NYT: Obama Promises a Forceful Stand Against Clinton

[Colobo]

In an interview on Friday that was initiated by his campaign to signal the change of course, Mr. Obama said “now is the time” for him to distinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton. While he said that he was not out to “kneecap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for,” he said she was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain and was less likely than he was to win back the White House for Democrats.

Asked in the interview on Friday if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama replied, “No.”

“I don’t think people know what her agenda exactly is,” Mr. Obama continued, citing Social Security, Iraq and Iran as issues on which she had not been fully forthcoming. “Now it’s been very deft politically, but one of the things that I firmly believe is that we’ve got to be clear with the American people right now about the important choices that we’re going to need to make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscate and avoid being a target in the general election and then find yourself governing without any support for any bold propositions.”

For months, Democrats, including some within his campaign, have questioned whether his promise to pursue a brand of politics that transcended partisanship had so handcuffed him that he could not compete in the most partisan of arenas.

Much more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/us/politics/28obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us

[TwilightGardener]

1. Time for the street fighter to emerge. I know he probably doesn't want

to do it, but it's necessary--that's the rough and tumble of politics.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. “What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?”

Quote is from OP's link.
“What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?”
That Obama had promise, as all would agree.
The McClurkin Obama is just a shadow of that man.

[TwilightGardener]

14. I paid absolutely no heed or attention to that McClurkin BS. I couldn't care

less about this guy's feelings about "praying the gay away", or whatever--you can't control everything about the personal views and history of people around you--someone will always be "off the rez" on one issue or another. If he was a criminal or something, that would be different. And McClurkin was not a paid high-level staffer, like Mark Penn, whose big presence in the Hillary camp I find more troubling.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. Atta boy! Just the kinda guy Obama is counting on!

I paid absolutely no heed or attention to that McClurkin BS. I couldn't care less."
Atta boy! Just the kinda guy Obama is counting on!

[TwilightGardener]

32. Er, girl, not guy. It just didn't matter to me. I have bigger concerns for my country

right now, than what some goofy gospel singer believes about gay people. There are ignorant doofuses in every walk of life--this guy was hired as an entertainer, NOT for policy guidance.

[MethuenProgressive]

37. Yeah. it's just the gays, so who really cares?

What was the quote from Dr King? "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

[TwilightGardener]

53. WTF? It's one guy, with one set of ideas. It's not Obama's personal views or legislative

plans. Give it a rest, already.

[Inuca]

64. Complete BS

and you probably know it but do not care. Obama had and has lots of promise. IMHO he should have waited, but that's a different story. Statements like yours are simply meant to stir the pot and be spiteful, which I find distasteful.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. not be truthful with her agenda--BS

what a bunch of bullshit. Obfuscate? His ideas for change mimic hers. They are not far off politically, except that she is much better at leading than he is.

[Colobo]

4. Obama is a much better candidate than Sen. Clinton

but she's good too. :)

[AtomicKitten]

3. Clinton hung back and waited for Obama to vote on funding the war

because she didn't have the balls to vote "no" first. She is not a leader. I have yet to hear her take a clear stand on much of anything without passing it through the DLC magic triangulation machine.

[cuke]

5. Obama hung back for over a decade

while Hillary fought to expand health insurance coverage for poor people across the nation.

see this subthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3651120#3651157

[Colobo]

8. LOL!

What a stupid argument. Hillary was the First Lady- Obama was starting his professional life then.

[cuke]

16. Hillary is credited by both Kerry and Kennedy for convincing Bill to support SCHIP

And the link I supplied names a few other things she has accomplished while Obama did nothing for anyone outside his state

[Colobo]

24. She was the First Lady. It's obvious she had way more importance and

influcence than Obama could ever dream of having in the 90s and until recently. Don't be obtuse.

[cuke]

34. Like I said, Clinton was fighting for a decade before Obama joined in

[Colobo]

39. Well, she was the First Lady when he was starting to get involved in

public life.

[cuke]

42. Like I said, Clinton was fighting for a decade before Obama joined in

And yes, I know. HRC has more experience

[MADem]

48. She was in public life WELL before then. And not just as First Lady.

And not just as First Lady in AR, either.

She was employed by Congress, as a lawyer on the Watergate Commission during the Nixon era.

[cuke]

50. Sat on the board of the Legal Services Corp

worked for the ACLU, received national acclaim for her commencement speech at Wellesley for speaking out against the Viet Nam War........

[AtomicKitten]

11. his actual record begs to differ

[cuke]

17. I cant tell from what you posted

[AtomicKitten]

20. I know when I'm wasting my time.

Posting factual information for your perusal would be a waste of time.

[cuke]

35. If you ever post factual info, let me know

I'd be interested in seeing it for the 1st time

[Inuca]

69. LOL! Not to mention....

those 10+ years he hang back refusing to be born, just to see what Hillary was going to do. Just think of all her achievement by the time she was, I don't know... 25? What did Obama achieve by the time Hillary was 25? Nothing.

Some of the arguments supporters blinded by... I have no idea what actually, I do not know what can bring such reason-impairment to someone, short of puppy unrequited love, which I assume is not the case, anyway... some of the arguments are ranging from the unbelievably ridiculous to the incredibly funny.

[IndianaGreen]

6. But it was Obama who was AWOL on the Kyl-Lieberman vote

Biden and Dodd were there, and they voted against Holy Joe's scheme to give Bush another green light for war.

[AtomicKitten]

9. He didn't vote yes on it.

You can paint it anyway you wish, but in the final analysis* Hillary is the only Democratic candidate to vote yes on it.

1. Vote 76:22. Obama released a statement saying he opposed the bill, there was a snafu re: scheduling (I don't really care whether anyone believes this or not because it is irrelevant in the end.), and that there are close votes to rush back for; this one wasn't in the ballpark of close.
2. He opposed it.
3. He didn't vote yes on it.

And for all the kvetching you have done about the Clintons and LGBT issues, I must say I'm rather surprised to read your analysis of this. To each his own.

[cuke]

18. Isn't he the only one who didn't vote on such an important matter?

[AtomicKitten]

21. Yes, and he still didn't vote YES on it.

76:22; yes, I can see how his vote would have practically made a difference. :crazy:

[cuke]

27. Too bad he didn't "Stand up on principle" or make any effort to UNITE

the dems against it

[AtomicKitten]

33. If schmoozing with the GOP war machine is "standing on principle"

America has had about enough of this exhibition of, um, "principle."

[cuke]

36. The GOP wanted clauses in K/L that HRC and dems had removed

and we had language calling for diplomacy inserted, all against the protest of * and his repukes.

[AtomicKitten]

49. because labeling an entity "terrorist" is an excellent way to initiate diplomacy

not

[cuke]

51. Obama co-sponsored S970 which designated IRG a terrorist org

Excellent way to initiate diplomacy Obama!!!

[AtomicKitten]

55. put in a nickel and ride that pony

The bill you reference never made it out of committee. It had 68 co-sponsors (including Hillary!). The bill was written at the beginning of this year while the IAEA was crawling around Iran.

Once the IAEA reported back there was no imminent threat, that should have been that. But the GOP war machine isn't giving up, and Hillary just signed on to their latest misadventure with her actual YES vote on a vote that was actually taken.

Ignore that.

[cuke]

57. Obama co-sposored calling the IRG a terrorist org.

but his supporters says that will lead to war (but only when Clinton says it)

And he has yet to renounce his co-sponsorship.

And what does anything the IAEA has to say have to do with calling the IRG a terrorist org?

[DemFemme]

84. That was before the final IAEA report. Kyl-Lieberman was completely unnecessary on 9/25.

Obama co-sponsored it back in March 2007 with 60+ other senators, including Billary. It was a non-proliferation
bill which never made it to a vote.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Reid called up the vote for K-L at 12:14PM and held the vote at 12:44PM--30 minutes later.

This is what Reid said the night before the bill:

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110Kf0GEN:e130345:

[Colobo]

15. Reid did it on purpose.

[cuke]

19. And Obama fell for it

[flpoljunkie]

22. This is what Senator Jim Webb said right before the vote on Kyl-Lieberman...

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I have grave concerns about this amendment. I spoke at length on the floor yesterday about them. We have never characterized an entity of a foreign government as a foreign terrorist organization. If we are saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is conducting terrorist activities, what we are saying, in effect, is that the Revolutionary Guard is conducting military activities against us. This has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran.

We have not had one hearing. I recommended yesterday that the amendment be withdrawn so we can consider it in the appropriate committees. I oppose passage at this time in the hope that we can get further discussion.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:3:./temp/~r110E5lz0b:e19685:

Yet the vote proceeded immediately. (Italics mine.)

[cuke]

30. Obama co-sponsored S970 which designated IRG a terrorist org

which according to the quote YOU just posted "has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran."

[flpoljunkie]

65. Clinton, Dodd, Kerry, also cosponsors of S.970 which sits in the Committee on Finance

S.970

Title: A bill to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Smith, Gordon H. (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (68)

Related Bills: H.R.3390

Latest Major Action: 3/22/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970:@@@P

[cuke]

67. Yes, and?

We already know that Clinton supports designating the IRG a terrorist org. We already know that Webb thinks (and you agree) that designation could help start a war. We already know that Obama supports designating the IRG a terrorist org.

Ergo, Obama supports legislation that could help start a war

[flpoljunkie]

72. "Kyl-Lieberman contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops..."

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment contains language that sets forth an entirely new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq and, if need be, for attacking Iranian forces. The problematic language in the resolution says that it is a “critical national interest of the United States” to counter Iran’s influence among the Shia population of Iraq. Without a doubt, President Bush can cite that language as authorizing him to maintain and use US troops in Iraq for the purpose of containing Iran, curtailing Iran’s influence in Iraq, and, if need be, to expand our troops’ activities beyond Iraq’s borders to pursue and attack Iranian forces.

There's more: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/flpoljunkie/92

[cuke]

74. Moving the goalposts

You just posted a critique by Sen Webb which said designating the IRG as a terrorist organization could initiate a war.

When I pointed out Obama supported the same thing, you change your argument. You have more excuses for Obama than * has for his Iraq invasion

[AtomicKitten]

23. too bad Hillary didn't "fall for it" -- instead she voted yes & the neocons thank her

[Colobo]

25. She didn't fall for it. She loved it and voted for it.

[cuke]

31. That's right, and I support the vote

Meanwhile, Obama co-sponsored S970 which also designates the IRG as a terrorist organization, an act that Sen Webb said "has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran."

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cuke]

40. You've got nothing but snark

and personal insults. You're becoming irrelevant

[AtomicKitten]

46. Yes, pointing out factual information is snark. ((wink,wink))

[cuke]

52. Contradicting yourself?

Earlier you said you weren't posting factual info

[AtomicKitten]

56. Obama's actual LGBT record has been posted numerous times.

Please continue to ignore it.

[cuke]

59. You said you're not posting factual info

I tend to agree

[AtomicKitten]

61. No offense, but your circuitous arguments are of the caliber

of a 5-year-old, and I will not indulge your silliness further.

[cuke]

63. You've said that before too

[Colobo]

41. Exactly.

[cuke]

43. Personal accusations come out when posters run out of arguments

[AtomicKitten]

47. Your self-introspection is admirable.

[DemFemme]

83. Obama was there until NV Billary chair Rory Reid's dad Harry pulled a bait-and-switch

Nice Billary spokesman Harold Wolfson talking point to distract from Billary's warmongering neocon vote for Kyl-Lieberman, though.

Billary surrogate Reid said there wouldn't be a vote and then called one after Obama reached a NH rally, with only an hour to spare
to return to Washington, DC.

[Pirate Smile]

7. "He accused her of “straddling between the Giuliani, Romney side of the foreign policy equation and

the Barack Obama side of the equation.” He said that she was trying to “sound or vote” like a Republican on national security issues and that that was “bad for the country and ultimately bad for Democrats.”

Let's get ready to rumble!

[AtomicKitten]

10. She is pandering to wingnuts to secure the general election -

except she hasn't won the primary yet.

[emilyg]

28. Look up Obama's pandering. Geez.

[MethuenProgressive]

29. He is pandering to McClurklin's supporters to secrue his primary base.

Evangelicals donate lots more money than gays, right?

edit: added the K to the bigot's name

[AtomicKitten]

45. Yahtzee.

At least Obama is pandering WITHIN the party.

I would rather he cut McClurkin loose, however ... there are many mitigating factors (i.e., Obama doesn't appear at any of the concerts and McClurkin is singing with several other singers in only one venue). It's not like he has anyone of that ilk writing policy or advising him.

Regardless of the atheist bent here at DU (I'm agnostic ftr), there are many fine people that considered themselves Christians; they are not all rabid haters. There is nothing wrong with Obama going after that untapped pool of voters.

However, Hillary pandering to the rightwing war machine to secure wingnut votes in the general election is pandering outside the party to just as if not worse egregious people.

And I fully expect you to not see the difference at all.

[cuke]

54. Is there anything wrong with using homophobes to pander WITHIN the party?

[AtomicKitten]

58. The vast majority of black church-goers are not homophobes.

And it is to that Democratic stronghold Obama is pandering.

Now perhaps you'd like to explain why Hillary is pandering to GOP wingnuts? Oh yeah, it's strategy. Ah huh.

[cuke]

62. 5 of the singers Obama hired are homophobes

Is that kind of pandering WITHIN the party OK?

Answer to your question - She's not. That's just a slogan

And who was Obama pandering to when he said he would nuke Pakistan?

[AtomicKitten]

68. Funny how Obama's pandering to black church-going Democrats

doesn't lead to war (i.e., Iraq Liberation Act - IWR - war).

And I fully expect the magnitude of that inequity to sail completely over your head.

Obama has an otherwise good LGBT record. If this concert is a deal-breaker for you or anyone else, don't vote for him.

But Hillary's pandering to the GOP war machine also resonates with many Democrats, and your continued assault on Obama doesn't change that in the slightest.

[cuke]

71. No, it leads to murders and suicides of gays

But they're probably WITHIN the party, so I guess it's OK.

[AtomicKitten]

73. And changing hearts and minds of the minority of people you speak of

that exist within the vast majority of black church-going community of Democrats that aren't haters - is done by engaging them and, yes, that is okay.

I realize this is just politics to you and others here to use a cudgel against your candidate's closest competitor, but you are advocating exclusion to fight exclusion. Brilliant ... in BizzarroWorld.

[cuke]

75. And he can't do that without help from homophobes?

[AtomicKitten]

76. If I believed you actually give a shit about LGBT issues I'd continue this conversation.

But I don't.

Best of luck shilling for the opposition. The bait and switch won't help your candidate dealing with her hawkish stance, but what the hell, eh?

I have great faith that people aren't nearly as ignorant and naive as you are counting on.

[cuke]

77. Gee, why don't you want to answer that question?

You said you weren't going to post facts. Then you said you were going to post facts. Now you're back to the personal insults.

[cuke]

44. I'd like to encourage you to keep pushing the "pandering" meme

that'll work real well for Obama

[Clintonista2]

60. Oh noes! She's shaking in her boots!

Obama doesn't have the competence to plan a gospel tour. Does he really think he has the competence to mount an attack against Hillary?

[cuke]

66. And the UNITER couldn't UNITE dems against K/L

but then again, not being there probably slowed the effort down

[DemFemme]

82. That's not his job description. Somehow Biden figured it out on his own.

Too bad Billary couldn't.

[wyldwolf]

70. In other words, "suddenly it ain't early anymore! Yikes!"

[AtomicKitten]

78. Obama has the upper hand on the issue of war.

Always has, always will - regardless of all the admirable efforts of HRC sycophants desperately trying to muddy the waters.

[flpoljunkie]

79. Clinton supporter Paul Begala said exactly that on CNN this week.

[Colobo]

80. Obama needs to be relentless.

[phen43]

81. Can't wait for the debate!!!

time to show us your STUFF, Senator Obama!!!:headbang: