What the hell have Clinton and Obama done?

They have now voted FOR the Iraq funding before voting against it. I have a sinking feeling that they are so unbelievably screwed the same way Kerry was when he had to explain all of these different Senate votes.

Biden might go after them on this, calling himself "consistent". Edwards has got to be grinning ear to ear on this. Richardson, too. But last I looked at the polls, these guys aren't going to be the nominee.

We can't blame Republicans for this quandary. This is the Democrats' making. Nobody thought this damned thing through.

The liberal caucus will be fine -- core people like Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, and Kennedy. They know what they believe, they have fought for it, and their no vote was not tortured in any way. Dodd can probably squeeze himself into this category since he co-sponsored the Feingold resolution. But, son of a bitch -- if Clinton or Obama emerge victorious out of the primaries, the Right will be grinning ear to ear on how they will smear those Senate votes.

Look, I'm tossing primaries aside here, and looking at the General Election. I want the Democrat in the White House. And past grudges will not stand in my way to make that happen. Why do I feel this strongly? Boring stuff, like putting professional prosecutors back in U.S. Attorney jobs, having real professional people running all of the agencies instead of ideological hacks, putting more sane foreign policy people in the State Department, letting the military express dissent again to the civilian government and actually have their opinion be respected and heard.

And this damned vote might stand in the way of this!!!!! Tell me how we're going to come out of this okay, and still win in 2008.

Mrs. Clinton is just doing, minutes later, whatever Obama does - so he should get 100% of the blame.

You do realize they offer classes on sarcasm don't you?

"Both Clinton and Obama had remained publicly uncommitted in the hours before the vote. Neither were on the Senate floor as voting began. Halfway through, Obama walked into the chamber and cast his "no" vote. Clinton did the same a few minutes later."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_4

The sarcasm part? :rofl:

I'm thinking that your sense of humor is even drier than mine.

Scary!

Perhaps I am misinfomed. If so, could someone please set the record straight...

I don't think the Senate had the same funky rule that they had in the House. There was only one vote there. They voted against it.

Now they have voted against another version without a timetable yesterday. So they voted for one funding bill and against the other.

The first one (that they voted for) included the timetable. The second one did not.

But the average American isn't watching the Senate all the time. All they'll hear is that Clinton and Obama voted against the funding. Then Clinton and Obama will answer that actually they DID vote for the funding with timetables, but were not willing to vote for one without timetables. This is going to be tough to get through the filter.

Hopefully, the media will be kinder to them than they were to Kerry, who spoke about Senate procedure, and got called erroneously a flip flopper.

...of claiming that they voted for it before they voted against it.

the GOP were already going to use that ploy with or without a gaffe. And to devastating effect (I heard flip flop way before the gaffe).

And in a world now full of video cams and YouTube, are you sure one of them isn't going to get tired and sound incoherent for a moment? I heard Obama was so tired on CSPAN2, he could barely speak (this was a day or so ago). Sen. Clinton has also had bad moments. They are human, and these things happen.

Dems operate at a handicap. They're to perform at a standard Republicans aren't, due to the media situation (which is still largely driven by Drudge and Fox News). I'm worried. But I hope you're right.

But Kerry's error was immense. He knew that the republicans were painting him as a flip-flopper, but still he handed them the club that they used to beat him over the head. His error helped "prove" that the existing republican narrative about him was "true."

different versions of the Senate bill. I was more an Indy back then, and I knew that the first one he voted for would have lowered the deficit, while the second would increase the deficit. It made me like him more, since I thought the tax cuts were irresponsible.

I just will continue to be puzzled why it was such a big deal. Even a low level understanding of how the Senate works would garner his remark as irrelevant. I say this sincerely -- I was not a Kerry partisan at the time like I am now. I didn't understand what all the fuss was about. But I stayed away from cable and only watched the News Hour on PBS. Maybe that was the difference.

Edit: that's why I am worried now. Because the common sense you and I speak of in Clinton's and Obama's votes are going to get lost in the media storm, I fear.

vote against/for the other version.

That so many Democrats took the route of PUSHING a RW lie so easily debunked spoke badly of the party in its failure to appeal to reason and truth.

Why it is continually pushed is BS, too. Reifying RW talking points is a WEAKNESS for any Democrat.

It doesn't matter what the "truth" is. What matters is that Republicans had decided to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, and then Kerry went and said something that sounds like utterly ridiculous Washington DC doublespeak, and only served to reinforce the label that the Republicans were trying to pin on him.

You are welcome to argue all you like that what he said was not an error. In fact, it is true that he voted for the bill before he voted against it, so technically you're correct and so was Kerry. But that doesn't matter. It was still a ridiculous thing for him to say, and it made him look incredibly foolish.

And, while we're on the subject, let's be clear about what is and is not a right-wing talking point.

Calling John Kerry a flip-flopper is a right-wing talking point. Saying Kerry screwed up when he said he "voted for the bill before he voted against it" is simply a statement of obvious fact. Republicans were gleeful about that quote, and it was entirely Kerry's fault that he said it.

my opinion, as a voter (I was not engaged back then the way I am now), as stupid. That I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. As a voter.

By the way, the flip flopper inventor Matthew Dowd now says Kerry is right.

We will have to see how Clinton and Obama do. But they need to think clearly of how they will speak about their votes. That is the point of this thread. I have made my point, and now I will say no more.

but most of them were curiously absent and oddly UNWILLING to provide backup for even the most simple truth about how the senate and congress works. It was such an ELEMENTARY matter yet Dems rushed to reify the RW talking point and acted as if it WERE an aberration of the system instead of the way the vote process works for EVERY lawmaker EVERY DAY there is a vote.

Sad that even the truth can't find strong defense while the RW memes get all the offense they need.

I don't think you should be betting on her not making any that will make it into the M$M. In fact (I know I have a tinfoil hat around here somewhere) it does sometimes seem like orchestration, what shows up in certain venues, and what does not. How surprised will I be when the game changes as soon as the Dem nominee is determined? Not surprised at all. How about you?

All the candidates are going to make mistakes. There is no such thing as a perfect, gaffe-free, flawless candidate. Running for president is, no pun intended, hard work. We may think that the media will go easy on them, but if we think that, then WE are in for a rude awakening.


Question is, will we back the candidate up this time?

The first bill rolled back tax cuts to pay for it and included oversight. (This was fiscally prudent and I can see why Cheney disagrees with oversight on his former companies windfalls, but the American people should have understood.)

The second bill excluded both.

Kerry spoke on the floor of the Senate expalining both votes. He had already explained in detail the difference between the two bills and noted it was not to end the funding. That didn't stop either the lie that he flipped flopped OR people who said, in a double lie - he voted for the war, then against funding it.

I wonder if the Democratic pundits - who could never quite get this - will magically be smarter this time.

NT

Just ask W. :eyes:

Same vote, right?

Edited to add: And people wonder why Senators don't get elected President.

in 2004, and the $87 billion. The base was happy, the two emerged #1 and #2 out of the primaries, but the Right was waiting in the wings. Too much has been made about Kerry's badly worded sentence. They would have nailed him on it, with or without the gaffe.

of a bill before they against/for another version of that bill.

That GOP operatives and their loyal media pets will twist their words and votes is something that will happen no matter what.

Had more Democrats stood up and backed Kerry publically on this, they could have turned it around and made the GOPs sound stupid on that issue. But they stayed curiously away from the cable programs throughout most of that campaign.

All they had to do was this:

"Pardon me, Wolf, but, let's tell the truth - ALL senators and congressmen vote FOR one version of a bill they support before they vote against the version they don't support."

"The president will SIGN one version of a bill that he supports and veto a version of the bill that he doesn't support."

"So - why is the WH trying to pull this charade on the American people and pretending Kerry's vote is somehow different?"

"What the hell have Clinton and Obama done?

They have now voted FOR the Iraq funding before voting against it...."

Please explain, thanks!

They voted for the Reid resolution which had timetables and was vetoed by the president. They voted against another funding bill that didn't have timetables. They will be attacked for this vote for "not funding the troops", and will inevitably bring up the first vote. This will lead to confusion by casual viewers who don't follow the Senate as closely as we do.

No good is going to come of this.

This is not 2004, the country is more in line with the Dems and Hillary and Obama and their teams will surely go to school on how to handle it. I am not too worried about this no vote in a GE. I guess I am an optimist today.

undefended on all the cable shows when he/she is being lied about? Good plan.

What Dems can be counted on to show up and defend other Democrats when they're being lied about regularly besides Cleland and Clark?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

just need to be earnest in the positions they take on these votes.

It would have gone a long way to bolster their position if they would have taken to the senate floor or to the media microphone to express their support of it.

That they did not is what will hurt them more than any confusion of the details because GOP operatives in the media misleading the public on any vote is a given.

They are so much better than any GOP operative I've seen.

now the act of an operation? Does that mean you believe conspiracies CAN happen within the party to subvert our own candidates?

Well - I've seen it happen in the past - but, who knows what's happening today?


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

we saw it happen in the past.

It's happening now more than ever.

and with REAL power the way we saw in 2004? I'd HATE to see that happen AGAIN from those who should be trusted Dem voices and leaders.

Levin and Durbin here.

Ugh. The Dems need to get their act together, or we are completely screwed. Sorry to be so negative, but this crap is deja vu all over again. Since people enjoyed bashing Kerry, they blew off all the systemic Democratic problems. Now they've come home to roost. Fight back? Well, geez, we have to start with our own party.

that should Hillary become the nominee, the honorable and loyal Democrat John Kerry will be the one publically speaking to defend Hillary's vote on this - something she and others would NEVER do for him in 2003 or 2004.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

that Kerry and Edwards did in 2004. And I want to know how the heck did this happen to us -- AGAIN????

Obama and Clinton voted for a bill that would give funding, but only with timetables. And then they voted against a bill that would give funding, but without timetables. If you accept the polls that indicate most people supported the former, anyone attacking them will have a lot of trouble with that line of argument.

they were different bills. They vote for the one that included a timetable to get out and against the one that didn't. Most voters won't have a problem with that.

Kerry's big problem was that he was on tape describing himself as "voting for it before he voted against it." It wasn't what he did that was so awful, it was what he said.

I think Clinton and Obama were between a rock and a hard place when it came to voting for this bill. I mean, I think they made the "right" decision, but it can be held against them in a very ugly way in a general election. Just like you said, it's echoes of "I voted for it before I voted against it" - the general public doesn't usually take the time to understand the nuances of how voting in the Senate works.

I'm concerned, but I don't know what else Clinton and Obama should have done, other than just not vote. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

instead of voting after the measure was sure to pass. I'm really surprised at Obama.

The 'average voter' whoever that fucker is that voted * into office, does not follow political web forums, they watch soundbites (watch soundbites? You know what I mean).

While I certainly have preferences for my own political and personal reasons, ALL the candidates on both sides have faults and skeletons.

The winner will simply be the one with the best spin and a media willing to go along for the ride.
The vote on these assorted bills won't matter unless people care- and I doubt they do.

Right now they are all just trying not to say or do anything that can be used against them. Not a compelling run up to an election, but they are ALL playing it safe right now.

And, frankly, it is hard to blame them.

last time. "Voting for the troops" or "voting against the troops" or whatever BS soundbite they come up with.

But as BLM mentioned upthread, at least there will be a John Kerry to defend them this time around. He didn't have that luxury in '04, when very few would really defend him. And even if JK is villified in the media, I notice his words and phrases (which are so wise) do end up being repeated. The '08 candidate, in that sense, will be lucky to have him on their side.

>"Voting for the troops" or "voting against the troops" or
> whatever BS soundbite they come up with.

Thats just it... is voting against funding voting for or against the troops?! That is what the election will be about.

Each vote itself is not the issue.

Unless you buy the bullshit excuses for his previous positions, not just votes, positions clearly stated. Compared to him, Hillary is at least honest.

Just left him out of that sentence cause I'm either a lazy typist or late to get going back to work. :)

that it doesn't even make sense. It seems to me it's more just for the purpose of criticizing two candidates, rather than a reasoned discussion on why they voted the way they did on a bill.

You're on their side, right? We're all against the other side, right?

Having said that, I see no problem with their not voting for a bill that is what Bush asked for, and which doesn't include timetables. Consistent with what both of them have been saying for some time. Consistent with their prior vote for the bill that * vetoed, which did contain timetables.

The main focus should be the effect of their votes on the general election, not the primaries. And I see no effect at all in the GE re this vote, except that it wasn't the way the Republicans no doubt voted on it. Which is a good thing.

I can already hear the soundbites in my head. I want the DEMOCRAT to win, and our candidate better have succinct answers ready to explain all of their votes. Because this kind of BS is part of what sunk our last candidate.

This bill has never come up for a vote before. So they didn't vote "yes" for it before they voted "no." Their "no" votes are consistent with their insistence on some sort of timetable or enforceable benchmarks. I see no flipflopping issue here.

They both voted "yes" for the prior bill that Bush vetoed, I believe. The prior bill had timetables. So a "yes" for that bill was consistent with their views, as I state them above. And consistent with their "no" vote on a bill that does not have timetables or enforceable benchmarks (the current bill). I see no flipflopping issue here.

In fact, if they had voted for the current bill, they could be accused of flipflopping.

But maybe you are speaking about something else?

This is different than 2004 in many ways. So many on all sides are against the Occupation and it's only going to get more that way as 2008 approaches.

If Obama or Clinton had voted for the funding, a lot more damage politically would have happened than what some Republicans can claim as an issue.

By mid-2008, Iraq will be chaos to the core. Any candidate who tries to convince the voting public otherwise will be drubbed on Election Day. It's McGovern 1968 in reverse.

Even the Republican candidates are already saying the war was executed horribly. It won't take long for them to pull out a Nixonian "secret plan to end the war" or the weight of the disaster of the Occupation will sink them into oblivion. The RNC knows it too.

the American people are on her side...