home

Hillary Says Obama Distorted Her Record Today in Denver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Says Obama Distorted Her Record Today in Denver | 223 comments (223 topical)
    gonna be a fun debate (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:12:12 PM EST
    Thursday.

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


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


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

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


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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    I think not.

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

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

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

    Conclusion?

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

    Parent

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

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

    I think not.

    I agree.

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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


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

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

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

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

    Thanks.

    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Are you Rudy?

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    She answered them with total obfuscations and subject-changing.

    Can anyone deny she voted for the Iraq War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    Some Hillary supporters here actually deny this!

    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

    The rest of the points all stick.

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Being an Obama supporter does not make a troll.

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    And yes, they were wrong.  

    Parent

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


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

    What a leader.

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    May I suggest a deep breath?

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Parent

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

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

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

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

    Anything else.  

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

    1.  No one is denying that Obama made the speech.  Hillary certainly isn't denying it.  I, personally, think that the positive nature of the speech is outweighed by the fact that he stated on the record later that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the senate, and by the fact that since he has actually been a senator, and thus in a position of responsibility to do something, he has consistently voted to continue the war.  I assume you find the speech more important than his later actions.  

    2.  Hillary had plenty of information from plenty of sources.  Let's not forget that the whole point is that Bush lied and rigged the evidence.  Does that mean I agree with what Hillary did?  Of course not.

    But again, let's stick with comparing Hillary and Obama.  You say it's silly to talk about Obama reading the report because he wasn't a senator.  Yet, you explicitly want to compare Obama's speech to Clinton's vote.  You can't have it both ways.  I personally agree with the part of you that points out the obvious fact that Obama wasn't a senator at the time.  Thus, I don't think the speech itself can serve as proof of what Obama would have actually do had he been in a position of responsibity at the time.  Obama himself admitted as much in 2004.  And his actions in the senate sure don't look anti-war to me.

    1.  Again, you are the one who said we should be comparing the difference between the two candidates.  The difference here is that Clinton voted for the amendment, while Obama ducked the vote.  You seem to see this only as something negative for Hillary.  I see it as negative for both candidates.  

    2.  Kennedy and Reagan only sat down with the "Russian guys" after long, painstaking negotiation among diplomats.  If you're trying to say that Hillary said she would categorically never meet with the head of state of Iran, you are wrong.  At the time, Obama made what came off as a naive comment about just going ahead and picking up the phone, and Clinton zinged him with a comment about how it's more complicated than that.  Frankly, on that I'd be willing to think that Obama simply misspoke in that debate and he knows that diplomacy is a more complicated process than he made it sound.  Likewise, to try to spin Clinton's comment to make her out to be Cheney 2.0 is ridiculous.


    Parent
    Not convincing (none / 0) (#190)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    The man has more excuses for his mess ups.

    The worst one is that he didn't make it to a vote b/c he wasn't informed enough to come. This sounds more like a Bush explanation than a Democrat's.

    Darn it, I want someone who knows what's going on to be president!

    Parent

    He missed almost 40% of votes last year (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    not just that vote.  That really bothers me; I don't need another president who runs to a ranch -- or whatever would be Obama's equivalent -- instead of staying in DC to do the job.

    That voting record in the U.S. Senate, when Clinton and other candidates from Congress had far better records, plus Obama not calling any meetings of a Senate committee he chairs, plus Obama's "present" votes as a state senator -- which have cost him the endorsement of some Illinoisans who apparently don't support his convoluted explanations -- all these are just some of the "anything else" that are concerns.

    He looks to me like someone who would rather run for president than be president, who would rather run around the country to adulation from audiences than stay in D.C. to do his job . . . and then he criticizes Clinton for doing her job in the Senate.

    Parent

    Please some objectivity (none / 0) (#3)
    by nevadadem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    Jeralyn,

    talking about distortion...that Obama statement was made in January 2001...

    HRC did change her position on toture and voted for the war.

    That sentence is from Obama's speech (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    in Denver, not 2001.


    Parent
    The statement..... (none / 0) (#11)
    by nevadadem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:54 PM EST
    The statement regarding Rumsfeld was made in January 2001....do we really wanna go back to all the statements made Pre-9/11

    Parent
    Obama keeps referring to his 2002 anti-war (none / 0) (#41)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:54:21 PM EST
    speech, doesn't he

    Parent
    No, he's refering to Hillary's vote for war (none / 0) (#49)
    by Rojas on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:00:21 PM EST


    Parent
    When he calls himself the anti-war (none / 0) (#54)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:04:42 PM EST
    candidate, he is referring to that single speech.

    Parent
    He took a stand against it (none / 0) (#59)
    by Rojas on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    She voted for it.
    Seems binary.

    Parent
    defunding (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by hookfan on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:26:27 PM EST
    Where did I miss his strong stance against the war by his many votes supporting defunding? Oh yeah, "present" shows great courage in leadership.

    Parent
    That changes the fact that she voted for it? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Rojas on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:09 PM EST
    or does it change the subject?

    Parent
    It shows (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
    that Obama was in agreement with McCain on the war funding

    Parent
    So Hillary and Obama agree with McCain (none / 0) (#82)
    by Rojas on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:44:42 PM EST
    on the war funding.
    Do you have a point?

    Parent
    Lockstep with McCain (none / 0) (#87)
    by hookfan on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:49:16 PM EST
    Exactly.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#92)
    by hookfan on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:52:02 PM EST
    neither is lilly white are they? The problem is Obama presents himself as the great antiwar messiah, but his cowardice re defunding speaks otherwise.

    Parent
    Ummm... (none / 0) (#155)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:31:41 AM EST
    ... so was Hillary Clinton.

    I love when Clinton supporters bash Obama... for doing the same thing as Clinton!

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by rebecca on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    Obama tries to tie Clinton to McCain.  Clinton supporters point out that he's in a glass house on that point since his own actions are much the same.  Obama supporter comes back with

    I love when Clinton supporters bash Obama... for doing the same thing as Clinton!



    Parent
    That's not the point: (none / 0) (#124)
    by magnetics on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:52:52 AM EST
    The point is that he has no moral high ground to occupy here -- both he and Hillary share positions of equal weakness.  So he is wrong to try and paint himself as the anti war hero.  It's bogus.

    Parent
    Somewhere I Missed All Those (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:03:30 AM EST
    strong speeches he made from 04 - 06 against the occupation. His objections to the occupation during all of his media appearances during that time. I missed those too.  I, did see his TV appearance prior to the start of the negotiations on the supplemental where he said he wouldn't cut off funding and play "chicken with the lives of the troops." He was also one of the strongest promoters of the idea of the "magical September" when all of his Republican colleagues were going to join him in a bipartisan effort to end the occupation. Who could forget his great sound bite of "Just 16 More Votes To End The War." Of course, we won't mention that sound bite was factually inaccurate and greatly distorted what was needed to override a presidential veto. It made good rhetoric and if it raised false hopes and relieved him of any responsiblity for the outcome, no big deal.

    Sorry, to my mind he did not earn the designation of the Anti-War candidate.

    Parent

    Bill was right (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:09:10 AM EST
    He was in the Fantasy Anti War league, like all the others in the blogosphere.

    Parent
    Then his support of Rumsfeld is just as valid (none / 0) (#70)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:32:08 PM EST
    And his support of voting with McCaim on the War funding is valid

    Parent
    umm (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:44:51 PM EST
    see you are naming instances where she also voted with McCain.

    Parent
    To take a stand.. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:05:40 AM EST
    What did he risk? Life, limb, position? Money, Power? or ether?

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#157)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:33:01 AM EST
    ... yea, he did risk.

    Being against war was not a popular opinion, even among progressives in Chicago.

    Obama was clearly speaking out against the mainstream opinion, which very much was a risk of position and power.  

    Parent

    then obama says he didn't know (none / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:15:04 AM EST
    what he would have done about voting for the war if he had been in the senate. give me a break, obmama was against before he was for it. he voted for the war funding. he started a furor about attacking pakistan. geez

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:12:02 PM EST
    I don't think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life.
    Obama said this in early 2001, 9 months before 9/11 etal, and his (inconsequential, as he was an Illinois state senator at the time) support of Rummy's conformation, was precisely the same as every other Dem in the US senate as every single one of them voted FOR Rummy's conformation, including the freshman US senator from New York...

    Parent
    Then Obama agreed with McCain and Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    Why is Obama afraid to say that?

    Parent
    because (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    I suspect it doesn't fit well his self appointed antiwar messiahship narrative. I mean the voting record makes him look like McCain. How then can he justifiably attack Hillary with being like McCain? Obama is all hat and no cattle on this.

    Parent
    No argument. (none / 0) (#132)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:37:12 AM EST
    My only point is that TL is quite ridiculous on this issue. Sad part is, this exact issue was raised and soundly rebutted on another TL thread earlier today, I assume that's where she got the quote from. I wonder if she thought no one would remember it...

    Parent
    nevadadem (none / 0) (#168)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:51:42 AM EST
    I can't even believe you're exactly like GWB in 2000. Do we wanna go back to 2001? OMG! You don't see that the BO people and the media have gone back to the 1990s to crucify Hillary for things she didn't even do? But, of course, we don't want to look at anything BO did in the past.

    Parent
    Hahaha... (none / 0) (#177)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    ... so Hillary can run on all the good things that her husband did, but none of the bad?

    A significant aspect of Clinton's campaign has been that she has "executive experience" from her time in the White House.  If she wants to run on that, she needs to deal with all the crap that the Clinton administration did.

    Parent

    let's see ole obama was elected to (none / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:12:35 AM EST
    the senate not necessarily on star power but on the fact that the repub candidates imploded. i bet hillary would love to have run against keys. that would have made life so much simpler. and let's go back and look at how he got statewide office. remember alice! the repubs sure will.

    and his experience? yeah, what experience! he was head of the subcommittee for europe. how many times did he go there? was it once or twice? obama thinks he can lead the free world on voting present. that doesn't sound like a winner to me.

    Parent

    Your point? (none / 0) (#186)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    What is your point?

    And how is this relevant to talking about Hillary's experience in the White House in the 90's?

    I am not talking about Obama's experience.  I am talking about how Tek doesn't like that Obama brings things up from the 90's about Hillary, even though that is a HUGE aspect of her campaign.

    Parent

    well you are talking about hillary's experience (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:57:30 AM EST
    so i am contrasting that which is lacking in obama's background. heck brittany could run against keyes and win an election. and just what has he done in the senate? not much! he hasn't been out there as a leader on iraq like finegold or hagel. he hasn't been a leader of fisa like others. he was supposed to chairman the a foreign relations subcommittee. why don't you look up just how often they met or how often he went to europe. this isn't relevant. yes, it is.

    Parent
    no... (none / 0) (#212)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    I was not talking about Hillary's experience.

    I was talking about how it was valid to use what happened during the Clinton administration against her, as she clearly runs on her time spent as First Lady.  

    Again, you can change the conversation if you would like, but I was originally responding to this comment:

    You don't see that the BO people and the media have gone back to the 1990s to crucify Hillary for things she didn't even do?

    I never addressed who has more or better experience.  I addressed whether or not it was legitimate to "crucify Hillary" by going "bat to the 1990s."

    Parent
    ok, now please post the exact (none / 0) (#217)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    comment she made that she was running on her husband's experience in the white house where she says elect me because i was first lady.

    and while you are bringing up one candidate's experience or representation, it is fair game to bring up the other which i notice you don't seem to want to discuss.

    Parent

    exact comment (none / 0) (#218)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    Come on... you and I both know that there is no "exact comment" from her saying that she is running on her husband's experience.  I never said there was.

    But she has make many, many comments about her "executive experience" and her "experience" that comes almost solely from the time she has spend as the wife of a governor and president.  

    I am not arguing the right or wrong of that.  I think that there is some validity to that experience claim.  

    She also takes credit for things that the Clinton administration accomplished, but is able to say, "That was my husband, not me" on anything that wasn't positive.  

    And again... we can talk experience if you would like.  I never said I didn't want to discuss that.  I simply said that you were changing the subject from what I was talking about.  And I was never talking about Hillary's experience.  I was only talking about the validity and legitimacy of bringing up what happened in the 90's to "crucify" HRC.

    Parent

    i respecffully request again that you (none / 0) (#219)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    give some support in an article or direct quote from her. you make these comments so it is fair to ask for some reference. thanks

    Parent
    Ugh... (none / 0) (#220)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    ... I am really not sure what you are trying to say.  Do you really not think that Hillary is running on her experience as First Lady?

    Here is one quote:

    I think it is informed by my deep experience over the last 35 years, my firsthand knowledge of what goes on inside a White House.
    Here is some more... where she champions her experience as first lady.

    Here is another one:

    I was a member of the White House team that was involved with trying to make a lot of changes
    Do you need more?

    Parent
    yup, we does refer to her time there. (none / 0) (#225)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    i agree about that, but i don't see her saying vote for me because i was first lady. she time in the senate. she has introduced legilation for new york and had it passed. she has been a leader of her party. i don't think obama's time in the state senate or a very brief time in the senate is any recommendation either. please respond to that. thanks

    Parent
    ugh... again. (none / 0) (#226)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    but i don't see her saying vote for me because i was first lady.
    I never said she did.
    she [sic] time in the senate. she has introduced legilation [sic] for new york and had it passed.
    I agree.  
    she has been a leader of her party.
    I agree.
    i don't think obama's time in the state senate or a very brief time in the senate is [sic] any recommendation either.
    I never said it was... did I?

    But Obama is running on experience like Hillary is.  

    Once again... I am not arguing that Hillary is not experienced.  I have not said anything of the sort on this thread.  I am simply saying that if Hillary wants to run on experience, which is undeniable, and when a significant part of that experience is her time as First Lady, then what happened in the Clinton Administration is fair game.  

    Let me be very clear for you.  I do not think that Obama has more experience than Hillary Clinton.  I am NOT arguing about who has more or less experience.  I am simply saying that what happened  under the Clinton Administration is fair game is she wants to use that time period as part of her experience.  

    Parent

    It pains me greatly to say. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:17 PM EST
    that nevadadem is correct in this instance, the quote is from an Obama television appearance in Chicago in 2001, discussing Rumsfeld's nomination as  SOD.  In context, the Rumsfeld statement is not particularly egregious.

    What follows, about accepting anti-abortion nominees if they say that the reason for their opposition is religious, is much worse.

    Parent

    I wasn't alking about the Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#24)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:39:52 PM EST
    statement.  I thought the post was about the speech today in Denver and what was said there. Oops.


    Parent
    WTF The post is about the Denver statement. (none / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:40:48 PM EST


    Parent
    nevadadem. . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:51:14 PM EST
    (who is a McCain supporter, so it gives me no pleasure to have to back him up) was referring to the second Obama quote, which Jeralyn uses to try to establish that Obama was previously completely in line with the Bush Administration.  Advantage nevadadem in this instance.

    Parent
    Oh No, No, No (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by nevadadem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:02:08 PM EST
    I am true blue democrat...for Obama...

    I would never vote for any Republican

    Parent

    Remarkably enough. . . (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:31:21 PM EST
    a poster using your exact name has been running around Daily Kos stating that he will organize twenty Democrats -- in addition to himself -- in voting for McCain if Obama is not the Democratic nominee.

    That makes him (and, of course, you) a McCain supporter.

    Parent

    Revolting if true! (none / 0) (#125)
    by magnetics on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:56:43 AM EST
    I have challenged many Obama supporters in the threads at Big Orange, to state they will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, just as I pledge to vote for Obama if he wins.

    So far the silence has been deafening; they pretty much change teh subject.

    Parent

    um, pretty sure its not me (none / 0) (#141)
    by nevadadem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:18:39 AM EST
    I'm not even registered on daily kos...

    there are however, probably more than 1 person with a name....

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#144)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:36:39 AM EST
    I don't know what to say.  The odds of happening it are pretty amazing, but if you say so there's no reason for me to dispute it.

    Parent
    Try googling nevadadem. (none / 0) (#222)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:16:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    As a Hillary supporter I would have to agree. It does not help Hillary at all.

    Parent
    Then Obama's 2002 anti-war speech is (none / 0) (#44)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    no longer operational

    Parent
    Why's That? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST


    Parent
    See this (none / 0) (#56)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:07:29 PM EST
    comment

    Parent
    Two points in addition (none / 0) (#105)
    by standingup on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    to yours though.  First, I am not sure Obama wants to go down the road of trying to contrast himself with Clinton as someone who has really stood up against Bush and the administration.  His record really does not support a strong stance in that direction.  Second, as Tapper notes at the end of his piece:

    The underlying question that this clip raises with me is -- what else is there about Obama that we don't know about? What other clips? What other comments?

    Obama is on the cusp of doing well on Super Duper Tuesday and has still never had a negative TV ad run against him, and it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is correct in her implication -- he has not been fully "vetted."

    There's a lot voters -- and the media -- do not know about him.

    I don't know what else might come up but I do know that Obama has a way of making statements that are vague on issues, as he rides the fence, that might come back to haunt him.    

    Parent

    I consider that an ominous quote (none / 0) (#113)
    by phat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:12:23 AM EST
    Really telling.

    phat

    Parent

    2001 (none / 0) (#170)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:54:13 AM EST
    You don't have to rely on the Rumsfeld statement to show that Barack panders to Republicans and changes his position constantly. Last year he said he totally agreed with the way Bush is conducting the war in Iraq. He also said in the last few months that he thinks the Faith Based Initiative should be expanded. If that isn't pandering to the right, I don't know what is.

    Parent
    Lies. Not good. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:16:53 PM EST
    Can't we all just get along?

    Much more of this will shoot a hole in BTD's insistence that Hillary will have to offer Obama the VP slot.

    I like a fighter but this is bad.

    Mr. Unity.  Huh.

    Re: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:19:46 PM EST
    Man, let Hillary stretch the Reagan comments a little bit and her flesh is consumed by a swarm of fact-checking locusts, but the Media Darling's fibs will be on page A23 at best.

    On page A23 (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    if at all...

    But not after he's the nominee.

    Then, it'll lead.  Front page.

    Parent

    The power of narrative (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:24:32 PM EST
    Everybody knows Clinton is a liar and Obama is not.  Therefore, no one talks about Obama's lies, because such things by definition do not exist.

    Parent
    Could not have said it better myself! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:41:54 PM EST
    Or was that sarcasm?

    Parent
    On the Internet, who can say? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:59:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Like Gore was a big liar (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    but Bush was a great guy to have a beer with.

    Parent
    gore a liar (none / 0) (#172)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:57:07 AM EST
    The Establishment Dems ruined Gore in 2000, they ruined Howard Dean, they ruined Bill Clinton and they ruined Jimmy Carter--Ted Kennedy to be precise. But "youth" don't remember any of that. They'll ruin Hillary if they possibly can, and then you really have to start asking yourself why you're supporting them.

    Parent
    Speaking of front page (none / 0) (#65)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    How about tomorrow's New York Times

    Just in time for the debate.  Rezko pales in comparison.  $100 million donation to Clinton foundation....

    Parent

    What is the point of that story? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:42:08 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is fighting AIDS with ill-gotten gains?

    I don't think that will go anywhere.

    Parent

    Synthesized version (none / 0) (#91)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    [quoting commenter over on Kos] "Bill does a favor for the president [dictator] of Kazakshstan, in direct contradiction to official US foreign policy.

    The president of Kazakhstan does a favor for a uranium mining mogul, who gets very rich as a result.

    The uranium mogul does a favor for Bill, donating $137,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation."

    It's cronyism, it's greasing the skids with shady moguls for a huge payoff. It's gross.

    How's that "She's been vetted" argument going? And as far as that not going anywhere thing, Clinton is unfortunate enough to do this sleaze-deal in Kazakhstan.  Get ready for a summer filled with Borat jokes if Clinton's our nominee.


    Parent

    A huge payoff (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    to a charitable foundation that fights AIDS?

    I don't see a lot of critical thinking taking place in that Big Orange thread.

    Parent

    Ends justify the means? (none / 0) (#103)
    by magster on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:00:37 AM EST
    And I'm sure that uranium mining and well-regulated nuclear power in Kazakhstan will really spruce up the ecosystem over there.

    Parent
    Ends justify the means? Part II (none / 0) (#110)
    by magster on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:10:22 AM EST
    Uranium mining and nuclear power on the northern border of Afghanistan might have some security issue angle going on too.

    Parent
    What's the favor that (none / 0) (#139)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:06:37 AM EST
    is it in direct contradiction to official US foreign policy?

    Parent
    scandal (none / 0) (#176)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:29 AM EST
    imagine that, the first "real" scandal and it's aimed at Hillary. The Clinton Foundation is not Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    Again... (none / 0) (#180)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    ... if Hillary wants to on the coattails of Bill's Presidency, which she is clearly doing, she needs to take responsibility for her spouse's actions.

    If Michelle Obama had somehow rigged a deal that went directly against US Foreign Policy in return for a very large donation to a charity that she ran, you would be all over it.

    Parent

    quid pro quo (none / 0) (#188)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST


    Parent
    mindful (none / 0) (#195)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    Could you tell me exactly what our US foreign policy is?  Because it seems to be bending to the whims of whoever is talking about it at the moment.  When Obama calls Kenya to broker peace, when Edwards (whom I love, don't get me wrong) calls Musharaff--how is that not interfering a great deal with American policy?  Clinton is helping people who are dying of AIDS.  Obama was trying to help his political career.

    Though, let me throw this out here for you guys: who controls the government right now?  Who illegally spies on Americans?  Who is privy to private phone calls, phone records, etc?  Who is arresting people who don't agree with them?  Who is indicting Rezko?

    Do you really honestly believe that if Obama gets the nomination, he will remain out of the Rezko fray?  I am with others who trust Patrick Fitzgerald here, but I think it was proven during the Plame investigation that the government can tie his hands if they so choose (ie not going after Cheney or Rove).  Whether it is McCain or Romney running against Obama, Obama WILL BE NAMED in a future indictment.  If not, he will most certainly be pulled head-first into the criminal case.  

    Why people think he will be unscathed is beyond me. It borders on fantasy.  You are trusting the liars and crooks and thieves in charge to leave him alone and let him walk into the White House.  Incredible.

    Parent

    ugh... (none / 0) (#200)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:34:03 AM EST
    Could you tell me exactly what our US foreign policy is?  Because it seems to be bending to the whims of whoever is talking about it at the moment.

    That is pretty silly statement.  Sure... there are some things that are somewhat "gray," but there are also certain things are that not.  
    Whether it is McCain or Romney running against Obama, Obama WILL BE NAMED in a future indictment.  If not, he will most certainly be pulled head-first into the criminal case.

    Bull...  you have absolutely no evidence to support this.  Obama has never been implicated in any of the illegal dealings surrounding Rezko, and you know it.  
    Clinton is helping people who are dying of AIDS.  Obama was trying to help his political career.

    Again... I was not talking about Obama.  I was talking about how people don't like that Hillary is associated with her husbands actions.  I find such sentiment pretty ignorant of US Politics.

    Again... if Michelle Obama did anything controversial, Obama would be called out for it.  Hillary needs to expect the same if Bill does something controversial.

    But go ahead and not deal with that issue if you want... it is always easier to flip it around and talk about something else.

    Parent

    This post on Kos (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    solidified my position against Clinton. KOS

    Obama's flawed, but when Clinton stood up and applauded Bush's Texas tough talk in the State of the Union (and Obama didn't), I can't say that Clinton's learned from her original sin of voting for the AUMF.

    Original sin... (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    Oh, Christ.  Church talk.

    Parent
    Get thee behind me, Clintons! n/t (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:27:21 PM EST


    Parent
    She's not gonna turn the other cheek! (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#26)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    Decrying church talk after using the Lord's name in vain.  I just heard thunder...

    Parent
    It wasn't in vain... (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:04:48 PM EST
    I meant it...and I don't have a 'Lord' or a lord.

    Parent
    Based on a post (none / 0) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    you abdicate your responsibility to read and analyze?

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:56:04 AM EST
    people are saying they won't vote for Clinton because she CLAPPED at the wrong time? I believe I read Matt Stoller saying the same thing.

    One thing's for sure. There's not much difference between Obama and Clinton if this is how voters are making up their minds.

    Parent

    obama wants insurance companies (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    at the table before the american people. he doesn't have a clue about social security. the uniter keeps dissing the 60s, 70s, and older people. yup, a real uniter. NOT! he runs off about pakistan and shows lack of experience. yup you've really got something there. repub lite i am afraid.

    Parent
    Very bad move by Obama, because of the (none / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    debate tomorrow. He's going to get hammered.

    Why? (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:32:09 PM EST
    Clinton's already stated in at least two debates that she's the "strongest" (i.e. most like a Republican) on foreign policy, and Obama is saying that that is no way to beat McCain. There's a distinction there.  Obama's got a better argument.  He shouldn't get hammered if he holds to his message.

    Parent
    I'm saying it's bad to lie when (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:33:44 PM EST
    he'll be in a forum where the lies will be exposed to a large public audience.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by nevadadem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:43:16 PM EST
    What lie are you referring to:

    Oh, HRC voting for the war?
    Or, HRC stating that torture was ok in certain instances?
    Or, HRC stating she won't meet with hostile nations without a certain set of preconditions?
    Or, HRC voting for what Jim Webb referred to as Dick Cheney's Pipe Dream?

    One thing I do know is that I'm not going to Hillaryhub for accurate information

    Parent

    Pakistan? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    It's ok to bomb a sovereign nation?

    Parent
    O/T (none / 0) (#19)
    by Klio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    I just want to say you guys are crazy productive here today; I'm hardly keeping up!

    Did your move go well, Jeralyn?  What a disruption that can be ....

    Ohh and (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:41:36 PM EST
    she didn't refute anything, she just repeated her attacks that have yet to work.  there is nothing in his statement that is false.

    It isn't Obama's fault she voted with McCain to authorize the war.

    Somebody gonna get a whooping tomorrow! (none / 0) (#33)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    I can't wait for the debate tomorrow.
    Hilary is a brilliant debater with a sharp mind and the memory of a computer.

    She will whoop him with so many facts he will not know what hit him, just like when he brought up Walmart and she hit him back with Rezko.

    umm (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:47:24 PM EST
    She will whoop him with so many facts he will not know what hit him, just like when he brought up Walmart and she hit him back with Rezko.

    I'd be delighted if she did that gain. I beleive last time that got her um?  ohh yeah it got her a 27 point defeat.  Obviously it was a success!

    Parent

    I hope it is calm (none / 0) (#37)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM EST
    but useful.

    How's that?

    Parent

    right now (none / 0) (#58)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:08:32 PM EST
    Big Dog live in Denver

    love this blog comment (none / 0) (#101)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:59:09 PM EST
    It made me LOL....enjoy!

    this link explains the (none / 0) (#108)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:06:19 AM EST
    adoration alot of women feel for Hillary

    Whatever happened to (none / 0) (#150)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:08:59 AM EST
    Obama wanting to reach across the aisle?

    He reaches across (none / 0) (#158)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:33:41 AM EST
    with a knife in his hand.

    Parent
    the Iraq war vote (none / 0) (#169)
    by javaman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:52:03 AM EST
    Clinton is McCain lite on to many issues and did not stand up for unions at walmart.  I thought democrats wanted a fighter and not someone who didn't fight back all the lies and inuendo like Kerry did in 2004

    Walmart (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:03:20 AM EST
    Hillary resigned from the Walmart board in protest-something Michelle Obama didn't do working at Walmart's biggest supplier.

    Obama's voting record in the senate mirrors Hillary's almost exactly (except the energy bill, which he voted in favor of, needing to take care of nuclear power, one of his biggest contributors in IL).  He didn't show up for the Iranian vote that he is now bashing her on.

    Lookit, it boils down to this: don't say you are one thing and claim to be above the petty goings-on of the common folk, then get in the mud with them.

    Parent

    on the wal-mart thing... (none / 0) (#196)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:25:59 AM EST
    ...looks like she didn't stand up quite as much as she could/should have, with respect to their union-busting practices:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

    have a feeling this little tidbit will go out to every union member in the 22 states voting next week.

    Parent

    She Is Clearly (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    Pro Union. Seems to me, unless you are playing partisan politics, IOW spinning for Obama, that her decision to not take on Wal-Mart regarding Unions, was all about picking battles. From what I understand her record was progressive there.

    I doubt that the issue will have much traction, because she is already supported by many unions, and her failure to tackle Wal-Mart about their Union police is no secret.

    Parent

    wishful thinking on your part... (none / 0) (#204)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:44:38 AM EST
    ...the average union member may not have been aware of this, and it will have an impact on her support there.  Certainly this is not going to make suddenly undecided former Edwards supporters(who are largely blue collar types) want to jump on the Clinton bandwagon.

    Won't have a huge impact, no, but it certainly won't help her in any way.

    Parent

    Who Said It Would Help Her? (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:47:46 AM EST
    I said that it would not matter. Glad to see that we agree.

    Parent
    I said it wouldn't have a big impact... (none / 0) (#206)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    ...but in a tight race, even tenths of a point shifts can matter.

    Parent
    for those of you that say (none / 0) (#208)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    that Obama's reaching across the aisle and compromising on all these issues is terrific , I say to you, you sure didn't learn anything from the Bush years when he had an absolutely majority in the Congress and had total control and we all know how that turned out...We need to have a balance of power not someone sucking up to the other side...that is why our founding fathers wrote it this way...We need watch dogs, not Kumbaya....We need accountability not looking the other way...we need our democracy back not media manipulation...One of our greater presidents was Truman, and he said he never gave anyone hell as they accused him of, he just told them the truth, and that fact was hell....FDR fought tooth and nail to bring us SS and other programs that were quite progressive in nature...to this day we enjoy those programs...Now is NOT the time to make nice.....We need a progressive agenda and HRC represents that alot more so than Obama...She has the smarts and the moxy to get it done and I cannot imagine her taking a backseat to anyone...

    rumsfeld (none / 0) (#210)
    by javaman on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    I wa wondering did Hillary vote to to confirm him for sec of defense?

    Over 200 comments, thread closing (none / 0) (#227)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    Thanks everyone, thread now closing.

    Hillary Says Obama Distorted Her Record Today in Denver | 223 comments (223 topical)