Robert Byrd's Anti-War Vote for Obama

posted by John Nichols on 05/20/2008 @ 09:17am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Newsvine
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (46)

Subscribe Now

Hillary Clinton won a landslide victory last week in West Virginia.

It is likely that she will be similarly rewarded tonight by the voters of Kentucky, a state that neighbors West Virginia. Kentucky polls suggest that the New York senator could thump Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the leader in the race for the Democratic presidential nod, by a margin every bit as lopsided as she achieved in West Virginia.

Obama won't feel much pain, however. He's likely to win by a comfortable margin in Oregon and he is all but certain to accumulate enough additional support tonight so that he can finally claim to have won a majority of the pledged delegates -- those chosen by voters in primaries and caucuses -- to this summer's Democratic National Convention.

Obama won't formally declare victory this evening, even if his scheduled campaign appearance in the first caucus state of Iowa will symbolically stake the claim.

"I won't be the nominee until we have enough (delegates) -- a combination of both pledged delegates and superdelegates -- to hit the mark," the Illinoisan, who will probably finish the night s few dozen convention votes short of the 2,026 he needs to be nominated, says of his success in the race for the pledged delegates. "But what it does mean is that voters have given us the majority of delegates that they can assign. And obviously that is what this primary and caucus process is about."

So what should we make of these late-stage wins by Hillary Clinton in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia, where the demographics have always favored her and where she was always expected to prevail.

Not a whole lot, at least if we take seriously the response of the most revered of all West Virginians.

Robert Byrd, the dean of the U.S. Senate and the man West Virginians have been sending to Washington since 1958, assessed the returns from last Tuesday and came to a conclusion.

Despite the sentiment that may exist for Clinton in his home state, Byrd is of the view that the election of a president is about the future of the nation and the world. The senior senator explained this week that he held off from making an endorsement earlier because he had "no intention of involving myself in the Democratic campaign for President in the midst of West Virginia's primary election."

"But," the Constitution-toting senator added, "the stakes this November could not be higher."

With that in mind, Byrd gave his endorsement to Obama.

"Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support," said the senator who has been involved in Democratic politics long enough to have made the long transit from supporting segregation to supporting an African-American for president.

Byrd's support for Obama is related to what for both men has been a signature stance in recent years: opposition to the war in Iraq.

Describing Obama as "a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history," Byrd explained that, "As people all across this great nation know, I have been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush Administration's misguided war in Iraq and its saber rattling around the globe. With the Bush Administration's latest request to fund this on-going war in Iraq without any attempt to start bringing our troops home, the issue of the upcoming presidential contest has been weighing heavily on my heart. The loss of life continues and the sons and daughters of tens of thousands of American families remain in harm's way every day."

Leaving little doubt that it is Obama's record of opposing the war that makes the Illinoisan preferable to Clinton, Byrd concluded, "After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for President."

Comments (46)

Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2008

OneVote, if any other politican claimed he had "apologized many times for his membership in the KKK"...but used the N-word as recently as 1999....

and was a Republican...

you cut him the same slack???

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 1:14pm
Okay, SRJ and WOLF...same question...

Same slack cut, if Byrd were even a liberal (Hagel'esque) Republican???

And really think about it and really be honest with yourself, if not me.

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 2:18pm
Mask, I'm not cutting Byrd any slack. Unless Byrd's either had a serious change of heart, which I would doubt, leads me to believe that he still probably has racists tendencies.

But, he shares the same beliefs as Obama that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, and secondly that we should get the hell out of there now.

I don't view Byrd as the dean of the senate by any means though. On the other hand, most our senators and congressmen are all part of the same snakeoil, slimy, scumbag business and are in bed with lobbyists.

You average Joe on the streets would be more trustworthy than the majority of our elected representatives, so if are asking us if we are cutting him slack I would say no. I cut Colin Powell slack for his part in dragging us into Iraq and he's a rethug.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008 @ 2:33pm
i think mr. byrd may have been talking to his grandkids.

people occasionally do grow up.

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008 |

Wolfie, if only more people thought like you, our dear Saddam would still be in power.

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008 @ 4:00pm
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008

Let me ask you a question. If an anti-semite endorses a Jewish candidate, do you think that might be more important than comments he made about Jews several years ago?

There is also the question of sincerity. Let's take Hagee, for example. If John Hagee endorsed a Catholic candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or Tommy Thompson and offered an explanation like the one he has recently offered up, I might be inclined to believe him. However, when it is done in the context that he is losing Catholic votes for the presumptive nominee for his party, then I might be inclined to be cynical about it and suggest it is not a change of heart but a change of tactics.

Byrd is going against his constituency and his past comments and positions to endorse someone. I'll give credit for that regardless of what political stripe you are.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/20/2008 @ 4:13pm
Wolfie, if only more people thought like you, our dear Saddam would still be in power.

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008

First of all, blow me. Secondly, Saddam may still have been in power and 4000 U.S. soldiers would still be alive not to mention the 20,000 wounded and not to mention the half million dead Iraqis just to get Saddam.

Three bullets would have solved the problem quite nicely. One for Saddam and one for each son and we could have skipped the whole friggin war all together.

People with your way of thinking have left us with one hell of a mess to clean up!!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008

"Three bullets would have solved the problem quite nicely. One for Saddam and one for each son and we could have skipped the whole friggin war all together."

Yeah, and Hitler only would have taken one! You're a friggin' genius! How come nobody listens to you!

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008 @ 4:21pm
Interesting. I tried "warn it" on one of my own posts, and it doesn't appear to do anything. Anyone else give it a go and have an idea as to what it actually does? Does it alert The Nation staff? Does it remove the post if enough people warn it? Something else? Inquiring minds would like to know - particularly if by using it means engaging in some form of censorship.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/20/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by srjenkins at 05/20/2008

SRJ, I'm simply asking...would a "Republican" Robert Byrd get cut the same slack?

Would a "Republican" Robert Byrd get praised (by the Left, not Right) or noted for his "growth"...if he came out endorsing Michael Steele or J.C. Watts?

Or would there be some snipiing and snickers?

Which means it's totally a matter of party politics.

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 4:35pm
Wolfie, if only more people thought like you, our dear Saddam would still be in power.----Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008

True, the guy that Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with back in 1984 might still be in power....

but 4000+ American GIs would still be alive...

THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION DOLLARS in debt wouldn't exist....

certainly fewer Iraqis would be dead, even comparing Saddam at his worst to those dying by the 100s every month...

an Iranian-UN-friendly government would be in power, instead of an Iranian FRIENDLY government...

oil prices might be more stable....

and John McCain wouldn't be promising FOUR MORE YEARS OF IT!

Other than that, a rotten deal, huh?

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 4:39pm
an Iranian-UN-friendly government would be in power, instead of an Iranian FRIENDLY government... Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008

Clarification...

a Iraqi government UN-friendly to Iran would be in power, instead of an Iraqi government FRIENDLY to Iran...

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 4:41pm
Yeah, and Hitler only would have taken one! You're a friggin' genius! How come nobody listens to you!

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008

Hey Ponti, whose the fool here. You are going on about how somehow removing Saddam was the solution to some huge problem in the ME. The biggest problem Saddam was causing was that he was getting in the neocons way of their oil exploits.

You basically proved my point for me. Getting rid of Saddam didn't do a damn thing except cause chaos. All I was saying was that we could accomplished the same thing by removing him from power and letting the republican guard take over in his place.

Only W, Cheney and the rest of your idiot administration thought we'd be given the heros welcome, given the keys to Iraq to set up shop, and the Iraqi's would be forever greatful. NOT!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/20/2008 @ 4:41pm
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008

I think I've answered your question. If Trent Lott got behind Michael Steele or J.C. Watts, I'd view that as progress - and I think many people on the left would view it that same way too. Besides, I have to respect any politican that can say "race-hustling poverty pimps" in public discourse, even if I disagree with their central position (I'm thinking about you too, Bill Cosby.).

There'd still be sniping and snickers because the politics are bad - but it wouldn't be because Lott walked away from his racism.

Posted by srjenkins at 05/20/2008 @ 5:30pm
That fact that Byrd, a former Klansman, endorsed Barack Obama for president says a lot about his own personal transformation.

Hurray for Senator Byrd!

Posted by Metteyya at 05/20/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008

"True, the guy that Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with back in 1984 might still be in power...."

You're only deluding yourself with this kind of sophistry, MASK. Clinton gave the North Korean government millions of metric tons of oil and food that were used to prop up a murderously incompetent regime. Under the terms of Franklin Roosevelt's horribly bad deal at Yalta, the US forcibly repatriated hundreds of thousands of Soviet POW's to a certain death by execution and death camp after WWII. And you think only Republicans deal with dictators? Who's kidding who?

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008 @ 6:06pm
For that matter, MASK, Obama has already said that he would be willing to deal without preconditions with a murderous Islamic regime in Tehran, and terrorists in Lebanon. Carter plays footsie with every tin-horn murderer on the planet. And I'm supposed to be impressed that Rumsfeld once dealt with Saddam? What exactly are you trying to say?

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008 @ 6:08pm
The difference between Sen. Byrd using the "N" word and say someone like that Macaca senator (I forgot his name) is that Byrd made that great series of speeches opposing the war back in 02 and 03, and if I recall, he was a leader in the fight against folks like Ronald Reagan. His words may have been ill chosen, but his deeds are what matter to assess his reputation. Its not really fair to condemn him over the "N" remarks, and ignore is great contributions to a decent society.

Posted by mdyer909 at 05/20/2008 @ 6:14pm
Ralph Peters has a good article about how the war is really going well now. The surge is working. That's why the only thing the MSM has said about it recently is that a GI shot a koran. Unfortunately the brass handled well and the MSM couldn't get any milage out of the story.

Another story today says the economic slow down is over. Economists predict 2.9% growth for the year. Coupled with the fact that the first quarter was 0.6% growth, that means if the economists are right, there wasn't even a recession.

Although gas and food prices are high, overall inflation and unemployment are low.

What rotten luck.

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:10pm
Byrd, like many people, has undergone a change of heart and mind. Like all of us, he has a past. And like most of us, that past contains episodes, statements and associations he would rather forget.

Those of you casting stones need to take a personal accounting.

Byrd has been one of the most eloquent defenders of the Constitution and one of the strongest antiwar voices in the Senate.

I forgive him his past sins, on the hope that others will forgive mine as well.

People can change. My racist friend I grew up with in the South has been married to a black woman for the past six years. He visits her family in Mississippi and loves and is loved by them.

People can change. They do it all the time.

And thank you Senator Byrd for supporting Barack Obama.

Posted by opeluboy at 05/20/2008 @ 7:12pm
Oh yeah, the global warming crowd concedes that the planet has been cooling since 1998, and they predict the cooling will continue until 2015. January was below the mean temperature of the 20th century for the first time since 1982.

More shitty luck.

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:12pm
Oh well, we can alway hope for a natural disaster to cause unprecedented deaths.

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:13pm
Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008 |

So the "Rummy meeting Saddam" point was the ONLY thing you disagreed with?!??!?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 7:17pm
One more piece of bad news.

When you look as US federal tax reciepts for the last 60 years, the amount collected is 19.5% (plus or minus about 0.5%) of GDP. That was true when the highest tax rate was 90%, it was true when the tax rate was 28%, it is true today when the rate is 35%.

This means that raising tax rates don't raise revenue. All they do is slow the growth of the economy and ultimately suppress the amount of revenue collected by the feds.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html?mod=djemBestOfTh eWeb

Kurt Hauser is a San Francisco investment economist who, 15 years ago, published fresh and eye-opening data about the federal tax system. His findings imply that there are draconian constraints on the ability of tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues.

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:19pm
piece of bad news for you, Darin....

McCain's onboard for man-made global warming being real.

Sorry, the GW deniers are out in the cold....er...warm....come January no mattter WHO wins!

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 @ 7:21pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008

Where were all these articles Mary?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 7:23pm
Hey, Sen Byrd changed his mind about them negros. There's always hope for Obama and McCain to see the truth about climate alarmism.

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:24pm
Ralph Peters on the war:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/success_ in_iraq__a_media_blackout_111606.htm

Investors Business Daily on the economy:

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296089399926740

The National Post on "Settled Science":

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f6fa4aca-61 b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:28pm
In England, Labour (liberals) just got creamed in elections and the Tories (conservatives) cleaned up. London voter's tossed out "Red" Ken Livingston and elected a Tory.

Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008 @ 7:37pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/20/2008

And yet in America, Bush has a 30% approval rating.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 8:06pm
You guys are reading too much into this. I think Senator Byrd is reluctanly giving his endorsement to Obama. He's doing so with a very heavy heart. Being that he's an old racist, means they seldom change their ways. His home state of VWA can attest to that.

Posted by ACook at 05/20/2008 @ 8:29pm
Hey MASK, you got any more info on how Cheney's going to get rich off of Halliburton stock options that he gave away to charity before he ran for VP? Or have you pretty much given up on that?

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008 @ 9:12pm
Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008

Eh no body talked about making it more efficient we talked about making it accessible to everyone. Hell when I was a kid I had health insurance and had to wait 6 hours in an emergency room. It's not at all efficient now, it can't get much worse.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 9:19pm
Anybody want to comment on the rumor that the Republicans have obtained a tape of Michelle Obama railing against 'whitey' at the uh, Revaaaaa-raaaand Wright's 'Church'?

Posted by pontificus at 05/20/2008

It's a rumor. Just like the rumor Bush spread about McCain's illegitimate child. Anyone who believes this crap without real proof is a moron.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 9:20pm
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2008

OneVote, if any other politican claimed he had "apologized many times for his membership in the KKK"...but used the N-word as recently as 1999....

and was a Republican...

you cut him the same slack???

Posted by Mask at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn it

I swear Mask sometimes I think you do it just to be contrarian.

If a Republican were to apologize for being a racist, and then later back up that apology with deeds that showed that apology was sincere and honest (like endorsing a black man for President), yes.....I would cut him some slack.

Isn't refusal to forgive cut from the same cloth as racism?

Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2008 @ 9:33pm
Being that he's an old racist, means they seldom change their ways. His home state of VWA can attest to that.

Posted by ACook at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn it

Sounds like Reverend Wright. Careful.

Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2008 @ 9:36pm
Wolfie, if only more people thought like you, our dear Saddam would still be in power.

Posted by pontificus

and if more people thought like you, millions more would be dead.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:45:14 PM

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 9:38pm
The biggest problem Saddam was causing was that he was getting in the neocons way of their oil exploits.

Posted by Wolfgang1

actually, it was his plan to start selling oil in euros........

oh, well. the dollar's tanked, anyway.

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 9:43pm
tax-rate increases to generate fresh revenues.

Posted by marybretbrad

perhaps revenues remain static, but at least there's money to pay for the rich people's wars.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:58:07 PM

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 9:51pm
Who's kidding who?

Posted by pontificus

whom.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 9:54pm
The National Post on "Settled Science":

Posted by marybretbrad

¡¡¡¡¡¡the national post!!!!!!!

harper's lackeys.

whatta joke.........

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 9:56pm
"Sounds like Reverend Wright. Careful."

Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2008

OV, that's the truth. Byrd doesn't really care for Obama. And I know he's more than disappointed that the dem candidate is not a white male.

Posted by ACook at 05/20/2008 @ 10:21pm
Kinda like most Libs who follow some dim wit's idiocy who decide the best energy policy is NOT to drill on our own land,

happy, the U.S. ALREADY EXPORTS OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oil - exports:

1.048 million bbl/day (2004)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 11:50pm
oil is expensive because the dollar has dwindled so.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 11:54pm
so you understand that opening ANWR will do NOTHING for u.s. oil greed.

nothing.............

Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2008 @ 12:29am
Posted by OneVote at 05/21/2008

OV, Mask is correct in his assessment of the senator. As a woman of color, it would be very difficult for me to fully embrace a character like Senator Byrd. While I won't get indignent over racial slurs, I do have a problem with people like him who openly called for keeping Blacks out at every turn and have resorted to whatever tactics they felt necessary.

This man is still a Klansman in every sense of the word. And old racists certainly don't change. The words you heard weren't words coming from remorseful man, but a man distraught by racial integration.

Posted by ACook at 05/21/2008 @ 1:38pm