Hillary Clinton once again tries to pretend that she was more against the Iraq War than Obama was. It turns out that this is true if you ignore the events of 2002, and those of 2003, and those of 2004 and then misportray the events of 2005.
« Expiring Authority | Main | Charlton Heston »
Please Stop
06 Apr 2008 12:36 pm
Comments (24)
At this rate she should be more authentically black than him by mid-May.
So, Matt, are you still convinced it doesn't matter if you all in the media let Clinton get away with her "fibs"?
I'm pretty sure just "making shit up" is the HRC campaign strategy right about now. It seems to have about as good a chance as anything else.
The JedReport has an interesting note: the last time she gave her woman-and-baby-dying-for-want-of-$100 anecdote, the NYTimes had very likely alerted them that the story was false. (The story went up 2 h after her speech started.) Just like the Tuzla tale got repeated several times after Sinbad said it was false, and thus any smart people in her campaign would have fact-checked it. (To use the story off the cuff would be okay. Repeating it many times in prepared remarks without checking if it's true is not. Continuing after being informed it's false deserves widespread censure.)
The pattern of outright lying, being called out, continuing to lie, and crying "meanies!" when the press starts to really hammer is getting ridiculous. And the press needs to hammer--this backing down when she says "oh, that didn't happen" even when they have tape that it did is not what the constitution has them there for.
Silly though this line of reasoning is on the part of Clinton, Obama hasn't exactly been in the vanguard of ny effort to cut funds, force withdrawal, grill Petraeus etc. in his appearances.
It is a valid point that he has been more 'mainstream' as far as Senate Democrats go, since his entrance in the Senate.
This is not to denigrate his stand in 2002, which is to be lauded, but what ya done since 2005,bub?
It's one thing for Stephen Colbert to claim that, if you start counting from the hour Clinton first criticized the war, she criticized the war first. It's completely different when the candidate herself does it.
I seem to remember Obama doing pretty well at grilling Petraeus, but maybe it's just me:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/09/obama_confronts_petraeus_and_crocker.php
If any of thoseefforts to end the war had worked, then we'd have a legit argument about Obama not doing enough. But the bottom line is that the war was going to continue as long as Bush was President and everyone knew that.
It is a valid point that he has been more 'mainstream' as far as Senate Democrats go, since his entrance in the Senate.-twit
But that's not the point Hillary is making. If it is, she's doing an incredibly poor job of it.
I think the bus in the ditch analogy Obama has used is also pretty damn effective against this line of argument. It's a heck of a lot harder to get out once you're in. That's why you need to change the mindset of what got us into the clusterfuck in the first place.
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'when' is.
twit,
Well, among other things Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. Unfortunately, the Senate didn't pass it.
What that shows is that a single Senator can't unilaterally stop a war, which is kinda obvious anyway. But if you want to get a sense of what Obama thinks the Senate should have been doing, that Act is a pretty good guide.
Call the waaaaaaaaaaahmbulance. Poor Obama would never continue to lie even after being called on the lie.
Oh, right. Everybody knows the "100 years" thing is a flat out lie, but Obama repeats it anyway.
Let's face it, Obama is a slimebucket smear artist, who will continue to lie even though he knows he's lying and has been repeatedly told he's lying. A flat out liar, who smears people for a living.
Oh, right. Everybody knows the "100 years" thing is a flat out lie, but Obama repeats it anyway.
Al,
You rightwingers never cease to amaze me! McCain did actually say that so please stop your lying.
Kind of like Obama pretending his healthcare plan is universal coverage.
Obama took the 2002 speech off his website when the war started because "the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips.”
So in 2003 his anti-war stance was less important then fresh news clips but four years later it is the reason he should be president.
Obama was hedging on the war six months after his speech. The one thing Obama has going for him at this point is that he wasn't in the Senate in 2002.
Exelon and nuclear regulation, candidate survey, dishonest mailers, not knowing Rezko was under investigation, etc etc. Not exactly sniper fire but not a paragon of truth either.
@similar,
Mind if I address your comments point by point?
"Kind of like Obama pretending his healthcare plan is universal coverage."
Health care for everyone who wants it is universal coverage enough. Mandates make folks squeamish, which makes health care harder to pass. That's one of the reasons Hillarycare failed the first time around.
"Obama took the 2002 speech off his website when the war started because "the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips.”"
Well, yes, if I may use the anaology, once the bus seems to be heading for the ditch, it is hardly helpful to keep saying "you shouldn't have turned back there." You have to keep moving forward. For my part, I also opposed this war from the beginning, and I remember how angry I was at Hillary for not having the courage to stand up for W (or the foresight to know that she should). I was as anti-war as they came. But once the war started, I was just hoping that it would turn out well, and was long opposed to withdrawing immediately on the Pottery Barn theory. I support Obama because his thinking seemed to be precisely the same. Fight like hell to stop the war, but once it starts, the game is entirely different.
"Obama was hedging on the war six months after his speech. The one thing Obama has going for him at this point is that he wasn't in the Senate in 2002."
Again, not hedging, see above. Further, there is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Obama would have voted against the war if he had been in the senate. Durbin didn't seem to have any problem voting against the war, and Obama actually launched his national political career on that speech. He was the underdog in the Illinois Democratic Senate primary race. He won in no small part because that speech went viral, and got him the support of educated progressives who were mad as hell about the war.
"Exelon and nuclear regulation, candidate survey, dishonest mailers, not knowing Rezko was under investigation, etc etc. Not exactly sniper fire but not a paragon of truth either."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama launched a political career in Chicago. If the WORST they have on him is Rezko, the man is a saint.
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-clinton-embellishes.html
"Sunday, April 06, 2008
Why Clinton Embellishes
We have three examples from recent days of Clinton's modifications of the truth.
Why do they matter? One might say that many politicians are prone to factual distortions.
What is of particular importance is not only that Clinton distorts the truth, but when she does--and why.
Clinton, as many who know her well and have studied her life closely have indicated, from Dee Dee Myers to Carl Bernstein, has a fundamental difficulty in revealing herself. She is seen by even those who are closest to her as perpetually standing behind a guise, ever prepared for the attack, a characteristic regarded as at times poignant, and at other times Nixonian in its manifestations.
We know from biographies of Clinton, including Bernstein's astute and perceptive "A Woman in Charge" that Clinton's suffered from a harsh and judgmental father, and that this relationship had a deep and significant shaping influence.
On the one hand, it prepared her (indeed, over-prepared her) for quick response, for an all-too-ready response to attack. Yet it also created, beneath the increasingly agile guises and forms of protection, a more fundamental experience of self--that despite the greatest efforts, the most agile displays, of never being quite good enough to measure up to his judgment.
This left her, as it leaves many in such circumstances, with a rueful admiration of and attachment to a seeming strength and sureness that she could never have; and underneath the formidably developed masks of intellect and defensive pretense, a fundamental fear of, in her true self, uncovered, falling short. Many have noted this quality in Clinton, and have drawn it back to this familial source.
As a consequence, beneath the feigned hardness, the feigned casualness, and beneath the years of powerfully developed yet defensively driven skills, there is a tragic, deep and, for a President, highly consequential flaw--one that is most likely to be relevant in those "3 a.m. moments" that she has so readily and repeatedly invoked.
One cannot respond with balance and wisdom from a guise. One's own judgment is critically affected by what one feels they must display (and truly cannot), and by what they believe that they must hide.
From such a position, the "other"--be it a colleague, opponent, or one's view of the "public" at large, is critically distorted. The other is not regarded as a fellow equal, with whom we are shouldering difficult tasks together, in order to determine a better future, but a threatening judge, to be managed and feared; whose response must be calculated to be met with the proper guise--one which must be quickly changed--or covered--if there is a danger that, beneath the mask, one will be found out.
What Clinton shares with other talented, tragic figures is a mistrust of humanity's judgment, and, as a result, an inability to meet them with the full, uncovered gaze of a developed and accepted self. The truth, within such an uncertain experience of self and the judgment of others, is often felt to be not enough.
This is what Obama, in this revolutionary moment, to a greater extent, has. This is what people are connecting with. And, in 3 a.m. moments, this is what we need.
Cite:
Head of State
headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-clinton-embellishes.html
There's a lot Clinton can't afford to reveal and be judged on. It's not just her typical response to people - it's the facts of the situations.
Such as her connections with a certain Saudi "personal assistant".
Such as her membership in a certain powerful right wing Christian political organization with connections to dictators and death squad commanders all over the world.
This woman is more dangerous for this country than Bill Clinton ever was. Not more so than McCain, of course, but still dangerous. If elected, she will damage this country internationally and economically.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama launched a political career in Chicago. If the WORST they have on him is Rezko, the man is a saint.
Posted by Shochu John | April 6, 2008 5:39 PM"
Clinton supporters just show how out of touch they are with Rezko. The Clintons are notoriously corrupt, even if the Whitewater smears weren't true (which they likely weren't). However, the deal that Bill did over in Kazakhstan recently was a lot worse than anything Obama did with Rezko. Do people really think he would have gotten black support in Chicago against other black candidates (including a popular former Panther) if he really was deeply in bed with someone like Rezko? Think of it this way, would anyone take Bill seriously if he started going after McCain for his marital improprieties during his first marriage? Of course not. Then why would anyone take seriously anything the Clintons say about corruption?
The relevant question is how would Obama's and Clinton's Iraq policy differ as President next year.
I believe Hillary would conduct a measured withdrawal while Obama would pull out immediately with little regard to the situation on the ground. I want us out but I don't want Iraq to fall into chaos. I think Hillary would do a better job managing the withdrawal.
[]decided-- Obama's repeatedly said, "we should be as careful pulling out as we were careless going in." Hillary has never competently managed anything, and evidently lacks basic honesty or connection with reality. Given her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, and her steadfast refusal to take any political risk or do anything that might upset the bipartisan war caucus, I suspect she'd not do any kind of withdrawal. Of course, you have to win the nomination of your party to be president, and she didn't win it, so this is like debating the hypothetical Mo Udall Presidency. Except that Udall was awesome.
Mandates are not universal, since mandates are only meaningful if individuals wouldn't purchase the insurance. Since people are not actively avoiding health insurance, they just can't afford it, mandates are horribly regressive. Indeed, it's why the *insurance companies* want mandates as part of any movement to community rating. Not to mention, probably unconstitutional. Do we define universality in terms of process or outcomes? We have universal sufferage, even if people don't always vote. (To build on Sochu's comments a bit.)
As for the 2002 speech -- which I saw in person and had Hillary given that speech she'd be the nominee already -- my understanding is he took it off his website because parts of it could be read as a criticism of John Kerry's position when he was the nominee. Not that that's a terribly good reason, but the fact is that he stood up when it mattered, and Hillary Clinton's floor speech pro war was actually to the *right* of the position taken by Bush. (She asserted a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, for instance. To say nothing of the unbearable smugness she slathered on.)
So, yes, not only in Hillary Clinton a "congenital liar" and oh do I regret being mad at Safire, although he jumped the gun on that one, but she is clearly a fool. The same mental acuity that brought you a failed bar exam here leads the same person being criticized left and right for lying about stuff, to lie about something when everyone knows she's lying. This is indeed, her deepest darkest secret. For all of the right wing's carrying on back in the 90s, they missed this one: HIllary Clinton is a total fucking moron. It's a wonder she can dress herself. (Bad example.)
I wouldn't go so far to say she's a fucking moron, but she does remind me of the stereotype of the lefty ivory tower policy wonk / professor: has all of this theoretical knowledge (especially on health care and microinitiatives) but no idea how to apply it in the real world. She might have made a decent HHS Secretary (though I'm starting to doubt that), but she doesn't seem to know what to do with political power and how to influence people.
She's not a moron, but her approach is sorely flawed.
I have an admittedly weak theory that "triangulation" - the Dick Morris / Bill Clinton strategy - only "works" in the way that Bill Clinton used it. Bill Clinton was, of course, a governor first and then President. Between those two he never held elected office.
My theory is that triangulation works only when the issues of the day are favorable to such a strategy (that is, when the electorate isn't bitterly divided like it is now), and when you don't have a national political experience to mar your record with such an approach. It worked for Bill Clinton because 1992 presented a favorable arena for it: he had Perot stealing votes from Bush, the incumbent had the quintessential "gotcha" burden (no tax raises), and there wasn't an extremely divisive issue like Iraq looming over everyone. It was the best environment you could imagine to try to implement triangulation.
Her Senate seat gave her a lot of her experience, and opportunity to exercise triangulation at a national level (really the only level at which it matters). Hillary's problem is that her ultimate exercise in triangulation - her vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq - has become the defining issue of this election. But her fence-straddling has forever tied her hands. Her chances to get nominated were anchored to her last name, and her chance at winning the general election was based on the fact that she was a Democrat and people were tired of Republicans. Now some guy came on the scene who was against the war from the get-go, so he has more street-cred that her, and it turns out he strikes a chord with the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" that was so alienated by the triangulation strategy (which split 20 years of Republican hold of the White House) in the first place.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that triangulation is only viable over a short period of time, as it is inherently flawed since the electorate swings back and forth as parties get too carried away with their agendas. You tie yourself to both parties and try to have it both way, but over a long enough period of time, you get associated with the flaws of whichever party isn't in favor. This is why if you're going to employ this strategy, you need to swing for the fences with it: go for the presidency at a time when the electorate isn't bitterly divided.
Using it in the Senate in preparation for a run at the Presidency only gives your opponents on both sides of the aisle a reservoir of mistakes on your behalf that they can point to when the electorate swings one way or the other. If you sit in the middle long enough, someone more (but safely) liberal or conservative than you is going to have more credibility with the electorate than you do.
Ugh, I'm tired. I said Between those two he never held elected office. when I should have said Between those two he never held a national office.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that Bill Clinton did not overtly run as a triangulator in 1992. Rather, he was promising things like universal health care, gays serving openly in the military, and so on. It wasn't until after the 1994 midterms that he brought back Morris and started the overt triangulation phase of his Presidency. And for various reasons, I don't think an incumbent President running for re-election serves as a good general test for a strategy--if nothing else, such a person tends to automatically get the support of most of their own Party, which is precisely the group which you are at risk of losing when you triangulate.
Comments closed April 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Hey, shit like this works for Saint McCain (not about Iraq -- well, actually, the media knows what is really in his heart, which just happens to match what is in their heart!).
Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 6, 2008 12:43 PM