Obama Makes Unusually Direct Appeal For Funds In New Ad

Comments (51)

Geek, Esq. wrote on October 16, 2007 10:46 AM:

Ugh, Greg.

Clinton doesn't have a $14 Million cash advantage on Obama unless the loser of the primary plans to start a third party and run in the general.

The Politico managed to get this right:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6365.html

"In the end, Clinton reported raising $28 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 and having $50 million in cash-on-hand.

Of that, about $34 million can be spent on the primary, while $16 million is for the general election. Clinton also reported carrying $2 million in debts, driving her ready cash figure down to around $32 million.

Obama’s report, the last to go public, showed him raising $21 million during the third quarter and ending it with $36 million in cash.

But he, too, has some debt and has raised money that must be held for the general election, which drives his primary cash total to about $32 million."

demwinger wrote on October 16, 2007 10:48 AM:

the problem with Obama is he doesn't have the network and power to compete with Hillary.

I was contacted by Hillary since 2006 atleast twice by phone and by atleast 5 times by mail and I dont even live in NY.. Obama just now contacted me a month ago by phone. seems like he is starting from scratch and Hillary has the freight train already moving 80mph. gonna be hard to stop it.

if Bill could win presidential elections comfortably with much less money and network than his republican opponents then imagine what Hillary will do with more money and a better network this time around

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 11:06 AM:

if Bill could win presidential elections comfortably with much less money and network than his republican opponents then imagine what Hillary will do with more money and a better network this time around

But lets hope voters recognize (even Hillary insists on this distinction, at least when it's convenient to do so) that Hillary is not Bill Clinton. HRC's Clinton will not mean another decade of the 1990s. These are very different times. Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 11:10 AM:

Greg:

Newsflash: HE IS THE UNDERDOG. He's running against a quasi-incumbent, he has less 4 years on the national scene and is working on his 3rd year in the Senate. He shouldn't even be in this race, let alone outraising HRC by over $12MM.

But hey, spin this however you see fit, it's your blog.

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 11:12 AM:

Also, I should add the campaigns have very different structures, but each with their own strengths. It's been said a thousand times before, but Obama has the grassroots activism, while Hillary has that impressive political locomotive steaming her candidacy forwards. It seems (and this may be a mistaken impression, very much based on personal experience) Obama's supporters are more likely to organize tablings, petition drives, fundraisers through meetup.com, while the overwhelming majority of Hillary supporters are sitting back, letting that lumbering campaign machine mobilize the old school contributors and big donations.

The last fund raising quarter's numbers, though, seem to signify a growing groundswell of support for Clinton. Both Obama and Clinton posted similar new donor counts, discounting the total fundraising numbers.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 16, 2007 11:24 AM:

So Mr. I'll-chime-five-days-or-so FINALLY speaks first about something and its to ask for more money cuz he only has double the amount of the bottom five combined. Makes your heart swoon . . .

gqmartinez wrote on October 16, 2007 11:26 AM:

Sorry, seanh, but you do not describe the Clinton campaign at all. She has plenty of grassroots support, more impressive than anything I saw with Dean, Clark, or Kerry in '04 by far. And they are definitely not "sitting back". Obama's folks may be doing a lot, but that does not mean Hillary's people aren't. What's most surprising about Hillary's supporters is that they are definitely not acting like they have 50% of the vote.

To get back to money, Obama raised significantly more money than Hillary for the primary but has less cash on hand. Clearly he's spent more money than Hillary and her lead has actually increased. That says something about Hillary's strength and/or more efficient campaign. Polls may not be set in stone, but the news keeps getting better and better for Hillary--on every front.

journalschism wrote on October 16, 2007 11:43 AM:

And the better she does the worse our prospects become for real, substantive change in Washington. This isn't the 90s. Too bad a sizable portion of our electorate seems to think we can go back there. We can't. And I say "Amen" to that.

Something tells me these polls won't bear out come January. It's almost too good to be true. Exactly what has she done to engender this kind of support? \

She's only inevitable when she actually wins the nom. Until then, she's just another name on the ballot.

keith wrote on October 16, 2007 11:46 AM:

I believe what Seanh was trying to say is the HRC seems to have a top-down organization versus Obama's bottom-up organization. At this point, HRC's vast campaigning experience (read connections and fundraising network) is the difference (IMHO).

And let's be clear: HRC is not sitting back on her laurels. Her machine is in full steam ahead mode, gearing up for the general election. Obama and Edwards have a formidable task in front of them--convince undecideds that their respective campaigns aren't stillborn.

I don't think the task is impossible (especially in Iowa where her machine hasn't translated into poll dominance yet (I emphasize yet)), but O and E supporters need to recognize that they are fighting an uphill battle (on multiple fronts: HRC's Machine, media pundits, RNC's desire to have her as the candidate (she motivates the base in a way that NONE of the current candidates do)).

Now is the time to buckle down and do real work for your respective candidates of choice--or concede the battle.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 16, 2007 11:57 AM:

As for Clinton's fund raise capablities I have only gotta say . . . Being corporately-owed has its perks.

Perhaps if Clinton loses the Democratic candidacy, she'll run on a Connecticut of Lieberman ticket . . . That's a party in search of a Presential candidate.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 16, 2007 11:57 AM:

Why do Ivy League elitists always need more money?

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 12:03 PM:

gqmartinez, you're probably right, and I did get an email from the Clinton campaign touting 1 million volunteer hours a few days ago. I really don't get it. I'm guessing these are the same people who will say Nader stole the election (instead of mobilizing droves of new voters) and think Bill Clinton's presidency was a liberal's dream come true.

Or maybe Clinton's strategy, filling that gap in the middle of voters on the right and on the left, is just the perfect strategy for this election cycle. One would suspect the overwhelming domestic opposition to the Iraq war would provide a comfortable level of support for the truly progressive candidates (Obama/Edwards), but that just isn't happening. It seems this opposition to the war just isn't pushing voters to those more progressive choices. Clinton's middle strategy is perfect territory to capture that majority of voters that were unconvinced in '04 (or '03 for that matter) we were on the wrong course domestically and abroad. Each year, it seems like there's a hope. This year, it seems the disappointment is coming pretty early, with Clinton continuing to extend her lead. I'll continue my efforts for the Obama campaign, but my expectations have sunk to a historic low in the past couple weeks.

Again and again, Clinton's been able to deflect criticisms from the more progressive elements of her party, who accuse her of being too unprincipled (refusal to apologize for Patriot Act vote, Iraq war authorization vote). Her mythical reputation as a victorious political veteran of a decades long struggle with the GOP seems to be evidence enough for most moderate and liberal voters that she's the right candidate to bring about change. I don't see it, but I guess her overwhelming support amongst liberals and moderates is a clear indication that my priorities are considerably out of line with the Democratic majority. I guess her lead is now starting to make a little more sense.

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 12:08 PM:

A new posting at the Politico, that's worth a viewing--given Greg and Ben's proclivity of cross-posting, I'm sure there will be a direct link shortly:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/YouTube_populism.html

stlounick wrote on October 16, 2007 12:17 PM:

In spite of the name recognition polls, gq's Hillary has all these boots on the ground, none of this is anything I have personally seen in my neck of the woods. And I'm out there canvassing door to door five times a week.

What do I find? A few Hillary supporters; a few more Obama supporters, and a virtual sea of undecided folk who clearly want a change, liked Bill, and simply aren't sure about Hillary.

Those of you touting the sheer conviction in these name recognition polls are simply following along with the Hillary campaign strategy. Amazing what easy marks some of you are.

pacc wrote on October 16, 2007 12:20 PM:

Hey journalschism...

You wrote, "Something tells me these polls won't bear out come January." What's telling you? Are you referring to the little voices in your head?

Seriously, growing support for the Clinton campaign is not some phenomenon of name recognition, or even phonying up the poll numbers (as some crackpots continue to claim).

The Clinton campaign is systematically winning over Democratic voters - from the networks of party activists that come along with all the individuals who are endorsing Clinton, to her growing support (in time, money and efforts) from the netroots. Add to that her natural advantage among women voters, the African-American community's comfort that comes from years of trust-building association, a growing financial advantage (O-Bomb-A is now begging hat-in-hand w/internet ads), and the added advantage that comes with Bill Clinton working things on her behalf.

Like Hillary or not, she's an impressive candidate with an equally impressive campaign. The polls numbers reflect that and, with time running out, the runners up are recognizing that, too, with their increasingly desperate attacks.

NYMARJ wrote on October 16, 2007 12:20 PM:

The ad would not sell me though. That is the question here. The closing in on the hands is the begging for contributions HUH

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 12:30 PM:

pacc, since you like name calling so much, here's one for you.

pacc is a douchebag.

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 12:32 PM:

seanh, unless there's a change for the worse in the Iowa polls showing a 3-way tie, I wouldn't be concerned.

DTM wrote on October 16, 2007 12:47 PM:

I'll just note again that history teaches us that polls this far out are not strongly predictive of final outcomes (and national polls are not really predictive at all). The only polls that are fairly predictive are the state polls taken mere days before the caucus or primary in question (and for later primaries, they have to be after the earlier primaries).

Of course that is not necessarily good news for Obama or Edwards. For example, with a late surge Clinton could achieve a dominating win in Iowa. Or Richardson could storm ahead and take second, or even win, in Iowa. Those outcomes in Iowa could then have profound effects in NH and beyond. And so on--again, polls right now just can't tell us how this will play out at the end, when it actually matters.

greg wrote on October 16, 2007 12:59 PM:

hey all, let me clarify something. I wasn't saying that he isn't the underdog. I was saying that the fact that someone can be the underdog while having $36 million on hand is kind of an extraordinary sign of the times. I could have worded it a bit better. But that's what I meant to convey.

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 1:04 PM:

pacc, what exactly is the point of being so adversarial? You obviously care about your chosen candidate, as do the rest of us. You might be more convincing if you spent less time insulting people, and more time addressing the issues.

You're doing your cause far more harm than good, in case you care (and why else would you be here?). If any other TPM EC readers are like me, they tune out the moment they recognize your name, considering the post is sure to be predictable and insulting.

keith wrote on October 16, 2007 1:17 PM:

So far his hat in hand appeal has raised $305M this morning.

EricD wrote on October 16, 2007 1:33 PM:

Money, money money. That's what it is about, a competition for money. I need the money because she has more. Pathetic!

Why not have Oprah throw another party?

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 1:48 PM:

Greg, most of got what you meant. No worries. Really don't know what to say about those few who think you're all about the "spin." ;^}

As for Obama's video hat in hand schtick...before people give, consider this:

He says there's no doubt Iran is meddling militarily in Iraq.

Says that the Kyl-Leiberman vote was wrong and criticises Clinton about it...but couldn't be bothered to get his ass back to DC to show just how important it was and vote against it.

Agrees that the Iranian army is a terrorist organization.

He says the war in Iraq was wrong, that the vote to authorize was wrong, that we should get out of Iraq...But! Despite what he says, every chance he's had to vote to fund the war and keep our soldiers over there to be blown up, shot at and thoroughly fucked up otherwise... he has!

So, by all means, if you're able to ignore all this and blindly convince yourself he so different from all other politicians...go for it, send some money his way! ;^}

DonnaG wrote on October 16, 2007 1:53 PM:

seanh said, "..... with Clinton continuing to extend her lead. I'll continue my efforts for the Obama campaign, but my expectations have sunk to a historic low in the past couple weeks."

That expectations dampening and loss of verve is exactly the strategy of the drumbeat of 'Hillary inevitability'.....just like the drumbeat for months leading up to the 'inevitable' invasion of Iraq..... crush or belittle all other voices or possibilities or hopes or fervent preferences before the actual events.....get lots of folks to 'get used to the inevitable' way ahead of time.

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 2:17 PM:

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 1:48 PM:1)

He says there's no doubt Iran is meddling militarily in Iraq.

Do you seriously doubt they are? Even if you don't believe they're testing the waters in some way against American soldiers, I don't think any expert would disagree that the Iranian military has conducted missions within the borders of Iraq against Iraqis. Leading further credence to these claims are the recent incursions by Turkish military forces into northern, Kurdish Iraq. These bordering countries, in order to protect themselves from the continued violence in Iraq, have undoubtedly been stepping across their borders into their war torn neighbor's territory.
Check out this article from May '06 (there are other more recent articles as well)
Iran and Turkey fire salvo over Iraq

Iran, meanwhile, has begun attacks on PKK units based in Iran, and the Iranian military has entered Iraqi territory in hot pursuit of PKK militants. This represents a different approach from recent years, when Turkey regularly accused Tehran of turning a blind eye to the PKK in Iran.

I really don't think anyone's seriously debating whether Iran has dipped its toes into Iraq. The real question is whether AQI and Iraqi tribal armies have been receiving support from the Quds forces, or other high ranking members of the Iranian government. Obama seems to believe the Revolutionary Guard, or Quds Force, is more or less acting autonomously from the will of the Iranian people, and even the increasingly alienated President of Iran. He seems to believe (as does the US military in Iraq) that the Iranian Revolutionary guard is at least providing arms, if no providing something more in Iraq. His statements seem an affirmation of the Iranian incursions into the region (logical, considering there's a war raging on their borders), which shouldn't be surprising.

2)

Says that the Kyl-Leiberman vote was wrong and criticises Clinton about it...but couldn't be bothered to get his ass back to DC to show just how important it was and vote against it.

We've debated this precise issue a thousand times. He wanted to be there, but couldn't make it, thanks to Senate scheduling issues. Had he been there, he would have voted against the amendment.
Obama: No on Kyl-Lieberman

Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

3)

Agrees that the Iranian army is a terrorist organization.

Obama hasn't classified the Iranian military a terrorist organization. That's just plain wrong. He does support classifying the Quds Force, a small, autonomous arm of the Iranian military a terrorist organization. The force reports directly to Ayatollah Khamenei (not the president, and rulers of the nation), and oftentimes act as an opposition to the political leadership in Iran. On countless occasions, they've been accused of supporting AQI and anti-US tribal armies in Iraq. This may or not be true, but likely contains at least some shred of truth. That's hardly a reflection on the will of the Iranian people, or even the man leading the charge for a nuclear reactor in Iran: Ahmadinejad.

4)

He says the war in Iraq was wrong, that the vote to authorize was wrong, that we should get out of Iraq...But! Despite what he says, every chance he's had to vote to fund the war and keep our soldiers over there to be blown up, shot at and thoroughly fucked up otherwise... he has!

So has Hillary, and so has just about every single Democratic representative. We all wish they'd take a stand on this issue, but until very recently, none have been willing to do so. Hillary and Obama's decision to continue funding the war was surely a strategic one. They both reasoned, I imagine, that we would never get out of Iraq unless they built a consensus. The strategy, until recently, was basically to entice Republic senators to begin opposing the war, allowing Democrats to overcome that Republican blockade of legislative change regarding Iraq. It has become increasingly clear that this strategy will not work. As a result, all the leading Democratic candidates are now pledging to vote against additional funding for the war. Unless you're trying to persuade people to support Ron Paul, Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, I'm not sure where this argument gets you.

4)

So, by all means, if you're able to ignore all this and blindly convince yourself he so different from all other politicians...go for it, send some money his way! ;^}

I hope you're now convinced that I'm not ignoring these points. In fact, I've thought them over carefully, as I hope my post conveys. I think he's the best candidate because of his stance on campaign finance, ethics reform, a historical opposition to the war, and his promises to reform Washington. As a newcomer, I believe he can do these things. Maybe I'm misguided, but I think he's a far better choice than Hillary Clinton (I've posted numerous times regarding my opposition to her campaign).

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 2:18 PM:

Loki:

When did you become a spokesman for Obama for America? Seriously, if anyone is interested in giving to ANY candidate, I suggest they check out the candidate's website and conduct their own research.

Now, to your mischaracterizations:

1. Please provide a link that substantiates your allegation.
2. He missed the vote. Here's the timeable (once again): September 25, at 8pm, Reid tables the matter for the foreseeable future and the Senate adjourns until 9:30 AM. At 9:30AM the vote is not on the schedule for the day. At 11:30AM Obama has a rally in NH. At 12:14PM, Reid comes to the floor and announces there will be an immediate vote on KLA and the Biden Amendment. The vote occurs at 12:44PM. Like I said, he missed the vote. Trying to imply that it was unimportant is because of ignorance or an unconscionable attempt to misconstrue the events. I assume it was the former.

3. He does believe that designating the IRG a terrorist organization will open up a series of sanctions.

4. False. Off the top of my head, he voted against the last emergency supplemental. And just a note, these bills always have a mix of good and bad. Remember, the include funding for Afghanistan, repair of materials, include increased suvivor benefits for solidiers, health benefits, etc. Without knowing what is in each bill, it's hard to determine why a Senator voted one way or another a particular bill.

Support your candidate; no need to distort the record of his or her opponents to sway people from considering him or her.

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 2:31 PM:

Yes, Keith, let us not distort the record of opponents.

Seanh,

Every now and again, I like to take a little time to poke fun at those who intimate or outright say that Obama is different in the purest of ways. I appreciate that you appear to be different.

IWW wrote on October 16, 2007 2:33 PM:

Seanh --

Normally I agree with you, but I think you're just wrong on pt. 3 -- the s. 970 resolution called for designating the IRG a terrorist organization. The IRG constitutes a considerable portion of the Iranian military -- I believe well over 100,000 men. It'd be like designating the U.S. Marine Corps a terrorist organization. Juan Cole has a number of links to articles on the IRG's role in Iranian society.

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 2:37 PM:

Loki:

Thanks for responding.

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 2:45 PM:

IWW, thanks for the insights. From what I understand though, the relationship is not quite the same as in your example. As I mentioned, the Quds force reports directly to the father of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is a former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, a position that vaulted him to his position on top today, but as I understand it the Quds and president in recent years have drifted apart, each vying for their own portion of power in the country. I'd like to look into this more, since I'm not completely clear on this issue yet, but I think the relationship is far more complex than it seems at first glance.

NCSteve wrote on October 16, 2007 2:46 PM:

Don't bother trying to explain the timetable to Loki. On every blog I've seen, Hillary's supporters (whether the blogger or a commenter) invariably respond to any statement taking their Queen to task for voting for Kyl-Lieberman with the "Obama missed the vote" slur. They do it over and over again with a resistance to facts, nuance or intellectual honesty one ordinarily expects from Republican mouthpieces. If you do try to correct them, they either ignore you or respond with a "opinions differ on whether the world is round" type argument.

It's pretty clear that the drones have gotten their orders from the Cube on how to respond to whenever Kyl-Lieberman comes up. It's time to quit correcting them on this. Instead, its past time to ask what it means when their only response to a question raising a substantial question as to whether there is anything she considers too important to subordinate to her own perceived political interests is to take a cheap shot at the asker.

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 2:46 PM:

Oh and just for the record seanh;

This is from the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, Co-sponsered by Obama. Not Quds (which is a small force within), but the Revolutionary Guard.

--the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of specially designated global terrorists, and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters;

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 2:48 PM:

And Keith, for the record:
It was that video with Wolf Blitzer that Obama said there is "no doubt" about Iran messing around in Iraq.

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 2:51 PM:

Great article (about Obama in Iowa):

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/16/how_obama_is_playing_in_iowa/

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 2:52 PM:

Hi NCSteve!

I appreciate Keith taking the time to layout that timeline. I am currently taking my own time to research it all, as no link was provided. I'll get back to you all when I find something.

IWW wrote on October 16, 2007 2:56 PM:

Seanh,

I don't doubt that Quds may have a complicated relationship with the rest of the Iranian govt/military/society. I don't pretend to know anything about that.

But the point remains, the resolution was about designating the *IRG* a terrorist organization.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, I don't normally agree with Loki, but this is one area where I think Obama is not a particularly effective critic of Hillary's rightly-criticized KLA vote. NOT because of the vote issue, but because Obama endorsed the same bad strategy, albeit for slightly better motivations (nuclear non-proliferation). I think extending the terrorist designation to state actors is a bad idea in general, and a particularly risky one in Iran.

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 2:59 PM:

Loki:

Apparently CNN and Wolf Blitzer disagree.
Check the transcript.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/11/sitroom.03.html

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 3:04 PM:

Loki:

Ask and you shall receive.

http://cboldt.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

The relevant days are September 25th and September 26.

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 3:35 PM:

Here you go Keith. It's at about 3:23 in the video.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/247.1/popup/index.php?cl=4486198

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 3:43 PM:

Also, after much checking around the web and there is much on the subject, I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. Given Barak's voting history, I see no reason to think he wouldn't have found a way to miss the vote. I think the timing worked perfectly for him.

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 3:52 PM:

Loki:

1. Linked doesn't work (video is no longer available and I'd watched it previously). So the transcript is all we've got unless there is a YouTube or something.

2. I just provided you the facts, how you choose to interpret them is your perogative. Now if you continue to push this meme, I'll know it's not because of ignorance.

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 4:01 PM:

well then loki, I apologize. Looks like you're right about that and I've completely misunderstood that aspect of the argument. I'd like to believe some element of truth still remains in my argument, that some adversarial element with the Iranian administration exists, but that is based off some Stratfor articles I may not be remembering very well.

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 4:10 PM:

I would like to add, though, that particular aspect of the resolution is pretty useless and silly. Such a resolution ranks around those "sense of the senate" resolutions in efficacy. To some extent, support of that aspect of the K-L amendment, regardless of his opposition to the resolution as a whole, does seem a stumble in his promise to avoid Senate pettiness, sabre-rattling and pointless resolutions.

I think we can all agree that aspect of the resolution is pointless and silly. Without any binding resolutions resulting from such a classification, it's just silly politics. I would actually LOVE for someone to ask Obama that question directly, but I feel the issue has mostly been left in dust by the primary campaign's furious pace. It does seem to be a bit of a stumble on Obama's part, though hardly a deal breaker for me.

NCSteve wrote on October 16, 2007 4:18 PM:

Btw, I apologize to everyone for my role in dragging this thread so thoroughly off topic.

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 4:18 PM:

Sorry Keith. Try this, it worked for me:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/247.1/popup/index.php?cl=4486198

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 4:26 PM:

Dammit! Once again, Keith, I apologize...this one I promise will work. The relevant portion is at 3:15-ish into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r8Dq5lmjJc

seanh wrote on October 16, 2007 4:44 PM:

Barack Obama: Iran

for the record, this video clarifies Obama's position re:Iran and the Revolutionary Guard, speaking specifically to the K-L vote.

From these statements, it now seems clear his opposition is based in Hillary's claims that we'll have to "stay in Iraq to counter Iran." I think that's a quantifiable difference between the candidates, with Hillary repeatedly asserting that she will leave troops behind to counter Iranian influence, protect vital American resources (would be interesting to hear what that includes), continue anti-terrorism missions and protect the Kurdish north. Barack Obama seems to be promising a more comprehensive withdraw, with reservations only in consideration of the American troops leaving the region.

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 4:54 PM:

Loki:

I really appreciate the effort. I checked it out and here's what I hear him saying:

1. Iran is a major beneficiary of our war in Iraq.

2. We know that Iran has been providing support to the Mahidi Army in Iraq.

So to the extent you mean providing support to Shia militia in Iraq, then I don't disagree. If you mean they are conducting missions, attacking our troops, I disagree.

And I think this was the larger issue Senator Obama had with KLA versus S. 970--the findings regurgitate a great deal of the Petreus and Crocker testimony without providing any of the evidence or intelligence that supports their testimony (not suggesting it is false). I think S. 970 (Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007) is a vastly different measure, which is readily apparent just looking at the findings.

(1) For more than 20 years, Iran has pursued a secret nuclear program that is intended to produce a nuclear weapons capability for Iran.

(2) The Government of Iran has consistently misled the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the United States as to the objectives and scope of its nuclear activities.

(3) Iran has refused to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, adopted on December 23, 2006, which called for the suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and is advancing work at its largest nuclear facility.

(4) The International Atomic Energy Agency is unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and its Director-General has stated that Iran could be 6 months to a year away from acquiring the material necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

(5) An Iranian nuclear weapons capability poses a grave threat to the security of the United States and its allies around the world.

(6) It is in the national security interests of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(7) The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(8) Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110owk14m:e1064:

loki wrote on October 16, 2007 5:27 PM:

"If you mean they are conducting missions, attacking our troops, I disagree."

I've made no claim one way or the other about what Iran is doing in Iraq. I was simply stating what Obama has said.

And I forgot to say earlier, regarding his voting for funding the Iraq war...You and others would like to hear Clinton be more specific about torture. Shouldn't Obama be more specific about funding? Has he ever said "I think we should completely defund this war."? Whatever his voting on this, shouldn't he be very specific?

Keith wrote on October 16, 2007 5:38 PM:

Loki:

Fair enough. As for Obama's position on defunding, I think he basically sees it as an untenable option since you can't realistically do it (you'd have to appropriate money for them to leave, but you couldn't just refuse to provide any funds). That being said, I think he and Clinton voted Yea on the last measure to contemplate redeployment. Other than that, I'd suggest asking Senator Obama directly.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00345

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)