What do you think Obama will say

[kimmerspixelated]

when asked whether he endorses Kucinich's articles of impeachment? What if he says he's against it? Has he already commented upon this, and I just missed it?

[JuniperLea]

1. Good question!

[angstlessk]

2. scrollling at the bottom of MSMBC was this from Obama

Tim Russert was the best interviewer in television

[kimmerspixelated]

3. Well, that's nice, but this is about Impeachment.

[JuniperLea]

4. Well there's one thing Obama is flat wrong about...

But what did Obama say about the recent 35 articles of impeachment?

[angstlessk]

10. OOOPS my bad...was reading all the Tim Russert threads and had just

seen the scroll on MSNBC and 'ass u me d' sorry folks! I am licking the egg off my face as I type!

[PaDUer]

5. Here's what he said--against--

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

[Hydra]

6. I hate to add more

But whoever his PR person is needs to be fired or we need a new nominee:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

Disappointing. He basically suggested that Bushco did nothing worth impeaching for.

And for the record, Mr. Nominee, Washington is dysfunctional because Bush and his cronies are still there pulling the strings.

[terrya]

11. "We need a new nominee"?

And....it's time to logoff from DU, I think.

Oy.

[Hydra]

16. Obama is now our voice

And this is twice when he had the opportunity to phrase it any way he wanted to...and he chose the most disturbing way to do so.

As I said, he needs to fire his PR person if this is the strategy he chose, or we need someone who believes in truth and the law.

[SergeyDovlatov]

7. He will say something nice but unrelated. Interviewer will get distracted and won't ask a follow up

[MrCoffee]

9. He already commented directly, and said no impeachment.

As has been posted above.

[SergeyDovlatov]

12. *sad face*

[rucky]

8. He's already commented (not supporting it).

I'll dig it up...

[slipslidingaway]

13. Not in favor of impeachment, I called both his campaign office

and senate office the other day.

This is from May...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/print/33622

"...So, the question, as far as prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department goes, should Obama become president, will be whether Obama will approve of prosecuting Bush, Cheney, et alia. Some weeks back, around the time of the Pennsylvania primary, a Philadelphia News Reporter asked Senator Obama that question. Obama did not bring up the topic himself. The reporter raised it. He then reported as follows:

"The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects. I mentioned the report in my question, and said 'I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed' regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department 'would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.'

"Here's his answer, in its entirety:

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.'

...I want to focus on what Obama already knows, because we all know it, because it's public knowledge..."

[jasmine621]

14. He will be against it. More opportunity for buyer's remorse here at DU. nt

[scarletwoman]

15. Buyer's remorse? I don't recall ANY Democratic candidate in the primary -- except Kucinich who was

dismissed as being "too fringe" -- speaking out for impeachment. If you can point out who else besides Kucinich was advocating for impeachment, I'd be very interested in seeing your citations.

Otherwise, your "buyers remorse" remark is utterly baseless.

sw