I have read a number of posts on this board questioning Obama's credibility - most notably Kerakles.
I have yet to see any rational for the assessment. Will someone please explain to me why Obama, in particular, should warrant less benefit of the doubt than other politicians, or much more to the point, than John McCain.
I quit counting several months ago at about 10 major ones.
MCCain's had what? Two maybe? And they were based on changing facts.
You can waste alot of energy debating "Obama this, yea but McCain that", but the fact is it doesn't matter any more. McCain is irrelevant at this point. Might as well debate why McGovern was a better candidate. This race is over.
Obama will be our next President. This is over.
What's the point of an election anyway; couldn't we save a load of money if we just depended on the polls?
Why is it a bad thing to change your mind on something? I don't mind flip flopping at all. That said, I don't know what you're talking about when you reference 10 major flip flops. Please tell us. Don't bother yourself with 10, just tell us two or three major flip flops that you are referencing.
If conditions change I would find fault with anyone that did NOT re-evaluate their position.
But most of these are clearly due to BHO trying to shift toward the right after the primaries. A few just have to go against his core values (and that's giving him some credit for have core values).
My guess is that if you look at the true source data for your supposed "flip-flops" you will find things not so clear as you would like to argue.
Sorry, but I've got a job and don't have time to research each one of the items you mentioned, but since you are so adamant on the issue you must have all of the original source data/quotes/position statements on hand. How about you back up your sound bites with the source information without editing to exclude context? Thanks.
...I said McCain is irrelevant. Specifically I said the "Obama said that McCain said this" exercise is a waste of time.
However, it DOES matter what people attribute to Obama, particularly when such accusations are (probably) false or a stretch of context. Not because I think a case needs to be made for him to become President (that one is sealed), but because he will be our next President.
Why should YOU do this? Because you are the one making the statement. Actually...to be fair...you are passing along a statement from Dick Morris (won't even go there).
Public financing issue aside (which is a stupid issue), pick any two of your other "points" and recite the source information in context. I highly doubt you can do this.
I think in order to enhance your own credibility, I would love to hear whether upon reconsideration you believe there are really 9. Please see my responses below in all caps.
1) After vowing to avoid private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL POSITION. HE DOESN'T NEED THE MONEY, SO WHY TAKE IT. YOU DON'T HEAR HIM STUMPING ABOUT IT.
2) Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXTRAORDINARILY RELEVANT. THERE IS NO CONTEXT STATE HERE.
3) Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH GUN CONTROL. THIS ONE IS A JOKE.
4) Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE. I LOOKED FOR EVIDENCE ON THE WEB AND DON'T SEE IT.
5) From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
HE HAS NEVER FAVORED THIRD TERM ABORTIONS EXCEPT FOR THE MOTHER'S HEALTH.
6) For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
HOW IS THIS A FLIP FLOP? THIS ONE IS ALSO A JOKE. SINCE WHEN IS BEING QUIET AND THEN SPEAKING A FLIP FLOP?
7) Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
HE HAS PLEDGED TO LEAVE IN 16 MONTHS. DID ANYONE EVER THINK HE WOULDN'T TALK TO THE MILITARY? THIS ONE IS A JOKE.
8) During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers - but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
I DO NOT BELIEVE HE NEVER OPPOSED MERIT PAY FOR TEACHERS. I NEVER HEARD THIS, NOR COULD I FIND IT ON THE INTERNET.
9) After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
AGREED. THIS IS A FLIP FLOP.
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL POSITION. HE DOESN'T NEED THE MONEY, SO WHY TAKE IT. YOU DON'T HEAR HIM STUMPING ABOUT IT.
It's TOTALLY political. First, he couldn't take the public money if he wanted to now. It was an either-or situation. Public money in Presedential elections was created to "level the playing field", to keep big money out. i.e. both candidates start from the same place, with the same money, at the same time, etc. Both he and McCain pledged to go down the path of public money. Note: It's not required. If a candiate wants to "privately" fund his campaign he can. Once BHO realized due to his popularity that he could get more money privately, he backed out of his promise.
Upon reflection and consideration of your words. I agree with you. This was an extremely political flip flop.
BTW, a little irony here. I just flip flopped as well. I think I could not respect myself if I didn't.
Obama and McCain never made a "pledge" together to only receive public financing.
Obama has always stated that the public financing system is broken - which it is. Public financing is irrelevent, particularly for a democrat, when the Republican party (which is a goliath compared to the democratic party) and 527's are so important in financing the "message" of a GOP candidate, outside of public financing.
If the roles were reversed McCain would have done the same thing. By the way folks - this is a race for President of the United States - not student council. This is a game for the big boys and it is a game played to win.
McCain could have always opted out as well. He didn't, which will prove to be his mistake probably. Palin is a loser by almost all counts, but she is a winner when it comes to mobilizing the crazy right wingers - and they just might have handed McCain some more much needed cash then he is getting now - even with the goliath Republican party and 527 funding.
In any event, Obama's financing IS public financing. If you look at the details - almost none of it is coming from "big donors", it is almost all from very small donors. How much more "public" could you want?
Prediction: Obama will win and by 2012 you will not see "public financing" any longer. Obama is the new playbook and everyone after will follow suit. Period.
Disagree with Morris’s phrasing, but he’s not alone.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11535.html
The above link supports items 1. 2. 3, 5, 6, and 7 plus adds one new one.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12903.htm
The above link supports item 4
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9982898-7.html
The above link also supports item 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
The above link also supports item 1 PLUS adds 4 new flip-flops.
Here’s another new one.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55592
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=707
I asked why he doesn't have credibility in your eyes. Your answer appears to be that he's inexperienced. Duh. Of course he's under experienced. WTF does that have to do with why you doubt his credibility?
His credibility and experience are tied as one and I am glad to see you admit Obama does not have experience.
An example is Obama will not admit the surge worked.
I have admitted several times that Obama is under experienced. This has NOTHING to do with credibility. I am under experienced to be a plumber, but that doesn't mean I will tell lies about it or make false promises.
As far as admitting that the surge worked, I don't admit it either. To me, it's like saying that I cut my finger on a soda can so I tried to clean it with acid - that didn't work so I amputated the hand. Even if I did the amputation well, calling the amputation a success seems a little ridiculous.
It is time do your own work and find what credibility O'Bomb has. Then again, my definition of credibility and yours may be different. Mine is simple " do what you say and say what you do". With this in mind, to me the whole thing starts with the promise of accepting federal funds and not doing it when it became clear it would not be advantageous.
O'Bomb has changed according to what is convenient at the moment and changed way too many positions. His intellectual laziness is evidenced by either pushing himself into other peoples accomplishments or taking other peoples accomplishments.
So, you have got to find the evidence for yourself. As far as rational debates are concerned, your rationality and mine differs. Yours is based Huffington Post, Dial Kos, NYT, WaPO, CNN, Olberman, Chris Mathews, O'Bomb Campaign Site and Surrogates. Mine is based well respected sources such as IRS, Federal DB, Congressional and Senatorial DB, and OMB to name a few.
Besides, I do intent write a book and intent do it here. Good luck.
I know what answer you are looking for by beating around the bush, YOU ARE NOT GETTING IT FROM ME. GIVE UP.
-- Modified on 10/20/2008 3:08:39 AM
Beating around the bush??? I asked a question. Now you say, uh ... I know what I'm talking about ... I'm just not gonna tell you.
Dude, you want me to be straight, you're full of shit. If you have a view, explain it. If you can't explain it, a rational person would admit their view is unfounded.
All the running dog capitalists are members of the same pack. Just think of the election as one big dogfight.