Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I wonder how many Obama supporters voted for Kerry in '04? The same Kerry who voted YES on the IWR?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BigBearJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 03:40 AM
Original message
I wonder how many Obama supporters voted for Kerry in '04? The same Kerry who voted YES on the IWR?
Barack Obama was not a member of the U.S. Senate when he opposed the war in Iraq. Both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were in the Senate, and if there's one thing we all should understand, it's that it's a whole lot easier to say "No" when you are not directly responsible as an elected representative for the security of hundreds of thousands of constituents and when you're a representative from a state with key military bases.

If we value inexperience over our leaders actually having been there/done that, then I suppose Jonathan Alter is 100% correct that Democratic primary voters will find Obama to be "perfectly positioned" for 2008. However, that's not at all what I witnessed in 2004 when Democratic primary voters flocked to John Kerry, who had voted for the Iraq War resolution. To the primary voters, Kerry had had a decided air of gravitas that comes only from life (and war) experience. The voters didn't use Senator Kerry's vote for the IWR against him then. Armed with plenty of real knowledge and 20/20 hindsight about the Bush administration's failures, misleadings and outright untruths, I cannot believe that Democratic voters will punish those who voted Yes to the IWR in 2008 because they will understand that it was not the Democrats who commanded this disastrous war. Many of the same Democrats who gave good faith and trust to the POTUS in 2002 are now being labeled as cowards and traitors in stump speeches by the President.

The truth is that it wasn't at all easy to vote "yes" OR "No" in October, 2002 to give the POTUS the authority to press the UN on Resolution 1551. A year had barely passed since the worst attack on American civilians in U.S. history. The cherry-picked intelligence being shouted from the Bush bully pulpit proved out to be a horrifically negligent, if not intentional misleading, but no one knew it or could prove it then. With weakness and inefficiency from CIA head George Tenet and the false stories from journalists like Judith Miller along with the rest of the pliant Oval-office stenopad-MSM, our leaders were put between a rock and a terrible place.

Collectively, we all learn from mistakes of our past. The question should be: What has Senator Edwards learned? What has Senator Clinton learned?

We'll never know what Barack Obama would have done had he been called on the floor of the Senate to look every American in the eye on the CSPAN camera and risk American lives (and his own reputation) just because he had a hunch that Bush was a dishonest broker. He never had to be there. I imagine he's glad of it because he won't have to answer for it one way or the other.

(emphasis added)

Source:
http://iddybudjournal.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-obamas-attack-on-hillary-hurts-him.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Obama himself has said he didn't know how he would have
voted had he already been in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. But we all know how Queen Hillary voted, yes?
And her apology? When may we expect that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. IWR was used against Kerry far more than it is against Hillary Clinton
it was used most against Kerry than anyone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. Hell, Kerry supports Obama, and Kerry for the IWR.....
so I guess that it ain't inconsistent.

Kerry has already said he shouldn't have voted for it.....so why would he support someone else who made the same mistake as he did? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bongo Prophet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. I voted for Kerry, and now for Obama. Despite his vote on IWR.
There are complexities there, and I don't want to rehash them. Kerry gave very good speeches about why, and the warnings not to use it to go in, but to get inspectors in, etc. Clinton was less adamant about the warnings, and more supportive of the "Saddam is bad" aspect, but I am not crucifying her on that one vote either.

The IWR WAS INDEED used against Kerry repeatedly, both in the primaries and the general. I was on the internet fast response team for the campaign , and had to deal with it a lot. The IWR vote is one that Kerry regrets, and he has said it was his greatest regret. One should admire that openness and honesty. He is a man of great integrity, in my opinion.

And I agree with you that it was not an easy vote, and that Kerry has much gravitas and experience. Besides his experience in Vietnam, his genuine heroism in saving lives, he then came back to fight against Nixon to help end the war. Many of his positions on nuclear non-proliferation and other important matters have been take up by Senator Obama, and those are some of the reasons I started listening more closely to him. The fact that John Kerry promoted Obama in 2004, giving him the keynote spot, and his subsequent faith in Barack as a mature and responsible choice for president, have had an influence in my own opinion of Senator Obama.

Thank you for the interesting historical points.
They are important to keep in mind - we learn from our mistakes, and a smart person can learn from mistakes made by colleagues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't know who wrote that piece, but voters didn't "flock" to John Kerry.
Edited on Sat Apr-12-08 04:18 AM by Major Hogwash
I don't know what he was smoking, but I want some.

Something else I want to add, Senator Kerry and ex-Senator Edwards have both said they were wrong to vote for the IWR.

I have yet to hear Hillary ever say she was sorry for voting for the IWR, or apologize for it.

Yet, this campaign is not just about her IWR vote.
Her lie about "ducking from sniper fire" is much more telling of what a Hillary Clinton adminstration would be like in 2009.

She didn't tell that lie late at night, at 11 o'clock.
She told it several times.
She told it at 9 in the morning on St. Patrick's Day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. exactly, Clinton never said she was wrong!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 06:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Was I happy that Kerry voted for the IWR?
No...but it was him or the warmonger so I voted Kerry. So sue me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. What were we supposed to do, vote for bush?
Edited on Sat Apr-12-08 06:06 AM by mmonk
Point is, Obama now can argue against the lack of wisdom of giving bush his authority and the whole concept of this war when taking on McCain in a debate without the IWR being used against him. It might not be much, but could prove effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. why is this so difficult to comprehend?
I opposed Kerry in the primary, and voted for him in the general. There was no excuse for giving bushy of all people a blank check. none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saturday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. Good point! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. So Bush would have been a better choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. In the GE, we had no choice.......
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bensthename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
13. I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush but was disappointed with Kerry's vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. But, I remember this being played ad naseum:
"I was for the war before I was against it"

It didn't exactly help him or us in the GE, where I voted for Kerry, because my choice was him or the war criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. An election is a CHOICE ...
An election is a choice amongst available candidates. You choose the best one possible. The fact that Kerry was tainted by IWR was unfortunate. Obama is not. ... end of story

There are plenty more reasons NOT to vote Clinton even if you take the IWR off the table (like trade (Mrs. Columbian lobbyist)). Hillary has increasingly swung to the right and posed herself as a right of center Democrat. No thank you. I know that Obama isn't exactly a lefty either, but I'll choose the candidate who most closely echoes my views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
16. Excellent Post Big Bear
It sums up some questions I have on Obama. As a Democrat, I would like to see more talk where our candidates stand on the issues.
Better yet, I wish someone here would post a handy-dandy chart where HIllary Clinton & Barack Obama's views are compared and contrasted. I might try to do that, but it'll take time. I'm not too good at that sort of thing. It would be cool to have a "blind" poll here where people could vote for a candidate (with name left out), and it would be based on their stand on the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBearJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I think you do have an excellent idea there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Thank You : ) (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
17. Uh, No one else to vote for?
Of course, i avoided the primaries that year. It was obvious nothing was going to change (by the time we had our primary...), and I cast my obligatory dem vote in the general. Get off it. This time i might just get to vote for someone who is not involved in that piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Kang Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. I voted for Howard Dean
he was my candidate. I voted with Kerry only because of loyalty to the party.

This time, Obama is my candidate and I will not vote for anyone else out of loyalty to the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. I opposed Kerry in the primary.
And worked my ass off for him in the general election against Chimpy McSmirk.

There's really nothing inconsistent about that, and my current and enthusiastic support of Barack Obama in this primary campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
21. Let's see....my choice was George Bush or John Kerry.....
Of course I freaking voted for Kerry. He was my senator at the time and I did NOT support him in the primaries -- I didn't support anyone who voted for the war in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. LOL what a bunch of crap
I also see some of you who claim to be "neural" once again in a thread taking the side of the queen, pathetic.

I opposed Kerry during the primaries like many others have stated but what choice did we have when the MSM helped to knock out the best candidates; vote for Bush? You got to fucking be kidding me. No worries though. I will not be voting for the candidate that voted for the IWR this time even if she does somehow steal it. It is looking less likely that she will get her slimy, repig light, hands on the crown though, thank the gods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeraAgnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. That's an interesting point!
I'm impressed.....I'd like to hear from the Obama supporters as this is indeed a simple yet valid question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. See above, you heard from us n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gabeana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
26. I voted for DK in the Primary
Kerry in the general, was I supposed to vote for Bush?
what a stupid OP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
27. Shit oh dear - I hope ALL Democrats voted for Kerry!
If not - shut your ferkin piehole about your loss of civil liberties, the shitty economy and Iraq cuz you are an enabler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
28. What was my other choice in 2004? Oh, yeah.... A war criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
29. I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary. I did in the GE though.
Wasn't my choice in the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
31. I voted for him, but I was not at all happy about his IWR vote
and I did not support him in the primaries. He still would have been an infinite improvement over Bush.

I have no way of knowing what Obama would have done had he been in the Senate, but he did oppose the invasion very clearly from where he was, and that puts him ahead of any IWR voter or invasion supporter in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
32. He was the nominee, so yes, I voted for him.
I lived in Illinois at the time, so I really had no say in the primary process. I thought he was, as usual, not our strongest candidate. This year we've finally got a chance to have a strong nominee, and the supporters of the weakest nominee possible are fighting it every step of the way. Way to go, guys!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
33. I did.
What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
34. I Was A Dean Delegate, But Kerry Won
and there wasn't much choice now was there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
35. Because Kerry is not Hillary
Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.




Kerry in 2003:

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link


Kerry has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war, and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency.

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link


In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
delicatessen Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Instead of "speaking out" he should have opposed the resolution
Speaking out is worthless if you mess it up with a bad vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
36. He was the nominee, so I voted for him.
He was not my first choice, and I didn't like his IWR vote, but I wasn't about to vote for W or Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC