Does Obama have a lying problem?

[tbonez]

Not to put too fine a point on it but it seems to me that you should be thankful to have two such excellent choices to lead the Democratic party. I imagine either Obama or Clinton will in their own way be good for the US.

It's going to be a shit job compared to the presidents of the recent past. Extricating yourselves from Iraq which is much the worse for it's "liberation". History recounts the humiliation and betrayal of the American pull-out (aka surrender) from Vietnam in grusome detail. Overseeing the likely (short-term at least) continued economic slide... Explaining that it's too late to turn back the clock on NAFTA...Bracing the nation for $7 a gallon gas. (It's already there in Germany and the UK)

At lest the Democrats have TWO viable candidates . What do the Republicans have on offer? An antique from another lost American war with tired ideas, no economic vision going forward and the intent to keep you in a long lost war that is laying waste to your economy and future. In the other Republican corner a zealot with fundamentalist ideals that make the Attila the Hun look the model of diplomacy and tolerance.

It seems a no-brainer...Then again cutting Bush off after one term seemed a no-brainer as well.

 

[KennyD]

Barack Obama just less than Four years ago ; stated that he was too Inexperienced to run for president ... Here is HIS statement:

"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." - Barack Obama (November 8, 2004)

My question now is: What has happened in the last three and one half years to make Mr. Obama PRESIDENTIAL Material and for him to lead lead the most powerful country in the world ?

 

[Lostlover]

Barack Obama just less than Four years ago ; stated that he was too Inexperienced to run for president ... Here is HIS statement:

"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who would be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people." - Barack Obama (November 8, 2004)

My question now is: What has happened in the last three and one half years to make Mr. Obama PRESIDENTIAL Material and for him to lead lead the most powerful country in the world ?

The so called "experienced" politicians started the Iraq war for false reasons and justifications. Obama knew it was wrong from the beginning. Making such a tragic choice that has costs thousands of lives and billions of dollars made Obama realize maybe he is more presidential than he thought considering Bush is presidential material. Bush totally lowered the bar for presidents.

The same thing that 8 years as first lady made Hillary Clinton "experienced".

His opposition to the Iraq war from the get go made him presidential material.

He's not looking at the polls and shifting positions to accommodate popularity trends.

McCain may be nuts and an antique, but at least he sticks with what he says and actually believes hin the cause.

Hillary will say anything to be elected and a lot of people have been suckered into her rhetoric.

That's why she's in the predicament that she's in. She's cold blooded, manipulative and opportunistic without any shred of consistency.

 

[tbonez]

McCain may be nuts and an antique, but at least he sticks with what he says and actually believes hin the cause.

Hugo Chávez has stuck to his message and believes in his cause. My point is simply that unflinching consistency isn't necessarily a good thing in a leader. Sometimes flexibility and the ability to change direction and modify the message is a desirable trait.

My issues with McCain isn't his status as an antique alone,(It is a concern) it's his unflinching insistence that the war in Iraq must be won at all cost. It is already lost. The county is fragmented along secular lines and divided against itself. What McCain fails to see is that it is virtually impossible to impose your will on a foreign country because the cost in American lives and trillions of American dollars is something that the domestic (American population) has a very limited stomach for...Particularly when the domestic picture is perceived to be going to hell in a handbasket.

McCain's cold war tactics worry me too. His refusal to reconsider the Cuba question is a problem. Cold war isolationism didn't effect change in the East (it was mostly internal pressure and economic collapse) Pax America is based on a myth, one McCain seems to still believe in despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

 

[NickCole]

Obama is a politician. Being surprised a politician is lying is like...well being surprised a politician is lying!

He's lying and he's also now equivocating on his pledge to only use public campaign money that would restrict him to $87 million, now that he can raise more than that. He's a liar and he's a hypocrite.

Obama presents himself as an agent of change. He says he's going to change the way politics is done. That's all he's offering. He has virtually no record, and what record he has is slowly being frayed by truth. His major offering is that he's going to change politics and here you are defending his politics as usual. And his politics as usual are of the worst kind. His campaign injects race when he has trouble, he lies to ingratiate himself, lies to cover up his measly record, turns on his word when it simply benefits him. The man has no character.

So who is Obama? Not the man he says he is, clearly, since he boldly lies about his past in that Selma speech, lies about passing legislation that claimed to protect us from not being made aware of nuclear radioactive leaks (and then he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the corporate interest that benefitted), lies about campaign financing when it advantages him. And anybody who tells bold lies like that that are easily uncovered, has lied about a lot more. He isn't who he claims to be, hasn't done the things he claims to have done, and doesn't do what he pledges he'll do. He has no character.


"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." --Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Just words?

 

[NickCole]

I know this is asking a lot of you, but how about before you accuse a guy of lying you include a more accurate quote. Like by including this paragraph that came before:



The civil rights movement didn't begin and end with the march. The bus boycott he's referencing here was in the 1950's.

And immediately following that paragraph he said:

What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, "You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites." So the Kennedys decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

John Kennedy was not in the White House in 1955. And the airlift and scholarship weren't Kennedy's idea, they were the idea of Kenyan labour leader Tom Mboya. Kennedy himself, in 1960, said:

“It was not a matter in which we sought to be involved,” Kennedy said in an August 1960 senate speech. “Nevertheless, Mr Mboya came to see us and asked for help, when none of the other foundations could give it, when the federal government had turned it down quite precisely. We felt something ought to be done.”

And here, in the next paragraph, Obama's very clearly referring to Selma:

"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

Look, this is oratory. It's great oratory. And in the context of a Martin Luther King delivering such oratory there's nothing at all wrong with it because it's designed to make a point and King's role was to inspire people, inspire change, light a fire under them and give them encouragement to be their most courageous. Same is true of all great community leaders. Larry Kramer did it for us when AIDS suddenly pulled power from the gay community. But Larry Kramer wasn't, and shouldn't have been, President of the United States. It's a different set of skills.

But Obama is running for President of the United States. We've just suffered through 7 years of what happens when our President makes up stuff to ingratiate himself and push through his agenda.

As Hillary Clinton tried to point out, the role of a Martin Luther King and of an LBJ, a President, are different. Both of them essential, equally important. But very different.

Barack Obama has demonstrated the skills to be a community organizer and a force of inspiration, but he has not demonstrated he has what we need in the Oval Office. Truthfulness. Because if he'll lie about things like this, like passing legislation he hasn't passed, like pledging to not take private campaign funds that he now wants to take, what will he lie about as President? George Bush lied that way and look at the results.

 

[NickCole]

Why am I not at all surprised. What obviously contrived pettiness. How about some clear, concise indisputable illustrations of lies:

Claiming there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when you knew that there were none, now THAT would be a lie. Intentionally insinuating connections between the government of Saddam Husain and the attacks of September 11 would be a bald faced lie. Lying to the American people about an illegal war with a totally misrepresented agenda, hegemony... Now that would be a clangour of a lie. Claiming Ronald Regan was responsible for the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall, not a lie...Just a moron speaking who didn't know a fact from a fart.

Even Bush Senior knew that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein was an illegal foray into an irretraceable quagmire of death, debt and another unwinnable war waged against a civilian population. Even he couldn't tell a lie of that calibre with a straight face...So he told the truth.

Besides, even if Obama were a pathological liar it shouldn't disqualify him from being President of the United States...

But you just made the case for the reason it should disqualify him!

Your examples are perfect reasons for disqualification.

Look at the results of that kind of lying. We need better than that.

Before he was President, George Bush didn't lie about WMDs, he lied about other stuff. It was documented. Read "Shrub" by Molly Ivins, it's in there and that came out before Bush was President. But when a liar becomes President then his lies have bigger ramifications.

As for Bill Clinton lying about having sexual relations with Lewinsky, that's not remotely the same thing. And whether or not anybody admits it, we all know it's different. There was a multi-million dollar investigation into everything Clinton and the only thing they could get on either of them was a sexual affair he didn't want his wife to know about. I doubt there are very many people, certainly not politicians, who could come out with as clean a record as they did after such intense scrutiny.

 

[NickCole]

Not to put too fine a point on it but it seems to me that you should be thankful to have two such excellent choices to lead the Democratic party. I imagine either Obama or Clinton will in their own way be good for the US.

I am thankful.

I think Barack Obama has some extraordinary gifts, and maybe after he grows up some more and learns the value of a reputation built on accomplishment he could be a great President. But not now, not with what he's bringing to the table now. It does not bode well for the way he'd make decisions in the White House, the way he'd behave in relationships with foreign and domestic leaders, or the level of truthfulness he'd have with the American people. We need foreign leaders to trust the US and our President again.

I believe every candidate needs to face scrutiny and that the truth matters.

When a candidate not only lies but his supporters defend it and the media doesn't report it widely, that's troublesome. It happened with George Bush and it will be many years before the messes that resulted can be cleaned up. We don't need more messes that come from dishonesty and a media that goes along with it.

 

[NickCole]

He's spent enough time in Washington to realize the country's standard for the federal government and found out he was ready to change the cesspool to something more promising?

Change it to something more promising?

He lied about his background to ingratiate himself to an audience in Selma. Not a Class A offense, but revealing none the less.

He lied about passing legislation that would have protected us from nuclear radioactive leaks, and then took money from the corporate interests that benefitted from his weakening the legislation before it died.

He pledged to take only public campaign money and now that he can raise more he's backtracking on that.

His campaign injected race into a primary campaign to dishonestly dirty up his Democratic opponent.

That's not change. Not only is it more of the same, it's more of the WORST of the same.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Not to put too fine a point on it but it seems to me that you should be thankful to have two such excellent choices to lead the Democratic party. I imagine either Obama or Clinton will in their own way be good for the US.

It's going to be a shit job compared to the presidents of the recent past. Extricating yourselves from Iraq which is much the worse for it's "liberation". History recounts the humiliation and betrayal of the American pull-out (aka surrender) from Vietnam in grusome detail. Overseeing the likely (short-term at least) continued economic slide... Explaining that it's too late to turn back the clock on NAFTA...Bracing the nation for $7 a gallon gas. (It's already there in Germany and the UK)

At lest the Democrats have TWO viable candidates . What do the Republicans have on offer? An antique from another lost American war with tired ideas, no economic vision going forward and the intent to keep you in a long lost war that is laying waste to your economy and future. In the other Republican corner a zealot with fundamentalist ideals that make the Attila the Hun look the model of diplomacy and tolerance.

It seems a no-brainer...Then again cutting Bush off after one term seemed a no-brainer as well.

Scandal!

Satan! Get thee behind me!

How dare you come into this thread and inject rational thought, and suggest that my fellow Democrats look at the big picture?

What are you Canadian or something?














Excellent Post!

 

[seamusnewwest]

Hey, someone who points out the Republicans are the great systematic liars, yeah!

"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is always surprised when others believe him." Charles de Gaulle.

Why am I not at all surprised. What obviously contrived pettiness. How about some clear, concise indisputable illustrations of lies:

Claiming there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when you knew that there were none, now THAT would be a lie. Intentionally insinuating connections between the government of Saddam Husain and the attacks of September 11 would be a bald faced lie. Lying to the American people about an illegal war with a totally misrepresented agenda, hegemony... Now that would be a clangour of a lie. Claiming Ronald Regan was responsible for the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall, not a lie...Just a moron speaking who didn't know a fact from a fart.

Even Bush Senior knew that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein was an illegal foray into an irretraceable quagmire of death, debt and another unwinnable war waged against a civilian population. Even he couldn't tell a lie of that calibre with a straight face...So he told the truth.

Besides, even if Obama were a pathological liar it shouldn't disqualify him from being President of the United States...I sure didn't keep the American people from electing Bush to two terms in the highest office in your land. Clinton was known to fib if memory serves 'I did not have sex with that woman' was it? Two terms for a liar seems to be the American way of late.

Massive debt, a currency that's devalued horrifically against the Euro and Canadian dollar to name but a few, stagflation, recession, manufacturing industry collapse, record numbers of Americans incarcerated, thousands of dead American soldiers...tens of thousands of dead civilians, crumbling infrastructure a total melt down of international prestige...And NickCole is croaking about a candidate who made a few minor misspeaks?? You do worse that Barak Obama, you could elect a lying Republican like McCain, Bush junior or Nixon. Now that would be pure folly.

 

[seamusnewwest]

"Actually the current Prime Minister of Canada has a pretty good record of honesty and integrity. That's not to say he only speaks the absolute truth or is always forthcoming with the facts, he just doesn't seem to intentionally misrepresent the truth aka actually 'lying'. BTW I'm not personally a fan of the man for many reasons... but he seems to be out best, brightest option at this point in time and a good compromise."

HA HA HA HA HA HA! Good one!

Our Prime Minister is right now in the thick of a bribery scandal. What he knew and what actually happened isn't clear - but one of his own party candidates is making the accusation, the wife of a former party hero who quit the party in disgust. He got elected as an independant, and discussed the bribery matter with his family.

Prime Minister Harper is on the record - on tape saying he knew something about it (asking the interviewer if it was off the record), and in Parliament saying it never happened.

It was a small bribery attempt. Only a $1 million life insurance policy, offered to a politician who was also a dying man concerned about providing for his family. He turned down the offer and kept it quiet, but his family is now speaking out.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/szabo-cadman.html

 

[seamusnewwest]

Scandal!

Satan! Get thee behind me!

How dare you come into this thread and inject rational thought, and suggest that my fellow Democrats look at the big picture?

What are you Canadian or something?














Excellent Post!

Hmmm. While we Canadians do have opinions about it, we do seem to be the ones who are desperate to have the Democrats get along. I've never seen a leadership contest in Canada this acrimonious. Personally, I think getting attached and loyal to a political personality is idiotic. Better to have one's own views.

 

[NickCole]

[quoted comments no longer exist]


The other group that AIDS has struck very hard is African Americans.

What this debate looked like before Obama's campaign brought race division into the Democratic Party, back when accomplishment got applause -- notice who's in the audience and standing and applauding for Senator Clinton:

 

[noah617]

Look, this is oratory. It's great oratory. And in the context of a Martin Luther King delivering such oratory there's nothing at all wrong with it because it's designed to make a point and King's role was to inspire people, inspire change, light a fire under them and give them encouragement to be their most courageous.

So why characterize it as a lie and him as a liar? His whole speech is about how the ripples of change that started in the South in the 1950's formed his life. Are you denying that he owes his life and his position to the civil rights movement? If you have proof that his father wasn't a recipient of the airlift that the Kennedy foundation paid for then you'd have a point he's a liar. Otherwise it's a great speech that pays tribute to how he got to where he is today.

 

[NickCole]

So why characterize it as a lie and him as a liar?

Because it is a lie.

If it's not true and he knows it's not true then it's a lie. And if I know those events didn't happen in the way he presents them, I believe he knows it too.

Lies like that are used all the time in great oratory that's intended to arouse and excite and inspire people.

The job of a preacher is different from that of a president.

We can't afford to have another President that foreign leaders can't trust, who we can't trust if he says he took care of a nuclear radioactive leak problem.

His whole speech is about how the ripples of change that started in the South in the 1950's formed his life. Are you denying that he owes his life and his position to the civil rights movement?

I think his Southern accent is a bit disingenuous for a man who grew up in Hawaii and lived his adult life in the North. And I think his claim to be coming home to Selma is fine if he makes it simply as a black man (the way a gay man can claim to be "coming home" when he stands in front of the Stonewall bar in NYC) but not the way he describes because it's not what happened.

If you have proof that his father wasn't a recipient of the airlift that the Kennedy foundation paid for then you'd have a point he's a liar.

His father, I believe, was a recepient of the airlift. That's not the point.

Otherwise it's a great speech that pays tribute to how he got to where he is today.

Yes it's a great speech.

But it is a mischaracterization of the truth, and as I've said that's fine if his mission is to inspire and encourage. However, if his mission is to be President of the United States, it (along with the other examples I've shown) shows too great a tendency to dishonesty. On the heels of George Bush that ought to be a concern, especially since Obama's whole thing is changing the way politics is done.

 

[tbonez]

But you just made the case for the reason it should disqualify him!...Your examples are perfect reasons for disqualification.

Perhaps lying should disqualify a candidate (I think it depends of the gravity of the lies). My point was that clearly (historically) lying through your teeth hasn't disqualified candidates from being elected...REPEATEDLY. I doubt that going to change any time soon.

We need better than that.

There are only two candidates running for the leadership of the Democratic Party and possibly three people with the potential to become your President. You can't chooses Batman, Superman or the Green Lantern because their names aren't on any ballot. You have to make a choice and "hypothetical other" ain't one of them.

As for Bill Clinton lying about having sexual relations with Lewinsky, that's not remotely the same thing.

For the record I liked and admired Clinton as President. His peccadilloes made no difference to me.

Clinton did lie under oath and IMO that's no small thing...It certainly if far graver than any of the vague Obama bloopers you seem to be so riled up about ... Clinton did your country much good despite his constant "lying".

I think Barack Obama has some extraordinary gifts, ...

And I think he's your best and brightest chance from the candidates who actually have their names in the hat. Fucking a past President doesn't make Hillary any more qualified than Barack. Really, she has no more tangible experience than he does.

We need foreign leaders to trust the US and our President again.

That may take some time. I think that the greatest untold cost of the Bush marionette Presidency was the post 9/11 international good-will he squandered and turned into contempt and hatred.. Trust me, it is likely far more significant than most American have realized yet.

Satan! Get thee behind me!

Actually I prefer to be called 'Satine' (think - Moulin Rouge)

What are you Canadian or something?

Busted! I just figure that since when the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold I have a an interest in you folk not shooting yourselves in the head again...You might miss this time.

 

[NickCole]

I think this was brought up weeks ago by iman, and I don't recall what evidence I had that killed that discussion quick.

Yeah right. Be sure to let us know if you suddenly remember the earth shattering evidence you had that killed that discussion quick.

The Obama campaign's factcheck thing discusses this: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/02/fact_check_on_new_york_times_s.php

Uh huh. The Obama campaign's factcheck thing "discusses" it.

It does not, however, address Obama's lie that he passed the bill.

What a surprise.

No, he's not. He's neither the nominee nor did he ever pledge in the proposal---he said he would work out a deal with McCain.

Well he boasted that he'd made the proposal himself and called it a "pledge." And he boasted that McCain had pledged. The clear implication, if McCain and he were the nominees, was that Obama was pledged as well. But maybe this is part of that politics of hope politics of change thingie -- how exciting, thinking of all the ways he can trick us when he's in the White House!

This is what he wrote on a questionaire that he and John Edwards responded to by the Midwest Democracy network:

QUESTION: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election. [/FONT]

http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/media/MDNPresidentialQuestionnaire.pdf

This part especially has to hurt now: "return excess money from donors"

This was discussed before too.

It'll probably be discussed again. Get used to it.

 

[naked gent]

^^ So Nick are you advising Obama to take the public funding and spending limits that go with it which could leave him unable to answer that republican attack machine which you so often speak of?

Whats more important to you Nick that he keep his word in the general or that a democrat wins in the fall?

 

[Kulindahr]

Does Obama have a lying problem?

Absolutely: people lie about him frequently.