Obama's Latest Criticism of Hillary Over Kyl- Lieberman Amendment

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:31:44 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Barack Obama has an oped today criticizing Hillary Clinton for her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment which designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.

Obama today also penned an op-ed in The Manchester Union-Leader warning that Congress -- including, notably, rival Hillary Clinton -- has given Bush the pretense to invade Iran by approving a recent Senate amendment. "When you give this president a blank check, you can't be surprised when he cashes it," Obama writes. "I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment."

But Obama didn't vote against the Amendment, which was a non-binding resolution. He didn't show for the vote. His supporter, Sen. Dick Durbin, voted for the Amendment also. (Roll call vote here.)

If Obama so strongly opposed the Amendment, why didn't he show up, argue against it and cast a "no" vote, instead of staying on the campaign trail?

More....

The version of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that passed was the weakened one. While I wouldn't have supported it, I don't think it's a sign Hillary favors war with Iran. I take it as an indication of her belief that by designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, she believes economic sanctions are a preferable alternative and a means to avoid a military confrontation.

Obama's beginning to use his "anti-war" stance much the same way Rudy is playing the 9/11 card. Enough already. If I were advising Obama, I'd tell him to focus on convincing the American people he's experienced enough for the job rather than going negative. He's gotten where he is by convincing us he's a person of high moral principle. I accept that and believe it. He should continue to take the high road.

< CNN Takes Dictation From GOP | Nacchio: Did U.S. Retaliate Because Qwest Refused to Comply With NSA Surveillance? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Latest Criticism of Hillary Over Kyl- Lieberman Amendment | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

He was in New Hampshire when the vote (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Geekesque on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:10:36 PM EST

was brought to the floor.

The day before, Harry Reid took the vote off the table and put it off indefinitely.

Obama left that night for New Hampshire.

Then Harry Reid put the vote up.

Any how, he's not going to refrain from offering substantive criticism of Senator Clinton. This is an election, after all.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that (none / 0) (#3)
by tommyg on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:33:03 PM EST

I can understand why he didn't make the vote, but I do still think he shouldn't be criticizing Hillary if he didn't cast a vote, even if he does have a valid excuse. It just opens him up to attacks and doesn't gain him much.


: It's an area of vulnerability for Senator Clinton. (none / 0) (#4)
by Geekesque on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:59:27 PM EST

She makes very few mistakes, in terms of political campaigns, so rival campaigns have to pounce.
This was a dreadful mistake on her part.

The post errs in two ways, I think (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Daniel Millstone on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:24:29 PM EST

First the Obama criticism is not that Clinton favors war with Iran, but that her vote facilitates yet one more of Mr. Bush's irrational wars. Many of us think that Kyl-Lieberman gives Mr. Bush cover for an Iran attack (Not so much as in its original incarnation, but too much.).

Second, Sen. Obama's absence from the vote is, in my view a red herring. It changes the subject from an actual wrong vote by Sen. Clinton to a snarky sneer at Sen. Obama.

As it happens, I think the Clinton positions on the war in Iraq have improved from appalling to sort of OK. It does seem likely to me that she'll be the Democratic Party candidate -- and if she is, I'll support her. But when she votes for appalling evil resolutions like Kyl-Lieberman, we all need to criticize her for it -- not fudge the way this post does.

: What, you aren't accepting Hillary Clinton's (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:29:52 PM EST

apologia for that vote, i.e., encourages diplomacy?

Also, Durbin's vote is irrelevant. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Geekesque on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:26:50 PM EST

He is not running for President.

It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by tnthorpe on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:59:09 PM EST

that stopping the Iraq war and preventing armed conflict with Iran reflect "substantial moral principle." Criticizing Clinton for her vote isn't a negative gambit in my eyes. Voting for Kyl-Leiberman is ambivalent at best, since while it might be used to push for diplomacy, it can also be used as a cover for war, even with the altered language. Hillary's "I didn't mean it that way" rationale isn't convincing with W in office, to say the least.

Obama doesn't have an "anti-war" stance (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by joejoejoe on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:57:28 PM EST

He opposed the Iraq War from the outset, full stop. No need for the "air quotes". Like an enduring supermajority of Americans, Obama supported the Afghanistan War against Al-Qaeda. So he's not "anti-war".

Sens. Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Edwards all voted for something titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. What part of "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" implies the vote was about inspectors or the UN? Sen. Kerry was wrong as well and HIS vote likely cost him the White House in 2004 and our nation ever more bloodshed and loss.

I don't think supporting the worst foreign policy disaster in a half century is the kind of performance that merits a promotion. When more Democratic voters find out the record, I think they'll agree. To your "enough already" plea, I say "more please".

Obama has to be Obama (none / 0) (#2)
by koshembos on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:28:05 PM EST

Initially, Obama presented himself and it was refreshing and brought with it strong support. But was just the beginning. Later Obama has started to hedge his bats. Tome and again he sounded as a Rockefeller Republican.

Did Jeralyn know? (none / 0) (#5)
by diogenes on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:04:28 PM EST

Did Jeralyn know that Reid had tabled the vote the day before, if that's really true (and Obama had a plausible excuse for not being at the vote) and slimed Obama anyway? I know I'm a bit too inclined to be cynical, so I'll take feedback on this one.

Query: how long does it take to fly from NH to DC (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:28:29 PM EST

Assuming one is near an airport (none / 0) (#10)
by Geekesque on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:33:48 PM EST

in New Hampshire.


: True. Its such a small state on the map. (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:41:02 PM EST

Don't hate the player, hate the game. (none / 0) (#14)
by AshleyA on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:14:32 PM EST

Can you blame him? Even for his high morals and principals, he is a politician. He has to have the initiative to point out flaws of his opponents. Setting high standards for yourself won't get you the votes you need. It is a bit hypocritical to criticize Clinton for her vote when he didn't cast one for himself.But still, you have to take every opportunity you get, as long as it isn't a huge cheap shot.

it's always obama's fault (none / 0) (#15)
by diogenes on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:33:09 PM EST

Hillary votes for the Lieberman bill but the spin is that it's all Obama's fault?