Bloody hands. Warmonger. NeoCon DLC AIPAC hack. These were all words used by “progressives” to describe Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It was the excuse they all gave for claiming that Obama was a progressive and ever so far to the left of Hillary on foreign policy. Now what for the Obamasphere, as their progressive hero has appointed many Clintonites, including Hillary herself, to be Cabinet members and close advisors? (More schadenfreude: As of today, we can add one more Clintonite to the column – Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary. Expect more impotent howling from Blogosphere 1.0.)
Let me spell it out for you, Obamans: Obama. Was. Lying.
Obama successfully used his speech against invading Iraq in 2002 to cover the fact that he and Hillary are virtually identical in terms of foreign policy. I have always thought this, and have maintained that Hillary will always be too hawkish for me because I’m more in the Dennis Kucinich mold when it comes to war and peace. For me, the reason to prefer her over him was never that she was to the left or right of him regarding Iraq; it was the fact that she had served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, had always been a friend to our troops in need, and had a long list of accomplishments and contacts in the world outside of America. In other words, EXPERIENCE. And frankly, seeing that Obama has kept Robert Gates on as SecDef, and seeing how Hillary dissed him completely during the press conference (she was supposed to introduce him, but did not do so or even look at him), I wonder if she is a little more dovish than he. But I suppose we will never know the answer to that question.
In any case, Barack Obama sure squeezed a lot of mileage out of that speech, didn’t he? He used it to bamboozle and okie-doke the Obamasphere, which was all too willing to buy his baloney because of the fact that he wasn’t a Clinton or a scary female-type-person. He thundered on and on about his superior judgment because of that speech, and when Bill Clinton tried to expose his true position on the war, Obama was quick to brand him a racist in order to prevent inconvenient facts like this from oozing out to the CDS-possessed, factually-challenged, Obama-worshiping “progressives:”
The former president had been complaining the news media paid too little attention to Obama’s record on the war. Then, he pointed an accusing finger at Obama.
“You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. There’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” he said.
So, Obama took that 2002 speech, which he claimed represented the bestest judgment evah, off his own website in 2004 in order to push a more “moderate” line on the war once he became a U.S. Senator and would, you know, have to back up his words with actions. Lest you doubt Bill, Obama did exactly the same thing with his language on “the surge,” once he told Bill O’Reilly that it was a success: he changed his website, replacing his earlier, correct position with a more “moderate” (i.e., right-wing) position to reflect his ever-changing, yet oh-so-deeply-held, progressive principles.
Surprise surprise, Obots, Obama is a hawk.
Imagine the utter despair in Obotia if they had been forced to confront the truth about Obama and his similarity to Hillary on the war! Their entire rationale for thinking Obama was “progressive” would have gone right out the window, along with their excuses for the constant, mind-numbing, non-stop Hillary-bashing on their sites! What would they do without their 24-hour Hate to keep them going? Lucky for them that Hillary is going to be SOS, so they can blame her for anything they perceive as being out of line with Obama’s supposed “progressive” ideology. Lordy, he must be laughing his ass off every day at how gullible they are!
I tried many times to talk to Obama supporters rationally about their candidate; to demonstrate, factually, that he was not who he thought they were. But every time I started to get through to them, they would begin frothing at the mouth about how Hillary voted for the war. That was their go-to excuse. Now, of course, Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the AUMF vote, but Joe Biden was. Guess how he voted? And what did Obama say about voting for the AUMF again?
RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.
OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.
The author of this piece then wonders:
But wait. Wasn’t it Obama who’s been criticizing other Democrats, specifically Clinton, for triangulation, calculating quotes and saying different things to different audiences to avoid alienating any potential voters?
Why yes, yes it was.
Insert enormous eyeroll here.
We told you so.
Cross-posted at Partizane