RECENT POSTS
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream
January 30, 2008 1:57 PM
It was January 17, 2001, and Illinois state senator Barack Obama was on WTTW11’s “Chicago Tonight."
Discussing his opposition to Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, Obama praised newly-elected President Bush's new nominee for Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
“The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I dont think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.
"So I don’t want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive," Obama continued. "I think it’s legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn’t agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman’s right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn’t be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don’t think I would object. And I think that’s a fair position to take.”
You can watch the specific part about Rumsfeld HERE ….which some Democrats may not particularly care for….
Rumsfeld danced through his confirmation hearings and was confirmed by the Senate in a voice vote, meaning no one -- including then-newly elected Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY -- objected.
But some liberal voices opposed him from the get-go.
"Rumsfeld is a throwback to Reagan- era approaches to defense policy and spending," editorialized The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal "'Donald Rumsfeld is a dyed-in-the-wool hawk,' says John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. The record confirms that assessment. Rumsfeld's unquestioning support of the Star Wars national missile defense plan; his support for flawed weapon systems such as the B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear missile and the MX missile; and his history of opposition to the SALT II nuclear arms treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war mark him as a primitive Cold Warrior.
Concluded the liberal newspaper, "Rumsfeld belongs in the history books, not in the Cabinet."
I should note that this video clip did not come to me from the Clinton campaign or anyone affiliated with her operation -- though I suspect it may be something her campaign tries to use against Obama, to paint him as insufficiently Democratic.
The underlying question that this clip raises with me is -- what else is there about Obama that we don't know about? What other clips? What other comments?
Obama is on the cusp of doing well on Super Duper Tuesday and has still never had a negative TV ad run against him, and it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is correct in her implication -- he has not been fully "vetted."
There's a lot voters -- and the media -- do not know about him.
- jpt
January 30, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (152)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
But we do know about “Whitewater." Travelgate, Filegate, missing billing records, lying under oath, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie and that's perfectly fine. So what seems to be the problem?
Posted by: sam | Jan 31, 2008 11:26:02 AM
"dionysus " writes: "This is STUPID!!! In January 2001, everyone thought Bush could do no wrong."
You couldn't be more wrong.
I -- and a lot of other people -- tried our best to get Al Gore elected. We KNEW the truth about George W. Bush because we had done our homework.
Do not ever think "everyone thought Bush could do no wrong."
If that had been the case, how would you explain the fact that Al Gore garnered a half million MORE votes than Bush did?
Do not ever try to explain this stupid Obama comment away by saying "everyone thought Bush could do no wrong."
The point is that Obama's judgment is NO better than anyone else's. He's just another politician: he has good points and weak points.
And in this case where he credited Bush (when Bush announced who his Cabinet members would be) with picking people in "mainstream of American political life," Obama displayed his poor judgment.
Posted by: Dream | Jan 31, 2008 11:24:45 AM
Thanks for the OBAMA bio BOB...I am a Kucinich fan who now backs Obama without knowing half of the BIO you posted. Keep posting as the HILLARYITES at absqueeze network can't quite print stuff like that...YET!!! My last post lasted a few minutes, hope somebody saw it, as I can say it again somewhere else.
dear MILITARY...I plan a payback for the GANDER deaths that happened during ronnie rayguns reign...curious how the powers that be cover for such as that...
Posted by: daddyblue | Jan 31, 2008 10:36:52 AM
So I'm wondering. In all this digging you think needs to be done, do you plan on informing people of Obama's spectacular successes as a community organizer, constitutional lawyer and legislator? Or are you only going to focus on nit-picking old quotes that you don't really put into context. (e.g. - um, most people thought Rumsfield was a good balance of experience for an inexperienced president.)
Why don't you tell your readers how Obama has accomplished things over the years? He has risen not because he gives good speech, but because he has truly impressed his co-workers at his abilities to get things done that no one else had managed: video surveillance of interrogations/confessions in Illinois and ethics reform in the US Senate are two examples. Talk to his opponents on those as see how they feel about the outcome. In both cases he was expected to fail spectacularly and ending up passing legislation with everybody's praise.
This is why Obama supporters want him in office. They like THE WAY he gets things done. He's a stark contrast to the contentious style of the Clintons.
Posted by: allison | Jan 31, 2008 10:23:28 AM
The people who are blindly following and making excuses for Obama remind me of the people who blindly accepted the WMD argument. Whether on the extreme political right or extreme political left, people are easily manipulated and cannot independently gather all the facts and analyze situations. What a sad statement about the level of intelligence in America.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 31, 2008 10:21:45 AM
What about Hillary's attacks against Obama in Iowa, NH (I live here so I saw them first hand), NV, and SC? I'm sorry but you are peddling false information once again.
Posted by: Janet | Jan 31, 2008 10:21:01 AM
Thanks Jake for finally asking the questions that all of your colleagues on networks all across the dial should have been asking!!!
Posted by: Sugar | Jan 31, 2008 10:14:01 AM
Each time Hillary wants to be listened she runs to ABC. You work for ABC, obviously favor Hillary and want to be taken as a credible source. Once again, this reafirms my position about Obama. He is my candidate. I can't even start thinking about all the scandals, contradictions and flip flops that Hillary Clinton was involved. Desperate and dirty tactics used by desperate politicians and their aids. Say and do anything so you can win.
Posted by: Margarita | Jan 31, 2008 10:00:18 AM
This is STUPID!!! In January 2001, everyone thought Bush could do no wrong. And if he did Cheney and Powell would guide him to the right path.
When Obama made these comments, Bush hadn't even been sworn in yet!!!
If you want to find dirt on Obama, you'll have to do better than this......sheeeeeeeeesssssh!!
Posted by: dionysus | Jan 31, 2008 9:49:47 AM
Pathetic. This constitutes reporting?
Obama clearly was using his remarks about Rumsfeld as ballast against his rejection of Ashford. This is what politicians, and the rest of us, tend to do when giving bad news: look for some honey to help the medicine go down. Many of the posters here have pointed out the tide that Rumsfeld was surfing at the time, one that Hillary thought impressive to avoid by voting to confirm him.
Posted by: Tod | Jan 31, 2008 9:08:06 AM
This is patently ridiculous. This is such a blatantly transparent shill job that it doesn't even deserve a response. I know you aren't better than this but please.
Posted by: Casey | Jan 31, 2008 9:05:46 AM
This is a non-story. Have you seen Senator Lincoln Chafee's recent story about how the Senate Democrats, including Hillary, disregarded their Constitutional responsibility in authorizing the Iraq War. Chaffee said it was a disgrace that these senators went along with Bush solely for political reasons and they knew there was no case for war. They all wanted to look "tough" and thought the war would be a walk in the park and popular like the first gulf war. That's the real story and Hillary to this is unaplologetic.
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 31, 2008 9:04:52 AM
"Unite that!"
You are a clown.
Posted by: Mark | Jan 31, 2008 8:56:17 AM
You know what, I know absolutely NOTHING about Barack Obama other than he gives a pretty good speech. That doesn't cut it for me, and it doesn't cut it for the majority of Democrats. I'm done arguing with you cult of personality idiots. Those of us with clearer heads are taking back the white house! For REAL democrats!
Unite that!
Posted by: Kat | Jan 31, 2008 8:53:52 AM
So, every other Democrat who voted to confirm Rumsfeld is also unworthy of holding the office of President?! I'm sure the Republicans will use this video or vote against both Obama and Hillary in the general. This is news unworthy of any time or space.
Posted by: SJ | Jan 31, 2008 6:34:41 AM
Wow.
This is really devastating.
If I had known this about Obama... well... my goodness... I just don't know WHAT I would have done.
I just don't know...
Vote for him, I guess.
Thanks, Jake.
That... was... close.
Posted by: Victor Bond | Jan 31, 2008 5:49:01 AM
Yea, if that is all we can find the media can find about Obama, he gets my vote.
How the media distorts the truth, points out unbalanced reports, . . . the media, you just increased my love and respect for Obama.
Posted by: Habtom | Jan 31, 2008 5:34:11 AM
Please. Stop with the "everyone thought Rumsfeld was a great guy" arguments. I didn't. The Capital Times didn't. W's supporters trot out the "everyone thought Saddam had WMD's" BS every chance they get, and they get rightly torched for it. With Edwards out I'm now an Obama supporter, but he better be ready to address crap like this.
Posted by: Zeke | Jan 31, 2008 4:48:30 AM
If this is a story, here's a brand new novella in the life of the Clinton's. Hillary should be careful about this vetting stuff...vetting starts at home...
Posted by: Chris | Jan 31, 2008 1:49:30 AM
Joe is absolutely dead-on right about this. This is a pathetic post. It's even picked up by the likes of Taylor Marsh. The Clintonistas embarrass all Democrats with the triviality.
Posted by: Vigilante | Jan 31, 2008 1:42:40 AM
Post a comment
