But Charlie, Obama wasn't in the Senate so he didn't even have the chance to vote no. In fact, he's said this:

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, 07/26/04]

And since he's been in the Senate they're voting record on Iraq has been exactly the same but for one vote:

Since Obama entered the U.S. Senate, his record on Iraq is identical to Hillary's, with one exception. ABC News reported that, "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, 5/17/07

I just think we need to be honest about this. They both oppose the war, we don't know how he would have voted if he was in the Senate when the vote was taken - he even says so himself. Let's just be fair with the facts.

Katy, show me where Hillary spoke out against the war before Obama. Because that's what she said in Eugene.

It is an absolute, irrefutable fact that Hillary did not speak out first. Hillary's statement doesn't come close to passing the laugh test.

Charlie, I wasn't disputing that, I was responding to the last paragraph of your post - I should have been more clear on that. Sorry. I don't have the wherewithall, nor do I pretend to have the skills to do a quick research check on who said what first. I do, however, want us to be honest about the important issues facing our country. Ending the war in Iraq is the most important issue for most Americans this cycle, Hillary said yesterday that it was her number one priority. Their voting record in the Senate is identical, they both want to end the war. Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted on the resolution. I just want to make sure the facts are out there for all to read.

Another lie, on top of the phony Bosnia story, on top of the phony Ohio hospital story. This displays not only a contempt for the truth but an ineptness on the part of Clinton and her campaign.

And the idea that the metric for counting opposition to the war only starts when you enter the glorious senate. Even then Obama beats Clinton:

-"Tapper goes on to show that Obama criticized the Iraq war on January 18, 2005 during Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearings. Clinton says she started criticizing the war on January 26, 2005 -- 8 days after Obama."

Clinton has continued to defend the Iraq occupation until it became clear that public opinion was turning decisively against it. So now she lies to distort and twist history. And it keeps happening again and again in this campaign. She lied to attempt to falsely present her public relations experience as first lady into national security experience. She lies about her support for NAFTA, she lies with these phony health care stories, and now she lies to re-state history about her support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I don't have the wherewithall, nor do I pretend to have the skills to do a quick research check on who said what first.

It's not that hard. You can click through to the ABC News story to read what Clinton claims as proof of her speaking out against the war before Obama. And what her staff points to actually occurred after Obama's first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Hillary's claims are false. There's not a lot to nuance here.

This is the second critical post you have done on Clinton's visit to Oregon in 2 days. In addition to being an editor on Blue Oregon, I know you are a frequent Obama spokesperson, and saw you on tv for Obama.

Do you have an official role with the Obama campaign? You seem to be awfully plugged in.

A question for the Clintonites:

Hillary has spoken this phrase a number of times in the campaign when referring to the Iraq invasion and occupation: "America has given the Iraqi people the gift of freedom."

What in the name of heaven is she talking about? In what possible way is what has occurred in Iraq and the current condition of the people of Iraq anything resembling freedom? Is this her idea of opposing the Iraq war and the Bush policy there, repeating his propaganda talking points?

Uh Charlie, it is difficult to take your criticism of Clinton seriously when you yourself overexagerrate the cost of the war. According to Cost of the War.comthe cost of the war to date is approximately $500 billion dollars.......

GREAT POST. And the sad thing is that more Americans - AND innocent Iraqis will die the longer this stupid war lasts.

Hillary spoke against unilateral war on the floor of the Senate. Like Kerry, Edwards, Byrd and many others they made it clear that their vote was to force inspectors back in. You, Mr. Burr, are misleading the readers of Blue Oregon shamelessly for your candidate.

So that's two posts in a day that Charlie felt compelled to write to dis Hillary on the day she appears in Oregon. What's wrong Charlie, are you afraid your political career won't get such a lucrative bounce to the big leagues if Hillary instead of Obama wins out?

As for me, I have no personal stake in this. I am not a pol like you, or a wannabe journalist. Like many many thousands of Hillary supporters in Oregon, I'm just a citizen wanting the right thing to happen this year. Like affordable college for my daughter in a few years, and a restoration of the environmental and labor policies dismantled by Bush (which Obama voted for, supporting the Cheney energy plan) and health care for folks who can't afford it (which Obama will never achieve with his cynical Harry-and-Louise tactics).

I don't recall any Hillary supporters posting anti-Obama articles while Obama was in town, though we easily could have. But then Charlie and his candidate have never -really- stood for unity.

Once again, Hillary demonstrated she is simply a pathological liar - and a fraud, and a farce. Her presidential run is turning into a joke - and making a mockery of the Democratic party. She would serve the party best by quietly bowing out of the race. It really is unprecedented - it seems like every week Hillary is caught in another lie: taking sniper fire, hospitals denying Healthcare, and now saying she started criticizing the Iraq war first. What's next? I was out of diapers before Obama was?

How can anyone in their right mind even begin to think the Country will be well run with Hillary in charge? It truly is time for a change. The Iraq war, sub prime mortgage debacle and the host of other issues our great nation in decline has proven one thing - it is that we need great leadership. Hillary is unfit to lead a even the smallest of businesses, let alone a Country. We've had enough of her kind.

Yesterday, Chris Corbell wrote, "A re-vote would have gone forward if Obama hadn't obstructed it. Shame on Barack Obama."

Yesterday I asked for the source of this information, when it came out, how I could trace it down. Chris Corbell didn't respond. I asked again. No response.

Today, in this thread, Chris Corbell wrote, "I don't recall any Hillary supporters posting anti-Obama articles while Obama was in town, though we easily could have."

Well, why the fine point about "while in town"?? You seem to be doing it at every chance. I can trace your name back through all the recent posts regarding Obama/Clinton and see that you are throwing out misleading stuff like the first quote. Is it really important whether you are paid or not, or if you just volunteer to throw out garbage?

We are better than this. The one thing I really want for my Democratic Party is that they will behave better than the Republicans. I want honest politics. I want the Democratic Party to be spin free, and above board. I note with pride that we don't have Karl Rove in our Party.

I'm personally very disappointed with Mrs. Clinton. I'm beginning to wonder if she isn't a pathological liar. The Bosnia thing sure sounded that way. This parsing of words so fine attempting to draw a distinction about who opposed the war first, that as this post by Charlie shows not only doesn't exist, but goes the other way - is another example.

Blue Oregon has had its share of Republican trolls before. I fear that we are now to the point that we have Clinton trolls - people that use Blue Oregon to spread misinformation and misdirection.

When I vote, I have always voted for the person, not the Party. Ethical behavior is a foundation for my decision, and then track record and policy follow. At this point, and I have said this before, Clinton doesn't reach my threshold for support. Unethical behavior, and trolls like Chris Corbell, keep my support from going to this candidate.

Thank you for being brave enough to print the truth. Few are.

Charlie, I was just being self deprecating, which I think is really important right now. Everyone is feeling very passionate, I for one am very passionate about my candidate. I take issue with the headline "Hillary Clinton Misleads Oregon." Thousands of Oregonians showed up to hear Hillary Clinton speak yesterday and thousands were inspired. She's a candidate who speaks in great detail about how she'll bring health care to every American, the environment, the war in Iraq, ending Bush's tax breaks on the wealthy, a woman's right to choose, and of course, I could go on.

Chris C., I remember the day Obama came to Oregon - most of my cohorts went to his event. I remember the posts that appeared on BO that day. I remember reading through the comments and how excited his supporters were. I have questions about Obama and his campaign. I wonder, for example, how he'll deal w/Michigan and Florida if he wins the nomination? "I pushed against your delegates being seated but now I'm asking for your vote?" I worry about some things I've read about his past w/lgbt issues. Point being, I would NEVER have even thought of posting an attack here. That was their day - and yesterday was our day. So I'll say again how disappointed I was to read the negative attack posts. Imagine coming to BO the day Obama was in town and the headline being "Obama Misleads Oregon." It's almost laughable, right? Hillary Clinton did not mislead me yesterday morning, she inspired me to go out and work every day until the primary for her, for my Grandmother who says she can't believe she lived long enough to see a female become President, for my nieces who now know they can do anything they want, and for the little girl who sat in front of me yesterday with a t-shirt on that said "I can be President too!"

Chris C. "Hillary spoke against unilateral war on the floor of the Senate."

She also said that she would support a war, understood that it could lead to war and that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Go back and listen to her speech. It's very clear.

Hawthorne, and here's what Obama said:

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “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]

Katy,

I didn't raise any questions about what Obama has or has not said. It is Hillary Clinton who is being dishonest (and unlike John Edwards refuses to concede that her vote was a mistake). The words came out of her mouth, that she criticized the war before Obama. This is a flat out lie.

This is a question about judgment and honesty. Frankly, it's troubling.

Katy, watch this video of Senator Clinton showing her distain for a group of women who were, like me and others, proven correct about Iraq. And now she votes yes on Iran....handing bush another loaded gun.

Please Katy, for the sake of my kids and yours, watch this video and tell me how the senator has changed. She is in favor of war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

This is how I feel about Charlie (who I like VERY much, only meant to be funny and ease mean-ness:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM&feature=related

What I don't understand is women voting for women just BECAUSE they are women. I would love to support a woman, just not this one.

Katy, Obama indicated he had not seen the intelligence reports, so would not sit in judgement of those who votes yes when they had access.

On the above video, Senator Clinton mocks, with derision, the Code Pink women tellling them, "well, you don't have access to the intelligence reports like I do."

Since that time, Senator Clinton has admitted she failed to read the intelligence reports.....the ones she mocked us about.

Senator Clinton has poor judgement and doesn't even bother to read the intelligence. Case closed. And don't be surprised if bush shoots that loaded gun again.

Speaking to the New York Daily News, Hillary gives what sounds like a distinctly political, and uncharacteristically candid, answer:

She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.

"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.</i>

The words "credibility" and "Clinton" simply don't go together.

Backbeat, I watched the video as you requested and she appears very respectful? I'm curious why you're not puting pressure on Obama in the same way? Their voting record is the same on Iraq. I was at an event at the Hilton in Portland (geez, could it really be a couple years ago now?) where the Code Pink group yelled throughout Hillary Clinton's speech. They got their word out. She gave her speech. I was happy to be there. Have you gone after McCain for saying he's ready to continue Bush's war?

and to Laura, I'm not voting for Hillar Clinton because she's a woman, I'm voting for her because I'm a woman.

As a 49 year old woman, I can't think of anything sadder than voting for a woman just because I am one. It sickens me that this "woman" voted yes once again to give Bush a loaded gun. Of course I've been protesting, making calls, writing letters, showing up at town hall meetings, doing whatever I can to stop this illegal occupation Katie. Why would I vote for a woman like that, one who treats my concerns with such disgust? She lied in Eugene about speaking out before Obama. She is not the right woman to be our first female president. She'll send my sons to Iran.

This is why I'm NOT voting for "Billery". She voted for the war, period. She is part of the problem in my view. Now she's playing lying/ lawyer word games . This is the "Slick Willy" tactic. Its obvious to me that Obama is the only candidate with any real integrity. He has my vote over her.

Chris,

Of course what you included is not the entire speech, which ended with HRC saying this "And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

The bigger questions: why has she never said that her vote was a mistake? Why would she try to bend history and suggest that she was against the war?

I've done my homework. I'm not interested in shrinking the tent. I am concerned about those who when looking at a tent would say that it was, indeed, not a tent. Or try to move the tent elsewhere.

She positioned herself as a centrist by going along with the compromise, but spoke out against the unilateral approach.

Her vote to give Bush authority to go to war was a betrayal of her oath to uphold the Constitution as explained to the entire senate before the vote by Senator Robert Byrd.

Backbeat, and that's okay because we live in a democracy! I'm glad you get to vote for your candidate, as I am so happy I get to vote for Hillary Clinton. I work at OHSU and see families coming to Doernbecher every day with sick children who don't have insurance. Remaining professional is very difficult in such situations. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because she will make sure that these children and their families have health insurance. Yesterday she said she wanted to "end Bush's war on science," something that is so important to me and the people I work with. I'm voting and working for a candidate that I believe can achieve the things that are important to me and to our country, which is what the point of a democracy is really, isn't it? Politics is the art of comprimise, we live in a country with neighbors who disagree with us. The great thing about the vote is being able to vote for our choice despite what our neighbors think. I'm very happy for you that you've found your candidate in Obama - and I'm very happy for me (!) that I've found my candidate in Hillary Clinton. I think it's important to understand that people vote for and choose candidates based on a variety of issues and passions. There's a lot at stake!

and ps - on NIH applications for funding reasearch since Bush has been in office there's a new box for researchers to check: "Does this research involve stem stells?"

We MUST beat McCain, I think that's something we can all agree on.

Well Katie, I've written many a letter over the years to get increased funding for the NIH and basic research....going back decades....orchestrated campaigns as a matter of fact....way before senator clinton had her healthcare debacle. Too bad she didn't exercise the proper courage and go for single payer at that time. Still doesn't advocate for it.

I do understand your concerns.

Nope, can't have McCain. The Supreme Court

"Too bad she didn't exercise the proper courage and go for single payer at that time. Still doesn't advocate for it."

Neither candidate supports single payer, though Clinton's health plan is widely acknowledged to be "universal" while Obama's is not.

I do very much appreciate Katy's video. I'm a sucker these days for anything with cute bambinos in it.

Look, Clinton was way off base with what she said about Iraq. It was false and inaccurate. It has been called out by national media, as well it should. What's more disrespectful: a major presidential candidate misstating her opponent's record or a volunteer correcting the record on a blog?

As far as the timing, I believe strongly that campaigns -- even if they're in a primary -- should rapidly respond to false, negative attacks. Because that's what it was.

I appreciate Chris Corbell taking a break from his relentless victimization to make an ad hominem attack against me, but I am pretty sure he went after Obama, his consultant, and his consultant's clients on this blog right before Obama's last visit. I don't think anyone complained about the timing.

"My bottom line is I don't want thier sons to die in vain...I don't believe it is smart to set a date to withdraw...I don't think it is the right time to withdraw"

This is what senator Clinton told Village Voice reporter Sarah Ferguson on Sept 22, 2005. Right after she had met with Cindy Sheehan, her sister Dede and my sister Lynn Bradach, who all pleaded that she do what she could to end the war. They did not believe that thier sons or nephew had die in a "Noble Cause" as the president had recently stated.

What else was going on then? Polls showed 62% of Americans believed that the war was based on a lie (which axact lie I can't recall). Not quite 2000 service people had died. 52% of Americans supported an immediate withdrawl. more than 30 Oregon soldiers were dead. This nation was waking up to reality of the administrations incompetence in the wake of Katrina. Next day 300 000 people marched in front of the White house.

The senator was being gutsy and tough back then... and she was wrong! This might be a good week for folks to check in on the results in Iraq.

AUMF-Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. That's what Hillary voted for. You can't re-create history. As Hillary says, "you don't get do-overs in life." That's what she supported,invasion and occupation, right up until it ceased to be popular. She has blood on her hands and she would do well to simply say so. And she didn't even have the decency or the responsibility to read the National Intelligence Estimate regarding the presence of WMD before taking that vote. Then she gives Bush the loaded gun to attack Iran with her vote for the Kyle/Lieberman Resolution. No credibility on Iraq, no credibility on Iran, no credibility on judgment regarding national security, war and peace.

I like the video. (It's refreshing for those of us who are tired of this particular babble storm; the tempest seems to maintain vigor, even if the teapot is shrinking.)

From the repetitive department of redundancy department: Let's show some love. If not Rodney King, then Black Eyed Peas.

It's this simple.

Hillary has been preparing to be president at least since Bill left the White House. And look at the inept, disastrous way she has run her campaign - lurching from crisis to crisis. Spinning, cheating and lying just to stay in the game.

Obama, on the other hand, is running one of the best campaigns in memory. And he's rebuilding local parties at the same time.

That all there is to say. Hillary was supposed to be ready on day one. She wasn't.

As Atrios said:

It's fair to say that Obama didn't exactly spend his time in the Senate being an anti-war leader, but this moving the goalpost stuff is really annoying.

The Iraq war has been a colossal moral, fiscal, and humanitarian disaster. Those who opposed it were marginalized, vilified, and ignored by our elites. Those who opposed it, in any way, had a bit of courage even if they weren't in the Senate at the time.

And just so we're clear, here's Obama at the 2004 DNC Convention:

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

We all listened to that speech. We all knew he was speaking out against the war.

Quite making shit up.

And Chris, you're making the other shills on this site look like amateurs. It's embarassing.

If it walks like a liar, talks, like a liar, and has benn proven to be a liar then folks she is probably a liar.

She was fired for being unethical by a law firm, he was disbarred for LYING.

Wait up and smell the coffee. Both the Clintons and McCains are RICH - ARE YOU. NO NO NO. Do you really think they care about you. Not!

Am I NO NON NO

I want to elect someone who has made a career of fighting for others, who has the education, experience and ability to bring together the needed resources and experts not lobbyist or corporate lackies or cronnies but real people that have the knowledge and passion to do what is right for the people and the country and that will help us all turn this country around.

This is why I am voting for Barack Obama!

Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar.

The best thing about this campaign is that the Clitons and their followers have been exposed for the moral relativists that we all suspected they were.

Simply put-the only thing the Clintons care about is the Clintons. We defended Bubba back when he destroyed his presidency and helped weaken the Democratic party because of a blowjob. I told everyone I could that it didnt mater, what mattered was his Presidency. Well guess what? It did matter. The Clintons were bankrupt then and they are bankrupt now.

It is time for her to leave and take all of her supporters who think it is okay to be lying and cheating and lying some more with her.

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! blah blah blah

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you believe what jackhole jacksmith and pathetic Katy (Katy, reading what you wrote, I first thought your were just ignorant. Than I read your weasly comments here and I think there is a chance you truly are deceitful.)

There are only two differences between Obama's plan and Clinton's plan:

The first is that Clinton, in what really is corrupt maternalism, would have the final effect of forcing us by law to buy from private health insurance companies. Obama would not because he recognizes Clinton's plan would force working class people who don't have insurance to be driven further down to enrich private insurance companies.

The second difference is that Obama offers a serious plan --- as in one you can get coherent details about from his campaign staff --- to allow people the chance to participate in a public insurance plan as an alternative to plans from private health insurance companies. Clinton talks smack about a similar option as she does about everything these days. But if you press her national headquarters for specifics, as I have, the really disgusting people that work for her get really angry because she has no intent of offering a genuine public insurance system. They try to deceive people that the FEHBP is a public insurance plan, but it most certainly is not. It is a managed competition plan entirely built on our private insurance system with much higher costs than Medicare.

And by the way, Clinton's plan back in the 1990's was based purely on an HMO model which would have eliminated your right to choose your doctors or make your own health care decisions. It was as far from a progressive public health insurance system as you can possibly get.

jacksmith and Katy are prime examples of the kind of really pathetic people who support Clinton at this point. Clinton is a DLC Democrat who, with Bill, has whored herself to corporate America and all but destroyed the Democratic Party.

The fact is, a Hillary Clinton adminstration will not be significantly different from a John McCain adminstration. John McCain, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist who was on the verge of leaving the "movement" Republican Party a few years ago. Hlllary Clinton, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist, and former Goldwater Girl, who left behind what few Democratic Party values she tentatively embraced long ago. They both supported the war without question and Hillary will keep us there in line with the DLC's policies.

I don't believe Obama actually will be much better, and I'm not a big Obama partisan. I don't actually believe he will pull us out of Iraq any sooner than Clinton or McCain UNLESS the Congress forces it. (And I'm not holding my breath for that given the strength of the ultra-rightwing AIPAC amongst the DLC and DSCC.) But I will vote for him for the little bit better than Clinton he will be. Particularly after she and Bill started appealing to racial animus. The fact you have not repudiated and abandoned her after that Katy is evidence enough of the kind of low-quality people left in the Clinton camp.

Blatant lies won't work in the primary, and they won't work in the general election. Folks have had a enough of that and are looking for something different.

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! blah blah blah

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you believe what jackhole jacksmith and pathetic Katy (Katy, reading what you wrote, I first thought your were just ignorant. Than I read your weasly comments here and I think there is a chance you truly are deceitful.)

There are only two differences between Obama's plan and Clinton's plan:

The first is that Clinton, in what really is corrupt maternalism, would have the final effect of forcing us by law to buy from private health insurance companies. Obama would not because he recognizes Clinton's plan would force working class people who don't have insurance to be driven further down to enrich private insurance companies.

The second difference is that Obama offers a serious plan --- as in one you can get coherent details about from his campaign staff --- to allow people the chance to participate in a public insurance plan as an alternative to plans from private health insurance companies. Clinton talks smack about a similar option as she does about everything these days. But if you press her national headquarters for specifics, as I have, the really disgusting people that work for her get really angry because she has no intent of offering a genuine public insurance system. They try to deceive people that the FEHBP is a public insurance plan, but it most certainly is not. It is a managed competition plan entirely built on our private insurance system with much higher costs than Medicare.

And by the way, Clinton's plan back in the 1990's was based purely on an HMO model which would have eliminated your right to choose your doctors or make your own health care decisions. It was as far from a progressive public health insurance system as you can possibly get.

jacksmith and Katy are prime examples of the kind of really pathetic people who support Clinton at this point. Clinton is a DLC Democrat who, with Bill, has whored herself to corporate America and all but destroyed the Democratic Party.

The fact is, a Hillary Clinton adminstration will not be significantly different from a John McCain adminstration. John McCain, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist who was on the verge of leaving the "movement" Republican Party a few years ago. Hlllary Clinton, is a lying, self-serving, corporatist, and former Goldwater Girl, who left behind what few Democratic Party values she tentatively embraced long ago. They both supported the war without question and Hillary will keep us there in line with the DLC's policies.

I don't believe Obama actually will be much better, and I'm not a big Obama partisan. I don't actually believe he will pull us out of Iraq any sooner than Clinton or McCain UNLESS the Congress forces it. (And I'm not holding my breath for that given the strength of the ultra-rightwing AIPAC amongst the DLC and DSCC.) But I will vote for him for the little bit better than Clinton he will be. Particularly after she and Bill started appealing to racial animus. The fact you have not repudiated and abandoned her after that Katy is evidence enough of the kind of low-quality people left in the Clinton camp.

Lies and damn lies. Another example of lying. When asked in a press conference in Eugene, if she had stated in private conversations that Obama is unelectable, Clinton said "no." A number of sources, SDs are saying (confirmed on MTP and Face the Nation yesterday) that both Bill and Hillary are telling SDs that Obama is unelectable because he is African American. It's amazing to me that anyone who calls themselves a Democrat would use that wedge. Can you imagine the reaction if the Obama campaign were telling the SDs that Hillary is unelectable because she is a woman. So not only has she been caught in another lie, but she is poking at the race wound to win votes. That is not who Democrats are. I can't see how the Clintons can honestly call themselves Democrats when they are using those tactics.

Fortunately those tactics are back-firing and revelatory of character. Since Feb. 5 Obama has gained 69 SDs and Clinton has a net loss of 2. The gap is narrowed now to 24 after the announcement yesterday of a Montana SD, a state senator, endorsing Obama.

To those who support Clinton: Do you understand why (even if you do not agree with) those who support Obama question: - her fitness, integrity, etc. based on perceptions made with regards to how she has run her campaign (as opposed to her stands on the issues)? - her claim to have more experience (and to even suggest that while McCain has it, Obama does not) - how, if the Super D's were to cast the determining votes for her that would potentially rip apart the Democratic party as well as enrage and deject the great numbers of new voters, particularly young voters who have recently become engaged?

To those who support Obama: Do you understand why (even if you do not agree with) those who support Clinton question: - his fitness to be CIC because of his relatively short tenure in elected office - how the press seemed to give him a "pass" (at least until more recently) in terms of challenging the substance of his rhetoric and oratory - how the situation with the Florida and Michigan delegates, regardless of how the mess started, really deserves a cooperative solution?

I am not asking whether you agree, and I am not asking you to refute or defend any of these statements. I am asking do you understand, even a little bit, how each side may perceive and feel about the situation.

To all who would prefer either Democratic candidate over McCain:

Does anyone believe (as I do) that the best way to win the primary is to provide examples of how either Democratic candidate would be vastly superior to the GOP candidate as opposed to tearing each Democratic candidate apart?

-tl

Hillary has been preparing to be president at least since Bill left the White House. And look at the inept, disastrous way she has run her campaign - lurching from crisis to crisis. Spinning, cheating and lying just to stay in the game.

I have a recollection of a discussion that occurred after Bill's Lewinsky affair during which there was a consensus that Hillary stuck with Bill despite her humiliation because she already had presidential ambitions. That, of course, is a difficult thing to prove, but it was certainly plausible.

Is Mrs. Clinton a liar? Depends on the meaning of the word 'is.'

A number of sources, SDs are saying (confirmed on MTP and Face the Nation yesterday) that both Bill and Hillary are telling SDs that Obama is unelectable because he is African American. It's amazing to me that anyone who calls themselves a Democrat would use that wedge.

It's the sleazeballs own version of Nixon's southern strategy in the late 1960's. Clinton supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for not repudiating these people and the power interests behind them, but there is a peculiar strain of class and race based bigotry that runs deep in that certain segment.

Wow.....I just had deja vu.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

Funny Carla should say that, since so do I:

Clinton arrogantly believed she had sold herself to enough power interests during her years in the Senate that the nomination was hers - Jeff Merkley arrogantly believed he had sold himself to enough power interests during his years in the Oregon House that the nomination was his.

Clinton is the DLC/DSCC choice - Jeff Merkley is the DLC/DSCC choice.

Clinton is a corporatist who deceives that she cares about working people - Jeff Merkley supports corporate-friendly tax policies like reduced capital gains.

Clinton thinks we should be forced to buy insurance from private health insurance companies - Jeff Merkley thinks we should be forced to buy insurance from private health insurance companies (his support for Wyden's plan and SB-329).

Clinton is an example of the failure of her generation - Jeff Merkley is an example of the failure of his generation (both the same and I have chronologically earned the right to point that out.)

Clinton lies and resorts to deceit to slime her opponent - Jeff Merkley lies and tests deceiving push polls.

Carla you're right. Were you just confessing your sins against our Democratic Party?

The youtube video this latest Clinton gaff is here

News flash, Clinton is a liar. She lies so much that she doesn't even know the difference anymore. Didn't you see her "sniper fire" news conference where she went into great detail about the sniper fire? Then she trashes the other people on the flight who said that there wasn't any sniper fire. Typical Clinton behavior. Lies, and then trash the people who won't lie with them. This behavior goes back 20+ years. Bill and Hillary are two pieces of dirt who deserve each other.

The best Democratic candidate to lead on Iraq is Dennis Kucinich. So it goes.

It seems that Terry McAuliffe, the national campaign chair for the Clinton Campaign, is hedging his bets. He was photographed in the state of Washington holding large Obama signs. Perhaps one day soon, we'll see Josh Kardon doing likewise.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Clinton_campaign_chair_photographed_holding_Obama_0407.html

ONCE HE GOT IN THE SENATE, SHE WAS THE ONE TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE WAR FIRST.

OBAMA SAID IN 2004, "There's no real difference between George Bush's position and mine on the war."

It is a fact that Hillary has been a consistent critic of the war for years.

Prior to running for president, Obama said he pretty much agreed with how Bush was handling the war and didn't do much of anything to end the war until he started running for president.

Obama is a PHONY.

Thanks,

Eugenian for Hillary for President.

While running for senate in 2003, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it 'dated.' Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips." [Black Commentator, 6/19/03]

Obama in July 2004: 'There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position [on Iraq] at this stage.' In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “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. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

Obama on 2002 Iraq resolution vote:'What would I have done? I don't know:' "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, 07/26/04]

In September 2004, Obama says he ' would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq.' [AP, 9/19/04]

Wow, I don't know why there needs to be so much name calling. I'll stick to calling McCain a warmonger for today.

D.A.C. said: "I don't actually believe he [Obama] will pull us out of Iraq any sooner than Clinton or McCain UNLESS the Congress forces it. (And I'm not holding my breath for that given the strength of the ultra-rightwing AIPAC amongst the DLC and DSCC.)"

While AIPAC is an ultra-rightwing and regressive organization, it is not the reason our policy-makers (including Obama, Clinton and McCain) support militarism in Iraq, and it's foolish to say so.

The tendency of some "leftists" to explain U.S. foreign policy as the outcome of the devious and cabalistic machinations of powerful Jews is an old and pathetic ruse that ignores the fact that Israel is perceived as a strategic asset by U.S. policy-makers, and not as the origin of U.S. empire. Why are we in Iraq? It's the oil, stupid.

DAC, i want to urge you to apologize. I'm an Obama supporter, and we've gotta not use divisive language like that. It's bad for Obama, bad for defeating McCain, bad for the Party, and bad for building a culture of participation.

If the reward for sticking out one's necks is personal destruction, who in their right mind will do it? And why do we think it is okay to use personal attacks as our mode of argument? And doesn't it seem ironic that opposition to Hillary would be motivated in part by frstration with attack-driven "old-style" politics, but yet that we would fight that fire with nasty fire.

If we're going to practice new politics, let's model that behavior with reason, respect, and inclusion.

Re Tom Civiletti: "The best Democratic candidate to lead on Iraq is Dennis Kucinich. So it goes."

Fish gotta swim. Bird gotta fly. Man gotta wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Hi And What [url=http://blogim.org.il/computermonitoring]computer monitoring software[/url] do you prefer? I think that nowadays it is hard to find [url=http://clearblogs.com/internetcontroler]computer software monitoring[/url] wich will suite you.. What can you reccomend? G'evening

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a civil discussion? One in which separate issues were pulled out, and the candidates positions on these issues were contrasted. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone played by the same rules, and didn't practice the Republican playbook chapter that if you can't win straight up, you "disqualify" your opponent.

I had hoped that Democrats would play nice, but as many of the comments above show, this just isn't happening.

As I have pointed out, Chris Corbell is using the "disqualify" your opponent Rovian strategy of throwing out unfounded charges and misleading information (incomplete speech as noted above).

Katy seems to take on a respectful tone, but also is using some pretty finely cut quotes to dance around the truth.

Jacksmith is pathetic, seeming to think that by saying that if you don't believe that Hillary somehow has 35 years of experience (she's actually in the beginning of her 8th year in the Senate), and that somehow she should be confused with her husband (Hillary = Bill); then if you don't buy this confused statement you are an idiot.

Curtis Taylor says that since he concludes Obama wasn't really against the war, Obama is a phony.

--- And so it goes. My read of the 70 or so comments above shows that out of the comments that use distortion or misrepresentation, about 80% attack Obama, and 20% attack Clinton.

The common theme here is that an attack campaign has been ramped up.

As part of this, and what started out this entire discussion, several including myself have thrown out that Hillary Clinton is or might be a pathological liar - or at least really stretching the truth. But is that a baseless lie? Or does it stand on a record of behavior we can all observe? Can't we discuss this more objectively?

I look at all this, and wish we could stick closer to the facts. I for one like the formulation of where a commentator will observe a fact, state it, and then make their opinion as to what they believe that fact to mean in a clear manner. In that manner, the process is clean. What I see here is a lot of pronouncements of opinion, stated as fact, which end up being distortions if not outright lies.

We ought to clean up our acts!

There have been 71 entries in this threat, indicating some strongly held views one way or the other. I would expect that in this public forum advocacy would take us in the direction of growing partisan combat. My view is that this has been accelerated by the "kitchen sink" tactics of the Clintons in a desperation to preserve their entitlement to the presidency. The last chance for them is to bring a division in the party so profound that party regulars will turn away from Obama and perform a "coups" by SDs. By contrast Obama's campaign is not served by such a division, but by a growing realization that he has the most support across the board and has won by the rules of the contest. The intra party combat therefore I predict will continue to escalate given these tactics and the need to counter the "say anything, do anything" actions of the Clintons.

Harry Kurshner: "The tendency of some "leftists" to explain U.S. foreign policy as the outcome of the devious and cabalistic machinations of powerful Jews is an old and pathetic ruse that ignores the fact that Israel is perceived as a strategic asset by U.S. policy-makers, and not as the origin of U.S. empire. Why are we in Iraq? It's the oil, stupid.

Snake bites its tail. Why was Israel initially important? The Rothschild family financed the Suez Canal. The Barfour Declaration during WWI was issued by Lord Balfour, who was a member of the Roundtable Group (forerunner of the Council on Foreign Relations, RIIA, and similar organizations) along with Nathan Rothschild (Mr. Build Dreadnaughts). This group was behind the "balkanization" of the nation we now call Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Bathist (non-arab) dictator ship was the puppet of the western oil cartel. That's why you see pictures of Don Rumsfeld with Saddam, talking about what a great guy he was when he gassed Kurds and Iranian soldiers with U.S. sourced chemical weapons. Don't be surprised... It's the same reason George H.W. Bush used to golf with President Mugabe and chum with Manuel Noriega.

So why did the Western Oil cartel give up a puppet putz like Hussein, when they were experts at controlling Middle East policies? Not because of the oil, stupid. They already had that going, and had perfected it over almost a century. Now the lid on Pandora's Box has been opened and, as investgative journalist Greg Palast has documented, not for the best of big oil control. There is another player in the game and it's ambition is ideological.

RE: Gilgore Trout:

"Here’s what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on."

• K.V. "Cold Turkey"

DAC, i want to urge you to apologize. I'm an Obama supporter, and we've gotta not use divisive language like that

Hey Anonymous, if you don't like what is written here, don't read it. Your typical la-la-land thinking about politics make you a big part of the problem in our country and particularly in our state. You're just pandering to a crowd here many of whom are as useless and inconsequential as you in the bigger picture. I'm not an Obama supporter and I don't think he is going to be a very good president. I'm voting for him for my own reasons so I could care less what useless ignorant putzes like you think. Is that clear enough for your foggy little peabrain?

Charlie, I also would careless what you think of Katy. She's whining for votes for her candidate. She obviously has nothing intelligent to offer. To her I say the flip side of what I said to jerkoff Anonymous. Clinton is not getting my vote because she and her husband have been a disgrace to the country and betrayed Democratic Party values for most of their political careers. Supporters like her are equally so.

The truth is kind of a bitter pill to swallow isn't it Anonymous, Charlie, and Katy? As an average voter I could care less what any of you big zeros think because I know the records and careers of these candidates far better than you demonstrate you do. I am reluctantly casting my vote for Obama despite idiots like you three and not because of anything you say, as a coldly rational act of voting for the least bad of three really not good choices.

Hey people. Best canadina pharmacy here: http://ambien.blogwales.co.uk/2965885/

[url=http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=profile;u=151773]Lindsay Lohan crotch shot[/url]

Oregon Eyes: Your bizarre anti-Semitic rant is about as useful as the Lindsay Lohan crotch shot posted above. Get your head out of Webster Tarpley/Lyndon LaRouche's ass and reorient yourself to reality, i.e., it's control of the oil (not use of it) that was behind the invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore, you don't have a clue about what Greg Palast is saying.

Palast says it was Bush's and Cheney's business relationship with the Saudis that caused the invasion, which he claims was an attempt to decrease production, e.g., Was the Invasion of Iraq a Jewish Conspiracy?; Keeping Iraq's Oil in the Ground.

And why am I the only one on BO who cares about blatant anti-Semitism?

This is a real pleasure to visit your website, www.blueoregon.com. Everything cool, just tell me what you are talking about in the this category?

By the way would you please? my new website, ah? This is Free library of 100% FREE legal forms - http://www.10minutelegalforms.com?

Harry Kershner,

Where is the blatant anti-semitism?

Tom C: Oregon Eyes said, "There is another player in the game and it's ambition is ideological."

Oregon Eyes is arguing that it is not the U.S. desire for control of Middle Eastern oil that caused the invasion of Iraq, but rather "another player", and that argument is presented as a rebuttal to my contention that, "The tendency of some "leftists" to explain U.S. foreign policy as the outcome of the devious and cabalistic machinations of powerful Jews is an old and pathetic ruse..."

This whole Rothschild-related baloney is warmed over anti-semitic LaRouchian bullshit. Google Rothschild LaRouche. And read Greg Palast's Was the invasion of iraq a jewish conspiracy?.

Harry,

I'm not very familiar with Jewish-conspiracy historical literature, and I agree oil seems a much better motivation for invading Iraq than helping Israel would be, but it's not unreasonable or anti-Semitic to wonder if support for Israel was a factor in the US invasion. The neocons of PfNAC who fomented the war were strongly pro-Israel. That many of them are Jewish is neither here nor there. The Israeli government was also an active cheerleader for removing S. Hussein.

Palast is right that Big Oil had its way after the war, but they were not cheerleaders for the invasion [at least not publicly]. I wish Palast were right on peak oil, which he believes is an oil industry hoax, as well.

It's hard to know how much support for Israel had to do with attacking Iraq. It could have been another phony reason like WMDs and al Qaida/Baathists cooperation.

Anti-Semites may blame supporters of Israel, but that does not mean that everyone who questions the role of Israel boosters is an anti-Semite.

Et tu, Tom - To say that control of the oil had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq (Oregon Eyes said, "Not because of the oil, stupid.") and then to launch into a bizarre LaRouchian historical "record" of Jewish responsibility for the Suez Canal, the two world wars, Iraq, etc., is anti-Semitism. Too bad you don't see it.

Re: "It's hard to know how much support for Israel had to do with attacking Iraq."

Try this: Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?.

"The real reason for the invasion, surely, is that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, very cheap to exploit, and lies right at the heart of the world's major hydrocarbon resources, what the State Department 60 years ago described as "a stupendous source of strategic power." The issue is not access, but rather control (and for the energy corporations, profit). Control over these resources gives the US "critical leverage" over industrial rivals, to borrow Zbigniew Brezinski's phrase, echoing George Kennan when he was a leading planner and recognized that such control would give the US "veto power" over others."

Oregon Eyes was not arguing about "support for Israel", which didn't exist, in case you've forgotten, when the Balfour Declaration was written.

Let's be honest here: There are a lot of people who would like to blame "someone else" for U.S. imperialism, and you, apparently, are one more, Tom. If I were to write here that "it's hard to know how much Blacks were responsible for racism", or how much gays and lesbians were destroying the sanctity of marriage, there would be lots of objection to it from the readers of BO. But anti-Jewish "theories" are still acceptable, even to you.

Harry,

I'm not saying that what Oregon Eyes wrote is not anti-Semitic, but that I am not familiar with "bizarre LaRouchian" history enough to know if it is true or false or designed to spread hatred. That's what I asked about.

I agree with you that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was about oil. I also believe was about Iraq's move to sell oil for currencies other than the US dollar. That does not mean that there could not have been other contributory motivations. When I make a decision to commit major resources to something, there is rarely one reason why I do it. Rather, I weigh the positive and negative expectations of the move. I doubt that deciding on imperial adventure happens without such calculus. Given the vocal support of the Israeli government for removing S. Hussein, and the vocal support for Israel among the people clamoring earliest and loudest for invading Iraq, I cannot see how simply suggesting that pleasing the Israeli government may have been a contributing factor to the invasion of Iraq is anti-Semitism.

Your counter examples about Blacks and homosexuals are not relevant whatsoever, unless you seek an emotional effect that is not based on rational thinking. Your reasoning suggests that it would be impossible to criticize anything done by Israel, Israelis, supporters of Israel, or Jews without practicing anti-Semitism. Is there any reason that someone should not regard this as ridiculous?

Re: "Your counter examples about Blacks and homosexuals are not relevant whatsoever, unless you seek an emotional effect that is not based on rational thinking."

Tom - I was referring to the lack of response to what I felt was a very bigoted post. My contention was that, if equally bigoted things were said about blacks or homosexuals, there would have been more response. (It's not just BO, by the way. Incredibly wretched bigotry is posted all the time on portland indy.)

Re: "Your reasoning suggests that it would be impossible to criticize anything done by Israel, Israelis, supporters of Israel, or Jews without practicing anti-Semitism."

If you reflect on my many postings to BO that are far more critical of "Israel, Israelis, or supporters of Israel" than anything I've seen you (or anyone else) contribute, I think you'll see that your claim that this is my reasoning is ridiculous. In fact, I've been attacked here as an anti-Semite for what I've said about Israeli crimes. I've also had BO posters threaten to come to my house and "piss on your carpet" for expressing my rage about Earl Blumenauer's support for Israeli crimes in Lebanon and Gaza.

What I haven't said, and what I deny, is that Israel or its lobby controls or significantly influences U.S. policy. Thus, that you "...cannot see how simply suggesting that pleasing the Israeli government may have been a contributing factor to the invasion of Iraq is anti-Semitism" is, in my opinion, anti-Semitism.

Israel is a client state of its sole international benefactor, the U.S.

Israel is totally dependent on U.S. military, economic and political support for its existence.

Israel is an important strategic asset to U.S. policy makers, but its dissolution would not change overall U.S. strategic goals.

Thus, to argue that the greatest hegemonists in the history of the world felt that "pleasing the Israeli government" was an important concern suggests that something "not based on rational thinking" is indeed operating here.

I am taken aback that you would add "Jews" to your list of possible targets. If I am critical of "Christians", or "Muslims" or "Buddhists", am I not guilty of stereotyping? I am not critical of Jews for the same reason I am not critical of Muslims. And that goes to the heart of the matter for me.

Most Americans are bigots, in the sense that they harbor secret (sometimes even to themselves) bigoted beliefs; we live in a very bigoted society.

Harry,

Perhaps our disagreement is based mostly on misunderstanding. I questioned your characterization of someone's post as anti-Semitic, based on my lack of knowledge. It seems you thought I agreed with the post in question. I did not.

It sounds like we do not disagree substantially on the issues involved. I mistakenly concluded that you consider any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. I'm sorry for that.

Thank you, Tom. This is an argument I've been having for more than 30 years, and it has cost me dearly.

For you and others who are concerned about Israeli crimes and the victimization of Palestinians: Jimmy Carter vs. Obamary.