Barack is a Politician after all

I'm so sick of people thinking this guy is so much different than other politicians. And I'm really pissed when nobody in the media picks up on the fact that he even admitted to Russert that he and Michelle may say what people want to hear, what may be needed to win as opposed to what he/they actually believe.

Mind you. I don't blame him and don't hold that against any candidate. They are politicians in this to win.

A couple of snips from Sunday's Meet the Press.

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002.........And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

I guess there may be a little bit of politician in Barack.

and when questioned about Mrs. Obama's stating that Iowa is a must win for him.

MR. RUSSERT: We are here in Iowa. Your wife, Michelle Obama, has spent a lot of time campaigning here. And this is what she said. “Iowa will make the difference. If Barack doesn’t win Iowa, it’s just a dream.” This is must-win.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, we want to—we have to do well in Iowa. Now, keep in mind when Michelle goes to New Hampshire or South Carolina, I think she says—you know, she probably says the same thing there.

So Michelle tells Iowa, NH and South Carolina what they want to hear. Sounds just like a politician to me.

Stop convincing yourself that Barack is not a politician. They all are or they wouldn't be in the race. They all massage the stump speech based on the audience of the day. They all plant questions and always have. They are politicians focused on winning. Nuthin more, nuthin less.

Full Transcript of the Russert interview http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

Gobama?

as the DC outsider)

I'm leaving the room before you start on Santa Claus.

:evilgrin:

:dem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3709254&mesg_id=3709254

He cherry-picked a quote from an interview with Obama about the war and tried to slip it by...

As for Michelle's statement on Iowa, that was her opinion. As for Barack Obama not being seen as a politician, who ever said he wasn't. He has stated it himself.

I just think he's the better candidate running in this race. I'll do my best to make sure he does win and I enjoy the fact that you do the same there in the Granite State.

Good luck.

:nopity: :cry:

The links are on the previous post.

Here is the full statement before Timmy deleted what he wanted:


Here is what Timmy slyly did as he snickered while stuffing his piehole with some greasy object:



Did you notice something? There's a sentence that was quietly and cleverly omitted.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004

Let's put this in real life. Your employer asks you what you worked on yesterday at the office.

Here is your full statement:



Your boss, like Tim Russert wants to use your own words against you, so he states later that when he asked what you did yesterday:



That's fair, right?

:crazy:

Implication being if he was in the Senate, he may have seen it differently.
Even worse than the edited version. Any politically savvy person knows BHO would have stood with the "rest of the senators" had he been one.

He probably would have stood with the others but we and he can never know. Which drives me crazy when his anti-war stance is the main reason so many support him.

They are supporting a false premise.

He can never know how he would have voted.

This is fucking ridiculous.

We DO know that. Edwards has said he listened to the Clinton people when making his vote. So why are you supporting someone who was for the war, said we had to "stay the course", and has only moved slightly against the war to win the primary.

:shrug:

then, we can easily surmise where he would have stood. Those who think otherwise are as naive as his foreign policy.

:eyes: You guys haven't found one serious thing against this guy since the start.

Clinton seems more experienced. Obama seems more intellectual. Other than that? Can't think of anything.

:eyes:

Obama talks straight on matters of war and foreign policy, including nukes. Obama doesn't saber rattle. Obama doesn't think mandating expensive insurance equals universal coverage. Obama has trounced the religious right on their doctrine of hate, right to their face. Obama has brought the issue of homosexuality straight to the black church. Obama has changed the way he fundraises and led the way on running a clean campaign.

Why don't you look at the facts instead of the rhetoric.

Obama, as a former president of the Harvard Law Review, as a former professor at University of Chicago, and through his speeches, has demonstrated a clear mind and a firm grasp of the issues. Why is that a bad thing, in your eyes?

Clinton, IMO, has an edge in experience. Obama, IMO, has an edge in intelligence. I don't think that's unfair to him.

And his naive foreign policy?

But Obama folks are always being against Hillary rather than for Obama.

For the record, I AM much much much more against Hillary than for any Dem candidate. The Clintons are what's wrong with the Dem Party.

and I still think you are a visitor from another universe.

And even her well oiled machine can't keep the stink in.

And if you've got an accusation to make, make it.

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

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

just another delusional obamaite. Blinded by the cult of personality.

Were she running in sixth place, nobody would care about her.

He was caught saying his position and bush's position were the same on Iraq in 04. He explained this away by saying political considerations prevented him from being candid - he said what he thought would be politically best at the time. And then he wants to chide Hillary for making decisions based on politics rather than conviction.


Its the hyporcisy that gets me.


He said his position was the same as bush's on Iraq in 04. He said he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR. And yet he wants to claim he's been on the front lines against the war in Iraq from the begining, and attack Hillary for having supported it.


Its the hypcrisy that gets me.


He refused to say what was and wasn't on/off the table regarding Social Security. Repeatedly refused to answer that question. Yet wants to claim you can't really know where Hillary stands because she won't answer questions candidly.


Its the hypocrisy that gets me.


He berates Hillary for not releasing records that she has no power to release, then is very coy about answering questions about missing records from his own political past. He criticizes Hillary for taking money from lobbyists, yet can't explain why its ok for him to take money from state lobbyists.


I didn't watch MTP, but read the transcript. From what I read here on DU, it looked like a cakewalk. After reading the transcript, he looks just like a run-of-the-mill say-whatever-to-get-elected politician.

I'd be fine with both of them. Both would do (and have done in the Senate) the exact same things. The Obama-Clinton civil war here is downright amusing.

She is not a hypocrite.

It's a tough comparison but I believe the reason Hillary will politically avoid some issues is that she'd rather avoid and say nothing than tell a lie.

If an issue such as the withdrawal of our troops is based on the situation in January 2009 then Hillary will not try and make up some stupid plan she may never be able to act on.

Not especially so, and not more than most, but she's still a hypocrite.

Planting audience members is not consistent with your professed belief in "listening tours" and "conversations with America."

hy·poc·ri·sy –noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

I can't believe I spelled it three different ways. Typing quickly at work as a customer looks on impatiently is not the ideal situation.


I will use spell check. I will use spell check. I will use spell check.

:D

although it did suck. ;)

When he has laid out specifics on SS, but you just conveniently ignore it. When he has explained his state records are under the control of the State of IL, and that he doesn't have a gigantic Presidential library budget like the Clintons. When he is the one who reformed Illinois campaign laws to reduce the influence of lobbyists money, an action Hillary hasn't championed in the Senate. When the only thing he did in 2004 is support the candidate who was stuck with HILLARY'S pro-war agenda which WAS nearly the same as Bush's.

How in the world do you get more upset about somebody supporting the party about a policy than the PERSON WHO WROTE THE POLICY.

You make no sense at all.

Obama can say Hillary deliberately obscures her position for political gain, and then defend his saying he and bush's positions on Iraq were the same, becasue the political climate prevented him from being candid?


And you see no hypocrisy there?


I encourage you to re-read the transcript of that interview.

SHE created the political climate he was talking about. SHE fucked up 2004. If Kerry had been able to run more clearly on "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", we wouldn't be having this conversation. It was the Clintons who wanted to support the war but fight it better.

That's what YOU are supporting. How in the world can some speech be more important than the actual war policy.

YOU need to go read what Hillary was saying on the war, month by month, all through 2003 and 2004. And 2005 on up until she finally realized she had to oppose the war in some measure to win the nomination.

This is the hypocrisy you ought to be concerned about.

Do you seriously believe this? That Hillary Clinton lost 2004 for us?

Was she behind 9/11? Did she kill Kennedy too? Vince Foster?

What is it about her that makes her enemies think she's some sort of antichrist operating behind the scenes, controlling most everything that happens?

Why is it so difficult for Democrats who know that to put any blame on them for the disastrous strategy of the last 6 years. It's only when Nancy Pelosi actually took control away from the DLC centrists that we won in 2006.

That was Howard Dean, Rahm Emmanuel, and Chuck Schumer.

Second, the Clintons were not at all in charge of '04. They are not "the Democratic party leaders." That was Terry McAuliffe, and currently is Howard Dean. And while McAuliffe is a supporter of the Clintons, he is not Hillary Clinton, nor did Hillary Clinton run Kerry's pathetic '04 campaign.

how do we know if what he says today is what he really thinks, or what the political reality of the day demands?


If you re-read that transcript, and imagine Russert's talking to Hillary instead of Obama, I'd bet it would be enlightening.

IS NOT the totality of someone's policy opinion.

Unlike years of support that Hillary gave to the war.

Dear Obama.. Let's talk. Tell us more about your philosophy!!!!

Open your ears. He does all the time. You'll have to go to his web site for the speeches because you aren't ever going to get policy from the media.

It was interesting to watch Russert work his magic on someone else, for a change.

He who smiles while twisting the knife.

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

I thought he waffled all over the place during that interview, although you'd never know it listening to Chris Matthews.

But two great speeches in 4 years do not a President make.

:kick: