Dear DU Obama supporters

Please stop acting like Obama voted against the war. He didn't. In fact, he didn't vote, period. Don't act like you know how he would of voted, when he himself admits he doesn't know.

Please stop calling Hillary the "corporate whore" when Obama has raised more wall street donations than any other Democratic candidate, and when polls show that CEOs favor Obama over any other Democratic candidate.

Please stop making this primary about Bill. It wasn't because of Bill that Hillary has continued to soar, even while vicious smears are tossed at her by members of her own party.



Sincerly,
Lirwin2

your directives? Ignore us to death?

That would require a certain level of integrity.

:wtf:

Sorry... misread ya there. :blush:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to run on a platform of "would have-should have-could have" when we all have the luxury of hindsight and no absolute accountability behind us.

I have some problems with Obama, but you're off base.

Obama was loudly, distinctly, and publicly decrying the IWR befor it was voted on, for precisely the right reasons. By contrast, and unlike most congressional Democrats, Clinton voted to attack Iraq.

As to corporate whoredom - "Lobbyists represent real people" - ring a bell? How about Clinton's outspoken support for job-obliterating offshoring of US jobs? Or the first attempt at a usurious bankruptcy bill?

Makes me not want to eat dinner. Ever again.

referesh our memories...

Refreshing your memory..Obama is the corpoarte whore of Wall St.

"Judging by the companies whose employees have given to his campaign, Obama appears to have improved his standing in the second quarter. He received $139,810 from Lehman Brothers employees, including $4,600 from company president Joseph M. Gregory. Goldman Sachs employees accounted for $80,000 and Citigroup for $61,000 of his contributions, his financial report for the quarter shows."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-16-1571558437_x.htm

became a spokes person for BUSH.


Corporations: Profiting from Corporations, I have a problem with. They believe in Outsourcing have stocks in companies in India who profited from Outsourcing. You want me not to have a problem with that. HELL NO. I have a big problem with that. Alot of middle class voters will have a problem with that as well. Look at the workers for Maytag and Motorola. Their jobs were outsourced. The companies are still getting the tax breaks. Who pushed NAFTA?

Obama didn't vote for the war and opposed it outright at the time.

Hillary is the one who dragged Bill into this. She could have ran on her own, she isn't. Bill is fair game.

Hillary already has 2 fundraising scandals this go-round, in addition to the 4 from the 90's. Her and Bill continue to be friendly with people involved in financial crimes. She won't take a bold stand against lobbyists. She has spoken favorably about outsourcing. Therefore, she's earned her title as corporate whore.

Sorry. You're not going to intimidate people into shutting up about the fact that we can do better than the Clintons.

I wonder if it's part of a larger pattern of corporate toadyism... I'm already sold on Kucinich, so in fairness I haven't bothered to check.

You can't fight fire without effective methods. Yes, there will be issues - but Hillary is a competent manager who can deal with 'em. It's a pleasure to watch her respond intelligently, knowing this is how she'll handle the issues that'll inevitably rise in the federal bureaucracy.

The two groups' interests are most often diametrically opposed.

Even if you're an anarchist, you won't stop societies from organizing for the common good. So whatever interests, they are legitimate and you want them to be represented by civil institutions.

As I said, corporate techniques will be required for success. The goal is to accomplish the same benefits without unfairly burdening a portion of the public. To do that while maintaining civil rights and personal liberties would be an unprecedented human accomplishment.

Let's get started here and now.

That doesn't mean I have to pretend it isn't happening, or that it's right and just that those in the legislature just can't help but play along. It's a lie.

You can insist all you want that there is no way to be a politician and not play ball with those that work against the common good for their own benefit, but history shows it is not true.

Your statement that "corporate techniques will be required for success" is very vague, you know. If you respond, please put that in plain language. Also "whatever ineterests"... not all interests are equal or deserving.

Every successful operation attracts miscreants - fundraisers are independent operators and messy methods aren't apparent in advance. Hillary's doing the right thing and keeping cool. Watch the swiftboaters shoot blanks!

Name the 6 that John Kerry attracted in his 20+ years of fundraising. People that are HIS specific fundraisers, not Clinton or Torricelli people that donated at their request. There are few Dem candidate that consistently end up on the wrong side of fundraisers the way the Clintons do. They are scum and we should be ashamed of being bamboozled by them again.

Perhaps we should cease while the tone between us is still civil.

The original investors in Tony Rezko's big South Loop deal

September 13, 2007

Orlando Jones was among investors in a Tony Rezko real estate venture in 2003, records show. Rezko wanted to develop 62 acres of prime land at Roosevelt and Clark -- for which his company, Rezmar Corp., sought $140 million in city tax subsidies.

The deal stalled when Mayor Daley's administration accused Rezko of minority-owned-business fraud. But most investors apparently recouped their money after Rezko sold the site in late 2005.

Here is a previously undisclosed list of the investment groups for the project (in most cases, City Hall couldn't find records identifying the groups' investors):

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/555291,CST-NWS-watchlist13.article

"Judging by the companies whose employees have given to his campaign, Obama appears to have improved his standing in the second quarter. He received $139,810 from Lehman Brothers employees, including $4,600 from company president Joseph M. Gregory. Goldman Sachs employees accounted for $80,000 and Citigroup for $61,000 of his contributions, his financial report for the quarter shows."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-16-1571558437_x.htm

Speaking of the same donor scandals that bundled for Obama and Edwards? Will good conscience get in the way of returning the donations?

I doubt it!

"Hsu's undoing began two weeks ago with articles raising questions about his fundraising activities in the Wall Street Journal and about a criminal case in his past in The Times. In his letter, said a person familiar with its contents who asked to remain anonymous, Hsu contended that those articles were planted "by a politician who pledged 'hope and change' " -- an apparent reference to Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton's main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hsu13sep13,1,5486953.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

more to come.. a suicide yesterday, directly related to Obama's association with Rezko and the Crime Power brokers in Chicago.

:thumbsup:

I know it sucks to see posts about us calling us all sorts of names but the reason we see posts like that is because we are having an effect.

But there's no need for us to engage in that.

:hi:

:thumbsup:

Please, this is not a kindergarten playground

Cheers, mate!

:toast:

the rationale, the excuse, is that it's in retaliation for the pile of sins committed against their candidate. It never stops.

The problem is we are all enamored with our own opinion and think everyone else's stinks.

And so it goes.

opposed to the invasion from the outset. That is what we are talking about. It is not my basis for supporting him---I just think he is the best candidate.

Just my 2cents, take it for what it is worth.

that the "whore" reference should be dropped. "Corporate shill" is both accurate and less personally offensive.

If so that's reason enough not to vote for him.

vote for someone.

defiance. My father died of lung cancer and I have never smoked so it is not like I dont understand people's aversion to smoking.

We like people often for their weakness's more than their strengths.

Somewhere in Obama's mind I picture someone saying "So what I smoke. Kiss my ass".

I hope he quits --apparently his wife doesnt like it. A minor human failing like this doesnt turn me off to him at all.

Perverse, huh?

It was on a cable access program in chicago. He talked about why he was so against this war. Everything he said came to pass.
This is called thoughtfullness, intelligence, leadership and judgment.
I have yet to see clinton exhibit any of these.
And, you cannot deny Hillary showed incredibly bad judgment and failed to read the NIE as well. And voted against the Levin admendment.
I wouldn't hold her vote against her except for her actions like this. It shows she doesn't care about the people only political manovering and calculating and being an opportunist. this time it came and bit her in the ass.
If she cared she would have read the NIE and supported the admendment. that is just cold and shows lack of leadership and judgment.

as evidenced by Obama's staggering -20 pts behind Hillary's runaway lead.

Hillary's lead is national, but this race will be won state by state where she is most certainly vulnerable.

He was openly and adamantly against the war when it would have been very easy just to be quiet. After all, who wanted the opinion of an Illinois legislator with no national fame? What he has said is that if he had been in the Senate AND getting the same info from the White House that the Senators had, he's not sure how he would have voted. Like I said, I think he's just being polite. I doubt very much he would have voted for the war. At least he isn't pretending that he voted for the IWR expecting Bush to allow the uN to continue inspections!

when he made it. That was one of those bits of evidence that Obama stands out in comparison to many other polls. His reluctance to engage in cheap rhetoric is a strength. He has engaged in some of the usual cheap rhetoric, since the campaign began in earnest but it is obviously not his style. This remark he made about how he would or wouldnt have voted was an unuually candid statement from a politician.

His supporters act as if he actually voted against the it, when he wasn't even in a position to do so, and he admits he doesn't know how he would have voted in that situation. His supporters need to understand this.

more assertive about the fact that he is on record as opposing the IWR. I dont think he wanted to make that a big deal about that , but he gets attacked for lack of experience and this is a tool he has for self-defense. I love the way he shut Edwards up at the first NH debate. Edwards came out swinging trying to score cheap points about Obama and Hillary not being vocal enough about opposing the president on Iraq. Obama just laid into him with this point - since Edwards was a cosponsor of the IWR he came of as silly trying to accuse Obama of not being anti-war enough.

:rofl:

Obama was right about the war from the beginning. Saying we can't prove it because he wasn't a Senator at the time is like telling us he never made a great speech in public in 2002 outlining exactly why this was a nightmare-in-the-making while most of the politicians in our party were cowering before Bush. He made the speech, he was right, deal with it.

Vile names are inexcusable, especially that one in reference to a woman.

Nobody is making this race about Bill. When she campaigns on his legacy, however, comments about the past that you don't find agreeable will inevitably be made. She brings up Bill more than anyone else.

I haven't done any of the above, except for agreeing with him that he did not vote for the war. He didn't. No mater how you choose to frame it, he did not vote to send us into this war. I will vote for him, because he makes me believe that there is hope for a future and because I am sick and tired of the mistakes of the past and present.

Oh yeah, VOTING FOR THE IWR.

And let me reiterate that this was in 2002, when it was a lot less politically expedient to speak out against the BushCo agenda.

Here is the text of that speech:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

I'm not necessarily supporting Obama (although I would choose him over Hillary any day of the week). But I think that speech gives a pretty good indication of where Obama stood on the war, even before it was popular.

Because he has consistently opposed the war and he isn't a corporate whore. Peace:hi: Gotta love those consistent candidates.

so the Left prefers a Republican in the WH. Thanks for your input.

That lead you to the most bizarre conclusions. But hey, aren't you a mighty fine spokesperson for your candidate:eyes: Way to win friends and influence people. I just love the dismissive, holier than thou attitude you and other Hillary supporters take around here.

I was talking about your earlier, arrogant post. Geez, disconnect often?

better?

Much.

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

An excerpt from remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama against going to war with Iraq, 10/2/2002:

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Then the Obama people will know how the Hillary people feel.

We need to stay above the fray or else we loose sight of our real goals....defeating the GOP.