The Incremental Revolutionary
The Clintons' line about Obama is that he's all talk and little action—star of 'the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen,' said Bill. So what's the reality?
It may not be easy to tell now, but Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common. One example: they're both strongly pro-choice. Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League have awarded each of them perfect 100 percent scores for opposing abortion restrictions. So Democrats in New Hampshire might have been a bit surprised when Clinton began criticizing Obama for not being pro-choice enough. "A woman's right to choose demands a leader who will stand up and protect it," read a mailing sent out to Democrats in the state on the eve of last week's primary.
Without giving details, the flier knocked Obama for votes he cast years ago on several anti-abortion bills when he was an Illinois state senator. Along with a bloc of other Democrats, Obama had voted "present" instead of "no"—a maneuver intended to rob Republicans of fodder to use against them in campaign attack ads. (A vote of present essentially counted as a no, since a bill needed a majority of affirmative votes to pass.) The anti-abortion measures failed. Still, the Clinton mailing featured a sidelong picture of Obama alongside the words UNWILLING TO TAKE A STAND ON CHOICE; Clinton smiles sweetly at the camera. The mailing found its mark. Obama canvassers reported that people around the state had started asking them about the candidate's record on abortion.
In the days after his Iowa win, Obama and his advisers believed they could ride a wave of good will through New Hampshire and beyond. But they underestimated the power of Clinton's war room in full crisis mode. Clinton didn't win there simply because she teared up. Obama was outmaneuvered by her superior organization in the state, and overwhelmed by a barrage of carefully aimed criticisms intended to raise doubts about Obama's central claim as a candidate—that he is a change agent, a lifelong reformer who will heal Washington by bringing together feuding politicians of both parties.
At first, Obama's sunny disposition seemed to confound Clinton strategists: how could they hit back against Mr. Optimism without appearing mean and petty themselves? They have now found their line of argument. Obama's perceived strength as a leader, they suggest, is actually a weakness: his desire to bring people together may make him seem high-minded and likable, but in trying to be all things to all people he winds up avoiding difficult decisions—i.e., he votes present instead of yes or no. In recent days, the Clinton camp has continued to go after Obama for his positions on Iraq funding, health care, border security, prison sentencing, capital punishment and a dozen other issues. "There is a big difference between talking and acting, between promising and delivering,'' Clinton said in New Hampshire.
Bill Clinton took it a step further, and left no doubt that the campaign has entered a harder, edgier phase. The former president accused the press of going easy on Obama. "The idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative … is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there."
The trouble is that in politics, "the facts" alone don't always make things clearer. Take Obama's abortion votes. It is true he voted present several times between 1997 and 2001. But it was part of a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood. Republicans in the Illinois Senate had repeatedly tried to pass bills restricting abortion. This put Democrats in a difficult position. They wanted to vote against the bills, but worried they would be smeared by Republican opponents for opposing legislation with names like "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act." So Obama and a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans cut a deal with Planned Parenthood. The politicians would vote present as a bloc. The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/02/2008 8:21:46 PM
Comment: Nins: Why are you peddling BS trotted out by a pack of leftwinged rags? General James Simmons,not only did not cancel such a display,but produced it before reporters of several news services including CNN,NBC,Agence France Presse,REUTERS,the AP,ABC,and others on Nov.17,2007. Indeed,why would Iranian Supreme Council Member Ayatollah Khamenei agree that such arms were indeed,flowing to Iraq in his Nov.18,2007 meeting with Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq? You are presenting only half-truths with regards to Irans nuclear program. The IAEA not only acknowlages that Iran is making enriched uranium,but as late as last month,acknowlaged that Iran was ''only two years away from a nuclear weapon.Perhaps less.''[Remarks,Muhammed El-Baradei June 20,2008,AL-ARABIYA]. The IAEA recognizes that Iran now has plutonium,along with its acknowlagement that its large numbers of centerfuges ''could produce enough material for one bomb in six months to one year'',hence El-Baradeis newest worries. At this moment,Iran refuses to allow full inspections by the IAEA.
Posted By: Nins @ 07/02/2008 7:17:20 PM
Comment: Why did the US military cancel a news conference where they were going to display the "Iranian" weapons they found in Iraq? Because there WERE NO IRANIAN WEAPONS to display. Here are links supporting the fact that the weapons found in Iraq did not come from Iran:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013695.php
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/fire_next_time.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html
NOT TO MENTION that the Untied States itself has had a notable role in arming the insurgency. When the US dissolved the Iraqi Army, that flooded Iraq with weapons. More recently the Pentagon admitted that it had lost track of a third of the weapons distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004-05, totaling 190,000 assault rifles and pistols that are currently on the streets of Iraq. The British paper that published this article got it's information straight from the US Government Accounting Office's public website: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pentagon-admits-190000-weapons-missing-in-iraq-460551.html
Ask yourself, why would America want to pretend that Iran is pushing weapons in Iraq, when actually WE (the USA) has flooded Iraq's streets with weapons? Because Bush wants to declare war on Iran, and just like the fake "WMDs" in Iraq, he needs something to frighten Americans, so he comes out with this BS about Iran killing US soldiers in Iraq. He has also said that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but recent inspections have found NO EVIDENCE of nuclear weapons in Iran. JUST LIKE how repeated inspections found NO EVIDENCE of WMDs in Iraq. The reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN inspectors and nuclear experts at the Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) all agree that Iran DOES NOT have nuclear weapons. The IAEA report states that Iran only has "low enriched uranium, not the highly-enriched uranium necessary to produce a bomb." The ISIS reports states "It is important to note that they do not encompass the full scope of work required for a comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Missing is theoretical work on nuclear weapons, uranium metallurgy, and the development of a neutron initiator." http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/2008/iaea_report_on_iran.htm#_ftn9
In case you think the idea that Bush wants to bomb Iran is reactionary, you should know that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, recently told FoxNews that he can "definitely envision Bush bombing Iran before he leaves office." By bombing Iran, Bush makes it more likely McCain will be elected. But can the US Treasury, can the US economy stand more war? Even if we could afford it, we don't have the manpower in uniform. You know what that means: draft and conscription. Vote for McCain. Watch your children come home in body bags. Watch America go into a Great Depression.
Posted By: dking312 @ 07/02/2008 2:26:23 AM
Comment: You goofy silly, folks who still act and look like dinosaurs in our space age.
You people who can't get off of that.