MyDD :: I think we now know what Obama would have done

I think we now know what Obama would have done

by bouvougan, Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST

For many Obama supporters, the number one reason given for their support during the primary season was his stance against the Iraq war. That was the defining difference between him and the other top two candidates, Clinton and Edwards. Despite Edward's apology for that vote, his judgement was considered forever tainted by not seeing what was so obvious to so many of us and trusting that Bush would do as he promised and go to war as a last resort.

As an Edwards supporter, I defended his vote on the war, though I too had questions about his judgement--certainly it wasn't a vote I would have made. My brother, an ardent Obama supporter, said it was that one vote that made it impossible for him to support Edwards. I countered that Obama's opposition to the war did not put him at political risk, and his subsequent votes in favor of funding made him as complicit as Clinton, Edwards, or any other Senator who voted in favor of the war resolution.

I think if anything has become obvious during the last couple of weeks, it's that we can now be fairly certain how Obama would have voted on the war resolution had he actually been in the Senate. The path he has chosen on FISA, the death penalty, campaign finance, and gun control shows that political opportunism and expediency would have trumped any moral convictions he had about the war. That doesn't make him worse than the other candidates who supported the war, it makes him the same, which is exactly what so many of his supporters said he wasn't.

Tags: Obama, Iraq, Edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 73 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: I think we now know (2.00 / 3)

His position on the death penalty is the same as it was in The Audacity of Hope. Nothing changed.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:46:57 PM EST

Re: I think we now know (2.00 / 0)

hey, don't let the written word get in the way of an argument, that's not fair. His opinon on everything this Diarist mentioned hasn't changed.

by Dog Chains on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Death penalty ***** (none / 0)

Reaper-- how can one be against the death penalty , but yet disgree w/ the supreme court's recent ruling? It's not a stance that comes w/ an asterik .

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For anyone with a passing (2.00 / 2)

acquitance with Constitutional Law (which Obama once taught at one of the leading law schools in this country), it's actually quite easy.

My Con Law Professor, the Solicitor General under John F Kennedy and the Special Prosecutor during Watergate had exactly the same position (Archibald Cox).

by fladem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death penalty ***** (2.00 / 0)

Read the damned book.

He said that some crimes are so heinous it's necessary. Child rape was a specific example he gave in the book.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death penalty ***** (2.00 / 1)

Reaper- I don't have to read the damn book as you suggest. My point is simple --It's a very Pure stance w/o asterisk. "I do not believe in putting folks to death in our criminal justice system" (against death penalty proponents)

How can you be against the death penalty but be for it in some cases and still define yourself as being against it. ( oxymoron of sorts eh?)

Also please tell me what crimes that get the death penalty clause should not have one?

Ofcourse, how many innocent people have been put to death? would you be okay if was your family member?

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death penalty ***** (2.00 / 0)

Where did I explain my own views on the death penalty?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death penalty ***** (none / 0)

You- not 'you' , but people who say he is against the death penalty. which come to think about is you... :)

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since when was Senator Obama against (2.00 / 0)

the death penalty?

by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death penalty ***** (2.00 / 0)

I am against the death penalty, but it's utterly nonsensical to argue that if anything justifies it, child rape isn't one of the things that does.

Child rape should pretty much top every list where the issue of punishment is discussed.

"It's not a stance that comes w/ an asterisk"

To non-fanatics pretty much every stance comes with asterisks. That's why I like Obama, because he's actually sane and sober, not a fanatic.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Death penalty ***** (none / 0)

Against the Death Penalty as well here, but there is one twisted rationale by which child rape should not be one of those crimes.

Making child rape a capital offense creates a situation in which there is no reason for a perpetrator to leave a child alive.

It's a very visceral issue, and not one anyone is that comfortable talking about or facing. It's true, I can't fathom a criminal so heinous to do the former that the latter would be deterred by such a punishment, but it is the best argument I've heard.

by Pragmatic Left on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we now know (none / 0)

Was his opinion in the Audacity of Hope that the death penalty should extend to rape? What other crimes did he want to extend the death penalty to?

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we now know (none / 0)

That was the only one. Child rape, specifically.

by MeganLocke on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually his position has changed. (2.00 / 1)

The problem with the Louisiana law was that it extended the death penalty beyond capital crimes. Obama did not advocate extending the death penalty beyond capital crimes in The Audacity of Hope:

While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes -- mass murder, the rape and murder of a child -- so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment

His phrase was "rape and murder", i.e. only when the crime was a capital crime. Apparently Obama has changed that position and now believes that the death penalty should apply to non-capital crimes.

by souvarine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually his position has changed. (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the quote. It certainly does support the idea that his stance has changed. A poster above tried to claim he included rape only, which by this quote he obviously didn't.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually his position has changed. (2.00 / 1)

So you believe his opinion was that just murdering a child wouldn't be enough to warrant the death penalty, that raping a child wouldn't be enough to warrant the death penalty, but the death penalty would only be warranted if one did both at the same time?

That would seem an odd position for him to hold.

Other than that -- I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think it makes any moral sense to exclude child-rapists and only include murderers.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually his position has changed. (none / 0)

things that make you go hmmm... anywho mojo you for it

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually his position has changed. (none / 0)

I don't see it as an odd position at all. Many people hold the view that the death penalty should be reserved for extreme cases, and that's the examples he is providing here. The rape and murder of a child compounds the heinousness of both acts, and mass murder compounds the heinousness of the crime of murder. Others have advocated the death penalty for the killing a police officer.

The death penalty to many people has its roots in the "eye for an eye" example of justice taken from the Bible. I'm against the death penalty, and have used this very same quote to argue against it. Eye for an eye assumes retribution by the victim. In the crime of murder, the victims can't kill their killers, and nobody else has the moral standing to do so either.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually his position has changed. (none / 0)

Capital crime is by definition those crimes where the death penalty applies as punishment, no?

I think one of us is confused with the terminology, and I don't think it's me.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually his position has changed. (none / 0)

You're correct, I used the wrong term. However my point remains, to quote the Supreme Court opinion (pdf):

This case presents the question whether the Constitution bars respondent from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in death of the victim. We hold the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for this offense.

In The Audacity of Hope Obama held the same opinion, believing that the ultimate penalty was permitted in the case of the death of the child. He has since changed his position.

by souvarine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as we are re-doing that past.... (2.00 / 3)

Hey, since you are the master of all time and space, can you tell us what would have happened in the civil war if the south had Ak-47s?

I love Fiction, and you do too, it seems?

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST

Re: As long as we are re-doing that past.... (2.00 / 1)

America Will Break!

by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As long as we are re-doing that past.... (none / 0)

The south would have won. Any more questions?

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i guess that's why they are called.... (none / 0)

politicians.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:48:07 PM EST

Re: i guess that's why they are called.... (none / 0)

I am fine with that. That being said his whole campaign to date has been based on the assumption that he isn't just another politician.

by Wiseprince on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i guess that's why they are called.... (2.00 / 2)

Yes, it's based on the fact that he's a different politician, definitely not based on not being a politician at all since that would be blatant silliness considering what he does for work?

by Dog Chains on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i guess that's why they are called.... (none / 0)

what is so different about him? He has run to the center while he was falling off the left side of the mountain during the primaries. Doesn't seem to me that his positions are based on principle

by Wiseprince on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

funny. (2.00 / 1)

i always thought that HRC was more to the left of BO with both of them being centrists. it was just that many in the netroots labeled him as a progressive.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And I don't to re-fight the primary campaign (2.00 / 1)

but I never understood how people could conclude HRC was anything but a centrist DLC Democrat.

But then, I was for Edwards.

by fladem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is the problem with 'labels' (2.00 / 0)

everyone views them differently. ;)

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: funny. (none / 0)

she is more to the left of him at the moment and probably in to the future. The only time he was a progressive was when he was running for the state senate and then only on certain issues.

by Teacher1956 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: funny. (2.00 / 0)

Kind of depends on what you mean by progressive?

But, since you DON'T like him, I will counter your OPINION only statement with mine.

He is MORE progressive on Foreign Policy, Senator Clinton is MORE conservative?

They are basically tied on most fiscal issues, Senator Obama is a bit more reflective of the current muddle of the American Spectrum, so he MIGHT look to the right of the classic 60s Liberals, but he is the LEFT of a traditional centerist?

Say, Bill Clinton?

But, again, I ADMIT this is just my opinion, all of this is debatable, so clearly, if SOMEONE declares him either more or less progressive then Senator Clinton, you have to look if they have an axe to grind or not IMHO.

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: funny. (none / 0)

Both Obama and Clinton are willing to use American military power to protect our interests, and both plan to expand the military, so as far as that aspect of foreign policy goes they are both liberal hawks. The difference is in the philosophy underneath their liberal foreign policy ideas. Obama said "I believe in American exceptionalism", his foreign policy speeches and statements suggest that he believes in personal diplomacy and that America is often justified acting unilaterally. Hillary Clinton believes that America should almost always act within the context of international institutions. That suggest that she is more liberal on foreign policy than Obama is.

by souvarine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i guess that's why they are called.... (2.00 / 2)

"He has run to the center while he was falling off the left side of the mountain during the primaries."

Or more accurately: you tried to present him as a unelectable far-leftist during the primaries that'll scare away the Republicans, and you're trying to present him as a flip-flopper now so he loses support in November.

As for "what's different about him", the only different thing I see about him is in his sanity and sobriety; a thing severely lacking from both Clinton and McCain (though in different ways) and completely absent in Bush.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i guess that's why they are called.... (none / 0)

It's obvious he's not just another politician. Look at what he's managed to do already. Just another politician could never have accomplished the things he has already done in this cycle.

Whenever I see a reference to this I wonder what people mean by it? He's a politician. That's his current role in life. He wears a suit and tie most of the time. Should he show his independence from other politicians by wearing shorts and sandals to the Senate chambers?

How, exactly, do you expect him to be different? Create a new financing paradigm? Get more people involved than ever before? Work to bring people together instead of driving them apart by playing on their prejudices and fears?

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i guess that's why they are called.... (none / 0)

I agree, and that's what I've argued for a long time. He's a politician, do different, no worse, but he should be seen for what he is. This didn't sit too well with most Obama supporters, who bought into the "post partisan" nonsense.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

watch out (1.14 / 7)

you will get troll rated for not worhipping him.

by Teacher1956 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: watch out (2.00 / 2)

No, but YOU will get troll-rated for implying that his supporters worship him.

That's a fucking insult. I supported him over Clinton because he was better than Clinton. I support him over McCain because he's better than McCain. I don't worship him -- it's you people who worshipped Clinton so bloody much that you projected your hangups to the rest of us.

by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It if wasn't obvious before (2.00 / 2)

It if wasn't obvious before it is obvious now. You have hit the nail on the head. It always bothered me that Obama used his opposition to the war to show that he wasn't "politics as usual" because it has always been obvious to me that he is. All the rhetoric aside he is not an ounce different that the others and for him to put himself above everyone else by suggesting others is disingenuous at best

by Wiseprince on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:49:01 PM EST

This is an idiotic premise (2.00 / 2)

Based on nothing.

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST

Re: This is an idiotic premise (none / 0)

It's based on the precedence that Obama has been setting. He has, in recent weeks, done exactly what any other politician would do: he has run to the "center" for political gain.

by Wiseprince on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is an idiotic premise (1.50 / 2)

He's more or less always been more of a centrist than the very liberal label the right has tried to pin on him.

Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!

by spacemanspiff on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is an idiotic premise (2.00 / 1)

And I agree wholeheartedly. I always viewed him as a centrist, which was why I supported Edwards. Edwards main concern in delaying his support for Obama was that he wouldn't fight hard enough for the change we needed. I think he was right.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, did you ever look at Edward's voting? (none / 0)

He was less liberal than Clinton and Obama. Maybe that changed once he left office (and I like to believe that it did) but his voting record didn't inspire confidence.

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:15:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah and maybe in an alternate universe (none / 0)

I'm the richest woman in the world!

Too bad that doesn't mean shit here and now, eh?

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is an idiotic premise (none / 0)

And what is idiotic about it? Care to explain. I think his recent actions provide a strong case in support of my conclusion about how he would have voted.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what is idiotic about it... (2.00 / 1)

is that some of your examples do not represent any compromise of his previous positions. Using the campaign finance issue, for example, to claim that he would have somehow reneged on Iraq is nonsense... he didn't violate any principle on the matter.

FISA is one's best case... and given that he remained against telecom immunity your case is extraordinarily weak.

The premise that Obama is unwilling to stand up on principle we know, from examples both in the Senate and Illinois to be false.

I'm not sure that "idiotic" is the word I would choose... but a diary constructed on false analogy and ad hominem may be fairly described as "illogical."

by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what is idiotic about it... (none / 0)

Obama has always been very good at equivocating on his positions, so it's very difficult to tell where he really stands on a lot of issues. Obama did say unequivocally though that he would filibuster a FISA bill that included telecom immunity, so him saying he opposes the telecom immunity portion of the bill is an extraordinarily weak argument for claiming he hasn't compromised his earlier position.

As to Iraq, I'm not sure where this nonsense you call "reneging on Iraq" comes from. My diary is speculating how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. There would have been nothing to renege on, since I believe his public position in that case would have always been the same as that taken by Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and a whole host of other Democratic senators.

As to campaign financing, I suggest you read past issues at Dailyhowler.com, which has chronicled his contradictions on this issue.

His support of the death penalty for the rape of a child is something entirely new. And he has stated his support for the DC gun ban in the past.

My diary can hardly be considered constructed of ad hominem as you characterize it. It's an observation based on very real examples as described above. What is "illogical" is the contortions some will go through to claim Obama has been consistent on all these issues and that he is not playing politics with these issues to broaden his appeal.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what is idiotic about it... (none / 0)

I agree with you, but it's water under the bridge at this point. We can all be sore about it, which I totally get and have some of my own feelings that I have to grapple with, or we can recognize that he is what he is (which I always believed he was) and be very happy that the polls are very much in our favor.

I do think he will win the election and I'm not sure Edwards would have. I think it would be very difficult for anyone too "liberal" to win. As much as I would love to see our country move far, far left, it's just not realistic. I would rather have a centrist Obama win than a populist Edwards lose. Of course, I would have prefered Hillary, but then Obama made a more compelling argument to most that he is what the country needs - a new kind of politics.

It may not have been totally authentic, but it worked and now we have a good chance of winning. I guess we have to be willing to overlook how we got here.

by Dari on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what is idiotic about it... (none / 0)

I know it's a political game being played, but I don't have to like it when our candidates do it anymore than when Republicans do it. And I think the underlying assumptions driving this are wrong. Progressive principals, such as gun control, opposition to the Iraq war, progressive taxation, and mandated health care, always poll high. Bush won enough votes to steal the election in 2000 by trying to present himself as a slightly more conservative and honest version of Bill Clinton, aka "compassionate conservative." In short, he lied about who he was because he was rightly afraid the public wouldn't embrace somebody whose real imperatives were to start a war with Iraq and give tax cuts to the rich.

So Obama's tilt to the right, or "center" if that makes people happy, on issues such as FISA and gun control, assume that the all-important center would reject him if he held to his previously stated stands on these issues. I don't believe that's the case. I think Obama needs to take a principled stand and stick to it. But alas, I'm afraid that might be too much to ask from a politician.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what is idiotic about it... (none / 0)

Obama did say unequivocally though that he would filibuster a FISA bill that included telecom immunity

There was no opportunity to filibuster this bill...

since I believe his public position in that case would have always been the same as that taken by Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and a whole host of other Democratic senators.

We know what his public opinion was on the war. You are speculating things would have been different had he been in the senate. I disagree... and I don't think your examples are particularly strong on the matter of standing on principle.

My diary can hardly be considered constructed of ad hominem as you characterize it.

If you play upon a premise that Obama is weakly principled on plitical stands and use that to make an argument that he would have violated his stance against the war, that is in part an ad hominem argument. One could attempt to cite the Gift Ban Act in Illinois, the police interrogation reform, the Von Spakovsky nomination in the senate as examples to the contrary if one were to be evenhanded. The notion that he will simply bow without exception to political expediency is false.

Has he said explicitly that the death penalty should be restricted in such a manner before? The Dreams quote is insufficient evidence to establish he had previously taken either side on the matter.--- not that I care much either way, given that I strongly disagree with Obama on the subject regardless.

by Casuist on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what is idiotic about it... (none / 0)

I again have to reject your characterization of my argument being an ad hominem attack. I've supported my argument with recent examples when he knew that he was a serious candidate for the presidency or was already the presumptive nominee. If you have examples of him taking a politically risky stand in the Illinois legislature, I'm willing to hear them, though I would argue that the political risk cannot be considered nearly the same as what he would have risked as a Senator or as the presumptive nominee. So in that respect, they would be fairly useless to use as a predictor of future behavior.

As to FISA, you are correct that there was no opportunity to fillibuster it, but would there have been that opportunity had Obama come out and unquivocally stated that he was opposed to this bill? He is now the leader of the Democratic party and could or should be able to hold sway over enough members of the Democratic majority to delay or prevent a vote on cloture. That would have been the principled, but politically risky stand that was consistent with his previous position.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He spoke out about it then (none / 0)

There is no concrete proof to show he would have voted a certain especially when, back then, his speeches indicated otherwise?

Also? This whole thing comes off as a pointless attempt to get a jab in on Obama supporters regardless of things like REALITY (he did speak out against the war then, it was six years ago).

The fact of the matter is, he didn't vote then and you have no idea how he would have voted and it's pointless to waste time trying to figure out how things would have unfolded in some alternate universe.

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would have killed (2.00 / 2)

Hitler in his cradle.

by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM EST

Re: I would have killed (none / 0)

random-

by alyssa chaos on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would have killed (none / 0)

Really bad move!

If you'd have paid attention to the good Rev. Hagee, you'd have learned that Hitler was actually a tool in the creation of Israel. I think that Hagee's line of thought would have a Hitler-killer as being anti-Israel. And we all know you can't get elected on an anti-Israel platform!

Of course I'm just speculatin' wildly without bothering with pesky stuff like facts, reality, or sanity.

by candidate D on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I take it back... (2.00 / 3)

I would have made the weather a bit cooler with a nice breeze last week, and limited the rain to gentle showers between 3AM and 6AM.

by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama said he might have voted for it (2.00 / 2)

had he been in the senate. Frankly, the only person's vote who I took as sincere even though I did not agree with it, was Hillary's. She had a rational explanation of why she voted the way she did and though I did not like it at the time, I understand it now.
Edwards just wanted to sound like a warhawk and Kerry was standing on both sides of the issue as usual.

by Teacher1956 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:25:55 PM EST

Not even Feingold? (2.00 / 1)

You're in lonely territory if you don't think Feingold voted on principle.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we now know what Obama would have done (none / 0)

I strongly disagree. As a Senator he could very well have voted against the war. Remember in that position he is only having to appeal to his constituents. As a presidential candidate he has to appeal to a broader electorate, hence his present tack to the center. This should be a surprise to no one.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST

Re: I think we now know what Obama would have done (2.00 / 1)

This diary is beating a dead horse. The points pushed here have been rebutted numerous times already. Here's one diary that already dealt with your points - http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/27/1202 1/6872

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:34:26 PM EST

Re: beating a dead horsie (2.00 / 2)

Well, technically speaking, this diary is resurrecting a hypothetical pantomime horse and then beating it to death with a nuanced light saber while standing in a puddle of imaginary urine from the ninth dimension.

by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: beating a dead horsie (2.00 / 2)

I'm not sure the urine is imaginary. There is a certain offensive odor to this diary.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we now know what Obama would have done (none / 0)

The diary you linked to is another poster's opinion, nothing more. It purports to rebut many of my concerns, but doesn't do a very convincing job of it. The argument about the FISA bill is especially weak.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your premise is flawed (2.00 / 4)

because you're attributing to him a platform of ideological purity. He has never maintained that to be the case, and consequently it cannot really be a valid criticism.

I realize the "hypocrite" label is a very common attack (because it's easy to frame), but rigorous consistency is more a quality of fanatics than intelligent persons. Changing your position isn't inherently a flaw, it's the reason for which you changed it that is telling.

I'm reminded of a review of The Opposable Mind:

Great leaders, aside from their talent for innovation and long-term business success, share a trait, finds Martin. "They have the predisposition and capacity to hold two diametrically opposing ideas in their heads. And then, without panicking or simply settling for one alternative or the other, they're able to produce a synthesis that is superior to either opposing idea."

If you look at Steve Jobs career, for example, you will find many drastic changes and shifts. He's not a "hypocrite", he's trying to get his job done.

Conversely, GWB has been pretty damn consistent during his 8 years.

by Neef on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:44:50 PM EST

Re: Your premise is flawed (2.00 / 1)

Mojo'ed for the Steve Jobs ref....

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mojo (none / 0)

I added some Mojo for the synthesis. Best retort ever!
I really think it's Obama's intelligence that frightens and baffles those who think more like McSame and Chimpy. Jon Stewart put it best: "He's talking to us like we're adults!"

by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your premise is flawed (none / 0)

I'm assuming you are replying to my diary, though your comment doesn't really address anything I said or implied. The point of the diary was not to "attribute to him a platform of ideological purity" at all. I did however, attribute the expectations of that to many of his supporters, my brother being one of them. And I never called anybody a "hypocrite" or said changing a person's position is inherently a flaw. Here, it could well serve its intended purpose, which is to get elected.

So dismissing that part of your comment, I'm not sure what else is left to debate about it. Doesn't sound like we have too much to disagree about.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok then (2.00 / 1)

The path he has chosen on FISA, the death penalty, campaign finance, and gun control shows that political opportunism and expediency

It seems you were attributing his current positions to expedience, rather than his belief that they are the best positions.

It seems you could only argue they were expedient from the perspective of a politician who couldn't possibly believe in them (a left ideologue). A Repub, for example, would obviously not be accused of expediency in taking those positions, because he would believe in them.

Nor could you be accusing him of a centrist tendency since, again, the positions wouldn't be "expedient". They might be "revealing", but that wasn't the thrust of your post.

Therefore it seems that via the explanation of expediency, instead of the myriad other possible reasons, your premise demands that his ideology makes those positions inconsistent.

If I am mistaken, and your position is that he believes in his current stances, then your belief in a war vote based on expedience is shaky. If I'm correct and you believe he is being "expedient" then your conclusion is consistent, but it follows that you are accusing him of hypocrisy based on an ideological platform which he has never offered.

by Neef on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok then (2.00 / 1)

I have no doubt he believes they are the best positions from a political standpoint. I have my doubts that he believes that a bill like the FISA bill is necessary to protect us from terrorists as he implied in offering his support for it, but sees instead the best position to be one of supporting it to reach the greater goal, which is the presidency. So in effect he does believe in these positions because he believes that politically they will serve the greater purpose of getting enough votes to win the presidency.

So in effect, I think he believes more in the political benefits of his position than he believes in his personal opposition to them. I don't think one has to be a hypocrite to hold that view, and it may in the long run be the correct one. But the point of my post was to point out that these same dynamics were at work with many of the Senators who voted for the war resolution. For many, they thought it was a choice between possibly losing their seat for being seen as weak on terrorism, and voting for the resolution and holding onto their seat so they could continue to advance Democratic causes. I do think it is revealing that Obama has chosen the positions he has, and I believe for many of the same reasons. I also think my conclusion is justified by them.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry (none / 0)

responded to you below, not as a reply.

by Neef on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough (none / 0)

I don't doubt that the presidential race plays a huge part in his calculation. But because it does play such a large role, it's impossible to equate his current situation with his hypothetical pre-AUMF one.

The problem is, there is a corollary question: "Would a non-Nominee Senator Obama have voted for FISA?". THAT question would indeed give us some insight into how he would have behaved back then, under similar circumstances.

It's a minor thing, but I have to point out that Nominee Obama wears a Flag Pin. Senator Obama did not. Judging his past positions by his current ones, he would always have worn the pin.

by Neef on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:40:25 PM EST

Re: Fair enough (2.00 / 1)

I can't say I disagree with much here. I will point out that US Senator Obama has almost always been candidate Obama, and has always been prospective candidate Obama. I also think the lapel pin was a response to criticisms of his patriotism, and again that response is indicative of how he would have responded to the war resolution with the implicit threat of being accused of being weak on terrorism for not supporting it. If Obama was never a candidate or never had aspirations of being one, it might affect my view of how he would have voted on the AUMF.

by bouvougan on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.