Reply #8: For starters...

[stillcool]

Clinton voted for McCain-supported Iran resolution
Mostly true

Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican front-runner after winning Florida's primary.

In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things.

Among Obama's points: "It’s time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who ... agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

On the issue of Iran, Obama is referring to a vote in September 2007 on a measure known as the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.

Clinton voted in favor of the amendment, which McCain co-sponsored.

Obama advisers argued at the time that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment could be used to justify a military attack on Iran.

We previously fact-checked the advisers' claim that Kyl-Lieberman was a "blank check" for the use of force in Iran. We found that expert opinions were split. Some said the legislation gave no new authority for the use of force in Iran. But others said the Bush administration would point to the legislation as a justification if it wanted to invade Iran, even if the legislation did not specifically condone it. Describing the amendment as "giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt" is similar to that argument.

There are a few other problems with Obama's statement that are worth mentioning. Though McCain co-sponsored the legislation, he missed the vote itself — as did Obama, who was campaigning. Obama said he would have voted against the amendment if he had been present. So though Clinton may have "agreed" with McCain on the issue, they did not technically vote the same way on it.

To say that voting for Kyl-Lieberman is "giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran" remains a contentious issue. But Obama's main point is that Clinton and McCain were on the same side, and that is correct. So we rate Obama's statement Mostly True.

------------------------------
Hillary Clinton "actually differed with (John McCain) by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 in Denver
Clinton changed on torture
True

Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican frontrunner after winning Florida's primary.

In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things.

After naming a number of areas where he said Clinton and McCain had the same positions, Obama attacked Clinton for diverging from McCain on the issue of torture. Clinton "actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

It sounds a little convoluted, so here's the step-by-step.

In October 2006, Clinton spoke about exceptions to a no-torture policy when speaking to the New York Daily News. Clinton mentioned a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which a captured terrorist has knowledge of an imminent terror attack and interrogators want to use torture.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."

Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."

In the days after the debate, the Republican National Committee criticized her for flip-flopping, and Obama said he would oppose torture "without exception or equivocation," according to Daily News reports.

Did Clinton change position because of her talks with the generals or because of the "politics of the moment"? We can't see inside Clinton's head, so our ruling doesn't reflect on that part of the statement. But it is clear she changed her mind about the "ticking bomb" scenario. So we rate Obama's claim True.