On Obama's Iraq offensive:
I was hoping to see something new about Obama's Iraq position from your diary but I haven't found any.
From your diary, his Iraq position:
The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.
This is indistinguishable from Hillary's and Edwards' positions.
In my opinion, the problem with Obama is that he is promising change and a new direction. But the positions that he has flashed out thus far -- foreign policy, health care, fiscal policy, etc -- do not show much novelty. He promised a new politics of Hope but his campaign is the most negative of all. There is a big disconnect between his words and his actual actions. Voters want to see more evidence of the kind of "change" and "hope" that he promises.
On Obama's "Judgement" offensive:
In my opinion, Obama's "judgement" claim is also tenuous since he wasn't in the Senate to vote for it.
In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he said "I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know."
The following is a good example of the difference between saying something in a speech and actual voting on an issue.
Mr. Obama's criticism of the war led him to say, in 2003, that he would have opposed the $87 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. Once elected to the Senate in 2004, however, Mr. Obama voted in favor of spending bills for the Iraq military campaign and the troops there. An Obama spokesman said that Mr. Obama's only problem with the $87 billion bill was the roughly $20 billion part for reconstruction and no-bid contracts. But the subsequent spending bills Mr. Obama voted for also included similar allocations.
An Obama spokesman said that Mr. Obama's only problem with the $87 billion bill was the roughly $20 billion part for reconstruction and no-bid contracts. But the subsequent spending bills Mr. Obama voted for also included similar allocations.
I suspect that the majority of voters feel the same way as I do -- that his "judgement" argument is tenuous. I also suspect that despite all the drumbeats by Hillary's opponents blaming her for the war vote, the majority of the voters don't blame her for it. She wouldn't have taken us to war if she were the President. They correctly blame the Bush administration for the war. They do not appreciate obama's blaming the Democrats for the war. These may very well be the reasons why Obama's "judgement" strategy hasn't worked and is unlikely to work in the future.
I suspect that the majority of voters feel the same way as I do -- that his "judgement" argument is tenuous. I also suspect that despite all the drumbeats by Hillary's opponents blaming her for the war vote, the majority of the voters don't blame her for it.
That is her major problem in Iowa. The Iraq War. This was even said on This Week with George S. by Donna Brazile. Hence, why she is looking for a new Field Ops in IA.
Obama is challenging Americans to either "turn back the clock" or "turn the page". That is the difference.
Hillary is doing well in Iowa, in my opinion.
Electing Hillary would be a major turning of the page in all areas -- foreign policy, health care, fiscal policy, energy, education, science, supreme court, infrastructure, New Orleans and many others. Last but not least, electing a woman President would by itself be a major turning of the page.
To me, the turning of the page has begun with Bill Clinton. We're supposed to cross the bridge to the 21st century but the crossing of the bridge was arrested by the Bush administration. Al Gore was supposed to lead us but unfortunately he couldn't. I believe with all my heart that Hillary Clinton will be able to lead us in crossing this bridge to the 21st century! :)
> "Electing Hillary would be a major turning of the page in all areas -- foreign policy.."
This is truly laughable.
Hillary Clinton has represented nothing but the status-quo (the dishonest, NeoCon status-quo) when it comes to foreign policy.
You are correct that we need to turn the page.
But this Bush-Cheney enabler and happy War-propagandist (Clinton), is not the "fix" here! Her U.S. Senator track record is the what got us into these tragedies and made the Democratic Party voiceless facilitators and totally ineffectual for 7 long years of hell!
How can the enablers ... now be the "heroes"??
All the falsehood and unsubstantiated lies spewed by you and a small minority of Hillary haters haven't worked as you've hoped, has it?
The truth will always prevail, my dear friend.
Hillary and her supporters will have the last laugh! :)
You can have her,a person who can't take a political stand on anything.A person who's scared she may offend someone,so she just tap dances all over the place.Yeah that's great leadership.
The fact that her voting record is more progressive than Edwards is proof enough for me that she takes a more courageous political stand than Edwards.
Even though her voting record is identical to Obama's, the fact that Obama kept skipping difficult votes is a proof to me that Hillary is more courageous. I can't recall any vote that Obama and Edward have taken that can be deemed as more courageous than Hillary.
And she doesn't answer questions, which ppl at my job picked up on who watched the Debate on Wednesday.
if he asks a gotcha question - she and all Dems should respond with a FU.
But at least your co workers have bought the media message from that eve.
Nope, not lies. Her NeoCon U.S. Senate record is there plain as the nose on her face for all to see.
Now there's something to laugh about ... make that cry about!
Exactly! Her voting record is proof. Her voting record is more progressive than Edwards and is identical to Obama's. I strongly suggest your reading Alegre's post today at myDD for Hillary's record.
Link
Edwards wrote and co-sponsored the Iraq war authorization bill and he voted no to Byrd's amendment, which would have limited the authorization to only 1 year. Hillary voted yes to the Byrd's amendment.
More proof that Hillary never supported the war:
JANUARY 2003: HILLARY SENDS LETTER TO POWELL, URGES HIM TO CONTINUE ROBUST INSPECTIONS: "If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors and act to unite the UN Security Council behind the use of U2 aircraft in Iraq...Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors." [Letter to Colin Powell, 1/31/03]
MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES 'PEACEFUL SOLUTION,' PUSHES BUSH TO 'ENLIST MORE SUPPORT' FROM ALLIES: "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...[T]he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added." [AP, 3/3/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS WAR IS BEING RUN BY 'POORLY PREPARED PEOPLE' WHO ARE 'OBSESSED WITH IRAQ': "As a result, we are living with the consequences of refusing to admit the size of this undertaking. I've said on many occasions that it is bewildering to me how this administration, which is run by people who've been obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War, could be so poorly prepared once the military success was assured." [Press Conference With Jack Reed, 12/1/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS BUSH HAS 'NOT LEVELED WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE' FROM 'THE VERY BEGINNING': "I think that the administration has from the very beginning not leveled with the American people. There is no doubt that we have seen a rather disastrous aftermath of the military action." [Meet the Press, 12/7/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS BUSH'S 'HAPPY TALK' IS 'NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR POLICY': "I think that one of the missing elements in our strategy thus far has been the president and the administration leveling with the American people about what it is we're up against, how long it's going to take, how much it's going to cost...No reasonable person looking at the facts can't see that there are some real problems that we have to deal with. I don't think happy talk, you know, is a substitute for a policy." [Face the Nation, 12/7/03]
DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SLAMS BUSH FOR 'MISCALCULATION' AND 'INEPT PLANNING': "So, there was a lot of miscalculation and, and, frankly, inept planning that we're now living with the consequences. I regret the way the president has used the authority. I mean, it's one thing to say, you know, we're heading down a road that is rooted in the values and ideals and practicalities of what got us to this point, looking back at previous administrations, and there was an expectation about how that authority would be used, which, you know, frankly, I'm, you know, disappointed that it wasn't." [This Week, 12/7/03]
OCTOBER 2003: HILLARY ASSERTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION 'GILDED THE LILY' ON IRAQ WAR INTELLIGENCE: "Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried wolf. It is a big price to pay." [Floor Speech, 10/17/03]
1. She voted for the Iraq War Resolution
2. She voted for Lieberman-Kyl
3. She opposed a ban on the use of illegal, civilian-killing cluster bombs (WMD) by the U.S.
4. She voted for the Orwellian U.S. Patriot Act twice
5. She refused to talk to Cindy Sheehan whose son was needlessly killed in the War that Clinton helped facilitate.
6. She didn't even do her job and read the full, unedited, U.S. Intelligence report on Iran (only the dishonest, cherry-picked, executive summary report that was vetted by the White House).
Let's get real. Talk is cheap. The votes are there for all to see!
She refused to talk to Cindy Sheehan whose son was needlessly killed in the War that Clinton helped facilitate.
Now you're telling absolute lies. Hillary Clinton met with Cindy Sheehan in 2005. Would you like to continue making things up?
I pesonally believe that her Iraq war vote, as she had explained in her floor speech prior to the vote, was not for a vote for preemptive war against Iraq. It was to force inspection upon Saddam. Her vote for the Byrd amendment and my post above that you responded to provided ample proof that she did not support a pre-emtive war against Iraq. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, Obama said "I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." Thus, he really cannot claim that he would have voted NAY. The majority of voters don't blame Hillary for her vote. She wouldn't have taken us to war if she were the President. They correctly blame the Bush administration for the war. They do not appreciate obama's blaming the Democrats for the war.
Lieberman-Kyl vote wasn't a vote for war with Iran. To saythat this is a vote for war with Iran is a blatant lie. It was a vote for dealing with Iran by means other than war, such as sanctions. Her co-sponsoring of the Webb's amendment attests to this fact. Obama co-sponsored the exact same amendment in February. I believe that if he were present for the Lieberman-Kyl vote, he would have voted YEA.
Edwards, Biden and Dodd also voted for the first Patriot Act. Obama was not yet a Senator for the 1st Patriot Act vote but he voted for the reauthorization bill in 2006. Feingold was the only Senator that voted against the first Patriot Act. Obama, Biden, Dodd voted YEA for the Patriot Act reauthorization bill HR3199. Why do you attack only Hillary for her vote when Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd also voted the same way? Is it because she is a woman?
It is not true that she refused to talk to Cindy Sheehan. I specifically remembered Cindy posting a diary at DailyKos describing her meeting with Hillary.
I don't understand your point #6. Intelligence report on Iran? Could you please provide a link?
In conclusion, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd have voted the same way as Hillary when they were present for the votes. It is simply wrong to be against Hillary and not Obama and Edwards when they voted the same way.
she made a political calculation, not just for his future, but also for her state (new yorkers were outraged at 9-11 and would have agreed to invade any country hinted at involvement in that attack).
the problem is that she continues to make bad political calculations. she didn't let the public into her health care hearings. she hid her billing records that were under subpoena. she voted to invade iraq. she backs the bush doctrine and defends the presidential prerogative. bad judgment repeated over and over...
You wrote "she didn't let the public into her health care hearings."
"It is very sad that you're blaming Hillary for the failure of the Health Care Reform in 1993. I suggets that you read the following article:
The HillaryCare Mythology
You wrote "she hid her billing records that were under subpoena."
She has every right to protect herself against the witch hunt against her and Bill Clinton by the vast right wing conspiracy. After spendig gazillion amount of taxpayers' money, the vast army of investigators and special prosecutors couldn't find anything wrong with the Clintons' finances. I strongly suggest that you read the following book.
The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton
There is no doubt that the vast right wing conspirators will tear into Obama regarding his Rezko connection should he be nominated. They have already hurled a corruption charge against him. Patrick Fitzgerald's United States Federal Prosecutor Office for Illinois has filed a 65 page indictment of Antoin "Tony" Rezko . The trial has been scheduled for February 25, 2008 by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve. Judge Eve called the trial date of Febuary 25, 2008 a firm date. The trial preparations and news will coincide with the first Democratic Primaries and Caucuses in January and February 2008. The headlines are sure to draw attention to Obama's shady deals with Rezko in the purchase of Obama's $1.65 million house.
Sadly, nobody has a perfect record in judement. Obama did not have good judgement in his dealings with Tony Rezko.
You wrote "she voted to invade iraq."
Apparently you haven't read my post that you responded to. I will therefore repeat again just for you. I pesonally believe that her Iraq war vote, as she had explained in her floor speech prior to the vote, was not for a vote for preemptive war against Iraq. It was to force inspection upon Saddam. Her vote for the Byrd amendment and my post above that you responded to provided ample proof that she did not support a pre-emtive war against Iraq. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, Obama said "I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." Thus, he really cannot claim that he would have voted NAY. The majority of voters don't blame Hillary for her vote. She wouldn't have taken us to war if she were the President. They correctly blame the Bush administration for the war. They do not appreciate obama's blaming the Democrats for the war.
You wrote "she backs the bush doctrine and defends the presidential prerogative."
She definitely did not back the bush doctrine and defends the presidential prerogative. The following are proofs.
Then how come she didn't read anything more than the executive summary of the NIE or vote for the Levin amendment? Everything you posted about her actions after February 2003 is virtually meaningless relative to her AUMF vote.
I have said that it is my personal opinion. I'm not forcing my personal beliefs upon anybody here. I thought that this blog is a place that one may express one's personal opinions. I have hence expressed my personal opnion. You do not have to agree with my personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, always. This is a free country.
Sure. I was referring to your citations. And you didn't answer the question, either.
It is my personal opinion that the citations provided evidence that she did not back the bush doctrine and did not defend the presidential prerogative that bored one was charging against Hillary. It appeared to me that the opposite is more likely to be true.
As you say you are entitled to your opinion, I was just trying to point out the relative merits of those post AUMF actions in comparison to her vote, which actually enabled the war. Suit yourself on these points.
Edwards, Biden and Dodd also voted for AUMF. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, Obama said "I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." Thus, he really cannot claim that he would have voted NAY. If you really want a Presidential candidate that had voted against AUMF, you would have to pick Kucinich. I love Kucinich. I just don't think that he can win. But if you feel this strongly about AUMF vote, he IS the candidate for you.
Even if all the Democrats have voted NAY, there wouldn't be enough votes to prevent the passage of AUMF. The majority of voters don't blame Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Biden and Dodd for their AUMF votes. These Democrats wouldn't have taken us to war if they were the President. The voters correctly blame the Bush administration for the war. They do not appreciate obama's blaming the Democrats for the war.
Twenty-six senators voted against it. It stands as fact. And you are being just as disingenuous in asserting that his truthful answer disqualifies Obama as an opponent. How could he possibly have answered that question truthfully any other way?
No, you can't explain that vote away so easily, as much as you would like to, it seems. If you were among those who were unsure or deferred your better judgement at the time, as they did, perhaps absolving them feels right. I wouldn't know. Without the AUMF there would have been no war, it's that simple. Yeah, Bush's war, all right. With a 70% approval rating at the time.
I'm not explaining away anything. It's my PERSONAL opinion. It's a free country. I'm entitled to my opinion.
Sure. Me too.
i was referring to hillary's decision to contest a lawsuit asking for public access to government hearings -- something that most democrats support (we want greater transparency, not less). whether or not hillary is to blame for the failure of the health care proposal is something that i think most voters have already decided.
if you want to defend hillary's exception to the rule of law, that's your prerogative. i obviously believe that the rule of law is more important and that no individual should be exempt (even the president or his spouse). i completely agree that the right has an obsession with hillary, which i think is why people don't support her (why go through that again?) -- so it cuts both ways.
as i've said before, i don't think inferring that hillary is an idiot helps her cause much. if she did believe that she wasn't voting to invade iraq, then not only is she our dumbest senator, but she's probably the dumbest person in america. she, alone, would have understood her vote that way.
my comments about her defense of the bush doctrine and presidential prerogatives were not derived from her vote to invade iraq (even if she was so stupid that she didn't understand her vote that way). since my understanding of this is not derived from her public comments, but things she's said at both party events and private conversations, you'll understand why we disagree. you can believe what you want -- believing what you want to believe is a common characteristic of hillary supporters here (they are not alone, though) -- but my training forces me to be more objective about what i presume to be true...
And if you want the DLC? Which real progressives don't? She's your girl!!!!
DLC is not my enemy. DLC is part of the Dem family. I wouldn't cut my nose to spite my face. I believe in a big tent Democratic Party -- united we win, divided we lose.
I'm sure Obama and Edwards would agree with me on this point.
The DLC is bullshit and everyone knows it.
They have tried to muzzle the Democratic Party, convert them into voiceless sheep, and get them to go along with most incideous policies that have completely ruined this Nation!
The DLC is not progressive one damn bit.
It is a lie to say that "DLC have tried to muzzle the Democratic Party, convert them into voiceless sheep, and get them to go along with most incideous policies that have completely ruined this Nation!"
DLC is not the left wing of the Democratic Party but neither is the majority of Democrats.
and the first thing is equality. the netroots, the anti-war democrats, deserve an equal place at the table. this is the minimum requirement for democrats to demand unconditional loyalty. the fact is that progressives still don't have equal status or equal influence. and that's more true with hillary than the party. unity requires more of the traditional power structure -- because it requires that they let us in -- than it requires from us...
I think her comment last April, "It's a free country. People can vote for me or vote for somebody else" pretty much let progressives know it was going to be her way or the highway. She dealt with that issue early in the campaign and has never looked back and anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.
idiotic for hillary's supporters to start demanding loyalty...
She has made it very clear by her appearance at YearlyKos that the netroots and the anti-war democrats has an equal place at her table. I clearly heard her asking for a partnership with the netroots for the fights that we will face in the future. She extended a hand of friendship to the netroots despite their hatred and vitriol agains er.
typo... should read vitriol against her.
to the netroots. but let's not call her attempts a seat at the table, or even approaching equality. as holden put it, this is an insider who's leary of outsiders. we aren't part of the clinton coalition, and we're supposed to be thrilled to just be mentioned in the same paragraph as her...
Donna Brazile is a B-Rock surrogate.
let him win one.
But, then we'd still win.
This chessboard aint as complicated as you believe it to be.
