Obama, Obama, having it two ways on Iraq, Rezko, NAFTA? Obama campaign David Plouffe returned to the issue of Clinton’s secrecy by pointing to a USA Today Story....politico.com article reports. As a democrat, I want to know what does tax returns; scheduled meetings, etc have to do with Obama’s "politics of hope"? Well, Mr. Plouffe lets talk about Obama, where do I begin sharing with the American People...hum!
Obama continues to travel across this great nation as a "change" agent, "new" politician that does nothing Washington way...oh ok, let us take a look at this rhetoric. Let me introduce Obama to America, Obama has been elected 6 times to his district in IL and was promoted to Senator of the US from his home state. He has done many other things before elected office but my previous sentence will "project" my argument as you read this entry:
Let us start with the War in Iraq:
Obama was not in the Senate in October of 2002. Yet he still runs on this "against the war" message. Obama gave a speech against the war in 2002, ok what else Obama? Is that all you have on opposing the war...hum, looking at the district you were seeking reelection in Obama you could not support this war now could you? You would have lost and you know it. Sounds like you calculated this speech to get reelected, what say you Obama supporters?
When Obama spoke on the floor of the Democratic Convention, he went along with John Kerry on the war a he did not oppose it then, his response was, he did not want to break with the party. Sounds like another calculation and where is Obama’s judgment, none, no leadership when it came time for him to stand up with his speech from 2002. Before Obama was sworn into the US Senate in 2005, and he made this statement in July of 2004. Barack Obama: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports...What would I have done? I don't know," he was later asked this question, in terms of how you would have voted on the war? Obama: "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." No you say that Hillary did not use good judgment when she voted to remove Saddam. There were many other Senators that support Obama, so I guess they use the wrong judgment also. That is your opinion Obama, not let me say this, America supported this war in the beginning, so are you saying our judgment was wrong?
In 2007, Obama has won many of the delegates and he is now on the trail saying "we expect that John McCain may end up being the nominee. And if John McCain is the nominee, then the Democratic party has to ask itself 'Do you want a candidate who has similar policies to John McCain on the war in Iraq or someone who can offer a stark contrast?' See, when I am the nominee, McCain won’t be able to say that you were for this war in Iraq, because I wasn’t. He won’t be able to say that I followed the Bush-Cheney doctrine in not talking to leaders we don’t like because I don’t. He won’t be able to say that I went along and gave George Bush the benefit of a doubt on Iran because I haven’t. He won’t be able to say that I was unclear about my position on torture because I’ve been absolutely clear we never torture in this country. I can offer a clear and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush. I won’t have to explain my votes in the past." Why is that Obama? Oh yeah I remember, Obama was not in the Senate in 2002. But it's not the first time Obama has bounced around on Iraq. He regularly says he's against the Iraq war, for example, but when asked by the New York Times in July 2004 how he would have voted in 2002, he said, "What would I have done? I don't know." Fast forward to 2006 when he told the New Yorker's David Remnick that senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. "I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence," he said. "And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."
Obama has put out allegations on Hillary but let us address them one by one.
Obama begins by criticizing Hillary on Iraq. Sen. Obama does not mention that -- with the exception of Hillary's opposition to the promotion of Iraq war architect Gen. George Casey -- Sen. Obama and Hillary have identical voting records on the Iraq war.
Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on diplomacy. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe.
Sen. Obama then misrepresents Hillary’s position on Iran. In fact, Hillary was one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Bush’s saber rattling on Iran, and spoke out on the issue back in February: Hillary made a floor speech declaring that President Bush must get authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran. Hillary co-sponsored the Webb bill prohibiting use of funds for military action in Iran without Congressional authorization. Sen. Obama missed the vote he is now using to attack Hillary. He issued a release 9 hours later and co-sponsored a similar bill in April. The bill was also supported by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch anti-war Bush critic and prominent Obama supporter. Read more here and here.
Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'
I was reading from an online blog this morning and a clip from Obama's book, Audacity of Hope: he points out,
For that is how most of my colleagues, republican and democrate, enter the Senate...their words distorted and their motives questioned.
Then what are you doing Obama. While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it "dated". Obama listen what you are doing is wrong, run a truthful campaign. Sounds like politics to me Obama
After Obama did not win in TX and OH this week, they have called for Sen. Hillary to release records of many kinds, oh ok, let us deal with that on Mr. Plouffe. You are calling here secretive, wow let us go back to Nov. 2007 from Meet the Press with Tim Russert: Let us look over this transcript.
MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, "What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois," you said, "I don’t know." Where, where are the—where are your records?
SEN. OBAMA: Tim, we did not keep those records. I...
MR. RUSSERT: Are they gone?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, let’s be clear. In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues. So...
MR. RUSSERT: But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?
SEN. OBAMA: I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now. And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.
MR. RUSSERT: Is your schedule available anywhere? Are—the records exist?
SEN. OBAMA: I—Tim, I kept my own schedule. I didn’t have a scheduler.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Durbin, your colleague, publishes his schedule each day. Would you do that?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.
Where are your records Obama? Where are they?
Obama says he has not taken money for lobbyists, well let us see....
MR. RUSSERT: You’ve been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. This is The Boston Globe in August: in eight—"Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns came from" political action committees, "corporate contributions," "unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial service firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show." You now talk about, "Well, I’m not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal lobbying—employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it’s coming from, and your rhetoric.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, look, I, I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists. When I was in the state legislature, I passed the first campaign ethics reform legislation in 25 years. When I was in the United States Senate working with Russ Feingold, we passed the toughest ethics reform since Watergate—eliminating meals, eliminating gifts, eliminating the use of corporate jets by congressmen when they’re given by lobbyists. So I’ve got this track record, and the way I’m conducting this campaign, I think, reflects that interest in reducing money in politics.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’s all new. You did it all this...
SEN. OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no. As I said, Tim, this interest, this support of public financing of campaigns, the support of changing the ethics rules, promoting robust disclosure when it comes to how campaigns are financed, those are all laws that I have written and I have passed. So my commitment extends beyond just not taking lobbyists’ money and taking PAC money. It’s absolutely true that, in the past, there have been times where I received lobbyist and PAC money. But the interest in reducing money in politics is one that has been consistent and that I have consistently fought against. And that, I think, is the kind of track record, of being willing to take on not only Republicans, but oftentimes taking on leaders in my own party who are resistant to change that I think gives me credibility to say when I am president I am actually going to take this seriously and use my political capital to deal with it.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you say you don’t take federal lobbyist but you take state lobbyist money...
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: ...or you take money from people who work for federal lobbying firms, or you take $2 million from people who work on Wall Street or hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who work in pharmaceutical companies, isn’t it just a word game?
Obama on NAFTA, need I say more. I rather not.
Last but not least, Tony Rezko:
Obama seems to be running from this sooo much for nothing to be there! On March 4, 2008 Obama was asked a question by Carol Marin, political editor at NBC5 in Chicago and columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times, tangled over how up front Obama had been about Rezko. Obama cut off her line of questioning, saying that Marin’s questions were personally motivated. Later walking away from press conference stating that he has answered 8 questions already. Run Obama but you can not hid your dirt any longer.
So you see I can go on and on all night but I just want to build a case on Obama, the politician. Obama is a politician that talks the same old stuff, none the less he is has a new address, it is D.C. Thus, Obama has lied to America and the media have taken the bait and defending his 2004 speech saying "he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution authorizing the war." Can someone tell me (since we are so dumb to believe this) how is this contrast to what Obama is saying now to what he said ohhhhh 2-3 years ago? It is a lie, Obama has pointed fingers at others but he is not in a position to point fingers. Obama will never be a MLK or JFK because Obama’s words and rhetoric is aimless.
How can Obama have the audacity to call for hope, even change for that matter; I ask hope for what or better yet "change" what? Feel good speeches are good but you are inspiring to what end Obama? Obama you are a lie and signify nothing! Obama you say change starts from the bottom up, not the top down, so why are you running for President. Seems to me that is a Top down job. Why are you running again, you confuse me.