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

[Spyce]

Women should really think hard before voting for Hillary Clinton. Why? She didn't mind sacrificing the lives of other women's children by voting to invade Iraq to futher her ambition to become the first female POTUS.

[Issak]

" Obama opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth." or words to that effect.....

Mr. Scheer, I find most your posts inspiring, informed and more than often devastatingly on the money. In this case I keep scratching my head- I for the life of me can't understand why sensible intelligent people like yourself and Mr. Kennedy- appear to overlook the fact that Obama is no less a triangulator than Hillary might be. Hasn't Obama supported the continued funding of a war he says he opposes? hasn't he?

And why wouldn't he introduce resolutions -let's say the way a true progressive does -like Russ Feingold? why wouldn't he? could it be because he's calculating the political cost and because such a stance while it sound good as a banner of progressivism might cost him more than he's prepared to pay?

What about that Patriot Act business- how- Mr.Scheer, are those of us of the progressive persuasion going to look the other way? how?! particularly when one of Obama's much touted attributes is his so called Constitutional expertise ? How then can we overlook his vote for it? how do his supporters rationalize such and unacceptable stance? where's the principle and conviction in this man? what does he risk?

Is going along with unacceptable stances the new "progressive" game? so, it no longer is about doing but appearing to do? sleight of hand? is that part of the Bush legacy- we just settle for the appearance of change?

What About his winking an nodding to the right? his desire to "break with liberal orthodoxy" and reform Affirmative action? his stance on unions? which he deems as "special interest groups" ????

Are we not getting carried away with the symbology? sure - what progressive wouldn't want a shift from the way it's been - BUT let's not lose out heads and see that this man for all the media adulation is running a right of center campaign -we should not be surprised when and if he gets elected that he's been that way all along.

[Swift2]

And since Kucinich dropped out of the race, what the hell does any of the "I was against the war before her" matter? Obama the Virtuous, whose policy is identical to Clinton's. Still playing Politburo games, Bob? The crowd at the Nation couldn't stand Bill back then, and denounced his fight against Milosevic, which ended the ethnic cleansing and actually, slowly, induced a situation where the Serbian opposition got rid of the monster themselves. All at the cost of no American lives and few Serbians, and saved the lives of many others. You can definitely question the Democratic Senators' judgment, in that it was necessary to trust Bush -- who had just fought in Afghanistan, which they approved of (me too), and whose Authorization to Use Force was actually put in the form most tempting to the Clintonites: threaten force to get an account as to whether, for once and for all, Saddam was complying with the peace agreement. And guess what? It worked. It got the inspectors in there. The problem was, in order to get to war as fast as possible, Bush had to disregard the agreement he just got out of Congress and Bush, because he just wanted war, war, war. Others, outside the administration, could see the blunder -- but then, what were they supposed to do? Vote against the inspectors going in? Vote against the Security Council's new resolution to force Saddam's hand? In the hands of an honorable, sane leader, the AUMF would have been fine. Properly used, the revelation that Saddam had no WMD would have loosened his grip on power. To get him out of power, I think the eternal lesson of Iraq is, it takes the people to change regimes, not the US military.

[desmirl]

In 2006, Democrats and Independents sent an unambiguous message to Washington, DC. STOP THE WAR! Now we have a choice between Hilary - who is ambivalent about shutting down the slaughterhouse - and Barack who promises to stop the violence and bring our troops home. Maybe the voters will think about this and send Hilary back to the Senate, where she can engage in a lot less mishchief.

[abroadabroad]

I will repeat here what I stated somewhere else earlier today. However, I'd like to preface it by saying that IT DOESN'T MEAN ONE THING OR ANOTHER ABOUT WHO I PLAN TO SUPPORT. You people on both sides get so bent out of shape about the slightest challenge.

While it is admirable that Obama opposed the war and supremely disappointing that Clinton and Edwards voted for it, it's somewhat unfair to make this comparison without qualification.

First of all, Clinton and Edwards did not vote for the war itself, they voted for a resolution to permit the president to declare war. This is an important distinction, since it doesn't really say anything about whether they supported or opposed the war itself.

Secondly, Obama opposed the war while he was in the Illinois State Senate, representing a Democratic little enclave in Chicago, and he was never asked to vote on the resolution. Clinton and Edwards were in the US Senate, where they each had to appeal to the voters of an entire state, in all of their diversity, and they had to carry the responsibility of actually voting on the issue.

The truth is, we don't know what Obama would have done if he had been representing all of Illinois in the US Senate and had actually had to place a vote. We like to think he would have had the integrity to vote against the resolution, but we don't know, and we can't know, because he wasn't there. It would not have been all that far-fetched to oppose the war and still vote in favor of the resolution, especially for a self-proclained aisle reacher. At any rate, by the time he ran for US Senate, the war had become unpopular (or does anyone forget how John Kerry tripped all over himself trying to explain his vote) and Obama was hailed for his unswerving integrity.

Maybe he deserved it, but I don't think it's fair to treat what we don't know as if it were a foregone conclusion, especially as an argument against someone else's behavior.

[jeanniem]

The struggle for women's rights is absolutely subordinate in my mind (a 50+ WF) to the struggle for social justice for all, and Obama is so clearly the leader with the promise of our nation stepping closer to that mandate.

I'm a Democratic woman who has never warmed to HRC (Her Royal Clinton). It's always been rather mysterious to me that I haven't been able to embrace her as a leader, but figuring out why has long ago ceased to engage me. But the campaign has brought it into such clear focus. The DLC wing (Republican light), all supported the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Sadly, our candidates on the last two national tickets who actually have a clear public record (Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, now Clinton) either had a failure of judgment, or more likely they endorsed the notion that political success demanded allegiance to the American Empire building agenda.

The front page of my local paper (KC Star), pictures Sen Obama (at a local rally), alongside Dem Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. These are strong and effective Democratic elected leaders. I will be hard at work this week with the Obama camp.

[Fairfloss]

As far as Senator Edward Kennedy is concerned, he knows he will be exiting the Senate soon and he wants "his" Legacy. He wants to contribute to his family Legacy and with the help of the daughter of the late, great, Iconic, President John F. Kennedy, he has started the ball rolling on that. Now lets see how far he is willing to go to achieve it.

I am not saying Senator Barack Obama is not a good man, he is awe-inspiring. I am sure he frightens the Clintons. No matter what anyone thinks, this is not just about Hillary, it is about Bill as well. He will govern by proxy. (Rules are for others, not the Clintons.)

Now we have to wait for two things, to see where John Edwards supporters go and who is more ruthless, the Clintons or the Kennedy's.
The Kennedy's have to all get on the same page.
If you thought this was a "throw-down" between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you were wrong. It is between the Clintons and the Kennedy's.

[jhNY]

Teddy Kennedy has put himself and his notion of family legacy above party at least once before, when he helped destroy Jimmy Carter's chances for re-election by attempting to win the Democratic Party's nomination when Carter ran for a second term. He divided the party, and when the dust settled we got Reagan, and the beginning of the end of everything ordinary piople had won from their government since the New Deal.

Now he supports Obama, who he sees as comparable to his dead brothers. In this comparison I find much to agree with. Both were inspiring, quick-witted speakers whose charisma, for their followers at least, made up for any practical experience in governance they might have lacked. And like them, Obama in his very presence seems to say something nice about America, as if just by producing such an attractive politician the country had provided itself proof of its own exceptionalism and boundless potential to rise beyond the terrible violence of its own history.

But it is not unfair to say that Obama shares JFK's senatorial legacy of being more careful than bold, of being more of a go-along, get-along junior member without much self-sponsored legislation to show for his short time there.

I support Hillary Clinton for a few simple reasons: 1) she better than any other candidate will be able to bring the power of the federal government to bear on the cataclysm that is our national economy and 2) unlike her husband, she shows little sign of overwillingness to compromise with the Republicans in Congress or anywhere else.

As for McCain's vaunted record of cutting Pentagon waste, how's that going re Iraq? Been to any good hearings lately where McCain was holding Bush's contractor buddies' feet to the fire? Didn't think so.

[deb813]

We can blame George Bush for many of the problems we are currently experiencing, but the roots of those problems go back to the Clinton years. It was their assurances that lead us into the war. It was their trade policy that resulted in jobs being sent overseas. It was their immigration policy that allowed the massive amount of undocumented workers into this country. And it was Bill Clintons morals that allowed George Bush to win the presidency.

It is time for a man with scruples and ideals to get our support as I believe Hillary Clinton will just be a continuation of business as usual and a nightmare for the American people.

[myskylark]

For all the histrionics on all sides, the truth is there's not a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama, except on health care where Clinton is right and Obama is wrong.

The fight for the nomination comes down to who appeals to what power base in the party.

I'm sick of the phony accusations against one or the other candidates, the tone of them so bruising and insulting.

Wake up Democrats. Start supporting your own candidates in a civil manner and stop trying to shred his/her opponent. Otherwise, it will be President John McCain in 2009.