A couple days ago, Mike Pridmore posted the most-excellent diary Obama's red phone is based on lies here at MyDD. It included Lie number 3: Opposing the war was politically risky for Senator Obama, which began with "First, it needs to be pointed out that Senator Obama did not develop a national profile of opposition to the Iraq War."
Actually, except for the October 2002 speech he made at an antiwar rally at downtown Chicago's Federal Plaza, during his 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, no other evidence has been produced supporting Obama's alleged continuous opposition to the war in Iraq.
A link to Obama's 2002 speech was posted October 30, 2002, on his pre-senatorial campaign website, Obama for Illinois; the website can now only be accessed via the Wayback Machine. There were few posts on the website, including the speech, which was introduced thusly: "The following is a speech that I gave at a recent rally regarding the situation in Iraq."
The website was only updated ten times, with the last being August 28, 2004, just prior to the General Elections. There are no other speeches, policy statements, notices, newspaper columns or any other hints on the Obama for Illinois website that Obama opposed either going to war in Iraq, having American troops deployed to Iraq, or about the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Barack Obama 2004--the Obamablog--created on May 20, 2004, by former Howard Dean blog guru Rick Klau, also can only be accessed via the Wayback Machine. The blog talks about how Obama was chosen for inclusion in the Dean Dozen--"Governor Dean's list of twelve critical races in the upcoming election"--and about building a blogger support network, as well as information for various Obama Meetup groups and Obama appearances, but nothing whatsoever about Obama's position on the war in Iraq. As with Obama for Illinois, there were few updates, fourteen to be exact before the last one on July 29, 2004, just prior to Obama's DNC keynote address.
Surely, since Obama now wants everyone to accept that his position on the war in Iraq has never wavered and he has been the only candidate who was against the war since his 2002 speech, there should have been at least one mention on either his official campaign website or his campaign blog to back up that claim. But there is not, which begs the question "why not?".
Insight into the "why not" comes from a July 25, 2004, post by blogger Paul Smith who wrote just prior to Obama's DNC address:
It was clear to me today watching Barack Obama on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and Late Edition that the DNC has the up-and-comer on a very short leash. When asked by Tim Russert about his previous remarks criticizing the Iraq war, Obama played them down, especially the criticism of Bush. Today's Times ... lets us know that the Dems are going to tone down the anti-Bush sentiment this week and present their "positive" and "affirmative" positions.
This seems to me a strange choice. First, it blunts and homogenizes your best and brightest -- like Obama and Michigan Governor Jen Granholm, who also popped up on Face the Nation. Obama is by no means a fire-breathing partisan, and nor has he made Bush or the war central to his campaign, but Iraq is a huge and indictable issue for the President, and Obama has taken him to task for it on the campaign trail. Instead, you have the droning repetition of the talking points -- values, strength, safety, etc. -- that gives the inherent charisma of Obama and Granholm no where to go. Second, it gives your base no red meat. ...
I was really looking forward to Barack's keynote, but now I fear it will be just his mouth moving someone else's focus-grouped, safe words.
There you have it. Obama was not so against the war in Iraq that he went out of his way to play it up on the campaign trail, nor particularly vocal against President Bush for launching it. By spring and summer 2004 it was generally accepted that things were not going so well in Iraq. So, where did the antiwar rhetoric of Obama's 2002 speech go?
Easy answer. The DNC, you see, had put Obama on a "short leash" with "just his mouth moving someone else's focus-grouped safe words." Nothing's changed.
P.S.: Today, speaking on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Dick Durbin gave Obama's "fairy tale" on the Iraq war--as President Bill Clinton called it in South Carolina--an extra boost:
WALLACE: Senator Durbin, do you agree with Senator Obama that Clinton is fear-mongering?
DURBIN: Well, it does, of course, strike a note of concern and fear about what might happen. And you know, the basic question is not whether the president can wipe the sleep out of his or her eyes and think clearly, but the judgment that they'll use once that phone call is understood.
And I think that Senator Obama has met that test. I remember one of those moments in the Senate. It was almost 2:00 a.m. on October 11, 2002, and that's when we were called on to vote as to whether to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
There were many senators who decided at that time to give the president the authority. Barack Obama said clearly he would not. His judgment was right at that critical moment in history. And I think it's judgment that people are looking for.
If you did not know better, would you not come away believing that Obama had voted against the war in the Senate at "2:00 a.m. on October 11, 2002"? Blame it on those focus groups.
Note: After several failed attempts to post this here yesterday, it was posted in Taylor Marsh's Hot Topics.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
