Obama, Clinton and the War

It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Ted Kennedy favors Sen. Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.

Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: "We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth."

But that is precisely the truth that Sen. Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members--five more on Monday--and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn't end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.

Clinton's apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women's movement's commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton's key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush's war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush's Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?

Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy's congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, "Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House," including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.

Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn't it troubling that she can't hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn't it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It's for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has made "experience" key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from "day one." The reality is that her extra four years in the U.S. Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama's eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation's most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband's presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program--a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.

Comments

[warpspeed9]

Clinton's apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists.

Only feminists like Clinton, you say??

Surely: You write in the LA Times too so should know better.


The other Kennedys are for Hillary
Why do you and others in the Press keep hiding information that is positive to Hillary????

Kennedys for Clinton
She stands for Democrats and for the nation, these family members say.
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy
January 29, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,1,1101821.story?ctrack=5&cset=true




“We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed on the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest ideals.”

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental advocate and Kerry Kennedy is a human rights activist.

[warpspeed9]

Sheer says: "Her supporters have accepted Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war".

In the aftermath of 9/11, the public (both Democrats and Republicans) were calling up their representatives BEGGING them to unite behind Bush.

Bush had a 90% approval rating. (I remember well- "I" was in the 10% that already knew Bush was a disaster. Why? I had figured out he was responsible for the California Energy Crisis.)

I was completely opposed to the war. Yet, if I had had to vote that day, I could not say with 100% confidence that Saddam did not have WMD (although I would have said the odds were around 80% he did not.)

Without close to 100% certainty -- I do not know if I could have voted to give a President war time powers in an emergency.

I would be vocal against the war (like Obama was who was not in office). But I probably would have voted to give a President powers authorizing war -- JUST IN CASE I WAS WRONG.

This is what Hillary did. She and Obama have voted nearly IDENTICAL on Iraq after Obama became a senator in 2004. I would bet a lot Obama would have voted for the authorization war act -- for precisely the reasons I gave above.

You hold ONE standard for Hillary and another for Obama. Shameful.

[MagisterLudi]

biased enough to trumpet Clinton's "sell out."

Conveniently forgets clueless Obamama's vote to allow credit cards companies to raise interest rates above 30%.
Now THATS A SELL OUT!
Wake up: two rich establishment lawyers like Hillary and Barack are NOT going to bring meaningful change to American economical system, heavily tilted towards people LIKE them: Elite establishment rich people. Don't buy the hype.
You poeple don't want change. If you did you would've supported Kucinich or Edwards.
Now we're stuck with rich people:

one effective hard hitter( Clinton)

one an empty suit and a talking head peddling patent medicine (Obama). There is NO difference between the two. None. It's all the hype.

[MagisterLudi]

One of the definitions of intelligence is intellectual flexibility. Intelligent people like Clinton are entitled to change their minds based on the developing situation. This is kind of a leader we need.

Alternatives: Bush stubborn and clueless idiot;

Obama: just clueless.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Do you mean the same judgement he used when he befriended Rezco? That judgement?

[joececchini]

Excellent post, Mr. Sheer. Thank you.

[Hoelder]

What most people don't ask is whether she is a turn coat. In the throngs of a vast majority looking for blood, she gave in to the peer pressure. That is not leadership. If Ted Kennedy stands up and says "Obama" he passes the proverbial torch to a candidate that is different in many aspects, not just race. - Somebody still has to explain to me why you're black when your genetics indicate a 50-50 tie. - In many respects you might argue that she was budgeting political capital for the time she needs it. As much as I don't believe in political consistency as much as strategic calculations for the time the King is dead (long live the queen). The question is can the enthusiasm of a Barack Obama compete with the prowess of Hillary Clinton. Fighting over the record on Iraq is just a contentious issue to negate each others trustworthiness. In the general election the question becomes whether a woman can be commander in chief and make the tough choices. Ted Kennedy made the tough choice, Senator Feingold did this as well with the risk of an angry constituency. Are you for real, Sen. Clinton?

[Ermasdaughter]

Amazing post. I could not agree more. Thank you.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Mr. Scheer this is a brilliant dissertation about the political position of Hillary and her gender biased supporters.

They appear to be either overlooking her continual support of all things war or they concur with her votes giving a pathological liar permission to go to war.

Thank you for this review of her voting record and pointing out her right wing positions during the last few years.

[Kane]

Wow!
A powerful indictment of Hillary Clinton.
An awesome post, as always.

[kamenwati]

Bill Clinton does not deserve a third term in the WH.

[Lemeritus]

Hmmmm....

I did another of those "pick your candidate" questionnaires today (if you're not too het up with passion and rhetoric, here's the link for ho-hos: ).

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the MSM, particularly GE/NBC/MSNBC, for neatly erasing my top pick. Can I hear an "amen" from any other Kucinich folks out there?? We were so much as told we could not vote for this man; I objected to the corporate media making that decision for me then, and I still object.

I'm happy to report, however, that at least one of the candidates that appealed to me is still in my top four -- number two, in fact. So what I think I'll do is vote my own agenda.

And, Bob, much as I love you, it seems to me you're only adding to the sound and fury, ultimately signifying nothing.

[Calmuse]

Superb post by Scheer. Excellent that he mentions Richard Holbrooke (hardly distinguishable from Bush's cronies) salivating for a cabinet post in a potential Clinton administration.
Also, it's high time that a respected commentator gives Obama credit for eight very successful years in the Illinois legislature, where he effectively dealt with some of the nation's "most hard-boiled politicians." Among the programs that his efforts helped create is one of the nation's model subsidized children's health-care programs.

[standforpeace]

Well said Robert. As a Black feminist, for me it has to be about more than getting black bodies or female bodies into positions of power. The free pass that HRC is getting on her war vote (and refusal to admit her error) is likely to encourage future female politicians to take militaristic stances designed to prove they can be as macho as any man. It's important for women who disagree with the war mongering to send a clear signal that we will apply the same standards to both female and male candidates who take this approach.
Check out this link to a DemocracyNow clip where Gloria Steinem basically hands out the free pass to the war to HRC when she is challenged to explain her endorsement of Clinton.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics

[ceti]

All the Hillary defenders -- paid and unpaid -- cannot get around this fact -- 23 Senators voted Nay. They bucked the trend and voted against the Bush administration. Edwards to his credit apologized. But Hillary never did, and continues to this day to obfuscate or skate around her vote. Why can't she admit she was wrong? Either she is dangerously naive or agrees that the US should threaten and bomb countries, ruin people's lives, extinguish other people's hopes and dreams for her own political expediency (certainly her husband does). It's depraved and disgusting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel/hillary-war-with-iran-is_b_66505.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9iYSdmRbpQ