan not because Afghanistan was a military threat to its neighbors, but because it was giving refuge to terrorists and used as a launching pad for attacks. We were less than clear what Hussein was capable of in October 2002, despite the deception of Bush.
frankly0 wrote on January 12, 2008 5:06 PM:Keith,
And the only ones who really understand the "plain meaning" of Obama's statement and find it unworthy of further explanation are rabid Obama partisans.
As I said, let's grant his own explanation, that he refused to directly contradict the Senators on their AUMF vote because he didn't consider it polite, or some such thing.
How does he explain the overpowering importance of politeness when at stake, by his own account, is a matter of life and death for thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people?
Why don't the American people want or deserve an answer to that question?
Funny how you can't seem to bring yourself to deal with this point.
Sue wrote on January 12, 2008 5:08 PM:4 Reasons why Hillary should NOT be the democratic nominee:
Hillary Clinton might win the nomination, but there are a number of problems with selecting her:
(1)Recent polls have shown that 50% of the country won’t vote for her in the general election under ANY circumstances, so she’s already playing on a really short field. It’s tough to win if half the country has turned its back on your candidacy and you don’t know for sure if you have the full support of the other half.
(2)The republicans want to run against her because they have 20 years’ worth of dirt against the Clintons to regurgitate in swiftboat ads during the general election.
(3)She needs independents to win, and Obama polls better than her with independents in general election match-ups.
(4)Bloomberg’s group, Unity08, has made it very clear that unless the parties nominate candidates that are NOT polarizing, they will place a very well-funded independent candidate (i.e. Bloomberg – who has up to $1 BILLION to spend) into the race. In other words they will throw in a SPOILER. Bloomberg is Ralph Nader X100. Hillary is the most polarizing candidate in either race, and she’s the one who 50% of the country won’t vote for in the general election, and who has a greater problem attracting independents – and the polls show this is in a two-party race WITHOUT a spoiler. So, the presence of a spoiler in the race is going to hurt Hillary (i.e. democrats) the most. Given these facts, I think Unity08 has been formed to stop Hillary from becoming president.
I think if democrats insist on nominating Hillary, we will for sure be in for 8 more years of republican rule.
Q: Who was adamantly against funding the war in 2003 but voted to fund the war four times while in the Senate?
MR. RUSSERT: Some involved in the anti-war movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war. Every time there was a proposal to have a fixed date withdrawal you said no, it would be a slap in the face to the American troops, it may create bloodshed and more division, that American credibility was at stake, that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and got to Iowa and got to New Hampshire and had a sense of the anti-war, war fervor in the Democratic base.
SEN. OBAMA: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Where was the leadership?
SEN. OBAMA: I, I, I disagree with that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you have changed in your support now of withdrawal. You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
SEN. OBAMA: But I haven't changed in my opposition to the war. Look, you know, at the time when we were trying to convene a government in Iraq that would work, it was important, I think, for me and others who opposed the war to hope for the best possible outcome in Iraq.
Frankly0:
If the meaning of his words are not plain, then why does President Clinton drop the last sentence or fail to acknowledge the context? They should support your and President Clinton's contention. So, again, why does he drop the last sentence and ignore the context?
I have no problem dealing with the statement or the article in which it occurs. If this is the vetting process, so be it, but it says a helluva lot more about the Clintons (and their supporters) than it does about Senator Obama.
Reading comprehension is key.
Correct Quote wrote on January 12, 2008 5:21 PM:Since the Question Poster failed to post the quote correctly:
MR. RUSSERT: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war. Every time there was a proposal to have a fixed date withdrawal you said no, it would be a slap in the face to the American troops, it may create bloodshed and more division, that American credibility was at stake, that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and got to Iowa and got to New Hampshire and had a sense of the anti-war, war fervor in the Democratic base.
SEN. OBAMA: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Where was the leadership?
SEN. OBAMA: I, I, I disagree with that. You know, throughout I was a constant critic. The first hearing that I had was with Condoleezza Rice in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This was a few months after I had been sworn in as senator. And I told her at that point, we need to wind this war down. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to get the president to the table to negotiate how we’re going to move in a different direction in Iraq is by not giving him a blank check when it comes to funding.
But, look, throughout this process my views have been consistent. The question has been, given the situation on the ground, how can I be most constructive not in scoring political points, but making sure that we have the best possible outcome after what I considered to be a tragic strategic mistake in the region.
MR. RUSSERT: But you have changed in your support now of withdrawal. You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.
SEN. OBAMA: But I haven’t changed in my opposition to the war. Look, you know, at the time when we were trying to convene a government in Iraq that would work, it was important, I think, for me and others who opposed the war to hope for the best possible outcome in Iraq. You know, I’ve never rooted against success in Iraq, I’ve just been skeptical that this was the right approach for us to take. I have also been very clear throughout about why this was such a strategic mistake. The president now is talking about the grave threat that Iran faces, and he’s absolutely right that Iran is a serious threat if they develop nuclear weapons, their support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The biggest beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq has been Iran. And it gives some sense of why we’ve got to have a president in the Oval Office who’s making decisions not based on ideology, but based on knowledge of the region, based on the players that are involved, based on what’s good for our long-term national security. And that’s something that I believe I can provide as president.
Publicus wrote on January 12, 2008 5:24 PM:Desider:
So you supported Bush's rationale for going into Iraq? That's the impression I get from your response, but I don't want to attribute that view to you if it's not true.
Duane wrote on January 12, 2008 5:44 PM:Wow! Didn't realize how hard it was going to be to get an answer from the Clinton supporters.
I'll just keep posting until they answer.
Here's an exercise for the Clinton folks. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've effetively dirtied up Obama, taken two things (Rezko and the half-quote about how he would have voted on AUMF) and made us all decide that those TWO things mean he is too dishonest and untrustworthy to be President.
Now, build me a case on how the Clintons ARE honest and trustworthy, unlike that scoundrel Obama. It seems to me that by eliminating Obama over a little (your little, not mine), you are eliminating the Clintons over a whole fucking lot.
Do you not agree? Use this opportunity to build the case about how honest, forthright and trustworthy are the Clintons.
CalD wrote on January 12, 2008 5:44 PM:Hmmm. Sounds like Senator Obama's 2004 position on the AUMF Iraq is pretty much identical to my own in 2002. I opposed its passage myself and I was happy that none of my congress-critters voted for it, even recognizing then that my own opposition had a lot to do with reflexive partisan distrust of George W. Bush that did not yet have the large body of empirical evidence we now have to support it.
But I also had to admit in fairness at the time, that I understood how a reasonable person in a position of great responsibility could in good conscience arrive at the opposite conclusion. You had to dig pretty deeply back then and rely on some fairly questionable sources by comparison, to find any sort of refutation of the propaganda that Ahmed "the Thief" Chalabi and his INC were pipelining, unfiltered, directly onto the front pages of the New York Times by way of Judith Miller. And of course the white paper that the CIA prepared for congress in advance of the vote, entitled Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs amounted to a sales brochure for the neocon position.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Senator Obama is as capable as I am of understanding that the AUMF Iraq and the Iraq war are two different things, and that there is in all honesty, no real contradiction whatsoever implied in the notion that someone could support one and oppose the other. As for Mr. Obama's apparent willingness to exploit whatever confusion and conflation of those two things that there may still be in the minds of some, for whatever political advantage he may be able to get from it, that's just politics. And Barack Obama is, after all, a politician. It's their nature. I am fairly confident that Hillary Clinton would be just as willing to do the same to him if the shoe were on the other foot.
joe 12 wrote on January 12, 2008 5:56 PM:"Look, you know, at the time when we were trying to convene a government in Iraq that would work, it was important, I think, for me and others who opposed the war to hope for the best possible outcome in Iraq. You know, I’ve never rooted against success in Iraq, I’ve just been skeptical that this was the right approach for us to take."
Senator Obama's comment implies that people like me who opposed the war and supported defunding and withdrawal timelines were rooting for failure in Iraq. Its almost like Obama is saying he is reasonable and responsible and some of us war opponents are not.
frankly0 wrote on January 12, 2008 5:59 PM:Keith,
And where, in the relevant statement from Clinton do you find him "dropping the second sentence", as you claim? Nowhere. That too is a fabrication.
Let's return once more to the very quote from Clinton that Obama and you are complaining about, bolded as I have done before:
Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.In fact, what Clinton is doing here is paraphrasing Obama's position, not directly quoting him and "dropping the second sentence," right? Your obsession and Obama's obsession with the "second sentence" from Obama comes about only because you are desperate to change the subject.
Clinton has quite aptly and succinctly expressed what's problematic in what Obama said, and you are simply trying a way to divert people's attention from what Obama is clearly admitting here.
Why, I wonder, might you and Obama want to do that?
WryPoster wrote on January 12, 2008 6:03 PM:
dcshungu -
in yielding the poetry to Obama, Hillary has left Obama an opening:
"Well, Obama should say that Hillary, then, should stay in the Senate since he will need experienced competent leaders there to pass things through in the Congress, when he is President." http://pocketfulowry.blogspot.com/2008/01/mlk-lbj-suggested-obama-response.html
ceti wrote on January 12, 2008 6:16 PM:All this focus on Iraq is missing the bigger foreign policy differences (or similarities between the candidates).
Bill Clinton supports Colombia's right wing president Alvaro Uribe, and Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her hostility to the entire Latin American Left. Coupled with her throw away remarks about Putin having no soul, you have a very dangerous hawkish candidate in Hillary.
Obama is more of a wild card, but his adamant statements about closing down Guantanamo and talking without any preconditions with other world leaders, including that of Syria and Iran, does show he is just enough different to be a far superior candidate to Hillary.
However, they are all (HRC, BHO, and JRE) still beholden to a militaristic and interventionist forward policy for the US, as exemplified by all of them stating that "all options remain on the table" when dealing with Iran.
blackstar wrote on January 12, 2008 6:19 PM:In fact, what Clinton is doing here is paraphrasing Obama's position, not directly quoting him and "dropping the second sentence," right?
------------------
you admit here that Clinton is not putting Obama's comments in their proper context.
if i said "frankly, you're an idiot if you vote for Rudy Giuliani", and you tell people "BLACKSTAR said that i was an idiot! that's a personal attack!", you're misrepresenting my statement because you're not giving the entire context (by leaving out the qualifying end of the comment).
that's exactly what Clinton is doing here, and its patently dishonest. there is no way to spin it otherwise.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 6:24 PM:Bill Clinton is sounding more and more like George Bush everyday. These are mistakes he is making, they are cynical, calculated LIES.
This is a former president of the United States, attacking a fellow Democrat for the unpardonable sin of opposing the dishonest, unqualified, mean-spirited, strident femminist Mrs. Hillary Clinton.
It is amusing but also alarming that women would muster to support another woman who has ridden her husband's coattails to power and allowed herself to be publicly and repeatedly humiliated, calculating that it is her in her best interest to accommodate his abuse. This is clinical stuff. If Hillary is nominated, history to be accurate will need to show that in 2008 Mrs. Bill Clinton stood for election in place of her husband, helping him seek an unConstitutional third term. We must hope with all our might that history will also record thinking voters rejected the Clintons and their fundamental dishonesty, preventing their return to the White House and constant tabloid headlines.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on January 12, 2008 6:33 PM:One thing is certain. The Clintons are providing Rove-style vetting of Obama. If he survives the nasty Clinton machine and its dirty tactics and wins the nomination, he will be well-prepared to face the Republican attack machine.
Heaven help Obama draw on his courage, wisdom, life experience and character to stand up to and overcome the Clintons. Let's hope the nation can do the same.
random wrote on January 12, 2008 6:43 PM:Annonymous said: "This is a former president of the United States, attacking a fellow Democrat for the unpardonable sin of opposing [his unqualified wife].
To me, this is an important point. If Bill Clinton wants to break from tradition as a former president and support a presidential candidate in the Democratic primary, it is his choice. No laws restrict him. Although nepotism is not consistent with true democracy.
There is however a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between supporting Mrs. Bill Clinton because she is your wife, and unfairly, dishonestly attacking her opponents because you want her to win.
As a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton should refrain from any comment on other Democratic candidates. He should campaign for Hillary on her merits alone with ethusiasm and respect for the democratic process.
But that is the catch. Bill cannot be positive in this campaign, because Hillary's "merits" are very shallow and voters are rejecting her. So he must attack and try to tear down other Democrats, providing fuel for those who will oppose the Democratic nominee.
Democrats need to hold Bill Clinton accountable for the damage he is doing to the party, the democratic process and the nation in the self-interested pursuit of getting his questionably qualified wife nominated for president.
Keith wrote on January 12, 2008 6:47 PM:Frankly0:
If he's paraphrasing him then he's still not paraphrasing the statement. Perhaps is his and your way of not dealing with the context and the exact statement, but it doesn't change the fact that President Clinton (and you) are torturing the plain meaning of his statement for your own purposes.
So let's all say it together: tsk, tsk Senator Obama. How dare you not attack Senator Kerry and Edward on the eve of the 2004 Democratic Convention for their vote on the war. Tsk, tsk, indeed.
Happy now?