A little more than a fib. Obama's repeated this in the last debate with Hillary, and it's on the website we're constantly told to go look at as well. In fact, Obama declared for the Senate in January, 2003, as screen dumps from his Illinois Senate site show, via the wayback machine.
This timeline is important, because by fudging the dates, Obama makes it look like the stakes in his October 2002 Iraq speech are a lot higher than the actually were. In fact, the press release announcing his candicacy for the U.S. Senate doesn't even mention Iraq, suggesting that for Obama, the 2002 has a lot more importance retrospectively than it did at the time.
Posted by lambert_strether at March 1, 2008 11:31 AMLambert,
You're right - it is part of the elaborately constructed myth about his Great Leadership on the Iraq war. He was running in an anti-war district for his State Senate seat.
Posted by eriposte at March 1, 2008 12:17 PMAnd he was running unopposed. No Republican challenger.
Posted by w2 at March 1, 2008 12:32 PMwhat a hypocrite!
Posted by hells kitchen at March 1, 2008 01:27 PMLeadership...exactly! That's what I see is missing from him. I read and see supporters state how he's a breath of of fresh air, he's charismatic (he is imo), he's able to inspire others (looks to be true based on how well he's doing in the primary and how he's close to the nomination all something that I give him credit for ). I hear how he's the best hope for change...and how judgement trumps experience (because he argued against going to war in that one speech) yet I don't see him LEADING on the things and issues he's most proud of using his sound judgement on. I am all for change, but please, SEnator Obama show me some leadership and lead the change now...don't just call for it, just do it! Just do it!
Posted by emal at March 1, 2008 02:37 PMAs opposed to the anti-NAFTA, anti-Iraq candidate, Hillary Clinton?
Hey, folks, one of these two is going to be your Democratic candidate, and the odds are that it is going to be Obama. What candidate isn't a hypocrite? I haven't met him/her. The human condition makes us all hypocrites if we look hard enough.
You don't like Obama? Do you like him less than McCain? Because that will soon be your choice.
eriposte is the Clinton defender/Obama attacker here so I understand his unhappiness, but the race is just about over. In January I thought that Clinton would win, but whatever her merits she's run a terrible campaign. No good will come from Clinton dragging this out much longer. She can't win the nomination without a fight over Michigan and Florida and some ugly wrestling for super and pledged delegates. And as ugly as it would be, there is still no guarantee that she would come close to winning.
She is not going to be the Democratic candidate for 2008 without a bloodbath, and that will lose the general election.
It's over.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 1, 2008 02:39 PMWas Obama ethically required to give the same Iraq speech again 2 months later after he formally announced? Because clearly the Illinoians had NO IDEA what his position on Iraq was when he announced for US senate, right? Is the idea that he didn't "really" have a position on Iraq in Jan 2003? LOL.
It's comic that you think this is a serious "distinction", and a sign of intellectual dishonesty on your part, but you guys run with it! Email Team Clinton to get a huge TV ad out on it: "Obama gave anti-Iraq invasion speech 2 months before announcing for senate, then said he was against the war "while running" for senate!! The lying hypocrite!"
Can't miss. And an utterly crucial character flaw. Still planning on voting for the anti-war-lying Obama if he's the nominee, guys?
Posted by euzoius at March 1, 2008 02:41 PMBarack Obama is a presidental candidate entirely as a result of two speeches--his address at the Democratic convention in 2004 and his antiwar speech in 2002. I don't have anything against the guy, but someone with these credentials won't beat John McCain. His swooning fans only make him look like more of a lightweight.
Posted by cygnus at March 1, 2008 03:27 PM"swooning fans"
Who do you have in mind?
Was my post above an example of a "swooning" Obaman? How, exactly?
Posted by euzoius at March 1, 2008 03:36 PMNot at all. I just mean that if his media identity is that he's some sort of political Hannah Montana, it won't sereve him well in the general election. He needs to dial it back, but that won't be easy. What else does he have?
Posted by cygnus at March 1, 2008 03:49 PMIf Hillary had made that "fib", we'd never hear the end of it.
I had to come to this site to even find out about it. They sure aren't covering it on MSNBC.
Posted by Moon at March 1, 2008 04:25 PM"they sure aren't covering it on MSNBC"
Well, it also could be that it's too pedantic, lame, unpersuasive and foolish for even MSNBC to "cover" it, Moon.
And that's sayin' something.....
Posted by euzoius at March 1, 2008 06:01 PMThe only problem(s) with Hillary is her honesty. She won't tell us where she got her 5 million dollar loan or show us her income taxes. She wants re-neg on her deal not to count Michigan and Florida.
Posted by a4L at March 1, 2008 07:07 PMWhat is it with the OBSESSION with Hillary Clinton and her taxes? It's a joint return, she's not obligated to release it at all. As for Florida and Michigan, Democrats are hitting the pipe if they think that not finding a way to seat those states at the convention is going to help ANY democrat in the general election. Especially with the swing nature of Florida.
As for Obama, I also recently saw the press conference with him in 2004 where he said he wasn't running for president in 2008 bc he didn't have enough experience for the office and would have to start running for president as soon as he joined the senate, and that he needed time to learn more about how things worked. Funny, huh?
Posted by kacey at March 1, 2008 07:36 PMYou guys don't get it, do you? It isn't the number of anti-war speeches he gave. It's Hillary's vote. It was awful. So were the votes of 22 other Democratic senators. They let us all down that day.
Ret. General William S. Odom called the Iraq war the single worst strategic mistake in U.S. history. That's pretty bad. Strong language, eh? And yet, we are supposed to ignore this in evaluating the ability of a presidential candidate to make the right decision at 3am?
Posted by Dumbo at March 1, 2008 08:21 PMYeah, that Hope, Unity and Optimism stuff is really a drag. Let's go back to old school cynical politics, with Democratic campaigns run by all the usual DLC stiffs. Forget about the massive numbers of newly registered voters, and all those youngsters and African-Americans who are excited about the political process. Let's chuck that crap and re-run the '90's and get us some more of them NAFTA deals and some of that good old-fashioned triangulatin'. Maybe if everything goes right we can bring Joe Liebermann back into our camp. Yippee !!
SNL did another well deserved hit piece on the MSNBS debate followed by an editorial response by the real Hillary live in the studio with Amy who plays her.
It was hilarious, and Hillary performed flawlessly.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 1, 2008 10:47 PMI'm tired of his lies. But it's good in a sense that the more he keep lying about, the higher the probability that people will spot his lies.
Posted by joeysky at March 1, 2008 11:22 PMI have no problem with Barack Obama running for President. If you want to, and have the money, go for it.
My problem with Barack Obama is that he is not what he projects to be. He is not progressive. He is not forthright about his frequent inability to get things done, and to cave in to special interests.
Read this:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
He is in actually "Republican lite." And not a True Authentic Democrat (IMHO)
If he ran on the Republican ticket, then everything would be clear.
But he isn't. A Republican running on the Democratic ticket. How very grand....
I don't want to have a choice of between "McOld" and "McOld Lite"...that's not a choice.
The Times over in the UK are reporting apparent rumors Obama is considering getting a Republican Vice Presidential nominee to run with him.
Read it here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece
I will provide some excerpts here:
"Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet
....Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.
Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.
Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.
...."
My question is this: Why is it that media outside of the US is reporting this, and they're not reporting this inside the US?
Think on that.
I will not accept manufactured consent.
Read Noam Chomsky.
Hillary tax returns are about transparency, here is where I got my loan for my campaign. Just straight forward talk to us Democrats, nothing more or less.
She can appear on SNL, but can't be honest with the electorate. As for Florida and Michigan, she gave her word, unless Hillary word can't be relied upon then where does that put us.
Posted by a4L at March 2, 2008 08:14 AMI'm just throwing this out there because this charge doesn't really warrant much of a response.
Candidates tend to start running long before they make it official. I'm thinking about how coy Hillary was for so long knowing damn well she would run for Prez. This is SOP.
The charges you guys are leveling against Obama on this site lately are really lame. YOu are really grasping at straws. I'm getting that sense of fabricated outrage I get from Republicans.
Posted by midwestdem at March 2, 2008 08:48 AMOH MY GOD! Obama might consider naming a Republican to his Cabinet!!! Jeebus, can you name a recent president who didn't have a member of the opposing party in his Cabinet?
Posted by gay veteran at March 2, 2008 09:22 AMVeteran,
I posted the information because it is not being reported over here.
And don't you think it's a bit premature of Obama to start talking about to foreign reporters (or any reporters for that matter) about whom he is going to be putting into cabinet positions?
Or even that he is going to put a Rethuglican in as Vice President?
Don't you think that is bit premature?
He hasn't won the right yet to start talking like that. Espcecially since he isn't at the Democratic Convention (many months hence) accepting the Standard Bearer-ship.
Not yet, Obama-anians. Not yet.
Don't manufacture consent. I will not accept that.
Let all the primaries run their course.
Posted by Troubled American at March 2, 2008 09:50 AMThe charges you guys are leveling against Obama on this site lately are really lame. YOu are really grasping at straws. I'm getting that sense of fabricated outrage I get from Republicans.
Sounds like a bit of Obama rulz going on here...with your own typical republican attitude of rebuffing/belittling of the facts presented here by demeaning those who think that they are noteworthy and important enough to know about Senator Obama before one casts a vote for him.
I'm not sure if it is a denial of reality/facts going on here between your preconceived perceptions of your candidate and what your candidate may really be... Which imo is just another triangulating centrist democratic politician pretending to be otherwise? I dunno, but at least I'm aware of this before the election. Should he win the nomination (which looks very likely) and win the general election... Will he turn out to be similar to the 2006 Democratic congressional congress...one in which I had great hopes for bringing about change versus what the reality turned out to be...just mots and a great great disappointment to me. Sorry for the cynicism and downer attitude but I've seen what centrism/bipartisanship means when dealing with republicans...and it isn't my cup of tea and certainly hasn't helped this country or this middle class american family in. the. least...Somehow believing that things will be different this time even though we've tried and done it this way before sounds like a definition of insanity....well let just say I just hope I'm proven wrong this time.
Posted by emal at March 2, 2008 12:26 PMWho denied the fact of the "fib"?
I simply said that to consider it somehow meaningful is pedantic and foolish. I thought that throwing out meaningless facts as spin was a Repub trait. I do consider intellectual dishonesty (which is what this "fib" nonsense is) to be a Repub trait, however.
We had a candidate speaking very progressive language. He got 15% the Dem vote and withdrew before Super Tuesday. And this after 8 years of corrosive Bushism.
So America can't think straight, frankly, and our system is for all intents and purposes broken and can't be fixed. Deal.
Now, why do you suppose that the most progressive members of the senate are endorsing Obama? Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, Dodd, Kerry. And magazines like the Nation? Because (unlike the highly insightful Troubled American) they're too stupid to see that Obama is really a Repub? That he's "McOld-lite"?(!!)
That seems like kind of a ridiculous, baseless conclusion to me, and one that can only be drawn by a Dem who is already adamantly and irreversibly opposed to Obama and who will never vote for him regardless.
There are no guarantees. Hillary is no longer viable and Obama is our best chance to win. Unless he is destroyed by a bitter, drawn out primary-till-the-convention battle, which hands the race to McOld.
Troubled American (or right wing troll), you confuse me with an Obama supporter
Hillary Clinton needs to win Ohio and Texas, BIG, if not then she needs to drop out
Posted by gay veteran at March 2, 2008 05:58 PMIs it permitted to open by confessing what a fan I am of eriposte on the Wilson/Plane/Niger story? Only two bloggers "owned" that story: eriposte & emptywheel at TNH [now fdl]. Thanks e.
Now can I say what a bunch of WANKERS you all are on Obama?
I was very grateful for eriposte's massive post on the Clinton/Edwards/Obama contest oh so long ago - January? My instincts took me to Edwards [well, I know the guy, & the spin that's he's a phoney didn't ever effect those who know him], but I very much respected eriposte many... many... many reasons to prefer to Clinton.
But after JE departed & I started into at least the formalistics of "choosing", blogs like this eriposte's got me onto two pieces:
Obama's Oct 2002 speech against the war - which turned out to be sheer frickin' poetry - I don't care how yoe vote Google it & read it out loud - it's right up there with the all-timers - ooo... -
and the David Remnick [New Yorker] interview in 2006, in relation to which some downstream sucker blog [Corrente?] was moved to call BHO as "liar".
Look - I don't give a tinker's damn what you call him - go to New Yorker run the audio & download the text - this guy was un-frickin-believablly good - as in I WISH Friend Fiengold had this guy's gift.
Far from selling me on his being a liar, I get it now,... and sorry reverred eriposte - Oprah nailed it: He is the One.
Posted by LabDancer at March 2, 2008 11:17 PMG Vet,
I am not a troll. Far from that. But I will stand up against the Obama Noise Machine. The Republican Obama Noise Machine.
Last night, on 60 minutes, Steve Kroft asked Hillary what will happen if she didn't take both Texas and Ohio. She replied that she would stay in.
Good for her.
She also said that Bill didn't lock up the nomination "until June". Basically saying that the nomination trail isn't over until they get to the convention. AND...she's been down this road before.
There's an old saying "Fortune smiles upon the brave." And it also smiles on those that have some intestinal fortitude.
Hillary Clinton has both.
So you Obama-anians trying to manufacture consent. Not going to happen.
She should fight. All the way.
A lot of you don't like that. Tough Squat, Buckos.
It's time for you people that have "woman problem issues" to do a gut check.
My question: If Hillary does stay in all the way to the convention, and she wins there, will you
Obama-anians vote for her in the November elections?
Will you?
Or will you stay home?
Posted by Troubled American at March 3, 2008 06:18 AMWhy do you link anything said at TalkLeft seriously?
Between BTD and Jeralyn, they must delete over 100 comments a day, most of which are not in the least inappropriate.
It's up to you, but one of the bottom line markers for whether I should listen to, and honor a site, comes from whether or not said site honors free speech.
TalkLeft, simply does not. I'ts like RedState, always deleting comments, threatening banning.
Posted by JC at March 3, 2008 12:27 PM