Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "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 was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Comments

[PardonMyFrenchFries]

Barack "Straight back " Obama

Has anyone noticed how Mr. Obama reacts to being questioned by reporters. He seems to get a little testy and uses mocking language in his replies. Correct me if I am wrong, and I know I will be by the Obama supporters. But, I am sticking to my observation of Obama yesterday. Maybe, its just the stress of the campaign or a lack of sleep. But, I don't know what it is about his character when dealing with adversity.

[DreamyAJ]

He did get a little testy. It's not typical, IMHO.

[joeysky]

No more lies Obama.

[semidi]

I agree, I'm sick of seeing Obama portrayed as an honorable, decent man when he's a power-hungry opportunist and has been for a long time: http://www.bloghouston.net/item/6627.

He also has poor JUDGEMENT when it comes to his financial dealings (Rezko, anyone?), so perhaps we should just hold his mistakes against him for the rest of his life.

It's really disgusting to see so many alleged liberals sounding like Michelle Malkin in the thrall of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

[jbeach]

Ditto for Clinton. In fact, she can start, because she's let us down more.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

I've a gut they've talked with you about a position as UN Ambassador or perhaps Great Britain.

I wouldn't trust them if I were you, as there are many other names floating about.

I think you should stay out of this thing.

You stood your ground well with the Bush administration, and all of us respected you for it.

Now, you're playing a role with which you're uncomfortable. Your prose reads shallow - as if you're grasping at straws and throwing arguments at the wall to see what sticks.

Nothing's gonna stick, Joe. Hillary doesn't win on experience or judgment or substance or executive ability. In fact, in the case of the latter, she's reminded us via her own campaign that she is horribly unqualified to lead an organization.

You should do her a favor and get real with her. Tell her she belongs in the senate.

Mind you, we know she won't listen. We know she's bullied the press into compliance and will seek to smear Senator Obama so that she can steal the nomination from the voters.

Either way, though, your on the wrong side of this thing Joe.

Best to stay quiet and retain your good reputation.

[maria21]

"You're either with us or against us." Very Rovian, Ghost.

[DenverMike]

Joe, calm down. Take a deep breath. I can appreciate your concerns but am somewhat frustrated by your tone. I've watched you over the years present such a calm, well reasoned protest of the way you and your wife have been treated by the Bush Administration. You bravely told the truth. I personally could not have remained as calm as you. So why the hysteria about Obama?

[semidi]

DenverMike, there isn't a trace of hysteria in Wilson's piece. A little frustration, yes, at Obama's disingenuous attacks on Clinton, but no hysteria. Just the unpleasant truth about Obama.

[disgusted48]

semidi,
what disingenuous attacks? The fact that he brings up Sen. Clinton's war votes and her support of NAFTA? He's a real attack dog. Compare those attacks to Clinton's madrassa attack, Clinton's Muslim response, Clinton's drug use attack, etc.etc.et­c.

[semidi]

There isn't a trace of hysteria in Wilson's piece, but it has certainly elicited the usual hysteria from you Obama maniacs. As always, the truth hurts. Obama simply is not qualified to be president, and Wilson's piece underscores that fact.

[LDW]

This is not hysteria - it's an antidote to the hysteria that has surrounded the Obama campaign to declare him the New Messiah.

There is nothing New & Different about Obama: he is strictly an old-style, dirty dealing, backroom politician, wrapping himself in a slick marketing campaign.

[jbeach]

Whereas Clinton is not? Or even, less so?

As for Willson's argument, it's saddening. Clinton blew an important vote, and was from safe blue NY when she did so.

Obama was in a primary campaign, and showed the proper judgement that Clinton did not.

Now we can speculate all day and night as to how they might have voted in different circumstances - but the facts remain: Obama made the right call, and Clinton did not.

[LoveOverGold]

I actually wish I had seen this information earlier in the primary season. I may have voted differently. Hillary Clinton bothers me on many different levels. The number one issue for me has been her vote for the Iraq war. I greatly admire Joe Wilson and respect his point of view. I hope Mr. Wilson isn't just shilling for Hillary with this article. It has made me look at Senator Clinton in whole different light. Too bad she didn't hire Joe to run her campaign! I can see why Joe Wilson was picked to be an ambassador. I may not agree with all of it, but damned good rhetoric, Joe!

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

If you read this rebuttal for Mr. Wilson's attack piece, you might not feel the same way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/joe-wilson-is-wrong-about_b_78267.html

Trust your instincts about HRC. Your instincts were correct in the first instance.

[LoveOverGold]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the rebuttal article. Some very good points made there. You're right, I'm trusting my instincts. Man, this is an interesting election, isn't it? Tonight should be very exciting..­.

[Barbarossa03]

Good rhetoric is right. And HRC likes to condemn Obama for talk.

[stateMachine]

Huffpost publishes HRC talk points, SNL puts the lady on last weekend, Hillary on Jon Stewart last night... oh, yeah, the media hates Hillary... sure....

[ErinG]

Oh, I see, Hillary deserves the Democratic nomination because she had the “superior judgment” not to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to authorize the war.

[Bliss149]

And she's "qualified" because of her vast experience - as the WIFE of a president.

[jbeach]

Thank you.

Hillary blew it. *I* knew there weren't WMD"s in Iraq, and I was a high school portrait photographer. She simply has no damn excuse. Poor judgement is poor judgement, period.

[melann830]

From the looks of tonight's results, I wouldn't say she blew it at all. I think Ohio and Rhode Island and at least half of Texas is siding with Hillary regarding her policies and her justifications for her vote. Even part of Vermont voted for her. I didn't even expect the numbers to be that high for her there. The lady is a prize fighter, not a quitter. No one respects quitters and we all know this. Go Hillary!!! Mr. Wilson, I have already thanked you, but I don't think it would hurt to say it one more time, THANK YOU for being a person who stands for integrity, fairness and truth in politics and for believing in her when so few people seemed to step up to the plate for her.

[stumped]

This is the same Iraq war that Obama's supported four straight times by voting for funding it, right? Just making sure we're talking about the same thing.

[cocote]

re: comparison of Clinton/Obama on middle east diplomacy

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/hillary-s-quot-tools-quot.aspx

[stateMachine]

Why did we all accept this trope about Obama being empty and Hillary being heady? Hillary's exploitation of prejudice in this election will have lasting effects on the DNC and the nation as a whole. Where is her integrity.

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/03/never-been-afra.htmll"

[tomdb2]

Where to begin? Where to begin? Plenty of folks have already ripped this one apart, but there are still some points to be made about it. The Washington arrogance is breathtaking--only people in Washington matter, only people in Washington have real opinions--and yet it's clear that Barack Obama knows a lot more about Washington than Joe Wilson knows about Chicago, Illinois. Joe, have you ever even *visited* Chicago? Because if you lived there, as I did in 2002 and 2003, you could not possibly have said that it was "easy," even "expected" to be against the war then. I remember having to put up a big American flag every time we had a candle vigil to keep our car from being keyed and its windows broken; I remember the CPD beating the crap out of anti-war demonstrators.

But I forget: Joe points out that Obama represented "the most liberal district" in Chicago, where opposition to the war would be demanded, which is his none-too-subtle code for the fact that Obama represented a largely *black* district; you know, those unpatriotic people, the blacks, who are disproportionately represented in the armed forces, but who every white bigot (et tu, Joe?) knows do not give a d*** about the country and avidly wish for its defeat.

And how is it that the Clintons can attack Obama for "wanting to be president since kindergarten [talk about a self-revealing comment]", yet trot out Joe Wilson claiming that Barack was just pandering to local constituents in 2003 when he opposed the Iraq war, with apparently *no concern whatsoever* about how his words would affect his *supposedly limitless national ambitions*? This from the campaign whose former (as opposed to better) half worried seriously about his "political viability" at the *age of 21* in a private letter to his local draft board?? Wilson makes it sound like Obama was running for office for the first time in his life at the time of this speech, when the truth is he was an incumbent state senator in absolutely no danger of ever being un-elected--there was no reason why he "had" to say he was against the war unless that was what be believed.

Then there are the quotes with absolutely no context. Joe, seriously: only *part* of *one sentence* from the *entire* Audacity of Hope, a 384 page read? Are you kidding? Are you training for a new career excerpting movie reviews for film ads? The other two quotes are just as ridiculous--(1) Obama effectively saying, in 2004, four long f'ed up years ago, that now that we're in Iraq we've got to finish the job, which was "Bush's position" then; (2) Obama in his Obambi days being more charitable in 2006 to those who voted for the war than he feels now after the Clinton attack machine has slimed him for a couple of years. Wow, that really proves he was for the war all along, or that he was for it after he was against it.

And for Wilson to say there's "no credible reason" to believe that Obama would have been against the war if he *had* been in Washington when the real red phone rang really does destroy the credibility of everything else he writes. Earth to Wilson: Obama's closest political advisor in the Senate is Dick Durbin (the same Dick Durbin who pushed Obama for the DNC speaking gig), a Senator who, unlike Hillary Clinton, actually *read* the NIE *and voted against the war*, as did Bob Graham, the relatively conservative chairman of the foreign relations committee who urged every Senator to read the NIE before voting. I guess Wilson thinks there's "no credible evidence" that Obama reads or listens to his mentors, either--and why would that be, Joe?

I haven't made up my mind about who I'm going to support in the fall, but thanks, Joe, for helping me decide once and for all (with no small help from a Clinton campaign Karl Rove would be proud to take credit for) who I will never vote for under any circumstances.

[Barbarossa03]

I t was easy to tear this one apart because of the opinion, speculation, distortion, and just plain hogwash he uses to justify or explain his claims.

[Diva2U]

I guess Joe Wilson is hoping for an appointment to a possible Clinton cabinet or some other important position that will put he and his wife back on the thick of things. Maybe he can take up a hobby.

[semidi]

Diva2U, run along; grown-ups are talking. And since you seem unable to rebut his points, you should just eat your sour grapes silently.

[Barbarossa03]

Semidi, Wilson has come out and said that the Clintons supported him when the whole purchase or uranium fracas blew up, it is not unreasonable to think that he has some political gain from a Clinton presidential bid. He was an ambassador so Secretary of State would not be out of the question or a political appointment to another country. You maybe a grown up but apparently not an informed one.

[maria21]

Right. I mean, it isn't like Wilson could actually have an opinion that Obama is not perfection. He must have an agenda. Hillary supporters are so corrupt like that. Thank goodness we have Obama supporters out there saving the country from those deranged Hillary people.

What a ridiculous and asinine way to convince people on the fence to move towards Obama. How inspiring. Just insult fellow Dems! That's the ticket! What a way to turn an exciting election into a disaster.

[JUSTME]

Hillary supporters: The same not very well educated middle-aged white women who put Bush back in the White House in 2004 because he made them feel "safe." Yup. If you want to take the nation in a dynamic new direction, the way to go is with middle-aged white women.

However, I don't quite agree that Hillary supporters are "corrupt." But Hillary and Bill certainly are. They have a long history of being dirty, dishonest, and corrupt.

[RexVeritas]

I agree with Ambassador Wilson. Because of Barack's judgement in the sweetheart land deal with his friend,principle politrical benefactor ,and now,criminal defendent,Antoin Tony Rezko, his argument that he has superior judgement over Senator Clinton because he gave a speech in 2002 denouncing the Iraq Resolution to Use Force (detailed in Wilson's post) is outrageous. In the NBC Evening News investigative report of 1-28-08 it was revealed that ,WHILE REZKO WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FO CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, OBAMA ASKED HIM FOR A $200,000 LOAN TO BUY A MANSION IN CHICAGO. THE REAL ESTATE BROKER STATED SHE SHIFTED $200,000 FROM THE SALES PRICE OF THE MANSION TO THE ADJOINING LOT, OWNED BY THE SELLER,WHICH REZKO PURCHASED FOR $200,000 MORE THAN IT WAS WORTH.THER­EFORE OBAMA RECEIVED A $200,000. ILLEGAL GIFT!! Obama's judgement is not only BAD,THE REPUBLICANS WILL SAY ITS CRIMINAL !!!

[stateMachine]

are you referring to this?:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1077488
"In June 2006, the Obama family purchased a home for $1,650,000 near the University of Chicago where Obama has taught law and his wife, Michelle, is a vice president at the university’s medical center. The same day, Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought a lot next door from the same sellers for $625,000. Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times the sellers had required that both lots be sold simultaneously.

The Rezkos later sold the lot, but not before selling the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land from the property for $104,500.

"It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," Obama said in a written statement earlier.

Rezko’s chief defense counsel, Joseph J. Duffy, on Monday scoffed at any speculation he might call Obama as a defense witness."

Give a citation or something, you libelous peon.

[Neocon187]

Can you say Keating 5?

[blueskyny]

Mr. Wilson, thanks for this article. The facts laid out in this piece support what is perfectly clear: Obama has used the U.S. Senate cynically as a stepping-stone to a presidency for which he is not ready. He hasn't done the work to deserve this job yet, and the fact that he doesn't realize how much his inexperience will handicap him is simply another indication of just how inexperienced he really is. That the decisions made in the Oval Office, in one way or another, affect virtually everyone on this planet, makes his arrogance and impatient ambition unacceptable.

As to some of the other comments in this section, I agree that it is terrifying to watch people cheer blindly for empty platitudes (Yes we can WHAT?...Ch­ange to WHAT?). This is bald demagoguery, and it's insidious, too: as others have noted here, there's a surprising divisiveness being engendered by Obama's campaign. My jaw fell to the ground when I heard a supporter of his on the New York City subway explaining that the choice between Clinton and Obama was tearing up friendships and families! When did choosing between two candidates within the same party become the emotional equivalent of a civil war?

I'll tell you what: when this campaign started, I liked Obama. I was just sorry he'd entered the race so soon, because I thought that if he rolled up his sleeves and spent some more time actually working in government, in the not-too-distant future he would make a magnificent president. Now, I'm just appalled.

[stateMachine]

the level of intellectual dishonesty I'm seeing in Clinton supporters is striking..­. Apparently, Obama made the right decision only because he didn't have access to intel? We're supposed to assume he would not have made the right decision given *more* information? I'm sorry, but that sort of reasoning speaks only to those who, for whatever reason, have already made up their minds.

I'm not sure how Hillary Clinton has managed to magically take credit for everything the Clinton administration did right as "experience" but disavow everything they did wrong as having nothing to do with her.

Clinton is currently the main source of ad hominem attack and rhetorical fallacy in the national discourse. If you buy that sort of thing, excellent, I have a bridge in the Sahara for sale!

[jbeach]

Plus Hillary didn't even *read* the NIE before she made her vote.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx

So, maybe if Hillary had *used* her access to the information, she would have voted like Obama did. Instead of just trusting GWB (Good LORD! Talk about bad judgement!)

[blueskyny]

Before flinging more insults, I'd suggest you at least re-read the article above. Wilson is simply quoting what Obama said himself.

[somersetdem]

Joe Wilson endorsed and actively fund-raised for Ret. AF Lt. Col. Charlie Brown, CA CD-4 Democratic candidate in '06.

Charlie, although having a long and distinguished military career, was a newbie to politics. He was adamantly opposed to this war, from the beginning. Yet now Wilson has a problem with 'judgment and a hollow record' as a prerequisite to holding elected office. Maybe it's OK for Congress, but not the POTUS?

Wilson still maintains (thankfully) that the intel in the lead up to the war was cooked. Now, he seems to be trying to build an argument that if Obama had seen the bogus intel back then (which he obviously didn’t), there’s no reason to assume he too wouldn’t have gotten in lock step. Is that guilt by non-association?

Wilson is endorsing the candidate who, at best, was duped by disinformation which Wilson was instrumental in showing was disinformation. I’m so confused, Joe.

[blueskyny]

Yes, it is okay and almost expected that you beinexperienced when you first go to Congress. In Congress, your decision is one of several hundred. There are other Congressional representatives around with lots of experience to guide you. (And, by the way, that's why I oppose term limits).

Different story for the president. While, granted, no one goes in with prior experience as president, one hopes for some possibilities including, just for example, an understanding of how the Congress works (which takes time in the senate or congress, or for which gubernatorial experience helps), or an understanding of how to be the administrator of government (the way a governor does), how to manage a cabinet and advisors, and a deep familiarity with the way national politics works. There's just nothing in Obama's resume that indicates he's ready yet. A couple of terms in the state senate, and two years as an absentee US Senator simply don't qualify a person to make solo decisions that chart the course of history.

[Barbarossa03]

Joe Wilson I sympathize for yours and your wife's travails at the hands of the Bush Administration. That said and done your article is nothing but opinion, speculation, distortion, and hogwash. Here are some of the examples I would like to pull from your article:


You criticize Obama for opposing the Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution but what did the entirety of the this resolution say? Did it go above and beyond to the point of excess? Without including this piece there is no way to determine why he would have opposed this resolution.


You quote "There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time." Well there isn't credible reason to conclude he would not have acted differently


You criticize Obama's role as chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe and for not being accountable for the worsening situation in Afghanistan. Well last time I checked Afghanistan wasn't part of Europe. As far as putting pressure on NATO for more involvement, well just as the US is hesitant to commit itself to the UN, these same European countries that oppose the war in Iraq and make up NATO are opposed to committing themselves to the US run NATO.


As far as the direction of the Afghanistan, the Diplomatic team in country as well as the US Combatant Commander (CENTCOM) have more to do with the direction than a subcommittee sitting in the US. Evidence of this was the move to send the US Ambassador from Colombia to Afghanistan, since he did a very good job in Colombia hopefully he would have the same successes in Afghanistan.


Don't even mention Colin Powell, as we see he departed the Bush Administration in shame of what had been done.

So in short you invalidate your article with all these opinions, speculations, distortions, and hogwash taking advantage of the limited knowledge that Americans have about their government because of its lack of transparency, to promote a candidate that supports the current status quo. I served my country, but when I heard that we were going to invade Iraq I said WTF. It came back to when Bush said "And this is a guy that tried to assassinate my father". Now we understand the true reason and it was said well before the war started.

[maria21]

Actually Barbar, it doesn't matter if Afghanistan is in Europe or not. What matters is that the war in Afghanistan is a NATO war (where Europe is our ally). Obama could have offered oversight on that issue. He didn't. That is simply a fact. Look, I understand he had campaigning to do and he was busy. I actually get that. The problem with the Obama camp is that they completely ignore their candidate's warts while claiming the high road while attacking Hillary and her supporters viscously. The fact is- there are issues with Obama. Don't forget either, that Obama, when actually in office, sung a different tune about the war.

What you guys seem to miss is that you create a major divide in our party when you claim your candidate is morally superior or is "above politics." It is simply not true, and us seasoned folks know this. So, you marginalize the Clinton supporters and create an extremely unwelcoming environment for Hillary supporters if Obama gets the nomination. I truly do not understand that. For people claiming to be inspired by Obama, they sure do not carry that inspiration out into the public. I guess it is easier to Hillary bash. Go figure.

[Barbarossa03]

No Maria, you seem to have missed it because I have not made any claim of the moral superiority of one candidate over the other in my piece above. In fact you are adding a piece that is not even mentioned in the original piece by Joseph Wilson. Most likely your next comment will be that I'm not for Hilary because I can't stand the fact of a strong woman President. I'm calling out what is evident from many of the Clinton supporters and its the speculation, distortion, and just plain hogwash. This is what has caused the divisiveness.

I bet you didn't know that GEN Craddock, a US Army General, is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe which is one of NATO’s two strategic commanders and is the head of Allied Command Operations (ACO). So the US does have it's voice in NATO and again why a subcommittee sitting in the states is not as effectual. And yes these generals assigned to these commands also play in the political process. GEN Craddock was the Combatant Commander at SOUTHCOM prior to being assigned to NATO, during his tour he met with just about all of the Latin American Presidents and leaders.

I would like to hear your qualifications since you claim to be "seasoned".

[ajbfree]

Thank you, Joe Wilson.
A friend emailed a link to this post; I stopped reading the Huff Post because of the rabid anti-Clinton blogs and the truly inexplicable, disheartening pro-Obama stance taken by Ariana, a woman whose views I've long admired. How can you be sucked into the utter cypher that is Obama? The talk of change and newness and hope from a man who has nothing to offer except for empty catch phrases. Why has the media annointed him as the best choice? Why not push him up against the wall and ask for some straight talk; I don't agree with a lot about Hillary, but she's had the stones to really say what she thinks, and she's gotten crushed for it while Obama grins on. I see him acting like the non-politician he surely isn't -- you don't raise that kind of political war chest with ingenuousnes, and I really get flummoxed that no one seems to pick up on that, and worry about who he'll owe -- and I am not at all chamred by the complete lack of authenticity I see in his eyes.
On a recent political cable show, ardent Obama suporters, commenting after a debate, were asked to name his accomplishments -- and not one of them could name one.
And yes, I'm a long-time democrat but if the choice is Obama vs McCain, I'm afraid that even though I consider McCain to be a war-monger with a soupcon of unstable, I'll vote for him which is a true measure of just how truly disastrous I think it will be for this country if the inexperienced, oily, Obama becomes president.

[1voter]

Please don't vote for McCain!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!

[Teritt]

Having Democrats says they'll vote for McCain if Obama wins really isn't much different than having Rush Limbaugh & Ann Coulter say vote for Hillary, now is it? Not only are you lowering yourself to their level, you really don't care about our country and our future generations, do you? Please act like adults with real brains! No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, I'm voting for them. Only those that are happy with the direction we are headed should vote for McCain...h­e promises you'll get more of the same...sam­e economy, same torture, same fear and hate.

[AF2]

Well put. I agree w/ you completely and am also disappoint­ed/discour­aged w/ Huffpost and most of the media for the favorable bias towards Obama.

[liveandlearn]

i'm glad everybody is starting to check up on this guy and see if his closet is full of skeletons. hopefully we will get the best one for a nominee, but i do favor clinton. either way, i'm picking the democrat for president in november.

[SKayum]

When this campaign first started, I was thinking that I'd vote democrat no matter what. But I've come to despise Obama's campaign so much, along with his followers' eager hatred for anyone who doesn't support their candidate (this is what he inspires in them, I suppose). But I'm not going to vote for McCain. I just might sit this one out.

[thegools]

Amen brother. I for one would wish that Edwards were still running, but given the choices, I have had doubts about Obama. This article does a very good job at outlining a few. You can be sure the GOP will be hammering home this same message. Why? Because it has teeth and is true.

It is not too late for states who have not yet had primaries to way this argument.

I will be forwarding this to my parents who are both on the fence between Clinton and Obama.

[KatieBeGood]

So, what are you going to do when Obama is the candidate? Are you going to vote for McCain (4 more years of Bush Co), or there's always Nader. Then, you could stay home and pout because Hillary didn't win. With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans?

[maria21]

I do agree that the Obama supporters have been extremely divisive and has made Clinton supporters out to be despicable. I find that a shame and it is the one thing that cautions me against voting in favor of Obama. Hillary supporters have very good reasons to support her. All of this anti-Hillary nonsense feels like it was revived from the right wing war chest, not from fellow Dems. But please, please please do NOT vote for McCain! Do not let this kind of rhetoric force you into believing that McCain would be better. He will not be. This is our election to lose. We'd be better to STOP the Hillary bashing (you guys are KILLING our party- you are marginalizing a HUGE portion of our party by doing this) and stay focused on our country. Hillary or Obama will be a MUCH better candidate than McCain. Hands down. Please keep in mind that we need you!

[KatieBeGood]

Wow, Obama is divisive and Clinton is an angel. What Clinton has been doing for the last week is despicable and I haven't seen Obama do anything other than point to what Clinton is doing. Perhaps you don't find Clinton darkening Obama's face in an ad despicable. I do. Perhaps you don't find Clinton running what sounds like a news piece (mentioning the AP early in the piece) misrepresenting what Obama said about NAFTA and Canada despicable, I do. And then there is the "fear factor" who do you want to answer the phone at 3 a.m. ad. That one sounded more like Karl Rove than something that would come from a Democrat.

Perhaps you could list all the divisive things that Obama has done. I would be very interested to see what you could come up with.