Obama's Texas Closing Ad: Leader

[Yael]

Run time: 02:08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCSABNGp8EQ   Posted on YouTube: March 03, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 03, 2008 By DU Member: Yael Views on DU: 1227

 
This is the infamous 2 minute spot that he has bought up a mountain of time on in the 3/4 states. This is the Texas version with references to the caucus.

[eleny]

1. Very nice, thanks Yael

I like the tone and the content. :thumbsup:

[BigD_95]

2. nice

[NJmaverick]

3. YES WE CAN!

How nice to see a POSITIVE political ad!

[Barack_America]

4. THAT is what I've been waiting to hear from my President.

What a great message.

[RBInMaine]

5. Excellent ! Now he MUST drive the debate and stop letting

Hilllary and the corporate media control it !!

[anonymeme]

6. Frightening to See Obama using the "I'm not a perfect man" defense.

In Obama's newest video:

He criticizes "lobbyists who "put their interests ahead of ours" the people's interests

BUT whose interests was Obama putting ahead when he missed so many important votes in the Senate, while working on becoming President instead?

Obama speaks of "the obscene influence of lobbyists" -- whose contributions he has happily accepted, bundled by his corrupt pal Tony Rezko.

Obama says he "fought for tough new ethics law in Illinois and Washington" -- while he lapped at the lobbyists troughs.

But this is especially scary: Obama is using the "I'm not a perfect man" defense.

That's the exact words used for their own defense, by men like FBI spy & traitor, Robert Hannsen, who is the most recent of the ones I remember using it.

Finally Obama says: "I can promise you this: I will always tell you where I stand and what I think."

He hasn't done that yet, so when is he going to start?!

No one knows where this self-proclaimed blank screen really stands on any of the issues.

[Joshua N]

7. I know his issue stances. +Of all people to criticize about taking lobbyist money, you choose Obama?

[anonymeme]

8. You KNOW ALL Obama's Issue Stances, Then You Won't Mind Answering These Questions:

You KNOW ALL Obama's Issue Stances, Then You Won't Mind Answering These Questions:

Why has Obama changed the position he claims he had back in 2003, against the war?

Obama made promises and/or let the people believe that he would stop the war and bring the troops home.

BUT NOW HE SAYS HE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEND MORE TROOPS INTO IRAQ if he finds that Al Qaeda has a base of support there... well, it appears Al Qaeda does have a base of support and have had since Bush got us into the war over there...

So which is it?

IS OBAMA GOING TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME OR SEND MORE IN -- based on what he knows right now?!

Why did he at one point support the protection of the Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli abuses, but now has withdrawn his support and is willing to to let Israel take another strip of land away from the Palestinians -- which will displace 1.5 million people, possibly killing a lot of them?

Why did Obama pick Lieberman to be his mentor in Congress, after Lieberman had dumped the Democratic party to become a so-called "Independent" but marching in lock-step with Bush all the way on the war as long as Israel is always protected?

Couldn't Obama find a real Democrat to mentor him?

Why was Obama for the bombing of Iran in 2004 and against it in 2007?

With regard to Social Security, why did Obama say in May of 2007 that cutting benefits for Social Security and raising the age of retirement "should be on the table" -- in other words fair game for consideration?

However, by Nov 2007 he seems to have backed off that by saying that cutting benefits should be "off the table" -- BUT THAT'S NOT A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

IS IT HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY OR NOT?

Why did Obama leave his supporters in SC thinking he'd be tough on illegal immigration, and has now wooed the Hispanic vote, by making Hispanics believe he's on their side and going to help them out?

What exactly were his actual dealings with Tony Rezko? What does the 3 year investigation of Rezko -- Obama's friend for 17 years -- reveal about Obama that the voters would want to know?

What IS Obama's position on NAFTA?

Sending people to his website to read his answers is not going to cut it. The written word can be altered, or claimed to have typos and errors.

I really want to hear these answers from Obama's own mouth, but you a certainly free to try to explain. But it would be wise to check your information first.

What specifically and exactly are his stands on these issues?

[Joshua N]

10. You are unnecessarily combative. My point is that you can not say he has no stances on the issues.

But to answer your questions as best I can right now,

He will bring the troops home.

He respects Israels right to exist, but also supports a Palestinian State.

Lieberman was appointed to him.

Please provide a link showing Obama's support of bombing Iran.

He believes that SS should not be privatized and he does not want the retirement age to go up.

There is no evidence to suggest that Obama had any improper dealings with Rezko. Besides I am more concerned about HRC's connection to Mark Penn, but honestly the whole "connection to X or Y" person is an overused meme IMO.

[anonymeme]

14. Not Combative, Just Asking Questions That Need to Be Answered & Give Information Re: Your Points:

Not Combative, Just Asking Questions That Need to Be Answered & Give Information Re: Your Points:

I Don't Believe that Asking Questions Needing to Be Asked & Answered is Being Combative...

And I Don't Know How Much Information You Can Take, But I'm Going to Post Info About Each of Your Points which are unfortunately inaccurate or have not been cleared up by Obama yet.

First Obama's Change / Reversal / ("flip-flop") About Bombing Iran From 2004 to 2007 Articles Here:


Here's one showing his position in 2004:

"Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell |Chicago Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board...

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

And Here's the Reversal in 2007:

"September 13, 2007
Obama to Bush: Don't invade Iran

CLINTON, Iowa (CNN) ­ Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama warned the Bush administration against expanding the war in Iraq to neighboring Iran, telling an Iowa audience Wednesday that he hears 'eerie echoes' of the rhetoric that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

'George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear loud and clear from the American people and the Congress: You do not have our support, and you do not have our authorization, to launch another war,' he said.

The Illinois senator's comments came during a speech on the future of the 4-year-old war in Iraq, which he said has only bolstered Iranian influence.

Obama said the Islamic Republic poses a 'grave challenge' to U.S. interests in the Middle East by refusing international demands to freeze its nuclear fuel program and supporting Shiite Muslim militant groups ­ 'But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way the president and vice president talk about Iran.' "

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/13/obama-to-bush-dont-attack-iran/

[Joshua N]

22. You will never hear a president taking military action off the table. Thank you for the information

[anonymeme]

15. Re: Obama's Stance on Deploying More Troops to Iraq:

Re: Obama's Stance on Deploying More Troops to Iraq:


In the Feb. 26th Democratic debate Obama said in response to Tim Russert's question: "Do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?"

Obama responded: 'As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests, and if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So, that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places.'

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290014

"On Wednesday, Obama expanded slightly that he 'would always reserve the right to go in and strike al-Qaida if they were in Iraq" without detailing what kind of strike that might be — air, ground or both.' "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23374260/

Obama also said: "I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html

So Obama knows Al Qaeda is there in Iraq, and he reserves the right to continue the war with strikes if they are there, so is he going bring them home or send more in, based on what he knows right now?

Only Obama can answer this I believe, and I'm showing you what he has already said about the subject.

[anonymeme]

16. Obama's Change of Mind or Reversal on Palestine Versus Israel...

Obama's Change of Mind or Reversal on Palestine Versus Israel...

QUOTE From Mother Jones Magazine: "The 'pro-Israel' crowd saw Obama as a potential threat. He's done his best two-step to prove them wrong."

"Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn't criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States' top ally in the Mideast.

Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message... 'The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel. If it cannot...I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,' Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was 'forced' to shut down Gaza's border crossings.

The letter was notable not only because Obama had distinguished himself from the rest of the field, but also because it was a far cry from the Obama of last March, who let slip a rare expression of compassion for Palestinians by an American politician: 'Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people' he famously said at a small gathering in Iowa. What ensued in the 10 months between then and now is an object lesson in the intense pressure under which presidential candidates stake out ground on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and... goes a long way to explaining why the candidate with the most liberal foreign policy views went out of his way to take a hard line on Gaza."

He apparently did NOT do this out of any moral regard, but to enhance his electability.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/obamas-israel-shuffle.html


Here's what Ralph Nader said about Obama and his Palestinian-Israeli views on "Meet the Press."

"But Senator Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first liberal evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself.

And I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate. Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli.

He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One would think he would at least say, "Let's have a hearing for the Israeli peace movement in the Congress," so we don't just have a monotone support of the Israeli."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/02/sweet_ralph_nader_to_make_thir.html#more.

[Joshua N]

23. You are right that he is wary of the pro-Israel crowd. He does not want to be painted a certain way

I think, like most, he understands the suffering of the Palestinians but respects Israel's right to exist. I am okay with his stance. The fact that he even made a pro-Palestinian statement is impressive to me, especially considering he is still around. The truth is, folks like Ralph and Dennis Kucinich are needed but are not getting elected this cycle. If BO came out like them on this issue he would be out of here fast. Again, thank you for the link.

[anonymeme]

17. Lieberman & Obama -- Who Picked Whom:

Lieberman & Obama -- Who Picked Whom:

The Democratic leadership was rather PO-ed at Lieberman for ditching the Democratic party, why on earth would they assign Lieberman -- who was no longer a Democrat -- to a new Democratic Senator? That makes no sense, but I'll let you read these articles for yourself:

The article at this URL indicates that Obama was stumping for Lieberman to get the people of Connecticut to send him back to DC no matter what party:

http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Here's another better article about this by Alexander Cockburn: "That’s right - Joe Lieberman is Obama’s mentor, and Lieberman brags that Obama picked him, not the opposite."

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/

And another: "Obama did support Lamont -after- Lieberman defected. However note also that Obama -chose- Lieberman to be his "assigned" mentor in the Senate knowing full well how hawkish and GOP-leaning Lieberman was. I believe this indicates that supporting Lieberman was Obama's genuine position and supporting Lamont just a political face-save."

http://panmetron.blogspot.com/2007/12/would-obama-pull-lieberman.html

[anonymeme]

20. Erratum:

Erratum: I accidentally and mistakenly skewed the time-line on this one.

All the information in the links is correct, but Lieberman didn't go renegade until starting in 2005 and then split from the Democratic party in 2006.

Obama picked him as his mentor in 2004, which the links verify.

[anonymeme]

18. About Rezko and Obama's Lobbyists' Contributions

Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal

December 23, 2006
BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter

In addition to a land deal, Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to indicted dealmaker Antoin “Tony” Rezko include an internship the senator provided the son of a contributor at the request of Rezko, an Obama spokesman confirmed today.

The revelation of the internship comes after Obama acknowledged a mistake in buying property from Rezko in January 2006... The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor,” Obama ­ a likely presidential candidate ­ told the Sun-Times in November.

Rezko was indicted in October for allegedly trying to collect nearly $6 million in kickbacks from government deals and trying to shake down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions.

Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and the Wilmette businessman has raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for him.

After Rezko’s indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity ­ the amount Rezko contributed to the senator’s federal campaign fund.

Full Text Here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article

And the following is why I mentioned Rezko and Obama's lobbyists' contributions:

Obama is one of the 3 top recipients of money gathered by Rezko just one behind Luis Gutierrez and just one ahead of George W. Bush. They have all gotten contributions neatly bundled for them by Tony Rezko::


Top 3 Recipients of Rezko Political Contributions:

#1. with 6 contributions: Luis V. Gutierrez

#2. with 5 contributions: Barack Obama

#3 with 4 contributions: George W. Bush

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Tony_Rezko.php

"In October 2006, Rezko was indicted for extortion of businesses seeking to do business with the Illinois Teachers Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

In addition, he has been charged with wire fraud for staging false transactions of his pizza stores in order to secure $10 million in loans from GE Capital. The case is being prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald who prosecuted the case against Scooter Libby arising from the CIA leak scandal.

Rezko has raised funds for many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans.

These include prominent Democrats, such as Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, Comptroller Dan Hynes, former Cook County Board President John Stroger, and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger Rezko has also raised money for former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, a Republican, and he co-chaired a megamillion-dollar fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in 2003."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko

[NM Independent]

12. You just made yourself sound really freakin ignorant...

...I've heard the answers to most of it...FROM HIS MOUTH...and the rest on his website. Just because you haven't bothered to listen, or plugged your ears, doesn't mean that it's a base he's left uncovered. You act like he's trying to trick everyone.

No, I won't be doing your research for you. If you're too damn ignorant to know better it's your own fault. Before you chastise someone or something, make sure your foot isn't aimed at your mouth.

BTW...Stop retyping the subject line in the body of your message...DAMN that's annoying.

[anonymeme]

19. I Think Perhaps You Might Be Wrong About Who Is Ignorant, NM Indy....

I Think Perhaps You Might Be Wrong About Who Is Ignorant, NM Indy....

I had already researched all of this and had most of it in documents on my hard drive, it just took digging it out and re-checking it before posting.

Looks like I might know more about your candidate, than you do.

Obama is a "blank screen," in his own words, and shape-shifting illusionist from what I can see.

We need a real person for President, one who has been under a microscope for decades and no one has been able to get the dirt to stick to her for all those decades.

We need Hillary Clinton for President, in my humble opinion.

BTW, I got to speak directly with Bill Richardson when he was here in SC -- a very nice man, a good man I think.

[anonymeme]

21. Joshua N.

Joshua N. I'm sorry if I came on gangbusters and hope I didn't take the wind out of your sails.

Everything I asked is something important I want to know from Obama.

I just want the man to answer the questions so that we the people aren't in for any bad surprises, you know?

And all the statements of his that I posted are really quotes from him, with links to their source, and really he needs to clarify these things for the voters,

Also it was burning me a little the way the Obama supporters went after Hillary and lit into us Hillary supporters,

But everyone has got to have someone to believe in, and if you believe in Obama, that's good and fine, just hold him to the standard you would want in a President.

[Joshua N]

24. It's okay. I think you have raised some good points. I understand your frustration. Thank you for

being honest and posing sincere doubts rather than being inflammatory. There is too much of that going on on both sides.

I don't have a big problem with his Iraq and Iran statements, but the Lieberman thing bothers me a little though I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt -- I don't think he thinks like Lieberman based upon things I've heard him say. Being a Kucinich fan, Kucinich won't endorse any candidate, but when he suggested his caucus-goers in Iowa support Obama it made me pay more attention to Obama. I admit that I give him a charitable read, just as many Hillary supporters give her a charitable read and the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things (Mark Penn, race baiting, tax returns, touting McCain's experience, alledging Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, 35 years of experience, the IWR, etc.) She raises more red flags for me than Obama, but that is only my point of view. Thanks again for the post. If only the old heads around here could be as cordial as us newbies! j/k ;-)

[anonymeme]

26. Thank You, Joshua.

Thank You, Joshua.

And here's to you and to sense and understanding among all of us who are really all in this thing together.

May we ALL get the BEST President possible -- whoever that ends up being!

~*:toast:*~

[Guava Jelly]

9. Loved it.

:)

[rosesaylavee]

11. That is the best ad I have seen in years.

Maybe ever. Very persuasive and it found several of my buttons I didn't think were exposed.

[Truth2Tell]

13. Too long IMHO. Americans have short attention spans. nt

[babylonsister]

25. Most excellent ad! GOBAMA! nt