home

Bad Argument For Obama Fans

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:13:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Matt Yglesias makes the argument all Obama fans should avoid:

I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently [on the FISA Capitulation bill].

The argument made against Barack Obama's opposition to the Iraq Debacle was that he was not in the Senate and would have voted differently if he was. I always battled Clinton supporters on this claim. All we know is what he did do and he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle. It is ridiculous to argue about "swapped roles." Here, Clinton did the right thing and Obama did the wrong thing. On Iraq, Obama did the right thing and Clinton did the wrong thing. It is crazy for Obama fans to argue that Obama's changed his FISA Capitulation position because of the politcal race he is in (I say it, but I am no Obama fanboy). One could then argue that had Obama been in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted for the IWR. Why open that can of worms? I say give him credit for his good positions and rip him for his bad ones.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Hillary's Statement on FISA | Hillary, Caroline and Obama Fly to New York Together >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bad Argument For Obama Fans | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I've said this before, but MY demonstrates (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    my thesis yet once more.
    Look what Bush did to the reputations of those intellectuals who supported him, and look how they  appear almost stupid now, in their efforts to justify their faith in him. MY doesn't realize he's in love with Obama, and that this is an irrational experience; if he were more mature, he would see that he would not need to sacrifice his intellectual credibility if he were not supporting a turkey.
    Bush made fools of so many people, in their love for him; Obama appears poised to outdo even Bush in that regard.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:27:58 PM EST
    Yglesias also supported the invasion of Iraq.

    A twofer.

    Just how did he get that Atlantic gig?


    Parent

    excellent comment! (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Honestly, that's the point worrying me the most:  The alarming similarities between BO and W's styles.  Remember, conservatives thought they were getting a magic pony too.  

    Bush ran over democrats.  But don't forget that in many respect he was a failure in the conservative sense too.  He ran enormous budget deficits. Passed massive increases in federal spending and increase of government.  He started wars overseas.  So after supporting him for so long, conservatives don't have much to show for it, except deregulation and tax cuts.  (In another words, corporations got what they wanted.  People got screwed.) Meanwhile, their brand is destroyed, and may never recover.


    Parent

    One major difference (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM EST
    W's major asset as a candidate is that he kept the entire conservative coalition behind him.

    Parent
    affirmative action for white male (none / 0) (#129)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:42:22 PM EST
    is alive and well.

    Or perhpas it's being good at playing the 'boys' games!!

    I mean, Andrew Sullivan and Anna Marie Cox have jobs.  

    mediocrity seems to be a requirement.

    Parent

    On this issue, there is no argument. (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    He effed up substantively and politically.

    And on Iraq (4.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    he was right substantively and politically and Clinton was wrong.

    You can only do what you can do - I never bought into the arguments of what he or she would have done if.

    People need to stop that nonsense. On both sides of the argument.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST


    Parent
    If you are saying (5.00 / 13) (#60)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:24:44 PM EST
    that you can't compare switched roles then be consistent.

    Comparing Clinton's vote for the AUMF with Obama's State Senator position is NOT comparable. Obama didn't have to vote. And as such had no real position to take or the same things to consider, or the same responsibilities, etc. Additionally he was representing a very Liberal region of his state so of course the pandering Obama was going to say what was popular. Had he had to vote in the US Senate and assure the people of Illinois that he would protect Sears Towers at the point in time when people were generally concerned about more attacks he probably would have voted differently.

    We certainly have seen today the type of vote he is willing to make in the name of security!!!

    So given what he has done today I think anyone who argues that he would have voted no on th AUMF has a thin argument that he would have done otherwise.

    Add to that he was positioning to run for the Presidency from day one in the Senate you can toss in that he was going do what he had to in order to appear strong on defense to pump up his Defense credentials.

    As for Clinton's vote Armando I am surprised that you never have read her entire floor speech given prior to the vote. Any objective person who reads that can only conclude that she was NOT voting for WAR but was voting to leverage the UN for INSPECTIONS which subsequently happened because of that leverage. I hate it when people mischaracterize what she actually voted for.

    I will agree with you on the fact that Obama voted wrong today and that Clinton, not too surprisingly voted correctly.

    Parent

    If What Ifs are Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:27:04 PM EST
    Then one certainly must not have a very high opinion of any answer Obama gave to the following question:

    "What if you were in the senate in 2002, how would you have voted?"

    I would agree that the very question itself presents us with an oppotunity to waste a lot of time.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but in one case (4.71 / 14) (#23)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    they were both sitting Senators with a vote, in the other, this is decidely not true.  I have and will always maintain, we don't know how Obama would have voted on AUMF, though kudos to him for his position at the time, certainly.  But this is not a proper comparison.  

    Parent
    You Are 100% Correct (3.66 / 3) (#62)
    by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST
    And I make the same case in a post below.

    Parent
    Nonsense (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    If you play that game, then you must accept Yglesias' point as valid - Obama is the nominee, Clinton is not.

    I reject both pieces of contortions.

    Parent

    Actually, BTD (5.00 / 9) (#64)
    by Pol C on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:29:53 PM EST
    Obama has gone on the record saying that he doesn't know how he would have voted on the AUMF if he had been in the Senate at the time:

    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3

    I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.

    I'm not defending Yglesias, et al. by any means. They're just rationalizing the fact that their hated enemy championed their principles while their hero stomped all over them.


    Parent

    Nonsense. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:49:38 PM EST
    They are both sitting Senators with the opportunity to vote, only in this case.  They are the decision makers as Hillary was with AUMF.  That's called being a member of Congress.  I do not pretend to know whether or not would have voted for AUMF had he been a sitting Senator.

    Parent
    Indeed, mine is the simplest of all arguments. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:57:04 PM EST
    I just compare votes.

    Parent
    I understand what you're saying. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:02:39 PM EST
    But the Oval Office is not the same as congressional chambers.

    Parent
    Obama, Clinton...some distinctions here... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ribbon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    The former claimed he would vote one way on FISA, then voted another. Clinton made no such claim for the AUMF.

    Obama was not in the Senate in 2002, because he was arm-chair quarterbacking in Chicago.

    My god, BTD. As has been already pointed out, he's on record (NY Times, July 26th 2004) claiming he wouldn't know how he would have voted given the intelligence the Senate is privy to that he was not.

    http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=129

    The above group nailed his equivocating and hypocrtical stance on troop withdrawal moooooonths before the MSM.

    http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=192  Samantha Powell's interview on HardTalk is quite interesting.

    Parent

    Maybe she would have (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    but it's important to remember that Hillary was not the one who vowed to turn the page on the politics of fearmongering, the one who said we're not going to cower to Republicans any more when they wave the national security flag.

    We're all very familiar with the game of Democrats caving on national security so those mean Republicans don't run ads against them.  It rarely works, we wish they would stop, but it's a game we've all seen a million times.  Obama's campaign was built around the idea that we wouldn't be doing any more of that.

    She did what she did (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    and he did what he did and it is ridiculous to argue about what they would have done if . . .

    They did what they did. That is what you judge.

    Parent

    with one big difference BTD. What price would (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:26:16 PM EST
    he have paid back then? It's a lot easier to be against something when you aren't accountable and you aren't running for President. I think it's more fair to judge both of them when it counts with real votes.

    Parent
    Does not matter (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:27:14 PM EST
    He did what he did. She did what she did.

    That's what you judge.

    Parent

    Obama himself said (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    he does not know how he would have voted on the AUMF had he been in the Senate. In 2004, he said his position did not differ substantially from Bush's. He has zero credibility on Iraq, and now he has zero on FISA.

    That's what I judge.

    Parent

    Then take that into account (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    if you want. I know what he DID do in 2002.

    Parent
    You know what he said he did. (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:38:41 PM EST
    As he had to re-record it.  There apparently are witnesses, but I have not found media coverage of his speech, only of the event.

    Just being a historian here. :-)

    Parent

    Come now (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:45:00 PM EST
    You know he made that speech. This is absurd.

    Parent
    I accept that he must have made that speech. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:57:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Look at the (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:05:34 PM EST
    "price" she paid for that vote.

    I've never been a fan of his speech in 2002.

    He would have paid no price even if we had "won" in Iraq.

    Chew on that.

    Parent

    I am. (4.71 / 14) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    He made a speech. He paid no political price for his opposition, and he knew he wouldn't.

    If he followed up his speech with vigorous action opposing the war, I would be most impressed with him.

    So it goes.

    Parent

    Then you accept Yglesias' point (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    then.

    Parent
    I don't. (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:54:13 PM EST
    Because I don't believe she would have voted yes if she were in his position as the presumptive nominee. I am sure she'd have voted as she said she would vote in January, no matter what.

    She doesn't have to look tough on terra. She already did that.

    Parent

    No I don't. (5.00 / 14) (#54)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:51 PM EST
    Actions are actions. Speeches are speeches.

    A speech is not an action.

    Parent

    I agree but he still didn't have to actually vote. (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    I don't see a lot of brave position taking from him lately. What he said in Illinois compared to what he does in a vote that affects all of us speaks louder to me.

    Parent
    He gave a speech against the war (5.00 / 14) (#35)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:54:07 PM EST
    So did Hillary.

    She had to vote on the AUMF, Obama didn't.

    So she did what she did, but he did nothing.

    Parent

    Excellent point!! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:41:54 PM EST


    Parent
    What did he do in 2002? Nothing. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    What's your point? There's not even a contemporary record of his speech.. it made no waves at all.
    He had to re-record it later, in a studio.

    Parent
    It is a reasonable argument to say (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    that she voted in the senate and he spoke to a group of supporters. No question, but the risks were not the same. So, if you don't mind I will hold fast to my belief that it was an unfair comparison.

    Parent
    Then you accept Yglesias' argument here (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:44:27 PM EST
    You do not get to pick and choose when that argument applies. Not if you want to be intellectually honest. I reject the argument in both instances.

    Parent
    You are comparing apples and oranges. (5.00 / 16) (#57)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    You are comparing a speech with a vote in the first instance and two votes by two Senators in different personal circumstances in the second. You can't compare a speech and a vote and say that they equal the same thing. They don't, and its not just because of differing circumstances(i.e., one wasn't eligible at the time to vote for AUMF). They are NOT the same thing. Whereas two opposite votes on the same bill are entirely comparable.

    No one here is accepting MY's argument. We are simply saying that a vote and a speech are not the same, so comparing them makes no sense.

    And for my two cents worth, making one speech in October before the AUMF vote(and the resumption of inspections) does not count as rigorous opposition to the War. Where was Obama in January and February of 2003?

    Parent

    I would buy that if he didn't keep voting to (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:46:24 PM EST
    authorize the money.  He could've voted no on the money and stuck to his plans to withdraw (albeit w/caveats based on events on the ground) and come off as more credible, IMHO.  Ur right to judge em on what they did, and that is what he did.

    Parent
    That is a different point (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    I judged Obama on that record as well.

    But in 2002, he was right and Clinton was wrong.

    Parent

    And for the six years since then (5.00 / 14) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:59:17 PM EST
    he has shown no leadership on the issue.

    I spoke publicly against the war in 2002, too, to an audience of hundreds.

    Vote for me.

    Parent

    I marched against the war. (5.00 / 12) (#55)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    Vote for me!

    Parent
    I'll happily vote for both of you! (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    I marched against the first gulf war while facing 50 or so of Chicago's finest in full riot gear.

    Does that count?


    Parent

    I'll vote for you! (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:48:39 PM EST
    Heck, the standards are so low lately, we're all qualified.

    Parent
    But the point is that both of them (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:08:31 PM EST
    gave anti-war speeches. Obama gave one to a large anti-war crowd. Clinton gave one when she voted for AUMF. Obama didn't vote so that is why we can't compare them on the vote. The significance is not in what position they had, but what they did that was comparable. AUMF was not a comparable because he didn't have to vote on it.

    They both voted on FAA. They can be compared on that vote.  

     

    Parent

    Probably correct (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    That 2002 speech equals out to this?

    he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle

    In what alternate universe is that true?  Lots of people vigorously opposed the Iraq debacle, but you've got to stretch past the breaking point to make Obama one of them.

    You know what? (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    You are selling the same sh*t Yglesias is selling, but from the anti-Obama side.

    Parent
    I don't agree. (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:34:13 PM EST
    You say judge people on what they did.  That makes sense.  Well, that's what he did.  He made a speech opposing the war as a part-time state legislator.  If you want to call that vigorously opposing, that's fine, but I'm not buying.

    I agree with the overall point that it's not worth getting into, though.  I think people's minds are already made up.  

    Parent

    Normally you'd be absolutely right (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:40:35 PM EST
    but, in this case, I don't have anything to sell.  This isn't my issue, I'm just saying 'vigorously' is a little much.

    Parent
    I agree. A speech in the Senate (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:17:39 PM EST
    would merit 'vigorous opposition," but he never made one there.  He has had years to do so now.  

    He says he was against the war from the beginning, but not so.  He was against it at the beginning.  Since then, he has voted for war funding bills.

    He made one speech to some antiwar people at an event, and I never have seen anyone but people not there call it "vigorous."  It wasn't even mentioned in the coverage I found of the event, although other speakers were named and quoted.  Why not him?  He's a heck of a speechifier, and certainly capable of having said something "vigorous."  But . . . nope, not quoted or even named there.

    Parent

    If a speech equaled a Senate vote (5.00 / 17) (#29)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    you'd be right.

    But a speech does NOT equal a senate vote.

    For AUF, he gave a speech; she voted.

    For FISA, he voted and she voted.

    You're not comparing apples and apples.

    And BTW, the speech was at an anti-war rally to an anti-war crowd, and it made no difference in the outcome. Hardly as big a commitment as a Senate vote.

    Parent

    That 'fair and balancing' is ridiculous (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    The defining factor is Obama running to LEAD, and asking to be judged past his paltry record but on his current promises and actions. Those are even more lamentably weak, cynical and opportunistic than those he trashed.

    He is not now nor ever was campaigning for the rhetorical crown of being right in his toasty bed at night, always comparing those plumped up Political Rotisserie League "stats" to the perpetually-critiqued real-world actions and statments of Sen Clinton in the direct, real-time, real-life line of fire.

    Sorry, BTD, usually I admire your clear-eyed outlook but your sense of fairness has abandoned you in this instance.

    Parent

    And Obama Felt He Could Get Away With It (5.00 / 13) (#15)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    because fanboys like Yglesias would excuse it with this crap.

    Besides which, as has been discussed before, it's very likely that Clinton had some pressure on her to vote with Obama today.  So it's not like she went into this vote with no pressure on her to cave.  She simply withstood it.

    And, of course, I still don't believe the vote would ever have come up if Obama hadn't supported the bill in the first place.

    What Yglesias Should Really Be Embarrassed About (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:34:54 PM EST
    was the miles and miles of drivel he spilled arguing Obama - who said he wanted to return us to the days of foreign policy like Reagan, Nixon, and Kennedy - was going to change the framework of U.S. foreign policy within the D.C. establishment.  Taken a look at Obama's foreign policy advisors?  They are the D.C. establishment.

    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:50:37 PM EST
    you are replying to for personal insults to Matt.

    Parent
    Oh, really? (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    Matt Yglesias makes the argument all Obama fans should avoid:

    I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently [on the FISA Capitulation bill].

    Matt can go, um...

    No profanity.

    I would really like to meet him and disabuse of that notion.

    They never got it.  My god.  They never got Hillary.

    I'm sorry, but what? (5.00 / 15) (#47)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    ...he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle...

    He gave one speech which nobody even payed attention to because Jesse Jackson was the star attraction at the rally. I don't recall him being there when Mayor Daley basically looked the other way and allowed us to shut down LSD and get on the news. I never saw him leading any marches or even saw him participate in any. I certainly didn't see him in the crowd when to keep things from going to hell the police basically corralled us into an intersection and held us for hours.

    He gave one speech and then either when to his super expensive health club down the street for a game of pick up BB or he went home. He certainly didn't even stick around to participate in the march afterward.

    How you can label one speech alone that nobody cared about as vigorous is beyond me.  

    Thanks for eye-witness account (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:03:35 PM EST
    I've read a few similar reports -- but found nothing in media.

    Parent
    No problem. I had to (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:29:14 PM EST
    'cause it irks me when Barack, his supporters and the media make it seem like his speech was akin to an earthquake. It didn't even make local news that's how insignificant it was. I was at many of the rallies the night ones after I went to both of my jobs and my last class. After a long day I found time to make myself heard and give the police a reason to stomp me to death with a horse to club be about the head. I don't know where Barack was but I was there. Maybe he had to run home and water the arugula plants growing in the window boxes of his Hyde Park condo after the speech.

    btw LSD for non-locals is short for Lake Shore Drive. It is a boulevard that runs parallel to Chicago's lake front.

    Parent

    On the same page? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:11:27 PM EST
    Um... aren't you (BTD) and Yglesias actually on the same page, essentially, on this issue?

    BTD says:

    Here, Clinton did the right thing and Obama did the wrong thing. On Iraq, Obama did the right thing and Clinton did the wrong thing.

    From what I understand, Yglesias would agree with you,

    BTD says:

    It is crazy for Obama fans to argue that Obama's changed his FISA Capitulation position because of the politcal race he is in

    I don't know if it's crazy... I believe personnally that the case could be made either way. But Yglesias is actually on your side, here.

    Yglesias says:

    I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently

    IOW: they would be acting the same even if the roles were reversed. Their voting stance is not modeled in reaction to the political role in which they currently find themselves in.

    If that's true, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:14:31 PM EST
    then why did he support Obama?

    Parent
    Ding ding ding! Hold your places we have a WINNER! (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    That's the question to throw at any Obama apologist in But ... But Clinton mode.

    Why support perpetually-shifting Obama at all? Why didn't you support Clinton from day one if that's your standard?

    If for nothing else, it might get the annoying daily chorus of pester-song down to a dull roar.

    Parent

    ...because he thought he was the better candidate? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:24:31 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you're aiming at here.

    He's criticizing Obama on the FISA issue...

    But the reality is that as long as Obama thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority, he's going to be useless as a check on out-of-control executive authority.

    ... and praising Clinton on her response.

    Her office puts out a good statement that reaches the correct conclusion

    He's also saying that he doesn't think the respective positions of Obama and Clinton on FISA are dependent on their status in the electoral race. (Same point as BTD, which was the reason for my previous comment.)

    Parent

    BTD said he supported (none / 0) (#73)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:44:45 PM EST
    Barack 'cause he was the media darling and he expected it to carry into the GE.

    Parent
    I was talking about Yglesias, here (none / 0) (#76)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:52:35 PM EST
    as I assumed that's who pie was referring to.

    Parent
    Oops my bad. I thought (none / 0) (#85)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:12:42 PM EST
    the question was regarding BTD.

    Parent
    Not the best of reasons... (none / 0) (#82)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:05:36 PM EST
    I never agreed with the idea of supporting Obama because he was a "media darling".

    This affection from the boys in the press comes and goes.

    Right now, for Obama it appears to be evaporating.

    And if he loses his darlingness, uh oh.

    Parent

    You know what? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    And if he loses his darlingness, uh oh.

    He needs to lose it.

    He's not ready to be the president of the United States.

    He's a senator, a good husband and a good father.

    Hopefully, he will grow as a leader.

    Parent

    I suppose... (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:21:57 PM EST
    I suppose that he's a "good father"... but it really curdles my blood when I hear him telling black people how to raise their children.

    I would not want him as a father.


    Parent

    No more proof needed than FISA capitualtion (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    I said it yesterday, Obama proved without a doubt he's a two-bit pol, with no spine or values and would indisputably have caved and vote yea on the Iraq War Resolution. I always believed this to be true and now have all the proof I need.

    It will disgust me no end to vote for this guy in November, but the alternative is worse.

    And yglesias demonstrated himself not worth reading many months ago with his Obama kool aid.

    what a lame eqivalency!! (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:28:25 PM EST
    I am not attacking btd.  I'm attacking his argument.

    And I'll start by first saying that, to my way of thinking, obama gets credit FOR A SPEECH (and a minor speech at that, a speech obama was NOT advertising until the polls turned on the war and he was running for president)  NOT for a vote.   You get in the senate, you show up and vote, THEN you get credit for a vote.

    Great speech though.

    And I'll just stop there and take the rest of my issues to my nearest open thread.

    I totally agree (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:40:26 PM EST
    with you here.

    It was a no-brainer then.

    The brainer is his vote on FISA.

    New politics?

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    Well it is a bad argument for obama fans (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:37:40 PM EST
    I did agree a that part!

    Tweety is making (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    fun of the amount of money that Obama has given to Hillary to retire her debt.

    The money machine.

    Heh.

    BTD exaggerates (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by g8grl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:38:33 PM EST
    I don't recall anyone saying or even argueing that Obama VIGOROUSLY opposed the Iraq war.  My understanding was that he made a speech (which seems to come very easily to him) to an agreeing constituancy.  I don't recall anyone saying anything about Obama protesting, or marching or even making speeches once he became a US Senator.  As a US Senator he had opportunities to speak and take a strong stand and he didn't.  I think that is why people have doubted that Obama would have voted against AUMF.  Based on his past performance, he didn't seem to take a hard, controversial stand against the war when it may have cost him some political capital.  That's why it seems fair when people say he wouldn't have voted differently than Hillary on AUMF.  

    On the other hand, we know exactly how Obama and Clinton voted on FISA.  Both had the ability to vote the way they wanted.  If anything the easier path for Hillary (and any of the other Democrats) was to vote with Obama as the new leader of the party.  Barack could have voted however he chose.  Hillary chose the harder path and voted correctly (in my view) while Obama voted incorrectly.  Thus you cannot say that if Hillary was the nominee she would have voted exactly as Obama did.  MY is wrong here.

    Well, Yglesias is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    I think Hillary would have been consistent on this issue. She might not have led the charge in filibustering the bill, but she certainly would have voted against it. about that I'm certain. Now, it's possible she might  have done it to soothe tensions on the left against her candidacy, but I doubt it. The Clinton brand is consistent in standing up to GOP fearmongering, and she has no need to further burnish her 'security" credentials. She voted for the AUMF (as did the '04 Dem nominee, and his VP) and you can dispute this as a "mistake" if you wish, and in retrospect it might be, but she got lied to like the rest of us. It's long since past time to put the Iraq debacle at George Bush's feet. If Dadgum Colin Powell comes out there and tells you there are mobile chemical labs out there, what are you supposed to believe? Hey, Obama used his little speech against the war to gain the nomination, fair play to him, but he wasn't there, then, is there now, and totally punted on FISA. Yglesias can rationalize that all he wants too, but the vote is cast.

    That's not what Yglesias is saying... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    I really don't understand how you, most of the posters here and BTD come to that conclusion... (see my comment upthread)

    Yglesias is saying in his post the exact contrary: Hillary would have voted against FISA even if she were the nominee. Same position as BTD. Reread Yglesias' post.

    Again with Yglesias' quote:

    I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently.

    To put this in the simplest terms possible:
    Clinton and Obama would NOT be acting any differently if their positions were reversed.
    Clinton would still vote against FISA if she were the nominee.
    Obama would still vote in favor of FISA if he were not the nominee.

    I'm not sure I'm in agreement with that proposition, but that is what Yglesias AND BTD are saying.

    Parent

    I completely disagree with you (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:07:47 PM EST
    Though I grant you that Yglesias often writes undecipherable sentences.

    Parent
    I'll try another time (I'm persistent...) (none / 0) (#89)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:19:04 PM EST
    There is a superfluous "that" in his sentence, but otherwise it seems pretty straightforward to me...

    Here it is again, with the second "that" excised:

    I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles they'd be acting any differently.

    Isn't that pretty clear?

    "I don't believe that Clinton and Obama would be acting any differently if their respective roles were swapped."

    Parent

    Oh, no, now we've got WYRM? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    What Yglesias Really Meant.

    If bloggers can't be clear the first time, they can clarify.  They've got the bandwidth.  If they don't clarify, they may be intentionally . . . um . . . avoiding "refinement." :-)

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#95)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:44:42 PM EST
    I think the context of Ygelsias' post suggests that he thinks the vote was entirely based on position - running for President, you say yes, sitting in Congress, no.  The next sentence suggests that since the authority is in Obama's hands, he probably doesn't see the big deal as much as someone else would.  He might vote "no" if he was in the power-checker's position.  That's what I got out of it anyway.  

    Of course, Yglesias could clear this up himself, and if he went into more depth, it could be more interesting to boot.

    Parent

    You're right to bring to attention... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    ...the next sentence. There is something of a contradiction between the two sentences.

    First sentence:

    I don't believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they'd be acting any differently.

    Obama would have voted the wrong way on FISA no matter what. His vote on FISA is not dependent on the fact that he is the nominee--he wouldn't have "acted differently' if he were not the nominee.

    Second sentence:

    But the reality is that as long as Obama thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority, he's going to be useless as a check on out-of-control executive authority.

    (My emphasis.)

    The fact that Obama is envisaging himself in the position of the wielder of executive authority makes him not very sensitive (or, at least, it desensitizes him) to the need to keep the executive in check.

    Synthesis of these two sentences: Obama's recent behavior on FISA is influenced to some degree by his potential executive-authority-wielder position. It is, however, not entirely dependent upon it: there are other factors/convictions that led him to vote the way he did--I thus believe that he would have voted against FISA even if he were not the nominee.

    (Again: this is not me speaking--I'm inferring Yglesias' position from what he wrote.)

    Parent

    I think you're misspeaking here? (none / 0) (#99)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:07:10 PM EST
    "I thus believe that he would have voted against FISA even if he were not the nominee."

    For FISA you mean?

    I think the spanner in your argument is that Obama straightforwardly said he would not vote for FISA when he was a Senator.  What changed between now and then?  Either he became the nominee, or a Bush dog.  Pick your poison.

    Parent

    Yep, sorry about that. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    For FISA.

    As I said, it's not my argument; it's BTD's/Yglesias' (perhaps to a lesser degree, in the latter case). (Just to be perfectly clear.)

    Indeed, if one believes that the current role of nominee is NOT "determinative" in Obama's FISA stance (as BTD and Yglesias seem to do), you must account somehow for his previous statement. The two stances are indeed diametrically opposed: filibuster on FISA-with-immunity; no filibuster on FISA-with-immunity.

    One then basically has two options:

    1. His first statement was not a true reflection of his personal stance. IOW: it was the first statement that was politically motivated/calculated. All along, he didn't really intend to oppose FISA.

    2. He sincerely changed his mind over time.

    (Again, I'm more in the other camp. I think there was a good amount of presidential-nominee triangulation that went into his vote of support for FISA.)

    Parent
    But there was no indication (none / 0) (#106)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    before he receieved the nomination that he liked FISA.  I find it improbable that he was hiding this current position from us all this time.  Democrats just don't get pandered to that effectively or sincerely.  

    I don't believe Yglesias' previous earnest support of Obama squares with what here you see as a description of a politician who was completely conniving in the past about something liberals like Yglesias think is important.  Yglesias' comments about Clinton's current position motivating her to vote "nay" are telling as well.  He seems to be suggesting that if losing the primary (and having to remain a Senator) led her to support the bill, that's a good thing.  Meaning being a Senator, instead of on the flip side, being a President, is the only thing stopping her from voting "yea."

    I'm going to hang up my parsing hat right now.  It's Obama's actions that are a bigger concern to me right now, not the Obama-Clinton rivalry.

    Parent

    To put it in even simpler terms ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    To put this in the simplest terms possible:
    Clinton and Obama would NOT be acting any differently if their positions were reversed.
    Clinton would still vote against FISA if she were the nominee.
    Obama would still vote in favor of FISA if he were not the nominee.

    This ludicrous stance that they would have done this is false at the outset.

    They only would have done this in the Magical Rhetorical Land of Make Believe, according to your assumption and that of other apologists or enablers.

    Regardless of your particular equalizing metric of faith in your own hypothetical scenario, the subjects in question don't get to be handicapped by this false handicapping system. No amount of deflating Sen Clinton's ACTUAL record while inflating Obama's HYPOTHETICAL actions will equalize their real-world performance.

    Parent

    I'm NOT saying I agree with those propositions (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:27:22 PM EST
    Read my posts again.

    What I said is that these propositions represent the stance of Yglesias and BTD--that Obama's behavior re:FISA and Clinton's behavior re:the Iraq war are NOT attributable to the political role they assumed at the moment they cast their vote/made their position known/etc.

    I'm pointing out that BTD misread Yglesias' argument and that they are actually on pretty much the same page. That's all I'm saying.

    Parent

    I object to double standards, blurring actuality (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    I object to this unfolding habit of filling the gap between Obama's actual statements, actions and positions -- irrefutably on the record -- with righteous "actual" qualities and motives in his favor.

    This is coupled with the most negative interpretation, and often extreme vilification, of opponents and rivals for the being on the spot and taking the stand they did during a harder time.

    It's not fair. It's not right. There's no excuse to propagate this soft standard for Obama only.

    Parent

    The soft bigotry of low expectations (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:09:54 PM EST
    is what Bush called it during the 2000 election.  

    Parent
    Not really... (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:59:22 PM EST
    Obama "vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle"?

    I don't think so.

    He made his speech in 2002 and for the most part was never heard from since.

    When he addressed the 2004 convention, he had his moment. All he said was that there were patriotic people who support the war and patriotic people who oppose it. To those of us hoping for a voice in the wilderness, we heard nothing at all.

    And then - there is the embarrassing fact that he campaigned for Lieberman against Lamont - praising Joe for his "keen intellect" and urging people to vote for him so he could continue to work on "our" behalf. These are not the words and actions of someone who vigorously opposes the war in Iraq.

    He was nowhere to be seen at the massive rallies in the major metropolitan centers that were trying desperately to avert the war. He could have lent his voice, but didn't - at least to the best of my knowledge.

    And, as we know, since he joined the Senate, he has continuously voted to fund the wretched thing.

    As many have said, his speech in 2002, when he was out of range, was good. But his actions since have left little - I would say no - doubt that he would have voted for the resolution had he been in the Senate at the time.

    In any case, it is really overstating it to characterize his opposition to the war as vigorous.

    And now, he is talking about being flexible about withdrawal - listening to the commanders - and so on. This is Bush talk is it not? We'll stand down when they stand up and on and on.

    You've got to be kidding (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by SoCali on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    Your statement, "All we know is what he did do and he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle."  Not even close to true. He gave a speech and then more speeches. But when it came down to standing up, he voted for every war resolution possible. That is not the definition of "vigorously opposed." There were representatives that did vigorously oppose and they deserve our support.

    If this was super delicious snark I don't get ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    ... I plead sheer exhaustion on this and throw myself on the mercy of whatever spirits or humans are currently in charge of the democratic process:

    From Ed Kilgore in today's War Room at Salon (My bafflement and shock in Italics):

    The U.S. Senate voted today on amendments to FISA ... and Barack Obama remained in a crossfire.

    He's been getting pounded in the progressive blogosphere, and even within his own political community, for announcing that he'd vote for the final FISA bill even if it included immunity for telecommunications companies.

    [but ... but McCain!]

    [but ... but Other Dems]

    ["Honestly" Fraudulent] Obama ... already made it clear he wouldn't stand in the way of final passage. [a smidge more passively innocent than actively endorsing it, hmm?]

    Obama's FISA critics from the left [those dang rule of law, show me the freakin warrant, Constitutional amendment "purists"] won't quickly get over Obama's ultimate stance. [Ah yes, at issue here is critics' inability to deal with emotional "issues" rather than, you know, his d0uchebaggery on solid ISSUES.]

    Obama, unlike [no-show] McCain, at least took seriously the tough choices involved in the issue. [Crown this Brave Champion the Boss of Us already!]

    But I'm sure Obama would be happy to put FISA behind him until such time as he takes office, and would actually have the power to determine surveillance policies.

    [Oh thank gawd he salvaged this for the "good" fascists to use! I was worried he'd suffer a bat's squeak moment of conscience about excusing Bush's history of abuse of power, and spare the admin from the ignominy of investigation and accountability!]

    (Obama bites the bullet on FISA by Ed Kilgore, War Room, Salon, July 9, 2008 16:39 EDT)
    I don't understand why everyone (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:46 PM EST
    isn't mad about this mess.  It effects every one of us for cripe's sake and dismantles a fundamental individual liberty.  If we had a more watchful populace, there would be marching in the streets.


    Parent
    BTD, could you please (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    provide a citation, link or some other source for this statement:

    All we know is what he did do and he vigorously opposed the Iraq Debacle.

    the only thing i can find is some 2 minute speech he made, to people who weren't listening, as a second-tier speaker, before he was elected to the senate. how that qualifies as "vigorously opposed" remains something of a mystery, since he's voted to fund it ever since.

    it's possible i've missed all the times he's voted against funding, and the loud speeches he made, prior to the invasion. if so, i sit corrected.

    What's funny (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:10:46 PM EST
    is that Obama has made such a BFD of his vaunted "superior judgment" when all he really has to cite as evidence for it is one speech.

    One little speech, nearly six years ago, as a part time state senator and second-rank speaker, at an antiwar rally, in a liberal district, that didn't even make the news and wasn't recorded at the time.

    This is his "superior judgment." One little speech that nobody really noticed at the time. And since then, his voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's.

    How did he parlay this one speech into "superior judgment" on the war and make her single vote a reason to discount all her other experience and qualifications?

    The mind. It boggles.

    Parent

    and on that superior judgment... (none / 0) (#134)
    by ribbon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:07:29 AM EST
    Does Obama even know that some of his officials are authenticating forgeries of his certificate of birth?  BTD, you should like these articles since your old digital stomping grounds seem to have played a criminal, er I mean, critical role in this: ;)

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12944.htm

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12956.htm

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12959.htm

    Parent

    And the Reality Kidz went to the Land of What If (4.75 / 4) (#51)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    ... to be happily, righteously right about everything ever and wield the kind of power that only they, in their Reality-Based Magical Pretend World of Make Believe, deserve!

    Indeed, by all means hand these kingmakers the reins of unchecked power to hook onto Teh One, the Unity Unicorn They Have All been Waiting For!

    Me, I'm staying home unless I see a real candidate worthy of the office and/or the comestibles run out (whichever comes first).

    You're right (n/t) (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by sher on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:16:14 PM EST


    BTD, you're right to the extent Obama talked the (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    right way, said the right thing in the speech given in a liberal, anti-war area of Chicago.

    But then Obama never said anything more to aid the millions of us trying to get media attention to our protests of the looming Iraq Invasion and war. Could his speaking out have helped? Who knows--most anti-war spokespeople were ignored, marginalized, or destroyed.

    Perhaps Obama was keeping his powder dry....

    So, in that case, he said something, which he lated ammended iirc by saying he didn't know what he would have done had he been in the US Senate. Even later he said he agreed with what Bush was doing.

    But, indeed, to the best of our knowledge, he did make that speech and then recorded a reenactment.

    Parent

    I believe they both made horrible (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    policy decisions for at least partly political reasons. I also think they made their good decisions for at least partly politcal reasons.

    Really bad form for a fanboy to admit it in public however.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:21:36 PM EST
    policy decisions for at least partly political reasons. I also think they made their good decisions for at least partly politcal reasons.

    What good decisions is he making now that he's the supposed nominee?

    I won't support him in this.

    Parent

    Oh, I do not support him in this at all (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    The  good decision I was referring to regarding policy is the decision to be against the war from the beginning, which was good politically, representing his district.

    All in all, it is all speculation about who would have done what in what circumstances, but speculate is what we do when deciding which candidate to support.

    Parent

    I do believe (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:49:00 PM EST
    Obama's vote today was for political reasons related to his view of his electability. He wants the centrist vote. He's always talking about where it's worthwhile to expend political capital and where it isn't.

    He was in a different position in 2002...not a Senator, let alone running for President.

    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:59:03 PM EST
    Come on.

    Obama doesn't need the centrist vote.

    Well, maybe he does now, since he's thrown loyal dems "under the bus."

    I hate that expression, by the way.

    Give me a democrat.

    Parent

    But Obama says he has not (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:57:04 PM EST
    moved to the center, and he says his positions have not changed. If everything he says and does is for political reasons, why should I (or anyone else for that matter) believe anything he says?

    Parent
    you just (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    neatly encapsulated the republican campaign in the fall.

    Parent
    If true.... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    Obama's vote today was for political reasons related to his view of his electability.

    ...that's incredibly craven. Sacrificing the Constitution, rule of law, and equality under the law for political calculation is a low as a pol can go.

    If true, it would make it even harder to vote for Obama.

    Parent

    Then you accept Yglesias' argument (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    I judge on what people did, not what post they held.

    Parent
    It is a silly argument (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    One might as well say "If Barack Obama had been in that POW camp, he wouldn't have accepted early release either."

    Parent
    And it wouldn't have made him qualified (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:01:35 PM EST
    for the White House, either.

    Parent
    Hey now (5.00 / 12) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    Why are you swiftboating Barack Obama's hypothetical service?

    Parent
    If this path is followed (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:09:01 PM EST
    that argument will eventually be made.

    Parent
    But the post they hold (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    determines the effect of what they do. Obama did not vote on AUF because he couldn't. Hillary had to.

    I'm sorry, but if you're not considering the post they hold, then they're just two U.S. Senators with exactly equal power when we talk about FISA.

    Yglesias is saying that his being the nominee makes a difference NOW, but he didn't admit that her being a U.S. Senator and him being a part-time state senator made a difference THEN.

    Parent

    Hillary is not the Dem nominee (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:08:23 PM EST
    and Obama is is Yglesias' argument.

    You seem to accept it.

    I do not.

    I judge on what they have done.

    Parent

    OK then, leave their roles out of it (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    Here's what they did -

    AUMF: speech versus vote.

    FISA: vote versus vote.

    You can't compare the two issues.

    Parent

    Let me amend that (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    For AUMF: anti-war speech v anti-war speech AND vote.

    Parent
    This is all very simple. (none / 0) (#81)
    by my opinion on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    If you disagree with one false argument does not mean you agree with another.

    Well, I cannot say for sure (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    of course what Clinton would have done in this position.  And I agree it is not particularly relevant to point fingers in this way.  

    At this point though, I don't know that Hillary would have caved on FISA.  I think she ran her campaign in such a way that the center of foreign policy debate was more clearly defined.  I think she would have been able to say no to FISA with few qualms.  I think Obama could've articulated a defense of this sadly passed bill with few qualms as well, but maybe his campaign didn't think that far ahead.

    I think this, for Obama, came out of a boneheaded and disingenuous desire to shore up cred.  Clinton's bag of political tricks is a different one, it has gas taxes and the word "obliterate" in it.

    Pols are indeed pols.  In my opinion, Obama's image team has distracted him from where he ought to go.  Now, he's making himself the new straight-talker.  Dem issues can win this year.  But that's not what the last few weeks have been about.  

    This appalling vote comes with the same kind of rationalization that accompanied Hillary's AUMF vote.  FISA's concrete life and death impact is lesser than AUMF but it still exists.  We have to make sure our politicans don't take every opportunity to screw up and cover their butts on the big votes of the day.  FISA was a big vote, and Obama used his popularity and celebrity to COMPLETELY SCREW IT UP.  

    Rewarding Obama in any way for screwing up this vote, including by saying that Hillary would've done the same, and thereby protecting him, just ensures that the next time a big issues comes up, we'll get a weak vote from him.  And the next time.  And the next time.

    Tell me nobody watches Olbermann anymore, right?  He could fit in perfectly with that Congress.  

    That's an astute post, IMO (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dax on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:47:19 PM EST
    The key part to me is the idea that Clinton and Obama have different bags of tricks, different arrows in their quivers.  Hillary, if she were the nominee, could flip-flop all over the place and it wouldn't hurt her as much as it does Obama.  Her brand is as a tough-as-nails, do whatever it takes to win warrior.  His is more of a principled idealist.  Those are both caricatures of course.  But the fact is that the costs of adjusting positions are greater for Obama than they would be for Hillary.  (Though the costs should be equivalent for Mr. Straight Talk McCain, but somehow the media won't go there.  Funny how that works).

    Parent
    The old "it's Clinton's fault" argument (none / 0) (#97)
    by fafnir on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    Republicans have always blamed Bill Clinton to escape responsibility for their bad judgement and malfeasance. This time, however, Obama fans are trying to sing that tune. It won't work. This was Barack's "judgement" vote and he owns it, not Hillary Clinton.

    Um, Yglesias is criticizing Obama here (none / 0) (#98)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM EST
    Quote:
    But the reality is that as long as Obama thinks he's going to be wielding executive authority, he's going to be useless as a check on out-of-control executive authority.



    Parent
    That was my interpretation as well (none / 0) (#132)
    by Dax on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:55:53 PM EST
    I thought MY's post was pretty ambiguous, but from the context I interpreted him to be saying that Obama and Clinton would each have voted the way they did regardless of which one of them was the nominee.  I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think that's what he was saying.  

    Personally, I think if Hillary were the nominee, she definitely would have voted for it and Obama probably would've voted against it.  That's not meant as a criticism or defense of either of them.  Moreover, Hillary never promised to filibuster it over the immunity provision, so she'd be less vulnerable to criticism.

    Parent

    I also think we should (none / 0) (#101)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:12:59 PM EST
    praise him for his good calls and rip him for his bad ones.  I also think that a politician nominated for president and a politician who is a comfortable incumbent feel different pressures pulling them in different directions on their votes.

    So, I think it's certainly possible , maybe even probable, that Clinton (or anyone else) would have voted differently as the nominee, but I don't think it's a good line of defense for those seeking to defend Obama.

    Parent

    Velvet Revisionism: 'maybe even probable' no go (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    The latest trend to blurring the distinction between Obama's past no-shows on controversial issues while exceedingly villifying those of people in direct fire does not alter reality.

    Your personal opinion that it's possible would be the maximum allowable fantasy here in service of inflating Obama's (hypothetical) righteousness into truthiness while simultaneously deflating braver people's ACTUAL real-time bravery as "equally" within the realm of imagination.

    Probable? Nope.

    Parent

    This diary on daily kos is hilarious (none / 0) (#103)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:24:51 PM EST
    as are several of the ensuing comments:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/9/19248/26248/173/549025

    wow, that is good (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:38:29 PM EST
    Hillary's job is to help elect Barack, and that is it.  Should be news to her constituents in NY.

    Parent
    Nice (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    Feingold was on Countdown, supporting Obama (2+ / 0-)

    Feingold said he was disappointed that the vote was lost, but went out of his way to say that he was sure Obama would work with them to walk back the worst provisions when he was President.

    That was the critical missing element in Clinton's statement today. No pledge that she'd be working with the Democratic President to fix it in 09.

    Obama is good for voting the wrong way, but saying he would help to fix the bad parts next year sometime.

    Hillary is bad for voting the right way, but forgetting to say she would help fix the bad parts.

    Because really, that's what's important.  Saying you're doing the wrong thing now, but you'll do the right thing after the election, that's what we need more of!

    Parent

    Unreal (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    She really can't do enough for some people.  If she had mentioned working to change it, they would have accused her of acting like she would work harder than Barack.

    Parent
    Jeesh (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    I have absolutely had it with these idiots.  Do all these douchebags have the IQ of a fence post?  I am so glad I'm not a member of the Democratic party.  This crap would be so embarrassing.

    Parent
    This is not "hilarious" (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    to me. Perhaps a mordant chuckle but no more.

    The reason is that I knew they were going to twist her vote in order to make her the evil villain with dark nefarious motives. Its the knee-jerk script, the conventional wisdom, that we've been fed for years that says the Clintons have hidden ulterior motives. They're up to something.

    Parent

    Obama voted for all of the president's war funding (none / 0) (#130)
    by downtownted on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:45:48 PM EST
    requests since coming to the Senate. Never, not once, did he stand up.  To paraphrase Barry Goldwater this candidate is an echo not a choice. Hope the Dems can win with Obama or 4 more years of Bush mania. But what does the country get. And to think the Dems gave up Edwards who really was for people.

    Obama isn't as anti-war ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Caro on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:40:15 AM EST
    ... as he'd like you to believe.

    He wasn't in the Senate when the vote was taken on the Iraq War resolution, and when running for the Senate in 2004 he made conflicting statements, even telling the New York Times at one point, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0407270351jul27,0,3085726.story

    Also in 2004: "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'"
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63

    His much-touted 2002 speech wasn't as anti-war as he'd like you to believe.  In the speech, he never said "Do not attack Iraq", or "If I were in the Senate right now, I'd vote against any resolution that could in any way be construed as giving the President the authority to send troops to Iraq."  That gave him deniability, in case the war went well.
    http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

    In 2003, when the war was popular, he took the speech off his website.
    http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

    His war funding voting record has been exactly the same as Clinton's.
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012953.php

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

    Speech, what speech? (none / 0) (#136)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    Nobody has even seen the original, much-ballyhooed speech he supposedly gave in 2002. And THAT is the extent of his antiwar work? Piffle. Besides, it is demonstrably true that he reverses himself on almost every position he takes. Why would his "antiwar" position be any different?

    Bad Argument For Obama Fans | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment