At the 2004 Democratic Convention, Barack Obama was interviewed by Tim Russert. Russert asked him about his speech against the war in late 2002. Given that the Democratic Party was going to nominate two candidates for President and Vice-President who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, Obama said that he was not in the Senate at the time and could not be sure how he would have voted.
By seeking to avoid any embarrassment for the Democratic ticket at the Convention, he was doing the honorable thing. Why doesn't Billy stick that cigar in his fat mouth and smoke it?
It's a sad statement about what happens when political families become too cloistered inside Washington.
It is obvious that you do not like the Clintons but you don't make much of a case for Obama. Talk about his record, his character, his performance. If Obama is a strong candidate he can withstand criticism if his position/record are defensible.
Talk about his record, his character, his performance.
But, that's exactly what Lee did. He explained OBAMA'S RECORD based in the facts, the context of the Russert interview, and made a logical conclusion that Bill Clinton was being disingenuous with people in asserting that Barack Obama was "for the war".
That kind of distortion of Obama's record (ie FACT) is about as Rovian as it gets, and perhaps the ones who should be "withstanding criticism" here are the Clintons?
That's exactly what Lee was doing, and it is no more out of line or irrelevant or nonfactual than Clinton's incorrect characterization of Obama was.
Lee makes valid A point that may be overshadowed by his anger.
The cold hard fact is that Clinton is trying to twist the truth about this.
OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on Meet the Press during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war, so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq. Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, '4, '5, '6, and '7.
If Obama is so concerned about the unity of the Party (Kerry), why then did he run against Hillary who the Party seemingly was united behind.
This all doesn't make factual sense to me.
As far as Obama running, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that nobody should have run against Hillary Clinton, and that the entire party was "united behind" her? If so, I strongly disaqree.
On your second comment/paragraph, I apologize for the confusion and attempting to make a very poor point.
I'll leave it there, if that's okay.
"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, numerating 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? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want.
In my opinion, President Clinton was stating his feelings that the press had given Senator Obama a "free ride". In my opinion, President Clinton has not accused Senator Obama of lying but accused the press of poor journalism.
And lastly, in my opinion, a campaign to win an election should have the right to make statements such as President Clintons'.
The issue is his record opposing the invasion of Iraq. He was consistently opposed to the invasion.
There are a lot of issues swirling around. They basically have to do (it seems to me) with a certain amount of uh..., frustration in some circles at Barack Obama's success as a Presidential candidate. I don't mean to be coy about this, but it is hard to be polite etc because it has been so nasty. And for someone (not you Dianne) to accuse an Obama supporter of writing a hateful diary is just another example of how some people are approaching this campaign.
It is wrong that a variety of issues have gotten so twisted up and distorted.
On my own behalf, I absolutely did not initiate any attack on a candidate or a surrogate speaking on behalf of a candidate.
I really don't think Clinton has actually challenged Obama's overall anti-war position but he thought he would take what he saw and felt was wrong with the press and went with it. As you know, it is what campaigns do. And even Obama admitted that his campaign staff used the race issue in the 4 page talking paper. Frankly, I'm glad that they fought back with the that talking paper in SC. I want to see Obama fight for what he sees is right and what he believes in. After all, if nominated, he will face the Republican trash machine very shortly. Believe it or not, these sort of situations will make him a better candidate to face the Republicans.
To the other Clinton supporters: Other Obama supporters here have expressed harsher opinions than I did. Anyway, I don't think Obama supporters are criticizing you.
At the risk of being repetitious, I'd like to offer the opinion that Obama has run an outstanding campaign. One tv commentator said he's writing the textbook on how campaigns should be run.
I am also extremely proud (as someone else expressed) of him as my candidate for POTUS. I have shown a willingness to exercise independent judgment (saying it is fair that he should be tested on the experience question), but when it comes to the subtext (race, gender, personal) stuff, we should not give any quarter.
Obama is an honorable person and he has run an honorable campaign.
The title alone is worthy of Redstate or FreeRepublic. Why are you turning on one of our own in order to make Obama look good? It isn't necessary and makes you look like lame.
If we're going to move on and have a constructive dialogue.......and we do depend, of course, on our Pres candidates to lead the way on that.....I am one who would like to focus on the issues.
I do not believe that winning is the Only important thing in politics, If, however, an opponent plays dirty, I do not want the candidate I am supporting to allow him or herself to be slimed.
Michael Dukakis made that mistake in a big way. Subsequent candidates also made the mistake. Our candidates must be prepared to defend themselves. Otherwise, the public may conclude that a candidate for office is not capable of defending America.