I've been over this a few times already, but Mother Jones's David Corn delves into more detail and concludes: "Clinton and her aides have been peddling false information about Obama to undercut one of his primary arguments: she voted for the war; I was against it. Engaging in such disingenuous attacks may help Clinton beat back Obama, but it is hardly the way for her to counter Obama's claim that she represents poltics-as-usual. It only proves his point."
« Wolfson's Sweater | Main | Identity Politics »
Clinton, Obama, Iraq
14 Jan 2008 12:07 pm
Comments (40)
This is what Corn's complaint comes down to:
I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars [in a war funding], I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:
Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.
While what Obama said might not come down to "never," it certainly does come down to is that he's not going to support funding unless it "provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq." I mean, he gives pretty clear reasons for why he wouldn't have voted for the $87B, and those reasons apply just as well to the funding he did vote for once he got to the Senate.
Clinton and her aides have been peddling false information about Obama to undercut one of his primary arguments: she voted for the war; I was against it.
"Since the comparison of the Iraq positions over the years of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is one of the hottest issues of the campaign, we thought it would be useful to post a comprehensive comparison of all of their votes on everything relating to the Iraq war.
So here it is: A massive compilation of Iraq-related bills -- and the votes by Hillary and Obama on them, side by side -- beginning in early 2005, when Obama first joined the Senate.
Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one. You'll see that one in bold on our chart. But let us be clear: We are not posting this to suggest that their earlier difference at the start of the war -- their most important difference -- should in any way be overshadowed by these similarities. For many, that difference will remain paramount -- for good reason. We just wanted to add factual grist to what is but one component of the debate.
As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.
Additionally, please don't hold it against us if we missed any important votes. No agenda here, readers. If we did, let us know, and we'll add it immediately."
You know, one reason why "politics as usual" is "usual" is because "politics as usual" works, allowing those candidates to win office, while candidates who practice "a different kind of politics" lose.
The reason we call it "politics as usual" in the first place is because it is the politics that allows one to assume office. If "a new kind of politics" worked, then that would be what we'd call "politics as usual."
The Clintons don't care about countering Obama's point. If their being disingenuous helps them beat him, then his point is irrelevant. The New Hampshire results would seem to indicate the strategy is working for them so far.
Clintons (two against one candidate) want to destroy Obama, who will be muddied, bloodied, and defeated.
The clinton attack machine has no peers. Not even Bush, GOP, or the imagined Right Wing Conspiracy.
The power of clinton attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to. The low-education white women votes are already in the lock-box. Now, they want to get votes from African Americans. By Feb. 5, Obama will wish he was not running. Clintons are playing for power.
From my last post on Ezra, I think it applies to the crud coming from both Obama's and Hillary's supporters
This is NOT theoretical war:
IT MATTERS NOW.
You say Obama's supporting the war NOW is politically acceptable:
"funding votes...are annoying" - Obama supporter [see above Ezra's blog]
Since Obama joined the senate his votes have been identical to Clinton's.
You say, Obama knows the war is wrong and that makes him better than her.
I say, supporting a war you know is wrong for political reasons is far worse than not knowing this war was wrong in the first place.
From what Obama'a supporters are saying, Hillary's sin is one of omission, Obama's sin, with full foreknowledge is a sin of commission. If what Obama's supporters say above is true, then Obama sins are far greater than hers.
Frankly, given their craven support of this illegal war, their unwillingness to consider impeachment, their dismissal of civil rights under the constitution...all of which are failures to uphold the oath which specifies defending the constitution...neither Senator should even be considered for the office of the presidency...period. The fact that Democrats are groveling in the mud to support the two most unfit candidates should be a clear indication that the current corruption cycle is near it's end.
I will predict this:
All those who rabidly support Hillary or Obama now, will be embarrassed [if they're honest enough to admit it] in four years time.
Posted by: S Brennan | January 14, 2008 12:26 PM
Well, if TPM's listing of all those Iraq War votes is correct---and I have no reason to doubt it---I'd say that pretty much kills Obama's attempt to pretend his position on the crazy Iraq War has actually been different from Hillary's in any significant way. 68/69 votes in the Senate being absolutely identical is an awful lot of very hard empirical data.
It's certainly true that while Obama was representing a very liberal Chicago district and running as the liberal candidate in a Democratic primary he made some anti-War noises...but that all seemed to immediately disappear once he actually arrived in DC and fell in with the DC lobbyists, appartchiks, and big Democratic Party donors.
Here's my open question to all the endless Obama-bots on this blogsite: If everyone agrees that Hillary has a terrible record on Iraq and if Hillary and Obama have identical voting records in DC, how can Obama be regarded as having a "good" record on Iraq?
The floor is open...
"Here's my open question to all the endless Obama-bots on this blogsite"
What a constructive way to suggest a discussion. Let me guess -- you're a Clinton supporter.
Evie,
Does this sound like a Clinton supporter?
From what Obama'a supporters are saying, Hillary's sin is one of omission, Obama's sin, with full foreknowledge is a sin of commission. If what Obama's supporters say above is true, then Obama sins are far greater than hers.
Frankly, given their craven support of this illegal war, their unwillingness to consider impeachment, their dismissal of civil rights under the constitution...all of which are failures to uphold the oath which specifies defending the constitution...neither Senator should even be considered for the office of the presidency...period. The fact that Democrats are groveling in the mud to support the two most unfit candidates should be a clear indication that the current corruption cycle is near it's end.
I will predict this:
All those who rabidly support Hillary or Obama now, will be embarrassed [if they're honest enough to admit it] in four years time.
Posted by: S Brennan | January 14, 2008 12:26 PM
Now could you address the issue of Obama supporting the war?
I very much doubt that Obama can win the nomination (and then the presidency). He has no chance against two opponents (husband and wife, Clintons).
The power of the clinton attack machine (which is greater than GOP or the supposed right wing conspiracy) is that you will vote for it, no matter what.
Take a look at NH. White women with less education or low-income households, voted for Clintons.
The Clintons want to make this effort at a national level.
It is not that I am not positive. I just read the tea leaves. Clintons are going to muddy, bloody, and defeat him. I am concerned about his family. They will hurt him and for rest of his political career. With this loss, Obama will not be an item in the senate. With Clintons in the White House for 8-years, Obama will be a non-entity.
You have no idea of the power of the clinton attack machine. You will support it no matter what. That is the power. It is zen.
RKU: You're equating support to authorize the war vs. speaking out against it at the time to voting for funding of the troops? Amazing what sort of rationalizations a small mind can come up with if pressed. Well done.
eorse: You're incorrect. No Zen involved. Even should the Clintons triumph for the nomination, the only Republican she can beat in the national with her numbers is Huckabee and that isn't happening. Obama is showing strong support within the Party hierarchy and he'll remain a dynamic individual who's presence will only grow with time.
Frankly, I dread a Clinton White House but am not worried about any Obama "deflation" should that come to pass.
Obama & Hillary Slime Machines are equally effective:
They prevent discussion of the publicized fact that Obama's voting record is the same as Hillary...Line on Line...what the Obama & Hillary Slime Machines are doing is working.
Now could you address the issue of Obama supporting the war?
A vote for continued funding is not the same as the vote for authorization. Dick Durbin voted against authorization and continues to speak out against the war, yet votes for funding. I disagree with his reasoning, but I understand it.
And yes, I wish I had Feingold as a option, but He's Not There.
The fact that Obama and Clinton's votes after the war was ongoing have been similar is irrelevant. The crucial question is: which candidate is more likely to trap us once again in an unnecessary war which will increase anti-American hatred and bankrupt our country? The answer is Hillary as shown by her votes for both the Lieberman-Warren 2002 Iraq resolution and the Lieberman-Kyl 2007 Iran resolution. Bill and Hill are lying about Obama's record to distract our attention from this salient point.
BlindJoeDeath,
You're right when you say:
"A vote for continued funding is not the same as the vote for authorization."
It's worse...far worse.
One's a mistake, not knowing the consequences, Hillary's and Obama's votes to continue the war after all that needs to be known...is known for what appears to be purely presidential positioning is Faustian.
While guys like yourself see can see the virtue of either candidate, I'm pretty sure the guy's having to fight the war and the civilians caught in the crossfire do not understand how lofty rhetoric.
Just as note to the wine cheese set, before you wind up with your usual stuff, I already served, US Army 27-E, E-5
BlindJoeDeath,
You're right when you say:
"A vote for continued funding is not the same as the vote for authorization."
It's worse...far worse.
One's a mistake, not knowing the consequences, Hillary's and Obama's votes to continue the war after all that needs to be known...is known for what appears to be purely presidential positioning is Faustian.
While guys like yourself see can see the virtue of either candidate, I'm pretty sure the guy's having to fight the war and the civilians caught in the crossfire do not understand how one side's lofty rhetoric matters in the least.
Just as note to the wine cheese set, before you wind up with your usual stuff, I've already served, US Army 27-E, E-5, so spare me. If you support either Hillary or Obama and resulting continuance of the war...enlist now or show me your DD-214!
Crozier: I wouldn't go so far to say as both Clinton's are lying about Sen. Clinton's war record but they certainly are doing everything they can to prevent anyone in the MSM from actively comparing Sen. Clinton's record to Sen. Obama's. If TPM can do it then CNN or MSNBC can too and the Clinton campaign desperately doesn't want the narrative they've constructed to change. Once you have that comparison in the wider public's mind then it becomes an issue of who voted for war versus who voted to support the troops, an argument that Sen. Obama could easily win when couched in those terms. It's only one part of a "shuck and jive" narrative the Clinton campaign wants to keep going because it paints Sen. Obama as a drug-sling, flip-flopping, black hustler with a sweet-talking style. As for Sen. Obama's campaign, I have yet to see an attack narrative constructed against Sen. Clinton. But I might be wrong on that point so if I am wrong would someone please enlighten me?
"Here's my open question to all the endless Obama-bots on this blogsite: If everyone agrees that Hillary has a terrible record on Iraq and if Hillary and Obama have identical voting records in DC, how can Obama be regarded as having a "good" record on Iraq?"
If you can't understand the difference between starting a stupid war, and not being able to stop it, then I can't help you. Cutting off the funds is not going to stop this war. It could have been stopped by prominent democrats like Clinton taking a stand before it began. She chose to support it. The only realistic way of ending it now is for a new president to take the troops out.
SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST
I'm pretty sure the guy's having to fight the war and the civilians caught in the crossfire do not understand how one side's lofty rhetoric matters in the least.
I'm pretty sure that the guy's having to fight the war have various opinions on the war. Some dislike the war, some approve.
To my dismay most voted for Bush in '04.
Why I think Obama supporters come across as a bunch of Kool-Aid drinking Jim Jones types.
"Cutting off the funds is not going to stop this war."
mad6798j goes on to suggest wars can not be stopped once started...
after listening to Obama's supporters, I really don't want to be associated with the guy in the general election.
Mad6789j: I think the problem with the idea of Sen. Obama having a 'good' record on Iraq is not so much that he has had the foresight to see an Iraq war as a bad thing but that he has stayed consistent in his opposition. The larger problem is, and while the Clinton campaign and its supports are far more guilty of this than Sen. Obama's supporters, people seem to forget that Sen. Obama is a politician as much as he is a great speaker and potentially great president. I always have to remind myself of that when I feel my emotions overruling my reason when it comes to Sen. Obama. He is a politician and as a politician there are certain things that he has to do, hence his remarks about running for president before all the hope was boiled out of him. But the Clinton campaign seems to treat him as some sort of apolitical icon that if they can only make him look human then they can defeat him. Problem is, humanizing himself is kind of Sen. Obama’s shtick.
Do you have numbers to support this claim?
"guy's having to fight the war...most voted for Bush in" '04.- by blindjoedeath
As an Obama supporter, if you going to speak for all the troops voting records I sure hope you have some solid evidence.
The guys I know did not vote for bush. The guys I know make fun of people who use "lofty rhetoric". I'm basing my opinion on personal military experience and you as an Obama man base it on what?
S Brennan
I'll try to find the actual result later, but in October of '04 this poll showed Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By the way, claiming to speak for a vast group of people based on the guys you know is not a good idea.
"mad6798j goes on to suggest wars can not be stopped once started"
Not from the Senate, no. Maybe you could be a little bit less of an ass and admit that no matter what the Senate does Bush would keep the troops there?
blindjoedeath,
If you had served, you'd know not to use this:
The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which is owned by Gannett.
Further even they admit:
"An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio."
But it gets worse:
"Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165"
Now I know you'd never know this but:
Of subscribers most whom are officers, followed by senior NCO's, less than 7% of Army Times are E-7 and below. I never met an E-6 or below who held a subscription.
I think you should follow your own advice:
" By the way, claiming to speak for a vast group of people based on the guys you know is not a good idea." - blindjoedeath | January 14, 2008 4:14
Here's the REF:
"guy's having to fight the war...most voted for Bush in '04." blindjoedeath | January 14, 2008 3:35 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is a wine & cheese Obama supporters way of saying the troops got what they deserved.
Never mind that Obama's supporter know nothing about the US Army, they speak for the troops with open distain. Pretty condescending and pretty typical of Obama Kool-Aid drinkers.
One thing Barak Obama is not:
A Unifier.
However, both he and Clinton have something in common...they both have awful Senate voting records.
Brennan, try being less obnoxious.
An Obama supporter writes:
Maybe you could be a little bit less of an ass and admit that no matter what the Senate does Bush would keep the troops there? Posted by mad6798j | January 14, 2008 5:01 PM
Obama a uniter? Heh...heh..same old crud in a new wrapper eh?
But getting beyond the usual snottiness spouted by Obama supporters...you may not be able to end the war from the senate, but you sure can try.
Further, if Obama was truly against the war he could AT LEAST stop voting for it's continuance...both he and Clinton have something in common...they both have awful Senate voting records.
You start calling people names and when they get annoyed it's "the usual snottines." Good job with the projection there.
The Senate does not vote for the war to continue or not continue. It votes for funding of the military. I repeat, you agree that the Senate can not stop the war, so what is your problem?
An Obama supporter writes:
"You start calling people names and when they get annoyed it's "the usual snottines." Good job with the projection there." mad6798j | January 14, 2008 5:16 PM
An Obama supporter writes earlier:
"Maybe you could be a little bit less of an ass and admit that no matter what the Senate does Bush would keep the troops there?" Posted by mad6798j | January 14, 2008 5:01 PM
One thing Barak Obama [or his followers] is not:
A Unifier.
However, both he and Clinton have something in common...they both have awful Senate voting records.
Yes, I was responding to your earlier insult. Maybe you forgot you wrote this:
"Why I think Obama supporters come across as a bunch of Kool-Aid drinking Jim Jones types."
Here's the context:
"you can't understand the difference between starting a stupid war, and not being able to stop it, then I can't help you. Cutting off the funds is not going to stop this war. Posted by mad6798j | January 14, 2008 3:33 PM
and
"guy's having to fight the war...most voted for Bush in '04." blindjoedeath | January 14, 2008 3:35 PM
Why I think Obama supporters come across as a bunch of Kool-Aid drinking Jim Jones types.
"Cutting off the funds is not going to stop this war."
mad6798j goes on to suggest wars can not be stopped once started...
after listening to Obama's supporters, I really don't want to be associated with the guy in the general election.
Posted by S Brennan | January 14, 2008 3:44 PM
So I stand by this:
One thing Barak Obama [or his followers] is not:
A Unifier.
However, both he and Clinton have something in common...they both have awful Senate voting records.
Posted by S Brennan | January 14, 2008 5:22 PM
You called me a Kool-Aid drinking Jim Jones type because I don't think the Senate can stop the war. I couldn't care less who you "want to be associated with" but I didn't appreciate the personal insults. You then used my reaction to your insults to attack Obama. Strange.
blindjoedeath,
The Kool-Aid kid mad6798j, helped you out of this
You said you would reply? Are you hiding behind one of Obama's Kool-Aid clones?
blindjoedeath,
If you had served, you'd know not to use this:
The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which is owned by Gannett.
Further even they admit:
"An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio."
But it gets worse:
"Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165"
Now I know you'd never know this but:
Of subscribers most whom are officers, followed by senior NCO's, less than 7% of Army Times are E-7 and below. I never met an E-6 or below who held a subscription.
I think you should follow your own advice:
" By the way, claiming to speak for a vast group of people based on the guys you know is not a good idea." - blindjoedeath | January 14, 2008 4:14
Here's the REF:
"guy's having to fight the war...most voted for Bush in '04." blindjoedeath | January 14, 2008 3:35 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is a wine & cheese Obama supporters way of saying the troops got what they deserved.
Never mind that Obama's supporter know nothing about the US Army, they speak for the troops with open distain. Pretty condescending and pretty typical of Obama Kool-Aid drinkers.
One thing Barak Obama is not:
A Unifier.
However, both he and Clinton have something in common...they both have awful Senate voting records.
Posted by S Brennan | January 14, 2008 5:01 PM
You're the only child trying to shout people down with insults and bizarrely repetitive posts brennan.
Obama is open to the Clinton spin because his rhetoric, rationale, and campaign statements varied from one another in the fall of 2003. Additionally, when the difference was pointed out to his campaign in 2007 the explanation for his opposition to the supplemental was different then any of the rationales offered in 2003. Obama's opposition to the war in the fall of 2002 is commendable his hedging since then is not.
Here is the timeline on the $87 B supplemental:
In September 2003 Obama's campaign issues a press release suggesting the Congress delay the $87 billion in funding until numerous conditions are met.
In November 2003, Obama states at a campaign rally that he is unequivocally against the supplemental and that Dems/Congress need to stand up to President Bush.
Also in November 2003, Obama told the Chicago Sun Times in that he opposed the funding because it "enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people."
In March 2007, an Obama campaign spokesman explains Obama's earlier opposition to the supplemenatl thusly, "He was against this $20 billion in no-bid contracts that was forced into the bill for reconstruction for the country of Iraq with no accountability."
The ABC news post below notes: "at the time (Fall 2003), Obama's public statements suggested he opposed voting for the supplement as a way of opposing the president's overall strategy in Iraq, and not just the reconstruction funds.
I have never seen a speech or press release where Obama took an oath to never vote for funding the Iraq War. His hetoric of 'vote no or continue to get steamrolled' certainly implies that he would be voting no however.
You could just as easily put up several quotes and press releases from Clinton to see how her rhetoric, rationale, and campaign statements have change over the years particularly on why see voted for the AUMF.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2970930&page=2
Brennan (2:43 PM) states that voting for continued funding of a war is far worse than voting (as Hillary did) for its authorization in the first place. I disagree. Once we unnecessarily invade and trash a country, depriving the people of security, law and order, as well as starting civil wars, we have responsibilities to prevent a general bloodbath. So voting for war-mongering is far different (and worse) than voting for peace-keeping and reconstruction funding.
s brennan: "Obama's supporter know nothing about the US Army, they speak for the troops with open distain. Pretty condescending and pretty typical of Obama Kool-Aid drinkers."
Maybe I'm more than usually open to being ticked off right now. In fact, I know I am, since I'm usually pretty unflappable, and now I'm pissed. Just put it down to my reading someone saying that Obama's supporters, apparently all of us, know nothing abut the army, speak of the troops with disdain, etc., etc., while I, an Obama supporter, am sitting in an airport hotel room because the funeral of one of my best friends, who was just killed in Iraq, is tomorrow, and I've been crying my eyes out all day.
Please try to remember that large groups of people are composed of, well, individual people, and that just because some idiotic generalization about them strikes your fancy, that in no way makes it true.
Comments closed January 28, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Sixteen years ago, Michael Kinsley famously asked whether Bill Clinton was "too much of a liar" to be president. Kinsley concluded "He'll do". Well, another Clinton administration with no respect for truth might also have to do, because our election system consisently selects the most dishonest candidates.
Posted by Gary Sugar | January 14, 2008 12:22 PM