Confessions of an Obama Skeptic, Part I

[candice]

http://www.correntewire.com/confessions_of_an_obama_skeptic_part_i

In Barack Obama, I see a lot to like.

He really is smart. He really is charismatic (even if he’s wearing on me more and more as the campaign goes on). And he really does offer a healthy opportunity to re-imagine what a President of the United States looks like.

Hillary Clinton, too, is smart. She really is charismatic (she’s impressing me more and more as the campaign goes on). And she really does offer a healthy opportunity to re-imagine what a President of the United States looks like.

Oops. I left out one huge differentiator: unlike Hillary, Obama voted against the war.

I know he did, because a Google search on “Obama voted against the war” turns up thousands of citations.

Oh, wait a minute. He didn’t get to the Senate until 2004, and the AUMF vote was on October 11, 2002. Hmm…

But it was still brave for him to speak out against the pending vote in the thick of his U.S. Senate campaign. He said as much in a February debate, and his website states: “As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of ’an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’”

Oh dear, he didn’t start his U.S. Senate campaign until January of 2003. But who are you going to believe, Barack Obama or your lyin’ calendar?

Much, much more to this convoluted tale.

[Adelante]

1. Oh, fuck you nt

[BzaDem]

12. WAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[ProSense]

2. Here:

Correntewire link posted here (Gay-hating Episcopalian schismatics don't get to take the church keys with them when they split) shows the depths of their hypocrisy.

[hfojvt]

3. yeah, it isn't any less of a collection of strawmen upon a second reading

Obama voted against the war. EVERY Obama supporter says so :eyes:

[thunder rising]

4. We need more divisive politics and only Hillary can save us.

Let's see what polls best this week?

[goldcanyonaz]

5. YAY!!

[babylonsister]

6. Who do you trust? Who's smarter? Who's not the old game? You tell me. nt

[Danger Mouse]

7. Part 1? Does this mean that there's going to be more of this shit?

:puke:

[Laurab]

16. Looks like Part I is going to be posted more than once.

Since this exact same BS was posted 2 days ago by another poster (the actual writer, I think). I thought we were supposed to look for dupes, but I guess not.

This must be just to waste some space while working on Part 2.

[DemGa]

8. Apparently neither Obama nor his campaign can remember

when he began his U.S. Senate campaign.

"I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why."

A Flat out falsehood.

[MercutioATC]

9. ...and what have you found that suggests anything other than what Obama himself has stated?

He spoke out against the war in Iraq. That's been a constant.

No, he didn't vote against it...because he wasn't in the Senate yet, but he never claimed to have voted against it in the Senate.


Sounds like you have an issue with Google, not Obama.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. He really couldn't say whether or not he would have voted for the war.

However, once he was elected he did.

[frazzled]

11. Hillary would change what a president looks like; Obama would change what a president IS

That is a correction I'd like to make to your empty disquisition.

A Clinton presidency would be like .... a Clinton presidency, but with a longer hair and lipstick. (I'm a woman, by the way.)

An Obama presidency would fundamentally shift the way the presidency has been conceived in recent decades: with respect to its internal functioning and its relationship to Congress, to the Constitution, and to the American people. And of course with a darker face.


I won't deal with your specious allegations regarding a war vote, which may have some bearing on google (but then, you can find anything on google) but none whatsoever on Obama, who never claimed to have voted against the war. Never. He did, however, vocally and publicly speak out against it before that vote. Which Hillary did not ... and still has not.

Obama wants to change the mindset that got us into that war. Hillary still has that mindset: she'd like to change the tactics because that is what this election requires: but she has already shown that her mindset regarding American power still has not changed ("obliterate," anyone?).

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Because he says so. It's a faith-based candidacy.

He says he'll do certain things, so we know he'll do them. We know how he would have voted on the IWR because he told us, even though he also told us he didn't know how he'd have voted.

He's avoided the hard votes, but he's a fighter.

The simple truth is that he's deeply flawed in precisely the same way Hillary Clinton is: he's a serial maneuverer and a ubercautious favor currier. Expecting bold and courageous acts from him is as silly as expecting them from her, except there's one difference: she actually tried something along those lines once, and regardless of the drubbing she took for it, she actually DID it.

They both leave a lot to be desired, but at least there's some acceptance of this reality by many when considering her; far too many have bought the grandiloquent PR of him like the crowd at a 40 Days of Faith Show.

[pointsoflight]

14. What are the dates when he spoke out against the war?

Oh yeah, you conveniently left those out. Maybe because the truth is that he spoke out against the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008?!? Consistently for every single year between 2002 and now? Hmm.

Total intellectual dishonesty.

[Liberal Gramma]

15. This is a snide attack. Why don't you post what you DO like about your candidate

instead of this cutesy drivel?