St. Obama started attacking Clinton on day 2 of his campaign

[jackson_dem]

For the people who have "forgotten" (see what a certain beverage can do? ;) ) how negative a campaign Barack "I will usher in a new kind of politics" Obama has been running from the very beginning. We don't know if he will be ready to be president from day 1 but we know he was ready to run a negative campaign from day 1...

Put down the kool aid. Candidates who are losing go after the front runner, even those who claim to be "above" such things. Ask Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Gephardt (Iowa) from 2004. This is why the rethug target shifted from McSame to Giuliani to Romney and back to McSame again this time. They weren't playing tag. They were going after the front runner at the time. If the "evil" Hill Uh REE was in 4th place no one would have batted an eye at her (remember the attacks on Richardson? Exactly. There were none because he threatened no one).


-snip-


Senator Barack Obama yesterday launched his toughest attack yet on his rival Hillary Clinton, blasting her for backing the "tragic mistake" of the Iraq war and voting to give President George W Bush a green light from Congress.

("toughest attack yet"?It was day fucking 2 of his campaign. He announced on 2/10, a Saturday. The first Monday of his campaign he was out there attacking with an Old Kind of Politics (1796-forever) negative campaign strategy.)

-snip-

Mrs Clinton, he charged, was also vague about how she would end the war beyond promising to bring it to a close if she were elected. "How she wants to accomplish that, I'm not clear."

(My, my how ironic!)

-snip-

Both the front runner Mrs Clinton, 59, and John Edwards, 53, running a strong third in polls, were among senators who authorised the war in 2002 but have since modified their positions. At rally after rally in Iowa, Mr Obama slammed the "senseless" and "ill-conceived" war to huge applause.

(The Edwards part is for all the Obamites who think the msm didn't support Obama from the beginning. Edwards was very close to Obama in the polls at the beginning of the campaign. Yet the media made it a two way race between St. Obama and Clinton from the very beginning. He didn't earn it by beating Edwards on merit. He got it via media selection. It is ironic to see so many Edwardians now supporting the guy brought to us by the same people who took down Edwards...)

-snip-

Mrs Clinton, campaigning in New Hampshire at the same time, had to field hostile questions about her vote from disgruntled Democrats. Mr Obama also took Mrs Clinton's early campaign slogan of "I'm in it to win it" to suggest she was interested only in getting elected.

-snip-

At a breakfast in Iowa Falls, he appeared to take another shot at Mrs Clinton, who is often accused of excessive ambition. "I'm not one of those people who decided at the age of seven that I wanted to be president."

(Ah, another fine example of irony given what happened later, done tongue in cheek by the Clinton camp, in the campaign...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/12/wobama12.xml

New kind of politics? Once again, just words...

[AX10]

1. K & R!

[MercutioATC]

2. I fail to see an "attack" here...

...unless your definition of "attack" includes illustrating the differences between you and your opponent.

[jackson_dem]

6. "suggest she was interested only in getting elected"

Hey! Wasn't there a recent poll out that showed Clinton is viewed as less trustworthy than St. Obama? GEE! I wonder where that came from during the course of the past 12 months...

[virtualobserver]

33. I think that her lying might have had something to do with it

and telling the truth about your opponent is only negative when the truth is negative. His "new kind of politics" involves telling the truth, which is a lost art in Washington.

[jackson_dem]

38. I know, I know. Obama=saint. Clinton=evil. Even when they do the same thing

How about all of Obanma's lies? Oh yeah, to obamites he has never told a lie!

[virtualobserver]

43. projecting Hillary's traits onto Obama hasn't worked.....

you should try a new strategy.

[anamandujano]

54. I guess you didn't read the memo.

[Sadie5]

83. Obama has lied from day 1

Obama is an empty suit who spouts off but can not back up his rhetoric. He has no plans at all. There will be handlers making the big decisions, just as they do with Bush.

[Beacool]

112. Yep, except that he'll tilt left while Bush tilted right.

Though I give Obama credit for being brighter than Bush, he's still not prepared to be president.

[The Doctor.]

149. Ignorance of a thing does not obliviate it.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. The truth?

McClurkin's just gunna sing. That kind of truth? Open gay bashing at Democratic events, that 'new kind of politics'?
Both of these candidates have played ugly games. Only one turned them on me, and he did it from word one, and never apologized.
Selective vision makes both sides look like hacks, saps and patsies. Obama events attacked my family as cursed. Last Fall. So to me, he has been vicious, unapolgetic and willing to use any Rovian religoion baiting game under the GOP sun to get elected. He even hired McClurkin, Bush's official singing gay basher, direct from Republican National Convention 2004. New politics means Democrats use Republicans to attack loyal Democratic minorities live on stange? It is not new, man, the GOP had done it for years. What is new is a Democrat willing to play such disgusting swipes and good Americans.

[Skidmore]

141. She is not trustworthy.

Hillary has a casual acquaintance with truth and often waits to see which way the wind blows before she does anything. She is certainly not on to step out and go against the flow based on principle.

[rodeodance]

91. That is EXACTLY what many Obama supporters say when Hillary only is

illustrating the differences.
Thread after thread--day after day--of Obama supporters DOING EXACTLY THIS!

[Hugabear]

103. LOL

Making up stories or exaggerating stories isn't the same as pointing out differences in opinion!

Hillary has greatly exaggerated her role as First Lady, making it sound like she was instrumental in many of her husband's accomplishments. She flat out LIED about her experiences in Bosnia. I'm sorry, you can spin it any way that you want, but it was a bald faced lie. You don't simply "misspeak" about something like that.

[Lucinda]

3. Thanks!

K&R

[bobbert]

4. Gobama!

[dkf]

5. So you like the war in Iraq then?

Cuz I'm happy with anyone who "attacks" the war and holds those who voted for it accountable.

I would be happy if each person who voted for the IWR did penance every day for the rest of their lives for the misery they have brought the Iraqi people and our military. They have ruined our reputation almost beyond repair...thank goodness we have someone who was not complicit who can fix our good name.

[jackson_dem]

8. Obama voted to fund the war. Without funding the war would have ended

So you will be writing in Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul become St. Obama is complicit in the war he helped pay the bills for?

[bhikkhu]

12. Not happy about the war funding...

but one envisages battalions in the desert, stranded, and no one answering their calls for help as the enemy approaches. Ending funding is not as simple as it sounds.

[jackson_dem]

13. The funding would have been there regardless of how Obama voted

He was so "against the war" he couldn't make a stand of any sort against it until he began running for president and introduced a vanity bill?

[bhikkhu]

16. Perfectly true on the funding, but what vanity bill do you mean?

[anamandujano]

25. That's what he wants you to envision. All funds don't go

toward helping the troops.

[bhikkhu]

39. Don't pretend that Hillary is not toeing the same line.

Funds for the Iraq war are specific. Obama didn't write the request and doesn't "want you to envision" anything regarding it. He is simply stuck in the same mess as Hillary. De-fund the war without an actual exit plan, and you create a colossal and deadly mess for the guys who are over there.

[anamandujano]

56. That's a lot of bull. The only way to stop a war is to pull the funds.

They always factor in the safety of the troops.

They might scrap funds for pumping and pilfering the oil, or for the Halliburton junket, new attacks, etc.

[TLM]

19. Nice bait and switch....

Voting to supply the troops is not nearly the same thing as voting to let Bush send them to iraq in the first place... and no amount of desperate spin will make it so.


Hillary voted for the war.... you can't spin the blood off her hands.



Hillary SHOULD be criticized and attacked for her vote to start the war in Iraq... she should be held responsible for her decisions.


Or is being held responsible for supporting a war you supported, now sexist?

[jackson_dem]

29. Nice bait and switch. The poster referring to being complicit in the war. Obama is complicit

Too bad. Those were bills he was sure not to vote "present" on...

[chill factor]

46. goes to show...

The 'present' votes by Senator Obama were done when he was serving in the IL legislator. A 'present' vote means either the person wants to make changes to a bill or is having second thoughts about a bill and wishes to review it again. There are no 'present' votes in Congress.

[TLM]

60. No what the posters said was....

"Cuz I'm happy with anyone who "attacks" the war and holds those who voted for it accountable."


Obama did not vote FOR the war. Hillary did.

Obama voted to keep troops supplied after Hillary helped Bush to start the war in the first place.



But the simple fact that the only defense you have for Hillary's stupid, irresponsible, and cowardly vote to let Bush start the war in Iraq... is to attack Obama for voting to supply the troops that hillary voted to send to war.

Your spin won't work...


If Hillary ran down a pedestrian in her car and drove off... then Obama showed up to call the victim an ambulance, you'd accuse Obama of "participating in a hit and run."

[jackson_dem]

74. Voting to pay the bills for a war is not voting "for" a war?

Clinton has nothing to do with Obama's record on Iraq, unless he copies what she does which is possible since he votes with her each time. ;)

[Pawel K]

170. I see you guys still have no problems lying

you lost, stop this bullshit, please.

Obama did not vote for the original war, period. He voted for the funding and I totally disgree with him on that. But so did Clinton, so it's extremely ironic (or maybe idiotic is a better term) for a clinton supporter to be bringing this up.

How low are you guys willing to go for this campaign? There are a lot of duers I used to respect until they were willing to piss away their entire reputation for Hillary. You want to do the same go for it, I can't stop you. But as he said no amount of spinning from you will wash the blood off Hillary's hands.

Obama did not support the invasion of Iraq, period.

[dkf]

26. I doubt the war would have ended even without funding.

Bush would have played chicken with the troops and found the money from somewhere.

Bush is a law unto himself.

[jackson_dem]

30. Where would he get $10 billion a month?

[dkf]

40. Here ya go...

But after futile meetings with Democrats on Capitol Hill, Gates announced Nov. 15 that there is only about $4 billion in the regular defense budget that can be easily shifted to the wars — enough to maintain operations for something like one week after the current supplemental runs out. Therefore, he said, if Democrats fail to provide a viable funding bill, and quickly, he would draw up plans to fund the war by freezing defense contracts and initiating massive layoffs in the Department of Defense. He said that for starters, he would take $3.7 billion from the Navy and Air Force payroll budgets, then $800 million more from elsewhere.


Democrats allege that this amounts to fear-mongering. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said Monday that military funding will last until early March — which is technically correct, if the last dime is to be spent and all operations in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly halted thereafter. In order to give a minimal cushion against that, Congress would have to appropriate funds very soon. Otherwise, layoff notices would have to go out before Christmas, according to Gen. Richard Cody, the Army’s vice chief of staff.

As they join the battle over supplemental war funding, Democrats have two clear disadvantages, and perhaps a third as well. First, the timing is terrible. Reid’s rebuttal of President Bush’s demand for money was that “All we ask for is some accountability — at least a strategy.” That made sense in February, when Iraq was really a mess. But the current strategy in Iraq is working much better than the old one, and so the argument is far less effective.

Second, Democrats will be fighting a rhetorical battle against officers in uniform over whether to cannibalize one part of the military to fund another. On Nov. 26, Gen. Cody ordered Army commanders to draw up their own “in extremis” layoff plans, which he called “absolutely necessary given the uncertain GWOT funding.” His office provided a memo for members of Congress two days later, stating that “The Army expects to exhaust all operation and maintenance (OMA) funds by February 23, even after considering a request by DoD to move over $4 billion from Navy and Air Force personnel accounts and the Army’s working capital fund.”

In order to find more money to shift to the war effort, the memo says, the Army is making plans to “warm base” its installations and commands to “minimal essential levels.” The memo also states that plans are being drafted to “furlough Army Civilians after mid-February; curtail or suspend contract expenditures; and discontinue all routine operations funded by OMA dollars.” The final budget-reduction plans that Cody ordered are due today.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc1NWY5NzBhYzYxMTliMWM1ZTRlMzg2MmMzMTk2YmQ=

[Bluenorthwest]

154. To be not complicit

In reality means one would not have voted for all that funding, and certainly not for the Patriot Act. Unlike Dennis Kucinich, Obama never made a splash on the Hill to end the funding, nor to bring justice for war crimes, instead he voted for Bushwar ever single time he had the chance to do so.
Those funing votes and the Patriot Act vote mean he is complicit and has been fully cooperative. They are both pro-Bush war, as shown by the votes they cast. Senators can filibuster. Obama did not and Clinton did not. They both rolled over many times. Complicit.

[loveangelc]

7. I don't understand how criticizing someone for voting for the war is attacking.

[jackson_dem]

10. "suggest she was interested only in getting elected"

A year of that has taken a toll on her trustworthy rating. That is where she consistently polls poorly. Even in the latest PA polls Obama beats her 59-32 on trust. This is because Obama, and Edwards (who I supported but I don't need to make him out to be some messiah. He is a politician and was behind and did what trailing candidates do--like Clinton has done lately) hammered at her for a year on this issue. They recognized that was an area she was vulnerable, along with the lobbyist thing.

[loveangelc]

17. well maybe if she hadn't acted that way, digging up kindgergarten papers and such,

it would not be so bad for her. I happen to agree that she will do anything to get elected, just because of how she's conducted herself, not because of what Obama has said about her...

[jackson_dem]

23. That was a year after the fact. Why did Obama attack her on day 2?

So you admit a "new kind of politics" is just words?

[Bluenorthwest]

158. Obama had gay bashing events

Let's get down to brass tacks. Anything to get elected, like hiring the same hate preacher that sang for Bush at GOP Convention 2004 to attack a loyal Democratic voter base by name and without apology? Evangelist Fundamentalists preaching against the minority they hate, at Obama events. A person who would do that is a vicious candidate, deserving of anything he gets back at him. Gay people did not start this, Obama did. He dragged us in and made us a wedge all over again. The low down no good, anything to get more for me Obama did that. Spit on innocent bystanders to look like he agreed with bigots.
But hey, don't want to look at reality. No.

[Jed Dilligan]

18. Who are you quoting?

If it's not Obama, what were his exact words?

"Suggest" is a red light that reads "spin."

[loveangelc]

21. exactly

[jackson_dem]

22. "I'm not one of those people who decided at the age of seven that I wanted to be president."

If Obamites are going to view anything that doesn't directly say "Hillary is evil" as not an attack then I can say exactly why they think his actions match his rhetoric. This is ironic in light of the hysteria over Clinton's attacks, which are in a similar vein to Obama's. Yet you would think Clinton tried to attack him with a chainsaw in a debate and that Obama is an innocent bambi. This is how candidates attack. They rarely do so directly. Why the fuck would they when the media will fill in the blanks for them? That gives them plausible deniability, as the Obamite responses in this thread show is very effective. They can have it both ways: enjoy the impact of attacks while still appearing positive to the faithful. :)

[Jed Dilligan]

24. There are a few leaps of logic

between those words and your original quote.

I don't really see how wanting to be president from an early age is a bad thing, anyway. Aren't little kids in America supposed to want to be president when they grow up?

[jackson_dem]

31. Clinton saying "speeches are just words" is an attack, right?

[Jed Dilligan]

34. No

When did I say that?

It's a stupid-assed thing for a politician--particularly one whose husband amassed an enormous fortune by speaking--to say. But it's not really a personal attack. Just immensely stupid and a bizarre thing to come out of that particular person's mouth.

[jackson_dem]

35. Really? So what is the intent of "speeches are just words"?

It sure as hell wasn't a random observation...

[Jed Dilligan]

44. A ham-handed attempt to make her look better than him

Attack, to me, is the Muslim stuff, the Wright stuff, the really ugly stuff.

"Speeches are just words" was a badly botched attempt to contrast her supposed record against his relative inexperience. Implicit to it is an acknowledgment that he is a much, much better speaker than she is. If anything, it's a defense.

[virtualobserver]

37. it is quite personal......it means that you don't mean what you say

[Jed Dilligan]

45. I took it more to mean "His superior speaking abilities don't count

as much as my purported experience."

[virtualobserver]

47. a reasonable interpretation

[democrattotheend]

123. Sorry, but I do think her vote was at least partially politically motivated

And this is a fair criticism. I tried to support her at one point, and one of the things that I had trouble getting past was the way she just never seemed authentic. Her trustworthiness was always an issue with voters, and I have no problem with Obama and Edwards questioning her on that.

[bhikkhu]

9. Not to be dismissive, but how about some quotes and dates?

I was not following the race closely at all during this period...

[jackson_dem]

11. 2/12/2007. The second day of his campaign, the first Monday

I believe he announced on a Saturday.

[bhikkhu]

15. He was pointing out the difference in support for the war

Without a quote, it is hard to see that as an attack. It is a matter of record, and it is perfectly valid to point out the differences of positions on record.

[jackson_dem]

41. Except when Clinton does it...Obama voted "present" on several bills relating to choice

VICIOUS ATTACK according to Obama supporters.

[bhikkhu]

48. Skipping from one point another, without any references.

None of this changes minds.

Perhaps in the fast-pace of a discussion here, it is just a matter of having a plausible come-back, and facts and quotes are not so readily available. But if there is a point to your efforts, I would assume it is to change minds...

[jackson_dem]

53. The references are ample. Anyone who thinks Obama has run a positive campaign is drinking kool aid

I posted a list of many of his attacks in January. No Obamite could acknowledge that he has not run the kind of campaign he claims he has run.

[bhikkhu]

58. So no quotes or references yet again...

Sorry to abandon yet another profitless conversation, but it is just midnight in my time zone, and I must be up in the morning to get my daughters off to school...night, all.

[jackson_dem]

65. Here are two quick ones from a thread search

Too bad my computer crashed and I lost the lengthy thread on his attacks. Refer to attacktimeline.com for a listing and references to Obama's many attacks.

jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Feb-08-08 11:29 AM
Original message
Edwardians should remember Hillary never did these things to Edwards

Edited on Fri Feb-08-08 11:58 AM by jackson_dem
Hillary's "supporters" didn't swiftboat Edwards on the netroots. Where do you think the talking point about Edwards' "rhetoric not matching his record" originated from?. Her top aide never went on national tv and deliberately lied about Edwards. She didn't send out Rove-style mailers attacking Edwards in Iowa. She didn't basically call Edwards a phony in New Hampshire (using the "rhetoric doesn't match his record" meme used by Obamites on the netroots...). All of this is not enough to oppose a candidate but we should not have amnesia. We can forgive but we should never forget who ran a gutter campaign against Edwards and who took the high road. Don't let the post-Edwards withdrawal lovefest from these folks fool you. Even the biggest swiftboaters of Edwards in the blogosphere have professed their affection for him because they want us to vote for their candidate. The minute this candidate drops out or wins the nomination they will return to their real position toward Edwards.

Since some Obamites are denying these things happeneed:

The mailer: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Obama%20Oppo%20on...
Here's a rich Obama memo attacking Edwards for what he would do three weeks later in Nevada: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/29/53807...

The Axlerod comments are well documented. He went on television and claimed Edwards had no accomplishments in the Senate when four years earlier he was on CNN praising Edwards' Senate record.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4478301

jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan-17-08 07:16 PM
Original message
Will the Obama campaign retract their lying misquote of Edwards?

It was two months ago but we can "hope" someone running a "positive" campaign of "hope and change we can believe in" would have the class to retract it. In 2002 Edwards mentioned the legal obligation corporations have to maximize profits for their shareholders. In the next breath he called for closing tax loopholes that those corporations were taking advantage of, in part because of their legal obligation. His position then was the same as his position today. Obama knows this. Obama, a constitutional scholar (one of his experiences to be president right?), knows corporations are required to maximize the interests of shareholders. His campaign still misquote Edwards to make Edwards sound pro-corporate when Edwards had the courage to stand in front of a bunch of corporate leaders and advocate higher taxes for them. Will Obama have the class, like Edwards did today, to retract his lying misquote?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4098952#4106758

[BornBlue]

124. I thought this thread was about Obama's attacks on Hillary

Yet your proof is all about Edwards, which to me means you have no REAL proof. Come up with some sound quotes/links and maybe you will get a better reaction, as it is this is pretty weak.

P.S. Andrew Jackson, was about the worst President there was IMO. He repeatedly made treaties with the Native Americans, only to break them and force them further and further from their native lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Nullification_crisis
see Indian Removal

[bhikkhu]

168. Thanks for making the point

I haven't followed all things from the beginning, but it is another frustrating example of a claim made without the provision of evidence. The rhetoric doesn't work, and it is in any case the same rhetoric we will see up until the GE. A good habit to get into is to believe nothing about a candidate without full context - quotes, full sentences, dates and places, background on intention, etc. The primaries would have been immeasurably better if we had this as a habit.

Regarding Jackson, I only half agree. He was as you say regarding Native Americans, a fault that cost him nothing in the culture of his time. But he was also the "candidate of the people", the first president who could be called a common American, rather than a British-style elitist. His platform was the principled reform of the federal government toward the goals of constitutional equality. There are things that we take for granted as there from the beginning which in reality began from his administration, and still persist. His reforms cost him a great deal politically and personally, but changed the character of government for the better.

[BornBlue]

179. I concede he did some good things,

but so did Hitler. Yet we still regard Hitler as a bad person. I am not trying to directly link Jackson to Hitler, but the fact is that he was directly part of the destruction of Native American culture as it once was. I have very distant Cherokee ties(about 1/8 of my "mutt" make-up), so I do take a somewhat personal stance on the issue. It was a long time ago, but the Native American's still have not recovered from being forced to live on reservations.

Thanks for the positive response though, I find it so hard to get people to respond to reason!!! I try and try not to be one of "those" Obama supporters who simply like to attack Hillary supporters, but it gets ignored. :cry:

[virtualobserver]

49. no, the vicious attack was when his votes were spun as anti-choice

which he is not

[jackson_dem]

51. Did he vote for choice? No. He voted "present". That is a fact that can't be spun away

[virtualobserver]

64. that was explained back in 2004

it was a strategy to provide cover for vulnerable Dems on abortion rights issues by having unassailable dems (like Obama) also vote present. The former head of Chicago NARAL switched her support from Hil to Obama based on her attack on this issue.

“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.



I personally don't care whether you believe it or not but it was covered by the Chicago Tribune back in 2004.

[jackson_dem]

66. Yeah and Illinois NOW opposed that. So how did he vote? You can't have it both ways

Obama voted "strategically". Hill says she voted for inspections. Criticizing one vote is a a vicious smear while criticizing the other is a noble thing to do?

[virtualobserver]

70. he was tryiing to help the pro-choice cause

which makes it all the more noble for him to take heat for it.

and makes Hillary look like she will sink to any depth to win

[jackson_dem]

72. Illinois NOW is not pro-choice?

Where was Obama's audacity and leadership? Why didn't he use his alleged awesome superpowers to unite both sides behind choice?

[virtualobserver]

75. just because another organization disagreed with the strategy

does not make one org more pro-choice than the other. You are grasping at straws.

[jackson_dem]

78. How did he vote? He he vote against the bill? No. That is his record

Spin it as you wish but you can't call attacking Clinton and Edwards' votes kosher and then complain when Obama's record is attacked. They all have explanations--only Obama's count...

[virtualobserver]

79. if you think that it is a good thing for Hillary to attack a Democrat

for trying to implement a strategy to pass pro-choice legislation, then I have nothing more to say to you on this issue.

[jackson_dem]

80. The legislation was anti-choice. Is it a good thing for Obama to be a coward?

What about the bills on which he was the only one or one of two or three to refuse to take a stand? What was the "strategy" there?

[virtualobserver]

82. I mistated on the bill.....but if this was a strategy concieved by local pro-choice people

it wasn't cowardly.....but you know all that.

Hillary won't win on spin.

[TLM]

50. Odd that clinton was saying just yesterday...

how her and obama's voting records are almost the same...

[jackson_dem]

52. Clinton wasn't "present" in the Illinois legislature

[Ichingcarpenter]

57. But Bill Clinton was when he signed Nafta and other fucked up Bills

[TLM]

63. Apparently you're not clear what voting present means....

...in the state leg.

Show me where he voted against choice...

[jackson_dem]

68. He voted "present". That is a fact, just like Clinton's vote on the AUMF

Now you are getting cute. He voted present instead of taking the pro-choice position for the vote. That is what he did. Why he did it is another thing--just like Clinton's AUMF vote is a fact but "she voted for war" is not clear. She, like Kerry and others, says she voted for inspections, which did take place after the AUMF and according to Hans Blix would not have occurred without the AUMF threat hanging over Saddam's head. Both Clinton and Kerry, like many others, say Bush abused the authority.

[madrchsod]

101. it`s has been proven over and over

that what you said is a lie. you have no creditability when you lie..

[cliffordu]

14. Poor Hillary - ambushed by facts, fucked up by the truth.....

Stunted in her quest to be Thermonuclear Warlord by a guy with "Nothing but a speech."

If she had any organizational skills or true political ability he wouldn't have lasted beyond Stupor Tuesday.

She has no one to blame but herself and any other excuse is bullshit.

[TLM]

20. The only thing Obama did wrong....

was wait two whole days before taking Hillary to task for her stupid irresponsible and cowardly vote to start Bush's war in Iraq.

[cliffordu]

27. Yeah, the fucking deadbeat....

ROFLMAO


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Nice observation!

:patriot:

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. My favorite Senator Russ Fiengold would not endorse Edwards

I wondered why at the time, but he SURE THE HELL, HASN'T ENDORSED CLINTON

[democrattotheend]

132. He said he voted for Obama as a Wisconsin voter, and will probably do so at the convention

But he has not made a formal endorsement.

[guyanakoolaid]

32. You will never spin away the fact that hillary voted for the Iraq War Resoltuion

Never. To "attack" her on that is the correct thing to do, since she showed such poor judgment. What is so bad about that?

Not surprising a Clintonista wants to play games with the truth though, especially about who has attacked who. Because nothing in this campaign has been as ugly as when Hillary suggested McCain was more ready to be Commander In Chief than Obama. That attack was about as sleazy as they come. Especially ironic since McCain and Clinton are the two remaining candidates who showed the horrible lack of foresight by voting for the IWR.

Hillary will suffer for voting for the IWR. She gambled and thought she was doing the politically expedient thing. She lost. So she will lose the nomination.

[jackson_dem]

36. So attacks are good--except when Clinton does it or Edwards did it

So you admit "a new kind of politics" is just words, another Axlerod election year gimmick along with "hope and change"?

[Ichingcarpenter]

42. I find you disingenuous claiming to be a former Edwards supporter

that went to Clinton, especially after all you know about his stances
on Labor and knowing the Clinton's history.

I'm curious on the contradictions.

[guyanakoolaid]

119. What "change" can come if we aren't honest about the mistakes we've made?

And "attacking" a person's voting record, on a matter as vital as Iraq, is hardly a bad thing. You are lumping legitimate strategy in with Clinton's bag of dirty tricks.

Iraq is a vital issue. Wright is not.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. Spin Obama's "Senator Clinton (D-Punjab)" Memo. Dirtiest campaign op yet.

His camp tried to release it to the press as a "you did not get it from our campaign" memo. When the press reported on where they had gotten it from, Obama issued an apology to the Indian-American community for trying to use ethnic baiting to score votes.

[jackson_dem]

77. Good point. That was the first instance of race baiting in the campaign and Obama did it

His talk about a post-racial utopia and unity? Just words...

[Nine]

150. And I never hear about that on DU.

Seems like it's gone right down the memory hole for Obama supporters. Only HRC supporters can be racists as far as many of them are concerned.

[Ino]

152. here ya go

http://sikhcouncilusa.org/article.aspx?article=evtdinner
"'I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York' said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the former first lady of the United States of America."

"(D-Punjab)", although a potshot, is a logical step, based on her own words. Does not qualify as "dirtiest campaign op yet" -- not even close to the crap the Hilliary camp has flung.

[The Doctor.]

55. Oh for Fuck's sake.

This is sad.

[loveangelc]

62. it really is...

but grasping at anything is all some have left.

[jackson_dem]

69. A campaign being very reliant on fairy tales--and winning--is very sad indeed

Let's "hope" that "changes".

[virtualobserver]

73. the only fairy tale that I've read recently is "Hillary and the Three Snipers"

[The Doctor.]

148. I admire your tenacity, but it's starting to border on lunacy.

[sniffa]

177. Starting to?

:rofl:

I see he's being fed well today, though.

[democracy1st]

59. You seem extremely emotional,all it's going to do is hurt you

Why don't you checkout Faux News,you know the one Gov. Rendell called fair. Take a look and see what they say about anyone left of center.

[jackson_dem]

61. 102 posts in three years

Yet this attack on mewas important enough for you to make. Do you vote in Pittsburgh too? :rofl:

[Major Hogwash]

67. What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

Are you counting posts of anyone who disagrees with you?

And, by the way, where the hell is your profile, Mister Profiler?

[Ichingcarpenter]

76. Mister Profiler said he was a Edwards supporter

but went over to Clinton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3129111#3129282
but choose not answer the question on why this shit happened.

[The Doctor.]

181. Mister Profiler has been on DU for barely three months.

He has no posts prior to January 5th, 2008.

That smells.

I remember reading the "DU infiltration guide" on another site that shall be unnamed. On it, it said to 'get up to 1000 posts as quickly as possible, as it will give you the appearance of legitimacy.'.

I'm not saying that J_D is a troll here, but the M/O and attitude is fishy.

[intaglio]

81. Jackson - It's the Torygraph, It's a Brit Newspaper

The word "Blasted" in a Brit Tory rag means criticised. These fools overdramatise everything - just like you. FFS even the Indy, the Grauniad and the Aunty (Independent, Guardian and BBC) get it severely wrong about US politics.

Why don't you just post a thread everyday

I Loathe Obama
by Jackson_Dem

[cliffordu]

84. I just love it when they come around and stomp thier little feet and

pout and generally make like a bunch of little kids who can't go to Chuck E. Cheeze for the inauguration.....

I'm sorry your candidate can't run a Presidential campaign.

:shrug:



Edited for speling (sic)

[rodeodance]

92. Demeaning the OP--good Rovian tactic

[cliffordu]

143. Nah, just pointing out the obvious.

[QC]

104. It's a pity that condescension and sophomoric mockery won't win elections.

If so, Obama would already be President-for-Life.

[cliffordu]

144. Too bad the op didn't have any real point..... kinda like your post.

[QC]

185. "I know you are but what am I?"

Did you study rhetoric at the Pee Wee Herman Institute?

[guruoo]

146. Sounds like an invitation to sit out the GE

[cliffordu]

165. Threat or promise??

[StevieM]

85. He's not a nice person (eom)

[Tellurian]

86. Obama is as lethal as a cobra.. eom

[floridablue]

87. One of the many many reasons this Edwards supporter

will never vote for Obama, or watch MSNBC again.

[GrandmaJones7]

128. You are not alone. WON'T vote for Obama now. NTXT.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

136. watch the hands, watch the hands.....

[bowens43]

88. You're completely delusional.

I suggest you get into some kind of recovery program. You have slipped off the deep end.

[indimuse]

89. I have always argued..

it never made since for the front runner to go negative...we all know who did, but it appears that, the Obama supporters are just as comfortable lying as much as Barack Obama...especially targeting another Dem...Shame!

[DerekJ]

90. Do you have any fucking clue, what does it mean to go negative in a campaign...

What's next he criticized her health care plan?!!

F'n MORAN

[rodeodance]

93. Good job ---of pointing out the hypocracy of the Obama campaign.

[Vinca]

94. What's the attack part? He's pointing out their differences on issues.

That's why they bother having campaigns.

[alteredstate]

95. Who cares?

n/t

[durrrty libby]

96. Obama.......Ready to be a Fraud from day 1

[Ian_rd]

97. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable and legitimate attack to me

That vote was indeed a tragic mistake. Should he not make that criticism for fear of it being labeled some kind of an unfair attack? That's pretty weak.

[JimGinPA]

98. You Lose All Credibility When You Start A Thread With "St. Obama"...

Not that you had any to start with.

[madrchsod]

99. an article from the tory rag dated in feb...it`s april 9th

this article was discussed back in february and you bring it back up months later..?

after googling "saint obama" it seems "saint obama" originated with the right wing commentators..so why do you use a british tory rag to prove your point and use "saint obama" in your subject line?

i can`t wait to see what you write about "saint obama" if he wins the nomination...

[Buzz Clik]

100. St. Obama? enough from you.

[totodeinhere]

147. Yes, we needed to go no farther than the St. Obama part to know that his would be

an anti Obama hit piece.

[sniffa]

178. You could have stopped even earlier, once you saw the user name

[not_too_L8]

102. talking issues is not an attack

suggesting someone is a drug dealer


or insinuating their Muslim when they are not....IS

[Hugabear]

105. Sigh - you are hopeless

If you can't see the difference between going after her for her IWR vote and Hillary's "celestial choirs" mocking of Obama's speeches, then it's really no use.

[BlueJac]

106. Obama 2008

[SeaLyons]

107. Great Post...

Thanks JacksonDem. The blindness of this primary is shocking. If Obama is elected, deep disappointment and reality will set in for all who supported him.

[SeaLyons]

108. K&R the Truth

:kick:

[MethuenProgressive]

109. k&r!

IBTL

[Beacool]

110. How about this nugget from Todd Spivak:

Houston Press News
February 28, 2008

Chris Matthews, the MSNBC political pundit, recently grilled Texas State Senator Kirk Watson for supporting Obama despite knowing nothing about the candidate's legislative record.

"Can you name any — can you name anything he's accomplished?" Matthews pressed.

"No," Watson, whose district includes Austin, finally admitted. "I'm not gonna be able to do that."

"Well, that's a problem, isn't it?" Matthews said.

Hillary Clinton recalled the incident with a chuckle during last Thursday's debate at the University of Texas.

When asked about his legislative record, Obama rattles off several bills he sponsored as an Illinois lawmaker.

He expanded children's health insurance; made the state Earned Income Tax Credit refundable for low-income families; required public bodies to tape closed-door meetings to make government more transparent; and required police to videotape interrogations of homicide suspects.

And the list goes on.

It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative ­achievements.

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's ­kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics — and he couldn't have done it without Jones.

Before Obama ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was virtually unknown even in his own state. Polls showed fewer than 20 percent of Illinois voters had ever heard of Barack Obama.

Jones further helped raise Obama's profile by having him craft legislation addressing the day-to-day tragedies that dominated local news ­headlines.

For instance. Obama sponsored a bill banning the use of the diet supplement ephedra, which killed a Northwestern University football player, and another one preventing the use of pepper spray or pyrotechnics in nightclubs in the wake of the deaths of 21 people during a stampede at a Chicago nightclub. Both stories had received national attention and extensive local coverage.

I spoke to Jones earlier this week and he confirmed his conversation with Kelley, adding that he gave Obama the legislation because he believed in Obama's ability to negotiate with Democrats and Republicans on divisive issues.

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.

Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.

I'll never forget what he said:

"Some call it pork; I call it steak."

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

And now this man might be our next president.......

:scared:

[jackson_dem]

159. A lot of truth. It deserves a thread of its own

;)

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

111. That's damn right. He should've just igonored her IWR vote. So should I. So should everybody.

Let's just forget the whole thing. Let's forget the million dead Iraqis. The 4000-plus dead troops. The tens of thousands of wounded troops. The broken families. The destroyed nation. The hundreds of billions of dollars of lost cash. The ruined US economy. It doesn't matter. Because it's unfair to criticize Clinton on a matter of policy or record during a campaign, because that would be an "attack." Got it. I BELIEVE!!!

[Beacool]

113. Oh yeah, because she's responsible for all the ills that have fallen on the US.

Please save your outrage for the rightful culprits: Bush and his administration.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

121. The responsibility lies with all who aided and abetted for political reasons.

Sorry, but her hands are bloody. I'm guessing you knew full well what she was voting for WHEN she voted for it. So why give her a pass now?

[Beacool]

135. Because I understand her vote at the time and I don't expect her to apologize for it.

Not only did most people supported Bush, I think that it was as high as 71%, she's the senator from NY. Remember a little event that had happened in NYC a few months prior to the IWR? Well some of us remember it too well as we were in the middle of it on that fateful date.

I hate this war as much as anybody else here, but I don't blame Hillary nor the other Democrats for it. I blame Bush, et al. and the lies that they told Congress.

As for Obama, I have no doubt he would have gone with the majority if he had been in the senate at the time. His voting record parallels Hillary on this issue.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

151. votes after we're in the mess don't equate to stances before the mess

when your hands are tied, you vote accordingly, which Obama and Clinton did.
She voted to tie hands, though. That's different.

And surely if you and I knew Bush and his assholes were lying to the country, she did, too. The difference is, when 71% of the country was supporting the war, one candidate spoke out forcefully against it IN THE MIDST OF HIS OWN CAMPAIGN, and one voted with the greatest of political calculations. There's no reason to try to hold the candidate who didn't vote for IWR as accountable for hypothetically voting for it when we have actual politicians who sold out progressives by actually voting for it. Knowingly.

By the way, here's another little thing we knew then: Persian Gulf Round One, with Bush Sr., which resulted in 250,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. Here's another thing we knew then: we didn't have the leadership who could ever get us out of Iraq. Here's another thing we knew THEN: weapons inspections were working. Here's another thing we knew: bin Laden wasn't in Iraq. Here's another thing we knew: the war was pre-planned months before, while the president supposedly was deliberating on it. Here's another thing we knew: the IWR was a right-wing propaganda tool to legitimize neo-con self-interest. We knew all this. So did she. Progressive don't give her a pass on it.


ed for typo

[snappyturtle]

114. Much ado about not much. eom

[merh]

115. An attack on her record?

OMG, how could the man attack her on her record, that isn't a legitimate thing to do, he should attack her for her gender, her hair, her hair stylist, her wardrobe, her tears, her shrill voice - HOW DARE HE!!

Get a grip j-d - this is a valid challenge to her poor judgment and poor use of her powers as a senator, she approved of the illegal war.

Some of you folks are just so desperate it is pathetic.

[Symarip]

116. Oh Noes!!!11

The uppity junior Senator from Illinois calls out Clinton's bullshit. omfg wtf iz his, lyke, problem?????////slash

[TTUBatfan2008]

117. Attacking a policy is different...

from attacking someone's character, which is what she's done to him during the campaign. He hasn't thrown her under the bus in favor of McCain or accused her of plagiarism (a serious attack on someone's character), even though there's plenty of evidence that she's lifted language in her speeches from other people just as every politician does.

[jackson_dem]

157. Implying Clinton is a power mad person who will do anything to win is a "policy"?

Obamites, as shown up thread, want a double standard. When Clinton or Edwards go after Obama on policy it is an 'attack". When Obama does it is just a "discussion" about issues.

As to Clinton, she said Obama doesn't have experience. That is a factual comparison. That is kosher, right? Obama did plagiarize. Again, factual. So it is okay...

[TTUBatfan2008]

182. Saying he plagiarized...

is the equivalent of saying Hillary plagiarized from Bill and John Edwards. Neither are correct. First of all, Patrick told him to use the line. And second of all, every politician is guilty of it if this is really an issue. The fact is, it's not an issue. It's grasping at straws.

[izzybeans]

118. Oh no, one should never criticize the Princess of Peace for her vague policy proposals.

[SoCalDem]

120. My my, what an "uppity" dude he is/was.. How DARE he even think

of challenging Her Royal Highness..

I guess he didn't get the memo stating that it was not his "turn"..

:rofl:

[mckeown1128]

122. Wow.. a year old attack on her support of the war....

why should we care again?

[leaningprog]

125. Obama did not sabotage Hillary's leadership of her campaign, she did.

The most experienced and ready to lead on day one?
After botching a blitzkrieg primary strategy she has been
caught up in trench warfare and broken out the poison gas.

You cite Obama attacks on her decisions and policies as
a Senator like they are vicious smears and slams. They
are not.

He didn't suggest that she was a fairy tale, like that
Geraldine Ferraro lady who tried to be VP, did he?

He didn't say that he was presidential material and
John McCain is and wouldn't it be great if we could
just have a nice campaign with these kind of people.

He did not call her a plagiarist for using words from
a member of her own campaign and imply she was a thief.

The Clintons both seem to only be able to operate in
a vicious and personally destructive campaign. If it
is there, they counter it in kind and they thrive on it.
If it is not there, they create it to make their style
of slime politics work in the race. Obama is not perfect,
and he admits it, which is why he doesn't have to lie so
much to cover up his imperfections.

She may have as Bernstein is reporting something so damaging
that it will destroy Obama and his family if she throws the
toilet behind the kitchen sink she already threw. If she does
she might win, and you can gloat. But then you are going to
watch the Clinton trench war go on while almost nothing
changes for 4 or 8 more years.

[Bonobo]

126. Why do you include the flamebait and insulting term "Saint" to describe Obama?

[Occam Bandage]

139. You know perfectly well why.

[polichick]

127. How much do they pay you for your daily drivel??

[Pisces]

129. An attack or the truth? Of course a Hill supporter would have a tough time distinguishing

Truth from fiction

[Milo_Bloom]

130. LMAO!!! Wreak of desperation much? Sorry, no "attack" here.

Just lots of assumptions drawn and positions stated.

[dionysus]

131. christ, you're the energizer bunny of lies....

it just keeps trolling, and trolling, and trolling...

[Moochy]

134. I guess outright lying is not against the rules

He's just following the lead of his fearless clueless leader.

[ProSense]

133. Why are you so disingenuous? "Put down the kool aid."

You should take your own advice.

[PBS Poll-435]

174. Don't you have some tax returns to audit?

:rofl:

[Butch350]

137. Hello Cry Baby

It's called politics. Just exactly what is he supposed to say? He didn't call her a B****!
He questioned her position on policy. I just don't get it?

Your a guy who likes for them to lay still - right?

[Occam Bandage]

138. Holy shit! He said that voting for the Iraq war was BAD? Fuck, I'm voting Clinton.

[cooolandrew]

140. A new kind of politics will be a work in progress not a miracle overnight.

[GoneOffShore]

142. Finally -

You really are a just a talking points memo aren't you?

Kitchen sink and the trash out back campaigner.

:hi:

Plonk.

[lojasmo]

145. Unfamilliar to primary campaigns, eh? EOM

[jackson_dem]

155. No. Read the OP. The attacks weren't wrong. The hypocrisy and the fairy tale are the problem

[lojasmo]

156. Um...'different kind of politics' doesn't mean what you think it means.

[last1standing]

160. Do you have nothing else to do all day?

The weather's getting nice, why not go outside for a bit? Maybe you should try posting something positive about Hillary because these constant attack threads make you seem rather pathetic.

[TheWraith]

161. God forbid that someone should DISAGREE ON POLICY.

After all, it's not like that's a fair target. Certainly, the candidates should just stick to things like teenaged drug use and whether or not any of them are secret muslims.

[Chisox08]

162. It's not an attack when it is the truth

Hillary did vote for the IWR. All he did was call her on it. She lied about NAFTA and Bosnian snipers. Her helath care plan rewards the insurance companies that screwed us over for years. On top of that she praised McCain at the expense of Obama. Come November I can see the ad now "I have a lifetime of experience McCain has a lifetime of experience and Obama has a speech from 2002." Her 3 am ad only helps McCain because he could us that against both Hillary and Obama. She attacks Obama and when he responds all I hear from Hillary supporters is "No fair he is attacking hillary or Obama is playing the race card and my favorite Obama supporters are sexist." I mean how dare this Obama guy deny Hillary her rightful coranation as President. She had her chance in 2004 she blew it now Obama took his chance and now he is runing with it.

[Bad Thoughts]

163. A saint critical of authority: whose ever heard of such a thing

I think this is a poor juxtaposition of images, given that saints very often challenged political authority.

[Butch350]

164. OK - Out of All the Replies

...you got - does this satisfy your need for attention? GO HILLARY! YEAH!

[DemGa]

166. A concerted smear campaign emanates from BO

"Obama Camp Memo on Clinton “Misleading” Voters"

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clinton-misleading-voters/

[krkaufman]

167. What utter nonsense. Do you expect Obama to be praising the competition?

... like Hillary does McCain? Legitimate criticism of unbelievably bad decisions by one's opponent is not just fair game, it's what the elections are *supposed* to be based upon.

(I've really gotta check-out the user names before getting worked-up. SOP.)

[otohara]

169. GoBama, Kick Some Butt

go negative, do it!!!!

[anonymous171]

171. So? He's criticizing her stance on issues.

I love how you are trying to pit Edwards supporters against Obama supporters though. Nice try :thumbsup:

[stevietheman]

172. St. Obama is the nominee. Kiss the ring. n/t

n/t

[Pawel K]

173. How can you people lie so easily?

Do you honestly have no shame about this?

You were asked multiple times in this thread to provide examples, you haven't been able to provide any. Stop this shit, please.

[Major Hogwash]

175. It's the internet.

Believe it or not, I'm a Civil War veteran who was freed as a slave and now I grow mushrooms in my ears to keep me healthy!

[intaglio]

176. JD please stop sourcing from RW newspapers n/t

[jillan]

180. Everytime I catch one of his stump speeches on c-span or cnn - he is ALWAYS

bashing Hillary.

I thought that's what he meant by new politics ~ bash your opponent early and often.

[Bensthename]

183. You don't win by going after the candidate in second place..

[nichomachus]

184. St. Obama? Thanks for signalling this was a hit piece instead of rational discussion

Hillary supporters are killing her campaign. If she loses, they will bear a big share of the blame.