Voters’ Decision: Barack Obama or Bill Clinton?

Posted January 25th, 2008 by Josh

I’ll keep this short and sweet: we already knew that Hillary was running on Bill’s record (”35 years of experience”). Now he’s running the whole campaign.

Next time she says, “He not on this stage, I am” I’m going to freak out. If she wants to run as herself than maybe she should get him to shut up for two seconds. She can’t control her husband, how could she run a country?

Did I miss something, or was Hillary supposed to running to be the first woman president? It looks like Bill could end up being the first black president and the first woman. Pretty remarkable for a white dude from Arkansas.

It’s ironic that Bill claims that Obama was not always against the war, and claimed that he (former President Clinton) was “from the beginning,” because evidence points to the opposite in both cases.

Below is a speech by someone who actually opposed the most foolish American war in two generations. If there were a similar speech by the Clintons I would provide it. Instead you can look at her very carefully worded speech on the Senate floor that gave her political cover no matter what happened. You can read that here. Then read these words of courage and conviction by Senator Obama:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Read this speech, and read it carefully, because he is right on every single point that he makes. These are the words of someone with the vision and the courage the speak the truth. There is only one serious candidate for president who showed judgment, candor, and foresight. Those who do not want to re-fight the arguments of the past surely were not correct. Judgment and wisdom matter.

Some of us are right, and some of us are wrong

-Senator Hillary Clinton, January 7, 2008

Senator Clinton, truer words have rarely been spoken.

Share This

5 Responses to: “Voters’ Decision: Barack Obama or Bill Clinton?”

  1. Eric responds:
    Posted: January 25th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    there’s a point to be made that obama deftly dodged iraq war issues when it was more popular and voted for funding every single time.
    this is not necessarily discrepant, but it certainly raises questions.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?th&emc=th

  2. Josh responds:
    Posted: January 25th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Yesterday Clinton-supporter Carville talked about how the Times folks were slanting stories for Obama (on Imus). Guess they are wise now.

    Obama supported funding the troops because that was the appropriate decision. His record about being against the war is crystal clear. The time that Bill Clinton refers to is when he graciously did not embarrass war hero John Kerry for his foolish vote, which, unlike Hillary, the former nominee has admitted was a mistake.

    “Some of us are right, and some of us are wrong”

    Ironic that Hillary is so eager to point this out.

  3. Eric responds:
    Posted: January 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am

    i saw Carville on today. the guy is a little out of it.

  4. Pappi responds:
    Posted: January 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Didn’t see Carville, but isn’t the Clintons’ whole message that the media is out to get them?

    I love that Carville’s psycho wife backed Fred Thompson.

  5. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: January 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Obama smashed Billary/Hilla-monster 55% to 26%.

Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:


Enter Your Comments:

Comments are subject to approval. If your comment does not immediately appear please be patient



Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.