Durbin’s Hypocrisy

I have watched an interesting pattern develop for some time now, that I know others have observed as well. When Hillary Clinton or any of her surrogates attempt to draw distinctions between herself and Barack Obama, they are accused of attacking Barack Obama personally. Yet, team Obama gets away with just about whatever they say about Clinton. That’s hypocrisy in my book. Here’s a prime example of an Obama surrogate calling foul on something voters have a right to look at:

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking party leader in the Senate, says President Bill Clinton’s comments about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are getting “too personal” and called on the former president to refrain from attacking Obama’s integrity.

“I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq,” Durbin said. “I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.”

If Barack Obama’s voting record on the Iraq war was consistent with his early stance against the war, no one would be questioning his “on the war.” But the fact is when Barack Obama had the opportunities to vote his conscience against the Iraq War once in the Senate he did not. 

Dick Durbin, who was one of the 13 Senators to vote yes on the Kerry – Feingold amendment on June 22, 2006, knows damn well that Barack Obama was not among the 13. The Swamp has a piece from that day that points to the division between Durbin and Obama on the Kerry – Feingold amendment. Indeed, Obama who consistently attempts to paint himself as taking a differnet stance on the Iraq War than Clinton, “essentially the same position as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who praised the Levin-Reed amendment while criticizing Republicans for engaging in cynical politics for questioning the patriotism of war opponents.”

As Hillary Clinton rightly pointed out today on Meet The Press in discussing Obama’s record in the Senate on the Iraq War, “by 2005, 6, and 7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war.”

Big Tent Democrat has more on Durbin’s “phony moralizing.” While I admire Barack Obama’s early stance against the Iraq War, I have long felt that he has not been consistent with that stance and furthermore his claims that he is are hyprocritical. On the other hand, while Clinton did cast her vote for the war and took a considerable amount of time to come around to what is now the consensus of the Democratic party, that we need to get out of Iraq, she’s been up front and honest about her position.

It’s easy to say I was against the war from the start, when you don’t have a voting record to back that up. I took issue with Dean using this tactic against Kerry in ’04 and I feel that Obama is using a similar tactic against Clinton. It’s hollow in my book.

Related posts:

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Durbin’s Hypocrisy

  1. vwcat says:

    Dick Durbin is my senator and not a hypocrite.
    He is right in calling HRC on her outright lying and distortions.
    If you want to know about Obama’s stand on the war, google would help some.
    but, here, for you I have done it for you:

    http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/barack-obamas-march-2003-public-statements-opposing-the-iraq-war/

    All the information is at this link.

    As for HRC, if she is the nominee, after her repugnant behavior of the past few weeks, I will become an independent and vote 3rd party or stay home. But, I will never give my vote to someone like her.
    It would be the same as voting for G. Bush or K. Rove.;

  2. VWCat

    I’ve been blogging long enough to know what Obama’s record is on Iraq. Thank you.

  3. VWCAT

    I will also add that drawing attention to someone’s voting record or stance on the issues is not an out right attack. It’s part and parcel of a political campaign.

    The conclusion I reached about Obama on Iraq is one I reached a year ago, before Kerry announced he was not going to run. I felt then it was hyprocritical for Obama to call himself an anti-war candidate because he did not support Kerry Feingold and I feel the same way now.

    Last but not least as for not voting for the nominee — your choice. I doubt Senator Obama will do what you are threatening or would want his supporters to do that.

  4. beachmom says:

    Except Clinton has been DEAD WRONG every step of the way on Iraq, only finally, finally, changing her position in the spring of ’08 when upon checking the polling, realized she HAD to. You can be critical of Obama on that vote — that’s fair game. But Hillary never led on Iraq. At least Obama came out with an Iraq plan at the end of ’06 which did, in fact, embrace the principles of the K/F amendment. Hillary didn’t back the timetable until the spring when Kerry persuaded a majority of Dems to support it — called the Reid amendment — which was vetoed by the president.

    Hillary has no leg to stand on in regards to Iraq. She and her campaign have zero credibility to attack Obama when they have been so wrong, and she won’t even apologize for her vote! Let’s not even talk about how Bill LAUDED Bush’s handling of the Iraq War in 2004. Some help for our nominee, Bill.

  5. Pingback: The Democratic Daily

  6. Beachmom

    Clinton isn’t claiming that she “led on Iraq” in the past. She’s pointing to the fact that Obama’s record in the Senate is exactly like hers. I think she has a right to do this.

    Obama’s claims to be the anti-war candidate are not consistent with his record and it’s not just Kerry Feingold.

    We’ll have to disagree on this, because I’m not drinking the Hillary Hater koolaid.

  7. morris1030 says:

    There is no question that Clinton’s remark was more than warranted. After 35 years of work in support of black issues, she was drawing a very important distinction.

    Without successful legislation Dr. King’s dream would not have brought the Civil Rights Act into a reality. Hillary did not diminish the efforts of Dr King and the thousands who helped bring this dream into reality.

    In drawing this distinction she emphasized correctly that it will take a capable and experienced President to enact successful progressive legislation.

    The torrent of anger [and hate] emanating from Obama’s side reveals an attitude that will not help the Democratic party to victory. To begin with…it was ok to mention Bush’s use of cocaine and alchohol and question his behavior? I really cannot understand how Obama expects to admitting to drug use, and expects no one to question this?

    In other words is there so much naivete or hubris here that Obama believes he can continue to play on young voter’s feelings of guilt? Surely we all need redemption from the atrocities visited on the blacks in this country. But playing the race card will catch up with him.

    I marched in Selma. Yet Isee no reason why Obama should have a scrubbed record of his votes and accomplishments[?] in Illinois. His ties to recently indicted Rezko with relation to a sweetheart deal made between himself and Rezko to enlarge his backyard property at half of it’s worth caught up with Obama. He had to return $11.500 in Rezko donations, but even after he knew Feds were investigating this transaction he closed on his property the same day Rita Rezko [neighbor] did.

    Obama’s response: ” I made a mistake.” His Illinois records as a part time State Senator are missing. His answer: “I never thought it would be important and now it’s too late to retreive them and too costly. Sure.

    Obama Mr. expects his ties to lobbyists [republican] in that legislature to die. His weekly Thursday night poker games with lobbyist were all part of playing ball with the powerful republican dominated Assembly. Pritzker billions are backing Obama. Pritzkers run Hyatt,nursing homes,medical and financial, travel,and on. The Feds closed down 2 of their failing S&L’s, and the IRS successfully sued re: income tax envasion.

    His backstory is highly protected, and the Press?? Where are they?
    Penny Pritzker is Finance Director of his campaign and has to be pressured to reveal Obama’s still hidden donors.

  8. Darrell Prows says:

    morris1030: I’m with you. Let’s disqualify everyone who has ever used mind altering substances from voting this year. I’m pretty sure that the final outcome will be 2 to 1, but I’m not sure who the winner will be. What do you think?

  9. Pingback: The Democratic Daily