RECENT POSTS
- Obama Calls for Annual Science Fair: Achievement Should be Recognized like NCAA Championship Win
- Obama Decision on Copenhagen Summit Attendance “In the Coming Days”
- Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
- President Obama Calls 9th War Council Meeting for Tonight
- Health Care Hurdles
- The Presidential Planner
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Debate Tip: Look for Palin to Use Biden's Own Words to Attack Obama
October 02, 2008 9:25 AM
In an interview with Sean Hannity this week, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin focused on a foreign policy flip-flop by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: his May 24, 2007 vote against reauthorizing funding for U.S. troops in Iraq because the bill did not include a timetable for troop withdrawal.
“Proposing and voting for cutting off funding for our troops while they're in a war zone is so reckless and so political,” Palin said. “And Biden had even called Obama on that one. Remember, he said, 'Obama, your move there was political, and it’s gonna cost lives.' And yet, Obama, after promising that he would not cut off funding for troops in the war zone, he voted to do so anyway.”
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala, who covers Palin, suggests that she will use this line of attack this evening at the first and only vice presidential debate in St. Louis.
“So reckless, irresponsible -- we're gonna lay that out there and again let Americans judge for themselves who they would like to see as commander in chief: John McCain, who knows how to win a war, or Sen. Obama, who has voted to cut off funding for our troops?” Palin continued, repeating a charge that the McCain-Palin campaign is also making in a TV ad that also uses Sen. Joe Biden's words against Obama.
"My colleagues voted against the funding to make a political point," Biden said in Des Moines after the vote. "There's no political point worth my son's life. There's no political point worth anyone's life."
Biden's son Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, will deploy to Iraq this year as a member of the National Guard.
Among other comments Biden made, hammering that vote, the loquacious Blue Hen told "Meet the Press," "I am not going to fail to protect these kids as long as we have a single, solitary troop in Iraq. This isn’t cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops."
**
To step back in time to that May 2007 day, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were eyeing each other like scorpions in a bottle as they prepared to do battle for the votes of anti-war liberals in Iowa and elsewhere.
Neither candidate would discuss the vote before it was cast. Both were among the last dozen or so to vote; Obama slipped in quietly onto the Senate floor at close to 8:45 p.m., said hi to some colleagues, approached the desk, quietly said "No," and left. Only seconds later, Clinton did the same.
Both Clinton and Obama had said they wouldn’t vote against funding the troops, and both flip-flopped.
In March 2007, Obama had told CNN, "what you don't want to do is to play chicken to -- with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor; you don't have reinforced Humvees; you don't have night-vision goggles."
But in May, he was singing a different tune.
"This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives, and demanding a new one," Obama said in a statement. "And I am demanding a new one."
Clinton, in a statement, said she voted against the legislation "because it fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq." She said she wished President Bush "had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent, which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment."
Obama's vote was out of the mainstream not only for the Senate as a whole -- the troop funding bill passed 80-14 -- as well as for Democratic senators, it was even out of the mainstream for war opponents in the Senate.
Of the 16 sitting senators who voted against going to war to begin with, 11 voted to provide funds for U.S. troops.
"Though I loathe this decision to fund the war, I will not take out my feelings against the troops in the field," said Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who voted against authorizing use of force in Iraq in October 2002. "Our soldiers should never be bargaining chips in this debate."
Durbin was joined by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chair of the Armed Services Committee, who also voted against going to war six years ago this month.
"I cannot vote to stop funding our troops who are in harm's way," Levin said. "It is not the proper way that we can bring this war to an end. It is not the proper way that we can put pressure on Iraqi leaders."
**
McCain raised the issue in the first presidential debate.
"Sen. Obama, who, after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said.
"Let's talk about this troop funding issue because John always brings this up," Obama responded. "Sen. McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn't believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open-ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable. We didn't have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops."
But it might be more problematic for Biden to defend Obama on the vote, which Palin will assuredly raise in this evening's debate. Biden has already criticized the vote as pandering that could cost American lives. How do you walk that statement back?
- jpt
October 2, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (102)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As she said herself:
"I have been at this only 5 weeks!"
The presence of Joe Biden over shadowed hers and his experience was an impenetrable fortress.
Posted by: The Raz | Oct 2, 2008 11:43:47 PM
Ben writes: "Barak Obama seems to me to be the quintessential American success story"
You gotta be kidding me!
A guy who uses his college education to become a "community organizer," and from there goes right into politics, is the "quintessential American success story"???
Since when?
"Community Organizer" is just a euphemism for "political agitator".
And politicians produce NOTHING. They generate no wealth. They make no scientific discoveries. All they do is run for office.
The "quintessential American success story" is a guy who CREATES something: A car (Henry Ford). A Polaroid camera (Edwin Land). Or a guy who SOLVES something: How to make liquid-fueled rockets (Robert Goddard).
"Community organizers" and politicians are drones. They organize and redistribute the wealth produced by the productive in our society.
Posted by: sinz52 | Oct 2, 2008 8:39:05 PM
Enough of the war...How can you win democracy at gun point...When Bush bullied his way into office..the United States of America was sound and secure fiancially.. Instead of Bush just having a few friends over and continuing a sound a responsible plan he decides on funding a war....EnOuGh with the foolishness my childern's future is at stake and my sanity as well..
Posted by: Lakisha | Oct 2, 2008 4:38:24 PM
Staged "debate" dance now ready for 24/7 consumption.
Bailout Barack Obama w/partner Bailout John McCain.
Full-spectrum media suppression/distortion
target Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.
Your vote is your power,
they fear it, use it.
Posted by: Paul & Nader v Bailout! | Oct 2, 2008 3:49:12 PM
Why are the McCain campaign such a bunch of whiners?
Interviews are too tough
Reality making issues the central focus of the campaign vs their preference for personality.
The moderator is biased.
Is that going to be his strategy as President?
Just complaining about problems and assigning blame?
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 2, 2008 2:43:44 PM
"If Ifill thinks questioning her conflict of interest (she stands to make millions if Obama wins) is racial or racist then that alone is a red flag for me. If she says she doesn’t understand why that would concern people, she is either a liar and unethical or foolish and out of touch. Since she played the race card, I think she is all of the above.
Ifill didn’t tell the commision about her pro-Obama book (book also touts Axelrod’s other protege, Deval Patrick), and so the commision should remove her or Ifill should announce a full disclosure statement at beginning of debate so that the viewers know."
-----
Axelrod's OTHER protege isn't doing so hot in office, either, and Obama's been a nothing as a US Senator, as he was a nothing as an Illinois Senator.
Ifill should be replaced. Explaining her financial and ethical conflict to the audience when the debate begins won't do much good, since people don't necessarily tune in to these things at the beginning.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Oct 2, 2008 2:35:30 PM
THE TOP OF THE TICKET IS WHACKED, EVEN IF SARAH PALIN SOUNDS LIKE EINSTEIN, WE STILL HAVE JOHN MCCAIN... THE DEBATE IS NO SHOW CHANGER !ALSO, SHAME ON THE MEDIA, THEY KEEP CHANGING THE STATE POLL RESULTS TO KEEP THE GAME APPEARING TO BE CLOSER THAN IT ACTUALLY IS... THIS IS A SICK EXAMPLE OF FALSE SUSPENSE. - SELL MORE AIRTIME, OR SINISTERLY, MAYBE THIS IS ABOUT "CHADSMASHIP". mAYBE SOMEBODY WANTS IT TO BE WITHIN STEALING DISTANCE AGAIN....
Posted by: Curtis | Oct 2, 2008 2:13:58 PM
Ah, good ol' Geevill back again to malign Joe Biden. Same old, same old.
MEW makes much of small things.
Posted by: Donna Hughes | Oct 2, 2008 2:00:32 PM
or his war escapades. or his football playing and coal mining days despite the severe asthma which miraculusly disappeared almost as fast as it appeared when Biden was disqualified from the draft.
Posted by: geevill | Oct 2, 2008 1:05:44 PM
Donna Hughes:
'General Petraeus is a reader of Lawrence and it is Lawrence's principles of paying and working with the local sheiks that have been one of the three reasons why things are calmer in Iraq. Joe Biden's plan for Iraq was also one that took history into account, and though it was never officially used,......'
Posted by: Donna Hughes | Oct 2, 2008 11:36:12 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Donna, Joe is a master on history, hum... don't think I would be quoting him so readily. Remmber FDR being on TV?
Posted by: MEW | Oct 2, 2008 1:03:33 PM
I look forward to Joe telling about that great night in 1929 when President FDR addressed the nation on Televison.
Posted by: geevill | Oct 2, 2008 1:02:29 PM
"You have your opinions, and you are entitled to them. I have mine, to which I am entitled. Neither of them are graven into stone as absolute truths."
On that, we have consensus, Ms. Hughes. Thanks for the exchange. It's rewarding to do this with someone who does read the harder texts.
Posted by: len | Oct 2, 2008 12:37:24 PM
Len,
You have your opinions, and you are entitled to them. I have mine, to which I am entitled. Neither of them are graven into stone as absolute truths.
Posted by: Donna Hughes | Oct 2, 2008 12:22:56 PM
Donna sez: "The fact that you didn't have the gumption to read all of SPOW, says a lot."
I know when to put down a text when the author strays into self-pitying irrelevancies. Everything you say about Petraeus is true. He is a fine general and his surge tactics snatched victory from the certain defeat that Obama was satisified with for his own deeply flawed agenda.
Every serious military man reads SPoW but they understand that Lawrence was a deeply flawed man who used the Arabs for his own deeply flawed purposes. The lessons you mention are all covered in the first quarter of the book.
Anyone who would imitate TE's character would be a self-sadistic soul. He was talented but a fool's fool. Providence saw to it Petraeus was cut from different cloth.
Posted by: len | Oct 2, 2008 12:17:03 PM
I realize you were talking about his father, Flag Pin. And I agree with you that his father was not an admirable person. But given that, I'm wondering why you wouldn't have all the more admiration for the son, who turned his low beginnings into so much success.
Posted by: Ben | Oct 2, 2008 12:15:57 PM
Ben wrote: Barak Obama seems to me to be the quintessential American success story -- mixed-race son of a single mother uses his intelligence and work ethic to get a superlative education. Instead of turning his talents into a high income job in business, he works to improve his country at the local community level. His talents are recognized and he rises through politics to be a candidate for president of the nation.
Isn't that the fabled American dream we're all supposed to share and admire, Flag Pin?
----------------------------------------
Ooop....are you talking about his father Barak Obama Sr? I was talking about Obama Sr. not Jr.
Posted by: no flag pin needed for McCain | Oct 2, 2008 12:07:15 PM
No Flag Pin wrote: I don't want to see someone whose father ccame to American, took all the best (education at University of Hawaii and Harvard and two beautiful white American women)and didn't even served this country
*************
Barak Obama seems to me to be the quintessential American success story -- mixed-race son of a single mother uses his intelligence and work ethic to get a superlative education. Instead of turning his talents into a high income job in business, he works to improve his country at the local community level. His talents are recognized and he rises through politics to be a candidate for president of the nation.
Isn't that the fabled American dream we're all supposed to share and admire, Flag Pin?
Posted by: Ben | Oct 2, 2008 11:58:21 AM
mary.jane : Your argument is ironic, considering McCain's refusal to release his medical records. With his four malignant skin cancer relapses, statistically there's only a 38% chance he'll survive through 2010. And that's only one of his conditions that we know about. I for one, do not think our country would be safe in the hands of "President Palin."
----------------------------------------
At least skin cancer is not as scary as hiding facts about Obama.... No one can say 100% sure that he'll die while he's in the office if he wins. I'm sure there can even be his second term. Look at his mother, who is 96 but looks like 76. I'm glad to say that McCain's team didn't come out with "fight McCain's health rumors" website.
If McCain wins, Palin will have (4) yers of VP experience and if he wins the second term, Palin will have (8) years of experience. Then, she'll be ready to run for President. She is still alot better than Obama, who talks bbig with little experience. Consider that, he loves himself too much that he wrote (2) memoirs about him at the age of 44. Writing memoirs and book signign tours and this campaign took (3) years of his senate term.
Posted by: No Obama for this Election | Oct 2, 2008 11:57:07 AM
Your argument is ironic, considering McCain's refusal to release his medical records. With his four malignant skin cancer relapses, statistically there's only a 38% chance he'll survive through 2010. And that's only one of his conditions that we know about.
I for one, do not think our country would be safe in the hands of "President Palin."
Posted by: mary.jane
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =
Did Obama release his medical records?
If so they would be fake, just like his birthcertificate. Melanoma has been around for years...and a person can survive for 45 years with it if caught in time, and I believe all records say that his was. 45 years is a fact...I know.
Remember Truman..think he did a good job. Palin is much like him.
Posted by: MEW | Oct 2, 2008 11:56:32 AM
'General Petraeus is a reader of Lawrence and it is Lawrence's principles of paying and working with the local sheiks that have been one of the three reasons why things are calmer in Iraq. Joe Biden's plan for Iraq was also one that took history into account, and though it was never officially used,......'
Posted by: Donna Hughes | Oct 2, 2008 11:36:12 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Donna, Joe is a master on history, hum... don't think I would be quoting him so readily. Remmber FDR being on TV?
Posted by: MEW | Oct 2, 2008 11:46:41 AM
Post a comment
