*NO* Difference Between Obama and HRC?
(posted by Mona)
Brad at Sadly, No! is flummoxed that one well-respected liberal blog has turned into a viciously anti-Obama site. More interestingly, in comments to his post, I find repeated the bizarre claim that I’ve quite often encountered elsewhere, to wit: that there is barely any difference between HRC and Obama’s positions.
This is not so. On restoring decency, respect for the rule of law, and basic civil liberties such as warrants when spying on Americans, and explicit rejection of torture, Obama is far, far ahead of anything HRC has been willing to state. Just recently in Wyoming, Obama delcared (via Freedom Democrats):
Tailoring his message to the state’s antigovernment streak, Sen. Obama put new emphasis on his criticisms of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps and other heightened law-enforcement activities implemented as antiterror measures. “You can be liberal and a libertarian, or a conservative libertarian,” Sen. Obama told a crowd of about 1,200 at a recreation center here. But “there’s nothing conservative” about President Bush’s antiterror policies. “There’s nothing Republican about that. Everybody should be outraged by that,” he added.
But this is not new, Wyoming-specific pandering on Obama’s part. Sen. Obama some time ago signed, The American Freedom Pledge, whereas last I heard, HRC has not. It reads:
We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power.
I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President.
And in a February speech embracing Sen. Chris Dodd’s endorsement of him, Obama declared, my emphasis:
We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.
The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.
It’s time to reject torture without equivocation. It’s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus. It’s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.
Blogs that endorse candidates risk all sorts of of trouble — and cheerleading a candidate endlessly bores readers — so I ain’t doing that. Tho if you can guess my preference given all the foregoing, well, so be it.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
If there’s really no difference between them, why isn’t the candidate who has a chance of winning better than an establishment candidate who thinks the nomination is owed her because it’s “her turn”?
March 14th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Lets put it this way. I can’t stand Hillary Clinton or the whole Clinton/DLC wing of the Democratic Party. That Obama is not a DLC member is a significant difference. Now it doesn’t mean that Wall St./corporate america and DLC politicos aren’t going to get their claws into him, but at the very least he is not running to the embrace.
Obama’s primary appeal is that he is the unknown quantity–uncorrupted by years of experience–and if he does win, it will be, in part, because of a lot of idealist young progressives who have come out in support. There is a danger in this–because he isn’t going to be able to live up to everyone’s dream–but, I would rather have that than the alternative.
I just hope that folks have enough sense to keep his feet to the fire.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I get the same viscerally negative reactions to Clinton as Goffchile, for largely the same reasons. I just get really sick of seeing that smug little “Democrats Care” perma-smirk, and hearing all the soccer mom rhetoric about “our working families,” and knowing she’s got Bob Rubin as her chief economic adviser (and even voted for the Chapter 13 Debt Slavery bill). On a more impressionistic level, every time I see Lanny Davis, James Carville, Danson/Steenburgen, etc., I get the same air of Official Happy Talk that comes in the company newsletter where I work.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
So what? Politicians are demagogues? Blimey, I’m thunderstruck!
March 15th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I don’t expect there will be much pro-Hillary sentiment here, so I will provide the closest thing to it.