Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 12:46 PM
Original message
TPM Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq
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.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq

Aside from a few commenters who (predictably) tried to divert the discussion into a one about the DLC, a couple of people said some interesting things:

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...)

-----

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?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think what is imp.NOW is what they are going to get us OUT of this
war. My important date started last week for the Senate.

.........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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's why Bill was an idiot to suggest Obama is a hero to the "raging anti-war" crowd.
Bill was right,however,to suggest that the two aren't that different.

They'd actually make a good pair as President and VP,because I bet they share views on a number of issues,for good or ill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. In my experience, Obama IS a hero to the anti-war crowd.
The anti-war crowd just don't fully realize the Obama's record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Not in my experience.
And that's not to say my experience is any more or less valid than yours.I think Obama has been successfully portrayed by the media,which has a vested interest in pitting people together,as somehow being the Anti-Hillary when they're actually very similar.

I'm glad he says he wouldn't have voted for the IWR,but really it doesn't mean much to me when he wasn't actually faced with that decision.It's too easy for anyone to say they would have done this or that after when they know they won't really have to.

I don't see him as anti-war at all,and the people I know that share my anti-war stance feel the same way.I truly think we're seeing more of media creation,one that Obama seems comfortable with because it might be working for him (doesn't work with me,but enough like him that it has to be working with some of them).

Anti-war hero? Not even close,to the point of almost being laughable. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'd like to see all the candidates in a table
so we can see that dennis is the only one to vote differently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is what Obama SAYS about the initial legislation:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

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.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's the one that matters! It's why I support Obama - Hillary - not so much
The OP is the style of the GOP adds "voted 300 times for tax increases"
Those votes are truly irrelevant. That Obama went on the record from the start opposing this war, THAT matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Learn2Swim Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. we have a bingo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Thanks, CityGirl
That speech is a huge reason why so many antiwar folks support Obama. Not only was he opposed to the war; he knew intuitively that IWR was a vote for war. And, of course, there is this fine bit of straight talking:

"I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. What's missed, though, is that many of us who thought Clinton was the
Edited on Fri Mar-30-07 04:51 PM by KoKo01
new JFK....don't want any part of the Clintons, anymore...because the DLC was a Disaster (despite it's good intentions by it's founders ...whom I agreed with AT THAT TIME) and NO ONE wants to go through the Clinton Years again. We just went through the Bush II Years and it's caused much pain and suffering.

Folks are looking for a FRESH START... Hillary running around filling her "War Chest" to WIN the Nomination isn't exactly why I've stuck with DU for almost SIX YEARS!

I'm still looking for the "Restoration of Gore." (but then, I've always been honest with you as to where I was coming from).

Glad you posted this though. I'd seen it and realize the Campaign Ops are all over it..but it's worth discussing for those who aren't "Restoration Finatics" like I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'd love to go through the Clinton years again
1992-2000. I just don't want to go through 4 more years of a Republican president, and I am afraid that is what Hillary's nomination will bring us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Which is why Hillary scares me the least of the warmongers running
because I know Bill resisted the PNAC-ers. IWR sponsors - not so reassuring.
That being said, I want an anti-war candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. The Iraq War or any war should not be the sole factor
The Iraq War may not be an issue come next year's election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Not the sole, but the war will be a factor for 100 years from now - for the way
it f*ed up the world. So, those who helped in that disaster should be held accountable. Unless of course, you can revive the dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-31-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. If the pull out happens before the election the voters in general won't care
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. I don't like either of them. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC