Hillary Clinton: "And in 2002, Barack Obama gave a speech. . . . . "

[Genevieve]

Yes, Hillary, looks like words "do matter".

[thunder rising]

1. (while wearing a "I VOTED FOR IT" button.)

[DemVet]

2. And has voted FOR the war (spending bills) ever since. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

3. One small speech at one small rally and then he fell silent until...

...until he declared in 2004 that he didn't know how he would've voted on the IRW.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

12. Maybe Obama would have voted "yes" to the IWR, who knows?...

...What we do know is that Hillary and McCain did.

Neither Hillary or McCain sould ever become our president! They had to know about PNAC and their plan for world domination through aggression. Shame on them for helping the neo-cons get their war.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. You do know, don't you, that GWB violated the terms set forth in the resolution?

Why blame a crime on the writers of the law that was broken?

[Ninga]

20. I remember how you hammered my post defending Edward's apology for his IRW vote. And now you have

the temerity to interject into this debate defense of your candidate? Not her conversion. Not her apology. But to suggest she was betrayed by GWB?

See, all of us after all ARE human, and many times we want to have it both ways.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. Link?

[Ninga]

23. No link. Are you saying you didn't or you don't remember? Are you saying you

don't have an opinion on Edwards coming to terms with his IWR vote? Are you saying you didn't hammer with links to his speeches?


I withdraw my questions. Your non answer is answer enough.

[MethuenProgressive]

24. I'm saying I doubt you're remembering without prejudice.

So I want to read what you were typing about before commenting.

[Ninga]

26. My memory is that each tact I took to advance Edwards conversion was met with

only one response from you, and that was a re-visit to Edwards vote.

Because your responses were so absolute and absent nuance, prejudice does not play into my memory.

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Well, with no proof of what you claim,

I'll just have to take your word for it.
What ever I said, I was probably right.

[Ninga]

28. The topic was and still is: The IWR vote and how the candidates take responsibility

for their part in it. Your acceptance or not of Edwards apology does not equal being "right". It was a state of mind and conscientious on your part.

You had a right, which is different from being right.


Clinton was led down the same path as Edwards, and if GWB betrayed Clinton, then he betrayed Edwards as well. At least Edwards had humility. Which I am right in saying.

[MethuenProgressive]

33. Question: At the time of his vote, did Edwards say anything like this?

"A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort." HRC, 2002 floor speech on the IWR. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

[flor de jasmim]

4. I was so disappointed in her that she did not take the opportunity ...

to recognize the importance of this speech for the country. He acted like a statesman, whereas she made a pathetic comment that she was "glad" he'd made it. It sounded condescending to me (others will disagree).

[Genevieve]

6. I wasn't surprised -- did she ever congratulate him on winning a state?

sore loser - just like her supporters (as evident on their posts here).

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. I have seen both supporters

congratulate each other on wins. And as far as you know you have no idea if she did or didn't call him. They usually don't highlight a loss by praising the other candidates win. Sort of simple logic for us foul Hillary supporters huh?

[niceypoo]

19. Why do Obama supporters repeat the same lies ad nauseum...

...http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/26/20175/9922">when all they have to do is 30 seconds of research

:rofl:

[Texas Hill Country]

34. Of course she did.

[Divernan]

9. Give her a break ! She's working on her tax returns !

And putting together that list of donors to the Clinton library.

Ok, we all know she had CPAs & tax attys. prepare her returns, and that the list of donors is meticulously recorded and updated in the Clintons' records.

Seriously, she has to test poll and triangulate and consult Mark and Harold before she can respond.
I expect some fine-tuned snark of a passive-agressive response shortly. I'm just wondering whether the Clinton campaign is disoriented and deluded enough to let her repeat that laughable "Enough with the big speeches!" line!

[Divernan]

10. Dupe

[DemGa]

5. And now he's trying it again -- too bad Obama's actions speak louder

than his pretty speeches.

[billbuckhead]

7. It was a Checkers speech cloaked in civil rights rhetoric

Hillary's opponent will say anything to avoid responsiblity.

[stevenleser]

8. Off to my ignore list with ye

[JTFrog]

11. Actually, her campaign is playing checkers while he plays chess.

I'm sure someone will tell her eventually and then she will of course claim that the game wasn't fair.

[Buzz Clik]

31. You, my friend, have never listened to the Checkers Speech, and did not listen to Obama yesterday.

Such a fool.

[Texas Hill Country]

35. As a Hillary supporter, I gotta take a stand on this one and say over the top.

Thats just wrong.

[niceypoo]

13. In 1995 Bill Clinton gave a speech...

... http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/10-16/clinton/update/transcript.html">nearly identical to Obama's speech

[EFerrari]

14. The thing is, Clinton said we should have a conversation

And yesterday, Obama did have that conversation.

[niceypoo]

18. Purely rhetorical

'Conversations' have two sides...
try again...

[EFerrari]

29. Rhetoric doesn't happen in a vacuum. It has political

and philosophical coordinates. The difference between Clinton's speech and Obama's is that Clinton brought abstraction to the speech and Obama actively engaged the topic. If you can't see the difference, that's your problem.

[Nine]

21. awesome

That deserves its own thread.

[Buzz Clik]

32. They not only are NOT "nearly identical", they bear only faint resemblance.

Did you not read the Clinton speech or listen to Obama? Yes, they both dealt with matters of race and racial intolerance, but the similarities end there. None of this is subtle.

The central themes are not the same, the basic tone is totally different, and the target audiences are completely dissimilar.

Please. Do your homework.

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. apparently not all words matter. Only when Obama and his supporters want them to

Otherwise, "just ignore the words."

Obama lied. He said he had never heard outrageous remarks from Wright. In his speech he admitted he did. Obama lied. Again.

[casus belli]

25. she forgot.."and it was ONE HELL of a speech" n/t

[Buzz Clik]

30. "And in 2002, Barack Obama gave a speech..." while McCain and Clinton voted us into war.

According to Clinton, McCain has the experience necessary to be president, as does she. They both voted for the war.

Hillary screeched, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" and declared that Democrats don't attack Democrats on core issues. But she voted for the war and claims that her vote is part of her experience that makes her qualified to be president.

Hillary Clinton voted for this country to go to war. Anyone with a brain knew at the time she voted that the evidence was cooked, the war was unwinnable, and it would be very expensive in terms of dollars and lives. But she voted for it anyway.

Barack Obama gave a speech in 2002 opposing the war, and Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

[Genevieve]

36. You nailed it.

Thanks.

[TahitiNut]

38. Well, if actions speak louder than words ..

... her action (vote) to AUTHORIZE George W. Bush, without further checks and balances, to wage war on Iraq
speaks louder than her words that she "didn't really mean it."

After all, isn't Hillary just doing a Bushie "signing statement"? :eyes:

What's she saying? "Who're you going to believe? What I did or what I said I did?"

She's pissing on our shoes and claiming it's raining.

[Buzz Clik]

39. KICK! KICK! KICK!

[Cha]

37. And What a Speech it was..Obama nailed it in detail in

October 2002. hilary better hope Americans do not read that speech to which she's refering..the one that Obama wrote..

<snips>

"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 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 armchair, 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?"

<conclusion>..
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php