Obama hits back over "lack of experience" tag

[jefferson_dem]

Obama hits back over "lack of experience" tag
By Matthew Bigg

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama hit back at critics who said he lacks foreign policy experience to be president and said on Saturday many of those critics had voted for the war in Iraq.

His comments appeared to target presidential rival Senator Hillary Clinton of New York who leads polls for the Democratic nomination ahead of elections in November 2008, in part because of voter perceptions that she is more experienced as a two-term senator and former first lady.

Obama opposed the war in Iraq, though he was not in the Senate at the time, and argues that his position shows his good judgment. Clinton voted to support it in 2002. She now calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"It amuses me lately how some folks in Washington have been talking about: 'Well, we're not sure that Obama's got enough experience in foreign policy," he said in a speech.

"These same folks who are talking about a lack of experience are the same folks who joined up with (President) George Bush and said this (the war in Iraq) was a good idea, that somehow we were going to be made safer, that we are going to be greeted as liberators, that are going to create a democracy in Iraq. Who's inexperienced?" he said.

<SNIP>

"There's an old saying which says: There's no fool like an old fool. (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (former U.S. Defense Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld have a lot of experience. They have a great resume. But it's not how much experience you have, it's whether you learn from your experience that matters," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070805/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_1;_ylt=AvweeyLgnBirp0bkHL.OEKkE1vAI

[BeyondGeography]

1. All those unwise old heads signed on for the biggest foreign policy fuck-up in modern times

They deserve our scorn.

[killbotfactory]

10. They deserve more than scorn.

How many people are dead as a result of this stupid war? Hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million.
How many new radical militants, terrorists, a have we motivated?
How much money have we wasted making in this stupid debacle, while our domestic problems are numerous?

All of this was easily predictable, but the ones who supported the invasion of Iraq thought nothing of the consequences, and now all they can do is point fingers and try and shift the blame off themselves.

[Meldread]

2. This is a wonderful quote:

"There's an old saying which says: There's no fool like an old fool. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have a lot of experience. They have a great resume. But it's not how much experience you have, it's whether you learn from your experience that matters."

I believe that was a direct shot at Hillary and sums up my feelings exactly.

Now wait for it, the Hillary followers are going to come and begin quoting the smear book.

[Silence Dogood]

11. except it misses the mark-

Cheney and Rumsfeld always intended to declare War in Iraq. They lied to Congress to get it done.

[venable]

39. i really dislike the quote from BO

it is snide and dishonest to say that the 'folks' who voted for the IWR thought the war was a 'good idea' and that they all believed that we would be welcomed as 'liberators'.

it is snide and snarky and not true and if he studies the historical moment he would know that it is not true. republicans play politics like this: heaping insinuation upon insinuation in order to muddy the waters.

this is the most annoying thing yet about BO, for me anyway.

I just don't like his tone, or his untrue insinuations.

HRC and Edwards and anyone else who voted for the IWR were not chomping at the bit to go to war with Iraq. Bush and Cheney were. He is dishonest to say otherwise.

I forgive him his pakistan and nuclear gaffes. i think on reflection he would speak differently. this, however, is different.


Edwards much-ballyhooed 'cheerleading' was not the same as thinking the war was a good idea. It was sticking by a vote (Yes on the IWR), and not wanting to be ambiguous. If I had believed, like Edwards did, that there were WMD and Saddam was going to use them, I would have wanted to stop him. I would have voted for the IWR. (for the record, I believed Ritter, so it is a moot point).

Don't continue to treat bush's war like it is a Democratic war. It is not even a Republican war. It is bush and cheney's. stop lying.

[TeamJordan23]

3. How many years of foreign policy experience did Bill have? zero. nm

[Captain_Nemo]

5. True, but we weren't in an ill-conceived war in the middle east. It's a different time.

[Telly Savalas]

13. How much experience does one need to order the troops to withdraw?

[Captain_Nemo]

15. You think we can just withdraw? (serious question)

I was against the war and knew these guys were lying when they talked of Saddam having WMD's. However, I also knew that if we invaded we would be in a ten year conflict - at least.

I am not sure we can just withdraw. The area is far more dangerous now. I think we have to seriously assess (something that was not done in the run up to war) the repercussions of "just leaving."

I say this not adversarily. I really think about what will (could) happen if we leave. Will Turkey invade northern Iraq? Will other countries invade it - like Iran - and become a bigger threat to us?

We destroyed the only secular government in the middle east.

What do you think?

[Inuca]

38. It is NOT that simple

Withdraw - yes, 100% agree. What to do during and after withdrawal? The fact that we should never have gotten into Iraq, the fact that some of the current candidates helped through their votes to drive the country (and the world) into this mess, does not in any way chnge the fact that the mess EXISTS and has to be handled. And I do believe that experience MATTERS. That's the main reaosn I cannot fully be in the Obama camp. I think he has great things ahead of him. I also think that he should have had the wisdom to wait, no matter what the hysterical media, etc. said. And it is not only experience that is needed, but also imagination, wisdom, ability to think outside the box. And I am only talking about foreign policy issues now, in addition of course there are not so many important and difficult things that have to be fixed inside the US. I 100% agree with the old-timers in the race that THIS is NOT a time for on the job training. This is not 1992, the world is a much more complicated and risky place. Change, new faces, inspiring personality... wonderful things all, but not enough. I see that this post has almost turned into an anti-Obama post, apologies, not my intention. Just pleading for reason and understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

[Captain_Nemo]

51. nicely said. I don't see Obama as someone who can think his way through the vast complexity

of the current situation. Maybe in 20 years or so (if he stays in political office).

[dionysus]

87. oh he's not smart enough? please.....

:puke:

[Captain_Nemo]

103. any politician who sends out a non-attributable memo about the opponent and then is thunderstruck

when she hands it over to the MSM is not too smart.

HE was forced to apologize because the act was so poorly thought out.

[laugle]

54. Great Post and well said!

I too, don't wish to turn this thread into an anti-Obama thread. That does nothing to further a constructive discussion.

I don't see any way to counter the inexperience label, (though I know that many will try), in the end people will vote based on there confidence level of the candidate!

[laugle]

52. When Bill got in, we were not in the mess

we are now! The only thing we worried about were domestic issues, now we must think about our very lives and the future of this country as it used to be.

The job is going to be enormous and people know that foreign policy experience will be key.

The way I see it, we will have a co-presidency with Hillary handling domestic issues and Bill as a roving ambassador to the middle east and other nations. Whatever Hillary lacks, Bill will counter it!

I know one thing for sure, Bill wants a second bite of the apple with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, (he came very close to an agreement last time), and would love to win the Noble peace prize, to vindicate his legacy!

It's a much different world we live in now and there really is no comparison to when Bill was in office.

[dionysus]

88. the elect hillary because she's big dawg's wife meme?......

"co-presidency"? bwaaaaaaaaaa

[laugle]

104. That's right! Big Dawg and

many other reason's too!!

[illinoisprogressive]

4. who's inexperience! yes! old fools of the establishment.

[NOVA_Dem]

6. "There's an old saying which says: There's no fool like an old fool. "

I hope I hear that quote on every Sunday talk show and for the rest of next week. If he had saved that line for the next debate it would've been a TKO for anyone questioning his experience.

[zulchzulu]

7. Dick Cheney has lots of foreign policy experience

So I guess it's a good thing....

:sarcasm:

[Clintonista2]

9. So you're equating Obama to Cheney?

That's a nice change from equating Hillary to Hitler.

[UrbScotty]

8. Bada-bing, bada-boom!

Way to go Barack!

[Grandrose]

12. Go Obama!

All that so called experience have got us in a mighty big mess and no way out!:mad: :kick:

[JNelson6563]

14. Amazing isn't it?

Brilliantly play Senator Obama. Well done.

This primary is starting to get interesting. ;-)

Julie

[Ethelk2044]

16. He is correct. All the experience will not give you good judgment

[Inuca]

40. True, BUT...

... good judgment does not replace experience either. The "Cheney/Rumsfeld had plenty of experience" argument is spurious. Experience is a necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT condition. Especially now.

[Ethelk2044]

82. Obama Hillary and Edwards all have the same experience

The only one who had good judgment to know it was wrong to go to war was Obama.

[Inuca]

84. I absolutely agree

well, maybe Hillary more than the other 2, but still... I cannot fight the unpleasant feeling that but for a different last name she would not even be a senator, much less in the position where she is now. I have nothing against hard-working ambitious women, but I prefer if they make it on their own. In any case, when I was arguing about the importance of experience, I was most definitely not trying to push any of the 3 you mentioned.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. So Obama is still playing the IWR card on the campaign trail?

But no one dare question *him* on the IWR and his alleged "judgment" on the issue and Iraq in general? :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

18. He opposed Iraq from the get-go - clearly, succinctly, without question.

Yet you continue to try to paint him with the same brush as those that voted 'yes' on the IWR.

That's propaganda, baby, any way you slice it. tsk, tsk, tsk

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Thanks for proving my point

Obama fans, and Obama himself, can say anything about the others on Iraq but no one dare question *him*.

==He opposed Iraq from the get-go -==

Yes, but perhaps the reason for that was not the "judgment" he crows about on the campaign trail. That is the real question raised by Mendell's book...

==you continue to try to paint him with the same brush as those that voted 'yes' on the IWR. ==

That is false. I have always said he was correct in 2002. I just don't buy the Obama mythology that acts as if time stopped in 2002 and that he "risked his political career" by doing something that increased his chances of winning the Democratic primary for senator in his then longshot bid. His record on Iraq since he became a senator is identical to Hillary's. That is simply a fact and tracks with Mendell's claim (his political interests were far different by 2005 and his evolution on Iraq mirrored HRC's during that time--and BO fans tell us HRC's evolution is a product of political calculation...).

[AtomicKitten]

22. I never make such dunderheaded statements

... such as suggesting what anybody's motivation is. I find that beyond presumptuous when I read predictions and such broad-brush nonsense here at DU.

There are two issues: (1) Getting us into the war, and (2) Dealing with the consequences.

Obama did not help put us in Iraq. You can rightfully disagree with #2, but on #1 there is no question. That is indisputable although I have no doubt whatsoever you will continue to try to do so. :)

Barack Obama's 2002 speech:

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army.
He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

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 armchair, 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 Rove 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 through 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.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

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...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation 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 battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Obama himself is citing his alleged judgment in the OP

So surely it is legitimate to question *him* with respect to whether his "judgment" claim is accurate.

==Obama did not help put is in Iraq. You can rightfully disagree with #2, but on #1 there is no question. That is indisputable although I have no doubt whatsoever you will continue to try to do so. :) You can rightfully disagree with #2, but on #1 there is no question. ==

There you go again. I just said what I have always said: Obama was right in 2002. The question is regarding why he was correct. Was it "judgment" or political calculation, given his weak political situation at the time? This is the issue that Mendell's biography of Obama raises. Obama fans can stick their heads in the sand all they want but this is going to be a major story once the book is released and the national press begins to cover it. It will be interesting to see how the BO campaign responds when that happens since so far no one significant has questioned the Official Story...

As far as putting us in Iraq, * did that. You are implying BO's rivals did. Obama fans like to say anything about his rivals on the IWR, even blaming HRC, JE, and co. for the Iraq war (fact: if they voted "no" nothing would have changed) but go ballistic when Obama is questioned on Iraq...You can't have it both ways.

[AtomicKitten]

26. the unauthorized biography you cite is not the wellspring of truth

- to say the least - I also posted for you a piece the same author wrote in 2004 that was balanced and not a peep about this new allegation based on supposition rather than fact. Please don't stoop to using unreliable information simply to punctuate a point. It's a papier-mache argument.

You may disapprove of/disagree with Obama's proposed plan for withdrawal from Iraq, but that's an entirely different matter than giving Junior the reins as the Dems did in 2002.

He earned that differentiation regardless of your snark on the subject.

Free advice: Don't vote for him. But for crissakes please give just a teensy more effort to promoting a candidate you do support rather than spending your waking hours at DU tearing the others down.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Nice spin

==the unauthorized biography you cite is not the wellspring of truth - to say the least ==

Amazing. You have managed to read a 400 page book 2 weeks before it is released...Let's wait and see what happens when the book comes out, when Mendell's argument is more well-known, when he is asked about it in the press, and when BO's campaign responds to it. The reason his allegation cannot be dismissed out of hand due to hero worship is because it tracks with the facts. Obama's record on Iraq has always mirrored his political interests at a given time. A key part of the Official Story is that Obama "courageously" risked his political career by opposing a then popular IWR. The reality is Obama was in a uniquely weak position among our current candidates and his political calculus was far different. Of course, this must be kept under the rug at all costs. Hence, the obsession by Team Obama of stifling any questioning of *his* record or motivation on Iraq. That will be impossible to do in about 2 weeks... :)

==I also posted for you a piece the same author wrote in 2004 that was balanced and not a peep about this new allegation based on supposition rather than fact.==

Nice spin. He wrote a 400 page book. He did research. It is not exactly surprising if while doing the research that a book requires he found something that he did not know in 2004...You are also claiming a guy who wrote a fair article on Obama in 2004 is now on a crusade against Obama--despite not reading a single page of the book. That is called blind faith...

==You may disapprove of/disagree with Obama's proposed plan for withdrawal from Iraq, but that's an entirely different matter than giving Junior the reigns as the Dems did in 2002.==

Again, Team Obama is announcing what the proper terms of discussion of Obama's record should be (while they--and Obama himself--reserve the right to say absolutely anything about the other candidates on Iraq)...The arrogance of many BO fans here is astounding...

==He earned that differentiation regardless of your snark on the subject. ==

Whatever. Not everyone worships Obama. Once the book is released people are going to begin asking questions, regardless of the faith-based initiatives of some Obama fans.

[AtomicKitten]

31. you are cherry-picking snark for your papier-mache argument

In case you haven't noticed, there is a plethora of opportunistic snark coming out in the guise of "tell-all" books. Happens every election. You are hanging your hat on that and completely disregarding Mendell's copious reporting on Obama.

Read his own articles on Obama and then get back to me: http://www.pelicanfile.com/reporter.cfm?ReporterID=1211

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Yawn

1) We haven't seen the book yet. Let's wait and see it before declaring a verdict on it because of hero worship of Obama.
2) You are claiming Mendell is out to get BO in his book yet was fair (in your view. That means pro-Obama) in his articles. Which is it?
3) I started questioning Obama on Iraq even before the latest leak regarding Mendell's book. Look at the record. Every position Obama has taken with respect to Iraq has perfectly aligned with his political interests at the time. Hmm...that causes some to question the holier-than-thou "judgment" meme we see from BO...
4) Who are you to tell me what to read, what to say, what the terms of discussion are, etc.? :eyes: Your arrogance is astounding. Off to the ignore list...

Edit: Relying on "hope" without looking at anything that contradicts what gives you "hope" is based on hero worship.

[AtomicKitten]

36. and you are pooping on the ground where we may be standing after the primary

Now since you've advised me you're putting me on ignore, remember ...

[Tellurian]

44. we've hired a Repuke janitor for such occasions..

http://www.burrac.com/ah/45/Hanson,%20Janitor,%201973.jpg

meet, George!

[Tellurian]

27. This video is very telling- from an interview in 02'

In it Obama says, "If it wasn't an UP or Down vote, he would have Voted with Durbin" Leading the viewer to believe it was an UP and Down Vote. It wasn't, The Iraq War Vote was a 'Roll Call' vote, and at the beginning of the video, he is pleased with how things are going, thanks to Powell et al... So as a Roll Call Vote, he's saying he would have Voted *Yes*! That is the hypocrisy of him using the IWR Vote against Hillary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

[AtomicKitten]

28. and if my grandmother had 'em she'd be my grandfather ...

[Tellurian]

30. If Uncle Tony wasn't an indicted criminal...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. How dare you question *him*!

:mad:

Mendell's book will cause the dam to break and people to finally scrutinize Obama's real record on Iraq, and his important "judgment" claim regarding the IWR.

The most interesting thing about that interview, which is about a month after the IWR, is that Obama said he was happy with how everything was going with respect to Iraq at the time. He was not worshiping at the altar of the IWR then, and actually sounded like HRC regarding inspections, going to the UN, diplomacy, etc.

[Tellurian]

46. I followed AK's Pelican links..

You're right. Mendell's reportage is very fair and balanced. Actually, things that Axelrod claimed, such as "he's not running" may be in Mendells book and may be considered "flip-flopping" by many, if Obama's FF's are strung together like Barbara Bush's pearls. It was just simple little thing like this that doomed Kerry's campaign.

If that is all Obama can crow about Hillary's Iraq Vote, when the public doesn't care to hear anymore about it. The general Public want to know when are the troops coming home?...she stands unscathed in the GE.. afaic! Obama, not so much..

You make a good point, dmc... It seems, we aren't allowed to dissect or put Obama's actions under scrutiny because he's somehow above it all is pure BS...

[AtomicKitten]

47. actually I'm right about the links to all the articles Mendell has written

And there seems to be a great divide between those articles and the carefully excised blurb made by the same author in his unauthorized biography of Obama.

So, let's see. A plethora of balanced reporting versus snark in an unauthorized biography - by the same author!

Wait, don't tell me. The 'must attack Obama' meme must be perpetuated so let's rely entirely on snark.

:sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

48. Could it be...

Mendell's book IS a bombshell? It seems Mendell has gone along with Obama from the getgo...Perhaps he's done more research since then and has a different more current opinion of Obama now... We'll have to wait and see..

calm down, AK.. dmc is only looking for the Truth. He's a good debater. He doesn't fabricate or invent and you can rely on what he says is true. He does his homework. We need to stick together and not splinter like the Shiites and Sunnis. There is a greater war we'll be facing in the GE.

[AtomicKitten]

50. well you credited him

... for the information and analysis I provided re: Mendell's repertoire of articles on Obama.

I did the research; he isn't interested in reading any information that puts a hole in this theory, a theory you support because you support another candidate.

All I want is fairness. That's it. 'kay? I want to give the candidates a fair shake and avoid the pitfalls of partisan bullshit. Like this.

[Tellurian]

53. A fair shake

IS not inclusive of a "hands off" approach. It's called vetting. If Obama survives the vetting process then he's a legitimate contender. There are too many shadows with unanswered question lurking in his background that need answering. Questions Obama himself could have cleared up months ago. He chose to remain silent. That alone does not bode well for someone seeking the highest office in the land and the next leader of the FREE World. Nor someone we hardly know anything about unwilling to be frank and honest when asked a direct question about his close association with a former client, who now is an indicted criminal.

[AtomicKitten]

55. that argument is the epitome of turd polish

NOBODY is advocating a hands-off approach. That is such epic bullshit right out of the box.

I'm saying look at all the evidence, not just what bolsters an argument and turning a blind eye to the rest.

And best of luck on the campaign to hamstring the only candidate that gives yours a run for her money.

[Tellurian]

59. Not so fast..

Obama has had pretty much a free run at this point. The mistakes he's made have been of his own making. Edwards is licking at his heels. Hillary is basically 2 to 1 to Obama nationwide except for Iowa. Hillary isn't Obama's competition, Edwards is..

Hamstringing isn't the issue to be concerned with. It's who is the best candidate to beat the GOP in the General. And who can get this country back on it's feet with a thriving economy.

Obama has cracks in his armour, and more to come if this Rezko Trial proves any culpability on Obama's part. For Criss sakes, if someone applied for a job at a 7/11 in NJ and a BCI ck revealed an association with an indited felon, he wouldn't get hired. So, don't try the hamstringing ploy as a justifiable argument. If he's the real deal he'll survive it all in fine fashion. If not, he's just ruined his career for the sake of expediency when he could have taken his time and done it the right way.

[AtomicKitten]

62. this is why primary politics suck

First of all let me say I really like you. I think you are a smart, passionate woman that is opinionated and I like opinionated. I agree with you on some things, on others not. Most people at DU either reject me or engage me because of my opinion, but more often than not they find I don't agree with them (or agree with them as the case may be) on everything, and thus the ever-changing tides at DU which are as uncomfortable as they are awesome.

Straight talk. I'm having a little trouble hearing an argument from a Hill supporter on the topic of corruption. The Clinton saga is a can of worms ripe for inspection. I have chosen to put my fingers in my ears and chime 'la, la, la' for a lot of reasons. At this particular time in our history, I think it's important to take stock of what is going on and being mindful of history, context, and strategy, choose to know the most pressing issue. So, I think it would behoove us all to think very carefully about this election, its scary and wonderful implications. We can remake our world in this election. We can move and grow in unchartered directions. But we need to think bigger than just what's in front of us.

While Hillary is really talented woman, someone I feel takes more shit than humanly possible, I can't stand the pain of the same bashing that went on for a decade. I can't do it anymore. I'm exhausted.

The answer to all this I firmly believe is Al Gore, but I digress.

Obama has a lot going for him. There are notable exceptions, nothing that a convenient rationalization can't take care of - ha, ha - but he I firmly believe of the batch available for our consumption is the best choice.

So sue me. I'll get in the mud every now and again when the mood strikes and provocation presents itself, but I am tasting the victory already now. Not enough to quench the pain, but enough that makes me dig in my heels and go with the flow. This election is hands-down the Democrats to lose. Let's think long and hard about our future. The what if moment is at hand.

Cheers. :patriot:

[Tellurian]

66. Read #63 first then ck back here..

Just to let you know. If the pain of the attacks of a Democratic president is all you fear, then we are in good order. As I said, in #63... The Strangelove label is typical of a Republican attack. Obama doesn't have the wherewithal to get himself out of a donnybrook gracefully, ending up on top. His chief adviser Axelrod is an ham handed idiot. Have you ever seen him...he looks like a derelict creep! I'm willing to wait and see what Axelrod comes up with as a response to Romney's attack and we can agree to remain friends one more time as a reminder of our original pact...deal?

[AtomicKitten]

69. Obama is spry.

He appears to be quite capable of jab and thrust, shuck and jive. He may not be a pro like his worthy opponent, but that's part of his charm.

And when the other contenders start dropping out, the fun will really begin.

I love politics.

Cheers.

[Tellurian]

73. You didn't answer my question...

DEAL OR NO DEAL?

[AtomicKitten]

74. I answered your question before you asked it.

"First of all let me say I really like you. I think you are a smart, passionate woman that is opinionated and I like opinionated."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3427226&mesg_id=3428291

I hope we remain internet BFF regardless.

Cheers.

[Tellurian]

76. Oops, Cheers to you too!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

65. When is the Rezko trial beginning btw?

I hope it is before the primaries. How screwed will we be if Obama wins the nomination and then we find out something that makes him unelectable in the GE? This is unlikely but we can't play Russian roulette with the the GE.

[Tellurian]

68. The Trial is due to start in Feb right after the Iowa Caucus...

If nothing else, the cloud of a trial beginning right after Iowa is going to hurt his chances in Jan. People aren't going to back someone involved in criminal proceedings and in the end possibly be made a fool of...thats human nature.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

71. Convenient timing. He could have it wrapped up by then

Well, we would have until the convention to make a switch in the unlikely event that Rezko sinks Obama's electability.

[Tellurian]

75. The Republican will hone in on this like an Alaskan Gold Rush..

any hint of scandal is sudden death in politics. People are putting up money to catapult their candidates to the Top. It's wise to at least reserve judgment and $$$ and ?friendships? to wait to see how this all plays out.

When you really think about it, John Kerry didn't want to take Bill and Hillary on...because he knew better.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. The fear from Obama supporters is that it is going to be a bombshell

If what they say about the book (the number of BO fans here who have read the book is between negative 1 and 1...) is true they have nothing to worry about. If the book is a hitjob that will be apparent to all, like it was in the case of Bay Buchanan's book on HRC. It will gain no traction. So why the fear? Why the anger? It is unlikely the book will have any definitive proof. I doubt their is a secret recording of Obama saying "I have no choice to oppose the war. I can then get all those liberals against the war to line up behind me. That will give me a fighting chance in the senate primary." What the value of the book is that it will present facts that are not self-serving ones from BO himself. If the facts show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Obama indeed opposed the war because of political calculation, not "judgment" as he alleges, that would be fatal to the Obama candidacy. I don't expect that, either, although I can't rule that out. What I do expect is that for the first time questions will be asked about Obama's IWR record due to the book. The real story is what the public impact will be. If some view Obama as another finger-in-the-wind politician on Iraq who happened to oppose it because the wind in Hyde Park just happened to be blowing in another direction that will cost him some support. How much, though? Obama has been declining in the polls for several months. The book has the potential to deliver a knockout blow. This is the source of fear.

[jefferson_dem]

86. "The book has the potential to deliver a knockout blow." You wish.

:nuke: that fantasy before you hurt yourself.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

89. Potential? Yes. Likely? No.

If he has some hard evidence of BO saying something like "I will face a tough primary for senate. If I speak out against the war I can use that to win over primary voters who are overwhelmingly liberal. It will distinguish me from the field and give me a statewide base." it could be a knockout blow. Of course, we know that is unlikely. What it could do, depending on how strong of a case, if any (we don't know yet if the political calculation comment was just one made in passing in a 400 page book), Mendell makes is damage the Obama brand, which is heavily based on the IWR. Remember, Obama has yet to have his record scrutinized by the CMSM, which spent three years building him up. ;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. Let's think about this rationally

Mendell was fair, or even pro-Obama for years. He writes a book. How does one write a book? You don't make up stuff to fill hundreds of pages. Yo do research. Is it shocking, given the facts surrounding Obama and Iraq, that after researching Obama that Mendell concluded that politics played a role in Obama's now much-hyped opposition to the IWR? Of course not.

==If that is all Obama can crow about Hillary's Iraq Vote, when the public doesn't care to hear anymore about it. The general Public want to know when are the troops coming home?==

Exactly. The Obama camp on DU thinks the IWR card has a magic quality to it that will hand BO the nomination on a silver platter while the BO campaign is now playing the IWR card because that is the only card it has left to play. 90% of Americans want to know what candidates plan to do about Iraq after they are elected, not what they did 5 years ago. When will they learn? The IWR was a far bigger deal in 2004 and look at how far the IWR got President Dean and Vice President Clark...

==You make a good point, dmc... It seems, we aren't allowed to dissect or put Obama's actions under scrutiny because he's somehow above it all is pure BS...==

Exactly. The audacity of arrogance. BO fans have license to say whatever they want regarding Iraq about Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd (especially HRC, and to a lesser extent, Edwards). However, everyone else must remain silent and not dare to question *Obama* on Iraq. Hmmm...where have we seen such thinking in recent years...

[Tellurian]

63. Romney...who I detest..

fired a warning shot over the bow today painting Obama as Dr. StrangeLove...

How will Obama answer that? A Republican forte is having the right memes in place as a metaphor the public can easily understand. afaics... Obama is cornered with no place to go. His overreach with Sen Clinton is being used against him by the Republicans. Whether the BO supporters can see this, is in serious doubt, because they cavalierly defend the indefensible that everyone else sees. Obama's polling numbers reflect his losing support daily. While Edwards and Clinton sail along unscathed with Richardson gaining slightly daily. I predicted a week ago, Edwards will overtake Obama. Obama aligned himself with Edwards against Hillary for the Kos interview, which was an ill thought out strategy because he gained nothing from it.

[Laurab]

85. Oh, you two are you having fun?

Agreeing with each other and smearing or trying to smear Obama as much as you can, even when no one else is joining the conversation. I had to post because I was laughing so hard. You just don't give up with the RW smear tactics, do you?

Your candidate MUST have something positive you can post about - even you guys must be getting bored with your silly posts...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

91. Asking questions about a candidate is a "RW smear tactic"?

The last time I checked we are the Democratic Party, not the Coronation Party.

[Tellurian]

94. Disruptors all have the same thing in common...

They hate civil conversation but enjoy a good flamefest, especially if they can get the thread locked.

[Laurab]

95. Oh, but you only seem to ask the "smear" questions

and I don't think you're really interested in any answers. I won't be responding anymore, it's really a waste of time, I just had to respond yesterday because it was so funny to see the two of you having such a great time preaching to your own choir. And you never do answer my question about having something good to post about your own candidate, either, so I guess that means you don't.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

96. Surely you jest. I have posted countless positive threads about my candidate nt

[never cry wolf]

35. Listen again, "If it had come to me in an up or down vote, as it came

He was pleased because at that time the rush for war had been stalled a bit allowing inspectors back in.

Also, you have your definition of "up or down vote" incorrect, from Wiki:

An up or down vote refers to a direct vote in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate on an amendment or bill; it is sometimes referred to as a "clean vote". Members simply vote yea or nay on it. Depending upon the rules of order for that particular type of amendment or bill, the vote required for passage might be a 2/3 majority, a 3/5 majority, or a simple majority.

The phrase is probably most often used by those who are frustrated by opponents in the House or Senate who delay a bill indefinitely by means of various tactics. The rules of the House and Senate allow a bill to be delayed — including "delayed permanently" — by various means, such as to table the bill, to recommit it, or to amend it in the second degree. By appealing for an "up or down vote", an advocate of the bill is trying to get it out of committee and past all other legislative hurdles, and to a floor vote.

Prior to 2005, the phrase was heard most often from Republicans in the United States, who occupied 55 seats in the United States Senate, and thus lack the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster maneuver by the Democratic Senators. Because of this, a united Democrat bloc was able to filibuster any objectionable bill, Presidential appointment, or other matter before the Senate, and prevent passage. If the Republicans were able to bring any particular matter to an "up or down vote", they would be able to approve that measure if voting as a bloc.

To this end, many Republican-affiliated websites and political action committees have recently urged voters to demand of their Senators and Representatives an "up or down vote" on various issues. Constitutionally, however, the Senate is not obliged to give any matter an up or down vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_down_vote

So you misquote Obama, don't understand what that type of vote means and criticize him for being glad that bushies war plans were stalled. Other than that, your post is spot on.

[Tellurian]

42. The vote never came as an UP or Down Vote..

It came as a Roll Call Vote here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[never cry wolf]

92. You are confused, an up or down vote can be a roll call vote or a voice vote

In this instance it was a roll call up or down vote, not a voice vote... An up or down vote means they are voting directly on the matter at hand, not on a proceedural matter related to the matter at hand... again, I am underwhelmed by your grasp of the facts.

[dionysus]

90. you just got pwned

[AtomicKitten]

100. he sure did !!!

Imagine Obama being slammed because his opposition of the war in 2002 allegedly wasn't PURE enough in a lame, pathetic, desperate attempt at splitting hairs.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

108. He's got a sign on his back.

[rufus dog]

24. how many times are you going to post the same thing

It is really a disgusting habit used by right wing smear merchants, keep repeating it until is sticks. The tactic sucks as do you.

[jefferson_dem]

43. So he *rightly* opposed the war for the same reason your preferred candidate supported it.

Yes, judgment matters... :bounce:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Once again an Obama fan invokes the IWR and claims a BO opponent...

...opposed it for political reasons. Yet, BO fans scream bloody murder when questions are asked about Obama on Iraq and his motivations for opposing the IWR. What are the rules here? Is BO above criticism while BO fans have license to attack Edwards, Hillary, et al. over and over and over again on Iraq?

[jefferson_dem]

61. Sounds like you're debating yourself.

I was simply pointing out that an Obama competitor (the one you prefer) voted for the IWR in part based on sheer political calculation. I guess you are using the unauthorized bio to make the same sort of charge against Obama, only that he used political calculation is *opposing* the war.

Let's stipluate this: "politics" does play a role in "political" decisions and pronouncements by "politicians". Perhaps you wish to equate Obama's political calculations that resulted in opposing the War with Edwards and Hillary's calculations that resulted in supporting/promoting/sponsoring the War. At that point, we part ways.

Fact is ... Hillary and Edwards are attacked because they supported/promoted/sponsored the IWR. Obama, for reasons "political" or otherwise, opposed the same IWR. I realize that puts your candidate in a bit of a bind. I guess your defense is that Obama should also be criticized...for opposing the IWR. Good luck with that one, eh.

[AtomicKitten]

67. I'm dizzy.

Argument: Hillary and Edwards are attacked because they supported/promoted/sponsored the IWR. Obama, for reasons "political" or otherwise, opposed the same IWR, - so he should be attacked????

Ah, okay.

Somehow it makes sense to them.

[jefferson_dem]

77. No shit. Their criticism is that Obama opposed the war...

in part for political reasons. :wow:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. Obama is running on "judgment" and claims he has the best judgment of the 18 candidates for prez

He also uses "judgment" to mitigate the experience issue. This is why this is a big deal. If he weren't self-righteously using the IWR to claim superiority over the rest it would be a minor detail. If it wasn't judgment but politics that led to his 2002 Iraq position surely you, a clearly intelligent person, can see the problems that would cause to the fundamental argument he is making, aside from the cluster of personality related things.

BO is always going to have the edge on Iraq over all of his competitors, aside from the only true anti-war candidate (Kucinich). That isn't the issue. If the Mendell book simply cuts Obama's edge on Iraq--and cripples his only defense against the experience question, his candidacy will be badly damaged. Obama placed all his chips on the IWR and his personality; now one pillar may be shaken. It will be an interesting month...

[AtomicKitten]

72. * I'm on ignore so this is what I'd write if you were reading it

He isn't self-righteous at all about the IWR. It's the truth and he earned it.
Sorry that pisses you off. If you've got it, flaunt. He's got it.

You are pulling a Rove by going after Obama's strength. Well done. I guess.

[jefferson_dem]

78. Ok. Let's play..."which one of these is not like the other."

Simple question:

Regarding the Iraq War, given what we know now, whose judgment was more correct in 2002-3?

A. Edwards
B. Hillary
C. Obama

[draft_mario_cuomo]

79. Flawed premise

You are using the premise that their positions were based on "judgment" and not political expediency (although I suspect you, like most BO supporters, assume HRC and JE made their decisions on political grounds while Obama was angelic, even though they all mirrored each other from 2005-2006* and Obama and HRC have been carbon copies since BO became a senator to this day on Iraq. Isn't it funny how BO's evolution on Iraq has mirrored that of the person BO fans love to say is governed by polls?). Why the fear over Mendell's book? If it is garbage it will be easily dismissed. If, as some say, the reasons for his 2002 position are irrelevant even if designed to pander to Democratic primary voters in Illinois than Mendell's argument is irrelevant, right? ;)

*Aside from Holy Joe, where Edwards did not support Lieberman over Lamont. In 2007 Edwards diverged from Clobama on Iraq but Clobama remain joined at the hip.

[jefferson_dem]

80. Nice dodge, deflection, duck, bob, and weave.

As i said...I concede that policians make political decisions...from time to time. Obama is, of course, no exception.

That doesn't detract from the FACT that his public position clearly demonstrated superior *judgement* as compared to that of Edwards and Hillary at that moment in history. That should be a FACT agreed upon by everyone except those few who still believe invasion was the right thing to do.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

99. Political calculation is not "judgment" in the sense BO speaks of

It isn't "judgment" if political calculation motivated the decision. Why? Well, for instance, if his political calculus changed to the same one, as say, HRC faces he would become a carbon copy of Hillary Clinton on Iraq. Oh wait. That is what happened once he got into the senate... ;)

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

81. oh my shit

So Obama's a demagogue for touting that his good judgement led him to make a well conceived decision?

Are you high? Like, right now?

[AtomicKitten]

101. It's a purity test for opposing the war

... and probably the lamest argument I've read on DU.

Oy vey.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

102. Seriously

Though "Obama isn't allowed to state that black people might prefer him as a candidate" comes in a fairly close second.

[never cry wolf]

93. Once again an anti-Obama attack dog goes on the offensive

and tries to minimize the fact that Edwards and Hillary trumpeted the IWR.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

97. Thanks for proving my point

(1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Aug-05-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #43
58. Once again an Obama fan invokes the IWR and claims a BO opponent...

...opposed it for political reasons. Yet, BO fans scream bloody murder when questions are asked about Obama on Iraq and his motivations for opposing the IWR. What are the rules here? Is BO above criticism while BO fans have license to attack Edwards, Hillary, et al. over and over and over again on Iraq?

[never cry wolf]

105. Yet hillary and edwards supported the IWR for political expedience

give it up, your consistent Obama bashing demeans all dems... maybe that is your goal???

[draft_mario_cuomo]

111. Thanks for proving my point again

1) You once again attack HRC and JE over Iraq--while hypocritically whining about Obama's record on Iraq being questioned. :rofl:
2) Like several arrogant BO fans, you are telling others what they should or should not say. "New kind of politics" indeed...

[Ethelk2044]

98. If they did not want to get caught with their feet in their mouth, they should have never pushed for

the war

[A-Schwarzenegger]

110. He likes to say "BO".

"Well, those are his initials!"

Riiiight.

[jefferson_dem]

41. Obviously, the poster has a vested interest in blurring the differences regarding Iraq.

Considering the preferred candidate is "Sen. Co-Sponsorship" and all...

[laugle]

56. AK, if Obama has voted

99% of his time in the U.S. senate on the IW with Hillary, isn't it a "LOGICAL" conclusion that he would have voted for the IWR?

Just simple logic to me....but of course we will never know the answer, and have beaten this horse to death!

[AtomicKitten]

57. no it isn't logical to connect points A and C circumventing point B

point B being his 2002 stance which is crystal clear, except to those that want to disregard it

[Tellurian]

19. Thats all he's got! And he's run that into the ground..

I had posted this elsewhere and a rude Obama supporter responded to it. However, I'll repost it again..

I'm aware you're waiting for the new book to come out. My question is this if there is anything relating to this time frame init.

"What happened in the span of time between Obama's crushing defeat in his failed House race and his fortuitous Win of the State Senate? This is the span of time I'm interested in hearing about. It seems overnight someone cleared the way for him to both Senate seats. Was this a justifiable miracle or just plain shit Luck? Or a phenomena with a back story?"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Hmm...It would be interesting if Mendell finds something interesting regarding that period

I am sure Mendell covers it but I doubt any bombshell will be found. As far as we know right now he simply milked the IWR to improve his primary chances and then got lucky when a scandal hit the front-runner in the primary, and then got lucky again when a scandal took down the Republican nominee Ryan in the GE and BO was handed the seat on a silver platter when he had to face the certifiable nut Alan Keyes, who did not even live in Illinois, in the GE...

[Ethelk2044]

83. Why is Hillary's D.C. experience so important to you

when all it has gotten the American public is this tremendous fuck up with the Iraq war? It's amazing how supporters of Hillary want her to win this nomination with her track record of 100% voting support of George Bush's war initiative any without reservations or questions, did not even bother to read the Intelligence Report prior to her decision and the complete avoidance and side stepping of explaining her vote to the american public. Plus she also support lobbyist's funding, calling them americans like everyone else. I hate to say it, but I think that she is just "plain stupid" with a visible lack of good common sense. Therefore, I even have to question your support of her. What country do you live in? Your post should read "That's all she's got". You don't deserve any explanation about Obama's span of time you refer to since you are too blind or just plain crazy for that matter to see a train wreck and political legacy hunter of a person that Hillary is.


What you need to consider are the costs that the current "experience" factor has cost us. You know the numbers. The past 7.5 years have not yielded any positive results from the President's loyal but misguided staunch supporters. But what's even worse is Hillary. She wants americans to view her as the major criticizer of Bush (Pentagon memo to Sec Gates) when initially she gave him a blank check to go to war without any reservations. If she can't see the forest for the trees when making decisions that affected americans in this war, what will she do if she's elected President. I want someone with experience, vision, integrity and common sense to do the right thing for the american public, not political posturing and power hungry stubbornness. We presently have that asshole in control. Obama did not sanction this war at all and we need someone who has the character and strength to say no to dumb political decisions,useless unnecessary political rhetoric and the in step line walking of the status quo just to score political points for political gain.

You seriously need to reconsider your position and back another horse. It doesn't matter who you choose but please just choose someone else because you are becoming delusional in your justifications. Just remember,understand the illusion: Without being married to Bill Clinton, Hillary does not become a Senator, just a bottom tier Presidential wannabe. Hillary is not Bill, understand that and make better choices. ;-)

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ariesgem]

25. rinse, lather, repeat....................

"These same folks who are talking about a lack of experience are the same folks who joined up with (President) George Bush and said this (the war in Iraq) was a good idea, that somehow we were going to be made safer, that we are going to be greeted as liberators, that are going to create a democracy in Iraq. Who's inexperienced?" he said.



GOBAMA! :headbang:

[Odin2005]

34. As far as I'm concerned "experienced" is a euphemism for "pro-Establishment"

The notion that you need "experience" to be good at the highest levels of politics is deeply offensive to the populist in me. That notion reeks of Establishment elitism.

[Inuca]

45. Experience vs. pro-establishment

Or at least it does not have to be that way, though very often the experienced people are indeed part of the establishment. Experience means exposure to many and varied things, often means making mistakes and learning from them, means having dealt with difficult issues and found a way to handle them, etc. etc. As I mentioned in another post, I deeply believe this is not the time for on the job training. Some extremely gifted people (and Obama most definitely is one) can learn very fast, and if he is elected he may prove that he is indeed a strikingly smart and visionary man and do wonderful things for this frustrated and almost hysterical country and for the only slightly less disturbed world at large. But at this highly confused and dangerous juncture, I would feel more comfortable (and yes, safer) with somebody less striking than Obama but who has been around the block more often and has a proven record that I can trust.

[killbotfactory]

109. It also is codeword for "corrupted" "status quo" and "bought and paid for"

It will probably be harder for him to be elected once he has another term or two in the Senate, because those voting records can get long, complicated, and difficult to explain in more than one soundbite.

[ChiciB1]

37. The Last Paragraph You Posted Is A Very Good One! And So Very

true! Their experience is simply STUPIDITY and GREED!

Sort of like if you don't learn from your mistakes you're doomed to repeat them! That's why I've never denigrated our candidates because I think you CAN have a change of HEART and it's not called FLIP-FLOPPING!

I change my mind all the time, if I didn't I would be in a world of hurt! Stubbornness does not equal leadership!

Just look at the BFEE!!

[laugle]

49. I think Cheney/Rumsfeld have fully suceeded in there PNAC agenda!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

107. so true, so true -eom