This has not been a good couple of days for someone trying to decide which Dem to back in the primaries. Senator Obama has come out with a less-than-progressive stimulus package to stave off the impending recession. Krugman critiques it here — hestal has a diary on Krugman here.
I was pondering Krugman’s column last night, and looking at other articles on Obama’s stimulus ideas . . . not encouraging. I was also reflecting on something Clinton said on Meet the Press on Sunday. That’s what I want to focus on, here.
There has been some commentary on Senator Clinton’s Meet the Press appearance on Sunday, but I haven’t seen any that address what strikes me as the most troubling moment in the Russert-Clinton exchange. After praising Obama for his 2002 stance against the AUMF, Clinton tries to jujitsu Obama’s 2002 speech into a liability:
If he [Obama] was against the war in 2002, he should’ve strongly spoke out in 2004. He should’ve followed what he said in his speech, which was that he would not vote for funding in ’05, ’06 and ’07. That is inconsistent with what he is now running his campaign on. The story of his campaign is premised on that speech.
On page 3 of the MTP transcript, Clinton tries to combine a criticism of Obama’s history on the Iraq war, with a defense of her own history:
MR. RUSSERT: But you voted for all the funding for the war.
SEN. CLINTON: I did. I never–I’m not premising my campaign on something different.
MR. RUSSERT: And then until ’06 was against the timetable.
SEN. CLINTON: But I did what I–my principle concern has always been doing what I thought was best for our country and what I thought was best for our troops. I’m not here saying anything different than that. I’m not giving you a story line that does not hold up…
MR. RUSSERT: But did he have better…
SEN. CLINTON: …under the facts and the times we were in.
MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.
MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, “if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,” I was told that’s exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it’s important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama’s going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in ’03, ’04, ’05, ’06 and ’07. I voted for the authorization…
MR. RUSSERT: I asked him those very questions…
SEN. CLINTON: And his answer was very political.
MR. RUSSERT: …in November. [Russert’s point being that Obama addressed those concerns.]
SEN. CLINTON: I mean, his whole point is that he doesn’t make political decisions.
This is not good, people. A straight-up reading the phrase “Authorization to Use Military Force” is “Jesuitical”. It is foolish to hope that anyone doesn’t make “political decisions” on matters of war. All of Clinton’s own votes can be interpreted as consistent, because “Chuck Hagel” and the White House assured her what the AUMF “meant”.
This is Clinton’s critique of Obama, mind you.
This can only be understood as an attempt to drag Obama down into an confused muddle in which no politician in the race counts as a strong liberal on the Iraq war, in which no stance means anything, and in which everyone looks just as bad Clinton herself. After all, she never promised anything in the first place. This is why we’re supposed to vote for Clinton.
For someone like me who has previously considered Edwards’s candicacy problematic, the past couple of days have constituted a very good reason to give him another look.
Maybe I’ll just vote for Gravel.
11 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
Also at Daily Kos.
He hasn’t got a hope in hell. He speaks the unvarnished truth. The MIC will kill him, hopefully metaphorically speaking.
at this point, I have no idea for whom I will vote. I have an absentee ballot that needs to be sent in soon. Gravel, Dodd and Biden are on it. I have eliminated Obama from my list of choices for a number of reasons. Edwards is at the bottom of my list because of his less than progressive Senate record and his recent attacks on Clinton and siding with Obama but I could support him because of his health care and economic policies. Edwards and Clinton, as well as Obama, have essentially the same stand about Iraq. I think that either Clinton or Edwards are more experienced than Obama to take office and be ready to go on day one, and considering the disaster that is being left in the wake of Bush/Cheney, this is more important than anyone has considered.
Sheesh, this is hard work.
the NY Times dissects the Clinton comments about Hagel today and concludes that’s not really true, either. What she supported was not Hagel’s resolution, but something worse drafted by the White House.
Here’s the link.
Clinton’s distortions aside, once Obama entered the Senate he did nothing to change the course of the occupation until he entered the presidential arena.
Obama had quite a lot of the media attention in 05 – 06 before he became a presidential candidate. Don’t remember him using it as a bully pulpit to end the occupation.
Where are the media quotes or passionate speeches against the occupation in 05 and 06. Once he became a Senator he voted in lockstep with Clinton on Iraq. Prior to the vote on the supplemental he like Clinton refused to even disclose how he would vote. He, like Clinton, gave no speeches about the supplemental either for the media or on the Senate floor. He, like Clinton, waited until the vote had been decided until he cast his vote.
Obama was also one of the biggest supporters of the “magical September” when Republicans were going to join their Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan effort to change the direction of the occupation. Who can forget his famous sound bite of “Just 16 Votes To End The War.” Of course, that rhetoric ignored the fact that 68 additional votes were needed in the House before this could become a reality. Was this naivety on Obama’s part or just a clever way to kick the can down the road? You could also argue that this strategy relieved him of responsibility for the outcome and put the failure on the voters.
As Senators, both Clinton and Obama have been horrible on Iraq.
Sorry I don’t accept that Obama has been a strong liberal on Iraq.
before the PA primary, probably (that’s in late April or early May). But I’d like to see an Edwards presidency, I think. You’re right, though: it’s a tough call.
I started out clueless, they are pols and pros after all. I listened to Edward because he resonated. I hooked him up with his history as running mate to Skull and Bones, bad debate with the prince of darkness and my prejudices about the south and yet…. Then I tried like hell to not be a purist and get with the party’s program. No can do.
I have let both streams, my purity side and my political wonk side, run the candidates and variables, political, principles goals, etc though my head and have stayed mainly open. Yet I still come back to Edwards. not unelectable, not a corporatist, not afraid or unwilling to tackle the heart of the matter. I root for his voice, I rejoice at the truths he tells, he does not own them but we should.
The Conservatives have so screwed everything up and proven they can’t govern. The country is ready to move in our direction. The country doesn’t need bipartisanship or triangulating trickery. What we need is for the candidates to show some leadership.
I really don’t think we should advance candidates who are afraid of being “divisive”. For 28 years our country has been moving in the wrong direction. It’s time to change and we need REAL BIG changes.