So was Obama sincere in 2004 or is he sincere now?

[MagsDem]

I'm just wondering, because when he was campaigning for Kerry in 2004 he said we shouldn't hold his war vote against him because Bush lied, and congress wasn't given the truth.

No he says it was poor judgement by Hillary. And he's talking about the same vote.

So, is he sincere now? Was he sincere then? Or is he just a typical tap dancing, parsing politician? LOL -- maybe he's just trying "to be the change he wants to see" -- right?

[donheld]

1. .

:eyes:

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Get a link, and you're in business

--p!

[MagsDem]

4. I guess you had to have been paying attention

I don't have lexis nexis, and it was 4 yrs ago, but I didn't think it was a debatable point. You don't deny he endorsed and campaigned for him, do you? He defended him on his war vote.

[Barack_America]

7. Search for Obama 2004 Tribune. You should be able to find it. n/t

It was actually a quote in the Tribune. And yes, it took me all of two minutes to find it.

[anamandujano]

22. Hillary needs to bring this up in the next debate.

In addition, Obama keeps insisting that he wants to look to the future, not the past. As far as our country is concerned, they both keep voting for funding for the war, so that's a draw. They both say they are going to extricate us asap. That's the future folks.

The whole debate over this issue is a draw. They both need to redeem themselves by finding the best way to jettison that mess. Of course keeping as many people alive as possible is of primary importance. That would be the only reason for any sort of delay and I would like to hear the fine details when any delay is in the plans.

[Levgreee]

3. Read the full quote

While he did, mostly for political reasons, say that Kerry's war vote shouldn't be held against him, right afterwards he did say the Senate did not scrutinize Bush as much as they should've, that they were too reckless. So he did criticize Kerry, although more generally.


Keep in mind, Obama doesn't crucify Hillary for the choice she made. He just is saying she didn't make the right choice(as 21 dems did)... and while Hillary thought the war, or giving Bush authorization, was the right choice, Obama did not.

[MagsDem]

8. He didn't say anything about him being reckless when he campaigned for him....

... he's the same old politician that says whatever is politically expedient. I'm no babe in the woods when it comes to politics. I understand how the game is played. But it's a bit grating to hear the ignorance on this board from Obama supporters where they pretend (or more horrifying actually believe) the bullshit Obama says about the IWR against Hillary is somehow sincere.

And if he was truly sincere in his criticism now, then why hasn't he shown a bit of leadership on the issue as a Senator? He has been an obstacle to the dems forcing the issues of ending the war, and not of any assistance whatosever.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. Like Hillary has been of assistance in stopping the war?

Jeebus H. Christo. Welcome to my ignore list. You do nothing but tear down Barack and Hillary with your drivel.

[MagsDem]

12. Yes, put your hands over your ears - lol

I don't think she is criticizing him about the war; he is criticizing her. And he has no room to do it without sounding like a complete hypocrite.

[karynnj]

30. Obama used that wording to side step the question

Kerry, on This Week, said he did it to cover both Edwards and him, so the media would not have a sound bite of the key note speaker overtly disagreeing with the candidates. Would you be happy if, on principle, he had made a strong case against the vote days before the convention - making that a story?

The real issue is that HRC is not able to do what Kerry has done - to state that whatever the reasons for the vote, it ended up being wrong. (I intentionally use Kerry here - Edwards is different, as he was for the invasion.) Kerry has MORE room for excuses. Kerry spoke out sufficiently in late 2002 and early 2003 against invading, that he was at that time labeled anti-war. HRC and Bill Clinton had far more access to media and were not.

As to being an obstacle to the Senators (like Kerry) forcing the issues - it was the Clinton wing of the party going behind his back and vilifying him in the media. Obama should have voted for Kerry/Feingold. Look at the people supporting Obama. Kennedy, Leahy and Kerry - these are people who have been the dems forcing the issue you mention - so it looks like they disagree with you.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. Nice. Can't justify your other BS thread, so you start another line of attack.

WTF is wrong with you? After tonight's debate and a semblance of unity, you are trying to tear it all down. F'n asinine BS.

[MagsDem]

14. Nothing is wrong with me -- I think it's clear Obama supporters here....

Just don't know the truth about their candidate. All this is going to come out if he gets the nomination. Don't you realize that?

[Barack_America]

6. I love how when one of your half-baked "arguments" gets shot down...

...you immediately abandon it and come up with another.

As has already been suggested to you, you need to read the full quote. When you see this statement in context it becomes obvious that Obama drew contrasts between their positions, but stopped short of taking the bait laid out for him and openly criticizing a Democratic colleague running for President.

Other candidates, however, have in the past shown that they are more than willing to throw their colleagues under a bus.

[MagsDem]

11. I don't think any of my arguments have been shot down...

There is just so much that is BS about Obama. Of course with Obama it's always something about context -- quite in keeping with his penchant for dodging any accountability for what he says now, or what he said in the past.

Now, if his saying in 2002, when no one cared what he thought, that he was against the war, he has been against the war for 6 yrs. Oh, but no, it was okay 4 yrs ago when he was supporting Kerry. And now, 2.5 yrs after beginning his first term in the senate, what single piece of leadership has he shown to put his money where his mouth is?

What???? I can't hear you?

Would that be none, as in no single piece of leadership about the war? Yes, it would. Come on, let's all just get along. As soon as Obama supporters stop endorsing his rediculous fairy tales. :)

[Barack_America]

15. Well, if you think it's acceptable to throw fellow Democrats under the bus...

...Then I don't know what to say other than, Hillary agrees with you.

But Obama obviously feels differently. It would have been easy for him to have done so to Kerry (easier than Hillary for sure), but he took the high road, evidently at his own political risk considering the Clintons have come back to use this against him.

I'll stick with the guy who does the right things for the right reasons, thank you very much.

[MagsDem]

23. Get a clue......

He's a politician, and he says whatever will further his political ambition. Take off the rose colored glasses and stop acting like Hillary is evil personified, and he is pure as the driven snow. One more clue -- "transformational" is just another bullshit political slogan.

[ErnestoG]

9. How many stupid threads is this, now?

P2BA..are you there?

[MagsDem]

13. People should know the facts

Is there a problem with that?

[Barack_America]

16. Except your threads aren't "facts". They are filled with wild speculations...

...that are quickly disproven.

Just like this thread was...and the last one.

[MagsDem]

19. What was disproven?

[Thrill]

17. LOL Now we're attacking him for taking up for a fellow Democrat

who was trying to run for President? Get real

[MagsDem]

20. Of course I'm not attacking him for that....

I'm suggesting he changes his tune whenever it suits him. He's not "transformational" -- he's a typical politician that says whatever makes him look best. Even if it's bullshit.

He panders like no tomorrow, which is particularly grating when he is doing it to rethugs and homophobes.

But the kicker for me is he is simply unqualified for the job.

[Levgreee]

21. He opinionated something somewhat different "ONCE" in all these years, on Iraq

to defend the Democratic presidential nominee. That is hardly "changing his tune whenever it suits him"

[MagsDem]

24. Once????

He continually harps on Hillary's vote in EVERY SINGLE speech, while having a 2.5 yr track record in the senate on showing absolutely no leadership with regards to getting us out. In other words, he is FULL OF SHIT. How can you not get that. Hell, he voted AGAINST an admendment to a funding bill that would have required Bush to get authorization from the congress to send more troops to Iraq.

If he is such a great leader, and he is so against the war, why has he shown NONE on that issue while in the senate?

[Levgreee]

26. That's because he didn't think it was right to pull out, once we were already in

This is Obama's stance, put very simply.
1.He was ALWAYS against the war, he always thought it was the wrong choice to go in. He thought it was wrong in 2002, in 2004, and in 2007.

2.He was NOT ALWAYS against supporting the war. Once the invasion had occurred and couldn't be undone, he was for funding the troops, and he was for keeping peace and giving time for the Iraqis to sort things out.

2. is not contradictory with 1..

Here is a quote...

"Us rushing headlong into a war unilaterally was a mistake and may still be a mistake...
IF it has happened, then at that point what the debate's really gonna be about is what is our long term commitment is there. How much is is it going to cost, what does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq, how do we stabilize and make sure that this country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shi'as, and the Kurds, and the Sunnis." - Barack Obama

This quote clearly explains his view. Rushing into the war was wrong. HOWEVER, once we were there, we had a responsibility to help rebuild the country, which means funding the war. So Obama was always against the war occurring, but considered it a poor choice to pull funding/pull out, for some time, after we invaded. After we had gave them time, Barrack supported a phase withdrawal.

[MagsDem]

27. So what does that mean? He believes in sitting on his hands?

Because that is what he has been doing since the day he entered the senate. What single effort has he made to do anything about the war? A big fat nothing.

[pampango]

28. I suppose he would attack him for not supporting Kerry, if Obama

had blasted Kerry for voting in favor of the IWR during the 2004 campaign.

It is better that he campaigned for Kerry to help get rid of Bush than if he had stayed home and refused to help because of Kerry's IWR vote. Or he could have campaigned for Kerry by blasting his IWR vote at every stop and then urging people to vote for him anyway. (With friends like that,...)

I believe he supported what Kerry stood for in general and tried to find a way to finesse the differences they had over an important issue without compromising his own principles or making Kerry look like an idiot for his IWR vote.

[karynnj]

33. Very nicely stated

Also, I think that he was pretty close to where Kerry was in terms of what to do going forward and genuinely respected him. The issue on the vote was more relevant in the primaries. Re-fighting it in the run up to the convention would have been a disaster. Remember, Kerry was speaking of no permanent bases (an issue raised by almost no one else in the 2004 time frame), diplomacy, and international involvement (which he proved in early 2005 was available when he did get offers from Jordan, Egypt, France, and Germany to train troops in those countries).

I also think that though the IWR vote, by virtue of how it was used, was unwise - it was not as black and white an issue as people here make it to be. The bigger problem is that on a huge issue with a vote she likely regrets casting (as Kerry does), she can not bring herself to say that it was the wrong way to vote. Not being willing to simply state the regardless of the reason, it was a bad vote makes me worry if she could admit mistakes as President.

Given Kerry's history (Vietnam, anti- covertly funding the Contras, a less imperialistic foreign policy), it had to be harder for him as that vote and all it came to be is in contrast to his whole adult life.

[Levgreee]

18. Some more of what Obama said

From the July 26, 2004, New York Times article:

He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.





Yes... he did go easy on Kerry, because if he gave a statement that Kerry made a wrong choice, it would have largely undermined Kerry's run at the presidency. He did still insist on making some criticism.

[MagsDem]

25. What's preventing him from showing leadership on it in the senate?

In a nutshell, that's why I think he's full of it. He uses this as the cornerstone to every stump speech, but if anything, he has been an obstacle to Dem attempts to bring the troops home, and from keeping Bush from sending more.

He needs to put up or shut up, or I will continue to think he is full of baloney.

[VotesForWomen]

29. yet more projection by obamabots; O did't vote for IWR because he wasn't in the senate. duh,

that's not quite the same as a vote against it. he's playing both sides of the fence, just like hillary. it's Politics 101. anyone who cares about IWR (and i'm not demeaning this concern at all) should write in kucinich.

[cali]

31. Stupid and shallow post. n/t

[Flatline]

32. Shillery and Obama are never sincere....

unless they campaign with Anti- Gay ministers like Obama does.

[bklyncowgirl]

34. All Democrats who supported Kerry--including antiwar types like Dean rationalized Kerry's vote

Obama was campaigning for Kerry. Kerry had voted for the war. This strikes me as no more than the sort of rationalization that all anti-war Democrats including such early war opponents as Howard Dean and Wes Clark had to make in order to beat the drums for Kerry.

Would you have preferred that he sit chilly and refuse to support the party's nominee because he voted for the war?

[Adelante]

35. He was being "a typical tap dancing, parsing politician"

Defending the Democratic ticket as we want Democrats to do in a GE. I only hope he doesn't have to do it again this time.

This is what Obama really said:

As the keynote speaker, Obama was trying to be loyal to the Democratic nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom had voted in favor of the war authorization resolution, along with Hillary Clinton. In a July 26 interview with the New York Times, a few days before the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was “not privy to Senate intelligence reports.”

He then continued: “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html#more

The case for war wasn't made from the National Intelligence Estimate, either, had Senator Clinton troubled herself to read it. If she is the nominee, Obama will probably be called on to spin that one like a top. You should hope he can pull it off for her in the event. (LOL)

[Little Star]

36. Good point, let's hear somebody answer the question. nt