TPMCafe notes from ABC News: Obama's Anti-War Stance Was Consistent

[flpoljunkie]

ABC News: Obama's Anti-War Stance Was Consistent
By Greg Sargent

ABC News takes a close look at Barack Obama's pre-war statements and concludes that his stance has been entirely consistent:

A review of comments Obama made in 2002 and 2003 — in video obtained by ABC News — makes it clear that the junior senator from Illinois, then a mere state senator, stood out during a time as opposing the war quite firmly when the war was overwhelmingly popular.

ABC cites a number of Obama's public statements, concluding with this:

Obama told the local audience, "Some people may disagree with me on this, but what absolutely we can't have out of our United States senator from Illinois is somebody who waffles on the issue and somebody who ducks the issue , and puts their finger out to the wind and waits to find out how the wind is blowing before they make a statement that, well, 'We had concerns about the war.' Everybody had concerns about the war. The question was, how would you have voted on a specific resolution giving George Bush carte blanche."

For many Democratic voters, that indeed is the question. And it seems fairly clear where Obama was at the time, however much others try to fuzz up the record.

The whole thing is here. Relatedly, in response to Atrios' point about this, he's right that the key central question at the time should have been, "Is Saddam really a threat"? Bill Clinton -- and by extension other Hillary supporters, one presumes -- doesn't appear to want the discussion to be about how Obama reacted to the central question as defined this way, but would prefer that the discussion is about alleged inconsistencies around the margins of it.

My view, to clarify, is that it's pretty clear that Obama was basically consistent in his views, and the main point is that he made the right call when the war-whooping was at fever pitch -- in other words, he made the right call when it counted. Nonetheless, we should be taking a close look at what Obama said and when. If anything, thrashing our way through these details ultimately leads us back to the big-picture question -- Who made the right call when it really counted, and who didn't -- as ABC clearly shows here.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/20/abc_news_obamas_anti_war_stance_was_consistent

[Radical Activist]

1. Reason #1 he is the most electable candidate.

People want someone who sticks to their convictions, whatever they are.

Let's not make the same mistake we made in '04 with John "I was for it before I voted against it" Kerry.

[obaman08]

3. Read everything that Kerry said..

and he was consistent.

[Radical Activist]

8. Yes, Kerry was consistently for the war.

As a nominee he wasn't against the war. He was for a better managed war. That's a big reason why we lost.

[obaman08]

22. War as a last resort......

and with International support. Seems to me if the weapons inspectors went back in, and if Blix was listened to, than the war would have never occured.. As for bush, he went in gung ho cowboy style and is leaving the mess for the next president to clean up.

[Radical Activist]

25. If that's what Kerry wanted

he should have forced Bush to do those things before giving him the authority to go to war without doing any of those things. Kerry wrote Bush a blank check and Bush cashed it. After-the-fact explanations of what he hoped would happen are a poor excuse.

[Mass]

4. Thank you for repeating RW talking points. You know this is not true.

[Radical Activist]

6. I know Kerry said it.

I know we had someone who voted FOR the war as our nominee. I know it weakened our position to have a candidate who pushed for a better war instead of being anti-war. I know it weakened our position to have a candidate who needed to spend 10 minutes to explain why he voted a certain way instead of having someone who voted the right way.

[Mass]

10. OK, thank you for your insight. Actually he never said what you said,

and as usual, his statements are taken out of context, just as Obama's statements are taken out of context.

Sadly, we still have a few people on our side who do not understand how the machine works. Criticize Kerry for his vote for the IWR if you want. Do not use misconstrued statements to push your point.

For the record, Kerry said the famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" concerning the funding of the supplemental in 2003, not about the war.

[Radical Activist]

13. Oh, well that makes it SO much better.

I'm not the least big confused and I understand the context. I don't buy into every little Kerry campaign line like a good sheep. I'm a loyal Democrat but I know a mistake when I see one. It doesn't do any good to deny our mistakes out of some kind of blind loyalty to a former candidate. That only hurts the party and our future chances.

Do you remember the flip-flops Republicans waved during their convention? There are good reasons why that accusation was effective against Kerry.

[Mass]

16. Repeating RW talking points do not help. Disagree as you want with Kerry, but no need

to repeat Rovian talking points. This hurts our chances as well, even if Kerry is not on the ballot. It just shows them how it is easy to hurt us by providing talking points that we use against our owns.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=mydu

Edwards is a "breck-girl", an hypocrit, Obama was Muslim one day, ... Whatever is the talking point, we find a good Democrat who disagrees with somebody with good reason and uses the talking point. The GOPers are so happy.

I just would hate to see Obama lose because the same tactic is applied to him that you apply to Kerry. At this point, what the WaPo article says is that Obama is opportunistic and does not have principles. This seems a lot like what you are saying about Kerry. IMHO, it is false for both.

[Radical Activist]

21. No, these are progressive ideas.

Trying to delegitimize my opinion by dismissing it as a right wing talking points is a cheap shot an inaccurate. Criticizing Kerry for not being anti-war is a liberal perspective, not a Rovian one.

In fact, its a Paul Wellstone talking point. Conviction politics work and Kerry failed at projecting himself as a candidate with firm convictions that don't shift with the polls. That's Kerry's fault not Rove's, and I don't think Obama will have that same problem. Asking why we lost is necessary if we're going to win next time.

Nominating someone who was clearly and publicly consistent on the war, as opposed to someone who voted for it, is an action we should take if we're willing to learn from our mistakes.

Call the public simple minded if you want, but nominating someone who voted for the IWR will open us up to charges of being spineless flip-floppers, just like last time, unless we decide to be a pro-war party. Long explanations of nuances and motivation don't win elections. Hell, this is the same mistake Democrats made in '68 when they nominated Humphrey. It should be obvious by now.

[obaman08]

23. Other than Kucinich..

which candidate voted against giving bush the authority to go to war if need be?

[Radical Activist]

24. Obama

was against it at the time of the vote.
I don't know what Bill Richardson was saying at the time.

[obaman08]

27. I was referring to candidates of 04

Maybe Sharpton other than Kucinich, but the others that were in the senate voted for the resolution.

[Radical Activist]

29. Ok

Bob Graham voted against the war. He dropped out before the tide of public opinion shifted against the war. If he had stayed in the race I think he easily could have been the more moderate anti-war alternative to Dean and won the nomination.
Braun was also against the war from the start.

[BeyondGeography]

35. This is a key point

Iraq will again be a major issue next year and, here we are again (at least some of us), hoping and praying we don't make the same mistake and nominate a pro-IWR candidate who will have to preface every pronouncement on the war with an apology and an explanation...unreal. The Democrats are truly hopeless if they go down this road again.

[Radical Activist]

40. You would think

this is obvious. If anyone wants to make excuses for those who voted for the war, fine. People make mistakes. But that's not going to work in a nominee unless we choose to be a pro-war party in '08.

[obaman08]

2. So was Kerry's..

If you look at what Kerry said when he voted to give the authority as a last result, he has always been consistent, but the media, and the Kerry campaign, allowed his position to be twisted.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Obama's only inconsistency was voting to fund the war he opposed. n/t

[Mass]

7. So did every single senator.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. But not every candidate did. In fact one voted against the IWR and against funding.

Dennis Kucinich was both right, and principled.

[Mass]

12. Sure, if it is your reference, I have no problem.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. My reference was the OP.

I find voting to fund a war one disagrees with to be less than completely consistent.

I also believe Congress is making a huge mistake if the fund the surge.

They are buying bush's war. Have you seen the post on the poll that shows Congress' approval rating lower now than a couple of months ago?

One explaination was that people voted in a new congress because they opposed the war.

[Radical Activist]

14. Kucinich always finds a way

to make himself look more righteous than other candidates. That doesn't necessarily make him the best candidate.

[Colobo]

17. He does by speaking in favor of Fox News... very "right"eous indeed

[John Q. Citizen]

20. In favor? He said he would debate anywhere anytime. Even on Fox. Did Murdock

give him money too?

I didn't think so.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. No, but it does make him consistent on the war. Unlike any of the other

candidates.

I don't believe his vote against the IWR and funding was tied to his candidacy though.

I believe Dennis thought the war was wrong and so, naturally, funding it would be wrong also. My guess is Obama voted to fund it to deflect possible charges of "not supporting the troops."

So his vote was by far more contrived than Dennis'. Those rightwing charges don't much scare Dennis. I wish more people had his courage.

[Radical Activist]

26. I don't think exercising a little judgement

about how we end the war, instead of making a withdrawal without a plan, makes a person pro-war.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Are you responding to the wrong post? I didn't post a thing about HR1234

Kucinich's withdrawl plan in front of congress. It's a good bill. Have you read it?


I posted that Obama spoke against the war and then voted everytime after he got to the Senate to fund the war he spoke against.

Perhaps you view that as the height of consistency, which is fine if you do.

I don't. It seems like a mixed message to me. The war is wrong so lets pour money into it?

[Radical Activist]

30. Its nice that DK introduced that

AFTER he voted to cut off funding. It might be best to have a plan for withdrawal first, which Obama does as well, and THEN cut funding. Just a matter of tactics and approach. Wanting to be reasonable about it rather than holding onto symbolic absolutes doesn't make someone pro-war. I mean, Kucinich's vote was easy because he knew he was going to be on the losing side so it was a symbolic protest vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Dennis voted all the way through not to fund the war. Even before it started.

It's a shame that more didn't join him, because it would have saved many lives, American as well as Iraqi.

At least he doesn't have the blood of 3200 American soldiers and a million Iraqi civilians on his hands, as do some of the more pragmatic members of congress. I guess they have better judgement though, according to your reckoning.

Now if we could just spare the world and our country any more of that good judgement I think it would be a step up from our current mess. Though I know some would disagree with me.

[Radical Activist]

32. That might work against those who voted for the war

but Obama opposed it from the start. The "blood on their hands" cliche doesn't work here.

How many more soldiers and Iraqis would die if we suddenly cut off funding without an exit plan, which Kucinich only recently came up with? Would Dennis have their blood on his hands?

Back in '03 when Dennis said UN in US out, would he have had UN soldiers blood on his hands?

Back when Dennis said we should get out in 90 days, would he have 90 days worth of blood on his hands?

Asking for a plan and building public support is not selling out.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. Voting to fund a war one opposes seems self defeating, doesn't it?

I know you can't speak for Obama. But if I had a chance to ask him questions, I'd ask him why.

Would you?

[AtomicKitten]

9. Obama has indeed been consistent in opposing the war on Iraq.

This is a great advantage for him and is precisely why it is being scrutinized in an attempt to knock him down.

Not.Gonna.Work.

[flpoljunkie]

19. What's Not.Gonna.Work is the Clinton's obvious attempt to provoke a controversy where none exists

The Clinton's campaign's pushing of this non-controversy smells of panic. Obama is closing the polling gap--more rapidly than previously expected.

[AtomicKitten]

34. What reeks about this manufactured brouhaha

... is that this sort of thing is being used as fodder by the internet Heathers dissecting the day-to-day grind of the campaigns from a biased perspective to use as ammunition based entirely on speculation.

I will defend any of the Democratic candidates against the GOP Wrecking Machine but am not interested in reacting to the manufactured "controversies" within my own party for the sheer purpose of elevating one candidate at the expense of another.

No worries; you will find an audience for that bit of nastiness here at DU. Obama is doing quite nicely without it and that kind of "support" just puts people off. It is never a bad idea to rise above the fray and take the high road. Obama understands that and is the kind of candidate people feel good about supporting.

Gobama.

[Clarkie1]

36. Obama knows what the duty of a Senator is to uphold the constitution! K&R. nt

[Colobo]

37. Exactly!

[Clarkie1]

38. He TAUGHT constitutional law.

Seems to me we need people in office who have a clear understanding of the basis of Americann government.

Yes indeed, we definitely could use more of that these days.

[BeyondGeography]

39. Another swing and a miss by Camp Clinton

First the hysterical overreaction to Geffen and now a failed attempt to undermine Barack's antiwar bona fides.

What will they think of next?