Why aren't most anti-war voters supporting Obama?

[ecstatic]

What's worse, some anti-war voters on the left actually skip over Obama to praise Ron Paul!

Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Edwards all voted for the IWR-- Edwards co-sponsored, and Biden had a hand in writing it! The only person criticized for this horrible mistake is Clinton while the men get a free pass. What's that all about? For practical purposes, I have mostly let go of my grudge because we do have to get elected next year, and I'd much rather have a Democratic president in office. I just want to know... why the hypocrisy?

If you're truly anti-war, wouldn't it make sense to support the candidate (viable candidate, sorry Kucinich) who was anti-war from the beginning?

[jlake]

1. Because Obama is no more anti war than any other viable candidate

He has supported all funding measures etc.
And he himself admits he does not know how he would have voted on the IWR
I belive he would have either A) Not Voted or B) Voted for it.
The problem with Obama is that he is all style and no substance.

[Maven]

2. Bingo

:thumbsup:

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. "viable" or not, Kucinich still most accurately represents me

[NMMNG]

8. Ditto

:thumbsup:

[madrchsod]

9. he`s my guy

[sandnsea]

15. It's understandable for Kucinich supporters

But when supporters of other candidates use Kucinich logic to bash Obama, it turns into pathetic campaign rhetoric.

[ecstatic]

20. Same here, until his Ron Paul comments

That he would even entertain that thought was a big turn off.

[AtomicKitten]

4. You're right.

He opposed the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman. He voted to fund the war early on, but has long since pledged to only vote for funding that is tied to a solid withdrawal date and plan.

Gobama!

[EFerrari]

5. Because we're supporting an anti-war candidate. n/t

[Tejanocrat]

6. Presumably because of his many votes to unconditionally fund the war without end.

I like Obama fine (currently my third choice), but that's why some anti-war voters aren't 100% on board.

Obama was right on his inclination to keep us out of the war, but he hasn't been a strong enough advocate about getting us out now that we're in Iraq.

Kucinich was right on staying out of the war and he is ALSO right on getting out now.

[Beacool]

7. It's a question of perception.

If you compare the voting records of both Clinton and Obama, they are very similar.

As for the war, Obama wasn't in the US senate in 2002 and he didn't even vote for the Iran resolution, nor spoke against it until way after the fact.

[sandnsea]

10. Propaganda is very effective

I have no idea what motivates people to do what they do. There's absolutely no logic to rejecting Obama on the war unless you're a Kucinich supporter.

[scarletwoman]

11. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I don't trust him not to come under the thrall of the

Foreign Policy Establishment. All his "let's make nice" and feel-good "bipartisanship" is going to get him (and us) suckered right into continuing the status quo imperialist globalist project.

sw

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I am more of a human rights activist than anti-war

But you can definitely put me in the anti-war camp. Obama lost me when he had that anti-gay preacher guy stumping for him. He also made some pretty stupid comments about invading Pakistan.

But I would definitely pick him over Hillary. :)

[BootinUp]

13. delete.

[Stop Cornyn]

14. Because Obama's anti-war record in the Senate is not nearly as good as his anti-war rhetoric before

he was elected.

Obama talks a better game than he votes.

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Kucinich is viable if we'd all just agree upon it.

[Kucinich4America]

19. Of course he is.

But then all these DLC interns would lose their corporate funding.

[antiimperialist]

17. How do you know most anti-war voters are not suporting Obama?

Are there any recent polls measuring this?

[GreenArrow]

18. Why not Kucinich?

Instead of going with the candidate that was right about Iraq all along, we're going to get someone who was wrong. Kucinich, clearly, cannot win a national election, and presumably, there were no other viable candidates with an anti-war record who were willing to run, or who could have won. Of the top three, Obama has the best record, sketchy as it is, while Edwards has pointedly said he was "wrong" and Hillary has expressed "regret", though what was wrong and regretable were demonstrably so at the very time they cast their respective lots in favor of IWR. As far as I'm concerned, none of the top tier have any business near the oval office; why trust someone who helped make the mess in Iraq to clean up the mess we've made in Iraq, when it was obvious from the get go that it was completely a mess of choice, in opposition to both legality and morality, and perhaps worse, was used as a stepping stone for personal ambition.


The bottom line is, Democrats want to win, so they will swallow just about whatever it is that is shoved down their collective throats so long as they think it will lead to victory.

[Perry Logan]

21. Some antiwar folks are libertarians, who would go for Ron Paul.

[zulchzulu]

22. I know plenty of "anti-war" people who support Obama

I met many of them. Many also liked Kucinich as well.

[gristy]

23. Because most voters aren't single-issue voters?

I mean, you could replace your IWR criticism with any of many other issues and call a whole other group of people hypocrites. We're all hypocrites by your logic, I'm afraid.

[ecstatic]

24. The war is a pretty big issue though... It's being carried out in our names,

with our money.

[snowbear]

25. So who are you supporting Truth?

..

[gristy]

26. Yes, I agree. The war is a big issue.

It's huge, in fact. And it's also much bigger and has many more aspects to it than anyone's IWR vote.

on edit: clarified my statement a bit by adding what you see underlined above

[journalist3072]

27. Perhaps it has something to do w/ the fact that he keeps funding the war

Despite all his (and Oprah's) rhetoric about him being against the war from the jump.

[acmavm]

28. Because Barrie is not an anti-war candidate. You answered your own

question if you'll think about it.

[Larkspur]

29. This CT Dem remembers how Obama shafted Ned Lamont, an anti-war Dem

who successfully defeated Obama's mentor -- war criminal Joe Lieberman.

I was a very active volunteer for Ned Lamont. I helped him get NOW's endorsement, which came prior to the May 2006 Dem Convention.

Obama had book tours in NY and MA and refused to drop into CT to stump for Lamont. He did send out an email, but after the Lamont campaign told reporters that the email reached 5K people, Obama went ballistic and publicly humiliated Lamont in public by telling reporters that only about 250 people got his email.

The more I see of Obama, the less I like him. He reminds me too much of Lieberman. He's got the same talking points about bi-partisanship that Lieberman does.

[Gloria]

30. He seems to be big on bombing Pakistan and sabre rattling against

Iran, even with the NIE report out....and, since he didn't actually vote against the Iraq war, how can we really know what he would have done if he were in the Senate at the time?? I'm not sure what he would have done...vote "Present"?

[elana i am]

31. because kucinich

is still the closest fit with the rest of my values and beliefs and about half the reason for that is his steadfast belief in and defense of the constitution as well as his eschewing of political expediency. because that matters to me, and i don't like being a hypocrite, i refuse to settle for anyone else who may be more "viable" just for the sake of political expediency.

i can make do with obama or edwards. neither one is my favorite but i like them well enough, and i am even giving some consideration to biden. still, i have my standards.