Gordon Fischer put up this post at Iowa True Blue, titled “Ten Reasons to Support Barack Obama on Thursday, January 3”:
http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Bl…
10. Barack Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start.
9. He opposed the Iraq War in 2002.
8. He opposed the Iraq War in 2003.
7. He opposed the Iraq War in 2004.
6. He opposed the Iraq War in 2005.
5. He opposed the Iraq War in 2006.
4. He opposed the Iraq War in 2007.
3. The Iraq War may well be the biggest foreign policy fiasco in our nation’s history.
2. Barack Obama had the right judgment from the start, all the way until now — the Iraq War was a tremendous mistake.
1. The Iraq War has cost us several thousand American lives, many more wonded, and literally billions of dollars. And, ultimately, it has made our great country less safe.
Since Gordon does not post comments on his blog, I am asking my question here.
In what way was Barack Obama opposing the Iraq War in 2005 and 2006, when, as a senator, he voted for Iraq War supplemental funding bills?
As a candidate for Senate in the spring of 2004, he said it was time for Democrats to stop getting “steamrolled” by Bush on war funding. That was around the time that John Kerry and John Edwards voted against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill (the vote was 88-12–that was way before the majority of Americans turned against the war).
Then Obama got elected and voted several times to keep funding the war.
This spring, Chris Dodd led the opposition to the latest supplemental funding bill within the Senate, but Obama sat on the sidelines. Edwards urged Congress to reject any more war funding with no timeline for withdrawing troops. (“No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”)
But Obama didn’t even announce how he would vote, let alone lead the charge to attach a timeline for drawing down troops. He and Hillary sat there until almost everyone else had voted, then finally cast their “no” votes.
Tell me again, what has Obama done to oppose the Iraq War in 2005, 2006 and 2007? Other than continually give speeches reminding people that he called it a “dumb war”?
Obama has failed to lead on defunding the war, despite suggesting before he was elected that he would take a firm line on war funding.
It’s been obvious for a long time that Bush will never draw down troops unless Congress forces his hand by using the power of the purse.
P.S. in response to this post:
http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Bl…
John Edwards has never taken money from federal PACs or federal lobbyists. And it’s a bit rich for an Obama supporter to complain about people backing other candidates trying to “buy” the Iowa caucuses, when Obama has spent more than $8 million on tv ads alone in Iowa. Who knows how many millions he will have spent on his campaign here when it’s all over?
41 Comments
Thanks for pointing out the problem with
Fischer’s post. It’s important that decisions about the next President be based on what is real. In that vein, Fischer’s next post is arguably worse. Why? Because in 3 short points, he manages to miss the truth in each and every one. I am surprised that he is willing to do such damage to his reputation.
Here’s his latest list:
(1) John Edwards has NEVER taken federal PAC money, ever. Obama decided to forego taking MORE federal PAC money after he entered the Democratic presidential nominating race. He has taken over hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs since entering the national scene. (FEC database)
(2) John Edwards has NEVER taken federal lobbyist money, ever. Obama decided to stop taking MORE federal lobbyist money after he entered the 2008 Democratic presidential nominating race. He has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from federal lobbyists since entering the national scene and currently has received the endorsement of 16 federal lobbyists (second only to Clinton on the Democratic side). (FEC database and Roll Call)
(3) NO candidate is allowed to coordinate expenditures or messaging with independent organizations (called “527s” for the tax code section under which they operate). Edwards has clearly stated that he believes 527s should be illegal, but he cannot LEGALLY do more than that.
Interestingly, while Obama rails against the union-based organizations currently supporting Edwards in Iowa, he has said only that he would “prefer” the California 527 Vote Hope 2008 come under his campaign structure in their effort to sign up early absentee voters to support Obama. And according to a well-known Obama supporter over at Daily Kos, “Obama believes that 527s shouldn’t interfere in Democratic primaries, but that we shouldn’t unilaterally disarm against Republicans.” In other words, while Edwards says that 527s should be made illegal in all instances, apparently Obama’s concern is more situational — not by union-funded 527s in Iowa.
edgery Sun 30 Dec 7:01 PM
2003?
Obama reportedly took his anti-war speech off his website in 2003, so I’m not so sure he was all that anti-war then, either.
The PAC and lobbyist money would be impressive if it had at all changed Edwards’ votes in the Senate. So you don’t take PAC or lobbyist money and you still vote for the bankruptcy bill?
I like Edwards, but his early Senate career pretty much shows that just because you don’t take PAC and lobbyist money doesn’t mean you’ll vote as a progressive.
socaldem Sun 30 Dec 7:27 PM
Edwards has a 97 percent lifetime voting record
on labor issues. Can’t remember the number, but also an outstanding voting record on choice issues.
Yes, he was a senator from NC and not as liberal as Wellstone, but the idea that he was not progressive is ridiculous.
desmoinesdem Sun 30 Dec 7:48 PM
This really gets my dander up
I was really annoyed at Obama when he wouldn’t support timetables for withdrawal from Iraq and announced that they wouldn’t work because Bush would veto it. It was a dumb move too. Here’s what Robert Naiman said on Commondreams.org:
Gordon Fischer is way off base with what Obama has done since settling in to the Senate.
Also, what really gets this Feral Cat’s fur up is the idea that the people who have the least money i.e. this nation’s union workers from steelworkers to nurses to teachers can’t get together and put their 2¢ in about who they want to see be their advocate while Obama spends almost 10 million dollars in Iowa on paid staff and lots of fancy ads.
The wealthy have money, but the people have numbers. But the people have to get together as a group to fight. They have to fight the special interests like the Exelon executives who gave $155,000 to Obama. They are a nuclear energy company. And surprise, surprise, Obama is for building new nuclear plants which pollute and are dangerous. Henry Crown and company family members and executives gave $55,000. They used to sit on the board of Maytag, by the by.
Oh, now see, you got me started. Follow the money over at opensecrets.org and you tell me who is beholden to whom.
Please. Proudly be for your candidate but for the real reasons and don’t make stuff up. The people’s candidate is Edwards. The viable progressive is Edwards.
feral-cat Sun 30 Dec 7:51 PM
I saw that post earlier: A is Balderdash
Here’s what Gordon Wrote:
Obviously Gordon is in fantasy land. I loved the Wizard of Oz as a kid, but sounds like Gordon believes Obama is Oz.
So, let’s lay out a few facts to dispel the myth of Oz…In addition to what diarist wrote about Edwards:
**Obama continued to take PAC for his 2010 Senate re-run last quarter to the tune of $81,054. http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-…
Yes, most folks don’t know he continues to quietly accumulate money for a re-bid for the Senate in case this presidential doesn’t work out. (Why Tim Russert didn’t ask about this is beyond me today). Seems he has one standard for his senate money, but different for Presidential.
He took it as early as 2000 when he ran for an unsuccessful bid for Congress. http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-…
First Q reports under Obama for America indicate is campaign accepted $3050. Not a lot, and possible he returned that since it was so small.
**Obama voted for the confirmation of Condi Rice, which to me, was just as bad as the AMUF vote of Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards.
**Obama, via HopePAC gave $7K to Dave Loebsack in the last couple of quarters, as well as Len Boswell and Bruce Braeley, but both ending up endorsing others, thankfully
**Obama continued to fund the war with blank checks. Only recently did he and Clinton voted against it, but at the very last second.
What else is behind that curtain, I wonder.
benny Sun 30 Dec 8:15 PM
Links to FEC filings hard to do
Here’s the one for the Form 3 Senate, October Quarter under Obama 2010 inc:
FEC Form 3
Go to page 3 to find the data.
benny Sun 30 Dec 8:19 PM
"You break it, you own it"
applies to Iraq War. As much as I think the war was a huge mistake and we need to find a way out, I’ve never been too big on the D’s screaming to stop funding the war. I think the original sin was to authorize the war. Once you start it, you own the mess. If/when we get out, we must do it responsibly. And once you have troops on the battle field, you can’t just stop funding them whenever you get tired of it.
To me, what Edwards did with the war was much worse than Obama’s votes to continue funding. Edwards committed the original sin of voting to start the whole thing. According to his own advisor, he did it because it was politically expedient at that time. The fact that he relatively soon voted against funding the war makes his record even more troubling. Starting wars is not something you do when you think it politically convenient, then change your mind when political winds change. War is serious business. There must be some follow-through.
I think it is fair to disagree about Obama’s votes on the war. But I happen to think people defending Edwards on this issue are not any more open-minded than Gordon is regarding Obama. (For the record, I do believe Gordon has lost all credibility in his mindless pro-Obama blogging. He should just tack an Obama campaign logo on his site. As much as I strongly support the same candidate, I try to retain some objectivity and realism. Obama is no god and is not infallible.)
rf Sun 30 Dec 10:20 PM
Supporting the troops?
Only the money isn’t going to the troops. It is going to Haliburton, Blackwater, and into the back of pick-up trucks. Supporting the troops is bringing them home where they will be safe from harm. Haliburton will shut down in a minute if we cut off the cash.
As much as I oppose this war and the war profiteering, there are other issues. Even if Obama was right on the war, he is still wrong on all the rest.
dkmich Sun 30 Dec 11:20 PM
Problem with listening to Bob Shrum
begins when you start believing him. Everything he’s saying about Edwards comes after Edwards rejected him after the 2004 race was over. Rather than believing the word of someone who has an axe to grind, let’s go to Edwards himself who blames no one but himself for his mistake:
edgery Sun 30 Dec 11:28 PM
I don't know if Shrum has an ax to grind
but all the political discussion at the time of the war vote certainly corroborates his version of the story. Didn’t we all know that most of the potential ’04 contenders in the Senate were trying to make the correct political call in anticipation of the election?
rf Mon 31 Dec 9:51 AM
RF, I understand your position
even though we disagree.
I wish that John Edwards had listened to Elizabeth Edwards, who advised him not to vote for the AUMF. I understand why that vote is a deal-breaker for some, even though other issues are more important to me.
I do find it hard to understand why Obama, who is campaigning as a leader who can change America, has not shown more leadership on various issues in the Senate.
desmoinesdem Mon 31 Dec 10:01 AM
Happy to agree to disagree
and your question regarding Obama’s leadership is a valid one. However, I think we must remember he has not been in the Senate for too long (which, on the other hand, is another valid point of discussion about his candidacy). He definitely has taken the lead on energy and ethics reform issues – both hugely important. I don’t think it’s too bad of a record, considering that neither Biden nor Dodd can list a huge list of issues they have successfully championed. Combined those two have about 60 years in the Senate.
rf Mon 31 Dec 10:31 AM
Gordon Fischer responds
I just received a reply from Mr. Fischer to the email I sent him earlier this evening. In my email, I suggested that posting demonstrably inaccurate information might be damaging to his reputation. His reply (which I post here because he chooses not to allow comments on his “blog”):
Mr. Fischer has now updated his “blog” to reflect that the ‘accuracy’ is due to the word “and” linking the 3 conditions he cites and tweaking the reference to 527s. He now claims:
Unfortunately, while Mr. Fischer is inching closer to reality, he still misses the boat on points 1 and 2 AND is still demonstrably incorrect on point 3. Mr. Obama is being aided by special interest “Washington” money through a 527 in California — Vote Hope 2008 — which has both a 527 and a PAC.
Sadly for Mr. Obama, Mr. Fischer’s advocacy has resulted in highlighting that Mr. Obama still accepts federal PAC and federal lobbyist money into his current Senate reelection coffers.
And Mr. Fischer apparently still believes that the hard-earned money from SEIU members–nurses, janitors, hotel employees, and home health care workers–constitutes “shadowy 527 special interest money.”
edgery Mon 31 Dec 12:03 AM
Unions - To be honest
I’m a bit torn on this labor union issue. While I acknowledge that they are not the same kind of special interests as some on the other side, I find complete denial of their special interest role as disingenuous. For example, many of the special interests on the other side can be viewed as just as much, if not more grassroots than unions. NRA and many anti-abortion groups come to mind. And of course many groups considered to be on our side are more grassroots, such as enviro groups. I also find many unions’ highly partisan participation in electoral politics somewhat troublesome, considering that most people don’t join the union for political reasons. – I know I’m committing D political heresy with these comments. But it’s not the first time I do that.
What bothers me most about the unions in this round are the negative actions some of them have taken. I think it’s one thing for AFSCME to endorse Hillary and promote her and her health plan. But for the union to harshly attack Obama is troublesome to me. I don’t know how many AFSCME members thought their union was signing on to oppose Obama. It seems that Edwards’ union backers have remained positive, which I have to give them credit for.
rf Mon 31 Dec 10:22 AM
yes, the unions backing Edwards
have stayed positive. I didn’t like that AFSCME mailer attacking Obama while trying to make it seem like Edwards was behind it. I’ve also heard radio ads paid for by AFSCME that attack Obama without making clear that AFSCME has endorsed Hillary.
desmoinesdem Mon 31 Dec 11:47 AM
Shaddowy Special Interest Money!
There’s nothing really shaddowy about SEIU, but there is something unequal about their 527’s unregulated influence over elections. God bless SEIU. I used to organize for them a few years ago… truly a great union, but it’s really unfortunate that they’ve gotten into this game which is unfortunately, yes, very shaddowy.
This is from today’s article in the DM Register: http://www.desmoinesregister.c…
A $500,000 contribution does not go unrewarded. Oak Springs Farm will get it’s calls returned in an Edwards orgainzation. So much for taking on the special interests!
iowacubs Mon 31 Dec 2:35 PM
Edwards too divisive?
As a Dean supporter in 2004, I have come to realize that John Edwards’ populism isn’t right for 2008. Stewart Rothenberg hits Edwards today on why his populism is too divisive for the modern political climate:
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-iowa-will-edwards-divide-and-conquer.html
This has been my problem with Edwards all along. I think his heart is in the right place, but it’s possible to inspire people without sticking a finger in their eye along the way.
iowacubs Mon 31 Dec 11:26 AM
Rothenberg's track record isn't very good
He is just mouthing beltway CW about Edwards here. The latest polling from NH shows Edwards is doing even better among independents than Obama is.
A populist message has appeal across the spectrum. If you need proof, look no further than the way Mike Huckabee uses rhetoric that is very similar to Edwards’.
Obama’s conciliatory style would in practice lead to giving up way too much ground to Republicans. I am tired of Democrats in Congress getting rolled by the GOP again and again.
desmoinesdem Mon 31 Dec 11:51 AM
Obama
It doesn’t make sense to rail on Obama because he has stuck to his word on being against the war while still voting to fund the war. He cares about the troops. He knows Bush will pursue the war even without his vote. Basically, you are saying he should stick to the principle of ending the war without honoring the troops who are in combat. Ending the war has its costs, just like starting and fighting the war. Obama realizes this, and so does Congress. Until Democrats take over Congress and the Presidency, it is not feasible to end the war without incurring great costs to American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. We don’t need another pull-out Vietnam-style. It seems that is what you all are asking for, and I just do not understand it. IT is a black and white way to view the war and seems unenlightened.
Weigh the costs and the benefits. Your anti-war principle ignores several other significant principles that you seem to be ignoring. Think about it.
Edwards has consistently shown himself to be weak under pressure. He buckled in the 2004 VP debates with Cheney and he wobbled through the vote to go to war in Iraq. He was blinded by nationalism and did not have the judgment to deliver on the principles that he now finds to be politically opportune.
Barack Obama has been consistent and honest from the beginning. Edwards has been politically deft and opportunistic. To me, Edwards appears more and more to be like Hillary as a calculating political opportunist, and I just don’t want that. I want someone who cares more about the citizenry he empowers than his own power. You don’t see Obama going for $400 haircuts, buying million dollar mansions, and putting his money in sometimes destructive hedge funds.
Obama’s message of the citizen imperative is the greatest message our country has seen since the days of the Kennedy’s. To sacrifice the opportunity to elect a visionary President for the opportunistic and inept Edwards seems a grave and regrettable mistake. I hope you will re-evaluate your candidate choice and see the true message that Obama sends to and encourages within our citizenry. It is more powerful than any confrontational divisive method that Edwards pursues.
drinksgreentea Tue 1 Jan 8:20 PM
please answer my question
How has Obama been opposing the war since he was elected to the Senate?
In what way has he been fighting to hasten the end of this war?
I have to laugh when an Obama supporter calls Edwards an opportunist. At least Edwards sees an opportunity in standing for core Democratic values, organized labor, etc.
Obama sees opportunity in vague rhetoric about hope and “bringing people together” and reinforcing right-wing stereotypes about Democrats being hostile to people of faith. Oh, and also being quick to compromise with Republicans and others advancing the corporate agenda (such as when he endorsed Harry Reid’s search for a mining reform bill “compromise” that would be less onerous for mining companies).
Obama has had tremendous media hype, but I don’t see his grand vision at all. The Republicans would eat him alive.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 1:05 AM
What a bunch of talking points
Your guy Edwards voted for the war. That’s a fact. Obama was against the war. That’s a fact too. Everything else is just blah blah blah spin.
If there’s one candidate that would contribute nothing, it’s Edwards. Remember in 2004 when John Edwards’ VP candidacy was going to deliver us all of the red states because he “talks like them”? Oops. That’s the same tired, unsubstantiated argument he’s making today. Fact is that he didn’t deliver anything. He got the chance but didn’t deliver.
Next.
snipehunter Wed 2 Jan 1:19 AM
the Kerry campaign didn't try to win red states
they didn’t send Edwards there, they didn’t run ads there.
I think Obama would be the absolute worst general-election candidate in our field. His negatives are already almost at 50 percent, and he’s still in the media honeymoon phase. By the time the GOP finishes defining him, we will be staring at a landslide loss.
Obama has never been through a tough campaign. He used to knock primary opponents off the ballot, he lucked out when his main Senate primary challenger had to quit, and then he got a joke of a general election opponent.
Edwards defeated a Republican incumbent in a red state.
Tell me again, what has Obama done since getting elected to the Senate to bring this war to an end?
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 1:26 AM
Wow...
That is some fear-mongering if I’ve ever read it. “The big bad GOP is gonna get Obama…he’s never had a tough campaign…” Blah blah blah. What is running for the Democratic nomination like? Is it easy? Can preschoolers do it? No. He has stayed on message, survived the Edwards/Hillary oppo squads, and is fine.
The same argument was made about Chet Culver. “He doesn’t have experience…blah blah blah.” Turns out that also meant he doesn’t have any embarrassing oppo. Jim Nussle, the guy with years of experience, took ton of bad votes. And Culver strolled to the victory. Because of this, Obama is the most electable.
Since leaving the Senate, all Edwards has done is bash the Republican party. How is he supposed to unite the country? Edwards has never been the front-runner. He has not been vetted by the media.
snipehunter Wed 2 Jan 1:35 AM
Edwards was vetted in 2004
Everything they would throw at him is old news.
I supported Fallon for governor. I will grant you that Culver turned out to be a stronger candidate than most people gave him credit for. The main reason was that he was put through a tough primary, during which he improved his skills as a campaigner.
Republicans are salivating at the prospect of running against Obama. If he’s the nominee, I will be 100 percent behind him and GOTV for him, but we will probably lose a lot of states we could win with other candidates.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 1:41 AM
A "tough primary..."
A primary against Ed Fallon and Mike Blouin is a “tough primary,” but a primary against Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson isn’t tough? That’s where I think you’re wearing rose colored glasses for Edwards.
snipehunter Wed 2 Jan 1:48 AM
not when the media are treating
Obama with kid gloves. It has been documented that Obama has received overwhelmingly more positive coverage than any other candidate. Only Hillary has received anything close to the same amount of coverage, and much of her coverage has been negative. The other candidates are basically not being covered at all by the media.
What the Republicans do to Obama will make the Clinton campaign’s memo on his “present” votes look like nothing.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 2:10 AM
The Media
Obama has received more positive coverage because he is less divisive and a more positive candidate than either Hillary or Edwards. That’s basically what it comes down to. Nothing else.
Sure, there may be some who think it’s an easier fight for Republicans against one Democratic candidate or another, but in the end, that is not what determines media coverage. It is not just the American media that views Obama positively either, it is the world media. Meaning, there is an innate characteristic that many people see and like in Obama. See, this is where Hillary and Edwards have it wrong. Edwards thought his mistake wasn’t in his likeability, but in his policy approach. So he became more aggressive with his policy approach, thus wooing those who are hardcore for his policy. He sacrificed his likeability to do this. Hillary thought her likeability was the problem, and she is mostly right. She is an excellent debater, politician, strategist, but she does not come off as a likeable and trustworthy person. She also is married to Bill Clinton, which inherently makes her divisive.
Obama has that innate characteristic that grapples attention. He understands that it is not one person, but many people that change the country. His supporters understand that as well. He is a visionary and also serves as a vehicle for the people’s vision of how the country should be. This is something Edwards and Hillary have not grasped and I do not think have the capability to do so. It is something that the Kennnedys had and something that MLK had.
These are not talking points. This is how I have felt since I learned about him in 2003-2004. There is an “it” and he has it.
drinksgreentea Wed 2 Jan 8:36 AM
More on Edwards's Negativity Against Obama
Quoted from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01…
Why our country needs hope. Obama is the guy.
Still Reeling After All These Years
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 1, 2008
It promised to be a very good year. But then anything would be better than 1967, with its angry kids burning the flag, and the war raging, and American cities going up in flames one after another.
A Page 1 headline in The New York Times said: “World Bids Adieu to a Violent Year.”
It seems impossible that 1968, the most incredible year of a most incredible decade, was 40 years ago. As the new year tiptoed in, Americans wrapped themselves as usual in the comfort of optimism. Snow fell on the revelers in Times Square. A threatened New York City subway strike was averted and the 20-cent fare maintained.
No one had a clue about what was in store. A friend of mine, looking back, said, “Sixty-eight was the whirlwind.”
It was a presidential election year, and The Times reported on Jan. 1 that G.O.P. leaders believed that Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York was the only Republican who could defeat Lyndon Johnson. Richard Nixon might give the president a good run, they said, but would probably lose. Ronald Reagan and the governor of Michigan, George Romney, would most likely lose decisively.
“The Sound of Music” and “Thoroughly Modern Millie” were hit movies, both starring Julie Andrews. “Hello Dolly” and “Fiddler on the Roof” were on Broadway. Ladies nylons at Gimbel’s were 88 cents a pair, and men’s dress shirts at Bloomingdale’s were three for $14.75.
Rock ‘n’ roll, drugs and long-haired young people who considered themselves hip were ubiquitous. But it was still a pretty innocent time. That would change.
One of the astonishing things about 1968 was how quickly each shocking, consciousness-altering event succeeded the last, leaving no time for people to reorient themselves. The mind-boggling occurrences seemed to come out of nowhere, like the Viet Cong who set off a depth charge beneath the Johnson presidency with the Tet offensive at the end of January.
When Walter Cronkite learned of the coordinated wave of attacks throughout South Vietnam by the Cong and North Vietnamese regulars he is reported to have said: “What the hell is going on? I thought we were winning this war.”
The nation shuddered. The U.S. had never lost a war, but now men padding around in black pajamas and flip-flops fashioned from discarded tires gave every appearance of battling the mightiest military on earth to a stalemate.
The New Hampshire primary was March 12. Eugene McCarthy, a quiet, cerebral and sometimes flaky senator from Minnesota who was calling for a negotiated settlement of the war, electrified the country and exposed the president’s political vulnerability by finishing second with 42 percent of the vote.
Within days, Bobby Kennedy, who had only recently said he could see no circumstances in which he would challenge Johnson, was challenging him. McCarthy was furious. Johnson was traumatized.
By the end of the month, Johnson had abandoned the race.
Euphoria reigned – among young people, and those opposed to the war, and those who believed that ordinary people of good will could change the world. For many, it was the peak moment of the 1960s.
It lasted just four days.
On April 3, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed in Memphis. Violence erupted in dozens of cities, and especially in Washington, where a number of people were killed and the fires were the worst the city had experienced since the British took the torch to it in 1814.
John J. Lindsay of Newsweek magazine said that when Bobby Kennedy was told that King had died, he put his hands to his face and murmured: “Oh, God. When is this violence going to stop?”
Kennedy himself was murdered two months later. I remember people not knowing what to say. The madness had been unleashed, and there seemed no way to rein it in.
There was much more to come, more war, the orgy of police violence at the Democratic convention in Chicago, the razor-thin election of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew over Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie in November.
But an awful lot of people tuned out after Kennedy was killed. That seemed to be when, for so many, the hope finally died. The nation has never really recovered from the bullet that killed R.F.K.
Arthur Schlesinger, in his biography of Kennedy, quotes Richard Harwood of The Washington Post:
“We discovered in 1968 this deep, almost mystical bond that existed between Robert Kennedy and the Other America. It was a disquieting experience for reporters. … We were forced to recognize in Watts and Gary and Chimney Rock that the real stake in the American political process involves not the fate of speechwriters and fund-raisers, but the lives of millions of people seeking hope out of despair.”
drinksgreentea Tue 1 Jan 8:47 PM
this goes beyond fair use
Please just provide a link and an excerpt of a few paragraphs.
I have great respect for Bob Herbert, but let’s not kid ourselves about the Obama campaign. Obama’s people had a flier printed in-house for distribution among union members, claiming that Edwards doesn’t have a strong pro-labor record (what a joke!).
Obama’s strategists have been working behind the scenes to get the national media to cover “Bill Clinton’s post-presidential sex life.”
Obama’s campaign put out an oppo research memo on NY Times columnist Paul Krugman of all people!
Spare me whining about other people’s “negativity.”
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 1:07 AM
Paul Krugman
Have you read Krugman lately? He has sounded like a broken record on Obama’s healthcare plan. Not only that, but he generalizes one stinking issue – the fact that Obama does not want to force us to purchase high cost health insurance – to Obama’s entire platform. I’m sorry, but Paul Krugman should stick to economics. When it comes to being an ideologue, he is off the deep end.
Sorry about the quote size. It seemed like some people here could use the good read.
drinksgreentea Wed 2 Jan 3:17 PM
3rd place for Hillary?
Could Hillary Clinton get 3rd place in Iowa? The final pre-caucus poll by the Des Moines Register suggests as much…
Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, up from 28 percent in the Register’s last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards was virtually unchanged at 24 percent.
The telephone survey of 800 likely Democratic caucusgoers was taken Dec. 27-30. Interestingly enough, support for Edwards rose significantly — by 3% — for those sampled in Dec. 27-28 versus those polled Dec. 29-30, while Clinton’s numbers have declined by 4% in that time period.
If this is an actual trend, as opposed to a statistical variance, then Hillary Clinton might find herself with a very disappointing 3rd place finish in Iowa… something likely to significantly impact her results going into the other primaries.
Interestingly enough, when respondents were asked which candidate best matched their core principles, 28% said Barack Obama, 25% said John Edwards, and 21% said Hillary Clinton.
Clinton campaign chief strategist Mark Penn — the guy who made a point of referring to Obama’s teenage cocaine use, even after Hillary’s campaign promised to stop bringing it up — tried to spin this bad news in a pretty negative way.
“The Des Moines Register poll adopts an unprecedented new turnout model for the caucuses, and its new poll is out of sync with the other polling done in the race. . . So we do not see this poll as accurately reflecting the trends we are seeing in other polls, on our nightly canvasses or in our own polls, and voters should understand this is a very close race, and that their participation on caucus night could make all of the difference.” Indeed. Mark Penn is annoyed that The Register is predicting that Iowans feel that this is a very important election, and that they are more motivated to caucus this time around. He’s annoyed that the Register aren’t ignoring the opinions of a higher percentage of Iowans, by writing them off as not being “likely voters”.
He is counting on independent-minded Iowans — young voters, first-time voters, disillusioned voters, voters tired of an unending, unaccountable conflict in Iraq, tired of sacrificing their rights and freedoms, tired of politics as usual — *NOT* to vote, because he believes that as long as enough people *DON”T* show up to causus, Hillary Clinton could win.
He’s right. This is a close race, and your participation on caucus night could make all the difference.
Go vote!
markkraft Tue 1 Jan 10:59 PM
a bit rich?!
“it’s a bit rich for an Obama supporter to complain about people backing other candidates trying to “buy” the Iowa caucuses, when Obama has spent more than $8 million on tv ads alone in Iowa.”
The difference is that Obama’s ads were paid for by donations made by millions of supporters under official election contribution rules, whereas John Edwards is effectively getting — and supporting a system of — free advertising above and beyond that.
The money supporting all those pro-Edwards issues ads are simply not accountable… it’s basically a massive loophole and end run around campaign finance laws, that both he and Hillary are exploiting.
They pretend they have no connection to such activities, and yet oftentimes key supporters from their campaigns are the ones now running these organizations, soliciting money from people, corporations, and organizations who otherwise would be barred from further spending in the election.
Frankly, I think it’s about time that a serious candidate is taking on these campaign finance loopholes and saying that they should be changed, whereas people like Hillary and Edwards appear to be addicted to a corrupt system, to the point that they compare the big money corruption of the system as a kind of right, equivalent to free speech.
Heaven forbid that a candidate like Obama suggest that lobbyists and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to buy elections!
markkraft Tue 1 Jan 11:10 PM
so you're against labor unions
spending money on behalf of candidates they support.
Strange position for a Democrat to take.
But convenient for you. The Obama campaign is saying on the one hand that Democrats should abandon other candidates because only Obama has the money to compete.
Then they complain when supporters of other candidates try to level the playing field.
I would prefer a system in which all candidates abided by public financing spending limits, but that’s not what we have.
And by the way, Obama does not have “millions” of campaign contributors. He does have an impressive six-figure number of contributors, I will grant you that.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 1:10 AM
In defense...
He’s saying it’s hypocritical to defend our 527 groups while attacking other 527s. It weakens your argument. It’s like attacking earmarks while filing earmarks. It doesn’t make sense.
It could be a union, a girl scout troop, whoever. The group doesn’t matter. Don’t get your underpants in a bunch.
snipehunter Wed 2 Jan 1:22 AM
I would prefer 100 percent public financing
which is why I donate to Public Campaign, which is working toward that end.
But we don’t have 100 percent public financing. If the SEIU wants to create a 527 to support Edwards, and its actions are legal, then I don’t have a problem with it.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 1:29 AM
In a presidential campaign, appearance is reality
I’m just saying, the public will say that’s hypocritical, even if it isn’t. A presidential candidate needs his/her appearance to be squeaky clean. If you’re fighting for the environment, you better not drive a hummer. If you’re fighting against poverty, don’t get a $400 haircut. If you’re fighting against 527s, don’t let them put up ads on your behalf.
snipehunter Wed 2 Jan 1:43 AM
Against labor unions?!
“so you’re against labor unions spending money on behalf of candidates they support”
No, I am saying I am FOR a fair, accountable system where individuals can choose to donate a non-enormous amount of money to a candidate.
If those individuals happen to be from a labor union, I am all for it… but if you ask me as a labor union member paying dues whether I want my dues spent on a candidate I don’t support… well, no, I don’t. Neither do I want a system in place where they can lean on me, expecting a contribution, as we currently see with these “bundlers” … a bunch of bigwigs extorting donations from their employees in exchange for kickbacks, and then turning those donations over to politicians in exchange for favors.
The difference between you and I is that apparently I believe in free elections and speech rights for individuals, whereas you believe that large entities should have the right to buy elections, because its a form of free speech. (That, btw, is essentially how Hillary described it at one debate.)
Sure, that might not be typical of a Clinton (or Edwards) era Democrat, but I would argue that it’s a helluva lot more democratic, and it will lead to a less corrupt government, for the people, by the people.
markkraft Wed 2 Jan 10:49 AM
We must be getting close
to caucus time. People are a bit edgy.
Related to the Obama/Edwards discussion, this was one of my favorite lines in Obama’s speech in Ames on New Year’s Eve:
“We don’t have a shortage of anger in Washington, we don’t have a shortage of bitter partisanship in Washington. We don’t need more heat, we need more light.”
Related to the electability issue with Obama, Edwards and Hillary, I think we must all realize they are all potentially very vulnerable. Desmoinesdem’s prediction about Obama’s weakness in the general could be true. You can make a valid argument for that. But you can certainly make the same argument for Edwards. And I think we all agree Hillary has very little room for error in the general.
As an Obama supporter, I also want to point out the flip side of this. I think he is the only one of the three that could potentially deliver us a landslide of some sort. I don’t think anyone can deny his appeal to independents and even many R’s. Many hardcore partisans may not like that, but at this point of time his broad appeal is undeniable.
rf Wed 2 Jan 11:31 AM
independents and Rs say they like Obama now
but when the right-wing hate machine gets through with him, he could well end up like Dukakis. Especially if he finds himself running against the even bigger media darling, McCain.
I think Edwards would keep a lot of small-town and rural voters moving back toward the Democrats, which would put many more states into play. It’s incredible that he still does better in many head to head matchups with Republicans than Obama does, given Obama’s enormous advantage in positive media coverage all year.
I agree with you that Hillary could never win in a landslide. The best we could hope for would be a narrow, hard-fought victory in the electoral college. We would gain fewer House and Senate seats with her at the top of the ticket as well.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 5:36 PM
Same holds for Edwards
As he has pretty much been getting a free ride in this cycle. Once his conversions are truly vetted, he could end up just like Kerry, or much worse. Plus, I’m not convinced Edwards can even carry his own state.
To me, the bottom line is that you never know what attacks are going to stick. I have to say Obama has been very good at pushing back against the Clinton machine. He could very well do the same in the general.
For the record, I appreciate all the people who post on this and other Iowa blogs. It creates a great forum for discussion. It’s unfortunate that the tone has gotten a bit negative as we are getting close to the big day.
rf Wed 2 Jan 10:13 PM
you must be joking
Practically every story about Edwards mentions the $400 haircut, never with the context that it was late at night and he paid the guy for the time he spent coming to and from Edwards’ hotel as well as the haircut, etc. No other candidates’ expenditures have been scrutinized to look for a comparable thing. Hillary supposedly spent more than $6K on flowers for a fundraiser, but no one cares.
Edwards has gotten minimal attention from the national media, and the stories that do mention him often cast him in a negative light.
I find it interesting that the media loves stories about rich philanthropists doing something charitable for poor people. But suddenly when a wealthy politician wants to do something for poor people, that makes him a hypocrite.
FDR lived in a pretty nice house, and it didn’t mean that he wasn’t sincere in his desire to improve the lives of poor people.
desmoinesdem Wed 2 Jan 11:22 PM