Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDesperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
Campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire the day before the primary, Senator Hillary Clinton once again pounded Barack Obama for being big on talk and small on deeds. And before a crowd that could barely fill half of a modest-sized gymnasium, she continued to claim that Obama is a disingenuous politician, no noble and inspiring force of change. Using the thin opposition research her campaign operatives have managed to unearth on her rival, she recited what's becoming the campaign's regular litany of Obama's alleged hypocrisies. Saying you oppose the Patriot Act and then voting to extend it-"that's not change," she declared. Saying you're against special interest lobbying and then having a lobbyist co-chair your New Hampshire campaign-"that's not change," she thundered. Saying in a campaign speech that you will not vote to fund the Iraq war and then voting for $300 billion in war financing-"that's not change," she exclaimed. After the event, in an interview with Fox News, Clinton was even sharper. She referred to Obama's (and John Edwards') "hypocrisy," and said, "Senator Obama has changed many of his positions." Voters, she insisted, deserved to know this: "Talk is, as they say, cheap."
Her charges against Obama have generally been weak-standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.
Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:
If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding [for the war], I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.
Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker-and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.
I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:
Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars [in a war funding], I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:
Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.
Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy-given that they have voted the same-she has accused him of being a hypocrite. But where was the beef?
I sent the Clinton oppo guy a follow-up email:
I looked at the quote [you cited]. He was clearly speaking about the $87 billion package. But what Sen. Clinton told CNN was that Obama said, "I'll never vote for [Iraq war] funding." He doesn't say that in the quote. Was she accurately quoting him?
I received no response.
As Hillary Clinton was leaving Dover, I attempted to put the question to her. She had just finished the interview with Fox and another with a local station. Inside the gym, I was two feet away from her. "Can I ask you one question about Iraq and Senator Obama?" I inquired. She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away.
During her speech to supporters at Dover, Clinton said, that it's important to disseminate information on all the candidates "so voters can make a well-informed decision.... I will do whatever I can to make sure voters have the information they need." But ascertaining that this information is accurate is apparently not on her to-do list.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. A regular on political talk shows, he has broken stories on George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton, Enron, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (with Michael Isikoff) and The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.
© 2008 Mother Jones
113 Comments so far
Show AllDoug, it doesn't matter how many times you say, it JUST AIN'T SO!! John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them!
But they do fear John Edwards! Here is another link to the article, read it this time!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."
"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
Edwards is bought and paid for by Fortress Investment Group
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
How old are you Mike? Old enough to forget who voted for the war? Old enough to turn a blind eye to all the evidence pointing to the fact that Edwards is a professional sell out? Maybe this country doesn't need people old as you, considering where this country is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
Since the theft of the elections in 2004, when Edwards wanted to fight over the Ohio vote, and was stopped by John Kerry, Edwards has undergone a metamorphic change, as evidenced by John Kerry's endorsement today of Barack Obama, fellow ivy-leaguer(hopefully not skull and bones).
Edwards was a one-term senator in a very red state, in fact he took the seat of the infamous Jesse Helms. Even before the 2004 election theft, Edwards was preaching the message of two Americas. One for the wealthy and privileged and the other one for the rest of us.
He's not perfect, but he is sincere, and he recognizes that corporate money is the problem with our government, and he will work to give government back to the people. As I said, he is our last best hope to stop our slide into Fascism.
If he's not telling the truth, he's a bigger liar than Bush and Cheney combined, and if Edwards doesn't win, you're going to get either Obama or Clinton anyway, no real difference between them, so why not give yourself a chance to win and
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD of CHANGE!
"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.
These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…
Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
JTinIL,
The real question is are you voting for someone who voted for the war (Edwards and Hillary) or someone who opposed it from the beginning(Obama and Kucinich).
As for Obama's withdrawal plan, when are people going to realize that withdrawing American troops has to go hand in hand with enabling an Iraqi political process to go forward? Using diplomacy to reconfigure the relationship between Iraqi workers and Oil companies; Turkey and Kurdistan; Iran, the MEK based in Iraq, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran)and the new Shi'a political majority in Iraq? Much less Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and the new Sunni political minority in Iraq? Or the Baath Party in Syria and whatever remnants exist of the Baath Party in Iraq?
James Madison, Federalist #10 on the Tyranny of the Majority: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction...No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, becasue his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity...Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves, the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail...It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust the clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the pulbic good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm...Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens..."
Removing American troops is not going to necessarily end the civil war. Rather, the idea behind gradual withdrawal and encouraging a federal system in Iraq is that it is going to incentive Iraq's political leaders to end it and give them timelines of what to expect as American troops withdaw and as Iraq's security becomes dependent on them. It is simply false to state that removing every single American troop (even those providing humanitarian aid and guarding the US embassy?) will solve the Iraqi political crisis in and of itself. As Obama has said "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." There are no easy solutions, and it's simply dishonest for Hayden to imply there are. It is not in the interest of Iraqis that Americans simply withdraw without enabling them to envision their own future as we do so. What does Hayden think will happen if we simply weren't there? He doesn't know. And it is in the interest of Iraqis that there are timelines so that they can as people in small and large groupings and solidarities properly evaluate what the withdrawal of Americans will mean to the future of their state/lives.
Very appropriate comments JTinIL.
BASKA, it is the lobbyists who are the muscle and the "bag boys" for the neo-cons. Lobbying in Washington is the prime reason we have a fascist form of government and have lost any sembelance of democracy in the United States.
It is just as Roosevelt warned us years ago. When the corporations and big business control the government, you have fascism. The lobbyists insure big business rules. Therefore, when a lobbyist is Obama's Campaign Manager, it is most troubling to see him win any of the primary elections, or being a front runner.
Technically, David Corn is correct in saying that Hillary misquoted Obama. Obama did not explicitly promise to never vote for war funding.
Below is a link to an ABC News story that is headlined:
"Obama Changed Position on War Funding."
Indeed, Obama changed position on war funding. Moreover, Obama refused to do anything requested by his anti-war constituents, such as support Murtha's Plan, support Kerry-Feingold amendment, back anti-war candidates, ask questions about the absence of WMDs in Iraq, etc.
Hillary may his misquoted Obama, but her main point is that Obama is a phony on Iraq. Hillary's main point is true, and her misquote doesn't make Obama genuine on Iraq.
OBAMA CHANGED POSITION ON WAR FUNDING
Democratic Presidential Contender Opposed War Funding in 2003 but Has Voted Four Times for Funding in Senate
By Jake Tapper and Jonathan Greenberger
ABC News
March 21, 2007
http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=2970930&page=1
From the ABC News article:
Obama's campaign says that he opposed the $87 billion war supplement because a portion of the funds were to be directed toward reconstruction of Iraq, which he feared would be distributed inappropriately.
But at the time, Obama's public statements suggested he opposed voting for the supplement as a way of opposing the president's overall strategy in Iraq, and not just the reconstruction funds.
And in that Council for a Livable World questionnaire he completed while a Senate candidate in September 2003, Obama wrote that he wanted to delay approving the additional funds until President Bush provided a timetable for withdrawal, although the Obama campaign notes that he also wrote he was concerned about the reconstruction money going to political friends of the White House.
Obama told the Chicago Sun Times in November 2003 that he opposed the funding because it 'enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people.'
Obama, as a Senate candidate, therefore opposed war funding because he:
1)was afraid of appropriating money for no-bid contracts
2)wanted to oppose Bush's overall strategy in Iraq
3)wanted to delay funding until Bush provided a timetable for withdrawal.
Obama then went to the U.S. Senate and voted for war funding. Obama fought against a timetable for withdrawal in 2006.
Regarding no-bid contracts and cronyism, it is important to remember that more information became available regarding these sweetheart contracts during Obama's first two years. Yet Obama continued to vote for war funding. According to his position during his Senate campaign, Obama should have been more eager to vote against war funding.
In sum, Obama is indeed a big phony on Iraq. Although Obama never explicitly make a direct promise to never vote for war funds, it sure seems logical for Illinois voters to conclude based on his campaign that he would go to Washington and do SOMETHING to try to end the war.
The important question is not whether or not Hillary misquoted Obama. Technically she misquoted him. But the real question is did Senator Obama use his power as a Senator to end the war when he got to Washington? If so, what did he do?
Obama did NOTHING to end this horrendous, bloody, illegal occupation.
RE: "NEOCON...SECRE[T]" SUPPORT FOR OBAMA cont.
lillulu January 8th, 2008 3:58 pm
"It's very interesting that the neocons are secretly backing Obama."
baska January 8th, 2008 7:38 pm
"It's very interesting that this allegation is not supported."
KEM PATRICK January 8th, 2008 8:24 pm
"Not supported BASKA? Look where most of his money is coming from..."
What "neocons" give money to his campaign - or "back" it in any way - "secretly" or otherwise?
"...and his campaign manager is a DC lobbyist."
Shrug. Since when does DC lobbyist equal "neocon"?
btw - I'll write in a protest vote for Kucinich, even after he endorses a Democrat nominee.
How can Kucinich expect anyone to be serious about his candidacy for president when HE isn't? He spent no time in Iowa, nor did he have an office there! Kucinich is no fool is he? He knows how the election process works. Why didn't he just keep his big mouth shut and not endorse anyone, instead of selling out to Obama?
No not all BLESSTHEBEASTS. Kucinich had near 11%, most of his supporters, near 8%, had Edwards as a favored second choice, until Dennis endorsed Obama. It made a good 7% difference for Obama. Lets say 3% went to Obama and 7% to Edwards if Dennis had made no endorsment. Edwards wins Iowa. The important thing there is not the win or second place, it is the press coverage that was NOT given to Edwards afterwards. NONE.
Obama and Clinton HAVE ALREADY SOLD YOU OUT!!
Give your votes and support to someone who is really fighting for you, JOHN EDWARDS! John can win with your support. Send him some love for having the courage to speak the truth, and for forcing Obama and Clinton to start talking about the issues that matter to working people.
EDWARDS '08
And don't fall for Hillary's 'mandate' nonsense. I'm currently paying for mandated health insurance I can't afford to attend college. $1,500 a year on top of $9,000 a year. The issue is NOT MANDATES. ITS AFFORDABILITY.
Oh, and guess who I have to buy loans from.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040824/
You think this doesn't happen with mandated health insurance?
As Obama says, "Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.
What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?
The Massachusetts Plan
"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. " [Because children don't have a choice, they're not adults.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
genaman,
you ask "What Has Senator Obama done for the people of Illinois? or this country?"
Illinois
"Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
Illinois Death Penalty
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/12/124344/53
MY FELLOW AMERICANS:
We're all being played like a finely tuned .... bagpipe. You can hear the drone just under the sweet melody: American fascism, media complicity, more war, forever war, patriot act, loss of civil rights, huge detention centers, disappearing middle class, rich becoming richer and more powerful. And the drone goes on, no matter which party is in control.
How could anyone who has been paying the slightest bit of attention for the past 30 or more years think that the imperial monster is going to allow anyone or anything to get in its way? If they thought that Edwards or Obama was any kind of real threat to the "new world order," they'd have them assassinated or threatened out of meaningful political existence. There's no way for any one candidate to change the direction of the US. They can't. Ever hear of a stalking horse? That was Howard Deans role in 2004.
Folks, our only hope is YOU and ME. We need to unplug and resist. If voting for one of these approved candidates makes you feel better, go ahead. Just don't come crying to CD that your hopes were dashed once the lessor evil is in office and nothing changes but their rhetoric.
What I want to know is, when will we stand up and say: "NO MORE. We're no longer taking part in this theater of yours."
The false hopes are distracting. We will be disappointed and angry when we find that these hopes and dreams, played beautifully in the melody line of the "great speeches," are dashed and thrown back into our faces.
When the Democrats betrayed their constituents after November's election, many of you on CD pledged never to trust them again. But, as it turns out, "Here you go again." Hope springs eternal. (You can fool some of the people all of the time) In the meantime, the source of the spring is turning toxic.
Who honestly believes that the beneficiaries of the most powerful Empire the world has ever known will relinquish their stranglehold on the world? It's not going to be like taking candy from a baby. There will be lot of blood and misery for ordinary people, especially the resistance. It's inevitable. And it will be harder, not easier, as time goes on. How long before the people use some kind of collective action, disconnected from the status quo power structure?
It's painful to see "progressives" - concerned, heartful people who want a better world for everyone - being jerked around like this by the Democratic Party - again. But it's even more painful to watch them fall for the distractions and manipulations, the so called "opposition." The actors who play these roles are speaking of hopes and dreams and change. According to plan, this theater is entertaining and seemingly spirited. But the drone is herding you all back into the coral, where you belong. That's the reality.
Hold out. Say no. Put some pressure on. Escape from the coral. Don't be so accepting.
Don't blame Kucinich for Edwards fizzling out. Edwards is obviously not as "electable" as his supporters claimed. He lost by 7 points in Iowa. Are you saying all those votes came from Kucinich Kem? Let's be realistic.
Dupe, Dupe, Dupe......
Hey there Reapadeepdeep old boy, why dontcha have a look at this here article, while you blindly support those who would send the children of America to kill and be killed for a lie.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/09/6264/
Dupe of earl, Dupe, Dupe.............
Who said I put the bong down?
Dupe, Dupe, Dupe............
Sing it again Reapadeep old boy. Dupe, Dupe, Dupe, .
Here's another tune for ya.
"The republican trick can be played out again, people please tell me when, we'll be rid of these men. They're all the same so sing right along now...
Dickie's such an assssssholllle, sincerely Dick we mean it, sincerely George we mean it, sincerely Reapadeepdeep we mean it. Weeeeeooooooo!!!!!!!!!"
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with your and my freedom you fascist imperialist dupe. It also had nothing to do with 9/11, unless you believe that 9/11 was actually a false flag operation as layed out by your buddies in the PNAC docs.
By the by old boy, you know nothing about me and mine, save for the limited opinions I chose to post on this here anonymous forum. So your lame attempts at a personal attacks on me are laughably pitiful at best.
Then again it is laughably pitiful that a neo-conn dupe like you would spend their time posting on a progressive blog. Why don't you go on over to LGF where you will fit right in.
It's fun to watch lying politicians expose and destroy one another. We the voters haven't committed any crime to deserve this, i.e., having to vote for any one of them. Alas, we are not allowed an alternative.
Reaper, I stopped reading your initial comment after you tried to pass your unfounded opinion off as 'reality'.
Then I tried to read your successive comments, but you just spit out the same tired garbage most Republicans spit out when trying to back up their justifications for war.
Just a word of advice, think about what you know is reality, what you actually have proof of or have seen, before claiming it to be reality. Also try thinking of your own ideas instead of parroting Republican apologists you hear on the radio or whatever.
It's not worth arguing points with somebody who doesn't think for themselves.
Look, it's become more than obvious by now: the choice is going to come down to another 4 or 8 years of "Hill 'n' Bill" or Obama. Frankly, given that choice, I'll take Obama, because I don't want there to be 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Can you say the "D" word, as in "dynasty"? America, as far as I am concerned, doesn't, or rather, shouldn't, have political dynasties, although we all know too well that we really do.
So given the choice that it's more than obvious we're seemingly being handed, I'll take Obama over "Hill 'n' Bill", although right now, I'm still a loyal Kucinich supporter. Frankly, with the ascendancy of "Hill 'n' Bill" last night in New Hampshire, I smell Republicans behind this. They know from their Rovian playbook that they can very easily make another go at destroying the Clintons, as they tried in the mid-90's, and this time, they may well succeed. They've had almost 8 years of Bush to hone their craft and get away with it (which they know that they can because they know that no Democrat out there has the cojones to impeach them).
So a choice of "Hill 'n' Bill" as our Democratic nominee is political suicide for the Democratic Party, but if they want to go ahead and commit ritual seppuku, who am I to stop them? Maybe it's time all we disaffected Dems went Green and took our good progressive candidates with us.
Your choice is 1-leave the country; 2-Sit back and watch as Republican fascism progresses; 3-Sit back and watch as people vote for Clinton, who gave us NAFTA, media conglomeration (why we have no real journalism today), 1 minimum wage hike in 8 years, embarassing foreign policy in Eastern Europe, Sudan, and Iraq,etc., or; 4-Sit back and watch as people vote for a guy named Obama who offers nothing but hope (certainly nothing tangible, like plans or programs).
kivals (9:42 am) is exactly right, just above. // Note in this connection that Hillary suddenly started using economic-populist rhetoric ("I will stand tough against the corporations") in NH. This came right out of the blue -- the first time in the whole campaign she's talked like this. It goes without saying that she doesn't mean a word of it, but this is apparently how they decided to retool her campaign after Iowa. Basically, they decided to move the rhetoric a good bit to the left, at least temporarily -- more or less talking like Edwards (who also may not really mean it, but surely means it more than Hillary does).
In her victory speech, she said, "The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had for seven years a president who stands up for them. It's time you had a president who stands up for you," & that she advocated "...Government of the people, for the people, by the people, not just for the privileged few."
And it apparently worked. She seems to have done very well among lower income voters, & those expressing fear about the state of the economy.
Chunga,
Billary's strategy did work. The most unprincipled and amoral always have an advantage. And Billary may meet their match in the general election, because it is difficult to out-Republican a Republican. However, it is always possible that the Republicans and the corporate media will allow a Clinton victory, knowing the Bushes and the Republicans have too much on the Clintons for the Clintons to do anything objectionable to them, realizing that the Clintons are about as pro-Wall Street and pro-military industrial complex as anyone can be anyway, and recognizing that the economy and Iraq are about to go to hell and someone must take the blame.
By the By - It looks like Billary's strategy worked. She is back to being Corporate Shill #1. So much for change.... Oops that is another thread.
Dupe Dupe Dupe...... Never mind you know the tune.
Dupe Dupe Dupe, Dupe of earl, Dupe Dupe, Dupe of earl, Dupe Dupe, Dupe of earl..............
I love the "Real Americans" line there Reapadeepdeep old boy. You have certainly put me in my place. If your so gung ho why not grab your gun and head on over, I hear Blackwater is hiring, you fascist dupe. Better yet send your children or grandchildren over to kill and be killed for nothiing of real value. By the way most of the Real Americans were murdered by our genocidal European ancestors a long long time ago.
And the Reaper Head blesses us with this wisdom "you can't turn back history and we now need someone to deal with the insurgents and bring democracy to Iraq. Who better to do that than a Republican who actually knows how to win an election?"
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA ....................
Your as big a dupe as the Obama supporters.
So most of your posters do not want change Huh
Maybe you would like Bush President for life?
Where were you when Bush attacked IRAQ?
Senator Clinton ar least stands her ground on her vote. She also stated if she knew then what she knows now. But no cop out.
Remember that darling Bush that was in the White House then had a popularity of arounf 90 percent.
Yes your darling Dennis stood up ,but look Where is he in the polls today?
And OBAMA tells us of his plans? I have yet to hear anything but a lot of slogans coming out of his mouth.
Senator Clinton from the first day she walked into the Senate has made herself know there.
She has workeec on both sides of the aisles to get legislation agreement.
What Has Senator Obama done for the people of Illinois? or this country?
It is plain he is not ready to be President.
We do not need another puppet like Bush is.
CHANGE? Hell nobody seems to know what Change Obama even stands for.
And remember Bush claiming he was The Change President . Yet what he talked about before the election He soon got rid of after the election.
In other Words Support Senator Clinton ,You Know where she is coming from.
Hillary's campaign operative provided weak documentation to back up their claim that Obama is a phony on Iraq, but it is not hard to find better documentation.
Obama does not deny that he and Hillary have voted the same way on Iraq. Obama can only point to the fact that he initiaaly opposed it when Hillary supported it. (See "Obama Disputes Claim of Sharing Clinton's Stance on War," by Patrick Healy, NY Times, 5/18/07)
Obama is a phony on the war because he not only funds the war, but he also ran away from Murtha's plan and fought against a timetable (until the Nov 06 midterm elections). Furthermore, Obama refused to raise the issue of the phantom WMDs which was the justification for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
As a freshmen Senator, Obama acted quickly to legitimize the war. In Jan 2005, Obama voted to promote one of the key architects of the war, Condi Rice, to Secretary of State. Obama did not ask Rice a single question about the WMDs or justification for the war at her confirmation hearing.
Obama has campaigned for pro-war Democrats, such as Senators Maria Cantwell and Joe Lieberman. In Illinois, Obama, Durbin, and Rahm Emanuel worked to undermine anti-war congressional candidate Christine Cegelis and replace her with pro-war candidate Tammy Duckworth.
Obama voted in June, 2006 against an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry that would have, as Obama said, bring the troops home on a "date certain."
Obama said on the Senate floor at that time:
"A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field and our diplomats in the region insufficient flexibility."
Obama was MIA for the roll call vote on Kerry-Feingold amendment on June 22, 2006.
After the November 2006 mid-term elections, Obama once again became the anti-war candidate. For a more detailed discussion, see "Once opposed setting 'date certain'", by Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, 1/31/07
Obama said little about Iraq in 2005, and in 2006 Obama
argued against timetables in public appearances. See "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," by David Sirota, The Nation, June 9, 2006 (available also on CommonDreams)
After the Democrats became the majority and were engaged with a showdown on war funding with Bush, Obama said that if President Bush vetoes the war funding bill because of its timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Congress will then swiftly provide the president with another version that lacks such a provision. According to the AP, Obama explained this by saying that no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops." (March-April 2007)
In sum, Obama is indeed a big phony on Iraq.
I think REAPER is actually Cheney. ___ But then on second thought, Cheney is more intelligent, it's probaably Bush himself.
Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, ___ it's Bush.
Haha, Reaper, read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and then tell us how we need to stay in Iraq to help them against their will. Btw, "true Americans" don't torture and commit war crimes.
Well reaper, the one thing that we DO know about Iraq, is that it was no mistake, it was on purpose and planned well before the chimp took office in 2001. The insurgency was no mistake either. Everything in Iraq went according to the twisted plan. These people running the show knew that it is a lot easier to steal and run an agenda when the country is in chaos. Remember the old westerns, they always stampede the cattle when they want to rob the bank.
I know what you mean Kem, I just can't stand to see them go unanswered. Am I being pety or what?
EDWARDS '08
DOUGWAGNER didn't write that post today MIKE, it's just one of his troll cut and paste jobs from yesterday and the day before that.
Dougnwagner, you don't have a clue.
Obama will keep us in Iraq past 2013, he said so.
Only Edwards will have us out in 10 months from taking office.
EDWARDS '08
If you vote for Edwards, Richardson, or Kucinich at this point you're really just voting for Hillary. That's the reality Mike. Get over yourself and your eternal wisdom in voting for a person [Edwards] who says anything to win and has obviously fooled you about who he is.
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
I organized against the Iraq war in 2002. I know what the issues are. Millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans continue to die because of that vote. Think about it.
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
"Ostrogoth - I'll not vote for a kinder gentler fascism, thank you very much. If the dims can't manage to nominate someone worth voting for then I'm voting Green in the general election. I bought that line, held my nose, and voted for Kerry in 04. That is the last time I vote for someone with whom I disagree on most major issues, and whom I find thoroughly void of any real ethics." (By Chunga's Revenge, in response to my post @ 4:52 pm)
Chunga's Revenge, we're both struggling with the same moral quandary. Like I said in my post, I've finally concluded that most Americans are hopelessly brainwashed. A nuclear armageddon a la McCain would wake them up perhaps, at least the ones that survived. (The cure was successful, but the patient died.) I reject the radical cure option because I realize, in spite of my dark view of human nature, that there are many good people out there who just want to live. Millions of them wouldn't survive another hard-core fascist regime like the one we are currently blessed with. But they might survive a Democratic administration, even with Hilarious in charge. For their sake, I'll be a pragmatist instead of an ideologue.
Wait a minute, I think Obama is giving his concession speech. Yeah, he asked dougnwagner if he wanted fries with that!
You're so right formernadervoter!
Edwards is our best hope for REAL change!
EDWARDS '08
Obama is the master triangulator, even better than Bill Clinton.
Read this guy's book, The Audacity of Hype, I mean, ah, Hope. He criticizes the right and then the left and then tells why he's all of a sudden got a better idea than either. What a triangulator. He's wrong on the ideas, he's wrong on the facts. He's wrong about reality. You have to pick a side.
Do you think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. triangulated?
How about Rosa Parks?
What about Susan B. Anthony?
You think the anti war protestors who helped to end the attack on Vietnam triangulated?
What about the laborers who took over the auto factories and started the labor movement? You think they ran for the middle?
Only Edwards among the top three does not triangulate. He will fight for us against the entrenched special interests.
And if Edwards doesn't win, we won't either.
Dougnwagner, YOU DO SUCK!! YOU are following a scortched earth campaign strategy that is detrimental and destuctive to your own ends. If Hillary does decide to go negative, and starts a pissing contest with Obama, you will get some of your own misleading garbage thrown right back in your face, and I can't think of anyone more deserving of that than you, after all the misleading garbage that you have posted here on CD. Yes dougnwagner, YOU SUCK!!
EDWARDS '08
Mike,
I think you suck. You support the person who voted for the war and who will say anything to win. Having to deal with reality and the cognitive dissonance of supporting such a charlatan you have turned your venom at me. Obama is winning, and is going to win the nomination. You've gone from Obama bashing to Obama-Edwards. Good for you. Slowly sip that coffee as you ease into the reality of Edwards not winning the nomination. I know its hard when I read crap like this from you:
"John Edwards, who is actually speaking the truth about what needs to be done in order to right the ship of state, that is listing so far over from the tidal wave of corporate money, that it is in serious danger of capsizing. You need to understand that if the ship goes down, you, your friends and families are going down too."
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
How old are you Mike? Old enough to forget who voted for the war? Old enough to turn a blind eye to all the evidence pointing to the fact that Edwards is a professional sell out? Maybe this country doesn't need people old as you, considering where this country is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
Yaaaaaaaaaay, team! Go team!
Folks, I'm supporting Republican Ron Paul. Whomever emerges on the Democratic side (sans Hillary) will be better than whomever wins the Republican side (sans Ron Paul... who wants the troops home NOW!)
Remember what the Republicans did to Democrat Cynthia McKinney in Georgia? I say its time for Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives to reciprocate in the Republican Primaries. Whatever we can do to continue to keep Ron Paul's pro-Peace message heard! (have you been watching Faux News squirm?)
How old are you dougnwagner? It's my guess that you are one of those twenty-somethings with a little education and no real life experience, attracted to get involved in the Obama campaign by his feel-good rhetoric.
Don't misunderstand me here, I think that's a good thing, because young people need to get involved, as they have been uninvolved for much to long already.
Decisions have been made by presidents and politicians of both parties, bad decisions, over the last four or five decades that will, very surely, negatively affect your life, and the lives of your children and your grandchildren, and you, apparently, have no in-depth understanding of where we have been nor where we are going.
I see it in your child-like, infantile efforts to win for Obama by smearing the only other electable top-tier candidate, John Edwards, who is actually speaking the truth about what needs to be done in order to right the ship of state, that is listing so far over from the tidal wave of corporate money, that it is in serious danger of capsizing. You need to understand that if the ship goes down, you, your friends and families are going down too.
Don't let your zeal for short-term profits blind you to the bigger picture and the long term goals. Yes, it is about change, and it's about getting out the message of what changes are needed. And right now, Edwards is speaking the message of change while Obama is showing the face of change.
As I have said before, the best thing that could emerge from the Democratic primary would be a ticket with both Edwards and Obama on it. Now that is something to work for.
Ironically, Corn doesn't call up the Obama campaign to ask for their take
on Clinton's attack. He instead creates the defense. Interesting decision
on Corn's behalf.
Makes me think someone over at Obama's camps should
send him a voucher for a free penthouse suite at the Hyatt in Chicago
and a couple of tickets to see Oprah.
Get the Hyatt connection folks?
Not supported BASKA? Look where most of his money is coming from and his campaign manager is a DC lobbyist.
Ms. Clinton has committed the ultimate mistake in her campaign, so did Mr. Kerry: they never take a position on anything.
C'mon. You have positions. Lay 'em out there. Win, Lose or Draw.
As if.
RE: SECRET RIGHT WING SUPPORT FOR OBAMA
lillulu January 8th, 2008 3:58 pm
"It's very interesting that the neocons are secretly backing Obama."
It's very interesting that this allegation is not supported.
It tells you a lot about the Evilcrat party that none of the No votes above even tried to run for the nomination. I guess only the Yes votes had sufficiently showed their committment to evil to be considered for the nomination of the Evilcrats.
If you vote for evil, you will elect evil. Even if its a lessor-evil, its still evil.
We've been trying that for years, and where has it gotten us? Lets try building a unified opposition to all these corporate monsters instead.
And come to Denver next August to tell the Dems what you really think of them to their faces. www.recreate68.org
I think Obama did say he was against the war in 2002. He was a state Senator in IL then. The catch is I'd guess that the district he represented was one with a large number of minorities and also an urban districts. Such districts were heavily against the war in 2002, so it wasn't exactly a brave act for him to oppose the war.
That's what he uses to spread the myth that he's anti-war, even though there's lot of examples like the quote from his convention speech above that sound very, very different. He's definitely voted to fund the war in the Senate, and he's said clearly that Americans will still be dying in Iraq in 2013 if he's elected President.
Ostrogoth - I'll not vote for a kinder gentler fascism, thank you very much. If the dims can't manage to nominate someone worth voting for then I'm voting Green in the general election. I bought that line, held my nose, and voted for Kerry in 04. That is the last time I vote for someone with whom I disagree on most major issues, and whom I find thoroughly void of any real ethics.
Sequana January 8th, 2008 1:41 pm - I know you said you were out and all that, but here goes a response anywho.
"Why do people even on this site keep repeating the lie that Obama is not Christian? He's not a Muslim. Never has been, never will be."
Who said he is a Muslim? Did I miss something? Oh wait I know, you must be objecting to those who are pointing out the reality of his Muslim heritage(go on tell me his fathers family is not Muslim, I dare ya) and the way that will be used against him in the general election. You may not like this fact, and neither do I, but fact it is. Barack Husein Obama has not a snowballs chance in hell of being elected president of the USA in 2008, even if he is Dick Cheney's cousin.
This is what Obama said in his 2004 democrat convention keynote address:
"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to NEVER, EVER GO TO WAR WITHOUT ENOUGH TROOPS TO WIN THE WAR, SECURE THE PEACE, AND EARN THE RESPECT OF THE WORLD!"
So, in the summer of 2004 it is very clear that Obama ONLY objection to the Iraq war was that it was not prosecuted with enough ferocity and barbarism. I clearly recall watching this speech, hearing this line, groaning, and from then on, calling him "O-bomb-a".
lilulu "It's very interesting that the neocons are secretly backing Obama." If it is a secret how do you know about it. Your not secretly a republican are you? ;-)
dougnwagner - This is propaganda as far as I can tell. Obummer was not involved in national politics in 2001 of later in 2002 when the vote you site was taken. If you expect anyone to buy this line then you need to show direct action of some sort by him to protest, in a meaningful way, at the time. For him to try to take credit for opposing the war, after the fact, is disingenuous. In 2002 and 2003 I was writing letters to the editor of my local paper, and responding to irrational right wing fearmongering editorials, I was carrying ant-war signs in protest every weekend and getting called a communist by a bunch of rednecks, who are now singing a different tune. All to no avail, but that is not the point. What truly meaningful action did Obummer take to oppose the war in 2002 or 2003?? Dennis Kuchinch can show that he opposed the war, so can Ron Paul. How 'bout Obummer?
Edwards was a disaster for America. Clinton and Edwards voted for the war. Which is why Clinton is dumpster diving.
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
"We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it."- Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Anyone who does not support John Edwards does not care or does not believe that the big corporations are running our government.
Edwards is the only candidate who will end that disaster for America. Of course they will have him assinated if he is elected.
NO ONE should be excluded from the debates. It is wrong and immoral. It should be criminal.
My greatest fantasy is be the CEO of the Laura Scudders peanut butter plant.
My greatest fantasy, of the moment, come true would be for Billary and Obummer to blow each other to smithereens, leaving the nomination to better candidates.
The bigger issue is that Kucinich and Paul have been excluded from further debates. This is digusting, especially when Paul has been beating some of these other Nazi Republican candidates. I guess the media will finally "inform" us who they have chosen for our leader.
Hillary is Hillary-arious! She's running around New Hampshire shouting at anyone who will listen "Look at ME. I'm for Change, I've always been for Change. Change is what I'm all about, Change is. Look at ME,ME,ME." Pathetic.
Hopefully the Good People of New Hampshire will send this odious woman and her equally odious husband packing in today's primary.
There is one thing true, positive change will bring: No more Bushes and no more Clintons. Hallelujah!
Quite frankly, what any of them have to say, doesn't mean much. You will not know until after they get in, what their true agenda is.
The most important thing in this election, and those that are to come, is having a paper trail from those damn voting machines. It is so obvious, it hurts.
Without an honest election, you have no democracy, and they become a sham. i.e., 2000, and 2004.
Apathetic, ignorant, jingoistic Americans deserve their rotten government. What kind of government can you expect in a country where voters are a mindless army of drones programmed by TV commercials? Americans never think to ask who pays for all that slick PR. That would require some thought, and Americans don't do thought.
Obama? He did what he had to do to get Americans to vote for him: he sold them out.
The rest of the world doesn't deserve our rotten government though. I'll support DK or maybe Edwards in the primaries, but let's face it, any Democrat would be better than the Fascist Party candidates, all of whom would blissfully torture and murder millions of innocents abroad and be proud of it. The Democratic Party candidates are, well, less fascist.
If the U.S. were a normal country that maintained an army for defense instead of world conquest, I'd say: let those morons elect McCain, they deserve him. Financially, I'm sitting pretty, let them shoot themselves in their collective feet. But for the sake of all those innocents around the world who deserve a fate better than death from above at a tender age, I'll vote Democrat instead of socialist or Green, whether the Democrats nominate Barack, Hilarious, or Mickey Mouse.
Well I guess if people can play the race card with Osama, Hillary can play the gender card, right?
It's very interesting that the neocons are secretly backing Obama.
talk about the pot calling the kettle black. next she'll play the gender card.
"When are we going to stop expecting our President to be the damn savior of all our problems and just be grateful for what choices we DO have?"
The truth of the matter is the nation is so damned eager for a new administration you can see it on every media member's face. So in some ways you have to forgive the media for being so antagonistic about shaping the way the race is going. But you have to hope the nation can at least be a little patient, and let things unfold before getting "over eager."
Obama better be careful or he might wind up a flash in the pan like Dean. However if he does, truly believe to his core in what he wants to accomplish with a presidency, hey, it worked for George Bush Jr... why not for Barack Obama?
The key for Obama's campaign is to stay calm, focused and at the task at hand. We're seeing what decending into political mudslinging is doing for Clinton's campaign and it's all backfiring terribly.
If he can stay above the petty jibber jabber, avoid FOX at all costs, and stick to his own
guns, he's going to do well.
I would argue that many of the harshest cynics are probably the most disbelieving of any solution that the state of this country is in. So many people are eager to talk of the Bush failures in the handling of Katrina, the dishonesty in conducting the Iraq war, and yet when a young man steps up and tries to plant a seed of optomism into the spectrum, using our own country's history and what should be the most obvious examples of what has been accomplished, these people use words like "false hopes." So is there no place for speaking of the glorious and good deeds of our tradition? Or should we be limited to "getting real" as Hillary suggests, griping and haggling.
Now more than ever we need to stop arguing over the small stuff, and who said what to whom, when and to what degree and on and on and around we go...
What we need to do is look at where this person is coming from. What is their motive in saying what they are saying? For what purpose and to what end? In regard to political smear tactics this is simple. We're seeing candidates and members of an opposition trying to belittle an opponent out of fear of what he may truly accomplish.
And look at Obama's purpose. Has he gone out on a limb to take anyone down? No. He is living his words through his example.
And I'm ashamed of Nader, the cynnical grinning naysayer.
When are we going to stop expecting our President to be the damn savior of all our problems and just be grateful for what choices we DO have?
Hillary Clinton and the tennis shoe pirates of the Democratic party establishment will start doing to Obama what the Republicans did to Harold Ford in November '06.
NO ONE would past the test you are all trying to put them too.
I've been a reader here a long, long time, and I've lost patience with every one of you.
You deserve what you're going to get. I'm out.
The way to end lobbying is to have public financing of campaigns. As long as the corporate money flows into campaigns, there'll be lobbying. Trying to end or curtail lobbying without cleaning up our campaign finance system is silly and doomed to fail. Any who propose that are just trying to put a fig-leaf over the problem and pretend they are fixing it. Kinda like McCain-Feingold ended up being by the time it finally passed.
So, tell me, does any of the top three Dems have a strong committment to publicly financed campaigns? I think the answer is NO.
Often, I tell friends I generally believe what the Dems say about the Rethugs, and what the Rethugs say about the Dems. My level of trust to either party is so low, I generally think that when one group complains about the other, they generally have a good reason.
I'm feeling the same about Hillary and Obama now. I don't like Hillary and will NEVER vote for her. But, what she says about Obama is pretty much on target to me. He is a talk and nice sounding words, with damn little to back it up.
To me, Obama has been slippery as all heck on the Iraq war. He wasn't in the Senate in 2002, so we don't have a vote for him. He was a State Senator in what I think was a minority and urban district in Chicago. I remember living down intown in Atlanta at that time, and that's sounds like the same sort of district as Obama might have represented. And the areas of Atlanta I lived in were strongly anti-war in 2002.
So, I don't take Obama's anti-war statements in 2002 as being anything particularly brave politically. He was pretty much just saying what his district wanted to hear at the time. And it doesn't tell me how he'd vote as a US Senator because he didn't have the money behind him to be a US Senator at the time. Like Charlie Wilson says in his movie, the consituents of congresscritters are not the voters, they are the contributors. So Obama didn't have the pressures to support the war upon him that he would have had as sitting US Senator.
Since then, Obama's just been strange to me. He constantly cites quotes from his state senate days as proof he's anti-war. But, I don't know of a record in the US Senate to back it up. He has not been voting against the funding of the war. He has not been leading filibusters against the war. In fact, from his time in the US Senate, its hard to think of any actions he's really taken to oppose the war. (I tend to discount the more recent votes as being too close to the campaign. Even a hawk like Hillary voted against the funding or abstained last time. A silly vote since Reid already had enough votes to ensure passage, so I'm sure he turned the POTUS-wannabees lose to vote No.)
So, do I think Obama is anti-war? No. I don't see it. So far he's pretty much adopted the Dem war-party-line that since we are already there, we have to stay there and keep fighting. The telling point to me was in the debates when he lined up with all the Dem war-party-hawks and promised to make sure there were still American troops in Iraq in 2013.
If you vote Obama thinking you are voting to end the war(s), my guess is that you'll be out in the streets protesting alongside of me a year into his administration. Because we'll still be there then.
Edwards is the ONLY candidate who will stop the lobbying in DC. That is the key for us to have any chance for a democracy, and not have fascism. I don't care if Edwards played in the stock markets, it was not illegal and many of the things said about that about him are just as untrue as saying Obama is a Muslem. Edwards never accepted any money from the corporate lobbyists for his campaign.
You're a merry soul? Old maybe. LOL.
Sorry, Kem, but Edwards fails the test, too. He not only took money from lobbyists while he was in Congress, he NEVER stood for the things he now says he stood for. If you want to know what he REALLY stands for, check out the Fortress hedge fund he worked for and invested heavily in. Subprime mortgages, foreclosing on people in New Orleans and elsewhere in Katrina ravaged areas. Yeah, he's a populist, all right. DK is the one candidate who has NOTHING to apologize for in any of these areas, and whose program is actually closest to what Americans say they want. Sadly, the MSM has assured that his voice won't be heard, and too few of us have had the courage to stand up and speak out against this abomination we call democracy in the US. At least I had the chance to vote for him, and did, here in NH.
I can never decide which I find more darkly humorous:
1) That Free Citizens in the U.S. approach voting for President as if they were Elector Princes in the Holy Roman Empire.
or,
2) That they Imagine they are Qualified to do so.
Have fun kids,
-matti.
What does the truth have to do with it?
His middle name is Hussein and I am not even going to start on the last name if you can't see that.
Why do people even on this site keep repeating the lie that Obama is not Christian? He's not a Muslim. Never has been, never will be.
It's very disappointing that there is so much rumor and negativity going on here.
One thing to be very wary of. Obama's 'pop-star' status will disappear if he gets the nomination.
For now, the corporate media is happy to play up the corporate friendly candidates on the Dem side. With Dodd (represents Conn insurance industry) and Biden (represents Corp HQ Delaware) out of the race, that mainly leaves Obama and Hillary. The corporate media want one of the two, and will alternatively play up one or the other. I get the sense they've shifted from Hillary to Obama lately.
That will change as soon as Obama is the nominee. Then the corporate media will attack him as some near socialist who's opposed to the more corporate friendly Republican.
We saw this in 2004, when Kerry was getting so much nice coverage and we were told he couldn't be attack because he was a vet. That immediately changed when he became the nominee.
So, if the Dems are basing their wet-dreams of power so they can be better imperialists than Dubya on Obama's 'pop-star' status, they've got a rude shock coming to them. Happens every four years. The wheels fall off the Dem nominee when the corporate media turns from supporters to attackers.
Reaper is right. You just can't face that ugly truth--buying all that crap about how we are so much better than all that--the same claim of American exceptionalism when we have already been revealed in as a sexist, racist, Muslim torturing nation. Why the bristling? of couse it is a liability--that is just the way it is.
While I love that Clinton is reduced to taking the position that "Obama is just as bad as I am," I'm deeply troubled by the notion that we as citizens are reduced to voting for leaders based on who we think will F*ck things up the least in the four years that we are subjected to their misrule.
He makes it a bit interesting JHX, trolls often do that.
Dear Reaper --
You sound like an idiot with your right wing talking points. Go away we don't want you here.
Right now, it appears that the roll Obama is on, will continue, perhaps roll him right into the White House. (If we have an election in November.) Will that be better? Could what we have now be any worse?
The MOST important thing for all of us is, the lobbying. ___ Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, McCain or anyone, __ except John Edwards __ will not stop the lobbying in Washington and therefore, nothing of significance will change in our form of government. The giant corporatons will continue to control the government and as Theadore Rossevelt so well put it, when that happens, Democracy dies and you have fascism, ___ and we have it.
Our only hope was John Edwards and Kucinich has killed that hope, with a petty, get even act. That is a shame, I personally had respected him, __but reality is reality.
No Kem--they are both pretty bad. I thought Obama gave a great speech at the Dem convention--and it has been downhill from there. I'll never forget his vote of confidence for Condoleeza.
Will the twinkle bunny dust around Obama last? Maybe! And it may extend along his coatails. Imagine that, a twinkle bunny presidency and a twinkle bunny congress. It may be that we will all enjoy twinkle bunny lives. Yah, that would be a change.