« Poll: Public Says Democratic Party Has "Stronger" And "Better" Leaders | Home | Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq »

Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq

By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld - March 29, 2007, 5:13PM

Since the comparison of the Iraq positions over the years of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is one of the hottest issues of the campaign, we thought it would be useful to post a comprehensive comparison of all of their votes on everything relating to the Iraq war.


So here it is: A massive compilation of Iraq-related bills -- and the votes by Hillary and Obama on them, side by side -- beginning in early 2005, when Obama first joined the Senate.


Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one. You'll see that one in bold on our chart. But let us be clear: We are not posting this to suggest that their earlier difference at the start of the war -- their most important difference -- should in any way be overshadowed by these similarities. For many, that difference will remain paramount -- for good reason. We just wanted to add factual grist to what is but one component of the debate.


As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.


Additionally, please don't hold it against us if we missed any important votes. No agenda here, readers. If we did, let us know, and we'll add it immediately. Herewith, our full chart of Iraq votes after the jump.




































































































































































































































































































VOTE

CLINTON

OBAMA

DESCRIPTION

SR38, #4, 02/07/05

Y

Y

A resolution commending the people of Iraq on the January 30, 2005, national elections.

HR1268, #89, 04/12/05

Y

Y

Motion to Waive Sec. 402, S. Con. Res. 95 (108th) "Emergency designation" Re: Murray Amdt. No. 344, As Modified; To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans.

HR1268, #90, 04/12/05

Y

Y

Motion to Waive C.B.A. Re: Murray Amdt. No. 344, As Modified; To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans.

HR1268, #93, 04/13/05

N

N

Byrd Amdt. No. 367; To reduce by $36,000,000 the amount appropriated for "Military Construction, Army", with the amount of the reduction to be allocated to funds available under that heading for the Camp 6 Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

HR1268, #96, 04/18/05

Y

Missed Vote

Byrd Amdt. No. 464; To express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

HR1268, #103, 04/19/05

Y

Y

Motion to Invoke cloture on HR 1268, As Amended; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005

HR1268, #104, 04/20/05

N

N

Motion to Table Coburn Amdt. No. 471; To reduce appropriations for the Iraqi embassy to reduce outlays expected to occur in fiscal year 2007 or later.

HR 1268, #109, 04/21/05

Y

Y

H.R. 1268 As Amended; EmergencySupplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005

HR1268, #117, 05/10/05

Y

Y

H. R. 1268 Conference Report; Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005

S1042, #199, 06/21/05

Y

Y

Warner Amdt. No. 1314 as Modified; Toincrease, with an offset, amounts available for the procurement of wheeled vehicles for the Army and the Marine Corps and for armor for such vehicles.

S1042, #205, 07/26/05

N

N

Motion To Invoke Cloture On S. 1042; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

HR 2862, #228, 09/14/05

Y

Y

Motion To Suspend Paragraph 4, Rule XVI RE: Dorgan Amdt. No. 1670; To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism.

HR2863, #247, 10/05/05

Y

Y

Is the Amendment No. 1955, as modified,germane to H.R.2863; To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

HR2863, #248, 10/05/05

Y

Y

Motion to Waive C.B.A. re: Bayh Amdt. No. 1933; To increase by $360,800,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Other Procurement, Army, for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to increase by $5,000,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for industrial preparedness for the implementation of a ballistics engineering research center.

HR2863, #252, 10/05/05

Y

Y

Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 2863;Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006

HR2863, #254, 10/07/05

Y

Y

H.R. 2863 As Amended; Department ofDefense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006

HR3058, #259, 10/19/05

Y

Y

Motion to Suspend Rule XVI, Paragraph 4 Re: Dorgan Amdt. No. 2078; To establish a special committee of the Senate on war and reconstruction contracting.

S1042, #309, 11/08/05

Y

Y

Levin Amdt. No. 2430; To establish a national commission on policies and practices on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001.

S1042, #316, 11/10/05

Y

Y

Dorgan Amdt. No. 2476; To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism.

S1042, #318, 11/10/05

Y

Y

Kerry Amdt. No. 2507 As Amended; To require reports on clandestine facilities for the detention of individuals captured in the global war on terrorism.

S1042,
#319, 11/10/05

N

N

Graham Amdt. No. 2516; Relating to the review of the status of detainees of the United States Government.

S1042,
#322, 11/15/05

Y

Y

Levin
Amdt. No. 2519; To clarify andrecommend
changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on
certain matters relating to Iraq.

S1042,
#323, 11/15/05

Y

Y

Warner
Amdt. No. 2518; To clarify andrecommend
changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on
certain matters relating to Iraq.

S1042,
#325, 11/15/05

Y

Y

Levin
Amdt. No. 2519; To clarify andrecommend
changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on
certain matters relating to Iraq.

S1042,
#326, 11/15/05

Y

Y

S. 1042
As Amended; National DefenseAuthorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006

HR2863,
#359, 12/19/05

Y

Y


Motion to
Proceed to the Conference Report toAccompany
H.R. 2863; Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006

HR1815,
#360, 12/19/05

Y

Y


Motion to
Proceed to Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1815; National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

HR2863,
#364, 12/21/05

N

N


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2863; Department of
Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006

HR2863,
#366, 12/21/05

Y

Y

H.R. 2863
Conference Report; Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic
Influenza Act, 2006

HR4939,
#101, 04/27/06

Y

Y

Byrd
Amdt. No. 3709; To express the sense of the Senate on requests for funds for
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal years after fiscal
year 2007.

HR4939,
#103, 05/02/06

Y

Y


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on H.R. 4939;Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006

HR4939,
#112, 05/04/06

Y

Y

H.R. 4939
As Amended; EmergencySupplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006

S2766,
#168, 06/13/06

Y

Y

Frist
Amdt. No. 4208; To express the sense of Congress that the United States Armed
Forces, the intelligence community, and other agencies, as well as the
coalition partners of the United States and the Iraqi Security Forces should
be commended for their actions that resulted in the death of Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the leader of the al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist organization and the
most wanted terrorist in Iraq.

S2766,
#170, 06/14/06

Y

Y


McCain
Amdt. No. 4242; To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations.

S2766,
#172, 06/15/06

N

N

Santorum
Amdt. No. 4234; To authorize, with an offset, assistance for prodemocracy
programs and activities inside and outside Iran, to make clear that the
United States supports the ability of the people of Iran to exercise
self-determination over their form of government, and to make enhancements to
the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.

S2766,
#174, 06/15/06

Y

Y


Motion to
Table McConnell Amdt. 4269; To require the withdrawal of the United States
Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit.

S2766,
#176, 06/20/06

Y

Y

Dorgan
Amdt. No. 4292; To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate
the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in
Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism.

S2766,
#177, 06/20/06

N

N


McConnell
Amdt. No. 4272 As Modified; To affirm the Iraqi Government position of no
amnesty for terrorists who have attacked U.S. forces.

S2766,
#178, 06/20/06           



Y

Y

Nelson
(FL) Amdt. No. 4265; To express the sense of Congress that the Government of
Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or
wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

S2766,
#181, 06/22/06

N

N

Kerry
Amdt. No. 4442; To require the redeployment
of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution
in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and
achieve victory in the war on terror.

S2766,
#182, 06/22/06

Y

Y

Levin Amdt. No. 4320; To state the sense of Congress on United States policy on
Iraq.

S2766,
#183, 06/22/06

Y

Y


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on S. 2766; JohnWarner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

S2766,
#186, 06/22/06

Y

Y

S. 2766
As Amended; John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007

HR5631,
#225, 08/03/06

Y

Y

Boxer
Amdt. No. 4858; To prohibit the use of funds by the United States Government
to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject
members of the Armed Forces to the jurisdiction of Iraq criminal courts or
punishment under Iraq law.

HR5631,
#233, 09/06/06

N

N


Motion to
Table Kennedy Amdt. No. 4885; To include information on civil war in Iraq in
the quarterly reports on progress toward military and political stability in
Iraq.

HR5631,
#236, 09/07/06

N

N


Motion to
Table Menendez Amdt. No. 4909; To prohibit the use of funds for a public
relations program designed to monitor news media in the United States and the
Middle East and create a database of news stories to promote positive
coverage of the war in Iraq.

HR5631,
#237, 09/07/06

N

N


Motion to
Table Schumer Amdt. No. 4897; To make available up to an additional
$700,000,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combat the
growth of poppies in Afghanistan, to eliminate the production and trade of
opium, and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the proceeds for
terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and to designate
the additional amount as emergency spending.

HR5631,
#239, 09/07/06

Y

Y

H.R. 5631
As Amended; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007

HR4954,
#243, 09/13/06

Y

Y


Motion to
Waive CBA Re: Reid Amdt. No.4936;To provide real national security, restore
United States leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the
war on terror.

S3930,
#254, 09/27/06

Y

Y

Levin Amdt. No. 5086; In the nature of a substitute.

S3930,
#255, 09/28/06

Y

Y

Specter Amdt. No. 5087; To strike the provision regarding habeas review.

S3930,
#256, 09/28/06

Y

Y

Rockefeller Amdt. No. 5095; To provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs.

S3930,
#257, 09/28/06

Y

Y

Byrd Amdt. 5104; To prohibit the establishment of new military commissions after December 31, 2011.

S3930,
#259, 09/28/06

N

N

On Passage, S. 3930 As Amended; Military Commissions Act of 2006

HR5631,
#261, 09/29/06

Y

Y

H.R.5631
Conference Report; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007

Petraeus
Conf., #33, 01/26/07

Y

Y

Confirmation
Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army, to be General

SCR2,
#43, 02/01/07

N

N


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed
to S.Con.Res.2; A concurrent resolution expressing the bipartisan resolution
on Iraq.

S470,
#44, 02/05/07

Y

Y


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed
to S. 470; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

Casey
Conf., #45, 02/08/07

N

Y

Confirmation
Gen. George W. Casey to be Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

S574,
#51, 02/17/07

Y

Y


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed
to S.574; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

SJR9,
#74, 03/14/07

Y

Y


Motion to
Invoke Cloture on the Motion toProceed
to Consider S. J. Res. 9; A joint resolution to revise United States policy
on Iraq.

SJR9,
#75, 03/15/07

Y

Y

S. J.
Res. 9; A joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq.

SR107,
#76, 03/15/07

Y

Y

S. Res.
107; A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no action should be
taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States or
impact their ability to complete their assigned or future missions.

SCR20,
#77, 03/15/07            



Y

Y

S. Con.
Res. 20; A concurrent resolutionexpressing
the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American
Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their
ability to complete their assigned mission.

HR1591,
#116, 3/27/07

N

N

Cochran
Amd. No. 643; To strike language that would tie the hands of the
Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of
US forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed
Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

HR1591,
#117, 3/28/07

Y

Y


Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 1591; U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007

HR1591,
#124, 3/29/07

Y

Y

Biden Amdt. No. 739; To appropriate an additional $1,500,000,000 for Procurement, Marine Corps, to accelerate the procurement of an additional 2,500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles for the Armed Forces.

HR1591,
#125, 3/29/07

Y

Y

Is Section 431 of the Senate Language to H.R. 1591 Germane?; In the nature of a substitute.

HR1591,
#126, 3/29/07

Y

Y

H.R. 1591, As Amended; U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007

PERMALINK | RECOMMEND THIS
| TOPICS: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pres '08

Comments (71)

avatar

What are trying to say?

Posted by goethean
March 29, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Thanks for the compilation.

If you go by Senate votes, there's not much daylight between these two candidates, is there?

Posted by CT Voter
March 29, 2007 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Go figure. Democrats voting like Democrats. You'd never know that by the people who claim Hillary marches in lockstep with George Bush.

Posted by markg8
March 29, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

sure, ct. no prob. goethean, we posted this out of genuine curiosity about their differences. but as we said, we absolutely think that these similarities don't in any way overshadow the initial difference between them -- which is (understandably) paramount for many people and which we've written here is key. as I've written here, obama made the right call when it counted, and there's no way around that

Posted by Greg Sargent
March 29, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Click here for Obama's Feb 8th 2007 statement on Casey.

Click here for Clinton's Feb 8th 2007 statement on Casey.

Posted by lj629
March 29, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

A lot of the bills on the list seem to involve appropriating funds for troop safety and standard things like that rather than extreme policy positions; agreement makes sense. I'm a lot like Obama (or he's like me) in that while I opposed the war from the beginning, I'm not quite on the Feingold side of the issue regarding how/when to get out. I'm a bit more cautious in my feelings on how to extricate ourselves, though I very much approve of benchmarks, etc.

Two things I think are worth noting: First, by the time Obama got to the Senate, Hillary had moved a bit left on the issue, largely due (I assume) to the change in public opinion. Obama, of course, ran for office and spoke against the war while it was still very popular.

Secondly, I don't think there was a lot of daylight between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the time they served in the Senate together during the initial buildup and authorization of the war, either. He's positioned himself to her left and beefed up his anti-war bona fides with his apology since then, of course. But I think it's fair to draw comparisons there as well.

Posted by Gwendyn
March 29, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I started to compare and contrast the first nine votes in the list with other members of the Democratic Party and couldn't see much difference there either. I think once the war was underway, and as we were firmly in the minority there wasn't much the Democratic Party could do regarding the war, especially with appropriation bills, with much needed pork on both sides of the aisle../

However, this was a weird one? -- A DLC thing?

HR1268, #93, 04/13/05
N
N
Byrd Amdt. No. 367; To reduce by $36,000,000 the amount appropriated for "Military Construction, Army", with the amount of the reduction to be allocated to funds available under that heading for the Camp 6 Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Anyways, I think what's more important is to explore her DLC connection and see if she approves/agrees with their political 'think tank' philosophy on the war as espoused by their many press releases, and now recently by the Clintons protégé - Harold Ford? I think it's worth asking her, afterall she is a member, and in a leadership role no less...

"...Former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), yesterday said he does not agree with efforts by Congress to set a deadline for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

"I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving," Mr. Ford said..."

Taken from Mydd post

I initially thought Obama had joined the DLC when he entered the Senate. I still have my doubts sometimes. Anyone got the latest membership list? I know they don't like to broadcast their membership rolls. I always wonder what that faction is up to behind the scenes.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 29, 2007 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

So what the votes really show is that after Hillary makes a mess she knows how to clean up well, behind herself?

Great Monday morning QB judgement, is what we have here.

Posted by whiterosebuddy
March 29, 2007 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Clinton panders to the "support the troops" crowd.

Obama holds Bush, Cheney and the entire Executive branch responsible for a failed policy.

Posted by upper left corner
March 29, 2007 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Here is Sen. Clinton's statement on her nay vote for confirmation of Gen. Casey to Army Chief of Staff:

"The Army Chief of Staff has responsibility for training and equipping the brave soldiers who are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

During his nomination hearing to be Army Chief of Staff, I questioned General Casey about recent reports, both by the Department of Defense Inspector General and press accounts, that units and personnel lacked the necessary equipment. General Casey responded that was not aware of the problems cited in these reports and actually quite surprised at the reported shortcomings. In the Inspector General report's summary, the equipment shortages were attributed to basic management failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. General Casey was not aware of this investigation or its recommendations that oversight must immediately improve to ensure proper distribution of equipment; as a result units and personnel are not able to perform assign missions.

General Casey has had a distinguished career and devoted his life to serving the Army and this nation, but his testimony lacked the sense of urgency and resolve required of our next Chief of Staff who will be responsible to provide trained and relevant Soldiers with the requisite equipment to the battlefield. I believe that our soldiers deserve the very best we can offer for their protection; therefore I voted to oppose General Casey's nomination to be Army Chief of Staff. After his confirmation today, I look forward to working with General Casey to ensure that our soldiers have the equipment and training that they need."

Casey was confirmed 83-14. Senators voting against:

• Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
• Sen. Kit Bond R-Mo.
• Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
• Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
• Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
• Sen Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
• Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
• Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
• Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
• Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
• Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.
• Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H.

 

Posted by joejoejoe
March 29, 2007 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

No Hillary does not march in lock-step with W, however, she did follow him over a cliff.

Posted by upper left corner
March 29, 2007 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

The Black Commentator, 6/26/03:

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

Obama is not now and has never been a member of the DLC.

Posted by joejoejoe
March 29, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

If only HRC had exercised this same diligence and read the NIE report prior to voting YES for the AUMF, there might not be a need to be concerned about the troops not having adequate equipment. If more Senators had voted against the AUMF and giving the President carteblanche, we might not be in this complete war debacle.

Her Casey vote is too little too late.

Posted by whiterosebuddy
March 29, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Keep up the great work. I'd be remiss if I bitched about gossip in other threads and did not credit the hard work that you did to produce this one. Well done getting this in the public record.

OT: Here is Obama's complete IL Senate record including all the bills he authored and co-sponsored and whether it passed or no action was taken. TPM might distill it down into something pallatable for general consumption. Still, it's easy enough to read if you are a political junkie.

IL State Sen. bio for Barack Obama

90th IL General Assembly - bills sponsored

91st IL General Assembly - bills sponsored

92nd IL General Assembly - bills sponsored

93rd IL General Assembly - bills sponsored

In Jan. '03 IL Dems took went from the minority to the majority in the IL Senate and Obama became Chairperson of the Health and Human Services Committee. Obama resigned from the IL State Senate two days after he won election to the US Senate on 11/2/04.

Posted by joejoejoe
March 29, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Obama is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the DLC.

Ooops! I hadn't seen the preceeding post. I guess great minds think alike....

Posted by upper left corner
March 29, 2007 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I hear ya. I wrote extensively about who did and didn't read the 2002 Iraq NIE at Daily Kos. Here's my diary on the subject if you are interested.

Posted by joejoejoe
March 29, 2007 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I think it was because of his relationship with Lieberman, and his similar DLC talking points with regards to the Alito filibuster and social security. He's not a progressive, but ok I haven't done a thorough DLC talking points vs. Obama talking points comparison chart. Ok Ok, I believe you.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 29, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Of all the Senators running for President, Obama is the most progressive according to the ADA ratings. He isn't Paul Wellstone, but he is a "progressive." His Illinios Senate rating was even higher, before he began positioning himself for his run at '08.

Posted by upper left corner
March 29, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I agree, out of the crew we HAVE to choose from, he is the most progressive -- I still miss Wellstone...

Also, just found another comparison on Hills & Obama (Daily Kos Diary)... not about the war vote, but as you said relating to progressive issues etc.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 29, 2007 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Speaking from my personal prejudice...anyone on the same side of an issue as Kit Bond has a few marbles loose.

Posted by stlounick
March 30, 2007 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

SeeDee

Gwendyn, I'm just curious...How do you define 'support the troops'?

Do you think 'funding' our participation in in a conflict with ever-changing definitions of 'victory' is 'supporting the troops? Do you think funding an adamant policy that, essentially, positions our 'troops' in the midst of a civil war is 'support for the troops?

Do you think that funding a well-planned AND STATED policy to safely dis-engage our troops from an incurably failed venture is not 'supporting' the troops?

There is a difference in 'supporting the muserable failed policies of a mis-guided little chicken-hawk C-I-C so that he can, perhaps, preserve a shred of boastfulness (bring 'em on)...and appropriating funding to truly 'support the troops' by getting them out of Iraq.

I'm at a loss to comprehend this ongoing blithering about 'supporting' the troops by continuing their exposure to the mess which Iraq has become.

Posted by SeeDee
March 30, 2007 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

They DLC does feature him on their site:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251658&kaid=104&subid=210


Kind of weird if you ask me.

Posted by Ghost of Tom Joad
March 30, 2007 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

My post mentioned "appropriating funds for troop safety," by which I meant bills to armour vehicles and even the bills where they both voted yes to fund Veterans' care. I'm not a big fan of the old "support the troops" refrain, so I didn't use it.

Posted by Gwendyn
March 30, 2007 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

IMHO, this comparison is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Two things are important about the difference between Obama and Hillary:

1) Obama had the judgement and political courage to be against giving Bush authorization to go to war. Hillary, regardless of whether her reason was deference to the executive, belief in a need for more leverage for inspections, or naked political calculation, did not.

2) The difference outlined above will have an enormous impact on the ability of the Dems to hold the Repubs responsible for the war, and will also have an enormous impact on the ability of the Repubs to attack Obama or HRC if either wins the nomination.

The Repubs' #1 attack meme on HRC is that she is calculating and inauthentic. Her history on the war plays right into the Repubs meme.

OTOH, the Repubs' #1 attack meme against Obama is that he is an inexperienced lightweight. The fact that he was right from the start on the war significantly undermines their ability to get this attack to stick.

I have restated this analysis a couple of times over the past few months, so apologees to those who have already heard this spiel. However, I think this is of PRIMARY importance. Dems need to think strategically about how the war will affect the electability of our nominee.

Posted by upper left corner
March 30, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

DLC taking unwarranted "ownership" of up and coming Democrats who aren't members? Perhaps they need more donations.

Posted by stlounick
March 30, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

SeeDee

I'm of the opinion that, no matter how you frame it, appropriating funds to maintain the status quo in Iraq rather than appropriating funds directed specifically at extricating them from a harmful, nonsensical, failed policy-driven deployment is wrong.

In view of five years of massive appropriations for the war in Iraq, much of it squandered and un-accounted for, it is a given that our troops should have the necessary protective equipment and wounded vets should be cared for properly; but 'appropriating funds for troop safety' and/or 'supporting the troops' should mean only one thing: Appropriating funds to finance an immediate and orderly (and safe) with-drawal from Iraq.

Posted by SeeDee
March 30, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Looks like a useful corrective to the perception that Hillary votes with Leiberman on the war. I'm not crazy about Hillary these days, but that claim has always struck me as ridiculous. The initial vote on the AUMF is another story; but there Edwards falls short as well. Just saying...(And btw, I'm not in anyone's camp yet; plenty of good choices, plenty of time...)

Posted by rj
March 30, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Oh sure, it took political courage to be against the war if you had to vote on it. It didn't any political courage to oppose it if you didn't.

What this suggests to me is that had Obama been in the Senate at the time of the authorization, he too would have likely voted as Hillary did.

One thing we know about Obama is that he's not terribly brave. He is much beholden to conventional wisdom and has yet to prove that he has the ability to take a stand.

In fact, I'd be interested to know - has Obama ever taken a progressive political position that puts him at odds with the majority of his constitutents -meaning, directly, the people who vote for him, not simply the nation at large.

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Greg,

Here's what's missing:

A compare and contrast of these votes, versus those that voted "nay" to the original Iraq vote.

You rightly say that there isn't much difference here, and the important difference was the first vote.

Obama SAYS he would have voted no to the initial legislation, but there is obviously no vote of record. In actual votes since being elected Senator he looks no different than HRC. You can interpret this two ways: the latter votes don't really provide a view into either Senator's Iraq war views, so the lack of difference between Obama and HRC is misleading. The other possibility is that while Obama says he's against the war, when it actually counts, i.e. when he votes, his view is more pro-Iraq war than he says.

How to distinguish? How about adding Dick Durbin, his fellow Illinois Senator, and one or two prominent Iraq war critics/Senators to the comparison? Have their votes been the same as Obama and HRC for the votes listed above?

Posted by wisewon
March 30, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

It looks like the Hillary fanboys feel the need to push Bill's idea of Hillary not being to far from Obama on the issues.

First of all you can do a side-by-side of probably 80% of Democrats and get the same results. So this is not an indication of much. It all comes down to the original vote that gave Bush the ability to start this mess we are in, in Iraq. These votes only go back to 2005. By then the damage was done. But just out of curiosity it would be interesting to see the cloture votes as well.

This is more an issue of overall philosophy. Bill and Hillary have a long record of policy from the 90's. Make no mistake, Bill will have a ton of influence on policy. We know a lot of the disasters that came from his policies like the NAFTA, Telecommunications, among others.

So before we get out the pom-poms for the "Goldwater Girl", lets let the primaries play out. Let's see the debates. We are still a year away from the real campaigning.

Can we finally elect a non-DLC type Democrat?

Posted by RSchewe
March 30, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Nice try, Greg. I support Edwards- who was courageous enough to admit a mistake- and Obama was right from the start. Clinton was wrong, but apparently lacks the backbone to admit it.

Posted by S Richter
March 30, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Um. Obama made no such call at all. He was not in the senate at the time and has already admitted that if he had been, he might have voted differently. His actual voting record is all we have and arguably it shows Hillary in a better light as Obama didn't even have the stomach to vote against Casey after his years of dissembling on Iraq. I am also not sure who you think Hillary's AUMF vote actually matters to. Polls show that it certainly doesn't matter to the vast majority of democratic voters. Continuing to trash Hillary for this vote just plays right into the hands of rightwing pundits. She is the likely nominee and many on the left spend most of their time creating talking points that will be used aginst her in the general election. It would be nice if people would think about strategy instead of ideaology for a change. Otherwise, we will end up with eight years of Rudy or worse.

Posted by Heretic
March 30, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Just out of curiosity, what so-called progressive votes has Obama made that Hillary did not. I am not talking about empty rhetoric, but actual votes.

Posted by Heretic
March 30, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

First, a couple of quotes.

"Politicians working within a system like ours can never be much more than what the system will allow." Gore Vidal

"Eric, if you think we'd be in Iraq today if I were president then you really shouldn't vote for me." John Kerry to Eric Alterman regarding his vote for the war resolution.

This compare and contrast of Clinton and Obama regarding their Iraq war positions is bullshit.

If Obama had been in the senate at the time he most likely would have done the same as Clinton, Kerry and Edwards. And today he would be saying about his vote something similar to them. Like: I regret it... or...If I knew then what I know now...or...It was a mistake...etc.

Political considerations affect everything you say and do, most especially if you intend to run for president. Feel free to vote for or against HRC or Obama based on their votes regarding the war resolution or funding or budgets or confirmations or whatever, but don't forget who the real culprits for this unmitigated disaster are.

And for all you hardcore purists out there there's always Kucinich...or maybe even Ralph!

Posted by Loki
March 30, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I will never understand how pushing for inspections was wrong. The one chance we had to avert this war was if the inspections revealed that he no WMD. And the vote for authorization got the inspectors back in. Bush threw the inspectors back out. I never heard anyone in the progressive community warn that Bush would not allow the inspectors to finish their job. If you have credible voices claiming that inspections would be interrupted by Bush in order to wage war, I'd be interested in reading that. It certainly wasn't what even the blogosphere on whole thought would happen,

I think there is a lot of conventional wisdom on the left that needs to be re-thought. Hillary's position, had Bush not stopped the inspections, could have just as easily been the one that prevented war.

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I think the point of the post is that if "who's to blame" is the dominant theme of the Democratic primaries, Hillary loses ground.

If "how do we get out and where do we go from here" is the dominant theme, Hillary gains.

I don't think there's anything wrong with making "who's to blame" a big issue (which is why I would vote for Obama today) but I do wish Democrats would keep some perspective on the most blameworthy parties of all, i.e. Bush and Republicans who have voted in virtual unanimity every step of the way.

I've always thought that it's extremely naive to believe that even if Senate Democrats had blocked the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, that Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003, anyway.

Posted by bcf
March 30, 2007 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar
"but I do wish Democrats would keep some perspective on the most blameworthy parties of all, i.e. Bush and Republicans who have voted in virtual unanimity every step of the way."

Yes. At this point Obama appears (and I use that word purposefully) more progressive than Hillary, but it may be just an appearance. He did have the right call on the war, but he also had the luxury of not being up for re-election in two years so he didn't run the risk of being painted as a wimpy Democrat. A painting aided and abetted by mainstream media.

The most "blameworthy" party is George W. Bush, and his administration. Let's not eviscerate Democratic candidates in the rush to prove who was better five years ago. It seems destructive, with no real benefit resulting from it.

Posted by CT Voter
March 30, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Heretic wrote:


"Obama made no such call at all."

Obama in October 2002 making the right call:


"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Hillary Clinton making the wrong call in October 2002 and admitting that she knows her "yes" vote might lead to war:


This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

Posted by lj629
March 30, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Loki wrote:


If Obama had been in the senate at the time he most likely would have done the same as Clinton, Kerry and Edwards.

Obama went on record in October of 2002 saying the exact opposite. There's no need to guess what he "most likely" would have done in October 2002 because he told us clearly and concisely what he would have done at the time of the vote.

Posted by lj629
March 30, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar
"...I never heard anyone in the progressive community warn that Bush would not allow the inspectors to finish their job..."
The warnings were made/implied in the Senate, which has a lot more credibility than the blogosphere. Some Senators did read the PNAC guide to regime change without WMD's.

Levin's Resolution

H/T: Links for you to explore other amendments that would have provided checks and balances, and more importantly "prevented a war".

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

To state the obvious, things look awfully different when you actually have to vote. When your votes will be gone over with a fine tooth comb in the future. Again, especially if you're a presidential candidate. Believe what you want.

Posted by Loki
March 30, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

With the war vote... I believe him.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

And so your point is that Bush would have abided by the terms of the other measures once he had a Republican congress in place? Really?

He didn't abide by the terms of the authorization that did pass. Why would those others ones have been any different?

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Heretic wrote:


She is the likely nominee and many on the left spend most of their time creating talking points that will be used aginst her in the general election. It would be nice if people would think about strategy instead of ideaology for a change.

I find this statement incredibly offensive. Winning is all that matters. The actual beliefs, actions, and votes of the candidates are irrelevant. We all should hold our tongues and let the presumptive nominee proceed without criticism directly to the general election. We should all just blindly support Hillary Clinton because it's her turn. If we all keep silent about Hillary's flaws, maybe no one will notice.

Posted by lj629
March 30, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

There are three branches of government. Each Senator is responsible for THEIR vote, responsible to provide checks and balances. Hillary FAILED! That's my point.

Read the authorization, there was no provision in that resolution to enforce Bush to carry out inspections, and if no WMD's were found NOT to go unilaterally into war. Read the authorization and the amendments.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

And yet no one suspected that he would not complete inspections. The reason being that everyone was pretty certain that Hussein had some WMD - just no means to deliver it.

Which of the authorizations specifically stated that Bush must complete inspections before going to war and had a majority of Republican support? Because if that bill doesn't exist, then you've really got no ground to stand on.

Bush asked for the right to threaten credibly to get inspectors into Iraq. He got it and then he betrayed the very bill he asked for. That's what all the anti-Hillary camp keeps forgetting. This is Bush's bill and he did not abide by even that.

It was a lousy bill. Hillary shouldn't have voted for it. But the way it went wrong was not predicted at the time. Had Bush abided by that bill, he would not have had grounds to go in.

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I see no basis to presume Obama is a liar. He went on record at the time and stated his position. He has stuck to that position ever since.

Posted by lj629
March 30, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Here's what Hillary actually voted "yes" on:


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Specifically, which of the above provisions do you feel Bush violated?

Posted by lj629
March 30, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Nobody called him a liar. I suspect he spoke his mind at the time. It is also quite evident that people's thinking can appear to change drastically when they go from state level politics to national level. If they have dreams of being president, even more so. Political calculations must be made. That is why I think trying to cast Clinton or Obama as purely this or purely that is a foolish exercise.

And as someone else noted, Obama has the luxury of not having to make a real decision to vote for the resolution to use force or not vote for the resolution to use force...and live with the real political consequences of that vote.

Posted by Loki
March 30, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar
"And yet no one suspected that he would not complete inspections... Had Bush abided by that bill, he would not have had grounds to go in."

Please! Levin's floor statement, against Lieberman's blank check amendment was prophetic. Example, why leaving enforcement to Bush (ha!) MIGHT be a problem! Bush abided by the resolution all right.

Hans Blix said that by March the evidence was falling apart, but Hillary still just before the war was was gung-ho and behind Bush all the way... seemed like she was happy with the resolutino she voted for - yep the anti-Hillary crowd remembered that too.

Also, read what Scott Ritter had to say about those WMD's... I'm sure his concerns were not the only one's going around the Hill grapevine at the time. With all the PNAC'ers in place, any idiot could see that war was going ahead regardless of WMD's - and Hillary voted for it - no review of strategy (troops #'s?) or costs, no questions - nope -- just voted for Bush to have a huge blank check - screw the troops, screw the consequences ... madness.

There were 25 Senate Democrats that voted against the war, but voted for those amendments that would have provided a check and balance on the President, regardless of the fact there was a republican majority (your red herring)- This resolution wasn't a spending bill... Hillary and the other DLC'ers were complicit with starting this war by giving Bush a blank check, and asking no questions. I believe asking questions not having to vote with the republicans is still allowed?

(July 17, 2002) "...RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

also...

August 20, 2002 GEN. CLARK: "...Privately even the hawks within the US government lobbying for war acknowledged that President Saddam was no threat to America, according to the general.

And they had been arguing for the attack long before September 11, he said.

"There are some in the administration who have always felt that military power should be used to eliminate Saddam Hussein..."

Also, Bush would have been able to get inspectors in with the Democrat amendments?

Levin's Resolution was the safeguard, and would have let Bush get inspectors into Iraq? Also, Chafee a republican voted for his the resolution, Hillary did not - why? - not because it stopped the inspections? Maybe because she was scared of the republican majority?

"..There were five (resolutions/amendments) that were proposed: the one that passed 75-25, proposed by Lieberman; the Byrd amendment that would provide a termination date for the use of force authorization, which failed 31-66; the second Byrd amendment that would limit Bush’s authority to Iraq (the Lieberman version mentions a number of terrorist organizations that force was also authorized against), which failed 14-86; the Levin amendment that would limit the authority to destroying or removing WMDs and require a new UN Security Council resolution, which failed 24-75; and the Durbin amendment that would limit the authority to any imminent threat posed by Iraqi WMDs not a continuing threat, which failed 30-70.."

Hillary did vote for it. It was a bad bad move. It has cost us a lot of money, lives and has ruined our credibility and reputation with the international community. If she wasn't running for President ok, but she is - no way does she have the credibility to be Commander in Chief.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Specifically, inspections would have established that Iraq presented no threat to us. The point of the resolution, which I know you know, was to get inspectors into Iraq. It worked. Bush threw them out before they could establish definitively that Iraq had no WMD - it's quite clear that the Bush administration was very well aware that they presented no threat to the US. Why else throw the inspectors out?

I'm not aruging on behalf of the authorization. Merely that, at the time, no one was warning that Bush would violate even those terms. There was no public discussion that the resolution was unwise BECAUSE Bush would not allow the inspections to be finished. Plenty of debate about how unwise it was to grant him a blank check - which I agree with. But in the end, that blank check didn't matter. Bush did not live up to even the very minimal standards proposed.

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

That's the whole point -- he did abide by it! That's why it was BAD loophole ridden resolution! Why 25 Senate Democrats and a majority of Democrats in the House voted against it.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

- delete - duplicate

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

And so if Bush elects not to abide by the terms of the Levin Amendment, what then? What makes you think a Republican congress would have held him to those standards when they didn't even bother to hold him to the standards of the authorization?

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Well, if the Levin's Amendment did pass, and Bush went against it, we might of had a 2004 Democratic landside, or we might be seeing impeachment proceedings?

Might might might... but that's all hindsight isn't it, because it was the Lieberman's resolution (Hills friend) resolution that went through, not Levin's.

However, we're not solely talking about Bush's crazy judgment and agenda - the Senators who voted no, explored where his bad judgment and agenda could lead - and why they voted against the resolution. We are talking about Hillary who willingly voted for Bush to apply his bad judgment, his (and maybe her?) agenda.

The republican majority is a red herring, no one forced her to vote for the resolution, she did, and so what we should be looking at is her inability to see those loopholes in the resolution that were consequently applied - causing this quagmire.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Senator Clinton has to live with the consequences of her vote. She even suggested that taking this nation to war is a critical decision. Public opinion was behind Bush; I don't think any of us can quarrel with that. Standing against the wind of public opinion is particularly difficult for a politician--and that applies anywhere in this country at the time. (Unless you think Illinois is populated by pacificists?)

Instead, I have examined what Nancy Pelosi did in the House. She led the majority of House Democrats to vote against this resolution. Her statements at the time reflect her judgment that the threat to the United States was not imminent. And she did not receive kind treatment for her exercise in judgment and leadership at the time. Yet, her judgment was right on track with subsequent developments.

What is really astounding is that the candidates for the Democratic primary are dominated by Senators who voted for the Iraq War. Is this the face we desire for the Democratic Party--a very public display of poor judgment on something as critical as war?

I will support any candidate who demonstrated publicly--even without a Senate vote to fall back on--at the time of this vote the judgment I consider essential in a President. Only Obama falls into this category.

Posted by stlounick
March 30, 2007 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

I think most of the beef with Hillary is reactionary and rooted in hindsight. Her POV makes perfect sense, and, had Bush been less corrupt, would have actually prevented the war. Hillary's detractors cannot bring themselves to admit that her position, except for Bush's corruption, might well have been the smartest move under the circumstances.

My senator, Barbara Boxer, describes her "no" vote on the authorization as the "scariest" vote of her career and still involuntarily crosses her fingers for luck when mentioning it.

It was a very tough call. Ultimately, Hillary's vote was one for information to prevent the war - nothing else and nothing less. Bush subverted the process and somehow or the other, you think he could have been restrained with the other amendments.

Posted by lorelynn
March 30, 2007 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

My view about Hillary is based on her supposed lack of hindsight about the PNAC gang at the time of the vote, also her having no reaction or concern about her bad 2002 vote. She's not fit, not even qualified to be President = Pelosi is a far better politican than Hillary is.

Barbara Boxer is not running for president...

It was a tough call - Hillary made the wrong call, speaks volumes.

Hillary's vote was one for information to prevent the war - nothing else and nothing less.

Rubbish you obviously haven't read the background material and opposition around the vote.

Bush subverted the process and somehow or the other, you think he could have been restrained with the other amendments.

Those are weak excuses and are not enough to cover Hillary's backside. She voted YAY, noboby forced her, she voted the wrong way - she voted with Bush. Next you'll be telling me she accidentially had her fingers in her ears when Levin and 24 other Senators gave their carefully considered reasons for their NO vote against Bush's unilateral, preemptive illegal war.

Posted by SandThroughTheEyeglass
March 30, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar

Obama has been running his campaign as though he's the total anti-war prince of peace. I'm glad Bill Clnton called attention to the fact that Obama's and Hillary's voting records on the war in Iraq are almost exactly the same and thank you Greg and Eric for doing all the research.

I really appreciate this.


Margo Fisher

Posted by Margo Fisher
March 31, 2007 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink