« Obama Will Speak On Wright, Race, Future | Main | He's Got A Feaver. More Iraq Explanations! » Obama Web Video Slams Clinton On War17 Mar 2008 03:01 pm Just like to use an active verb like "slam" because it gets the Memeorandum bots' attention. And in this economic environment, every bit of traffic helps. HRC today: "What matters is what we've actually done.." Cut to: HRC before the war vote in 2002: "This is a very difficult vote... any vote that might lead to war should be hard... but I cast this with conviction... perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other hand of Pennsylvania Avenue." Comments (28)
Clinton has tried to explain away her vote as not being for war, but as a tool to ensure inspections. The word "conviction" casts some doubt on that arguement. Plus it is a real jab at her experience angle. That being said, I don't want to judge her just on a few sound bites. A few soundbites do not give a whole picture of somebody, including a certain preacher we have heard a little bit about lately. 
Hillary along with the other 28 senators that voted with the republicans "for war" were LIED to and were given bogus / twisted / fabricated / coerced intelligence ... Barack gave a speech and didn't have to put his $ where is mouth is ... because he wasn't a senator at the time and wasn't privy to the same bogus / twisted / fabricated / coerced intelligence. "[Obama] will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator - snip - He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the President," WHATEVER OBAMANIACS
It's a great ad: using her own words, even spoken with conviction. She had the choice of reading that NIE. She was on the Armed Services Committee and Bob Graham urged her to. She didn't.
Is it not a copyright violation to use that "Meet the Press" footage in a web-ad? Also, on a more DailyKos-ish note, I find it funny that Obama, the man and the candidate, is so well liked that Clinton's supporters are now trashing his supporters, surrogates and associates after attempts to bring the man himself down flopped.
Like to point out,... that in her October 10, 2002 floor speech stating her support for the resolution Hillary Clinton regurgitated the fraudulent Dick Cheney talking point that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.
YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT IT HERE...
Does the Obama campaign realize that Iraq is slipping off the radar screen? These "gotcha" ads are only working with activists who already oppose the war. Everyone else is worrying about the economy. And Clinton does a better job of *appearing* to be a competent economic steward. What next? "Impeach Bush and Cheney" ads?
I don't understand why Hillary's failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate hasn't been a huge campaign issue. It's enormous. How can you claim to be an experienced manager who's ready on "day one" with such a gigantic failure on your resume. This is why Condi Rice can't run (remember that document about al Qaeda's desire to strike inside the U.S. that she soft-pedaled?). Why is Hillary being given a pass?
To some guy: You say that "Iraq is slipping off the radar screen." Well, guess what -- do you think that the economy would be in so deeply in the tank right now if we weren't spending billions in Iraq? Believe me, this issue will come roaring back very soon, because it's the root of so many of our economic ills.
some guy, Iraq may actually fast slip right on that screen, especially when we hit 4,000 dead - maybe even this week. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/iraq-casualties.htm Today's female suicide bomber has certainly made news today: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/17/iraq.main/index.html In a few weeks, we'll also see Petraeus reporting back to Congress. Will he still be saying little to no political progress has been made since the surge? Looks like: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303793.html As for why HRC's failure to read the NIE hasn't gained traction, maybe it had something to to with several other guys up there who also dind't bother to read it?
Howard B. and Judy, I agree completely. The economy is related to Iraq, and I have a feeling that the Sunni/Shia "truce" will be broken soon. But this ad isn't making the connection between Iraq and the economy. It's just making a simplistic point about Clinton in 2002. We're at the point where either a voter knows that the reasons for going to war were bogus, or they're still holding on to the administration's lies. Obama can't just say "I was against the war." He needs to remind viewers why that was so important.
One trick pony? I give Barrack credit for making the right call on Iraq, but let's be real: when he made it, he was a state senator from a very lefty part of Chicago and he was running way behind in his race for the U.S. senate Dem primary. He couldn't have known the front runner was going to implode because of nasty divorce allegations. Over and over and over he repeats this about Iraq. Boy, he's lucky they didn't find some proto-anthrax program or he'd be disqualified from ever being president, right? I mean... you can only go to the well so many times.
McCain/Clinton '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's amazing is that the Wright non-story gets 80 + comments and this, which addresses a war in which thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, gets like, 15.
Brilliant. The "Pennsylvania Avenue" bit couldn't be any worse.
Although I agree with your point (that discourse in politics seems to be about pastors and not Senate votes), it's obvious why this isn't getting the comments that the other one was: this isn't a new story. I'm sure if the story was about a new war with Iran, it'd get tons of comments.
As an Obama supporter, I have to say that this may be borderline-unfair. She's clearly against the war now. Although, I suppose, her refusal to admit that it was a mistake to not read the NIE, and a mistake to vote for the war, and her refusal to acknowledge that it was, indeed, a vote for war, makes this fair game. Perhaps more of a link should be made to her support of Kyl-Lieberman as well. Hmm.
Yep, it's one thing to be wrong. It's another thing to never, ever admit it and to attack the person who was right on that very topic. That's just too reminiscent of what we've had for the last 7 years.
"Hillary along with the other 28 senators that voted with the republicans "for war" were LIED to and were given bogus / twisted / fabricated / coerced intelligence ..." How sad that even at this late date, some people still need to be reminded that there were certain senators--for example Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd--who managed to see through the lies and deception in the rush to war. If they had the good sense and integrity not to be dragged out to sea by the war tide, why didn't Hillary with all her "experience?" Heck, I'm just a hick from New Mexico, and all the way out here in the desert, it was clear to me that the case for war was unconvincing. And even my Democratic senator, Jeff Bingaman, another hick, voted against the "Use of Force" resolution. But Hillary's support for the war in Iraq goes far beyond her vote in favor of the original resolution. A careful look at the record shows that she was pounding the war drum immediately prior to the invasion in 2003 and all the way up to the spring of 2007, when it became clear that such a position did not sit well with the majority of Democratic voters. So even though she presents herself as a war critic, the question of her judgement and integrity in matters of national security is very much in doubt. Hillary's misrepresentation of her stance on the war, NAFTA and SCHIP, as well as her not so tacit endorsement of John McCain over Barack Obama, reveal her true character. She will do and say virtually anything to further her own political ambition. Those who still trust her need to shake themselves, wipe the stars from their eyes and see her for what she truly is--the ultimate political insider and opportunist.
Hillary does not misrepresent her stance on the war. Obama's campaign willfully misrepresents Hillary's stance in this ad. It's time for Hillary to strike back. Let's quote a BIGGER passage from that speech: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible. She makes it very clear that the purpose of her vote was to incite the international community to pass a resolution of inspections in Iraq. And within a MONTH - in November of 2002 - the UN did it. This bill was a huge success, at first. George Bush turned around in 2003, fabricated more evidence, hung on a report that didn't agree with the others, and chose to go to War, NOT with the same support that the original Authorization to Use Force had.
Elleard, why can't you face the fact that Hillary blew the most important vote of her senatorial career and then backed it up with loads of bellicose rhetoric right up to the eve of the invasion and beyond? Other senators got it right, but she didn't. Now, she wants to be president and is portraying herself as having reluctantly gone along with the Bush plan that has turned out to be a monumental disaster. That, in my book, is misrepresentation. Also, what say you about Hillary's more recent vote in favor of the resolution, sponsored by none other than Joe Lieberman, declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization? This has widely been interpreted as giving the president the latitude to attack Iran in pursuit of the Global War on Terror. Is this not repeating the exact same error that she made with regard to Iraq, i.e. trusting Bush to do the right thing? Is she incapable of learning? Of what value is all her "experience" when she keeps making bad decisions?
Bravo, Elleard! thank you for posting the larger context of Hillary's vote. This is a woman (a person) I would trust to make a reasoned, impassionate response to any national situation, emergency or not. It is unfortunate that so many have taken her comments out of context and tried to present her as someone who supported what has turned out to be a disastrous decision by Bush. I hope that if Obama does become our next President that he decides to take a more judicious approach to international affairs than he is espousing in his campaign.
a further comment - I am somewhat relieved to be able to believe Obama is actually a fairly cynical and skilled politician, as evidenced by his effective albeit divisive campaign. It is more comforting than the fear we might be turning our country over to a complete naif!
clintonistas have another sore spot. Hillary's judgement from her experience is not that great. An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis and this is just cute... http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/29/host-indicted-clinton-fund-raiser-canceled/ Things apparently went wrong from the beginning. Lackey reported a "bribery overture" to federal officials, then worked undercover to help investigators expose the scheme. Two of the men pleaded guilty and began cooperating with prosecutors. One of them, attorney Timothy R. Balducci, told the FBI he paid Lackey the bribe on instructions from Scruggs and Backstrom. Soon after Scruggs was charged, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton canceled a fundraiser at his Oxford home. Scruggs' law firm withdrew from the remaining Katrina cases." BTW, he's a McCain donor - McCain returned the cash. Clinton, I'll note, didn't do that fundraiser. Haven't uncovered if there were others. Maybe Bill's presidential run.
Marc, did she return this money?
In her 2002 speech supporting the war she didn't anticipate the occurrence of while and after voting for it, Clinton says that she's "drawing on my 8 years of experience in the White House" (so where'd the rest of the remaining 35 years go?) in casting the pro-war vote. The 'experience' she's claiming is, by her own words, the main influence on her most grave error as a Senator, and she wants to sell the country on that 'experience' as being sufficient to lead the whole thing? nu-uh, sorry.
"Bravo, Elleard! thank you for posting the larger context of Hillary's vote." Exactly the opposite. Elleard's citing of a snippet of Hillary's speech takes her vote *out* of the larger context of her generally enthusiastic support of the war up until the spring of 2007. Please, people, base your arguments on fact, not campaign propaganda.
The video is great because it shows Clinton for what she really is. A liar.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Fair hit. It's been 13 months since Obama's announced and he's still working that left jab. Damned impressive.
Posted by dry_fish | March 17, 2008 3:13 PM