Politics
Shadow of Clinton War Vote Hangs Over Other 2016 Contenders
Julie Pace, ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cast a vote in favor of the Iraq war that would later come to haunt her presidential campaign.
Now, a new crop of senators eying the White House — Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — will face a similar choice over authorizing military action in the Middle East.
A vote in favor of President Barack Obama’s use-of-force resolution would give the potential candidates a share of the responsibility for the outcome of military action in a combustible region. And as Clinton learned well, the public’s support for a military campaign can quickly fade, making the long-term implications of the vote difficult to predict.
Obama asked lawmakers this week to approve a three-year offensive against the Islamic State group and affiliated forces. His request includes no constraints on geographical boundaries but would bar “enduring offensive combat” — intentionally vague language that some lawmakers fear leaves open the prospect of a U.S.-led ground war.
So far, most of the 2016 hopefuls currently in Congress have sidestepped questions about how they would vote on Obama’s measure, which could be amended before they have to say yes or no. Among Republicans, Rubio has been perhaps the most specific in outlining his views, saying he opposes the president putting constraints on his ability to use military force against an enemy.
“What we need to be authorizing the president to do is to destroy them and to defeat them, and allow the commander in chief — both the one we have now and the one who will follow — to put in place the tactics, the military tactics, necessary to destroy and defeat ISIL,” Rubio said, using a common acronym for the Islamic State group.
A spokesman for Paul said Friday that the senator is reviewing the legislation but has not decided how he would vote. Cruz has called for Congress to “strengthen” the legislation by making sure the president is committed to clear objectives. He also has suggested the authorization should include a provision to directly arm the Iraqi Kurds, but it is unclear what other changes he wants to see.
Despite Americans’ war weariness, there is public support for formally authorizing the mission. An NBC News/Marist poll released Friday showed that 54 percent of respondents want their member of Congress to vote for Obama’s request.
Clinton, who is laying the groundwork for another presidential run, will also be pressed to take a position. But this time around, she will have the advantage of weighing in from the outside, without the pressure of voting.
“You can talk about the subject without actually being pinned down on a particular vote that you’re going to have to defend for years to come,” said Jim Manley, a longtime aide to the late Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who worked to get Clinton and other Democrats to vote against the 2002 war authorization.
Clinton has made no public comments since Obama sent lawmakers the draft legislation earlier this week, and her spokesman did not respond to a fresh request for her position Friday.
The former secretary of state has previously called the fight against the Islamic State a “long-term struggle” and has said military action is essential to prevent the group from making further advances.
The military campaign against the Islamic State militants began six months ago, and Obama is, in effect, seeking Congress’ approval retroactively. He has said the current mission is legally justified under the 2002 authorization President George W. Bush used to start the Iraq war — the resolution Clinton voted for.
By the time Obama and Clinton faced off in the 2008 Democratic primary, the Iraq war was deeply unpopular. Obama saw Clinton’s vote for the military conflict as a way to draw a distinction with his better-known rival, arguing that while he was not in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted against giving Bush the war powers.
The 2002 vote and its political implications have continued to shadow the way lawmakers have responded to war-power requests.
In 2013, Congress balked at Obama’s request to authorize strikes in Syria and never held a vote. And while congressional leaders pushed the president for months to seek authorization for the Islamic State campaign, lawmakers insisted Obama be the one to actually draft a resolution.
As with Obama’s current request, there was public support for Bush’s Iraq resolution in 2002. A Gallup Poll a few weeks before the high-stakes vote found that 57 percent of Americans said Congress should “pass a resolution to support sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” About 38 percent said it should not.
As the Iraq war dragged on, and the death toll and financial costs mounted, the conflict became deeply unpopular.
By the time Clinton and Obama were facing off for the Democratic nomination, surveys showed a majority of Americans believed going into Iraq was the wrong decision — a warning for potential 2016 candidates trying to read the tea leaves ahead of their own war powers vote.
___
AP writer Ken Thomas and AP News Survey Director Emily Swanson contributed to this report.
Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
###
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Alameda County
Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
By Post Staff
The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.
The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.
“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.
According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.
Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.
However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.
Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.
Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.
“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.
“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”
Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.
A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.
So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.
Activism
Families Across the U.S. Are Facing an ‘Affordability Crisis,’ Says United Way Bay Area
United Way’s Real Cost Measure data reveals that 27% of Bay Area households – more than 1 in 4 families – cannot afford essentials such as food, housing, childcare, transportation, and healthcare. A family of four needs $136,872 annually to cover these basic necessities, while two adults working full time at minimum wage earn only $69,326.
By Post Staff
A national poll released this week by Marist shows that 61% of Americans say the economy is not working well for them, while 70% report that their local area is not affordable. This marks the highest share of respondents expressing concern since the question was first asked in 2011.
According to United Way Bay Area (UWBA), the data underscores a growing reality in the region: more than 600,000 Bay Area households are working hard yet still cannot afford their basic needs.
Nationally, the Marist Poll found that rising prices are the top economic concern for 45% of Americans, followed by housing costs at 18%. In the Bay Area, however, that equation is reversed. Housing costs are the dominant driver of the affordability crisis.
United Way’s Real Cost Measure data reveals that 27% of Bay Area households – more than 1 in 4 families – cannot afford essentials such as food, housing, childcare, transportation, and healthcare. A family of four needs $136,872 annually to cover these basic necessities, while two adults working full time at minimum wage earn only $69,326.
“The national numbers confirm what we’re seeing every day through our 211 helpline and in communities across the region,” said Keisha Browder, CEO of United Way Bay Area. “People are working hard, but their paychecks simply aren’t keeping pace with the cost of living. This isn’t about individual failure; it’s about policy choices that leave too many of our neighbors one missed paycheck away from crisis.”
The Bay Area’s affordability crisis is particularly defined by extreme housing costs:
- Housing remains the No. 1 reason residents call UWBA’s 211 helpline, accounting for 49% of calls this year.
- Nearly 4 in 10 Bay Area households (35%) spend at least 30% of their income on housing, a level widely considered financially dangerous.
- Forty percent of households with children under age 6 fall below the Real Cost Measure.
- The impact is disproportionate: 49% of Latino households and 41% of Black households struggle to meet basic needs, compared to 15% of white households.
At the national level, the issue of affordability has also become a political flashpoint. In late 2025, President Donald Trump has increasingly referred to “affordability” as a “Democrat hoax” or “con job.” While he previously described himself as the “affordability president,” his recent messaging frames the term as a political tactic used by Democrats to assign blame for high prices.
The president has defended his administration by pointing to predecessors and asserting that prices are declining. However, many Americans remain unconvinced. The Marist Poll shows that 57% of respondents disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, while just 36% approve – his lowest approval rating on the issue across both terms in office.
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks agoLIHEAP Funds Released After Weeks of Delay as States and the District Rush to Protect Households from the Cold
-
Alameda County3 weeks agoSeth Curry Makes Impressive Debut with the Golden State Warriors
-
Activism4 weeks agoOakland Post: Week of November 26 – December 2, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks agoSeven Steps to Help Your Child Build Meaningful Connections
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks agoSeven Steps to Help Your Child Build Meaningful Connections
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks agoTrinidad and Tobago – Prime Minister Confirms U.S. Marines Working on Tobago Radar System
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks agoThanksgiving Celebrated Across the Tri-State
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks agoTeens Reject Today’s News as Trump Intensifies His Assault on the Press




