Obama Proves He Is A Political Fighter; For Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Barack Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's MTP appearance by proving he indeed is a rough and tumble political fighter, not for Democratic values, but for himself:

. . . Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it . . . the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous

Stop right there. Obama's campaign in fact has pushed this talk for days now. Obama is being misleading at best and mendacious at worst. But he is just a pol fighting for his own political fortunes. Then Obama misleads on what happened on MTP today:

I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Sen. Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong.

Tim Russert spent an hour asking questions about you, Senator. How is that Senator Clinton's fault? Very misleading of Obama. Again Obama the political fighter for his own cause emerges. Finally, Obama is not honest when he says:

She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did.

The exact opposite is true. From 2005 until the middle of 2007, Barack Obama opposed all attempts to impose timelines or restrictions on President Bush and he opposed efforts to not fund the Iraq Debacle. What is unambiguous is Senator Obama supported the Iraq Debacle from 2005 until the summer of 2007. I have followed this closely and I KNOW this to be true. Of course the Clinton record on Iraq is just as bad in that time period. The point is Barack Obama has not led on opposing the Iraq Debacle either. It is misleading of Senator Obama to act as if he was leading the charge against the Iraq Debacle while he was in the Senate. The opposite is true. He was one of those denigrating efforts to end the war. "Not play chicken with the troops" ring a bell? It was not just Republicans who said that -- it was also Senator Barack Obama. Now what Obama is doing is typical Washington politics. And indeed he is a Washington pol, just like Senator Clinton. Can he fight politically like this for Democratic values? For progressive ideas? That remains to be seen.

< Another Sign Edwards Will Throw Support to Obama | BET's Bob Johnson' s Comments About Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Obama Proves He Is A Political Fighter; For Obama | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Is Russert an agent of Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:30:54 PM EST

Is Steinem an agent of Clinton?

Wait, wait, wait, I thought you (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM EST

stated Steinem is/was a CIA plant.


Yes (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST

I think so. How about you?


: Both, i.e. Russert and Steinem? (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST

Charlatan (none / 0) (#1)
by koshembos on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:15:57 PM EST

Obama is not just a politician fighting with all means possible, he is also the guy who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. He is a professional charlatan who pretends to stand for very clear principles, which he doesn't.

The Democratic party has not had such a successful candidate since FDR and that is downright terrible and frightening.

: no tell (none / 0) (#16)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST

Obama generally doesn't even do as much as tell you what you want to hear, but instead merely recites meaningless word-sounds that stimulate one's happy-centers (unless one is immune).
For instance "Yes, we can!" Yes, we can what? Without the what, the "statement" is entirely meaningless.
Randi Rhodes was pushed on this question, and responded that the what was to make the US what it ought to be--which is simply begging the question. Obama isn't even conveying information to her, but simply pushing her happy buttons.
I don't think Obama is a charlatan in a strict sense, though, but rather is too immature (for his age) and unwise to know better. It is not unusual for kids and young adults to think they are being "wise" when actually they haven't lived long enough to experience the successes and failures that shape so-called wisdom.

Obama too slick (none / 0) (#2)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST

I am getting really depressed about the real possibility of Obamas winning the nomination. Not only will he have zero chance of winning this election, but if he did win his administration would probably be a mess...and if they win, then we just gave away the supreme court nominations for many years to come which is disasterous...

I just watched the show (none / 0) (#3)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:30:37 PM EST

Tim Russert spent an hour asking questions about you, Senator. How is that Senator Clinton's fault?

There are times when he brought up Senator Obama, but every time he asked about Iraq she brought him up. ON the MLK statements she brought him up.

AS for MLK, it is true his campaign has been pushing the story that people are outraged by it. but they didn't make the people outraged, they didn't turn her quote around people were upset about what she said. So her claim that he has somehow rewritten transcripts or something is ridiculous. Did his campaign push a negative story, yes, but they didnt make it negative.

That's false (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:36:46 PM EST

Absolutely false.


Um, the MLK brouhaha started (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:36:50 PM EST

because of a truncated quote.. so yes, people were manipulated into outrage.


: Well that (none / 0) (#11)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:42:46 PM EST

quote was in the NYtimes and Washingtonpost, no more than a couple of hours after she said it. So if it was wrong go after the reporters that wrote it.

They misled about it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:37:58 PM EST

Obama's hands are completely dirty on this issue.


: I read about it (none / 0) (#10)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:41:19 PM EST

in the NYtimes and Washintonpost, not more than a couple of hours after she said it, so Obama didn't do that.
Did he push a negative story after the fact, yes, but if the quote is wrong, take it up with the reporters that covered it.

Clintons best moment (none / 0) (#13)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST

was at the end, when she talked about the Economy.

I disagree. I think pointing out Obama's (none / 0) (#14)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:58:35 PM EST

weakness on Iraq was essential.

: Well but the (none / 0) (#15)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:03:55 PM EST

basis of that argument is that he promised to cut off funding when he got to the senate. Which i cannot find evidence of. Diminishing the Iraq war vote is important, but it is a bit of a double edged sword because it brings up that she voted to authorize it.

lack of clarity (none / 0) (#17)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST

Regardless of whether he came out explicitly for de-funding the occupation, I think it simply a lie for Obama to claim his "opposition" is clear or unambiguous. To prove this is a false claim, one need only show an example of clear, unambiguous opposition against which to compare Obama's "opposition"; that example is Dennis Kucinich.

Sister Souljah Redux? (none / 0) (#18)
by AdrianLesher on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST

I think that the Clinton campaign may be trying to "dog whistle" to people uncomfortabled with a a nonwhite candidate in order to do covertly what Bill Clinton did overtly with Sister Souljah.

The apparently intentionally ambiguous comments of Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and others draw Obama into a racial thicket by requiring to be silent (as Kerry was against the Swift-boaters) or stand up against this nonsense (and run the risk of alienating white voters who will see Obama's response as too "racial.")

As to Obama's position on Iraq, he has unfortunately been dragged into the quandary many politicians have, that he isn't willing to defund a war where the troups haven't been called home.

Nonetheless, he has been vocal for a long time about his opposition to the war, hedging only to the extent that he says that he is basing his position upon the information available to him. Frank Rich refers to "Bill Clinton's rant falsifying Obama's record on Iraq," which sounds about right. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13rich.html

The political fight (none / 0) (#19)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:25:19 PM EST

What else would you expect?:

The genius of our goofball primary system is that in its moronic crucible we forge heroic super-lunatics who can succeed in our dopey mess of a political system.

That pretty much sums it all up.

Is political trolling (none / 0) (#21)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:26:59 PM EST

now also being outsourced to India?

How is Clinton Any Better? (none / 0) (#22)
by bradkc on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:56:20 PM EST

The Clinton's are part of the political aristocracy. How can a site named "Talk Left" plump for a political dynasty that is so obviously a part of the American aristocracy?

You might not like Obama, but why pitch Clinton at every possible opportunity? You might as well elect another Bush.