Senator Obama's Curious Comments on Meet the Press
I support Senator Clinton's White House bid because I believe she is the one candidate with the strength and experience to actually end the war in Iraq.
I thought Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and have been fighting to get the Administration to stop its failed policy and bring our troops home.
In 2005, I was the first member of Congress to introduce legislation calling for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
Senator Obama has been trying to use his early opposition to the 2002 authorization to use military force as a way to bring attention to his campaign. And that's fine -- that's politics.
I have great respect and admiration for Senator Obama. But he should be more careful, because his record doesn't always line up with his rhetoric.
That became clear when Sen. Obama appeared on Meet the Press last Sunday, Tim Russert reminded him of comments he made about Iraq during the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Talking about how he would have voted on the '02 authorization, Mr. Russert flashed a quote from then-State Senator Obama on the screen that said: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." In response, Senator Obama said it was probably the wrong time for him to speak out on the war.
I simply disagree. I don't believe there has ever been a wrong time to oppose this war.
Mr. Russert also reminded Senator Obama about this comment he made in July of 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage."
Sen. Obama now likes to say that people shouldn't act like George Bush on national security. It's one thing to keep quiet about the war during a convention, it's quite another to say you support what George Bush is doing.
All the Democratic candidates for president say they are for ending the war in Iraq. That is a welcome development. But, as LBJ said, it's easy to get into a war, but hard as hell to get out of one.
I'm not interested in who was "first" to oppose this awful war. I'm more interested in what's next.
When it comes to ending the war, the question needs to be: Which candidate has the experience, maturity, skill and ability to safely get our troops out of Iraq and bring this sad chapter in our history to an end?
I believe Hillary Clinton not only wants to end the war, she can end the war. If I didn't believe that, there is no way I would be supporting her.
We could argue until we're blue in the face about the past, but our focus must be on how can better shape the future.
Loading comments…
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
It's easy to be against something when you have nothing to lose. As an Illinois State Legislator he represented a district where most of his constituents were against the war. He also did not have to face the Rove slime machine as a local legislator. The real test would have been how he voted as a U.S. Senator. His record as a U.S. Senator does not indicate any political backbone on the war or any other contentious issues. He needs more time in the glare of national media attention where I see if his actions match his rhetoric when there is some political cost before I can support him.
On any political issue, it's better to change your ill advised stance as opposed to continue down the path of destruction. I'm glad Hillary came out and said she did not support driver's licenses for illegals. Now I hope she will go another step forward and support punishing employers who hire illegals.
Some people will say she has waffled on the issue. I say she just applied some common sense and decided to listen to 70 percent of the people in this nation pissed off about all the illegals here.
I have agreed with her plan on all issues accept illegal immigration. I hope tonight she finds the right path that leads her directly to the White House.
I also feel she is the only candidate who has the sense, combined with the political clout, to get us out of Iraq responsibly. She knows how to lead and she knows how to get it done, politically.
Glad to see at least one commentator on the Post is not employed full time with an obsession to take her down, along with the rest of the Democratic party. Go Hillary.
If ALL the Democratic candidates are 'against the war in Iraq' and keen to 'stop the war in Iraq' why, when the Democrats have a majority in both houses, isn't it a done deal ? The fact that it isn't suggests to me that its all political words - precisely why fewer and fewer people bother to vote at all. Words are cheap and easy. If they really meant what they said - people might start voting again.
Hillary Clinton has waffled on every issue of substance and has consistently voted to support the war. Even worse, she has consistently supported Bush's unconstitutional expansion of presidential powers--raising the inference that she wants those powers in place when she herself takes office.
Senator Clinton has never said she would end the illegal war on Iraq without some kind of qualifier about how long it would take (and it's always a long time, at least into the next decade). In her campaign, she has quite openly made herself for sale to the highest bidder and shouted out the good news about how she attracts most of the highest bidders. This is the kind of "experience" she brings to the dirty game of running for political office.
I can't even accuse her of not having the courage of her convictions, since she has never articulated a single conviction, except that she really, really wants to be President. As with George W. Bush, that's not a qualification for holding the office--it's the reverse.
I am so impressed with Joe Biden, who has years more experience in government than any of the three front-running Dem candidates and also has LIFE experiences that qualify him to lead our country. I guess any of the candidates could be fooling us, but Biden strikes me as genuine and passionate and far less "handled" than the others. Clearly Clinton and Obama are both divisive and would be wide open to a lack-of-experience charge in the general election, as would Edwards. Why not nominate someone who has more foreign policy chops than any of the likely Repub nominees combined?
Here's my worry when I read posts/comments like these. One of these candidates is going to be our nominee in a few months. So many good Democrats have written so much hateful rhetoric about the candidates that I fear the Repubs will have a field day combing through sites like this one (they won't have to comb very hard) for "Here's what the Democrats say about their own nominee" quotes. I'm sure we could do the same with their sites, but don't we need to be better than they are? I don't have a solution because certainly we are all free to express our concerns -- but I dread what the general election could bring.
Obama's "performance" on MTP was the poorest yet for this sometimes gifted orator but not so great practitioner of politics. Agree with McGovern that Obama seems to know the BIG PICTURE, or talks like he knows it, but lacks the details to execute. He criticized Clinton's votes on the Iraq invasion as though her vote was somehow equal to his stance against the war. I certainly was against the invasion of Iraq AND Afghanistan but I don't and didn't have the burden of making the decisions for or against. He missed several important votes in the Senate on funding and on Iran even though he was in or near the Senate Chamber. He attacked Clinton for her campaign having planted questions in the audience but he himself when running for the Illinois Senate and the US Senate was known to call the press to let them know he'd standing with the picket line, the protestors, on important issues. Now that the race is getting closer to the primary dates he has engaged in very partisan and personal attacks on Clinton. Where was he ten months ago on the Clinton issue? Too phony for defense.
She will end it as soon as she can so our fam. can be whole again whats left of them thanks to the almighty self important bush. Come people can't you see she is the best. i wouldn't vote for a MUSLIM thats for sure, how can people even allow him to run he won't put his hand on his heart and say the pledge of alleg. No i don't want some one like him,with his nasty mouth, liar, at all....wit
I've tossed and turned over Clinton v. Obama. She is probably the most knowledgeable, most experienced of the bunch. But I don't believe she can overcome the image which has, by now, been seared in our consciousness. I voted for Bill, and would do so again, despite his personal failings. But I think Hilary would more polarize the country than even he. And her refusal to make clear statements of purpose, the intellectual dancing, and the fact that Hilary v. Rudy may be a dead heat, bodes unwell for the country.
This is the most convoluted argument to date for supporting Hillary. Sen. Clinton has been singing the same song, note by note, on Iraq as Bush. Are voters expected to not believe their own eyes and ignore her votes, but trust her words on the war.
Her affirmative vote on the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard resolution followed by her vote against a similar resolution is the same tactic as being for and against drivers licenses for undocumented New Yorkers.
And yes, the past does matter, especially if your claim to the presidency is that your experience as First lady somehow uniquely qualifies you for the office. By that logic, every office holder's spouse in the country should be lining up for their turn at succession.
Sen. clinton is no more or less experienced than any other of the candidates for the office. Voters should evaluate her on her history in elected office, not time spent as spouse of a former president. Given her performance on health care as First Lady, I think she would want this to be the case also.
Obama does not show me the kind of guts to back up his rhetoric, for example to criticize Hillary for her vote on the Iran/Republican Guard resolution he needed to show up and vote on it himself. He strikes many of us as a really good speechmaker who just isn't very impressive when not on script. Edwards really has turned off many Democrats with his attacks. To me that leaves Biden and Hillary - she is the most viable candidate, like it or not.
I cannot believe people are still going to vote for the status quo. it is patently obvious that politics and the 'democrat' party trumps national security, the constitution, and people. Hillary will vote with who gives her money, all the candidates will vote with who gives them money. a real solution? sure, vote for the first candidate who will say they will push for 'one person, one board' limiting individuals so they can only serve on one board of any kind at any given time. we need to cut the stranglehold the few have on corporations and widen, as much as possible corporate board influence and buddy buddyism. one person one vote, one person one elected office, ONE PERSON ONE BOARD.
the war is a side issue, an effect of who controls the boards, who controls the money, the media, the country. Hillary is just as bought as the rest of them.
Time for real change, you won't hear about board ownership or Hillary taking a stand on this very real issue.
I can not vote for Hillary. its not a gender thing its an ethical thing. She isn't living up to the promises she made to us New York State residents and, she won't follow thru with any of the promises she has made since she became a full time candidate and abandoned her job as senator. i have not seen anyone to win my vote yet but,i know who i will not vote for...
Oh bull poot! You said, "When it comes to ending the war, the question needs to be: Which candidate has the experience, maturity, skill and ability to safely get our troops out of Iraq and bring this sad chapter in our history to an end?"
No no, the real question ought to be, how does each candidate plan to go about ending the war? So far I've heard diddley squat about that from Hillary. On the contrary, last I heard she was saying we may have to be there for some time.
Hanging around Bagdad acting mature and skillful is not the same as packing up the tanks and skidooing.
Will it be a mess and a bloodbath afterward? You betcha. But it will happen all at once, instead of the slow motion mess and bloodbath we're seeing now and that Hillary doesn't promise to stop pronto
Sorry pal. Hillary may be many things, but the best candidate to get us out of this disgusting quagmire she ain't.
Yours crankily,
The New York Crank
Hillary Clinton is useless...
If you want to end the Iraq war now.
If you want universal not for profit healthcare
If you want good paying jobs.
If you want decent retirement and unemployment.
If you want honesty,openess and integrity in goverment.
Then do NOT vote for Shillary.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
