The War Vote Unplugged
Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:05:46 AM PDT
Can we just stipulate that Hillary Clinton knew it was a vote for the war and she made it as a political calculation given the political climate at the time which we all remember well?
Barak Obama was not in the Senate at the time. He did speak against the war early on, but that is not the same as voting against the war in the Senate, with all the political risks that come with the job. Since he has been in the Senate he has voted to fund the war every time except this last time when he absented himself.
Now Clinton refuses to say she was "wrong" again because of a political consideration. If she said she was wrong, it would be "the story" and give the Republicans the good old flip-flopper ammunition. So, she telegraphs that she knows she was wrong with the "if I knew then what I know now" doublespeak. Its a conundrum and disingenuous, but she's damned either way.
What would young ambitious Obama do if he had had to make that vote? His record does not indicate a bold anti-war stance once in the Senate, and it is hard to imagine him standing against the war in 2002. But, we don't know. Never-the-less he is using his 2002 position despite his voting record as a distinction with Clinton. This too is disingenuous given his voting record once in the Senate. It is also potentially craven and disingenuous, assuming he might also have voted for the war (a political calculation) if he had been a Senator.
Another thing to consider is: Would Clinton have been in favor of the war if she were not in the Senate pressure cooker? I doubt it, but again we don't know.
Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of distinction between their respective positions, records or strategies.
Both of them have a pretty horrible record in bravely opposing Mr. Bush's war in the Senate where it counts. And both of them (Clinton a worse problem) have problems with explaining their voting records since they both took political calculations over ideology.
Another interesting question is what would have happened to Clinton or Obama (if he had been in the Senate) if they had opposed the war vote? In 2002 the Republicans were in full power and very vindictive. Would either of them be candidates for president now after the drubbing they would have received? Again, who knows, but that's politics.
But, neither of these two were really in favor of the war. Neither is an imperialist war monger. The big question is will either get us out and I think that either will get us out. That's what I think is important now.
Is the seminal issue in the election the daylight between Clinton's war vote record and Obama's war vote record? I don't see it. Both records are abysmal. They may have been necessary to get them where they are today, but they both lack integrity.
These are our only two choices, and each is a far sight better than the Republicans, and both will get us out of this war. That's what is important now.
[Orininally published as a comment to wmtriallawyers diary: A Question of Judgement]
Permalink | 59 comments