Obama: Hillary's The One Rewriting History
Obama responded to Hillary's Meet the Press appearance during an event today at which he received the endorsement of Senator Claire McCaskill. Here's a key excerpt from what he said, as transcribed by Ben Smith:
Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong. She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance.
The rest of Obama's response is here. And the Clinton campaign's response to Obama's response is here.
Comments (137)
jarms wrote on January 13, 2008 12:48 PM:Ask the Clinton about why they instructed Paul Begala to engage on this issue and try to generate over-the-top comments (none of this has happened) from African American leaders. The Clintons via their normal strategy of indirection are trying to make their mistake Obama's issue. The plan has been to associate him with intemperate remarks from African Americans.
David wrote on January 13, 2008 12:49 PM:I hope everyone was watching Meet the Press this morning. If they were, this would be the end of Hillary the candidate.
She was so insufferably slimy, petty, calculating and angry that I couldn't watch that interview to the end. And I realized that if I can't take an hour of Hillary, I certainly can't take four years of Hillary.
Obama is maybe too wedded to his strategy of being positive. If Hillary had a performance like this as the Democratic nominee, the Republicans would completely destroy her. Many of the things she said were just plain false, but even the ones that weren't could so easily be taken out of context that all Hillary would be able to say for months is "I'm being taken out of context." That's about half of what happened with Russert. The other half: Hillary claiming that Obama is a bad candidate and a bad person.
Oops, there goes the sympathy vote!
onceler wrote on January 13, 2008 12:51 PM:glad to see him pushing back. can't allow the dishonesty of the Clintons to take away Obama's advantage on the Iraq war issue, it is very important and they are doing their bloody best to muddy the waters. shame on them.
Edwards for president wrote on January 13, 2008 12:55 PM:TPM seems to think it's their job to eliminate Democrats. They are down to the 2 most conservative. How is this good for the US?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 12:57 PM:The politicos behind the scenes in the Obama camp are getting much better, they're going to keep driving this and trying to fill other deficits, like Claire McCaskill now pushing the women issue, everyone talked of this powerful political machine of the Clintons but Obama may win this on the power and the calculations of his political team, the first home run was making people believe it didn't exist which has worked well too.
Tom wrote on January 13, 2008 1:01 PM:This is an outstanding response. It also hints at a counter to Hillary's protests of innocence at having voted for the war.
"she didn’t read the intelligence reports"
Obama's whole qualification that he didn't know how he would vote had his vantage point been the Senate is based upon the notion that they had access to intelligence he didn't. But we now know that Hillary didn't read the NIE intelligence report. Instead, she just talked to the Bush administration.
HRC & CO wrote on January 13, 2008 1:06 PM:To better understand what is going on go read about the Teachers & Workers as shown below. After that think about Bush v. Gore; Kerry swift boating issues; the Bush Saga(pack any issue), and you decide!
Nevada Teachers' Union Sues To Stop Workers Caucusing On Las Vegas Strip
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 1:13 PM:She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did.
And how about this well known quote:
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time."But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."Someone tell me how Obama can claim his opposition to the war was, in any meaningful way, "clear and unambiguous", if he basically acknowledges here that, for all he knew, he too might have voted in favor of the AUMF, had he known what Senators knew? How convinced and committed to opposing the war might he possibly have been if he thought that his opposition could readily be overturned by an intelligence report? This is especially problematic when it was obvious that there could be nothing important in those reports that Bush himself would not have found a way to bring to the public eye in his quest to justify the war. Does anybody really believe it would have been otherwise, Obama included?
As I've argued in previous threads, if Obama wants to excuse his refusal to criticize the AUMF vote at the very time it was a real issue by saying that he was only being deferent to Edwards and Kerry, then let him do so.
But there's no admirable spin you can put on that decision. Insofar as he "really" knew that the war was dead wrong, it was an act of extreme cowardice for him to give Senators a pass on the vote out of mere politeness, or, as I think it is fair to call it, political expediency. How is he in any way better on that account than the Senators he is basing his campaign on criticizing?
If, on the other hand, you excuse Obama's refusal to criticize the Senators on the ground that he, Obama, was not really all that convinced that the war was wrong, and so could easily have been pushed to the other side by some additional evidence, than how can Obama possibly act as if his opposition to the war amounted to very much at all? Why pretend now that his opposition was powerful and committed?
In the end, Obama is really caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to excuse his own statements about the AUMF.
The Speech wrote on January 13, 2008 1:13 PM:This is a portion of Obama's 2002 anti-Iraq War speech. What if Bill and Hillary Clinton would have had the courage to say this back then, instead of trying to set up Hillary's future presidential run?
"You want a fight, President Bush? Let?s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let?s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let?s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let?s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn?t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join."
The rest of the speech is here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
This is exactly the right response. This is fight Obama didn't start, but it's one he wins as long as his rhetoric is about positivity and unity, not about his race. I think this statement hits exactly the right notes. I'm also gratified that it points out the central contradiction in the Clinton attack on Obama's war record-—even if you agree with everything the Clintons are saying, which most people won't and which no one should, the best you could conclude is that he was just as wrong as they were.
Tapper wrote on January 13, 2008 1:15 PM:Obama is flat out lying. Again.
He and his surrogates have been misquoting HRC all week long, sending out lying press releases and email alerts, the whole nasty shebang.
Obamaniacs seem not to care that their Great Black One is a serial liar.
Notice he never answers a question, only spews more mud.
So much for his promises of a "changed" politics. Ha Ha Ha!
Sheesh, what a LOSER he is!
On the point of LBJ's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, one should read George Smathers' observations. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Smathers_interview_3.pdf Both King and Johnson were critical components of the movement. (Oh, and let's not forget Nelson Rockefeller, who spent lots of money financing the movement.)
loki wrote on January 13, 2008 1:22 PM:Obama: The Great Honest Liberal Anti-War Anti-Establishment candidate!...(?)
Uh...not so much!
He may become president...and he is a far sight better than any Republican in the field. But don't delude yourselves...he's a moderately conservative Democrat that--like ALL other politicians--says and does what needs to be said and done at the time it needs to be said and done. Get it?
Purity? You're lookin' in the wrong place baby!
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 1:24 PM:Ahh that Clinton campaign machine is truly awesome isn't it?
Arguing their own screw-ups, talking to themselves
remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act
No wonder the Republicans are praying she's nominated. Democrats need to put Clinton away before the GOP does
On MTP, Mrs. Clinton characterized President Bushs' Cincinnati speech as call for a resumption of inspections.
She is a liar.
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
President Bush declared Iraq a "grave threat" and issued an ultimatum. This was less than one month after Mrs. Clinton voted for the AUMF. Hillary Clinton has gone beyond dissembling. She is a liar.
Shii wrote on January 13, 2008 1:35 PM:Retarded Clinton talking point
In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq. In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]Does Clinton even know what "opposing the war" means? Does she think that if you think the war is dumb and was executed for no reason, you have to vote against every bill which doesn't cut off supplies to our troops? This is even stupider than it sounds because Clinton doesn't even oppose the war. She should be happy that Obama made that statement and aimed for reconciliation. Penpal wrote on January 13, 2008 1:40 PM:
OK I know this is OT but Obama really shouldn’t accuse anybody else of “rewriting history”…
JBB wrote on January 13, 2008 1:45 PM:God, Hillary's lying is just pathetic and entirely reminiscent of Bush. (Not to mention that of her supporters.) I simply do not understand how anyone can watch what she has done in this campaign and think that she will best represent our party and our country. My preferred candidate is no longer in the race, but I'll do anything I can to prevent Sen. Clinton from being my President.
Pay Attention to Dates wrote on January 13, 2008 1:51 PM:The Obama quote, in which he hedges his opposition to the war to avoid criticizing Kerry and Edwards, happened in June 2004. This is political, but hardly cynical. You try not to criticize your party's nominees for President and VP during the campaign...
The AUMF was passed in October 2002, twenty months earlier. The vote was not a substantial election issue after it became apparent that Kerry would be the nominee. Did any other Presidential candidates speak publicly, against the war in October 2002 as Obama did? At an anti-war rally, no less? His position has been very clear, but her own position is a serious liability for Hillary, so she's trying to create doubt and ambiguity instead of talking about her own position. Given her "experience" sales pitch, why aren't we hearing about her leadership on the subject of Iraq in 2002, 2003, and 2004?
What's that? She bravely sided with the President after close to two years in the Senate and thirty years as an agent of change? Thanks Hillary!
Grant wrote on January 13, 2008 1:56 PM:Yawn.
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 1:57 PM:While Hillary and Sargent talk to themselves...
From the Department of Understatements:
Those Endorsements ...
Endorsements don't usually count for much. But if they're big enough and come at critical moments they can count for a lot. And this string of endorsements Obama has picked up since his narrow defeat in New Hampshire four days ago is, I believe, a major story that has not gotten the attention it deserves....But that isn't the biggest significance. The key is timing. You don't hit a big time politician like Hillary Clinton when she's down unless you're really against her and you're fairly confident she's not getting back up.
--Josh Marshall
Penpal,
I looked at the link -- I really hadn't been paying any attention to the Rezko issue for Obama.
Certainly one very troubling aspect of it is what would certainly appear to be an obvious lie from Obama that he wasn't aware of Rezko's reputation and potential legal troubles while the home buying deal was in progress. Given the vast array of articles and an editorial in the Chicago press on Rezko's sleaziness that appeared before that time, Obama's claim can't possibly pass any kind of laugh test.
St. Obama indeed.
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 2:10 PM:Barack Opens Four New CA Offices Today
frankly0 wrote on January 13, 2008 2:14 PM:The Obama quote, in which he hedges his opposition to the war to avoid criticizing Kerry and Edwards, happened in June 2004. This is political, but hardly cynical. You try not to criticize your party's nominees for President and VP during the campaign...
And what else will Obama do and say that is "political but hardly cynical"?
How strong might his opposition to the war have been, if he could not be direct about it when political convenience dictated otherwise? What did he imagine that might possibly be in those reports that could have swayed him to the other side, especially in June 2004, when it was clear beyond doubt that there was absolutely nothing of importance in those reports that could possibly have swayed a principled and committed opponent to the war?
Can we ever get an honest, and not a politically motivated, assertion out of the man?
Is that really what you want to say: that we just can't trust the man when it comes to matters that have political consequences?
Jeremy wrote on January 13, 2008 2:15 PM:Hillary's explanations of her support for the authorization to invade Iraq need to make sense of: (1) her vote for the authorization, (2) her vote against forcing further diplomacy (2002 Levin Amendment), and (3) her failure to do her homework before those votes. Thus far, she's been unable to come up with an adequate explanation.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 2:17 PM:This demonstrates, I think conclusively, that for Clinton and her supporters, this is, in fact, a game. If you view it through that prisim, then you have a better understanding of who she is and who they are. So arguing with them that they are lying or distorting his record won't resonate with them, because they don't care. It's not how you play the game, it only matters if you win.
They are counting on low information voters hearing this, not the informed. It's cynical, but effective. But it also tells you all you need to know about how she plans to lead this country. And frankly, I'm not sure how she thinks this will bode well for her in the general election.
Then again, I'm sure she could careless, just so long as she wins.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 13, 2008 2:19 PM:A good response from Obama, to two of the Clinton campaign's ridiculous accusations. I'm tired of the Clintons' blame game and their lying game. Their campaign has been dirty as hell, and I think I speak for many when I say I'm sick of it.
Anyone (Clinton supporters) who try to say that Obama hasn't been perfectly clear about his opposition to the war is either a complete idiot (ie not understanding history, the facts, or any understanding of diplomatic politics whatsoever) or simply opting to spread the Clintons' disingenuous and fallacious attacks against Obama, knowing full well, as the Clintons do, that they are willfully misrepresenting his comments, and trying to use these lies to win a campaign they are in danger of losing.
The lack of critical thinking skills of the majority of Clinton supporters on here has appalled me. I always thought that the GOP had a monopoly on that kind of willful ignorance, but apparently a good number of establishment Democrats are willing to go that low as well. If Hillary wins the nomination I'm switching to Independent because I'll be embarrassed to be in the same party with people who chose her lying and power hungry ass over Obama, or Edwards, or any of the other candidates for that matter.
Common Sense wrote on January 13, 2008 2:19 PM:Greg:
If you are going to link to Fact Hub, I think you should also link to Obama's Fact Check.
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/12/fact_check_barack_obamas_consi.php
paDem wrote on January 13, 2008 2:21 PM:Hey, Anonymous... If you can't even be bothered to make up a fake name, you should know that I can't be bothered to read your posts.
green heron wrote on January 13, 2008 2:22 PM:Obama should wallop Hillary with her war vote five times a day between now and February fifth. In a dem primary, the war is still totally unpopular.
Publicus wrote on January 13, 2008 2:22 PM:Hillary supporters so you believe that a Democrat should have attacked the Democratic nominee on the eve of the 2004 convention? Likewise, if Clinton is the eventual nominee, do you believe that Edwards, Obama, Dodd, etc., if asked, should criticize her on positions she's taken?
Audacious_One wrote on January 13, 2008 2:22 PM:In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution. When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ [New York Times, 7/26/04] — Note: No one disputes that Senator Obama opposed the war from his "vantage point" as a part-time state senator in Illinois. The point we are making is that Sen. Obama acknowledged that he did not know how he would have voted had his vantage point been from the U.S. Senate.
The inclusion of 'part-time' is pretty low and so far i've yet to see how they are backing this claim up other than just saying it.
Also, while it's a valid point that he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been privy to senate information, Hillary didn't read the NIE so their argument is even weaker.
frankly0 wrote on January 13, 2008 2:28 PM:All Obama ever had to say, when asked, in June 2004 regarding the AUMF vote was that he disagreed with the vote of Kerry and Edwards. He didn't have to launch into some scorching attack on them. This isn't hard to do if you have an inclination.
But he didn't do so. And that meant he was either being dishonest when he declares himself a committed opponent to the war, or was a complete coward because he refused to contradict Kerry and Edwards on their vote.
And it's hardly as though his criticizing Kerry and Edwards on the vote would have done them real harm politically in any case. Since Bush was himself committed to a far more extreme position than Kerry and Edwards, it would not have in any way have tended to split votes away from Kerry and Edwards and towards Bush.
So which is it? Obama is dishonest or he is a coward? Your choice.
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 2:36 PM:As Mrs. Bill, Sargent, and the rest of the HillShills talk to each other and parse their Clintonian BS
Frank Rich Gets It - Again Mrs. Clinton’s vision, so far anyway, is exactly the reverse of her opponent’s big picture: a long itemized shopping list of government programs (few of which any Democratic candidate would disagree with) that are nakedly targeted to appeal to every Election Day constituency. This presentation of the liberal catechism reached its apotheosis in a Clinton campaign ad in December. Mrs. Clinton was shown doling out Christmas presents labeled “Universal Health Care” and “Alternative Energy” before delivering the punch line, “Where did I put universal pre-K?” (At least she stopped short of regifting us with Al Gore’s old “Social Security lockbox.”)Every politician employs pollsters, but Mrs. Clinton, tellingly, has one, Mark Penn, as her top campaign strategist. As Sally Bedell Smith reminds us in her book about the Clintons, “For Love of Politics,” it was Mr. Penn who helped shape the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign in which “soccer moms” were identified and wooed with such Cracker Jack prizes as school uniforms and V-chips to monitor TV violence. For Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign four years later, it was also Mr. Penn’s market testing that, in Ms. Smith’s telling, “crafted anodyne, bite-sized messages for Hillary.” The overall message uniting the small-bore promises, such as it was, remains unchanged today: competence, experience, wonky proficiency.
But we’re no longer in 2000, the lull before the 9/11 storm, let alone 1996. Nonetheless, Mr. Penn, who remains the chief executive of the corporate P.R. giant Burson-Marsteller even as he works for the Clinton campaign, still peddles the 1.0 edition of his philosophy. In his business tome “Microtrends” published in September, he glories in “the niching of America,” observing that “there is no one America anymore” but “hundreds of Americas.” He postulates that “Americans overwhelmingly favor small, reasonable ideas over big, grandiose schemes.”
As a theory for marketing Burson-Marsteller corporate clients like Microsoft and AT&T — or for selling a third Clinton term — Mr. Penn’s vision may make sense. What Mr. Obama is betting on instead is a hunger, however dreamy, for one America, not hundreds of niches, aspiring to the big, grandiose scheme of finding a common good. The defining question of his campaign is not just whether he can make this vision real but whether he has the ability as a leader to give it intellectual heft and to carry it out. We’ll find out soon enough. Either way, the national yearning for a more perfect union is unmistakable. Such is the decisive backlash against these divisive years in which anyone who fails to agree with the White House has been portrayed as un-American, if not with the terrorists.
In Mrs. Clinton’s down-to-earth micropolitics, polls often seem to play the leadership role. That leaves her indecisive when one potential market is pitched against another. Witness her equivocation over Iraq, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and even Cubs vs. Yankees. Add to this habitual triangulation the ugly campaigning of the men around her — Mr. Penn’s sleazy invocation of “cocaine” on MSNBC, Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” rant falsifying Mr. Obama’s record on Iraq — and you don’t have change. You have the acrimonious 1990s that the Republicans are dying to refight, because that’s the only real tactic they have.
and if you read carefully enough, he's beginning to pick up on my contention that on 2/6/08 no nominee will emerge. 50% of the delegates +1...so easy to see but as yet unseen
A huge, a decisive number Democrats and Independents are tired of playing turnips to the Clintons and the War Wing of the Democratic Party....
Beware the Clinton treachery ahead. Why are they the only candidate in michigan when the delegates won't be seated. If they need them, they will sue the DNC to get them seated (Carl Levin alluded to this in the last two days).
A disgusting tactic (yet highly consistent) to say the least!
Common Sense wrote on January 13, 2008 2:41 PM:Frankly0:
Interesting, he declines to criticize them, because he didn't have access to the information they had as Senators, but reaffirms his opposition to the war. You read this has him being either dishonest or cowardly.
And if this is the standard that you articulate, are you prepared for Obama, if he's not the nominee, to criticize Clinton on the eve of the nomination? Or would he be a coward for not doing so then?
I'm just trying to understand if you are really endorsing this tortured view of the facts or if you are playing stupid for the sake of making political points.
frankly0 wrote on January 13, 2008 2:43 PM:One further point regarding Obama's refusal to criticize Kerry and Edwards on the AUMF vote in June 2004.
Remember Howard Dean? Remember how he had based his campaign on the premise that the AUMF vote was an enormous mistake?
Could someone explain to me how it would have been a politically bad thing for Obama to have been firm in his opposition to the AUMF vote in June 2004 if Howard Dean had been already so vocal on that very point?
So, again, which is it: was Obama dishonest or lying in 2004?
frankly0 wrote on January 13, 2008 2:45 PM:Oops, meant in my previous post,
So, again, which is it: was Obama dishonest or cowardly in 2004?
Alan wrote on January 13, 2008 2:46 PM:A history lesson for the supporters of Senator Obama:
In 1964 Congress passed the GULF of Tonkin resoulution giving LBJ the power to take any action he saw fit to repel attacks against us in Vietnam.
That resolution passed both houses of Congress by a combined vote of, I believe 502-2.
By Obama supporters reckoning, this means that later opposition to the war by the following Senators: McGovern, Fulbright, McCarthy, Church, and many others was a political game, since they had all supported the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
It is clear to anyone with a brain that we would want a President to have the "Authority" to take military action if we are attacked.
People would like to believe that a President would not abuse that authority. However,
this is what both LBJ and President Bush have done.
This is not Senator Clinton's, Senator Kerry's or Senator Edwards fault. It is about how the Presiddent misused and abused the authority.
TheraP wrote on January 13, 2008 2:56 PM:Hearing hill.... you can see how she's learned from bill. She not only forgave him, she's walked in his shoes and learned the lying game.
If she's doing this now, it'll be her governing style. We don't need 4 more years of this.
roo_P wrote on January 13, 2008 3:02 PM:frankly0,
One point listeners are unlikely to hear is his opposition in 2002 to Congress's approval of the war in Iraq. Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted to authorize it....
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''
Emphasis mine.
It is quite obvious, to an observer interested in truth and the reality rather than gamesmanship, that Obama was in fact very politely and subtly fudging his position in order to not hurt the Democratic nominees which is generally what is expected at the time of a crucial Presidential race.
Alan wrote on January 13, 2008 3:03 PM:TheraP:
Your snide remark about Senator Clinton forgiving her husband is disgraceful. It is not YOUR business what goes on in anyone's marriage.
It's Republicans who want to go into everybody's bedroom. Therefore your are using Republican talking points to smear the Clintons. That MUST mean you are a Republican!
Barack Obama - I'm sure we've seen him somewhere before
Armando Iannucci
Sunday January 13, 2008
The Observer
Like Will Smith, who in the new film I Am Legend wakes up to find himself the last man alive in a world of zombies, am I now the only person left on the planet who finds Barack Obama a little bit dull? Every time I listen to him, I start off thinking I'm about to wet my pants, but a minute-and-a-half later find my mind wandering, asking itself things like: 'What does "the challenge of hope" mean?'
Yet I turn and look around and everyone is shouting and screaming. Obama chants: 'Something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it' and there's a collective swoon from grown pundits and hardened reporters, all of them tearing off their shirts and pleading for Obama to sign their chests with indelible marker pen. Will Smith woke up to a world of zombies: in my personal nightmare, everyone around me has an overactive thyroid.
So why does Obama, billed by everyone as a cross between Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, but without the terrible looks of either, just leave me puzzled? Maybe it's because his is a rhetoric that soars and takes flight, but alights nowhere. It declares that together we can do anything, but doesn't mention any of the things we can do. It's a perpetual tickle in the nose that never turns into a sneeze. Trying to make sense of what he's saying is like trying to wrap mist.
But, rhythmically, it's quite alluring. It can make anything, even, for example, a simple chair, seem magnificent. Why vote for someone who says: 'See that chair. You can sit on it' when you can have someone like Obama say: 'This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take the downward pressure of a Jewish girl's behind or the butt of a Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if only we believed in it, could sustain America's huddled arse.'
Speeches full of hot air ...
Maybe Obama is so successful because he's the supreme master of what American politics excels in: high-flown language that denotes as little as possible. America is curious in that it is the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, it's a doing country, but its politicians rarely spend time on the stump specifying what precisely they will do in case it makes them lose votes. Instead, they settle on emotive, intangible phraseology, such as Hillary Clinton's recent 'I intend to be the President who puts your futures first', uttered in New Hampshire.
I listened to all the victory speeches of the winning candidates last week and it was impossible to spot any difference in the message. Mike Huckabee said: 'This election is not about me, it's about we', while Clinton came up with the variant: 'You want this election to be about you.'
Thus both of them appealed to voters who believed strongly that elections should be about types of people. This is a theme Clinton developed when she said: 'I believe in what we can do together', a brave message this, since there was always the risk she could alienate people who don't believe in what a lot of people can do together. It may well be that the people who do believe in what people can do together came out in droves at the last minute to vote for her, hence her remarkable comeback. Similarly, John McCain's pledge that as President he would 'make in our time another, better world than the one we inherited' might have won over a lot of voters who were dead against making another, worse world than the one they inherited.
... and empty promises
This abandonment of specifics is the opposite of how politics is articulated in Britain. Here, politicians have less power, less international influence and are at the mercy of the markets and even the weather, so they try covering this up with language that is all about pledging and specific target-setting - anything, in fact, that sounds like action.
'We intend to provide a chair, which, over the next five-year period, will guarantee stability for anyone who sat on it.' 'We will introduce the most sweeping measures yet to ensure that all four chair legs are of exactly the same length and we will measure every leg on the chair twice a year and place those results in national chair-leg database.' 'We will stop other people coming over to use the chair before us.'
American politicians take time out from their busy lives to makes speeches that sound empty; British politicians fill the emptiness of their lives with words that make them sound busy. The chair, by the way, was made in China.
vena wrote on January 13, 2008 3:10 PM:BET's President and Hillary Clinton supporter makes statements about Obama. Please read the whole thing. Very sad.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/bet-chief-raps-obama-in-sc/#comment-522306
-He then added: “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
We're so screwed.
Joyce wrote on January 13, 2008 3:12 PM:It appears Bill's close relationship with Papa Bush is rubbing off on Hillary's campaign.
roo_P wrote on January 13, 2008 3:13 PM:Alan,
No-one is claiming that Clinton or Edwards still support the war. We know that they do not. That was never in question.
But they voted for the bill that authorized, allowed and directly lead to the war. Their reason at the time was that they either had the judgement and foresight of a three-year-old who thinks the nice man in the big white house is just going to go talk to the bad guys or then they DID know what would happen but voted for it anyway for political expediency, in order to seem "tough."
Obama did not. He saw what was coming and spoke out against it loud and clear.
Some of the Obama detractors like to mention he was "just a state senator" with nothing to lose. Imagine for a moment that Obama made the same speech, strongly condemning the idea of this stupid war against a nation that poses no immediate threat. But let us say that the Iraq war would actually have been a smashing success: toppled government, captured senior al-Quaeda operatives and that Saddam actually DID have chemical and nuclear weapons and that Iraq was now a flourishing democracy.
Obama would have been FINISHED because of that speech. Anything he tried to do he would be that guy who thought that taking nuclear weapons from Saddam was an stupid move, that terrorist-coddler Obama. We would definitely not be talking about him as a frontrunner in the presidential primary.
nam wrote on January 13, 2008 3:14 PM:@ John McCutchen
I too thought this was an excellent nugget by Josh..
He was absolutely right, no one has really talked about this yet.
Some obviously think Clinton isn't getting the nomination. Otherwise they wouldn't risk being on the wrong side of the Clinton team.
that Obama was in fact very politely and subtly fudging his position in order to not hurt the Democratic nominees which is generally what is expected at the time of a crucial Presidential race.
And what I will say, not so polititely, is the man wasn't "fudging", he was lying -- at least insofar as he was truly a committed opponent of the war.
Look, as I said, it would have cost Kerry and Edwards absolutely nothing important politically had Obama said openly that he disagreed with the AUMF vote -- which he now claims to be a signature issue of all things.
The point is, Howard Dean had already broken that ground, making his open disagreement as loud and plain as possible. If Howard Dean could have said that about the AUMF vote, have based his candidacy on it, how much courage would it take to disagree with Kerry or Edwards on that point in June 2004? How much damage could it possibly do?
Instead, Obama could not bring himself to do what Dean had already done, repeatedly and explicitly: declare that the AUMF vote was a mistake, pure and simple. Obama just doesn't have that kind of basic honesty built into him.
And you want us all to admire this kind of behavior, because Obama was being polite?
What else is the man now "fudging" to suit some political convenience?
And here's a further quite important point, which follows on Bill Clinton's criticism of the press during the debates: If the only excuse Obama can come up with for his June 2004 comment is that he was, as you put it, "fudging", don't you think that the American people deserve to hear that explanation coming out of his mouth? Why should he get a pass on this, most especially when he a very good portion of his most basic argument to the voters is his supposedly clear and firm opposition to the war? Why shouldn't they know how willing he was to "fudge" his claimed position on this issue which he has made a centerpiece of his candidacy?
Greg, Eric, I appreciate you guys staying relevant through this primary. The other major lefty blogs are pretty much taking a pass on this, which is unfortunate.
"Is It Over Yet?
I'm really looking forward to the end of primary season. Just in case I haven't made that clear."
Congratulations Hillary. You and your mean machine have succeeded. You have now engaged Obama in endless rounds of meaningless attacks, counter attacks, he said she said, labored parsing of words.
Obama inspired us with his vision, charisma, capacity bridge divides and promise of uniting the nation. His intellect, character, belief in our nation's capacity gave us hope and a voters we responded. He managed for months to turn the other cheek when you and the big bad Hillary machine whispered and insinuated, and attacked him for his strengths and sound judgment.
But Hillary must win at any cost. And when you started losing you stopped any pretense of being fair, substantive, above board and went Bush-Rove strategy full throttled.
Now you are doing to Obama what you say the Republicans have done to you for decades. Proud of yourself Hillary? Now instead of hope the nation, the prospect is more of the same Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton deep mean partisan divisions to protect the corporations and their unchecked, greedy profiteering.
When I list to the Hillary I hear George W. Bush. It is very very sad.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 4:09 PM:Obama got it right. Hillary showed remarkably bad judgment because she wasn't weighing the case for war on it's merits (she didn't even read the NIE!), she was simply using war, destruction and death to shore up her security credentials for a 2008 Presidential run.
As I noted earlier, she learned the wrong lesson from the first Iraq war and failed to learn the right lesson from the debacle of the second Iraq war.
We'd be fools to trust her judgment as President based on her track record. Even if there was no such thing as a young brash upstart named Obama spoiling her coronation, we'd still be fools to trust her judgment going forward.
Her record is clear. If you are serious that her record is no different than Obamas then you have made the case for an Edwards presidency, not a case for Hilary.
benjoya wrote on January 13, 2008 4:16 PM:obama said the case hadn't been made to him, and neglected to engage in an alternate universe scenario in which he was in the senate at the time of the AUMF vote. he was no doubt less inclined to engage in said scenario because the nominee and his running mate had both made the same stupid vote as hillary. i would think this wasn't over the heads of some posters here. i would be wrong, apparently.
BluePuppy wrote on January 13, 2008 4:17 PM:"Someone tell me how Obama can claim his opposition to the war was, in any meaningful way, "clear and unambiguous", if he basically acknowledges here that, for all he knew, he too might have voted in favor of the AUMF"
Excellent Post, anonymous. I think Obama's desperate attacks, Hillary's win in NH are taking a toll, and Hillary laying out the facts about Mr. Hope's inconsistent opposition to the war. I know three people who have switched from Obama to Hillary in the last week. I know that's not scientific poll, but I often see these people as a bellwether.
Brinn More wrote on January 13, 2008 4:28 PM:Help end Billary's lies, false promises, frauds, and appeals to emotions about gender, race and class. Vote ANYONE but Billary, and send the message-- America is better than all this decline the "Republicrats" are forcing upon us! Wake up and smell the BS!
Edwards for president wrote on January 13, 2008 4:29 PM:TPM's the one trying to write history. By covering only the most conservative candidates. Democracy short circuited.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 4:42 PM:Pay Attention to Dates wrote on January 13, 2008 1:51 PM:The Obama quote, in which he hedges his opposition to the war to avoid criticizing Kerry and Edwards, happened in June 2004. This is political, but hardly cynical. You try not to criticize your party's nominees for President and VP during the campaign...
The AUMF was passed in October 2002, twenty months earlier. The vote was not a substantial election issue after it became apparent that Kerry would be the nominee. Did any other Presidential candidates speak publicly, against the war in October 2002 as Obama did? At an anti-war rally, no less? His position has been very clear, but her own position is a serious liability for Hillary, so she's trying to create doubt and ambiguity instead of talking about her own position. Given her "experience" sales pitch, why aren't we hearing about her leadership on the subject of Iraq in 2002, 2003, and 2004?
What's that? She bravely sided with the President after close to two years in the Senate and thirty years as an agent of change? Thanks Hillary!
Obama's purported "opposition" to the Iraq war is the stuff of "fairy tales." If you understand the circumstances of his so called prescient speech "opposing" the war, you conclude that he, in fact, had no choice but to claim to "oppose" the war if was to garner the support of the African-American voters in Illinois that he knew he had to have in order to win the Dem nomination for the U.S. Senate. Here are contemporaneous accounts by an African-American Commentator, Bruce Dixon (a native Chicagoan who had worked with Obama in a massive Illinois voter registration drive in 1992), who ought to know because clearly he was there. The link provided will take you to three commentaries by Dixon from June 2003, from Bill Clinton, and Hillary today on MTP, based their challenge to Obama's purported "opposition" to the war. If you are open-minded, you'd follow the links and then decide:
A former community organizer not long out of Harvard Law School, Obama was tapped in 1992 to head up Project VOTE Illinois, where he was responsible for registering 120,000 new Democratic voters, mostly minorities, and chasing the greater part of them out to the polls that November. Barack and his team made a significant contribution toward Bill Clinton carrying Illinois that year and enabled Carol Moseley Braun to squeak by a Republican opponent to become the first and only black woman ever to sit in the US Senate. In 1996 Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate. At the midpoint of a four-year term in 2000, Obama challenged incumbent congressman Bobby Rush and was trounced in the Democratic primary by almost 2 to 1. He is the sponsor of a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling.
Energizing the Base To win the Democratic primary election in Illinois, where African Americans cast at least a quarter of the ballots, Obama needs to capture the great majority of a large black turnout, and pick up a significant slice of white votes as well. To secure a general election victory in a presidential election year Obama will have to fire up an expanded Democratic base and turn the election into a crusade against the incumbent president and his party. Can he do it? At an antiwar meeting last October Obama was certainly pitching to that Democratic base in the progressive and African American community: "I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. "What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ... to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression. "That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics .... " Somebody else's brand of politics appears to have intruded on Obama's campaign. For a while the whole speech could be found on Obama's campaign web site, a key statement of principle for a serious US Senate candidate in an election season when the President's party threatens the world with permanent war and pre-emptive invasion, and cows US citizens with fear mongering, color coded alerts, secret detentions and the abrogation of constitutional liberties. Although Obama may have appeared at meetings of other citizens opposed to the war or let them use his name, no further public statements from the candidate on these important issues have appeared. Then, a few weeks ago, Barack Obama's heartfelt statement of principled opposition to lawless militarism and the rule of fear was stricken without explanation from his campaign web site, and replaced with mild expressions of "anxiety"[...]
We report. You decide.
TheraP wrote on January 13, 2008 5:02 PM:Chuckling here, Alan. Somehow you imagine that voters are unable to think for themselves and must turn to "talking points" from the other side.
Must have hit a nerve with you. Freedom of speech, buddy! Plus,I suggest you consult a book on logic before pursuing further illogical syllogisms.
What's sad is that hill is not only trying to "shoot the messenger" of hope by using words, but apparently her acolytes are also trying to shoot any of us inspired by hope.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 5:10 PM:I wish I could preview my own comments and edit them before posting to avoid the many and frequent word omissions, but you got the picture! Obama's purported "opposition" to the Iraq war, in conjunction with his admission in 2004 that he was not sure how you would have voted had he been in the US Senate, coupled with his repeated 'yea' votes to give Bush blank checks to perpetuate the war after he was in a position to substantively express his purported "opposition" as a US Senator, would lead any thinking person to doubt Obama's claim that he'd genuinely "opposed" the war from the outset. If you understand this obvious point, you'd understand Bill Clinton's frustration with the MSM, which has given Obama a pass on just about every issue on which any other candidate would have been scrutinized. It seems to me that Obama might be handled "differently" because he is the first black man with a realistic chance to win the presidency, which in itself might be considered a form of "soft bigotry of low expectations": He is a black man who won't do well on his own lest he got a pass from the MSM... Or it is that they do not want to be perceived as racists for going after him? Whatever the case may be, I think that Obama is such a weak candidate that if he were to be vetted and scrutinized in the MSM's usual hound dog manner, he'd quickly be found lacking...
Should he be our nominee, you can bet that the GOP smear machine would have no compunction about "defining" Obama for the voters, and it won't be pretty. No is the time to vet and scrutinize him! If he prevails in the end, he'd be the better for it.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 5:16 PM:If he prevails in the end, he'd be the better for it.
I'm not sure that's true because the Clintons have done a lot of prevailing and they don't appear to be better for it. They appear to be ruthless, cynical and Rove-like as a result. Or were they always this way? Either way, not a good thing.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 13, 2008 5:26 PM:Should he be our nominee, you can bet that the GOP smear machine would have no compunction about "defining" Obama for the voters, and it won't be pretty.With respect, it will not be easy, or simple, for ANY of them. I reject picking my candidate simply out of fear of what the other side will do. How is that showing leadership on the part of the Democratic Party? "Oh no, I'd best pick Candidate X, who is so boring that maybe the GOP won't bother smacking them around!"
If you think Obama's not the best person for The Job, then fine; that's why we have open debates, and primaries, and elections. And by now, it should be clear to one and all now the truth of what Obama said, that Hope isn't about allowing your opponent to smack you around. Part of why I'm responding to him isn't the high-minded rhetoric, it's the simple fact that he's Not Afraid of the GOP. And dammit, I think it's high-time the Democratic Party stops being reactive, and starts being a little damned proactive, and leading from the front. Obama, from my research and gut feeling, is the best man for that job, and that is what I find a LOT of Obama supports coming to see.
roo_P wrote on January 13, 2008 5:27 PM:frankly0,
I liken it to an answer to "honey, does this AUMF vote make me look fat?"
(And do not even think about going for the "sexism" canard, this is coming from a woman.)
Look, as I said, it would have cost Kerry and Edwards absolutely nothing important politically had Obama said openly that he disagreed with the AUMF voteHe did clearly say so. It is right there in the quote (not to mention several previous interviews and The Speech.)
The point is, Howard Dean had already broken that ground, making his open disagreement as loud and plain as possible.Oh, I see, you are talking about the alternate reality where Howard Dean was the 2004 Democratic nominee and Democrats could enthusiastically rally around the candidate WHO DID THE RIGHT THING TO START WITH. My mistake.
Instead, Obama could not bring himself to do what Dean had already done, repeatedly and explicitly: declare that the AUMF vote was a mistake, pure and simple.He did. Explicitly. Repeatedly. It is YOU who is trying to forcibly inject any kind of ambiguity in there that you can.
Obama just doesn't have that kind of basic honesty built into him.You realize how incredibly bad choice of words this is, right?
And you want us all to admire this kind of behavior, because Obama was being polite?Perhaps you and I get a different connotation from "politeness."
As I said, for any observer objectively examining the entire interview and the vast history of text before it, it is rather obvious that he was avoiding speaking his mind in order to not detract from Kerry and Edwards' already very precarious position.
Obviously he is not giving the full truth and for good reason. The Republicans attacked Kerry exactly with the reasoning that he is now running against the war that he "supported" and they WON because they could defuse his credentials there.
You try to make a big issue of this godawful, earth-shattering fib going so far as pretending that he, I and others are trying to hide it somehow. Parsing, fudging, misdirection.
But you do whatever you need to win, man. Gamesmanship all the way. No parsing too tight, no context too clear to throw away. That is why so many of us do NOT want Clinton as our first choice.
As soon as I see a glimpse of intellectual honesty and talking about the issues, talking about what SHE will do instead of what Bill did a decade ago or how electing Obama is going to end in a mushroom cloud, I will reconsider.
Common Sense wrote on January 13, 2008 5:29 PM:So for those playing at home:
Senator Obama spoke out against the war when it was popularly supported. Then on the eve of the 2004 Democratic Convention, he declined to criticize the party's nominee for President, which is evidence that he did in fact support the war. Even though, at that time, it was more unpopular than it had been two years prior. What happened? Well, Senator Clinton ran for president, that's what happened.
See if you turn your head this way, ignore the context and ignore any sentences that don't support Clinton's theory, and then squint your eyes, just so....there Obama wasn't opposed to the war.
I know, it gives you a headache, but still you see it, right?
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 5:32 PM:Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 5:16 PM:If he prevails in the end, he'd be the better for it.
I'm not sure that's true because the Clintons have done a lot of prevailing and they don't appear to be better for it. They appear to be ruthless, cynical and Rove-like as a result. Or were they always this way? Either way, not a good thing.
I find that claim to be wildly exaggerated, especially because Obama has gotten a free pass from everyone, including until up to now by Hillary's camp. If the MSM won't scrutinize Obama to the same level that they do Hillary, and her camp does not try to clearly "draw contrast" with Obama, how would the voters, who have gone gaga from breathing too much of Obama's hot air, become aware of the "rolling of the dice" that Obama's candidacy really is? Up until her upset in Iowa, Clinton had largely avoided challenging Obama's various and changing claims and positions and that almost did her in. I am glad that they have now begun to challenge his many claims. If that is racist, then so be it. On the other hand, if he cannot stand the heat like any other candidate, the kitchen door is wide open...
including until up to now by Hillary's camp.
That is a simple lie. They'd vetted him back to kindergarten way before now. They've tried to casually smear and distort him up until now and because it isn't working, they've gone into full smear and distort mode.
Clearly, you want Hillary. That's no excuse to lie and smear. Clearly Hillary wants to win very badly. That's no excuse to lie and smear. Can you at least sort of understand why some of us want to turn the page on the politics of personal destruction?
blackstar wrote on January 13, 2008 5:44 PM:Obama's purported "opposition" to the Iraq war is the stuff of "fairy tales."
-----------------
he made a major speech about Iraq voicing his opposition to the idea of war with that country prior to the vote. he appeared at anti-war rallies and marches. he said publically on many occasions, both televised and during his run for the Senate, that he opposed the war.
that you can then come out and say he was NOT in opposition to the war only demonstrates your own idiocy and rejection of uncomfortable reality.
i realize that you, and your candidate, are trying to muddy the waters on this issue, and that's typical politics. but not only is it NOT honest, it IS NOT good for our country. period.
Keith wrote on January 13, 2008 5:46 PM:Duane:
Your arguing with people that are actively distorting reality to make a point. Do you really think they are going to respond to appeals of logic?
Seriously, I'd say let them work themselves into a lather. Let them gloat in the brilliance of their own minds. It worked well for the Bush administration, it will work equally well for them.
No matter how much logic and facts you can muster, when someone has settled upon a narrative (however divorced from reality) they have a tremendous incentive to defend that narrative even in the face of overwhelming facts. That's what you are experiencing right now.
Keep your powder dry and watch the kids play in their puddle of piss that they swear is rain.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 6:00 PM:Your arguing with people that are actively distorting reality to make a point. Do you really think they are going to respond to appeals of logic?
Keith, I'm not trying to convince these paid Clinton operatives. It's the other folks I'm trying to reach.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 6:00 PM:Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 13, 2008 5:26 PM:Should he be our nominee, you can bet that the GOP smear machine would have no compunction about "defining" Obama for the voters, and it won't be pretty.
With respect, it will not be easy, or simple, for ANY of them. I reject picking my candidate simply out of fear of what the other side will do. How is that showing leadership on the part of the Democratic Party? "Oh no, I'd best pick Candidate X, who is so boring that maybe the GOP won't bother smacking them around!"
What you wrote is true but utterly irrelevant to the subject matter of this thread. I brought up the GOP smear machine simply because of the crazy notion that there is something wrong about Hillary's campaign "drawing contrast" with Obama on issues, claims, positions. If we expect the GOP to go after Obama's records, fairly or unfairly, why is it a capital offence for Hillary to do the same? The last time I checked, there was a contest for the nomination of each party's candidate for the presidency, and usually candidates duke it out to see who can best sway the voters. That is what has been going on, except that everyone has seemed to be afraid to take Obama head on. If we expect him to be challenged as the Dem GE candidate, why do we cry foul when he is challenged as primary Dem candidate? It makes little sense to me. He simply can no longer be treated as the "untouchable" candidate. Those who had drunk too much of the kool-aid have been singing praises of a candidate with virtually no record of achievements but would like to make you believe that somehow he would magically change Washington and transform the GOP into a wimpy bipartisan bunch, and everyone would live harmoniously ever after, without providing any specifics! The last we elected a would-be "uniter" who was likable and was someone voters felt comfortable having a beer with led to the single biggest foreign affairs policy disaster in American history. Yet, with the Village Idiot still on the scene we seem to be ready to make the same makes again!
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 6:25 PM:Common Sense wrote on January 13, 2008 5:29 PM:So for those playing at home:
Senator Obama spoke out against the war when it was popularly supported.
Too much kool-aid is bad for you. It was no "profile in courage"...really. In 2002, Obama was running for the US Senate and HAD TO OPPOSE THE WAR because African-Americans, whose vote he absolutely had to have to win, were overwhelmingly against the war, even during the heady days of "Mission Accomplished". Why? Well, simply because the US Military contains a disproportionately large number of black kids from poor families, in relation to total percentage of blacks in the entire US population, which made the war quite unpopular in that community!!! To claim that "Senator Obama spoke out against the war when it was popularly supported", implying that it was a principled position simply ignores the underlying political calculation. He was a politician running for office and espoused a position that he knew he had to take in order to get elected. Again, a contemporaneous account from someone who was there and should have known (notice the present tense):
To win the Democratic primary election in Illinois, where African Americans cast at least a quarter of the ballots, Obama needs to capture the great majority of a large black turnout, and pick up a significant slice of white votes as well. To secure a general election victory in a presidential election year Obama will have to fire up an expanded Democratic base and turn the election into a crusade against the incumbent president and his party. Can he do it? At an antiwar meeting last October Obama was certainly pitching to that Democratic base in the progressive and African American community: "I don't oppose all wars etc..."
The parts in bold tell the story of why Obama had "opposed" the war. It was no "profile in courage" to do what he had do to secure the African-American vote and win!!! Wake up and smell the coffee, man.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 6:31 PM:From the Washington Post today about the Hillary Camps emails distorting Obama's pro-choice stance:
"Bette Lasky, the assistant state House majority leader and a top Clinton supporter who was involved in the e-mail, said she was sorry to hear about the bad feelings but hopes Obama's supporters will get over it.
"It's politics, and it happens," she said.
The e-mail, echoing a mailing by the Clinton campaign, criticized Obama for voting "present," instead of "yes" or "no," on several abortion-related bills while he was in the Illinois Senate. The e-mail was signed by a who's who of the state's Democratic establishment, dominated by women who supported Clinton in the primary.
Obama supporters say the accusation, first laid out nearly a year ago, is unfair, noting that Democrats in the Illinois Senate often voted "present" on controversial legislation, not to duck issues, but as a tactical response to Republican efforts to force them into unpopular votes that could be used against them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/12/AR2008011202827.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
I don't know how many of you are C-Span junkies. But I know TPM moderators are. The repugs try to bait dems on all kinds of bogus votes, wording in them in such a way that if you vote no, they get you - if you vote yes- they get you. That is what the "present" vote is for, to prevent that kind of entrapment by the other party.
The said part is, this is not coming from the other party, but by a fellow dem. Lucy pulling the football anyone?
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 6:33 PM:The parts in bold tell the story of why Obama had "opposed" the war. It was no "profile in courage" to do what he had do to secure the African-American vote and win!!! Wake up and smell the coffee, man.
If that was the case, which it isn't, surely you can agree it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the wrong reasons?
How can you try to impugn Obama's motives for doing the right thing while giving Hillary a pass for doing the wrong thing - voting for the war - for the wrong reason - wanting to better her chances in the 2008 Presidential campaign?
Again, it comes back to the same question I've asked over and over and over and over. If this stuff is a problem for Obama, how is it not a bigger problem for Hillary? If these things reject him for the Presidency, how do they not doubly reject the Clintons?
Still no answer.. still hopeful.
Steve wrote on January 13, 2008 6:38 PM:Obama said this: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."
Let's see:
- The day after the New Hampshire primary, Obama's national campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. goes on MSNBC and suggests that Clinton's non-existent tears had something to do with her winning there, and notes that she didn't cry for Katrina. He also says this is something that's very important because we're heading to South Carolina, where African Americans will be a large portion of the vote. Obama has not disavowed these comments or publicly shown that he disagrees with them.
- Obama campaign spokeswoman Candace Tolliver then says this to the Politico: "There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months... Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?"
- Obama's South Carolina campaign press secretary distributed a memo alleging that the Clintons have a pattern of making racially insulting remarks. The list of examples includes Hillary Clinton's LBJ/JFK/MLK remarks.
All of that happened before today. Yet Obama claims that his campaign is not responsible for this. Even Obama's comment is disingenuous--he says that Clinton's remarks were "unfortunate" and that it "offended some people." In the very next line he says it's not something he's remarked on.
I am utterly disappointed in the Obama campaign's apparently deliberate attempts to portray Bill and Hillary Clinton as somehow insensitive or hostile to African Americans. At the time, I argued on other liberal blogs that we shouldn't take offense at Jesse Jackson Jr's comments, but now it seems that I was mistaken. This attempt to split the Democratic coalition apart for political gain is reprehensible, and it comes with the cost of ruining the good names of quite a few stalwarts of the Democratic Party. It is not worthy of the rhetoric of unity that Obama preaches.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 6:38 PM:Oh by the way. Hillary is in the Senate. She knows the kinds of tricks the repugs play and how "present" votes work.
That being said he totally disingenous statement "You can't vote present as president" is a horrible distortion and she knows it. Alls fair in love war and politics right Hill.
So much for the world admiring the "greatest nation on earth".
If Obama can withstand Hillary's Swiftboating, he can withstand anything.
What a sad thing for the Democratic party, that the Clintons have to resort to attacking one of their own party's best.
blackstar wrote on January 13, 2008 6:41 PM:The parts in bold tell the story of why Obama had "opposed" the war. It was no "profile in courage" to do what he had do to secure the African-American vote and win!!! Wake up and smell the coffee, man.
--------------------
its pretty hilarious how you're basing this entire concept on a single article with no citations to back up its claims, written by a clearly non-objective author. but i guess you'll co-opt any source, regardless of its validity or rationale so long as it fits your predetermined narrative.
you're making us sick. not as supporters of a candidate, but as critically thinking human beings.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 6:43 PM:Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 6:33 PM:The parts in bold tell the story of why Obama had "opposed" the war. It was no "profile in courage" to do what he had do to secure the African-American vote and win!!! Wake up and smell the coffee, man.
If that was the case, which it isn't, surely you can agree it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the wrong reasons?
LOL. Another kool-aid drinker. Obama had no clue about what right or wrong at the time of his [in]famous speech. All he saw was the African-American vote. But as the war got more popular and he had already delivered his oration, notice how he started to distance away from his Principled Opposition to the WarTM. Again, Obama's buddy, Bruce Dixon:
omebody else's brand of politics appears to have intruded on Obama's campaign. For a while the whole speech could be found on Obama's campaign web site, a key statement of principle for a serious US Senate candidate in an election season when the President's party threatens the world with permanent war and pre-emptive invasion, and cows US citizens with fear mongering, color coded alerts, secret detentions and the abrogation of constitutional liberties. Although Obama may have appeared at meetings of other citizens opposed to the war or let them use his name, no further public statements from the candidate on these important issues have appeared. Then, a few weeks ago, Barack Obama's heartfelt statement of principled opposition to lawless militarism and the rule of fear was stricken without explanation from his campaign web site, and replaced with mild expressions of "anxiety"[...]
Kool-aid is for repugs. What Clinton is serving her supporters is Draino. Pure poison determined to pollute our once united party against the corrupt repugs. In her tactic to supress her opponent she is killing the United American spirit that we felt for only a brief moment. We know most politicians are power addicts, I just didn't know how far she would go to poison our party to win.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 7:04 PM:Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 6:54 PM:Kool-aid is for repugs. What Clinton is serving her supporters is Draino. Pure poison determined to pollute our once united party against the corrupt repugs. In her tactic to supress her opponent she is killing the United American spirit that we felt for only a brief moment. We know most politicians are power addicts, I just didn't know how far she would go to poison our party to win.
If you give us some facts to back up your rant, we might be able to respond. Partisan conjectures and suppositions, which have no basis in reality whatsoever, cannot pass for reasoned analysis, no matter how hard you tried, and especially if you're talking to a "draino" drinker.
Fantastic beliefs are reserved for Obama supporters. We are a reality-based community...
TheraP wrote on January 13, 2008 7:08 PM:Mary... You go girl! Passion! I love it!
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 7:22 PM:Fantastic beliefs are reserved for Obama supporters. We are a reality-based community...
.. he said, conveniently ignoring my direct question to his propaganda at 6:33PM.
Mary, TheraP;
You two need to get a life. You and others supporting the talking point that the Clintons are evil slime bags is not only not true but reflective of the kind of people you are. Hope is a wonderful thing if we have some substance to go on. Unfortunately, Senator Obama has not made hardly any change in his short time in public office. Maybe when he has actually made change, like Senator Clinton, then he can validly claim to be qualified to be President. But as of today, no way.
Alan wrote on January 13, 2008 7:31 PM:Mary, TheraP;
You two need to get a life. You and others supporting the talking point that the Clintons are evil slime bags is not only not true but reflective of the kind of people you are. Hope is a wonderful thing if we have some substance to go on. Unfortunately, Senator Obama has not made hardly any change in his short time in public office. Maybe when he has actually made change, like Senator Clinton, then he can validly claim to be qualified to be President. But as of today, no way.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 7:33 PM:Guess the quote:
"Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."
Why it is none other from that fairy tale telling, naive senator
HILLARY CLINTON
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=268474
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 5:40 PM:including until up to now by Hillary's camp.
That is a simple lie. They'd vetted him back to kindergarten way before now. They've tried to casually smear and distort him up until now and because it isn't working, they've gone into full smear and distort mode.
Clearly, you want Hillary. That's no excuse to lie and smear. Clearly Hillary wants to win very badly. That's no excuse to lie and smear. Can you at least sort of understand why some of us want to turn the page on the politics of personal destruction?
Calm down, man! They all want to win. To think otherwise is simply ludicrous. The issue is simply this: There is a contest for the nomination going on right now. Should everybody just let Obama get away with wild claims? As I have tried to do with factual and contemporaneous account of the circumstances surrounding Obama's claim that he'd opposed the war, there are legitimate questions regarding that and such other claims that few in the MSM have dared to ask. Now that Hillary's camp has started to do the MSM's traditional job and begun to ask the obvious questions, Obama and his supporters are crying foul, accusing Hillary(and Bill), who has had a long history of championing African-American and civil rights issues, of race-baiting or of engaging in a campaign of smear and distortion. I, for one, would like to be provided with a list of things that Hillary's camp has said that can be considered to be a smear or a distortion. Just making the claims does not make it so!
As for Hillary not initially taking the high road and not attacking her opponents, here's something that reflects what the prevailing view was until the narrative turned sharply negative against her and she decided to begin fighting. From a post by WaPo's Chris Cillizza/b>back on Nov 13, 2007 (emphasis mine):
Wag the Blog: What Should Hillary Do?
From her stumble over drivers' licenses in the Philadelphia debate to the controversy over a planted question at an Iowa town hall, it's been a rough few weeks for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Clinton's best chance to change that narrative comes Thursday night when the Democratic field gathers for -- another -- debate, this one sponsored by CNN and held in Las Vegas.
To date, Clinton herself has avoided directly responding to attacks by her rivals, choosing instead to laugh off the criticism -- literally -- and attempt to refocus things on President Bush and Republicans. Of late, however, Clinton has given some signal that her strategy may be changing. In the Philadelphia debate and then again in her speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines over the weekend, Clinton said: "Change is just a word without the strength and experience to back it up."
We report. You decide.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 7:48 PM:Calm down, man!
It sounds like you are the one that needs to calm down, friend. I've been quite restrained in pointing out your lies.
You, on the other hand, are using exclamation points and bolded statements. You blaming me for your own lack of calmness is part and parcel of the Clinton's efforts to blame everyone else for their own egregious behavior.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 7:50 PM:When you have calmed down, dcshungu, we can continue this conversation about the Clinton efforts to smear Obama.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 7:52 PM:Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 7:33 PM:Guess the quote:
"Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."
Why it is none other from that fairy tale telling, naive senator
HILLARY CLINTON
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=268474
You have answered the accusations implicit in your own previous rants. Two can talk a game: The universal values that Obama has appropriated and has been sophomorically spewing as the rationale for his candidacy (to loud "Amens" from his kool-aid-drinking supporters) are universal. Just because he uses his unmatched oratorical skills to claim that these are his values and you fall for it is no reason to think that he would be able to deliver. That was precisely Hillary's point in invoking MLK and LBJ. It takes both inspiration and political acumen to go from idealism to reality. To mask his lack of real experience and political maturity, Obama would have us believe that inspiration ist alles, political acumen and experience be damned. If you believe that then you would also believe that I have a great apartment on Park Avenue to sell you very cheap.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 13, 2008 8:14 PM:From the endorsement rollout Obama's conducting, it seems to me their efforts are simply to take airtime away from the real news, i.e. big time Dem politicians in almost every Feb. 5 state are signing up with Barack. He's well past Clinton in getting absentee CA voters to put their ballots in for him; all she's doing is stirring the pot while they can figure out how to get votes suppressed or stolen. They need to go to convention competitive. Unfortunately, with compressed news cycles, they don't get away with a slow leak of venom. Right now, they're just hoping to slow Obama by making him seem as much guttersnipe is she and Bill are. If John Lewis sticks with this campaign through what they're doing now, he will prove that he didn't really want to sit in the front of the bus.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 8:15 PM:Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 7:48 PM:Calm down, man!
It sounds like you are the one that needs to calm down, friend. I've been quite restrained in pointing out your lies.
Just because you call something a lie does not make it so. I have provided links to back up everything that I've said here. You can challenge my posts with your own facts and that would make it a valid debate. However, all you and your ilk have done is just to post screed after screed that you never attempt to justify factually, and expect us to just swallow it as God's word. No, that is what Obama's supporters do. When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regarding of how factually untenable the claims.
When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regardless of how factually untenable the claims.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 8:20 PM:Judgement, ethics, reason:
This is what did it for me. These words spoken before he decided to run for president. This is how we can move forward united. Clintonistas try to find something wrong with this.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
Although I bet you will try to find something "naive" about this too.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 8:27 PM:Just because you call something a lie does not make it so. I have provided links to back up everything that I've said here. You can challenge my posts with your own facts and that would make it a valid debate. However, all you and your ilk have done is just to post screed after screed that you never attempt to justify factually, and expect us to just swallow it as God's word. No, that is what Obama's supporters do. When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regarding of how factually untenable the claims.
I'm willing to get behind Edwards if you are. Can we do it for the good of the country and party? Or is this just simply about tearing up Obama so Hillary can win?
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:33 PM:dcshungu wrote
"To date, Clinton herself has avoided directly responding to attacks by her rivals, choosing instead to laugh off the criticism"
She sure loves to laugh and smile during the debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 8:39 PM:Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 8:20 PM:Judgement, ethics, reason:
This is what did it for me. These words spoken before he decided to run for president. This is how we can move forward united. Clintonistas try to find something wrong with this.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
Although I bet you will try to find something "naive" about this too.
Mary, idealism is a wonderful thing, but, yes, it is naivete if it is not sprinkled with a heavy dose of realism. That is, in a nutshell, my problem with Obamamania...
As your previous post showed, Hillary [or Edwards or Biden], too, has her idealism, but she is also pragmatic and that is what we will need in the post-Bush era to try to tackle head on the many problems that the Village Idiot is sure to leave after he leaves office and head off into sunset as the would-be "uniter" who would restore dignity to the White House and be a "compassionate conservative", but wound up being the worst POTUS in history. Count the number of feel-good words in just that short sentence: "uniter", "compassionate conservative", "restore dignity"...Those are wonderful words, but the Village Idiot did not have the political acumen to turn them into reality. It is what we fear about Obama, and it is the case that I hope Hillary would attempt to make relentlessly in the days ahead, cries that she is engaging in a campaign of smear, distortion and race-baiting notwithstanding. Drawing contrast with Obama is the best way to establish who is best qualified to lead the free world after Bush...
The MSM has abdicated its duty and promise to the public. It is up to Hillary to do their job by finally shining the light on this other would-be "uniter."
Tom wrote on January 13, 2008 8:42 PM:Lanny Davis was just on Fox News teaming up with Larry Elder on Team Clinton against Juan Williams and Dick Morris on Team Obama. I guess they couldn't find any real Democrats. Anyway, the highlight was when Lanny actually said Obama "supported the war in 2004". Talk about rewriting history. And that was right after he went on a long rant about facts. These Clintonites have no shame.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 8:42 PM:Okay, Okay,
Read it for yourself. If it sounds like common sense - it is because it is.
Anyone who has questions about Obamas plan for America you can find it here.
You have to be in a draino induced coma to find fault with the extreme intelligence in it.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 8:52 PM:the clinton camp is scraping the bottom of the barrel with their paid shills here. I can't think they are trying to do anything more than destroy the Democratic party. Why else hire these thug-posters?
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 8:55 PM:Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 8:27 PM:I'm willing to get behind Edwards if you are. Can we do it for the good of the country and party? Or is this just simply about tearing up Obama so Hillary can win?
I am supporting Hillary because I believe that she would be good for the country, and my making the case for her is in no way a "tearing up" of Obama so that she can win...someone will win regardless. I have just stated, as factually as possible, my "beef" with his candidacy at this juncture. I like the guy personally and should he be our eventual nominee, I would support him. If not, eight years from now I will be one of his most unabashed supporters because I believe that he would by then have seasoned his idealism with experience and realism to become a powerful and even more charismatic statesman.
Edwards did not make the sell last time, and he has had a hard time doing it this time. The "John Edwards Show" won't be playing on any TV station near you this fall...not in reruns nor in syndication. The Republicans do reruns. The Dems traditionally do not...
John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 9:03 PM:It is no great mystery why the Clintons have gone all sleazeball on us. I told you so weeks ago.
Her internal polls are in the tank
WaPo ABC - Obama Erases Clinton Lead- -25 in a month
The Clinton lust for power will wreck our party
Michael A wrote on January 13, 2008 9:15 PM:dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 8:19 PM:
When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regardless of how factually untenable the claims.
So do you have tickets to the coronation for your messiah dc. There is absolutely no factual basis for any of her lies and distortions. You are obviously smart. Why are you buying the lies? It makes no sense.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 9:16 PM:John McCutchen wrote on January 13, 2008 9:03 PM:It is no great mystery why the Clintons have gone all sleazeball on us. I told you so weeks ago.
Her internal polls are in the tank
WaPo ABC - Obama Erases Clinton Lead- -25 in a monthThe Clinton lust for power will wreck our party
LOL. Get real! If after Iowa and the pollsters' debacle in New Hampshire this strikes you as "news", I gotta say: "Get a clue." No one thinks that this race is anything but close at this point...at least I stopped thinking that it would be after Hillary got trounced in IA. I still believe that in the long run Hillary will prevail because of her constituency, but it is going to be a long, slow and hard slog, to quote Rummy.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 9:22 PM:Michael A wrote on January 13, 2008 9:15 PM:dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 8:19 PM:
When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regardless of how factually untenable the claims.So do you have tickets to the coronation for your messiah dc. There is absolutely no factual basis for any of her lies and distortions. You are obviously smart. Why are you buying the lies? It makes no sense.
It is because I am "obviously smart" that I do not buy into the notion that Hillary has distorted anything or smeared anyone. I can think for myself and examine the facts. Give me the list of her "smears and distortions" and I will factually rebut all them, one by one. Just because YOU call something a smear or a distortion does not make it so ...
When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regardless of how factually untenable the claims.
---------------
says the guy who bases his position on this matter on a single article written by a known opponent that doesn't cite sources for its claims.
-------------
You can challenge my posts with your own facts and that would make it a valid debate. However, all you and your ilk have done is just to post screed after screed that you never attempt to justify factually, and expect us to just swallow it as God's word. No, that is what Obama's supporters do.
------------
facts have absolutely no effect on you. we can sit here and link you to accounts of Obama's speech in 2002, in which he unequivocally opposed the run. or the articles of him speaking on this opposition in war protest rallies and papers in which he lays out his position on Iraq.
but these FACTS, in your view, do not constitute a case that he was against the war from the beginning. which is nothing less than a total rejection of reality and critical thinking.
which is what we've come to expect from Hillary supporters who take the time to spin and dissemble in forums and comment sections across the web. they are every bit as bad as Young-Earth Creationists in this regard.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 9:25 PM:dcshungu,
I really need you to explain the whole meeting with our enemies is "naive"
Please see this and explain it to me. Because I, as a totally decieved Obama supporter, am having a hard time reconciling hillary's statements on video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw
Anonymous wrote on January 13, 2008 9:36 PM:Michael A,
At least Josh Marshall agrees with me on one point. At the TPM front, Josh posted:
That said, I continue to think most of the statements from the Clinton's themselves are being distorted or just made into things they weren't. Like the 'fairy tale' line, for instance. I cannot see any interpretation of these comments that can credibly be said to have any racial subtext whatsoever.
I will not defend statements by an "adviser", purported "surrogate" or anyone else who happened to speak for himself or herself and was swiftly dealt with by the campaign.
dcshungu wrote on January 13, 2008 9:44 PM:facts have absolutely no effect on you. we can sit here and link you to accounts of Obama's speech in 2002, in which he unequivocally opposed the run. or the articles of him speaking on this opposition in war protest rallies and papers in which he lays out his position on Iraq.
You got that backwards. You have no use for facts. Obama "opposed" the war to get the African-American vote for his Illinois Senate campaign. He had no choice but to "oppose" the war. After being elected, he has done nothing to back up his claim that he had "opposed" the war on principle. Please use your head and whatever common sense you have, and spare me.
Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 10:00 PM:I guess I must be really thick because I thought dschungu was a Hillary supporter. But after his last comment about his Illinois sentate campaign, I have just realized he could in no way be supportive of any kind of progressive issue.
I can only conclude he is a repuglican troll. They want hillary to win, badly.
There is just so much to throw at her.
Therefore dschungu, I will not feed the troll. I hope others will do the same.
Duane wrote on January 13, 2008 10:18 PM:I am supporting Hillary because I believe that she would be good for the country, and my making the case for her is in no way a "tearing up" of Obama so that she can win...someone will win regardless. I have just stated, as factually as possible, my "beef" with his candidacy at this juncture. I like the guy personally and should he be our eventual nominee, I would support him. If not, eight years from now I will be one of his most unabashed supporters because I believe that he would by then have seasoned his idealism with experience and realism to become a powerful and even more charismatic statesman.Edwards did not make the sell last time, and he has had a hard time doing it this time. The "John Edwards Show" won't be playing on any TV station near you this fall...not in reruns nor in syndication. The Republicans do reruns. The Dems traditionally do not...
Well, good for you, and thanks for your honesty. However, with your answer you have put to bed this canard that you tried to lay on me:
However, all you and your ilk have done is just to post screed after screed that you never attempt to justify factually, and expect us to just swallow it as God's word. No, that is what Obama's supporters do. When the 'messiah' speaks, everyone says "amen" regarding of how factually untenable the claims.
It is actually me who is willing to compromise for the sake of the party and country you who is willing to torpedo it to shove your DLC candidate down our throats.
Hillary is using Rovian tactics here. Trying to turn around her own weaknesses as a candidate buy turning them around applying them her opponent to define them by any means necessary. But you can basicially sum up her argument to being nothing more than " Don't be fooled Obama is almost as bad as me." Is that really the kind of message we want to support? This is the same kind of tactics Rove/Bush would use. It divides the country. It was bad when they did it and it is bad when Hillary does it.
blackstar wrote on January 13, 2008 11:13 PM:You got that backwards. You have no use for facts. Obama "opposed" the war to get the African-American vote for his Illinois Senate campaign. He had no choice but to "oppose" the war. After being elected, he has done nothing to back up his claim that he had "opposed" the war on principle. Please use your head and whatever common sense you have, and spare me.
-------------------
maybe you'd like to present some credible sources that indicate this conclusion. you've certainly not done so thus far.
your case would have to be pretty strong to overturn Obama's reasoning for his opposition. because his stated rationale from his papers, speeches, and appearances for his opposition is sound: that war would increase Al Qaeda's support, draw American resources from Afghanistan, mire us in an intractable conflict with no clear exit, and so forth. you're saying that it wasn't actually any of the perfectly prescient and accurate reasons he expressed prior and immediately after the invasion of Iraq that guided his decision, but rather political expediency.
good luck making that case, chief. it certainly won't be made on the basis of a single article without a single citation written by a known opponent. or maybe your propensity for accepting information without verification or credibility explains your support for Hillary Clinton?
ChrisNBama wrote on January 13, 2008 11:18 PM:Here's a cherry quote from Senator Clinton's speech declaring her vote authorizing force against Iraq:
"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."
You can read the rest of her remarks here:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
dcshungu wrote on January 14, 2008 12:17 AM:Blackstar sez:
maybe you'd like to present some credible sources that indicate this conclusion. you've certainly not done so thus far.
I did provide you with credible contemporaneous evidence which you have ignored. The link I had provided led to three pieces by Bruce Dixon, a black Chicagoan who had worked with Obama back in 1992 doing community outreach and voters registration drives, and had called out Obama on his "strange" position on the war back in 2003 (when Obama was still a nobody). First, there is little doubt that considering who he was trying to woo in 2002 to help him win the nomination for the Illinois Senate, Obama had no choice but to "oppose" the war. There is no way he would have won if he had endorsed the war, which the African-Americans had overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed from day 1. Then, after having appeased the African-Americans voters with his "opposition" speech and seeing that the war had gotten popular during the heady "Mission Accomplished" days, Obama began to distance himself from his purported "opposition" to the war by saying little about it and then taking down his now famous war "opposition" speech from his campaign web site. None of these facts are in dispute because during the moth of June 2003, Dixon and his colleagues had gone after Obama to seek clarification, which Obama gave in the end in letter that you can find at the site, including trying to explain why he had taken down the speech [LOL: he said that he took it down because needed more room on his web site for fresher material, imagine that! What could have been fresher than his "principled" war "opposition" speech?]. Follow the link and stop telling me that I have not provided credible evidence. It is all in there. If the MSM had not abdicated duty, they would have gone after Obama on this clear contradiction about his position in the war, but, hey, who can go after St. Obama?
As I said, use your head and common sense. Obama's purported "opposition" to the war was a political calculation and not a principled stand. That this was so became apparent by the fact that he did absolutely nothing to oppose the war once he was elected to the US Senate, where went on to vote just like Hillary on every war funding bill...
These are not smears or distortions. They are inconvenient truths about Obama's background that the MSM have completely ignored, and that the Clinton are being disparaged about for bring out...
Speaking of the MSM and distortions:
He's the NYT's version of Hillary's quote on MLK/LBJ that people have been calling racist:
“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. “It took a president to get it done.”
Below is what Hillary had actually said:
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
Judge for yourself. Where is the racism in the full quote and who is responsible for distortions? Hint: It is not Hillary.
We report. You decide.
blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 12:37 AM:The link I had provided led to three pieces by Bruce Dixon, a black Chicagoan who had worked with Obama back in 1992 doing community outreach and voters registration drives, and had called out Obama on his "strange" position on the war back in 2003 (when Obama was still a nobody). First, there is little doubt that considering who he was trying to woo in 2002 to help him win the nomination for the Illinois Senate, Obama had no choice but to "oppose" the war.
-------------
yet Obama's stated reasons for his opposition to the war, which i outlined in my previous comment, turned out to be remarkably accurate. so not only would you have to make a case that Obama's motivations were more than just the good sense and prescient assessment of the situation THAT THEY DEMONSTRABLY WERE, but that this good sense was somehow subservient to political expediency. which is probably effectively impossible, but i'm sure you'll knock yourself out.
furthermore, your position (such as it is) hinges on this single article who's argument in turn rests on the proposition that Obama was dependent on African-American voters and that African-Americans were in very strong opposition to the war in Iraq, but doesn't cite any polls or statistics that support this point. therefore i don't have any CREDIBLE reason to believe that African-Americans were in any more opposition to this war as a group than any other progressive bloc.
going even further, Obama himself addressed the thrust of the very article you cite, as follows:
Barack Obama -
"As for Bruce's larger point -- that I've begun to water down my criticisms of the Bush administration during this early phase of my campaign -- I'd invite him to join me on the campaign trail here in Chicago for a couple of days. I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so). That opposition hasn't changed, and I continue to make it a central part of each and every one of my political speeches."
dcshungu wrote on January 14, 2008 12:40 AM:Mary wrote on January 13, 2008 10:00 PM:I guess I must be really thick because I thought dschungu was a Hillary supporter. But after his last comment about his Illinois sentate campaign, I have just realized he could in no way be supportive of any kind of progressive issue.
I can only conclude he is a repuglican troll. They want hillary to win, badly.
There is just so much to throw at her.
I guess you must be "really thick", as you say, because you are wrong on all counts: [1] the facts about Obama and his courting of the African-American vote for his Illinois US Senate seat run in 2002-2003 are not in dispute (see my preceding posts], [2] as of late Obama's progressive credentials are in doubt with his talks about things like "fixing" social security etc, and [3] I am NOT a Repub, much less one who is a troll.
Hillary is more experienced?
See what bill has to say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUm7tkgFGYs
dcshungu wrote on January 14, 2008 12:57 AM:"As for Bruce's larger point -- that I've begun to water down my criticisms of the Bush administration during this early phase of my campaign -- I'd invite him to join me on the campaign trail here in Chicago for a couple of days. I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so). That opposition hasn't changed, and I continue to make it a central part of each and every one of my political speeches."
Then he turned around and voted every time to continue to fund Bush's war... Some "opposition", that. You are not taking in any of the overhwhelming evidence that challenges Obama's claim but I did not expect you to. Barring something really awful, very few people who make up their mind to support a candidate ever change their decision.
I will leave you alone if you do not accuse Hillary of trying to smear Obama or distort his claims, when all she is trying to do is to raise legitimate concerns about issues which people who ought to know have been clearly questioning since 2003. Let Obama defend himself by rebutting the charges. To cry foul or call the Clintons racists won't get him or you sympathy from me. He decided to get into the kitchen before he'd gotten through culinary school, so he ought to learn from the chefs the tricks for staying in the kitchen when it does get hot, or just get out altogether.
Bonsoir et bonne nuit!
Mary wrote on January 14, 2008 1:18 AM:This was from John Edwards campaign. But it is none the less true: