I thought Hillary was very insistent early on that she wouldn't be involved in diplomacy until everything was neatly arranged for a photo op. That way, she wouldn't risk being "used for propaganda".

Obama didn't want to make news by criticizing Kerry or Edwards for their vote on Iraq.

dcshungsu. Here is what Obama said BEFORE the Iraq War.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

You're full of excuses for Hillary. How do you excuse her support for the use of cluster bombs?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/21/151841/41/822/425303

Lynyrd Skynyrd sent me this song 'bout Clinton... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTXBjSKfM4

I think the Clintons need to check Giuliani's poll numbers. This krap of making up stuff that does not exist, (Obama agrees with Bush), while it might be proof that they are willing to pull the same nutty bald-faced lying just to show they have audacity, or whatever does not work. Rudy is dropping like a rock, the republicans are not going to be stupid enough to nominate the one person Hillary could beat----so they need to quit emulating his strange idiotic campaign!

What I love about this nonsense is that it doesn't really work on the Democrats at all as the Obama-Bush comparisons are so ridiculous (hey hillary, you're the one running on some else's name and you're the one trying to be war hawk!), but only serves to help Obama in the general election to appear more moderate to Republicans.

Thanks, Hillary!

I mean her argument just makes no sense! "Hey, Obama is like Bush because he's voted just like me to fund the war!" How is that helpful to Clinton to remind voters that she is just like Bush too?

Hillary: "As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
...
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.
...
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates....
I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
...
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Hillary Clinton, via Desider:

I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Honestly, this REALLY is not a good path to take if you are trying to show that Clinton exercises good judgement.

roo_P, as Hillary noted, it was the statements and actions over the previous weeks that convinced her he was more serious. As I've noted, it wasn't for another 5 months that we actually launched an attack, quite some time after inspectors reached the ground, and after the Security Council unanimously approved stricter measures to require compliance by Hussein and after some back-and-forth with inspectors finally started to reach actual compliance.

You also don't seem to understand representative government and that it's not the job of a Senator to overturn the will of the American people. The American people (almost) chose Bush as President in 2000 and (presumably) chose him again in 2004, and beyond the electoral shenanigans, the American public overwhelmingly supported him and his judgment in the period October 2002-March 2003. As Hillary noted in her speech, she wanted more guarantees and emphasis on full inspections in the legislation, but did not get it her way. She stated her qualifications, her objections and her support at the same time.

Obama added in his 2002 speech: "You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work". Which was Hillary's point in the armed threat involved in resuming inspections. Hussein had not responded to mere politics under Clinton's administration, and he was resistant under Bush's.

Here's Hans Blix, head of UN inspections, speaking in January 2003 - obviously he hadn't gotten word that Hussein was defanged, 3 1/2 months after Hillary's vote:
(sorry for the long pastes, but people keep repeating this stuff, and sending them off to research the past doesn't help):

Blix: Iraq can't account for deadly gas, germs - January 27, 2003

(CNN) -- The chief U.N. weapons inspector said on Monday that Iraq could not account for stocks of anthrax and a deadly nerve gas that it said it had destroyed.

Hans Blix made his remarks to the U.N. Security Council, which in November passed a resolution ordering Baghdad to disclose all weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

Iraq provided access to all sites U.N. weapons inspectors have wanted to visit, but had not reached a "genuine acceptance" of its obligation to disarm, Blix said.

The progress report, which followed 60 days of weapons inspections, indicated that there were discrepancies between what inspectors found and what Iraq declared in a report to the United Nations.

For example, Baghdad admitted producing 8,500 liters of anthrax, but said they were destroyed in 1991, Blix said.

"[Yet] there are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist," Blix said.

Moreover, Iraqi documents indicate that Iraq produced a higher grade of the poison gas VX than previously admitted, which might have been used in weapons production, Blix said.

In addition, Blix said several thousand chemical rockets like those inspectors discovered earlier this month remain unaccounted for, and about 3,000 pages of documents relating largely to uranium enrichment programs are in the possession of an Iraqi scientist.

"Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious," he said.

Blix also said Iraq has not allowed inspectors to question scientists in private, without an Iraqi government official present.

Nevertheless, Blix suggested that continued inspections could be valuable in achieving the goal of disarming Iraq. Inspectors have developed an organization inside Iraq that allows them to move on short notice by road and by air. So far, inspectors have made 300 visits to 230 sites, he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html

Hrc and the other Sen's. voted the Bush would follow the rule of law and because he didn't makes them wrong? I think not. He (Bush) is the Law breaker. Not Them. Point #2....OHB when given the chance to cast votes when it counted has voted to give this Prez. the power a decent Prez. should have right along with HRC and it has been documented or BHO has not voted or has missed the vote. So to run around saying he is against this and against that when you don't want to put it on paper when it counts seems to me is a cheap trick. One not supposed to be in the bag of the man who claims to be an person of change.
The more the kitchen heats up the more is seen the more we know the less we like the more HRC is gonna be cookin for us in NOv 08.

Puzzled - wow! You use a Maureen Dowd column to justify your vote? Because it will be an "endless soap opera"? Why? Because Maureen Dowd always makes things an endless soap opera. She's the town gossip, making things up to give them more "spice". Go find the Daily Howler blog to thumb through.

And don't think for a moment she'll stop gossiping without the Clintons. She had a field day with Gore, pushed all the tripe on Kerry and Edwards (even Theresa Heinz), and will find any small scabs on Obama to dig into. She is a witch posing as a commentator.

But go ahead, follow the idiotic into the voting booth if you like.

puzzled ....I saw the pbs interview and it's a classic case of Dowd simply being the spinner she is.....Bill she suggests
ahhhhh...Bill never said that...Charlie Rose said that and Bill avoided getting
into that trap because it was not a good
term. Bill said no, it was a taking a chance, Rose kept saying a roll of the dice . The soap opera is in the haters mind.

What Bill did say was the years of trying to get him the 15 yrs that amounted into nothing and the hate has transferred into trying to get HRC.

IMHO why as a DEM voter would I let the VRWC say who my best leader is just because they (the REpubs) hate her. The hell with who they hate or love thats just tough titty.

I don't care about uniting. They don't.
I care about what is right and wrong. they don't.
I care about feeding the poor. they don't.
What I care about. they don't.

I want the White House...I want the Senate...I want the House. I want it in 08. By hook or by crook

I don't care how we get it. I want an experience team who knows how to get down in the mud and fight with those pigs to take my country back from those pigs who have stolen it from us.

That team like them or not is HRC and company. They WJC did it twice HRC can do it and get the ship back on course then hoprfully we can put folks after them to keep things right.

dcshungu posts lies. They never stand up to fact check. Why waste time doing it. Just learn like I have:

dchungu = lies

Decider,

Don't try to spin my words, please. Dowd crystalized in clear statments the growing discomfort I have had for months about Hillary as a presidential candidate. There is too much of a downside to the Bill and Hillary thing.

I stated clearly that I have not decided how to vote. I have eleminated Hillary in the course of that process. And reading Maureen Dowd's insightful column helped me.

This is the first time I have expressed doubts about Hillary, and already I'm being attacked. So, Dowd and Decider have both helped me today to put Hillary out of contention.

Pathetic. Now does anyone doubt how much a pathological liar clinton II is? And people would consider her to be president? If this allegation against obama was true, which it isn't, and knowing how super intelligent and ready to lead clinton II is, why hasn't she brought this allegation up repeatedly for the past year? Why not? Because its not true of course. She will lie, cheat and steal to be president and one can only guess how much lying and cheating and stealing she will be doing if she by chance gets the key to the oval office. Pathetic.

The majority of Congressional Democrats did not support Bush's War Resolution in 2002--they voted AGAINST it. Hillary was in the minority then--and now--about this stupid war.

Hillary supporters need to stop the spin--better known as lying. We just had Bill say he was against the Iraq War--a provable lie.

Yes, let's go back to the 1990's when the Clintons would "spin" (translation: Lie) about any stupid detail (like tax return dollar amounts or travel office firings or any other thing) that led to suspicions that led to investigations.

Hillary is trying to deflect her agreement with Bush in 2002 and forward. She didn't start the spin cycle until early this year when she realized that a hard defense of her support of the Iraq War could cause her to lose what she obviously consideres her hard-earned Democratic Party nomination. And some of my fellow Democrats have bought this crap--just as some of you supported the minority Democrats who voted for Bush's policies in 2002 and forward--a MINORITY position within this party.

The crown needs to be withheld from the Lady Hawk. And I'm working to make that happen.

Frnak Rich's column today (12-23-07) in the NYT offers some helpful and unsettling info about exactly who is advising Hillary Clinton:

Rich says:
"The Clinton campaign’s foreign policy and national security director is a former Madeleine Albright aide, Lee Feinstein, who in November 2002 was gullible enough to say on CNBC that “we should take the president at his word, which is that he sees war as a last resort” — an argument anticipating the one Mrs. Clinton still uses to defend her vote on the Iraq war authorization.

In late April 2003, a week before 'Mission Accomplished,' Mr. Feinstein could be found on CNN saying that he was 'fairly confident' that W.M.D. would turn up in Iraq. Asked if the war would be a failure if no weapons were found, he said, 'I don’t think that that’s a situation we’ll confront.' Forced to confront exactly that situation over the next year, he dug in deeper, co-writing an essay for Foreign Affairs (available on its Web site) arguing that 'the biggest problem with the Bush pre-emption strategy may be that it does not go far enough.' "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23rich.html?ei=5070&em=&en=03296c5514adca7d&ex=1198558800&pagewanted=print

SCRARY!!!!!!! This is who will head Homeland Security, be the National Security Advisor, of even Secretary of Defense for Hillary?

Swift boat your opponents and lie about your weaknesses

Hillary Clinton's Iraq Experience

Steven Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052M

Anyone who has proclaimed violence her method inexorably must choose lying as her principle.
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

dcshungu at 3:29

what is this false dichotomy between opposing the war in Iraq and voting for funding? have you actually read the funding bills? they include things like better armor and housing infrastructure for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as requisitions for the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure and to combat heroin production in Afghanistan. not only would it be political suicide to vote against them, but it would be patently stupid. are you capable of understanding that there is no contradiction between opposing going to war and providing the funding to put us in a position to withdraw or even *gasp* trying to assist the citizens of the countries we invaded?

we're obviously there already, and a halt on funding would result in a gigantic clusterfuck as we tried to extricate ourselves from the region. Denis Kucinich, in his idiocy, doesn't recognize this, no matter how much you try to hold him up as the moral standard-bearer of American liberalism.

and Obama DID register his opposition to the war, before it began, in a now-famous speech. he said very clearly: "i am against this war" at a time when it was deeply unpopular to do so. your candidate voted for the war. these facts are unspinnable, and the more you try the more you only succeed in making the rest of us think you are incapable of rational analysis.

Oh No Mrs Bill!

Savior or Saboteur?
By MAUREEN DOWD

Once it was about Hillary, but now, of course, it’s about Bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 8:03 AM:

dcshungu posts lies. They never stand up to fact check. Why waste time doing it. Just learn like I have:

dchungu = lies

There is a hell of a lot of Hillary-hating vitriol on this board -- some of you seem to think she's the second coming of Satan (or rather, Satan's wife). It really makes me wonder if the board is infected by Rethug trolls. Obviously, this is not something one could easily prove. I think there's a lot to Mark's point above that the Rethugs genuinely fear facing her in the general election.

Or perhaps those who portray her as GOP-lite and insist they'd never vote for her are Naderites. In which case, thanks for helping give us 8 years of Bush.

It really makes me wonder if the board is infected by Rethug trolls

Does it really?

Hillary Clinton asks us to accept her experience as Bill Clinton's wife? Or perhaps as the Senator the only democratic senator to accept ALL of Bush's Lies during the 2002 War Resolution debate?

Clinton's position for four years deviated not a wit from Bush's and even now she's had to be dragged to a triangulated position of slippery opposition.

She's a candidate of no principle, unsound judgment, and wanton deceit. Large numbers of people will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee as part of a principled stance against voting for someone who authorized and subsequently supported the Iraq war.

Thanks, Keith on December 23, 2007 10:56 AM, for that link to the Chicago Tribune piece that should put to rest any debate about Obama's "evolving" position on the war. I thought that I had read that quote somewhere but I could not find it. Hillary manufactured nothing. She just stated what had come out of the horse's own mouth:

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

That statement is in standard American English and thus should present no undue comprehension or interpretation difficulty. No doubt at all remains in my mind that Obama's purported "opposition" to the Iraq war was simply a cynical political calculation and NOT a principled position that he'd arrived at through moral clarity. He was against the war before he was for it and then was yet again against it... The man who would be a saint does not appear to have a moral core, and they accuse Hillary, who's shown up every time and cast her votes consistently and stood by them, no matter how unpopular, a liar. Sheesh!

He must truly think that his supporters are dope heads that cannot figure out his various artifices. And from the sound of many on this forum, it appears that that might, in fact, be the case. The "Audacity of Dope."

Hey, dc are you inhaling that wacky weed so early on a sunday? You of course are taking the quote totally out of context. I wonder if clinton II is dealing that wacky weed to supporters now.

Oh, oops, I didn't mean to say that. I appologize. I should never had said that and the statement was not authorized by the Stephen Colbert campaign for president. The campaign never authorized any supporter to say or imply that clinton II was a wacky weed dealer now or in college. That was totally out of bounds and not authorized by the campaign. Um, when is the next news cycle?

dc, well according to you at least clinton II didn't duck the issue. She gave the king exactly what he wanted on Iraq and Iran. Exactly, which primary is she running in by the way? The republican?

dcshungu,

The vote was on 9/26/07, and as the text of the statement indicates, it was released by Obama's campaign on the same day (see, for example, Ben Smith's blog). By the way, Obama has said himself that missing the vote on K-L was a mistake (although as others have detailed, perhaps that was an understandable mistake in light of how the vote ended up being scheduled).

Anyway, of course your theory makes no sense. If Obama was trying to "duck the issue" by not voting, he ruined that strategy by releasing a statement on the same day stating he would have voted "no".

So there is indeed a snow job going on here. But it is blowing in from your direction.

LOL. It is just like Obama as a state senator voting "present"... Got cast that vote man!It is the only one that counts.

dc, I'd rather have a senator get up and fight for what he or she believes in not act like a sheep and give the king what he wants to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis. Of course, the voting present talking point from the clinton II campaign is bs and taking the situation totally out of context. Want to talk somemore about clinton II's war votes? How about voting to uphold the patriot act? How about pushing through that great every child left behind legislation? How about flag burning? Let's talk about your candidate's votes as opposed to the garbage spin you people keep putting on it.

The critical choice in this election will forever define the character of the Democratic party, the ruling party of the United States for some years to come (a generation at least).

If Hillary wins, we continue along the same path the unimaginative, paranoid militerists have led us along, to our ruin.

If Obama wins we finally put the 20th century behind us and begin the progressive renewal we need to face the future.

I notice no defense of Hillary's support for the use of cluster bombs. I guess one thing you learn from DC "experience" is not to care that children's limbs are being blown off by unexploded munitions.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/21/151841/41/822/425303

state senator...

dcshungsu. In the same post you say the country supported the war then allege that Obama's opposition to the war was "cynical political calculation". You conclude this because according to you there's no evidence that it wasn't. I declare shenanigans. First, if you are going to attack Obama's character it's up to you to provide evidence. I've studied logic and epistemology extensively and I can tell you authoritatively that "there's no evidence that not P" is not a good argument for P. There is, for instance, no evidence that there's not a microscopic teapot in geosynchronous orbit directly above my head. That's not an argument that there is one.

Second, he stated support for the operation in Afghanistan at a rally co-sponsored by ANSWER. If he wanted to pander to that crowd he would have given a thoroughly pacifist speech. Third, even if it was political calculation it displays remarkable foresight to know that the war was, as Obama put it, a "dumb war" when all of the oh-so-experienced DC insiders were jumping on board because they bought Rummy's "greeted with roses" bullshit. I mean, it's only good calculation if you turn out to be correct. So even if it is calculation it demonstrates superior judgment.

Why don't you just come out and admit that you support Hillary because you think that the Dems should be more hawkish and you like her track record of hawkishness.

Desperation big time when you have to lie about your opponent.Moreover anyone miss the invocation of 9/11 by Clinton:She is ready to protect us from another 9/11 on day 1.Trying to scare us just like Bush.She might as well try to get the Repuke nomination.

dcshungu,

You had the opportunity to sway me with a solid, factual argument.

Regrettably I must inform you that I have added you to the list of unreliable posters on these boards (including people from seemingly all camps.)

As a scientist (I seem to recall), I would have hoped better self-reflection. The allegations you make are not borne out by facts and, in the face of evidence of the opposite, you continue to assert plausible deniability by carefully playing semantic games instead of focusing on the factual policies.

While we as democrats or leftists often believe that we are superior to the "enemy" by virtue of intellectual rigour, open-mindedness and logic, I must admit that there exist those among us who similarly to the others we ridicule latch onto an idea and continue defending it long after it becomes indefensible by sheer force of cognitive dissonance and rationalisation.

Jeremy wrote on December 23, 2007 1:03 PM:

dcshungsu. In the same post you say the country supported the war then allege that Obama's opposition to the war was "cynical political calculation".

Please read my posts... As clearly stated in Bruce Dixon's piece that I had linked to, African Americans, who were important to an Obama victory for the US Senate, never supported the invasion due to the large number of black kids who'd find themselves in the trenches and frontline... This is not rocket science: Obama HAD TO oppose the war. It had nothing to do with his purported "good judgment." (BTW, Lieberman was a vocal advocate of the invasion but did any of his eligible kids serve?)....

Desider. Hillary herself said that hervote was one of the hardest she'd had to make. The revisionist line that it was a vote "for diplomacy" or "to renew inspections" doesn't support such a statement. Voting for diplomacy and inspections should be easy. Furthermore, nothing can excuse voting for war without getting "up to speed" on the intelligence. Hillary's failure to read the NIE was fundamentally negligent.

If he had indeed "opposed" the war, the consistent and moral position for him to take after becoming a US senator would have been to vote each and every time against giving Bush funds to perpetuate the war. Kucinich, who had opposed the war, has consistently voted against any funding for it.

This simply serves to prove that Obama is a grown-up, unlike Kucinich. I can understand the emotional satisfaction of saying "end it now," but the reality is that having once punched the tar-baby, we are stuck for the moment. Both Clinton and Obama have realistic visions of how to get us out of Iraq without making things any worse than they already are, but it is nonsensical for the Clinton folks to make out as if there were no difference between the two.

The war was an obvious mistake from the beginning. I could see that and so could millions of my fellow Americans; Obama could see that and said as much. Clinton either could not, or could but ignored her better judgement in favor of a short-term political calculation. Either way, Obama is demonstrably the one possessed of the better judgement.

Meanwhile, it is woefully dishonest to point to his moderation of his anti-war stance during the Kerry campaign; Obama was a (surprisingly) high-profile figure during that campaign who was evidently mature and disciplined enough to realize that the best means to end the war expediently was to get Bush out of office, so he moderated his rhetoric so as not to give the Republicans any ammunition to use against the Democratic nominee. To now turn around and hold that against him simply serves to show that this board is populated by both grown ups and children, and that Obama is the candidate for the former.

dcshungu. I'm not persuaded by Bruce Dixon's opinion. I don't think your attacks on Sen Obama's sincerity are supported. Nevertheless, let's grant for the sake of argument that you're right and Obama was politically motivated. No matter what his motivation was, his judgment was still superior. Here's a sample of what he said in that speech: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He was right. Now, you can speculate all day that that wasn't the "real reason" for his opposition. It wouldn't change the fact that what he said was true.

maybe dcshungu would like to take this time to admit that despite his reservations as to cause, the sun DOES in fact rise every morning, or from analogy that Obama DID in fact oppose the Iraq war from the beginning while Senator Clinton officially supported it.

assuming he now opposes the war, a simple admission of "Obama was right, Clinton was wrong" would probably do his credibility a lot of good if he wants to continue to be taken semi-seriously in these sections.

i'll wait with bated breath for this to come about.

dc. I don't follow you at all. I don't think that Obama's prediction is the reason that things did not go a rosily as the experienced insiders anticipated. I'm not making a causal claim at all. So, I'm having a real hard time following you. Also, I think that you mean "post hoc ergo proctor hoc". Just to be clear, I am not arguing that because our problems in Iraq came after Obama's speech they were caused by Obama's speech. I have no idea where you got that bizarre notion from. Maybe you should take a break from blogging because you're starting to lose it.

Also, repeating this "Messiah" stuff is offensive and inflammatory. No one has said that Obama is a "Messiah". I do think that he is a strong, statesmanly leader and am not ashamed to support him.

dcshungu:

Which part is not proof?

Interestingly, the "statement" the author uses as an example of Obama's "loss of passion" is not, in fact, a formal statement or a part of a speech but

a 30 second response to a specific question by Aaron Brown on CNN about the mood of Illinois voters a few days after the war started.

I will, again, address your "points" for the benefit of the observer.

dcshungu:

That African Americans never supported the war?

dcshungu:

Or that you doubt that Obama had removed his speech "opposing" the war from his web site when it appeared that the Iraq campaign would succeed? The has never been in doubt because Obama has replied to Dixon's opinion piece to try to explain!

For anyone interested in this, I would recommend reading the relevant articles here, here and here. They fairly clearly illuminate the reality behind dcshungu's allegations.

It seems that you subscribe to the ideology that the "voting masses" do not bother to follow up on information presented to them to verify the veracity of it. Reading the series of articles that you reference (that you still not have completely linked to) presents a rather clear picture of an author who is concerned -- out of good motives, actually -- about something he perceives as a problem with Obama (which I would agree with, by the way, the DLC is a troublesome institution--but in this race, the DLC member is Clinton.)

Unfortunately the author's analysis is not without problems, conjecture even, and is ultimately dispelled.

dcshungu:

Finally, what about his statements or convention speech that we consider? Obama "opposed" the war because he had to in order to secure the African American support that he knew he'd need to be elected U.S. Senator. It was a political calculation and a not moral conviction or "good judgment."

Perhaps another angle would make it easier to understand the absurdity of your claim: Obama did not make the very strong anti-Iraq-war statement because he was incumbent in a strongly Democratic, anti-war district. It is exactly the other way around.

Obama was an incumbent in a strongly Democratic, anti-war district BECAUSE he is the kind of person to make such statements. He possessed the intellect, comprehension, wisdom and judgement to make the right call about Iraq (and I will say that about everyone against that war so please do not pretend this is "messianic" or whatever you like to call it.)

Obama did not believe Bush, and he did not believe the propaganda given. He did not believe soldiers' lives should be wasted and he did not believe that unimaginably vast sums of money that are desperately needed here at home should be wasted on the war in Iraq. That is why he made the statement he made.

It would be disengenuous to say that politicians do not calculate (in fact, it was calculation by among others Planned Parenthood and Council Against Handgun Violence that led them to ask Obama and others to vote "present" on some issues, another false dichtomy you propagate.)

Snarkily, I would like to remark that your predisposition to assume that all decisions made by all politicians always are a product of political calculation in order to gain more power for the sake of having power is perhaps a deeper reflection on your chosen candidate than you inteded to make.

dcshungu also said:

LOL. Another megalomaniacal "caped cruisader"... No wonder you feel kinship with Obama.

Jeremy wrote on December 23, 2007 3:45 PM:
dc. I don't follow you at all.

You hit it Jeremy. THAT's exactly the discovery in string theory! You can follow along with string theory and DCSHUNGU's post beyond infinity and nothing will EVER be proven.

Wow! Well-known Billary supporter dcshungu sure is angry in his/her posts. Wonder why? Maybe the evaporated "inevitability" of his/her candidate. Desperation creates anger. I've also noted quite a few Republican-style, disgusting attempts at slime, like the "Audacity of Dope" comment. Low, repulsive, and off-topic. Also leaves the impression that Billary and all of her/his supporters are of the same ilk.

The only "calculation" Obama ever made was to be himself. Being as skilled as he is and running against the single most calculating politico of all time, that's all he had to do. Now watch him win.

Ding dong the Clintons are finally dead! And the country will be better for it in the long run. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

This debate between the Hillary and Obama supporters demonstrates one thing: Neither of these Democratic Senators has distinguished his/herself. Hillary clearly has been a war enabler (at best) and Obama hasn't done much of anything to oppose war. These are appalling positions for leading "opposition" candidates. Aren't we ashamed that we aren't coming up with political candidates better than these?

Bush I + Bush II + Bill Clinton=HILLARY.

dc, as the campaign goes on you are getting sillier and sillier. I would stick to arguing about polls if I were you. At least you can spin that. Your arguments concerning facts and policy positions of your hero vis a vis other candidates are really pathetic and disingenuous.

Hillary, like her buddy Joe Lieberman who she and her husband backed for his "Independent" re-election campaign, voted for the Iraq War. Then, like Joe, she backed her good friend's Kyl-Lieberman amendment essentially following her own hawkish Dick Cheneyesque footsteps for a war with Iran. Now stuttering and stammering in a flip-flop just like she did in her backing the proposal for driver's licenses for illegals, she is trying to back away from her Bush-loving vote.

Bill even tried to say that he (meaning she) was against the Iraq War from the start. He was famously for it and so was Hillary. Hillary, the pro-Iraq War candidate Lieberman candidate, is trying the Clinton triangulation bit, but it isn't working, or working as well as her likeability tour is: It's not-nobody's buying it.

As much as "dcshunga" and other Hillary cheerleaders try, they just accentuate the desperation from the woman who will never be president. It's like watching somebody trying to get out of quick sand.

"But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares..." - Sen. Obama on Sen Joe Lieberman

Doesn't that endorsement of Joe Lie remind you of another would-be "uniter", who could find "unity" with Vladimir Putin because he could see right through this year's Time "Man of the Year" to infer great compassion and intellect?

We'll be in Big Trouble if the Dems do the unthinkable and nominate another would-be messianic "uniter."

Obama does in fact believe we should have troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and perhaps to conduct training missions. That of course is why the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007 only called for the removal of combat troops.