Barack Obama (D-Rezko) is currently running a very big ad campaign on the “internets”, as George Bush calls it. The ads rightfully proclaim WATCH BARACK – Then AND Now. Hillary Clinton supporters agree, let’s watch Barack then and now.

Barack in 2002 said one thing about Iraq when he was running for Senate in a practically opponent-less race (nutjob Alan Keyes who lived in Virginia was the Ripublican) then voted differently than his flowery words when he arrived in the Senate and had to cast actual votes not just hide behind a microphone.

Barack sold himself as a community organizer when running for office but when he was elected by the community his attentions were devoted to the most corrupt elements in Chicago. The community found itself literally in the cold.

Barack in Illinois voted present on pro-choice issues but now sells himself as a pro-choice kind of guy.

Barack, (he thinks he is Hillary now, using only his first name), is also advertising in Iowa and every early primary state. According to TPM, Barack has an ad running in Iowa –

The ad, entitled “Take It Back,” ad uses footage from his declaration speech this past February, in which he told the crowd, “I know that I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know, the ways of Washington must change.” The narrator then talks about Obama’s work on ethics reform, and his refusal of PAC money in his campaign — bolstering his ongoing efforts to make government reform a centerpiece of his campaign.

Here is Barack NOW when running for office, displaying his flowery language once again

Here is Barack THEN running away from the media asking questions about corruption, displaying something else

Which Barack will we see in 2008 when his friend of 17 years, the slumlord and now indicted Antoin “Tony” Rezko, is prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald’s office for corruption in February 2008?


77 thoughts on “WATCH BARACK – Then AND Now

  1. wow,

    Talkingpointsmemo is pointing out the new ad is almost plagarized word by word from a 2004 Edwards campaign.

    LOL. They are fighting for the same pie.

    Obama’s new TV ad in Iowa — which we posted below — offers the following as one of its key lines:

    “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

    That’s a key Obama line. It’s worth noting, though, that John Edwards actually deserves credit for coming up with it. A reader sends in this, from Edwards’ 2004 Presidential campaign announcement speech:

    “I haven’t spent most of my life in politics, which most of you know, but I have spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington.”

    Not a huge deal, obviously, and perhaps the statute of limitations on a sentiment like this has long run out. Still, credit where credit’s due, and all that, particularly since the line’s a good one.

    Update: Also worth noting: David Axelrod was Edwards’ media adviser then, and he’s advising Obama now.

  2. i swear if obama goes even deep in the gutter against hillary the clinton or another camp should run out a ad or keep one for the future of his CLOSE ties to rezko.

  3. For the Admin..

    Could you please post the url to both videos… I’d like to mobilize them.

    thanks in advance..

    Mrs. S

  4. I hope this gets out into the mainstream. Other politicians in the past have caught heck from lifting words from others speeches. This really makes Obama look like a garden variety politician.

  5. This is now on politico site:

    Dept. of Cliches


    “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington, but I’ve been there long enough to know the ways of Washington must change,” Obama said in his announcement speech featured in his new spot today.


    “I haven’t spent most of my life in politics, which most of you know, but I have spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington,” said…John Edwards, in 2003.

    The MyDD diarist who spotted the echo asks: “Is Axelrod dusting off his last campaign?”

    UPDATE: How about that: Greg Sargent runs simultaneously across the same quote.

    UPDATE: The echo was first reported a few months ago in some strange publication called The Politico. Curse you, Mike Allen.

  6. I’ve just joined this site.

    Campaigns and ethic issues are mainly in the eyes of the beholder. While there is an obscene amount of money in Washington, it is the lack of openess that most people hate.

    As far as Obama saying that he has done a lot of work in this area, I feel that they have wasted so much time since 2007 January in the senate on this topic and still “not officially passed” this legislation. While I understand that a lone republican was delaying/blocking resolution for a final vote in the senate in the last few months, I never heard Obama mention this is at all. Nor did he use his self-proclaimed awesome ability in “negotiations” or “being a uniter” to persuade this republican to help the passage of this stricter version.

    The best way to look at ethics is asking someone to be being open and honest of where every dollar, gift, etc..etc..etc you have taken. Let the voters decide if they find it ethical or distasteful.

    On another rather amusing note: I finally saw the full speech where the “bush-cheney lite” comments were made in his NH speech on C-SPAN2 yesterday. After having received a well known endorsement from a congressional colleague, the comment he made on his other endorsements was rather interesting. I would leave it to others to judge/understand what he really meant when he said that. He said something to the effect..)
    “I do not have as many endorsements as other candidate(s) but then I have not being in Washington to return any favors”. Do not quote me exactly but he definitely used the word “favors”.
    I ask myself, what does favors have anything to do with getting endorsements?

    I look at endorsements as mostly as simply backing the candidate you most like or will do the best job for the country. Of course a long time friendship may come into it occasionally.

    I also feel sorry for some of those lcongressional people in Washington who have served long and ethically and being constantly preached at having to change their ethcial behaviour for being there too long! I just want them to do the people’s job, be open/honest and let us judge you on the job. Ethical behaviour is a characteristic, not a job!

  7. Great post. I am shocked that this RESKO issue is not getting more play in the MSM. I suppose this story may be why he is not running away in the polls in his home state. It appears that Obama may have a lock on the media. But their love affair will end in due time. This would be a great diary on MyDD. Although, the Obama worshipers would probably go crazy and have a heart attack.

  8. Raw story is teasing a new NBC/WSJ poll:
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) holds a six point lead in a national poll of registered voters due out tonight from NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, RAW STORY has learned.

    In a two way matchup with former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Clinton leads 47-41 percent, according to advance numbers of the poll.

    In a three way matchup with Giuliani and current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg running as an independent, Clinton takes 41 percent, Giuliani 34 percent and Bloomberg 11 percent.

  9. Thanks, kostner! Rudy’s numbers just keep dropping in head to heads. Having 34 percent with Bloomberg in the race is truly bad.

  10. The other day there were posts that stated Obama
    had not been to Iraq. The Hill reports this evening
    a list of senatorial visits to Iraq. Obama went
    1 time v. Hillary’s 3.

    I thought you would want to know.

  11. Thanks, Adm..

    I handed off the urls and (plagerized) commentary..:) to a friend for distribution..

    Let the wailing begin! hee!

  12. New NBC/WSJ poll(copied from WSJ):

    July (June)
    Hillary 43% (39%)
    Obama 22% (25%)

    July (June)
    Hillary 47%
    Rudy 41%

    She has opened a 21-point edge over her closest contender, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, leading him 43% to 22% among Democrats, the poll suggests. That is up from a 14-point lead in a June poll. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is third with 13%. Four other Democrats are in single digits.

    Mrs. Clinton would beat Mr. Giuliani by six points, 47% to 41%; Mr. Obama would win by five, 45% to 40%. The results are nearly identical to those in the June poll. The latest poll, of 1,005 adults Friday to Monday, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

    The current poll was conducted days after the Democratic candidates’ most-recent debate, in which Mrs. Clinton pointedly differed from Mr. Obama in saying that if elected she wouldn’t commit to meet with several world leaders antagonistic to the U.S. during her first year in office. The two continued to verbally joust over the issue for days; she at one point called him “irresponsible and frankly naive,” while he compared her position to a similar stand by President Bush, calling it “Bush-Cheney Lite.”

    The Clinton campaign’s effort to underscore her experience in government is paying off, according to the survey.

    Respondents ranked “her experience and competence” at the top of six traits they were asked about, with 53% holding positive views and 22% negative. Ranked lower were “her values and character,” and the fact former President Bill Clinton is her husband. Next, still with positive margins, were “her warmth and compassion” and “her personality and style.” Last, with near-equal percentages of positive and negative views, was the response to “her positions on the issues.”

    In the three Journal/NBC polls since late April, Sen. Clinton has added several points to her national support each time, and Messrs. Obama and Edwards have seen several shaved each time. Her current 43% support is up from April’s 36%, while Mr. Obama’s 22% is down from 31% in April, and Mr. Edwards’ 13% is a drop from April’s 20%.

    Obama and Edwards advisers dismissed the national poll as having little meaning in a nomination fight that could well be decided in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina six months from now. In Iowa, whose caucuses kick off the process, Mr. Edwards clings to a lead in most state polls, while Mr. Obama runs close to Sen. Clinton in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

  13. WTF? [Sorry but what the hell is going on] This guy always seems to make a 360 degree change! Now, this fellow is getting hawkish in a bid to show himself stronger – compared to Hillary!


    Obama Vows to Hunt Down Terrorists
    By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

    Wednesday, August 1, 2007
    WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

    The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

    “Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

    The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

    Obama’s speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

    Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her “Bush-Cheney lite.”

    The speech was a condemnation of President Bush’s leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.

    “He confuses our mission,” Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. “By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

    Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them “on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

    He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

  14. Does anyone think his new stance to show he is strong on National Security will sell? I hardly doubt it! Why aren’t the anti-war people shouting slogans now against Obama? Because he is saying – he will send MORE TROOPS INTO PAKISTAN UNDER OBAMA PRESIDENCY – he should be confronted and asked what the difference between him and George W Bush is? Why then did he take such a moral high ground on Hillary’s war authorization? Was that then pure political pandering to anti-war group?

    Also sending troops into Pakistan to invade as he calls it lacks judgement that he touts he had in Iraq war – yes, he can brag about it because he wasn’t in the senate to vote then!

    Pakistan is no Iraq!! So, sending troops into Pakistan would be the biggest blunder America would have committed. So, he would top George Bush – in foolishness! Pakistan is a nuclear power already and he has said that he would “invade” Pakistan.

    Good luck to him!!!

    People …people…please raise these issues and confront Obama and his hypocrisy on Iraq war issue? Ask why is he getting hawkish now? Again pandering to another set of voters is he? If he says well….. “I am protecting America and being tough on National interest”. Well, Hillary did the same with Iraq at the time given the evidence!! So, what differentiates you Obama?

  15. ********Poll: Clinton would beat everybody**********

    NEW YORK, Aug. 1 If a U.S. presidential election were now Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., would defeat any opponents, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll said.

    The national poll of 1,005 voters conducted by telephone Friday through Monday found Clinton would defeat Republican front-running contender and former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani by 42 percent to 34 percent, the newspaper said.

    While current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn’t declared his candidacy as an independent, poll results showed Clinton would outpace him by a 42 percent to 11 percent spread.

    Among Democrat voters, Clinton has a 21-point edge over her nearest rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. The newspaper said in a presidential vote, Obama would defeat Giuliani by a 45-40 percent split.

    In three similar polls since late April, Clinton has gained support while rivals Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., have lost points each time, the report said.

    Copyright 2007 by UPI

  16. WHOOP!!! thanks kostner for the latest scoop on the new nbc poll. great she is 20+ points ahead of obama(d-rezko). even better ahead of guliani for the general. GO HILLARY GO!!!!!

  17. I suppose someone advised Obama to become hawkish on National Security as Hillary comes across strong on that front. I hope it alienates anti-war and left leaning base away from him driving his poll numbers even lower.

    But Hillary supporters have to take this “I will invade Pakistan if they don’t and so” speech – and compare that with Hillary who hasn’t said she will invade anyone when already we are in two countries. Question his logic? He will pull troops out of Iraq and invade Pakistan is it?

  18. As much as National polls are a good news. We need to keep an eye on the early states and hope that we does well there. Hope she wins strongly in a couple of states – then she would be unbeatable.

  19. Secret,

    You worried too much!! With 20 points lead in national poll (also comfirmed by Rass.), there’s absolutely no question the state polls will reflect this. It’s just a matter of time.

    Dont’ get too nervous about the fluctuation of polls. Believe your gut feelings. Obama is the biggest loser of ‘The Battle Of Charleston’

  20. i subscribe to bloomberg’s email updates from his website that looks like a caimpaign site to keep tabs on him. do you guys think he is running? i think so. try and google mike2008 and you will get his website. 1992 all over again baby!!!!!

  21. Obama’s campaign is going wild. His strategists are killing his chance. Here’s a brief analysis to his major foriegn policy speech today.

    Wow, Obama is following my precise prediction if you recall. I said a couple of days ago he might give a ‘major foreign policy speech’ in order to battle Hillary’s perceived strength.

    Here we go. However, I believe the content of this speech is a huge tactic mistake. His message is so confused these days. In the past few days, he has visibilly taken a sharp left turn. But this speech is not welcome news for liberal wing of democratic party.

    Obama needs to find a new strategist. LOL.

  22. Kostner,

    You are absolutely right. I think his campaign going wild is proof positive of his desperation. He is issue-flopping all over the place. Invade Pakistan..the guy’s a madman! He is obviously inexperienced and naive because he doesn’t know how to be tough and stand up for the U.S. without raining down bombs on other people. Yeah, let’s radicalize even more Muslims; that will make the U.S. safer! Another thought, his speech could also bomb (no pun intended) because I think Americans are against the Iraq War now because they are just tired of war. Threatening another war seems out-of-touch.

    You BET I am going to use this info on other websites! Automatic smackdown whenever a BO supporter uses the old, tired “Hillary as warmonger” approach. Oh, and Good Morning!

  23. DCDemocrat and other Hill supporters,

    I’m very surprised Obama’s new war speech has not been put up on dailykos yet. This is HUGE IMHO, the worst strategic mistake by his campaign. They are under pressure, that’s when you make mistake. Mydd has the following diary, and it stirs up heated debate. It has the potential to round up Edwards supporters for Hillary in the end if Obama/Chinton are two choices. Great news for Hillary.

    Can you write a diary on dailykos ? Use EYE-CATCHING Headline!!

    can’t believe what I just read. Barack Obama, in an effort to make himself look tough against Hillary Clinton, announced that he would unilaterally send troops to Pakistan to expand the War on Terror.

    “Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” n_el_pr/obama_terrorism

    This follows up on something he said in 2004, when he suggested that he would support launching missles against Pakistan and Iran to prevent extremists from getting nuclear weapons.

    Who’s acting like Bush now?

    For me the most disturbing part is that he is calling not for an international coalition or increased assistance to the Pakistani government, but for a military invasion of a sovereign nation.

    Barack Obama called the invasion of Iraq a “stupid war.” How is this smarter? Aren’t there better options than sending an already-stretched military into a hostile nation with a moderate government?

    Think of how empowering such an invasion would be to Iran. The US has toppled regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Obama plan to invade Pakistan went into play, that would be three nations bordering Iran that would be thrown into a state of civil war and chaos.

    I’ve always praised the Obama of 2002 who opposed the build-up to war and invasion of Iraq. But I have been highly critical of him since. And his current stance on Pakistan has me deeply worried. Especially since he’s even more hawkish than Bush on the issue.

  24. kostner, I remember your prediction well. Now it looks like he’s trying to blur the distinction between Hillary and himself on foreign policy when he was trying to emphasize it just a few days ago.

    I guess that makes him Bush-Cheney lite, now, lol. I wonder if the speech will anger some of his lefy supporters.

    Also, I’m assuming you all saw Hillary’s new battle with Cheney. Darth Vader stuck up for that Edelman dude from the Pentagon who sent her that insulting letter a few weeks ago.

  25. Paula,

    Absolutely. There’s a diary up on myDD, read the heated debate between Edwards supporters and Obamaniacs. I have a feeling many Edwards supporters will flee to Clinton campaign in the end. Many of them are far left. They may not like Clinton. But if they need to make a choice, they’d choose a sensible moderate instead of a crazy rookie warmonger.

  26. i hope he has done his homework here….Pakistan is a nuclear state with another nuclear country next to it. If something goes wrong, will he escalate this situation in the Indo-pak war. Or will he have support from the stronghold army from India whose major army comes from the STATE of PUNJAB……yes ….will he negotiate with Punjab(D)…ha ha ha……..

    What goes around come around!

    Laughing aside…….this is however a serious issue. Musharaf may not be in power by jn 2009 unless he can bring a coalition from a strong woman led group in Pakistan….Benazir Bhutto!……

    Yes, muslim countries have had a few women leaders…pakistan and indonesia and Phillipines!!!!

  27. Paula,

    One big question for Obama is that this speech is a stark contrast with his left-turn speech over the past few days. If some Edwards might give a second thought on Obama due to Edwards’ losing status will probably just take a permant pass on Obama.

  28. Today’s Ras. daily tracking is out. Obama’s number is horrible. I believe it’s probably his lowest number for a long time.

    Hillary 42
    Obama 21
    Edwards 13

  29. wow, a 2nd national poll out showing a 20+ point lead for hillary. those attacks by obama last week is really workin huh for mr. rezko, oh i mean obama. GO HILLARY GO!!!!

  30. The NBC/WJ poll is vailidating the daily Ras. I
    believe the NBC/WJ poll has a margin of error,

    This seems to be consistant with the recent
    CBS and ABC national polls. Hillary has to be

    I really think the recent ARG in-state polls
    are anomaly. The only way we will really
    know is when the next series are done at
    the end of August. I’m sure the private
    polls by the campaign will validate Hillary’s standing. And if they seem to be concerned,
    then them will employ tv and radio spots to
    counteract any drift. So far, I have not
    heard of any major ad buys.

    For those following Mydd and Daily Kos blog
    debates, I suggest that we let them stew
    for the next few weeks. Obama speech today
    has to have them scratching their heads.
    Is he a thinking hawk or a knee jerk dove
    that want to start a nuclear war in Pakistan.
    I’m not sure what his plan is. The Republicans
    can take heart, his speech today has afforded
    them more video evidence to be used against
    him in a general election.

  31. Just checked out They’re saying Obama is seeking to differentiate himself from Hillary here and has upped the stakes, lol.

    BTW, if those ARG polls aren’t anomalies, maybe they’re reflecting Obama’s advertising surge. That could explain why the national and state numbers don’t jibe.

    Also, I don’t have time to check out MYDD at the moment (but thanks for the tip, kostner!) so I’m guessing the Edwards people aren’t too happy about Obama’s sudden hawkishness.

  32. Kegs,

    Even the right wing ‘Red State’ believes Obama is losing it. I predict he will get terrible media coverage on this issue over the next couple of days because this is too far off, and completely inconsistent with his previous policies.

  33. Here’s from ‘Red State’
    OK, so let’s walk through this, slowly. Senator Obama has articulated a strategy for Pakistan. One that Pakistan is not going to like, as it violates their sovereignty, insults their existing institutions, and generally pushes them around. Fine. The Senator’s running for President of the United States of America, not President of Pakistan: we expect him to put our interests first, no problem.

    Here’s where the complications arise. Look at the countries that border Afghanistan. We have:

    Turkmenistan. Repressive dictatorship, according to both Freedom House and Human Rights Watch. The slight thaw in the country is just that: slight. Not nearly enough to justify putting US troops at their logistical mercy.

    Uzbekistan. Even more repressive dictatorship, according to FH and HRW. We had an airbase there, but we had to leave after we asked one too many questions about the Andijan Massacre. You may remember that one, Senator Obama: it was quite the cause celebre among the progressives, at least until it could no longer be used as a weapon against the Bush administration. Not that this would stop a hypothetical Obama administration from going back there, and making a deal.

    Tajikistan. Repressive. FH gives it a marginally better grade than HRW.; neither likes its treatments of religious minorities and/or women. There’s also the minor detail that making a deal with Tajikistan would be pointless anyway: it’s a landlocked nation, too.

    The People’s Republic of China. Unique. They’d be happy to accommodate us, of course. Also of course, the price would be to shaddap about Kyoto, shaddap about their factory system, shaddap about Tibet and shaddap about their ongoing “reconciliation” with Formosa. No, we’d have to stop calling it “Taiwan”, actually.

    Pakistan. Gee, these guys suddenly aren’t looking all that bad, huh? We’ll get back to them in a minute.

    Iran. The people are nice; the regime they’re stuck under isn’t. In fact, said regime is everything that the more frothy members of the Left like to accuse the Bush administration of being: fundamentalist, apocalypse-obsessed, homophobic*, misogynistic lunatics who start to dribble when the word ‘Jew’ comes up. Also bear in mind that the Senator’s uncritical willingness to meet with the lunatic-in-Chief who either heads or fronts for that regime is what got him into this mess in the first place.

    So. Now that we’ve gone over the geography, let’s sum up. We have significant troop strength in Afghanistan. Senator Obama thinks that we should have even more troops there. He wants them, in fact, so that he can invade Pakistan. Pakistan is the country that we are currently depending on for logistical support, because all the other choices are worse. The end result? If Pakistan withdraws that support, we’re left with the following options:

    1). Make a deal with another country bordering Afghanistan, all of which are run by distasteful regimes who will want very distasteful concessions;
    2). Bug out of Afghanistan itself;
    3). Write off the troops that are in Afghanistan;
    4). Invade Pakistan.

    Aren’t those just fun options to have? Just the sort of choices you want to see pop up in the new decade. You know, Senator Obama, I care very little for your colleague and rival Senator Hillary Clinton – but she pegged you with that “naive” thing, but good.

    I’m pretty certain that her cartography skills surpass yours, too.

  34. This is great opening for Edwards & Richardson. They will be dumb beyond imagination if not to jump in.

  35. Kostner, “Red State” forgot India. When
    you gin up military activity in Pakistan
    than you get India upset as well. He
    just isn’t thinking clearly.

    I like to continue this discussion, but I’m
    off until 5 PM.

  36. Edwards is starting to look good now compared to Obama. Not that he ever approaches Hillary who’s clearly tops! I am done with Kos for now, those nutroots are getting so nasty – you can’t say anything pro Hillary or slightly even criticize Obama without getting pummeled. Screw those guys!! Yes, I know we can use their votes, but others can go to bat there..I’m done for now. But on a positive note, I am so happy Hillary is just killing, and Obama is sinking in the latest polls. But gee, are you sure those polls are valid, and isn’t it too early? LOL!!

  37. New Siena poll on has Hillary clobbering Rudy in N.Y. state. Not a surprise, but the margin is 21. Notice Obama only beats him by 11, so we can argue that having Hillary as our nominee takes NY out of play even if Rudy is the Repub nominee.

  38. Well, folks, I think Obama’s cheese is slippin off his cracker. I cannot for the life of me imagine that somebody runnin for president would suggest puttin troops in another country much less Pakistan. I think I am correct that they have conducted nuclear weapons tests and also are strong allies with China. Correct me if I am wrong, somebody, cause I haven’t verified my facts this morning. But somebody better get this guy a foreign policy tutor. –MollyJ.

  39. molly,

    You are right. They conducted nuclear test and is a strong ally with China.
    The president of Pakistan is under tremedous pressure of the radical elements in their society. He has avoided several assassinations.

    This is the most bizarre foreign policy speech I’ve ever seen. I guess Obama is really happy to assist those fundamentalists in overthrowing Mushuraf.

    This guy is really dumb. Simply irresponsible and naive.

  40. Kostner, It is bizarre. I watched a clip of the speech on MSNBC. Got to give you credit for your good instincts here…Koster…you called this one, predicting he might give a foreign policy speech. I didn’t hear the part about Pakistan. I heard the buildup about “we” being less safe now than 9/11. Duh, ya think? What occurred to me as I watched him give this grey suit/red tie speech is that he seemed very dependent on the teleprompter and less sure of himself than usual. It will be interesting to see how this plays in the international news. Clearly it is an attempt to seem more knowledgeable, decisive, and “commanding” on foreign policy. I don’t think people are gonna go for it. And today’s poll numbers are great. This should be good for boosting voter confidence in early primary states, huh? In any event, all the political news is good today, I think. We just gotta get through these hiccups in the polls without all havin’ nervous breakdowns. LOL. –mollyj.

  41. Kegs:

    Saw your message re: The Hill stateing Obama has been to Iraq once and Hillary 3X..

    I googled Obama trip Iraq…and it shows nada.. Would you give it a try and see if I overlooked anything…Otherwise, The Hill should be challenged on their reportage of Obama’s trip to Iraq..

    I’m thinking Google is right, otherwise, a photo-OP w/Bama standing on a tank with an Am Flag flying in the background would be For Sale on every banner and brochure in Obama’s store.


    Mrs. S

  42. kitforhill: If it came down to Obama and Edwards, I would be for Edwards in a heartbeat. Obama is beginning to sound like a Democratic version of George W. Bush.

  43. Another prediction:

    I believe the media narrative will be unfriendly to him, to say the least. Watch tonight’s NBC news while poll-whore Tim Russert touts that NBC/WSJ and dissects Obama’s desperate move.

    Drudge has a headline story on this. Even Redstate and Freeperland, those right wing crazes believe this guy is crazy.

    He sounds like Dukakis. He tries to don a helmet to climp up into a tank to show his ‘toughness’. In reality, he is a paper tiger.

  44. I don’t like posting long links here, because there’s a delay before they appear, so I recommend everyone check out and click on the link to Hillary’s just-released letter to Bush about Cheney’s assinine comments backing his Pentagon flunky Edelman. Great stuff!

  45. kosnter, I avoid Drudge at all costs, lol, so could you clarify what his lead story is about? Is it the NBC poll or his speech? (BTW, your Dukakis analogy cracked me up.)


  46. Another prediction.

    Pakistan may react to his comments. What he’ll do is to retort hysterically to show his ‘strength’. If this story drags on to Sunday talk show, he’ll likely lose another couple of points in the polls.

    This only reinofrces his ‘naive’ and ‘irresponsible’ image.

  47. Michael F. Scheuer, the founding head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit: Senator Obama must have left a couple zeroes off his plan for reinforcements. Two brigades — which is about 6,000 men — will not make a lick of difference in Afghanistan, which is a country the size of Texas, with the highest mountains on earth, a hostile population, and a growing Islamist insurgency. If Obama starts talking about 100 brigades — about 300,000 men — then the public might be able to assume he means business. Otherwise, he is just blowing smoke. Obama and all the other candidates in the other parties constantly say that “we have tried the military option and it does not work.” This of course is a bald lie; U.S. military power has been used most daintily in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the military power we have delivered in both places so far is the best we can do, then American taxpayers have been monumentally swindled in the amount of taxes they have paid for their military during the past 25 years. And another billion dollars for aid for Afghan reconstruction would just be another billion wasted. It appears that Obama and his fellow candidates in both parties have not learned that programs for economic recovery, internal stability, and nation-building cannot be started with any hope of effectiveness and durability until the enemy has been definitively annihilated. If Obama is right and the military option has failed, then more aid is just throwing money away because — as all can see — the enemy is growing in size and ferocity and shows no signs of being on the edge of annihilation.

  48. Mrs. Smith:

    RE: Obama trip

    I’ll do a google and I’ll have my computer guru to do one
    overnight. I’ll advise tomorrow.

  49. DC: Keep the faith. Nationally, Hillary has the fewest
    followers that declare a second choice. Obama and
    Edwards supporters in large numbers say Hillary is
    their second choice.

  50. DCDEM, I know I agree about Obama looking like a Dem version of W. What an idiot this guy is? Do you think more mud will come out about him re: Rezko, etc? It looks like its starting too. Oh by the way, Obamanians are saying they are followers not supporters…lol

  51. Kegs: I don’t have a second choice. I was giving a hypothetical that reflects my feeling about Obama being a dangerous lightweight.

    Kitforhill: Followers and not supporters? Sounds like a distinction in search of a difference–or maybe just a polite way to go sideways.

  52. Check out hardball tonight. Biden calmly spoke of Obama’s
    key points from today. In a half smile, half smirk as only
    Joe can do, he declared three of his four points have already
    been offered and some are already law. You need to
    see it. To summerize Joe: Been there, done that and
    where have you been Obama.

  53. Kegs…I like Biden..don’t see him as President, but i don’t think he’s any dummy, and think he’s in there supporting Hill too. You can see the two have a real fondness for each other. I would bet he’d have a Sec. State position or something. Do you think he could possibly be VP?

  54. Excellent internals in that NBC/WSJ poll. Her favorability ratings, always attacked by her opponents, have improved dramatically from March to July.

    From 39% to 43% in March
    To 42% to 42% in June
    To 44% to 39% in July.

    In the survey, 44 percent view her positively versus 39 percent who see her in a negative light. Nevertheless, Clinton’s score in this poll is an improvement from June (when her rating was 42-42 percent) and March (when it was 39-43 percent).

  55. Kit:

    Biden is a nice fellow. But, he doesn’t bring anything to
    the table interms of votes. Delaware has only 3
    electors and has voted democratic for several cycles.

    Some of Hillary’s supporters come from the middle and
    lower middle class. Bidens support for the bankruptcy
    bill is a negative in light of the house woe now.
    He’s local known as the senator from MBNA. now
    Bank of America.

    Delaware democrats would love to see him move on
    to be S of State. However, with Bill as the formidable
    advisor to Hillary, he may get lost in the administration.
    Therefore, I don’t see him taking the position.

  56. i watched the nbc evening news and tim russert explained the new nbc/wsj poll showing a 21 point lead for clinton and what does he say at the end? the race is wide open. SAY WHAT?!! even russert is dullusional as obama. hillary has a CLEAR SOLID LEAD. there is no wide open about it at this point.

  57. terrondt,

    He mainly referred to GOP side. But it doesn’t matter. Russert is a typical poll-whore. All of his so-called ‘analysis’ is based on polls.

    BTW, politico has an excellent article on how white moderate women(GOP and independents) are moving towards Hillary significantly over the past few months. GOP is now very worred about a formidable Hillary candidacy. Go READ!

    Dailykos has a dairy who hilariously compiled all righ wing blogs which mocked Obama’s newly established ‘manly’ man image. Hilarious.

  58. From Douchebag Novak:

    The consensus among Democrats is that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) was the clear winner in the dispute with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) over meeting with foreign despots as President. It went to his greatest political weakness: his presumed inexperience compared with Clinton. Former President Bill Clinton’s intervention in the dispute keeps it in the news and ends it while she’s way ahead

  59. NYT article

    The speech received mixed reviews from foreign policy experts and other political analysts.

    Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Center on Foreign Relations who holds conservative views, said he thought that Obama’s lack of experience is a large reason why Clinton maintains a lead in Democratic presidential preference polls. “We’re a nation at war, and I think even most Democrats are uncomfortable about making commander in chief a guy who a few years ago was an Illinois state senator,” he said.

    Boot added that Obama’s statements in debates and in Wednesday’s speech are not helping his cause. “Obama doesn’t seem to have learned the old adage when you’re in a hole stop digging,” he said.

    “In this latest speech,” Boot continued, “he’s sticking by his earlier assertion that you have to meet without preconditions, without any hope of agreement, you have to just go and talk to people. Which further reinforces the image that he’s a neophyte in foreign policy and doesn’t really know what he’s doing, and that Clinton would be a stronger hand on the tiller,” he said.

    Nonetheless, the campaign of at least one of Obama’s rivals for the campaign for Democratic nomination was not about to allow him to claim center stage on foreign policy unimpeded.

    Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. has trailed badly in polls so far during this unusually early-starting campaign, and his hopes for seriously competing are predicated largely on his experience on foreign policy issues as a longtime member — and the current chairman — of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And his campaign decries Obama as a “Johnny-come-lately” on the international scene.

    “We find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative, when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan,” Luis Navarro, Biden’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “It’s good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership.”

  60. Kegs, i agree on Biden being a help to Hillary as VP on the ticket…and yes I hate his vote on the Bankruptcy Bill…Mr. MBNA…Edwards voted for the first version of that too right? i don’t think Hillary did – this was a major war on KOS — I mean how could Mr. Populist support such a thing, and Ms. “Corporation (lol) not support it. As usual nutroots haven’t a clue. Good point too on his chances at Sec. of State..I just noticed Hillary actually kissed him on the cheek after the first debate, and he put in a few good words for her. He does tend to get foot in mouth disease quite a bit too….?? I somehow have kind of liked him even with all that…not sure why..I guess under there – there’s a decent guy….

  61. What do you guys think about

    “Invading Pakistan” by Obama???

    Pundits have given thumps down to this statement!

    Any thoughts??

  62. Secret,

    Did I analyze this already? It’s a even worse blunder than his last week’s flop.
    He basically angered lots of Edwards supporters who are far leftists in primaries. They are closer than ever to Hillary. If Edwards drops out after IA, I doubt they’ll be happy to go to Obama due to this sort of belligerent rhetoric.

    When you look around right wing blogs, Obama’s stunt has been roundly ridiculed. They are mocking his newly created ‘manly’ man image.
    Pakistan governorment is starting to make noise. If tomorrow, they ask Obama for clarification , you can bet the press will jump on this.

    All these reinforced his naive and irresponsible image. I think it’s a terrible mistake on his behalf. He’s obviously overdone his ‘toughness’…

    What puzzles me is that Edwards/Richardson campaigns are as clueless as Obama’s. They should immediately jump on him, instead, either is willing to take a shot. These guys are just not ready for prime time.

    Hillary seems to play smart, she does not need to do anything, just let Obama hang himself.

  63. kitforhill,

    I don’t like either of the current running candidates as V.P. Nobody has impressed me so far. I’m sure Hillary will think outside the box. I like Webb, Mark Warner, or Clark maybe. No Vilsack, please.

    It’s Hillary’s choice, VP, means very little in the end.

  64. PALO ALTO, Calif.—Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama’s threat to use military force to get rid of terrorists in Pakistan shows he does not understand the complexities of the region.
    McCain said the situation in Pakistan is “very delicate,” since the country’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf.

    “I think it’s kind of a simplistic view of a very complex situation,” McCain said at a press conference following an appearance at Stanford University. He advocated using covert action “before we declare that we’re going to bomb the daylights out of them.”

  65. Kostner,
    Even John Mccain seems to show more readiness than Edwards & Richardson – as you say they both clueless – if not spineless! I mean if you are not ready to attack Obama – in the hopes that he would pick you as his VP – incase he wins – then they simply are not ready!!!!
    They have squandered such a magnificent opportunity – what a shame!

  66. Thanks, Kegs…

    Hmm…Bo’s own site? Well, it must be true if he went with a few other witnesses…er, senators.

    Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it!

    Mrs. S

  67. I think Hillary agrees with “covet” actions with predator technologies etc if they knew the location of Osama/high level terrorist. She does not agree/mention with sending major combat ground troops to fight a war. This is a big difference….she refers to using covet operations like they did in Bill clinton’s time.

    Also I think it is wise to listen to even McCain on this. Toppling Musharaf to be replaced by Islamic fundamentalist in Pakistan is not in our interest.

    Karzai and Musharaf are meeting soon… I think it would be IRRESPONSIBLE for any candidate from any party to keep on talking of major WAR with Pakistan at this time or even in 2009 when really Obama would be able to really execute any of his agenda..
    Chris Dodd said it well…dangerous and irresponsible!!!!!

    Note: I am not a suppoter of McCain or Dodd.

Comments are closed.