Clinton Attacks on Iraq

To add to what Ezra Klein says about the new round of Iraq-related attacks Hillary Clinton is making on Barack Obama, my issue here is that I don't understand what point her campaign is trying to make. Has Obama been less of a consistent, strong anti-war leader than I would have liked? Unquestionably, yes. It seems that between the time he entered the Senate and the time he started gearing up to run for President, he adopted a pretty cautious political strategy when I wish he had adopted a bold one. That said, Russ Feingold's not his opponent. Hillary Clinton is.

Is she trying to argue that her view on Iraq has been to Obama's left? Seemingly not. After all, she supported the war and he didn't, and all the things she's criticizing him for doing are also things she did.

Is she trying to argue that, Iraq aside, she has a forward-looking vision for US policy to the Middle East that anti-war voters should find more compelling? I wish she were arguing this. I think Barack Obama's campaign has laid out some good ideas in terms of a forward-looking vision, but that there's plenty of room for improvement on what he's done. It wouldn't be hard for Clinton to do better if she wanted to. But thus far she hasn't. Instead, on every issue where I can see daylight between them (non-proliferation policy, Cuba policy, meetings with foreign leaders, residual forces in Iraq, nuclear first strikes on Pakistan, grand bargain with Iran), Obama is somewhat better. But he's vulnerable, Clinton could easily undercut his anti-war appeal with bold thinking on some of these forward-looking issues. Instead, though, her campaign keeps going back to efforts to muddy the waters around who did what in the fall of 2002.

Comments

Matt, I just emailed you the Robert Johnson TNR piece--accessed through Lexis Nexis, which doesn't have troubled archives.

Cheers

Posted by David | January 14, 2008 8:34 AM

It's textbook Rove. Attack your opponents strength, no matter what the substance of your argument is. This creates doubt, neutralizes the strength, and eventually turns it into a weakness as the candidate has to unnecessarily defend his record time after time.

Posted by Fox | January 14, 2008 8:40 AM

I think the Clintons are realistically hoping to taint Obama in the perception of average Democratic primary voters with an air of cynicism about his Iraq-related activities.

Interestingly she's also implying that no politician who has opposed the war less than, say, a Dennis Kucinich can claim to have opposed the war & occupation more than she, um, 'did'.

Simultaneously this manages to ironically highlight once again that the Clintons' view, as always, is that there is no Iraq "issue" as anything of a moral issue, it is just simply another political issue for them to be managed for its political payoffs or risks, and they are frankly continually stunned that anyone would not see it in that way.

A great deal of their recent political activities in the last decades were in spearheading a group (the DLC) that felt that Democratic 'victory' could only come in a post-Reagan era by specifically sidelining those crazy fringe extremist liberal elements of the Party, who were obsessively moral about all their crazy stuff.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 8:44 AM

Hillary's team seems to be experiencing some message confusion. Maybe she should bring Dick Morris and David Gergen back. Karl Rove doubtless would assist too, if asked.

Posted by john o. | January 14, 2008 8:45 AM

Matt,

It is perfectly clear what Clinton is attempting to do. Obama's consistent opposition to the Iraq war is perhaps his strongest claim to have a record that is more mature, far-seeing, and independent than Clinton's. By suggesting that Obama's position was *not* consistent, Clinton is attempting to deflect attention from her own hawkish legislative record. This strategy both attacks Obama where he is perceived to be strong and shifts the focus from herself to her contender. It's simply brilliant. (Actually, I think Clinton's strategy here is consistent with what seems to be her campaign's interest in getting Obama to play the racial identity card. She is trying to show (1) that his anti-war bona fides are false and (2) that he is not a "uniter" but a black man invested in black identity politics.) Both claims are false; both attack Obama at his real strengths; both fall under Rove-style politicking. What is not clear about this?

Posted by wj | January 14, 2008 8:47 AM

You know, if you consider the fact that she stands by her 2002 vote as the right thing to do and that she wants to keep 'residual' forces in Iraq, perhaps the more straight-forward explanation is that she is basically pro-Iraq war (and pro-WOT?) and any anti-war moves she has made have been pure primary fodder triangulation.

So if she wants to maintain her freedom of action, she can't really come out hard against her real position, but she is vulnerable on it, so that leaves attacking Obama by essentially saying 'Obama's pro-war too!'

max
['Or not anti-war enough or whatever.']

Posted by max | January 14, 2008 8:53 AM

Actually, I think if HRC or Bill felt she or he could just say "Oh, would you people please just shut the f*** up about all this Iraq sh*t? Who the f*** cares? I am / she is this close to being the next President, and you dumb***es risk messing that up!!!" and it would work, he or she would.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 9:05 AM

Matt, I don't get your reaction here. It's pretty clear what the politics are behind this. As people note above, it's a classic move in the Rovian mode. She doesn't need to "win" on the Iraq issue, she just needs to pull Obama down into the mud with her so it's not something he can contrast against her allegedly superior experience.

You do realize that this is politics, right? Nasty business, people can lie, distort, etc.?

Posted by Hleter | January 14, 2008 9:09 AM

The point that the Clinton campaign is making is one that has been clear to me since Obama went to the Senate: talk is cheap.

Like me, Obama was against the war before it started. Like me, Obama went to some war protests and talked out against the war. Like me, Obama was speaking out from a position where our positions really made no difference to the outcome.

Had I been elected to the Senate I hope I would have had the courage of my convictions to vote against further funding and for timetables for withdrawl.

But, alas, I was not elected to the Senate, Barack Obama was.

And once in the Senate, when it mattered, he supported the war funding and opposed timetables for withdrawl. His position became indistinquishable from that of Senator Clinton's position.

This leads me to believe that Barack Obama's actual positions on Iraq vis a vis Hillary Clinton is essentially the same. Perhaps he has a good reason for this. But it does completely invalidate his claim to having better judgement, at least when it matters.

On this Hillary Clinton is correct and Obama is wrong.

Posted by ken | January 14, 2008 9:11 AM

Is this Bill Clinton arguing "I did not go to war with that President"? I mean, it all depends on how one parses "go", surely. By now, we all know that the Hillary campaign will do anything and everything to parse "go"... Fortunately, the rest of us don't think that this is their monopoly.

Posted by nickzi | January 14, 2008 9:12 AM

My God...what has this country come to when a blatantly dishonest candidate and her husband can garner support because they lie with great skill and because of gender?

Thankfully Hillary is unelectable. Listening to that defensive, spinning, lying, shill for four years would be too much to take.

Posted by Bill and Hill suck | January 14, 2008 9:17 AM

Obama keeps talking about how he was against the Iraq war, but once he got into the senate he didn't do anything to stop it. Why, when that is pointed out, Clinton is considered "attacking" and Rovian. I remember when Obama and Edwards went after her in a debate and they were fondly using the talking points of the GOP, which in my view, is Rovian. But did anyone on the left speak up and say, stop that. No. Quite the double standard. Geesh.

Clinton has just as much right to fight for the nom as Obama, yet he's the angel and she's just, well, not.

Posted by jenn | January 14, 2008 9:19 AM

Frankly, I am rather astounded by the obtuseness both you and Ezra show here. You write:

"Has Obama been less of a consistent, strong anti-war leader than I would have liked? Unquestionably, yes."

That is the main point. Providing that information to voters seems perfectly fair. You continue:

"It seems that between the time he entered the Senate and the time he started gearing up to run for President, he adopted a pretty cautious political strategy when I wish he had adopted a bold one. That said, Russ Feingold's not his opponent. Hillary Clinton is."

But he is acting as if HE is Russ Feingold when he clearly was not.

Hillary is saying Obama is claiming to have been Russ Feingold on Iraq when, when he had the actual responsibilities of the Senate, he was EXACTLY like me. SENATOR Obama was no different than Senator Hillary Clinton when it came to the Iraq War. This is INDISPUTABLY true.

This also adds to the larger theme of "talk is one thing, actions are another."

What part of this do you not understand?

And let's be clear, it is not just the Clintons saying this, throughout 2007, all manner of bloggers, not just me, said the same thing while we demanded action from Obama. Why is is incomprehensible now that the Clintons are saying it?

Posted by Armando | January 14, 2008 9:23 AM

And once in the Senate, when it mattered, he supported the war funding and opposed timetables for withdrawl. His position became indistinquishable from that of Senator Clinton's position.

Not to mention that this has been repeated over and over on MY's comments section(like here) including a link saying:

"While Obama has sought to draw this contrast with Clinton throughout the campaign, he has previously avoided making such a pointed criticism of his rival.
When asked a similar question about his voting record last fall, by the New Yorker magazine, Obama admitted that "it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate.""

Posted by Dan the Man | January 14, 2008 9:24 AM

The comments of Ken and jenn testify to the ease with which Clinton's strategy can muddy the waters on this issue.

It makes no difference, apparently, that Obama publicly and consistently decried the decision to go to war whereas Clinton voted--not for the Hagel bill, which she is now claiming she supported--but for the much more aggressive bill essentially crafted by the Bushites.

Why did Clinton support this bill in the first place? We no longer have to worry ourselves with addressing this issue because, in the world of Ken and jenn, this question is less important than the fact that Obama and Clinton later adopted a similar approach in handling a bad situation.

Posted by wj | January 14, 2008 9:30 AM

Clinton is a half-Republcan so she knows what all Republicans know, that accusations against an opponent don't have to be true or even comprehensible - they just have to undercut the opponent's strengths. So if Obama should have a huge advantage because he publicly opposed invading Iraq whereas Clinton publicly supported it, what should Clinton do about that? Just say anything. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to muddy the waters so voters are too confused to make an informed choice. That's what we really need more of right now - more dishonesty and contempt for truth in the White House.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 14, 2008 9:31 AM

Funny thing is, I don't think too many people (other than people who get way too into their candidate) have portrayed Barack Obama as some heroic anti-war leader, laying down on railroad tracks to stop materials shipments and setting himself on fire in the middle of some busy street.

I think the claim is that of the 3 top Democratic candidates, he is the only one with a plausible (though nonequivalent) claim to have opposed the U.S. war and occupation -- whereas the other two (including my favored candidate John Edwards) were on record as officially backing Bush Jr's drive to war.

Funny how the standards have now gotten so much higher.

I suppose that now it's open to Republican hawks to claim that Hillary Clinton never supported Bush Jr's war at all, because had she been a real supporter, she would have done far more than just vote to give Bush Jr the AUMF and all the funding he wanted -- I dunno, given these news standards maybe in a bizarro equivalent rightist view she would have to have personally funded a pro-war propaganda campaign, or have vowed to publicly scream insults at anyone not fully supportive of the invasion & occupation.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 9:32 AM

Surprisingly your colleague Marc Ambinder has it right, she just wants to take a bit of the shine off of him:

What she's trying to do, as plain as day, is to puncture the defensive balloon that surrounds Obama's change message. Obama, she is really saying, isn't special: he's just like one of us. He tailors his rhetoric to match the political imperatives. The less special Obama becomes, the more vulnerable he comes to scrutiny by voters themselves.

I can't tell you how many voters in New Hampshire and Iowa would acknowledge that they might not know too much about Obama but were compelled to attend his events and support his candidacy because of the emotion he inspired in him.

Posted by AJ | January 14, 2008 9:33 AM

The Dem posturing on Iraq seems divorced from reality. By the time the next president takes office, we will have already signed a long-term, bilateral agreement with the government of Iraq authorizing and requesting us to maintain some level of troops there indefinitely. The next president, even if he or she is a Dem, will be compelled to adhere to this agreement.

Dems may grumble about this, but this is something Hillary and Edwards should have thought about when they voted to authorize the war in the first place. American wars often lead to decades-long commitments.

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 9:36 AM

It is tiresome to have your support of a candidate influence your argument. On Iraq: Clinton is consistent and never apologised. She gets no credit for that. What is it about an apology that moves people? Politicians routinely apologise but do they change?

Obama has been trying to have it both ways: he opposed the war, did nothing really outstanding in the Senate to highlight his opposition (look at his votes) and then tries to tell us he has opposed the war all along. Questioning his voting record becomes an attack.

Why are we applying a double standard here?

Posted by Alan | January 14, 2008 9:40 AM

El Cid writes:

"I think the claim is that of the 3 top Democratic candidates, he is the only one with a plausible (though nonequivalent) claim to have opposed the U.S. war and occupation -- whereas the other two (including my favored candidate John Edwards) were on record as officially backing Bush Jr's drive to war."

He has the right to make that claim but then it is perfectly right to ask what hehas done to END it sonce he became a Senator. The answer - NOTHING. AT ALL.

I know that bringing up that pesky fact bothers people who support Obama, but a fact it remains.

That Clinton did nothing either does not negate that fact.

It makes them peas in a pod and both should be criticized for it. Of course that requires you caring about the attempt to end the IRaq Debacle IF Obama is more important to you than that then it does not matter.

Posted by Armando | January 14, 2008 9:45 AM

The Dem posturing on Iraq seems divorced from reality. By the time the next president takes office, we will have already signed a long-term, bilateral agreement with the government of Iraq authorizing and requesting us to maintain some level of troops there indefinitely. The next president, even if he or she is a Dem, will be compelled to adhere to this agreement.

If the Bush Administration once again violates international law and concludes such an agreement with no consultation with Congress or the Iraqi parliament, it is not at all clear that the next administration will be compelled to adhere to it. Especially since the Bush Administration has also gone out of its way to establish that the US can back out of internation agreements at the drop of a hat.

Posted by Redshift | January 14, 2008 9:50 AM

It is tiresome to have your support of a candidate influence your argument. On Iraq: Clinton is consistent and never apologised. She gets no credit for that. What is it about an apology that moves people? Politicians routinely apologise but do they change?

Ah, the "no flip-flop" argument.

This reminds me of the '96 election, when a Republican acquaintance of mine, steeped in the "Clinton is shifty/a liar" meme (not saying that applies here), tried to convince me that I should vote for Dole because I could trust him. My answer is the same now as then: why is someone I can trust to do things I don't like better than someone I can't trust to do things I like?

Clinton does get "credit" for being consistent on the war. But since the war is unpopular, that credit applies in a negative direction.

Posted by Redshift | January 14, 2008 9:55 AM

Matt, you are being way too earnest (again). Of course, there is no rational or uplifting explanation for Hillary's revisiting of Obama's 2002 war position, but there is a political explanation. She is taking a play right out of Rove's playbook: Try to destroy your opponent's strength, at all costs, even if it involves dishonesty. See this well-thought-out post by Sullivan, quoting a reader: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/clinton-channel.html

Did George W Bush have a better Vietnam record than Kerry? Of course not. Did that stop Rove from orchestrating the swiftboating of Kerry? Of course not. This is sordid politics, Matt, not a debating society, and the best reason to vote against Hillary is that she is the embodiment of sordid politics.

Posted by RaymondA | January 14, 2008 9:56 AM

Armando, I certainly agree that of the 3 top Democratic candidates, none have acted in any particular way to end this occupation.

And what occupation-ending momentum seemed to begin building after the 2006 elections was completely drained by the David Petraeus "SURGE!" (dare anyone even mention His name without permission?) roadshow which Democrats gave into so pathetically.

That said, given that I'm choosing between those 3, and no fantasy candidate I would prefer, I think it's okay for a well-positioned candidate to highlight that 1 of the 3 made a fairly good call on a major policy issue and then unfortunately made no courageous follow-up.

But it's fairly hard for Presidential candidates to honestly say, "Please vote for me: I vow to use moderately good judgment often, but, like all the other politicians, I may not necessarily expend a lot of energy standing up for what I think I believe in. Vote for me!"

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 9:57 AM

One more thing: The anti-Clinton people spend too much time questioning the credibility of her explanations as to what she was doing in 2002-2003. I think the better tactic is to say, "I will take Hillary at her word. She voted in October 2002 for the war resolution, because she thought it was vote for inspections not war, and she then was appalled to see Bush act on the authority in March 2003 when the inspections had not been completed. But if this is all true, then (1) Hillary was hopelessly naive, because she was one of a tiny minority of people who believed in October 2002 that Bush might not invade, and (2) even if you give her a pass on her October 2002 naivete, she was hopelessly cowardly -- the opposite of the leader and do-er she claims to be -- because if she secretly opposed the actual invasion in March 2003, she did not utter a peep about it! She sat silently by while thousands of solders were being sent in harm's way. That's no leader.

Posted by RaymondA | January 14, 2008 10:02 AM

RaymondA,

You still don't get the idiocy of Kerry running on his war record? Rove didn't pull the Swift Boat veterans out of central casting: they had a beef with Kerry going back 30 years. Kerry left Vietnam after finishing less than a third of his scheduled one-year tour, and then proceeded to meet with representatives of the enemy, and slur his fellow veterans as indiscriminate war criminals in the Winter Soldier hearings, which, like his Vietnam service, he used to fuel his political ambition.

Bush may not have served in combat as Kerry did, but he didn't make his military service the centerpiece of his campaign, and he didn't build up a well of animosity with Vietnam Veterans as Kerry did. If Kerry were half as intelligent as Dems deluded themselves into thinking he was, he would have put the Swift Boat Vets issue to bed long before he decided to run for president. Even Jane Fonda apologized for the worst of her behavior during the Vietnam War; Kerry should have quietly apologized and made peace with Vietnam Vets in the '90's. Enough time would have passed since the war that the old wounds would have mostly healed, and enough time would pass before Kerry's presidential run so his apology wouldn't have seemed opportunistic.

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 10:14 AM

Redshift: your argument and point noted. But that still does not get away from the fact that Obama did nothing in the Senate to reinforce his anti-war posture: not a strong speech, not his voting record. The Dole reference is of no help to me in understanding you. My point is this: if one supports a candidate then his/her argument is tailored acccordingly.

Clinton and Edwards voted. Obama was not in the Senate. If he felt strongly about Iraq, and given the ease with which he was elected (Keyes!!!) and his splendid performance at the Convention which provided him with tremendous moral authority I have the right to review his voting record.

My suspicion is that when he decided to become a candidate his Iraq posture was such that he had to gloss over his actual voting record.

If we have to have integrity in the process (and you won't get that in the MSM) then his record in the Senate should be subject to the same scrutiny as that of Clinton.

Posted by Alan | January 14, 2008 10:14 AM

There are two issues here: The major one is that Obama publically opposed the war for what have turned out to be very sound reasons. Hillary's votes for both Lieberman-Warner (Iraq 2002) and Lieberman-Kyl (Iran 2007) show that future unnecessary wars are much more likely under a Hillary presidency than under Obama. In addition to the issue of starting wars, there has been the separate issue of what course we should take after unnecessarily trashing a country, causing a breakdown in law and order, and starting civil wars. It is quite possible to oppose a war but,once the damage was done, to feel a sense of responsibility in repairing it.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | January 14, 2008 10:15 AM

Re "It's textbook Rove. Attack your opponents strength, no matter what the substance of your argument is"
----------
That cuts two fucking ways.

I'm surprised that Obama hasn't responded to Hillary's NH crying spell by pointing out that the women entitled to cry are the mothers, wives, and daughters of the 3800 men Senator Hillary Clinton sent to their deaths -- and the thousands more men horribly disfigured and crippled for life by ghastly wounds.

And then drag in Haim Saban.

It would trigger war within the Party, of course.

But that's the thing about the campaign for US Commander in Chief -- it has a way of exposing self-serving calculators and timid pussies vs those who have the courage --and anger -- of their convictions.

Of distinguishing between those who want to serve the nation --vs those who want to serve their ego.

If Obama can't dispose of someone with Hillary's massive negatives, then he can't deal with the Republicans and with our foreign enemies. It's that fucking simple.

Posted by Don Williams | January 14, 2008 10:28 AM

el cid is right on target. you just know that they regard the controversy over the war vote as just some small little detail that they should be able to finesse their way past. they may ultimately be successful.
wj is also dead on.
this is classic rove-style politicking, with a touch of clintonism tossed in for good measure.
hillary has done an excellent job of muddying the waters and blurring the differences between her position and obama's position on the war.
but everyone has missed an essential point.
obama, i think, has made a crucial mistake.
he has refused to stake out a truly bold position on the war and this has allowed hillary to use bill's old trick: adapt the other guys policy and consequently you prevent him from laying haymakers on you. its like a boxer who fights in close, putting his forehead on the other guy's chest so the other guy cannot really wind up and lay that knockout punch on him.
yes, obama opposed the war, but that is turning out to be a somewhat moot point, largely because of obama's cautious approach.
their positions, regarding their probable actions as president, are now almost identical.
what obama needs to do is stake out a position that clearly separates him from hillary, so he can wind up and toss haymakers at her on her war vote and stance.
hillary is playing a very slick game.
she talks about beginning to pull our troops out, but my understanding of her position is that she would leave, indefinitely, large numbers of troops inside of iraq. obama'a position is not that different.
again, this blunts the effectiveness of his initial anti-war stance.
i don't think i am unique in being extremely disappointed in obama because he has been so cautious. and, as a voter, i do not give him a lot of credit for good judgment, because he is essentially going to negate that good judgment by not making a clear, distinct break with bush's policy.
what obama needs to do is this: state clearly that he will not only START to pull our troops out -which is hillary's slick position - but he will set a clear timetable to completely remove all of our troops, absent an emergency, and commit to not maintaining any permanent bases in iraq. he should state clearly that this is george bush's war and that he is not going to make it his war.
that would then allow him to really pummel hillary on iraq, and he'd finally be able to separate himself from her on that issue.
maybe he is unwilling to stake out what may be seen as an "extreme" position. (i think it is a very prudent position, but i am concerned about a lot of his advisers.) but if he will not take a bold stand, he is going to be smothered by hillary because she's doing such a great job of keeping him close on this crucial issue and any advantage he would have received because of his anti-war stance will be totally negated.

Posted by frankie d | January 14, 2008 10:29 AM

It is quite possible to oppose a war but,once the damage was done, to feel a sense of responsibility in repairing it.

That's all that needs to be said on Obama's Iraq record. The key was not to go there in the first place. That was the obvious and unforgivable mistake. Once we're there, things are more difficult. We broke it, and we definitely bought it.

Posted by J.B. | January 14, 2008 10:36 AM

Hillary has a stature which she does not deserve -- she claims to speak for women, but she has constantly betrayed those women with her dirty little political deals. Not just pandering to the Israel Lobby and voting for the Iraq war.

How many women don't have health care? How many women have suffered in the 8 years of Republican rule set up by the dysfunctional Clintons? How many women have worked all their lives at miserable jobs -- only to have their payroll taxes stolen by Bush's raid on the Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds.

Hillary has been one of 100 SENATORS -- what has she done with that power? Or is power and fame without accountability and responsibility her entitlement?

Posted by Don Williams | January 14, 2008 10:40 AM

Can we possibly get a new & fresh obscure evil figure upon whom all the world's ills stem? The Haim Saban / Power Rangers guy shtick seems kind of old, or like someone's monomania by now than an accurate analysis of one particular mover & shaker among the power elites.

Is it a normal thing that we have several identifiable characters on here who have ultra-clear personal monomanias?

Don Williams with 'Everything you are talking about is in some way connected to Haim Saban'; SLC with his 'any choice other than destroying all Arabs is destroying Israel and then the f***ing Jews all have to move over here and mess up my country'; Richard Steven Hack with his 'Soon I and my Cyborg Transhumanist friends will crush you backwards meat people, also, me and 17 other well-armed dudes can help Hamas defeat all of Israel'; Chris Ford with 'When I commanded troops for the Confederate Army we didn't p*** and moan about how many died, unlike you Leftist Jew Intellectual traitorous dogs'...

I apologize for any of you I left out. Maybe we should have a dedicated monomania thread.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 10:53 AM

fred's comments are total nonsense.
it's the type of tripe that vietnam war apologists bring out to justify the lies that have been told about kerry.
i'm not a kerry fan. i think he ran a horrible campaign and he sold out his supporters when he conceded so quickly even while the irregularitis in ohio were just coming to light.
but the crap about his service and his testimony is just revisionist history by people who do not want to accept what actually happened back then.
he served honorably.
he came back and told the truth.
and he did not call his fellow soldiers "criminals". he was clearly quoting other soldiers, telling the congressional committee what other soldiers had told him about their actions.
if you watch his testimony there is no question about that fact.
people who argue otherwise are either ignorant or liars.

Posted by frankie d | January 14, 2008 10:54 AM

sorry about going off topic, but the audacity of people who try to justify that swift boat crap always burns me.

Posted by frankie d | January 14, 2008 10:59 AM

ken's got it right above. Hillary Clinton's point is that Obama's sanctimonious twaddle about having opposed the war from the beginning is, in fact, sanctimonious twaddle rather than an accurate reflection of Obama's behavior. When opposing the war was easy--i.e. as a local politician from a very liberal district, without any distinct political aspirations beyond becoming the next Senator from a state where the Republican party was busy imploding and winning the Democratic primary was likely to be enough--Obama voiced opposition; when Obama actually became a Senator and developed realistic presidential aspirations, he voted with Clinton 100% of the time to continue capitulating to Bush. Any difference between the two on Iraq is a mirage, a distortion caused by the lenses of differing political considerations and unrelated to their substantive actions on Iraq which are more or less the same.

Obama can't deservedly take any credit for opposing the war as a local politician when he does nothing to oppose it as a Senator or Presidential candidate. Obama's just another politician when it comes to his substance on Iraq. While I'm no fan of Clinton's, especially with respect to Iraq, at least she doesn't lie about having opposed the war in Iraq all along.

Posted by R Johnston | January 14, 2008 11:09 AM

Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.

Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.

Everything else is just BUNK !

Posted by PulSamsara | January 14, 2008 11:10 AM

taking a stand against the war was a very commendable thing to do.
the most important question now is this: what are you, as president, going to do with our troops in iraq?
on that question/issue, obama has been less than courageous.

Posted by frankie d | January 14, 2008 11:14 AM

"he served honorably.
he came back and told the truth."

FrankieD:

This gets to the fundamental contradiction in Kerry's use of his brief war service as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign: his longer anti-war agitation career was based on his denying the honor of American servicemen in Vietnam, by insinuating that American troops were routinely committing atrocities reminiscent of "Genghis Khan". If Kerry ran for president as the anti-war activist he ran as in his first campaign for Congress in the 1970's, he might have still lost, but at least that would have been a plausible persona. But to think he could stuff his post-war Jane Fonda phase into the memory hole and profit politically from his war service when it suited him was daft.

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 11:45 AM

While I agree with others that Obama should have taken a bolder stand against Iraq once he was elected to the senate, but this does not absolve Hillary Clinton of voting for a war that turned out to be disasterous. I cannot take Clinton's argument seriously because it stems from bad faith. Especially since she has yet to apologize for her actions that has caused the pain and suffering of so many people.

Posted by MGJ | January 14, 2008 11:46 AM

bullshit.
trying to denigrate his war service as "brief" says everything about your position.
war service is war service. if you are getting shot at, if you are shooting people, if you are killing people, you have served in war and deserve credit for putting yourself in that danger.
trying to characterize it, and diminish it as "brief" shows your true intent.
kerry certainly did more than fighter pilot bush ever did.
and lying about a vet's war record, as the swift boaters did, for political gain, is one of the lowest things imaginable.
he was a decorated vet, in addition to being an anti-war activist.
those are facts that no political hit can ever erase.
i'm old enough to have had friends who served in 'nam.
a few of them told horrific stories about what happened there. most of them chose to remain eerily silent about their service in 'nam.
they simply did not want to talk about what they had done.
anyone who denies that horrific things happened there is either ignorant or a liar.
this is my last statement on this issue - at least on this thread - because it is off-topic.
again, i apologize for responding off topic.

Posted by frankie d | January 14, 2008 11:58 AM

There is nothing inconsistent about (1) not supporting a pre-emptive, misguided war, and (2) approving funding for the troops in the field after the commander-in-chief has already sent them to fight said pre-emptive, misguided war.

In fact, I would say the two are consistent in that they both show sound, pragmatic judgment.

Posted by Tractarian | January 14, 2008 12:06 PM

...his longer anti-war agitation career was based on his denying the honor of American servicemen in Vietnam, by insinuating that American troops were routinely committing atrocities reminiscent of "Genghis Khan".

No he didn't, you dishonorable, miserable f***stain, and f*** you and every useless right wing type who keeps repeating it.

It's an allegation that soldiers are f***ing human beings who aren't god-d***ed emotionless robot / super-hero types who can be shoved into any f***ing hellhole their miserable political leaders devise and if they somehow do like all other humans do and crack and break and do what they think they need to survive and follow what actual incentives and disincentives they are given -- and no one gave much of a sh*t 95% of the time which Vietnamese civilians were killed in what way, least of all Americans at home -- then anyone who points out what the f*** happens in war when you stick human beings in those pits of inhumanization are somehow "against the troops".

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 12:13 PM

El Cid,

Before you get hysterical and react emotionally next time, listen to what Kerry actually said in the 1970's. I'm sure you can find plenty on YouTube. You can't run for Congress as a Jane Fonda-style anti-war agitator when that's popular, and then run as a Democratic version of John McCain thirty years later and not expect some vets to call you on that.

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 12:24 PM

I did, Fred. I didn't get hysterical. I watched it.

But still, and again I reassure you that this is calmly produced, you're a f***stain.

The Sh*t Boat Liars for Dupes didn't denounce Kerry as a Commie troop-hater -- did they? The charge wasn't that he was a VC-loving traitor, was it?

And that's okay, because we were being led by a former cokehead alcoholic cowardly service dodger too f***ing lazy and spoiled to show up at his p***-ant Guard duty so that he could prepare for a career getting the businesses he destroyed bailed out by his Dad's friends and scheming Texas taxpayers to make him rich with his tax-funded stadium scheme and lying his way into office so that he and his draft-dodging VP could ignore all terrorist warnings which had been screamed at them so that they could host the largest ever foreign attack on actual American state soil outside the war of 1812, but, hey, stupid people love it when criminal morons like him mouth platitudes about lovin' them some troops, hey lookat the troops, man I loves me some troops, and gosh, looking at him in that flight suit turned 'em on!

But then, there always will be some people, even some vets who are so vain and stupid and small minded that they think to oppose a war and try and stop it is troop hating, so, in general, to you and anyone so moronic, f*** off.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 12:32 PM

Fact: Barack nailed the Iraq War question when it mattered. Can't the Clintons and their supporters just accept this fact? When it really mattered, on the most important foreign policy decision of our time, HE WAS RIGHT.. and she was wrong. He didn't only oppose the war, he did it for the right reasons. He saw what would happen. And no, this doesn't imply that he is a saint on the Iraq issue. But give the guy his due credit. Geez.

Posted by Marc | January 14, 2008 12:34 PM

After all, she supported the war and he didn't, and all the things she's criticizing him for doing are also things she did.

No, her point is Obama has misrepresented HER as pro-war when Obama himself has, at best, been ambivalent about his position prior to entering the Senate and has voted pretty much in lockstep with Hillary since he's been a Senator.

In other words, it's easy to say "Oh, I would have voted against the war" when you have no skin in the game, but the trick Obama's tried to pull off is saying that while supporting the war quite full-throatedly where it counts: on the Senate floor in votes.

Posted by actor212 | January 14, 2008 12:36 PM

Obama opposed the war. Hillary did not.

Would he have made the same decision if he had been in the Senate? I would like to believe that he would have.

Since he has been in the Senate, what has he done? I think this is an improper question because, well, there isn't much one can do. Once Bush had the war power, the options are limited. Sure, the Democratic Congress can now cut funds for the troops and the DOD. But ask yourself, how could you cut the funding for troops currently in the field? The Republicans would have a PR field-day. And it would be irresponsible to just force the troops out immediately, considering the trillions of dollars of supplies we currently have over there. It couldn't be done.

But the key here is that on the question of judgment, Obama opposed the war. Clinton, while claiming today that she opposed going to war, that she was duped by the Bush administration's arguments, and that she believed the resolution was just for ensuring inspectors got in Iraq, did NOTHING to protest the escalation in the months leading to the March invasion. Obama did. He was a speaker at protests and rallies.

Posted by Congress is Messy | January 14, 2008 12:44 PM

Re El Cid's comment "Can we possibly get a new & fresh obscure evil figure upon whom all the world's ills stem? The Haim Saban / Power Rangers guy shtick seems kind of old, or like someone's monomania by now than an accurate analysis of one particular mover & shaker among the power elites."
----------

1) From http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100009182/index.htm

"I don't say this lightly," says Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee at the time. "Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party."

ha ha ha. Speaking of "monomania"

2) By the way, any guess who's now Chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President Committee?

Watch now --nothing in the right hand --nothing in the left hand.

Ta DA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe

Posted by Don Williams | January 14, 2008 1:03 PM

Don -- if you think that proving that there's one particularly significant donor to the Democratic Party (the article linked suggested in the order of $7 million, and Hillary and Obama have eached raised $100 million this year) makes it seem like the facts are the cause of, rather than an excuse for, your excessively personalistic focus on Haim Saban, I disagree. (By the way, I'm not really surprised that a fundraiser would describe one of the largest donors in glowingly magnanimous terms.)

In each generation there are large and significant donors. But there really is a system of upper class domination of U.S. politics and *that* is what has to be mentioned -- not an exclusive obsession with one of them.

Particularly when there's zero reason to believe that the Clintons or Democratic Party's behavior would have been different had Haim Saban never backed the Power Rangers and had gone broke somehow.

I'm not, for example, ignorant of the role of the Olin's and Scaife's on the Republican / right wing side. But I do *not* try to tie everything in the world which ever happens back to them.

But then I've probably been paid of by Haim Saban too.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 1:16 PM

Here is a month-month comparison between Obama and Clinton's positions during 2005-2007 period. This is coming from Obama Campaign so take it for what it's worth but all things they quote seem to be a matter of public record.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/13/comparing_iraq_records.php

Let's see what Clinton campaign responds with.

Posted by Adam | January 14, 2008 1:41 PM

Re El Cid's comment "In each generation there are large and significant donors. But there really is a system of upper class domination of U.S. politics and *that* is what has to be mentioned "
-------------
Well, I agree. The problem is, most Americans don't appreciate just how malign that domination is. Focusing on the actions of one person -- vice "the system" -- show that.

I have also mentioned other figures --like S Daniel Abraham.

But when you find a billionaire who's:
a) The biggest financial donor to the Democrats in 2000-2002 --at $14 MILLION (NOT $7 Million) and
b) That billionaire states that he's a "one issue man and that issue is Israel" and
c) That billionaire funds a think tank and hires Bill Clinton NSC staffer Kenneth Pollack to be
"Directer of Research" and
d) said Kenneth Pollack puts out a best selling book in 2002 telling us that Saddam is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons and is most likely close to success and
d) Saban also hires Clinton's Ambassador to Israel (and former AIPAC mucky muck) Marti Indyk -- who joins with Pollack in telling us --via LA TImes OpEd -- that they have access to US intelligence, that Saddam is developing WMDs, and needs to be taken out now and
e) Haim Saban then gives Israel's Haaretz an interview boasting of how Bill Clinton fetched soft drinks for Haim whenever Haim dropped into the White House and
f) Haim Thinks Iran needs to be destroyed and
g) The US military is one of the two columns of Israel's security and
g) Hillary will be good for Israel

It's kinda hard to not regard Haim as ..er .. "priceless".

Certainly more interesting that Mearsheimer and Walt's article on the Lobby Which Really Doesn't Exist and Is Only Lobbying After All.

Posted by Don Williams | January 14, 2008 2:24 PM

A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:

'Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'

http://www.bothinonetrench.com

Posted by Ray Robison | January 14, 2008 2:34 PM

...Saban also hires Clinton's Ambassador to Israel (and former AIPAC mucky muck) Marti Indyk...

I don't think I'm disagreeing that Saban is a crystal clear example of the institutionalizing of Israeli ruling class ideologues into the American political elite system.

But Bill Clinton's eagerness to install a hard-core AIPAC ideologue nutcase at the very beginning moments of his administration -- including a personal request to grant citizenship to Indyk right before Clinton was even inaugurated -- was a politically motivated decision by Clinton to signal where and with whom he stood. That was a highly ideological move he made for political purposes. It wasn't something caused by a Saban type -- but it was indeed a loud bellowing of alliance.

And yes, I think there is indeed an influential Israel lobby (in reality more than one), but I think that even if there weren't, U.S. politicians would still be largely singing tunes to please the Israel hawks.

Posted by El Cid | January 14, 2008 3:02 PM

On Matt's original post, what's so hard to understand about Clinton's criticism of Obama? If we adopt the proposition that the quality of a candidate's judgment is in proportion to the strength of their opposition to the Iraq war, then if Obama's anti-war stance has been weaker than we would have liked, his judgment is then less astute than we would like.

Posted by David | January 14, 2008 3:13 PM

hey, don;t pretend you don;t understand. Obama's premise of being in this race was his 'good judgment' about Iraq. And the point is that his judgment is never followed by action, which raises perfectly legitimate questions.

Posted by Mati | January 14, 2008 3:57 PM

Mati, I don't know if you're responding to my 3:13 PM comment, but if you are, I think we may actually be in agreement. I was trying to say that I think Matt Yglesias's original post, in which he seems to claim that Clinton has no rational argument to make against Obama's judgment, is off-base. I too think that, if it's true that Obama's judgment is never followed by action, then that is a legitimate criticism of him.

Posted by David | January 14, 2008 4:08 PM

It is one thing to act vociferously before the fact and another when the damage has been done. This is not excuse Obama, but I do belive that Clinton's position is rather simplistic.

Posted by MGJ | January 14, 2008 4:34 PM

If early opposition to the Iraq War is the most important qualification for a Democratic nominee, how come there's no love for Kucinich? He happens to have more executive experience than Hillary or Obama.

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 4:42 PM

I'll drink to that. Also, to my ears Kucinich always had the best things to say at the debates.

Posted by David | January 14, 2008 4:56 PM

So this is where it stands from the Clintonista perspective:

Obama may have been right to support the war . . . but since then, he has voted the same way as Hillary, so . . . she is the better candidate? Uh, huh . . . .

And Mati wrote: "And the point is that his judgment is never followed by action, which raises perfectly legitimate questions."

Obama did act, funding the troops while they were in harms way . . . which, incidently, if he is the nominee, insulates the Dems from any GOper argument that they "defunded the troops." He has also been realistic in saying that it is impossible to just pull them out, since Hillary and Co. have put them in harms way AND made about 30 million people somewhat dependent on them.

So what is it you Hillary backers are arguing? That having guessed correctly about Iraq back in 2002 (while your girl was wrong), he should have then pulled the old lefty "temper tantrum" trick and voted to cut off funds while troops were in the field and eliminated any chance that he could be president because he would have then "defunded the troops" in a time of war? Oh, now I get it!

Obama was too smart to argue for the war the way Hillary did, so now he is a coward because he did not commit political suicide over HER flicking war! Got it!

Posted by B-Rob | January 14, 2008 5:52 PM

B-Rob, I for one am not a "Clinton backer." In fact, if Obama were on the ballot in Michigan, I probably would vote for him. I just don't like seeing bad reasoning, and I think it's bad reasoning to say that Obama is immune from criticism on Iraq. Matt Yglesias himself in starting this thread wrote that Obama was less a less consistent, less strong anti-war candidate than he would have liked.

Posted by David | January 14, 2008 7:33 PM

Matt

Don't overcomplicate this. Clinton's point is not about promoting the difference between her position and Obama's. She knows she can't win on that. What she's up to is simpler and more destructive. She's saying "whatever you think of me, just know that this Obama guy is not who he says he is". She is trying to attack his perceived strengths - his position on the war, his oratory and his claim to be above traditional calculating politics. In short, this is Rovian political strategy, Democrat style (more subtle, less personal, same result).

Posted by Bill Keane | January 14, 2008 7:44 PM

Bill Keane, you've been reading Andrew Sullivan. Please explain what you mean by calling this "Rovian political strategy." Why does Karl Rove's name have to be dragged into this?

Posted by David | January 14, 2008 7:51 PM

"Don Williams with 'Everything you are talking about is in some way connected to Haim Saban'; SLC with his 'any choice other than destroying all Arabs is destroying Israel and then the f***ing Jews all have to move over here and mess up my country'; Richard Steven Hack with his 'Soon I and my Cyborg Transhumanist friends will crush you backwards meat people, also, me and 17 other well-armed dudes can help Hamas defeat all of Israel'; Chris Ford with 'When I commanded troops for the Confederate Army we didn't p*** and moan about how many died, unlike you Leftist Jew Intellectual traitorous dogs'...

I apologize for any of you I left out. Maybe we should have a dedicated monomania thread."

El Cid, I consistently find your posts some of the more amusing things here - and I say that in a positive sense. I also find a lot of your posts to be fairly rational.

That said, you really ought to consider that a lot of my posts vis-a-vis the lines you indicate are not necessarily to be taken as my last word on whatever the thread I'm posting in is about. When it's about tech issues or simply some of Matt's more useless general posts, then I might veer off into pointing out that it's all bullshit because, yes, technology is going to change things radically over the next 25-50 years, rendering a lot of concerns that people currently have irrelevant.

For instance, back in the 70's, everybody was up in arms over Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" which predicted everybody would be starving by now unless we reduced three billion people to 500 million by some sort of genocide (if you read between the lines of his rant, since he dismissed any rational or technological solution as impossible.) Well, we passed the year 2000 and now have six billion people and the huge crisis that concerned so many people proved to be bullshit.

I also tend to post coherent comments of what the thread is about IF the thread is about something that I think I have an interest in and an analysis of (which is mostly Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, WOT, and the Israel-Palestinian situation.)

As for Haim Saban, I agree that Don brings his name up rather frequently. I think Don should simply point out that Clinton is beholden to AIPAC and certain rich Jews and leave it at that. If asked, he can produce the evidence of which he appears to have plenty. That doesn't make Don a whack job. He also appears to post on other matters than just the Clintons.

Whereas, yes, for SLC, Chris Ford, and the (other) whack jobs, their content-less rants usually are their last word on the subject.

Bottom line: Just because I think humans don't have much of a future beyond this century doesn't make me a "monomaniac." I've got plenty of other views, even if many of them are informed by my primary philosophy of radical Transhumanism.

Matt's a "liberal Democrat" - I don't accuse him of "monomania" when all his views derive from that fact. I just accuse him of being ignorant of technology when his only approach to issues consists of politics and social movements.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 12:50 AM

Back on topic, the problem with Clinton on Iraq is that she lies about her position. She cites Chuck Hagel as having drafted the bill merely to force Bush to use diplomacy. This simply isn't true. Hagel drafted the bill specifically to get Bush to commit to only attacking Iraq, and NOT ANYONE ELSE, which the White House wanted to be able to do.

In other words, Bush and Cheney wanted the Congress to authorize them to attack Iraq AND IRAN, as the Israelis and the neocons wanted them to. Hagel prevented that.

Then his bill was superceded by Gephardt and Lieberman's.

See here:

In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?ex=1357966800&en=7888d7fea22e8c8a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

So Clinton was a full on supporter of the war back in 2002 and 2003, as her public comments demonstrate, she has refused to repudiate that stance, and she has lied about the meaning of that stance for the last four years while doing the exact same thing all the gutless Democrats - including Obama - have done during that time - continued to fund the war because of the fear of being painted as "un-patriotic" or "not supporting the troops".

Unlike Matt, I don't see much "daylight" between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy. They're both clueless about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Israel-Palestinian situation. That said, it is clear that Clinton is beholden to considerably more hawkish elements than Obama is (which is where Don's Haim Saban and others come in.) And her own statements establish this beyond a doubt as well.

And when rich donors are concerned, we KNOW Clinton is corrupt. The Marc Rich pardon proved that beyond all doubt.

Which is not to say Obama is much better, as I've said. But I think Obama is less hawkish than he is clueless. I also think he is less beholden to AIPAC and the Israel Lobby than Clinton is - if for no other reason than he isn't the Senator from New York.

There simply is no good case for preferring Clinton over Obama, despite their consistently identical voting records over the last four years. The only way you can make that case is to completely ignore the fact that Obama opposed the war initially, and the fact that Clinton is more hawkish in general on the ME, and the fact that Clinton is more corrupt (as far as we know.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 1:07 AM

David

As the other posts above show, I'm not alone in detecting the black arts at work here. The Rove strategy involves targetting an opponent's strengths with distorted information designed to neutralise the strength. As another poster said, how else could a bunch of guys who avoided service in Vietnam get away with calling a decorated hero a wimp? The key common element is that the aggressor (here, Hillary) avoids discussing their own record. In a world where the media meets its obligation to report rigorously, they would not get away with such brazen and cynical tactics. However, here in Broder/Blitzer/Russert reality, the media ignore the facts and focus on the allegations made and the drama that they create. You don't need to conduct research to regurgitate and "comment" on the fact that allegations were made. You do need to conduct research to work out if allegations are true. This media failure is the agar in the petri dish where the Rove strategy blooms like e-coli.

Posted by Bill Keane | January 15, 2008 3:19 AM

And David, before you ask, yes, I have been reading Glenn Greenwald too!

Posted by Bill Keane | January 15, 2008 3:22 AM

If John Edwards promises to make Russ Feingold his VP does he get any anti-war cred? Did I mention he has been the most forthright in courageous on Iraq since approximately January 8, 2005.

Posted by tongue near cheek | January 15, 2008 4:45 AM

Bill Keane, that other people agree with your argument that Clinton's criticism of Obama is especially dastardly and is drawn from the Rove playbook, does not strengthen your argument.

Also, you've now changed your argument. First, it was that Clinton was attacking Obama's perceived strengths. Now, it's that Clinton is attacking Obama's perceived strengths with distorted information. So, what is it that makes it nefarious? Is it the attack on a perceived strength? Or is it the use of distorted information? I argue it's the latter. To illustrate, consider Bush, whose perceived strength is his ability to "make American safer", but whose policies, it can be argued, have done the opposite. I am now attacking Bush's perceived strength. Have I done something wicked? I don't think so.

Posted by David | January 15, 2008 8:21 AM

I think we are in furious agreement David. You are right that it is the use of distorted information that makes the strategy nefarious and I see the point you are making. My first email could have made that distinction and it didn't. Attacking an opponent's strengths with accurate information might even be called "reasoned political debate", which we don't see much of these days. I would point out though, that it would be a better approach to primary politics for the candidates to talk more about what they offer and less time criticising their opponents. The main problem with Hillary's Obama strategy is not that she criticises his Iraq position, it is that she suggests he has been inconsistent (he hasn't) and notes that he voted for war funding when she knows full well why he voted as he did and that why his vote was not inconsistent with his opposition to the war. Following your line of reasoning, I guess it is ok for Obama to point out that Hillary's claim to superior experience is pretty shaky. Sure, time as first lady is worth something, but given that she had no security clearance, query that she is, as she claims, the only candidate ready to lead from day 1.

Posted by Bill Keane | January 15, 2008 7:34 PM