Obama on the Difference Between Him and Hillary

From a New Yorker interview, Testing the Waters with Barack Obama, November, 2006.
Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

That was before Barack Obama decided to vote for President. Which Obama do we believe now? [Hat tip to commenter Pavaoh}.

< New Ohio Poll: Hillary 46%, Obama 38% | Mukasey Refuses Federal Death Penalty Prosecution >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Looks like Sen. Obama will say and do (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:18:03 PM EST
    anything to get elected.

    Not surprised really.

    So true (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sara seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:39:31 PM EST
    He was for Hillary -

    before he decided that slamming her worked better for him -

    His earlier view was so much more enlightened!!


    Simply amazing (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by vigkat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    It's never unexpected, but always takes my breath away.  Oh, the audacity.

    Like advertising on Limbaugh in TX (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST

    If that doesn't come under the heading of "do anything," it's hard to see what does.

    Of course, I'm already getting the "How could Obama know" arguments from the OFB, but... Now he does know.

    So will he pull the ads?


    Wow, good catch. (none / 0) (#71)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    BTW I love your site.

    You have to tell yourselves that, don't you? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Betty on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    That Hillary will do anything to get elected so that you can over look the rotten things your Obama and his people are doing.  How do you sleep at night?

    Oh poo, mis-read the original comment. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Betty on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:19:59 AM EST

    Equal footing? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by fazel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:24:31 PM EST

    “…so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.”

    Does this put him on equal footing with those in the Senate that didn’t read the N.I.E.?

    diplomatic (none / 0) (#27)
    by manish on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:42:46 AM EST
    To me, he was obviously being diplomatic...nothing wrong with that.  After 8 years of Bush, whats wrong with a little diplomacy?

    By this time he knew he was going to run. (none / 0) (#33)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:53:35 AM EST
    I remember how much praise he heaped on her early on and said that she was the senator he most wanted to be like. He even turned to her looking for guidance on how to navigate the trappings of being a "celebrity" senator.

    By the time of this quote he was diplomatic and distancing himself because it was convenient.


    That kind of reminds me a bit of (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:30:42 AM EST
    All About Eve, one of my favorite movies.

    She raised money for him (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    and campaigned for him in his Senate race, so why would he want to burn those bridges?  Better to wait until she's a candidate, and then he can burn the bridge with her on it.

    If most people, or even more people, would bother to do a little homework on Obama, they would feel as many of us do - that there is no longer any reason to trust what he says at any given moment.  They would be especially wary of his version of history, which always stars himself as the altruistic and principled hero.

    Altruistic?  Ha!  Maybe they changed that definition while I wasn't looking.

    Principled?  Ditto.

    Do you know that he re-recorded his famous anti-war speech because there was no contemporaneous recording of it?  Complete with crowd noise and the microphone echo.  Bamboozle much?

    I have spent seven years listening to lies and misstatements as the Constitution was shredded with the help of loyal and power-hungry followers, as spineless Democrats cowered in fear of being called "weak."  Anyone else see the irony there?

    Sorry - I know there is no single person I can trust 100%, but I feel in my gut and in my heart - and in my head - that Barack Obama cannot be trusted to fight for the issues that matter to me, and I see his election as resulting in a weaker and less effective and more divided Democratic party.

    Anne, very well said. (none / 0) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    I would love a link to this (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:17:37 AM EST
    "Do you know that he re-recorded his famous anti-war speech because there was no contemporaneous recording of it?  Complete with crowd noise and the microphone echo.  Bamboozle much?"

    I never heard that.


    It's a Sun Times article by Lynn Sweet (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by fiver5 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:42:14 AM EST
    Is that a good thing? (none / 0) (#40)
    by fiver5 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:50:23 AM EST
    I'm actually not a Clinton fan at all.  But I enjoy this site, and if counsel needs a link, I'll do what I can.

    Besides, Jeralyn was the first pro-Clinton writer I read that called the Rezko nonsense out for what it was - nothing.  Fair is fair.


    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    Much appreciated.

    it isn't so much the (none / 0) (#45)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:28:54 AM EST
    re-recording that irks me but rather the sound effects and how it is presented as authentic.

    He is going to lose the left.


    I wonder if he had the same cadence (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    in the original.  Anyone who's seen how his speaking style has changed over the years know that back then, he didn't have his minister's baritone down yet.

    ah geez,,, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:48:49 AM EST
    yeah, he rerecorded a part of it to make an ad.
    Wow. A scandal!

    Why is a no vote on the Iraq War Resolution (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by hue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:35:34 PM EST
    a Holy Grail? Just about all Democratic senators who had presidential ambition voted for it because they made the calculation that they needed to look strong on national defense. Dodd, Kerry, Biden, Edwards, Clinton all voted for it. If you look at the vote, the only senator that voted against it and ran in 2004 and 2008 was Graham, and his candidacy lasted about 2 minutes. Based on Obama's safe voting record in the Senate, how do you think he would have voted? Obama's virtue on opposing the resolution is not being there in the Senate at the time.

    "I was for it before I was against it" (none / 0) (#22)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:52:12 PM EST
    Didn't work too well for Kerry in 2004.  McCain can be hammered successfully on Iraq, but not by Hillary.  

    Being against the war in 2004 didn't mean (none / 0) (#23)
    by hue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:34 AM EST
    jack for Kerry, and it's not because he voted for it in 2002. Are people and politicians not allowed to change their minds?

    You can still hammer on McCain for wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. And you don't need to have voted no in 2002 to do that.


    think about what you just wrote (none / 0) (#34)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:55:23 AM EST
    You vote to send American men and women into a war, invading a foreign country, something that although you may hope goes well, you know in the back of your mind might lead to the deaths of several thousand AMericans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - you do that because it will make you look tough for your future political races?

    And that is the kind of person you want as a president?


    Tano, you conveniently forget (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    that almost 80% of the American people would have voted the same way.  You also forget the most key fact, and one that Clinton says makes her regret her vote: WE WERE LIED TO.

    Got A Link ? (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    You have said several times that 80% supported the war. That seems wrong to me, a big exaggeration at best. The link that TeresaInSnow2 provided does not support that claim.

    Do you have anything to back up your claim?


    Here is a link to show the popular support (none / 0) (#69)
    by hue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    for Iraq.  From the beginning of 2002 to March 2003, the public support range from a low of 57% to a high of 72%. Remember public support didn't really turn negative (below 50%) until spring of 04. Yet voters put Bush back into office that fall, rejecting Kerry who wanted to end the war then.

    I really don't want to refight the whole Iraq authorization vote. But it was just a year after 9/11, and Bush was suppose to go back to the U.N. twice and allowed inspectors to continue to work.

    I know the CW now is that the 2002 vote was a clear vote for war, but it wasn't. If it were a declaration for war, they wouldn't have put the hedging language in there about the UN.

    Do you really think the Democrats in Congress would have stopped the march to war in 2002 by voting against it? The only way they could have was to filibuster in the Senate. They don't have courage for that. They can't even stop the surge with a slim majority in both chambers.  


    that is not true (none / 0) (#64)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    the usual (false) number thrown around is 70% - now it is getting inflated even more.

    There was a poll done regarding support for the war, a day or two AFTER the invasion began - and found 70% support. But this obviously reflected a "rally 'round the troops" sentiment that kicks in once our men and women are in harms way.

    In the weeks leading up to the war, when the administration was falsely claiming that the final decision had not yet been made, such that the average person could have thought that the question of whether to invade was still an open question, then the polling shows that support for invasion was around 55%.


    Note the end of that clip (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    where he says it would be a mistake to invade Iraq without strong international support. That's exactly what Hillary said. The AUMF directed the President to work through the UN, which he blew off.

    There seems to be a few more qualifiers in that speech than we've been led to believe.


    Tano, you know (none / 0) (#59)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    that Hillary didn't vote for the AUMF for political reasons ... all you have to do is read her express statement at the time she and 76 other senators voted to give Bush the leverage of the AUMF.

    (BTW, many of the 21 Dems who voted against the AUMF actually were for it in principle, but voted agains it because it was too open ended or didn't require the UN to take the same position before force was used.  See the failed Levi, Byrd and  Durbin amendments.)

    (Also, btw, I, like you, was against the war and the AUMF at the time, but understood how our leaders in congress could have been better informed in voting to give the president that authority ... however much I detested Bush then as I do now.)

    As for the popular support for your position, where were you and the other members of the so-called OBAMA anti-war movement in 2002 when the AUMF was voted upon by the Senate?

    Nowhere, that's where.

    There was no significant, active anti-war sentiment then, except among the most dedicated peaceniks on the left.

    Look, I'm generally anti-war myself ... I was among those that were part of the Vietnam anti-war movement - it was my time - but I also recognize that sometimes war - or at least the threat of war as in the case of the Iraq AUMF - is necessary to keep the overall peace.

    Anyone that thinks otherwise is a blind ideologue.

    But placing the blame for the war and the deaths of US troops or Iraqis at Hillary Clinton's feet, as you are doing and Obama has done, is the most ugly and politically motivated of attacaks that I can imagine.

    His demagoguing on this singular issue has ensured my vote for Hillary and will cost him my vote if he makes it to the GE.


    hey, I was marching (none / 0) (#65)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    agaisnt the upcoming war in DC.
    I know, it is a pathetic little gesture. I wish I could have known what more to do.
    And there were several hundred thousands of us.

    And I am not a "peace-nik". I supported the war in Afghanistan, the Gulf War, and the Clinton wars in the Balkans.

    Hillary deserves some measure of the blame for the war, I dont see how you can deny that. I am not saying she is some devil - I understand that it was a hard call. I wrestled with it a lot for a long time. There were good arguments for doing it. In the end though, I remained unconvinced that it would be a smart thing, for lots of reasons that I wont bother to get into here.

    So no, I do not demonize her for it. But surely you can understand that I would have greater respect for the judgement of someone who saw things more clearly than she did. If you watch that TV interview on YouTube, with Obama back in Nov. 2002 - where he is asked his thoughts on the possiblity of the upcoming war - I watched that thing last year for the first time and just said YES - here is someone whose voice I did not hear at the time, but who was thinking through the issue in exactly the way I did, exactly the way I thought our leaders should. And his public and very thoughtful consideration of all the factors, pro and con, and the decision that he made, made me feel like this is exactly the type of thought processes that I want to see in my president.

    I think it is one of the most important qualities of a president - surpassing the specific details of this or that policy proposal. How do they think - are they capabale of listening to all the arguments from all sides, and then do they have the good sense to put all those factors in their proper perspective and arrive at a good decision.

    So now he is running for president and you think there is something wrong with him pointing out to people that he is capable of thinking and functining in a way that matches what many of us are looking for in a president? I really don't understand your point here.


    My point is ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    I think he was demagoguing then (in October 2002) to get elected to the Illinois senate and I think he's demagoguing now in his run for the presidency ... which a brief moment of honesty revealed when he admitted in 2004 that had he been in the Senate for that vote, he doesn't/didn't know what he would have done since he didn't have all the info a sitting US Senator like Clinton had ...

    That's really the only honest response any of us looking at this from the outside could have or could make.

    The overwhelming proof of Obama's true beliefs about Iraq war policy are his actual votes in the Senate when it mattered ... and virtually all of those were identical to Hillary's.

    So to claim better judgment on Iraq than Hilllary (or most of our other federal elected officials) on this issue, when he had less than full information upon which to make this judgment, and wasn't even in a position to make it, is both disenguous and hypocritical.

    What he has also done is proven that he reaches decisions or "judgments" based on his gut, in the absence of hard information (admit that he didn't and couldn't have had the hard (now proven false) information that lead 77 sitting senators to side with the president) ... that is the scariest part of all this.

    I'm not willing to entrust my country to another "gut" thinker who believes he's "prescient" about such serious matters as war and peace.

    Besides,  Obama will be killed by the Right for his perhaps "principled" but extraordinarily naïve stand back when he 1) had no information to support his view (in fact, all information contradicted it, yet he went with his gut instead ... sound familiar?); and 2) had nothing at risk.


    first of all (none / 0) (#72)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    the interview was in November, as I said, not October - the difference being that it was NOT part of his Senate campaign - it was late November, well after Election day.

    So your conclusion - that he was demagoguing seems to me pretty clearly to be an assumption, not a conclusion based on the facts.

    And the notion that the only thing we way we could have made an honest decision was to be a Senator - thats crazy. Are you saying that all of us should just shut up, maybe about everything - since none of us see all the info that a Senator sees when they consider a bill?

    Half of the Democrats in the Senate, including Dick Durbin from IL voted against the AUMF. None of them expressed their reservations in nearly the precise, eloquent manner that Obama did in that interview. You can believe any hypothetical that you want, in order to dismiss Clinton's lack of good judgement, but I aint buying. How do you explain Clinton's lack of good judgement relative to all the Democratic Senators who voted no?

    The votes when in the Senate are a whole nother matter. How can you pretend they are the same? The first issue is whether to go into a war. Once that decision is made, then no matter how you stood on the question, you are forced to deal with the new reality. I was never one to think that once the invasion happened, then the wisest thing to do would be to just cut off all funds and withdraw the troops. I dont think many rational people held such a view. Once you invade a country, whether you supported that or not, the country as a whole takes upon itself a huge responsiblity. At that point, it is incumbent on those with power to vote for the most responsible course of action, given that new reality.

    That is the price you pay for living in a democracy. Sometimes you lose key votes. Then you have to deal with new realities. You cant just stamp your feet and try to pretend that you can put the toothpaste back in the tube.


    Google Obama October 2002 (none / 0) (#76)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:06:36 PM EST
    You're wrong, Tano.  It wasn't an interview, it was an anti-war speech prior to the 2002 election.

    From http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

    Delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois; at the same day and hour that President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, but over a week before it was passed by either body of Congress.

    Pure and simple he was running for reelection in Chicago NOT the US Senate ... so any statements or inferences to the contrary (Obama's own speeches and his website, or your and others' many defenses of him) are not supported by the facts.

    And it wasn't "half the Democrats in the Senate," it was 60% for (29) and 40% against (21) ... and even the dissenters like Byrd, Levin and Durbin, yes even Durbin, were in favor of the AUMF as long as it had their desired strings attached.

    Hell, Durbin's only "string" was that the use of force authorization cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat, as was finally agreed. Some anti-war position, huh?

    And, no, the rest of us shouldn't shut up. I'm certainly not suggesting that.

    But we elect these people to represent us and do our work.  The US is, after all, a "representative democracy."

    Do we have to agree with everything they say and do?  Of course not.

    But should we give them the benefit of the doubt when they act in good faith on our behalf?  Of course we should.

    If we don't, what's the point ... perhaps we should just devolve back to the good old days when it was every (cave)man for himself.


    I am not talking about the speech (none / 0) (#77)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    I said the TV interview, because I was talking about the TV interview.

    Here is the LINK


    I was talking about the speech (10/2/02) (none / 0) (#78)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    to support my view that Obama was demagoguing the Iraq issue to get elected to the IL senate, much like he's doing now to get elected president.

    He clearly was and is (demagoguing) ...

    He claims he took that position as a serious anti-war position while he was running for the US Senate ...

    From his website:

    As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq ...

    He clearly wasn't running for US senate when he made the speech or sat for the interview in 2002 ... he didn't even announce his candidacy until January 21, 2003.

    And as I said, this is an outright lie and the very definition of demogoguery.


    Last week CNN ran a clip (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:34:54 AM EST
    of Obama taking questions after winning his US Senate seat. A reporter asked if he was considering running for prez in 2008. Obama responded that he didn't think he had the "experience" yet to consider a run. So, at one time, BHO actually agreed with HRC that experience is a crucial ingredient for a successful presidency.

    I would be willing to wager that said clip will resurface in the GE should BHO get the nod. It is very hard to discount or rebut one's own words.

    The fierce urgency of now. (none / 0) (#75)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    He's addressed that issue, long ago.

    So Obama saying nice things (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    about Senator Clinton means he's a bad.

    And Obama saying critical things about Sen. Clinton means he's bad.

    He's just bad. There's no way out for him but to just admit it,
    on TV in a stadium full of his supporters, but preferably without a teleprompter.

    yep (none / 0) (#2)
    by myed2x on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:19:53 PM EST
    he was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, something sorely lacking here ;)

    Not sure... (none / 0) (#6)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST
    ... how anything Obama said then is any different than any of the things he says about Clinton now.

    hahahahahahahaha (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:32:42 PM EST
    J, "Hatchet Man: Rise of David Axelrod" (none / 0) (#13)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:57:31 PM EST
    Obama's text from that New Yorker interview could be the voice-over for Clinton's next ad. And he said that only 14 months ago!

    I've searched high and low and can't find this next article. Would be great if somebody could.

    Hatchet Man: The Rise of David Axelrod
    by Grant Pick, Chicago Magazine, December 1987.
    Within the next 12 months, this political consultant just could become a kingmaker.


    Try contacting (none / 0) (#25)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:36:41 AM EST
    Todd Spivak, the guy who wrote the article about how Obama took credit for bills he didn't really do the work for (particularly that landmark racial profiling/videotaped confession bill he touts)?  Maybe he'd know how to get at it.

    BrandingIron, re: "Hatchet Man" Article (none / 0) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:16:19 AM EST
    I was hoping somebody with a more powerful search engine, like Lexis Nexis, could dig it up.

    BrandingIron, thanks for other article link (none / 0) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:17:41 AM EST
    No problem (none / 0) (#38)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:29:39 AM EST
    always glad to help out.  Now I'd just like to keep on pushing it out there to show people that Obama isn't what he says he is.  I was actually really surprised about the fact about the video taped confessions/racial profiling one because that's the one that everyone hails as one of his greatest Illinois achievements.

    apparently (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:33:24 AM EST
    the folks he stole the bill from--epsecially the woman who crafted the legislation over almost two decades, only to have Obama take credit--are falling into line behind Obama now because they know that the leader of the IL senate and the local party will "John Lewis" them if they don't.  (This from a pal in Chicago)

    it's called being (none / 0) (#9)
    by along on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    politic. does anyone have any instance of Clinton attacking Obama, or even just contrasting their records forcefully, 2 months before he announced he was running?

    good point (none / 0) (#32)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:51:41 AM EST
    She raised money for him.
    I bet we could find some really nice things she said about him.

    And that would prove...

    Countdown to the Clinton supporters saying "yeah, but she doesn't pretend to be a new kind of politician..."


    Like I've said (none / 0) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    The bumper sticker?

    Voting for Obama? Which Obama?

    seriously... (none / 0) (#16)
    by joei on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    for one second imagine if hillary wins ohio and texas, i know its hard for obama supporters but do me a favor and follow this thought experiment. both florida and michigan delegates have to be seated at the convention no matter what, even obama knows that politically he cannot stop them from being seated irrespective of rules etc. etc.(welcome to politics which he so good at playing).

    how is the delegate math looking now, did i scare u enough.

    MSM doesn't realize how important it is for obama to  win atleast 1 of the 2 states.

    Obama gave HRC the... (none / 0) (#18)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:21:57 PM EST
    benefit of the doubt; he shouldn't have.


    I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.

    What he didn't realize at the time was the Hillary actually had intelligence which backed up a "no" vote on the war.  She claims that she didn't read the NIE, but she may have and is only looking for an excuse.  It's difficult to say which is worse.

    Reading the NIE would seem to be (none / 0) (#20)
    by halstoon on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:30:06 PM EST
    a fairly important thing to do, no? I mean, at least have a staffer read it, one who you trust to tell you the truth.

    Why in the world would she give a man like GWB or much less Cheney the benefit of the doubt?? What justification did she have for that??

    He hasn't held oversight hearings on his subcommittee, and that's fair to attack. But she did not even fully read the intelligence offered her before supporting what we all knew--I knew, and don't live anywhere near DC--was a certain war. And then she misled the public on the Levin amendment.

    Hello? President Obama, we need you....<snark>


    I'll never forgive Olbermann for that (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:31:54 AM EST
    She never said the Levin Amnt made America Defending itself contingent upon United Nations approval.  That would have been an unrealistic amendment that never would have made it to the floor.  She knows that. Olbermann knows that.

    The fact is if you agreed to the Levin amendment you were saying that use of force was not something you could use as a bargaining chip during inspections.

    In short.  Olbermann was lying.  Not Clinton.


    No, I saw the debate, and she clearly (none / 0) (#56)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    said that the amendment would have subverted US power to the UN and she didn't want to do that.

    Diplomatic Power (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:56:44 AM EST
    Not military power.  Everyone knows a bill that actually ceded military power to the UN would not have ever been written.

    Olbermann lied.


    Oh, Lordy... (none / 0) (#28)
    by jen on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:51:14 AM EST
    The more I learn about this man, the harder it's going to be to vote for him if he's the nominee... It would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so tragically sad.

    That's a fine article (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:26:08 AM EST
    I remember reading it.

    You would also think more people would remember Obama riding Bill's coattails through the south after hurricaine Katrina.

    Well there were several lines (none / 0) (#41)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:14:38 AM EST
    that gave me trouble. As an atheist, I have more trouble with his religious beliefs than I do with Huckabee's because Huckabee's beliefs stem from the indoctrination of childhood. His was a decision reached as an adult and whose childhood included two atheist parents and a step-father who was non-practising.

    So this question stood out:

    How old were you when you came to the church?

    I was, I must have been twenty-seven? Twenty-eight? And, as I said in the book, look, there are still passages that I read in the Bible, that I say, Well, this doesn't make any sense.

    You think? would have been my follow up.

    Someone needs a history lesson (none / 0) (#42)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:21:00 AM EST
    I'm a historian so I am biased on this but honestly he can only point to ten presidents?

    There's a hotel, I think it's the Capitol Hilton, in Washington; and downstairs, where there are a lot of banquet halls, there's a whole row of all the presidents. You walk by the forty-three that have been there and you realize there are only about ten who you have any idea what they did.

    I mean can excuse William Henry Harrison and James K. Garfield because they died so soon after taking office. But even if we begin with McKinley I can rattle accomplishments or failures of each Administration. And I don't do US history really. Didn't he take a history class at Occidental or Columbia? And surely as a lawyer he would be familiar with laws passed under each Administration? Is he an idiot or just being cute?

    Uh, Mr. Historian, its James A. Garfield. (none / 0) (#57)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    Here's the link to that quote (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    More (none / 0) (#44)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:22:15 AM EST
    From the NYT article on David Axelrod.

    There are many ways in which Patrick's run and Obama's are similar: the optimism, the constant presence of the candidate's biography, the combination of a crusading message of reform with the candidate's natural pragmatism, the insistence that normal political categories did not apply, even the same, unofficial slogan, shouted from the crowds "Yes. We. Can!" But most essential is the way in which both of these campaigns came to use the symbolism that accompanies their candidates? race, not by apologizing for it or ignoring it but by embracing the constant attention paid to the historic nature of the candidacy itself. The Democratic media consultant David Eichenbaum, whose candidate, Chris Gabrieli, lost to Patrick and Axelrod in Massachusetts, told me: "What they were able to do in the Patrick campaign was similar to what they've been able to do with Obama. The campaign managed to energize the grass roots, but there was a sense of idealism and hope and being able to break that historic barrier that was very unifying and reached out beyond liberals or the base. It became a movement that took on a life of its own."

    And yet Patrick is a bust in Massachusetts. Is it possible that the Massachusetts primary was a referendum on Patrick because they had already heard it and thought it a bust if not a fraud?

    I cannot and will not vote for a cult of personality. I'll vote for McCain if I have to. That's the lessor of two evils. How the hell did we get here?

    Can you provide? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:57:46 AM EST
    The link please?

    wasn't running for US Senate (none / 0) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:39:30 AM EST
    as lambert over at Corrente has pointed out, this statement is false...

    But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time [when he made his big anti-war speech]: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

    In 2002, Obama was running for re-election to the Illinois State Senate in one of the most Democratic state legislative districts in the country, not the US Senate.  

    yep (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:43:19 AM EST
    and he confused the US Senate with the IL Senate in the debate the other night.

    I wonder why he keeps doing this?  To make folks think he has been in the US Senate longer than he has?  Twice is not a simple mistake.


    Thanks, Paul, but (none / 0) (#62)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    you negelct to mention that even as of this day, Obama's own website lies about this, stating that

    As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq ...

    The fact is Obama's famous speech was made to a small anti-war crowd in his highly anti-war district in the run-up to the election he WAS running at the time, state senator from the 13th district, which he won a little more than 30 days later on November 5, 2002.

    He didn't even announce his run for the US Senate until January 21, 2003.

    How can anyone NOT come to the conclusion that this guy is a fraud, when he lies so blatantly about his singular "accomplishment."


    Time for TV Ad (none / 0) (#47)
    by Saul on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:45:24 AM EST
    If I were Hilary, I would use this quote Jeralyn just posted  in a TV ad.  I think this is a great missed opportunity  by the Hilary campaign managers.

    The thing is (none / 0) (#67)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    that 22 other senators voted no, as did the majority of the Democrats in the house. What did they know that she didn't? She doesn't even have the excuse of being in a state where she might face a future tough race.

    There were a lot of us at the time that saw that the intelligence was cooked and that the whole project was ill-advised, and we didn't even have access to the NIE.

    It's really just common sense. (none / 0) (#73)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    Like I said, just a layman it was clear that Bush simply wanted to pick a fight with Saddam, to right his father's wrong, to finish the job, whatever: I knew it had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, and that was just instinct. If you know the man is a snake, it shouldn't have been that hard to keep him in check just on principle that Cheney was a clear hawk who wanted to overthrow Saddam.

    As for it being hard or scary or intimidating to access the NIE, tht's pretty lame, especially considering that she is the "fighter" in this race. She's also easily smart enough to recognize DC BS when she saw it. It's easier to say that she represents NY, NY was attacked, and for a NY Senator to vote no would have been impossible. That's a more honest answer, at least to the casual observer.

    I Believe (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:33:34 PM EST
    That only 8 senators had the special post 9/11 clearance to even see the complete NIE (courtesy BushCO.) I did not think HRC was on that list.