Jan. 30, 2008
Be Wary Of Clinton's War Record
The Nation: Candidate’s Hawkishness, Exaggerated Experience Deserves Greater Scrutiny
-
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaks to supporters in Davie, Fla., Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008. (AP)
-
Play CBS Video Video Good And Bad Endorsements? The endorsements of Ted and Caroline Kennedy shine a new light on Barack Obama. Meanwhile critics say that Hillary Clinton is in her husband's shadow. Jeff Greenfield reports.
-
Video Dems Fight For Upper Hand Barack Obama gives thanks for his victory in South Carolina while Hillary Clinton defends her husband's antics. And John Edwards shakes off another loss. Dean Reynolds reports.
-
Video Clinton Rekindles Race Issue Diversity expert Joe Watson tells Harry Smith that Bill Clinton's comparison of Sen. Barack Obama's S.C. primary win to Jesse Jackson's victory there 20 years ago was designed to cause sparks.
-
Photo Essay Hillary Clinton A look at a life and career full of firsts.
-
Photo Essay Week In Iraq Photos A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Ted Kennedy favors Senator Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.
Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: "We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth."
But that is precisely the truth that Senator Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members -- five more on Monday -- and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn't end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.
Clinton's apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women's movement's commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton's key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush's war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush's Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?
Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy's congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, "Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House," including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.
Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn't it troubling that she can't hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn't it disturbing that Senator Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It's for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has made "experience" key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from "day one." The reality is that her extra four years in the US Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama's eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation's most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband's presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program -- a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.
By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
 | If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 36 CommentsI WOULD LIKE TO SAY, AMEN, TO WHAT "OLDTHOUGHT" SAID.
BE WARY OF "THE" CLINTON''S. PERIOD
OBAMA MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. BUT AT LEAST HE DOES NOT BRING AN EX-PRESIDENT ALONG WITH HIM.
Obama married Michelle Robinson, a fellow Harvard Law School graduate whom he had met in Chicago, on Oct. 18, 1992. The Obamas have two daughters, Malia, born in 1999, and Natasha, known as Sasha, born in 2001. Four years after they married, Obama won a seat in the Illinois state legislature, sponsoring legislation on the death penalty and racial profiling. (Photo: Family Photo)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama''s_Iraq_Speech
Washington needs new, young, idealistic, not yet corrupted leaders. The same-o, same-o of the current, old crop of pols, shows us how inept they are. We need a change and McCain and the Clintons do not represent change.
And, how does being the First Lady for 8 years extrapolate into all the experience Hillary would like us to believe. She did not sit in on any national or international meetings. Being a shyster lawyer and a Senator for a brief time time do not experience make.
And, no tears are allowed in the oval office.
And, how many foreign governments will feel comfortable dealing with a woman president?
That many women will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman is frightening and not all are blondes and l^sb^ans. How simple minded.
Sheeeeesh! Gimme a break.
And yet now as the Iraq war is a disaster HE CLAIMS he spoke out against it!!!! Doesn''t that tell you something?
OK, sir, then you go out and get an apology from every congressman and representative that also voted for it.
This reasoning makes no sense!!!
Obama hasn''t a freaking clue how to run this country! And you want to have another George W. Bush in the White House that has not clue how to move legislation??? Does voting over 130 times ''present'' to avoid taking a stand on an issue constitute solving a problem???
You evidently didn''''t read Hillary Clinton''''s message when she made those votes! Read up! She doesn''''t need to apologize!
Obama hasn''''t a clue!!! And I still am wondering when in the hell he voted against the WAR?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 11:03 AM : Jan 31, 2008
+ report abuse
Right on man...he has the convenience of not being on official record...but living in the biggest Democrat stronghold in the midwest..of COURSE he''s going to say he''s against it.
This is not hard political logic; the man wrote his memoirs at age 33...how politically ambitious is that?
Obama is a politician all the way, only not as good as Hillary or Bill.
It was a mistake. It needs to be acknowledged, explained and an apology given to the people she represented and those she is campaigning to lead.
I would listen to her apology and re-consider her as a candidate if she did that.
Right now Obama seems to have mindshare and momentum and packaged with his enthusiasm, chemistry and youth appeal, he is going to be hard to catch.
You evidently didn''t read Hillary Clinton''s message when she made those votes! Read up! She doesn''t need to apologize!
Obama hasn''t a clue!!! And I still am wondering when in the hell he voted against the WAR?
Kennedy`s endorsement means a lot. Hillary losing a key liberal endorsement means a lot too. We need a bona fide liberal to bring back America and American values, and Americans are looking to the democrats to provide that in this election.
She has NEVER said she regretted her vote FOR the Iraq War, and avoids the question like the plague.
Don''''t trust Hillary. She''''s a Liar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by veteran71 at 10:37 PM : Jan 30, 2008
+ report abuse
Yes, because you should ALWAYS believe everything the media tells you:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by roadking041 at 02:16 AM : Jan 31, 2008
+ report abuse
Wait a minute...So you''re saying that an average American guy who worked his way to the PRESIDENCY all on his own merit through intelligence and political curiosity is "trash" yet a privileged silver-spooned frat boy coke head who f*cked up the country is not, just because he keeps his misdeeds well hidden?
WHAT.EVER.
What do you people have against the American dream? Bill Clinton achieved more than any of you haters could do with 2 lifetimes.
Liar? People like YOU make up lies about the clinton''s:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
And spread it like manure!!
1)Obama''s record is IDENTICAL to Hillary''s...he voted for Patriot Act. ANYone who tells me he would suddenly veer from that identical voting record out of the blue if he could have voted against the Iraq Resolution is a joker.
2)Obama is a senator in the biggest Democrat stronghold in the Midwest...he has the convenience of not being able to vote on the IR, he wasn''t as visible as Hillary, so of COURSE he could speak out against the IR in Democrat Chicago...DUH
3)His "record"? Whatever....
His "record" is RACE BAITING:
The media distorts Clintons'' comments
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004
Obama creates a 4 point memo which is "leaked" based on the media''s out of context statements:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
Anything to win votes huh Obama-Rove?
What do you want her to do, have it tatooed on her forehead!!!!!????
This is bull *****!
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 36 Comments