War Polling

Paul Krugman notes the 32-59 split on the question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq was worth it and remarks with satisfaction "the fact that we’re not squandering lives at the same rate we were a year ago (we’re still squandering money as fast as ever) does not seem to have convinced people that the war we were misled into was a good idea." Hasn't convinced people, that is, except for hard-core Republicans and Hillary Clinton who Krugman keeps telling us is preferable to Barack Obama and his unsound deviationism. Or is it that Clinton didn't think invading Iraq was a good idea but despite her 35 years of experience fighting for change didn't realize the significance of what she was voting on?

I'm quite certain I'd be happier with the foreign policy Hillary Clinton would conduct in office than I'd be with the one John McCain would conduct, but her actual record on this count seems like a pretty sufficient reason to support a viable alternative in the primary. After all, if neither Clinton nor Obama had decided to run in 2008, it's hard for me to imagine that a lot of people would have been sitting around early in the cycle saying "you know what the party really needs in a nominee? -- an Iraq War supporter. Those people look really substantively and politically savvy, and I want to ensure that their hawkish gamble pays off to encourage future legislators to act just like them."

Comments

Well, it was only thirty years of experience back then. It's those extra years over Obama that are so important.

Posted by John DE | January 28, 2008 12:04 PM

Dude, I know you like Obama, but Krugman's beef with his "deviationism" was primarily about health-care mandates and the nonexistent Social Security crisis, not Iraq. If you want to smear PK, try to get within hailing distance of the merits.

Posted by scott | January 28, 2008 12:04 PM

Krugman's gone off the deep end when it comes to Obama. Ever since the Obama camp put out that release responding to his columns, Obama has been his white whale. And all over what - Obama's endorsement of a Social Security fix that Krugman endorsed in 2005? Obama's decision to leave out individual mandates from his health care plan until he could get the more ambitious and contentious parts of the package - like community rating and public/private competition - passed? In going in for Clinton, Krugman isn't even throwing out the baby with the bathwater - he's drowning the nursery.

Posted by Christmas | January 28, 2008 12:05 PM

I'm quite certain I'd be happier with the foreign policy Hillary Clinton would conduct in office than I'd be with the one John McCain would conduct, but her actual record on this count

Whose actual record on Iraq positions is almost identical to obama's since they were both in the Senate.

TPM

"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."

Posted by Dan the Man | January 28, 2008 12:06 PM

Matt, step away from the cool-aid.

You've never articulated, what exactly you think would be different in foreign policy under Clinton vs Obama going forward. And since they've BOTH been so mushy about future Iraq policy and missions tea leaf reading seems fairly pointless anyway.

Posted by AJ | January 28, 2008 12:08 PM

Krugman’s failure to see his own inconsistency (even hypocrisy) in his unbalanced evaluation of Obama while giving a blind eye to the glaring and profound weaknesses of the other two leading Dem candidates has greatly diminished his own credibility.

One wonders how a supposedly analytical academic could err so badly in this direction.

Posted by Justin X | January 28, 2008 12:09 PM

Krugman's made it clear that he's judging the candidates on the basis of their declared positions, much as he did with Bush in 2000. And the thing is, Hillary's and Barack's positions on Iraq (what they say they'd do now) are pretty similar. So Krugman's talking instead about domestic policy, where there are some noticeable differences after all in what they're saying now.

Posted by gustav | January 28, 2008 12:09 PM

"One wonders how a supposedly analytical academic could err so badly in this direction."

Academics often use their analytic strengths to convince themselves of the soundness of their passions and prejudices.

Posted by wj | January 28, 2008 12:12 PM

Hasn't Hillary only stated that should would ask the Joint Chiefs to draw up a plan to *begin* to withdraw troops if she's elected? My impression is that Obama, by contrast, has been fairly specific about how many brigades would be withdrawn on a monthly basis, having everyone out in 16 months.

Posted by Jake | January 28, 2008 12:14 PM

"You've never articulated, what exactly you think would be different in foreign policy under Clinton vs Obama going forward. And since they've BOTH been so mushy about future Iraq policy and missions tea leaf reading seems fairly pointless anyway.

Posted by AJ | January 28, 2008 12:08 PM"

He made a point about willingness to take important risks that defy the CW (such as on Israel-Palestine, engaging Iran, etc.) in the past, in addition to looking at their foreign policy advisers. Clinton has leaned towards war supporters like Albright, Holbrooke, O'Hanlon, etc., while Obama has leaned more towards war opponents like Powers, Brzenski, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2008 12:14 PM

To scott, above. I don't know whether you first posted on this site as "scott" or me, but we seem to be using the same name. A problem we should solve (or maybe not).

Posted by scott | January 28, 2008 12:15 PM

And since they've BOTH been so mushy about future Iraq policy and missions tea leaf reading seems fairly pointless anyway.

Past performance may not perfectly predict future performance, but it is what we usually use. And HRC voted for the war.

Or are you saying we ought to forgive the Republicans their support for the Bush Administration come November, what with it being in the past and all?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 28, 2008 12:16 PM

Krugman actually helps Obama. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose, though the fact that his criticism is of such poor quality compared to the rest of his work tells me he might be.

Krugman is helping to establish Obama as the more moderate of the Democratic candidates. This will be very helpful to him down the line if he gets to the nomination. While Hillary and Edwards have quoted Krugman extensively, Obama will be the one using his words should he get the nomination.

Posted by Mike | January 28, 2008 12:21 PM

I'll just add further that I think much of the whining about Krugman being pro-Clinton has the same flawed premise.

Krugman, for better or worse, seems to think that it's useful to judge candidates based upon their actual published plans rather than on their past records, his "gut feelings," or anything else. This has given him an excellent track record of prediction, but does admittedly put him in a very tiny minority among bloggers.

So, Matt, if you disagree, why don't you tell us why you think Hillary's Iraq plans are inferior to Obama's and why. I'd actually be interested in reading more of that and less whining about Bill's campaign tactics.

Posted by gustav | January 28, 2008 12:21 PM

Matt, do you prefer the Hillary Sucks Kool-Aid or the Obama Teh Awesome Kool-Aid?

Posted by Eric | January 28, 2008 12:21 PM

I was wondering about this statistic just yesterday. I know alot of people (professional colleagues) who I would describe as only moderately politically engaged. All of them with weak party identification and centrist - but opposed to the war (very opposed, I might add).

But here's the kicker - they are all very favorably disposed to McCain.

Posted by Brautigan | January 28, 2008 12:23 PM

You don't understand. Hillary is one of us. She is hated by the GOP! She's a good 60's liberal. Let's not bicker and argue over her actual positions and support for endless wars in Iraq and Iran or her equivocating on torture. Let's not criticize her for going after Obama with greater gusto than she ever went after the Bush administration with. Did I mention that she is really good at smearing people, gutter politics, and twisting and mischaracterizing people's statements? And we all know that those are the most important qualities in a President. Plus, she has tons of experience as someone's wife, which continues today, as her husband runs her campaign and she fights for real feminist change in the background. Go Hillary!

Posted by jim | January 28, 2008 12:32 PM

But here's the kicker - they are all very favorably disposed to McCain.

I know a guy who is opposed to the war in Iraq and seemed enthusiastic about Obama, but told me recently he was planning on registering as a Republican so he could vote for McCain.

I told him that McCain had recently indicated that he thought we would be in Iraq for a 100 years. He told me that he thought McCain would be able to work better with Congress than Hillary (a little political awareness is almost worse than none, I tell you) so he was going with McCain and he refused to discuss it further. Honestly, I just think he's been affected by the Hillary smears over the years and is also afraid of Hillary giving his money to poor people, but lets just hope that once the general arrives McCain gets exposed as the crazy old man he is.

Posted by mpowell | January 28, 2008 12:36 PM

Today's NYT op-ed by Krugman seemed awfully temperate, even-handed and compelling to me. It's hard to read it as pro-Clinton. Democrats including Obama would be well advised to think seriously about the advice it offers.

It may well be that there are answers to some of PK's criticisms of Obama, but it's grotesquely unfair to view PK as some kind of propagandist, who says what he says simply and solely with a view to how it will affect the outcome of the primaries and advance the interests of his chosen candidate, rather than because he thinks it raises important considerations, which it does.

That said, I agree with MY's earlier criticism, that PK has not written enough about the foreign policy implications of the choice.

Posted by J | January 28, 2008 12:39 PM

My impression is that Obama, by contrast, has been fairly specific about how many brigades would be withdrawn on a monthly basis, having everyone out in 16 months.

That's not what Obama's website says. He says he would have all "combat brigades" out within 16 months, but "will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats." He doesn't say how many troops this would be. He also says "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." He doesn't put a figure on this number of troops either. Sounds like he's giving himself plenty of wiggle room.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 12:41 PM

I'm less bothered by Hillary's initial authorization of the war than her refusal to admit it was a mistake. What worries me now is that Hillary's policy is virtually indistinguishable from the President's. She's promised a significant troop force in Iraq through her second term. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd vote for a real one. Really, I think Hillary says and does whatever she thinks the people want to hear.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 28, 2008 12:42 PM

"Hillary is one of us. She is hated by the GOP! She's a good 60's liberal."

That's exactly what Krugman's instincts and sympathies are. Plus, he wants a job in the West Wing and thinks Hillary is his best chance to get there.

Posted by Claudius | January 28, 2008 12:50 PM

Krugman, for better or worse, seems to think that it's useful to judge candidates based upon their actual published plans rather than on their past records, his "gut feelings," or anything else.

But surely there is some limit to this "justification by campaign alone" approach. If Joe Lieberman published a plan for immediate total withdrawal from Iraq, should we suddenly say that his foreign policy is better than Clinton's and Obama's?

Posted by anon | January 28, 2008 1:00 PM

Claudius, what would you data be for saying Krugman wants a west wing office? Or do you not understand the concept/perks of tenured faculty at Ivy league schools and NYT OpEd columnists. I'd say he has more job security and power where he is than he'd have after any move to D.C.

Posted by DougMN | January 28, 2008 1:02 PM

""Hillary is one of us. She is hated by the GOP! She's a good 60's liberal."

That's exactly what Krugman's instincts and sympathies are. Plus, he wants a job in the West Wing and thinks Hillary is his best chance to get there.

Posted by Claudius | January 28, 2008 12:50 PM"

To be fair, Krugman has said he wants to stay away from DC jobs because they made him feel a bit sick after his time in a non-political position under Reagan.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2008 1:05 PM

Um, this is to "scott" at 12:15 - I can post as scott1 or scott2, or you can suggest something, whichever works for you.....

Posted by scott | January 28, 2008 1:10 PM

It's not just Obama's health care plan-- it's his use of right-wing talking points to denigrate Hillary's plan that provoked Krugman's criticism.

I greatly prefer Obama to Clinton. But even Obama isn't infallible. Nor is Krugman-- I think he's gotten too "anti-Obama," even though his initial points made sense.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 28, 2008 1:15 PM

"Whose actual record on Iraq positions is almost identical to obama's since they were both in the Senate."

Dan,

You're a moron. We're all aware of that fact. It's not Hillary's votes after the War that we have a problem with, it's her vote to go to war in the first place. What part of this are you incapable of understanding? And given her initial support for the War, how is she going to explain her newfound opposition? We know that Hillary has never made a mistake in her life (her only flaw is that she pushes too hard for change), so if the War was initially a good idea, what changed? If the only problem was George Bush's failed strategy, why wasn't she a vocal opponent of the strategy in the early stages of the War?

The problem, Dan, is that the answer to all of these questions is obvious. Hillary voted for the War because she was betting it would be a success and didn't want to be on the wrong side of a potentially winning political issue. Subsequently, she refused to make a stand one way or the other because she was unsure as to how the War would eventually peter out. Only when it became obvious that the War was a failure did she let her opposition be known. She's not a leader, Dan, she's an unpricipled political hack.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 28, 2008 1:29 PM

Geez, I'm an Edwards guy and no HRC fan, but the Hillary hatin' here and elsewhere is something to see. The idea that Hillary is dramatically more of an "unprincipled hack" than John Kerrey or pretty much any political figure for the Dems over the last 20 years is kinda extreme. She's a generally progressive pol who's not aggressive enough for me on economics and too hawkish on Iran and Iraq. That said, she ain't the Antichrist, and I just wish we'd tone it down a little when we're supporting our candidates.

Posted by scott | January 28, 2008 1:35 PM

John Kerry's record is MUCH more progressive than Hillary Clinton's and certainly Bill Clinton's.

Posted by recently a teen | January 28, 2008 2:00 PM

The political reporter script seems to be leaning - again - in the direction of how successful Iraq has been. And that will lead to much fluffery about Truman democrats. In fact, in the suck up countdown to President Bad's 'possible' last state of the union address (Michael Abramowitz, the Post's supremely clueless political reporter, let the possible slip there, like a gentle sigh - oh, that Mr. Mission Accomplished were only running for a triumphant third term!), the Truman war thing has been hauled out of Peter Beinart's garage and given a few more spins.

Funnily enough, what isn't remembered about the unpopularity of Harry Truman's war is that the populace wanted it pursued more aggressively or not at all. That was the deal with the popularity of McArthur. Whereas, of course, the unpopularity of the Iraq war has not been about Bush not bombing Iran - quite the contrary. People are opposed to the very idea at the core of the war - that we had an interest in overturning Saddam Hussein by pre-emptively declaring war on Iraq. I doubt anyone would have had a problem with re-engineering the sanctions, strengthening the Kurds, to drive Saddam H. from power. And though the right would have had a fit if we had recognized Iran and opened up full relations with that country in 2002 - the necessary move if we were really going to remove Saddam from power without invading - that would soon have passed.

The ghastly D.C. bubble will, though, make its last charge on behalf of the Iraq war in the next couple of weeks, featuring some nice adoring coverage of Bush, given that he is into his last hurrah. And he is enormously popular among that set - I'd imagine it is the very inverse of the Gallup poll numbers. The opeders on the Post, the political reporters, the CNN gang - if they opened their hearts, they'd probably rate Bush as good to excellent by about 60 percent. About 30 percent more than they'd rate that terrible Clinton. So we should be in for some interesting tongue bathing.

Posted by roger | January 28, 2008 2:06 PM

"but lets just hope that once the general arrives McCain gets exposed as the crazy old man he is."

McCain --'36
HRC --'47
Obama --'61

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 2:13 PM

It's not Hillary's votes after the War that we have a problem with, it's her vote to go to war in the first place. What part of this are you incapable of understanding?

Well, you "we" need to get your story straight, because it keeps changing. One minute, you're telling us that the problem with Hillary is that she voted to go to war in the first place. The next, it's not the vote itself, but her "refusal to admit" that that vote was a "mistake" (unlike the saintly John Edwards, who voted the same way.) The next, it's her subsequent votes in support of continued funding and operations. Or her lack of a clear plan and timetable for withdrawing the troops. Or something. There's no consistent, serious attempt to explain why Hillary's position on Iraq is clearly inferior to Obama's, just whatever comes to mind to suit the needs of the moment.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 2:16 PM

"And since they've BOTH been so mushy about future Iraq policy and missions tea leaf reading seems fairly pointless anyway."

"Past performance may not perfectly predict future performance, but it is what we usually use. And HRC voted for the war."

Yeah, except he wasn't there to vote -- if his voting record on the war has been identical to Hillary's on all substantive issues, it seems a reach to believe he would have gone against the grain on the initial vote. If his IW voting record was comparable to, say, Feingold's, then I'd be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 28, 2008 2:19 PM

"In fact, in the suck up countdown to President Bad's 'possible' last state of the union address"

Bush has the option to give another SOTU before he leaves office in January of 2009. Not a 3rd term.

Pretty much nobody thinks Bush is a good president at this point. None of the people I know who ardently supported him even want to talk about him now. None of the GOP candidates are embracing him. It would be nice if the press would point out that they are all running the exact same platform as him.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 2:20 PM

You're a moron. We're all aware of that fact. It's not Hillary's votes after the War that we have a problem with, it's her vote to go to war in the first place. What part of this are you incapable of understanding? And given her initial support for the War, how is she going to explain her newfound opposition?

This is the kind of ill-informed vitriol that proves my point -- if poor voting choices makes one an 'unprincipled hack,' what of Obama being on the wrong side of numerous votes since his election? I fail to see how he's any less weak-willed, as his votes since have implied that a) he supports the war, or b) "he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of a potentially winning political issue." Hell, at least the original vote was clouded by questionable intelligence -- but since the facts have come to light, their voting records have been virtually identical, which does little to validate your point.

Anyway, you can't use the initial vote to compare the two, since Obama wasn't there...as such, you can't give the man credit for making the right decision, since he made no decision. According to your logic, I'd be teh gr8test Prez candidate ever, considering that I've never been on the wrong side of bad legislation. That's right, I never voted for Prohibition! Or the DOMA! My liberal cred is unassailable!

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 28, 2008 2:44 PM

Well, you "we" need to get your story straight, because it keeps changing. One minute, you're telling us that the problem with Hillary is that she voted to go to war in the first place. The next, it's not the vote itself, but her "refusal to admit" that that vote was a "mistake" (unlike the saintly John Edwards, who voted the same way.) The next, it's her subsequent votes in support of continued funding and operations. Or her lack of a clear plan and timetable for withdrawing the troops. Or something. There's no consistent, serious attempt to explain why Hillary's position on Iraq is clearly inferior to Obama's, just whatever comes to mind to suit the needs of the moment.

**********

Mixner, I think you are badly misrepresenting some things I said (in response to someone else).

I blame Hillary for authorizing the war, which was an act of political cowardice. And I blame Hillary for (still) failing to see that she made a mistake, unlike say John Edwards, who at least realizes he f'ed up.

I don't blame Hillary for her continued votes to fund the war. I can get behind the argument that, given our troops are over there now, it is irresponsible to refuse to fund the operation and leave them in limbo.

So the differences between Hillary and Obama:

1. She supported the war from the beginning; he didn't.
2. She is promising significant troops in Iraq at the end of her second term; Barrack is calling to pull most to all out within 18 months.

And given Hillary's history of equivocating and doing whatever is politically convenient at the time, I don't have a lot of faith she'll take any steps toward ending the war because she's now wed to it.

Hope you understand now.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 28, 2008 2:51 PM

'Yeah, except he wasn't there to vote -- if his voting record on the war has been identical to Hillary's on all substantive issues, it seems a reach to believe he would have gone against the grain on the initial vote'

You're the one reaching here.

You can easily destroy any Senator using this amazing tactic of ascribing votes that they never made that went down before they were in the Senate that directly contradict what they were actually saying about that issue at the time.

And what he was saying at the time was very much "against the grain." HRC was repeatedly claiming that Saddam had intimate operational ties to al-Qaeda and was producing and hiding massive stockpiles of WMDs, including a nuclear program.

"There's no consistent, serious attempt to explain why Hillary's position on Iraq is clearly inferior to Obama's, just whatever comes to mind to suit the needs of the moment."

False. The AUMF was opposed by Obama, and enthusiastically endorsed by HRC, who publicaly agreed with every single WMD talking point that Cheney did.

And no, you don't get to argue that Obama would have voted the exact opposite of what he was saying. I can play that game against any Senator and make them look bad.

And I agree with the appropriations votes. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to cut off funding 2 years after the fact when other DLC morons already gave President Stupid carte blanche to invade a country. Closing the barn door after you already let the horse out doesn't accomplish much.

I remember the dark days of 2002. Obama display sound judgement back when it actually meant something. HRC tried to scare me with talk of al-Qaeda getting nuclear weapons.

I tend to remember things like that.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 2:56 PM

"agreed with every single WMD talking point that Cheney did."

Correction: she did have the decency to point out that Saddam didn't plan 9/11.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 3:03 PM

False. The AUMF was opposed by Obama,

Obama was not in the Senate at that time and has said that he might have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if he had been a Senator and had access to classified intelligence reports. As others have pointed out, since Obama became a Senator his voting record on bills relating to Iraq has been virtually identical to Hillary's. And Obama's "plan" for ending the war, as stated on his web site, is only slightly less vague than Hillary's.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 3:03 PM

"has said that he might have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if he had been a Senator and had access to classified intelligence reports."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

The only time he said he might have voted for it was when Russert was trying to get him to call Kerry-Edwards stupid in 2004.

"As others have pointed out, since Obama became a Senator his voting record on bills relating to Iraq has been virtually identical to Hillary's."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

Keeping the door closed before the horse left the barn might have accomplished something. Closing the door after the fact doesn't do jack squat, and he said so at the time.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 3:24 PM

"has said that he might have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if he had been a Senator and had access to classified intelligence reports."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

The only time he said he might have voted for it was when Russert was trying to get him to call Kerry-Edwards stupid in 2004.

"As others have pointed out, since Obama became a Senator his voting record on bills relating to Iraq has been virtually identical to Hillary's."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

Keeping the door closed before the horse left the barn might have accomplished something. Closing the door after the fact doesn't do jack squat, and he said so at the time.

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 3:25 PM

(sorry for the double post, button was hanging on me)

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 3:27 PM

And I agree with the appropriations votes. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to cut off funding 2 years after the fact when other DLC morons already gave President Stupid carte blanche to invade a country. Closing the barn door after you already let the horse out doesn't accomplish much.

Our Founding Fathers thought otherwise. Also, I'm not "ascribing votes" to Obama, just pointing out that its absurd to give him credit for not voting in the wrong way, as that choice was not his to make. While not nearly as egregious as the '35 yrs of exp' claim trotted out by HRC, its rather disingenuous to repeatedly mention not having voted for the war, which leads an uninformed electorate to believe he voted against the war.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 28, 2008 3:29 PM

"The only time he said he might have voted for it was when Russert was trying to get him to call Kerry-Edwards stupid in 2004."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN30M6StFfk&feature=related

Posted by Chris | January 28, 2008 3:29 PM

And what he was saying at the time was very much "against the grain."

Really...what exactly was the good state senator saying at the time? If you're referring to his equivocation at the DNC, well, Bush's cover had already been blown, and I'm sure a great deal of senators were second-guessing their actual votes by that time, as opposed to the ephemeral one Obama so slyly promotes nowadays...

HRC was repeatedly claiming that Saddam had intimate operational ties to al-Qaeda and was producing and hiding massive stockpiles of WMDs, including a nuclear program.

Which is what they were being told at the time. Why did every Dem understand this point during Kerry/Bush, but is seemingly unable to process it during this primary? Obama fever burns a bright ochre of naivete, eh?

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 28, 2008 3:40 PM

The only time he said he might have voted for it was when Russert was trying to get him to call Kerry-Edwards stupid in 2004.

The Boston Globe contradicts this claim. It says that Obama has "often" said he might have voted for it if he had had access to Senate intelligence reports at the time. But how many times does he have to say it, anyway?

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 4:29 PM

"This is the kind of ill-informed vitriol that proves my point -- if poor voting choices makes one an 'unprincipled hack,' what of Obama being on the wrong side of numerous votes since his election?"

And which ones would those be, my well-informed friend?

"I fail to see how he's any less weak-willed, as his votes since have implied that a) he supports the war,..."

Voting to continue funding the War when the President refuses to compromise and one's party lacks sufficient support in Congress to force his hand does not indicate support for the War.

"...or b) "he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of a potentially winning political issue."

The verdict is already in on Iraq, Quaker. One candidate went with pro-War public opinion at the time, the other stood against it. Both candidates now reflect the public consensus.

"Hell, at least the original vote was clouded by questionable intelligence -- but since the facts have come to light, their voting records have been virtually identical, which does little to validate your point."

Questionable intelligence? You're right, the intelligence was more than questionable, which is why War should never have been authorized. Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who actually understood the gravity of the decision to go to War and actually read the entire NIE credited it with pursuading him to vote 'no.' Hillary Clinton couldn't even be bothered to read the NIE. Real serious on national security, isn't she?

"Anyway, you can't use the initial vote to compare the two, since Obama wasn't there...as such, you can't give the man credit for making the right decision, since he made no decision."

You well-informed Clinton voters (demographic data be damned) have got to come up with some better arguments. VOCAL AND PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE WAR COUNTS AS OPPOSING THE WAR!!! Duh, how do we know MLK supported the Civil Rights Act!?!? Duh, he didn't vote on it!!! Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid.

"According to your logic, I'd be teh gr8test Prez candidate ever, considering that I've never been on the wrong side of bad legislation. That's right, I never voted for Prohibition! Or the DOMA! My liberal cred is unassailable!"

The obvious difference is that no one knows who the hell you are and you don't have a public record. Barack Obama does, and he vocally expressed his opposition to the War in 2002.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 28, 2008 4:32 PM

I'll clear this up for you:

1) the problem with Hillary is that she voted to go to war in the first place.

and

2) her "refusal to admit" that that vote was a "mistake"

and

3) next, it's her subsequent votes in support of continued funding and operations.

and

4) her lack of a clear plan and timetable for withdrawing the troops.

Better?

Posted by jim | January 28, 2008 4:36 PM

Mixner: "The Boston Globe contradicts this claim. It says that Obama has "often" said he might have voted for it if he had had access to Senate intelligence reports at the time. But how many times does he have to say it, anyway?"

Here's the actual quote:

"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."

From his vantage point, the case was not made. And we know that the media coverage reflected far more certainty than the actual intelligence reports (Bob Graham voted against the War because he actually read the NIE, unlike Hillary Clinton), so it's more than reasonable to assume that he would've vote against it. Obama's certainly playing Devil's advocate in this quote, but that reflects his honesty. Afterall, what was to be gained from revising one's ant-War position in 2004? Nothing.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 28, 2008 4:41 PM

By the way, regarding Hillary's "well, we we're all fooled by the intel (that I didn't read)" defense...

Upon examining the record, I find that the following 23 senators voted AGAINST the Iraq war authorization:

NAYs ---23

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

I guess those senators had superhuman powers to see through the BS. Funny, Clinton's name isn't on that list. How was she "misled" while they weren't?

Posted by jim | January 28, 2008 4:49 PM

First of all, never said I was a Clinton supporter -- however, I do note that many of Obama's most vociferous advocates are the same sort of 'zeal of the converted' types who turned against the war later than they'd like to admit, and subsequently deride even marginal success. Ironically, they tend to take any legitimate criticism of their candidate as an attack from the 'enemy.' You won't be fooled again!

Voting to continue funding the War when the President refuses to compromise and one's party lacks sufficient support in Congress to force his hand does not indicate support for the War.

Really? Well it certainly doesn't burnish Obama's steely anti-war cred either, does it? Also, not all of those post-AUMF votes were fiscal, such as both of them voting to kill McConnell's withdrawal plan.

The obvious difference is that no one knows who the hell you are and you don't have a public record. Barack Obama does, and he vocally expressed his opposition to the War in 2002.

I'd love to hear that soundbite, rather than hear 2004-2008 Obama claiming he was against the war when the entire country's momentum said otherwise. I've nothing against him, so I'd rather be proved wrong -- but as of now, I've heard nothing but complaints that 'reading the tea leaves' is only apropos if it comes up Barack.

As for Obama claiming 'the case was not made,' well that's obvious once one steps out of the '02 Beltway mindset. However, he has shown himself to readily fall into line while in the Senate, so to be so sure he would have been one of the 23 nays requires a leap I'm not willing to take.

Duh, how do we know MLK supported the Civil Rights Act!?!? Duh, he didn't vote on it!!! Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid.

No, but I also don't recall King campaigning on the idea that he didn't vote for Plessy v. Ferguson, either.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 28, 2008 5:20 PM

Err, that should read 'didn't vote for Jim Crow laws.' Beat ya to it, BO fanboys.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | January 28, 2008 5:30 PM

From his vantage point, the case was not made. And we know that the media coverage reflected far more certainty than the actual intelligence reports (Bob Graham voted against the War because he actually read the NIE, unlike Hillary Clinton), so it's more than reasonable to assume that he would've vote against it.

No, it's not reasonable to "assume" anything. Obama himself says that he DOES NOT KNOW how he would have voted.

Posted by Mixner | January 28, 2008 5:38 PM

however, I do note that many of Obama's most vociferous advocates are the same sort of 'zeal of the converted' types who turned against the war later than they'd like to admit, and subsequently deride even marginal success.

Uh huh.

As for Obama claiming 'the case was not made,' well that's obvious once one steps out of the '02 Beltway mindset.

This is pretty tranparent. "Everyone, just everyone, supported the war back in '02. So, of course, Hillary did, too. Hindsight is 20/20. etc." The only problem with this ass-covering is that it is a fairy tale, if I can use that phrase.

23 senators and 133 House members voted against the Iraq War Resolution. And since you are fond of using anecdotes about the people you know as evidence, most of the people I know were completely against the war before it ever started.

Posted by jim | January 28, 2008 5:40 PM

I just want to point out how odd the Clinton defense here is: "Obama is just as spineless and crappy as I am." This is the entire theme of the Clinton campaign. It apparently works on some people, but it seems like an odd argument to make.

Posted by jim | January 28, 2008 5:45 PM

Quaker: "Really? Well it certainly doesn't burnish Obama's steely anti-war cred either, does it?"

After the War had already been waged, what choice did he have? I'd really like for you to tell me.

Quaker: "Also, not all of those post-AUMF votes were fiscal, such as both of them voting to kill McConnell's withdrawal plan."

Mitch McConnell had a withdrawl plan, eh? You'll have to educate me on this.

Quaker: "I'd love to hear that soundbite, rather than hear 2004-2008 Obama claiming he was against the war when the entire country's momentum said otherwise."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 28, 2008 7:11 PM

Mixner: "No, it's not reasonable to "assume" anything. Obama himself says that he DOES NOT KNOW how he would have voted."

Are you suggesting, Mixner, that Obama would have been persuaded by the NIE given the fact that it was much weaker than the public evidence put forth by the Administration that Obama didn't find convincing? So, Obama wasn't fooled by the vastly more convincing media account, but he wouldn've been fooled by the raw intelligence? That's not a very persuasive case you're making.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 28, 2008 7:18 PM

Jim,

It's nice of you to post that list of the Senators who voted against the War. I think anytime Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, Wellstone, Wyden, Boxer, Levin, Durbin, and Byrd all vote against something, it's pretty obvious what the correct position is.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 28, 2008 7:21 PM

Mixner's method of argument is to pick some little detail - after his main argument has been crushed to little pieces - and push that one little detail to the exclusion of everything else that's relevant. Thus the fact the Obama said he didn't know whether he have voted against Iraq even though the case was not made overwhelms the second half of the sentence that THE CASE WAS NOT MADE.

At best, you can say Obama is an idiot for saying he wouldn't vote no on the war given that the case was not made. But, no, Mixner just grabs the first half of the sentence and hangs on for dear life.

"You've never articulated, what exactly you think would be different in foreign policy under Clinton vs Obama going forward."

The problem for Matt is that, GOING FORWARD, there IS NO difference between Obama and Clinton.

1) Both of them have toadied to AIPAC by saying Iran is a threat and neither of them have any clue about how their alleged "diplomacy" will be a complete waste of time since their goals are wrong to begin with.

2) Both of them have demonstrated total ignorance of Pakistan and what is feasible there.

3) Neither of them have demonstrated any conception of how to deal with ME terrorism except in terms of sanctions and more war or various bandaid approaches.

4) And neither of them have a clue about Israel and the Palestinian situation - again, thanks to being AIPAC toadies - as demonstrated by Obama's letter to the US UN Ambassador requesting that the Qassem rockets be denounced along with the Gaza blockade.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 29, 2008 12:38 AM