by Damozel | In a speech in Denver, Barack Obama made four statements about Hillary, all of which she attempts to refute at her campaign's website. Jeralyn at Talk Left says:.
This is a dangerous road for Obama. Check out his past support for Rumsfeld and Bush, expressed during the confirmation process of John Ashcroft. He even calls Rumsfeld "not out of the mainstream....Hillary has been the most vocal critic of President Bush and his policies among all the Democratic candidates. From the early debates, while the others criticized her because they perceived her to be the frontrunner, she kept her eye on the real enemy: President Bush, his Administration and its failed and misguided policies.
But Cernig at The Newshoggers sees it differently:
Hillary's response...fudge[s] over her own vote for the AUMF (Obama wasn't a Senator then) and...fudge[s] over her own vote for Kyle-Lieberman (Obama didn't vote). Comparing her own actions with what Obama didn't do and calling them equivalent is dishonest. More, although she's said she would talk to America's enemies, she hasn't set out clear conditions for doing so which leaves the suspicion that it's just talk with no set of conditions possible that could turn it into action. Obama has made a clear promise in this regard, and been attacked by Clinton for stating clearly what she wants to prevaricate and parse about. Finally, no matter how she tries to spin it, she said she'd allow exceptions for torture back in 2006 - even McCain mocked her for it at the time - and later changed her tune.
At The Democratic Daily, Pam Leavey is critical of Obama's tactics.
Barack Obama has himself been engaging in the politics of “personal destruction” and then disingenuously claiming to not be. Case in point, his latest speech in Denver today, in which Obama called Senator Clinton a “divisive figure,” and distorted Clinton’s record. Is that not the politics of “personal destruction”? I believe it is....
I have noticed for some time now a stark contrast in the stump speeches of both of our front-runners. While Obama speaks in platitudes on the issues, Hillary Clinton offers a clear, substantive vision of her plans for the future of our nation. Time and time again she speaks on the issues with confidence, while Obama and his surrogates, including Ted and Caroline Kennedy simply speak about vision and ideals. Obama has always seemed willing to draw a distinction between himself and Clinton, and today was no exception, but what always seems to be missing is concrete proposals.
What I find most fascinating is the fact that his supporters continually applaud his attacks on Clinton while claiming that he has risen above the “politics of the past.” Some of us are not so gullible.
Ron Chusid at Liberal Values rejoins:
Clinton supporters frequently attempt to create a false equivalency between criticism of a candidate on issues and principles as Obama has done and outright lying about the opponent’s position and race baiting like the Clinton campaign....[T]here are significant differences here between Obama and the Clintons. This is why Kennedy decided to get off the side lines, and why so many honest Democrats have been outraged by Clinton’s tactics....
Sigh. What are you looking at me for? I don't know. I'm not over Edwards' loss and I don't much like either Hillary OR Obama much anymore. Make up your own mind.
Here's the basis of the latest intraparty controversy; read it and decide for yourself.
Here's the sentence the Hillary campaign objected to:
It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed. (Fact Hub; emphasis added)
(1) Clinton's war record. "Sen. Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war."(Fact Hub)
Her argument:
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.
‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "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.’
In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it "dated":
Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."
Finally, Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq:
In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07] (Obama's War Voting Record)
(2) Clinton's position on Iran. "Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on Iran. In fact, Hillary was one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Bush’s saber rattling on Iran, and spoke out on the issue back in February:"(Fact Hub)
Her argument:
Hillary made a floor speech declaring that President Bush must get authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran. [Clinton Release, 2/14/07]
Hillary co-sponsored the Webb bill prohibiting use of funds for military action in Iran without Congressional authorization. [Clinton Release, 10/01/07]
Sen. Obama missed the vote he is now using to attack Hillary. He issued a release 9 hours later and co-sponsored a similar bill in April. The bill was also supported by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch anti-war Bush critic and prominent Obama supporter.
Further:
Sen. Obama criticized Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman because—he argued—the resolution said that force structures in Iraq would have an impact on Iranian influence:
The primary difference between myself and Senator Clinton is that she believes our force structure inside Iraq should in part depend on how we can prevent Iran from having influence inside of Iraq.
Actually, Sen. Obama said the exact same thing just last year:
A reduced but active presence [in Iraq] will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region
…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. (Position on Iran)
(3) Diplomacy: "Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on diplomacy. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe." (Fact Hub)
Her argument:
JFK made clear in his debate with Nixon that he would not “meet Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level - foreign ministers or ambassadors -- which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of success.” (Diplomacy)
(4) Torture: "Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture
due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary
met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers,
and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency." (Fact Hub)
Her argument: This letter to the American freedom campaign
Memeorandum here.
The New York Post "Endorses" Obama, Disses Hillary
Kennedy Family Divided over Hillary and Barack (update)
Watching Hillary and Obama Watch the State of the Union Address
A One-Minute Primary Primer for Dummies
To Obama Supporters Accusing the Clintons of Blasphemy: A Counterblast
Comments