Hillary Flirting With Fear
The day after Election Day 2004, the punditocracy solemnly agreed that the “values voters” were the decisive factor in George W. Bush’s victory. By now, the “values” myth has been repeated so often that it commonly passes for fact.
But in the weeks that followed, a few of us parsed the exit polls and came to a different conclusion: Bush’s winning edge was due to the “fear factor,” the perception that he could protect the nation from terrorists better than John Kerry. Gradually, that view of the ‘04 results has become more common. Now my favorite pollster, Pew’s Andrew Kohut, says “it is beyond question that concerns about John Kerry’s national security leadership, as compared with Bush’s, were central to his defeat in 2004.”
Yes, there is a lot of evidence that Bush won by computer hacking and other such chicanery, especially in Ohio. But that does not explain why such an unpopular president, running an unpopular war, could even get close enough for vote-tampering to give him a victory. Was it “values” (a code word for conservative religiosity) or national insecurity?
When Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville asked “Why America Wanted Change But Voted for Continuity” in 2004, they came up with the best answer: “A narrative is the key to everything,” and the Republicans “had a much more coherent attack and narrative. . . . The president was able to keep the election centered on safety (the terrorist threat) and values, rather than on Iraq and the stagnant economy. Bush asked people to vote their beliefs and feelings, rather than to judge his performance or ideas for the future.” The one crucial point they overlooked is that safety is itself a value, indeed often the highest value, especially for conservatives.
When people vote their feelings they tend to opt for the more conservative candidate-even if they don’t like his or her policies. The promise of safety overrides every other consideration. That’s why a glance back at the last presidential election is so useful for all of us who are keeping a close eye on this year’s election. It reminds us that appeals to a traditional mindset centered on security, and the powerful emotions it evokes, can trump even the most persuasive logic.
Democrats ignore that lesson at their peril. But it’s a bitter pill for some to swallow. You can watch them struggling with it on the op-ed page of the New York Times, where the bellwether liberal columnists take very different views on the issue.
Frank Rich urges the Democrats to put the war front and center in their campaign because “the mere mention of Iraq is dangerous to Mr. McCain. … It will be a slam-dunk for Democrats to argue that it’s long past time for the Iraqis to stand up on a sensible timetable that will allow the Americans to stand down.”
Maureen Dowd leans in the same direction, but she is rather less sure: “The president took the country to war on his gut, exploited our fears and played the patriotism card to advance his political agenda. This time, Americans may prefer cerebral arguments to visceral ones.”
Paul Krugman has quite a different view. He acknowledges that “some people [read: Democrats] believe that this election should be another referendum on the war, and, perhaps even more important, about the way America was misled into that war.” But he notes that:
polls show that the economy has overtaken Iraq as the public’s biggest concern. True, the news from Iraq will probably turn worse again. Meanwhile, a hefty majority of voters continue to say that the war was a mistake, and people are as angry as ever about the $10 billion a month wasted on the neocons’ folly. Yet for the time being, public optimism about Iraq is rising: 53 percent of the public believes that the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals. So anger about the war isn’t likely to be decisive in the election. The state of the economy, on the other hand, could well give Democrats a huge advantage.
Here’s a classic example of giving the right advice for the wrong reason. Though public optimism about the war is indeed rising, most of the recent polls still show a majority saying that the U.S. is not getting closer to success. The poll Krugman cites is atypical. Moreover, it’s not at all clear that the economy is the public’s biggest concern. If you add issues like “terrorism,” “national security,” and “defense” to “Iraq,” in some polls the combined total equals or even outscores the economy as the number one issue on the voters’ minds.
Two out of the three campaigns are actively pushing the war back onto center stage. Hillary Clinton recently said: “Since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that.”
Well, we may not all know it yet. Apparently Obama and his people have not heard the message-which was clearly directly against them by Clinton strategists, who think that a focus on national security will be to their advantage in the primary fight. They don’t agree with Krugman’s claim that “the shift in electoral focus from Iraq to economic anxiety clearly plays to Mrs. Clinton’s strengths.” They saw the vote-getting power of their “red phone at 3 AM” commercial, and they want to pile it on until they get the nomination.
But the Clinton campaign is playing a very dangerous game. You can almost hear McCain’s people licking their lips and saying, “A campaign centered on national security and 3 AM world crises? Bring it on. Make our day on Election Day.” Because McCain has one card and one card only to play in this campaign: “No Surrender.”
It may not make any logical sense. If all the voters who oppose the war vote against the prowar candidate, he’ll be slaughtered. But McCain and his strategists know what all of the Times‘ liberal pundits, and so many other liberals, so easily forget: It’s not about logic or policies. It’s about feelings.
The simplistic catch phrase, “No Surrender,” taps into a huge reservoir of feelings deeply buried inside millions of American voters. And those feelings run so deep precisely because they are inextricably linked to values. “No Surrender” is not a sensible basis for making policy. But it is a powerful expression of a whole web of values that many Americans cling to for dear life, at a time when they feel that the world around them is swirling faster and faster, moving closer and closer to the brink of moral chaos. “No Surrender” promises that there still is absolute good, absolute evil, and an unbridgeable gap between the two. It guarantees that we are on the side of absolute good and will remain there, as long as we keep on fighting against the evildoers.
That helps to explain how McCain managed to get the nomination, even though he was so widely disliked by the religious right. In those polls that ask people which issue is most important to them, all the classic “values” issues-abortion, gay marriage, and more generic terms like “values,” “religion,” “morality”-score close to zero if they even show up at all. Start with the simple premise that all of those words and issues serve as symbols of moral certainty in an uncertain world, and you come up with an equally simple conclusion: McCain’s “No Surrender” mantra does the symbolic job just as well.
It may be hard for a lot of liberals to wrap their minds around the emotional power of symbolic thinking. They still assume politics is about voting for the candidate who shares your analysis of policy issues. Hence their confident urging to make the war a central issue in the campaign. They know not what kind of emotional-political meatgrinder they are heading into.
It’s harder to see why Hillary Clinton’s strategists would point her directly into that meatgrinder. They understand the emotional power of national security issues all too well. It’s what they are counting on to beat Obama.
But having made those issues central for the primaries, they won’t be able to push them into the wings in the general election. Do they really think Hillary can outbid McCain in the contest for evoking feelings of safety and security? If so, they are playing a very dangerous game. And if they lose, it’s not just their skins that hang in the balance.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
Ah….Logic and voting. Well then, we all know that we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. And their hasn’t been an attack since we started fighting them over there. Since Hillary, G.W., Uncle Dick and McCheney all know this AND the fact that women are better on the phone leaves only one logical choice for the security of this country.
An appeal to fear? Nothing succeeds like success, right Hillary?
It took me a while to come to this, but under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary in November. Her latest puppet, G. Ferraro, is using overt racism, now that Bill has decided its unseemly in an ex president. The anti black stuff has to be done by surrogates. The anti muslim stuff gets excused by the media as some kind of toughening up or is it just hazing? Or is it just not only fear, but overt and slimy racism from a woman whose political life was built on enthusiastic black support for her husband. Let’s all say it for those who aren’t allowed: Hillary is a monster who will stoop to **anything**.
Hillary’s campaign is just giving me more and more reasons not to vote for her. I can not do it… of course being from Massachusetts this is safer than being from a red state…then I would be more conflicted about not voting, a right given to me by the deaths and pain of others.
The Dems are really crappy students when it comes to learning from the Repubs. Clumsily utilizing long-standing Repub strategy for politically murdering your opponent, the Dems (Clinton) are instead ensuring a McCain victory, while the Repubs are coming together (Romney blew millions of his own dollars but now stands fast with McCain).
Stands to reason. Look at the Stitzer calls for impeachment. The Repubs say: “Quit or we impeach” over his sleazy little affair. Bush II invades a couple countries, gets hundreds of thousands killed, spies on Americans, employs torturers and more, and the Dems say “Impeachment is off the table.”
F*ck it. I’m becoming a Republican.
Ultimately, I don’t believe it will work for the Clintons. It was really just a one trick pony and already there is blowback from the Democratic party base, who, after all, she has to, presumably, make her case to first. The way Clinton is running–or not running her campaign is evidence that she is unfit to lead -especially in these times.
The Clintons were desperate to halt the Obama sweep and would stoop to sabotage of their own party’s chances if that was their only option. By triangulating on the tactics of the Right, she hampers efforts to emerge with an alternative vision of what constitutes safety–sound judgement, economic security, extending communication with the rest of the world and how exploiting fear prevents folks from thinking about how they are being played. That is reason enough to run her out of town. My impression from her victory celebration after Ohio? With all the confetti it was the only consolation prize she could pull off for all the groveling in the stink was required. Huffington wrote that clinton appealed to the “lizard brain”, but I recall that women are more likely to use the “new brain” or the frontal cortex, which favors diplomacy, cooperation, compassionate responses. One would wonder then, why any feminist would cheer on a woman only because she was a woman, despite the fact that she emulates the worst traits of men rather than the more highly evolved perspective of women.
A Clinton on any ticket is only a dream ticket for Republicans. For everyone else it is a nightmare ticket that would make McCain the 44th president.
And Krugman is just plain wrong here:
“The state of the economy, on the other hand, could well give Democrats a huge advantage.”
This does not come at the expense of Iraq–the dots should be connected to Iraq as the black hole that is destroying our economic security. Really krugman, you should know better.
obama will choose a woman as his VP.. maybe barbara boxer of calif… this will win the general election and will turn the page on the clintons and hillary completely…
**interesting.
I fear Billary will drag B Hussein O down. She DEFINITELY would rather have McCain win than him. She said so. And they call Nader a traitor.
Even the girl in the 3 AM ad would rather vote for Obama.
I think Nader is better however…
This is another ABB year–
anyone but Billary.
Ira Chernus, thank you for so clearly defining this disaster Hillary is setting up. She’s certainly showing herself unfit to lead, lacking judgment, integrity and foresight. What’s wrong with her? Is this what is called “blind ambition”? If this is how she behaves in the primaries, just think how she would behave in the Oval Office, especially with Bill running loose. How much more damage will she do before the convention? We may end up with McCain yet. As my oldest son said, only the Democrats could lose a slam dunk election.
Vern, you’re funny, and a polar opposite to riverman, who really needs to go find a wacko religious site for his rantings. I hadn’t thought you are a woman, but you sound like one, or an unusually evolved man.
kathyodat
The comeback to “No surrender” should be “Four more years in Iraq? No thanks.”
Ira is absolutely right about “feelings deeply buried inside millions of American voters (about 9/11 and terrorism).”
I just finished reading Susan Faludi’s fabulous new book, “The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post 9/11 America”
Hillary, and everyone, should read it. She would then realize how much harm she has done to her party (and even herself as a woman.
Not only has she emasculated Obama, but in her selfish and totally misplaced attempt to ‘go negative’ on Obama she has likely handed McCain an insurmountable psychological edge over any Democrat —- in that a contest based on macho toughness, applies at a deep sub-conscious level, an advantage to just the sort of tightly wound, vicious, vengeance / protector image that exactly matches the image of McCain that most Americans hold.
I can not over-emphasize the importance of this book in understanding from a sociological and cultural standpoint the value of the weapon that Clinton has now handed to McCain.
It was amazing how little MSM coverage there had been of Hillary Clinton’s four (4) deceitful, back-stabbing attacks on the leading Democrat candidate (Obama) last week.
As Maureen Dowd said of Clinton’s destructive trashing of the leading Democrat [which went unreported by the NY Times / Clinton machine for more than a week], “What could be more shameless than suggesting to Democrats that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama?”
Several of the Sunday shows re-ran the videos of Hillary last week, saying that Obama is less qualified than McCain to be Commander in Chief —- and take those 3AM crisis phone calls.
There is no way to spin this — Hillary has said that the leading candidate of her party is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief.
Such a statement is beyond the pale (although I can think of many other descriptions, like ‘pond scum’).
Hillary may not only have handed McCain an edge over Obama, but also herself.
Talk about ‘going negative’?
Clinton is emasculating and destroying the leading Democratic candidate.
And for what?
Imagine if Clinton were to become president in 2009, and dealing with foreign leaders.
Won’t it be helpful for the US to have every foreign leader thinking, “Oh, yea, I’m going to trust this bitch who stuck a knife in the back of her own party’s leading candidate, and only won, by saying that he would not be as capable a commander in chief as the Republican opponent”?
How could most foreign leaders ever trust someone that low?
Hillary has hit a new low — which for her is really saying something.
The superdelegates could put an end to this disaster right now and get behind Obama. No matter what, he’s going into the convention with a lead in popular votes and delegates. So the longer they let Hillary hammer on him the more bruised he will be facing McCain, unless they are seriously considering really tearing the party apart by backing her. Well, then they will be collaborators in taking down the party. It looks like sooner or later this corrupt party will self destruct.
kathyodat
Folks,
This could potentially be very powerful. Strategically, it’s called a “dilemma action” because it puts the target in the position of having to give into demands or to repress the will of the people.
If you agree with the logic that superdelegates should not overrule the will of the voters, you should think about taking a few minutes to send a letter like the one below.
***
You may contact your Democratic senators and representatives at:
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
Dear Senator XXX,
I am a registered Democrat and I’ve voted in every election since 1988. Should Senator Obama lead in pledged delegates and popular vote at the time of the convention and the superdelegates do not follow, I will stay home in November . No Democrat in any race will get my vote, and I will strongly urge other Democrats to stay home as well.
Please share this with your fellow superdelegates.
Thank you,
XXX
Who are all the supposed Democrats that think Hillary-Obama is a dream ticket? Not me. If it’s between Hillary and McCain this Nov, I’m either leaving my ballot blank or writing in a candidate. Hillary is not the choice for presidential leadership, she is just more of the same old political establishment.
I guess there’s another possibility, that the super delegates are watching Hillary bludgeon Obama so they can say she’s harmed the public perception of him too much to have the nomination. Then they get to go for her. The DLC wins, the kids go home, I go to Nader, she goes down under a “No Surrender” avalanche by McCain. The country coninues it’s trip down the toilet with a man who admits he doesn’t know anything about economics. Can he spell “recession”? How about “depression”?
kathyodat
Sidi, those are the Hillary suckers who don’t get it. Obama voters want change, not the same old DLC policies that have ruined our middle class. Of course, not all of them are suckers, some of them have benefited, although not as much as the Clintons.
kathyodat
I’ve got to be missing something in my old age. Gov. Spitzer did something stupid like getting laid by a prostitute and the IMPEACHMENT talk is rampant. Our esteemed President and the rest of his ass-wipers have killed thousands of innocent people, spent trillions of dollars, (and stolen), destroyed and crippled our economy a
and for this ,IMPEACHMENAT is off the table??
But I’ll still be a Democrat and I’m sure that “STILBA” will be too.
She’s being pulled into a short-sighted course of action by her advisors. And she risks damaging either candidate that wins the Dem primary by her blundering. The sooner the Dems can get to a single winning candidate and begin to hammer away on McCain, the better. And let’s hope it’s the more progressive of the two.
Billary are just sleaze merchants. I will never vote for another Clieberman in my life.
I will write in someone or leave the presidential slot emty if Clinton is the nominee. I am a 70 year old white woman and am for Obama now. Originally for Kucinich, then Edwards. Never for HIllary.
Frank Lieb: “But I’ll still be a Democrat and I’m sure that “STILBA” will be too.”
Don’t be so sure, my friend. I can’t vote for Clinton. Wrong’s wrong, even if it helps you (beat McCain). It’s Third Party or stay home if she gets the nomination.
She has little else to win with because it is clear she is a very poor candidate and her motto has become Fear and Smear.
Folks, Riverman is not as wacko as s/he might seem — s/he’s just been drinking the Walter Lippman and Friedrich Hayek koolaid. Check out “The Good Society” by Lippman. There’s a whole bunch of neoliberals out there who think things should just be run by an elite (and the market) and ordinary rabble like us should just put up and shut up and be grateful because what do we know . . . ?
What this comes down to is the irrationality and stupidity of much of the American public. All McCain has to campaign on is Fear. He has nothing else, certainly not 8 years of success by George Wanker Bush. Fear. The Democrats need to piss publicly on his shoes . . . but they won’t do it; just as Kerry never pissed on Bush’s shoes on ‘04. Consequently, they will lose. The MSM want more of Bushism and will get behind McCain. We will have a third Bush term and the consequent ruin it will bring down upon this ill informed, uneducated and irrational country which is about to get everything it deserves due to its stunning inability to recognize its own self interest.
Since the “monster” has been a US Senator, during the SAME time Obama has been a US Senator, how has she voted on twelve of the MOST important issues, those concerning Iraq, Iran and who Bush has nominatted to positions of importance?
Check her voting record. Then, at the same time, do also check Obama’s votes on those SAME twelve votes, and see which one has voted the most times progressively. Those votes are how they ACTUALLY stand on those issues.
Surprise, surprise. __ The “monster” voted progressively EIGHT times. ___ Obama FOUR times. ___ BTW, McCain only once. __ So, which one of the three has voted progressively more often? __ Now, Obama has been preaching a totally different sermon for the past eight months. His votes tell a far different story. __ Check it out, it is not my opinon, it’s how they have voted.
In addition, which US Senator has Obama in his pocket? ___Answer:__ Joe Liberman. Check that out also before any make comments which show they don’t really have a grasp of what they are talking about.
Obama has fooled millions with his fantastic ability as an orator. Some of those fooled, are progressives who blog here at CD. Some are those who listen to ~Riverman~ and ~Dougwagner~. Riverman wants to have everyone pass a logic test and has the firm opinion that women are not fit brain wise to vote, only most men are. He of course can pass that test and I cannot. So follow the Riverdude and support Obama, who has voted consistantly in support of Bushism and supports Joe Liberman 100%.
Do I like how the “monster” has voted on everything? ___ Nope. But she is twice as progressive as Obama is and their votes tell the true story on that issue. It’s not my opinions. ___ Check it out, their votes are public informatin, available to any who wish to seek the truth before they form opinions and post funny comments and display their ignorance on the subject.
~MORDECHAI~ I do believe you are correct. MSM wants more Bushism, that’s why they are obviouly favoring Obama. ___ Check his US Senate votes. It’s very easy to do that. Of course no one who has already formed a mind set, wishes to admit that they were wrong. I don’t like any of them, but will favor the most progressive and form my opinion on their voting record, ___ not their speeches.
Cripes.
This is going to be a LONG seven months.
Can I go back to bed now?
Excellent article Mr. Chernus. I think you got the title wrong though, and the discussion here shows it. Hillary’s screwing things up is a particular. Your most important point though is how liberals, and Dems in general, misjudge what’s important to the average voter: feelings.
We may not like it, but it’s true. Instead of trotting out issues “in lecture format” we need to tell a story, sweet and simple, that illustrates very clearly and powerfully what OUR values are. Thom Hartmann’s Cracking the Code should be required reading.
(1) The two issues that should matter most to Democrats are Ethics and the Iraq War Vote.
A national security debate between Obama and McCain will be about Judgment.
A national security debate between Clinton and McCain will be about ‘toughness’? ‘the 90s’? ‘experience’?
Her only honest argument against a McCain presidency is the economy, a debate Barack Obama will easily win.
The choice for Progressive activists is not between candidates and platforms, it is between an activated Antiwar pro-Ethics Democratic Party behind Obama, and the Pro-war Special Interest Democratic Party behind Clinton.
(2) Electoral Strategy for Democrats in 2008: Change or the Clintons?
Clinton’s marginal victories in big states only shows what 16 years of saturating the media markets with the Clinton name can do. And apparently not much in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and Texas (where Obama won caucuses + primaries) or critical Mountain West swing states like North & South Dakota and Colorado. It has yet to be proven she can win in potential swing states like North Carolina or Kentucky either.
The candidate with the most pledged delegates is the winner. Otherwise the Democratic Party has no business calling itself Democratic.
(BTW Missouri + Virginia + Colorado are now all swing states with 33 electoral votes between them. Ohio has 20. Had Kerry won these three states he would have won. Barack Obama won each of these states over Hillary Clinton. Mark Warner, the former Governor of Virginia, will be running for Senator in Virginia in November 2008. Would his candidacy and popularity be enhanced by having the Clintons at the top of the ballot or Obama? Do Democrats want to lose control of the House and Senate just to get the Clintons at the top of the general election ballot?).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
If we are serious about who has the best chance of defeating John McCain in a year when the Conservative base is likely to stay home, it is not the Democratic candidate that motivates them to get out and vote and who motivates Obama supporters to stay home.
(3) Ethics. More Sexism, Racism, and Identity politics coming from the Clinton camp again today say it all.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Geraldine Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., in an interview published last Friday. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Yeah, I’m sure Hillary’s unfavorability ratings have to do with her being a woman.
BTW. Workers in Pennsylvania should be aware that it was the Clinton camp who met with Canada and reassured them NAFTA is working fine for Wal-Mart.
“Wal-Mart’s First Lady”
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
“Clinton’s rarely been the threat to the business community that many on the right typically allege… She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to “live in the real world.” Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs. “Ask them why they don’t take money from lobbyists,” Wolfson retorts. “We’re proud of our support.”
“Hillary, Inc.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00001:
“Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who was tapped by leaders to oversee ethics overhaul, said the legislation would “ensure that committees aren’t slipping in earmarks in the dead of night.”
After overcoming resistance inside his own party, Mr. Obama pushed for a provision requiring, for the first time, disclosure by lobbyists who bundle political contributions of more than $15,000 in six months.
“My argument was that it was worth it for us to try to be aggressive on this front, particularly since we were just coming into power,” Mr. Obama said, adding that he wished the rules could be enforced by an outside group. “I do think that the public would have more confidence in the process if we had an independent enforcement mechanism.”
The legislation is designed to limit the social interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, making it more difficult for them to get together at sporting events, parties at national political conventions and other social activities.
The bill also deprives former members of Congress who now work as lobbyists of some of the privileges that critics say give them an advantage in pushing legislation. The measure revokes floor privileges to former lawmakers who are lobbying, and denies them access to the House and Senate gyms, other exercise facilities and members-only parking.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html
“The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party’s fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea’s lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.
In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.
“Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,” said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html
“A Chance to Change the Game” by Sen. Barack Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301620.html
“Ethics Fencing in the Senate”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/opinion/15mon4.html
“Bundlers in ‘08”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19fri3.html
Vern is absolutely right; the failing economy is the other side of the same vile coin that is the War on Iraq. A bright light must be beamed on this fact.
Billary, like the Repugs, peddles fear; appealing to the lowest common denominator. The opposite of hope. Wolfson, Ickes, Penn, McCaulliffe, Greenberg, & Carville=Rove, Cheney, etc.
The Obama movement needs to be augmented by a revitalized anti-War movement. This weekend is time to take to the streets!
BTW Kem,
of course those 12 votes that matter so much to you (and I doubt that) don’t include the one vote that matters to everyone else.
You may not care about the Iraq war vote Hillary cast in 2002. Millions of Americans do. Because once that vote was cast, every subsequent vote has been and will continue to be a vote to get the bus out of the ditch that 67 people or 60 people + the president can agree on.
Her vote to invade and occupy a country to steal their oil in the name of ‘terrorism’ that not one single Iraqi committed on 9/11 disqualifies her ipso facto.
Hillary Clinton did not vote for more inspectors. She voted for more war. Read the PLAIN ENLGISH of the resolution that she voted for that has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
The Democratic Party can be the Antiwar Party or it can be the I Don’t Know How to Read English, Conduct an Election, Stand up to the Clintons Party.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 28-March 2, 2008. N=1,126 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”
Worth It 34% Not Worth It 63% Unsure 2%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Have ya’ noticed how Hillary is talkin’ these days? She’s tryin’ to pass herself off as a common Joe - maybe she should try spittin’ and grabbin’ her crotch a little. Maybe an attempt to appeal more to her uneducated base and separate herself from Obama’s intellectual “elite”?
The more I see of her, and the tactics she uses, the sicker I get of her. Can you imagine having to tolerate 4 years of her? Better for her to return to NY and dedicate a few more libraries to add to her resume of experience.
~DOUGWAGNER~ just posted a perfect example of what I previously posted, he refuses to state their voting records and instead says Hillary is pro war when just the opposite is the case. Waqner is spewing the Obama rhetoric instead of substance and the actual voting record of Obama SINCE he has been a US Senator.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/7443/
Obama’s voting record since he has been in the senate is ALL pro war. In addition, on two very important votes, one was the Kyl/Lieberman resolution on Iran, which was actually a vote for war with Iran. Hillary voted NO and Obama didn’t show. The other was the Feingold/Reid ammendment to the Dept of Defense, which requires the president to safely redeploy ALL US troops from Iraq. Hillary voted YES and again Obama didn’t bother to show up to vote.
I won’t post all of their votes, but any who wish to see the major difference in them can check it out. It was very surprising to me and I then saw that Obama’s speeches were really just a lot of well spoken and invigorating bull shit.
A correction on that link I posted.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/
Hillary Clinton is Bush in drag.
Open that link and scroll down to Cindy Sheehan’s blog and read what she thinks of Obama. I’m with Cindy ____ 10,000%.
(1) Hillary voted for the Kyl/Lieberman resolution on Iran. Obama opposed it. Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire. Kyl/Lieberman passed 78-22. John McCain also did not vote because he was campaigning.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/21/hillary-defends-iran-vote_n_69255.html
(2) There are two Democratic Parties right now. The one that voted YES for the Iraq War (the Clintons) and the one that voted NO (Obama).
The one that voted YES lost in 2004. Kerry/Edwards did not inspire the independent voters or the youth vote. This is the same old Pro-war party that is undermining Democracy in the Democratic Party today. They do not now and will not by the end of this race in Puerto Rico in June have the MAJORITY of PLEDGED DELEGATES.
The one that voted NO inspires Democrats, Independents, Liberal Republicans (like Lincoln Chafee, an Obama endorser who unlike Hillary Clinton voted against the Iraq War), and The Youth Vote. They do now and will by the end of this race in Puerto Rico in June have the MAJORITY of PLEDGED DELEGATES. This is the same Antiwar party that Paul Wellstone belonged to, that Dennis Kucinich belongs to, that Ted Kennedy belongs to, that John Lewis belongs to, that Nancy Pelosi belongs to, that Russ Feingold belongs to, and that Tom Daschle, Byron Dorgan, and John Kerry have joined.
The Two Democratic Parties Cannot Both Win. The Pro-War Democratic Party will have to throttle the needle to explain who it is and like Hillary Clinton, will lose on the basis of a multiple personality disorder.
The Antiwar Democratic Party led by Barack Obama at the national level and Iraq War Veteran Patrick Murphy in Pennnsylvania are the New Face of the Democratic Party and can lead this country with a clear conscience.
The 2002 Iraq War Vote
“It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country’s violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy.”- Stephen Zunes, Professor of Political Science, The University of San Francisco
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7245/
The Senate Vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
The House Vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
And there is ~A-true-patriot~ ignorant to the max. Who else wishes to show their total ignorance?
So first Hillary says McCain is more fit to be Commander in Chief than Obama, which must have had the party elders reeling in horror, then she has Geraldine Ferraro saying that Obama is only ahead of her because he’s black. Ferraro is in her campaign, and therefore Hillary approves what she says unless she dumps Ferraro which she hasn’t. This, after her campaign released a photo of Obama artificially darkened and also a photo of him in tribal dress which was claimed to be given by the Clinton campaign - of which Clinton said she doesn’t know anything about it (legalese for no comment). Her sleazy and divisive tactics are unbecoming to a Presidential candidate and driving more and more people away from considering voting for her. Of course, some people will put up with anything she does, even if she goes down in history as having singlehandedly lost the election to McCain and torn the Democratic party to pieces. Blind ambition has no limits.
kathyodat
You are correct on that one Dougwagner, and I was wrong. She did yes on the Kyl /Liberman ammenment, but she has voted progressively twice as often as Obama on all other votes of importance.
Check their votes. Who’s the most progresive by far?
Hillary playing the fear card is just further proof that she is just George Bush in drag…
3am in the morning and the phone rings…Hillary rolls over to Bill and says “Would you stop boinking Monica and answer that please?”
Short on time so I only read about half of the comments. Vern I think it was you pointed out that Krugman didn’t connect the dots, and I agree.
But there is something here being missed by all. There really is something called human nature. The fear that any politician might play to is real, but it is a Hobbesian trap. The continuing escalation of a crisis only leads to a continuing escalation of a crisis. What makes this so bizarre is the conflation of Iran into an enemy of equal stature to the U.S. capable of inflicting the kind of damage to us as we are to them.
A sure guatantee of defeat for Obama would be for him to become the peacenik we all dream about here. He should say quite plainly that IF we are attacked we will respond in kind, and the Iranians (or anyone else,) being possessed of the same human nature as ourselves, will comprehend that they will lose much more than will we.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but I actually agree with riveman’s first comment about Boxer. See what happens when you drop a deceptive facade? People are not so stupid as many here assume.
Gotta run, but I’ll come back and read ALL the comments.
Like the bumper sticker says: If you want peace, work for justice.
Spew on. __ All Canucks are welcome here.
Who Do We Want on the Red Phone
Who do we want on the red red phone?
something fairly terrible may be happening
somewhere in this world that we own
somewhere in this world
It’s three AM and the kids is all tucked in
Oh who do we want on the red red phone
ain’t no good goats to read on the telleprompter
something fairly terrible may be happening
somewhere in this world that we own
bling bling no not that necklace thing
it’s a ring tone in the white white house
who will answer it oh who, who who
will it be a little old lady in a beige pant suit
so debonair and dashing at three AM
who has experience with shock and awe and such
and will not falter with that duck and cover thing
Do we need an answer or should we just let it ring?
Who do we want on the red red phone?
something fairly terrible may be happening
somewhere in this world that we own
somewhere in this world
Mc Cain & Abel
Mc Cain are you truly able
to save that black gold
in the oily fertile valley for the few?
Are we truly able to pay for a century of strife
Are we truly able?
Say…..Mc Cain
Who slew Abel?
Skull and bones sounds like a fraternity
Did your jungle Nam jet get lost in fratricide?
The Qur’an and the Bible don’t have much to hide
they both concur on Abel
but are you Cain?
or like a farmer of old for told on a scroll
by the holy depleted U dead sea
Mr. Mc Cain are you blamed for starting eternal strife?
Would you prefer a bomb or a knife?
How about a name like Sue?
Aren’t you glad your framed as blue?
Does a villain know what he must do?
Do we allow her to play the game in order to take power?
NO!!!!!
We need to change the game.
Don’t vote for people who use negative advertising
and fear to win elections.
Vince Lawrence, Obama has been very clear that he would not hesitate to fight back against any attackers, but since memories appear to be short, perhaps he would do well to reiterate.
kathyodat
How about those who distort their actual and true voting record, __ Ok to vote for them??
I loved the title of this article. Hillary isn’t “flirting with fear” she is having a full blown orgasmic affair with fear.!
What is racial about stating that Obama has the black vote and Hillary has the Latino vote? I just saw the governor of Pennnsylvania say the Philly area will probably go to Obama because there are a lot of Afro-American voters in that location of Pa. The newcasters say it all of the time, Obama won North and South Carolina and will win Mississippi because of the black vote. It’s just a fact. Is that racial?
Okay, you Clinton apologists - how do you spin the fact that Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh’s show the day of the Texas primary?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-went-on.html
Here’s the post by Andrew Sullivan:
You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh’s show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.
Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
There also seems little doubt that Republican mischief played a real role in affecting the results. And they call Obama’s call for them to release their tax returns a tactic worthy of Ken Starr. I repeat: the chutzpah and the cynicism just leave you speechless. And as you find it impossible to do much but splutter, the Clintons plow on with new self-serving lies.
You know how I realized this? I saw first hand the way they dealt with gay issues in their first term. They didn’t just wimp out on our push for marriage equality, they actively pivoted off homophobia to get a few points (ask Dick Morris; it’s one of the things he’s actually ashamed of in retrospect). The Clintons even put anti-gay ads on Christianist radio stations in the South to build support for the 1996 re-election. And they continue to show up at gay events claiming to be avatars for our civil rights. And the stupid gays still believe them!
Kem Patrick asserts:
“one [very important vote] was the Kyl/Lieberman resolution on Iran, which was actually a vote for war with Iran. Hillary voted NO and Obama didn’t show.”
Reality: Hillary voted FOR that resolution, FOR war with Iran.
Kem Patrick also asserts: “The other [very important vote] was the Feingold/Reid ammendment to the Dept of Defense, which requires the president to safely redeploy ALL US troops from Iraq. Hillary voted YES and again Obama didn’t bother to show up to vote.”
Reality: Both Clinton and Obama voted in favor of Feingold-Reid.
“I won’t post all of their votes, but any who wish to see the major difference in them can check it out.”
Barack Obama, who has been in the Senate only four years, has authored or co-authored 579 bills on every conceivable subject (and has sponsored over 800 bills). Hillary Clinton, who has been in the Senate for eight years, has authored or co-authored only 20 bills, 15 of which were concerned with honoring this-or-that person, naming roads, bridges, and post offices after them, or designating holidays. While Obama has been working like a house of fire, she’s been a passive space-filler, showing no initiative, and content to sit back, collect a paycheck, and vote on other people’s work. A “major difference,” indeed. [corrected with exact figures]
“It was very surprising to me and I then saw that Obama’s speeches were really just a lot of well spoken and invigorating bull shit.”
If that were true, it would put them in line with your own post (except for the “well spoken and invigorating” bit).
How did they vote, other than the ones ~Dougwagner~ posts?
Tort Reform:__ Clinton, NO.__ Obama, YES __ McCain, YES.
Dayton Ammendment: __ Clinton,YES __Obama, NO __McCain, NO.
Dorgan Ammendment: __Clinton, YES__Obama, NO __McCain, NO.
Obama has voted yes every time on bills that support the Iraqi occupation. He voted yes to comfirm Condy Rice, John Roberts and Samual Alito. He joined those senators that opposed a fillibuter to prevent the Gonzales appointment. He voted to confirm Chertoff and John Negroponte. He has sided with Bush, McCain and Liberman continually. If he is electred to the presidency, expect no changes.
Did anyone watch McCain on 60 Minutes last Sunday? He was as meek, mild, and humble as you could ever want a President to be.
And he was every bit as vague and non-specific as they claim Obama is. Sure he’s for “winning the war on terror”. How? He won’t say. Doesn’t want to “tip off” the enemy.
The economy? “I’m not a expert in that area, but our economy is fundamentally still sound”.
Sheesh! That may be good enough for the old guys down at the Legion Hall.
But “Weathervane” McCain will have to do better than that before November.
~CLASSIC lIBERAL 2~ I had already posted that I erred on one item about Hillary’s vote.
Obama has co-authored over 200 items and most never saw the light of day. It sounds good though. What is his ACTUAL voting record since he has been in the Senate should be the primary concern. He is as near to a Bush as McCain is.
I agree with Cindy Sheehan on that one.
I put a wrong vote of Obamas in my 4:48 pm post, I want to see if any actually check ALL of their votes so they can correct me on it. The truth is their voting record for the past three years, not my own or anyone elses personal opinions.
Kem Patrick asserts:
“Obama has voted yes every time on bills that support the Iraqi occupation.”
Reality: Obama voted in favor of Feingold-Reid, which would have ended it.
“He voted yes to comfirm Condy Rice, John Roberts and Samual Alito.”
Reality: Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts. He explained his vote for Rice by saying a president has the right to pick his own inner circle, a sentiment with which most will agree (evidenced by the 85-13 vote for her confirmation).
I didn’t check out the rest of your claims. I suspect there are plenty of other false ones in the batch. This is pretty typical of Hillary Clinton’s supporters–monkey see, monkey do.
“If he is electred to the presidency, expect no changes.”
Again, we’re talking about a fellow who has authored or co-authored 579 bills on every conceivable subject in his 4 years in the Senate, compared to a woman who has spent 8 years, there, and has authored or co-authored only 20 bills, 15 of them being pure fluff. You have no case, here, and only embarrass yourself with this rot.
EDIT: The numbers I’ve been using for Obama, here, are wrong. I was looking at the wrong place in my notes. Those were numbers for his first year in the Senate. Alone. The correct figure: During his entire time in the Senate, up until the end of 2007, he has authored or co-authored 1,986 bills.
How did he vote for the Fiengold/Reid ammendment if he wasn’t there to vote?
McSame telling America to “Stay the Course” has to be a pretty empty strategy these days. I was very ashamed that the US gave Dubyuh 4 more years to destroy the world. That they were dumb and scairt is pretty cold comfort. By 2004 the internet was in full bloom. Are Americans really so apathetic as to believe what ever the MSM puts on page one these days? The big issue this time around will be the War/Economy factor. They are two peas in a pod. Even though the “What’s the matter with Kansas” phenom was shocking, seeing millions vote against their own interests again will be twice as shocking this time.
Hillary was an OK candidate in my opinion until she started loosing, throwing kitchen sinks, and showing desperation that is not becoming anywhere outside of a drunken knife fight to the death!
Admiral Fallon has resigned so look out now. And Obama supports Lieberman and McCain and Bush on the Iran issue. ____ Hillary does not.
There are REAL fear tactics for us, not political speeches bull-shit, which is tossed by both sides.
Voting records are good in that they are ACTIONS that can be confirmed. As opposed to just talk.
But, you still have to be careful. There are a lot of games played with these things. Especially by Senators who know they are running for President. And both Hillary and Obama have known that they are running for President from the day they entered the Senate.
Here’s some of the games played with voting records.
–Sometimes there are multiple votes on a bill. And sometimes the key vote is a more proceedural type of vote that comes before the final vote on passage\confirmation.
Example: confirmation of the last two Surpreme Court justices. The key vote was the cloture vote to end the attempts at a filibuster. Everyone in the Senate counts votes on everything. Everyone knows where it stands. In this case, everyone knew the Republicans and the DINO’s had the 51 votes for confirmation. The vote on the filibuster was the real vote with a chance to block the nomination. My local DINO senator (Salazar D-CO) is a good case study. He opposed the filibuster and voted with the Republicans to end it. This means on the key vote he was standing side-by-side with the Republicans. Then, the confirmation vote itself was largely symbolic. Everyone knew that it would pass. Salazar then cast a purely symbolic vote against confirmation.
– Once a bill has enough votes for passage, some votes are ‘turned loose’. Like I said, everyone knows the vote counts. So, on a key vote, once the leadership knows they’ve got say 53-54 votes, they can ‘turn loose’ other Senators. That way, a Senator could feel one way about a measure, but vote in a way that’s more politically correct because they know its going to pass anyways. I’d put the last votes in the Senate on ‘war funding’ in that category. Both Obama and Hillary had been voting to fully fund the war since joining the Senate. But the last time, after Reid knew he had enough votes to secure the funding, both Obama and Hillary voted against it. To me, that smells like they knew that was the vote primary voters wanted, and they could safely cast it knowing it would not cause the war they’d been supporting all along to be unfunded.
– Similarly, sometimes there are deals on who votes in favor of an unpopular measure. An example would be the last Senate vote on letting the govt spy on Americans and giving the telecoms immunity. The Dem leadership, which had been pushing the bill through the Senate all along, knew they only needed a handful of Dem votes to go with the Republicans to get passage. Probably in negotiations, the Republicans had said they wanted a certain number of Dem votes, more than just required to get to 51, to make the bill look more bi-partisan. If you look closely at the Dems who voted in favor of the bill, they were all Senators who’s re-election bids were 2 to 4 years away. It looked like the Dem leadership got those Senators to vote that way to allow the ones up for re-election sooner to vote No. The really funny part was Sen. Reid voting No. He’d been shepparding the bill through the Senate all along and working hard to make sure it passed. Then on the final vote he votes no. That’s obvious BS.
So, sometimes you’ll see Senators take some unpopular votes ‘for the team’ in the first few years after their re-election, then start voting in a way their constituents might want closer to the election. This is purely them taking a tough vote when its best for them, in return getting others to do the same later.
All of this is why voting records don’t really always mean much. And compilations of voting records are even more suspect.
I’d ask a couple of key questions. 1) In general, how do you feel about the US Senate and the actions its been taking, or not taking? And 2) has a particular Senator stood out as being a bit of a ‘rebel’ or a ‘maverick’ consistently while in the Senate? For the latter, think of someone like Wellstone. You didn’t need to check voting records to know where he stood.
But, if you don’t like the general course the Senate has been taking, and if a particular Senator hasn’t been their obviously fighting all along, I’m very sceptical about what a ‘voting record’ might show.
To me, I don’t like the course the Senate’s been taking. And I haven’t seen either Hillary or Obama up their fighting very often.
Even authoring or co-authoring a bill can be played with. For an example using Obama, read this piece.
That Obama Glow
By JOSHUA FRANK
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02222008.html
“In 2006 Obama took up the cause of Illinois residents who were angry with Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, for not having disclosed a leak at one of their nuclear plants in the state. Obama responded by quickly introducing a bill that would require nuclear facilities to immediately notify state and federal agencies of all leaks, large or small.
At first it seemed Obama was intent on making a change in the reporting protocol, even demonizing Exelon’s inaction in the press…”
{snip}
“Despite his initial push to advance the legislation, Obama’s office eventually rewrote the bill, producing a version that was palatable to Exelon and the rest of the nuclear industry. “Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Illinois, where the nuclear leaks had polluted local ground water. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
Inevitably the bill died a slow death in the Senate. And like an experienced political operative, Obama came out of the battle as a martyr for both sides of the cause. His constituents back in Illinois thought he fought a good fight while industry insiders knew the Obama machine was worth investing in. “
Kem Patrick say: ”
“How did he [Obama] vote for the Fiengold/Reid ammendment if he wasn’t there to vote?”
Answer: Because he was there, and did vote in favor of it. Here’s his announcement, in which he also introduced his own redeployment plan:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070515-obama_statement_57/
Wow, 579 bills in only four years. That’s 144 a year if the Senate worked 365 days of the year, and he’s been campainging for the presidency for almost 18 months, doesn’t even have time to vote on some important bills. Woweee, he is a hell of a worker. Maybe I’m wrong. Butttttt, there is his actual voting record. I dunno?
Kem, you’re lying. Judgment Matters on Day One. Barack has it.
Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton do not. Be sure to thank Hillary for voting to invade a country half way around the world that was not harboring terrorists that attacked the United States on 9/11. It’s done a lot for our economy.
BTW Hillary voted for the Kyl/Lieberman resolution on Iran. Obama opposed it. Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire. Kyl/Lieberman passed 76-22. John McCain also did not vote because he was campaigning.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/21/hillary-defends-iran-vote_n_69255.html
I’m not sure you can say Hillary opposes Lieberman et al on Iran. For instance, back when the vote in the Senate was over whether to call Iran’s Republican Guard a ‘terrorist organization’, Hillary voted in favor of Lieberman’s bill.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html
“As Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said, “At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.” He added that Lieberman-Kyl “is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.””
BTW, Obama showed great courage and ‘missed the vote.’
Kem Patrick claims:
“Obama supports Lieberman and McCain and Bush on the Iran issue. ____ Hillary does not.”
Reality: Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman, “which was actually a vote for war with Iran,” exactly as you wrote earlier. She’s the one with Bush on this one.
“There are REAL fear tactics for us, not political speeches bull-shit, which is tossed by both sides.”
Image of a phone ringing in the early hours of the morning…
Hey everyone who gives a damn, I erred when I wrote Hillary voted no on the Kyl/Lieberman vote. I said I erred a long time past here. This is the third time someone has brought it up, now I’m a liar because I made one mistake. Whatever you say Doug Wagner.
~Classic Liberal~ that link you posted was a press statment Obama made on the Feingoold issue, he didn’t vote on it, he was not there to vote.
I still fully agree with Cindy Sheehan and half of the other Americans voters.
come on guys, give a girl a break……she has had to live with an ‘impeached’ husband for years………….it’s payback time for bill. (anything you can do, i can do better.)
Remember, Reid’s votes in the Senate on Iraq were almost entirely just political theater. The goal was to create the illusion of opposition to the war, while at the same time the war was being fully funded. The Dems were catching a lot of heat for not stopping the funding of the war, so that was when you were seeing a lot of these ‘political theater’ type of votes.
What it did was to give Senators the ability to appear to cast a vote against the war when in actuallity, these votes were going to do nothing to stop the war. I’m going entirely from memory, but I think this particular vote was on a measure that everyone knew the Bush would veto later on and that the votes were not there to overturn the veto. Thus, the vote on this particular measure was purely symbolic.
The real power the Constitution gives Congress to control the executive is that Congress controls the money. So the real option to end the war was to block the funding of the war. That’s the way the founders designed the system. And especially, the real power they give the minority in the Senate is the filibuster.
So, where were Hillary and Obama in terms of a filibuster against the war funding? Nowhere to be found. Or more accurately, lined up with McCain and the Republicans making sure the funding was not blocked.
Kem Patrick say:
“Wow, 579 bills in only four years.”
No, no, Kem–you missed my correction. Those numbers were only for his first year in the Senate. One year. The correct figure: During his entire time in the Senate, up until the end of 2007, he has authored or co-authored 1,986 bills. To Clinton’s 20 (15 of which are fluff bills).
“Woweee, he is a hell of a worker.”
Yep. That’s someone who actually wants to do something, rather than just be a passive space-filler like Clinton, who just sits back, votes on other people’s work, and collects a paycheck.
KEM PATRICK:
“Obama has voted yes every time on bills that support the Iraqi occupation. He voted yes to comfirm Condy Rice, John Roberts and Samual Alito.”
Complete misinformation, he voted against John Roberts and Samuel Alito. I hate to use the dreaded MSM as proof, but this isn’t difficult to look up:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276453/
You also said “The other was the Feingold/Reid ammendment to the Dept of Defense, which requires the president to safely redeploy ALL US troops from Iraq. Hillary voted YES and again Obama didn’t bother to show up to vote.”
Also completely false. He voted for the bill.
Here’s a few links showing you’re completely off, if they mean anything to you.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10815.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00167#top
There is a growing list of complete misinformation you’ve posted about Obama in this thread alone. And the fact that you’re trying to spin the Clintons of all people as being more progressive is high comedy. Obama is no progressive savior and I won’t be voting for him or Clinton this November, but perhaps you should stop posting so often and so passionately about the man until you get your basic facts straight?
Hillary voted yes on the Kly/Liberman resolution, Obama skipped that vote, but he has voted pro-war 20 times and his voting record is far from that of Clinton. He has voted along with McCain and Liberman more often than Hillary has. __ Check it out.
Interesting. Americans vote for safety, but in 2004 (allegedly) re-installed the psychopathic criminal enterprise that is the only true existential threat to their diminishing nation.
Kem Patrick say:
“Hey everyone who gives a damn, I erred when I wrote Hillary voted no on the Kyl/Lieberman vote. I said I erred a long time past here. This is the third time someone has brought it up, now I’m a liar because I made one mistake. Whatever you say Doug Wagner.”
You said you made a mistake, admitted it, then turned right back around and claimed “Obama supports Lieberman and McCain and Bush on the Iran issue. ____ Hillary does not.” Hillary voted FOR that war; Obama did not. If you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t lie.
“~Classic Liberal~ that link you posted was a press statment Obama made on the Feingoold issue, he didn’t vote on it, he was not there to vote.”
The Senators voting for Feingold-Reid: Akaka (D-HI), Biden (D-DE), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reid (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00167#top
Again, if you don’t like being called a liar, trying lying less.
See my example in my long post above. Votes against confirmation of the SC justices are very suspect. The real vote was a day or so before on a cloture vote to end the filibuster. Senators who’d voted with the Republicans to end the filibuster (which everyone knew ensured confirmation), then turned around and voted ‘against’ confirmation on the final vote.
So, I don’t give a damn how Obama voted on the final confirmation vote. What’s more interesting was whether he was doing everything he could to support the filibuster, or did he side with the Republicans on the vote that mattered?
eyeronie say, to Kem Patrick:
“There is a growing list of complete misinformation you’ve posted about Obama in this thread alone. And the fact that you’re trying to spin the Clintons of all people as being more progressive is high comedy. Obama is no progressive savior and I won’t be voting for him or Clinton this November, but perhaps you should stop posting so often and so passionately about the man until you get your basic facts straight?”
A solid recommendation. I would add to your comments only this: It would also help if Kem would get his basic facts straight regarding Hillary Clinton’s record. He’s been posting complete misinformation about her, as well, as I’ve been demonstrating.
~CLASSICLIBERAL~ Read this link. I fully agree with Cindy Sheehan’s assesment of Obama with her comment posted there. You may agree with ~Riverman~ and ~Dougwagner~ if you wish.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/
It is ludicrous to any sensible person to believe that any Senators ever, have actually worked on 1,986 bills in four years. That would be (662) bills a year. The Senate is in sessin about 200 days a year. Lets give them 210 a year and Obama has been away from Washington DC most of the time for the past 18 or so months. That IS political spin. ___ Total Bull.
On the Alito confirmation fight, here’s a great timeline\summary.
http://www.democrats.com/alito-48
10:10 a.m: Good news and bad news: Sen. Obama told George Staphylococcus he will (reluctantly) support the filibuster (#14), but also that it would fail - without identifying which Democrats would cause it to fail, which would help us turn them around. Obama said he opposed “procedural maneuvers”
————–
So, to me Sen. Obama was reluctantly dragged into supporting the filibuster. Most likely because he was already running for President and he could see the energy the Dem base was putting into that at the time. So, he gets a bit of a point for actually voting to sustain the filibuster. But, since he knew the filibuster would fail, that was also very much a ’safe’ vote. IE, he knew that casting this vote would not actually block Alito from the court.
Yes, Ira Chernus nailed it. The deeper fears that guide people. What could be more critical to survival than the promise of safety. I, myself have noticed in these weeks of The BillaryslashObama Slayfest, I have found myself finding McCain’s, silence in this storm - reeking of fatherly stability. Of course, I know McSame is a loose nut, red faced rage squirrel if the “Democratic” mediafest werent focused on “The Democrats”, rather than those Republican Despotcrats…
Okay I’ll try to stop “lying”. It wasn’t intentional. You see, there were other votes concerning the Iran issue and Hillary opposed most of those issues and Obama didn’t. That’s why I say he supports Liberman and he has publically stated he supports Lieberman’s positions on the Mid-East region.
Read that article in the link I offered and read Bob K’s comments also. He nailed it far better than I did and made no stupid lying errors.
Kem Patrick, why do you love Hillary so much? I felt that both Clinton and Obama have had voting records that could be better. That is why I favored first Kucinich, and then Edwards. Kucinich was disappeared by corporate media. As Edwards was in the process of being disappeared, I got a good look at Obama and saw a man leading a movement, inspiring people who were previously alienated from the whole process.
The Kyl/Lieberman vote was not a small error on Clinton’s part, nor was your errant representation of it. So, Clinton is joining Bush and McCain in their belligerance toward Iran; just as she erred on the Iraq War vote that “got us into the ditch”. Then, she chides
Obama for being naive for a willingness to talk with our adversaries. Remember, it was Churchill who said it is better to jaw, jaw,
jaw than to war, war, war. And, remember, it is Bush who has rebuffed efforts by Iran to seriously negotiate. All I see from Clinton is a joining w/the Repugs in demonizing Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc. Where will that take us?
I hope you will join your friend Cindy Sheehan in the streets this weekend to protest the War/Occupation and the mind-set that got us into it.
Back to some thoughts on Ira Chernus’s thoughts.
Look at the phrasing of the “atypical” public opinion poll result central to Paul Krugman’s column: “53 per cent of the public believes that the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. What goals?
I’m staunchly antiwar, and hate the Iraq war in particular. I’ve picketed and speechified against it, and consider ending the US military occupation there to be the overriding issue for the 2008 campaign, since absolutely nothing can be done about the US economy until that trillion dollar boondoggle is ended. But if a pollster asked me that question, I’d answer it “Yes”, too.
I believe the goals of the invasion were to get US corporate hands on Iraqi oil reserves, shovel billions of additional loosely audited dollars to the Pentagon and its favorite contractors, and in the process enmesh American ground troops into a perpetual, “low insensity” urban counterinsurgency effort that can be milked through propaganda and racist fear mongering to garner domestic partisan advantage for the militarist right wing of the Republican Party. To a very large extent, those goals definitely have been achieved, and probably will continue to be achieved, until the madness stops.
Similarly, if the respondents equated US goals with the shorter term goals of the surge, an affirmative answer is also called for: who didn’t expect bribing the Sunni tribes, the Mahdi army to taking a reorganizational break, the completion of major ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and large scale indefinite detention sweeps in insurgent areas to yield a temporary decrease in violence? I fully expected those cosmetic goals to be achieved. Again, I’d answer the pollster “Yes”.
If 47% of the responding public agree with Harry Reid that the war in Iraq is already lost, and a portion of the 53% of respondents who answered “Yes” include antiwar people who define the United States’ “goals” similar to the way I might, and who see events in the Middle East “succeeding” as they spiral off in an all too-familiar pattern of lethal ebb and flow, then this poll result actually proves the opposite of Mr. Krugman’s thesis.
Second, Ira is right that two of the three campaigns are pushing the war back to center stage right now, but I think he’s missing how the Obama campaign has parried, and should continue to parry, all the macho toughness demagoguery.
It’s not about surrender, it’s about ending an unjust occupation that drains national resources and multiplies the number of real world terrorists who have a bone to pick with Uncle Sam. It’s all fine to be tough, but you got to be right in the first place.
If Barack sticks to that sort of simple theme, ending the occupation of Iraq can work for him against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It’s a genuine values issue that they just don’t get.
Bill from Saginaw
“It may be hard for a lot of liberals to wrap their minds around the emotional power of symbolic thinking.”
I have posted since January that the Dems could easily win in November if they formed a ‘United’ party. But egos get in the way, don’t they?
They could have started in February the campaign “rebirth of Democracy”, since it was 9 months until election.
Is that symbolic enough?
Instead the Democratic Party will do their only dance and take a step to the right, take a step to the right.
Right into McCain-land. Just you watch.
Hillary’s “Fear & Smear” campaing is a true revelation of what she would offer as a future president. Thankfully she does stand a chance - just like a SNOWBALL IN HELL.
YES WE CAN - OBAMA 08 - WAY TO GO IN SEARCH OF A HOPEFUL AND BETTER FUTURE FOR THE US of A.
I guess it will never change. Let me say it. THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ- IT IS AN OCCUPATION. In Afghanistan it is an incompetent exercise to make it appear that Washington is protecting someone somewhere. These occupations and invasions will go on and on with no sign of victory because they are not wars. War on drugs, war on terror. We need a war on the stupidity and ignorance in the media and populace where people use emotions as a substitute for common sense.
Lie to me once shame on you, lie to me twice, the then next time will be three times and by then I will forget that you are a liar. Bush is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a liar as well, yet he gets away with it day after day after day.
The Pentagon prove it again today. No relationship between Iraq under Saddam and Osama. No weapons- and McCain can win by protecting us- from what, from our leaders?
Hey people, Kem’s a friend of mine and no liar, even if he sometimes gets his facts a little tangled in his enthusiasm for Hillary. He and I don’t agree on this issue but we can still be friends.
My concern about Hillary is that she is showing no moral standards, and people go on supporting her as if that doesn’t matter. Bush did a smear campaign against McCain in 2000 and got almost half the votes in the country. Hillary is doing a smear campaign against Obama and still has a large number of people, some of whom consider themselves progressives. What’s happened to our moral compass? Got magnetized? What kind of example are setting for our young people? Anything goes?
kathyodat
Krugman sez: “… public optimism about Iraq is rising: 53 percent of the public believes that the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals.”
Lessee, the goals:
•Establish permanent military and economic occupation in the middle of the world’s largest accumulation of proven oil reserves before China, India, et al establish claims in the region;
•Control the supply of that resource for the benefit of transnational corporations, that they might suppress supply and drive up profits;
•Continue the funneling of the public treasury into the hands of corporate patrons through multiple layers of private subcontractors, each working with no-bid, cost-plus contracts;
•Establish a narrative framework of unending threat to the “Fatherland”, allowing the patrons’ representatives in Washington to continue dismantling the constitution with propaganda-based governance. (Election ‘08, anyone?)
•Recruitment and on-the-job training of privately contracted paramilitary security forces, in preparation for their need in quelling domestic unrest.
There’s more, but in the main I’d have to say I’m part of the 53 percent who agrees the “United States” will probably achieve its goals.
It will also achieve the collapse of empire (see: Afghanistan, Russian occupation of), although I’m mildly disturbed by the fact this will be the first empire to collapse while in possession of thousands of nuclear warheads.
~RUMILUV~ You will not ever find ANY blog I ever wrote that says I love Hillary Clinton. I do not.
Don’t assume. Primarily what I have posted here, is Hillary’s votes are more progressive than Obama’s votes are by a two to one margin and that he is mis-represinting his position on the Iraqi occupation. Obama may be our next president because of that. ___That bothers me.
I did not intentionally lie. I asked everyone to check their votes. It would be rather stupid of me to intentionally lie about a vote they made and then ask others to check out their votes and they could easily see I erred on one item.
I also have continually posted comments here at CD that I oppose the war and the occupation of Iraq and I would pull our troops out of Iraq today if I had that power. I’d also shut down that Green Zone embassy and fire Halliburton and KBR and have a lot of people, includng some Blackwater troops arrested and have Bush and Cheney impeached if I had that power.
I do support Cindy Sheehan and I also fully agree with her commments about Obama concerning his votes on the Iraqi and Iran issues. You obviously do not agree with Cindy on that and that’s your perogative and I won’t comdemn you for whomever you support, nor assume you are in love with them.
Looking back, John Edwards was really the only viable candidate. I am not a big fan of his, nor do I believe he would be able to deliver fully on change, but Obama has too many skeletons, and lets face it, there are a number of people in this country who simply will not vote for a person of color who has connections with Islam. It’s sad, but true. Sure, the young people like him, but they don’t vote in enough numbers to make a difference.
The fact that Hillary could still be in the running at this stage despite her voting record and comments on Iraq and Iran is just so mind boggling. That fear ad is just more evidence to show where she stands on terror and war, and her still being in the race is more evidence people are really too dumb to be voting for President. Skeletons and all, with Edwards out, Obama should have been a slam dunk.
Maybe we should just give the job to the CEO of the corporation who pays the most taxes over each 4 year period, and offer them financial incentives (0.1% of corporate tax revenues) so they don’t take a pay cut and don’t give away too many goodies to the corporations. It couldn’t be worse than this crappy system.
~Goebbels and Bill~ I sure do agree with you guys and it distubs me a great deal that we are probably going to have a depresion this year and resulting in a failed nation. A nation which has thousands of nuclear weapons and a paranoid maniac in control of them. If we have a depression this year, Bush may very well end up as our King George and be so for a long, long time. He has the presidential directive powers to do just that.
MIMI, You find it mind boggling that Hillary is stil in contention because of her votes and stands on the Iraqi issues. Once again, check both of their votes on the Iraqi issue. Obama is worse in that regard. Few ever check his actual votes, they just listen to his well delivered speeches.
MiMiCcS, where are you coming from? Obama has too many skeletons? And connections with Islam? You’re making all this up. Or spending too much time with Rush Limbaugh.
One thing Hillary has in common with George W bush is loyalty for her minions. She doesn’t approve of Ferraro’s racist comments but wouldn’t dream of asking her to leave. But considering the smears that have come out of her campaign, which she can’t track down, not surprising. Just imagine what a Clinton administration would look like. It would look like her campaign. No accountability.
kathyodat
Kem Patrick, I am not arguing about Cindy Sheehan’s statements re Obama. I am only saying that there is much that Cindy disagrees with Clinton about also. I wondered why you seemed to love her as a candidate, and do not assume that you are in love with her.
kathyodat, I too, believe the Clintoncampaign’s Rovian tactics are despicable. They’re getting away w/it, much as Bush did, because most of the corporate media normalizes it. Obama gets chided for not being a “fighter.” Can you hear me CNN?
the only reason I’m willing to vote for a Democrat is because of Obama. I would never vote for a DLC Democrat, and above all, not one of the founders of the DLC, which means Hillary and Bill. It is the DLC that has ruined the Democratic party and accelerated the destruction of the middle class. Thanks Hillary and Bill. By the way, how did they manage to get $60 million richer in under 7 years? Want to take odds that we won’t find out? Anymore than Hillary would drop attack dog Ferraro from her campaign no matter what she says about Obama?
The DLC actually listed Obama as a member without his permission or knowledge and when he found out he immediately demanded they take his name off their list, which they did.
I’m getting a suspicion that this fall I’ll be going back to Nader, and all those energized young people will be out in the cold.
Riverman is right about Hillary having no coattails, assuming she could even win, which I doubt. She’s given McCain his talking points. Amazing how much of a disaster one person can be to a party.
kathyodat
Kem Patrick says:
“I did not intentionally lie. I asked everyone to check their votes.”
Checking their votes is something you completely failed to do, and that’s only if we accept your contention that you never intentionally lied. That didn’t stop you from ranting and raving about it anyway. and getting most of what you posted completely wrong. Arguing the difference between intentional malice and rank stupidity in this matter is a bit like arguing it in the case of Bush and Iraq–in the end, there really isn’t any difference.
“It would be rather stupid of me to intentionally lie about a vote they made and then ask others to check out their votes and they could easily see I erred on one item.”
No, they could easily see you “erred” on most of what you said!
Some of your hits, in this thread alone:
–You said Hillary Clinton voted against war with Iran (Kyl-Lieberman)–in fact, she voted in favor of it.
–You said Obama didn’t bother to show up for the vote on Feingold-Reid–in fact, he did show up and voted in favor of it, along with introducing his own plan for withdrawal.
–You said Obama voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court–in fact, he voted against him.
–You said Obama voted to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court–in fact, he voted against him.
–You continued to lie about both the Kyl-Lieberman and the Feingold-Reid votes after your earlier assertions were exposed as false, and to suggest that those of us trying to correct the record were wrong.
–In this last post, you only claimed to have “erred on one item.” The ones I’ve listed here are just the ones I identified.
The DLC is a cancer on the party. I have written this repeatedly to the DNC, and have asked them to extricate themselves from the DLC; but, they may be too intertwined.
I urge everyone to contact their Congresspeople/superdelegates, as i have also done, and argue why they should support Obama.
Oh, and tell them to end the occupation, stop free trade w/Colombia, end military aid to Colombia, etc.
It is becoming quite obvious why the Neocon media decided early that our two “front runners” were Hillary and Obama. They are smart enough to know this fiasco of Dems tearing each other apart would happen. Apparently the hatred of Hillary has eclipsed the disdain for Bush, Cheney, McCain, and others who are wrecking the country.
Even Keith Olberman has gotten into the Hillary is the enemy mindset and forgotten who we must get out of control if we still want a country. You can battle over every little vote, but remember who took our functioning country and in eight years nearly ruined it.
Stay in there, Kem, most of this posting reads like poor fiction instead of intelligent discussion. Obama is probably acceptable, but this hero worship will not turn