When the world explodes the political landscape often shifts. That’s exactly what’s playing out right now in Iowa.

This
poll puts Obama’s conference call this morning into context. They’re trying
desperately (there’s that word again) to get ahead of the negative polling cascading
out of Iowa.

Clinton: Total: 30.0 Dec. 28: 29.0 Dece. 29: 31.2 Edwards: Total: 29.0 Dec. 27.6 Dece. 30.3 Obama: Total: 22.0 Dec. 22.1 Dece. 22.8

Now some analysis.

First, these numbers are horrific news for Obama for several reasons. The biggest reason being
that many of Obama’s supporters are not only first time caucus goers, but they’re
young people. The process in Iowa is intimidating, so it will take a lot of
confidence to drive out the younger voters, which these numbers do not inspire.

Secondly, Edwards is rising on his quick reaction and comments on Benazir Bhutto’s
assassination, which he handled well, but also shrewdly in political terms,
because he got out and on it so that his conversation with Musharraf went wide. The press wasn’t paying attention to him so Edwards made a move that demanded they tune in. It was a conversation the traditional media simply could not ignore.

In addition, Obama’s inexperience in light of the cataclysmic unrest in Pakistan
is making people take a second look. As I’ve said for a long time, Edwards is
the anti Hillary. Interesting that the guys are now filing into the story, with
Markos and Duncan chiming in on Obama’s wingnut talking points, something that
he’s been using all season. Welcome aboard, my friends.

Clinton’s steady showing is instructive as well, because she continues to lead,
however narrowly. Obama is just not matching up to her performance in the long run.

There will be a final poll out of Iowa tonight freezing everything until after
the caucuses as far as polling goes, but the dynamic playing out since Bhutto’s
assassination is clear and will continue to unfold. People will remember Clinton’s steady performance and her very personal connection to Benazir Bhutto, as well as Edwards’ aggressive handling of reaching out to Musharraf, while Mr. Obama delivered stuttering defenses of his aide’s abominable Clinton killed Bhutto charge, not to mention his wooden and disconnected response to the murder itself.

Advantage right now goes to Edwards also because he and his wife Elizabeth are Iowa favorites. Clinton holds steady, rising slightly. Obama sliding.

Share

Mr. Hope’s Smear and Slime Time updated

via Politico

The memo ticks through a series of numbers the campaign believes proves they are the candidate with momentum. But coming on the eve of the release of the final Des Moines Register poll (due out tonight), one can’t help but also see the memo and call as a bit defensive. Overall, this was a presentation that a few months ago we might have expected from, say, Clinton rather than Obama. The campaign wasn’t necessarily downplaying Iowa but they certainly were trying to leave the impression that Iowa’s only the beginning, not the end. – Chuck Todd

Obama is in full scale panic mode and no one is safe. Mark Halperin has the Obama strategy memo. Shorter Obama: Mr. Hope Rules the World… or will if you’ll just realize that Clinton is satan, and that John Edwards is just a dirty trial lawyer. Needless to say, I wasn’t invited to the conference call this morning, but I have my spies. Obama is turning the corner to the home stretch and he’s using his secret weapon: whatever will work, including — dare I saw it? — lies. Seriously, take a look at the pdf. It’s stunning. He evidently woke up and saw John Edwards dancing over his Iowa dreams. The graphic above is from a power point.

So for all you people who have been emailing me and commenting about how harsh we are it’s time to wake up and take a good look at your own candidate who is using every single dirty line he can come up with, including scare tactics straight out of GOP central to make people think that Edwards won’t have the money to finish the race. I thought this election was not about money? It’s about ideas. Well, Mr. Hope just threw his main theme overboard.

Obama then goes deep and dumb once again on another beauty focusing on Edwards, taking his sexist Clinton tea comment to another level.

Obama said that as a young man he was offered many lucrative choices but turned them down in favor of low-paid work as a community organizer and as a civil rights lawyer, a theme he has sounded repeatedly on the stump over the past weeks. For the first time, and in a direct shot at Edwards, Obama said one of the big bucks options he turned down was to work as a “trial lawyer.” Obama Slugs Back At “Trial Lawyer” Edwards

I’ve read everything publicly available on Mr. Edwards’ heroic “trial lawyer” fights. It’s one of the heroic things about Edwards, and there are many. Obama’s classless, desperate smack reveals his lack of understanding about the life Mr. Edwards has led. Obama is starting to sound like a pouting teenager who thinks Iowa is his due because he’s read one too many of his glowing press clippings.

There are so many places Mr. Obama’s opponents could have gone but they haven’t.

So let’s be serious. In the category of ponderables, very late last night I came upon the Ben Smith post “Muslim Smear, 2.0,”. Smith links to a Christmas Eve piece by Daniel Pipes, which I will not link to. Pipes has been on Rudy’s team for quite a while, but is one of those people in the Michael Savage category, someone who represents the bottom of the barrel, especially where the discussion of Muslims and Arabs are concerned. Through Smith, Rudy’s team released this statement: “Mr. Pipes is not an official campaign advisor and his writings in no way reflect the views of our campaign.” Since Rudy’s top veteran just had to resign over comments, this latest anti Muslim musing from another Rudy man doesn’t shock. As for Ben’s post, here is the bottom line:

Keep an eye on this one, because if Obama’s the nominee, this Front Page magazine piece by the conservative writer Daniel Pipes is likely to be the template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama’s religion. It opens with a line that a cynical observer predicted to me a month ago, almost verbatim, would open these attacks … .. (skip ahead) The line “He says he’s not a Muslim, and I believe him” could start to sound a bit familiar.”

This should remind everyone of the scurrilous swiftboating to come. Every Democrat knows this stuff is coming. It’s the swiftboat vets ghost of Kerry 2004. Pointing to Pipes, who is a marginal creature, does nothing good for Mr. Obama, and sheds light on a repugnant column that would be better left under a rock. However, in the general election we all know what’s going to happen. I’ve done a lot of push back on the smears that have come at Obama, even though I know Republicans are saving them for the general just in case. Click on the “swiftboating” tab at the top of this post to get an idea of how dirty things can get. I’ve covered swiftboating before it was a verb. I know what I’m talking about.

Just because someone writes something doesn’t mean you should highlight it. However, the truth is that what Pipes is talking about will no doubt go mainstream once we’re in the general election. Ben Smith understands that very well in his piece. It’s interesting that Josh Marshall doesn’t do any analyzing, but only links to Ben, who in his comment section took hits for even bringing up the subject and pointing to Pipes. It’s clear Marshall doesn’t want to touch it. That’s understandable. But every Democrat voting should read Smith’s piece and follow the links to Pipes, who may be a cretinous swamp creature of the lowest form, but is the exact type of person who will give legs to swiftboating lies and is nonetheless offering a window into the negative attacks that will no doubt come if Republicans are handed the easy target of Barack Obama. There is more where that came from, because in the rush to cement Mr. Obama’s halo on his head, the primary season has not come close to vetting this man.

Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and the rest won’t say it. Ben Smith highlighted one vulnerable aspect last night. It’s time for voters to think long and hard, because as talented as Mr. Obama is no one is a bigger gamble in the general than him. Being a “trial lawyer” isn’t shameful, and at least Edwards has been vetted. As for Hillary Clinton, for 15 years the wingnuts have made her a target. No doubt they are salivating at getting a newbie target like Barack.

UPDATE: SusanUnPC has a whopper of a post up. Read it. Also see MyDD for more on Obama hitting Edwards. I find myself in strong agreement with Chuck Todd.

Share

Thank God, the gods, Pan, or even your mother’s cat. But it’s almost over.

A couple of links to start the morning. This
is a disturbing video of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. The Pakistani government
wants people to believe she wasn’t shot, as they put out all sorts of misdirection
on what happened. She was shot, it seems clear. We simply must find out who
did this. It’s critically important.

Now to the primary… Via
Pollster, how accurate were the polls in ’04?

Consider the final polls for the Democratic Caucuses in 2004. Only five organizations released public polls conducted in the final week before the Caucuses, which were held on Monday, January 19 that year. Since both John Kerry and John Edwards experienced late surges in support, polls conducted before that would show considerably more “error,” since they obviously missed the late surge. Also, those who continued to call through Sunday night might have some advantage in catching the late breaking trend (or, as more cynical pollsters will point out, those releasing late polls also had the benefit of seeing the results of the other earlier surveys).

Jon
Swift does a masterful blog post round up for 2007. Seriously, you need
to check
it out. Yours truly is included. It’s an amazing compilation of blog posts.

Someone is going to surge on Thursday. Get ready for it.

Oh, and I’m interested in your favorite political videos. Put them in the comments. If you have some names of the most afflicted individuals with CDS, put links to their posts in the comments as well.

But let the countdown begin. George W. Bush is almost a memory. One sure reason to celebrate.

Share

Editorial cartoonist Mark
Alan Stamaty says it all in a cartoon in the LA Times today, which
ran as a full page in the opinion
section. Here’s a pdf
of it that is a
must see. It is the best editorial cartoon of the primary
season, proving once again why I covet the talent of cartoonists like Stamaty.
I can say it in words, but the impact an editorial cartoon can make is something
altogether more powerful.

The cartoon answers the question, but so does the latest Zogby
poll showing Clinton at 31%, Obama at 27%, Edwards at 24%. McClatchy-MSNBC
has Edwards at 24%, Clinton at 23%, Obama at 22%.

The support Clinton has received
on this blog and on my radio show wasn’t simply a gift to the first viable female
candidate. Hillary Clinton earned the coverage she gets here. I wasn’t
convinced at first, though my thoughts early on did contain the fighter aspect
of Clinton which I’ve always appreciated and think are critically important to winning next November. Then I saw her in action several times
and she quite simply, not only blew me away with how “scary smart”
she is, but her demeanor and graciousness was unmistakable. Clinton convinced
me. So whatever reasons there are out there that make people feel they’re not
supposed to like Hillary, when they see her in action, they will likely fade, which is why I believe her negatives have only one place to go and that is down.

Segue to a rough transcript of today’s “Reliable Sources,” which
I received via a friend. The back and forth between Kurtz and Milbank answers
the question too. Why aren’t you supposed to like Hillary? Because the traditional
media, cable talking heads, wingnut radio, plus many blogs, have told you not
to.

KURTZ: I had the impression it was a camp reunion when I was out there in Iowa. And it is great, the retail campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is fun to cover and it is real, but it’s — when the votes are counted and we decide who did well — for example, Hillary Clinton, let’s say she doesn’t win Iowa. Let’s say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes. Is the press going to savage her as a loser? MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much. KURTZ: If she wins? MILBANK: Well, obviously if she wins by any great margin — the press with Hillary Clinton, it’s a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It’s a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there’s no question about it out there. So… KURTZ: And to what extent do you think that is affecting the coverage of Senator Clinton? MILBANK: I think it unquestionably is. And I think Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he’ll come out better for it. KURTZ: Is this because journalists like Obama better than Hillary or… MILBANK: It’s more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It’s returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there. KURTZ: Interesting. All right. … ..

Clinton gets more negative press than any other candidate, which has been proven
conclusively by study
after study,
as well as the devastating
review Kathleen Hall Jamieson rendered about Clinton’s press to Bill
Moyers earlier this month. I’ve been on this story for months and months.
Give credit where it’s due, with Howard Kurtz hanging a lantern on it lately.
Exhibit A is Chris Matthews, though who
can forget Mr. Tim Russert, but they’re not the only ones, just two of the
most infamous Hillary haters. Right-wing radio is as bad, sometimes worse. There
is no reason whatsoever why Clinton should trust the traditional media. When
she gives access to Keith Olbermann, or goes on the morning shows in a “full
Ginsberg,” it’s an event, but it’s been proven time and again in other
instances that when she does open up the doors to the media what they’re really
looking for is a sensational headline, instead of offering fair coverage to
the most scrutinized and harshly criticized woman in the world. So when cable talking heads
and others blather about Clinton not answering enough questions the reason why
is obvious. If the traditional press doesn’t like it maybe they should treat
her fairly instead of differently.

So tell me again why I’m not supposed to like Hillary? Because after seeing her in action, dealing with her campaign team, watching her take the heat, even stumble, but come back fighting every time, all I can say is that the press has built a narrative about Clinton, with a lot of help from Republicans over 15 years, they want you to believe that it’s just not cool to like Hillary Clinton. But when thinking about choosing the best Democratic nominee, the next president, this editorial cartoon says it all.

Share

The elders
gather. There’s too much hyper partisanship in Washington. So upon threat
of backing a third party bid for president, The Self Appointed Wise Ones will
gather to discuss how to remake the country so compromise is possible. I’m not
frightened of a third party, especially under the banner of “unity.”
But it seems to me that Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and the others, even though
they weren’t crazy about political parties, certainly believed in their ideas
enough not to compromise them on the altar of can’t we all just get along,
coming to an agreement out of half measures because bickering was just
too unseemly. Some things are worth fighting for and debating and holding out
until you win. Hey, but maybe the 21st century is all about making beige the
new red, white and blue. If some guy can buy his way into the race like everybody
else why not? Isn’t it fitting that this news comes compliments of David Broder?
Seriously, if you don’t have the stomach anymore for the modern day revolution
just say so. You don’t have to gather a bunch of people from yesteryear to have
a pout-fest to ponder Oh dear, what shall we do with the children?

It makes me want to channel the French.

So be it resolved this last Sunday of 2007…

I will not make peace with people like Bill Kristol, who get loud megaphones
like the New York Times, applying his legendary Dan Quayle of political
pontificating for ever more cash in hopes conservatives can maybe save the Grey
Lady from more losses.

I will not make peace with wingnut radio hosts who roasted Bill Clinton throughout
the 1990s, then when they got bored went after his wife, which they’ve been
doing for 15 years.

I will not make peace with the Republicans who don’t believe in the Constitution,
and look the other way as they sell off part of that Great Document just
so we can all roast weenies together; with Democrats ending up supplying the
frickin’ weenies, the wood, as well as missing out on dessert because the Republicans
didn’t bring any.

I will never accept the sacrifice of our soldiers for the causes of another country’s people, if American national security interests aren’t the biggest reasons why we’re fighting.

I will not ignore unjust targeting of the first viable female candidate to
run for president in order to make everyone more comfortable because some of
the guys are getting a pass so they can keep their halos.

I will not stop laughing at Chris Matthews’ craven Hillary hatred, all because
he’s mad that Keith Olbermann got access and he didn’t. Seriously, it’s just
too delicious.

I will not stop believing that fighting for justice is more important than
listening to The Self Appointed Wise Ones who think it’s just too unseemly to
throw down on people like Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly
and other bozos who believe God put them on the planet to set us all straight,
figuratively and literally.

I will not ever accept Slick Mitt as our president, not ever.

I will not join hands with the Mike Huckabee crowd who disrespect our founders
by blatantly trying to out Christ other Americans (including this Christian), especially since my sweet
husband is a committed agnostic who hates religious proselytizing of all types.
He counts too.

I will never ignore when a Democrat believes in Robert Novak over one of our
own. Bad omen.

I will always remember the lessons of Florida in 2000, and so should you.

I will always remember what happened in 2004, when a decorated Democratic veteran
running for president was swiftboated.

I will always remember that in that same year Democrats chose to stay above
the fray at our convention, talking up the positives, which left an open playing
field for the Republicans to come in and slit our throats that fall.

I will remember Ohio, and that lawyers and tactics are part of any political strategy in today’s climate.

I will always remember that winning is why we fight.

I won’t be seduced into believing that compromise can happen with Republicans
who don’t believe we are our brothers and sisters keepers, and preach that if
you can’t do it yourself it’s just your tough luck or laziness.

I will never surrender the notion that even an insider female running for president
can be a revolutionary idea in a country where in the 21st century women have not had the chance to run the free world.

I will continue to remind all who will listen that an insider female running
for president can only get to that place by being an insider, and that men had
to start out that way and still have to run that way, and we do too.

I will always respect the ideological differences of fellow Democrats who don’t
think the insider female running for president is the correct choice, but never
respect an alternative that has no ideological compass at all.

So be it resolved this last Sunday of 2007 that Mr. Broder’s peace tour is
not welcome around here because it will accomplish only one thing: To serve
Democrats and all we stand for up on a political platter to Republicans who
will quickly take us out because these guys always come packing.

You can’t offer the world revolutionary change from what’s just passed if you aren’t the last one standing.

Share

IOWA: Obama Down, Edwards Rises

video via MakeThemAccountable

Yesterday on Chris Matthews, though no one noticed, he began his show with a nod to Obama by repeating David Axelrod’s line about Woody Allen, which was part of a statement that got Obama’s chief guru and his candidate in trouble in the first place. Regardless of Matthews hailing the Third World will shake if Obama wins Iowa, he and Andrew Sullivan are in for quite a reality check in tomorrow’s Post. Evidently, it’s not all about Mr. Obama’s face:

… As someone who once was that young Muslim boy everyone seems to be imagining (albeit in Iran rather than Egypt), I’ll let you in on a secret: He could not care less who the president of the United States is. He is totally unconcerned with whatever barriers a black (or female, for that matter) president would be breaking. He couldn’t name three U.S. presidents if he tried. He cares only about one thing: what the United States will do. That boy is angry at the United States not because its presidents have all been white. He is angry because of Washington’s unconditional support for Israel; because the United States has more than 150,000 troops in Iraq; because the United States gives the dictator of his country some $2 billion a year in aid, the vast majority of which goes toward supporting a police state. He is angry at the United States because he thinks it has hegemony over almost every aspect of his world. … .. In their glowing endorsement of Obama, the editors of the Boston Globe noted that “the first American president of the 21st century has not appreciated the intricate realities of our age. The next president must.” … Obama may possess all the intuition of a fortuneteller. But as chair of a Senate subcommittee on Europe, he has never made an official trip to Western Europe (except a one-day stopover in London in August 2005) or held a single policy hearing. He’s never faced off with foreign leaders and has no idea what a delicate sparring match diplomacy in the Middle East can be. And at a time in which the United States has gone from sole superpower to global pariah in a mere seven years, these things matter. … ..

Matter they should, which is why Joe Biden is getting some attention.

Maybe that’s why when you look at things as they stand right now, Edwards is rising, as is Clinton,
but Obama
has taken a decided downturn. As Obama has gotten more scrutiny lately, he’s just not wearing all that well (To add… read Lambert – h/t reader MA_Blue) which has people taking another look at Edwards; with the last couple days of gaffes
only making matters worse for Mr. Obama. Between Axelrod’s comment, Obama’s “I-I-I-I” performance defending him, coupled with Mr. Obama’s wooden and disconnected reaction to the Bhutto slaying, adding the his sexist insult about tea drinking on top of it all,
Obama seems to be back on his heels and definitely on the defensive.

But if anyone reads Eriposte
today (who cites one of
reader BMerry’s excellent Hot Topic diaries), they would understand that the problem
with voting for Obama over Edwards or Clinton is really much larger.

With respect to Sen. Obama’s self-touted opposition to the Iraq war and how his “foreign policy experience” (for lack of a better phrase) has “helped inform [his] opposition to the war in Iraq”, I see little evidence for this especially given that all of that Magnificent Experienceâ„¢ didn’t prevent him from blocking funding for the war or forcing a timeline based withdrawal from Iraq from 2004 through 2006. Even in 2003, he was forced by the Black Agenda Report to republish his 2002 speech opposing the war on his U.S. Senate campaign website after they discovered it had been removed from the site and wrote that his campaign was largely non-responsive about their queries about the removal. Further, on more than one occasion, he gave the impression that he might have voted differently if he had actually been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq resolution. As the Common Ills blog noted (h/t B. Merry, emphasis in original): …”But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,” Mr. Obama said. “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.” Do you get that, do you grasp it? Barack Obama told the New York Times in 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the resolution HAD HE BEEN IN THE SENATE.

As I’ve said many times, there is strong reason to believe that Mr. Obama would
have voted along with Clinton and his colleagues in favor of the war resolution, especially considering
that Obama’s and Clinton’s votes are exactly the same throughout the Iraq war years. The evidence is overwhelming that the one thing Mr. Obama hangs his candidacy on, his vaunted 2002 anti Iraq war speech, is a brief snapshot that never develops into an action movie.

It’s been a bad few days for Mr. Obama, with his team faltering badly, so don’t
be surprised to see an Edwards win in Iowa. I can’t handicap it all the way
down, but you can bet it will be close. Iowa Independent still puts Obama as
the “power” player in Iowa, but my friend Chase Martyn has been biased
for Obama for quite some time. The trends
are unmistakable, with Obama down.

As for the second choices, I’ll let Big
Tent Democrat and Chris
Bowers haggle over the deal potential, because it’s far less reliable than
throwing darts at a board. Come Thursday, it all hinges on who shows up.

I’ve come to learn that right now nobody knows anything about what will happen
in Iowa. But if you’re placing bets I’d wager on Edwards or Clinton.
However, given the closeness of the race right now that doesn’t mean Obama couldn’t
pull off a win, though it’s less likely today than it has ever been.

UPDATE II: New ARG poll. Clinton leads 31%, with Edwards and Obama at 24%. Also:

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among women 38% to 21%, with John Edwards at 20%. Among men, Edwards is at 28%, Obama is at 28%, and Clinton is at 25%. 23% of Clinton’s support, 18% of Edward’s support, and 23% of Obama’s support say they could change their minds between now and January 3.

UPDATE: Read Joe Conason, who delivers a deadly blow in “Obama’s European problem.”

Share

All because our president wants to protect
the Iraqis from lawsuits.

I am withholding my approval of H.R. 1585, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,” because it would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation’s reconstruction efforts and because it would undermine the foreign policy and commercial interests of the United States. The economic security and successful reconstruction of Iraq have been top priorities of the United States. Section 1083 of H.R. 1585 threatens those key objectives. Immediately upon enactment, section 1083 would risk the freezing of substantial Iraqi assets in the United States –including those of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), the Central Bank of Iraq (CBI), and commercial entities in the United States in which Iraq has an interest. Section 1083 also would expose Iraq to new liability of at least several billion dollars by undoing judgments favorable to Iraq, by foreclosing available defenses on which Iraq is relying in pending litigation, and by creating a new Federal cause of action backed by the prospect of punitive damages to support claims that may previously have been foreclosed. This new liability, in turn, will only increase the potential for immediate entanglement of Iraqi assets in the United States. The aggregate financial impact of these provisions on Iraq would be devastating.

What Mr. Bush has actually done by issuing a pocket veto is leave the troops
with a 3.0 raise instead of 3.5 percent.

The disputed section of the bill would reshape Iraq’s immunity to lawsuits, exposing the new government to litigation in U.S. courts stemming from treatment of Americans in Iraq during Saddam’s reign. Even cases that had once been rejected could be refiled. Bush’s aides warned of a dire scenario — a rush of litigation that could freeze tens of billions of dollars in Iraqi assets being held in U.S. banks. Money at the heart of the Iraqi rebuilding effort would be tied up in court, potentially halting the very stabilization efforts that could get U.S. troops home faster, the aides said. Yet Democrats fumed that Bush could have worked out the technical fix sooner if he had wanted, without rejecting an entire bill that contains extra help and money for troops. Bush rejects defense bill by pocket veto

KagroX
runs the whole sorry mess down:

Because the bill has so much in it for veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, Bush apparently doesn’t dare sign an affirmative veto. Instead, he’ll pretend it… just went away on its own.

Also see Stubborn Facts.

Emptywheel
finds the whole action weird, which is an understatement, unless you think twice
about Mr. Bush, who doesn’t think Congress is a co-equal branch at all. Can
you just see Bush and Cheney talking this one over? I can hear them now: What
are the Democrats going to do about it. Screw ‘em.

Evidently the pro forma sessions don’t seem to be registering on Mr. Bush,
which is set forth in his Memorandum
of Disapproval:

… .. The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to “pocket veto” bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed. … ..

Hear Cheney grunt: Who’s irrelevant now? We’re about to find out.

Share

In what is meant to be a closer for his candidacy, Barack
Obama went deep…. and dumb. You know, like Axelrod blaming Clinton
for Bhutto’s assassination dumb. Unless, of course, you think playing the sexism
card is a way to run for president in the 21st century.

Barack Obama insists his experiences traveling and having family living overseas brings more to the table than, let’s say, the job of a former first lady. “It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa,” Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd of would-be voters in Coralville, Iowa, on Friday. Obama’s Cup of Tea

Excuse me?

Mr. Obama is running against the first viable female candidate for president
in U.S. history, a fellow Democrat who also happened to be first lady, and what
does he say? That all Clinton’s been doing for the last four decades, the only
experience she really has is having tea with dignitaries. After all, we have
to keep the little woman busy, now don’t we. Never mind that this woman
has been serving this country for years, has traveled around the world giving
speeches and impacting the lives of women, including in China, you know, going to places Barack has only read about in books, that is when
he wasn’t voting “present” in the Illinois state senate,
or ducking votes in the U.S. Senate.

Oh, and tell me again what experience Mr. Obama is offering? You know, besides
that 2002 speech on Iraq, which is so, well, five years ago.

The wheels are coming off the Little Hope Wagon, baby, and it isn’t pretty.

UPDATE II: See the The Caucus” in New York Times.

UPDATE: Via CNN, which reader Piper also mentions in the comments:

“Sen. Clinton has been in refugee camps, clinics, orphanages, and villages all around the world, including places where tea is not the usual drink,” said Albright. “In addition to these experiences she has met with world leaders and has known many of them for years. I have been with her on many of these occasions, and it is this combination of experience and understanding that sets her apart from the field, and why I am supporting her for President.”

Share

It’s Al Qaeda… Not so Fast

Alert the media! Or at least David Axelrod. Hillary Clinton has been unofficially
cleared of killing Benazir Bhutto. Former General Wesley Clark said it beautifully
today:

“This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama’s campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton’s actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign.” – General Wesley Clark (retired)

No doubt Mr. Obama will demand Axelrod apologize, right?

Look, there’s a flying pig!

Segue to everyone saying it was Al Qaeda who killed Bhutto. Maybe. But how
convenient to have a ready made scape goat. That’s why Clinton’s call for an
international investigation on the scale of Syria’s Hariri is so important. (To add: Watch earlier Clinton interview with Couric, where Hillary states the country she’s most worried about is Pakistan.) I couldn’t agree more, because it also sends a strong message, while inviting
the world to participate, which is what we need to do going forward. We may
be stuck with Musharraf for now, but that doesn’t mean we should trust him any
longer. Bush buying him off in lieu of a real Pakistan policy has gotten us
nothing.

Read Larry
Johnson:

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said that on Friday, the government recorded an”intelligence intercept” in which militant leader Baitullah Mehsud “congratulated his people for carrying out this cowardly act.” He also let us know that she died from hitting her head. Amazing how Pakistani authorities could know such a thing since no autopsy was performed. Must be the equivalent of psychic healing. Worth noting that the physician who examined her at the hospital emergency unit appeared to indicate that she had a hole in the side of her head. I do not rule out Islamic radicals who are not part of the government as possible culprits. But they are not the only folks with motive and access. In fact, the Government of Pakistan’s rush to pin this on Al Qaeda smacks of scape goating. … .. read the rest of Larry’s post

I’d cast an eye towards the Taliban, which is already being done a bit, though
lumping all jihadists, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban together is hardly
helpful.

NRO
did a symposium today on Bhutto’s assassination. While Mansour Ijaz wanted
to talk about himself, as usual, Victor Davis Hanson offered nuggets of knowledge
like this beauty: Same old, same old in the Middle East: The jihadists are
cruel and crazy, the dictatorial alternative is duplicitous and illegitimate,
and the democratic third way is weak and vulnerable. How spectacularly
obvious. So much for The Serious Ones. The others seemed at a complete loss
on what to say about it, though I did find this short section of Jonathan Foreman’s statement,
a journalist who covers Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the closest at getting
to the bottom of it, because sometimes the root is actually the most obvious.

While Benazir had plenty of enemies, including jihadis who detested the idea of a woman leader and who were furious at her newly robust pro-Western antiterrorist stance… ..

For me, someone who has been studying the region for years, the obvious is
that you can’t know the dynamics without traveling to Pakistan and the surrounding
countries. Being an armchair analyst is not only difficult but often gets you
into trouble, no matter how dedicated a researcher you are, which I pledge
to you I am. But I’m going to venture in anyway. Never before has the world
been at the fault line of cataclysmic change in ancient places still living
in the 12th century as we are today. That’s why, for me, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is much more than a mere murder. The email she sent to Wolf Blitzer blaming
Musharraf for not being more helpful in her own security illustrates that she
wanted to live. However, she loved her country more than her own life and was
determined to bring it into the modern era, which she no doubt would have done
when elected on January 8th, which by all accounts would have happened. Knowing
the dangers and realizing the threats from the patriarchal world in which her
country remains in bondage, Bhutto walked into Pakistan challenging her enemies
that to kill or harm her would be against the Quran, because you are never to
harm a woman. Simultaneously, she dared them to show themselves out for the
extremist frauds they are at their heart, by defying and denying the law of Mohammed
by taking her life, revealing their actual disrespect for Islam. Bhutto intended to bring Pakistan into the modern era,
which these men resist with every passing decade, even if it cost her life. She was willing to sacrifice everything to bring Pakistan out of the dark ages, putting Musharraf’s power
in jeopardy by his negligence. She also revealed his own self-serving cowardice, making sure his time
would pass with her death, which she no doubt knew was likely.

Many are writing about the details of her death, missing the story of why she,
and there is no other way to see it, martyred herself. So many want to turn
this into a radical jihadist story so they can once again turn to the “war
on terror” and simply talk about dangers, which is just the first chapter
of this final book on Bhutto, leaving out the signal sent to Pakistanis, but
also the ISI, as well as Musharraf.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is an international event, a world catastrophe,
which should inspire all nations to join together to investigate what happened
in the hopes of offering light on a dangerous area of the world that thrives
on evil deeds done in darkness and secrecy. It is the story of the assassination of a heroine, who comes complete with real human flaws; a woman who died trying to bring new life to Pakistan through the promise of change.

The biggest challenge we face in the years to come is turning military aid
into something more, especially for countries like Pakistan, but also Afghanistan
as we get back to the business of reconstructing countries instead of only sending
more bombs and weaponry to prop up thugs who have nothing to gain by embracing
modernity. Sending billions to buck up Musharraf is not a foreign policy strategy.
It’s a way of maintaining a status quo, which gives people who are not our friends
the edge.

Clinton is correct (on many things, as others are acknowledging). Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is a tragedy, but if the
world draws a line in the sand it could make her life stand for a turning point
in Pakistan’s history. It’s time to put the men in these far off backwards lands on notice. You will be held accountable. The Bush era is over.

UPDATE: Check out more from SusanUnPC at Larry Johnson’s NoQuarter, also from MyDD diary. Eriposte has two new ones up here and here.

Share

Obama Stammers, ‘No, I, I, I, I, I…’ Sticking
Up for Axelrod updated

compliments TM.com reader “Piper”

The Bhutto assassination has the potential
to be a game changer. The volatility of foreign affairs and Obama’s lack
of accomplishments (or interest in running his own committee on them) makes Axelrod’s statement
all the more dangerous for his candidate. That became clear last night. So when
I watched Barack Obama on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” it was hard to
comprehend what was happening. What
a spectacle. I couldn’t believe my eyes or ears. After an abominable day,
Mr. Obama came apart when Wolf Blitzer asked him a simple question about Axelrod.

Wolf Blitzer was standing in for King. At one point in the interview Wolf begins
to ask Mr. Obama about Axelrod’s panicked statement that had him blaming Clinton
for Bhutto’s death. Obama knew what was coming and obviously didn’t want Blitzer
to ask the question; hoping he could deter the news anchor from covering the
story that was all the buzz yesterday. As I watched it all unravel, I couldn’t
help but wonder why Obama didn’t just distance himself from Axelrod’s indefensible
statement, like Clinton continually has been made to do when people around her
make mistakes. But instead, Obama walked waste deep into the mess, owning it himself and sticking up for
Mr. Axelrod, when a simple apology would have been the smarter and classier
thing to do. But no, instead Obama turned obstinate and stubbornly got his back
up. It was a huge mistake on a day filled with amateur turns.

Lynn
Sweet of the Sun Times nails the quote and the context, but also nails Obama, as
he stuttered and stammered, trying to shut Wolf up, though to no avail. It was
a campaign classic.

Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.” Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don’t need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.” (Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewing Axelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.) Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.” Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa. (At this point it was the reporter making the argument–asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”) Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn’t have been the question.” (Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to.) … .. Sweet: Obama says, “No, I, I, I, I,

Share

Obama Camp in Disarray with Axelrod On Damage Control After
Bhutto Assassination

Bhutto, Clinton and Chelsea in Pakistan in 1995. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod’s reprehensible statement is
meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think
about the implications of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination one thing comes to
mind and it isn’t the leadership experience of Barack Obama.

Bhutto’s death will “call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,” Axelrod said. “Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” … .. … .. “(Clinton) was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,” Axelrod said. “I know Woody Allen said that 80% of life is just showing up but there’s actually more to being proficient in foreign policy than just having been around for a long time. You also have to have good judgment. Obama was willing to split with the conventional wisdom on Iraq and many of these other issues and I think events have borne out his judgment.” Axelrod on Bhutto Assassination

International tragedy
has made Barack Obama and his campaign desperate for fear their paper thin experience
in foreign policy will be weighed as voters ready for the Iowa primaries. It’s in moments of crisis you find out what a candidate has and the strength of his character to respond to real dangers in the world. Another
example of Mr. Obama’s campaign of “hope,” no doubt.

But Mr. Axelrod has stepped into it now. Blaming Clinton? This statement is not only beyond the
pale, but it is made even more reprehensible, not to mention ridiculous, by
Obama’s campaign turning from the very serious subjects of Afghanistan-Pakistan-al
Qaeda to the pop culture filmmaker Woody Allen, equating the two in a statement
that is so ignorant you have to wonder if the Obama camp actually understands
the possible ramifications of what happened today. I assure you, it does not
come close to resembling or reflecting Woody Allen’s wisdom on life. Seriously,
the celebrity candidacy of Barack Obama, now threatened by a foreign policy
emergency, has slipped into the nonsensical.

It reminds me of what Mr. Obama said himself about Pakistan in September, which
now looks equally ignorant.

In 2004, Obama said that if president Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country: As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations. “… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.” [Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004]

Maybe Obama and Bill Richardson should have a conference call, since both want to eject Musharraf, then replace him with…. what, exactly? I guess Mr. Obama hasn’t gotten that far in his thinking.

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will. ” – Senator Barack Obama

No thank you, I’ll stick with the grown ups.

Zbig BRZEZINSKI: I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don’t really think this is America’s business and I don’t think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan. As far as India’s concerned, obviously it’s very important that the Indians exercise restraint because any intensification of tensions between India and Pakistan might very well inflame conditions even within India which is about 160 to 170 million Muslims. And the state of Gujarat, which is India but is close to Pakistan is heavily Muslim and there are already very acute religious, ethnic tensions in Gujarat.

Too bad Mr. Obama isn’t listening to Zbig. The ramifications of Mr. Obama’s
foreign policy ideas, especially on Pakistan send chills down my spine.

Once again, Barack Obama and his campaign not only prove that they are willing
to say anything and take any opportunity to point a finger at a fellow Democrat,
but they do so revealing their abject amateur status of their own national security
thinking.

The politics of hope was always a mirage, but today it revealed what an unmitigated
fraud the notion was from the start. It also reminds us all that hope in regions
like Pakistan will only get people killed and make the world a more dangerous
place through thinking of politicians like Barack Obama who obviously is offering no insight, while hoisting speculative solutions that are in their infancy of formation.

UPDATE: Axelrod comment goes wide, very quickly. He tries to back away from his offensive remarks, but makes matters worse. Here’s the video. More posts on the disarray of the Obama campaign at Tom Watson, my good friend SusanUnPC over at Larry Johnson’s NoQuarter, TalkLeft.

Share

The NY Times Ignores Historic Clinton Partnership

Hillary Rodham Clinton “jaw-boned” the authoritarian.

She “argued” about democracy.

She “cajoled” women to make peace with religious differences
in Northern Ireland.

But as First Lady, according
to Patrick Healy, she was basically a potted plant with her president husband,
in a relationship that has spanned decades and every conceivable political job
for him where she
was his political partner in all things. Besides, you can’t have the Clintons
planning presidencies for one another over decades, but then say they didn’t
rely on each other as confidantes, policy partners, regardless of their differences
on many issues on which Hillary kept publicly quiet.

Oh, but she wasn’t the president!

Big Tent Democrat’s one
word analysis of that nugget from Susan Rice (an Obama supporter) is particularly
apropos. I guess a New Year’s resolution from Mr. Healy on embracing reality is out of the
question.

Besides, does Mr. Healy have factual Alzheimer’s on what the 1990s was all
about? Does he actually suggest that because Hillary’s public role on important issues wasn’t vocal and on the record, even to
her husband’s aides, that this means she was silent on issues of national security or foreign policy behind closed doors? Is he kidding?
Her public role receded after health care, but also because of the hunting atmosphere
of the 1990s, which had wingnut radio after the president and first lady throughout
that decade, starting the moment they arrived in Washington. But does Healy mention that reality? Of course not, because he
prefers to drop the Lewinski bomb in the third paragraph, saying that since
that “scandal sizzled,” complete with the insertion of her real role,
“Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband.” Healy always reverts
back to Lewinski, having obviously caught the Chris Matthews’ Tourette’s on
all things related to the Clinton marriage. “It was the height
of Monica,” dishes one “senior national security official.” Does anyone remember that famous “60 Minutes” interview before the primaries? Hillary can cut through crap even at the worst of times and keep walking without blinking an eye.

The truth is that Hillary Clinton’s toughness has been forged over decades, which has been proven time and again. Oh, but to the Patrick Healy’s of the world Mrs. Clinton will evidently always be the victim of her first lady role, which Healy equates to Laura Bush rather than Eleanor Roosevelt, both roles equally appropriate, but which nevertheless should be distinguished as quite different. Somebody slap this jerk, because he obviously fell asleep somewhere and missed a history lesson.

But not even Healy could bury the lede forever:

… .. Friends of Mrs. Clinton say that she acted as adviser, analyst, devil’s advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Mr. Clinton often consulted her, and that Mrs. Clinton gained experience that Mr. Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack — indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have. “In the end, she was the last court of appeal for him when he was making a decision,” said Mickey Kantor, a close Clinton friend who served as trade representative and commerce secretary. “I would be surprised if there was any major decision he made that she didn’t weigh in on.” (Mr. Clinton declined an interview request.) … .. The Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady

I’d not only be surprised, but I will go so far as to offer that it’s practically
impossible to even offer that Bill Clinton, as smart and astute a man as you’ll
ever find in politics, would be so dumb as not to ask his “scary smart”
wife who has a background in politics going back decades, her opinion on every
major decision he faced, as a sounding board if nothing else. Even at the height of that sizzling scandal, I don’t
doubt for a moment that Bill Clinton would have walked in to ask his wife about
something, even as opportunistic as it may sound and seem, predicating his query
on putting the country before their own problems. But you know, I wasn’t in the room and neither was one single “source” in Healy’s piece.

These aren’t children we’re
talking about and there isn’t one political event in Clinton’s past that Hillary
didn’t share a role. I’ve read so many books on the Clintons, including the
good, the bad and the ugly, quite frankly, I can’t see how anyone can even question
Hillary’s role in Bill Clinton’s presidency. That was the complaint, for crying
out loud, that they were “two for one.” It’s one reason her public
role receded in the second term, though there is no evidence whatsoever that
her private role altered one iota. Why would it? She’s been involved in politics
her entire life. Bill Clinton would have been an idiot not to tap that resource.

“Those 8 Years as First Lady,” is quite a headline. It’s
as if they are reviewing Jacqueline Kennedy from a different era of first ladies
instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, complete with insertion of what is meant to be a feminist swipe, that Patrick Healy inserts as part of the first six words of his piece.

Hey, but when the author of the piece can’t even keep the story on Somalia straight, what can you expect? However, this isn’t about
Bill Clinton. It’s about his partner in politics who has been by his side for
decades in all manner of circumstances, traveled the globe, spoken to world
leaders everywhere, and no doubt been in the room when Bill Clinton hashed out
his own ideas and thought through tough decisions from the moment he hit the scene and all the way through a two-term presidency where everyone was
bemoaning that Hillary Clinton had too much power in a “co-presidency” that now Healy says was nothing but hype.

Healy’s piece is nothing but revisionist history on a famed political partnership, downplaying the importance
these two people have in one another’s political life, not to mention the historic shift Hillary Clinton played in changing the role of the First Lady. Now we’re all supposed to ignore that fact and to buy Hillary Rodham Clinton as arm candy. To talk about Bill Clinton’s
political importance is to automatically include the woman who has been there
every step of the way, not to mention vice-versa. Seems that some reporters
now want to invent a relationship between the Clintons that never existed. Hillary
Clinton may be a lot of things to people, good and bad, but quiet political
spouse standing by her man obediently, silently and without influence isn’t one of them.

Share

The Real Hillary I Know–and the Unreal Obama
Expert guest post by Joseph C. Wilson
originally posted at HuffingtonPost

Yesterday the London
Times
reported central questions about Senator Obama’s shocking dearth of international
experience: “Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials
were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that
he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in
Western Europe or Latin America.” It also reported: “Mr. Obama had
failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee,
of which he is chairman.”

These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint
to a gushing Boston
Globe
editorial that endorsed Obama for having “an intuitive sense of the
wider world with all its perils and opportunities.” Intuition may be a
laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American
diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national
security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact,
Obama’s supposed “intuitive sense” is no different from George W.
Bush’s “instincts” and “gut feeling” describing his own
foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.

During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration,
I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton’s
historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way
American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with
leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities
and a key adviser–and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa,
leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she
was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most
precious of presidential assets–time–in his own trip. People who are now senior
advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying
to me that they have allowed themselves to “forget” the key role Hillary
played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have
participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign
to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are
well aware.

Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10,
his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative
school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international
relations, it did not provide me either with “intuition” or expertise
in the conduct of my nation’s foreign policy. My understanding of international
affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent
overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S.
ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

In the Spring, 2003, I happened to debate William Kristol, one of the architects
of the neoconservative agenda and an enthusiastic supporter for Bush’s invasion
of Iraq and subsequent policy. He blurted out his judgment that “on the
ground experience was highly overrated.” That arrogant assertion of ideology
and preconceived ideas over practical experience has precisely led to the quagmire
we find ourselves in today in Iraq and the Middle East.

Now, Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for “on
the ground experience.” Acting on his superior “intuition” he
has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without
preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il.
As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions.

A number of us, like then Illinois state senator Obama, opposed the second
Gulf War. My own opposition from the beginning has been well documented. I fought
the fight in the arena itself, Washington DC, against a ruthless administration
and its supporters while the senator’s opposition came from a far distance and
carried no risk, given that he represented in Springfield, Illinois the district
encompassing the University of Chicago. As an obscure but safe provincial political
figure, he never was granted access to the distorted intelligence that was used
to drive the Congress and the media. When I looked to the left or to the right
for support, I never saw the state senator. In fact, I never heard of Barack
Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.

After he came to Washington, Obama’s views were thoroughly conventional and
even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for
the Use of Military Force: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.
What would I have done? I don’t know.” On Iraq-related votes in the Senate,
Obama’s record identically matches Senator Clinton’s–with the exception that
Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army
chief of staff. Obama’s vote was typically passive.

In the run up to the war and thereafter, I was in frequent discussions with
senior Democrats in Washington, including Senator Clinton, and I was keenly
aware of her demand for the full exercise of international diplomacy and allowing
the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Many of the most prominent
early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador
to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President,
as do I. We do so because we know that she has the experience and the judgment
that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from
close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way,
consistent with our national security interests.

We know that she has won and lost but always fought for her beliefs, which
are widely shared within the Democratic Party. The battles she had been in have
been fierce–and the battles in the future will be no less intense–and she
has proven her steadfastness and is still standing. She does not have a cowardly
record of voting “present” when confronted with difficult issues.
She does not claim “intuition” as the basis of the most dangerous
and serious decision-making. What she has is deep and vital experience, more
important than ever in restoring our country’s place in the world.

Share