On a press call today, the Clinton camp insisted that Senator Obama had an identical voting record in the Senate as Senator Clinton. Then, they emphatically stated what an abysmal record Senator Obama had in acting to end the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, they didn't take a follow-up question on this issue, but the follow-up is obvious: So, are you admitting that Senator Clinton has a terrible voting record on Iraq?
Perhaps the answer is as obvious as the question. Of course, she does. Her campaign is simply trying to mitigate the damage done by her awful record of opposing President Bush on Iraq by claiming that Obama is just as bad a leader as she is. How comforting.
There is one difference of course. Her last name is Clinton. If she had decided to fight, everyone would have paid attention. She might have been able move public opinion (although she wouldn't need to move it much since the public was already overwhelmingly against the Iraq War), she might have been able to persuade Senate colleagues and she might have built up enough pressure to move President Bush in the right direction. But we'll never know because she didn't try any of those things. Instead, she did nothing.
She didn't capitalize on her name. She didn't capitalize on her so-called experience. She could have shown leadership. She could have made a difference. Instead, she did nothing. Never won a fight against Bush. Even worse, never even tried.
And now she has the temerity to brag about it.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Hardly. In fact, she enthusiastically supported the invasion during its outset and proceeded to verbally decry critics, such as those affiliated with CodePink, as attempting to undermine "the security of the American people." Now, having exhausted the last vestiges of any possible defense, the Clinton campaign has attempted to portray Obama as more complicit in the disaster in Iraq, considering that, although he opposed the war, he didn't oppose the war vigirously "enough". Or whatever.
Either way, it's a certifiable crock that has only been sustained by a series of fanatical HIllary supporters who, operating from a standpoint of predisposition, merely see what they want to see.
1). If Hillary doesn’t win the popular vote she is going to argue that the Electoral votes in the states she won should count over the popular vote, even though she called for an end to the Electoral College in Nov 2000.
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." - Quote from Hillary
2). If by chance she wins the popular vote then she is going to argue that the popular vote should count over the delegate vote.
3). She is also arguing that the Electoral Map will not change, even though there is evidence to the contrary.
4). At this time, Hillary is losing by number of states won, votes, and delegates, yet she is talking as if she is in the lead and is going so far as to suggest Obama be her VP.
5). It is ironic that Hillary is considering Obama as her VP when she unequivocally stated he is not fit to be President.
6). Even more ironic, Hillary’s campaign noted that Obama is not fit to be President now, but added he may be ready by August (DNC convention).
Crazy isn’t it? According to Hillary’s confusing and contradictory “logicâ€, Obama would most likely be ready to be President by August or November, which in essence means there is no good reason not to vote for him during the Primary season, Right?
This article and the points listed above only goes to show that Hillary is either a sociopath or an imbecile, but any way you look at it; Hillary is not morally or mentally fit to be President of the United States.
And all those extra states he's got really are just the "caucus states" where his slick campaign strategists rounded up some college students in a scheme to snag these non-descript delegates that the DNC doesn't know what to do with because they are in states so hopelessly Republican that they don't want to spend money on an actual vote and say go ahead gather up some people at your homes and send us the results.
This is Obama's whole lead right now. He has out delegated Hillary in caucus states by 300+ to 165. i.e. it's his whole lead. Any other lead he has in popular vote is all from Illinois where the Daley machine undoubtedly was turning the crank full tilt.
Aside from that, all we see is Hillary winning big state after big state. When the money's on the table, Hillary comes thru.
Only six more weeks until we get to see her clean house with him again in Pennsylvania. This time it won't be six weeks of bogus caucus results sprinkled in adding up to a big bogus winning streak. A lot can happen in 6 weeks and Obama is nowhere near the 2025 he needs to win.
The scrutiny is just going to get sharper and sharper. The questions about experience are going to go deeper and deeper. The days of the big crowds and fainting women are over. We are now into the long haul where Obama is going to have make the case to roll the dice with him vs the Democrats taking another shot with Hillary and the Clinton team that delivered the best economy in US history from 1992-2000, erase hundreds of billions of built up Republican deficits and turned it into surplusses.
People will begin to realize that there is no sensible case for Obama, except maybe to save face for some Democrats who never really liked the Clintons nor gave them credit for their substantial accomplishments. But we don't really care about those stuffed shirts. We care about working people and we remember how the Clintons added 22.7 million new jobs to a dead in the water economy left behind by Reagan-Bush 1980-1992.
Obama shouldn't be so quick to ridicule the VP opportunity. A few weeks from now things could look a lot different than today.
Texas proved the absurdity of the caucuses by showing how they ran a constitutional election where everyone got to vote and Hillary won close but handily. Then, if you voted, you got to go to a caucus if you wanted to vote again.These caucuses discriminate against just about everybody except Obama's band of college students who don't have jobs to worry about, are young and healthy and don't mind standing around in crowded chaotic gymnasiums and other ad hoc gathering places, as opposed to older voters.
But since the beginning, Obama has indicated he doesn't really care about older voters since his original theme was it's time for the Baby Boomers to move over for him and his Republican GenX friends.
I suspect the MSM is beginning to tire of Obama as well. There is only so long the public will put up with these talking heads trying to make fools of everyone by telling us how important all this talk of hope and change is.
The Clintons showed real change in 1992-2000 and delivered the only substantive achievement the Democrats have had in over a quarter century.
As Hillary has said: "Get Real!".
and you have NO hope for change???...so, you want more of the same???...or you believe that hillary has a way back machine to xport us to the past "good 'ol days" (that she takes so much credit for....when it's convenient)...
yeah, i agree, you need to "get real" and accept that "yes we can"....
The number of states won do not matter, that is true. It's as inconsequential as the popular vote in a race where delegates are the currency. Getting those delegates is the game. Developing and deploying a strategy to do that is part of the contest. If Obama wins that contest, then he deserves the crown. It's the same sort of game the democratic nominee will have to play to get win the White House.
Hillary won most of the big states. She beat a fellow democrat, so casting those wins as being indicative of what might happen in November is meaningless. A better barometer would be to look at McCain -v- Hillary and McCain -v- Obama polls. And Obama wins there.
To the idea that winning lots of smallstates means nothing... Tell that to John Kerry. The whole electoral system is biased toward states with low populations. In the most extreme case, in the general election, a vote in Wyoming is worth 6 in California (in terms of voters per elector). Establishing an infrastructure to win small purlple states is smart. Establishing an infrastructure to win NY NJ and MA which will go to the democrat in any case is a waste of time in the general.
We're beginning to see that nominating Hillary is really the roll of the dice. She clearly puts her political career before anything else. To the extent that it's aligned with the interests of the country, that's good, otherwise we're screwed. Also, with the wreakage she's wreaking now in this race, her chances of beating McCain are diminishing by the minute. The dice are being shaved by Hillary... in McCain's favor.
I'm sorry, I just can't even try to be objective anyone when it comes to this race. The negative campaigning and fear tactics were bad enough, but now the PR campaign that the people of FL and MI were diesntranchised has taken hold and it looks like they're actually going to go through with this. They ought to fire Howard Dean and put in his place any kindergarden teacher to decide how to deal with contests and rules and rule breakers. Bill is playing Howard Dean and the DNC like a virtual piano. It is so blatently wrong that from supporting Clinton at one point in this race, I would now actively campaign for McCain should she get the nomination. She IS amonster.
Your suggestion is a one-way ticket to the "fringe" label.
I'm with you in heart, but know it would be used against anyone foolish enough to try.
The last poll I saw only had 30% support for impeachment... and that's before the inevitable blowback campaign that would have dredged up the Clinton years disgust.
I think it's a combination of voters feeling responsible for their decision and voters too embarrassed to take responsibility.
"You were wrong to elect him and I'm going to fix your mistake" isn't a good way to convince people.
In reality, it is in the best interest of those running NOT to call for impeachment. They can then inherit an Executive Branch that has been dangerously strengthened and expanded.
I think Hillary took no action against the Iraq occupation because she supports the policy. That's what her voting record says to me. Rhetoric be damned.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain said they have met the threshold to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF because they have years and years of Experience.
Well all that experience they VOTED FOR WAR TO INVADE ANOTHER COUNTRY, thereby causing our Country, America to be in Shambles, our Economy and our Dollar is the lowest, our Infrastructure is Crumbling, Our bridges are in danger of collapsing over us or falling down on us. We have more Terrorist than ever before due to their Vote for the WAR.
Neither Hillary Clinton or John McCain would be able to protect us at anytime of the day or night, with their VOTE FOR THE WAR, HILLARY AND JOHN FAILED THE THRESHOLD TO BE A COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
What more do we need to see how their experience has lead to our young Soldiers being killed and maimed by their VOTE FOR WAR that is costing us 12 billion dollars a year.
The line went, once a bus is driven into a ditch, everyone standing around will agree on the best way to get it out, but the blame goes with the ones who ran the bus in the ditch in the 1st place.
(Translation)
He voted to fund the war because once we were in, the troops have to at least stabilize things.
There may be plenty of reasons to vote for Obama, but his actions to end the war in Iraq are not among them.
If the media claims Obama to be capable of acting (in foreign politics and as a leader) in a more proper way compared to Clinton using his Iraq votes as an excuse, then they are not right, since Clinton and Obama share the same votes. Or, in other words, if the media claims Clinton as the worse possible leader using her votes in Iraq as an excuse, then the same can be applied on Obama. I don't think Obama camp would want to enter a discussion in that area, cause they know Hillary camp is right. They share the same votes, and neither have done anything to pull the trigger to bring back the troops much earlier than anticipated.
And, where was Obama when Clinton was getting blamed on this issue? Present or non-present?
It is hypocritical of Obama to suggest that his record on the Iraq War is flawless, when his Senate votes - when he HAD a vote - are identical to hers.
Hypocrisy. Thy middle name is Obama's campaign.
Obama has never claimed that his record on Iraq is flawless, just that he had the foresight to recognize the folly.
No one thought that Dodd could stop the FISA bill, even temporarily, back in December, but he fought and he managed to hold it up for months. What if Hillary had held up the Iraq war for months, how many lives would not have been killed during those months. I want a president who will fight for what they believe in and whats just, even if they lose. Hillary maybe a fighter when it comes to her own political career, but when it comes to fighting against bad legislation, she's a dud. And if she didn't lead in the Senate, why would we suddenly expect her to transform into a strong leader once she has the presidency?
Hillary is running on experience. And it is precisely her record and experience, of no leadership on important issues in the Senate, that convinced me to vote for Obama.
Did you speak out against the war in 02??
Watch videos of Obama on the issues:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=900C5EDCAF3C292A
First, I cannot say anything about McCain on this point but Clinton is being realistic. Correcting the mistakes of Bush does not give the US Government the right to let die more civilians there by getting out of there in a few months. You made that mess, and you are responsible for those deaths, ad you have no right to get out of there by ignoring the possible consequences. That is why it won't happen. Anyone who says they will take out "all" the troops by a deadline is using demagogy, and playing to people's emotions. Nothing more. Clinton considers these risks, and that is why she does not want to give the exact date of pulling all the troops. Foreign policy is not, I want it so I'll have it, game. If you support Obama considering that, then your foreign policy intelligence is no better than Bush's. That is a fact.
That said, Hillary's other argument is that Obama as a state Senator wasn't able to STOP Hillary from voting with Bush.
She also claims Obama didn't accomplish anything, yet his speech was part of a broader effort that has succeeded in shifting public opinion in this country... against the course of action she supported... and helping Democrats regain majorities in both houses of Congress.
That's quite an accomplishment by our side, and Hillary's vote for war can't be seen as helping that effort one bit.
She knew what she was voting for. Her husband's words were used as justification for the war. She is complicit in this scam for Iraq. Too bad Hillary has spoken a peep against the war, just Bush...however the war IS the Problem. And don't pretend you don't know what the meaning of IS is.
To be fair, Mr. Uygur, her influence may not have been so effortless. Remember, one half of the people now opposed to the war were, in fact, one half of the people who were favored it at the beginning (i.e. it was a 2-1 split before it was a 2-1 split).
We also cannot forget that in 2002, any stand on principles ("alleged" principles) would have been seen as a death knell to Ms. Clinton's presidential ambitions. And Lord knows no principle is worth giving up a shot at power (this, apparently, would be true doubly so for anyone named "Clinton").
A reasonable point, Malarcus, and one I've made myself. It is also important to note that, as a woman, Clinton could simply not afford to seem WEAK. So be it. I do believe her when she says she wishes she had that vote back, but I do not believe she misunderstood what approval of a measure entitled "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" meant. Nor, sadly, did her position on Kyl-Lieberman ameliorate her original vote
The times were not conducive to dissent (or a stand of principle, real or alleged). But 23 senators swam against the tide -- too bad not one of them is running for president.
Here is what Hillary had to say on Meet the Press nearly nine months AFTER we invaded and occupied Iraq:
"I think Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them." and "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being guilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power." Also: "We need more troops and a different mixture of troops." "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option." From William Safire's column 12/08/03.
Sounds pretty hawkish to me, not to mention complicit with GWB in his war in Iraq. Personally, I don't want someone like that answering the White House phone at 3:00 am.