I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that this argument between Obama and Clinton has gone on long enough. Instead, it continues to spiral out of control.
The real difference between the two on this issue is not so much the position they are defending (although there is a difference) but how they are handling it. Obama's camp is focused on policy, Clinton's camp has fallen to personal attacks.
Specifically, this gem:
[Clinton spokesman and advisor] Wolfson: "Senator Obama represented one of the most liberal state Senate districts in the country. You're telling me that it took courage from Hyde Park to be against the Iraq war? Please."
Wolfson needs to apologize or be fired. Now.
Here's the most recent exchange between the two presidental candidates.
Here's a copy, from Hotline, of pertinent snippets from the talking heads shows.
HRC adviser Howard Wolfson and Obama adviser David Axelrod made the TV rounds to battle it out:
Axelrod, asked if Obama likes this fight: "He thinks there is an important principle at stake here. We have had six years of a disastrous foreign policy. ... He feels strongly that we need to turn the page on that foreign policy and be much more aggressive diplomatically about pushing our interests as a country, forward. So, it's an important discussion to have."
Wolfson: "We were disappointed today that, after entering the race six months ago, and promising to change the tenor of our politics that Barack Obama is now..."
MSNBC's Matthews: "Are you still working this line, trying to make him meet up to his own standards by saying he can't fight with you guys?"
Wolfson: "How about that -- well, do you think that Hillary Clinton is George Bush-lite?"
More Wolfson: "At the debate, both candidates were asked, will you commit to meeting, in the first year of your presidency, with this rogues' gallery of dictators? Senator Obama said yes. Maybe they're planning the meetings now. I don't know."
Matthews: "That's a criminal violation you just suggested."
Axelrod: "You can't say you are a strong critic of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy, when you were a strong supporter of the centerpiece of that foreign policy, which was the war in Iraq."
Matthews: "Hillary Clinton, in that debate -- and I want to get the word right -- correct me if I'm wrong -- didn't she say that Obama was naive on foreign policy?"
Wolfson: "She didn't say that in the debate. She said that after the debate."
Matthews: "How would you describe her position in voting to authorize the war in Iraq, believing we weren't going to war, that Bush really didn't intend to go to war? Was that naive?"
Wolfson: "Look, she has taken responsibility for the vote. She has been asked about this."
Matthews: "But wouldn't you call that naive, to believe that we weren't going to war, when everybody thought we were going to war?"
Wolfson: "No."
Matthews: "I knew we were going to war."
Wolfson: "I guess 80 percent of the country was naive, then."
Axelrod: "Barack Obama stood up in 2002 and he said we should not go to war because we are going to get mired in a civil war with ancient ethnic rivalries that would be of undetermined length, cost, consequences. And he said it would distract us from al Qaeda and the real mission in Afghanistan. ... That is leadership, standing up when it is hard, not when it's easy, not waiting for 80 percent."
Wolfson: "Senator Obama represented one of the most liberal state Senate districts in the country. You're telling me that it took courage from Hyde Park to be against the Iraq war? Please."
Axelrod: "He was running for the United States Senate." More: "The point is that he got it right, that he analyzed what was available, and he got it right."
Wolfson: "If David Axelrod and the Obama campaign want this election to be about strength and experience, bring it on. We're up for it" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 7/26).
Wolfson, asked if the camp has any regrets on how this exchange has developed: "Absolutely not. ... Today, Senator Obama referred to Senator Clinton as Bush-lite. Six months ago, he entered the race promising to elevate our politics. And I just want to know and Senator Clinton asked today, what happened to the politics of hope, David? Is Senator Clinton really like George Bush?"
Axelrod: "I say to Howard that the politics of hope is ending a foreign policy that has been predicated on the notion that somehow we make advances as a country by not engaging our adversaries. That's what this is all about. This is not about little tactical squabbles. This is about a fundamental principle. Are we going to engage our enemies and have a dialogue and try and push forward the cause of peace and make us our country stronger and more secure, or are we not? And that's really what this is about."
CNN's Blitzer: "He's not backing away. I didn't hear him backing away from the Bush/Cheney-lite comment, Howard."
Wolfson: "Well, I think that's unfortunate. It certainly doesn't represent the politics of hope. I don't what kind of politics it represents, but I don't think it's what Democratic primary voters are looking for. And I don't think anyone is going to find it particularly credible that Hillary Clinton, who has spent the entirety of the Bush/Cheney presidency fighting George Bush's disastrous policies, is somehow similar to George Bush. ... It's not about whether we change the Bush diplomacy. But it's about whether or not we conduct smart diplomacy that's good for our nation."
Axelrod: "Howard, Howard, Howard, Howard, Senator Obama has said that he's willing to sit down with any foreign leader. Now, they may not like what he has to hear, but he believes that we don't resolve our conflicts, we don't push the ball forward, in terms of resolution of our differences, by not having a dialogue. ... Now, you can engage in sort of tactical political maneuvering around that, but ... this is about a fundamental change in our foreign policy."
Wolfson: "With all due respect, if you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it's about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George Bush. That's the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering. ... From a senator who promised us the politics of hope, very disappointing."
Axelrod, asked if the camp would like to revise Obama's statement: "Unless ... Senator Clinton's revising her policy. We need to push the diplomacy vigorously in this world. We need to sit down with our adversaries, as well as our allies."
Wolfson: "And we agree with that. It's just a question of whether or not we commit to doing it" (CNN, 7/26)
(Emphasis mine)
If you're wondering how this started, go here to read the Chicago Tribune summery of the exchange.
The answers they gave in the debate seemed possessed of nuanced differences, if that. Clinton threw the first punch the next day by calling Obama's answer naive. He rightly responded, saying that she now appeared to be supporting foreign policy as usual according to Bush administration doctrine. He also said her vote to authorize the Iraq war was naive and irresponsible. Tit for tat, seemingly.
Yesterday, Obama invited Clinton to clarify her position. He demanded she differentiate herself from Bush. You know what? That's something we're demanding of all our candidates. Obama APPEARED ON CAMERA and asked her to do it. Instead of rising to the occasion, she demurred with a cowardly and disingenuous accusation that Obama was playing mean. It was a hypocritical demmural, too, considering that Hillary threw the first punch. Note carefully: she did not refute Obama's statement.
Wolfson's comments are over the line and shitty on several levels. He's trying to say that Obama only opposed Iraq because he's a Hyde Park liberal. As a liberal, I am personally offended by that. Republicans are the ones who smear their opponents as liberals; Democrats aren't supposed to do that to other Democrats! Didn't kicking Lieberman out of the party teach anyone a lesson? Democrats don't personally attack other Democrats for politics!
(For Clinton's part, what does this say about her? That voting against the Iraq war in New York would have required courage? Well, she didn't, so she must not have any.)
Even if Clinton's foreign policy position isn't Bush-lite as Obama contends, her style of mudslinging is. Likewise, Wolfson's last comment about not committing to what she believes in leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Hillary should just apologize for authorizing the goddamned war already. She should quit making excuses. She DIDN'T avail herself of all the intelligence, hell, by some accounts she didn't even read the damn authorization bill itself.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, just fucking apologize already. And fire Wolfson. Stand up.