Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Slams Clinton's War Vote

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

By Alec MacGillis
BEAUFORT, S.C. -- After a heated stretch on the campaign trail, Barack Obama sought to tamp things down a bit in a rare interview with reporters here today, saying he did not begrudge Bill Clinton his forceful advocacy on behalf of his wife and that the tough competition with the Clintons was only helping to prepare him for the general election.

A few hours later, though, Obama delivered some of his strongest statements against Hillary Clinton's stance on the war in Iraq, criticizing her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force and her later statements that she had intended the vote as a prod to further diplomacy, not a move to war.

"I have been open about my reasons for opposing the war, but one of my opponents in this race, Senator Clinton, has tried, I believe, to rewrite history," Obama said at a roundtable discussion on veterans issues with several military officers here. "She voted for a resolution called and I quote, 'a resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces again Iraq,' and now she is saying that she wasn't really voting for war. She cast her vote after failing to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, ..which raised enough doubts for the majority of Democratic senators who read it that they voted against the war. We need accountability in our leaders. You can't undo a vote for war just because a war stops being popular."

He added, "This is not just about the past, it's about the future. Voters need to judge us on the judgments we've made and the lessons we've learned. Sen. Clinton has not said her vote was a mistake, she's simply blamed the civilian and military leader that carried out the policies she authorized. If you don't know why Iraq met the threshold for war, how can she know what that threshold will be in the future? When I'm president, the buck will stop with the Oval Office."

Earlier in the day, Obama had sought to avoid stoking the flames in a press conference in Kingstree. Asked what he made of the "bloody" back and forth with the Clintons, Obama said, "I don't feel the candidates are being bloodied up. This is good practice for me for me so, you know, when I take on these Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."

And asked specifically whether he worried that Clinton's criticisms of him might come back to haunt the Democrats in the form of diminished black voter turnout in November, if Clinton is the nominee, Obama demurred. "Black voters shouldn't blame senator Clinton for running a vigorous campaign against me," he said. "That should be a source of pride. It means I might win this thing. When I was 20 points down I was a 'person of good character' and my health care plan was 'universal.' The fact that we've got this fierce contest indicates I'm doing well and I don't think there's anything wrong with that."

Obama struck a similar tone when asked about Bill Clinton's role in the campaign, in which he has served as one of Obama's most outspoken critics. "Let me sort dispose of the whole issue of President Clinton. I have said this repeatedly. He is entirely justified in wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Obama said. "I have no problem with that whatsoever. He can be as vigorous an advocate on behalf of her as he would like. The only thing I'm concerned about is when he makes misstatements about my record. That's what I'm seeking to correct."

Obama was challenged about a tough radio ad his campaign put up today in South Carolina in response to one that Clinton put up yesterday -- but has since taken down -- which hit Obama for his recent comments about Republicans being the "party of ideas" in recent decades. A reporter asked whether Obama's ad, which charges that Clinton will "say anything but change nothing" was in keeping with his pledge for a high-minded campaign.

"If people are making false assertions about our record, we'll answer them, period. I think that's what voters expect," he said. "Remember early on in the campaign everybody was concerned, 'well, I don't know about Obama, he may be too nice, I'm not sure he's up to the rough and tumble.' My tone has not changed about where want to take the country, but I've always asserted we're not going to allow my record to be distorted."

Obama came close to cutting loose only once in the press conference, which was comically interrupted several times by principal's announcements over the intercom in the high school where it was being held. ("Junior ROTC students report to Room 127 east campus ... Miss Morris' class will report to Room 126.") Asked whether he thought he was getting a soft handling from the media, as Clinton alleges, Obama scoffed, saying that his campaign went for months last summer being panned as flat and ineffectual while Clinton was lauded for her formidable operation.

"And I have to say that we weren't out there griping everyday about it," he said. "We weren't complaining when other candidates were 'tireless' and 'inevitable' and their campaigns were 'flawless' and we were the gang that couldn't shoot straight. You didn't see us griping and moaning all the time."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 24, 2008; 4:03 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In Fla., GOP Worries About the Future
Next: McCain Newly Flush


Mrs Clinton voted for that war resolution to preserve her "Presidentiality," in precisely the way her husband dashed home from his own New Hampshire primary to preside over the execution of a man in Arkansas. These people exult in demagogy, but after 8 of them once, and 8 of Bush now, their entitlement to fool us twice, to paraphrase her bad-cop spouse, means shame on us.

Posted by: Carter_NIcholas_readily_targetable_in_Virginia | January 26, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand many Obama supporters. I mean, I can understand supporting Obama, but so many of them worship him as some sort of an idol.

His 2004 war comments, for example, weren't the same as saying that he supported the war, but they were politically calculated statements that certainly did not show any leadership or courage in opposing it. Isn't this why we're supposed to hate Hillary? You also can't argue that he has shown any leadership against the war while in the Senate. Even when he voted against the funding without timetables last summer (after saying a couple weeks before that he "wouldn't play chicken with the troops"), he did so amazingly quietly (as did Hillary).

Many in the media are blaming the "Clinton machine" for polarizing the race, but I think a lot of the blame has to lie with the Obama fanatics. I really think it would be better for everyone if more people could say, "I like Obama, I think he's inspirational or electable or something, but I had to cringe a little bit when he lied about Rezko on Monday," or "I like what he stands for, but wish he would have shown it more in the Senate."

The problem with passionate and unequivocal adoration is that it can inspire a strong negative reaction. While Obama is largely credited for the huge voter turn-outs, in all of them so far the majority have voted for somebody else. I'm sure a lot of that is Bush, and the ridiculous sums of money that have been spent on the early states, but I do wonder if some of it isn't a response to this Obama fanaticism.

Posted by: dvg1 | January 26, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The ENTIRE controversy over race was engineered and manufactured by the Obama campaign in order to fuel a win in South Carolina. Obama had seen the writing on the wall, namely that if he didn't win in South Carolina, a state whose Democratic Primary voters were composed of nearly 50% African Americans, he would be seen as nothing more than a boutique candidate on the order of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He understandably realized that Hillary was garnering the majority of black support, despite the fact he himself was black, and felt if he was going to have ANY chance at being nominated, he had to win South Carolina. His staff then decided they were going to play the race card, and did so. They sent their surrogates out immediately following the New Hampshire primary, including Professor Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown (a major advocate of the Obama campaign who speaks on Obama's half on every major political show on TV), who began questioning whether the win by Hillary in New Hampshire was NOT because she had swayed voters in that state based on their belief that she was a more experienced, more qualified, and more genuine candidate, but rather that they, the voters, had simply voted for her and not Obama because he was black. That same evening, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (a Senior Advisor to Obama's Campaign) went on MSNBC and made the following comment (and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty accurate and you're welcome to google for the YouTube video that shows it) that Hillary's "tears" needed to be examined in light of the "Fact" (and fact is a complete falsehood on his part as he hasn't got a clue as to whether this is factual) that Hillary never cried about Katrina. He made this remark three times, and its clear intent was to say HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T GIVE A RAT'S A$$ ABOUT BLACKS.

This charge of RACISM, leveled at the New Hampshire voters who supported Hillary was a veiled attempt at painting ALL of Hillary Clinton's supporters (at least the white ones), in fact ALL Democrats who DIDN'T support Obama, as RACISTS. They then manufactured a controversy over Hillary's statement about MLK, which was ONLY made in response to OBAMA'S likening HIMSELF to MLK and JFK, claiming she had "DISSED" the man. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the media, nearly all of whom hate Hillary to the core, picked up on this in a heartbeat, and were defacto Obama surrogates in their effort to paint Hillary Clinton as, AT BEST, someone who wasn't sympathetic to blacks concerns or sensibilities.

The Obama campaign then went on to use Bill Clinton's words, where he OBVIOUSLY criticized Obama for his claim that he had been ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War CONSISTENTLY TO THE SAME DEGREE, since before it started, and tried to paint those remarks as racist as well by misquoting Bill, twisting his words, and taking them completely out of context to suggest Bill Clinton had suggested Obama's ENTIRE campaign (and thereby the entire notion that a Black man could ever be president) was a "Fairy Tale". The TRUTH, though, is that Bill had said, CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, that Obama's claim that he had been consistent on his views about the war was a "Fairly Tale". Now, some could argue this is an unfair criticism of Obama, and that would have been a valid, if incorrect opinion in my view. However, they didn't do this. Instead, they clipped the speech by Bill to include NONE of the context of what he had said, and simply used the words "Give me a break, this whole thing is a Fairy Tale" as their quote from Bill, and then claimed he had said this in the context of saying Obama's entire campaign, his entire dream of becoming president, was a "Fairy Tale". This was done in order to anger blacks, to incite them to believe Bill Clinton was a closet racist. And it worked beautifully. Obama's lame claim that he had nothing to do with it was EASILY refuted by the MEMO that had been released by HIS CAMPAIGN which noted Bill's remarks, and did EXACTLY what I stated above in trying to claim Bill had made the claim Obama's campaign was a "Fairy Tale." Not to mention the remarks by Michelle Obama to that same effect at a mostly black event where she is quoted as having said, "That win in Iowa ain't no Fairy Tale"

Now, if you want to dismiss all this, you're welcome to. But it is completely and utterly factual. If you'd like links to all of the stuff, including the comments by Dyson, Jackson, and Michelle Obama, they're on YouTube. The Memo is at Again, you can dismiss it, but you're simply lying to yourself. Obama, and his campaign, in a desperate bid to stay alive in this contest, PLAYED THE RACE CARD. And while it's garnered him a great deal more support among blacks, he's also realized he's lost a great deal of support among women, whites and Hispanics because of it.

It was bad enough that he pulled such a lowlife move. The fact he's lied about it continuously, and is now having his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters spread these vicious, EVIL, and completely phony stories about voter intimidation on the part of Clinton supporters shows me there is NO depth to which he won't go. People claim Hillary acts as if she's owed this nomination. I say they're blind. Hillary has NEVER acted like that. The Media has painted that narrative for a year and she's thoroughly rejected it. OBAMA IS THE A-HOLE WHO ACTS LIKE HE'S OWED THE PRESIDENCY. He acts, and his campaign acts, like any attack on him is an attack on blacks.

Now, I know that many blacks who are racist (and trust me, there are just as many racist blacks as there are whites proportionally), and many other blacks who aren't, but are no more interested in delving into the details of the campaigns as the majority of Americans, will be swayed by all of this nonsense that has been fueled by the Obama campaign and their defacto surrogates (the entire Hillary-Hating media). But they better remember one thing. WHITES MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION, AND EVEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Obama may find he's won the battle (South Carolina), and lost the war.

And if his and his surrogate's rhetoric goes much further, he may find himself in political oblivion soon. I don't believe he ever would have won the nomination. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter and fervently believe she will win. However, I had hoped for, in fact have called for it for over two years, that she would choose Obama as her running mate. However, if he himself, his surrogates, or his advocates hope for even that, he had better REALLY begin to tamp all this down. Because if he doesn't, he's going to find his support among whites even lower than Hillary Clinton's support among blacks in South Carolina following his little round of racial hucksterism. And if he wants to see who would REALLY win a race war between a black and white candidate here in America, all he has to do is look at the campaigns of ANY black man who's ever run for president such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Both of them were seen as the BOUTIQUE Black Candidate, and Obama's heading toward that demise. His only chance at the nomination, or ANY further political viability, is to UNITE people, not divide them.

Furthermore, as I said above, for two years I have been calling for a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket, which I saw as both a winning ticket, one that would go far in healing our nation, and would provide Democrats with control of the White House for at LEAST the next 16 years. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I have to say that whatever my analysis above, and my belief that Obama can STILL avoid doom if he stops what he's been doing, I personally will NEVER vote for the man. I believe he is a racist, that the majority of his supporters are vicious Hillary-Haters and/or moronic racists themselves, and if Hillary does put him on the ticket in order to heal the party, I will seriously consider voting for an independent candidate or skipping the election altogether. Barack Obama is not fit to be dog-catcher of Podunk, Illinois, let alone President of the United States of America. In truth, if he's elected, I won't just vote against him or not vote, I'll actively work to get others to.

And all the scum like "laplumelefirmament" who come on these blogs to spout their hate of the Clintons are going to go back to their pathetic lives after this is all over. It's sad to see that Obama's supporters, at least on most blogs, are comprised almost exclusively of lying, lowlife, racist hate-mongers right out of the Repuglikkkunt playbook.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

At least Sen. Clinton had the courage to vote. After all, it was her home state that was attacked by Muslim terrorists. I guess that's too hard for Barrack Hussein Obama to understand.

But, here is an example as to he would "govern" is you can call it that:

Fact Sheet: Sen. Obama's 129 Present Votes

Monday Sen. Obama's campaign held a conference call to defend his record of voting present on choice issues. But the Obama campaign failed to address the fact that Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues.

Sen. Obama's Present Votes By The Numbers

Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

In 1999, Sen. Obama voted 'present' more often than he voted 'no': According to state records, Obama voted 'present' 43 times in 1999, while voting 'no' just 29 times. []

At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

Other Present Votes of Interest:

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]

Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]

Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops. [SB609, Passed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001]

Illinois Now on Obama's Present Votes On Choice:

During Sen. Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman's right to choose and repeatedly voted 'present' on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted 'present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Sen. Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now"

Posted by: Spiffy2 | January 26, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: krikkit4 | January 26, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: yudong2 | January 25, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh lord - now Clinton is trying to get the decision over-turned for delegates from Michigan and Florida to not count. That goes beyond the gall, given she was the only one who did not remove her name from the Michigan ballot and basically ran uncontested in Michigan.

Ahhh- the last 8 years of great deception, with it currently looking like America is shoring itself up to fall for the current deception and continue living under that for the next 8 years.

How could it possibly be?

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 25, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Here's an idea - if it comes down to the super delegates deciding who goes up as the nominee and it looks like they are on the brink of favoring Clinton - how about all Dems and Independents who would not vote for Clinton doing an en masse party registration switch? Like a HUGE shift to the Republican base. Then let the media see if there would be enough votes left - by party registration - for the Democrats to win. That should be a clear litmus test/referendum pre-selection of the viability of Clinton as a candidate - if the loss to the Democratic base does not seem large enough they will run with her, but if it does, they will think twice.

Without some kind of meaningful signal (and people leaving comments online is unfortunately not a reliable signal because you can never be sure how many different people are actually feeling this way) the establishment will not necessarily take your concerns seriously.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 25, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Obama said I don't know in 2004 for some very good reasons. First of all, he did make clear at that time that he had personally been opposed to going to war in Iraq, but he was not in Senate at the time and he said because he wasn't in that position and privy to the information made available to the Senate he could not know what his decision would have been - which is fair enough to say - how do you say 'I would have said this if I had been in Senate'. Fair call to say that. The other issue too was that a campaign was being run at the time and they were seeking to use his condemnation of the decision to go to war against his own party members that were running. It was diplomatic of Obama to not say anything that would condemn his party members, so he gave the best answer possible. He said his position was then, as his belief was still firm now, that going to Iraq was a bad idea, but that he did not know how he would have voted had he been in someone elses shoes, in that environmental context of the senate voting.

Posted by: JayKay2 | January 25, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how anyone could feel that Sen. Clinton is attacking Sen. Obama when she only questioned his lack of being clear on the issues. When Obama attacks Clinton nobody says anything. If you watched the debate on 1/21/08 he started the attacks. Clinton finally responded. If he can put it out then he should be able to take it as well. Also, I am tired of Obama talking about Clinton's vote on the Iraq War. That has been asked and answered. It is time to move on.

As an undecided voter, I am having a hard time finding any reason to vote for Obama. He hasn't been clear and he keeps changing his stance on issues daily. It's like whatever people want to hear he say. To find out more on Obama I went to the Chicago Tribune website and found that Obama lied in the debate. But you don't hear about that. Why?

What I am saying is we have to keep an open mind and vote for the best candidate and be fair. Do your research and make an informed decision. This election is very important for those of us who need to see a change from the last eight years.

Posted by: Tina8188 | January 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama refuses to take responsibility for any vote or statement that doesn't fit what he wants to say now.

As to being opposed to the war-Cindy Sheehan has done more to stop it than Obama. He didn't repeat his 2003 anti-war comments until he decided to run for President. Hillary didn't either but let's not make Obama the Saint on this.

Even Edwards finally got annoyed at Obama and they have been having a love fest- when Obama refused to own up to the 130 "present" votes in the Illinois State Senate. And he was the only one to vote present on the vote regarding privacy of sex crime victims and he lost the support of NARAL becasue of his "present" vote on Choice.

He blatantly lied about not being for a single payer health care system as there is a video tape of him saying exactly this to the afl-cio.

It is time to stop giving Obama a pass. The Republicans certainly won't if he gets to be the nominee.

Posted by: peterdc | January 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Obama KNEW the war was NOT a good idea from jump. He came out against the war BEFORE it was popular to do so. He did it because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO! He was not even Senator yet, and risked making that statement. Obama is consistent, he cares about the American people, will take an unpopular stance and is a visionary and leader. "

Spin-a-ding-ding. Obama "opposed" the war when he had nothing to lose by saying he did and no responsibility at all for US Government policy. Once he started getting some serious national coverage, he loses his voice. He could have said, "look I've always been against the war, and I have disagreed with Kerry and Edwards about the war. I think Kerry was wrong and have told him so, but he's my party's candidate and I know the country needs him to do what he says he's going to do." But no... just some dissembling about not knowing what he would do, not having access to the intelligence, just seemed from my seat in the Illinois Senate to be wrong....

Then he gets into the US Senate and votes war funding and the Patriot Act. This is not change, people, this is politics as usual.

Posted by: mshimazu | January 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse


We are all falling for your jedi mind tricks. Keep repeating that to yourself. "these aren't the droids you're looking for..."

Posted by: enkidu1 | January 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

A lot of us who live in New York, democrats included, got somewhat crazy after the attacks on the Trade Center.
I know a number of people who didn't believe Iraq was a serious threat - didn't believe the nuclear, chemical, biological stories, but still did not oppose the war.
Some people thought it just might be a good idea for the US to invade a muslim country in the middle east and destroy the place, just to make a point.
With that kind of thinking going on in NY, who can blame Hillary for giving the power to G Bush? She was representing the will of her constituents in voting to authorize force.
Obama is one of those immature guys who's absolutely positive that he will always make the right decisions, and compares this theory about himself to the real world actions of everyone else.

Posted by: visualthinker7 | January 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse


I am glad to see that someone shares my affinity for civility : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is a godsend. It seems he is also a gentleman in an age when civility has been submerged.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse


Ouch! I wasn't aware that Stanford University (and the Law School) was part of the broken educational system in the United States. Which "unbroken" schools did you graduate from?


Thank you for explaining that Obama said "I don't know" because Kerry was running for President and Obama did not want to throw him under the bus -- so much for CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES -- instead of voting for funding, wouldn't a U.S. Senator "against the war" find some way to bring the troops home (i.e. repeal authorization, cut funding, or get the House to impeach Bush)?


Not exactly -- you quote only a few words from that sentence, whereas I quoted Obama's entire sentence -- feel free to QUOTE the entire sentence and then try and make your same point.


You're welcome.


Thank you for (once again) proving that Obama indeed said QUOTE "I don't know." That was not every sentence he uttered in 2004, but it was indeed one of them. That was my original point.

BTW: I did not vote for either Hillary or John Edwards -- I voted for Obama, not withstanding the above points -- he obviously did not have access to classified intelligence at the time.

Posted by: JakeD | January 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Somehow Obama's first sentence about not having access to the Sentate intelligence gets lost in the discussion by the media and his opponents.

"In fact, Obama's full statement as reported in the July 26, 2004, New York Times article cited by the AP was: "'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made' " (emphasis added)."

Clinton had access to the NIE and didn't even bother to read did John Edwards.

Posted by: heisted547 | January 25, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Whoops, apologies Alec, about the wrong name on my previous post. Need sleep.

Posted by: Katy7540 | January 25, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Jake, for reporting part of Senator Obama's responses to the fact that the Clinton's are and have been for two months, distorting his record.

The many people that know Barack, know the truth, and we believe the truth will win out in the end.

Barack Obama has united hundreds of thousands of supporters of all parties, ages, and religions to form a majority that will overpower and destroy the Karl Rove brand of politics and doing things in our country. Barack will bring honor to the White House.

Posted by: Katy7540 | January 25, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

How many lies did Billary tell today? I hear even Chelsea was sent out to lie today. It really is sad when the children are forced to lie too. READ BELOW:

"President Clinton has been touting his wife's commitment to Africa on the campaign trail by telling interested voters that "Hillary was the first U.S. Senator to call Darfur genocide." He used that exact line with voters in Aiken, S.C., yesterday, and it has been pointed out more than once over the course of this campaign.

"The usually shy Chelsea also touted her mother's record on Darfur, telling a group at Stanford University earlier this month that she was "really proud that my mom was the first Democratic senator to call it genocide in May of 2004 and put a lot of pressure on the Bush administration to recognize it as genocide."

But being involved in solving genocide and being the first to call it genocide are two very different things. Turns out that the honor President Clinton and Chelsea are bestowing on Hillary actually belongs to Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas. That legislation -- the one Clinton's Senate Web site uses as the first marker for involvement -- was actually led by Feingold.

The Congressional Record documents that on June 24, 2004, DeWine became the first U.S. Senator to call the situation in Darfur genocide on the actual Senate floor.

In a floor speech on July 22, 2004, Feingold followed DeWine's lead, becoming the first Democratic Senator to use the term genocide, stating "all credible evidence indicates that what is unfolding in Darfur is genocide."

Posted by: vitana1900 | January 25, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

It's the electability, stupid. Democrats, please pay attention: Hillary cannot win the general and that is the ONLY point worth putting out at this crucial moment of the primaries. Don't get distracted or side-tracked: put every other piece of info, scrappy fight, comment by surrogates, squabble, newspaper article, blog, story and propaganda-filled speech aside. Its not about race or gender or policies or change or experience. You only need to know ONE piece of information to make your decision: no candidate can win a general election that is not supported by half of her own party. Keep your eye on the 11/08 ball before it's too late. She is the only thing that will rally the struggling Republican Party. Tell every Democrat and Independent you know: a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain, HIS war in Iraq and an economy that will not recover for a very long time. Why does the DNC not recognize this? We are running out of time to put an end to the eight, and I now fear 12, years of negative and never-endingly bad mojo and the moment to do something about it is right now. So stop talking and go out and do something. One simple first step? Email The DNC and tell them how you feel about the way The Clintons are leading our party and running their campaign. . Pass it on.

Posted by: malarson2 | January 25, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Hilary has the most experience for dealing with the stock market. NYT reported that in 1979, Hillary turned $1,000 investment into $100,000 in cattle future trading, an improbable odd that is 1 in 250 million. If elected, Hilary can single handedly make the Social Security deficit disappear.

Posted by: adwei | January 25, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

JakeD -
In one of your posts above you wrote, and I quote: "Obama did not say 'I don't know'"

This is a direct quote from what you wrote.

Did I take it out of context? Yes. Just as you took Obama's quote out of context.

Posted by: dondlinger | January 24, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

First of all, when Obama was asked in 2004 how he would have voted for he war in Iraq, he said "I don't know" because Kerry was running for President and he did not want to throw the democratic presidential candidate under the bus. CONTEXT. Point being, Obama KNEW the war was NOT a good idea from jump. He came out against the war BEFORE it was popular to do so. He did it because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO! He was not even Senator yet, and risked making that statement. Obama is consistent, he cares about the American people, will take an unpopular stance and is a visionary and leader.

Once he was in the senate, he could not vote against funding to our soliders because they were aleady over there in harms way. Moreover, Iraq had to be stabalized!

HRC STILL has not taken responsibility or accountability for voting to send American soldiers into Iraq.

Those Clintons never have taken responsibility for their mishaps and they never will! They will DO and SAY anything to get into office!! Remember..."I did not inhale..."



Posted by: Robby1 | January 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is the poster child for the broken educational system in the United States.

Posted by: TomJx | January 24, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I trust Senator Obama's judgment on Iraq over Senator Clinton's.

As recently as February 2005, Clinton was saying the insurgency in Iraq was failing and much of Iraq was "functioning quite well." She wrongly argued prior to the Iraq vote that Iraq had a link to al Qaeda and she did not even read the pertinent classified intelligence reports available to her (only six senators did; see New York Times 6/3/07). If she feels the Bush Administration misled her, she has publicly shown no anger or resentment or regret about it.

Posted by: wesfromGA | January 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

to blindly parrot myths long after they've been credibly debunked and then not have the courage to stand by your original point of criticism seems not useful at best, and inanely vitriolic at worst.

Posted by: ydhull1 | January 24, 2008 05:29 PM

That sounds just like a Republican.

Posted by: langs13 | January 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

My first comment is to all the Clinton bashers. First of all we really need to give this women credit! She has dedicated most of her life serving government and this country. She is willing to take on a job that frankly, I don't know Who would want after Bush has totally screwed everything up. She has taken ACTION on so many ideas that she has been apart of from HealthCare, Gays in the Military, Equality, Immagration etc. So what, that she is still with her husband after the "scandel", that makes her an honorable "wife" to work things out with her "husband", that shouldn't be our business! What is our business is to vote for someone who can clean up this mess that America is in. I firmly beleive that Hillary should be President and Obama Vice-President. He has to admit he went to her for advice when he joined the Senate, she can continue to advise him as Vice-President.

Posted by: axbjazz | January 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

New Bloomberg / LA Times Poll:

Presidential General Match-ups:
The poll tested Clinton and Obama with the four leading Republican candidates. Except for the match-up against McCain, Clinton and Obama bested Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee by more than 10 points each. McCain is another issue. If Republicans are looking for a strong candidate to put up against the Democrats, it looks like McCain may be their candidate. Clinton leads the Arizona senator by four points and Obama and McCain virtually split the vote (42% for Obama, 41% for McCain) although both match-ups are well within the poll's margin of error. Interestingly, independents are split between Clinton and McCain and Obama and McCain. Independents make up a good portion of both McCain's and Obama's vote, so if it were to come down between these two candidates, how would this affect the outcome of the election.

If the November 2008 general election for president were being held today and the choices were (Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama), the Democrat, or (Mitt Romney/John McCain/Rudy Giuliani/Mike Huckabee), the Republicans or would you vote for a candidate from some other party? (Includes leaners)

Clinton vs. Republican candidates: (Split Sample)

Clinton 50%
Romney 39
S/Else 5
D/Know 6

Clinton 46
McCain 42
S/Else 5
D/Know 7

Clinton 53
Giuliani 37
S/Else 5
D/Know 5

Clinton 51
Huckabee 38
S/Else 5
D/Know 6

Obama vs. Republican candidates: (Split sample)

Obama 46
Romney 35
S/Else 7
D/Know 12

Obama 49
Giuliani 32
S/Else 8
D/Know 11

Obama 41
McCain 42
S/Else 5
D/Know 12

Obama 47
Huckabee 37
S/Else 6
D/Know 10

Posted by: priusdriver | January 24, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama ahould bring up HRC's vote for the Iraq War, a vote she has NOT said was a mistake, EVERY DAY...

Posted by: cjroses | January 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See:

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | January 24, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Not sure why so many people are backing Obama. Seems like the guy cant even vote correctly. He seems to goof up (six times!!!) between a YES and NO vote. Ooops!!

Read this:,0,713086.story

Posted by: ma6878 | January 24, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have played the race card powerfully and swiftboated Obama on the war. I guess our optimism about America being past dirty politics to maintain the status quo is dying and we'll just have to hope that in four years we can have another chance to get a Democrat elected again. It will be 100 years before an intellectual person with true character like Obama comes around again.

Posted by: coumaris | January 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't it be different if ALL the candidates quit snibbling about the other one and stuck to telling us what they plan to do and HOW they plan to do it. Anyone can be critical of another..that is the cheap stuff. Tell us what you plan to do...then we can decide without all the boo-hoo comments...must be a school they go to to learn how to whine

Posted by: DevilDoc | January 24, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama is smart
Run with a slogan and hope no one asks any hard questions. I liked him till he voted.

Posted by: hhkeller | January 24, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I do not support Obama, but he is right and I trust him. When this all come to end, it is clear right now that Obama will have nomination from democrats. It is not clear yet for republicans, but anybody would be good except Mitt Phoney.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | January 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama voted for the continuation of the war and he voted for Bushes unPatriot Act.
We don't know how he would vote on anything else because there is little record. At least we know how Clinton voted and her rational.

Posted by: hhkeller | January 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Yo, mgoodwin, the "full quote" is posted and linked to above -- it proves that Obama said "I don't know" -- apology accepted.

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Yo JakeD--it's really easy to distort a person's quote when you take it out of context. You need to read the full quote, which goes something along the lines of,

"As a firm opponent of the war in Iraq, how do you feel about the fact that both your party's candidates voted to authorize the war?"

"Well, I don't know what I would have done if I was in the Senate, but from where I stood the case hadn't been made."

Stop buying the spin dude. Check into it for yourself. However many times the Clintons try to repeat this bogus claim, it still doesn't make it true.

Obama put the party above his political ambitions at the Convention to try to help Kerry get elected. Imagine the Clintons putting the party and all of us ahead of their personal political ambitions--or maybe just not lying all the time...kinda makes you want to laugh and cry all at once, huh?

Posted by another Democrat that will never vote for the Clintons.

Posted by: mgoodwin_04 | January 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

The clinton candidacy has already divided this country. If clinton is the nominee the republicans will surge, and probably win. If through some fault in the cosmos clinton wins, we will have four years of stalemates further dividing the country and strengthening the facist republican stranglehold on the Consitutution.

Posted by: theroadmaster | January 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Enough of this talk about Obama not having the experience to withstand GOP mud slinging in a general election.

He's proven to be a better campaigner than Dukakis, Gore, Kerry -- and from the looks of things -- both Bill and Hillary. No one voiced these concerns about Bill, who was only 46, from a small state with a mass grave of skeletons in his closet.

If the son of a single-parent household can make it to the editorship of the Harvard Law Review, the UofC law school faculty, the rough and tumble of Chicago politics and the US Senate, he can certainly take on Flip Flopper Mitt, Bush Clone John McCain, or Confederate Flag Huckabee.

Posted by: hankboyd | January 24, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is truly bizarre. He claims Mitt Romney has the best character to be president; distorts (or straight-up lies) about Barack Obama's past statments; and makes Bill Clinton look like Abe Lincoln in terms of honesty. Yet he claims to have voted for Barack Obama in the primary. Very strange.

Posted by: RyanMcC1 | January 24, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse


Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration




Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Many of us are old enough to remember the shame the Clinton administration brought to this country and the White House.

They are a ,say anything do anything "FAMILY"............its not about what can i do for my country with the's all about ,HOW CAN WE WORM OUR WAY BACK INTO POWER AGAIN,SO WE CAN SCREW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !

Hillary stuck it out with Bill through all his girl friends for Political reasons only , and that speaks volumes about her Judgement and character.

Posted by: cakemanjb | January 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Its funny JakeD, someone refutes your "quote" by actually providing context and instead of defending it or your dubious editorializing, you just move on. Your original point got the letters right (the ones that you cherry picked at least), but badly, maliciously, missed the spirit. I've got no problem if you've got reservations about Obama, more than a few people that I respect do, but to blindly parrot myths long after they've been credibly debunked and then not have the courage to stand by your original point of criticism seems not useful at best, and inanely vitriolic at worst.

Posted by: ydhull1 | January 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse


Do you SERIOUSLY think that Obama did not say "I don't know"??? As proven above, that is an actual QUOTE. Seriously people!

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

By the time the election rolls around, all the Dems will be for the war. Why? Because the tide has turned. Likely, the Iraqis will have passed all the necessary reforms. A democracy will be taking hold in the Middle East. There may even be a Palestinian solution. Then all the Dems will say, "Yeah, I was for it".

Watch and see...

Posted by: jcoffren | January 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Do Clinton supporters SERIOUSLY think they're not fighting dirty??? Seriously people!

Posted by: Charles.Smith5 | January 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse


I agree -- Obama has his faults, but that didn't stop me from voting for him in the primary -- will you join me in pledging to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton even if she gets the nomination?

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

All Barack is doing is gaining the respect of all those independants and Republicans not happy with mess that Bush and his buddy McCain made of our country...He's doing what the GOPers have never been able to do pull the blinders off our eyes! I hope the Clintons stop acting this way because they are destroying all the respect I had for them...I defended them for years against the witch hunts and now they are acting the same way!! Shame on you BILL!! Ooops sorry its Hillary who is running...Shame on you Hillary!!

Posted by: Beka13 | January 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama was against the war while running for senate, FOR the war as a senator, against the WAR while running for the next office,and he'll be FOR the war if elected.

He's a republican in a good suit.

Posted by: newagent99 | January 24, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

At one of Bill Clinton's appearances in SC on Wednesday, an elderly black man stood up and said "black people are voting for Obama because he's black. But he can't win and he will make sure the Republicans win in November." Clinton showed "concern" while a few others nodded.

After it was over, reporters tried to get the man's name. He refused to identify himself and left with his BODYGUARD! Now, tell me. How many people attend town hall meetings with bodyguards, especially elderly black men in SC? This guy was a plant by the Clinton campaign used to continue to play the race issue.

Now can someone tell who in the past tried to scare black people from doing something?

Wasn't it called "KKK"?..........

The Clintons are now resorting to staging, having black people show up at rallies saying Obama can't win and can't help up. This is a scare tactic to steal your vote!

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

At one of Bill Clinton's appearances in SC on Wednesday, an elderly black man stood up and said "black people are voting for Obama because he's black. But he can't win and he will make sure the Republicans win in November." Clinton showed "concern" while a few others nodded.

After it was over, reporters tried to get the man's name. He refused to identify himself and left with his BODYGUARD! Now, tell me. How many people attend town hall meetings with bodyguards, especially elderly black men in SC? This guy was a plant by the Clinton campaign used to continue to play the race issue.

Now can someone tell who in the past tried to scare black people from doing something?

Wasn't it called "KKK"?..........

The Clintons are now resorting to staging, having black people saying show up at rallies saying Obama can't win and can't help up. This is a scare tactic to steal your vote!

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 24, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama also said lots of other things in 2004. Do I have to post them all in this limited forum?

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Just like the Clintons, JakeD is cherry picking what Obama said. What he actually said is "But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made. What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this"

Obama's comments on this has been widely reported and the lies debunked. See NY's oroginal story in 2004 here:

Posted by: pmasundire | January 24, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins, I will not like the way that she won. And if she wins and if she fights the Republicans with the same venom, then her negative will go continue to go up. She may win or she may lose this General Election, but it will be another 49% to 51% election. She may win or she may lose, but she will divide this country even more. She may win or she may lose, but she will not be good for this country. She may win or she may lose, but she will never and I mean never get my vote. And I am someone who has never voted for a Republican to any executive office.

Posted by: jbfrombigD | January 24, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and her supporters (see Jake above) love to criticize what Obama says but apart from that one stint at the law firm and the present votes, they haven't been able to touch his actions. Both of those consequently were shown be innocuous (see fact-checker to see that he really did meaningless work for that case with the law firm and understand that present votes are a political maneuver in IL and not a cop-out). Meanwhile the Clintons are supposed to be the candidates of action? I think everyone associates a certain action with the Clintons but it's not with Hillary and not with voting.
I love it beacuse this kind of bickering will just lead to the democrats failing in 08. The republicans will win out 'cause Romney is the best candidate!

Posted by: somua2 | January 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse


"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

--Milan Kundera

In the 1960s, Mississippi sharecroppers facing nightsticks and police dogs stirred the conscience of a nation by wearing signs that said simply: "I am a man."

Later, Cesar Chavez's United Farmworkers Union, facing a television debate with a slick corporate spokesperson, offered up a poor woman who picked grapes to feed her family as their representative--and she wiped the floor with the growers' shill.

Today, the Clinton machine is eyeball to eyeball with an America that does not want to re-live the 1990s, the scandals, the shame, the spectacle of our White House transformed into a bordello.

If you are tired of the Clintons' lying, race coding and defaming and distorting the record of some of the party's best and brightest, there is a solution.

We can take back the party ... by drawing on the lessons community activists taught us in the 1960s and 1970s during the heyday of the civil rights movement.

All it will take is a zerox machine, a tape recorder, or a video set-up.

And a willingness to stand up and be counted.

Go to your next Democratic Party meeting.

Bring with you copies of Nation magazine Katha Pollitt's article on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal ( Be polite, but distribute copies as a pamphlet.

Take too, one of the original Washington Post stories on the same subject ( (Also for use as a pamphlet.)

Also, bring a tape recording or DVD of the Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons. ... And make sure you can play it loudly. (

Just for giggles, also take with you a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to" by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens'--and make a lot of copies of the chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.)

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Share these with your fellow Democrats at party meetings before your state holds a caucus or primary.

Ask them to listen to their consciences.

Ask them if they want the divisiveness, examples of disrepect for women, and union busting friendships (Wal-Mart, Marc Rich, you know the drill), that would surely come with another Clinton presidency.

Ask them if the country can afford such a spectacle as the economy tanks and young men and women are fighting and dying for our freedom many miles from our shores.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

And we Democrats are entitled to expect decency, fair play, and coherence from our candidates as they pretend to represent us at the polls.

Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering what the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General later called "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior Janet Reno aides in a major security and corruption scandal.

Janet Reno was promoted for Attorney General by Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, you are truly tireless at spreading half truths. Your diligence in doing so is rather impressive, I have to admit.

Posted by: bsimon | January 24, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Please tell this rookie salesman to stop crying and whining...this is only the primary. Just figure this out, what if this rookie is the nominee, is the Republican machine will get him a free ride?. HELL NO! It will get worst.

Posted by: graysce101 | January 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

That's funny, because when Obama was asked in 2004 how he would have voted on, and I quote, 'a resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces again Iraq,' he said (again, quoting): "I DON'T KNOW."

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company