First, Obama has said he did not know if he would have voted on the IWR. He commented at one point that he and Bush were not that far apart on Iraq. It is inaccurate to say Obama knew better than to vote for the IWR, his own words prove that statement to be false.
Ms. CLinton did vote for the IWR, but as she said during the debate over the legislation her vote was not to go directly to war. And the IWR did not give Bush that authority as a first step. It is not the fault of Ms. Clinton that Bush lied to the nation and went directly to war. W did not consult with her prior to making his decision to go directly to war. And all Obama and his supporters have done is to take the responsibility for the war in Iraq from W and to place it on Ms. Clinton. And that is a huge lie. And a huge mistake. Bush has avoided responsibility for so many things and now Obama and his supporters are helping him avoid responsibility for the war.
Obama supporters raely write of anything specific he will do if elected president. He has not given any substantive plans or programs that will bring about the change he claims to want. Prefer Obama if you want, but do not continue the lie about the war and about Obama's stand on the war.
Some Last-Minute Obama Thoughts, After Canvasing in PA
I live in Bucks County, PA, and over the weekend I canvassed for Obama out of the Quakertown campaign headquarters.
My actress friend Alice Playten came out from New York to join me. She's had a long career in musical theatre -- she was in the original Broadway companies of Oliver and Hello, Dolly (as Ermengarde), and replaced as Baby Louise in the original cast of Gypsy. Recently she was Grandma Gellman in Tony Kushner and Jeanine Tesori's acclaimed musical Caroline or Change.
Alice has shown good judgment in the shows she's been in. And now she's for Barack Obama. So if you liked Hello, Dolly, you should vote for Obama. And if you hated it (the film's not very good), you should still vote for him. I'm being silly. Anyway Alice and I went canvassing.
When we got to the Quakertown headquarters, we were surprised to learn that Senator John Kerry was there to give all the volunteers a pep talk. (Also there were his two sisters; and his daughter who was also going door-to-door for Obama.)
I voted for Kerry, but I had never seen him in person before. I was amazed by how charismatic he was. He spoke really well, and effortlessly. Of course, he was among people he knew he was in sync with; and that makes a person more relaxed.
He thanked us all for being there, and said that we all had seen that Barack Obama was the best chance for a new politics, for moving the country forward, and for changing its direction. (When Alice and I did our canvassing in a little while, even those who were undecided seem desperate for change.)
Kerry said we were not running against anyone, we were not running against Hillary Clinton. He knows and likes her. Instead, we were running in favor of Barack Obama, in the belief he was the best choice, and chance, for our country. He has very special gifts, and his candidacy was a very singular opportunity to change course FOR REAL. Which most of us passionately want.
Kerry said he assumed all of us there were already convinced of Obama, but added, is there anyone here feeling undecided still? And we were all surprised when an older woman (in her early 70s, I think) raised her hand.
And Kerry said, what are you thinking about in terms of the election? And she said, "Well, I'm an older woman, and I would love to see a woman elected in my lifetime." Kerry nodded sympathetically, and she added. "And also a black person elected in my lifetime." And he nodded again and said, "Well I suggest you plan on not stopping living for a while then." I don't know that I got his quote quite right, but his comment was extremely charming and funny, and the whole room laughed, as did the woman.
Again I was struck by how loose he was. (And how we must start looking at how the media interviews politicians. It's hard to communicate easily if there's a constant "gotcha" mentality all the time, and not just in debates. What was missing in the first half of that Stephanopoulos-Gibson-moderated debate was an actual interest in getting information. We need information first; challenge and opinion can come later, and in proper formats, like all those Sunday pundit talk shows... Well there's lots of good analysis on the Huffington Post and elsewhere on this issue.)
Anyway, Kerry was terrific.
And Alice and I went to my car, and I did my best to get to Sellersville, a town I don't know. We got a little lost, but only a little, and then we found the grouping of houses we were meant to go to.
Our list was of registered Democrats. We were meant to remind them to vote on Tuesday. To find out if anyone needed a ride to the polls. To give them some Obama literature. And most importantly, if they were undecided, to engage them in conversation and do what we could to move them toward Obama.
I may be feisty and out there as a writer, but as a person, I'm shy. And knocking on a stranger's door is very much not something I like to do. Alice, who had particularly wanted to do something to help in PA, was better at talking to the undecideds than I was; though once she got a conversation going, I was able to come up with some useful points too.
The thing that surprised me about the undecided ones was that they felt sincere -- I thought they really were still thinking.
I wondered if some of the undecideds were people who only watched some of the morning and evening network news shows (unlike a semi-news-junkie like me who watches a lot of news). Those network news shows really boil a story down to like 6-7 sentences and some pictures, and you don't get much understanding about anything.
Plus the ads in PA have been confusing.
A week ago (roughly) Obama's ads were positive and about his vision, and stressing the job losses PA has seen, and the Bush administration's favoring of corporations -- all worthwhile topics. And Hillary's ads were also positive for a while (about moving away from Bush's policies).
Then in the last days, they've both gone negative.
Obama has called her attack ads the "old politics." And he had a line I thought was good, saying he didn't want to learn how to play the game (of politics) better, he wanted to CHANGE the game. (Not do it the same way, not be beholden to lobbyists and corporations, etc. etc.)
Around the same time, Hillary came out with a very misleading ad, and I'm not entirely sure what it means, but let me tell you what I think it means.
The ad took umbrage at an Obama ad that said she took money from oil companies. (Thus implying he was a liar, or perhaps a "misstater," lol.)
Her ad said she didn't take money from oil companies, which was illegal anyway and had been for many years.
I am assuming his ad used the term "oil companies" as short-hand, but that he should have said she takes money from LOBBYISTS who work for oil companies. She has admitted she takes money from lobbyists; and in an early debate she said "well lobbyists are people too" or something like that. (Fine, I appreciate the honesty in that moment.)
So I'm assuming she's being literal in her denial, but not adding she takes money from oil lobbyists. Is that right? Or does she NOT take money from lobbyists for oil companies, but just accepts money from lobbyists for other things?
This is the kind of confusion one faces with political attack ads on tv.
Then the odder part of her ad was when it went on to say that Obama was a hypocrite accusing her because he had taken many, many donations from people who worked for oil companies. And there followed a long list of names such as (I'm making them up so you get a sense): John A., Exxon; Barbara B., Exxon; Charles W., Exxon, Phyllis C, Exxon, etc. etc. About 20-30 names.
Now what does this mean?
Are they EXECUTIVES from Exxon??? (Which would be bothersome to me) Or are they private citizens who happen to work for Exxon? In my canvassing I found someone who worked for Merck, and she said she was voting for Obama. Should Hillary list her as proof Obama takes money from pharmaceutical companies?
(The Merck worker, a vibrant young woman, said that many of the employees at Merck were voting for Obama, and this was a big surprise and change because usually they voted Republican.)
Anyway, I think Hillary's ad was listing individuals who worked for Exxon and gave personal donations to Obama to make it seem like he was in the pocket of oil interests. Sigh. In which case it's a rather silly ad. That's what I think she was doing. Am I correct?
We didn't always manage to chat with the undecided people. Our first undecided was a woman who was hostile, and didn't want to take Obama literature, and did not want to talk. She was the first door we knocked on actually.
She felt like she was a Hillary supporter who for some reason just didn't want to say that. Or maybe she was just hostile in general. Or maybe she hated someone knocking on her door, which I can have sympathy with. But for a while I got afraid of knocking on doors of women who were in their 50s. (Alice and I are in our 50s, but we are madcap theatre folk.)
It did seem that that age group (and up) and gender tended to be leaning toward Hillary. And at one point there were two doors to knock on, a woman age 32, and a woman age 72. And the younger people were almost all pro-Obama. And I was getting tired, and said, well let's knock on the 72-year-old's door second. The 32 year old is more likely to be pro-Obama and thus easier to talk to; and I wanted an easy one first.
So we rang the bell, and no one came to the door. (And we left literature, carefully following the rule you couldn't use mail slots or mail boxes, because the post office forbade that.)
So then we approached the door that I had been frankly "profiling" as older woman who'd be angry to see us, and with a slight sinking heart, I rang the door bell of the 72 year old woman.
And she answered the bell, a vibrant, friendly woman who looked 10 to 15 years younger than I expected. And she was aglow for Obama, and thrilled to see us. And also told us how both her daughters were for Obama, and had been convincing all their friends.
There was a lot of talk about people whose grown children had convinced them of Obama. (Though I believe the 72 year old woman came to the decision on her own, and was merely in agreement with her daughters.)
You know, I have to end this because I've got to get to a bus to get to NYC for theatre-related stuff today.
But let me, for any undecideds possibly reading this, address the recurring topic of worry from the undecideds about Obama: does he have enough experience? Doesn't Hillary have more?
Two answers to that.
Obama is older than both Kennedy and Clinton were when they were elected president. And they had no more experience than Obama did.
And Obama has said that judgment is more important than experience.
And I agree with that.
But the second answer is about Hillary's war vote. I've gone down this path before, but Hillary's vote in favor of authorizing the war was a serious lapse in judgment.
Obama, not at the time in the Senate, gave a speech against the war that was smart and saw many of the problems that we ended up having with this wrong invasion. (Here's the speech.)
But consider two other things about Hillary's vote:
There was a substantial number of Democrats, unlike Hillary, who indeed voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war (if and when he felt like it).
21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. That's 42% of Democratic Senators who Hillary did not join in voting against the authorization.
Those 21 Democrats were: Senators Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
Also voting against it was 1 Republican, Sen. Chafee (R-RI), and one independent, Sen. Jeffords (I-VT).
All those Senators, some of whom took the time to read the N.I.E. which included some of the intelligence opinion that did NOT favor invasion, voted against the resolution. Senator Durbin in particular urged people to read the N.I.E. and said it influenced his decision to vote against authorization. But the pressure to go to war was high, and most Senators did not read it. (I think Hillary did not; I came across articles where it seems she refused to answer if she had. Then I gave up looking.)
However, there was something else Hillary did not vote for. She did not vote for the Levin amendment, offered at the same time, that would have caused the president to return to Congress one more time before deciding to invade Iraq.
I came across an op-ed piece written by Senator Chafee (the one Republican who was against the authorization). It describes the amendment well.
And Hillary's not voting for this is a further example of bad judgment by her (and many other Senators). Because it's about war, and many have died (Americans and Iraqis) and five years later it's still not done. So this was a serious lapse in judgment.
I hope you'll read the whole Chafee piece but here are some quotes from it:
A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.
Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened....To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine.
Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq -- whether by force or diplomacy -- would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.
We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region -- Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, "A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil."
Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23.
Hillary was one of the 29 Democrats who joined the Republicans to make 77 votes authorizing this war that has turned out to be a disaster and an enormous economic drain.
There were 21 Democrats who knew better. As did Barack Obama (and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and many Democratic Congress people).
Sum-up:
McCain will be more war, and a "let the markets do what they do" hands-off continuation of Bush's economy. I'm horrified he's doing well in the polls, though I admit he has an authenticity when he speaks which is convincing. But really his policies are truly a continuation of Bush.
Hillary Clinton would be better than McCain on some things, but not enough of a change for me. And with lots of chaos in governing, as with the running of her campaign, which has not been an example of clear leadership.
There are many wonderful and inspiring things about Obama, about his intelligence, and about his ability to lead and inspire. We need a leader, and someone to inspire us to the idealism and fairness that has been in much of American history. I'm still hoping for Obama.
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
A very fine blog by Chris Durang and very illuminating. As were many of the comments.
To shy away from the point I think it is about time that some of the abusive and inflammatory comments
show a flagging mark to warn that some bad tempered asshole is spewing rubbish. It should not be censorship -- just a warning to readers.
Thank you Huffpo for an enlightening discourse on this campaign, Looking forward to next fall when the real fun begins.
Thank you Chris for sharing your experience
Bush was in office for one year when Hillary voted for war with Iraq, Billary had been in office for the eight years preceding this. Hillary is running a campaign, that in a large part, is based on her experience with policy while in the White House. Did she have her fingers in her ears every time there were discussions about Iraq? She, of almost all people in the Senate, should have known better.
I forgot to add that Hil and her supporters therefore have to SUBTRACT those eight years from her "lifetime" or "35 years of experience" at least with respect to REAL national security or foreign affairs.
Hil would not have had to put her fingers in her ears because she supposedly did not have a security clearance while in the White House (and while senators may have a security clearance, she supposedly DIDN'T read the NIE before voting on the October 2002 reso on use of force against Iraq)!
Under applicable Department of Defense (DoD) information security regulations, in order to have access to classified information, you have to have BOTH the security clearance level (confidential, secret, top secret) appropriate to the infomation sought to be viewed AND a "need to know." The holder of the classified material must ensure that a person has the necessary security clearance AND also determines whether the person in fact has a need to know before granting access. So this includes reference to a security clearance access roster (SCAR).
Without a security clearance AND a need to know, presumably Hil couldn't attend National Security Council meetings, and anyone in the White House having access to classified material (including POTUS 42) could NOT legally discuss things with Hil. (And sorry, under DoD regulations, her status as "First Lady" doesn't cut it nor does idle curiousity).
Read "For love of politics" by Sally Bedell Smith and others books relate to the Clintons years, you will see that Hillary is the "closer" on everything, national security or not. It seems she was the UNELECTED president! This is incredible that a democracy like the US could have accepted such a blatant misuse of the Commander-in Chief's power. The Clintons had planned for her to continue Bill's presidency since his first year in office. So this run is in fact a THIRD term for the Clinton, more real than when they say McCain is a Bush third term. They are power- and money-hungry people, especially after hundred millions earned after their WH years, they can see a thrid term is very profitable indeed.
Dear Chris Durang & Alice Playten,
Thank you for your service to our country. What you are doing is as important to the life of our democracy as anyone serving in the military. Seriously.
Hillary Clinton has been trying to campaign as if she's against the war, and says, "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war": http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/post_167.html
Yet, she doesn't regret her vote: http://www.politico.com/pdf/070205_iraqvote.pdf
I believe she read the 2002 NIE and is lying about not having read it to circumnavigate around the left-wing, who (for the primary campaign) she must convince she was duped about, and a center and right-wing who she is actually more in sync with and needs in the general election.
To understand Clinton's vote in 2002, the two things you need to look at are the more recent vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which authorizes Bush to do to Iran what he did to Iraq, and what she said in the ABC debate last week. She's to the right of Bush and McCain on foreign policy, "imperial America", and a permanent US presence in the Middle East. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFFUhnR6bjM
Hillary Clinton is as committed to lying to the American people as the Bush regime is.
"And he had a line I thought was good, saying he didn't want to learn how to play the game (of politics) better, he wanted to CHANGE the game."
One thing is for certain. Doing the right think poorly is far better than doing the wrong thing well. Hillary has done quite a few wrong things and, I believe, unfortunately represents more of the same with respect to her approach to politics.
In other words, I think the nation would be far better off with Obama as President, even if he proves to be somewhat inept (which I don't believe is possible . . . just look how masterfully he has conducted his primary campaign).
Cranky:
Regarding "doing the right thing," some years ago, USC management guru Warren Bennis said that "Managers do things right [think of a bean-counting accountant], a leader DOES THE RIGHT THING."
More recently, Bennis and Noel Tichy wrote "Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls." Tichy and Bennis wrote an article, condensing their findings in the November 29, 2007 Wall Street Journal, "Judgment Trumps Experience."
In light of Hil's disparaging the MoveOn.org activists in the last few days and "throwing them under the bus," what does that speak of her judgment should she decide to run again for any office (other than perhaps dogcatcher for Chappaqua, NY)? That's just one of many examples of Hil's lack of good judgment, regardless of how many years of "experience" she claims.
And if one really looks at her 35-year resume, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, it's so inflated. (Or perhaps puffed up like a souffle, as opposed to home-baked cookies).
Obama definitely wants to change the game. He wants voters to put an unqualified candidate into office. Hillary is far more able to lead.
Hillary cannot lead my dog out to take a walk.
"Hillary is far more able to lead."
Based on what?
he has just as much experience if not more than clinton. and all three have the same experience at being president none.
I heartily agree.
65 y/o dude
Olympa, WA
I did some canvassing for Obama here in Oregon, too. I'm a lifelong Independent who switched to Democrat so I could vote in the primary. The guy I went canvassing with was an ex-Marine who had been an Independent since he voted for McGovern. He used to clear land mines in foreign countries, and is now disabled and self-employed. I fully expected, when I went out, to be surrounded by yuppies...it was nothing like that at all. Not a Birkenstock in sight, no matter what Clinton says. As for Prius's, I'm really not that wealthy, no trust fund...I drank an energy drink and took the bus over.
Here's what I don't get about the 'Obama, he's for change, he is not about the past' promoters. These are the same people who can't seem to moveOn from Hillary's vote to authorize the Iraq debacle. I, certainly didn't expect ANY U.S. President to go to the extent of criminality that this one (GWB) has to trick us into believing the country might be in iminent danger. Even today, (as almost every other day now) we learned of some new deviousness on the part of this Admin. ...paying retired military officers to use their medals to persuade the citizenry of the Admin's story line. How is blaming Hillary or any of many others who voted f, in good conscience, for authorization in the face of such orchestrated deception, useful or unforgiveable. Certainly, it is not unforgiveable enough to make me want to vote for McCain.
The Constitution gives Congress (and Congress only!) the authority to declare war. This is what HRC did when she voted for the AUTHORIZATION to use MILITARY force against Iraq. And she thinks you're dumb enough to believe her when she says she wasn't voting for war. If her understanding of our Constitution is this shallow, we can't let her anywhere near the Oval Office.
Senator Clinton says that she was duped by the Bush Administration, and yet information was provided to her that she claims not to have read (the NIE). Other senators read the NIE and as a result they voted not to give Bush the authorization to let go of the tail on the tiger that is the Middle East .
After being duped by Bush in 2002, Hillary Clinton voted in 2007 to give Bush authorization to do to Iran what he did to Iraq.
At last week's debate on ABC with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton's real intentions came out, and she's to the right of John McCain. If she makes it to the Oval Office, she intends to irrevocably change US foreign policy in the region, and have the US involved in the Middle East, attacking any Middle Eastern nation that attacks another Middle Eastern nation.
Here is the problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFFUhnR6bjM
Here are the clips they are talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp-_WqcD_Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW7LvFuWNxo
"in good conscience"....
As a citizen, I was looking for the President to exhibit clear evidence, not innuendo. If it compromised a source to provide the evidence, move the source and his/her family to a safe haven and give us a justifiable reason. (What would that take, $10-$20 million? $30 million, OK, a whopping $30M to protect the source....) But no, it was a deception.
If we citizens had been allowed to rummage through the classified briefings, the "trust me" line would not have worked. However we elect representatives to do this for us, and we need this small band to give us their independent opinions, not their naive, emotional, unresearched "judgments". Many who bothered to look found it lacking and voted accordingly.
The problem today is that Hillary will not admit that her lack of curiosity was a mistake. She maintains her defense of that vote as though it happened last week, and by defending that vote to this day, she makes it a current issue.
Let me see if I have this right: Favoring change requires, intellectually, that we forgive her role in the greatest foreign policy debacle in a generation? That is possibly the dumbest thing I have heard on this site, and you aren't even AnninCA. I have never heard an Obama supporter, nor Obama, say he is "not about the past." What he says is that the politics of the establishment class do not work; that they are intolerable. We need a new discourse, a new way of thinking. That does not include forgiving Hillary Clinton any more than it includes looking the other way at the war crimes we now know where committed by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Tenet.
Sure I see your point, this is where we are now. We need to deal with this the best possible way instead of playing the blame game.
What I think Chris poited out clearly that 42% of Senators did vote againast the war. I did not realize it was that high. Hillary a very popular and powerful senator could have helped to sway the decision, if only she would have read the proposal. Or if she would have voted for the Levin amendmant which would have required the president to come back to congress before waging the war in Iraq.
I remember the atmoshere, first we were all so scared,then we were all so patriotic, people didn't dwell on race,religion or gender. We were all americans.And honestly Bush took advantage of that. I remember feeling bad for him, just becoming president and having the worst terror act against the USA, on our soil no less, to deal with. We followed him blindly. "If your not with us, your against us" The Patriot Act, questioning everyones patriotism was the rule of those days.
I see why Hillary voted for the war, I get it. But I also see why Chris Durang is stationg that Obama's ability to remain logical and rational in that atmoshere was a true sign of good judgement. The courage to stand before congress and oppose the iraq war, to explain forseeable problems was an act of leadership.
Can you not see this?
All I know is that if Christopher Durang and Alice Playten came to my door and urged me to vote REPUBLICAN, all my political smarts might drain out my left ear and elude me for a few minutes :-)
Chris 'n' Alice, thanks for your service (as they recite mindlessly nowadays to anyone who ever wore a military uniform...).
Excellent Job Chris! Really a awesome and inspiring read!!
For those who have not had the courage to go door to door for any candidate (including perhaps many who post here) it takes GUTS. I've done it - while pregnant during my 1st trimester, morning sickness and all. And it was one of the best, most unique experiences I've had in a while.
Thanks, Chris, for your amazing playwriting, and more for your courage. I too enjoyed canvassing for Obama - and learned a lot about myself, the American electorate, preconceived stereotypes (often generated by the media, like that 70ish woman), and the hunger for change in our country. We are a nation of truly diverse, very special, and often overlooked average folk wanting to "do good" for their fellow man.
To know that you and Alice were out there warms my heart. C'mon PA, C'mon Bucks County, and C'mon America. Say no to the cynicism that pervades, and yes to the idea of a young leader who inspires courage. Time to renew our country and restore our spirit. Obama '08.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I have hope that Obama might surprise us all and win tomorrow. Thanks for doing your part to help.
Posted April 21, 2008 | 12:44 PM (EST)