This Post Will Make More Sense if You Read the Byline
May 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm by Chris
Based on no data at all, I think this is largely true.
Admittedly, this is the kind of counterfactual that’s impossible to prove, but my guess is that if she had voted against the war Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. Given the closeness of the race, her inherent advantages going in, and that the war had to be a liability it’s hard to imagine that she wouldn’t have prevailed without the Iraq albatross. Whether or not Clinton’s support was sincere — I don’t think it really matters — sometimes getting big policies wrong really is politically damaging. (See also the 2006 midterms.) This is evidently a good thing.
I don’t know how typical I am of people who voted for Obama, but I went into the primary not even considering anybody who voted for the war. Obviously that ruled out just about everybody except for Richardson and Obama. Oh, and Kucinich, but I have other reasons for not supporting him which are too boring to write about right now.
I generally favor Clinton’s approach to Obama’s on most of the issues, though I think they’re both entirely too tepid on nearly everything. Had she not voted for the authorization to use force, I almost certainly would have supported her. I don’t know how many people there are like me, but I suspect that in an election this tight and with the proportional system allowing small shifts to make a significant difference, that there were enough of us to have caused a problem for Clinton.
I think if Obama had campaigned the same way he has done, it wouldn’t matter how Hillary had voted on the war, because the minute his campaign convinced a lot of people that Hillary’s was race-baiting, it’d be exactly the way it is now, with people refusing to vote for her because she said “spadework”.
Avedon - I disagree. Hillary started with a problem, and that problem was her authorization vote. It’s pretty surprising how the blogosphere has shifted on that ONE issue in 4 years. Kerry was a bad taste in 2004, but better than the puke flavor Bush was pushing, but there was no reason to accept someone who can’t even today admit that the authorization was a mistake in 2008.
I’ve said before that I think the great divide between Clinton and Obama supporters is their stance on the War, and war generally. As far as I can tell, the great majority of people who marched against invading Iraq are prObama, and against Hillary.
While either would be preferable to McCain (Four more years! Four more years!), Hillary’s war vote and subsequent statements about “obliterating” Iran, etc., loom large. On the most important issue of the day, she went along with the lies and bullshit, and cast her lot in with Darth Cheney and Emperor Bush. You lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas.
Hundreds of thousands of people killed, according to Johns Hopkins and others. No small matter, to put it mildly. A deal-breaker for many potential supporters. Despite Big Bill’s claim that it’s a “fairy tale” to say Obama is different on this issue, the facts speak for themselves.
Avedon: wtf? Obama won by race-baiting? I thought he won by periodically being misogynistic and flipping her the bird. Are you an Ann Coulter fan by any chance?
Chris: the problem is Sen. Clinton wouldn’t be Sen. Clinton had she not voted for AUMF. It’s like saying Bush wouldn’t be so bad if not for the needless war, incompetence, and zealots he surrounds himself with.
I’m amazed by the number of leftists who act as though her AUMF vote was some sort of anomaly. It wasn’t. It is perfectly in keeping with her overall view of national politics. She has received more money from defense contractors than any candidate in history. Because they’re fools and don’t realize she’s a dove? She’s already threatened to blast Iran back to the Stone Age.
Personally I don’t find her progressive at all, with the possible exception of health care - and anyone willing to go beyond the cliché “she wants universality” and actually try and plow through the muddled mess of a health care plan she submitted in 93 will find out it was anything but progressive – it was a full profit plan for the Big 5. But, even accepting her as some great domestic progressive, the best you can argue is she’s a Teddy Roosevelt progressive – some good things might come at home but the little brown people of the world better get to work on their fallout shelters. She’s a hawks hawk. After 8 years of Bush the last thing we need is another damned hawk. Clinton v. McCain is far less a choice militarily than Obama v. McCain.
I’m not an Obama supporter and won’t be voting for him should he be given the dem nomination, but I wonder why it doesn’t bother his supporters that once in the Senate, he’s supported every Iraq funding measure.
His stance when he wasn’t in the Senate means nothing; his support of the war since becoming a Senator is more telling.
B J White: Because American troops are in the field. Vote no on funding and what happens? They board transports and come home? NO. It doesn’t work like that. Funding is necessary at this point. Want to see the war over? Elect a president who is running on a bring the troops home ticket. No, it doesn’t mean the day after he takes the oath of office they come home. It’s too complex and tangled at this point for that to happen. It will take at least a year. And in the meantime funding those troops will be absolutely necessary. See, that’s why it’s so damned important to not vote for such insane policies to begin with.
But in Gum Drop Land Queen HRC is the antiwar candidate and apparently you live there. Hope the weather’s nice.
Nobody who opposes the war is really happy about Obama’s Senate record on this. However … He DIDN’T vote to start this thing, and in fact spoke aout against it at a time when people were being Dixie-Chicked and Bill Maher-ed for doing so. It’s a lot harder to stop a war than to start one, and a lot harder (for practical reasons as well as political ones, as Bob points out) to vote against “supporting rhe troops” than it was to vote against the pack of lies which led us into this mess. There is a very clear difference between the two candidates on war, as Hillary’s recent “obliteration” statement makes clear.
As I said, I’m not an Obama supporter, but it’s my understanding he even voted against funding specifically devoted to bringing the troops home.
Considering that he has also said ‘he wouldn’t know how he would have voted had he been in the senate’, I’m just not impressed with his Iraq position and I don’t understand why anybody else is…..
I wish HRC had not voted for the AUMF, but I do note that she want’s to bring the Blackwater contractors home; Obama not so much (bring the contractors home, the troops would have to follow). I also note that she would start bringing the troops home within 60 to 90 days of her presidency; 18 months for Saint Obama.
Both of these candidates are DLC so progressive issues aren’t at the top of their to do lists. I can only go by what they say and what they want to accomplish (your final comment was typical of Obama supporters; it wasn’t necessary. We just disagree.)
No. The fact that Obama gave what he thought was a politically expedient answer to a “gotcha” scenario about how he “might have” voted, is … NOT the same as actually voting for the F***ing war. It just isn’t. You can spin and dance around it all you want, but the great 2000 lb gorilla in the room is Hillary’s war vote.
You march against the war, B J White? Didn’t think so. If you did, you’d know where Hillary stood, and what it meant.
BJ White: “I also note that she would start bringing the troops home within 60 to 90 days of her presidency;….”
Sorry, not only do you not recognize pandering when you see it, you don’t even recognize BAD pandering when you see it. First, it ain’t gonna happen.; 2 - 3 months is barely enough time to get a small piece of your team in place, let alone start a major withdrawal from a war zone. Second, getting out is important, but so is getting out without leaving behind a freakin’ bloodbath. All she would do is make a token withdrawal of a regiment or two so she could point to it. One of the reasons I like Obama is - yes he’s a politician and does pander as ANY politician does - he doesn’t insult our intelligence with really dumb panders. He refuses to announce a warp-speed withdrawal because it’s impossible without leaving something resembling genocide in its wake. If you honestly believe Clinton would begin meaningful troop withdrawals within 90 days of taking office you DO live in Gum Drop Land.
“18 months for Saint Obama”/” (your final comment was typical of Obama supporters; it wasn’t necessary. We just disagree.)”
Tell me, is it necessary for Clinton supporters to catalog every example of a snarky comment from an Obama supporter while failing to see the irony of their own snarky comments or is just a preferred way of operating? Are you votermom commenting under an assumed name?
Avedon,
I am a black man and no one had to “convinced” me that Clinton played the race card.
I take your comment to mean that not only I’m I not smart enough to know when the race card is being played, but I’m also a rube easily manipulated by the the Obama campaign or media.
Do you understand that I think your comment is offensive? I’ve read your blog for years and I don’t think you are racist (neither is Susie, Hillary or Bill), but your comment betrays a lack of willingness to understand that black people have a reason for feeling sensitive to certain words. Especially is it’s a word that has been hurled at us as an insults for years.
His stance when he wasn’t in the Senate means nothing
That’s the kind of opinion that got us into Iraq, and it’s bullshit. Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to them. It did mean something, and guess what - Hillary Clinton is finding out now that it did, and McCain will find out this fall. It took a while for it to gain power, but that stance doesn’t mean nothing.
Ah, hit enter too soon:
Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to them.
should read
Most Americans were against going into Iraq, and it meant nothing to their most of their Congressional representatives.
Isn’t it interesting how many times Senator Obama finds it necessary to be ‘politically expedient’.
I’m not an Obama supporter and won’t be voting for him should he be given the dem nomination,
given? given? Funny, I’ve been watching and I was under the impression that he is leading in pledged delegate count and popular vote count (yes popular vote count) because he won votes. What is the word given about?
So Bob, you seemed concerned about the troops in Iraq, but you are willing to vote for McCain, or a third party candidate (equals a vote for McCain) or not at all (equals a vote for McCain).
Neither Clinton or Obama will be able to immediately pull troops from Iraq, but both would have that as their goal and that’s a hell of a lot better than 100 years.
I’m sorry but I just don’t see your logic.
As long as Michigan and Florida aren’t counted ‘as is’, given is the correct word.
I would have been more impressed with Senator Obama’s anti Iraq war stance if he had supported funding to begin withdrawal; that would have taken only one day…….
Bob,
There have been several bills calling for troop withdrawal (of varying merits), he voted against some but he also sponsored The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007.
Would I prefer he had a better record on this, yes, but his record is as good as or better than Clinton’s.
So I assume you would vote for Clinton even though she voted against troop withdrawal legislation, so why the double standard.
As long as Michigan and Florida aren’t counted ‘as is’, given is the correct word.
So elections where the voters were told in advance that the votes would not count are legitimate - strange views for a democrat.
Here’s a video of Clinton saying the Michigan vote would not count.
Apparently HRC has been told by ‘her constituents’ they want their votes counted; she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.
And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?
What is the word given about?
He hasn’t won it yet. The superdelegates have to give the nom to him; it’s mathematically impossible for him to earn it based on pledged delegates.
And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?
When the votes were cast in an illegitimate election.
Did you know that there are only 4 states where Democratic turnout has been lower than Republican.
Those 4 states are Utah (Mormons for Romney), Arizona (McCain’s home state) and Florida and Michigan where democratic voters where told their votes did not count.
she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.
Mighty noble of her, to bad she signed a written pledge stating that the she would not participate in the primaries and agreed that the results would not count.
Earlier you stated that you could not trust Obama, yet you can trust someone who is willing to break a pledge when it is politically expedient?
Given Obama’s political aspirations, I don’t believe for a second that he would have done anything other than vote for the AUMF in 2002. By saying that, I admit that it seems that Hillary’s for for the AUMF was motivated by her political ambitions. All you need to look at is how Obama walked his 2002 position back in 2004 when he himself admitted that he didn’t know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate in 2002.
I suppose that if you believe that the Hillary’s vote for the AUMF in 2002 and Obama’s speech against the AUMF were the prominent reason to cast your vote this year, then the choice seemed pretty clear as Chris is suggesting.
There clearly are 3 reasons why Obama is virtually certain to win the nomination.
Failure to plan beyond ‘Super Tuesday’
The media outrageously played a role in defeating her
Obama has run a better campaign
Clearly there are many Democrats, even mild supporters of both Clintons who have been dismayed that Obama’s campaign has sought to destroy all things Clinton to win, in essence, creating a fracture in the party. Time will tell whether this ultimately is a winning strategy.
It seemed so clear that the Democrats would win this year…I have lost faith that we will win in November.
And since when did democrats not want to count all the votes?
When the votes were cast in an illegitimate election.
Did you know that there are only 4 states where Democratic turnout has been lower than Republican.
Those 4 states are Utah (Mormons for Romney), Arizona (McCain’s
Part 2
home state) and Florida and Michigan where democratic voters where told their votes did not count.
she has therefore agreed to accept the wishes of her constituents and has changed her mind.
Mighty noble of her, to bad she signed a written pledge stating that the she would not participate in the primaries and agreed that the results would not count.
Earlier you stated that you could not trust Obama, yet you can trust someone who is willing to break a pledge when it is politically expedient?
zuzu,
By your criteria either candidate would be given the domination. However, since one candidate has won more pledge delegates it makes the task of winning over super delegates easier. As of today Obama now has taken the lead in super delegate count - Obama 275, Clinton 27.
No one gave him this lead, he earned it.
“Isn’t it interesting how many times Senator Obama finds it necessary to be ‘politically expedient’.”
B J White - that’s a pretty weak answer, especially considering how “politically expedient” some of HRC’s utterances and stances have been … like, um, ACTUALLY voting for the war …
“Clearly there are many Democrats, even mild supporters of both Clintons who have been dismayed that Obama’s campaign has sought to destroy all things Clinton to win, in essence, creating a fracture in the party.”
And clearly there are others who would say the exact opposite, and indict the Clinton campaign for exactly that. Hillary’s most recent racial comments are an amplification of this trend, suprising even her supporters such as Charles Rangel, (”I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)
ABC
OBAMA 267
CLINTON 265
CBS
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 261
CNN
CLINTON 268
OBAMA 258
NBC
CLINTON 274
OBAMA 260
AP
CLINTON 271.5
OBAMA 266
New York Times
CLINTON 263
OBAMA 258
Politico
CLINTON 268.5
OBAMA 260
Washington Post (uses AP statistics)
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 256
Thanks Macjazz,
white_n_az’s comments were so fact free (starting with reading Obama’s mind and intentions) I just had no idea how to respond.
B J White - Many of your counts are days old. For example ABC declared “Obama Takes Lead in Superdelegate Tally” on May 9th
Politico: “Obama grabs superdelegate lead” - also from May 9th
CBS shows the Obama lead
A small minority of news sites have Clinton still leading, but by much smaller margins than you have lsited (CNN shows her 4 delegates ahead, not 10)
Now of course these will change, but wonder why Senator Obama’s supporters choose the only example which shows Senator Obama ahead in super delegates.
Personally, I would have chosen the WaPo measure……
May 09, 2008 6:19 AM
BJ,
Good for you BJ, good for you.
AP says the total U.S. deaths in Iraq = 4074
icasualties has the number at 4075. Wanna place a bet who has the right number?
I think I should probably be more clear. When I write that I generally favor Clinton’s approach to Obama’s on most of the issues, I’m really talking about domestic issues like healthcare and education. It would probably be fair to characterize me as a socialist, so the solutions that both the candidates are offering are nothing approaching what I think is needed. I’m also somewhat pragmatic with regards to my expectations, so I judge things as they are, not how I wish they were.
Listen, we went into the primary with the shitty candidates we have, not the shitty candidates we wish we had. I can accept that, even if it hurts sometimes and makes me start quoting Hunter S. Thompson in weak moments. I wish that the candidate I support had shown some leadership on Iraq once he got into the senate. He didn’t. Nobody did.
I worry that the war is going to turn into our version of the Republican’s perpetual bait and wait with the religious right on abortion. They’ll keep saying all the right things on the war, but when push comes to shove they won’t do shit because they don’t want to lose it as an election issue. But, whatever. I don’t exactly know what the fuck to do about that.
Anyway, I think those of us on the “winning” side of this primary need to give some space and chill. The last time I really backed a candidate for anything it was Seth Williams in his run against Lynne Abraham for Philadelphia District Attorney. He didn’t have a shot in hell and I knew it, but I still had a pretty good cry when he lost. It’s human nature to get emotionally attached to campaigns and candidates and to take their losses very hard and very personally.
I think those of us on the “winning” side of this primary need to give some space and chill.
It may seen a bit abstract now but we’re about to be saddled with a single word that the media will repeat over and over the same way they did with electability for Kerry and values for Bush. It seems like a lot of Democrats don’t want to allow Obama win with an anti-Iraq war mandate that’s perceived as legitimate. So we’ll be stuck with “change” and that will mean whatever Tim Russert says it means.
“Wonder why Senator Obama’s supporters choose the only example which shows Senator Obama ahead in super delegates.”
?????
Wonder why Clinton supporters pretend the THREE sources I list that already had Obama ahead actually equals one.
I wonder why anyone wastes time with a troll like bj white.
zuzu,
By your criteria either candidate would be given the domination
Not my criteria; the party’s. If you get to the magic number (either 2025 or 2209, depending on what the RBC’s decision is on Florida and Michigan on May 31), you get the nomination. If nobody has that by the convention, all bets are off, and the supers make the decision based on whatever criteria they feel is most important.
zuzu: Fine, I’ll concede your point. Until the last SuperD votes nothing is over.
Now a simple question: do you believe it would be beneficial to the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole to have the Superdelegates decide the nomination in Clinton’s favor? No parsing, please. Just a straight up yes or no. It’s fine if all remaining undecided SuperD’s vote for Clinton or it isn’t.
Yes, Bob. Just as it would be beneficial for the party and the nation as a whole if the Superdelegates decided in Obama’s favor.
The nominating process sucks, but this is what we’re stuck with. And when you have rules that say there are no rules to follow for the people who are actually making the decision, then you get what you get.
Obviously, you feel differently.
Moreover: You can complain all you want that the party would be destroying itself if it didn’t go with Obama because he has the lead in pledged delegates, but if the nomination is decided without the input of the delegations of Florida and Michigan, however they are composed (because I am not discounting the possibility that the RBC lifts the nuclear-option penalty but leaves in place the standard 50% penalty, which would still “punish” them for jostling, but would also allow them to have a meaningful way of participating), then it can kiss the GE goodbye. Not to mention, you’d hand the GOP an incredibly potent weapon.
zuzu: Let me try again. HOW would it benefit the Democratic Party for the SuperD’s to hand the nomination to Clinton? I didn’t ask if such a mechanism exists, I didn’t ask about FL and MI, I didn’t ask if the present rules were good or bad; I asked if it would BENEFIT the Democratic Party. You answered yes it would then followed that up with straw men, evasions and non sequiturs. HOW does the Democratic Party become a stronger force in American politics by having the SuperD’s overthrow the will of the Democratic Party electorate.