Prediction: If the Clintons and Obamas keep going back and forth like this, John Edwards will be the Democratic nominee.

Prediction: Clintons will be held to account for their remarks. Are you suggesting that if Edwards were threatening them, he would not be under this sort of attack?

I imagine there is a testing of waters in the Clinton campaign to get a feel for Obama's responses. Obama seems intent on answering, even when no answer is necessary. I think he's falling into a trap. If Obama becomes "just like everyone else", he loses. The same is not true of Clinton.

I understand where both of them are coming from, actually. BTW, Obama's answer doesn't strike me as an example of hitting back. That makes it sound like an attack. It was a well-phrased defense. Plus, Clinton's beef is with the Times, obviously, not Obama, and his response understands that.

"In 2002, I opposed giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq..."

In 2002, Obama wasn't in the US Senate at the time of the vote so why grant so much weight to what he says about this? Honestly, it's so overplayed that it's become trite.

I suspect that if he were a US Senator at the time, he would have voted "yes" with the majority. But we'll never know so any discussion is purely academic.

I'm tired of Obama and Clinton already. I'm leaning toward Edwards in the primary and I suspect I'll be holding my nose when I vote in the general if Edwards isn't the nominee.

Every time they try to "get" Obama on the Iraq issue, it just frees him up to make the same old affirmative "I was against it from the beginning" remark without diminishing himself or going negative in any way. Bill and Hill have the same old killer instinct, but if I was advising them, I'd tell them to find another weapon.

Plus, Clinton's beef is with the Times, obviously, not Obama, and his response understands that.

It was the same pattern from the Hillary campaign with the Geffen remarks. Their beef was with Geffen, but they attacked Obama, and Obama does not get in the middle, when he responds.

Would it be too much to ask what quote from Obama in what paper Clinton might possibly be talking about?

You know, the original accusation, and whether it is fair or not, should color, I think, everything else that follows.

He was a state senator when he opposed it. It's all pure conjecture at this point what he would have done had he been in the US Senate.

We need less hem kissing and more critical thought about Sen. Obama. That statement is one of those opportunities.

In 2002, the prowar sentiment was very high. Anyone who opposed the war back then had to have some very strong feelings against going to war. Remember, we were told going to war was the "patriotic" thing to do after 9/11.

I tip my hat off to anyone who stood squarely against the Iraq war in 2002.

Has the media been overly aggressive toward Hillary while going soft on Obama?

I know it is not as exciting as he said he said but inquiring minds want to know.

I'd really like to see the actual quote Clinton was referring to.

Details count.

 It actually ran in a Times piece about Obama from July 26, 2004 (via Nexis):

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''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.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

Me? Hem kissing? The point is, even as a state senator, Obama made the right judgment call.

Senator Clinton, with what should have been a well-earned distrust of Bush and anyone in the GOP based on the ravages to her reputation, gave Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq at the time of his choosing. There's a logic disconnect in that.

I think hrebendorf made a key point.

Another way to look at is this: Compare the judgment of Barack and Hillary when it counts. If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that the ability to make wise judgments is critical. In 2008, that is a criteria that favors Barack over just about anybody based on what we have seen for 2008, and that is a quality we have spent too little time evaluating in candidates.

Is there any reason NOT to seek the high ground?

Bill Clinton really wants his wife to be president. He is entitled to say wahat he wants to support her, and Mrs. Obama can support her guy. But with all this bickering, Edwards comes off the sunny, cheerful winner.

The more Bill enters the fray, the more that Democrats are going to start to remember the doubts they had about him several years ago -- before he was blessed to have as his principal enemies the vile Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, and Ken Starr. Bill is a self-pitier and a whiner. He knows darn well that all Obama was trying to do after the DNC 2004 convention was be a team player and help the Democrats beat Bush by trying to minimize the differences between the anti-war-authorization Democrats like himself and the pro-war-authorization Dems like Kerry and Edwards. As thanks for that team playing, Bill is now trying to trash him. Very typical of the selfish Clinton. And hypocritical as well: Remember that Bill never even took a stand on the first Iraq war; he waited till it was over and even then said, "I would have voted for it but I sympathized with those who voted against it." Obama had the balls to take a stand on the current Iraq war when it was unpopular -- even among Dems -- to oppose Bush, as the dust from the 9/11 skyscrapers barely had settled. And Bill just cannot stand the idea that someone was braver and smarter than him back then and has at least as much charisma but without the awful moral baggage. So he's lashing out irrationally.

By 2002, when it had become clear beyond doubt how stupid W was, I longed for a return of Bill Clinton. I had fantasies about a repeal of the No Third Term amendment, but that was just nostalgia and desperation to escape W. As Bill reemerges in the spotlight, I am reminded again that Bill is deeply flawed: read Stephanopoulos' memoir from around 1997 and in particular the part about Bill's decision to bring in Dick Morris, with Hillary's full support. It will make your toes curl. Hillary has virtually all of Bill's political (not personal) flaws but with none of his partially offsetting virtues. I am tired of both them, particularly in combination, and I think a lot of independents and swing voters are as well.

Just a point of information on this. TPM actually pointed to a video of an Obama interview on this matter and it's likely where the quote at the center of the "controversy" comes from.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012595.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

My take on the video is that Obama is very much triangulating but then I've described him as the "other Hillary Clinton."

In the video, though Obama tries to project that his hypothetical Iraq authorization to use military force vote would have been based on contemplative conscience, the extensive hedging and qualifying beforehand also suggests that if Obama had a real senate seat to lose - as someone who didn't strongly stand up to defend America against terrorists with mushroom cloud capabilities (remember the political climate in the fall of 2002) - his real rather than theoretical vote might have gone for giving Bush all the power Bush wanted.

The hedging I see is very much along the lines of Kerry, whose vote for authorization was based on the belief that all attempts to avoid war and verify that war was a last resort and that Iraq represented a real and dangerous threat to America would be made. It was much more difficult then (in most cases political suicide) to publicly question the honesty of Bush's intentions with respect to leading America into a war of choice completely irrelevant to any real dangers America faced.

I still see Obama as the other Hillary. As with the Clintons, I think the only thing you can be sure Obama stands for is himself.

I still see Obama as the other Hillary. As with the Clintons, I think the only thing you can be sure Obama stands for is himself.
-Amos

I think anyone who arrives at a fully functioning national campaign for President 'stands for himself'. I think it's the only way one makes it to that level of politics. It may be wrapped in egalitarian empathy, but it's still about 'self'. There's no escaping it.

In the video, though Obama tries to project that his hypothetical Iraq authorization to use military force vote would have been based on contemplative conscience, the extensive hedging and qualifying beforehand also suggests that if Obama had a real senate seat to lose - as someone who didn't strongly stand up to defend America against terrorists with mushroom cloud capabilities (remember the political climate in the fall of 2002) - his real rather than theoretical vote might have gone for giving Bush all the power Bush wanted.

You call it hedging. What I see is deliberative measured analysis essential to exercising good judgment. Something we rarely see in a politician particularly during an interview process, as they typically only provide expedient politically calculated answers.

Had Barack been a Senator he would have access to the 90page NIE classified document, which only SIX Senators choose to read. That document detailed, how the case for Hussein having WMD's was dubious and how the likely of him attacking anyone was small to none.  Hillary failed to read that document.

Not only is there no evidence she DID read it. She also voted against the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham who voted AGAINST the war and HAD read it.

Senator Dick Durbin from IL also read the NIE report, he too voted AGAINST the war along with Senator Levin the ranking Democrat on the Armed Svcs. committee as well as 27 other Democratic Senators.

The political climate about the war in 2002 did not stop 29 Senators and another 100 Democrats in the House from voting against the war.  A majority of Democrats voted against it, who HAD information Barack was not privy too, also. Hillary didn't though she was bound and determined to prove she was a war Hawk to such an extent that she would unleash a total moron on the global community to wage war, whenever and however, via premptive strikes that was unpredecented in the history of our foreign policy. What a warhawk, she turned out to be!!!

Based on Obama's track record of judgment with the information available to him he would not have 'hedged' he would have used his excellent deductive reasoning to surmise that this was a COLOSSALLY Dumb War.  Not just a dumb war.

What is your problem with Obama? He has the most progressive voting record. He was right on the war. His life choices reflect progressive values and are consistent with his expressed belief. He is an outstanding writer and a powerful speaker. He has loads of charisma. He has the most momentum and the best chance of stopping Hill-bill. Most of all, he has an ability to bring new voters into the process and he has very high favorables among the indies and moderate Repubs needed to win the general election.

I am amazed at the number of progressives who seem to respond to Obama with a sort of dismissive, worldly cynicism. The fact that he is trying to broaden the progressive base into a working progressive majority by using less divisive language does not make him a sell-out. IMHO it makes him a smart, effective leader.

I would like to have a thoughtful discussion with some of you who dislike Hillary, but also don't think much of Obama.

"He is entitled to say what he wants to support her."

Well no. Not when what he chooses to say is a gross distortion of another candidates record. I for one am deeply offended, although sadly not very surprised, by Clinton's remarks. Distorting another candidates position in such an obvious way, by taking a couple of comments completely out of context, reflects a basic lack of integrity.

It is reflective of the fundamental problem I have with the Clinton's. They seem to be intent on beating the Repubs at their own slimey game: raise loads of corporate cash, manipulate the media, triangulate when necessary, and play the meanest brand of hardball. This strategy may occasionally work in the short run, but it is a looser for the Dems in the long run. It breeds cynicism and erodes public support for the very possibility of collective action through government. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to change some of the rules of the game.

Oh please. Spare me. Do I have to go through that video and make a transcript and parse it out for you? He suggested that if Colin Powell OK'd it (the war) then it'd be OK with him. Though others would follow that same lame path after the UN speech, at the time of the interview I'd call that particular bit of "logic" pandering to race. What were the demographics of his district?

There was something very Rush Limbaughesque about your post. I was vaguely remembering the games the Bush group played (and plays) with intelligence and classified information and who gets to see AND tell about what.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511040008

October 2002, resolution passed. November 25, 2002 is the date on this interview.

Obama said nothing at all about Powell OKaying the war....He said he didn't know whether it was Colin Powell's intervention or the intervention of our allies, but now Bush went through the UN and obtained a resolution for aggressive inspections. At the time, folks were concerned that Bush would fling us into war without exhasting diplomatic alternatives.

All Obama is doing is acknowledging that the Bush rush had been slowed and conjectures that Powell or our allies had been causative factors.

This translates to Powell okayed the war so Obama was okay with it? How do you explain that Obama emphatically says he would have voted NAY?

One thing I've noticed about Obama's reasoning...it follows a logical sequence. Logic is completely missing in your statements.

There's a cold calculating quality about Obama.

What examples do you have of Obama exhibiting this trait?

Obama, did not back Lieberman, what he did was campaign for him to raise money. He did that for an awfully large number of candidates. If anything this was considerable graciousness on his part, based on his oratorical skills and charisma creating great demand for tickets.

The man has charisma but no track record of substance. Don't be blind

Given that we know Hillary lacks charisma, what is her track record of substance as an elected official? She has not distinguished herself in the Senate with any legislation, nor on any committee and certainly not as a speaker on the floor of the Senate.

Didn't the guy vote for cloture on a filibuster to prevent truly lone shark interest rates?

Not quite. As a rookie Senator, his vote against the filibuster of Alito's nomination was not politically expedient. However, he also voted against the confirmation to the US Supreme Court for Alito, unlike the speech Hillary gave where she makes all types of excuses for what her vote is not on the AUMF while voting for it. Obama used his senate vote judiciously and appropriately. He felt the nomination warranted an up or down vote, and you fault that logic?  

As for the shark interest rates, he voted against the bankruptcy bill which allows businesses but not consumers to declare bankruptcy for overextended debt. He could not vote for lower interest rates for consumers without ALSO voting against consumers to stop them from being able to declare bankruptcy. His vote was for the consumer to have the right to declare bankruptcy and against the card card banks. They were not 2 separate votes!  It was a catch-22. Had he voted for the bankruptcy bill you would be yammering about how he shafted consumers.. Stop kvetching and get the details so you understand how Obama  is consistent, genuine and authentic about the positions he takes.

Please share what you believe Hilliary's substantiative record to be. BTW,  she did vote for the bankruptcy bill,  to be.

It could be very well be that it is she who  is another hat with no cattle.

Pandering to race? Give me a break Amos. That you see race in that video shows more about you than about Obama. Powell was already reputed in 2002 to be the most moderate voice in the administration, and Obama simply said that he was relieved that, at least temporarily, it appeared Powell had the upperhand. (Cheney, it was reported then and later confirmed, did not even want to go to the UN; Bush nominally went the Powell route and sought a UN resolution but then of course showed (in early 2003) that he did not give a rat's hair about what the inspectors were reporting back and that the UN step was all window-dressing) The truth is that, when the interviewer (who was pretty good) asked point blank, "How would you have voted had you been in the Senate" Obama said, "If I had to vote up or down on the resolution: Nay." He did not dodge or equivocate. He reasoned out loud, but did not equivocate. So stop it.

Amos, you're mixing up what the public had access to and what Congress had access to. Congress (not their staffs, BTW) had full access to the NIE document....no notes, no staff. Only six Senators and a handful of House members read past the five page executive summary. That summary did not contain the qualifiers and dissenting opinions found in the rest of the document.

The only public document (that all of us could read) was a 28-page "white paper" that contained zero, nada, zip qualifiers and dissenting opinions. It wasn't until July 2003 when WMD was not being found in Iraq, that the full NIE document was released to the public--with a lot of sections "whited out" but some of the qualifiers and dissenting opinions remained.

If Congress folk want to say they were "misled" by the intelligence, then perhaps some need to explain their reasons for not bothering to read the whole thing before casting their vote for war. That left their assessment of the intelligence based on public declarations--which the Bush administration was controlling.

Is that all we require of Congress? Don't even bother to look at the full NIE report? Bit slipshod of them, wasn't it?

BTW, in 2005 Hillary was asked if she had read the classified document before voting for the Iraq War resolution. Her reply? "I'm not going to say anything about that."

It's only useful if you believe Amanda Carpenter reports accurately for Human Events magazine. It came up in 2005 when Reid temporarily put the Senate into closed session to force Roberts, head of the Intelligence Committee, to complete investigations on how intelligence reports were used to "mislead". Conservatives, like Amanda, were attempting to point out that the full NIE was available and Congress folk did not read the full report before their vote. So she asked Senate Dems if they had read the classified report before making their decision on the Iraq War Resolution vote.

The Washington Post also reported the six Senators and a handful of House members read the entire classified report, although they weren't named while most read the 5-page executive summary which did not contain qualifiers or dissenting opinions.

Just so we all stay straight, there are three NIE related reports: (1) the 90+ page NIE classified document that was provided to Congress in early October 2002--this is the one Congress folks could read under supervison--no notes and no staff; (2) a 28-page "White Paper" released publicly on October 04, 2002 which did not include qualifiers and dissenting opinions; and (3) a declassified version of the full NIE report released in July 2003 with full sections "whited out" although some of the qualifiers and dissenting opinions remained. (This was released after it was becoming apparent that WMD was not to be found.)

Also note that open discussion of the contents of classified documents is against the law. Senator Durbin was disturbed during this time since the qualifiers and dissenting opinions in the classified NIE document were "missing in action" when it came to public assertions by the administration--who presented things as absolute facts without the "ifs, ands, and maybes". Durbin couldn't point this out publicly since he would have been discussing classified material.

Congress folks of both parties apparently relied on direct conversation with the administration as well as other information, some in the public domain at the time, to reach their decision.

According to Amanda, the question was whether or not she had read the report. I wouldn't think that question or answer would violate the report classification. Now discussing the report certainly would violate....

Straight answers from Hillary....now there's a concept. :)

Also as you seem to have a handle on the time frame... Didn't she say at one point that her vote was also influenced by the Clinton administation intelligence - indicating Saddam had WMD's? If so (I could be wrong), then why did Gore come out so strongly against the war?

Questions, questions.... great thread between you two!

Postnote: Edwards isn't coming out looking too good on this vote either...

This is the most widely circulated quote from CNN's Larry King Live, September 21, 2004.

Hillary Clinton: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."

And me being snarky....jeesh, Hillary, did you let enough "sunlight" into YOUR thinking process before casing your Iraq War Resolution vote?

Exactly right about why Obama said that.

It ran in a Times piece about Obama from July 26, 2004. Obama was being a team player and being kind to the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates, who had both been in the Senate and voted for the war. Clinton obviously knows this context, but he apparently doesn't care to approach the topic honestly.

Actually, I think Clinton's beef is with the reality of the situation, which is that Obama was an early and courageous opponent of this war, whereas Hillary waited until it was obviously a catastrophe to say anything about it. She obviously lacks Obama's foresight and political and moral courage and will lose because of it. No one wants another president whose guiding light is political expediency.

Obama was either a candidate or about to become a candidate in a contentious race for U.S. Senate, a seat that had been held by a Republican, not just an Illinois state senator. The media and most Dem politicians were caught up in the bum's rush to war, so to find a mainstream Dem who opposed the war from the start is pretty difficult. I think that says a ton about his judgment.