1115.org

Marc Ambinder has a weird exchange between the Clinton and Obama campaigns on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran bill. Apparently Obama wants to compare Clinton’s vote on it to the 2002 Iraq vote. Fair enough, she came down on the wrong side then and has done the same (to a lesser extent) now. But is Obama the one to be making the case? He skipped the vote:

Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war.

But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn’t he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton.

It was amazing to me that Obama is still considered a serious candidate before this, but this just lowers the bar. He never misses a chance to tell you that had he been in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted against giving the President authorization to invade Iraq. Aside from the simple fact that Obama has passed up many opportunities to both vote and lead in a way that could bring an end to the Iraq war, he has now taken a powder on his first chance to go on record opposing war with Iran, while bashing Clinton for voting the wrong way.

Even if Obama really had to campaign that day, he still could have put a hold on the bill, or organized some opposition. He did nothing, missed the vote, and has the audacity (not of hope) to call out Clinton on her vote. What a douchebag.