Senator Clinton is a smart enough politician to know how a senator's voting record can be twisted

[calteacherguy]

in Presidential race. She understand politics well, and she understands how the Republicans operate. I've been reviewing some of her senate votes and comparing them to Obama's votes here (someone put together a really great diary):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/16/11213/104

I don't agree with her on every issue, but on several votes I can see how voting the other way could really be used against her running for President. For example, the Kyl-Lieberman vote, border fences, the reauthorization of the modified Patriot act. Politics is a balancing act, especially when one has an eye on the Presidency. The bottom line is Clinton's and Obama's senate records are not all that different, but in the few instances where they have voted differently I can see both sides of the issue (divendend and capital gains tax relief extension, for instance) or see how voting differently could cost a Presidential nominee the election (Kyl-Lieberman can be twisted as being "soft on terrorism" quite easily, and no I don't believe it was a "war vote" at all).

I can see several votes that would make Obama vulnerable, and open to attack. Too open, in my view. Especially with his relative inexperience he can quite easily be labeled as naive on national security, his early proclamations against going to war with Iraq not withstanding (as we know, he made contradictory statements about how he would have voted on the IWR were he in the Senate).

Hillary Clinton has had her eye on the Presidency ever since she's been in the Senate, and I'm sure her voting record has been colored by an eye she's had on the prize. I'm O.K. with that now. I understand it. That's politics, and I want a nominee who can win. We all know senators have horrible track records in recent times as Presidential nominees. Clinton has been careful, and we need someone who knows how to beat the Republican smear machine. She's knows how to do that. I'm sure a Hillary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress will accomplish great things. She is going to reach out the world, restore our moral leadership, and engage in real diplomacy with our adversaries. And On the home front, with a Clinton and a Democratic Congress we will get real health care reform enacted, and a more progressive tax system along with economic growth, a better energy policy, a better educational policy, and a better environment.

I liked the Clinton years...

[D23MIURG23]

1. So does this justify her vote to lable the revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?

just curious.

[calteacherguy]

2. Obama voted to label them a terrorist organization as well, in a previous vote.

The problem is who is in the White House, not the way a particular senator voted on that particular ammendment, in my view. I did not authorize war, as some are claiming.

[AtomicKitten]

4. No he didn't -- there was no vote on that.

It was a bill stalled in committee that went nowhere.

On edit: Which proves your theory that voting records can indeed be twisted.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. It was tactical for Obama to flee DC before that vote.

And his "it was a surprise vote" claim doesn't pass the truth test.
More truth: the vote was calling for diplomacy, and calling for Bush to consult Congress before taking any military action against Iran.

[D23MIURG23]

15. It was just short a declaration of war.

* you may recall payed plenty of lip service to "diplomacy" before our last ill advised adventure.

This bill was relatively blatant jingoism in my view, and HRC is the only Democrat running who voted "Yea" unless I am mistaken.

On edit: typo

[AtomicKitten]

16. correct on all counts

Hillary has the distinction of being the only Democratic candidate for president that voted "yes" on Kyl-Lieberman.

[MethuenProgressive]

20. In an Alternate Reality, maybe. And yes, Obama fled DC before the vote.

That way he can claim to be on the right side of the vote, no matter which way the wind blows.

[D23MIURG23]

21. Unfortunately its in the reality most of us inhabit.

Is declaring the army of another country a terrorist organization an act of friendship in yours?

I know in mine a country was wrongly invaded about five years ago, and the charge of "harboring terrorists" was one of the contrived justifications offered for it (and Hillary voted for that act of aggression as well).

An abstention isn't the equivalent of a "yes" vote here either.

I guess if things are different wherever it is you are posting from then I can see the source of our misunderstanding.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Just like Hillary voted this way because she is already running the general

as a strategy now in the primary, if Obama really did duck the vote (there is no evidence of that; in fact, he has plausible deniability in that Reid tabled the vote), but humoring the detractors, even if Obama did duck that vote, it would be for the same damn reason Hillary voted FOR it - strategy.

And I would much rather Obama not vote at all on that POS bill - for whatever reason - than to vote yes on it. That's for damn sure. He issued a statement opposing it when he heard Reid was holding the vote after all, and that's good enough for me.

This vote set Hillary apart from the pack, and not in a good way.

[Lucinda]

18. So...the Senate should not do their job?

just curious.

[D23MIURG23]

23. Not if their job is defined as advancing horrible policy for cynical motives.

[babylonsister]

3. Big fat y-a-w-n for me. But bon chance to y'all. nt

[zulchzulu]

5. If one makes paradoxical and contradicting votes on issues, it covers all the bases

You can say you voted for the Iraq war because we need to end the war.

You can say you want to give Bush a free pass to invade Iran because we shouldn't invade Iran.

You can say we shouldn't have a flag burning amendment to the Constitution because you want to make it a federal crime.

You can say you are against outsourcing while you say it's just something we have to accept.

Put on the 1990's retread Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow".

Think of the Clinton years with NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the Defense Of Marriage Act, Don't Ask-Don't Tell, the 8 years of bombing Iraq's infrastructure, China MFN status, the sex scandals, the huge losses in 1994 paving the way for Gingrich's Contract On America, the dot com bust.... ah, sweet memories that we want to continue with dynastic joy...

We can have triangulated "centrism" combined with faux nostalgia. Just what America needs right now.

:crazy:

[Divine Discontent]

6. This thread changed my life... n/t

[avrdream]

7. Hmmmmm

I see what you are saying and you are probably correct. I have been a Hillary supporter since she was the First Lady and have wanted her to run for Pres since then. I support her because most of her stances are in alignment with mine. As a consequence, I don't get riled up over some of the votes in the Senate that don't amount to a whole lot of beans. I have researched her and I know where she votes on the issues that count to me. I have seen her public support over and over and over again for the issues that count to me. And that's enough.

But I understand your point and agree that she could get a lot done with a Democratic congress if she were the Pres.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. Any Senator with a long voting record can be/will be attacked

That's why Obama highlights a vote by Clinton from before he was a Senator, and why he's skipped some tough votes, imo. YMMV.

[jmp]

10. Was Hillary representing the citizens of NY or herself? (nm)

...

[earthlover]

11. So, apparently, voting in the Senate out of fear of the Republicans....

...indicates she will do something different if elected president? You seem to be wishfully-thinking this. You forget one little detail. If elected, she will want to be re-elected....and you can bet your bottom dollar she will pattern all her actions towards that goal. She will still want to prove she is not weak on Iran, etc. Just what we need....another president who is afraid of looking weak and has to prove she is strong against Iran!

You Hillary supporters have to do better than that! I know you tend to deify her and try desperately to make virtues out of even her flaws. I guess that is what true believers do.

But if I am going to work for Hillary as our nominee, you gotta convince me that she is going to be different than a Republican president who also would pattern his behavior not to appear weak (actually, probably not so in need to do that....). Saying that she has patterned all her votes in the Senate to be president instead of doing what she was elected to do in the first place and do the right thing is not very convincing....


Try again.

[MadHound]

12. So in your eyes, it's OK to destroy our civil liberties, take us into an illegal, immoral war,

Enable another illegal, immoral war, all this and more is OK because she is successfully playing the political game?

You see, that's exactly why I find her despicable, the fact that she is willing to play politics with peoples' lives, time and again. It doesn't matter if she is a "winner". The fact is that she is making tens of thousands into losers, and in many cases, being a loser means losing one's life.

Sorry, but it is this sort of cold hearted calculation that I find obscene. There simply comes a time when you have to do the right then irregardless of politics. Sadly, such considerations never enter Hillary's head.

As far as missing the Clinton years, not so much. Granted, they look like paradise compared to the past seven years, but then again so does Nixon's term in office, that's how bad it's been. But I remember the tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents dead due to Clinton's sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs. I remember Clinton cold heartedly consigning millions to misery and despair with welfare "reform", I remember how he muzzled the free press via the '96 Telecom Act. Quite frankly, in early times Clinton would have probably been classified as a moderate Republican(as would his wife), but in a sad sign of the times he was able to run as a Democrat.

[jmp]

13. "in early times Clinton would have probably been classified as a moderate Republican"

Well Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

[niceypoo]

14. The Clinton years looked like the Nixon years to you?

What planet were you on from 1968 - 2000?

[MadHound]

17. Wow, read for comprehension much,

Or do you simply jump to conclusions that aren't there. This is what I stated: "As far as missing the Clinton years, not so much. Granted, they look like paradise compared to the past seven years, but then again so does Nixon's term in office, that's how bad it's been." IE, I'm stating that both the Clinton and Nixon administration looked like paradise compared with Bush, NOT that the Clinton years looked liked the Nixon years. Get the difference? Get the nuance? My basic contention here is that Bush has been such a disaster that virtually any previous administration looks like a paradise when stacked up against Bush. OK, do you get it now? Or do you want to, perhaps deliberately, continue to misconstrue what I said for your own partisan political purposes?

[earthlover]

19. Bravo. Good reply. n/t