why does obama say he opposes the war in iraq???

El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
edited April 2008 in A Moving Train
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/16/gb.01.html

from tonights glenn beck:

Hey, T.J., allow me to play for you a short piece of audio. This is what Barack Obama said to me on this issue. It`s what I wish I`d hear more from Hillary in a similar fashion. Roll it.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That`s part of the reason that I`ve been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq. It`s not that I was opposed to war. It`s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished. And al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And we`ve got to do something about that, because those guys have a safe haven there, and they are still planning to do Americans harm. But if they don`t, we shouldn`t need permission to go after some of these folks that killed 3,000 Americans.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I agree with him. And when he said it, you know, he was ridiculed from both the Clinton quarters and from John McCain. What`s your thought?

T.J. ROONEY, CHAIRMAN OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN PENNSYLVANIA: You know, I certainly know that Senator Clinton is as committed to bringing bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to justice as anybody else.

So -- so, I understand, Michael, that you have strong feelings on the issue and you`ve had an opportunity to have a dialogue with Senator Obama. But make no mistake: Senator Clinton is as anxious as anybody else in America. We`re all anxious to see that justice is served.

SMERCONISH: Congressman Fattah, why doesn`t this get discussions in the debates? Why is there not discourse? I mean the short time the three of us are going to spend together will exceed the amount of time that this issue has been raised in any of the presidential debates so far.

REP. CHAKA FATTAH (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, look, when Barack Obama, Senator Obama, said that he would go after bin Laden, he was ridiculed. He was criticized by many of the pundits and the fellow Democrats, all of whom were in the race at the time, saying that, how could you go and attack an ally or this and that.

First of all, he never said that he`ll attack an ally. But he would act to get bin Laden wherever he might be, especially if he was in Pakistan. And we lost young people and not so young right here from Philadelphia, in this attack on 9/11.

But, I think what the important point is, is that because Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, some people perceive him to be, you know, a dove. What he has said consistently from day one, is he opposes the war in Iraq, ***because he thinks that the real enemy is in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. And that`s the war where we should be putting our focus and our resources.***

The joint command has said, factually, on the record, that we don`t have enough troops in Afghanistan, and we can`t put more in unless we can get them out of Iraq.


******and afghanistan and pakistan is exactly where the troops from iraq will go!

so he's saying he only opposed the war in iraq b/c we hadn't finished the other war we were in??


to put his quote in some more context i did a search and found a bigger part of the discussion from the audio clip at the start of the post

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-200803241621KRTRIB__BUSNEWS_41500-1F2LCM0L7ARE2OHH31L8BADJUO&timestamp=03/24/2008%204:21%20PM%20ET&headline=Obama%2C%20Smerconish%20talk%20church%2C%20bin%20Laden%20%5BThe%20Philadelphia%20Inquirer%5D&docSource=Knight%20Ridder/Tribune&provider=ACQUIREMEDIA&symbol=GE

Smerconish: "Pakistan . . . it looks like for six-and-a-half years we've been outsourcing the hunt for bin Laden to a guy [President Musharraf of Pakistan] with no motivation to get him. Do you agree with my assessment?"

Obama: "Absolutely. You may be aware of the fact that I made a speech in August, you remember that I got criticized . . .

Smerconish: "Not by me, Senator, I applauded you."

Obama: "I know. Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain and George Bush all suggested that I said something wrong when I said we should be going after bin Laden, in high-value targets, and if we've got him in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan's cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.

"In fact, ironically, I think you may know, that several weeks ago we took out the third-ranking al- Qaeda member and we implemented exactly that strategy that I have been criticized for. We used one of those drones. We got the guy in our targets, in our sights, we informed the Pakistan government, we didn't wait for them. . . ."

"That's part of the reason I've been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq. It's not that I was opposed to war, it's that I felt that we had a war that we had not finished. Al-Qaeda is stronger now than at any point since 2001, and we've got to do something about it because those guys have a safe haven there and they are still planning to do Americans harm, and my job as commander in chief is to going to be to protect Americans."

Smerconish: "John McCain says he'd follow him to the gates of hell. I just want him followed to the border of Pakistan."

Obama: "I'm not sure whether you stole my line or I stole yours, because that's exactly what I said in a speech on Thursday. If you're going to follow him to the gates of hell, why don't you just start by going to where he is right now?"
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    "there is no way to peace, peace is the way." Gandhi
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    another anti-obama thread...

    keep focusing your enegery on the worng person while the world goes up in flames...
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Everything you have in bold I agree with 100%. He's for a war on the people who killed 3,000 Americans. Oh my God, what a fucking hawk.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Everything you have in bold I agree with 100%. He's for a war on the people who killed 3,000 Americans. Oh my God, what a fucking hawk.

    i think that was the reason for zero replies for a week...
  • your're blind and brainwashed if you still think, with all the information and inconsistencies, that Al Quaeda were behind 9/11. Really time to wake up.....Obama saying that attention needs to be paid to Pakistan?? Common people, this war is just going to keep expanding, and occupation is going to broaden! You are all being manipulated by all three of the main "candidates"! But hey, I know, i'm a conspiracy theorist, and it's a waste of time writing this post.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    your're blind and brainwashed if you still think, with all the information and inconsistencies, that Al Quaeda were behind 9/11. Really time to wake up.....Obama saying that attention needs to be paid to Pakistan?? Common people, this war is just going to keep expanding, and occupation is going to broaden! You are all being manipulated by all three of the main "candidates"! But hey, I know, i'm a conspiracy theorist, and it's a waste of time writing this post.

    Jesus, does everything have to turn into a fucking 9/11 conspiracy thread on here? What the fuck do I know though, I'm just a sheep.

    However, what do "common people" have to do with the price of tea in China?
  • JzacurJzacur Posts: 64
    Um he's saying we need to expand it in to Pakistan because for about 2 years we were shipping tens of millions of dollars a month to Musharraf to get Al Qaeda and he had just been hoarding the money. He's not advocating a slash and burn invasion, but if Osama Bin Laden is such an enemy to the United States and the Christian World he needs to be apprehended and brought to justice.
    9/28/05 PNC Park Pittsburgh- 6/23/06 Mellon Arena Pittsburgh- 8/02/07 The Vic- 8/05/07- Lollapalooza 6/22/08 DC
  • 9/11 is the justification for all the shit which is happening! This should never be forgotten or denied, because then the justifications for any upcoming attacks will not be clear, and the static with grow to the point where we don't remember why or how anything was started.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwn
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    my2hands wrote:
    another anti-obama thread...

    keep focusing your enegery on the worng person while the world goes up in flames...


    please read this. questioning a candidates intentions and weighing his past remarks to his present remarks is not an anti- anything...

    its your type of thinking that led good people probably much like yourself to follow around a tyrant like hitler...


    now... before you confuse things... im not comparing hitler to obama or the other way aorund... im saying its dangerous to put total faith in any human being while at the same time.. paralleling his every thought with yours and not asking why or when or how....
  • Obama is right. We should have been fighting the people housing Al Queda the entire time.

    Also 9/11 was not a conspiracy. There are WAY to many people who would have to be involved to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. There would have had to been involvement at every level of the government, NYC officials, the Airlines themselves.

    You really think that many people could hold onto a secret of that magnitude.

    The 9/11 TRUTH is that we were attacked by Muslim Terrorists who don't like our Middle East and Israel policies. Because so many innocent civilians died we need to bring the perpetrators to justice. LIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAT WAS ATTACKED WOULD DO. That is the key point in my eyes.

    Bush is a tool and a fool for wasting so much time and lives in Iraq. He'll have to live with the blood on his hands for the rest of his life. But he's still not evil enough to kill 3,000 civilains Firemen, NYPD, etc on 9/11 just to make more money.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • So Obama would be all for starting the Iraq war only if we had finished the job first in Afghanistan? and you guys are all cool with that?


    Interesting....

    Some people around here have been changing their tune by the minute.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • pj10alive42pj10alive42 Posts: 381
    Jzacur wrote:
    Um he's saying we need to expand it in to Pakistan because for about 2 years we were shipping tens of millions of dollars a month to Musharraf to get Al Qaeda and he had just been hoarding the money. He's not advocating a slash and burn invasion, but if Osama Bin Laden is such an enemy to the United States and the Christian World he needs to be apprehended and brought to justice.

    This post troubles me.
    I'm trying to drink away the part of the day I cannot sleep away...
  • This post troubles me.


    I get troubled more and more by what people are subscribing to in order to support Obama. Oh well, though...at least we know now.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    So Obama would be all for starting the Iraq war only if we had finished the job first in Afghanistan? and you guys are all cool with that?


    where did he say he would invade Irak...?


    I missed that part..
  • inmytree wrote:
    where did he say he would invade Irak...?


    I missed that part..


    "That's part of the reason I've been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq. It's not that I was opposed to war, it's that I felt that we had a war that we had not finished. Al-Qaeda is stronger now than at any point since 2001"
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    "That's part of the reason I've been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq. It's not that I was opposed to war, it's that I felt that we had a war that we had not finished. Al-Qaeda is stronger now than at any point since 2001"

    again...

    where did he say "I would invade irak"...?
  • inmytree wrote:
    again...

    where did he say "I would invade irak"...?


    I read that as he's against Iraq bc we didnt finish the job in Afghanistan first.

    What did you get out of it then?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    I read that as he's against Iraq bc we didnt finish the job in Afghanistan first.

    What did you get out of it then?

    I got: we should have solely focused on getting OBL...
  • inmytree wrote:
    I got: we should have solely focused on getting OBL...

    Then why say it's the reason he opposed the Iraq invasion then. Why not say he opposed it because it was based on lies and the afghan war wasn't?

    He sounds more and more like a pro-war type and I feel better about not voting for him everytime I read this more of this posturing.

    If he's trying to sell himself as tough on terror in an effort to take votes from McCain...I will say, do you remember John Kerry??
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • He said that he opposed the Iraq war, not war in general. He supports going to war to go after Al Queda and OBL and so do I.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Then why say it's the reason he opposed the Iraq invasion then. Why not say he opposed it because it was based on lies and the afghan war wasn't?

    He sounds more and more like a pro-war type and I feel better about not voting for him hi everytime I read this posturing from him.

    If he's trying to sell himself as tough on terror in an effort to take votes from McCain...I will say, do you remember John Kerry??

    Jesus Christ. I cannot believe I really just read your last couple of posts. Anyone who does a little research (or doesn't read only what fits their agenda) on Obamas oposition to the war will find exactly what you are looking for.
  • Jesus Christ. I cannot believe I really just read your last couple of posts. Anyone who does a little research (or doesn't read only what fits their agenda) on Obamas oposition to the war will find exactly what you are looking for.


    maybe...but he's constantly trying to sell himself as this and that depending on who he is talking to.

    he came off like a pro-war hawk in the OP.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • yaaaaawwwnnn, haha, nice response. History always repeats itself. OBL, jesus christ Evolution, he is a patsie! this is not a democracy! and the people controlling the fed reserve, the world bank, the IMF are in power. Bush is a puppet, put in power to make the government completely incompetent. Cheney is there to make people think that its solely about getting contracts for the oil and affiliated companies. Its pretty smart actually. 50,000 people had involvement in the Manhatten project....every hear of it? It was the name of the project given to the manufacturing of the fist nuclear bomb. That wasn't made public knowledge until hiroshima and nagasaki got nuked. It definelty would not take anywhere near that to implement a plan to destroy 2, oops forgot about building 7, i mean 3 buildings. So as history shows, secrets can be kept. And you say bush isn't mean enough to kill 3000 us citizens.....one, this goes so much further down the rabbit hole then george bush, and dick cheney. And 2, even though he probably had nothing to do with 9/11, he did sell a war to the american people on lies!!!! where guess what! more then 3000 people have died. (4500 americans, and over 1.5million, ill write that again 1.5million dead iraquies) so seems like he doesnt have a problem sending americans to their death!
  • JzacurJzacur Posts: 64
    haha sorry I was having trouble putting an adequate term to use their and obviously on a second read through Christian gives off the wrong impression. I am far from religious.
    9/28/05 PNC Park Pittsburgh- 6/23/06 Mellon Arena Pittsburgh- 8/02/07 The Vic- 8/05/07- Lollapalooza 6/22/08 DC
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Jesus Christ. I cannot believe I really just read your last couple of posts. Anyone who does a little research (or doesn't read only what fits their agenda) on Obamas oposition to the war will find exactly what you are looking for.

    really??? read my sig for 2 examples! look at his voting record for another!!
    show me one candidate obama gave support to (other than money from a pac he started and went on a media circuit raising money for) that was against the war in iraq. show me one he campaigned for. b/c it seems the only ones he voiced support for were ones like leiberman and other hawks.

    it really doesn't matter, so many bend over backwards and go crazy if hillary or someone else does something but when obama is shown to lie...meh, all politicians lie....when it's shown he lied about being in w/ lobbyists....well, golly, it's hard to avoid taking their money and letting them chair your election campaign!!!

    same reason so many of the die hard obama supporters won't vote in my poll about the nomination...b/c they know if it came down to that they would pick obama w/ the delegates instead of hillary w/ the popular vote, which is a complete contradiction of their rhetoric about gore still winning the popular vote and this is why we need election reform....must be hard to hear how hollow some of his supporters stances really turn out to be
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    El_Kabong wrote:
    really??? read my sig for 2 examples! look at his voting record for another!!
    I believe Senator Obama has answered this claim time and time again. The comment was made in 2004, where we had already invaded and had to provide some stability to a country that we put in chaos and with no form of government.
    El_Kabong wrote:
    show me one candidate obama gave support to (other than money from a pac he started and went on a media circuit raising money for) that was against the war in iraq. show me one he campaigned for. b/c it seems the only ones he voiced support for were ones like leiberman and other hawks.
    Did you watch any of the contests from the 2006 mid-term elections? Obama campaigned hard for all the anti-war Democrats, and in fact stood with the Democratic nominee who OPPOSED Leiberman. Henry Ford, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, and John Tester all benefited greatly from Obama campaigning for them, which is why he has been endorsed by two of those candidates, and will eventually grab the other two's support. Ford and Tester are holding out, but judging by their comments---they are in the Obama camp.
    El_Kabong wrote:
    it really doesn't matter, so many bend over backwards and go crazy if hillary or someone else does something but when obama is shown to lie...meh, all politicians lie....when it's shown he lied about being in w/ lobbyists....well, golly, it's hard to avoid taking their money and letting them chair your election campaign!!!

    Yes, lobbyists are the head of his campaign in a couple of states, however they are STATE level lobbyists, not FEDERAL level lobbyists. Obama's pledge has been to not take money from FEDERAL lobbyists. While it is walking a tight rope line, he is accurate. In fact, Obama has only raised just over $115,000 from lobbyists across the country.
    El_Kabong wrote:
    same reason so many of the die hard obama supporters won't vote in my poll about the nomination...b/c they know if it came down to that they would pick obama w/ the delegates instead of hillary w/ the popular vote, which is a complete contradiction of their rhetoric about gore still winning the popular vote and this is why we need election reform....must be hard to hear how hollow some of his supporters stances really turn out to be

    I've been active in politics for a while and I have yet to meet anyone who is terribly bitter about the popular vote in 2000. There are people who want to see it change, but most Dems are more bitter about Florida and the Supreme Court than the popular vote. Al Gore didn't help himself by not being able to win his own state in the eyes of many Dems.

    If it does come down to Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama has the most states won and delegates, then I think it throws a wrench in the whole process. I think that's when the supers would be in a really tough spot, but if the post Super Tuesday trend of Supers moving is any inclination---they would go for Obama.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    inmytree wrote:
    again...

    where did he say "I would invade irak"...?


    give it up...

    some people are getting very good at taking any little blurb they find and spinning it to fit their formed opinion... taking an inch, and making it a mile...

    much like roland and a few others, when obama said he supports the israeli state and considers them a great ally... the "conspiracy left" takes that and runs with it to paint obama as a war mongering hawk looking to contiune the neoconservative agenda of global hegemony and preemptive war...

    meanwhile Obama is the only canididate actually professing the use of diplomacy, even with our "enemies"... and the only candiate that opposed the iraq war, even when that was political suicide (especially for an unestablished young politician)
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    give it up...

    some people are getting very good at taking any little blurb they find and spinning it to fit their formed opinion... taking an inch, and making it a mile...

    and some are getting very good at making mole hills out of mountains.

    how did obama 'oppose' the iraq war?????? oh he said he's against it, yet he continuously votes to give bush a blank check. and plz spare me the shit of throwing the troops under the bus or whatever. obama is complacent in not holding this administration accountable for the war or it's fraudulent abuses w/ the contracts. spare me what he says to more liberal audiences, SHOW me what he's done!! christ, if he's so against this war and thinks we were mislead into it why the fuck did he vote to confirm condi rice??? the one whose office 'forgot' the cia called them and sent memoSSSSS saying claims like the yellowcake were false well before the state of the union and while the administration were making other fraudulent claims around.


    my2hands wrote:
    much like roland and a few others, when obama said he supports the israeli state and considers them a great ally... the "conspiracy left" takes that and runs with it to paint obama as a war mongering hawk looking to contiune the neoconservative agenda of global hegemony and preemptive war...

    and as for your crap about 'conspiracy left' and israel....from his speech on race you all loved:

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country—a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    ohhhhh really???? now you guys don't think israel illegally stealing land (which the UN has passed a sanction or 2 telling them they must leave)


    and don't forget he said this, too
    “[Any] negotiated peace between Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past,”
    my2hands wrote:
    meanwhile Obama is the only canididate actually professing the use of diplomacy, even with our "enemies"... and the only candiate that opposed the iraq war, even when that was political suicide (especially for an unestablished young politician)


    and by diplomacy doncha mean 'aggressive diplomacy'?

    Obama then promised he would turn his attention to the country’s neighbor. “My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy: I will not take any military options off the table.”


    Thirty senators sent a letter to the White House on Thursday warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Noticeably absent from the list of signatories is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.

    2007-11-01-letter.jpgAccording to its authors, the letter was designed to clarify the ambiguity of the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama has been critical of that amendment as well as the Bush administration's aggressive rhetoric towards Tehran. Yet the senator from Illinois turned down a request to sign on to the White House letter.

    and i'm sure you will just come back w/ 'golly, obama said it will take more than a letter!' you guys always talk about gradual steps, his feet don't seem to be moving at all
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    I believe Senator Obama has answered this claim time and time again. The comment was made in 2004, where we had already invaded and had to provide some stability to a country that we put in chaos and with no form of government.

    so obama thinks iraq is stable???

    and what about the other quote in my sig?? you guys suddenly liked the foreign policy of reagan and daddy bush!?
    Did you watch any of the contests from the 2006 mid-term elections? Obama campaigned hard for all the anti-war Democrats, and in fact stood with the Democratic nominee who OPPOSED Leiberman. Henry Ford, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, and John Tester all benefited greatly from Obama campaigning for them, which is why he has been endorsed by two of those candidates, and will eventually grab the other two's support. Ford and Tester are holding out, but judging by their comments---they are in the Obama camp.

    omfg, are you serious??? you are talking about obama's 'support' for ned lamont against, lieberman, right??? HOW did obama 'stand' w/ him? all i could find is he sent a fucking email....meanwhile a few months earlier obama actually went to connecticut and SPOKE in PUBLIC in support of lieberman

    please show me some real support obama gave these ppl.

    Yes, lobbyists are the head of his campaign in a couple of states, however they are STATE level lobbyists, not FEDERAL level lobbyists. Obama's pledge has been to not take money from FEDERAL lobbyists. While it is walking a tight rope line, he is accurate. In fact, Obama has only raised just over $115,000 from lobbyists across the country.

    um, methinks you have your figures wrong, several articles have been posted showing much more than $115,000 has been donated and more than that from lobbyists.

    a fine line?? why doesn't he inform the public of this line? why, when it was brought up in a primary that his chair was a lobbyist he shook his head and said that's not true??? that's a fucking lie, not a thin line!! no one said a FEDERAL lobbyist was his chair, they said lobbyist and instead of giving the bullshit response of 'oh, well it's different b/c he's a state lobbyist, not federal' obama L I E D

    and here's an interesting article for ya:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081602475.html

    DES MOINES, Iowa -- Democrat Barack Obama, who accepts special interest money and played poker with lobbyist pals as an Illinois lawmaker, acknowledged Thursday that he swims in "the same muddy water" that corrupts Washington, but he pledged to reform the system if elected president......

    "I don't think that lobbyists are evil," said the first-term Illinois senator. "I just think they've got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don't."

    "Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they're actually getting something done?"

    and i like this one

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), explaining his plan to reduce the influence of special interests, made what sounded like a clear-cut pledge to bar the more than 35,000 registered federal lobbyists from ever working in his administration.

    “They won’t work in my White House!” Obama has said repeatedly this week on his Iowa bus tour.

    The line — a standard in his 25-minute stump speech — draws some of his loudest applause.

    The problem is that the pledge is not as definitive as it sounds.

    After reporters sought an explanation from campaign staff Saturday of how he could hold to such a pledge, Obama revised it at the next campaign stop.

    “They are not going to dominate my White House,” Obama said at a rally in this town northeast of Des Moines.



    annnnnnnnnd....odd obama didn'[t make that distinction between federal and state lobbyists in this statement of his

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/09/prepared_remarks_of_senator_barack_obama/?page=2

    It's a choice between debating John McCain about lobbying reform with a nominee who's taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or doing it with a campaign that hasn't taken a dime of their money because we've been funded by you the American people.

    hasn't taken a dime???????

    he's always misleading ppl like the way he always spouts that he doesn't take money from corporations....i wonder if that has anything to do w/ it being illegal??? what a great guy to say in his ads 'i didn't break the law' how fucking noble of em

    now i'm waiting for you or someone else to say 'hey, corporate execs and lobbyists are american ppl, too!!!'

    :rolleyes:
    I've been active in politics for a while and I have yet to meet anyone who is terribly bitter about the popular vote in 2000. There are people who want to see it change, but most Dems are more bitter about Florida and the Supreme Court than the popular vote. Al Gore didn't help himself by not being able to win his own state in the eyes of many Dems.

    yeah, right. you've never heard anyone voice displeasure over the electoral college???
    If it does come down to Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama has the most states won and delegates, then I think it throws a wrench in the whole process. I think that's when the supers would be in a really tough spot, but if the post Super Tuesday trend of Supers moving is any inclination---they would go for Obama.


    my point was i know for a fact certain obama supporters have mentioned their dislike for the electoral college....and when the commentator mentioned that scenario i couldn't help but think of the hypocrisy:
    when it comes to a democrat they want to win getting more of the popular vote but less electoral votes they bitch about the popular vote should win

    then when it comes to a democrat they like getting more of the electoral votes but less of the popular vote they wouldn't even vote b/c they knew it would show their hypocrisy
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
Sign In or Register to comment.