Democratic Presidential contender, Barack Obama, is at it again. And by "it", I mean he is attacking Hillary for something he didn't even take a stand on. First he attacked her for voting for the Iraq War, yet he wasn't even in the Senate then, so who knows how he would have voted. And to add to Obama's inconsistency on attacking Hillary on that issue, he continued to fund the war and go along with Bush when he was elected to the Senate. And to top it all off, it was Hillary, not Obama, who exhibited leadership when she asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
6 comments :
One of my problems with Hillary is that you don't really know where she stands. Her opinions seem to be poll driven. After criticizing Obama for saying he'd talk with Iranian leaders with no holds barred, Hillary has now taken the same stance.
~
AP "During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive.
But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran 'with no conditions.'"
^I too had heard that from the AP, but as it turns out they were actually wrong.
Here is the correction:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/associated_pres_8.php
Basically it says she did not say what AP is saying:
"Hillary is saying here that her administration would negotiate with Iran the country unconditionally -- something she's said in various forms repeatedly in the past. She is not saying -- as Barack Obama did -- that she'd personally meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Their dispute centered around whether to engage in unconditional personal diplomacy. Whichever side you take, and whatever you think of this distinction, there's just no meaningful flip-flop here."
How exactly do you meet with a "Country unconditionally" but not that country's leaders? Exactly WHO would she be meeting with? That's like Iran saying that they will meet with US unconditionally but NOT our government's leaders? If that's Hillary's explanation, it's going to be a hard one to sell to the majority of the electorate. Don't think that I'm coming down especially hard on Hillary because of her front-runner status because when the general election comes, I don't think the independents and undecideds are going to buy that explanation and they're the ones who decide the elections in November.
^If you listen to the question posed to Hillary at the event, the question was about her administration, not herself personally. She answered the question with saying yes, but the question wasn't about her, it was about her administration. So I assume she meant people like the Secretary of State, etc. And that explanation is not actually from the Hillary campaign, its from Fox News, who for once actually did some good by playing back the question then the answer.
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to... It's all about semantics and when you have to get into technical terms, you lose most of the voters, who now think you're crawfishing.
^I get what you're saying, but as honest people, shouldn't we stand up and tell the AP:"wait, you took Hillary out of context." Isn't it our duty as Americans to search for the truth and not just eat everything we're fed by the media?
Post a Comment