Does Obama have a lying problem?

[Kulindahr]

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

Don't legislators talk that way all the time?

 

[NickCole]

^^ 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?

Well first of all his pledge was to take only public financing if the Republican challenger did the same, so he wouldn't be at a financial disadvantage.

So in terms of how you frame it I don't much care what he or any other candidate does on this score. Issues like this are, for me, a way to judge a candidate's character.

Obama says he's the candidate of change. He says he stands for ethics reform, telling the voters the truth. He presented a pledge for public financing for the 2008 campaigns back when he thought he wouldn't be able to raise money at the level Hillary Clinton could or, if he won the nomination, his challenger. Probably he was only trying to embarrass Hillary Clinton because she refused to make that pledge, but who knows.

Whatever his motive, he presented a plan, a pledge, and he's run on being the candidate who'll change the way Washington works. So I think his response to this is revealing about his character and how he'd perform as President. He doesn't have much of a record to evaluate so it's especially important to evaluate his choices as we go along. The way he's responded to this so far tells me he can't be trusted to do what he says or implies he'll do, that he isn't really interested in bringing change unless it benefits him personally, that all that change stuff has been "just words."

This goes to the heart of what he and his wife and his surrogates and his supporters claim is the reason to vote for him over Hillary Clinton. He's renegging on it. Shamelessly. And his supporters are defending him. It's starkly revealing.

 

[NickCole]

All one can do is submit a bill; the Congress itself must pass it.

I don't fault him for failing to get it passed.

I'm calling him out as a liar.

He took credit for passing a bill about reporting nuclear radioactive leaks that he didn't get passed -- and he did it in front of an audience that had specific reason to care about it. He's a panderer. He's a liar. He cannot be trusted. That matters to me when I'm deciding whom to vote for.

He is short on accomplishments and he's lying about this being one.

He's lied about other stuff. We're just winding up an 8 year stint with a liar in the Oval Office who lied about big things like this that directly impact the people. I say we don't need another Bush & Co.

 

[NickCole]

Don't legislators talk that way all the time?

No legislators do not "all the time" claim to have passed legislation they haven't passed.

If a bill didn't get passed they may refer to it as legislation they submitted or worked on, or maybe even sponsored or co-sponsored, something like that.

Passing legislation is difficult and a very specific accomplishment.

 

[Kulindahr]

NY has already voted in the primary, so it doesn't matter. If Obama gets the nomination, vote for Nader or McCain. Pretty simple.

Or draw a card and pick a random "third party".

 

[naked gent]

Well first of all his pledge was to take only public financing if the Republican challenger did the same, so he wouldn't be at a financial disadvantage.

Pardon me Nick, for these past months when you have been warning about the republican attack machine I thought it included the 527's like the Swiftboat boys. To answer the false charges of such groups, who are not bound by any financial limit, takes money and I was under the impression from your past posts that you wanted the democratic candidate to defend themselves in a way that John Kerry did not.

But now I see that the machine you were talking about only extends to the candidate himself. Good news for Mr. Obama.

This goes to the heart of what he and his wife and his surrogates and his supporters claim is the reason to vote for him over Hillary Clinton. He's renegging on it. Shamelessly. And his supporters are defending him. It's starkly revealing.

I'd say its about as starkly revealing as the Clinton campaign's position on the democratic value of caucuses after they realized they were getting smoked in them.

 

[D8Na2R]

I've listened to a few of his speeches...I don't find them inspiring. I find them tedious...He just says a lot of words.

Lying I don't know. Has he said anything of substance to get a handle on to figure out if it truly is fact or fiction?

I think trying to pin down ANYTHING with this guy will be like trying to catch a greased pig.

 

[NickCole]

Pardon me Nick, for these past months when you have been warning about the republican attack machine I thought it included the 527's like the Swiftboat boys. To answer the false charges of such groups, who are not bound by any financial limit, takes money and I was under the impression from your past posts that you wanted the democratic candidate to defend themselves in a way that John Kerry did not.

But now I see that the machine you were talking about only extends to the candidate himself. Good news for Mr. Obama.

John Kerry's problem was not lack of money. It was his response mechanism.

While it's true Republicans have had more money to play with and that's an advantage, their attack machine's effectiveness is not its wealth; it's effective because of its strategy. The Swiftboaters didn't spend all that much money. It worked because they skewered Kerry at his strength and Kerry didn't protect his power, he assumed his power would protect itself -- such an easy and fatal mistake. Dukakis did the same thing and so did Gore. They didn't lose because they had too little money, they lost because they were so accustomed to their strength being their strength that when it was disabled by the Republican machine they were powerless. They could have had a hundred billion dollars and they still would have lost.

I don't like all the money in politics, I think it's corrosive and I was pleased Obama made that pledge. It was one of the things, when I took a second look at him, I placed firmly in the pro column. It got my heart pumping hard; it really did. Fundraising is one of the things the Clintons do well that I don't like. I can live with it as a necessary evil but I don't like it. I'd be very happy to see both candidates operate campaigns on exactly the same amount and have to spend zero time raising money.

But Obama's proving now that his public financing routine last year wasn't genuine, it was trickery -- and the trick he tried to play was on voters, which means he wouldn't hesitate to try to trick us from the Oval Office as well. After all that's happened with Bush doing exactly that, and it's not even history yet, I'm amazed some people are yet again letting themselves be hoodwinked.

Obama's not a good guy, naked gent. I know he looks like he is but looks can be deceiving. I can feel it exactly the same way I felt it about Bush and I can see it in these choices of his I've been calling attention to. He looks good, he sounds good, he makes you feel good -- but he is not a good man. He's deceitful. And my many years of learning about human nature have taught me that you steer as far away from deceit as you can because it always makes a mess. Always. We need someone to clean up the last one's mess, not another one making another kind of a mess.

Fool me once ...

I'd say its about as starkly revealing as the Clinton campaign's position on the democratic value of caucuses after they realized they were getting smoked in them.

Oh now please!

Caucuses are a single element of our election process. Candidates that lose in them complain about them every election cycle, just like the Electoral College. I'm talking about Obama's entire narrative for why he's the one Democrats should vote into the White House.

He says, as Bush did, he's going to change the way politics is done. And, just like Bush, if there's any change evident so far it's for the worse. Obama is lying about having passed vital legislation and he's renegging on a pledge he initiated simply because it no longer benefits him. Instead of working for real accomplishment he lies to create an illusion of accomplishment. That's not what we need in the White House, especially now with so many huge real problems that won't be fixed with illusion of accomplishment.

 

[naked gent]

I don't like all the money in politics, I think it's corrosive and I was pleased Obama made that pledge. It was one of the things, when I took a second look at him, I placed firmly in the pro column.

Nick if every candidate raised money in the manner which Obama has, small amounts from lots of people, I'm not so sure we would even need campaign finance reform.

Obama's not a good guy, naked gent. I know he looks like he is but looks can be deceiving. I can feel it.

Nick I don't know if he's a good guy or not but I do believe, based on their records, he is a much better guy than Mrs. Clinton. I don't love him I just dislike her.

I thought I was in the minority but what the democratic primaries have taught me is that I'm not. The reason, I believe, he gets away with saying so little is that many people just don't want her.

I realize that this is something you can't fathom but she is not a good candidate and her experience claim is a joke. The fact is that the polls which showed that half the country don't like her were proved accurate.

I thought Obama hit it exactly on the head in the last debate when he pointed out that she doomed her own healthcare plan back in 93 when she rejected help from her own side in an attempt to do it all herself.

She is not a skilled politician and what you don't understand is that the change people are yearning for is not just from the Bush yrs but from the constant fighting of the Clinton yrs as well.

Thats what many people want to get beyond......and rightly so methinks.

 

[D8Na2R]

Don't be so quick on assuming anything about the money. Obama is getting the kid gloves treatment from everyone. Even if there were inconsistencies it wouldn't be reported. (ie the trouble with Norman Hsu and Hillary Clinton) The Clintons are so disliked in many ways. I mean Hillary is a very polarizing figure as was her husband. I can say one thing though at least she has some specifics. Obama hasn't articulated anything in the way of specifics. He avoids any situation where he may be asked about his "plan for America". In the debates he fumbles miserably when he gets a surprise or askew question. It is pretty clear to me he is a constructed candidate. The thing I'd like to know is by whom.

 

[NickCole]

Nick if every candidate raised money in the manner which Obama has, small amounts from lots of people, I'm not so sure we would even need campaign finance reform.

Regardless, the fact is Obama himself offered a pledge that said if his Republican opponent agreed to take only public funding then he would do the same. And he's now backing away from it because it no longer benefits him. That's what unprincipled people do. He's deceitful, you can't trust what he says. That means we can't trust a single one of his promises because who knows which he'll decide are good for him and which aren't.

Nick I don't know if he's a good guy or not but I do believe, based on their records, he is a much better guy than Mrs. Clinton. I don't love him I just dislike her.

I thought I was in the minority but what the democratic primaries have taught me is that I'm not. The reason, I believe, he gets away with saying so little is that many people just don't want her.

I realize that this is something you can't fathom but she is not a good candidate and her experience claim is a joke. The fact is that the polls which showed that half the country don't like her were proved accurate.

I thought Obama hit it exactly on the head in the last debate when he pointed out that she doomed her own healthcare plan back in 93 when she rejected help from her own side in an attempt to do it all herself.

She is not a skilled politician and what you don't understand is that the change people are yearning for is not just from the Bush yrs but from the constant fighting of the Clinton yrs as well.

Thats what many people want to get beyond......and rightly so methinks.

Oh I can fathom it easily.

This is exactly what people said about Gore and Bush in 2000. You could switch the names, take out the health care specific, and there's no difference. After all these years of watching human behavior I never stop marveling that no matter how big the price, some people refuse to learn from mistakes.

 

[MystikWizard]

I thought I was in the minority but what the democratic primaries have taught me is that I'm not. The reason, I believe, he gets away with saying so little is that many people just don't want her.

She is the worst thing that could happen to your Party. A Bush Democrat who is out to protect Corporate Interests.

I realize that this is something you can't fathom but she is not a good candidate and her experience claim is a joke.

Truer words have never been spoken.

The fact is that the polls which showed that half the country don't like her were proved accurate.

Yep, but Nick doesn't give a damn about the rest of the country. All he cares about is promoting his own selfish Agenda.

She is not a skilled politician and what you don't understand is that the change people are yearning for is not just from the Bush yrs but from the constant fighting of the Clinton yrs as well.

People are tired of the Bush/Clinton Dynasty. But the Road Block in the way is people like Nick who are determined to promote a Woman President. I've learned that him and others on here again, really don't give a damn about her background. By Hell or High Water, they are determined to get a Woman elected to the Presidency and "break that glass ceiling". People like this don't think rationally, so arguing with them is really futile, I suppose.

That's okay. She is going to lose the nomination regardless. Then, the Feminists on this Forum will just go down in flames. This is what happens when one lets their emotions and prejudices take over rational thought. And note that I don't think Nick is a racist. I certainly don't have that impression. But he damn sure is a Feminist, and is discriminating against Male candidates with more character and integrity ... and in the process, he has an Agenda he is trying to promote.

He actually let it somewhat slip in this post ....

And no, sixthson, I don't blame Republicans. I blame the people who have been making these nasty attacks against Hillary Clinton and those who defend it and those who are silent and those who attack people for calling it out. It is wrong. Racism and sexism is wrong. It's fucking wrong to treat a woman the misogynistic way these Obama supporters (and several in the media) have been treating Senator Clinton.

I won't be silent and I won't be still. If this is what being a crybaby is then get me a t-shirt with a bright red CRYBABY across the chest and I'll wear it proudly.

I just wish he would be honest with everyone on here, why he is so Hell Bent on supporting Hillary Clinton, especially when she has shown to be someone with poor character, integrity, and judgment. And like you said, NakedGent, her experience argument is a complete joke, and everyone, except her Feminist supporters realize it. It makes no sense at all, unless there are other reasons he is supporting her. I just want him to be honest with the rest of us, as well as himself ... and admit to everyone on here what the rest of us already know.

 

[tbonez]

Regardless, the fact is Obama himself offered a pledge that said if his Republican opponent agreed to take only public funding then he would do the same. And he's now backing away from it because it no longer benefits him.

Well good for him then!

It would be far worse if he were incapable of changing his mind about issues...That would make him just like your current President!

All this Obama bashing seems like pretty petty stuff to me. Clinton may or may not be more honest, but she has clearly shown really poor judgment. She has repeatedly taken disastrous advice and on several occasion has totally misread the mood of the electorate. Not qualities I particularly admire in a leader...Do you?

 

[tbonez]

Her experience argument is a complete joke,

I totally agree. Besides, even if it were true it is pretty clear Americans don't want a seasoned Washington wog, they want something not steeped in the current political culture.

I just want him to be honest with the rest of us, as well as himself ... and admit to everyone on here what the rest of us already know.

Don't hold your breath! Honesty is something he demands from others IME.

I think I see the attraction for NickCole...He sees a kindred spirit in Clinton:

1) Stick to a message even when it's clear to everyone that dog just won't hunt.

2) Never change your position or admit you might be on the wrong track no matter what. It's better to be unflinchingly consistent and inflexible than open to the possibility that you are headed down the wrong track and you need to change your mind.

 

[tbonez]

That was bad!

I guess I should proof-read my posts...before hitting 'submit'

"Wog" should have read "cog"

I apologies for the offensive epitaph.

 

[NickCole]

Well good for him then!

It would be far worse if he were incapable of changing his mind about issues...That would make him just like your current President!

He hasn't said he's changed his mind about campaign finance reform, that'd be totally different.

He's welching on a pledge he offered the other candidates and McCain accepted.

All this Obama bashing seems like pretty petty stuff to me. Clinton may or may not be more honest, but she has clearly shown really poor judgment. She has repeatedly taken disastrous advice and on several occasion has totally misread the mood of the electorate. Not qualities I particularly admire in a leader...Do you?

Bending with the wind, the mood of the electorate, doesn't impress me in anyone. And in fact it's a poor quality for a leader.

I admire leaders who have a vision, are well informed and work hard to achieve real results.

 

[MystikWizard]

I admire leaders who have a vision, are well informed and work hard to achieve real results.

Speaking of being well-informed ... is it true that Hillary didn't even bother reading the NIE on Iraq before casting her vote to give Bush the authority to go to War? That's kind of sad, since that vote had lasting repercussions on the country and has essentially put us in a recession. If Hillary would have been "well-informed", as you say, and if she would have done her homework and read the report, maybe she would have realized that Iraq wasn't as big a threat as the President was claiming it was. Are these the kind of qualities you admire in your leadership?

 

[naked gent]

Oh I can fathom it easily.

This is exactly what people said about Gore and Bush in 2000. You could switch the names, take out the health care specific, and there's no difference. After all these years of watching human behavior I never stop marveling that no matter how big the price, some people refuse to learn from mistakes.

Thats nonsense Nick and you know it. While your point does hold true for 2000 it does not in other years. Accurate analogies are not always easy but in 1988 Dukakis was the Hillary candidate and people liked Bush better.....no disaster there. In 1980 Reagan was the candidate people liked better and again no disaster there. How about 1976 when Ford was the better liked candidate, but he lost and we did flirt with disaster.

Who do you figure was the better liked candidate in 1960?

If we apply your rule sometimes we win and sometimes we loose.....just like when we don't apply your rule.

Its not as easy to tell what kind of president a candidate will be as you would have us believe. There is no secret formula and I never stop marveling at those who believe there is.

And Midnight excellent point on how hard working Hillary didn't take the time to read the NIE report on Iraq. Perhaps if she had it would have changed her vote.

 

[tbonez]

Bending with the wind, the mood of the electorate, doesn't impress me in anyone. And in fact it's a poor quality for a leader.

I admire leaders who have a vision, are well informed and work hard to achieve real results.

Hypocrite!

Hillary has repeatedly 'pledged' to unilaterally renegotiate NAFT. First off, unilaterally renegotiate is a oxymoron. You can't unilaterally do anything and call it a "negotiation". It's a lie of the first order to claim you can unilaterally rewrite a signed trade deal to your perceived benefit. It's also ill-advised, immoral and illegal.

Secondly, NAFT was a trade deal entered into by all parties in good faith, to now renege on that deal because you wish to pander to a outdated and dying manufacturing sector is, as you would say "bending in the wind" and 'poor leadership'.

Claiming that NAFT is largely to blame for your faltering economy shows just how cynical and opportunistic Hillary really is. Globalization and liberalized trade was largely an American invention and priority. That Genie is out of the bottle and for Clinton, or anyone else, to suggest you are going to somehow stuff if back in by imposing sanctions and barriers is economic suicide. She knows it's a crappy idea and a hollow promise.

Clearly Clinton will lie, cheat and attempt to stab her closest economic allies in the back to get the nomination and presidency...without batting an eyelash.

Perhaps you could remind her who it is, exactly, that is sitting on one of the world largest reserves of oil in the world...That would be Canada BTW. We could just as easily sell our vast oil reserves to China while your economy freezes in the dark.

On the NAFT front Obama is no better BTW, they are both blowing smoke out of their asses.

 

[tmb1]

The Clintons are the common denominator in all of these conflicts(hell look what she is doing here, dems vs. dems). I had sympathy for them when the repugs pulled all the shit they did against them. But now they have decided to learn from their enemies to win this nomination. You don't treat your own family as you have been treated by your enemies. We need to take a chance on a whole new direction to get away from this divisiveness.