i'm confused, how did obama....

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
i'm confused, how did obama....
242
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 9:43pm
6 years ago oppose the war in iraq? was he in senate then?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 12:35am
I"ll let you argue with the facts. See above.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 12:35am
Glad to oblige...see above.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 12:44am

Considering Obama's waffling, his penchant for adopting positions by consensus and the fact that he's voted along party lines 97% of the time, it seems extremely unlikely that Obama would have gone against the Democrat leadership and voted against the war.


"It seems" may have, could be, should, would could - AND, yet, we'll never know, will we.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2003
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 12:48am
Did you happen to catch the first few minutes of the debate? Jim Lehrer(?sp) kept telling them to speak to each other, that it was ok to interrupt each other.

 Rose

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2003
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 12:51am
Geez! Give it a rest!!!

 Rose

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2003
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 12:54am
Obama was not "forced" to give an anti-war speech. He has never waffled on his anti-war position.

 Rose

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 1:15am

Obama was trying to please Bettylu Saltzman, a very powerful, very wealthy, liberal philanthropist from Chicago. She was conducting an anti-war rally and pressed Obama to make an anti-war speech. Obama, who was hoping to run for the Senate, wasn't about to piss off a potentially powerful supporter.

Excerpt of an interview with Sugar Rautbord, a wealthy Chicago socalite, fund raiser and Obama supporter...

O'REILLY: All right. Let's go to Bettylu Saltzman. Bettylu Saltzman, big Chicago doyenne, correct?

RAUTBORD: Big Chicago doyenne. The daughter of Philip Klutznik, who was the secretary of Commerce, who was a major developer. And Bettylu, as we used to call them in my own Sarah Lawrence days, liberal — limousine liberals. Now we call them Lakeshore — after Lakeshore Drive — liberals.

O'REILLY: OK. She's loaded. And now, Bettylu Saltzman, I understand, was the one who said to Barack Obama, "You better — you better oppose the Iraq war. You better come out and say you're against it," and this was way back in 2002. Is that correct?

RAUTBORD: In October 2002, Betty was — Bettylu was the organizer for the anti-Iraq war that took place at Daley Federal Plaza, at which Obama made an important speech.

O'REILLY: Yes, and she said to him — he didn't want to — he was going, "I don't know whether I should do this." She said, "You'd better do it." And that's what I understand happened there.

RAUTBORD: That's true. And by a lot of the things — and I don't think a lot of people know this — Obama does a lot by consensus. He listens very closely to this circle of people that you mentioned.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html (see video section: Politics: Chicago

In his biography of Obama, David Mendell, noting that Obama’s speech occurred a few months before the official declaration of his U.S. Senate candidacy, suggests that the decision to publicly oppose the war in Iraq was a calculated political move intended to win favor with Saltzman. The suggestion seems dubious; the politics were more in the framing of his opposition, not the decision itself. As Saltzman told me, “He was a Hyde Park state senator. He had to oppose the war!”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 2:03am
The issue was speeches (plural) where Obama was against the war in 2002-3.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sat, 09-27-2008 - 2:46am

>>> "It seems" may have, could be, should, would could - AND, yet, we'll never know, will we. But we do know that McCain DID, don't we?

Yes...Obama made one anti-war speech at an anti-war rally, apparently at the behest of a powerful supporter, and has ridden that one trick pony right into the Presidential election.

>>> And we know that McCain has the backing of Bush, and we know that McCain voted in favor of whatever Bush wanted 90% of the time. Bad, bad judgment on many, many things, most especially any economic issues, that have come back and bitten him in the butt.

It's hardly a condemnation of McCain that he voted with his party 90% of the time. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time, so it seems that McCain is 7% more "maverick" than Obama, the most liberal Senator in Congress, could hope to be. Obama also voted with Bush nearly 50% of the time, so that kind of throws a wrench into the machine.

>>> McCain is worrying about 18 billion in earmarks and wants to give big corporations - you know like the guys who have put us in the mess we're in now - 300 billion in tax breaks. Obama said repeatedly that 95% of working familes would get tax breaks and he would push for "incentives" meaning tax breaks to big corporations who stayed here in the U.S. of A. Whose plan makes more sense.

I don't know why the left likes to demonize the people who give you jobs, (generally speaking) provide health insurance, and provide the goods and services your family lives on. As McCain said, why would a company choose to stay in the US when they get treated better elsewhere? Obama wants to tax them to death and then the left whines when the company leaves.

>>> McCain's: 300 billion to big corps?

Unlike Obama, McCain is not giving money to anyone.

>>> Obama's: Tax break to 95% of working familes.

That's a fallacy. The top 5% of Americans include people making $150K...quite a drop from Obama's claims of only taxing the "rich" who make over $250K. And in many parts of the country, $150-$250K is very "middle class." Also, 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes. In order for them to participate in Obama's largess the government will have to actually PAY 40% of Americans $600...roughly $80+ Billion dollars...where do you think this money is coming from? And when you actually look at the amount of money that "95% of Americans" will really get from this "tax cut," it's between $400-$600 dollars...which is not a check for $400-$600 check that you can spend, but a tax SAVINGS, giving 55% of Americans an extra $30-$50 a month...WHOOPEE! LET'S GO ON VACATION!

>>> Do you own any big corporations or are you one of those "working families"?

I'm a "working family" that lives paycheck to paycheck that's going to have my taxes raised if Obama gets elected.

Pages