New Yorker: Obama should have more compassion for Clinton's War Vote.

[Skwmom]

"But there can be little doubt that Obama’s vote—which could not have affected the outcome—was influenced by worry about being branded as soft on terrorism. Unlike FISA, the Iraq war can’t be repealed. But perhaps Obama will now take a more compassionate view of Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize it."

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg

Wow. So we should be compassionate about Hillary having to vote for the war so she wouldn't be viewed as soft as terrorism? Hmm... a political career vs trillions of dollars (money we are borrowing from China), thousands dead, soldiers committing suicide at a very high rate, thousands physically and mentally scarred, and families destroyed.

I'm so glad that Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker really put it into perspective for me. Silly me, I was reserving my compassion for those destroyed by a war that DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN and would not have happened if the politicians in Washington had put doing what is right ahead of worrying about their own political career.

Obama stood up and spoke out against a war when it wasn't the politically smart thing to do. He is being relentlessly attacked on a daily basis by hacks who will do anything they can to further their career and keep the big money rolling in. Anyone who doesn't think that the corporate media does not have a vested interest in electing a pro-corporate President is fooling themselves.

This also puts the New Yorker cover in a whole new light.

[Captain Hilts]

1. HRC specifically stated when casting her vote that it was NOT an endorsement of invading Iraq, OR...

removing Hussein.

Most people don't do nuance...

[Skwmom]

5. No, people don't do b.s. To try to repackage her vote as "nuance"

is ludicrous.

[bunnies]

6. ummm

the name of the bill was: "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002".

It doesnt really matter what she said. Its the vote that counts.

see: Fisa outrage

[cali]

11. yeah, and Pat Leahy told her and others in the Senate that it was a fucking blank

check for war- period. no nuance there from old Pat, and he was right.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. I think you missed the point

He was suggesting that Clinton voted for IWR for the same reasons that Obama caved on FISA. That should give him a new perspective. Life is not as black and white as he tried to portray in the primaries. And those DU members who are now giving Obama a break on his FISA vote should see that too.

[Skwmom]

3. Well some things should be black and white. You DON'T vote to send

people to war to further your political ambitions.

FISA versus the IWR. They aren't even in the same league and to compare the two is ludicrous.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. FISA is an attempt to further the systematic dismantling of the Constitution

and to give cover to Bush and his cohorts for illegal activity against the citizens of the US.

I do not agree with the idea that Clinton voted for IWR for political gain. She said time and again the reasons for her votes, and I believe her. I will not rehash the primaries.

But, Obama caved on FISA for political gain. That should not be ok. And if it is, the double standard continues.

[Skwmom]

16. How can you say that Clinton "had her reasons" while

Obama did it for political gain?

Take off the blinders. The Clintons have proven they will do ANYTHING to get back into the Whitehouse.

Obama would have been STUPID to vote against FISA.

[Beacool]

36. Spin, spin..............

Don't some of you get dizzy?

:eyes:

[democrattotheend]

4. I disagree with that assessment

I don't think that's why Obama voted that way. I honestly don't see the political gain from the vote, and I think it actually hurt him politically. Which is why I think we shouldn't rule out the possibility that he actually read the bill and came to a different conclusion than we did.

[dsc]

31. Oh please

Look, I can live with Obama supporters stating that in their view FISA isn't that important. But to portray this flip flop as some sort of principled idealistic vote is absurd.

[democrattotheend]

43. I'm not saying it was idealistic. But I can't figure out what the political motive was.

Because from a political standpoint, it seems pretty stupid to me.

[4themind]

7. I think his sympathies may be balanced

by the motivation to do an action, vs. the effect of that action on things he (and we) care about. Now different people have different things that they care more or less about, and while I can't speak for obama, maybe he views the effect of her vote (in terms of blood and treasure) in a harsher light than his (rightly or wrongly)

P.S.btw I like your O.P. but just as a warning it may be seen as "rehashing the primaries" which the New Yorker is free to do but some mods may not feel the same way.

[Renew Deal]

8. If Obama doesn't win and he runs again...

His FISA vote will be Hillary's IWR vote.

[bunnies]

9. Correction. His Fisa vote + millions of dead + trillions of lost dollars

+ loss of standing in the world = her IWR vote.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Why has he voted to keep funding the war? nt

[bunnies]

14. He's explained a million times.

I'd think you'd be aware of the reasons. But since you claim to be uninformed I'll paraphrase:
We have to deal with the mess we've made, though we never should have gone there in the first place.

Its kinda like if someone lets their dog take a big shit on my lawn. I sure as hell didnt want that mess made. But I'm the one that has to deal with it.

[Political Heretic]

22. Not only has he explained, but he is right.

Immediately de-funding the war would have put more lives at risk. I completely agree with his votes on that and would have voted the same. The failure was in not demanding a timetable for funded withdraw, not de-funding with a president committed to staying there and leaving our troops unprotected and unsupported.

[4themind]

12. The number who view it that way (and in the same extent as IWR)

may vary and it could depend in part upon who upon how many people are pissed off(and to what extent) by the principle of the vote and/or the subsequent verifiable effects of it . The former is being expressed now, but the extent of the latter may not be fully known (if ever) until the results of a McCain presidency.

[Renew Deal]

15. It would be a political football

And it would be run everyhere from Iowa to Alaska. It's caused that much of a stir.

[4themind]

17. Agreed

but whether it would be the added piece that stops him in that situation (as it did with hillary arguably) is yet to be determined, and quite frankly I hope that scenario doesn't play out at all at least as much as I want obama to win this year, and not have to go through four years of McCain in the mean time.

[Renew Deal]

18. That brings up the other point

If Obama wins, it goes away forever.

[Skwmom]

40. So are you suggesting that Obama should not win, so it will

still be an issue? Of course, if he wins it won't go away b/c he will revisit the FISA issue.

[Renew Deal]

45. Do you see a glass half empty or half full?

:)

Of coure I want Obama to win.

[Bake]

19. Don't worry. Dems shoot their wounded.

If Obama loses this time, he'll never have another shot at the White House. That's just not the way Dems do things.

Bake

[NattPang]

20. I didn't realize that Ms. Clinton was in the middle of a campaign

in 2002, when she cast that vote.
That is news to me.

[Skwmom]

26. The Clintons have been planning their Whitehouse run for years.

[paulk]

21. after Obama's FISA capitulation, can anyone doubt that he

would have voted the same way as every other Democratic Senator with Presidential aspirations if he's been in a position to do so?

Face it - the left got sold a fairy tale on the IWR and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

[Skwmom]

27. Yes I can. FISA and the IWR are two entirely different things.

[paulk]

28. of course you can

that's what it takes to be a true disciple.

that willingness to believe anything...

[Skwmom]

33. What a stupid argument. But when you don't have anything else....

[paulk]

35. I would say that of you, actually

Saying that FISA and IWR are two different things is not saying anything, and doesn't even address the point I made.

It upsets you because it hits a little too close to the truth. Obama sold you folks a bill of goods on the IWR.

He's shown his true colors these last few weeks - that he'll do or say whatever he thinks it takes to get elected. And that's not such a bad thing. But don't kid yourself - if Obama had been in a position where he felt his IWR vote would have effected his Presidential ambitions he would have done exactly what he's done these last few weeks - moved toward the center. He would have voted "yes" on the IWR. Just like he voted "yes" on FISA.

[Beacool]

39. Yep, but they'll rather have root canal than admit it.

They have contorted themselves into a pretzel trying to justify his vote on FISA. Ditto on the rest of the LW blogs. The wild excuses and explanations at Huff and KOS were quite funny. They also kept trying to make it a Hillary bad that she voted the correct way on this issue.

:crazy:

[Political Heretic]

23. I think it would be nice if we stopped rehashing the primary season.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Just as she should have had more respect for his "judgment vs. experience" argument

It's politics, for fuck's sake. You take advantage where you legitimately can.

[zulchzulu]

25. Clinton should have been more compassionate regarding Obama's kindergarten paper

The article's intent to somehow make it Obama's fault for pointing out her war vote is simply preposterous. She voted the way she did and stood up for the vote without remorse or apology.

When the HRC campaign was attacking Obama ad nauseum on a variety of half-baked issues, certainly Hendrik Hertzberg would not apply the same fizzle-headed logic.

[Cha]

29. Obama certainly had compassion for

Hillary's Bosnian Sniper LIES 'cause he freakin' didn't rag on her about like she did his "kindergarten papers".

[dsc]

32. sure

his surrogates only brought it up not once, not twice, not three times but literally for a week straight in daily conference calls. But I am sure they were doing so in direct opposition to his will even as he paid for the phone calls and had them do so day after day after day after day after day after day (heck I'll stop even though they didn't).

[JVS]

30. Hmmm. So it is a Puma rag

[sandnsea]

34. exactly

I am so sick of fighting northeast liberals. Fuck Them.

[Beacool]

37. No, it isn't.

They have written more positive articles on Obama during the primary than Clinton.

[TexasObserver]

38. More PUMA nonsense from the New Yorker

Three times in a week.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. That assumes Hillary and others thought the war was going to be successful

Maybe if they'd spent a little more time paying attention to Jim Webb and a little less time paying attention to the Bush Administration they would've seen that the politically smart thing to do would be to vote NAY on entering an impending clusterfuck so that a year or two down the road they could say "I told you so" just like Barack Obama is doing now.

[allen6362]

42. The article doesn't say Obama "should" do this

It states that perhaps he will.

[Skwmom]

44. It might not use the word "should' but the inference is there.

[democrattotheend]

46. How come this person got tombstoned?

Was it a zombie?