Obama's always fought the Iraq War, poverty and lobbyists. Isn't that what Edwards supporters want?

Don't get me wrong: I am shamelessly advocating Obama, and I will ask for your vote.
Still, I believe that this should be a point of principle for Edwards voters,
because these are the hallmark issues of the Edwards campaign.

And Hillary Clinton does not support these issues with the same conviction that Obama does.

Hillary Clinton will keep us in Iraq longer than Obama, and she voted to begin the war.

Not so with Obama:

“When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

— Barack Obama, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/


Hillary Clinton takes corporate lobbyist money. Not so with Obama, and you can check
www.opensecrets.org for details.

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/


Hillary Clinton has fought poverty in some meaningful ways, but it is not her life's work.
Obama has been fighting poverty as a community activist since 1983: it is his life's work.

“I'm in this race for the same reason that I fought for jobs for the jobless and hope for the hopeless on the streets of Chicago; for the same reason I fought for justice and equality as a civil rights lawyer; for the same reason that I fought for Illinois families for over a decade… That's why I'm running, Democrats — to keep the American Dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity, who still thirst for equality.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/


Aren't these issues what John Edwards' campaign were all about?

he didn't vote for the IWR because he was not in the Senate and did not have the opportunity
therefore I'm not giving him credit for that because:

1.) I believe to the bottom of my soul that many of the Dems who voted for IWR did so because they had political ambitions and their advisers told them to - Kerry, Clinton and Edwards prime examples of this. I believe if Obama had been in the Senate he would have done the same damn thing.

2.) I believe this because Senator Obama didn't have the balls to vote one way or the other on the Kyl LIEberman Iran thing

and

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/

3 ) "Then there is the Iraq War. Obama says that during his 2004 election campaign he “loudly and vigorously” opposed the war. As The New Yorker noted, “many had been drawn initially by Obama’s early opposition to the invasion.” But “when his speech at the antiwar rally in 2002 was quietly removed from his campaign Web site,” the magazine reported, “activists found that to be an ominous sign”–one that foreshadowed Obama’s first months in the Senate. Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq, displaying a noticeable deference to Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy elite, which had pushed the war. One of Obama’s first votes as a senator was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-debunked propaganda about Iraq’s WMD"

you:

1.) I believe to the bottom of my soul that many of the Dems who voted for IWR did so because they had political ambitions and their advisers told them to - Kerry, Clinton and Edwards prime examples of this. I believe if Obama had been in the Senate he would have done the same damn thing.



Obama:

""I've always been clear and consistent on the notion that we should not get in there, that once we were in there, then we had to make the best of a bad situation,.."

"I am certain that I would have voted to oppose this war,"

source



Hmmmm. I think I'll believe Obama. I have no idea who the hell you are.

I believe you're being a little rude.

Now is a time for clear arguments and honest persuasion.

about why I don't give Obama credit for not voting for IWR snarky

If you are you had better take a freaking step back

there is nothing snarky about it - everything I said was TRUE

Obama did not vote for or against IWR because he was not in the Senate at the time.

and because there were SO many Senators who voted for it who had no freaking reason to except political calculation, and because Obama didn't bother to vote one way or the other on Kyl-LIEberman and because he took his anti-war speech down from his website - I CHOOSE to not give him credit for not voting for the IWR - because in my heart of hearts I believe he would have done the same friggin thing that Kerry did, Clinton did, Edwards did etc etc etc

NOW I DON'T know that for sure and none of us will ever know - but it is my feeling - my choice - I was just stating my opinion on the subject and I don't know why saying that is snarky - believe me if I wanted to be snarky about either Clinton or Obama I sure as hell could be - I have been trying very hard not to - but the truth is I don't like either one of them - and I think that either one of them will lose the general election - and I hope to God I'm wrong about that because I can not take four more years of these ass hole republicans.....and for the record I liked Obama A LOT more before reading many of the posts here at DU so you being snarky to me isn't helping him....

But you're not voting for Ernesto or against him. You're voting on issues of substance.

Right?

I'm not giving him credit for not voting for IWR - you can do whatever the hell you want

and how do you explain his pathetic cowardly not voting one way or the other on Kyl LIEberman Iran amendment - Four Senate Presidential candidates at the time - three of them were able to make a vote - oh I know he can tell us he is certain that he would have voted to oppose Kyl LIEberman - actions speak louder than words - and he showed himself when he didn't bother to vote....

as for:

"I am certain that I would have voted to oppose this war,"

yep like a politician never lied.....

Or is this only a question of faith in the candidate himself?

Do you trust Obama?

I became a Kucinich supporter in 2004 because he was the ONLY candidate then and in 2008 who actually had the opportunity to vote against IWR and did so - others like Dean and Obama claimed they were anti-war - BUT Dennis is the only one I knew for SURE....so for me the top three get NO credit on IWR.

Kucinich was my first choice, Edwards was my second because he at least seemed sincerely sorry for his vote and I loved the things he was saying about the corporations - but I was worried that it might be all talk. Obama was my third choice but I have some concerns about him and Hillary was absolute dead last - and at times I didn't even think I could vote for her in the general election. I really don't trust her

During and after the New Hampshire I grew a bit more supportive of Clinton because the sexist thing was outrageous.

Dodd shot up in my estimation when he stood up against FISA - although I never considered him - but greatly appreciate his efforts there

all this being said I have already voted in a primary and I voted for Edwards - I will vote for either Clinton or Obama in the general period despite my reservations because as much as I don't trust them - I have some hope that at least for some issues important to me they might do the right thing - with the repunks I KNOW THEY WILL DO THE WRONG THING...

Hillary is dedicated to staying longer in Iraq than Obama,
and you've already stated that you don't trust her.

If your major issue is the Iraq war, then you have all the reason in the world to vote Obama.

He's stood on an anti-war platform for so long that it's inconceivable that he would ditch that platform
on entering the White House.

Obama's still against the Iraq war, and Hillary's still on the fence.

Check his website for all the details on his position, but the essentials are all there:
we're getting out. Obama's been more than a little specific on that point.

Sometimes Edwards supporters have called me on that support, just like Edwards did during the South Carolina debate.
I think it's fair of him to ask questions, but please also listen to the answers Obama gave in the debate.

Obama stands firmly against a continuation of the Iraq war,
and Hillary definitely does not.

are just inconvenient facts then?

Moreover, he stopped funding the war as soon as a majority existed that allowed for such a stance to work.

Once elected to the U.S. Senate, however, his anti-war voice became muted. Obama supported unconditional funding for the Iraq War in both 2005 and 2006. And–despite her false testimonies before Congress and her mismanagement of Iraq policy before, during, and after the U.S. invasion in her role as National Security Advisor–Obama broke with most of his liberal colleagues in the Senate by voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state during his first weeks in office.

Obama didn’t even make a floor speech on the war until a full year after his election. In it, he called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops but no timetable for their withdrawal. In June 2006, he voted against an amendment by Senators Russ Feingold and John Kerry for such a timetable.

In addition, during the 2006 Democratic congressional primaries, he campaigned for pro-war incumbents–including Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman against his eventually victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont–and other conservative Democrats fighting back more progressive anti-war challengers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4299011&mesg_id=4299691

She and Joe Liebermans have much in common.

Obama voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater!!
AP JUNE 2007 - 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. . . "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
Seemed to be a man of the people, but then he's involved in shady real estate deals. Who knows. But then I learn his wife is a director in the Chicago CFR, or whatever they call themselves these days. The CFR is one of the most anti-American groups that exist(Dick Cheney is also a member , as most of them are. Them being crooked politicians who stop at nothing to sell us out).
Then, the kicker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of Barack Obama’s national security advisers! This guy is practically the architect of our middle east mess. Read his book "The Grand Chessboard", he lays out the whole plan right there, AND he wrote it in 1998.
So Obama, who is supposedly anti-war, is aligned with one of the most hawkish guys out there.
()()()()()()()()()()()<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> )()()()()()()()()()

Hillary on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill
by Crystal Pattersonin News5/24/2007 8:54 PMHillary:

"Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress's new strategy and so Congress must reject the President's failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.

While I am deeply disappointed that the supplemental does not provide for a new course in Iraq, I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bill: funding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years. I support these measures but cannot support this Emergency Supplemental which will not change\
our course in Iraq."

<snip>
Obama voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!Which if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Also gave in to pressure from the Bush and lobbyists, Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to Look at today headlines from AP NEW YORK - Crude oil prices soared to $100 a barrel Wednesday for the first time, reaching that milestone amid an unshakeable view that global demand for oil and petroleum products will outstrip supplies.
Obama is lost in the game of politics we cannto afford to let him learn in the White House!

Obama didn't vote to specifically give a dime to Halliburton or Blackwater. The decision to give those two companies any appropriations money was not his in the least.

Please try honesty in your postings in the future. I know that's hard for you, as a Hillarbot, but at least try.

I am posting FACT!

You are implying a LIE with your post, that Obama personally voted to put money in the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater. He did no such thing.

Try for once, HILLARITE, to tell a truth!

You and Obama and his FANS are implying that Hillary "personally" our troops to Iraq !! get real!

Obama was always against the war, and his stance has been continually direct.
He has voted to fund the soldiers in Iraq, but so has Hillary.
Unlike Hillary, Obama did not vote for the war.
Unlike Hillary, Obama spoke out against the war before the war.


Hillary will keep us in Iraq, Obama will take us out.
That's just a fact. Check their issues tabs on their web sites.

If you support Hillary, then support her real position.
Don't dissemble about Obama's position on the Iraq War.

It only makes you look bad.

AFTER he was elected to US Senate??? No Legislation..NO Floor speech sto "DEFUND"!! HE HAS FUNDED AND (yes voted...not a present vote...but )VOTED YES!!! on EVERY WAR funding and supplemental he could get his LYING hands on...WANNA PROVE ME WRONG??...Go to the Library of Congress and check for yourself! VOTESMART.com as well!

That's not what she says she's going to do.

That's also a fact.

You bought the Fairy Tale.

No matter what Obama says.

You don't listen to substance, and so you're not welcome here.

Obama Cult members need intervention.

Admin can identify sockpuppets, jfyi.

And you're not interested in arguing about facts.

So no, you're not welcome here.

"MethuenProgressive...you're not welcome here".:rofl:

Where's the facts to support Hillary's latest lies?

"Where's the facts..." Thanks for the Ebonics lesson.:hi:

:crazy:

You'll like that, won't you Bluebear?

Let me know when he apologizes for his ex-gay concert.

"Another Hillary supporter" my ass.

There is no Homo Central where we get our toasters and marching orders. Hell, it might be better if there was.

A whole lot of us were pro-Edwards and Kucinich.

:spray:

:rofl:

They've realized that all Teh Gay are secret Hillary agent provocateurs. That's because women want Hillary and all gay men are women (well that ain't real men that's fer shur) and all lesbians are women (tho they need to start looking more like women, I tell you what...) and all transgendered people are women (I used to think they was all hookers, until I saw one of them dang hookers on Oprah and she was a nuclear physicist I tell ya, and I woulda never guessed!) And all bisexuals are women because I seen 'em kissing on that Girls Gone Wild show. And everyone knows any man who says he's a bisexual is really a homo--which is to say a woman.

We're also all DLC shills too because we're all RICH WOMEN. And white. Rich white women. That's what we are. Probably racist too. That's all that McClurkin thing was about. Just a bunch of bitter old rich white women.


Portrait of Teh Gay

We disagree.

Obama ran in 2004 on a pro LGBT platform, and he supports civil unions that act like legal marriages.
That would mean that gay couples could more easily adopt children, for instance.

Bluebear thinks that because Obama also accepted this preacher, whoever from Houston,
and his "reformed" gay parishoners, that means he's against the civil rights of the LGBT community.

I disagree, but it's clear from Bluebear's arguments that he will not be swayed from this reasoning.
It struck me as a little wacky, to tell the truth.

What's he afraid of? Obama's not going to bring him off to "But I'm a Cheerleader..." camp.
He's going to restore his basic civil liberties no matter what Bluebear thinks he'll do.

That I believe.
That Bluebear will not believe, and so now it seems that he'll either join the Hillary camp.

Or not vote.

And he supports people who do. And you think that's a "wacky" thing to criticize? Then you're pretty ignorant.

"But I'm a Cheerleader Camps" actually exist. And Obama has people on his team who run them. And they're a lot worse than in the movies.

Okay fine, it's worth criticizing.

All LGBT issues are worth hashing out at great length.

I think that it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to drop Obama on this issue
however. I think that Obama is riding the line on LGBT issues in an attempt to court christian voters.
I also think that he is doing this for the purpose of gaining crucial civil rights
liberties for the LGBT community.

I do think that he's handled it poorly, and I'm glad to hear that he apologized.

By appeasing them, that's how. How else? If he was going to fight them, he'd fight them now.

And no Clinton isn't going to shut down the re-education centers, but at least she doesn't promote them!

Obama chose Kirbyjon Caldwell to speak at an Obama event. The man runs an abusive treatment center for god sake.

And I have NO DOUBT that Obama will increase faith-based funding, which will put tax money in the pockets of these homophobic organizations.

But if you feel that way, I respect your opinion.

I just disagree. Also I disagree with you on the correct way to confront the right and center on LGBT issues.

I think the thing to do first is to change the laws on civil-unions and adoption rights,
which is Obama's stance.

However, I respect your opinion: after all, it's up to you to defend your own rights
in any way you see fit.

I would have to say ast your mouth and arrogance in how you assert your opinions surpasses some of the biggest hitters on this board.

Furthermore he is as pro gay rights as ANY presidential candidate in history. So I take you to be again disingenuous and personal in you attacks unless you can show me someone in this race that stands more for gay rights than him.

The platforms of all the Dem candidates are identical on LGBT issues. It seems more like a joint strategy to shut down the issue so the MSM and the Republicans couldn't use it.

Obama allowed "gays kill children" McClurkin to emcee his event, not just sing. He chose to allow him to emcee AFTER the apology. He also gave a platform to Kirbyjon Caldwell, who runs an ex-gay re-education center. These centers are tantamount to child abuse.

Edwards spoke on transgender health rights. Kucinich is far more pro-gay than Obama. Hillary is six-one-half-dozen or the other.

You're delusional about Obama if you think he's the best candidate on gay rights.

The platforms of all the Dem candidates are identical on LGBT issues. It seems more like a joint strategy to shut down the issue so the MSM and the Republicans couldn't use it.

Obama allowed "gays kill children" McClurkin to emcee his event, not just sing. He chose to allow him to emcee AFTER the apology. He also gave a platform to Kirbyjon Caldwell, who runs an ex-gay re-education center. These centers are tantamount to child abuse.

Edwards spoke on transgender health rights. Kucinich is far more pro-gay than Obama. Hillary is six-one-half-dozen or the other.

You're delusional about Obama if you think he's the best candidate on gay rights.

Please cite where Obama said "I am sorry McClurkin appeared, it was a mistake."

He was begged. BEGGED by GLBT groups not to put McClurkin on. We were told McClurkin would only be "singing a song". It turned out that not only did he "sing a song", he was the host of the event AND he gave a half hour anti-gay sermon. Believe me, the week's events are very clear to me.

PS, the next day, Obama said that there was a controversy "A WHILE BACK" over this incident, another attempt to sweep it under the rug.

especially if he gets the nomination, but he seems so phony to me. I just can't get past it.

I guess I'm too old and jaded. :shrug:

I think that he comes across that way to some people. He struck me as being a little alienating at first,
but the substance of what he's about warms my heart.

For my money, he's no phony.

and connect it to his words, then it all rings true. He passed very unpopular legislation for no other purpose than it was the right thing to do. Death penalty interrogations, racial profiling studies, welfare studies. He expanded welfare in IL and passed a ton of poverty legislation. He introduced a Constitutional Amendment to make Health Care a Right. His record has plenty to love, even if you don't love getting "fired up". :)

Obama is a slacker and is too lazy to vote when called to do so, but he has voted to fund the Iraq war. And he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR.

He's pro-life.

He's not against the war.

He doesn't vote.

They're lies, and she's been busted.

Now she's losing her credibility, and why else would Kennedy endorse her?

Nothing to say to you and your Piehole. He has been more active and more preogressive in 3 years than Clinton in her 35 years. Ask ACLU, NARAL, how lazy Hillary Clinton has been.

(See above)

don't feed me your trollish horseshit about this

He wasn't even a Senator to vote on the IWR and bet you money he would have

he would have wanted to be re-elected and fear reigned supreme at that time

genius.

If you follow your tack, the rightwing will easily pidgeonhole you as "hating the troops" and you know how that works in elections.

Or do you?

asshole

He won't stop being rude, and it has nothing to do with issues.

And so far that is what I'm seeing from the lions share of Hillary's mob here. Innuendo, insinuation, dissemblence and pure horsecrap. That may be alright with you, but its not ok with me.

However, your statements are more powerful when you don't put in the word "horsecrap."

Let the intellectual force of your argument act with the respect you deserve.

Please.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but facts are facts.

nice try though.

:)

Largely because their candidate has already thrown us under the bus, so they realize we're a lost cause. Good god I hope we are a lost cause. If we can't have equality at least let us have our dignity.

And I wouldn't throw any of my gay family or friends under any bus.

What color is the sky in your reality.

Have you even attempted to provide an accurate review of the votes.

BTW, who campaigned for Lieberman for his latest Senate bid?

He supported Lieberman against a Democrat, Lamont.

Actually what it shows is his personal loyalty to Lieberman
for acting as his mentor in 2005.

You're right, it's not party loyalty.
It's personal loyalty.

Catch it!

I'm all for a Democratic win in November--one that will result in accountability--hence the need to secure Congress as well.

Obama may wish to check with his online supporters -- they're not doing him right.

n/t

is speechify.
I've never seen him use his brilliant oratory skills on the floor of the Senate fighting against radical judges, abuses to the Constitution, or anything else near and dear to the progressive heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XLyQNJsCv0


You use transparency at every level of government and use public pressure to shame opponents to vote for what their constituencies want. (See reference to independents and republicans OUTSIDE of Washington.)

I don't need to watch more of it on you tube.

I worked with these guys as well.




Habitat in NOLA was a good program.

What has Edwards done besides talk?

After all, he's been working for low-income communities since 1983.

Isn't that progressive?

But check this link out, if you want to see him using his oratory to fight against radical judge nominations.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070723-obama_statement_77/

He's done that too!

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008.

In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos.

------------


But what is a limited number ?
What kind of forces ?
What kind of situations should US forces engage ?
How long should they be there ?

http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaIsrael_2.htm

That just makes no sense if you want us out of Iraq.

and Hillary does better with working class low-income democrats, the numbers are there to support this

Hillary has not.

more low income, working class voters. Now, if you don't think thta should be the case then maybe there hasn't been fair coverage on Obama's policies in regards to the working class. All I know is that Hillary pulls in more working class dems and thats a group Edwards did very well with, so I can see many of them going to Clinton.

And not just his activism on working-class issues.

Yet I see the Edwards camp swaying towards the Obama camp for a variety of reasons.

your candidate is not getting it. thanks for asking though

Edwards supporters, for the most part, could not tell you any differences of policy.

They just prefer a white candidate, for reasons of electability and in very rare cases, their own personal prejudices.

And I'm afraid that some of them will sacrifice Obama's substance for Hillary's spin.

Based on fears of electability that I believe are the old and dying ideas of a bygone era,

founded in the long worn-out stigma of white ghosts and black shadows,

which may be more real for them than the truth of change.

A heartwarming, inclusive champion of joy and optimism who cynically affirms racist, religious bigotry against a downtrodden minority for tactical gain simply doesn't kindle much affection. What can this person's word be worth?

I don't like Hillary Clinton and can't stand her policies or methods, but she's never done something as ugly as that. You folks fight it out; I'll vote for Edwards this Tuesday and hold my tongue more than usual in interest of solidarity, but this primary season has been a sad display of delusion and cupidity and the next few months will be peppered with instances that should make a sentient being embarrassed and sad.

Anyone who doesn't see that episode as deeply, morally deplorable has problems.