I read a very interesting article about how Obama has been running for Prez from day one...and that

[Harper_is_Bush]

is why he has almost no Senatorial record to look at.

He's been staying out of the fray, in order to stay clean.

I wish I could find the bloody thing now, it was damned well written and informative.

[Gman]

1. That's pretty obvious if someone is paying attention

furthermore, he's only now completing his second year as a senator. what little record he could have is marred with missed votes and "present" votes. That's fine if you don't want a record. I guess he doesn't. But some people here think he does.

[Jane Austin]

5. Really? Finishing up his second year?

Which year was he red-shirted? 2005? 2006? 2007?

[Gman]

31. Oh, yeah... 3rd year

what difference does it make? It doesn't.

[Jane Austin]

35. Shows you may not always be terribly careful with facts.

That's all.

[journalist3072]

2. Should come as no surprise to anyone at all.

[silverojo]

3. I can understand people with early Presidential ambitions

What I *don't* understand is why someone would neglect to vote on important issues to keep his record "clean". As if the Repukes won't drag that out for the world to see?

Voting gains more respect than merely cruising through the Senate to avoid controversy. Even if you disagree with the guy's vote, at least you know he's got the guts to stand up for what he believes in.

[havocmom]

4. Just for kicks and giggles...

Link? Sure, you can't find it. Got that. So why post something inflamatory before you find your link?

Some people say that is a FAUXish ploy. Some people says it reminds them of how Newt taught the neocons to throw mud without appearing to throw mud. Some people say it is a bit rovian :rofl:

;) Really would like the link cuz that has been my theory on Obama all along.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. It's hardly "inflamatory". maybe in your own head. Why post it?

I thought maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about.

And why would you ask for a link when I've said I can't find it?

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. This is not the article I read, but it refers to some of the same info:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaryvoices/2007/12/obama_avoids_key_votes_and_opr.html

"Obama Avoids Key Votes and Oprah Supported the War"

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. This isn't it either, but ALSO touches upon some of the same stuff (from HuffPost):

"Does Obama Consistently Avoid Voting on Controversial Issues?"

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2007/11/03/does-obama-consistently-avoid-voting-on-controversial-issues/

just for kicks and giggles, of course.

[K Gardner]

6. Is that Day One Kindergarten or Day One Grammar School?

Let us know if you find the bloody thing.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. Next time you get the urge to post

resist.

[K Gardner]

13. Ditto.

[HughMoran]

7. Sounds like the same thing they've said about Hillary

None of that matters at this point - they're either good candidates that can accomplish something good or they're not.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. Hillary was mentioned in this article as well, in terms of her Iraq vote and otherwise...

...part of the point was that she was privy to all of the information on Iraq that Obama didn't access, and much of it was from the same family of misinformation that we all got to see.

[HughMoran]

10. Funny how easy it was to see the administration was lying from the outside looking in

What a nightmare.

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. Really? I mean, did we REALLY know they were lying about everything at that time? Or did we just

feel a general sense of uneasyness and a feeling that they were overly anxious to prove the case for war?

I watched it all carefully, and I couldn't point at anything at the time and say "that's a lie!". Could you? If so, what?

Now, of course, it's easy to do so.

[HughMoran]

22. I was screaming at my family & friends at the top of my lungs!

They were buying the crap story - how could anybody not see through the ultra-shallow motivations of that imbecile Bush?

It was one of the most bald-faced lies I have ever seen. It takes a lot to get me screaming like I was too - I was livid! There was no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. I'll repeat it for you again:

"I watched it all carefully, and I couldn't point at anything at the time and say "that's a lie!". Could you? If so, what?"

I'm happy to exchange information/opinions with you, but please give me enough respect to answer my posts directly so we're not wasting each others time more than the internet is inherant with internet surfing.

If you refer to my last post to you, I mentioned a "general uneasiness" over what was being said. I submit that's what you felt, and what we all felt, Hillary included no doubt. But, the fact is, there was no way we could point at any one thing and call it a lie at the time. Would you agree?

[HughMoran]

26. I can't describe my intuition in "that's a lie" terms

You know what I mean - I think you feel like I am somehow assigning blame to our politicians who had/have an entirely different viewpoint based on their responsibilities. They are/were NOT allowed to claim that the administration is/was lying based on their life-learned ability to discern when a person is lying. I was allowed to do that and many other did as well. I knew that I was right - I never commit to "feelings" that are not based on facts unless my "intuition-meter" is at 100%. I express doubts when it is above a certain level. In this case I was screaming at the top of my lungs at my liberal parents who were wanting to believe what the President and the "news" was telling them. Please don't assume that I am blaming any politician for not seeing this based on the pressures (post 9/11) that they were under. I knew this was Bushco taking advantage of this situation. I had no doubt. None.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. Then your answer is "no".

Try to not let your partisan preferences get in the way of the truth.

ALWAYS stay close to the truth.

[HughMoran]

29. Wow.

I never mentioned anything about partisan preferences - I was simply describing my intuitive feeling that I knew was right.

Do you feel slighted in some way? I am stunned at your seeming bitterness - I was simply trying to give you an open and honest explanation for my determination that Bush was lying. I was right.

Why are you so angry about that?

[donheld]

32. Many of us did know they were lying about everything

William Pitt with Scott Ridder wrote and entire book about it. Many others were screaming about the lies, far too few were listening.

[dansolo]

40. But the things we suspected turned out later to be true

And what about Senators like Bob Graham? He was one of the few Democrats who were privy to a lot of the information that was hidden from others. But instead of relying on his judgment (he voted NO on the IWR), many Democrats instead chose to be misled. I respected certain people like Bob Graham and Dick Durbin (my senator at the time). They didn't feel that the IWR was justified, and voted NO. I suspected that the administration was not being totally honest. All of the things that I believed would happen before the invasion came true, and I'm not even a Middle Eastern expert. But a little rational thought, and a little reading of history, can lead anyone to the (correct) conclusion that the invasion was going to be a huge mistake. The really sad thing about it all is that if they went in for the reasons given eventually, to spread democracy, and honestly worked towards that goal, they might have actually been successful. The problem is that their real goal was to loot the country, not to reform it. If they came in with a plan of securing the country from day one, and involved the Iraqi people in the rebuilding process, they might have actually gotten the victory that they are now craving, and at a much lower cost.

[hedgehog]

12. Wasn't she privy to information that the rest of us didn't see, and didn't

she make her decision and her vote without actually reviewing that information?

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. The answer to your first question is yes. That's kind of what I said.

I don't know the answer to your second question. The way you asked it, you obviously are suggesting the answer is yes. I'd be interested to see information related to that conclusion, if that is your conclusion.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Hillary was VERY well informed...

Let's not kid ourselves here. Please.

The PNAC warmongers asked Bill Clinton for war with Iraq on January 26, 1998.
In a letter to then-President Clinton-- Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton,
Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and R. James Woolsey demanded war
with Iraq. Bill said no to the neocons.

Here is the link to the letter:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Several years later--riding on the coattails of Sept 11, these same neocons shop around this
war again. This time, George Bush didn't say no to them.

Are you trying to tell me that Hillary didn't understand that these criminals
had been shopping this same war for years? She damn well knew it because they
asked her husband for it.

Yet, she stood on the Senate floor and made a connection between Saddam and Al Queda
and she parroted plenty of Bush talking points.

She absolutely knew the game that was being played, and she is a neocon enabler.

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. You're talking about something different, and somewhat irrelavent.

Yes, she was well informed about those things.

What I referred to was the Iraq intelligence.

Something I would like you to answer to, if you would...you wrote:

"Yet, she stood on the Senate floor and made a connection between Saddam and Al Queda"

Can you tell me how she did this? Thx.

[CoffeeCat]

23. Although Hillary...

...has spewed just about every position possible on the Iraq war, she did
say this on the Senate Floor, during the run-up to the Iraq war, "He
(Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda members..."

Really. What does it matter what the Iraq intelligence said? She had front-row
seats to the neocon game for years.

The neocons had been trying to sell this war to a willing bidder for years.

She knew it.

How is her knowledge of this sick game, and her lies to the American people "irrelevant"?

The "intelligence" as we all know--is totally irrelevant and was only used to
propel us toward a war that these criminals had been wanting for years.

If anything is "irrelevant" it's the phony intelligence, that Senator Clinton and
the rest of the neocons and their enablers---knew was part of the marketing
and propaganda to get Americans behind the war.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. "Really. What does it matter what the Iraq intelligence said?"

Well, if someone lies to you and you're taken in by it, should you be judged as complicit in the lie?

That's the question you need to ask yourself I guess.

Can you tell me what her "lies to the American people" were? Please be specific. If you can't/won't, then I guess that
will be my measure for everything you post.

[CoffeeCat]

33. The entire point...(if you're interested in truth)...

...is that SIX YEARS BEFORE the neocons started the Iraq
war with Bush, THESE SAME NEOCONS asked HILLARY CLINTON'S HUSBAND for
the same war with Iraq back in 1998.

As I stated many times before. Hillary Clinton knew--as she
stood on the Senate floor--and made a case for Bush's war--that
these neocon bastards had been shopping around this war for YEARS.

THEY ASKED HER HUSBAND FOR THE SAME WAR. Their detailed plan to
invade Iraq...then Iran...then Syria is up on their Web site for
God's sake.

What? Do you want me to engrave this sick part of American history
on a sterling silver ingot? Do you want me to show up in person
and act out this scenario...with props and a stage?

Instead of stating a link between Saddam and Al Queda and suggesting
that Saddam had a nuclear-weapons program....why in the hell didn't
Hillary Clinton say,

"GEE, AMERICAN PEOPLE! I believe we're all being bamboozled. These VERY SAME
PEOPLE, asked my husband for war in 1998! It seems to me that these VERY
SAME PEOPLE will do anything to get this Iraq war, and are exploiting Sept 11
to finally get the war they've wanted for YEARS. Maybe we need to take a step
back, and proceed prudently before we drag our country into a horrible mess!"

Your gal remained SILENT! She was complicit. She enabled the neocons.

And you have the audacity to ask me for a list of her lies???

[earthlover]

30. Hillary didn't bother to read the NIE. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Obama spoke out against the war when it was an unpopular position to take. Hillary went along with the biggest foreign policy blunder in recent history. Hillary used her "experience" alongside Bill to explain her vote. I guess that is what she does with her "experience"....

But why didn't she even read the NIE? Too much to ask?

But this is water under the bridge. What is troubling and what is relevant now is that Hillary, if she is nominated, cannot make an issue of the Iraq War because she voted for it! If she argues for peace now, the Reps will say she just changed for political expediencey, like she has done before again and again. We will have another election where FLIP FLOP will be the key phrase. We gotta be blind to nominate someone who cannot make an issue of the number one issue facing America today!

[rosepetal31]

17. There's something wrong with the picture

I worry about a person whose only goal is to be President, I mean to be that driven to the extent you were and have been afraid to state your position on various issues because you had your eye on the prize so to speak...I think he's more smoke and mirrors than substance, if I'm wrong then so be it, time will tell perhaps.

[Radical Activist]

21. Time has already told.

Obama has been very straightforward about where he stands in his book, votes and public policy statements. The constant spin about Obama lacking substance is what lacks substance or any basis in reality.

[Richard Steele]

24. Pfft.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Some people are saying Obama is too ambitious. He has a "nose up" look about him

I'm just sayin' :shrug:

[Peace Candidate]

36. He should have been taking a leadership role in Congress

He should have been illustrating that he plans to fight for the people, not just talk about it.

[Mass]

39. He has been a leading force for the ethics bill, the immigration bill, and a few others.

May be you were not paying attention...

[Gloria]

37. I knew it when he signed that book deal immediately after he was elected....details

Apparently, some folks in Illinois called him on it...

ILLINOIZE
Featured Illinois bloggers and commenters talk about state and local politics

http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2006/05/barack-obamas-new-book-out-this-fall.html

Saturday, May 20, 2006
Barack Obama's new book out this fall


This fall, the first book of Senator Barack Obama's three book deal will be published.

Excerpts are available from his web site, Barackobama.com. Such as this passage:

I find it hard to shake the feeling these days that our democracy has gone seriously awry," he writes. "What's troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem.


Well, no one will accuse Obama of hiring a ghostwriter.

What's been largely left out of the media coverage of Obama's book deal is that he received a $1.9 million advance for his three book deal after he won his Illinois US Senate seat, but before he was sworn in, which allowed him to skirt Senate ethics rules.

But to most people, he'll always be "Saint Barack."

[Mass]

38. So, why do you not share it with us.

If it is so well written and informative.

(and, BTW, if it is true for Obama, it is probably true for Clinton and Edwards as well, so, what are we supposed to do).