Obama Ducks Vote then Attacks Clinton

by Taylor Marsh

Finally, a direct attack from Obama on Clinton. First he goes at her on torture, but unfortunately swallows the Washington Post line even though that was demolished yesterday. Next target was Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman, which is certainly fair game. Trouble is Mr. Obama has no standing to make it.

"I don't think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment, and it speaks to my judgment," Obama said. "It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward."

"I think her judgment was flawed on this issue," he said.

"This was a vote for war," he added. "You can't give this president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it."

Obama: Clinton vote on Iran shows 'flawed' judgment

You don't get to criticize a Senate vote when you couldn't be bothered to show up to vote yourself. It also doesn't help that you didn't mention the vote during the Dartmouth debate either, even after Edwards slammed her on it.

I've been talking about it since the vote happened. However, after I saw Mr. Obama's op-ed today in the Union Leader coupled with the story on CNN.com, forgive me if my where the hell were you? alarm went off.

The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq. It then states that we have to "transition(s) and structure" our "military presence in Iraq" to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.

Why is this so dangerous? The Bush administration could use language like this to justify a continued troop presence in Iraq as long as it perceives a threat from Iran. Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.

Sen. Barack Obama: Five years after Iraq war vote, we're still foolishly rattling our sabers

Now a little quiz. Who said this?

"If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no. ... .. I am opposed to military action in Iran ... ..To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about. ... .. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates) was as clear as could be that there are no plans for that to happen.''

Senator Dick Durbin who opposed the Iraq war, and is supporting Mr. Obama's bid for president, voted for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding sense of the Senate.

To be clear, I don't think any of these people should be voting for this type of sense of the Senate or what Obama supported as long as we've got cowboy George in office, but a little perspective is in order after Obama's harangue this morning. This is especially true when Obama couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote himself.

What was he doing?

Campaigning.

Why didn't he vote?

Allegedly because the vote wasn't to be called.

Note to Mr. Obama: If there is any possibiliy of a vote happening in D.C. that could truly differentiate you from your main competitor be prepared to get your sanctimonious rear end back to Washington or better yet, don't leave until you're absolutely sure it won't be called up. Biden, Dodd and Clinton voted, so your excuse is just lame. Besides, ever heard of a plane, sir?

It also took him all day to release a statement on the vote.

I truly do want Obama to challenge Clinton and take it to her. I want to see him fight. But it seems a bit spineless to attack someone for a vote you skipped out on and didn't bother to comment on from New Hampshire, where you were campaigning for president. Can you imagine the press moment if immediately upon hearing the vote had taken place Obama had come out and made a statement immediately? Why didn't he? Couldn't this statement have been given on camera wherever he was immediately after the Kyl-Lieberman vote? Why did it take all day to get his press secretary to release it? Come on, cable news channels would have jumped on this moment and Obama would have had a big issue in his pocket.

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

Again, I'm against this stuff, but I'm equally against taking credit for "judgment" when you didn't show up to stand up.

As for Obama's claim that the legislation linked Iran and Iraq together, why is this so shocking? Is he really so naive as to not know that the Maliki government is already linked to Iran? Besides, he warned of the link in a speech of his own. I've cut a couple of sentences out of it which clearly illustrate Mr. Obama is as worried as anyone.

"Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region. ... ... (snip) ... ..Make no mistake if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening."

Then there's that other nagging detail about Mr. Obama's Senate performances. He's voted the exact same way with Hillary Clinton on Iraq throughout his tenure. Exactly. But he's got a new web ad talking about it anyway. Never mind, just like Clinton (even Edwards, I'm sorry to say), Barack Obama could not pledge he'd have our troops out by 2013 either! Seeing a pattern yet? It also wasn't Barack Obama who fought tooth and nail to get resolutions to the Senate floor to end the Iraq war. The person with those creds is Senator Russ Feingold.

Obama brings up something important today, however.

This is not a debate about 2002; it's about the future, and in that debate I can run on, and not from, my record.

Sen. Barack Obama

I don't agree with Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman. But she showed up, put her vote down and was prepared to catch hell for it, which she has. Not for nothin' that Wes Clark and Joseph Wilson, who did a guest post on my blog about Clinton and Iran, two people with strong anti war bona fides, including that Clark has his face plastered on StopIranWar.com, both back her up.

I was pleased to see that last Monday Hillary joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization from Congress. Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure - diplomatic pressure - to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran. While it is a fact that the Bush administration's duplicity should give all Americans pause, we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we have real enemies in the world, and that we must be prepared to exercise the appropriate levers of power in support of our interests. ... ..

Ambassador Joseph Wilson

As much as I hate the Kyl-Lieberman vote of Clinton's, which I stated forcefully at the time, it's hard to argue with these two men, as well as Dick Durbin who was always against the Iraq war. You may not agree with Clinton all the time, because I sure don't. But when she's asked to put her name on the line she shows up and does so, then is willing to take the heat. That's character. I'm not sure what ducking a critical vote then slamming your opponent much later on it says about Obama.

You'll have to decide if these things matter or not.

UPDATE: One of my readers on my blog just pointed me to this little tidbit. Voter be aware:

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[girladvenger]

Correction: I agree with Senator Clinton vote. I don't understand why so many democrat are upset with this vote. Iran is a problem and is causing major disruption in the region but I also agree that Bush does get the ok to fund for a war with Iran.

Should be: I agree with Senator Clinton vote. I don't understand why so many democrat are upset with this vote. Iran is a problem and is causing major disruption in the region but I also agree that Bush does not get the OK to fund a war with Iran.

[girladvenger]

I agree with Senator Clinton vote. I don't understand why so many democrat are upset with this vote. Iran is a problem and is causing major disruption in the region but I also agree that Bush does get the ok to fund for a war with Iran.

American is proud and not afraid to fight those who comes after us. Our soldiers are fighting over in Iraq and Afganistan and is being hurt by want the Iranians are doing.

Why do you think we have a military? The only problem is how the Bush-Cheney admin has bungled everything they put their hands on. Nobody had a problem with the war in Afganistan, it's Iraq that is the problem but at the same time there is a major threa and I too look at Obama's actions and find character traits that give me concerns about his ability to stand and fight.

I find him to be weak on the hard choices like MoveOn.org. If he would not stand up for a friend when times are tough why do I think he will stand up when times are tough with your enemies.

[feelfree]

Obama's looking like a weasel on this one. He didn't vote so noone knows how he would have voted. Its just like his pointing the finger at Mrs. Clinton for voting for the authorization. He wasn't a U.S. Senator so noone knows how he would have voted. But as a person who was against the war it sure is odd that he has voted to fund it again and again.

This isn't the first time Obama has shown himself to be spineless and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Inaru]

Over the top attack, ok if it were a rant on the comments section, but the actual "article"? Very unprofessional, Taylor. All the salient relevant points have been made by some great commenters - Reid's pro-Hillary and anti-Obama, fact. Obama not only issued a statement against the vote after, but against the policy in September in Clinton, Iowa - check YouTube's Barack Obama on Iran, fact. Get angry at your Majority "Leader" Reid instead - playing politics as usual when no constituents were thrilled with the ridiculously deadly Iran Resolution. Get mad at the traitorous DLC and throw the bums out! My Sen. Feinstein is DLC and voted with Hillary. My Sen. Boxer is not DLC and voted against Hillary. I will wear out shoe leather and my voice for Boxer's reelection, and against Feinstein's. I've gotta make some calls to volunteers to canvass for Obama this weekend - see ya!

[Zina]

The best comment:

The reason Obama did not vote is not because he didn't show up. He did show up for the scheduled vote. Harry Reid canceled it. When he rescheduled it for the next morning, Reid (whose son works for Clinton campaign) let Obama know only 1 hour in advance. Obama was in New Hampshire at the time and it was impossible to make it back to Washington. Obama did, however issue out a statement that same day on how he would have voted if he had the opportunity.

[Zina]

The reason Obama did not vote is not because he didn't show up. He did show up for the scheduled vote. Harry Reid canceled it. When he rescheduled it for the next morning, Reid (whose son works for Clinton campaign) let Obama know only 1 hour in advance. Obama was in New Hampshire at the time and it was impossible to make it back to Washington. Obama did, however issue out a statement that same day on how he would have voted if he had the opportunity.

[Doofus]

Seems to me it's not that important about Obama
missing the vote, whatever the reason. The
problem would be that all the senator/candidates
voted one way, except for HRC who voted the
other way, seemingly the wrong way. WHY?

30 Demos (& Lieberman) voted the wrong way,
20 Demos (& Bernie Sanders) voted the right
way. EXPLAIN PLEASE.

[Zina]

Voting on the bill was a waste of time for Obama anyway, especially since it was on schedule to pass with a strong majority due to republican and democratic support from the old guard, like Hillary Clinton.

[Edmonsky]

I bet that Klondiker is not going to buy any excuse why Senator Obama did not vote on Kyle-Lieberman if his mind is hardened and made. It is illogic to bind together unrelated circumstances. For instance, there are Senators who live with their families in Washington and there are others whose families are homestead. There are people who live in Connecticut, Massachusetts and other NE States who commute back and forth every day to New York or Washington. Senator Obama has his family in Chicago and also has little ones. Senator Obama’s presidential campaign headquarters is in Chicago and that makes it too difficult for him to be in Washington on a dime except on critical issues and must have advance notice in terms of logistics.

It is not mandatory that every Senator should cast vote in every bill or amendment. When a Senator casts vote, yea or nay, he or she must be prepared to defend that vote. If a Senator abstains from casting vote, he or she owes explanation to the electorates in the respective constituency. In the Senate, there are some meaningless resolutions calculated for gotcha political reasons that do not have any benefit to the society.

[slc20]

Ok, first of all, YOU ARE WRONG in quoting Barack's comment at the top of your blog. I happened to have watched that interview LIVE and Barack made that statement about Iraq, NOT IRAN. His point was that you can forsee the kind of judgement someone has by seeing what kind of judgment that they have displayed in the past.

Second, Barack can't stay in washington every single day because there *might* be a vote. Reid told Barack that vote was not on the schedule.

And last, that "little tidbit" you posted at the bottom sounds a heck of alot like gossip- and probably all sent "anonymously" from the clinton smear campaign.

Clinton is pro-Iran-war now, just like she was with Iraq. It IS IMPORTANT that she has shown bad judgment in the past, because she obviously still has bad judgment.

She is a war monger for sure, and has not a shred of leadership.

[WisconsinJessica]

Look why don't you do the investigation and contact Reid or watch c-span the report back. One thing we can be sure of is that Hillary voted for it and that was wrong - Period! What Obama did or didn't do does not change her vote or make her any more suitable for the presidency.

On the update - this whole storyline does not really make sense. Let's see, Obama's campaign contacts all the other campaigns to get them to pull their names off of the Michigan ballot so that Hillary will be the only one still on. Ok, so that somehow guarantees that Hillary will not also pull her name off. None of the candidates made Hillary keep her name on the ballot. Just does not seem very realistic.

[dotme]

Ms Blogger. I think you got some fact problem

The truth is, Obama did not duck, rather, Reid decides to have the vote in less than an hour and There was absolutely no time for Obama to get back from NH. He had a position on the Amendment before it was voted on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html

I suggest you watch the CSPAN video about the proceeding before you write a hit-piece on Obama.

[DCJoe]

That Sen. Obama, he's just so brave and principled. Decides to pull his name off the ballot in a state where he's twenty points down, and only after surreptitiously securing the agreement of three other candidates to go along with him. What a scumbag! Politics of hope? No, politics of desperation.

[peaceandfreedom]

ms. marsh--

Generally I agree, at least in principle, with your posts; on this one I do not.

"But it seems a bit spineless to attack someone for a vote you skipped out on...you couldn't be bothered to show up to vote yourself...forgive me if my where the hell were you? alarm went off...get your sanctimonious rear end back to Washington­...ducking a critical vote."

Snarky, loaded, biased, and over the top judgmental...And I don't even like Obama all that much. His press release came out that same day--not soon enough for you, I get it. But faster than Cheney after the shooting, and faster than Hillary after she voted for the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act II, etc...

So maybe you don't care for his explanation, or maybe his camp juggled the ball a bit getting on a response, but your characterization, while great stuff for a novel, is misplaced in this setting.

What is, is what it is--if his behavior is so suspect, certainly that will be apparent without your gilding the lilly.

[Edmonsky]

It is most appropriate that before Taylor Marsh goes off to say that Senator Obama ducked Senate vote on Iran, she must investigate the contexts of the situation. It is commonsense to bear in mind that no person can be in two places at the same time. The vote on Kyl-Lieberman was removed from the Senate docket indefinitely a day before it was voted on. First, it must be understood that Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, has a dog in this fight and here is why.

Senator Hilary’s vote on Kyle-Lieberman is only intended to showcase her as a strong candidate on defense for general election. To make sure that Senator Obama did not vote on Kyle-Lieberman, Senator Harry Reid made sure that it was scheduled at the time Obama was engaged in presidential campaign in New Hampshire. Senator Harry Reid’s son is working for Senator Hilary Clinton. An important vote of this nature ought to be scheduled at least 48-hrs in advance rather than an hour notice given to Senator Obama, which was impossible for him to return and cast his vote.

The debate in Congress after 2004 was for staying the course or withdrawing. The opinion poll is towards withdrawing troops and Democrats are in favor. Then, why would Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s votes on Iraq be different, if Senator Obama was against the war from day one and Senator Clinton votes according to opinion poll?

What is so naïve here is the failure of any pundit to understand that one of the strikes against Senator Obama in the Senate is that he has not paid his dues and yet he wants to run for president. To accuse Senator Obama for not being in two places at the same time is part Washington’s conventional-speak most people ought to be on their guard against.