HRC on suggestion that she's been following Obama on Iraq: "I think it’s the other way around"

They have an identical voting record on Iraq on the senate (69 of 70 times they have voted the same. The only difference was on the token issue of confirming Gen. Casey, which HRC voted against and Obama for). Is one leading and the other following?

==May 25, 2007, 2:37 pm
The Clinton-Obama Two-Step

By Robin Toner

There was no real suspense about whether the Iraq spending bill would pass the Senate last night. But in the final minutes, everyone was waiting to see how the two main contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would vote.

Mr. Obama went first — no. Then, within minutes, Mrs. Clinton strode into the chamber and voted the same. After the vote, Mrs. Clinton dismissed the idea that she would pay for this vote in a general election, with Republican charges that she had abandoned troops in the field. “Nobody believes that,'’ she said. “That’s just propaganda.'’

She also dismissed a reporter’s suggestion that her votes had closely tracked Mr. Obama’s in recent months. “I think it’s the other way around, don’t you?'’ she said.==

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/the-clinton-obama-two-step/

the flip-flopper who supported this war and voted for this war, and then recanted (sort of),and for that you will pay. Anybody but Hillary for Dem. nominee (OK except for Biden).

if she hadn't acted so defensive about it. I tend to believe it's more of a coinkydink but then why would she deny it so vigorously? She needs to grow a thicker skin.

I've had enough of children playing president, thank you.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq

Add their recent votes on Reid-Feingold and yesterday's bill and they have voted the same at least 71 out of 72 times--98.6% of the time. The lone difference was on the confirmation of Gen. Pace, which was a token vote. Even in the case of the lone difference between the duo it was HRC who cast the nominally anti-war vote against Pace. So we have the irony of "anti-war" Obama tracking "pro-war" HRC 98.6% of the time and the one time he deviated from HRC it was actually to vote with the Republicans.

maybe they flipped a coin? ;-)

Is there any merit to HRC's claim? Surely Obama has an idea of how HRC is usually going to vote on a bill related to Iraq, and vice versa. Is one following the other's lead? Perhaps this is why they wait so long before deciding how to vote. ;)

I see that you Edwards supporters have come out swinging since last night... what's going on? :)

Groups of Obama and Clinton supporters, strange bedfellows indeed, have been fighting them every step of the way!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05/compare_and_contrast_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05/compare_and_contrast_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq

"While the two voted together the vast majority of the time, there are several striking differences here that are definitely worth our time.

While both were initially supporters of granting President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, John Edwards was actually to the right of Hillary for some time. Edwards voted against liberal efforts to: Limit the war authority for just one year, after which the President would have had to seek it again; Call for tax increases to pay for the war effort; Force the creation of a report on the possible manipulation of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War. On those votes, Hillary voted the more liberal position.

Then things changed in late 2003: The two switched places, most notably with Edwards voting against the $87 billion appropriation — with Hillary Clinton making up the more pro-Administration half. And as the Presidential campaign progressed, Edwards' attendance for more Senate votes suffered a severe drop."

That comparison ended in July of 2004. Did time freeze then? What are their records over the past three years?

Keep it pissing in people's cereal.

Its doing wonders for your guy.

As far as "pissing in other people's cereal", when Edwards is criticized for his record it isn't surprising that people will bring up the records of the candidate who the Edwards' critic supports. There is a reason some want to freeze time in 2002 or 2004.

but Edwards's Senate voting record did.

Of course not. Let's include his positions over the past three years in this too.

I am unsure of how you want to compare his voting record post-2004 as he was no longer in the Senate.

What positions did they have post-2004? I'll give you two examples from 2007. Edwards--even before Bush's veto--advocated standing up to George Bush and sending a bill with a timeline to end the war back to Bush again and again. What position, if any, did HRC have on this? What about their respective plans to deal with the war if elected? Edwards is advocating ending the war, taking all the troops out except for those needed to guard the embassy, which is routine for all embassies. HRC is advocating, essentially, a de-escalation of the war. She has said she will keep a "residual" force for a "limited" time. Let's compare those as best we can, given HRC does not offer any specifics as to what a "residual" force is (up to 75,000 troops?) or what a "limited" time is.

"Edwards--even before Bush's veto--advocated standing up to George Bush and sending a bill with a timeline to end the war back to Bush again and again. "

Which is easy as the 3rd place candidate running from the sidelines.

"
Edwards is advocating ending the war, taking all the troops out except for those needed to guard the embassy, which is routine for all embassies"

No. Edwards is for removing combat troops. Which means exactly that. Advisors, trainers for the Iraqi military etc. That only guards for the embassy stuff is pure bullshit.


And the obsession with voting record? Umm, because instead of the candidate's words, it represents their actions. And before candidate Windsock started getting shit during the 2004 GE run, he was voting to the RIGHT of Hillary on this war.

I don't appreciate you starting shit between the two groups as a supporter of Edwards.

:evilgrin:

All Democrats can comment on any candidate for the Democratic nomination. There is no speech code that limits discussion of HRC/Obama to HRC/Obama supporters.

As far as the thread, it was HRC who took the shot/clarified the record (depending on your point of view) with regard to Obama. She has shown her ability to dodge questions in the past but chose not to do so in this instance.

Sorry, I misunderstood "pissing in other people's cereal" earlier. I actually never heard that one before.

then she stepped up, I heard her say ditto!!!

weren't there a couple of votes between them? They didn't vote at the same time.

My guess is that both campaigns have an strategy that will be sticking with until it's clearly shown to be ineffective,and right now neither campaign needs to worry about that.I highly doubt that they're even paying all that much attention to one another.That time will come for one of them,but it's not here yet.This is just mindless fodder for the respective supporters to argue over.

The real question is not who voted first but whether one is taking cues from the other. Maybe they are not and simply happen to share the same view on Iraq. Surely they must have an idea as to how the other will vote on most of these 70+ Iraq bills.

In these times I'd be amazed if any of the main three aren't gathering intelligence in any way they can.But I think they've each had enough time before they even announced to formulate a solid campaign plan,and there's no need to abandon strategy to look like one another at this time.It's like a football coach abandoning the gameplan during a tie game in the first corner.

And I do think they're not really that different from one another politically,but I'll leave that up to their defenders to remind me how wrong I am. :)

Here are their plans for Iraq if elected:

HRC

==Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

Ready to Lead

In addition to capping troop levels, Hillary's Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 would:

* Require President Bush to begin removing the troops from Iraq within 90 days of passage, or Congress will revoke authorization for the war.
* Put an end to the blank check to the Iraqi government and give them real benchmarks with real consequences if they fail to meet them.
* Require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all troops sent to Iraq have the training and equipment they need.==

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

==Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

HRC's plan says we "may" need to keep troops in Iraq but she has clarified things by stating that she will indeed keep a "residual" force in Iraq for a "limited" time. Obama's plan allows for a "limited" number of troops to remain in Iraq. The only difference I can see is that one says "residual" while the other uses the word "limited." So there is a difference between them on Iraq now after all! :crazy:

as if she has led on any aspect of this war besides consistently getting it wrong.

of same votes with other dems.

and could we debate something less important than who voted first?