Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Why Obama's Lies Are Important

avatar

His lies are just as important as Hillary's and here is why. UNLIKE Hillary, he continues to try and pursuade Americans that he is above the Politics of the past,  but continues to bash her at every opportunity. You tell me if any of these lies is any less than Hillary's.
"Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, a=href"http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html">7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]"


Comments (21)

Cynthia, can you really say that any of the above even comes close to the flat out lie Clinton told regarding Bosnia?

She said there was sniper fire and only admitted to "mispeaking" once a video came out.

These are really slight in comparison.

There's Obama's lies about his "international business" background:
Obama Exaggerates Resume

There's Obama's saying his father was a goat herder when he got his scholarship, when his father's first wife says he was a clerk in Nairobi:
Barack Sr. Goes to Nairobi

A scholar of Constitutional Law can't distinguish between Sr. Lecturer and Professor.

We started this campaign season with Little Barry learning Indonesian in 6 months (kinda like Jesus going to the temple at 6 and talking Talmud with the elders) and interviews with his Kindergarten teacher saying how smart he was. Then when Hillary kicked back it became, "how come you picking on a little kid?"

In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not.

False. Adjunct and assistant professors usually do not have tenure. Associate and full professors usually do.

Nuclear leak thing: Time will tell

Selma thing: Puh-lease. I defended Hillary on the stupid Sir Edmund Hillary thing, and I'll defend Obama here. Holding someone responsible for childhood memories is silly.

Taking too much credit: Silly.*

Rezco: Overplayed. No lie that I can spot.

Lobbyists working: Lying about the future or just unclear on details?

Selective quotes: Also silly.*

Path vs. task force: Some people would call that a path. Al Gore did help the internet come into being.

Seemed to exaggerate: Want an extra qualification to go with that?

Misstating Kansas deaths: Oh I'm sure that was intentional.

*Silly, because he is a politician. Any one who thought otherwise is fooling themselves.

Finally:

UNLIKE Hillary, he continues to try and pursuade Americans that he is above the Politics of the past

So, since Hillary has never claimed to be above the politics of the past, that makes it all OK?

One more thing about the professor nit-picking. Although untenured, assistant professors are usually tenure-track. Adjunct professors are typically not even on the track (or they're tenured somewhere else).

Starting off with that falsehood really undermines the credibility of the remaining statements. Of course, many of them aren't even lies, simply differences of opinion.

Thanks for the point-by-point rebuttal, Ben. I've reached the point where correcting all of the faux-information the Clinton bloggers try to pass off as facts makes me feel like I'm kicking puppies.

avatar

Cynthia, the biggest lie is the one Hillary is keeps telling herself, that she can win the nomination. If she would just accept the truth, (like all the other candidates that exited with their dignity intact) instead of distorting it at every turn, Obama can move forward with his solo campaign against McCain. She misspoke...please!

That's the best you can do?!

I'm coining a new term for desperate, pathetic attempts to slime a political opponent well after the fact that it has become apparent to everyone that you have lost the race.

Hillaryous! (tm)

Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.

This is another Clinton talking point that makes little sense to those willing to provide the slightest bit of honest analysis.

Clinton is running on experience, which she describes with ... wait for it... WORDS.

So when Clinton uses WORDS to describe her vast international experience, then, many of those WORDS are discovered to be exagerations and admitted "mistatements" -- it directly affects her claim on experience does it not?

Furthermore, this Bosnia gaffe was beyond a mistatement. She stated that she was basically running from sniper fire -- has she ever run from sniper fire? Could she plausibly say she was mixing it up with another visit? I doubt it, or she likely would have. This was pure fiction and she got caught on it.

This attempt to hold Obama to a higher standard because his is a campaign "based on words" doesn't even pass the smell test.

avatar

"Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance"

LOL

I rarely say this, but your post is just stupid.

avatar


I think all of you who have commented so far are simply proving a point that has been made many times before by Clinton supporters. That is, if Clinton is "caught" saying something that is be found to be contradictory to what she said earlier or that facts don't support, she is unfit to be president and will do or say anything to win, but if its Obama, then it is silly and meaningless.

Good for the goose, good for the gander should be the rule here. Lord help us, what has become of our reality based community?

That's one way of looking at it, and I understand why you would. But do you not see the difference between these non-lies (AKA truths), quasi-lies (e.g., jumping in on the tail end of a bill and taking credit for it), and differences of opinion and statements that Clinton has made about NAFTA and Bosnia?

avatar


I do recognize differences in degree. But, I think taking credit for a bill that was watered down and didn't even pass is an exaggeration for political profit as was Clinton's exaggeration of the dangers she faced in Bosnia. Both had one end goal and that was to point out positive things about the candidate. Clinton wanted it to look as if she had faced danger head on and Obama wanted it to look as if he was able to put through important legislation. In the end, it's all the same political rhetoric that we always hear.

As for goose and gander, if we are to accept that Obama made his 2004 statements about how he didn't know how he would have voted on the war resolution in order to keep from hurting Kerry, then we should be able to accept that Clinton made her statements about NAFTA in order to keep from hurting Bill. Accept one, accept both.

Look, this is all about politics and what will win votes. If you actually think Barack Obama is not like every other politician then you are in for a rude awakening. His win of the Demoncratic senate nomination should tell you plenty about how he will always work the rules to try to turn them to his favor, just as Hillary Clinton will. The only thing that actually raises him above Clinton is his amazingly brilliant skill at communicating a belief in the possibility of the actualization of a hope that burns within so many of us. Whether that skill can be turned into reality remains to be seen.

As for goose and gander, if we are to accept that Obama made his 2004 statements about how he didn't know how he would have voted on the war resolution in order to keep from hurting Kerry, then we should be able to accept that Clinton made her statements about NAFTA in order to keep from hurting Bill. Accept one, accept both.

A reasonable statement. Although I could point out differences in degree (it wasn't just once, but repeatedly that she supported NAFTA), I'd be remiss for not accepting that there's also a difference between supporting one's spouse and merely supporting a fellow Democrat.

But, I think taking credit for a bill that was watered down and didn't even pass is an exaggeration for political profit as was Clinton's exaggeration of the dangers she faced in Bosnia. Both had one end goal and that was to point out positive things about the candidate. Clinton wanted it to look as if she had faced danger head on and Obama wanted it to look as if he was able to put through important legislation. In the end, it's all the same political rhetoric that we always hear.

If she had simply issued a mea culpa after being called out on it by Sinbad et al., I'd easily accept that. However, she essentially called Sinbad a liar (or a joker) before she ultimately retracted her story.

Look, this is all about politics and what will win votes. If you actually think Barack Obama is not like every other politician then you are in for a rude awakening. His win of the Demoncratic senate nomination should tell you plenty about how he will always work the rules to try to turn them to his favor, just as Hillary Clinton will. The only thing that actually raises him above Clinton is his amazingly brilliant skill at communicating a belief in the possibility of the actualization of a hope that burns within so many of us. Whether that skill can be turned into reality remains to be seen.

Well, I don't think he's like every other politician, but I do think he is a politician (i.e., he's not above it all), which I presume was really your point. I do think that his campaign has been more honest and less negative than Hillary's, but that's sort of like saying that both he and Clinton are smarter than Bush. Not exactly a high bar. ;)

One other thing: Obama equivocated somewhat on the Iraq war in deference to Kerry. According to many sources, Hillary came off as very strongly pro-NAFTA in those meetings. Again, a rather significant difference in degree.

avatar

Oh, you are a worthy opponent.

My comeback is that said once, twice or a million times, it's the same thing.

And, what is the difference in talking in support of your spouse and talking in support of the Democratic nominee? Isn't the purpose the same? That being, not making the other look bad. I always have thought that Hillary could have just refused to do anything that would have helped foster NAFTA and Obama could have just said that he and Kerry differed at the beginning, but they saw eye to eye now. True to self or true to who you are supporting? It was a choice they each made.

Also, when Clinton got caught out with the video she did admit that she was wrong. Obama has never admitted that his statements on the Illinois bill was wrong and it just keeps being put out as the plain truth.

Love to do this all night, but I work for the government and have to get up entirely too early.

To next year in the White House.

I always have thought that Hillary could have just refused to do anything that would have helped foster NAFTA and Obama could have just said that he and Kerry differed at the beginning, but they saw eye to eye now. True to self or true to who you are supporting? It was a choice they each made.

I can't disagree with that at all.

Also, when Clinton got caught out with the video she did admit that she was wrong. Obama has never admitted that his statements on the Illinois bill was wrong and it just keeps being put out as the plain truth.

Well, after the video was all over the place, denying it would've been even sillier. As for the Illinois bill, I'll admit ignorance, but another poster defended it here with the following:

"In 2006, Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation was included in an appropriations bill that was later signed into law by the president."

"Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill."

Congress, S. 2566, which Obama co-sponsored, did not pass, but its provisions were included in H.R. 6060/P.L. 109-706. Ergo...yes, the legislation passed.

Seems like a reasonable defense to me. (I hope that preceding blockquote didn't get messed up by the paragraph breaks.)

The law professor one is like saying he lied if he called himself Barry, because his name is really Barack. I've been an adjunct teacher of law just like he was, and they tell you that you're a professor, and apply the title to you in communications, though you know you're not tenured.

Here's a vocabulary builder: tendentious. It describes that part of this post well.

Thank you for proving the point - he wasn't an "Adjunct Professor", as far as I know, he was a "Senior Lecturer" as the U of Chicago Law stated in a 2004 press release.

avatar

If you're going to cut-and-paste Hillary's talking points, it would be good to post the URL so that you aren't accused of plagiarism.

For your convenience, it's below.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6752

HTH!

avatar

"If you're going to cut-and-paste Hillary's talking points, it would be good to post the URL so that you aren't accused of plagiarism."

Ouch, a Clintonista caught in her own deception.

Well, the University of Chicago press office seems to have no problem understanding the difference. How come a lecturer in Constitutional Law can't figure it out?

Lecturer wins Senate
Law School Senior Lecturer Barack Obama wins U.S. Senate seat
Video: Barack Obama
Barack Obama at Rockefeller Memorial Chapel

Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, has won Illinois' U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote in the 2004 election.

Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. A transcript of his speech can be found here.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address