Obama As "Fabricator"

[metta 0]

If you don't mind me asking, did you vote in the last Presidential Election and if so which candidate, before Kerry became the Party's nominee, were you supporting?

Second set of questions - what do you dislike the most about Hillary Clinton as a candidate? What do you think is her biggest liability?

Yeah, voted for Kerry allthe way through primaries and the general. I knew Bush 2nd term spelled more disaster (even then underesitimated the extent of damage that would be wrought by his admin.

As to Hillary, her liabilities are that she wears the scars of 15 or so years of unprecedentedly viscious political and personal assaults and everyone knows where he/she stands when it comes to the Clintons. There is a track record. You can accept or reject but you know what you'll get. The biggest liabi;lity? Of course, the mud that's already stuck on her. To me she's like Jack Nicholson. Goddamn ugly by the looks but hey, he is reliably superb at what he does in his profession

Interesting. So Hillary has no personality flaws, in your opinion? Or at least none that are worth of mention?

Also, did you feel let down by Kerry for endorsing Obama?

None, that would seriously interfere with her being a very good President.

As for Kerry, he was my choice in 2004 but today, he backs Barack for his own reasons, and I support Hillary. No, I don't feel let down by him because I don't make my decisions based on his endorsement.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you don't mind me asking, did you vote in the last Presidential Election and if so which candidate, before Kerry became the Party's nominee, were you supporting?

Second set of questions - what do you dislike the most about Hillary Clinton as a candidate? What do you think is her biggest liability?

Yeah, voted for Kerry allthe way through primaries and the general. I knew Bush 2nd term spelled more disaster (even then underesitimated the extent of damage that would be wrought by his admin.

As to Hillary, her liabilities are that she wears the scars of 15 or so years of unprecedentedly viscious political and personal assaults and everyone knows where he/she stands when it comes to the Clintons. There is a track record. You can accept or reject but you know what you'll get. The biggest liabi;lity? Of course, the mud that's already stuck on her. To me she's like Jack Nicholson. Goddamn ugly by the looks but hey, he is reliably superb at what he does in his profession

Interesting. So Hillary has no personality flaws, in your opinion? Or at least none that are worth of mention?

Also, did you feel let down by Kerry for endorsing Obama?

None, that would seriously interfere with her being a very good President.

As for Kerry, he was my choice in 2004 but today, he backs Barack for his own reasons, and I support Hillary. No, I don't feel let down by him because I don't make my decisions based on his endorsement.

Interesting. So as a Democrat who supported Kerry all the way in 2004, you see no flaws in Hillary's personality that prevent her from being a very good President, but in Obama you see how many personality flaws?

[mox 298]

From a press release from the University of Chicago:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors

, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Call it a stretch, but it's not an outright lie.

Now I personally feel that either Obama or Clinton would make a decent president, so I really have no dog in this race. I think Obama's positions are closer to my own, but I also have a great deal of respect for Mrs. Clinton. I would easily vote for either one of them, and silliness like whether Obama stretched the truth a little on his resume or if Clinton stretched the truth about Bosnia for dramatic effect is just a distraction from the real issues. Because here's a shocker: politicians stretch the truth and even lie. They all do it. Obama does it, Hillary does it, McCain does it, hell even Lincoln did it. And it's stuff like this that makes them keep doing it, because it detracts from the real issues at hand. It's easier for Obama to sit down with a morning talk show host and explain why he said he was a constitutional law professor than it is to explain his position on health care. It's easier for Hillary to explain her Bosnia comment to Larry King than it is to explain her position on getting the troops out of Iraq. WE allow this to happen and then feel oh so smug about ourselves when we catch the next misstep.

What I think it's time for Democrats to start doing is focusing on what makes the candidates different instead of this kind of silliness. Our current President was AWOL and a cocaine user and still managed to become President...you think the American public really care if Obama takes a few liberties in a speech that nobody's going to remember in July?

Now is the time to start focusing and putting energy into issues like health care reform, the Iraq strategy, social security, the lending crisis, and other issues that aren't quite as sexy as catching a candidate in a minor gaffe but sure as hell are more important.

[metta 0]

If you don't mind me asking, did you vote in the last Presidential Election and if so which candidate, before Kerry became the Party's nominee, were you supporting?

Second set of questions - what do you dislike the most about Hillary Clinton as a candidate? What do you think is her biggest liability?

Yeah, voted for Kerry allthe way through primaries and the general. I knew Bush 2nd term spelled more disaster (even then underesitimated the extent of damage that would be wrought by his admin.

As to Hillary, her liabilities are that she wears the scars of 15 or so years of unprecedentedly viscious political and personal assaults and everyone knows where he/she stands when it comes to the Clintons. There is a track record. You can accept or reject but you know what you'll get. The biggest liabi;lity? Of course, the mud that's already stuck on her. To me she's like Jack Nicholson. Goddamn ugly by the looks but hey, he is reliably superb at what he does in his profession

Interesting. So Hillary has no personality flaws, in your opinion? Or at least none that are worth of mention?

Also, did you feel let down by Kerry for endorsing Obama?

None, that would seriously interfere with her being a very good President.

As for Kerry, he was my choice in 2004 but today, he backs Barack for his own reasons, and I support Hillary. No, I don't feel let down by him because I don't make my decisions based on his endorsement.

Interesting. So as a Democrat who supported Kerry all the way in 2004, you see no flaws in Hillary's personality that prevent her from being a very good President, but in Obama you see how many personality flaws?

I've said here earlier that i like Obama and cannot but be impressed by his oratory and intelligence.

The problem I have with him is that he really hasn't much to show as to what he has done to be able to address the pressing issues of today which by any way you look at are alarmingly serious-both domestically and internationally.

What I see in him is a put togehter biography that rhetorically goes over very beautifully with the audience. Take for example, community organiser. Look at his advisors, all reputedly brilliant but totally inexperienced. What does that mean? If elected, both Prez, and is advisors will fiddle around to learn the system and then need a few screw ups to calibrate their policies and their bearing in the WH

I don't think we have that luxury at this moment. I won't go into detail explaining the exigencies awaiting the next POTUS. We all know that.

What worries me also is the halo placed over his head by his adoring supporters placing every conceivable positive attribute they can think of on him. Unlike in January, his weak points (Wright, Meeks, Rezko etc ) are now spotted by the opposition. So, while he could get nominated, the rest is going to be alot more tough going for him. I seriously think he could lose even with the favorables democrats presently enjoy, per kind favor of Bush

To me he is just another brilliant and promising politician sweet-talking his way a couple of terms too prematurely to the WH.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From a press release from the University of Chicago:

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors

, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Call it a stretch, but it's not an outright lie.

Now I personally feel that either Obama or Clinton would make a decent president, so I really have no dog in this race. I think Obama's positions are closer to my own, but I also have a great deal of respect for Mrs. Clinton. I would easily vote for either one of them, and silliness like whether Obama stretched the truth a little on his resume or if Clinton stretched the truth about Bosnia for dramatic effect is just a distraction from the real issues. Because here's a shocker: politicians stretch the truth and even lie. They all do it. Obama does it, Hillary does it, McCain does it, hell even Lincoln did it. And it's stuff like this that makes them keep doing it, because it detracts from the real issues at hand. It's easier for Obama to sit down with a morning talk show host and explain why he said he was a constitutional law professor than it is to explain his position on health care. It's easier for Hillary to explain her Bosnia comment to Larry King than it is to explain her position on getting the troops out of Iraq. WE allow this to happen and then feel oh so smug about ourselves when we catch the next misstep.

What I think it's time for Democrats to start doing is focusing on what makes the candidates different instead of this kind of silliness. Our current President was AWOL and a cocaine user and still managed to become President...you think the American public really care if Obama takes a few liberties in a speech that nobody's going to remember in July?

Now is the time to start focusing and putting energy into issues like health care reform, the Iraq strategy, social security, the lending crisis, and other issues that aren't quite as sexy as catching a candidate in a minor gaffe but sure as hell are more important.

Good post, although where I see a difference and this could just be anecdotal - at least a couple of Hillary's supporters who post here think there's only one strong candidate in primary race, not two. That's the difference and Hillary has even emphasized that idea...that Obama is not even fit to be president. Hillary's strategy is pretty clear - she knows she can't beat Obama in a personality contest so instead she's focused her efforts on discrediting him as not presidential material. It will be very interesting to see how Hillary will make amends for discrediting Obama and throw her support behind him when he is nominated, which I'm 99 percent certain will happen.

[mox 298]

Good post, although where I see a difference and this could just be anecdotal - at least a couple of Hillary's supporters who post here think there's only one strong candidate in primary race, not two. That's the difference and Hillary has even emphasized that idea...that Obama is not even fit to be president. Hillary's strategy is pretty clear - she knows she can't beat Obama in a personality contest so instead she's focused her efforts on discrediting him as not presidential material. It will be very interesting to see how Hillary will make amends for discrediting Obama and throw her support behind him when he is nominated, which I'm 99 percent certain will happen.

I don't have a problem with Hillary supporters insisting there is only one strong candidate in the race. I happen to disagree (I see 2 very strong candidates) but that's what politics is about. I welcome Hillary supporters talking about why Hillary is stronger, just like I welcome Obama supporters talking about why Obama is stronger. I even welcome both candidates and their supporters talking about why the opposition is weaker. But when they do it, I want to hear about the real stuff. If you tell me Hillary is a liar because of her Bosnia comments, then please talk to the hand. But if you want to tell me she's weak on terrorism or whatever the real issue is, backed up by facts and not rhetoric, then I'm all ears. I have no interest in tabloid-driven propaganda.

Whoever wins it, the other will get behind them 100%. That's how it's played. Look back at McCain's loss to Bush in 2000. The "swift-boating" he got from the Bush campaign was second only to the actual swift-boating of Kerry in 2004. And yet McCain got behind Bush like it wasn't nothin' but a thang. After the convention, they'll seem like best buds. And that's for the best, really. You don't want to go up against McCain (who is a much stronger candidate than he's being credited for) with a divided party.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can cite a litany of untruths coming out of Obama...

You did. And some, if not most of it are actually fabrications of alleged untruths invented and peddled by the Clinton camp - like his "lie" of having been a professor which turned out not to have been a lie but a simple fact.

Has Obama embellished his resume? Yes he has. Just like anyone else - politician or not. Yet there's a fine line between enhancing one's resume and making it a fabrication. Hillary has stepped over that line time and again and then even managed to lie about the infractions when caught. Lying then becomes misspeaking which is really just another lie.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[metta 0]

I can cite a litany of untruths coming out of Obama...

You did. And some, if not most of it are actually fabrications of alleged untruths invented and peddled by the Clinton camp - like his "lie" of having been a professor which turned out not to have been a lie but a simple fact.

Has Obama embellished his resume? Yes he has. Just like anyone else - politician or not. Yet there's a fine line between enhancing one's resume and making it a fabrication. Hillary has stepped over that line time and again and then even managed to lie about the infractions when caught. Lying then becomes misspeaking which is really just another lie.

This piece came from "National Journal Group" which has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. I'm not sure, but i suspect it is more right wing than left. This was in 2007 and a time when Obama's friend on U of Chicago Board of Trustees has not acted on the damage control yet.

I have to say this! You are a true blue "O" man. Barack sat in Wright's church for 20 years and never heard anything too offensive and now, you who have followed the campaigns all this time and never heard Obama say anything that crosses the line.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can cite a litany of untruths coming out of Obama...

You did. And some, if not most of it are actually fabrications of alleged untruths invented and peddled by the Clinton camp - like his "lie" of having been a professor which turned out not to have been a lie but a simple fact.

Has Obama embellished his resume? Yes he has. Just like anyone else - politician or not. Yet there's a fine line between enhancing one's resume and making it a fabrication. Hillary has stepped over that line time and again and then even managed to lie about the infractions when caught. Lying then becomes misspeaking which is really just another lie.

This piece came from "National Journal Group" which has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. I'm not sure, but i suspect it is more right wing than left. This was in 2007 and a time when Obama's friend on U of Chicago Board of Trustees has not acted on the damage control yet.

I have to say this! You are a true blue "O" man. Barack sat in Wright's church for 20 years and never heard anything too offensive and now, you who have followed the campaigns all this time and never heard Obama say anything that crosses the line.

Oh, I see. There's a friend at U of Chicago who just supports O's lie. And the entire rest of that school just stands idle letting it pass. That's a great fabrication right there. Gotta give it to you, you fabricate like there's no tomorrow. And quite possibly, there won't be many tomorrows for camp H.

What exactly crossed the line?