Clinton Smears Obama on Iraq - Again
| Mon Jan. 14, 2008 5:54 AM PST
Senator Hillary Clinton appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday, for the entire show, and asserted once again that Senator Barack Obama's rhetoric does not match the reality of his record. Referring to voters, she remarked, "I want them to have accurate information about our respective records." Yet moments later, Clinton, ostensibly providing voters with information about Obama's record, falsely characterized what Obama had once said about Saddam Hussein--to make it seem that prior to the war Obama was weak on Saddam.
During the show, Tim Russert brought up Clinton's vote in October 2002 for the legislation authorizing George W. Bush to take military action against Iraq, and he quoted a speech Obama gave at that time:
I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors....I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Russert then asked Clinton, "Who had the better judgment at that time?" Meaning you or him.
Clinton insisted that her support for the war resolution had been merely a vote to pressure the Iraqi dictator to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. She quickly moved on to attack Obama:
And in Senator Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in.
You can read it in his own book, Clinton was saying: Obama didn't want to do anything to stop Saddam, even though he feared that Saddam did possess chemical and biological weapons.
That was one helluva charge. Obama was willing to sit back and let a WMD-toting dictator go along on his merry own way (while Clinton was doing what she could to pin down that snake). Could this be true? Had Obama been a do-nothing appeaser of Saddam in 2002? (Forget for a moment that it turned out Saddam had zilch in the WMD department at the time.) I emailed Howard Wolfson, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, and asked for a citation to back up this incendiary allegation. He quickly replied, directing me to page 294 of Obama's Audacity of Hope.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Obama writes on this page, "Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms." Indeed, that's what Clinton had maintained he had said. So far so good. But what about Clinton's charge that Obama didn't want to do anything about a WMD-bearing Saddam? For that, Wolfson provided a link to the same speech that Russert had quoted from. And Wolfson pointed out this particular sentence:
[Saddam] can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Was favoring the continuing containment of Saddam Hussein in October 2002 the equivalent of doing nothing? That's what Clinton was suggesting on Meet the Press (adopting a talking point of the neoconservative cheerleaders for the war). But in that same 2002 speech, Obama advocated making "sure that the UN inspectors can do their work." That was not a call for doing nothing. And in his book--on the very page that Wolfson cited--Obama fully explains his position at the time,
I believed that [Saddam] had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences. That Saddam butchered his own people was undisputed; I had no doubt that the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slog of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing an opportunity to build a broad base of support for its policies.
Go back and review Clinton's abovementioned remark about Obama. She was suggesting that his book was evidence that Obama didn't want to do anything regarding Saddam. Yet Obama plainly stated he favored an alternative course of action to war: diplomacy, tough inspections, and sanctions. Clinton's statement was clearly misleading--and purposefully so.
This is not the first time Clinton has mischaracterized Obama's position on Iraq. In New Hampshire, Clinton claimed that Obama had broken a significant promise: that when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004 he vowed "never" to vote for Iraq war funding but then did so once he was in the Senate. This was part of her effort to persuade Granite State voters that Obama was an all-show/no-work hypocrite. There was one problem with her use of this example. It was not true. Though Obama did oppose an $87 billion funding bill for Iraq and other matters in 2003, he didn't say he would "never" vote for Iraq war money. When he later voted for funding bills, he was not, as Clinton insisted, breaking a promise.
Clinton and her gang are certainly entitled to raise questions about Obama's experience and his record--including on the war. Though Obama did speak out against the war before entering the Senate, he was not a leading voice of antiwar opposition in his first years as a senator. (Neither was she during those that period.) But Clinton and her aides have been peddling false information about Obama to undercut one of his primary arguments: she voted for the war; I was against it. Engaging in such disingenuous attacks may help Clinton beat back Obama, but it is hardly the way for her to counter Obama's claim that she represents poltics-as-usual. It only proves his point.
Comments
It's not a smear - it's a reality check. One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that, except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to.
America does not live by "Iraq" alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.
No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an Inexperienced person would fail. Obama does not have to be president to bring change ? he can walk his talk now by not "dancing with the same people from the establishments" like Kerry. If he cannot do that now he won't do it when he's in the White House. He'll have to dance with Kerry and the likes all the more.
It's not a smear - it's a reality check. One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that, except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to.
America does not live by "Iraq" alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.
No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an Inexperienced person would fail. Obama does not have to be president to bring change ? he can walk his talk now by not "dancing with the same people from the establishments" like Kerry. If he cannot do that now he won't do it when he's in the White House. He'll have to dance with Kerry and the likes all the more.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Jan. 14, 2008 6:23 AM PST.
I think the politicians forget that most voters consider honesty a strength not a weakness, that being candid and being a candidate doesn't demand a skew of others positions just an exploration of the truth.
The politicians diverge from the character of their voting supporters at their ultimate peril.
It's not a smear - it's a reality check. One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that, except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to.
America does not live by "Iraq" alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.
No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an Inexperienced person would fail. Obama does not have to be president to bring change he can walk his talk now by not "dancing with the same people from the establishments" like Kerry. If he cannot do that now he won't do it when he's in the White House. He'll have to dance with Kerry and the likes all the more.
Submitted by Ames Tiedeman (not verified) on Mon Jan. 14, 2008 8:19 AM PST.
Mary:
Do you work for Hillary?
Submitted by Ames Tiedeman (not verified) on Mon Jan. 14, 2008 8:25 AM PST.
Mary:
Bill Clinton so messed up negotiantions with North Korea that they went and built nuclear weapons? What makes you think Hillary is a foreign policy expert? What makes you think she is an expert in any areas of life other than deceptions?
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Jan. 14, 2008 9:11 AM PST.
"Bill Clinton so messed up negotiantions with North Korea that they went and built nuclear weapons?"
No, the nuclear weapons were started under Bush.
Facts are facts.
I watched this on Sunday, and she did nothing of the like. the author is highly biased. I lean toward Kucinich and more socialist, environmentally-friendly, smaller government politics, so defending Mrs. Clinton is an exercise in honesty. She pointed out that Mr. Obama's words and deeds were not consistent. If he is to get my vote, he is going to have to begin acting upon what he says rather than softening when the punches come. Mrs. Clinton is by no means my ideal candidate, but I would rather have someone in office who will say something and do it even if I don't like it, than someone with whom I don't know where I will stand one word next to a deed. So, in the interest of fairness, Mrs. Clinton was on the defense the entire time having been given little opportunity to discuss substantive issues to my chagrine (I would have liked to have gotten to know her plans on things rather than her past), and she had to cover for her husband! Since when has any other candidate been questioned on the activities and speeches of his/her spouse? None of them.
Mark:
So what's factually inaccurate about what David just posted? It seems to me she was distorting his record, yet again. You may think that he should have been a more ardent supporter of pulling out of Iraq, but that doesn't justify her revising history to make a political point.
Mark:
I'm young, but I don't remember any other candidate whose spouse held the title "Leader of the Free World". His speeches, with Mrs. Clinton's indisputably strong personal, ideological, and political ties to her husband, do seem relevant. She cannot claim experience in Bill Clinton's White House when it suits her and dismiss it as unfair when it doesn't.
The war on Iraq was unnecessary and is bankrupting the country. We need to be sure the next president never repeats this mistake. Obama articulated sound reasons publically for opposing the war before it started whereas Hillary voted both for the Iraq Lieberman-Warner resolution in 2002 and the Lieberman-Kyl Iran resolution in 2007. It is clear she has not learned from her mistake and is much more likely to send us into another unnecessary war than is Obama. Also, even though one opposes a war, once we have commited shock and awe, trashing the country, breaking down law and order, and causing civil wars, one might have a sense of responsibility to try to repair some of the damage. Thus one's voting record, post war, may reflect different considerations, such as peace-keeping obligations, etc.
On Taylor Marsh's website I posted a reasonable comment about the unhelpful tone of the attacks on Sen. Obama and was amused but also saddened that, in follow up postings the ad hominem attackers just ranted about me in capital letter style and about my drinking the Obama kool aid. Yet I had not addrssed who I was supporting, I simply expressed my feelings about the Clintons style of campaigning. I appreciate Mr Corn's analysis and lack of ranting. Marsh, on the other hand, is trending toward splutterring rants, and that undermines the possible value of her anaysis.
PLEASE SIGN PETITION
ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-barack-obama
LINK BELOW:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-ba...
Petition short version:
We the under signed ask Marian Wright Edleman to show
her support for Barack Obama for president 2008. We
also would appreciate Marian explaining why her
husband resigned from Bill clintons cabinet and why on
July 24th when Marian Spoke to Amy Goodman at
democracynow.org she didn't eleborate further in her
views of Hillary Clinton who proclaims to be the
candidate for childrens right.
The following are a few articles explaining in some
detail as to the clintons dealings with regards to
Marian Wright Edleman. (note: these articles can be
found at the petition site by clicking petition
overview under Marians picture)
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY ASAP
Danielle Clarke
""Hillary Co-Ops Marians organization as if Marian is
endorsing her""
NOTE: The link to Hillary's site is below.
http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/family/
Go to hillaryclinton.com. Click 'HILLARY" tab at top
of page and select "Hillary's Story". Then on the
right of the page under "HILLARY ON THE ISSUES" click
"Supporting Parents and Caring for Children". In the
second paragraph read..."From her first job out of law
school at the Children's Defense Fund..."
Hillary is effectively associating herself with the
CDF without seeking actually saying she is and without
saying why Marian the individual citizen, her mentor
at CDF is not supporting her for the nomination. This
mention of the CDF by Hillary in this fashion does not
give the correct impression. Namely, that neither
Marian nor her husband, who resigned the Clinton
Administration in PROTEST, are at odds with the
Clinton's in a most serious way. What is the nature
of that disagreement when the Clinton's are giving the
impression that all is well with her relationship with
the CDF. This is SO a typically Clinton (not quite
honest) maneuver. Marian has a Christian and
Citizenship duty to correct that false impression. To
share the truth with the Democrats and the American
people BEFORE they nominate another Clinton to the
important job of President of the United States at
this critical point in our Nation's history.
Hillary vs Obama: Reminds me of a brat picking a fight in a schoolyard. She's spouting lies and half truths, picking words out of context, being a copycat with strategy like: "Well, I'm just gonna steal his idea about change because I got nothin' better!". Her favorite game is "follow the leader" How about: "Yeah, I voted for the war, but YOU voted for funding the war!" (but, so did you Hillary, you left that part out). "I know how to be a President because Billy was and I saw how he did it." "Barack made people say bad things about me! (he didn't - they speak for themselves)" "His daddy was a Muslim and some people say he's a terrorist, but I ain't sayin'" "See how human I am because I'm gonna cry!" "Don't hurt my cute little girl feelings" She's an actress to the end in order to get what she wants. Obama responds so perfectly - he just calmly laughs it off and goes on uneffected, back to his message, calm, assertive but not aggressively. He wisely knows not to make her madder. He knows that whenever she points the ugly finger at him, she has three fingers pointing back at herself. He thinks to himself: "I am rubber, you are glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"
Clinton's people have nothing on Obama , so they attack anything.
Clinton has nothing of her own to offer. She claims she can unite the country, but she is tearing apart her own party.
Her experience is mediocre and shows negligence and poor judgement.
Her ethics are questionable.
She has just now "found her voice" when Obama has been a great Orator for years.
She would be unknown if not for Bill.
Bill is buddies with George W's daddy.
Oh yes, she used to be a Republican.
Grow up Hillary! Stop making mud bombs! The guy doesn't want to play your old games! You are asking for a spanking!
David, we need more journalists like you - ones who are going to question the statements made by candidates and then take the time to contact the candidates, sift through past records and point out inconsistencies. After years of Rovian politics, we as voters should know better than to form opinions based solely on what candidates and their aides say, but it can be very hard to figure out the facts.
The Iraq war is an important issue and I wish Clinton had done what Edwards had done and admitted it was a mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR200511...) rather than pretended she didn't know what she was voting for. Unfortunately, Edwards has a campaign that is being ignored by the media so she obviously made the right political decision, but he made the decision that to me shows more integrity.
Re: Mark - If Hillary Clinton can claim 35 years of experience, then her support of her husband's policies can be used against her.
Re: Mary - I don't know why we can't try to go from one extreme (very unpopular president) to another extreme (very popular president). Do you suggest we take it in steps and go from very unpopular to somewhat unpopular to a bit popular to get to a very popular president? By then it will be at least 2020.
What the hell were you watching?! She has been the one to bring this war vote issue up more often than anyone else. Yes, she does get asked about it too, but it has also been a tactic of her campaign strategy to question Obama's record. AND if you actually READ all of Barack Obama's voting record (one that is much more extensive than Hillary's because Obama has been an ELECTED official LONGER than Hillary) his consistency and character/honesty is proven to be right and true!
I have read so much about him. I had so many doubts, but not after 6 months of studying this man. No, he is not perfect, but compared to anyone else in the political arena he is as close as we will ever get to an honest and reliable politician. He may have voted to support the troops, but that is a decision based on reality not popularity. He had even discussed the negative effect such votes would have on his records, but he could not see vote against what he knew was right. You may not want the troops to be over there in this war, but you can't simply leave them over there without the supplies they need to carry out their duties!
And to say "Mrs. Clinton is by no means my ideal candidate, but I would rather have someone in office who will say something and do it even if I don't like it, than someone with whom I don't know where I will stand one word next to a deed." What the hell again!?!?! You'd rather have another Bush?
WOW!?!?
Before you bother to respond to my post. go to the government websites that have the transcripts and voting records of Hillary and Obama during their terms in their respective office. The first thing you may notice is that Obama has more EXPERIENCE! The fact that Hillary won't release any documents about what she did or did not do as first lady until "after the 2008 elections" (her own words) is more than enough BS and in your face secretiveness that I could never vote for her.
If you actually read the statements made on the floor by Obama you will understand his votes. So instead of assuming that you know enough to make your statements, go find the TRUTH first.
I first voted for Jimmy Carter many years ago and over time thought the Democratic party had deserted me as I worked hard to make a sucessful life for myself and my family. I am a registered Republican.
I have become very distressed with the present congress and the current President and feel the country is in a malaise. There is gridlock, the coutry is hated abroad and falling down around us because no one is accountable. Greed and power not kindness, respect, truth and civility are reigning
I have lived through the Clinton Presidency... both terms and I know that a great deal of the terrorist activity was in his term as stated in the 911 report. There is plenty of blame to go around lack of foresight.
Hillary Clinton constantly says she is the one with the experience and Barak Obama is not. Indeed in the Meet the Press interview she said she was a work horse not a show horse. Of course she would not acknowledge that she considered Barak a show horse.
Hillary over the years has worked as a lawyer for the Rose Law firm in Little Rock and was First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States before moving to New York to become a US senator. Did not Barak Obama work as a neighborhood organizer after law school and work in a firm that specialized in descrimination cases? Did he not give up a lucrative career to serve the poor and disadvantaged? Was he not in the Illinois legislature to see how the federal mandates impacted upon the states? Is he not a US senator too?
I heard John Kennedy speak to the nation during the Cuban Missle crisis as a grade schooler telling us the problem, showing us all the missle sites and the ships on route. He used strength and diplomacy and the crisis was averted. The whole nation was part of it and was informed. Barak Obama reminds me so much of him in his outlook and the way he brings us along on the journey. I am putting my faith him him to mobilize the nation to sacrifice and heal the country.
Just a few thoughts.
You said: Obama plainly stated he favored an alternative course of action to war (with Iraq): diplomacy, tough inspections, and sanctions. RESPONSE: Your rhetoric is as weak as was Obama's stand: We had done ALL THOSE THINGS. TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME: There is one valid reason we should not have gone to war with that butcher. But, you and your inept hero, Obama don't even recognize it or voice it.
RE: Mark - At some point - and it may not be until they are in the voting booth - Americans are going to realize that voting for Hillary means Bill Clinton will be back in the White House, only this time with more free time on his hands. While I'm not a prude or a moralist, I'd prefer to not have my president distracted by marriage problems. Many other voters are prudes and moralists however, and will consider this possibility a violation of sacred national ground. There have already been consequences for Bill's bad behavior (Gore's run in 2000) and his wife's campaign will be another. Since I'm against the dynasty thing anyway, I don't think this is unfortunate, as long as Democrat's realize this now and don't nominate a candidate with such an outsized albatross hanging from her neck. In short, she should have to explain and defend Bill, but really can't given who he is. It's a pity she can't be president because of this, but not a tragedy (Gore in 2000 was) seeing as the office isn't owed to her by me, you, or anybody else. By all accounts she's a heck of a Senator - when not making calculating votes aimed at making her look tough enough to be Commander-in Chief - and I hope she spends many more fruitful years ion that chamber.
Unfortunately, HRC thinks she is entitled to the nomination. Obama is a very viable candidate, he is picking up more and more support by the hour and she can't stand it. The Republicans are sitting back and loving every minute of this. Who needs their "swift-boating" when HRC is doing all their dirty work for them? The fact that she is stooping to the level she has is very sad and troubling. I am a life-long democrat and have voted for a democrat in every election. If by some miracle her Rovian tactics work and she wins the nomination, I will cast a protest vote for someone else. She has lost my respect and most definitely my vote. Peace, Ng
I think a large part of the clintons behavior involves: if Hillary can't be President neither can he. I also think its completely innappropriate for an ex-President to become so involved in a primary campaign. Even Bush Sr. didn't insert himself like this.
The clintons are slime. they always were. This sort of ugliness may get her the nomination. but she will be a pariah in the general election. If clinton is the nominee the Republicans will hold the White House AND regain the Senate. The Deomcratic Party will be left in tatters. We can thank the Clintons.
I have never been so disappointed in Mother Jones as I was to read this headline and article. "Clinton Smears Obama on Iraq - Again." Talk about a smear -- Mother Jones should be ashamed of HERSELF! I watched the whole interview and not only was Senator Clinton hit with questions about her comments (which were mostly taken out of context) but had to answer quotes and comments made from President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and during his presidential election, and also quotes and comments by Obama. She answered each and every question and didn't dodge any of them. Most men could not have handled themselves as effectively and patiently as Senator Clinton did and with as much class. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She made NO disrepectful remarks regarding Obama and MLK, but the news media took it entirely out of context and ran with it. Now the Obama campaign has done the same. I have always been a huge supporter of Tim Russert, but was shocked at the way he kept pounding at her. And to ask the last question regarding her worst moment, if people don't think that was totally disrepectful and tasteless, then they have a serious problem with electing a woman president and are looking for any excuse not to vote for her. She's a class act, has a brain, and isn't afraid to use it. Why are people so afraid of that???
Why is it a smear when it is true? Go look at his record...If Obama is against the war, why did he vote to support all the funding? Why did Obama say he didn't know what he would have done in the Senate if he had seen all the intelligence? Why did Obama say,
he would have done the same as Bush. Your headline should read. Hillary reminds us once again of Obama's real record.
If he can't take a jab from another democrat without pulling the race card then how in the wide, wide, world of sports will he handle it when the republicans go to work on him? I bet I know; he'll take the moral high ground (just like Kerry) and lose!
Re: Karen
Please read the reord. Obama's statement about how he might have voted in the senate was undeniably a self-effacing attempt to not criticize his (and Sen. Clinton's) party's nominees for P/VP in 2004. From a NYTimes article last spring:
"... reporters asked Mr. Obama about the Democratic presidential ticket throughout the 2004 campaign, because Senators John Kerry and John Edwards had both voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''"
The article reviewed the Clinton attacks on Obama on Iraq, which began at that time, and concluded:
"..a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.''"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A...
As to funding the war, Obama has stated that once in, like Hillary, he so far would not cut funds to the troops. You may not agree with that position but it is not different from Sen. Clintons. In fact Sen. Clinton's criticism of Obama on Iraq is a disingenuous criticism of him for being like her.
Sen. Clinton's explanation for her vote for the Iraq resolution is her "I didn't inhale" moment because she didn't think it meant Bush would invade - Hello! The fact that she didn't object at the time of the actual invasion is a minor inconvenience without explanation by this reasoning
Submitted by tq White II (not verified) on Mon Jan. 14, 2008 2:11 PM PST.
Stop the petty word parsing!!! Hillary is not a racist. Obama is not a misogynist. Both are trying to make themselves sound good and the other sound bad. Neither is going to outright lie. Both are going to cherry pick facts and quotes to conduct the campaign. Hillary did not say, "appease." Stop putting this word in her mouth. Stop talking about the micro-meanings of their speeches. It's stupid.
Re: Karen
We can agree that Clinton and Obama have both voted for funding the Iraq war. Only one of them is responsible for getting us into Iraq. Why are you supporting her, given the appropriate importance you place on this issue? As to misrepresentations by the campaigns, please quote me where Obama personally made the accusations you claim. I can easily quote both Hillary and Bill Clinton personally misrepresenting Obama's words in the most cynical fashion.
Submitted by Dan Mortenson (not verified) on Mon Jan. 14, 2008 3:01 PM PST.
I'm going to pile on Mary, too.
Mary, you cannot excuse a demonstrated smear -- how Clinton (repeatedly) falsely characterized Obama's statements -- by saying that it's a valuable perspective on his character or actions.
The fact is, she resorted to falsehoods, to paint him as incompetent. Your argument -- that that was okay for her to do, because he's not up to snuff -- IN OTHER WAYS, it would have to be -- doesn't hold water.
If he has problems, she is entitled to point them out, but not to lie. And if he has OTHER problems, she cannot logically point to them by pointing to something else instead. Certainly a lie cannot be justified ex-post-facto, by saying that he did something else, so it's okay to lie about this.
Try actual logic. It's refreshing.
Obama, pre-invasion, was urging our government to do exactly what Bill Clinton had done for the previous eight years--contain Saddam Hussein. For Hillary Clinton to say that Obama advocated doing "nothing" is to say that her husband had done "nothing" during his tenure as president.
Hillary Clinton starts with an appeal to pity, "I want them to have accurate information about our respective records." I think the connoted argument she is making here is the "them" are being given facts which paint Mrs. Clinton's war record as unjustly negative and Mr. Obama's record as blindly pure. It is a fair argument to make in a media-blitzed American political system, but the subtext is "I alone am the martyr." Her comment is used to soften a viewers skepticism and prime them to dismiss the fact that Clinton has/is/will distort her opponents' arguments and character and exercise historical revisionism with regard to herself.
Without presenting any arguments as to why she should be considered the truth-teller or expert on Iraq policy, Clinton then critiques Obama's war record in a way that reads as an appeal to ridicule. She highlights what she believes to be his flippant judgement [ "If he 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." ] by simplifying Obama's decisions to highlight a contradiction, a contradiction which is intended to make the viewer feel Obama's logic is foolish, childish, and inexperienced.
In here is also a guilt-by-association ad hominem fallacy. She is saying Obama supported the Iraq war by funding it and not speaking out against it. President Bush also supports the Iraq war by funding it and not speaking out against it. Therefore, Obama is like President Bush. This type of argument reduces the intellectually sophisticated reasons for voting to fund the Iraq war and also, more importantly, shifts culpability from the act of war onto a vote to fund. Her argument on this topic is also a wrong direction logical fallacy which reverses cause and effect.
These types of arguments and logic, i.e. logical fallacies, are not an anomaly for Mrs. Clinton. She habitually commits red herring fallacies to divert attention from herself. She distorts and manipulates her opponents' stances and character. She lets Bill and others in her campaign spit ad hominem attacks. She is not unfamiliar with poisoning the well of Obama's campaign for presidency.
Let us refrain from doing the same in our discussions and comments here and elsewhere. We are entitled to accurate information with regards to our presidential candidates and elected officials. We should not be manipulated by logical fallacies and deception.
hi Mark,
If you live in California, you're going to have to re-register as either Democrat or "Declined to State" by January 22 to be able to cast your ballot for Obama on Feb5. No other party affiliations can vote using a Democratic ballot.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but really!
Why did "he" vote to continue funding for the war? The same reason "she" did. Don't fall into the Rovian mode of calling the record of Obama into question for doing exactly and precisely what Clinton did.
Obama's campaign has never accused Hillary's tears of being fake or her campaign of being racist. Never happened. Period. Karen, you're just making stuff up out of whole cloth. Such a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible does your candidate no good -- we know better. It is, however, a characteristic typical of Clinton campaign tactics, as this article lays bare.
And Marta, don't confuse an electorate disgusted with a woman who has not spent one plug nickel of political capital on anything that might in the slightest be construed as controversial lest her designs on the Presidency would be put at risk with "fear." If anything scares me about Clinton, it is that her transparently duplicitous statements seem to convince so many. And, many who support her uncritically only because she is female; good thing we don't have a kangaroo in the race.
When Clinton says "I'll *begin* to remove troops from Iraq within sixty days" that's straight out of the Rove play book. Bush already began removing troops. That means nothing.
So I don't care when she'll *begin*, I care when she'll *end.* Obama is on record: 16 months. What is your candidate's answer? You don't know, because she's not saying.
As for not being able to go from one extreme (Bush) to another (Obama) are you suggesting we therefore have to settle for Republican-lite (Clinton) because we can't stand the change? You really underestimate the sentiment of the electorate.
We already crossed the Bridge to the 21st Century -- a lot of people are hoping that we won't be forced to cross back.
I saw on cable news today that Bill Clinton's people found 80 examples of Barack's campaign smearing Hillary. The MSM actually twists Hillary's words and then slanders her, and MSM really lets Barack slide. Fascinating to watch the hideous sexism that erodes America. I like Hllary more and more as I see how profound her grace is under not just pressure but under truly horrible bashing. I'm looking now at who the men are who step forward to support this brilliant capable dedicated woman. Now, that's the definition of a real man.
How dare her use a sentence like this. What has she done for New York State but all-show/no-work ethic. Leaving her job in Washington to run around the country. "This was part of her effort to persuade Granite State voters that Obama was an all-show/no-work hypocrite".
What Senator Clinton does here, and as she has continually done, is focus the attention on an adversary to take the focus off her own record. This is right out of the Bush/Rove playbook.
No honest evaluation of history would validate her claims. Taking bits and pieces of sentences uttered does not a fact make. It is bad enough that she refuses to admit that she made a mistake voting for the war resolution, (and, may I add, supported the war vocally and strongly throughout, actually using the president's own words that 'we must stay the course', until polls showed it was overwhelmingly unfavorable, and there was a presidential bid to think of), but to distort and re-write history.. well, maybe she thinks we were all asleep at the time.
"I saw on cable news today that Bill Clinton's people found 80 examples of Barack's campaign smearing Hillary."
Well, over 70% of the people believe in ghosts and UFOs, so taking the assessment of the "unbiased" Bill Clinton crowd at its word is not shocking. But I'm certainly not going to do that.
We know of the reverse: trying to make Obama's admitted drug use an issue for example, and twice yet, and then denying that's what they were doing.
So why not enumerate some of these smears, with attributions so we can validate them? I mean, not all eighty, just a few, so we can check it out for ourselves instead of having to trust the "unbiased" Bill Clinton and the Hill-shills that pollute these blogs with unfounded gobbledygook that they've pulled from places we don't mention in polite company.
It's really getting filthy around here. That's what makes Obama so appealing. The best thing Clinton supporters could do to counter Obama's appeal is to stay on the high road. But, whatever, have it your way.
The same old nonsense directed at Hillary. It's getting tiresome. Hillary "did not" vote to attack Iraq. The more people resort to this nonsense, the more ridiculous and phony they appear. She voted to "allow" an attack, "if" Bush, first, exhausted Congressional and Diplomatic efforts to sustain peace. Everybody knows he lied, he deceived everyone around him about everything he did. Now, Hillary is taking the brunt of Bush's evil intentions. This is just one of the lies we hear from mindless supporters of Obama's campaign. Find out why, Micheal Moore, who recently strongly supported Obama, till he found out more about this smooth talker.
Reality check time. The most significant bit of misinformation spread by the Clinton campaign is that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama.
Reality check time. Obama is far and away more electable than Hilary Clinton.
On January 13, the Rasmussen poll reveals that, if the election were held last week, Hillary Clinton would lose to John McCain 38% to 49%, whereas Barack Obama is only slightly behind McCain, trailing 43% to 46%.
And to those who are concerned that a black man can't win, I would refer readers to the March 13, 20007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), that shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain's age).
All of the leading candidates are demographically challenged. The polls show electorate prejudice against Mormons, Evangelicals, the thrice divorced, 72 year olds, women and blacks. In reality, there appears to be more willingness to vote for blacks than for women or older candidates.
Like it or not, this general election will be decided by the personal charisma of the respective candidates. And as Hillary gets more exposure during the general election, her political tin ear and lack of charisma will likely increase McCain's already large lead over her.
Only Barack Obama or John Edwards can beat McCain. Since Obama leads Edwards in the polls and fundraising, I would suggest uniting behind him. He is a very good candidate.
This is more evidence that the Clinton campaign will do or say anything to get Hillary elected. In Nevada they are suing the Democratic Party to close "at-large" precincts set up so hotel workers can caucus on Saturday. Their rationale -- it is unfair that hotel workers get their own caucus sites and others don't. Funny, they filed the suit 2 days after the union representing the hotel workers endorsed Barack Obama -- and they waited 7 months after the decision was made to have these special caucus sites. Moreover, the same people named as plaintiffs in the suit were involved in the decision to set these rules! Hillary and her handlers have lost all credibility with me. I am now fully for Obama!
The Clintons are categorical liars. Absolutely nothing they say can be taken at face value. They are willing to say anything, to smear anyone, to distort any English sentence, to pervert any logic to achieve their ends. By the way, I did not have sex with that woman.
