Obama proved in the first half of MTP that Kucinich is the only true anti-war candidate

I'm a fan of Obama's and I still think he'd make a fine president, but in the first half of MTP, Russert has caught Barack in numerous inconsistencies about his positions on Iraq. Obama isn't much more anti-war than Clinton, Edwards, or Biden. Russert pointed out on several occasions that Obama was way more hawkish on past occasions than what he would like people to think.

I think Obama or Hillary would still make good presidents if elected. Both would try diplomacy first, but would be tough if our country needed them to be. However, the difference for me as far as my vote in the primaries is that Kucinich is the only one who doesn't try to have it both ways for political purposes, and he is the only one with the guts to move for impeachment, an issue that is a top priority for me. Unless some drastic change occurs between now and then, Dennis will have my Primary vote because he's the only real anti-war candidate and the only one willing to bring the scoundrels in the WH to justice. The rest of them without exception are talking out of both corners of their mouths, even though I'll support whichever one of them makes it through the primaries.

That being said , his positions are virtually indistinguishable from those of Hillary Clinton...I am sure Senator Clinton's detractors on this board, of which there are many, would violently disagree...

was the fact that he really couldn't justify his attacks on Clinton based on his own past statements...either on Iran or SS or lobbyists. At least that's how it seemed to me.

Russert was no where near as aggressive with Obama as he was with Clinton. Dang, that was amazing. A shame to, because he did not have to account for the statements he made.

I think the interview demonstrated that his policies are virtually indistinguishable from Senator Clinton and his highlighting of differences that just aren't there are mere "politicking"...

Where's the big difference on


Iraq?

Iran?

Social Security?

in severe inconsistencies. Everytime that Russert would quote Obama "then" and Obama "now", there would be gross differences in what Obama is trying to lead people to think about his anti-war stances, and while Obama was smooth in his responses, Russert proved that Obama was not nearly the dove in years past that he tries to get everyone to think he is. Obama needs to cut out the nonsense that from the start he was the only candidate completely against the war because it just isn't true, and he needs to cut it out that he remains completely against the war because he continues to vote for funding it.

questions for fear of Republicans using the answers against her, he admitted that he lied about his stance on the war in 2004 because of the stance of the two democratic candidates.

For him to say he only wanted to sound hawkish because the candidates he was speaking on behalf of, Kerry and Edwards, were hawkish was bizarre to say the least. Bigtime mistake on Obama's part to be saying that now.

of candidacy.

That's one reason why Obama has never been on my short list of potential candidates.

Obama didn't put us in Iraq in the first place. That matters.

Gobama.

Obama also wasn't able to vote whether or not to do so at that time. There are more than a few people who think that Obama would have voted "aye" for the IWR, along with Biden, Clinton, and Edwards at that time if he were able to vote back then. Russert made it clear from past quotes that Obama had plenty of hawkish rhetoric back then than what he likes people today to realize. If he is the only major anti-war candidate then why does he continue to vote to fund the war?

I believe Obama because he is believable; I can't say the same for his detractors. And regardless of your partisan interpretation of Obama, the fact remains as president he will be cleaning up somebody else's mess. Rhetoric didn't start the war, the abdication of Congress' war-declaring powers to an idiot did.