Arianna, ever since you bought into the song and dance being performed by Obama I have just about lost all respect for your judgement and political observations. To see you getting caught up in the mindless babble featuring the absurd word "change" incorporated into inspirational phrases of hope and wonder is dispiriting as hell.
I was stunned when it became apparent that you had chosen to sponsor a relatively untested legislator against a seasoned stateswoman to begin the long political road back from the ruinous condition of eight years of incipient fascism under the Bush administration.
I should think that anyone seeking change would be working day and night to replace 90% of the Republicans in the congress, which would be the only way to generate any kind of meaningful change. What the hell do you mean by "change"?
While on the subject of change I will tell you one thing that you may now know from what I guess to be your relatively limited experience in living in this country: It is in large part made up of people who come from people who have feelings of prejudice against people unlike themselves. While this bigotry is ebbing it still remains strong enough to keep a black person from being elected president for at least a couple more election cycles.
At the present all the media people who hate Hillary are doing is ensuring that we shall soon endure another Republican administration if Obama becomes the nominee.
Can't you see that?
Clinton, Obama And The Belief In The Magic Power Of Words
Along with her "ready to lead on Day One" mantra, Hillary Clinton's favored line of attack against Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Mondale's 1984 "Where's the beef?" attack on Gary Hart. In Clinton's version, Obama is little more than a shallow speechifier -- he believes that words are all you need to lead.
She made it explicit in a speech in Providence, Rhode Island on Sunday:
"I could stand up here and say 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open! The light will come down! Celestial choirs will be singing! And everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!' Maybe I've just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear!"
Last week it was: "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills."
And her chief strategist, Mark Penn, summed up the "just words" meme this way: "She is in the solutions business while Obama is in the promises business."
Now, I agree with Clinton that it's important to look at how each of the Democratic candidates uses words and how rhetoric fits into how they've run their respective campaigns. And if you do, you'll see that one candidate does believe that words are like a magic wand: you utter them and reality changes. But it's not Barack Obama -- it's Hillary Clinton.
Clinton's use of words is disturbingly reminiscent of the way the Bush administration has used words: just saying something is true is magically supposed to make it true. Call it Presto-change-o Politics.
The examples are so notorious they hardly bear repeating: "mission accomplished," "heckuva job," "last throes," the endless "turning the corner" in Iraq. They were all said with the arrogant belief that merely saying these words was all that was needed: reality would literally change to fit the rhetoric.
Now let's look at Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and what is says about the campaign she's run. It started with her absurd claim that her vote for the war was really a vote to send inspectors back in. The name of the bill? "The Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use Of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." Saying it was about sending inspectors back in doesn't mean that it is true that it was about sending inspectors back in.
And then how about the endless spinning trying to diminish Obama victory after Obama victory? Here was Penn: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama." Mark Penn calling Virginia, Georgia, Missouri, and Colorado, among others, not "significant" does not make them insignificant.
Or Clinton's "35 years of experience." She has had a distinguished record of public service, but it's not in any way 35 years of government experience, unless you want to include her time at Yale Law school, or going door to door for George McGovern in Texas, or working at the Rose law firm in Arkansas as government experience. But her campaign seemed convinced that by repeating "35 years of experience" at every stop she would magically acquire that 35 years of experience.
But as the Bush administration has shown, believing your own words and not being able to see things as they are is not a good thing -- either for a country or a campaign. The New York Times described some Clinton aides as "baffled that a candidate who had been in the United States Senate for only three years and was a state lawmaker in Illinois before that was now outpacing a seasoned figure like Mrs. Clinton."
"Whether or not you think the more 'seasoned' candidate ought to win presidential elections, it seems to me that any campaign staffer who could be genuinely 'baffled' by experience not proving to be a winning issue is demonstrating a scary ignorance of how things work. Is her staff baffled that Joe Biden didn't win the nomination?"
Or how about the Clinton campaign's abracadabra rhetoric, designed to make the reality of what they agreed to about Florida and Michigan -- poof! -- go away. They even set up a website that attempts to pull a rabbit out of the electoral hat. The site list several "facts": "FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy." As Ezra Klein notes: "It's almost as if they thought putting it after... the word 'FACT,' would be like a Jedi mind trick."
Meanwhile, as the Clinton campaign was busy trying to use words to push the idea that losing is actually winning (you know, just like in Iraq), the Obama campaign was actually winning votes. To the extent that anything in a campaign is real, it doesn't get any more real than actual votes.
And, no, he wasn't winning them just because of his "words." He backed up his words with action: old-fashioned grassroots organizing. For instance, as was widely noted in the blogosphere, the Clinton campaign apparently found out only in February that the March 4th primary/caucus in Texas was sort of complicated:
"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest."
As publius at Obsidian Wings says:
"While they were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making PowerPoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose."
Repeat that kind of organizing throughout 23 "insignificant" states, and it turns out you get a pretty healthy delegate lead.
So let's look at how Obama uses words. Contrary to Clinton's charges, Obama never claims his words will somehow magically create change. Instead, he uses his words to ask the American people to demand change. Very little change for the better happens in Washington unless it is demanded by the people. It's instructive that, back in New Hampshire, Clinton discounted the work Martin Luther King did in creating the political atmosphere that allowed LBJ to push though the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Which is why Obama's constant invocation is "Yes we can" -- not "Yes I can." Obama uses words to persuade, to mobilize and to get people to imagine that reality can be changed. And based on how his campaign has been run, on the ground, in state after state, it's clear that he knows changing reality is not done through magic -- it's done through hard work.
It is Clinton who uses words to deny reality, and expects them to magically change it. Haven't we had enough of that over the last seven years?
Update: Dana Milbank offers up yet another example of reality denial -- and the belief that saying something is so will make it so -- on the part of the Clinton campaign. This one comes courtesy of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes who yesterday told a gathering of high-powered Washington journalists: "We're on our way to locking this nomination down." No word on whether the journalists -- including David Broder and Maureen Dowd -- responded with a collective spit take.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
He is an Obamanation
all rhetoric STOLEN and no substance
say what you want but no thanks to the BS that is obama- makes me want to puke this rock star personna - this is NOT American Idol it is the presidency and I prefer my president to observe the National Anthem with HER hand over her heart. Muslims only pledge to Allah- hummm
Baffle them with BS (OBAMA) or dazzle them with brilliance (Hillary)
Hillary Clinton is SUBSTANCE, she is simply the best person for the job. When I listen to Barack Obama, I feel like I'm in a sales meeting...just before being sent out to sell as many widgets as possible. America needs to wake up and get off the train...it'll be a long 4 - 8 years if you don't.
Hillary Clinton 2008
and this "substance"....
that she has been an elected official since what year?...
that she trusted george bush NOT to start a war...after she authorized it...
and learned so little she voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment in 2007!!!....
this kind of "substance" escapes me....
she was in lock step with her husband's great decisions...
yet could not see his infidelity?....
i cannot trust my country to someone who is this "perceptive"...
i would rather "hope" that obama can change america with new ideas....
than to trust america to hillary"s "substance..
As Ron Paul points out, we"re the only country that had to have a war to end slavery. So in Obama"s anti war speech, which he seems to think qualifies him for president, he says he would not have opposed the Civil War. Over 600,000 dead, Americans killing Americans, brother against brother, and not necessary. That"s supposed to be good judgment?
This is an excellent essay. Thank you VERY MUCH for writing. I've often wondered why Hillary Clinton and her campaign are rarely challenged in this way. I guess by not going along with everything they say, one is automatically branded as anti-clinton. It's sick. We just want the truth and we really want change.
Thank you so much for writing this.
We may not have a lot of money, but together we are rich.
We may feel powerless and alone but together we are strong.
Our voices may be weak but together we are loud.
We may feel meek and humble but together we are proud.
"We are the change we've been waiting for." Barack Obama
Sorry....that's Deval Patrick's line as is most of Baracks campaign theme so you really should be voting for Deval not his phoney buddy Barack.
Obama uses words like a preacher, like MLK whose incantations and exhortations he mimics, Hillary lays out her words like a map, a blueprint. They may not inspire hope, but they do suggest she knows whereof she speaks.
Nead : you mean like : Iam in the solutions business...." Or, " I am ready to be President on Day One?" Please tell me how I as voter can verify that. At leat Obama urges us to get engaged in changing the system. All I hear from Clinton is that I should trust her to lead me because she has 35 years of experience. What exactly it is that she has done is never spelled out. But she tells me that she is in the "solutions business." In essence she says: forget about my vote to authorize the illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq that has taken the lives of thousand of our young men and women, perhaps millions of Iraqis, and billions and billions of dollars. She would also have forget that that when she had the chance she was not able to pass comprehensive Health reform. And by the way she really is in the side of the working men and women and her working for Wal-Mart, and the Rose Law firm, should be overlooked because that is not part of her 35 years experience working for us.
"Hillary lays our her words like a map, like a blueprint, like a carefully rehearsed script, written by Mark Penn and his hoard of special interests to pander to the micro-trended electorate."
Just finishing your half-baked thought.
If you need a blueprint, hire an engineer. If you want a leader with judgment, hire Obama. Hillary doesn't understand the difference and apparently neither do her supporters.
Bill Clinton at a 2004 Kerry rally, explaining why his wife is not the candidate we should vote for in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk
Obama's campaign is a call to action. A call to anyone willing to participate in the "change". Change is a constant but change that is perpetrated by the aristocracy for their own enrichment is immoral change. That is the difference in a call for change that is brought forth from the participation of the masses. IT is a paradigm shift. IT is the ongoing evolution of humanity. IT is a revolution of process that is going to happen just as the Reagan Revolution brought about the destruction of the middle class and the corporate takeover of the US government through the processes of deregulation and lobbyist culture. IT is the "coming 'round right" of all the selfishness embodied in Bush and the Neocons. There's a train a'comin' and you better get on board. This thing is bigger than all of us. The times they are a changin'. Obama is just the messenger...the agent of change is within all who confront their fear and greed and seek a higher meaning for their life. IT ain't for the weak of spirit or the fundamentalist mindset. IT ain't the end of the world....IT is a beginning to be embraced.
Oh, you mean like the change from 1992-2000 when the Clintons took the govt from 12 years of huge Republican deficits to a surplus? You mean the change that 22.7 Million New Jobs meant for 22.7 million people plus the other people who lost other jobs thru NAFTA or whatever that were also replaced before you start counting the 22.7 Million.
Do you know what squelched this growth and what caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election? It was the non-stop Republican and media smears against the Clintons that caused many chickenly Democrats like Obama's mentor Joe Lieberman to "turn away" and "distance themselves" from the Clinton administration.
Do you know what one of Obama's main themes is? That he won't be subject to such smears. Why not? Because he is going to compromise away all the values that Democrats stand for for working people that is at the root of these smears.
No thanks. GET REAL !!!
A lot of the comments from Clinton supporters are based on ignorance. Do a little google search and you will find out everything that is to know about Obama's speech in 2002 and why it showed courage, judgement and leadership. There was no word against the war from hillary during that difficult time, just a vote for war. Her judgement was WRONG and only recently, when 70% of americans woke up and started to oppose the war has she decided to start talking against it.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!
You are entitled to your opinion.
But, to say that Sen. Obama's speech showed "courage" also shows some ignorance. The fact is that Obama's speech was given to constituents in THE MOST LIBERAL district in the state of Illinois. Real courage would have been to speak up in venues across the country and in CONSERVATIVE places where the "authorization" was considered the right thing to do.
The second point about his speech is that he ALSO SAID that he didn't know how he would vote if he had been a member of the U.S. Senate and had the information that they did.
Finally, Sen. Obama has not taken any particularly "courageous" stands on this war since his election to the U.S. Senate.
For example, he has voted against amendments to establish a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops, and against an amendment to urge President Bush to start bringing home troops at the end of 2006. He has also voted in favor of every funding/appropriations bill to continue the war, without ever taking any "courageous" stand against it, either through remarks on the floor or in his campaign speeches.
In addition, Sen. Obama has NOT VOTED on measures in the U.S. Senate that are significant in the governing of our country and how we proceed and have proceeded since that 2002 authorization vote. These measures include the resolution to implement the 911 Commission Recommendations, and the "No Confidence" vote against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (you might remember him as the Bush appointee who APPROVED the use of torture).
These are not "courageous" actions by a leader. They are acts of grandstanding that mark somebody as flagrantly obsessed with himself and his "mission"; they mark Sen. Obama as shameless in his calculated appeal to voters' ignorance, apathy and anger.
This is not courage. It is pandering dishonesty.
Senator Clinton has been in the government for over 20+ years so please tell us why she hasn't mad any of the changes she talks about or at least tried to make such changes in congress. Are we saying that we are willing to let these folk set in Washington for 20+ years, play games with the special interest, spend our money, play politics and not worry about the problems facing Hard Working Americans until they run for President? The issues America is facing we have been facing for the past 8 years. Why didn't Senator Clinton stand up and try to make some of these changes. Rather she continued to go along with the Establishment. Don't we deserve better? Gas prices are sky high and have been for over a year, food prices are skyrocketing, college education and the cost of student loans have been sky high for a few years, our jobs have been going over seas for many years, Ohio, Michigan and other states hit hard by NFTA communities are bare and folk have been jobless for many years, so for all this experience she continually displays why hasn't she done something to help? Clearly that's a question Americans must ask of all candidates running for any office that have remained a part of the Establishment for so many years. Why is the country in this shape when we have people in Washington that have been sitting for 20+ years watching this situation unfold? Do you need to run for President to have a Voice or to try to after 20+years help us? Anyone who sits in Congress for 20+ years must have a record of doing something that matters materially to help us not just talk about it after they have sat and watched the US deteriorate before their eyes. What does she have to Brag about or to sell us? We have to make the people in Congress more accountable but in the past we have rewarded these people by putting them in higher offices and getting more of the same. It's apparent that the people who have been sitting in Washington all these years are not going to help us so why are we not holding them accountable and not rewarding them for getting us in this situation in the first place? People are hurting, families are loosing their homes and Congress watched while Banks practices were adverse to these families and did nothing, folk are dying no health care, couldn't congress have passed health care in the past 20+years. Why has Senator Clinton waited 20+ years to now bring forth a Healthcare bill? Why did she not do it before running for President? Could it be because even though she knew families were hurting she held back to present this Plan to run for President? Should she not have presented this plan 20+years ago? Just think what Senator Clinton and others could have accomplished if they would bring forth these ideas and plans when there is no election or no office for which to run or compete. Perhaps we should judge Congress by what it actually gets done on behalf of the American people instead of continually giving them a pass until they run for elected office or a higher means or attempt to retain their seat. Isn't that when we are told about all the things they will do for us, then and only then? Just think if Senator Obama accomplishes his current agenda, think what he can do in 20+years? And yes, we must hold his feet to the fire too. We gave the longevity members of Congress a chance, we are still waiting, why have did they waited? Why would we reward them for standing on the sidelines while economy got in this mess? Why is it that the folk in Congress for many years, only come up with great ideas to help us during elections? It's past time for American to change their way of thinking if we are going to protect our children's future and our future. Accountability is a great tool if used properly and we as Americans must begin to apply a different standard to the people in Washington not reward them. What we have is not working, and we won't know if we can change things until we change course with a new Captain. By the way on Day 1 you can't go it alone! We need the President on Day 1 to collaborate with others to ensure that the best decisions and best judgment is made. We would be foolish to expect any President to do anything in our Best interest on Day 1 that involves going it alone. Change will only come when we embrace it, don't we deserve better. Perhaps we should be asking those with the many years of experience Why have you waited so long to come to our aide? Why did you sit on the sidelines and watch our Economy and other key concerns and issues facing Americans and not step up to the plate to help us. Is there a Rule in Congress that says you cannot come up with great plans to help the American People until you run for President or if you are attempting to maintain your office. It's just a question we must ask if we are to become a better nation and hold people accountable for making America the Very Best. If we send a strong message to the folk in Washington that we will keep changing the guard until we have outstanding representation and folk that are looking out for hardworking Americans, we will get change. If they do not then we will elect new blood until we get it right. Washington has proven that Americans are not the priority. We will only be our Priority when we use our voice via our votes to command respect and insist that these folk make decisions and bring actions to the table that help the very Americans who sent them to Congress in the first place.
Hillary Clinton has, come November, 8 years of experience as an elected official while Barack Obama, come November will have 12 years of experience as an elected official.
You can't take credit for the employment of your spouse!
1992-2000 22.7 MILLION NEW JOBS (including any losses for nafta/walmart whatever).
President has the power - pretty tough to make the changes you are asking for as 1 of 100 in the Senate - why are you not asking Obama the same - like why doesn't he have any meetings of the committee he was appointed to chair.
2001: left the govt with 3 years running surplus - no end in sight. That's the power of the Presidency.
Blame the American people for voting for Bush and believing the right wing smears against the Clintons. Blame Obama for trying to capitalize on those smears for his own benefit.
In the words of great American: "GET REAL !!!"
SOMEBODY, ESPECIALLY IN THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN, NEEDS TO DEBUNK OBAMA'S VOTING RECORD ON THE WAR IN IRAQ. HE WAS NOT EVEN A US A SENATOR UNTIL HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE IN JANUARY OF 2005. SO HE DID NOT VOTE ON THE SAME MEASURE THAT HILLARY AND THE REST OF THE SENATE DID. THIS HAS BEEN MISREPRESENTED BY OBAMA AND OVERLOOKED BY CLINTON.
WILL SOMEBODY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE A MANTRA OF OBAMA'S THAT HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR. HELL, HE DIDN'T EVEN VOTE AS HE WASN'T EVEN A US SENATOR YET!!!!!!!!!!
I have done this here and elsewhere. I have published it in comments on Salon.com and on Huffington Post. I have sent this to MSNBC (Matthews, Olberman, etc.) and to CNN.
If you want to pull it up and do a side-by-side comparison, then save it and publish it elsewhere, go to this site:
http://www.vote-smart.org.
You have to find voting records by state and name. Once you get there, it's a matter of checking categories (which is easy), noting votes on the war (Defense, Security, Veterans, etc.).
You can also get voting records on significant issues via Washington Post and New York Times.
Obama's speech (October, 2002):
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Oh, what inspiration! I think I finally understand what you Obama people are so excited about your promising new leader.
So, instead of Iraq, he then goes on to say who we should fight: binLaden/alqaeda, Russia, Pakistan, India, the Saudis, the Egyptians, Exxon and Mobil.
Then for good measure: ignorance, intolerance, corruption, greed, poverty, and despair.
Huff and puff, huff and puff, sounds wonderful.
The inspiration this wells up inside one is truly overwhelming.
How about calling a meeting of that Foreign Relations Committee you were appointed to lead over a year ago? Oh, too busy getting ready to be President.
What about this part:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
Goes a little further than just calling it 'dumb', doesn't he?
That pretty much says it all. Not bad for a state senator. Seems to have gotten it right while Hillary got it wrong.
He never said he voted against the war, which is why it has not been overlooked by the Clinton camp...give them a little credit.
What he has said over and over is that he was always against the war and spoke against it. The day Bush and congess passed the resolution to authorize the Iraq war, Obama, who had already became a high profile Senator spoke at an anti war rally in Chicago against the resoution saying it was a dumb war to get into. He said that we were invading the wrong country. That if we were starting this war to target Al-queda and Bin Laden, we should be going into Afghanistan, not Iraq.Which in my opinion, would have been a better strategy.
NO ONE, has ever said this was in his voting record, its's a little too obvious to and simple to prove it was not. Your not uncovering anything new or ground-breaking...sorry!
I have written several letters to the editor on the subject of Obama's constant, relatively unchallenged, claim that he was againstt the Iraq war and that Hillary "voted" for it.. The fact that there never was such a vote taken " to go to war" is never mentioned nor is the fact that Obama was no where near having a seat the Senate when the matter was being debated. Telling family and friends that he opposed the war might have occured, but was of no consequence in Chicago. I have no idea what occurs within the Clinton campaign straff , but I have no question in my mind that it is definitely second rate at best.
MMB is to be congrartulated for coming right out with Obams's distortion of his involvement in anything having to do with the war and Hillary's actual involvement. It does not make sense that Hillary and her feckless staff have not made a major issue of Obama's misleading BS on his participation in anything remotely involved with the congressional actions leading up to the Bush invasion.
Let me tell you why that dog won't hunt.
Everyone knows Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time. The rest of the millions of us out here who were appalled at the Iraq invasion and furious at our elected officials for not standing up for us weren't in the Senate either, but we believe our own good judgment at the time, like Obama's, still *counted*, even though we had no power to change anything. It's not irrelevant that Obama spoke out against the war even though he wasn't a Senator at the time. It's not irrelevant that *I* spoke out in my small way in my community even though I was not and will never be a Senator. We weren't listened to, but it *counts*. It mattered. We suffered because we voiced our opinions. It wasn't popular, and for some of us it got really fucked up, the stuff that happened to us because we wouldn't shut up.
So, don't tell me Obama's stance means nothing, and that it wasn't brave, because it meant something and it was brave. All of us who stood up, it meant something, and it was brave.
The vote to go to war was referenced in the article, it's called "The Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use Of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". What more do you Clinton backers need? Again, just because you people spin some fairy tale about Clinton, doesn't make it so.
Not only that, but apparently Clinton didn't learn her lesson in Iraq. She then voted recklessly to give Bush a blank check for aggression against Iran with the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. It's like she has no sense of judgement whatsoever.
MMB apparently hasn't watched any of the debates or Obama's speeches, where the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote has been documented ad nauseum.
However THE FACT IS is that Obama, during his US Senate campaign, openly campaigned against the war. This wasn't "telling friends and family that he opposed the war" such as ARBOC seems to think. Rather, it was coming out in televised speeches against the war - a view that even his aides counseled him to avoid.
This is the kind of drivel I just hate. It's put forward as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" but has little "truth" in it.
I have read the "authorization" that all of you Obama followers jump up and down about. Clinton IS RIGHT about the "authorization."
In the FIRST place, an authorization is the FIRST step in a series of steps (process) required to take action. It is NOT the final step in that process.
Posted February 25, 2008 | 02:49 PM (EST)