Hillary and everyone associated with her and her campaign are hypocrites.

Obama 08
Obama/Biden 08

I'm sure this will prompt the increasingly shrill Krugman will feel the need to step in and blather on about mandates being great and Obama being a secret republican.

Clinton shoots herself in the foot once again.

McEntee, the AFSCME's head leader, said to Congress on 4/25/2007:
"However, we are concerned with the direction reform efforts have taken in some states.

For example, the Massachusetts reform model attempts to achieve near-universal coverage through the use of individual mandates that require those without access to coverage through their jobs to buy coverage in the individual market.  Although there are subsidies to help low-income families, many working families will be forced to pay much higher prices for coverage.  The most recent estimates for coverage under this initiative for a family with an income of $50,000 would include a $7,000 premium and a $2,000 deductible.  Health care costs that approach 20 percent of total family income are unaffordable and unacceptable to working families and they will ultimately doom this plan to failure.""

Now, all of a sudden, AFSCME changes their minds?  I wonder what kind of leverage Clinton is offering McEntee in the government?  I mean, she's exported thousands upon thousands of jobs to China and India, she's in favor of mandates that don't and can't work, -how- did she get AFSCME's backing?

Look!
Hillary is already uniting the country and she hasn't even won yet. OK not really.
Reason number who the hell knows NOT to vote for Clinton.

It was David Axerold/Obama camp  who began the GUTTER POLITICS-- i.e the two dirty memos and the David Geffen comments:

From the two dirty memos, so what are the Obama camp implying about Bill Clinton that he is a crook?-- again gutter politics. What Obama Camp doesn't mention is that his friend that he did business with have been indicted by Patrick  Fritzgerald, US Attorney.

Excerpts from the both of the memos:

"Chatwal Owed The City Of New York More Than $2 Million In Back Taxes, Fled Prosecution For Fraud But Was Arrested During Visit to India With Bill Clinton."

THE MEMO ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE CLINTON TIES TO INDIA, MAKING HER SEEM AS IF SHE IS ANTI-AMERICAN.

David Geffen a Obama's fundraiser (comments below) appeared in Maueen Dowd Feb 21st column; Does these comments sound familar? This came from the Obama camp

"I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person," Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. "I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat." David Geffen also brought up the Monica Lewisky, the Lincon Bedroom and questioned the Clintons' character. Low road politcs, I think so.

The infamous YouTube video "Vote Differently" the first negative attack about Hillary Clinton came from the Obama camp. The ad copies a Apple Computer ad that appear at superbowl in 1984 -- Well, where do you think it came from? They did this so they can open up the door about the Clinton private life.

"It later emerged that the AD'S CREATOR WORKDED for a company that contracted FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, though the campaign said itself wasn’t involved," and then the Obama followed up with the David Geffen comments. Only a idiot would believe that this didn't come from the Obama's camp. Coencidence, I think not. Dirty politics I think so. Obama camp didn't want to admit that it came from him, you know that this just would have tarnish his so-called clean image.

"Also, Mr. Obama’s aides circulated the two memorandum to news organizations on the condition that news organizations not say where they obtained the information". The Obama camp was digging up dirt about the Clinton's finance, again they wanted to be anonymous about it.

Excerpts from the column, "This turned into a bit of a dust-up because by all appearances, the Obama campaign got a little sloppy in circulating what turned out to be TWO critical MEMOS. Dirty politics, I think so.

From the beginning, Axerold/Obama had planned to use Cinton's private life, which happen in the past. After the David Geffen comment the Obama Camp have been methodical talking about the Clintons's character; a Bush Strategy against Al Gore. Everytime Bush uses the word character everybody knows he is talking about Monica Lewisky.

It's like my campaign kept saying everyday "Treat HOMELESS PEOPLE with love and kindness," and Ed was my opponent, everyone knows I am attacking Ed Schultz for treating HOMELESS PEOPLE SO HORRIBLE.

This is just a few of the Dirty/qutter politics Aerold/ Obama have played.

Reference:

Maureen dowd 2/21/07 column http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Obama camp cirulates two dirty memos: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/the-backstory-on-obama-clinton-attack-memos/  click on the words "circulated"  and "memorandum"

WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND!!!

Oh, that's rich! AFSCME is opposed to mandates? Oh, my side hurts I'm laughing so hard.

Just another indicator of how Clinton brings the worst out in people. AFSCME attacking Obama for having the same position it does, lol.

I can't wait to see what kind of dirty tricks The Clinton Cult pulls in South Carolina if she loses Iowa and NH

I was going to comment about how this was outrageous and unacceptable for Clinton operatives to work this way, then I remembered that back in 2004 how AFSCME helped out President Dean.  

Another SMACKDOWN from Barack's  campaign. And some of you say the GOP will eat him alive. I say, BRING IT ON!!!!  This man is head & shoulder's above  the rest of the feild, Bar None. In the end, Truth is always the TRuth.

"DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER "

Notice how much ink is required for "sbrown" to explain how "Obama started it."  

HRC--and her followers--are digging deeper and deeper for mud to sling at Obama.  Why? Because it's the only weapon they have.  Without the benefit of having honesty and integrity on your side, these tactics are the best you can do.  

Oh Boy a local mad at the national, just the usual in union politics, ain't nothin here folks have a very union christmas, don't forget to pay your dues.

sbrown, it is what it is. They all do the same thing, Its just that the clintons are slicker than a greased pig. NO MORE CLINTONS NO MORE BUSHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE. We need to move forward into the 21st century. It is like we are still fighting about if the world is flat or round. Some of these campaing issues date back to the 1st century BC.

One of Clinton's last arguments to choose her over Obama: electability...

She claims that she's "vetted and tested" against the Republican attack machine.

Well, in my view, if Obama can withstand the CLINTON attack machine, the Republican attack machine will be a walk in the park.

I mean, he is leading EVERY Republican, whereas Clinton is only leading 2 of 5 in the latest polls...
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404

I have seen crazy stuff done here by the Clinton machine and I think they will not be able to fool as this time around. Obama 08.

sbrown, it is what it is. They all do the same thing, Its just that the clintons are slicker than a greased pig. NO MORE CLINTONS NO MORE BUSHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE. We need to move forward into the 21st century. It is like we are still fighting about if the world is flat or round. Some of these campaing issues date back to the 1st century BC.
TEC-spring -Tx (Sent Friday, December 21, 2007 5:13 PM)

If they all (including Obama) do the same, then who is a hypocrite?

I would rather have a person come to me and say he or she is bad so that I am ready, rather than have someone someone stab me in the back with fluffy promises.

At least with Clintons, I know what I am getting and that is clarity & stability & prosperity.

Although I have posted this before, elsewhere, any discussion of Obama's healthcare plan should include a reading of Jonathan Alter's piece in Newsweek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

Sorry state of affairs in the Clinton house; let's get rid of them and bring an Obama/Edwards Admin.

Sen. Barack Obama is the only Democratic presidential candidate who polled higher than all five of the top Republican contenders in its latest national survey of potential "general election matchups," Zogby International reported this morning.
Obama led:
• Rudy Giuliani, 48%-39%.
• Mike Huckabee, 47%-42%.
• Sen. John McCain, 47%-43%.
• Mitt Romney, 53%-35%.
• Fred Thompson, 52%-36%.

Edwards:
• Led Huckabee, 47%-41%.
• Led Romney, 50%-38%.
• Led Thompson, 51%-35%.
• Trailed Giuliani, 45%-44%.
• Trailed McCain, 46%-42%.

Clinton:
• Led Romney, 46%-44%.
• Led Thompson, 48%-42%.
• Trailed Giuliani, 46%-42%.
• Trailed Huckabee, 48%-43%.
• Trailed McCain, 49%-42%.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404

I am disappointed by Hillary's dirty politics of personal destruction.  Her tactics are right out of the Rove play book and we have had enough of that, thank-you very much.  Hillary is not electable because she is too divisive.  Obama is classy and considered, and smart and will bring this country together to get something done for the people.  It is time to turn the page.  OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.

Have you noticed that the very few times somethng unseamly has come out of the Obama camp - it doesn't come out of Obama's mouth.  Because he doesn't condone it and is quick to correct it.  He knows how to lead and choose the right people.

However when a low blow comes out of the Clinton camp, and it is opten,it is proudly hailed by Hillary.  She is hateful.  Hillary does not choose the right people.  Either that or she can't control them.  Or, maybe they reflect her lack of ethics. Either way, it is not the mark of a good leader.

A good president, needs to be ethical. They need to be a leader. They need to exercise good judgement based on good information. They need to know how to choose the right people.  They need to know how to listen. They need to find common ground among different viewpoints. They need compassion and a sense of humor. They need to know how to get things done effectivly. In my opinion, legislative experience is not so high on the list because advisors do that.
This is Obama.

The opposite is Hillary.

Yeah, i wanted to feel that clinton machine but unfotunately there is none or it has been neutralized by a great and smart Obama. They only use negative campaign but that time is long past, we want the president of the 21st century.

Go Barack Obama.

When will everyone wake up?  

Take the blinders off people.

The United States was founded to avert Monarchies - not establish them!

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton????  Are you kidding?

Are only these two families able to run this country?

You have got to open your eyes.

America can progress no further without turning the page to a new generation of leaders.

Obama 08

I hope the good people of Iowa realize that the AFSCME DOESN'T support mandated health-care reform! Hopefully, they will throw the mailer in the trash.

This is another silly example of how scared and desperate the Clinton camp feels because of Barack Obama's surge.

What comes around sure does go around and it usually starts when a person tries to distort the truth and then create subtext from the distortion. Because Mr. and Mrs. Clinton lack integrity many of their choices, decisions, and friendships reflect that lack. The AFSCME mailer is an example of distorting the truth.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign is negative; she lacks authenticity, is untrustworthy, and isn't the best candidate for '08. In contrast, Barack Obama's campaign is positive and hopeful; he excels in personal authenticity and is trustworthy. Obama's got a strong voting record in the Senate. Out of 6000 opportunities to vote he missed only 146. With MSM help, Mrs. Clinton's trying to make a big deal of nothing.  

I begged the differ with TEC-spring -Tx. Obama is the slicker one. He comes across like a choir boy that don't play dirty hardball politics, but behind Obama curtains there are some dirty hardball politics going on. This how George Bush came across-a saintly christian in public but in private he was something different.

To John, oakland, CA everything I have said is true, ask the media. Write to Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthew Keith Olbermann, and ask did this happen. ALSO, CONTACT THE NEW YORK TIMES.

source: go to http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/the-backstory-on-obama-clinton-attack-memos/
click on (at the end of the article) Memo 1 and Memo 2 or click on the words "circulated"  and "memorandum" in the article.  and Maureen Dowd article 2/21/07 "Obama Big Screen Test."

Hillary has paid off the AFSCME leadership and they are the ones directing the dirty attacks here.
Hillary cannot seem to understand that the dirty politics of the 90s are no longer in vogue and people are simply tired of them.  She also cannot understand her dirty politics will make the rounds due to the internet and so, she is automatically called on it before she can run away.
Someone this dense is obviously not presidential material.

"Zogby: Obama is only Dem leading all 5 Republicans
Sen. Barack Obama is the only Democratic presidential candidate who polled higher than all five of the top Republican contenders in its latest national telephone survey of potential "general election matchups," Zogby International reports this morning.

Democrat John Edwards polled higher than three of the Republicans. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton edged out two, though all but one of her matchups produced results signalling nearly dead-even races."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics...-obama-is.html

There goes Hillary's electability argument...

To the media: ask Obama have his campaign played dirty politics? and then show him the two memos that he tried to plant to the media. Is he practicing what he is preaching?

Clinton campaign open two websites so the media can wake up and point out that the Obama camp planted two dirty memos. When is Howard Kurtz and media going to look themselves in the mirror?

Remember the infamous CBS's memogate planted by Bush operatives, well the Obama camp top them. Just like the Bush camp; the Obama camp got away with it. The Obama camp didn't get called on carpet, when they tried to plant two dirty memos anonymously to media.

I begged the differ with TEC-spring -Tx. Obama is the slicker one. He comes across like a choir boy that don't play dirty hardball politics, but behind Obama curtains there are some dirty hardball politics going on. This how George Bush came across-a saintly christian in public but in private he was something different.

To John, oakland, CA everything I have said is true, ask the media. Write to Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthew Keith Olbermann. and ask did this happen. ALSO, CONTACT THE NEW YORK TIMES.

source: go to http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/the-backstory-on-obama-clinton-attack-memos/
click on (at the end of the article) Memo 1 and Memo 2 or click on the words "circulated"  and "memorandum" in the article.  and Maureen Dowd article 2/21/07 "Obama Big Screen Test."

By the way, the Obama aids that pass these two dirty memos to media still work for the Obama camp.

By the way, the Obama aids that pass these two dirty memos to media still work for the Obama camp.

Karen from Souix City, with that gross overdramatic proclamation you have thus negated any potential for intelligent insight into the deep workings of our political field. You are small minded, and I am only glad that it is in spite of people like you, not because of people like you - that our nation still has any credibility anywhere. Go back to your small little mind and small little life. Awww....

Why Krugman Is Wrong
Why Obama's approach to health care isn't naive.

By Jonathan Alter

Paul Krugman is a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist for The New York Times who was far ahead of the pack in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. His clarity in explaining what academics call "political economy" is without peer. But his attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea.

Krugman calls Obama "naïve" and an "anti-change candidate" because he favors bringing all of the players in the health care debate around a "big table" and rejects the populist message of John Edwards, who is apparently Krugman's choice for president. "Anyone who thinks the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world," Krugman writes, endorsing Edwards's view that the insurance and drug industries should be excluded from any talks on health care reform because they stand to lose profits.

The columnist and his candidate both believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded by being a polarizing figure. I studied FDR for four years while writing a book about him, and this is simply untrue. It's also untrue of other successful Democratic presidents and for a simple reason: "Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in policy-making.

Bear with me for a brief history lesson: The so-called "First New Deal" of 1933-34 came after Roosevelt won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in a campaign devoid of any populist message despite an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent. First, FDR worked with Hoover treasury officials from the other party to rescue the banks under a conservative plan that included steep budget cuts. The rest of his famous "100 days" agenda-which included unprecedented jobs programs, agricultural reform, labor rights, and regulation of financial markets—was achieved with much more compromise than Krugman recognizes. Social Security came in 1935 after a big Democratic mandate in midterm elections and was enacted piecemeal and cooperatively (to the disappointment of many New Deal liberals) with everyone at the table.

During and after his 1936 reelection campaign, FDR—angry at the ingratitude of the rich Americans whose fortunes he had saved—adopted class-based politics. In 1937, with a big victory under his belt, he tried confrontation with his court-packing scheme. It failed badly. So did his effort to "purge" the opposition in 1938. The rest of his second-term was far less productive legislatively than his first. By the end of it, he turned to foreign policy. FDR's third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.
Similarly, Woodrow Wilson's big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson's in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform?  That would be zero, Paul. You could even include Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. Instead of exploiting the peace and prosperity of the 1990s, Gore ran on a "people vs. the powerful" message. It never ignited.

Krugman says that pundits like me who reject sharp anti-corporate rhetoric and prefer cooperation are "projecting their own desires onto the public." We'll see. But last time I checked, millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. The last two Democrats elected president-Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992-also campaigned during recessions. Both were smart enough to reject populism in favor of a responsive but upbeat message.

Krugman is an economist and I trust his forecast that things are going to get even worse for working-class Americans in the months ahead. The middle-class squeeze is real. Predatory lenders and CEO greedheads should be called out. So should insurance and drug companies. But it needs to be done in a way that produces results, not just spleen-venting.
How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Sound familiar? This is essentially what Obama is proposing for health care after he's elected. If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993—instead of convening a secret task force—she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.

Edwards and Krugman think that's naïve. They want the evil drug and insurance industries excluded from any of these conversations. Edwards surely knows better than this. The drug industry that he seeks to bar from a seat at the table is the same industry working to save his wife Elizabeth's life and that of anyone else with a serious disease, including me. The answer to price-gouging is to force these companies to negotiate drug prices with the government, a reform any Democratic president would quickly enact.

Ideally, health insurance companies should be eliminated altogether. But a single payer plan isn't viable politically, as Edwards readily admits. The only option is to curb their power and expand coverage through more regulation.

When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?

Obama's idea is a better one: Get every special interest out in the open on television, where the new president can cross-examine them and expose their phony rationalizations for charging $100 a pill or denying coverage to sick people (and Edwards, the former trial attorney, would be especially good at this). Then, having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow. It is, indeed, a fantasy to think these interests will roll over entirely, but they will get a much worse deal.

The Edwards alternative-to simply overrun them-is unrealistic. Even a 1932-style mandate at the ballot box (highly unlikely) wouldn't make them capitulate. Look what happened when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, elected in 2006 with a huge mandate, tried to "steamroll" a bunch of hacks in Albany. He got his head handed to him.

To call Obama "anti-change," as Paul Krugman does, is anti-common sense. Leadership requires a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face. "They have to feel the heat to see the light," LBJ liked to say. That heat is best applied up close. In public. Across the big table.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

When Bill Christol and George Will are so happy with Obama then as a Democrat I become suspicious and on guard. Why are these guys so in love with Barack? Hmmmm

  Change vs. Experience comes down to judgment. Going into the future Presidents do have cabinets. So who is most likely to fully utilize their cabinet?
  Which candidate is most likely to enjoy a honeymoon
in office and be able to tap into the best instincts and hopes of Americans. Which candidate will electrify the world with the idea of American possibility.
Beyond eager readiness, which candidate has shone good judgment from day one? Which candidate promises to build the party and unite the nation? Who has the best judgment in public life?

Wow...Barack sure has Hillary running scared.

Obama 2008

Everything that happens is Hillarys' fault but nothing is Obamas fault. Get real it is a campaign. According to you Obama supporters no other candidate can question saint Obama. He is a politician just like the rest. Do you guys forget he works in Washington too. When he is there to vote. He really is a whiner and starting to sound a little to confident about winning. Already picking out his cabinet. If Hillary did this the media would be all over her along with Obama supporters.

Chris from Adaville,Iowa
interesting numbers, but I think the repub numbers are still very soft, they will soon solidify when the field is smaller.
and there are a number of fence sitting independents
that could shift things in some states.
I can't wait till your state starts the fireworks,
we ain't seen nothin yet!
Here Here Simon, real is better than fake, cotton candy makes a bad meal.

sBrown, could you please come clean and admit you're on the Clinton payroll?  

that's the only rational explanation for your "curious" interpretation of reality.  nobody is claiming Barack is a saint but you must be delusional to believe that the HRC campaign isn't millions of times worse than any other campaign other than perhaps a Rove-ian one in their dirty tricks.

By the way, any tactic or statement that attacks one of her opponents that Hillary does not personally counter in a press conference has been either explicitly or implicitly endorsed by her.  Let's not be naive.  That campaign doesn't tolerate indians off the reservation.

Finally, stop it with the latest tactic of "let's try to connect Obama with Bush in voters minds."  Desparate times call for desparate measures...

In interest of full disclosure, this is from a lifelong Republican who is disgusted with the current state of affairs and who might even vote Democratic next time in protest of the war debacle, but not if it's for someone who perpetuates politics as usual.  That's the last thing America needs.

Let's not fall into the silly trap of "times were better when Bill was around."  I kind of liked the guy.  However, crediting Clinton for the prosperity of the 90s is just as fallacious as crediting Bush for the lack of a recession the past 5 years.

America was prosperous in the late 90s for one major reason: an exploding stock market driving by Internet mania (as a wild stretch, I guess you could give Gore some credit for that).  America has avoided a recession the past 5 years because of the housing bubble. Neither Clinton nor Bush can reasonably claim credit for either dynamic.

By the way, apparently Hillary is now claiming credit for the wonderful economy in the 90s.  And she did what?  Maybe all the details are in those papers she won't release.

The real heroes of the United States Congress are the 156 members who voted against giving George W. Bush authorization to use force against Iraq; in addition, those who have consistently voted against any and all funding since. Neither Senators Clinton nor Obama can make this claim. There is only one person running for president who can, Representative Dennis Kucinich.

Having said that, it is all but certain either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama will be the democratic nominee. Given that the Iraq War and the continued occupation is the critical issue for me in selecting a candidate, in addition to honesty and experience, examining each of their respective voting records brought me to a sobering conclusion. That conclusion being had Senator Obama been a member of the US Senate on October 11, 2002, I believe he would have voted “yay” on Joint Resolution 114, titled “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.”

How I came to this conclusion was not easy for me; I do not like to accuse anyone of dishonesty. Therefore, I will explain; I used deductive reasoning. This included past statements made by Obama; in addition, I examined his voting record in the continued funding of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation. Obama has consistently maintained he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. However, both his words and his actions are in direct conflict with this assertion.

While running for Senate in 2004, Obama made the following statement, “I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time. But, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.” --Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004

Also during his senate campaign, Obama promised he would "unequivocally vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for the Iraq war.” However, after taking office in January 2005, he voted in favor of four war appropriations bills, which totaled more than $300 billion. In March of 2007, Obama voted for a “Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.” In June of 2007, Obama voted against Senator John Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, stating an "arbitrary deadline could compound the Bush administration's mistake.”

Since entering the presidential race, Senator Obama has used his opposition to the war as the focus of his campaign, as Senator Clinton voted in favor of the resolution. Well, not so fast Senator Obama; your voting record on Iraq is virtually identical to Clinton’s. “Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama conceded that his position on the war is not the ‘polar opposite’ of Clinton's.”

When questioned further about his voting record paralleling Clinton’s, he stated, "I suppose that's true if you leave out the fact that she authorized it, and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea."

Again, not so fast Senator Obama. On May 17, 2007, or just seven months ago, you stated, "I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence."

In addition, when asked a similar question about his voting record last fall by the New Yorker magazine, Obama admitted that "it's not clear to me what differences we've (Clinton and Obama) had since I've been in the Senate."

In fact Senator Obama, you unconditionally voted to fund the war until 2006; it has only been since you announced your candidacy that you began opposing blank checks. It was not until May 24, 2007 that you cast your first “nay” vote for continued funding of the Iraq occupation.

I cannot say with 100% certainty that Senator Obama would have voted “yay” on Joint Resolution 114; however, I can say I believe with 99.9999% certainty he would have. This near certainty is based on both Senator Obama’s statements and voting record.

If Senator Obama had truly been opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning as he has steadfastly maintained, his voting record would be identical to the brave and honorable Dennis Kucinich’s; it would not be identical to Senator Clinton’s.

I’m sorry Senator Obama; I do not believe you would have voted “nay”!!

PEACE!!

The thought of Hillary & Bill back in the White House makes me tired and nauseous.  Memories of all the old scandals come floating back.  Thoughts of Barack in the White House are energizing and exciting.                                                              Turn the page.                

A black pastor says although there is a leadership vacuum in the African-American community, Illinois Senator Barack Obama does not fit the bill to fill the void. The New Jersey minister hopes his new website, ObamaNation.com, will expose Obama's voting history and prove to black voters that the much-touted Democratic presidential hopeful does not represent their values. Pastor Clenard Childress heads the group Christians for Social Justice and is assistant to the national director of the pro-life group called Life Education and Resource Network, or LEARN. Also, he has recently launched the new ObamaNation.com website and its "Obama Blog," to educate the black community regarding what he calls the "horrific" voting record of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Childress says "winds of change" are blowing in the black community, but he believes the election of Obama as America's next president would be "a step back" at best. "All polling shows that African Americans are pro-life," the pro-family advocate notes, and "all polling shows that they are not in agreement with same-sex 'marriage. Childress says his organization's goal is to get these facts about black America to translate into action at the voting booth. And one way of making that happen is to make Obama's own voting record known, the Christians for Social Justice official explains. With regard to abortion that record is disheartening, he notes; "even on the Born-Alive [Infants Protection] Act, I was appalled that he would deny medical assistance to a child that survived an abortion.expose the Illinois senator's liberal stances on several key issues affecting the black community. Senator Obama's support for abortion garnered him a 100 percent rating from Illinois Planned Parenthood, an organization whose founder called blacks "human weeds." But according to Childress, the Illinois lawmaker and Democratic presidential candidate does not represent the views of the African-American community on abortion or any number of other important issues, including homosexuality.
Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience: "Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America." It also reported: "Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having "an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities." Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with "intuition" or expertise in the conduct of my nation's foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions. After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive.Senator Clinton for President, because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.

But the point is, sbrown, you don't hear about Bill Clinton's private life in this campaign.  If Obama or any of the other Dems had wanted to make an issue of that which shall not be named, they would have done just that.  It's just not in the news; it's not an issue.  So the fact that you had to explain it in such detail seems to prove the point that it just isn't relevent to the Obama (or any Dem's) campaign agenda.  We all know how issues (most of questionable veracity) of Obama's life are brought up on a daily basis by Clinton surrogates.  They've had to reserve a permanent confessional to account for all of their sins.  So I guess that leads one to the obvious conclusion of who is leading the campaign of personal destruction.  Even when questioning his voting record in the Illinois Senate, they misrepresent the facts.  They're going down, but they're going down kicking and biting.  It's just not dignified.
Obama '08

I have kept saying it; mandated health care is bad news.   I hope this controversy will catch more fire and expose the mistruths of the whole debate.  Hillary copied Edwards with her plan(just like the minimium wage hike!) not because she cares but because she can say, "I'll cover everyone!"  Correction, she wants to force everyone to cover themselves.   A mandated health care policy means you HAVE to BUY it from the private sector.

As for Obama's international experience.. he has a HELL of a lot more than Bill Clinton did in '92.   Bombing the Al-Qaeda controlled parts of Pakistan?   Yah, naive.  It's not like we have anything to worry about there.
His experience?
Edwards has been in public office for SIX years.
Hillary Clinton has been in public office for SEVEN years.
Barack Obama has been in public office for ELEVEN years.
If we're going to claim that being First Lady counts as experience, then we're saying Laura Nush is qualified.  Not to bash the woman, but really, it's a ridiculous notion.

CAN YOU SSSMMMEEEEEEEEELLL...
what BARACK..
is cooking?

The Obama boosters are really beginning to sound like
Ron Paul's whacky gang - same same??

The eyes of the World are upon Iowa. But let's not forget about Our troop's over there in the sandbox, & the ones who voted to put them there ( Clinton & Edwards).Those 2 can explain till the cows come home, but the Fact remains, They voted YES to give GWB the authority to go to WAR.In Hillary's case, she was more privy to info than most other senator's, but in the end, decided Not to read the NIE report & just go with what Bush & Cheney were saying.In Edwards case, i'm not sure if he read the NIE or not, but either way, in the end, He voted Yes.Now , although Barack was not in the Senate at the time of this vote, He made it known of how much he opposed Stupid War's, with no end.All thru this campaign season, Barack has come up with idea's that other's have blasted, only to later come around to his way of thinking.Good Judgement is a rare quality in people & Barack has shown this rare quality all thru his ADULT life.We need a People Person in Our Whitehouse,not an establishment person.Change is not going from Bush to Clinton & Bush to Clinton, thats more like eating Hamburger & fries every night, it just gets OLD fast.
    Now i don't know a whole lot about the South side of Chicago, but what i do know, is it's no picnic. But Barack eveidently knew enough about the south side to want to Change it for the better.I would'nt think he alone was able to do this, but in fact was a Leader in trying to Change it for the better of that community. We already know, no one is going to be able  to make Major Changes right out the shoot, but given the chance, Barack & his Leadership, & judgement can whittle away at some of the Problem's that we have as a Country & the world.
    In the beginning, i'll admit,i was wondering if other's  would be able to get past the color of someone's skin & actually listen to what they had to say( I was sold from the Start).Thankfully, they're are lots of other's in America that have done that as evidenced from the poll's. There's still a few ( Not bad in a country of 300,000,000 people)who can't & Never will.The outrage from the Katrina mess was the Perfect example.Voter's, My personal Hope is that you give him the Chance to lead this Nation beginning on Jan-2009. HE WON'T LET US DOWN!!


Merry Christams & Happy New Years to all!!

"When Bill Christol and George Will are so happy with Obama then as a Democrat I become suspicious and on guard. Why are these guys so in love with Barack? Hmmmm"

JWilliams

Same reason there were a lot of Democrats that liked Reagan.  

"and there are a number of fence sitting independents"

Jason Alexander

Actually, Jason you are wrong.  If you read the Zogby poll results you will see that independents flock to Obama (that's why he is beating ALL the Repub candidates); they are not sitting on the fence.  With Hilliary Clinton they tend to go to the Republican candidate; that's why she is losing to three of the top five Repub. candidates.

Mitchell Feldman - good points. Everything down his kindergarten record has been thrown at Obama. But just of the mountain of stuff Clinton's Democratic opponents haven't touched. For some reason, I don't think the GOP will hesitate to do so.

And then think about the impact of that on independents. It would be the general election from hell. But hey, there's good news. We don't have to make that mistake.

Yep Blame Hillary. That's what the news media is all about. Anything that happens to Obama or Edwards campaign, they all go and blame Hillary. I have never seen a candidate that is so scrutinized, abused by the media than Hillary. It's crap like this that will drive me to the polls to go vote for Hillary.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):