Senator Barack Obama On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:33:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Just as Ezra Klein does not get it, fellow Big Media Blogger Matt Yglesias is equally obtuse about the point of Senator Clinton's highlighting SENATOR Barack Obama's record on Iraq. Matt writes:

I don't understand what point her campaign is trying to make. Has Obama been less of a consistent, strong anti-war leader than I would have liked? Unquestionably, yes.

That is one point. Matt continues:

It seems that between the time he entered the Senate and the time he started gearing up to run for President, he adopted a pretty cautious political strategy when I wish he had adopted a bold one.

That is another point.

That said, Russ Feingold's not his opponent. Hillary Clinton is.

The point here is that SENATOR Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton's opponent. Obama is acting as if he has been Senator Russ Feingold on Iraq. He wasn't. He was basically Senator Hillary Clinton. When it came time to do more than talk about opposing Iraq, Senator Barack Obama did nothing. Heck, for 2 years, he did not even talk about it.

THAT is the point.

< The Recession Responses | Discussing Race And Politics >

Legal

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

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

Senator Barack Obama On Iraq | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How is it that all these big bloggers (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:45:03 AM EST

are so out of it on this issue? Both Clinton and Obama were equally ineffective. Thank you for these postings, I know who fought and I know who asked questions and I know who drafted this and demanded that and it wasn't Clinton and it wasn't Obama who were busy grooming themselves like fatcats. They are both quite beautiful now.

They cared not at all (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST

either Yglesias or Klein about Congressional efforts to end the war in Iraq this past year. It is not surprising that they do not care about it now.

This is epidemic in the blogosphere. They did not care then, except for some, they do not care now.

IT is all a game to them.


: I'll even bring up Edwards as well (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:55:15 AM EST

He may not have been in the Senate then but he was a presidential contender and he could have said a lot more but he chose not to. I'm sure thinking that something could happen (we could get attacked again) and that could squash his appeal in the end. Nobody fell on any swords though and nobody gets to wear any medals here......nobody!

68 of 69 votes (none / 0) (#4)
by Turkana on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST

when tpm counted.

Both ineffective against the war (none / 0) (#5)
by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:22:53 AM EST

But the Clinton people are planning to host a world tour with the father of the biggest war criminal after they win. Huh?

As far as cocaine is concerned, our current President had his nose powdered quite a bit, a lot more than Obama. Besides, Mena is just an off-hand reference away.

The games go on. I'll vote for Edwards when the circus comes to my town.

The Dem. contenders and Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST

have similar views, I suspect, of those from whom extricating U.S. troops from Iraq is the prime issue.

Exactly (none / 0) (#7)
by BDB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:58:42 AM EST

I don't know if the Clinton tactic will work or not, but ITA that the tactic is about weakening Obama's position regarding his opposition on Iraq. It also goes to the heart of one of Clinton's key criticisms of him - he talks, not acts. So he gives a great speech opposing Iraq and then does nothing when he gets to the Senate to stop it and, in fact, votes exactly the way Clinton has.

She still has the problem that she supported the AUMF, but there isn't a whole lot they can do about that beyond what they already have unless they have a time machine.

The problem (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST

is that her line calls voting like her inaction, she is attacking her own record at the same time.


True (none / 0) (#9)
by BDB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:32:58 AM EST

But she hasn't claimed to be some great Iraq war opponent since it began. I suspect any hit she was going to take on Iraq has already happened.

Whereas this puts Obama on the defensive about his ability to do the things he says in his great speeches. Look at his response:

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Sen. Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong. She suggested that I didn't clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn't read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance.

It doesn't actually say anything he DID to stop it beyond making a speech. That's because when he got to the Senate he didn't DO anything. That's Clinton's point - that it doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you do. Granted, on Iraq, her record isn't any better than his and, given her AUMF vote, is actually worse.

But that doesn't matter because it isn't about convincing you to vote for Clinton because of her war stance, it's about convincing you that you shouldn't vote for Obama simply because of his war speech and, even more, you can't trust that any of the speeches he's giving now will lead him to do anything.

It isn't about raising up Clinton, it's about lowering Obama.

Whether it will work or not, who knows?


: He hasn't either (none / 0) (#13)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:27:09 AM EST

he said he came out against it, and she didn't. It is a pretty bad line of attack.
He has never acted like he is Russ Feingold. For her attack to work, it requires a double standard, not the other way around.

If I am not mistaken, (none / 0) (#10)
by Saul on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:11:58 AM EST

correct me if I am wrong, but when congress voted for the war wasn't that a midterm election year for congress? Since Bush and his neocons took advantage of 9-11 to implement their old plan to invade Iraq, using the highly public lynch mob mentality that permeated the air at the time,and did not that make all those who were running for congress almost impossible for them to vote against the invasion of Iraq for fear of not being elected and looking unpatriotic even if they had strong convictions not to vote for the war? Would the vote have been different if it were not an election year?

But only the House of Representatives (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST

members stand for election every two years.


She was a senator (none / 0) (#12)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST

she is up every six years. She wasn't up till 2006.


Who lost their seat for voting against (none / 0) (#16)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST

going to war?

certainly not Feingold, nor any of the House members.


: But they did not know (none / 0) (#17)
by Saul on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:59:21 PM EST

that at the time they voted. Those few that voted against the war were sticking to their strong convictions but feared the worse in their political life for voting that way. I still would of love to know how they would have voted if there was no midterm election at that time.

No, the point is (none / 0) (#14)
by DA in LA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST

Until the Senate leadership decides to stand up to Bush on the war, what individual Senators do matters little.

The best chance the Dems have is to pick someone who did not vote for the war and did not vote to label Iran's army a terrorist organization.

I feel like I am watching a train wreck. Reminds me of 2000 and 2004.

The Real Problem for Obama on the War (none / 0) (#15)
by andreww on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST

The real issue for Obama with the war isn't that his anti-war stance wasn't stronger, it's the line that the Clintons keep bringing up about how in 2004 he said he didn't know how he would have voted. The problem for him is that the real true answer, for both then, as well as now in response to this, seems to be "Of course I wouldn't have voted for it, but John Kerry made me the Keynote speaker so I can't exactly go walking around saying that our nominee's stance on the war was wrong."

So the problem for Obama now is that to truly dampen this criticism he has to basically say he was diluting his views in light of the fact that he was supporting the democratic nominee. This being said, I still believe the biggest thing that separates him from Hillary is his initial stance on the war. Clearly the Clintons know this and it's why they are attacking him on it. It's very Roveian, attack your opponents strengths.

Obama needs to swallow the bitter pill and tell people he shouldn't have glossed over his anti-war stance to suit Kerry's needs. Until then, I believe the Clinton's have effectively questioned his moral authority on the issue by essentially saying "he's as bad as I am on Iraq."

: 2004 Statement (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by BDB on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:07:02 PM EST

If it were just his 2004 statement, then I think Obama would have no problem crushing Clinton on the war issue. I believe that he would hedge to give cover to Kerry-Edwards and other Democrats up for election. To the extent that was his motivation, it makes me like him more, frankly.
Obama's problem is that it's more than just his 2004 statement. It's his record on funding votes and his lack of leadership in the Senate on Iraq. That's what enables folks to question how he really would've voted. The statement is just the beginning of that line of attack.
I actually am glad that the Iraq stuff is getting debated. I much prefer it over the race crap. Let Obama take hits over not standing up enough against Iraq once he was in the Seante. Let Clinton take hits for her initial vote. They should. And, hopefully, but taking such hits they will do better next time whether they are in the Senate or in the White House.

If you're going to talk about the war... (none / 0) (#19)
by USSunDogs11 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:25:35 PM EST

If you're going to talk about the war, then you need to watch this. I found this video on MySpace and it's totally an eye opener. It speaks the truth and it's so intense! Anyone who agrees with the war should watch this and hopefully this would change your mind!

If you go to Myspace, just type in "Letters Home from the Garden of Stone", or here is the link http://vidsearch.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=24135701