Pure Facts On Obama's Iraq War Record

The Obama campaign is truly stooping to new lows.  Now, the Obama campaign, through surrogate Dick Durbin, is claiming that Hillary Clinton's remarks on Obama's record concerning the Iraq War are somehow just like the Swift Boat ads run against John Kerry.  Here's a reality check, the Swift Boat ads against Sen. Kerry were completely untrue and there was nothing to back up the claims made in them.  On the contrary, the contrasts Sen. Clinton has been making on Sen. Obama's position are 100% true and the evidence to back them up is as follows.

1) In 2004, Barack Obama clearly said that he does not know how he would have voted---yes or no---had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote:

"When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ " (New York Times, 7/26/04)

2) Obama also said that there was not much difference between his position and George Bush's in 2004:

“On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” (Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04)

3) Until Obama began his Presidential campaign, Obama voted for every single war funding bill, even though, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he would not vote for a single one.

4) Obama waited a year and half once he got in the Senate to give a speech on Iraq, and ironically enough, it was one where he opposed a time table for withdrawal:

"I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them." (Obama Speech, 6/21/06)

5) Obama has based his entire campaign on the premise that he was always opposed to the war and that his opposition the last 5 years has been much different than that of Sen. Clinton.  But, again, the fact is that once he got in the Senate, he voted the exact same way Sen. Clinton did:

"In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against." (ABC News, 5/17/07)

My Take: Sen. Obama is being clearly disingenuous when describing his position.  No one is claiming that this speech in the Illinois State Senate in 2002 wasn't in opposition to the war.  But the fact is, that was a speech.  When Obama had the chance to turn rhetoric into reality and talk into action, when he arrived in the Senate, he failed to do so.  This further illustrates the point that I have consistently made against Obama.  He always talks a good talk, but has failed to back his talk up with action. It's great that Obama opposed the war in 2002, but in 2004 he clearly had a different sentiment.  And in 2005, when he was elected to the Senate, Obama did nothing to change course in this war.  It is simply wrong for Obama to base his campaign on the fallacy that he was always different from Sen. Clinton concerning the Iraq War.  The facts prove otherwise.  

Dems Worst Nightmare: An Obama-McCain Race

As both the Democrats and Republicans edge ever so slightly to choosing their respective nominees, I have often speculated and analyzed, perhaps overly so, the most likely match-ups come the November general election.  

As far as things go on the GOP side, I see either Huckabee or McCain getting the nomination, which of course makes my prediction a few months ago, that Romney would be the nominee, completely wrong.  Truly, what a difference a month and a half can make----we saw the meteoric rise of Huckabee and the comeback of McCain.  We also saw the fall of Romney and Giuliani.  So, out of Huckabee and McCain, who will get the nomination?  My guess is McCain.  He looks poised to either win or do extremely well in Michigan, which he did win in 2000.  If that happens, the only real place I could see McCain being stopped is South Carolina, whose evangelical population could give Huckabee a huge win.  But even then, it's still a McCain race to lose, and in the end, I strongly believe he will be the Republican nominee.

Now, as far as the Democrats go, I have no idea.  It's clearly a 2 person race, and, at this point, I say both Clinton and Obama have a 50-50 shot at the nomination.  I could see either a Clinton or Obama win Nevada, with Obama more than likely capitalizing over his racialization of this campaign to pick up a win in South Carolina, where half the voters are African Americans.  And when you go to Super Tuesday, again, all bets are off.  Clinton looks poised to win the delegate-rich northeastern states, while Obama is looking very good in the South.  The tipping point could be California, which, by my sense, is leaning towards Clinton, but not by much.  It could very well be the determining state in this race for the Democrats.

So while I'm analyzing the potential match-ups for the general, I see Clinton and Obama being able to best just about any Republican, except McCain, where I see a huge problem for Obama.  As the latest CNN polls, just out yesterday, show, both Clinton and Obama would beat all the Republicans, with the exception of McCain, by about the same margin and by double digits.  McCain, however, is a complete different story.  Clinton beats McCain by just 2%, while Obama is statistically tied with a 1% lead.    

What's even more indicative of the troubles of a McCain candidacy for the Democrats, particularly for Obama, is evident when you take a look at the latest polling from key swing states----Ohio and Florida.  The latest Survey USA poll from Ohio has Clinton and McCain tied.  That same poll, however, shows McCain beating Obama by a large margin---47% to Obama's 38%.  In Florida, the latest Quinnipiac poll has Clinton defeating McCain by 3%, while Obama is tied with McCain.  That trend is also echoed in other states, where in fact, Clinton always outperforms Obama when matched up with McCain, although she may not when matched up with any other Republican.

The reasoning behind Clinton's edge over Obama when competing against McCain?  It's the one word Obama wants you to be scared about----experience.  Although we hear little about it in the primary campaigns, foreign policy and national security will be one of, if not the, top issue come the general election.  And when people go to the voting booths voting for a President, they want one that will make them feel safe.  Obama simply can not match up to McCain on matters of national security and foreign policy.  Regardless of whether McCain is right or wrong, the narrative going into next November will be that if you want a President who can keep you safe, choose McCain, he has the experience.  Now, again, I'm not saying it is right, but we all know that it will, without a doubt happen.  Obama's experience will be called into severe question and that, I promise, will hurt his chances with moderates and Republicans, who want a change in direction, but also want to feel safe with a candidate of experience.

Clinton, on the other hand, is the only Democrat left in the race who could stand up to McCain and say, "You may have experience, but I have that too".  When people are asked in general election polls who they trust most on foreign policy and national security, Clinton always tops Obama by a hefty margin.  Clinton can stand up to the GOP and actually counter their arguments about experience; she has experience too. 

And, god forbid, there is another terrorist attack, either here or in Europe, between now and November, the Republicans will seize that opportunity to paint Obama as inexperienced and unqualified for the job of Commander-In-Chief.  If that were to happen and Obama was the Democratic nominee, I can assure you that the Democrats will lose again if McCain is our opponent.  Clinton, in contrast, would be able to stand up and make the argument that she has just as much experience as McCain.  The country wouldn't be scared into voting Republican because the Democrat would be just as experienced.  The GOP's argument just wouldn't work against Clinton.  

So while I am fairly confident that Obama can defeat Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, etc., I am confident that he would suffer a devastating defeat going up against McCain.  Indeed, if McCain is the GOP nominee, Clinton is the Democrat's best bet.  

Pollsters, Journalists, and Pundits...Oh My!

Pollsters in the past have generally been accurate in their political forecasts, so what happened in the New Hampshire Primary this past Tuesday?  The New York Times reported many pollsters and news organizations plunged into a post-mortem of how they did not see what was coming.

 

What happened was very simple.  The pollsters, journalists, and pundits were pushing Obama, especially after the Iowa caucuses.  Obama was their candidate and they went to great length to talk him up and great length to knock Clinton down.  The polls just prior to the New Hampshire primary showed Obama with a lead, a sure indication that something was wrong and the pollsters knew it but the game was on for Obama.  T.V. journalists were the worst.  Obama received most of their air time and then used their programs to knock Clinton.  The worst was Chris Matthews of MSNBC.  He attacked Clinton daily because she was campaigning and would not come on his show.  He really showed his ass.  The big baby could not get his way so he tried to get even.

 

CNN, on the night of the returns, had William Bennett and Ralph Reed on to offer commentary.  Those two neocons represent the worst in politics, but there they were for all Americans to see.  CNN has no shame.  That shows just how far T.V. will go to try and intimidate the people.  T.V. journalists represent the worse when it comes to broadcasting the facts.  They are the same ones who promoted the Iraq War  and the WMD that we now know did not exist.  And they were the ones hyping war with Iran until the recent NIE report came.

 

The best thing for people to do is tune the cable news networks out and just watch the 30 minute evening news of ABC, CBS ,and NBC.  Shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation are copying off the cable news networks and are also pushing their favorite candidates.  Their questions tell the real story. 

 

Many pollsters and journalists undermine America and its people with their outright lies.  Once they pick out their favorite, they gear their questions to flatter that person.  They really are a sad bunch.  They remind me a lot of Bush---they have no character or ethics, and they are determined to continue to mislead the people and the country.