Obamas' Big Mistake

In a recent interview, he [Obama] 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."

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution?"

apparently he is now talking about confronting Bill Clinton directly in a war of words.... good f**king luck.

I think if the choices are either to remain silent when Bill clinton misrepresents Obama's words and positions (i.e., when he said Obama said Reagan "had the only good ideas since 1990", when what he really said was that at least Reagan was presenting new ideas to people at the time - something by the way that Bill Clinton is quoted as saying himself in the early 90's) or to directly set the record straight, then he has to confront him every time he twists the facts.

The spectacle of Dem gainst Dem, especially when framed in terms of stupid race/gender arguments, is ugly, but Obama can't just sit by and let lies be spread about him.

Another popular Clinton lie that needed to be confronted was that Obama's opposition to the war wavered or flip-flopped. Since it is Hillary who has the most to answer for in terms of giving Bush the blank check for war it is understandable they'd attack Obama in this way, but still it a lie that there has been any doubt at any time about Obama's stance on whether we should be in Iraq.

Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding
Says he backs troops, not war
By James W. Pindell and Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 22, 2007

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

Obama's comments represent a direct response to attacks launched by aides to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who have pointed out that despite Obama's antiwar rhetoric, he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.

"In reality, when they both got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes are exactly the same as Senator Clinton's," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said Monday at a Harvard University forum.

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

Obama explained that position yesterday by saying that his initial opposition to the $87 billion was based on the fact that $20 billion of that sum was earmarked for reconstruction projects that he feared would be awarded by the White House in no-bid contracts.

Obama has also said repeatedly that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn't have changed his mind.

In yesterday's conference call, he had no such doubts. "I am certain that I would have voted to oppose this war," he said.

The Clinton camp has sought to make Obama's record on the war an issue in part to cut into the support he's deriving among Democrats. Obama frequently says on the campaign trail that he was against the war before it started.

Say what you want about Hillary; but she has been consistent is being a hawk about the war and Iran; which is why she gets accused of being a republican.

: What would Dr. King think of the way his legacy is being characterized by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and all the rest of the amateur historians who've been chiming in?

He had a sense of humor, so perhaps he'd be amused at an argument that really isn't about his legacy at all, but about gaining political advantage. I'm pretty sure that he'd see the irony in the fact that the squabbling presidential candidates are: a black man and a white woman. Clinton and Obama both get a good look at King's legacy whenever they look in the mirror.

Hillary Clinton's initial remark -- that it "took a president," specifically Lyndon B. Johnson, to secure passage of landmark civil rights legislation -- was historically accurate, but it's easy to see why so many people took offense. The remark makes no sense as an argument against silver-tongued Obama, since the Illinois senator isn't running for orator-in-chief, he's running for... president. What Clinton said only makes sense as a vindication of her own prosaic style against Obama's poetry. That's not offensive, either.

But whether she meant to or not, Clinton was speaking as if nothing had changed since the 1960s, when the American power structure was all-white (and all-male) and African Americans could protest or lobby or demonstrate, but had no power to act. Remember, there were no black mayors of major cities and only a handful of black congressmen; there were no black billionaires to support one campaign or another; there were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and African Americans didn't control $800 billion in purchasing power. There was no black senator from Illinois who had a legitimate shot at winning the White House.

Who was responsible for making all this possible? LBJ was a great president in many ways, but there's no national holiday in his honor. Thank you, Dr. King, and Happy Birthday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a118311bf-3643-438e-bc41-c9fdc29ce4aeDiscussion%3af218b789-5147-495f-97b6-edc4c36219de

What would Dr. King think of the way his legacy is being characterized by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and all the rest of the amateur historians who've been chiming in?

Quote:

Say what you want about Hillary; but she has been consistent is being a hawk about the war and Iran; which is why she gets accused of being a republican.

Has she really?
She voted for the war in the beginning, then she said she made a mistake..

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/12/hillary_clinton.html