- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton, Obama Take No Funding Pledge
September 17, 2007 6:19 PM
ABC News' Teddy Davis, Jonathan Greenberger, and Donna Hunter Report: Seventy-two hours after MoveOn.org threw down the gauntlet, telling ABC News that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., needed to speak out "sooner and more vocally" in opposition to voting for an Iraq funding measure that does not include a timetable for withdrawal, both Democratic presidential contenders have done exactly that.
"I have voted against funding this war and I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes," Clinton told the Service Employees International Union on Monday in Washington, D.C.
Clinton's comments came one day after Obama made a similar pledge.
"If there is a funding bill that does not have a timetable for when we begin withdrawal, and the completion -- a plan for how that withdrawal will proceed -- I will not support it," said Obama on Sunday during a wide-ranging foreign policy discussion at Des Moines' First Christian Church.
Prior to Clinton's Monday pledge, a third Democratic presidential candidate -- Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd -- issued a statement saying the silence from Clinton on funding without a timetable was "deafening."
A fourth Democratic presidential contender -- former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards -- was critical of Clinton and Obama for not speaking out sooner and more forcefully on the May 24 war funding bill which did not include a timetable for withdrawal. Like Dodd and MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser, Edwards had been pressuring Clinton and Obama to take a clear stand in advance of the next war funding vote.
One striking parallel between the May 24 war funding vote and the current debate is that Clinton followed Obama on both occasions.
Back in May, she waited for Obama to vote before casting her own vote against war funding without a timetable. This time, she did not make her plans to vote against war funding clear until after Obama took a similar step the day before.
September 17, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (13)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
...the fact that Hillary and Obama subject themselves to the whims of those little socialist pukes driving Movon.org makes me completely sick. They don't even realize they are being driven by an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. And everybody talks about about Bush/Cheney being driven by the oil companies! That's nothing compared to this mess.
Posted by: parkerknoll | Sep 17, 2007 7:25:19 PM
"An organization dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S" are you sure you aren't mixed up Moveon with the Republican Party? I think now the GOP hate the 14th Amendment. It's hard to keep up. Conservatives has so much hatred for the US Constitution.
Posted by: Mike Johnson | Sep 17, 2007 9:46:56 PM
WOW, Speak for yourself, I think the Bush-Cheney Oil relationship is MUCH bigger. I defend the part of our Constitution that provides "Freedom of Speech", even when it was used AGAINST John Kerry, (which still turns my stomach).
Posted by: Independent | Sep 17, 2007 9:55:46 PM
I think the title for this, "Clintn and Obama cater to Moveon.org" is very misleading. And as much as I like George S. ... I really was offended that he quoted Karl Rove in regards to Sen. Clinton this past week-end ... as we know, if we repeat a lie enough times ... people will accept it as the truth ... which it wasn't.
Posted by: Hank | Sep 18, 2007 12:35:33 AM
MoveOn spoke the truth, unlike the Swiftboat Veterans group. I think it's great we have a constitution that guarantee's them the right to do so. I think a number of people doing the crying need to dig out their history books and read that document, including Guiliani. Let him spend his money fighting against constitutional rights instead of trying to come up with a plan on just how he intends to handle the major issues; which he hasn't done. This is a dead issue. It's time to MoveOn.
Posted by: GC | Sep 18, 2007 2:05:18 AM
It took candidate John Edwards, and later Moveon.org to throw down the gauntlet on the "no timetable, no funding" threat.
I'm a member of Moveon, and as far as you can get from a "socialist". I am for higher taxes on the wealthy, esp. hedge fund managers. I'm also for heavy regulation and transparency for the banking industry and military contractors. No transparency, no contract.
And, how about, breaking up Halliburton so that we're not dependent on one company to do all this military contracting?
I've had enough of using foreign policy to cause trouble in some part of the world for war profits. Impeach Cheney and every signer to the PNAC bs.
Just put W in a remedial reading class in some alkie rehab facility.
Posted by: KurtSteele | Sep 18, 2007 5:03:45 AM
I am a member of moveon, and I feel they do represent American values. We are fighting to end this war, bring back the Constitution, correct our foreign policy, and urge people to rely on natural energies. That's just good common sense. These are also the values of Obama which is why I support him 100%. Anyone who supports these goals are people who are concerned about the future of this country, and correcting the blunders that we are currently struggling to overcome. There is nothing trivial or casual about any of our country's problem, and it will that this entire country from the leaders to each individual citizen to bring this country back to the greatness we can be. We must start now! We don't have another 4 years to be wrong.
Posted by: mizonglohong | Sep 18, 2007 6:54:01 AM
Lets all cut out the garbage, the political system is a mess with both parties because they are mired in favortisum with their "friends". The House and Senate pass bills with known loopholes so their "friends" can make a profit from the public. The legal system is pretty much of a joke with some Judges ruling whatever way they want without rebuke and its cost prohibitive for a normal person to go to court for anything (unless they sue a rich person/company). But on a positve note, its better living in the US than in Iran, China or North Korea.
Posted by: Common Sense | Sep 18, 2007 10:54:17 AM
Man, these whiney little snot-nosed neocons can't take it when something is said against one of "theirs". It's okay when the rat-faced little drudges call Dems everything from liberals to traitors, then they scream first amendment. But don't let anyone else exercise their first amendment rights, only the neocons can do that. Suck it up neocons and take it on the chin once in a while and quit being such a bunch of crybabys! It's only going to get tougher for you down the road this time around.
Posted by: Ron | Sep 18, 2007 12:12:07 PM
Kurt Steele: how do you profess to be far from a socialist yet at the same time advocate taxing the rich and favor heavy regulation? I thought those terms were on the resume of every good socialist. Moveon.org is an extreme leftist group largely out of touch with mainstream America. Most are aging Communists and Socialists with no purpose in life other than tearing down this country. Oh, and Mizong, oil (like nuclear energy that I'm sure you are against)is as natural an energy as the feckless wind energy I'm sure you advocate. Do you people actually believe all that you claim? Either way, it's enjoyable because you have become farcical.
Posted by: Jerryemt2001 | Sep 18, 2007 1:36:20 PM
MoveDemOn runs the democrat party now. The party has been taken over by extremists. Funny, they hate conservative extremism in the republican party and their response is to fringe out the democrat party to meet republican extremists. General Patreus was unanimously approved for the job, but if he didn't create a report that demanded our defeat in Iraq, the MoveOn.orgers were going to trash him. Nothing more than I voted for the General before I voted against him. MoveOn.org and the democrats, like the terrorists, can not afford to be beaten in the war on terror. The only acceptable solution is for the US to be defeated by terrorism. The democrats have admitted that if things go well in Iraq, it is very bad for democrats. That's pretty sad when you choose the side of your enemy and build a political platform around it.
Posted by: TexBork | Sep 18, 2007 3:21:10 PM
Okay...so much talk, but what do they mean and what are the plans...when...
"We are fighting to end this war" then what? we pull out, and who takes over? Do we just leave them to civil war or allow Iran and Syria to move in??
and "bring back the Constitution" also, "correct our foreign policy" how? specifically, what would you change? and lastly "urge people to rely on natural energies"... um, is oil not naturally for the earth? so, what Electric? What do we burn to make electricity?
Posted by: Charlie Morris | Sep 25, 2007 12:01:46 PM
So you say, "we are now ruled by a group of pathological liars and murderers, it's time for someone to stand up and speak the truth." I guess then Hillary, Kerry, Gore, and the other Dems (not to mention the rest of the world) also stood up, said yes there are WMD in Iraq, and Saddam must be stopped, they weren't lying? They made those claims not when Bush was in office, but during the Clinton Presidency...Come on. I find it laughable when they left claims it was all Bush led lies... Everyone believed they had WMD, and to a lesser extent they did have them... God knows let's stop the name calling, everyone in DC lives in a glass house, the Dems and the GOP...No one is immune.
Posted by: Charlie Morris | Sep 25, 2007 12:08:18 PM
Post a comment



