Obama’s New Web Ad on War Vote ("Blank Check")

[jefferson_dem]

AD HERE ---> http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/blankcheck

October 11, 2007, 11:11 am
Obama’s New Web Ad on War Vote
By Jeff Zeleny

In case you forgot, Senator Barack Obama would like to remind voters that today is the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing the Iraq war.

Last week, Mr. Obama delivered a speech to mark his early opposition to the war, at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago. Today, he has unveiled an advertisement commemorating the day several of his Democratic presidential rivals voted for the war resolution in the early morning hours of Oct. 11, 2002.

Interestingly, though, the ad, titled “Blank Check,” may not reach a mass audience of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. The Obama campaign is featuring the commercial solely on the Internet.

Why? The ad is largely aimed at Obama supporters or people who are already a part of his vast online community. It is designed to remind them - in case they forgot - about Mr. Obama’s early stance on the war.

But by placing the ad only online, and not investing money into a real TV campaign, is that a sign that the issue has gained all the traction that it’s capable of, and that Democratic primary voters are essentially at peace with that 2002 vote? The Obama campaign hopes not, which is why he is set to travel to Des Moines on Friday to make the argument in person in a speech at Drake University.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/obamas-new-web-ad-on-war-vote/

[ProSense]

1. Does Obama explain why he voted against Kerry-Feingold?

Sorry Bush did not have a blank check

This is Bush's war:

George Bush sought a congressional resolution authorizing force and secured it on Oct. 10, 2002. That resolution explicitly restricted the use of force to compelling adherence with “relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions,” and continuing threats from Iraq. This was not a blanket declaration of war. The resolution’s contingent authority evaporates if its conditions are not met.

[CTLawGuy]

3. The resolution IS a blank check

Bush could argue that regime change WAS a means of enforcing UN resolutions or protecting the US from the "Iraqi threat." the only "contingency" was the illusory contingency that the president first determine (with no provision for congressional approval, oversight or veto) that diplomacy won't work and then he can go to war.

It's the same as signing a mortgage where you give the lender the right to foreclose on your house any time the lender "determines" that you won't be able to pay it back, rather than waiting until you are actually in default.

[AtomicKitten]

7. It was indeed a blank check because Congress abdicated their -

war-declaring powers to Junior.

[ProSense]

9. Oh, I think you need to read the resolution and the Constitution!

That is all!

[CTLawGuy]

10. point out the text that proves I'm wrong

this is what the revisionist historians can never do. They tell themselves that a clear cowardly political calculation was an instance of being "fooled."

Even if ALL the intelligence was true, the solution is not to give the president the power to anything he wants up to and including invading and conquering a sovereign nation as if he were Julius Caesar, but to authorize limited specific activity tailored to removing the threat posed, and to beforehand demand a plan with a legitmate cost estimate and an exit strategy. The IWR had NONE of these elements. It was an irresponsible resolution.

[ProSense]

12. I will not!

We've been there many times before. Do a search!

[CTLawGuy]

13. right because you have no arguments

I accept your surrender.

Also I took the time to give you arguments that rebutted what you asserted, why can't you do the same if you think your position is supportable.

[Clintonista2]

4. Nono, let me give you some insight into this issue:

You see, it's ok that Obama actively campaigned against/voted against the kerry-feingold amendment, because even if he had voted for it, it still wouldn't have passed. Hillary is still evil though, because we know that her vote equals 1000 votes, therefore, had she not voted for the IWR, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

[Bitwit1234]

2. He gets more and more desperate doesn't he and say how about

the vote he skipped. Was that so he could take both sides. Must be -- or he would have voted.

[Clintonista2]

5. maybe he was filming this ad during the time he was supposed to be voting

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

6. Obama has been right all along.

Bravo!!!

[illinoisprogressive]

8. it is a strong ad and the kick off of him starting his full force campaign.

[BenDavid]

11. Gee Obama, you think no one knows how u would

have voted and how HRC voted? Obama, lets move on to the present.....

[Didereaux]

14. Obama keeps making errors in political judgment...

Although admittedly a very bright person, as well as very personable Obama has shown a very disturbing flaw: error in political judgment! He should not be pursuing the 'old' and somewhat clouded issue of the original Iraq authorizations votes. They have been butted and rebutted and the public has made up their minds one way or the other at this point. That is a clear and I feel undenialble political fact. To continue this line of attack, and worse to elevate it is a grave mistake for someone who initially and still occasionally declares himself the nice guy, the uniter etc.

Also you add this error to the back to back blunders in South Carolina ( I refer to the no DOJ investigation of Bush, and the I want to be the instrument of God in the Whitehouse comments) and you have a strong impression that indeed he lacks the maturity, experience and political instincts to win, let alone successfully govern.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/


................................