Obama “I want to be making the argument for the future, not for the past. I want to be going forward

[plantwomyn]

Unless we’re going backwards to look at Hillary Clinton’s past. All I want you to see is her past. And please make it at least 3 years into the past, since our voting records in the Senate are so similar, I don’t think I have a divisive enough issue to make case for my call for CHANGE.
And please do not look into my past. Just BELIEVE. I have a record of CHANGE. My record in the Illinois House and Senate doesn’t really document the HOPE I INSPIRED in those I represented. Just BELIEVE, even though it is true I wasn’t very effective in actually passing legislation. Just BELIEVE, even though I didn’t think it prudent to keep any records of my time in office, I can assure you that I worked behind closed doors, I fought the good fight.
I INSPIRE you to CHANGE. Into what I’m not quite sure yet, but I’ll let you know as soon as I do.

[islandmkl]

1. thank god the war in iraq is such a minor matter that hillary's vote in that matter...

doesn't really mean much, does it? Yeah, I know, the Hillary-haters just keep bring up the WAR...when will we just drop that pesky subject?

[aquart]

3. Please do make the war the big deal. Stress it everywhere.

And please let us know what Obama plans to do about Afghanistan.

[plantwomyn]

5. And ain't Obama lucky that his followers

don't really check his record or hold HIM responsible for what HE said in the PAST.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

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

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

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

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

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

In yesterday's conference call, he had no such doubts. "I am certain that I would have voted to oppose this war," he said.
______________
So I guess hindsight being what it is. Or is it politically expedient now to diss everyone who had the make the decision in 2002.
HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW THEY VOTE BUT DON"T HOLD ME REPSONSIBLE FOR MINE.
Doesn't sound very inspirational to me.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[stillcool]

2. Why is this posted under "editorials...

& other articles" when there is no link to the article. Who is the author? When was it written?

[pacalo]

4. It seems the GD-P posts are infiltrating the other forums.

There were two LBN posts recently whose titles were totally different from the titles given at the link. One post was titled in a very glowing way toward Obama, but the actual title at the link favored Hillary. I alerted the mods about this one & it remained on the LBN column, despite the DU rules.

[plantwomyn]

6. If there was and OP-ED forum I would have posted there.

nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. It is not an editorial or an article with Links or supporting links

It is a personal opinion and belongs in GDP.

I would say the same thing to a person who did this for Hillary.

[pacalo]

8. A sincere welcome to DU, plantwomyn.

I didn't really notice that you were somewhat new to DU, so please take that into consideration in regard to the frustration.

For future reference, "Editorials/Other Articles" is specifically for posting excerpted material from publications, including a link. When you'd like to post a personal opinion, the correct forum would generally be "General Discussion" or the applicable forum as related to your opinion. In your case, it would have been "General Discussion: Primaries".

:hi:

[GOPBasher]

9. I want to be making the argument for WINNING the white house.

Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain than Hillary does, and poll after poll illustrates this fact. Here's the latest:

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm