home

Hillary Says Obama Distorted Her Record Today in Denver

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama spoke in Denver today. Here's what he said:

“It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.”

Hillary's refutes him point by point on her website.

This is a dangerous road for Obama. Check out his past support for Rumsfeld and Bush, expressed during the confirmation process of John Ashcroft. He even calls Rumsfeld "not out of the mainstream." (video here)

"The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I dont think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that."

I would say "pot meet kettle" except his statements about Hillary were not true. Hillary has been the most vocal critic of President Bush and his policies among all the Democratic candidates. From the early debates, while the others criticized her because they perceived her to be the frontrunner, she kept her eye on the real enemy: President Bush, his Administration and its failed and misguided policies.

< Murdoch Paper Endorses Obama | Pitching Edwards And His Supporters: Health Care Coverage >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Says Obama Distorted Her Record Today in Denver | 225 comments (225 topical)
    gonna be a fun debate (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:12:12 PM EST
    Thursday.

    only if I have enough Nito available :-) (none / 0) (#22)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    UPPS NITRO ( Correction) (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:37:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    say whaaat? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    I think there will be enough fireworks.  

    [ Parent ]
    LOL Nitro for my heart silly LOL (none / 0) (#39)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:54:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ooooh! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:03:09 PM EST
    hahahaha.

    maybe you need to give it a pass - watch clips Friday...:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Last time I just joined the live blog here (none / 0) (#61)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:17:37 PM EST
    because my husband lectured me sternly about getting upset...and I didnt because I didnt hear them just the narrative of the blog...so probably that is what I will do this time...:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn and BTD do a great job (none / 0) (#71)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:32:46 PM EST
    I agree.

    [ Parent ]
    lecture (none / 0) (#156)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    I'm glad to hear someone else gets so upset they get a lecture.

    The most upsetting thing is that I read last night that Kennedy's boy is rising in the polls. Hope that's not true.

    I do wonder what is going to happen if Hillary wins the delegates and the D. C. establishment refuses to embrace her.

    I'm so tired of this country that is supposed to be a democracy but the people are shut out of the process. Hillary has won 4 out of 6 primaries and we don't see a word about her in media, unless it's a distortion.

    [ Parent ]

    very good point (none / 0) (#165)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:45:07 AM EST
    and to see this in our country breaks my heart...I was raised to believe in fair election, but I see now that is just a figment of my imagination. I cannot believe in a nomination of Obama until the public is given a fair assessment of what is really happening in the race. So therefore my belief in that nomination has been taken away from me...Sad.

    [ Parent ]
    Shamelessness. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:14:05 PM EST
    is a valuable characteristic in a politician. Bush has it, Romney has it, Edwards has it to some degree.  Now it looks like Obama may as well.

    meh (none / 0) (#57)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:08:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right and this is example (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:35:08 PM EST
    of how no blogs defend Hillary.

    defending hillary (none / 0) (#159)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    This blog and Taylor Marsh are it. I even have started to get e-mails from so-called progressive organizations and they start with some quote from Obama and talk as if he's already the president. I unsubscribed from 3 of them yesterday.

    [ Parent ]
    Who is being "misleading"? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by GV on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:40:01 PM EST
    This is absurd, Jeralyn, and I have a hard time understanding how you can post this.  

    Lets just take a look at what Obama said with respect to one of his points and then compare it to how Hillary responds.  

    Obama said:  "It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq . . . . ."  So, here we have Obama saying that McCain and Hillary both voted for the war in Iraq.  Hillary responds that this is a misleading attack by noting that she and Obama have had similar voting records on Iraq since Obama has been in the Senate.  Uh, objection, non-responsive.  How do you not see that?  How, in your own words, was Obama's statement "not true"?  (And you're attack on Obama for not calling Rumsfeld out of the mainstream in 2001 is completely absurd.)  

    At the end of the day, Hillary's campaign hinges on her alleged experience.  But experience is only a good thing to the extent it helps you make good judgments.  And she made a really, really horrendous judgment call when she voted for this war.  She has never said she regretted it, nor has she come to gripes with the fact that her vote help lead to the deaths of approximately one million people.  

    I'm glad that Hilary is now attacking the Bush administration.  Good for her.  But she didn't when it counted back before this war started.  She has blood on her hands for starting this war, and I think it's sad that so many allegedly progressive people don't seem to care.  

    Barack Obama, every sentence (4.50 / 2) (#36)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM EST
    is "A noun a verb and a old speech".  Doesn't work for me but if you're shallow enough.

    [ Parent ]
    wow (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:42:00 PM EST
    now thats what I call a dud

    [ Parent ]
    speeches (none / 0) (#181)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    Every speech is "hope" "change" "transition" and "The Dream." That's all he's got.

    [ Parent ]
    That's all he's got? (none / 0) (#203)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    Yeah, he didn't vote for the Iraq war. Clinton's got that!

    [ Parent ]
    Does Obama have the same (none / 0) (#48)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    voting record on funding the war as McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    The problem (none / 0) (#174)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    with this argument:

    I'm glad that Hilary is now attacking the Bush administration.  Good for her.  But she didn't when it counted back before this war started.  She has blood on her hands for starting this war, and I think it's sad that so many allegedly progressive people don't seem to care.

    is that it ignores the equivalency of Hillary and Barack since the war began. I don't think Hillary can claim to have a better record than Barack on this. But since Barack is claiming a moral high ground here, he should be able to point to one of the following:

    a) being a leader in the anti-war movement
    b) voting against funding
    or
    c)doing anything at all to show people meaningful action on the issue.

    The mistake that the Barack people make is this: the war is not one wrong. It's a continuing wrong. And his hands are pretty bloody at this point too.

    In sum: Clinton supporters are not claiming that she's BETTER than him on this. They're just saying that he doesn't have the bona fides and hasn't fought the fights that make us believe in his sincerity and strength on the issue.


    [ Parent ]

    Bush's War ... Hillary's War ... Obama's War (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    Are all of the Hillary supporters here satisfied with her war authorization vote in 2002?  I'm not.  Do all the Hillary supporters here accept her silly explanation that it was really only a vote for diplomacy and inspections?  I don't.  If Obama wants to go down in flames taking her to task for that, well ... not so good for the party, and he's shooting himself in the foot, but there's also some truth on his side that Hillary should be ahsamed of but isn't.

    obama hasn't exactly been a (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    leader on getting out of iraq since his time in the senate. in fact hagel shames him.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree 100% (none / 0) (#50)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Funding (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:27:53 PM EST
    is not the same as authorizing, those funding bills had appropriations for armor and such, to vote against them would mean defunding the troops and hoping Bush took them out, and didn't just cut back, on things like armor.

    So the idea that since he wasn't radical and cutting funding doesn't change the fact that he was against it. You can vote to give troops body armor and still be against the war.  

    so this idea that voting for funding means supporting the war is a true distortion.

    [ Parent ]

    But that was not the claim ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:31:51 PM EST
    ... the claim was merely that Obama has not been a leader on getting out of iraq since his time in the senate.  You distorted the claim.

    [ Parent ]
    There was plenty of funding (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by hookfan on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    to provide for troops needs to get them out safely. Stating that troops would have been endangered by defunding is just bunk in my opinion, and has been used as cover by those not wanting to face the wrath of Bush. Does Obama have courage? Why didn't he fight for ending the war rather than just let others carry the water?

    [ Parent ]
    well yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:50:33 PM EST
    there was plenty of funding if he was going to actually withdraw, but i don't think he would have.

    Others carry water, almost every dem even the ones that voted against the war have voted for funding.  I love how you guys like to hold Obama to different standards.

    [ Parent ]

    Other dems (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM EST
    aren't attempting to paint themselves as the antiwar messiah. Obama is attempting to attack Hillary on her voting the same as McCain, when his votes are extremely similar as well. That is hypocrisy and doesn't show well on Obama who is trying to paint himself as being so different.

    [ Parent ]
    "You guys" is rather imprecise ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    ... I'm a Hillary supporter, but I don't lie to myself about her position on the war.

    [ Parent ]
    I accept her postiton (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:57:45 PM EST
    with criticism. Edwards did the same and I accepted his position. What I do not accept is someone who had nothing to risk, claiming the moral high road.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll remember that ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:00:08 AM EST
    ... if Hillary ever tries to claim the moral high ground in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#162)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:42:27 AM EST
    ... but you are simply wrong on the "nothing to risk" narrative.

    As I have said above... Obama's view on the war was very much against the mainstream democrat position.  He very much placed his power, his position, and possibly his political future on the line by speaking our against a very popular war.

    [ Parent ]

    speaking out (none / 0) (#175)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM EST
    yes, it was very strong of Obama to speak out running in such a tight race and having such a hard time defeating Allen Keyes.

    [ Parent ]
    No... (none / 0) (#182)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    ... that is not the point.

    The point is not who he was running against at the time.  The point is that he risked his larger future by speaking against the mainstream democratic opinion on the war in Iraq.

    Again... the war in Iraq was extremely popular, even among democrats, even in the progressive south side of Chicago.  

    Put it this way... if the war had been successful, I am not sure that we would be having this discussion about Obama today.

    [ Parent ]

    What did he risk? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:55:48 PM EST
    Did he risk losing anything? You cannot claim that you are fighting for peace if you don't take a risk. He joined right in. We all did not take a risk. We are to blame. If he is such a leader, why did he not lead the anti war movement?

    [ Parent ]
    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#152)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:29:53 AM EST
    In Obama's defense, he had to be careful about what he said because Allen Keyes would have clobbered him.  He was running a very tight race, you know.  

    [ Parent ]
    About this... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:00 AM EST
    "I love how you guys like to hold Obama to different standards"

    We hold him to a different standard because he holds himself to a different standard. He's trying to convince us that he's something better, not a "business as usual" candidate, but someone offering...change.

    He can't have it both ways. If he wants to say he's all that, then his supporters can't criticize us when we point out that he really isn't.

    [ Parent ]

    My congresswoman votes against (none / 0) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST
    every one, she even voted against Afghanistan.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. I am satisfied with her vote (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    and her explanation.  You think it was silly?  Then what about Biden, Kerry, Daschle and Harkin's votes for the AUMF?  Are they silly too?  Indefensible too?  Edwards vote is now fine because he 'apologized?'

    I think not.

    Various Democratic Senators may well have had varying degrees of enthusiasm in voting for the authorization but they didn't have to...it would pass anyway.  So the explanations of those who did make sense to me.

    As someone with a front-row seat while my boss took some really tough votes, I know it is not easy many times when one doesn't have all the information to be absolutely sure of something...and when one isn't sure how that vote will be used by the executive (president).  Still, if you're there...an ethical and decisive person does the best they can and takes the vote.  They don't 'call in sick' or vote 'present.'

    No one knows how Obama would have voted, including Obama.  He didn't have to face the choice so he was free to give speeches and now say what he would have done.  Easy.  But since then, since election to the senate, taking the hard votes on Iraq...he mirrors Hillary's votes.

    Conclusion?

    Hillary - like Biden, Harkin, Daschle and Kerry - has nothing to be ashamed of and could not know that Bush would pull the inspectors and go to war unnecessarily, precipitously.

    [ Parent ]

    We can guess (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:31:16 AM EST
    how he would vote--not present, which is exactly what he did when they were voting on the Iranian guard thing.  HE DID NOT SHOW UP.  This is exactly what Edwards said: in the big leagues, you have to take a stand.  You have to vote yes or no and go on record.  You cannot just skip it because it's tough.

    [ Parent ]
    So she's no better than Biden ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    ... damning with faint praise.

    I think not.

    I agree.

    Hillary - like Biden, Harkin, Daschle and Kerry - has nothing to be ashamed of and could not know that Bush would pull the inspectors and go to war unnecessarily, precipitously.

    So how quickly and how loudly did Hillary object to Bush pulling the inspectors and going to war unnecessarily, precipitously?

    [ Parent ]

    Can't say...but I know this... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:11:17 AM EST
    9-11 wasn't that far in the rear-view mirror and she, like her senior seatmate, was/is a Senator from New York.

    I tried to put myself in her place in those days...just how goddam sure am I that I'm right?  Pretty sure...but sure enough to take a vote?  Or lead a parade?  Where are my constituents on all this?

    And that is major...her constituents.  Clearly, her reelection was quite remarkable, numberswise.  So there is a lot to think about re that particular vote.  I do not think Biden or Harkin or Daschle or Kerry or Hillary are warmongers...do you?  And I do not think any of them would have invaded Iraq.  Do you?  Or pulled the inspecters out.  Do you?

    These senators did what they did and Bush did what he did.  It's not the same thing.  Anybody who thinks it is has never held office or worked for someone who did.

    Nuance?  Nah...we don't do that in the blogs, I guess.  That's just for real life.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll answer your questions if you answer mine: (none / 0) (#116)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:18:14 AM EST
    So how quickly and how loudly did Hillary object to Bush pulling the inspectors and going to war unnecessarily, precipitously?


    [ Parent ]
    When did Obama (none / 0) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:24:55 AM EST
    lead an anti war rally in the National Mall? When did Obama lead a hunger strike of the inspired? When did Obama even sit outside the White House to condemn the war? What did he do? Pundit and blog?

    [ Parent ]
    Go find an Obama supporter ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    ... and ask those questions.  I'm just trying to be honest about Hillary here.

    [ Parent ]
    I said..."can't say." (none / 0) (#122)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM EST
    In my neck of the woods (and I think you can tell this from the context.."but I know this"), 'can't say' means I don't know.  And I don't really know how to find out to answer your question.  Do you know?  Fill me in...

    ...and I would be pleased to have your answers to my questions, as well.

    Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, missed that (none / 0) (#129)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:09:57 AM EST
    I can't say for sure either but I do not recall anything like that from Hillary at the time.  Point being that most all the Dems ran for political cover at that time IMHO.  If she didn't object to how her vote was used soon thereafter than it's wrong to mispresent her vote.

    You seem to paint a picture that Hillary should have been absolutley sure of her vote against the war or otherwise just go along with it, but that's an abdication of congressional power IMHO.

    I do not think the Dems were warmongers, nor do I think they would have invaded Iraq on their own, but they were mostly afraid to demand more of Bush by way of justification ... and when Bush continued on a precipitous path toward war without finishing inspections or getting another vote from the SC, I do not recall much objection from the Dems.

    Nuance?  I have nothing against nuance, but little patience for misrepresentation.

    [ Parent ]

    I think most of the senate voted (none / 0) (#149)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:07:00 AM EST
    that way because they were lied to about the intelligence...That is the bottom line....Now they know they twisted the facts...who "they" is, who knows, but now we all know that those facts were not accurate...Hard to hold someon+e accountable when that is involved...Now after the fact, when we knew those facts were wrong, that would be when you should start speaking out...however neither Clinton nor Obama did...

    [ Parent ]
    9/11!!! (none / 0) (#164)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:44:33 AM EST
    9-11 wasn't that far in the rear-view mirror and she, like her senior seatmate, was/is a Senator from New York.

    Are you Rudy?

    Come on... don't repeat GOP talking points.  Hillary knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  She very much could have said, "9/11 was an awful and evil thing, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."

    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:55:10 PM EST
    It was still a very bad vote, but personally I am past that.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by GV on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:21:48 PM EST
    It's sorta too bad that the estimated one-million people who have died in this war cannot get past it, eh?  

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    holier-than-thou moment.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, we get it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    But did Obama go on a hunger strike or lead those millions to fight the war when they needed leadership? No, he only uses them for his ends. When it mattered and when he could, he along with all of us are responsible. I take personal responsibility as an American.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm still working on getting past her (none / 0) (#52)
    by Rojas on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:02:45 PM EST
    support for toture.

    [ Parent ]
    When was that? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:53:34 PM EST
    And did Obama take a leadership position, what did he fight for against torture?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's charges (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Tano on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:20 PM EST
    are all truthful.

    I really cant understand how Jeralyn can claim that Hillary has, in any way, refuted them

    She answered them with total obfuscations and subject-changing.

    Can anyone deny she voted for the Iraq War?

    More to the point - why is anyone here trying to deny that fact, or to accuse Obama of making that up. This is really absurd.

    Or her support for torture? Her response is to mention briefings that she got - claiming that that is why she changed her mind, not that the poltical landscape changed. Do any of you really consider that a credible answer?

    Her Iran vote? Why are you people supporting her, or defending her over this?

    And she certainly did mock and ridicule Obama for his stated willingness to meet with hostile foreign leaders. She saw an opening to make a "naive" charge stick, and she took it, totally dishonestly because she actually has the same view as Obama on this issue - as she subsequently had to admit.

    This was an incredibly lame set of responses from Clinton. Are some people here so into the candidate that they are unwilling to call bs for what it is?

    Tano (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:06:08 AM EST
    Here is a question: where was Obama when the Iranian resolution was passed?  If he felt so passionately about it then, why did he not show up to vote and go on record?  Why did he not work the corridors of the senate to persuade others to vote no?

    I guess he didn't have time to vote "present."

    [ Parent ]

    Yes! (4.50 / 2) (#64)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM EST
    Can anyone deny she voted for the Iraq War?

    Some Hillary supporters here actually deny this!

    [ Parent ]

    I don't deny it (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:49:36 PM EST
    but I also point out that when it mattered Obama voted like Hillary, therefore his Fantasy Senator vote against the war does not count.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean (none / 0) (#198)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    the vote before he became Senator?

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    I haven't seen anyone deny it. But I've seen people compare the relative courage of Clinton and Obama, and to tell you the truth, Obama has done nothing in his 2 years in the Senate that shows me courage. And Clinton seems smarter.

    There you have it. I'm not being culty about this. I want the best leader, of the choices we have (I'm originally a Clark supporter). Between the 2, I pick the smart one.

    [ Parent ]

    I have, in the sense of uncritically repeating ... (none / 0) (#214)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:11:09 AM EST
    ... Hillary's talking point that it was not really a war authorization vote but merely a vote for inspections and diplomacy that Bush misinterpreted.*  If that was really the case, I would have expected to hear immediate outrage on the part of all the supporters of the resolution when it was used to go to war without completing inspections, without better diplomacy, without UN authorization.  I don't recall that from Hillary at the time, but if I'm wrong, I would welcome correction on this point from Hillary supporters who are more enthusiastic and less critical than me.

    I'm not supporting Obama over Clinton so I'm not talking about who's more courageous.

    *Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit here to seek clarity.

    [ Parent ]

    OK that's true (none / 0) (#221)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    I thought you meant in the sense of denying the vote ever took place.

    Yes, I totally agree with you. I hate that vote. I just don't think Obama would have done any differently, based on his record in the Senate, his cautious nature, and his vaunted "bipartisanship." He is lacking in courage... plus HRC seems smarter.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:04 PM EST
    who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like

    Simply false, for the very reason the Clinton campaign explained.

    [ Parent ]

    Mostly true (none / 0) (#145)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:53:16 AM EST
    The only point Obama may be streching is agreeing with Bush on meeting foreign leaders.  He's trying to turn an early debate comment against her.  But just as he did not say he would meet with our enemies "without preconditions" she has never said support Bush's approach.

    The rest of the points all stick.

    [ Parent ]

    sticking (none / 0) (#160)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:40:23 AM EST
    The only thing that sticks is Obamanians brains on his smears. Karl Rove showed us that it's possible to take a true fact and distort it into a lie. That's what BO is doing, and after he said he would run a clean campaign.

    It's depressing to me that Americans don't want a fair, objective transparent campaign where the media will cover everyone fairly and equally so that voters can know what the choices are and pick one based on accurate information. Instead the game seems to be see how badly you can misrepresent the opposition and then inflate your own record. Are all of these negative politicians so corrupt that they can't tell the truth?

    At least with the Clintons, we know their skeletons and their great strengths. I still say, if BO gets in, he will just be a puppet and we've had that already for 8 years. Hillary is the real deal.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you (none / 0) (#199)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:33:39 AM EST
    for casting broad aspersions and lowering the level of debate here.

    All Obamanians this, all Clintons that. Thanks, you've really settled the debate with rapier wit and a keen display of facts.

    [ Parent ]

    I actually read "The Fact Hub" (none / 0) (#192)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    Not much there there.

    I think that a number of Clinton supporters believe that if they just are outraged enough that Obama deigns to run against Clinton then they will change reality or win the debate. Clinton ran to the right on foreign policy issues. If she's right she should admit it and defend it. This WhatIsIsing may be comforting for the troops but it certainly doesn't move the debate along.

    So are there any Clinton supporters here to support Kyl-Lieberman?

    [ Parent ]

    To Tano the troll? (none / 0) (#213)
    by boohall on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    Whatever you are, Tano I don't like ya.  Obama lovers give me a pain and I came here to avoid them.
    One thing I want to make clear to all this democrat will undo my membership of 35 years in the Democrat party if Obama becomes the candidate.
    enough said......

    [ Parent ]
    Troll? (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    So Tano is a troll for having a different opinion than you?

    Being an Obama supporter does not make a troll.

    And abandoning the Democrat Party if Obama wins the nomination?  I don't think they will miss you, and I am sure that the McCain/Huckabee ticket will embrace you with open arms.  

    [ Parent ]

    Troll? (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    How so, because s/he disagrees. That's not right and goes against the no name calling policy here (not that I have been the greatest at abiding by that rule). No obamamania there, and we have had that. As much as it seems a Clinton fan club here other positions are welcome and good.

    [ Parent ]
    Please Give Me A Break (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Oliver Willis on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:34:15 PM EST
    Hillary has been the most vocal critic of President Bush and his policies among all the Democratic candidates.
    I'll go balls to the wall for her if Sen. Clinton is the nominee but this is just horsepuckey. She voted for the war. She sat on her hands forever in opposition to the war. She has a unique position in US politics, where her every utterance is covered by the press. She could have led opposition to the war, but didn't. When Al Gore stood up - she didn't.

    Support HRC to the moon, but please don't pretend as if she's been a consistent vocal critic of the war.

    Oliver (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:43:20 PM EST
    I don't believe that statement says that she was a consistent vocal critic of the war.

    [ Parent ]
    But it was kinda important, dontcha think? (none / 0) (#85)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:46:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Except it wasn't there! (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:17:00 AM EST
    That's kinda important, dontcha think?

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#143)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:23:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It depends (none / 0) (#202)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    on what's there there.

    [ Parent ]
    In one sentence or less (none / 0) (#193)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    What did it say?

    [ Parent ]
    It said (none / 0) (#223)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    Hillary has been the most vocal critic of President Bush and his policies among all the Democratic candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course, Al Gore (none / 0) (#96)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:54:36 PM EST
    wasn't in the Senate and didn't have to take the vote...but Kerry, Biden, Daschle and Harkin (not to mention John Edwards who apology makes everything all right) all voted as Hillery did...for the AUMF...and so did many other Dems who didn't have to for it would have passed anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    And They Were Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Oliver Willis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:09:13 AM EST
    They were wrong to vote for the war. As far as I know, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards have said that.

    [ Parent ]
    Semantics. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:18:51 AM EST
    They didn't vote for war.  They weren't 'wrong.'

    Bush was wrong.  Wrong to pull out the inspectors before they finished their jobsl  Wrong to invade unnecessarily for WMD.  Oh wait.  That wasn't the reason...it was to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq...

    ...probably doesn't mean that much to the few who are still there.  The women aren't faring well, I can tell you that.  No Democracy for them.

    [ Parent ]

    Come on.. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:49:37 AM EST
    ... do you really believe that they didn't vote to authorize war?  They knew exactly what they were voting on.

    And yes, they were wrong.  

    [ Parent ]

    Unless my lying ears deceived me (none / 0) (#120)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:24:59 AM EST
    I heard Hillary Clinton say she was wrong in voting for the AUMF and would not do it again knowing what would happen.  That was good enough for me.  I don't require formal apologies or gnashing of teeth.


    [ Parent ]
    Yep, had she known then what she knows now (none / 0) (#131)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:32:37 AM EST
    she wouldn'ta done what she did.

    What a leader.

    [ Parent ]

    and obama was against the war before (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:06 AM EST
    he was for it including pakistan. and a potential leader than gets all huffy and offended during primaries to the point he has to act snotty as the state of the union speech tells me he isn't ready for prime time. heavens, what if the premiere of chiana offends him!

    [ Parent ]
    no kidding (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    Huffy is an understatement.  The way he was eyeballing her with daggers of hate is the most telling to me-and then him shaking hands with the Supreme Court...one can imagine that the whole time he was thinking, "yeah, that is gonna be me up there soon."

    Which, in defense, most folks on that floor have probably thought at one point in their lives.  The thing is, he is acting like he already has the job.  When Hillary did that, it was considered bad.  When Obama does it, it's a sign of his confidence and good grace.

    I think I feel about Obama the same way I felt about Bush after 9-11, where the media made it seem like the sun shone out of his hiney: CAN'T YOU SEE?!?!

    For those of you who are interested, Taylor Marsh has the Zapruder film on the snub.  Absolutely hilarious that it's been parsed down so much.

    [ Parent ]

    Running for President (none / 0) (#194)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM EST
    means never having to say you're sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill was right (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:03:07 AM EST
    Obama created a fantasy anti war position. He now wants to attack Hillary's position using his fantasy position. He is treading on thin ice. Of course he is relying on the "energized" youthful new voter who will just hear the" Obama no war" "Hillary war". what I call the Animal Farm talk: "four legs good" "two legs bad". That is the political and opportunistic tactic. There is no moral ground. There is no truth. It's tactical. It's Axelrod, Obama's brain. The geezer Senators are so excited they found themselves a Karl.

    Animal Farm talk, would that be like (none / 0) (#135)
    by Tano on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:22:00 AM EST
    Hillary good, Obama bad?

    Which seems to be the driving theme of everything you write, irrespective of the issues or the facts.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps you should try (none / 0) (#136)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:39:46 AM EST
    debating the issues instead of your smart ass replies...This is not DKOS...

    [ Parent ]
    animal farm (none / 0) (#166)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:48:22 AM EST
    Stellaaa, I totally agree with your posts, they're entirely insightful. It isn't just that the youth dwell on Hillary's war vote, it's also that the media WILL NOT cover Hillary honestly and fairly. So, BO can say any terrible thing about her and her campaign and the media play it up as the gospel truth and then slam anything Hillary says to defend herself. You're exactly right, it's the new, progressive propaganda and it very ugly.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe you should (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    try having a discussion on issues and your candidate without insulting vast swaths of people she is trying to win win over.

    relying on the "energized" youthful new voter who will just hear the" Obama no war" "Hillary war". what I call the Animal Farm talk: "four legs good" "two legs bad".


    [ Parent ]
    It's standard campaign rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:55:07 AM EST
    You say that the other candidate is bad, and don't bother with details or nuance.

    I don't really mind that he does that; they all do. It's politics.

    Here's one problem I do have: Bill Clinton got branded as an angry, mean, "unpresidential" guy for doing this, but Obama is free to do it himself.

    The other problem I have is that Obama claims to stand for a new kind of politics. But that new kind of politics seems to include all the tactics and rhetoric of existing politics.

    But, I suppose that's the essence of successful campaigning: present a positive image of yourself, and present a negative image of your opponent. Details and actual facts don't come into play there at all. And the Obama campaign have been remarkably successful at playing that game. Although they have been helped a lot by the anti-Clinton venom in the press, and some bad messaging and crappy rapid response from the Clinton campaign.

    Communication gap (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:30:09 AM EST
    I think the problem here is a communication gap.

    The Obama supporters here think that by telling the community about the Iraq War vote, and the torture vote, we'll suddenly decide not to support HRC.

    The problem with this is that we already know about the IWR. We are reality based. We know too that Obama shares her voting record, with the glaring exception of the IWR, and even there, something tells a lot of us that he would have voted the same way, since his whole strategy as a Senator seems to have been to keep his nose down, vote with everyone else, and don't make waves.

    It's not that we don't (or at least I don't) condemn Clinton's votes (actually, I'm not up on the torture vote, but I fail to see any difference on the issues b/w her and Obama). It's that Obama pretends to be something better, and we, with our rose-colored glasses totally off, do not seen that he is any better than Clinton. In fact, his campaign theme, to reach across the aisle and bring unity, makes us deeply suspicious and worried. Heck, in the name of unity, his supporters are busy over on dailykos cursing at people and being obnoxious.

    They are the same, though HRC has a better health care plan and a more progressive economic package.

    I voted for her because of this; this and the fact that she seems smarter to me, more crafty, more polished, and more cunning. Obama seems more like someone who's going to trip over his own 2 feet for the whole first year or two he's in office. I'm sick of that. I want competence, experience, and smarts. There you go.

    Who is the Republican (4.66 / 3) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:10:56 AM EST
    Obama claims that he can melt the divide. Tell me will he melt it with compromise? concessions? killer personality? deals? He accuses her of being divisive, (the us them binary) yet, when she votes with them he condemns? Was that not working with the other side to break down the us them, being one America? Where in god's name is the logic? Pure propaganda tactic and manipulation. Demonizes the other for gain. I tell you, these guys are more dangerous than Rove, cause they think they are "good". Neocon mentality part II, since they are brilliant they know what is good for us.

    Hey, come back to earth Stellaaa (none / 0) (#134)
    by Tano on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:19:20 AM EST
    Wow.
    In one short paragraph you manage to spin yourself into accusing Obama of being a neocon because he points out that Hillary voted for the Iraq war.

    May I suggest a deep breath?

    [ Parent ]

    since Obama (none / 0) (#137)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:43:06 AM EST
    rarely if ever discusses issues and when he gives speeches lately he distorts them about Hillary, I really couldn't tell ya what Obama really believes

    [ Parent ]
    then... (none / 0) (#151)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:29:38 AM EST
    ... you aren't listening.  Or reading.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah I did (none / 0) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:56:52 AM EST
    Barack opposes war in theory (actually fantasy), then votes for war. What do neocons do? they tell you to trust them cause they are smart and good and they will make the decisions for you. This is neocon 2.0. The "progressive" version. They tell you they were against the war, in theory, but they vote to support the war. But they make you think they are against the war. Major upgrade, cause they don't tell you, they convince you and you tell others.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh... (none / 0) (#153)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:30:06 AM EST
    ... so is Hillary Clinton a neocon too?

    [ Parent ]
    neocon spin (none / 0) (#163)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:43:43 AM EST
    This is not spin, even the media is starting to see that BO is doing this. He accused her yesterday of being too close to Republicans, but then he said he is going to work with Republicans to unify the country. Well, how is he going to do that if he doesn't make concessions, which he actually has already done. So, either he's lying or he's just a huge hypocrite for smearing Hillary over what he  plans to do himself. The BO people just can't see this, or admit this,  because they're blinded by rhetoric.

    [ Parent ]
    Just like Bush (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruthy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:18:42 PM EST
    Obama doesn't know how to debate the issues, so he will lie or say anything to get elected.  He is full of hot air.

    I am waiting (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:45:32 PM EST
    for the day when someone admits Bushie was wired for all the debates.

    [ Parent ]
    And the Diebold machines are all rigged. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:27:51 AM EST
    Thanks for the tip.

    [ Parent ]
    One of the great unreported stories (none / 0) (#123)
    by magnetics on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:50:23 AM EST
    of the new century.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you kidding? (4.00 / 1) (#147)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:05:13 AM EST
    1. Did she vote for the Iraq war?  YES

    2. Did she read the NIE like Bob Graham and others?        NO

    3. Did she vote for the Iran resolution in the Senate?  Yes?

    4.  Did she not agree that talking with heads of states directly is "naive" during that debate? YES

    So where is Obama's problem.  Seems to me he is only pointing out the differences between them, which are pretty striking.  

    I agree it is fair and important (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by dk on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:40:27 AM EST
    to point out the comparison between Hillary and Obama on these questions.  You have provided the answers with regard to Hillary.  Now I will provide them with regard to Obama.

    1.  Did he vote for the Iraq war?  NO, but he was a state senator at the time and was not in a position to vote for or against.  And, two years after the vote he is on record as stating that he didn't know how he would have voted.  And, since being in a position to vote on the war, he has the exact same record as Hillary.

    2.  Dis he read the NIE like Bob Graham and others?  NO

    3.  Did he vote for the Iran resolution in the Senate?  HE SKIPPED THE VOTE, and there is very credible evidence that he is lying when he said that he did not have enough advance warning about the vote in order to get back to Washington to vote.

    4.  Did Obama state that as President he would want to have an immediate President-to-President summit with the President with Iran?  YES

    Obama's "problem," in my opinion, is that he is not pointing out the differences between them.  He is pointing out Hillary's positions without being forthright about his own.  Now, politics is politics, and if Obama's goal is simply to win he can do what he wants.  But let's please not pretend he has some kind of claim to being honest and "above politics."  Anyone who supports Obama on that level, in my opinion, truly is being naive.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#171)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:55:54 AM EST
    It's all politics, and campaigns and politicians try to go with what sticks in campaigns, and if it's not quite true, or there are some details left out, hey, so be it.

    All campaigns do that. The Clinton campaign has done it. The Obama campaign too.

    My problem with Obama is that he's claiming to be above that. Obviously he is not. At least Clinton isn't claiming to be something she isn't. She plays the game, and she hasn't denied it.

    My other problem is with the media: they eviscerated Bill Clinton for making fairly routine campaign attacks (the "Republicans were the party of ideas during the 90s" thing) on Obama, but they take it easy on Obama when he goes on the attack.


    [ Parent ]

    Reply to your reply (none / 0) (#173)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:58:29 AM EST
    1.  Didn't he give a speech at the time that he was against the war...I remember something about that...yes I think so...I don't recall Hillary making any anti-war speeches at the time, did she?  Maybe I missed that one as well.

    2.  The NIE-how could he if he was not a senator.  that is just silly. She was however, which points out that she did not inform herself sufficiently with the information that was available.  Did she just make the politically expedient decision.  Those are the types of decision that have gotten us in trouble over the last 8 years.  Making one without really knowing all the facts.

    3.  Credible evidence...enough with the conspiracies. He did not make it to the vote.  She did, she voted.  that's her record.  If your way of defending her record is to point out what he did, that's pretty weak.  

    4.  Yeah, so what.  Obviously you have not had enough of the last 8 years of John Bolton and Dick Cheney's foreign policy.  Would you like another 8 years.  Didn't Kennedy sit down with the Russian guy...and Regan ( god forbid) with the other Russian guy.  That's called diplomacy.  

    Anything else.  

    [ Parent ]
    Georgeg1011: (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by dk on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Ok, now we're getting somewhere by actually comparing the two candidates.  Here's my reply:

    1.  No one is denying that Obama made the speech.  Hillary certainly isn't denying it.  I