By pushing the Axelrod statement, are Hillarites unwittingly drawing attention to her IWR vote?

[JackORoses]

No matter how they attempt to use this to convince the voter Obama is a bad guy,
the thing that will stick in the mind of people is her tragic mistake in voting for the Iraq War.

It is indefensible. That is why they must attack Axelrod personally. They cannot discuss the issues he brought up.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Disgusting.

How many threads will you people start?

[ClarkUSA]

18. By "you people" do you mean us "Obama gangbangers"?

:eyes:

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Yes.

If you fit in that category.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Spoken like a true Bill Shaheen Democrat

Racist is as racist does.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. Who is this Bill Shaheen you keep speaking about?

And I am not a racist.

[ClarkUSA]

26. lol! You are so very disingenuous. Check the DU archives to see your defense of him two weeks ago.

So far, tonight, you've said "you people" to the pro-Obama OP and you referred to "Obama gangbangers". Way to go! You're really
racking up those racist remarks, eh? Talk about disgusting.... :puke:

[Catherine Vincent]

27. Okay, I know who Shaheen is.

I never heard of him until his "drugdealing" comment. And btw, I did not defend him. After I read what he actually said, I said that the HRC campaign should fire him.

Saying "you people" and "Obama gangbangers"...i.e. Obama supporters is not racist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Uh huh... funny how you forget between evening threads.

Keep up with that Bill Shaheen defense, tho'... too bad for you I never forget a disgusting racist remark or the person who said it.

[Catherine Vincent]

31. Find a post of mine defending this Shaheen guy.

Or cut the crap.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Sorry, I'm not your gopher. Unlike you, I have a very good memory.

You're a Bill Shaheen Democrat, alright. Disingenuous to the end.

[Catherine Vincent]

35. Well your memory is not very good.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherine Vincent]

37. Keep saying that. It doesn't make it true. nt

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluewisdom]

51. Obama support of President Bush's right-wing judges.A BIG Lieberman supporter

http://www.dcourage.com/a/2007/12/new_ad_barack_obamas_... DID YA KNOW THIS??

Sirotablog: What's Happened to Barack Obama?
What's Happened to Barack Obama? Sirotablog: What's Happened to Barack Obama?

I have high hopes for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and not just because he gave one good convention speech at the Democratic National Convention. As a civil rights

lawyer who represented a working class urban district in the Illinois state legislature, Obama has all the trappings of a leader who could break conventions and be a

serious voice for progressives on the national stage. Unfortunately, his first six months in office have given progressives a reason to be worried that he will be just

another cog in the Establishment's machine, throwing his significant political capital behind some of the worst initiatives to move through Congress.

Obama's vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of

National Intelligence, despite Negroponte's involvement in Iran-Contra and other situations that clearly raise questions about his ethics and discretion. Obama also

voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote down a Democratic amendment

to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges.A

BIG Lieberman supporter..WILL BE HIS RUNNING MATE IF NOMINATED!

[ClarkUSA]

61. My memory is just fine. Anyone checking the DU archives can see what I'm talking about.

Bill Shaheen would be proud of your moves.

[Cha]

2. hillary's IWR vote? The first in a long

line of bushite enabling votes that chases their tails and feeds the War Machine but does nothing but exponentially, exacerbate the al qaida terrorists.

[paulk]

3. nobody gave a shit about the IWR in the 2004 election

nobody is going to care about it this time around.

Most people don't even know what it is... which is why some people can get away with blaming Democrats for Iraq instead of the asshole who really got us into this mess.

[emilyg]

39. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

41. Are you forgetting the Grand Canyon?

The confusion over that vote and all the 'for it before he was against it' is what really killed JK. Not only did that vote matter, but Hillary and her "stay the course" nonsense also confused the press on the Dem policy on Iraq. They're going to do the exact same thing to her that they did to Kerry. If she supports right wing foreign policy, why not just vote for the right winger who will get it done right. Cut taxes and kill terrorists, yeeha!

[paulk]

55. It didn't hurt him in the primary, and the OP is talking about

the primary.

I think what hurt him in the GE was the perception that he'd changed, "flipflopped" as it were, on Iraq. That the perception was driven by the MSM is the major reason that Hillary has refused to apologize for her IWR vote. She knows that the MSM would use that against her in the same way they used the Grand Canyon moment to paint Kerry as an equivocator.

[sandnsea]

58. If Gephardt's people hadn't gone to JK

We wouldn't be having this conversation. Dean made the same mistake Edwards is making, just too far left. A few diffferent choices by Dean, including that freaky "you've got the power" episode at the JJ Dinner, and it would have been a completely different outcome. That vote absolutely hurt JK. If he had stood up for the truth on Iraq from day one, he'd be President today. Just like now though, the Clintons run the hawkish foreign policy platform and it's just too much for the minority of rational Dems to overcome.

[JackORoses]

44. I guess you forgot about 2006 when the Dems took control because of the War

sound familiar?

[paulk]

56. did they take control solely because of the war?

I have seen very little post election polling that shows that.

And if that was the case, I would suspect that it was the Republicans the voters blamed, which is kind of why they voted for Democrats? Though it could be argued that many of those Democrats elected to replace Republicans were fairly centrist, even conservative - so it's a hard case to make - that it was an anti-war sentiment that put them in office.

That has been one of Pelosi's biggest problems - that so many of the Dems elected in 2006 to give us a "majority" are third way or bluedog conservatives, and often vote with the Republicans on matters of national security.

[JackORoses]

59. are you kidding me? the War was 'the' issue.

You have seen very little polling period if you do not know this.

Just because it a major chink in your candidate's armor does not make it any less important to the American people.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[paulk]

67. there for a split second I was under the impression

you really wanted an answer from me.

Clearly your interests on this "discussion" board have very little to do with discussion.

[CyberPieHole]

4. Obama would have just skipped the vote or voted "present" at best...

he's not fit to be a Senator, let alone President.

And Axelrod was wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

[zulchzulu]

6. Anytime anyone brings up the "present" vote due to ignorance of senatorial legislative process...

...I figure they are just too inept to understand how voting "present" in senatorial legislative procedures are used to stop bad legislation, stop poison pill gamesmanship and make it so the legislation can be improved.

Some people are just too stupid to understand the basics of democracy and the legislative process. So they bluster their ignorance while we watch them in pity. Either that, or they are Hillary shills.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Here's the NYT story - Hillary's IWR misjudgment front and center

This is a debate Obama should welcome.

Obama Aide Ties Pakistan to Iraq War
By JEFF ZELENY

DES MOINES — The chief strategist of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the assassination of the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto “underscores the case for judgment” when voters begin to select their presidential candidates next week.

The strategist, David Axelrod, said voters should take into consideration that the Iraq war led to the rise of terrorist activity and political instability in Pakistan. Mr. Axelrod said that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton backed the Iraq war in 2002, while Mr. Obama did not.

“She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today,” he said, according to Time.com. “So that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend.”

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, responded, saying the situation should not be politicized. “This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability,” Mr. Singer said in a statement.

In a telephone interview on Thursday evening, Mr. Axelrod said it was indisputable that the war took the United States’ attention away from fighting terrorists in Pakistan.

“I think she should be held accountable as everyone should who was involved in that vote for a flawed policy,” Mr. Axelrod said. “That’s a long way from saying that she bears responsibility for the events of today. That would go too far.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/us/politics/28axelrod.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. and yet he gives Obama a free pass for all of his votes for the war

and his statment admitting that he had no idea how he would have voted.

He wants a conversation --she should give him a conversation.

Obama time and again voted for the war.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Cleaning up "your girl's" mess is not easy.

:bounce:

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. I notice you never respond to the facts,just make smart ass remarks

I guess pretending the facts aren't there works for you.

[jefferson_dem]

12. One who supposedly knew "the facts" wouldn't have made those silly arguments in the first place.

Fact #1: Obama spoke out publicly against the war in 2002 and 2003 when Hillary was marching lock-step with Chimpy and his neo-con buddies.

Fact #2: Obama has since held to the principle that we would be "as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."

These points have been clarified ad nauseum. You may choose to ignore them and they may be unpleasant for Hillary's apologists here ... but facts are facts.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. Obama has been all over the place in his "speaking out"

Admitting that he did not know how he would have voted. And, he voted for the war time and again.

Clinton also opposed war--except as a last resort, and made her position very clear. And yet, you always forget that part in your vitrolic attempts to make Clinton responsible for Iraq, while giving the other candidates a free pass.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Uh huh.

Obama made the comment about not knowing how he would have voted within the context of the 2004 campaign. So happens that we had two candidates on the ballot who also voted for the IWR and he was the keynoter at the convention. Loyalty is important to some politicians.

You can try to spin the Iraq issue into a "wash" between Hillary and Obama but we both know that's disengenous. He was talking about "dumb wars" while she was talking about wmds and rubber-stamping chimpy's war plans. Sorry.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Talk about revisionist history ...

and a screaming case of projection. You would be better served to try to mitigate her YES votes for war and more war than trying to sell this pathetically false fairy tale about Obama.

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq dated October 02, 2002

October 2, 2002

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?

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.

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.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Voila. It's not about experience...it's about judgment.

Personally, I welcome this debate.

Well done, Axelrod! Hold em' accountable.

[JackORoses]

46. do you ever get tired of making this same post?

Obama was against the War from the beginning unlike your chosen company.

Posting your bias again and again does not make it so.

[AtomicKitten]

8. experience is rendered moot when it is accompanied by poor judgment

Punctuating her IWR vote with another for K-L and calling them both "diplomacy" has rendered her already tenuous claims at experience moot. Nothing and I mean nothing can compensate for the poor judgment she has not only demonstrated but repeated. And using scare tactics to try to persuade Americans to sign on to more bad judgment mirrors the fear-mongering we have been subjected to since 9/12/01. Enough.

[Renew Deal]

13. I agree with this point of view.

The Hillary people are so pissed because it stings.

[ElizabethDC]

16. The issue is brought up all the time

I think we all know how HRC voted on the IWR. What was wrong with Axelrod's statement was its context - I, at least, thought it was inappropriate given today's situation. But it's not the first time that Obama's camp has brought up the IWR, and I know that I, personally, haven't complained about that, because I think it's fair game.

[zulchzulu]

17. I welcome the Hillary campaign to bring it up

Mmmmm....bait....

[wiley]

21. Pretty sure that more than just Clinton supporters are trashing Axelrod

What Axelrod said was indefensible, definitely.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Really? Seems like 99% of the whining outrage on this thread are from Hillaryworlders.

Excluded are those who pretend to support someone else (I know several) but who really support Hillary.

[Catherine Vincent]

28. There you go again. nt

[ClarkUSA]

33. I knew you were a Reagan Democrat before you became a Bill Shaheen Democrat.

Thanks for proving it.

[Catherine Vincent]

38. If I'm a Shaheen Democrat then you're a McClurkin Democrat. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

54. LOL! love it!

[sandnsea]

42. It's always more than Hillary supporters

It's always Biden, Edwards and even Kucinich supporters whenever one of these attacks get going.

[wiley]

68. Anger and Bitterness

Who's your candidate? We know. We really know.

[emilyg]

25. Just for one friggin' day - stop it.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Why haven't you said that on any of the "Obama said Hillary killed Bhutto " threads?

This OP is offering up a good strategic point and has referenced a credible source to support it, instead of parroting Taylor Marsh.

[emilyg]

40. In view of today's events -

I find all this to be crap.

[annie1]

34. Listen, the war is fucked up, but the guys' statement was assholish.

you can stand by your candidate, and not be for clinton (or any of the other senators that voted yay), and still realize that what he said may not have been ok. Just b/c I, and many others, think his statement was innappropriate doesn't mean we think it because we're trying to protect her. simmer.

[Fried Bread]

43. Axelrod's statement was AWESOME.

and spot on

[Prophet 451]

45. OK, I give

Forgive the dumb Brit but who the hell is Axelrod and what did he say (and why should I care)?

[annie1]

47. After Bhutto's assassination that link is what Obama's top stategist said...

after a reporter asked in regards to whether this tragedy would bolster claims of Hil's b/c it brings foreign policy front and center. it was an odd question, but that's what reporters have been doing, trying to get obama and clinton camp into repeated bicker.

[Perry Logan]

48. What's cool is that now--when they kvetch about Hillary's IWR vote--we'll think about Axelrodgate.

[William769]

50. Actually reading msm on Axelrod statement

Shows Hillary's response as presidential and Obama's as well backpedaling once again.

Some people never learn, but then again when they blindly follow their candidates meme, thats what happens.

[JackORoses]

64. actually Axelrod is not what people will remember, it is Hill's IWR vote

keep pushing this. It's like having Hillary attack herself.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. noone accused Penn of being smart. especially with this move.

of course, when you are "inevitable" and "most experienced" and the "best funded" you don't have to think of consequences.

[BenDavid]

57. no, just shows the stupidity of obama trying any damn thing to

see if it sticks. All obama has is his 02 statement about the war and he falls back on that all the time but fails to say he votes to keep funding this clusterfuck in iraq.

[JackORoses]

62. you still do not attempt to defend Hillary's actions.

you say, "but Obama might have voted for the war even though he spoke out against it" ... "But, but, he has voted to support the troops." ... "But he didn't vote for Kyl-Lieberman because he is a coward"

you never ever mention Hillary and her indefensible positions. you should try it some time.

[Lurking Dem]

65. Maybe he's smart enough

to not attempt the impossible.

[LSK]

60. yes they are

It is an unbelievably stupid thing to do. Most DUers all know the Iraq war was a distraction from Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan. This has only been posted on DU a brazilian times and its almost common knowledge. Why they hell would the bring up Hillary's constant cheerleading of the war and we can even bring up her vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard when Iran is clearly not a threat.

This is such a stupid topic for them to bring up.

[rucky]

63. None of this matters to typical voters

they won't even know it happened.

It's nice fresh meat for us wannabe wonks, though.

[JackORoses]

66. exactly, the average voter doesn't care about Axelrod, but the IWR on the other hand....

That's something everyone understands.

[Tactical Progressive]

69. Hillary's IWR vote was the correct one

No matter how much puerile rancor is spewed her way over it, it won't change that fact.

As to whether pointing out Axelrod's statement will draw attention to it, the simple answer is no. It will draw attention to exactly what it explicitly draws attention to: Obama's sleazy campaign. In fact, I think it does that better than anything we've seen so far.

Pabo has run a thoroughly dishonest smearfest of a campaign. People have only caught on slowly because the media has been playing Obama's game, or maybe just willingly snowed into believe that Obama takes the high road when little could be farther from the truth. His Benazir slime will open quite a few eyes to what has been going on for a long time.

[Lurking Dem]

70. The "correct" one?

You can't possibly be serious.