Comments on: Obama: Be a Man, Admit You Lied

By: Katie

Katie — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:16:04 +0000

Hey i have to agree with Demi! she has a good opinion. And you shouldn’t be talking people. Look who is in office now!!! haha i mean who would be better Bush or Obama I think Obama. I dont care wat u ahve to say to this. But i’m just sayinnggg =]

By: demi

demi — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:11:21 +0000

ok im not going to leave a long comment but if you can leave your opinion on here i can to. im only 15 but i know whats right well to me. i think obama is GOING to be a strong leader for all of us. he is different from eveyone eles running in this race.. he has great ideas for this country…he will fix all of our problems, alternative energy sources , which means more jobs for everyone .. ok well i think have set my point…. OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT i always love to hear that ..wooh it never gets old.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:01:59 +0000

I don’t know how to do links but there’s a blogger named Elaine at Like Maria Said Paz who has repeatedly pointed out that Factcheck.org that in the 2004 debates John Kerry called out Bush’s lack of funding for the returning vets and Factcheck.org came down on Bush’s side. As we all now know, thanks to the Walter Reed scandal and the homeless issue, Factcheck.org got it wrong. They carry water.
As for Obama’s "one vote," do his supporters really think he voted against the Iraq resolution? He didn’t. He wasn’t in the Senate in 2002 and he told The New York Times in 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted and he repeated that to The New Yorker in 2006. Obama’s an illusion.
I agree he should admit he lied but there are so many lies that even for someone who so loves the sound of his own voice, Obama probably couldn’t get to all of them.
Hillary Clinton 2008!

By: Asp

Asp — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:08:15 +0000

Bill Clinton also had no basis for asserting that Obama’s claim to have consistently opposed the war in Iraq was a ‘fairy tale.’ In 2004, rather than undercut his own party’s nominees, he said that he did not know how he would have voted in the Senate if he’d been there at the time, since he lacked senators’ access to intelligence reports. Like almost every other Democrat, he has not voted to cut off funding for troops in the field. But he spoke clearly against the war before it started and has been consistent in advocating withdrawal since joining the Senate.

By: Kevin Sullivan

Kevin Sullivan — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:46:51 +0000

Michael, I know you don't like Obama very much, but you're being a little fast and free with the facts here. Take your first link, the "proof" that there were "tactics". It's all based off of one supporter's speculation, and um, it's a Clinton supporter. Read the title of the article: Culinary Pushing Hard, But Inside Lines--Experts say pressure is one thing, threats another Here's the money quote: “Passions are running high. But just because someone says they feel intimidated, it’s not an indication that they are being intimidated in a truly unethical fashion.” If something unethical happened, the Clintons need to go to the state of Nevada and take legal recourse. If they DON'T, then this is worthless, speculative mudslinging from the Clintons. Secondly, your next link that proves Obama ran a radio ad encouraging a caucus flip. One problem--Ben Smith says no such thing. Here's what he actually says: " To go over the facts here, the only publicly reported radio ad anything like what Clinton refers to is one that encourages Republicans and independents to caucus, but doesn't mention Hillary. And the Vegas papers haven't found any evidence of the kind of straightforward voter suppression Clinton reports. The Obama campaign has suggested the Clinton campaign file formal complaints if it has evidence." The YouTube link--This Ad was distinct from the campaign. Again, both sides are playing politics here. If the Clintons think Obama did anything unethical here, then they should file official and legal complaints. This is, after all, what the Obama campaign intends to do through the state party. They, too, are reporting incidents of mischief on the part of their rivals, we just don't seem to be talking about that here today for some reason. As for the flier--well that's just silly. The campaign didn't approve it, and thisstuff happens in the caucus process. At a certain point, precinct captains make more direct contact with rival campaigns at the grassroots level than they do with the campaigns themselves. And let's repeat this--if the Clintons think there was something fishy about this, they should do more than simply leak it to the Huffington Post as a way tothrow mud at Obama. They must file an official complaint with either the state, or the state Dems. This isn't proof of anything, it's being an accomplice in a smear campaign, Michael.

By: Edmonsky

Edmonsky — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:38:43 +0000

Tap,I am not sure if you are following my train of thought. Before US invasion of Iraq, Gen Colin Powel, told his peers who were feverish about the war, that “it is like a clay pot, if you break it, you own it”. US invaded Iraq in 2003 and removed the ruling power and its structure. It is a matter of commonsense that the next logical thing to do would be to replace the power structure. This is the point most Americans are in agreement, including Bush, Hilary, Obama, and the whole nine yards of the ruling class, including those who voted against the war. Here is an example of what might happen if the situation is not stabilized before US redeploy its troops. Iraqi will turn into a failed state mired in violent civil wars. Sunni Arabs are in support of Iraqi Sunnis (Saudis, Jordanians, Gulf States etc); Iran is in support of Shiites, while the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Iran want to join together to form Republic of Kurdistan. If such civil war were to break out, the supply of oil to the world economy will be substantially reduced and global recession or collapse of world economy will become inescapable. Failed states are very difficult to reconstruct and a case in point is Somalia that has never had central government for the past 10-years. What about Afghanistan where the government is only functional in Kabul the capital and anarchy reins supreme in tribal areas. The accusation that Obama shared the same views with Bush in 2004 and 2005 is pure demagoguery that flies in the face of commonsense. Senator Obama stated the obvious; that is, he agrees with President Bush’s foreign policy of stabilizing Iraq after the invasion and there was no other viable alternative. If anybody knows of any other alternative in 2004 and 2005 for stabilizing Iraq, l would like to be enlightened.

By: Rudi666

Rudi666 — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:21:20 +0000

Edited by MvdG: off-topic.

By: Tap

Tap — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:28:07 +0000

Wow. There are some strong advocates on this thread. But you guys would do better not to mislead or fabricate facts. Rekha would have us believe that the the Democrats are the dupes of George Bush. They had no clue that they were giving Bush authority to go to war. I must say, if true, this does not give me a great impression of Dems’ ability to deal with a complex world. Zed wants us to think Obama voted against the invasion of Iraq. My only question is where did he cast that vote, considering he was not a member of the U.S. Senate. Edmonsky seems to be telling us that, yeah, Obama agreed with Bush at one point because only a moron wouldn’t (now that is a new take from a Democratic supporter, isn’t it) so this makes it okay for Obama to call Clinton a liar for claiming Obama agreed with Bush… With friends like these…..

By: Edmonsky

Edmonsky — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:52:28 +0000

Please, Michael van der Galien, know the facts and become informed. Please sir, see the link below to learn different records on Iraq between Obama and Hilary Clinton. http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/13/comparing_iraq_records.php It is self-evident that Michael van der Galien wears goggles that prevents him from seeing things as they but as he wants them to be. Commonsense would have instructed anybody with modicum of brains that by 2004 and 2005, most Americans are agreed with the policies of President Bush. President Bush’s policy then was how to stabilize Iraq to prevent regional civil wars that have potential to erupt if mismanaged. The plan was to elect members of the legislature for the sole purpose of writing Iraq’s Constitution. It is only a moron that would disagree with President Bush stated policies in those years. The difference today is that President Bush is pursuing policies that will perpetuate US Military occupation of Iraq by building military installations and barracks. Please, Michael, read an excerpt from the speech Obama gave in 2002 and see for yourself how Obama predicted what would happen if US invades Iraq. I have the link for the full text of the speech so that you will be more informed. “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Senator Obama http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm Please, Michael, US has electoral laws that guide primaries for nominating presidential candidate in either of the parties. The electoral law allows citizens to change their political affiliations in some states in order to participate in the primaries. Obama’s view in bringing about change is first to build working coalition of Democrats, Independents and Republicans for a common purpose of solving national problems. Your problem is intellectual gap in understanding Obama’s presidential platform and his politics. I hope l have given you some insight for you to take it and run, and above everything else, to stop exporting corruptive influence of ignorance among your readers.

By: Jules Crittenden » Confront Him!

Jules Crittenden » Confront Him! — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:50:48 +0000

[...] Poligazette, “Obama, be a man. Admit you lied.” [...]