Obama Yips at The Big Dog
21 January 2008 7:00 am by Taylor Marsh
 |
He took the bait.
Bill Clinton laid it out there for him and Obama just lapped it up.
His remarks are “troubling,” according to Mr. Obama, but likely only for the candidate himself.
There are several problems with Obama “calling out” Bill Clinton, as some have put it. First, Obama will be fighting on Bill’s
turf, because Obama’s anti war credentials begin with talk and a good anti war
speech in 2002, but that’s pretty much where it stayed from then on. What Bill Clinton has been saying about Obama’s Iraq war record, post that speech, also has the virtue of being true. Obama has to explain why he was against
the war but funded it throughout his Senate term, plus stood up and pushed
back against John Kerry’s amendment for a timely withdrawal, which puts him standing beside Hillary. That Obama’s votes
are exactly the same as Clinton’s on Iraq, except for her vote against Casey for Secretary
of the Army, is the foundation for the “fairy tale,” as Bill Clinton calls
it, myth of Obama’s anti Iraq war credentials being strong beyond talk after 2002.
HILLARY CLINTON: What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Sen. Obama’s campaign, being premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his website. By 2004, he was saying that he didn’t really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, 6, and 7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq. I think it is fair to ask questions about, what did you do after the speech was over? And when he became a senator, he didn’t go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn’t introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially. So I think it’s important that we get the contrast and the comparisons out. I think that’s fair game. – Hillary Clinton, “Meet the Press”
But Obama has gotten a pass. Certainly we can all agree on that. Obama
did admit he took
his 2002 speech off his website, which is another thing Bill Clinton called him on. Nothing he’s said is false, which could end up being a problem for Obama, provided the national press gets off their collective derriere.
As for Bill Clinton’s claim about what he heard or saw in Nevada regarding
union stewards pushing their members to vote Obama or not caucus, the problem
with Obama taking it on is that there were, let’s just call them issues,
all across Las Vegas where the Culinary union acted, let’s just say, heavy handed.
I’m being polite. I heard of many, many more cases, including some told to me
inside the caucus I attended, but because I couldn’t get anyone else on the
record I only posted one story, which was proven conclusively. Obama also had out of state surrogates inside caucus
places, which I experienced first hand. So this is not a story that benefits
Obama. This also brings into focus the outside radio ad by UNITE HERE that Edwards
denounced, calling out Obama in the process, and also caused a lot of blowback in the Hispanic community against
Obama. But this really isn’t the issue that can hurt Obama.
Bill Clinton taking Obama on over his lack of leadership on Iraq once he hit
the Senate is trouble for the candidate if the traditional media decides to wake up. Bill Clinton knows Obama is vulnerable on it and he bet that Obama would be naive enough to take the bait, if for no other reason than ego. The truth
is that Obama’s not done one thing to stop the war once in the Senate. His first
legislation was one year ago, but he’s not done anything concrete before or since. People moan about
Hillary’s vote for the war, but it was Hillary who put forth legislation to
challenge Bush from going around Congress on his Iraqi “enduring relationship” commitment that would saddle the next president with an agreement that is basically
a treaty without Congress being involved (legislation language). This is the same legislation she brilliantly challenged Obama to support in the last debate, much to his embarrassment. It was also Clinton who took on the
Pentagon by challenging Secretary Gates as to whether he and the Joint Chiefs had a withdrawal plan for Iraq, which in the process brought forth Under Secretary Eric Edelman, who laughingly accused Senator Clinton of having a discussion on Iraq that “reinforces enemy propaganda,” when in fact she was challenging the Pentagon to do their job, while doing hers as well.
Then there is Barack Obama not holding one hearing of Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations, which Bill Clinton hasn’t touched. Where’s the national press on this one?
As for Bill Clinton hurting Hillary, as Peggy Noonan and some others have whined, if she weren’t cleaning Barack’s clock
in every debate I’d say it would be a problem. But she is, so it’s not. There isn’t
any doubt whatsoever that Hillary Clinton has mastered the details of policy,
from economic to health care to national security issues. Is Bill Clinton getting
too involved? Let’s remember he’s also her husband, besides being the only two
term Democratic president since F.D.R. That’s a tough role to balance, but would it be better if he weren’t so vocal and involved? Maybe if the press was doing their job
questioning Obama and looking at his record Bill Clinton wouldn’t have to do
it for them. It likely happened out of frustration, because so far nobody in the national press, minus the Chicago papers, have had the courage to take Obama on.
