Obama is Not the Anti-Hillary

by Taylor Marsh

Anyone thinking Mr. Obama is the anti-Hillary, so to speak, needs to pay attention and find another candidate. Quickly. This guy is so far off the Democratic party reservation I don't know where he's planting his primary flag, but it's nowhere a progressive Democrat or our party should willingly go.

It's bad enough that Mr. Obama continues to use wingnut talking points on Social Security. My friend Dave Johnson said it well yesterday: Senator Obama, Please Stop Echoing Right-Wing Lies About Social Security! Paul Krugman asked nicely, Why, Barack, Why?, then took him out.

But a determined defense by progressives in the media, on the blogs, and in Congress beat back one spurious argument after another, while the American people made it clear that they really want a program that guarantees a basic retirement income that doesn't depend on the Dow. And Social Security survived.

All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It's a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.

During the Jefferson Jackson dinner he continued, using another wingnut talking point:

SEN. OBAMA: I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans. ... ..

Of course, Mr. Obama was talking about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and Senator Clinton's vote, but that does not give him license to go back to his "Bush-Cheney lite" rhetoric. It's wrong. But it's especially bad when he's cast a similar vote. How many times are we going to have to go over this stuff? However, yesterday on Meet the Press, Mr. Obama stumbled into Clintonian language that was worthy of the best of the triangulators.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk about Iran, because there's been a discussion about a vote she cast that you mentioned earlier. Back in March there was a resolution in the Senate, and here's what it said: "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization." And you voted for that. Now, The Washington Post analyzed your position and Senator Clinton's, and this is what they editorialized: "So is there any real difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton on Iran? Mr. Obama contends that one distinction lies in Ms. Clinton's acceptance of language in the September 26, '07" "resolution that 'it is'" "'critical national interest of the United States' to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq. Mr. Obama claims that such language is 'saber-rattling' that could be used by the Bush administration to justify an attack on Iran. This is hard to fathom. Not only is there no mention of the use of U.S." forces" in the resolution, but last year Mr. Obama gave a speech in which he said it 'is in our national interest to prevent' Iran or Syrian from using Iraq as 'a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries.'"

So if you have the same concern about using--Iran using that as a staging area, you would have a position very similar to Senator Clinton's.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the, the previous quote was directed specifically at the issue of Israel, and I make no apologies for making sure that we are thinking about our security interests in Israel. The primary difference between myself and Senator Clinton is that she believes that our force structure inside Iraq should, in part, depend on how we can prevent Iran from having influence inside of Iraq. And I think that is a mistake, particularly at a time when we know this administration has been itching to escalate the tensions between Iran and the United States.

Look, the--there's a broader issue at stake here, and that is how do we approach Iran? I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems--them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. That does not mean that we take other options off the table, but it means that we move forward aggressively with a dialogue with them about not only the sticks that we're willing to apply, but also the carrots. ... ..

(snip)

MR. RUSSERT: In July, you were asked if you were willing to meet separately without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez. You said yes. You stand by that?

SEN. OBAMA: I do. The--now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, "We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out," from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting. Preparation means that we are sitting down ahead of time, various lower-level diplomats and envoys, are sorting out what's the agenda going to be? Nuclear weapons has to be on the table. The issue of terrorism needs to be on the table. Incursions into Iraq that are affecting the safety of our troops, that needs to be on the table. ... ..

Say what?

Leaving the Israeli lobby nod alone, because all of these politicians posture like this, regardless of the fact that our Middle East policy isn't helping Israel or the United States.

Obama stated the "primary difference" between Clinton and himself on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is that she wants troops in Iraq to prevent Iran from having an influence inside of Iraq, which Mr. Obama thinks "is a mistake."

According to Mr. Obama, the issue of terrorism must stay on the table, with "incursions into Iraq that are affecting the safety of our troops" needing to be -- say it with me -- "on the table." So what is he going to do about those "incursions" if Iran refuses to do anything about them? Will he need U.S. troops to deal with them? If not, how's he going to stop Iran's incursion that is affecting our troops, fairy dust?

Oh, and then there's the whole records issue.

MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, "What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois," you said, "I don't know." Where, where are the--where are your records?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, we did not keep those records. I...

Somebody hand me a towel, because I'm starting to sweat for him.

A first lady must immediately produce her private conversations with her president husband, which Bill Clinton has already requested even though they can stay private for 12 years by law, but a state lawmaker whose only real experience is being a state lawmaker threw his records away and that's okay.

Here's the up shot, folks. If you are a Hillary hater there's one candidate who isn't the anti Hillary. His name is Barack Obama. So if you're in his camp and you think he's got the answers, I suggest you check your idolatry, because this guy isn't about Democratic ideology, that's for sure, which I told you months ago. He's a deal maker, first, last and on the bottom line. Social Security is in "crisis," according to Mr. Obama, nod to the Republicans, but don't forget that wink. Yeah, and fairy dust will keep Iran from screwing around in Iraq, too.

"What they want is somebody who understands the struggles they're going through, is going to be thinking every day about how to make their lives better, has a grasp of the issues that not only Democrats, but Republicans and independents are worried are not being attended to in Washington. And if I provide that kind of leadership, I think that they will feel confident that I'm going to be able to do the job."

- Barack Obama, Meet the Press (11.11.07)

What this Democrat wants is that our nominee passionately pursue Democratic party ideals, jamming them down the throat of Republicans if we have to, because those guy are clueless on how to implement policies that work for the American people, the world, as well as foreign and military policies that include, dare I say it, competency. Barack Obama isn't interested in that, however, he wants to hold hands with the wingnuts to save some fantasy Social Security "crisis."

Pass the smelling salts, stat, because I think I'm going to be ill.

"I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that's been in short supply over the last several years. I'm not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views and then making decisions."

- Barack Obama (on ABC's This Week, 5.14.07)

Let's make a deal, baby! Barack Obama wants you to come on down.

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

Comments

[Rebelfriend]

Anyone paying attention knows that the REAL candidate of CHANGE is John Edwards. Obama is an ambitious politician whose campaign in run in large part by operatives who have worked for Edwards in the past. Obama receives far more media coverage than Edwards (the corporate controlled MSM are afraid to have Edwards as President. They know he will always put the people before corporate greed) So his "handlers" have taken advantage of the press's support of Obama and have him quoting/copying Edwards almost verbatim, in the strong stands Edwards has been addressing since the beginning of the campaign -- and even before. If the people want a true leader who is the real deal, they will support John Edwards who has been the one candidate who has shown a solid grasp of all the problems we face, has had the courage to speak the truth, say exactly where he stands, and makes clear that he is in this to SERVE -- not continue the corruption of politics as usual. Obama is a talented speaker, exudes smoothness and charm, and is showing clearly, in spite of all his lovely language, that for him, it IS ACTUALLY politics as usual. America's infatuation with new faces has not served us well. We need the tried and true. And that is John Edwards.

[mfinbh]

No mention here of Edwards, who is the real deal:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10617

[jackpinesavage]

"I suggest you check your idolatry, because this guy isn't about Democratic ideology"

What? Well, maybe someone should nominate a golden calf; or better yet, nominate Uncle Joe Stalin. He was committed to universal health care and he was strong on defense.

No, i'm not a trolling wingnut. I'm just disturbed by this ideology thing. Platforms are not the same as ideology. Ideology is how the Republican Party came to be the dysfunctional and dangerous force that it is.

And i'm not a supporter of BHO (but i would be if his middle name was Ted or Tom). I assume that Ms. Marsh finds HRC to be well-grounded in Democratic ideology. It seems that most of the Democrats i hear are very much against our military misadventures, yet (and correct me if i'm wrong) Ms. Clinton leads all of the nominees in defense industry contributions. How does that fit into Democratic ideology? After all, those contributions are as close as it gets to quid pro quo.

Perhaps, it is just a deal with the devil out of necessity...but the devil always gets his due.

[abdiel]

You know Taylor? The first paragraph clearly explains the angle and intent of your article -- (paraphrasing) that if Democrats are looking for a "progressive" candidate with a spine and some integrity, as opposed to a vacillating candidate willing to hold hands with Repubs and sing "Kumbaya" just to "get along" -- Obama is as unfit for the position as Clinton.

I basically agree --

1)Obama's Social Security scare tactic: Repub talking point extraordinare and what's HIS change going to be? Don't know.

2)The "triangulation" used regarding the Iran conversation is almost laughable, if it wasn't so pathetically indicative of this guy's squirrelly rhetoric.

3)The records thing -- almost unbelievable temerity that this guy demands Clinton's records as first lady and then claims he "did not keep"" his records of eight years in the Illinois Senate -- so much for the only records one can check when he admonishes people to do so.

I recognized Obama as the Utopian social dreamer and scary foreign policy schemer a while back. What bothers me most is that he talks as though there is some kind of common ground on every issue of social importance -- and that's just either plain idiocy or sheer disingenuousness. Bi-partisan is code for "I can't take a stand."

[April]

So if you are saying they are both equal, then I pick Obama.

He is much more inspiring.

[FogBelter]

Taylor, I'm not fond of Hillary and Obama's charm is wearing off for me as well. The problem is neither of them actually seem to stand for anything more than ... "What should I say next?"

I don't blame them though. Our whole election process has been reduced to a Celebrity Candidate Shadow Ballet because the Democratic Party itself stands for ... What?

The Cult of Personality nature of American Politics has divorced the Candidates from the Party ... We vote for Dems but we don't know what the hell we are going to get because they have no Party Sextant ... no Compass.

The "Platform" of the Democratic Party will be haphazardly thrown together is some Holiday Inn Conference Room with language designed not to state anything in the concrete, so as not to offend anyone. It's a meaningless document that no one expects to be referred to once the Campaigning is over. There, Taylor, is the Democrats problem in a nutshell.

We expect the Candidates to stand for something, but the party itself has no unified vision.

It's too late for this election cycle, but the Democrats should present their party members with a Iron Clad Contract in the form of a Party Platform. Have 13 planks to it, to represent the original 13 colonies. Seven planks would represent long term goals, like universal health care, or fixing Social Security, the other six planks would be relevent to the current election cycle.

Establishing the six varible planks would occur a year before the primaries take place. In this way all candidates would have a reference point in party goals, and the discussion would be their plan to meet them, instead of making things up on the campaign trail.

I think we would have better candidates if they were all on a Party Script, and it would be understood that the Party Roadmap would be the Platform.

Having simply a Beauty Contest undermines the nature of democracy and makes the candidates look weak.

[RealBlackGirl]

As been previously stated, we get that you are pro-Hillary. The question becomes why does Obama have to be the anti-Hillary in order to be a viable candidate? Who decided that she was the standard of the Democratic party? Given that all the candidates are part of the same party they are going to have similar ideas, policies or very blurry distinctions. The wonderful options when so many are so right about what to do next is pick the candidate you like. Thus the real problem for campaign Hillary is likeability and she can't attack the other candidates because some of the voters just don't like her. Tough position to be in, but she keeps saying she is a tough girl.

[Ides]

Simply enough, Obama supports raising taxes to protect Social Security, Hilary Clinton openly and vocally was against tax increases to support Social Security (see, MSNBC debate).

Obama supports the use of medical marijuana. Hilary Clinton is against it.

Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq Resolution, Obama went on stage and said it was a stupid idea.

Hilary Clinton is no means farther left on anything than Obama, and it is only self-deluding Clinton supporters huddled around the idea of a second Democratic Renaissance making that claim.

That is not to say that Obama is the best Democratic candidate, but this article makes the faulty approach that Obama is just like Hilary (untrue) and that since Obama is not the most Progressive candidate he is no better than Hilary Clinton (also untrue).

Now, if you can show me why Hilary Clinton is not the Anti-Obama, maybe we can get a perspective.

[dmc2]

So many lies, half-truths and misquotes in this piece, it's hard to know where to begin.

Social Security: Just because the Republicans tried to manufacture a crisis for their own selfish ends does not mean that there is no problem. The numbers are what they are. As a relatively young person, I would like to know for sure that it's going to be solvent when I need it. That's not the case right now.

Obama's solution is not privatization or cuts in benefits. It's the very progressive and fundamentally fair solution of lifting the cap that exempts all personal income over 97.5K from social security taxes. I wonder how many of the people trying to raise hysteria over Obama's position themselves quietly enjoy that wonderful gift to the affluent. Last time I checked, however, the vast majority of Americans didn't make six figure incomes.

With respect to Iran, Obama makes the brilliant point that we can't demand that our enemies agree to our demands as a pre-condition for us even talking to them. That one statement fairly well encapsulates the whole God-awful set of foreign policies that got us into the mess were in -- policies, by the way, that HRC fully subscribes to as evidenced by her criticisms of Barack on this point.

HRC is losing support because people are realizing that she really has nothing new to offer the American people except more of the same triangulating, yet divisive, politics that has gridlocked all attempts at progressive change in Washington for the past 20 years and that they have an alternative who does - Barack Obama.

[vbond]

1) Obama is not the "Anti-Hillary."
2) Obama is not the "Tooth Fairy."

Both statements are equally true and equally relevant to the question of who would be the better President.

Aside from the irrelevance of this dichotomy, the failure of this commentary is that is obscures the very real and understandable challenges that any candidate has in characterizing their positions on issues, both subtle and not, in the chaos of a Presidential campaign.

This applies to Obama with the "Iran incursion defense" and social security questions as it also does to Hillary with the New York State illegal immigrant licensing and Kyl-Lieberman Amendment questions, as it does to John Edwards with the hedge fund contributor and $400 haircut questions.

Does anyone here remember "Quemoy and Matsu"?

The simple fact is that the debate over the defense of these Taiwan Straight islands in the 1960 presidential election was about as relevant as the aforementioned issues to the question of who was better prepared to be President of the United States.

The differences in quality and character between Obama and Clinton are far less than those between Kennedy and Nixon.

Whatever they are, however, will not be indicated or determined - politically or historically - by the candidate's fevered efforts to distinguish themselves in the heat of this nomination battle.

Ms. Marsh's motives in posing this irrelevant dichotomy are truly known only to her, but any conclusions that may be drawn from it pale in significance next to what the motives seem to be, which are to write a catchy lead, and to set up and destroy the straw man of Obama's status as the "Anti-Hillary."

Let Dennis or Mike, or Rudy or Mitt vie for that title.

[girladvenger]

Obama is a Republican in dem clothings.

I'm still waiting for the "I" count in Obama's J&J speech.

[Janco54]

Ok Taylor - we get it - you hate Obama.
Now, move on and tell us who you do like and why. If it's Hillary - fine - go for it. Put her words on the paper and tell us, between every sentence, how great she is and how honest and how non-triangulating.
If she's our nominee it's going to be a bloodbath. It'll make the "Swiftboat Veterans" campaign seem like they gave John Kerry new medals for Christmas.
We need CHANGE. And trying to put another Clinton in the White House is not CHANGE. We need HOPE that our Constitution is going to be restored. She offers no hope. Only 4 or 8 more years of partisanship, Clinton hating and very little getting done. We've been there and done that. Let's move forward.

[longislandlol]

So who is the uncola?

[rwinstl]

Do things have to be spelled out in easy terms for people to understand? Incursions into Iraq would be dealt with if we were negotiating with Iran. However, OUR FORCES IN IRAQ and the strategy we should be using does not need to be included in a Senate Resolution dealing with Iran. Including the language about Iraq in the resolution allows for a bridge between the war in Iraq and the invasion of Iran. Why is that so difficult for people to understand? Don't you get how politics works at all? The WORDS you use mean something. LISTEN.

[Dantheman99]

A pox on both your houses.

Vote Kucinich.

If someone has to vote for one of the leading three, Edwards has the most progressive platform.