UNITE-HERE, the union representing the casino workers Hillary Clinton's campaign tried to stop from voting, issues a vicious Spanish-language attack, arguing that "Hillary Clinton no respeta nuestra gente" and urging people to vote for Barack Obama. According to CBS, "the Clinton campaign called on the Obama campaign to condemn the ad" but it's very hard to see why they would do that. The ad's a bit over-the-top in its language, but the substance of the charge, that Clinton allies tried to make it more difficult for members of the union to vote, is perfectly accurate.
« Frenchies in the GCC | Main | State's Rights »
No Respect
18 Jan 2008 08:31 am
Comments (44)
I'm an Obama supporter, but between you and me, this ad is probably getting a little extra boost from gender coding when it calls HRC "shameless." It may call attention to the code of demureness she is perceived to violate just by running for president.
It's subtle, though. And I agree that the content of the ad is accurate. And when Democrats attempt to suppress the working-class vote -- or at any rate defend a lawsuit, filed by their supporters, that attempts voter suppression -- I stop caring a *whole* lot about the subtle implications of the diction being used against them.
Wow. Calling Clinton shameless because of her shameless effort to suppress votes is a "gender-coded" message? You've got some mighty sensitive antennae there, Ted.
Isn't this getting a little tiresome?
Just asking for a little more clarity. You know how the truth gets easily twisted these days.
BTW- how do Obama supporters regard Krugman these days?
Gender coded message? I doubt it, not even close to the racial coded messages the Clintons have beeen espousing everyday.
I can't tell who is more of a Clinton hack Krugman or Taylor Marsh?... probably Marsh.
Devil's advocate: the groups behind the lawsuit have said that the disproportionate weighting of the casino precincts is itself a recognized form of voter disenfranchisement. Shouldn't someone stand up and point this out? Additionally, a compromise was offered by those bringing the lawsuit to CWU asking them to come back to the negotiating table to recalibrate the weighting of the casino precincts? Why not more outrage over CWU not accepting this compromise (or being forced to by the Nevada Dem Party). Or does the timing factor so heavily here that finders keepers rules apply?
Everything was fine by the Clinton campaign and the teachers union before Barack got the CWU endorsement!
Via Talk Left
"Remember this?
Obama criticized Edwards for saying that he doesn't approve of 527s, while at the same time not disavowing a group, Alliance for a New America . . . "You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the campaign finance laws. . . . [Y]ou can't say yesterday you don't believe in 'em, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."
No kidding Senator Obama. You sure aren't walking the walk in Nevada:
The radio ad aired by one of Obama's labor allies re-injects ethnicity into the Democratic primary contest in sharp terms. . . . A spokesman for Obama, Bill Burton, did not condemn the ad or the independent spending specifically, but instead attacked Clinton. . . . "[Complaints] [c]oming from a campaign that is repeatedly launching absolutely false attacks against Sen. Obama, it takes some chutzpah. . .
Mr. Burton and the Obama campaign are redefining chutzpah before our very eyes. Let's face it - on the lobbyists phony issue and now on the 527s, Barack Obama is a complete and utter hypocrite. He believes none of this. It is all just phony political posturing. That is politics I know, but the refrain that Obama is going to reinvent it is as phony as a three dollar bill."
There are two reasons why Obama should denounce the ad, one is clear cut, one a matter of opinion.
The clearcut one is Obama condemned independent expenditure ads in Iowa by unions, claiming they skirted the campaign finance laws. He particularly blasted John Edwards on this.
By failing to do so when he is the beneficiary, Obama is revealed as a rank hypocrite. I am rather surprised you are unaware of this Matthew. This was a big story in the the last week before the Iowa caucuses.
You may want to update your post.
The second, less clearcut reason is the view expressed that Clinton is trying to keep Latinos down. The CWU has a significant Latino contingent it is true, but the reason why Clinton ALLEGEDLY wanted to overturn the at large districts has nothing to do with them Latino members of the union, who are clearly the most likely to vote for her, but because the union had endorsed Obama. It is very arguably a racial attack that is unfounded as far as I can tell.
In the debate the other day, Obama said he would try and check his supporters in this front. IT sems to me one can argue that Obama is being hypocriticial again.
Your post seems to have given short shrift to this second argument and seems wholly unaware of Obama's previous condemnation of independent expenditures by unions.
You may want to update.
Nice to see Matt's settled so comfortably into hackdom. This is, of course, an 'outside group' like the ones the Hypocrisy-monger was whining about in Iowa.
Much of Clinton's support among Democrats, against all polls showing her the weakest general election candidate, is the fact she plays to win. She will do all the nasty Republican tricks that Kerry wouldn't (which is why he lost). She will do them in office too (payback!). The lawsuit, rather than bad publicity for Clinton, was a confirmation of this.
However, now Clinton (through surrogates) is whining about Obama's surrogate's ads. Obama should not disavow anything, because right now he is out-Roving Clinton.
When it comes to this rabid block of Democrats out there, this has all been good for Obama. Same goes for how he turned the racist stuff around and then got Clinton to make nice at the Debate. For those on the fence about Obama, worried he get creamed by the Repubs, the more he gets and gives with Clinton the better.
It's a harsh ad, but it's not directly saying that Clinton is keeping down Latinos, it says that Clinton is keeping down working people -- many of whom happen to be Latino, and in an ad that happens to be in Spanish. The language is harsh, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the basic message.
What a crock.
Haim Saban -- and his wife Cheryl-- are both
"Hillraisers" -- expected to raise $Millions for Hillary : http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/HillRaisers/
Haim Saban has BOUGHT the Spanish language Television network Univision-- the fifth largest network in the USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univision
So I kinda expected Haim's control of the "news" that many Hispanic voters get will far outweigh
any ads a small union in Nevada can put out.
"Vote por la gran puta Hillary, por favor!"
"the groups behind the lawsuit have said that the disproportionate weighting of the casino precincts is itself a recognized form of voter disenfranchisement. Shouldn't someone stand up and point this out?"
That's what Bill Clinton decided to claim when he said they were given 5 times the weight of other votes, but everything I've seen on blogs and press indicates that it wouldn't work like that absent extraordinary circumstances.
"Happens to be in Spanish . . ."
That's an argument.
"Vote for the big whore Hillary" is maybe over the top it seems to me.
But what do I know?
The Obama campaign did not release the ad, nor does the ad directly accuse Clinton, rather "Clinton supporters". Perhaps Obama should denounce the ad, to be in keeping with his Iowa comments. But when the Clinton campaign continues to do mass mailings with complete distortions of Obama record and policy positions, and refuses to budge, I'm sure it's hard for Obama's staff to feel they have any obligation to rein in their supporters.
The legitimate beef on Obama is that his actions never match his rhetoric. He can make a good speach but when it comes right down to him taking any action he fails.
What is going on in Neveda is just another example of that.
Obama condemns independent expenditures when he has nothing at stake. But when he has an opportunity to benefit from independent expenditures he embraces them with open arms.
This is pretty much like the complaint on him regarding his position on Iraq - and more.
When he was not a Senator his rhetoric was against the war. But when he became a Senator and was in a position where he could to do something about it, he supported the war.
Somebody explain to me why there should be at-large caucuses for one group of workers, but not for others? Is it not true that one has to show a work id proving one a strip worker to participate in these caucuses?
If true, then why shouldn't the teachers be upset?
In principle, the arrangement is wrong.
It is does not matter who says it's wrong and who says it right. It's wrong.
It does not matter which campaign benefits from it; it's wrong.
It does not matter who approved it when and when whoever opposed it; it's wrong.
Has anyone ever made an arrangement before by which people in different occupations or professions participate in elections on a different basis?
What would you say to a proposal that CEO's can vote at special caucuses at ski resorts, country clubs, and private dining and athletic clubs because they are so busy that they can't get home to vote in their own precincts?
Paul Krugman criticized Barack Obama properly on social security and health care, and the hysterical response from the Obama supporters just tells me I should vote for anyone else than Obama.
Let all Obama supporters praise Ronald Reagan now, that Obama has. I am not about to praise Reagan.
Oh my goodness- such inaccurate information floating around.
1. Obama did not "flip- flop" on the war. He was AGAINST IT, but did you truly expect him to not FUND THE TROOPS OTHERS had sent over there? I would have no respect for a man who denied our military what they needed after careless actions by others PUTTING them there.
2. The DNC created and approved the rule changes for the caucus. Obama had no say or vote in those changes. If the DNC and others want to claim days before a caucus they did NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN RULE CHANGES- perhaps they should all start looking for new jobs.
Quite hoestly, someone finally calling HRC shameless is not only overdue, but well positioned.
"...the casino workers Hillary Clinton's campaign tried to stop from voting..."
Whatever the merits of the lawsuit and the extent that Clinton is behind it, can we at least agree that it is an attempt to suppress Obama voters rather than Hispanics or casino workers?
Caucuses are exercises in realpolitick not democracy and Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are neither racists nor virgins. And most of the time they aren't stupid either.
They are playing the game as it's designed. The silly handwringing is messing with our ability to see what they can do.
"Let all Obama supporters praise Ronald Reagan now, that Obama has. I am not about to praise Reagan."
You're also not about to let reading comprehension effect your opinion. Obama did little to praise Reagan on the policies and merits of his presidency. He merely talked about how Reagan invigorated and redefined one of the two major political parties.
This is more than a little distinction
Somebody explain to me why there should be at-large caucuses for one group of workers, but not for others?
Because the state Democratic party voted unanimously to hold the caucuses that way months ago. Included in that unanimous vote are some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. If they were ok with it when they voted for it, why aren't they now?
BobP- Could you please explain to me what Obama meant by the GOP being the "party of ideas " for the last 10-15 yrs, and that they challenged CW? What's your take on that?
"...but the substance of the charge, that Clinton allies tried to make it more difficult for members of the union to vote, is perfectly accurate."
You're wrong Matt, that's not the point the ad makes and you know it. The ad says that Hillary's allies don't want the Latino community to vote, that she doesn't respect the Latino community, not just the Union. That's a distinction with a huge difference my friend. So, Matt, the susbtance of the charge is not perfectly accurate. Come on now.
The decision to create at large caucuses was specifically to help service-industry workers that were going to be stuck on the strip, far away from their local precincts, b/c of the holiday weekend. This problem is far more prevalent in Las Vegas than anywhere else in the state, for obvious reasons.
The plan was approved by 4 of the 6 plaintiffs, and their complaints that it was changed also ring hallow: the last changes were applied months ago.
The complaint that some teachers have to volunteer at their schools to run caucuses that are not in their precincts and as such cannot participate also rings hallow. The % difference there is orders of magnitude greater for the strip workers than for the teachers. The fact is, caucuses by design suppress voter turn-out: no absentee ballots, very difficult to deal with scheduling conflicts, etc. The state party and the national party made a move designed to greatly increase access for the group most-effected by the limitations of the caucus: casino workers and other service industry workers on the Vegas strip. Increasing access is a good thing.
As for the "unfairly weighted" complaint, oh please, get real. First of all, the "5 times" claim is complete BS; it would require something like a turn-out of 830,000 people in a state where max turnout is expected to be 100,000, and previous caucuses have only seen 5-10,000 people turnout.
Secondly, all caucuses assign disproportionate weight to votes in different precincts. This was documented in the run-up to Iowa, where a vote in a rural precinct had far more effect on total delegates won than a vote in an urban precinct. What's more, that's not even unique to the caucus system. A vote in a small state means more in the Senate than a vote in a large state; even when the Dems were the minority party in the Senate, those Senators still represented more total voters than the majority GOP Senators.
In the House we see the same thing precinct by precinct.
And the electoral college does the same as well, giving heavier weight to votes in smaller, rural states.
Bill knows all this. Anyone who actually follows politics knows all this. This is nothing new. Bill's complaints are totally dishonest, but we should expect no more from him; he's a life-long pol.
However, someone who's reading and posting on a political blog on the Atlantic's website...you should know better. Or be a little more intellectually honest.
Cause given how transparently facile the complaints are, and given the obvious politically-expedient timing of the suit for the Clintons, filed by ardent Clinton supporters and defended by the Clintons themselves, the only conclusion one could rationally draw is that this is realpoliticking. It's kinda gross realpoliticking (vote suppression? really?), but it is what it is. The Clinton lemmings would do well to get their heads out of the sand and see it for it is.
Sally can't make a point, or two, without using caps, annoyingly.
"... calling HRC shameless is not only overdue, but well positioned"
And we're supposed to be the "educated" party.
As for the complaint about the ad itself...well, if your version of "realpolitiks" is voter suppression...it's hard to complain when someone makes an attack ad highlighting the voter suppression, even if it does use harsh language. And slightly distorting which demographic was being suppressed is hardly comparable to actual voter suppression, on the "dirty politics" scale.
And wasn't this is exactly what others were complaining Obama couldn't do? Get down in the mud in fight? And wasn't this also what many complained Obama missed about Reagan? That while he presented a sunny-nice-grandpa face to the country, he quietly went about shivving his opponents in the back?
In short, if Obama can go toe-to-toe with the Clintons in rough-and-tumble politics while coming off as someone who's above negative campaigning, that's hardly a knock on the man. It's a testament to his political skill, and sign that he actually might be a better poll than either Hillary or Bill, who's attacks have been almost-embarrassingly transparent throughout this process.
I teach kids in a school and they frequently resort to the logic of "he hit me first": we reject that rationale in schools.
Obama positions himself and his campaign on the high road but the people blogging here refuse to:
The arrangement to vote at the workplace in Vegas is not legitimate and those who care about right and wrong should work against it.
It is the formula for downtrodden workers to be bullied by thier own union. I would never go for this with my own union.
all the strained logic to justify the short term advantage it gives their candidate doesn't justify the inequity of it. Where are the different kind of politics Obama has suggested?
The ads in spanish denouncing her are ugly developments: she is against us? She is trying to disenfranchise us?
appealing to our most tribal aspects is pretty dispicable and to hear people who bad-mouthed clinton when they thought her campaign was doing something similar now defend obama-leaning 527s reveals that their concerns are more narrow than thier outrage last weekend would have suggested
In the SF major newspaper, SF Chronicle, Obama had his interview and took on the Clintons on this issue. Seems Ickes, the Clinton lapdog, was involved in the drawing up of the caucus rules last year. So, the Clintons claiming they did not know, ect,. ect. is another Lie. Not surprising.
On another note, an interesting article on how Obama is driving political writers, ect. crazy as well as defying c.w., as it is becoming clear he is a totally different candidate from anything seen.
That is could also explain why he drives the left blogs crazy as well. He simply is not like anyone else who's run for president.
You should check it out, Matt.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL
I'm sorry, but have any of you Obama supporters actually read the ad? It doesn't say "culinary workers" or "members of this one union" - it says, "our people" and "workers". The implication is pretty clear - Clinton doesn't want hispanics to vote. It's dishonest and gross and Obama should hold himself to the same standard he pretends to apply to everyone else. Read the transcript of the ad here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/17/politics/horserace/entry3726149.shtml
Even if it were not utterly dishonest, Obama should still denounce it to be consistent with what he said in Iowa. But I guess making government more accountable only works when it's someone else?
I would add that I haven't heard one word from MY about the comments made by Rev. Wright. Maybe you should be a columnist - you're getting v. adept at double standards and hackery.
The arrangement to vote at the workplace in Vegas is not legitimate and those who care about right and wrong should work against it.
It is the formula for downtrodden workers to be bullied by thier own union. I would never go for this with my own union.
Huh? What does location have to do with union bullying? You think the Teachers' union won't push it's members? That's ridiculous. The presence/absence of union-bullying is completely ancillary to this discussion.
I love that twisted logic: without the at-large precincts, the workers could not attend the caucuses. So creating at-large caucuses so that they can attend is somehow disenfranchising them b/c they'll be bullied by their union? Huh?
BTW, don't you know that bullying is something that's inherent to the caucus system. I mean c'mon, this is more dishonest complaining. Your complaint is about caucusing in general, not at large precincts. It's logically incoherent otherwise.
"I teach kids in a school and they frequently resort to the logic of "he hit me first": we reject that rationale in schools."
That "rationale" is actually quite rational. They take that approach because they haven't been completely socialized yet, haven't been taught to go along to get along.
My experience is: sometimes you stand on principle and sometimes you just stand your ground.
Sorry, forgot the other link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_obama_paradigm.html
Reading the comments I have to say,
What the Hillary supporters cannot accept is that she is running like Karl Rove.
The Clintons are famous for whining and turning everything into 'what about me' and it's all about me.
And that is why Clinton failed to do anything to blunt the direction of politics going to the right as set by Reagan. He was too involved in his own self obsession to have any vision or ability to effect the politics of the country outside of what is typical of an average president.
Clinton on paper had everything going for him to be an important president in the mold of an FDR but, let his own self involvement and failings overtake him to the point that instead of being a great president he became an average one. One of many.
And that is what Obama pointed out and what Clintonistas cannot accept.
Wow, once again suggesting Obama is simply better at politics than the Clintons:
Asked his reaction to an angry outburst by the former president - who in Oakland Wednesday suggested the at-large system was "rigged" - Obama laughed.
"This caucus process was designed by the Democratic Party of Nevada in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee," said Obama. "I, as somebody who's not part of the establishment of the Democratic Party, had no say in the rules ... (but) individuals like Harold Ickes, Clinton's key adviser, were a part of making these rules. And some of the people who filed the lawsuit were a part of making these rules.
"President Clinton now suggests they didn't understand the rules that they designed," Obama said. "This is coming from the campaign of extraordinary detail and thoroughness and experience.
"But somehow, they didn't know what these rules were," Obama said. "Six days before the caucus - two days after I received the endorsement of the Culinary Workers (Union), suddenly these rules are grossly unfair and a violation of 'one person, one vote.' And a lawsuit is filed that would disenfranchise mostly Latino maids, dishwashers and bellhops."
Obama said that was "an implausible argument before the court rules. I am glad the court bought none of it. I think it took about an hour for the court to decide that this lawsuit had no merit.
From the link in vwcat's post
How hard is it to understand that the workers on the Strip include a higher proportion of Latinos than the general population of Nevada?
Thus, disenfranchising Strip workers disproportionately disenfranchises Latinos.
If Obama's truly against 527 ads in general -- not just dishonest ones -- he ought to condemn the ad. That said, it appears as if it's not only the Clinton's who are shameless, but rather their supporters as well. Absolutely nothing that Obama (who's been almost entirely positive), his surrogates, or his supporters have done has been in any way comparable to the Rovian smears put forth by Hillary, her campaign manager, her surrogates, and her increasingly-less respectable husband. Hillary attempts to disenfranchise thousands of voters, injects race and gender into the campaign in the most crass way possible, repeatedly lies about Senator Obama's record (especially with regard to the War), and you buffoons want to whine about Obama's failure to condemn (at least at this point) a truthful ad he isn't even responsible for? Pathetic.
Really? Obama's only been positive? Maybe some folks here need reminders about repeated repetition of jeff gerth's "20 year plan" slur. Or his whining that hrc played the gender card after she (accurately) said presidential politics was a boys club. Or his surrogate dismissing clinton for having cried "over her appearane". Or his team's south carolina memo. Or this disgusting ad. Or how they purposely took the "fairy tale" comment out of context.
And, I'm sorry, he gets no points on iraq. He was against the war in 2002, then he backed away and said he didn't know what he would have done in 2004 (when it was politically expedient for himself and john kerry), now he's "always held the same position" (again when it is politically expedient).
And I haven't forgotten for how he bought in david broder's talking points and chastigated dems for having supposed contempt for religious folks in 2005. That was very helpful - to the RNC.
I'm not pretending that clinton is pure, but apparently obama's supporters are for their candidate. He's not a saint people and it doesn't even help him in the end to pretend he is.
Jennifer: "Paul Krugman criticized Barack Obama properly on social security and health care, and the hysterical response from the Obama supporters just tells me I should vote for anyone else than Obama."
I don't think anyone's been hysterical -- unreasoned emotional outbursts are the stock and trade of the Clinton campaign. Now, I like Paul Krugman, and perhaps he's right, but the policy differences are so minor that they aren't really worth obsessing over. And Krugman's exactly the type of absolutist, angry liberal that's useful for debunking conservative b.s. but needs to stay the hell away from the political campaign.
Jennifer: "Let all Obama supporters praise Ronald Reagan now, that Obama has. I am not about to praise Reagan."
It's called nuance, Jennifer. It illustrates that someone is capable of thinking for his or herself, not simply spasmodically reacting to certain Pavlovian buzz-words. It's what separates thinking liberals (of which you are most certainly not one) from reactionaries of either political stripe.
And here's a final parting shot for you to consider: Barack Obama could run the filthiest political campaign in the history of American politics and still he wouldn't be partially responsible for the needless deaths and dislocations of millions of innocent people in a war that should never have been fought. We can never lose sight of this fact in considering the justness of the minor slings and arrows that will undoubtably arise in the context of this campaign.
Christ. Could i have a list of 'gender-coded' words now, so i know what to avoid? Or maybe people are just making this shit up as we go.
Columbia: "Really? Obama's only been positive? Maybe some folks here need reminders about repeated repetition of jeff gerth's "20 year plan" slur."
Well, I'm not sure about any twenty year plan, but clearly Hillary has had her sights set on the White House for quite a while. Her continued acceptance of Bill's serial adultery is certainly a testament to this fact. As is her dishonesty with regard to when she decided to run for president. A year ago? Balloney.
Columbia: "Or his whining that hrc played the gender card after she (accurately) said presidential politics was a boys club."
Yeah, that's called playing the gender card -- even if it's true. I don't particularly care what Hillary Clinton has between her legs -- but clearly many of her supporters do.
Columbia: "Or his surrogate dismissing clinton for having cried "over her appearane"."
Well, the question was about who does her hair and how tough it is to campaign. Now, she didn't cry over her appearance -- she cried in order to engender sympathy and conveniently included an attack on Senator Obama in her heartfelf emotional moment.
Columbia: "Or his team's south carolina memo. Or this disgusting ad."
Both of which happen to be true.
Columbia: "Or how they purposely took the "fairy tale" comment out of context."
I can somewhat agree with that, but the way Bill said it (who, by the way, has no business using his stature to attack his wife's opponent), emphasizing "this WHOLE thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen" gave many people that impression.
Columbia: "And, I'm sorry, he gets no points on iraq."
Here comes the blatant dishonesty.
Columbia: "He was against the war in 2002, then he backed away and said he didn't know what he would have done in 2004 (when it was politically expedient for himself and john kerry)"
Whoa, whoa, whoa. He wasn't just against the war, he spoke at anti-war rallies, for christsakes. There's really no confusing this issue -- except deliberately, which is precisely what you're doing. Here's what was actually said:
"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Alright, so it's obvious you were wrong. The first thing you need is to accept that fact and quit parroting Bill and Hillary's talking points. Second, you need to do a little soul searching. You need to consider whether it's right to vote for someone who made a disasterously wrong decision with regard to the Iraq War when you have a perfectly acceptable anti-war candidate to vote for.
Columbia:"...now he's "always held the same position" (again when it is politically expedient)."
Yeah, it was really politically expedient to revise one's former opposition to the War in 2004, after it was clear to everyone that the War had gone badly, eh? Brilliant.
Columbia: "And I haven't forgotten for how he bought in david broder's talking points and chastigated dems for having supposed contempt for religious folks in 2005. That was very helpful - to the RNC."
Well, I'm not going to excuse that, but it's relatively harmless (unlike Iraq) and it has a useful political purpose. Obama's just interested in actually winning the general election and doing so by more than 2% -- something we can't really fault him for. Moreover, nothing is more helpful to the RNC than putting Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket in November.
Columbia: "I'm not pretending that clinton is pure, but apparently obama's supporters are for their candidate. He's not a saint people and it doesn't even help him in the end to pretend he is."
He's certainly not a saint, but the entire tone of his campaign, his refusal to pander (much), and his opposition to the War puts him a whole 'nother league than Clinton.
Over 65% of US casualties, 83% of ISF casualties and 40,000 civilian deaths have occurred in Iraq since Obama joined the Senate.
numbers: "Over 65% of US casualties, 83% of ISF casualties and 40,000 civilian deaths have occurred in Iraq since Obama joined the Senate."
That's nice to know. If Barack Obama were actually an amalgamation of 67 senators rather than one, you'd might have some discernible point. As it stands, however, your statistic is entirely meaningless. If Barack Obama had had his way, there would have been zero deaths in Iraq. Unfortunately, we had Hillary and Edwards -- two political cowards who cared more about looking "strong" than preventing a needless war. Going to war is one of the most solemn decisions that any country can ever make; It would've been nice if Hillary had at least bothered to read the NIE (as Bob Graham did -- which convinced him to vote against the War). Now, Edwards appologized for his vote, but it's still something he'll have to live with for the rest of his life. However, neither Hillary nor her supporters seem the slighest bit bothered by her unrepentent support for the War. Is it fair to say that she's the pro-War candidate?
Comments closed February 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Clinton filed the lawsuit?
Posted by magisterludi | January 18, 2008 8:52 AM