Clinton Conference Call: Live Blogging

Right now, I'm on the Hillary Clinton press conference call today with Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. They choose the topic and start with a little speech but then reporters can ask questions on any topic.

Here's a rough live blog (because it's a live blog it's not in complete sentences, and it's not a transcript, I can't type quite that fast.)

Their topic today: recent polling data.

Their points: There are changes happening with voters. While Obama was declaring himself the frontrunner, the polls show his lead with Democrats nationally is evaporating.

Cites the Gallup daily tracking poll and Zogby/Reuters polls. Obama's lead is down from 14 points to 3 points, suggesting a strong swing of momentum for Hillary after Ohio and TX.

As Obama is finally going through the vetting and testing process, his ability to beat McCain is dropping. Some new polls show Hillary is better able to beat McCain. Cites USA Today/ Gallup, PPP poll. [More...]

CNN poll has her doing better on economy. PA polls: Quinnipiac shows her doubling her lead from 6 to 12 points. She's improving among men. She leads across every region except Philly.

Open now to questions: (we press *1 on our keyboards if we have a question.)

Fundraising for the month? Strong enough to go forward in PA and beyond.

St. Petersburg Times reporter: What do they think about another compromise under discussion involving proportional seating of Florida delegates? Phil Singer: One vote, one person is a bedrock principle of this country, we should honor the Jan. 29 vote or have a revote. Not to count MI and FL would jeopardize prospects of Democrats in the fall. Refers to yesterday's poll showing 1 in 4 Democrats might not support the nominee if Florida's votes are not counted. The remedy must be to honor votes in FL and MI. They are very disappointed in Obama campaign's response so far which has been to sit on its hands and disenfranchise voters in two states. It should change its tune and step up to the plate. It's outrageous that they have failed to do so to date.

Kate Snow of ABC: On Wright, does new polling reflect voter views on Obama's connection to Wright? Mark Penn: Can't pick out any single issue, it's more that the vetting process of Obama has begun on a number of issues. Samantha Power, Tony Rezko as well as Wright.

Detroit Free Press: Has Hillary called MI legislators re: her trip? They don't know, they'll try to find out.

Newsweek: Why are the White House schedules released today riddled with redactions? The redaction process is controlled by National Archives, the redactions are made by them. Reporter asks about Bruce Lindsey's role in redactions. The redactions were not made by or suggested by Bruce Lindsay. When the National Archive workers complete their review they send their proposed redactions to Bruce. In this case, he wrote them back a letter asking them to unredact large sections of information. None of the redactions were done by Clinton White House lawyers. He receives them and reviews, and as a result of Bruce's work, they are far less redacted than they would have been. He can only make recommendations.

Bruce did not ask National Archives to redact more than National Archives wanted to redact. He asked for no additional redactions. He asked to unredact.

Newsweek question on Wright: Republicans have said they will make Wright controversy the centerpiece of attack in November. Will they give them advice? No, they won't give Republicans advice on what they should do, and they expect Hillary to be the nominee.

Tampa Tribune: Florida: Have there been any private conversations between the campaigns to discuss compromise or solution? Wolfson: Not aware of any beyond one letter last week.

USA Today: Michigan question again. They say the point of the trip was to press the argument for a new vote in Michigan. What we've always said in both MI and FL is that the votes should count from the first primaries, and if not, then there should be revotes not at the taxpayers expense. Only person not on board is Obama. So she went to MI to press the case for a new vote. She's urging Obama to agree.

They break in to go back to polling. A new daily tracking poll that has come in while we are on the call shows 49 of Dems for Hillary, 42 for Obama, suggesting people are having buyer's remorse. Another shows Obama losing big to McCain.

Questions go back to Florida and MI: They criticize Obama, saying he's all words, no action, and it's not the first time that Obama has been inconsistent in this regard. When he first ran for state senate, one of his first actions was to make sure his primary opponent wouldn't be on the ballot, so he wouldn't have to face an opponent. That's not consistent will full participation.

Detroit News: Would they agree to a formula or insist on full seating of delegates? They won't speculate on various scenarios and we should wait until the process plays out.

Gun rights question on yesterday's Supreme Court decision wanting to know Hillary's view: She does not support any sort of federal handgun ban. She supports Second Amendment but there are reasonable steps we can take, like Assault weapons ban and Brady Bill, to reduce crime, but she won't support a federal handgun bill.

On Obama's speech, has she now seen it and what does she think? She's now seen it and thinks it was a good speech.

More on archives records. They call on Obama to release his state senate records. They mention Rezko records. They challenge him on his claim of transparency.

That's it for me, it's still going on but I have to get back to work.

< Gallup National Tracker: Clinton 49 - Obama 42 | New Yorker Profiles Michelle Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting. I'm glad they (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    pointed out how Obama used ballot challenges in the past.
    Penn? A doofus as usual. Are Wright, Rezko and Powers the only problems Obama has?
    If those were the only issues for voters, I would certainly be an Obama supporter!

    I think Penn's answer was fine. The (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    question was why the turnaround in the polls.  BTW, Clinton campaign apparently hired an additional pollster with a sterling reputation.  

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign doesn't want to look like its pushing the Wright flap, so to mention other factors as well is just good politics. Its also supporting the overall theme of questioning Obama's judgment in the people he surrounds himself with. The Obama campaign has promoted "judgment" as his strong point, and the Clinton campaign is attacking that strength.

    Penn's answer was ok... but could have (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    been better.

    I think the less Penn talks the better. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    Jeralyn, YOU are the one I've (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:15:39 PM EST
    been waiting for.  Thank you very much.  

    BREAKING: Jeralyn is Neo! n/t (none / 0) (#80)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    Either way...there's no (4.50 / 2) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    need for calling my comment idiotic. It was a joke. Albeit, truthful. And your comment was worded so that it seemed that HRC had never been attacked really by the GOP. On that you're right. She's only been attacked by the media, the blogosphere, fellow Dems, AND by the GOP. For about 16 yrs now.

    that's your view (none / 0) (#39)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    but others think it's a bit more nuanced

    Which part is nuance? (4.00 / 1) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    That I'm an alleged idiot or that HRC hasn't been vetted. Because seriously, if you're going with a new line of "HRC hasn't actually been looked at deeply by the GOP" you're gonna lose with that argument.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#68)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    My comment was not worded to say that HRC had never been attacked by the GOP. Please re-read it.

    Kindly explain then your comment (none / 0) (#70)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    regarding "none of the old demons." Last I saw, all the old demons get brought up just about daily.

    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    I made no comment about HRC. Perhaps you misunderstood my words about "what may be true". I was giving you the benefit of doubt by agreeing with you, that what may be true, is that you are no idiot.

    It is clear that HRC is hated by the media, and will be trashed as Obama will be trashed by the RNC should either or both get the Democratic nomination.


    Man (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    If HRC gets the nomination, she'll have Republicans going after her for the first time in this race. None of the old demons have surfaced yet. That doesn't make her the "vetted" candidate any more than she's the national security expert who has shown such strong judgement in the past. L O L.

    Obama doesn't have to sign off on a re-vote in Michigan. 2/3rd of the legislature has to sign off on a vote, but the Michigan House dems are strongly opposed to any re-vote. This has never been his fault.

    Look at Harold Ickes if you want to start laying blame. The State party screwed up. Arguably the DNC screwed up. Not Obama. And just because the HRC points at the Obama campaign doesn't make their accusations credible. Every single thing they do is old school political crap.

    I'm certain Axelrod and Plouffe (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    will mention your arguments in their conference call.

    heh... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    What conference call?

    The old things are old things (4.71 / 7) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    The things Obama is facing right now are new things, and we don't know how the new things will play out yet.

    Because the old things are old things we do know how they will play out.


    Yes. You're totally (none / 0) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    right. The Republicans have never ever gone after Hillary full-bore.

    Is it moist under that rock under which you live?  Kidding!


    Obama has said - no Illinois Senate records (none / 0) (#7)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    But Illinois Senate Rezko-related letters are online.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    I isn't. Usually the posts (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    on these conference calls use the royal "we" and its it really hard to tell if the poster was on the call or reporting third hand.  

    opposition (none / 0) (#15)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:35:17 PM EST
    can only be a good thing, I think.

    then express it without insults (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    or you will be banned.

    the banned wagon (none / 0) (#21)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    is preferable to the bandwagon.

    If I may (none / 0) (#22)
    by MMW on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:52:04 PM EST
    From your past comments - you are ON the bandwagon. And that's not why you could get on the bannedwagon.

    one more and you're gone (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    You could give it a try sometime.

    Now on Yahoo it says: From the AP writer (none / 0) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. - Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Hillary Clinton could not be trusted to end the Iraq war because she only started opposing it when she began her bid for president.

    I wish that could have been discussed. I will not even go into the Well, yeah but.....

    There seems to be a variety of questions and some decent answers. I think BHO is going to start hitting hard. He was by Camp Bragg when he made the comments. I know he does not have a chance in Penna and I think he knows that too. My next sweet dream would be for Edwards to endorse her. Then I would really smile, Bells Palsy and all  

    Apparently, military people really (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    love Hillary, from top to bottom.
    They know  a leader.

    This meme needs to die. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:33:51 PM EST
    Obama is to his 2002 anti-war speech as Giuliani is to 9/11.

    He may have given a speech, but his views in later years (before deciding to run) were not as oppositional as he touts.

    And, if he is so opposed to it, why did he continue to vote for its funding?

    Hillary clearly stopped supporting it when she stopped voting for its funding.


    Obama and Clinton voted to de-fund (none / 0) (#43)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    at the same time.  Don't spread falsehoods.

    The Post Wasn't False (none / 0) (#48)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:51:14 PM EST
    (S)He said she stopped supporting the war when she stopped supporting funds.  Nothing false about that.

    The falsehood (none / 0) (#52)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    is the assertion that Obama continued to fund the war and therefore did not oppose it, when credit is given to Clinton for voting against funding without noting that Obama did the same in the same vote.

    If you want to quibble, it isn't an outright falsehood, but it's certainly dishonest and misleading.


    In You're Opinion, maybe (none / 0) (#55)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM EST
    But the poster is refuting Obama's claim that Hillary was only against the war when she decided to run.  In that context, he has no responsibility to note Obama's vote.

    the problem with your theory (none / 0) (#67)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    is the poster did include a remark about Obama and funding.

    S/He could have made your point without mentioning Obama and funding. S/He intended to make both points.

    I will be glad when this lunacy is over and we can get down to business of defeating John McCain who now has made the same gaffe three days in a row. McCain doesn't do domestic policy and apparently doesn't do foreign policy. So much for his CINC credentials.


    Coulda, Would, Shoulda (none / 0) (#76)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    The making of multiple points does not make a post dishonest.  You may not agree, you may refute his/hers points, but that doesn't make the statements dishonets.  In my opinion:

    I agree with each bullet point

    I believe each was made to reflect the author's honest opinion

    Attacks on the messanger are unproductive


    You are right making multiple points is not (none / 0) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    dishonest. Strawman arguments, changing the goal posts, and similar behavior just might be.

    Really? (none / 0) (#93)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    And that is relevant... why?

    Looking back (none / 0) (#91)
    by manys on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    Six months ago, who would have thought that the Dems would have to work at all to defeat the Republican candidate? How did this election become a race and not a foregone conclusion? I smell squander and I don't like it.

    He made these comments near Fort Bragg? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    The most jarheaded Army post we have?  I guess Campbell is probably worse but not much.  Boy howdy he really doesn't know how to talk to soldiers does he?  They have blood, sweat, and tears in this game.....this isn't a peace march - this is a by God we're going to end this thing the right way as soon as possible and do it well and that's how we all win.  He's never going to get the soldier vote going at it like this, that's for sure ;)

    I would love (none / 0) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    that also. But he won't. Edwards I think is clearly behind Obama.

    And the Iraq War thing? Sigh. She was very clearly for ending it as soon as all of us found out that Bush was lying about all of it. It's really not that hard to figure out her position on it. Neither is it flip-floppy or incorrect.


    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    Edwards is behind Obama at all and fully expect an Edwards endorsement of clinton before NC.

    As far as Iraq, it is going to be harder and harder for Obama to make that statement and arguement when people like Murtha are behind Clinton. It just makes him sound petty.


    I doubt that many care about Murtha (none / 0) (#40)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    endorsements from Congresspeople seem to have little effect.

    If Maureen Dowd could figure out at the time that Bush was BSing, Hillary should've too.


    Please... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    Then Obama shouldhave been screaming such at the top of his lungs ever since he got to congress.

    People do care about Murtha and all the other military personal and flag officers that have endorsed Clinton.

    This will end up being a losing tactic for Obama. Americans only want to hear 'I told you so' for so long. or do you forget that most people were for the war at the time of the vote?


    If you would like to pretend (none / 0) (#47)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    that a vote to stay is the same as a vote to go in, then you're right.  But I can see the difference and I think most people can as well.

    Most people were for the war at the time.  I'll grant you that Clinton was doing what was popular at the time.  True leadership.


    I am not talking about popularity (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    but perception.

    Some of Obama's biggest supporters voted to go in and he has not blamed the entire war on them. Namely Kerry and Jello Jay.


    When did Obama blame (none / 0) (#54)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    "the entire war" on Hillary?  He didn't.  He's pointing out differences between his record and Hillary Clinton's.  Why should he also point out differences between himself and John Kerry?  Democrats don't have the option to choose John Kerry this time around.

    Every time I hear him say that he (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    opposed the war from the start, I want to say, "And? - And then what?"

    Just words, apparently.

    I'm sick of hearing him brag about this, as if one relatively obscure speech takes precedence over everything that came after it - the waffling on what he would have done if he had been in the Senate, the acknowlegment that his position was pretty much the George Bush position, vote after vote to continue to fund - which, by the way some people actually voted against as a matter of principle.

    And my personal favorite - failing to attend to his responsibilities as sub-committee chair on Afghanistan and Europe/NATO - a position that afforded him the opportunity to make a difference, to put something behind his words besides air, a position where he might actually have learned something.  

    But no - he was too busy running for president.  Why does it feel like that's too close to "busy cutting brush?"


    If someone's got information otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    I'd love to see it, but the only opposition that gets cited ad nauseum is one speech in October 2002 at an anti-war rally. Did Obama do anything else to oppose the war back then? Did he attend any of the bigger rallies that happened in January and February of the next year? Did he organize any opposition, did he petition his US representative, or Senator, did he introduce any resolutions in the Illinois Senate? Did he lift one finger to stop the war, other than that one speech in 2002?

    I'm sorry, but one speech doesn't cut it, especially when you take that one speech off of your website when you are running for national office. Being President is much more than making nice speeches.


    I Was At The Biggest Anti-War Rally In DC (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    We were over 300K strong, the largest in the US since Vietnam.  Obama was not present.  Neither, BTW, was Hillary, which was a big disappointment to me.  I agree that one speech isn't enough to own this issue.  He's pulled it out of his pocket every time the conversation turns to experience.  He hasn't been able to illustrate his relevant experience, so he uses it to question the experience of his opposition.  That's fine, except it isn't that much to run on.  It's overused, overplayed, and frankly, I'm very surprised at all the mileage he was able to get out of it.

    Amen. (none / 0) (#81)
    by 0 politico on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    He would be wise not to remind the troops of that little "lack in judgement" before he leaves post.  Those who ahve served in Afghanistan, or who have buddies or relatives there now, are not likely to give him a pass on that one.

    MoDo (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    also did her best to screw with Gore and talked smack about him from the get-go. Anything she says means nothing to me.  

    A broken clock is right twice a day (none / 0) (#58)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    In this instance, MoDo got it right.  My point is that even the vacuous MoDo saw through Bush's sham.  Yet Clinton didn't.

    of course, that's Dowd's shtick... (none / 0) (#66)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    seeing though everyone's sham, whether it really is a sham or not. And as I said below, Dowd's column didn't come until after Powell's February 2003 UN speech. A lot of things happened between October 2002 and March 2003 that people have now forgotten.

    Non sequitur (none / 0) (#42)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    Maureen Dowd may have come to the conclusion that Bush was wrong, but that doesn't make her right. Unless, of course, you believe the ends justify the means. It's an empty opposition if it isn't for sound reasons with an understanding of the facts. A more appropriate analogy would be this: doing a complex math problem, arriving at the correct answer, but screwing up somewhere in the details. Yes, the answer is right but the way it was derived was wrong.

    Rambling non-argument (none / 0) (#46)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    and Latin and a bad analogy won't save it.  What are you trying to say?   Dowd wrote a column after Powell's speech calling it out as the sham it was.  She was among the millions who weren't bamboozled by Bush like Clinton was.  Obama was also amongst those millions.

    Your timeline is off (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    Dowd wrote the column after Powell's speech in February 2003, not in October 2002, when Powell and Blix were pushing for a credible threat of force to pressure Hussein to let the inspectors in.

     And using one of Dowd's columns to make your point is pretty much of a stretch.She's the queen of meaningless snark. I doubt she would admit to trusting anyone with anything.



    Fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    I've been looking for someone who could tell us all exactly what US Senators were told and shown before the infamous AUMF vote.  Please enlighten us.

    I'd deadly serious.  None of us here were part of those encounters, so for us to say, "I was against this war since before it started so Clinton got it wrong", really translates to, "my guess turned out to be more accurate than Bush's lies".  We've seen that argument dozens or hundreds of times online, and it makes no sense.  Unless you or I or anyone else experienced what those Senators did and had the terrible responsibility of casting that vote, none of us can say with certainty how we would have voted.

    I was 100% against this insane war since before it started, simply because I was convinced that even if Saddam Hussein had those WMD's we were still better off with inspectors on the ground and keeping SH boxed in than starting what would have been a nightmare of a war.  I had no idea that Bush and his minions would mismanage the war to the extent they did, but I'm still convinced that had they done everything right it would have been a terrible misstep, anyway.

    And had I been part of those briefings, I might have voted for the AUMF, as well, in the interest of erring on the side of national security.


    You missed the broader point. (none / 0) (#64)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    My main point is that stating opposition to a war does not necessarily equal good leadership or judgment. If a sound argument cannot be constructed from the material you're presented with, then being right is hollow.

    Obama himself admitted this in an interview, defending Hillary. He knew that, had he been in the Senate to vote, he might have voted in favor of AUMF.

    Hindsight makes this a clear cut issue: the war is wrong. However, the information at the present (when the decision had to be made) was not so clear cut. If it was, there would have been greater opposition. Or are you going to claim that everyone who voted for AUMF was war-mongering or pandering to political interests?


    How Did Anyone Know (none / 0) (#65)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:11:16 PM EST
    that Iraq had no WMD program, when the country has been closed to inspections for over 5 years?  Where is the proof of this?  I would say that there was skepticism over the reports of WMD's but in fact, no one knew for sure.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#69)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:18:13 PM EST

    Obama was not consistent. (none / 0) (#71)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    It's well documented on this blog and elsewhere--his subtle, political maneuvering on the issue of the Iraq war.

    Explain his refusal to stop funding the war. How is this consistent with his views on the war? And don't throw out the tired "gotta support the troops" meme. It's inaccurate, dishonest and a Republican talking point.

    Hillary has voted to stop funding the war, recognizing the problem of the Iraq war.

    And congratulations for trying to be the Paul Reverie of the Iraq war. But your singular internet work does not disprove my broader point that being opposed to the war does not necessarily equal being right. It's the reasoning behind it, and there were many people who voted for AUMF with thought out considerations. They weren't all warmongering or pandering.


    When? (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    Hillary has voted to stop funding the war, recognizing the problem of the Iraq war.

    My understanding is that BHO and HRC have exactly the same record for funding the war: yes votes without exception.


    Link Provided By JJE (none / 0) (#87)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST

    Exactly the same voting record: YES  Yes votes without exception: NO


    OK (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    Neither has provided any leadership to defund the war. Their record is the same, as it is on almost everything.

    My point, which was lost in another thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    is that Obama has claimed to be consistently opposed to the war. But his record simply doesn't support that.

    1. Obama gives his mythic anti-war speech.
    2. In the name of politicking, Obama silences his opposition to the war.
    3. He votes to refund the war.
    4. In an interview, Obama says that he cannot know how he would have voted in regard to AUMF.
    5. Obama creates the narrative that he has always been staunchly opposed to the war.

    Hillary, as so many are quick to point out, voted in favor of AUMF. She saw the light; and, as a result, she voted to oppose funding the war in 2006.

    As a previous poster mentioned, they both did have the same record. And both came to vote no in 2006. However, Obama has been claiming he is different from Hillary in his views on the war.

    I say hardly. Hillary has shown a consistency that I can't find in Obama's waffling.


    There Isn't Anything I Like Better (none / 0) (#102)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    than to be smacked-down by someone I agree with :)

    Thanks for the time-line.


    I have stated the same (none / 0) (#89)
    by Saul on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    Hilary, voted and has explained that she wished she could have to vote back.  She had an excuse to fund the war since she felt sort of responsible for putting troops in harms way just like Kerry and Rockafeller who both voted for the war just like Hilary.  Both Kerry and Rockefellery support Obama so why is not Obama rejecting these endorsements. They voted just like Hilary.   Hilary had an excuse to fund the war initially but later stop to fund the war, but Obama had no excuse  to fund the war since he brags that he opposed the war from his famous anti war speech.  When he gave that speech he was running for U.S. Senator.  His district was unanimously against the war, so he knew he was safe to oppose the war he had no political risk in making the speech.  So why did he not stay consistent to oppose the war?  Because he knew he was going to run for the Presidency and if he stayed consistent  to his original anti war speech he would loose those who were for the war, or from veterans.  He was doing what was politically expedient instead of being true to his originally opposition to the war.  I understand that Feingold opposed the war and has opposed ever funding bill. If that is true then that is what Obama should have done in order to have any respect of him bragging that he opposed the war from day 1.  If you compromise that then you are just a normal politician and there is nothing special or different about you any more. This IMO is why the hype that Obama is running this new pristine new politics campaign is such a hypocrisy.

    I Think He Was Running For Illinois Senate (none / 0) (#92)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    But I agree w/most of what you say.

    Kindly fix your comment (none / 0) (#75)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    to NOT reflect the idea that HRC EVER said anything about Saddam being connected to 9/11. Believing there were WMD and he was a danger is one thing. Saying he was responsible for 9/11 or had any connection to it are purely BUSH and wingnut territory. So don't be ascribing falsehoods to HRC.

    How is it Obama supporters (none / 0) (#104)
    by bodhcatha on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    like Kerry, Rockefeller, Daschle, Ben Nelson and the entire msm couldn't figure it out either?  They all supported the war too, to put it mildly.  And why hasn't Nobama rejected their support since he's so 'principled'?  

    So would that make Kerry unfit (none / 0) (#108)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    for President back in 2004? Because we were behind him then were we not? Or only in 2008 when Obama is running and there's a Clinton to hate instead?

    Also, (none / 0) (#109)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    Kerry said that believing BUSH was a mistake. And for that reason the vote itself was. But just like Clinton, he said he had experts, Colin Powell, and the President telling him this resolution was necessary. My question to you is: was he unfit then to be President? The same way you're all so sure HRC is based on this one particular vote.

    Really? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    From one of the lead democrats who actually was in the congress and opposed the war while being attacked? He didn't just give a speech one day, he went after the administration.

    It will matter more than you think.


    Maybe it will (none / 0) (#56)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    I don't know for sure and neither do you.  But my guess is that Murtha's popularity in PA is more due to his ability to funnel federal funds to his distract than to his anti-war stance.

    I knew that (none / 0) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    at some point the "Murtha isn't worth anything" meme would start to be floated. Color me shocked.

    It started long ago on HuffPo [nt] (none / 0) (#100)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    It certainly will. (none / 0) (#59)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    Obama supporters may not want it to. But it will. And unlike most of us lefty liberal lefties....most of the country was in the same boat as HRC. Lied to and led into war. Along with Kerry and all the rest.  And all of us changed our mind almost simultaneously. People can understand HRC's position, because they were in it.

    Bravo... (none / 0) (#72)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    very true.

    Disagree again (none / 0) (#73)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    21 Senate Democrats voted against the War. It wasn't being lied to, it was cowardice in the face of assumed risk at looking "weak on terror." People with their eyes open have always known this war to be BS.

    You can claim that (none / 0) (#78)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    Obama was against the war from the beginning until you're blue in the face. I get it. It's pretty much the only thing he's running on. As a NYer, we were entirely behind HRC's vote. AND if you read her actual statements at the time she cast the vote,it's quite clear war was not where anyone thought it was headed. Good on the Senators that voted against it. The original vote is only important at this point to Obama supporters. We're there. How we get out it's what's important. HRC did what her constituents wanted. She is our representative and we were firmly behind her when she cast the vote to let inspectors in.  But I understand the constant re-hash of this. It's Obama's only judgment call that has not been called into question.

    And like I said, MOST of America? They're in the same boat as HRC. They relate. Obama and his supporters can keep saying "I told you so" and we'll still be in Iraq and we need to elect someone that will get us out. Not someone that will keep telling us how wrong we were over and over again.


    Huh (none / 0) (#82)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:29:59 PM EST
    When you tell me most of America was aligned with Hillary, that doesn't exactly assuage fears that she does what is politically expedient rather than what needs to be done. We need more from our President than what's easy. 42% of Senate Dems voted against it. Voting against was the right thing to do.

    Not to mention she voted against the Levin Amendment. That's a whole 'nother can of indefensible.

    Don't talk down to me about judgement when Hillary has yet to show backbone. Whatever looks to get her ahead in the short-term, that's what she supports.


    Make sure you tell Russ Feingold (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    how indefensible his vote against the Levin Amendment was.  What a warmonger that Feingold is.

    Feingold (none / 0) (#106)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    He voted against the entire bill. That's very different than giving the President total authority by voting for the bill and then against the Levin Amendment which would have limited the President's power to rampage on Iraq.



    So (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    Feingold decided that if the bill did pass, he didn't want to limit the President's power to rampage on Iraq?

    "Indefensible" is clearly a massive overstatement.


    An easy response (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    would be to quote Samantha Power...

    Does this man have NO ideas of (none / 0) (#103)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:30:36 PM EST
    his own?   He's parroting what Hillary said about him last week.   He did the same thing with the "3 am" ad, putting out a clever parody.   Maybe instead of running for President he should join the staff of Saturday Night Live.   Keepin' it real.

    Wow (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM EST
    Newsweek is so inane.  Do they have any advice to give Republicans???  What?

    Unreal.  I used to think Newsweek was slightly better than Time but I guess I was wrong.

    Newsweek... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56:40 PM EST
    "Newsweek question on Wright: Republicans have said they will make Wright controversy the centerpiece of attack in November. Will they give them advice? No, they won't give Republicans advice on what they should do, and they expect Hillary to be the nominee."

    I thought that had to be the dumbest question ever from a news organization.  


    It may be too late for her now- (none / 0) (#61)
    by kenosharick on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    I do not see how she turns it around unless the media start doing their jobs. BTW- heard Zogby on NPR say that "Dems will drop Hillary and Obama to nominate Gore." He is dreaming.

    LOL (none / 0) (#84)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:34:23 PM EST
    Look for a poll soon where Zogby finds a majority of Dems favor going to the convention and nominating Gore as their candidate.  

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:41:53 PM EST
    There was a time when I was as strong a Gore supporter as one could imagine, but even I know there's precisely zero chance of that happening.

    One has to wonder what forms of recreational chemistry were involved in Zogby's statement.


    earth to ZObgy (none / 0) (#96)
    by smott on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:58:04 PM EST
    ....y'know the Zogster has been completely off the reservation this polling season. He's had his ass handed to him, repeatedly, by SUSA.

    I'd be watching SUSA.

    And I don't think it's over yet for HRC. I think she's going to come in with a bug double-digit win in PA.

    I think the Supers are waiting to see how the Wright thing plays out and if it has legs. Then there's also FL and MI.

    And if Edwards happened to endorse HRC before the NC primary, that could really screw the pooch for BO. That's the main big, GE-important state left he looks to win.

    No doubt HRC is behind the 8-ball, but I think the jury's still out.  Especially if BO's negs continue to go up.


    ...and as for the "I opposed the war..." (none / 0) (#97)
    by smott on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    ...from the beginning thing...I'm tired of that.

    Yes he did oppose the war but he did so at a time when the political risk for him was hugely less given he was not in the Senate at the time. Opposing and actually voting against are 2 different things, as we've seen in his voting record once he actually got to the Senate.

    If we'd had 40-50 Dem Senators stand up and vote against AUMF back then, when 9-11 was still fresh in everyone's minds, how many Republican Senators do you think we'd have right now?  60? 65?

    Exactly (none / 0) (#99)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    And if some of us are tired and fatigued from Obama telling us all how he knew better back then...how do you think middle america feels?

    I told you so (none / 0) (#101)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    has never been a good political strategy.  Works for the fanboys, but I'm personally sick of it.

    and he opposed the War (none / 0) (#111)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    (1)without knowing if the DC Snipers (Sept 2002) were part of a larger scenario

    (2) or that in Oct 2002 scientists were publicly saying that the FBI botched the anthrax case and the FBI's version (stand-alone perp) was nonsense - more likely it was state-sponsored terrorism.

    Add it all together, 9/11, WMD, anthrax scare, DC sniper = a vote to empower the President.


    a new poll out now for Missouri (none / 0) (#110)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:25:38 PM EST
    Obama's war funding votes (none / 0) (#116)
    by abfabdem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    As an Illinois citizen I wrote to Obama on more than one occasion to plead with him to voice his opposition to the war on the floor of the Senate and not to vote for funding. I remember at the time feeling very betrayed that this person who sounded so good in the campaign was doing nothing to distinguish himself once he actually got to the Senate.  So my view has always been, "if he didn't show leadership then, why do we think he will show it as President?"