and to hear his supporters tell it, Obama is a very happy man.

Incredible work. Highly recommended. Well sourced. People need to be held responsible for their actions. This diary should be the grist for a substantive conversation on each and every one of these issues.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you abuot Barack, its clear we wont convince each other, what I'm curious about, is why you view Hillary as electable? Why do you think a canidate that is viewed asa liar by the majority of the American people will win their votes? Do you think that people will suddenly decide that honesty is overrated or what?

excellent research and sourcing. it's part of a pattern.

Outstanding research, presentation and the sourcing is comprehensive!

Maybe you can offer classes on "old-fashioned, objective journalism" to the MSM???

Thanks- keep writing!

Excellent research.  Thoughtful and important diary.  Thank you.  recommended.

for the Clinton-hating DKossacks and DUers  to swoon over. I'll love watching that crowd turn on him when he doesn't do everything according to Kos' absolutist line.

My Oh My!...

There are so much that I didn't know about Obama.

Thanks for the excellent consolidation of the important thing we should know about Obama.

You should send it to MSM and news paper.

Thanks a lot.  You did a great service to help fellow voters made informed decision.

Wow. Thank you so much for putting this together.

If Obama gets the nomination,  and Corpress actually begins delving into his past, many of his supporters (you know all those new people he's pulling in to Obamanation!) who believe he is some kind of different are going to be in for a rude awakening...

I also think it's fairly ironic that the 2nd person to run on the idea that he's a uniter, is pretty much ripping the Dem party in 1/2.

Going into bookmarks!

16 points? Wow! Okay, so, some of your "evidence" is taken out of context. Some is fabricated. Some is true. Some is  Republican talking points (shame on you).

If you're telling me that all that is bad about the dude fits on one page for me to print out, then say hello to President Obama.

Now, to the point I wanted to make when I decided to dignify your hit piece with a response. I quote you:

"a church where racism and anti-American hate is routinely preached"

Routinely? Says who? Where's your evidence? I want more than 10 videos or however many you think you have watched (or have been told by fox that you've watched). Typical of some party, not ours, where you take someone like Rev. Wright, take the worst of his sermons, chop 'em up, delete any residue of context, and turn the man into a monster. Typical of some party, not ours. We take the good with the bad my friend. Typical of our party to present the good with the bad. So where is all the good that Rev. Wright has done? Where is all the good that Senator Obama has done? Or is he truly an empty suit? Transparent? Or black? Or not black enough?

So, dear diarist, should it not be typical of you, a democrat, to spend your time on documenting and spreading all the good things that Senator Clinton has done (which I'm sure there are many) instead of trying to bring the opponent down?

But for that question we already know the answer.

Hi all!

I find all this very fascinating and am just getting started learning about this stuff.  

One question though; how come some of these quotes and things aren't given in the context of what it was he was actually speaking about?  I'm just asking because I'm new to this whole political scene, and have only been voting for a bit (firt Prez election)... but I just thought I'd ask.  

Other than those obvious omissions and the stuff that was widely reported already, I loved the way this stuff was presented.  Neat bullet points and formating! Loved it!!!

One other question; did someone on Team Hillary contact the Chief of Staff of the Premere of Canada?  I've been told by many Obama supporters this is true.  My dad says yes and my mom says no!

Anyway, keep it up.  This was pretty good!

While trying to respond to another thread, I did a google search and found a compilation of Barack's lies:

here.

Okay, where to begin? Some of this is valid criticism, some of it I just don't have time to research. But other parts are just flat-out dishonest. So here goes, as best as I can do somewhat on the fly...

1. "Obama first claimed not to know about Wright's inflammatory statements. He later admitted he did."

Nope, bzzzzt. I know Universal got him/herself a nice little spot on the rec list for typing exactly that, but it's demonstrably false. Obama stated he did not hear the HIV or GD America comments. He also stated he was present when Wright made other controversial remarks in criticizing U.S. policies. There's a link in my diary here.

3. I know you really, really want Rezko to be this big, huge scandal despite both Chicago papers having come away satisfied with Obama's explanation of his involvement. But that's okay. I understand...keep hope alive. Of course, we won't mention that the people who sold Obama his home stated that his was their best offer, and it had nothing to do with some kind of Rezko land deal.

But even putting that aside, I'm kind of surprised a Clinton supporter wants to talk about "shady fund-raisers." Norman Hsu, anyone?

4. Now this one is funny. You want to talk about earmarks? Well, I'd love to, but Clinton won't release hers. Or her tax returns, or the list of Clinton Library donors.

7. This is pretty shameful. The Black Panthers page was a user-created profile, which was deleted after the campaign found out about it. In other words, I could go and crate the MyDD account name "Black Panthers Party 2008," take a snapshot of it, and run around the Internet doing exactly what you're doing.

9. NAFTA again? I would've thought the release of Clinton's White House papers might've put that to an end, considering she hosted a NAFTA advocacy meeting as First Lady. As for Goolsbee, the Canadian government had to apologize for getting it wrong:

The memo was simply inaccurate, as even the Harper government now acknowledges after a firestorm of criticism by opposition parliament members, who've accused Harper's staffers of trying to help their Republican allies across the border by attacking the more likely Democratic candidate. In response, Harper called the leak "blatantly unfair," pledged to get to the bottom of it, and said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

And of course, there's this little nugget:

"someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . .That someone called us and told us not to worry."

But yeah, it's Obama that was doing the wink-wink routine. Regardless of who said what, once again you've been punked, this time by Harper's rightwing Candian-style Bushies.

10. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I do not think those links say what you think they do:

MR. RUSSERT: The question is, here at home what are the politics, and you said this according to the Chicago Tribune. "It is arguable that the best politics going into '06 would be a clear, succinct message, `Let's bring our troops home.'...It's certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now."

More importantly, your two 'damning' quotes--the "I might be wrong" and "there's no difference in our position ones--come from the SAME "Commentary" article, with NO SOURCE LINK provided.

Why does this matter? Because it's author, Peter Wehner, works for the Bush White House. In other words, you just got punked by a Bushie.

Needless to say, I'm sure this response will be ignored.

Wowzer!

This needs to be blasted out to every freakin' super delegate out there!

EXCELLENT WORK!  Highly recommended!

A similiar diary about Clinton would be front-paged in a moment by Daily Kos.

Jerome should seriously consider front-paging this diary.

I read this at No Quarter earlier. Wow, fantastic work!

Good job.  Great piece of info.

Being brand new to this process and being completely fed-up with the last seven years... I have to say seeing the so-called "Die-Hard" Democrats on this website "knee-capping" both Democratic candidates both infuriates and confuses me.  Are we not supposed to be channelling that energy and dislike toward John McCain???

I guess by humiliating, degrading and outright smearing our candidates, this so-called vetting process will help our eventual nominee.

Don't you see this is exactly what the GOP Party wants us to do??  Or are you to selfish to think about the real possibility of 4 more years of the Bush regime??

Keep this up and I GUARANTEE you, no matter the Democratic nominee, will get beat soundly in the GE!!

What a fantastic diary!  Thanks for doing the job of the press and organizing all of this.  It looks so simple, yet, it is such a mystery to PressObama.

for future reference and re-reading.  Great piece of journalism.  Everyone needs to read this.

I see the usual suspects trolling around asking for "any source? links?" are not touching this diary.

Great job in highlighting all the hypocrisy from Obama. He is a liar just like any other politician. So much for a new kind of politics.

And please don't call Hillary a liar!

Adding the link to this revealing article because it explains a lot about why, with all Obama's "boneheaded mistakes" he is still being pushed by Corporate Press, the power players in the Dem Party, and many in the Repub party, and being heavily funded by Wall Street.

It's actually pretty scary, and I hope everyone will take the time to read it. Someone linked to it in the comments at No Quarter, and although it is from March 5, I have not seen it posted anywhere before this.

The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand

By Pam Martens @ Black Agenda Report

Despite Barack Obama's claim that his campaign represents a mass "movement" of "average folks," the initial core of his support was largely comprised of rich denizens of Wall Street. Why would the super wealthy want a percieved "black populist" to become the nation's chief executive officer? The "Obama bubble" was nurtured by Wall Street in order to have a friend in the White House when the captains of capital are made to face the legal consequences for deliberately creating current and past economic "bubbles." Wall Street desperately needs a president who will "sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street." Who better to sell this "agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change?"

Read on...

yet I'm supposed to believe she can beat McCain.  Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...

how about that? That's why I was an Edwards supporter. More of the same; for the corporations, by the corporations.

What an insanely laughable diary. Just a lie a minute, interspersed with half truths and innuendo. A real laugh riot. You should write for the GOP. This is definitely up to their standards.

This diary is all the more laughable given Allegre's saintly diary this morning about how negative the Obama campaing has gone. I swore I wouldn't do this but...

1. Go listen to the longer sermon excerpts. No matter how much you try to paint Trinity United Church of Christ as a place of hate, it doesn't make it so.

2. What part of blind trust don't you understand.

3. Tony Rezko's trial is unrelated to Barack Obama. Everyone who has looked at his relationship with Rezko has said that although Sen. Obama would have been smarter to keep more distance between himself and Rezko, Obama has done nothing wrong.

4. Yup. Obama has release his earmarks. Hillary has not. Can you say transparency?

5. HopePac was a Pac to raise money to get Democrats elected and given Obama's money raising ability was very successful in doing that, giving money to many house and senate candidates, including Sen. Clinton. Obama's connection to HopePac was severed before the Presidential campaign.

6. Pot this is kettle? Sen. Clinton stonewalls every request for tax returns for the last 6 years in which Bill has been out taking money from potential conflicts of interest. We'll never see the Clinton Foundation donors list before the primary season is over, and you guys have the nerve to say Obama is stonewalling? Give me a break. Tell that to the Saudis with their $10 million "investment" in the Clinton Library.

7. Anyone can put up a blog page on the Obama site. There was one purporting to be from Hillary for a while I believe.

8. As you no doubt know by now, present votes in the Illinois legislature are often used as a tool to manipulate outcomes. You should know this since Hillary has been harping on this since New Hampshire when Planned Parenthood had to come to Obama's defense to call Hillary out on this deceptive meme.

9. The Canadians involved have all denied this, and moreover, some have said that it was the Clinton campaing that first tried to distance itself from its own NAFTA campaign rhetoric.

10. This old stuff again. Obama was against the war. Hillary voted for it. 4000 are dead.. What more do you need to know. All the rest are attempts to take a few words out of context here or there to lessen Hillary's culpability for those deaths.

11. Ah no. The committee in question has nothing to do with Afghanistan, and Sen. Clinton hasn't been attending too many committee meetings of late either as I recall. In fact, she couldn't even swing cross town for the FISA vote when she was a few miles away.

12. Who knew things were going to get so screwed up. You are familiar with the phrase, "the fierce urgency of now?"

13. No. Sen. Obama said he'd consider it.

14. That nuclear bill, watered down as it was, was groundbreaking in it's scope, but you'd rather nothing got passed, so you'll be happy to know the Republicans killed it. This is called crafting legislation, and it is an example of how we will finally make progress on progressive issues under an Obama administration as opposed to drawing lines in the sand and never getting anything done.

15. Sen. Obama has said many times that the perfect system would be single payer. I've heard him say it myself, but neither he, nor apparently Sen. Clinton, believe we can get there from where we are in any reasonable amount of time. Since the only difference with your candidate is mandates, this seems like just another GOP talking point.

16. This LIE again. One of his campaign chairs was registered to lobby THE NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGISLATURE, not any federal body. Compare this to Clinton's campaign, where lobbyists rule from top to bottom.

There . I've wasted a whole half hour of my precious day, mostly from my head, while you've been busy tearing down our Democratic Party nominee for November, because make no mistake. That's what you're doing. I'll expect a diary from Allegre any moment now to denounce the negative tactics of this diary. (Ya. Right.)

This is the most comprehensive vetting of Obama I've seen. Rec'd and hotlisted.

Seriously, how many refuted talking points can you pull out of the graveyard?

I'm not going to waste the time going point by point, so let's just pick one near the top:

According to the Sun-Times, Barack Obama, "allegedly decent guy and agent of change" in Washington, requested an earmark in 2006 for $1 million taxpayer dollars for the University of Chicago Hospitals, where is wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president. Said hospital, by the way, gave Michelle Obama a huge raise (nearly $200,000, more than doubling her salary) in 2005 after Barack was elected to the United States Senate.

At least you're not hiding your bias.

This just in: Obama was a Seantor and part of his job is getting help funding health care from the federal government. Obama requested dozens of health care funding earmarks for Illinois, many of which were considerably larger than the one for Michelle's employer. Her hospital was one of many.

Michelle was promoted to a VP at the hospital in May of 2005. She is a cum laude graduate of Princeton and received a JD from Harvard Law. She is eminently qualified for an executive position and could be making more elsewhere if she so desired.

Your other talking points are similarly biased, slanted, and baseless.

Thanks for the post.
Obama should be vetted.
The democrats need to have the best candidate for the fall election.

This primary has put a focus on the selection process of the democratic nominee like never before in history.

There must be changes made after it is all over. The possibility of disenfranchising any 2 states, not to mention 2 big important swing states like Michigan and Florida, should never be allowed to come up again. It is an affront to democracy and our party, and whoever is responsible should be made to pay.

Gaming the caucuses is also an affront to democracy. When a primary is held and the delegate allotment is not at all close to the will of the people, something is "rotten in Denmark," or should I say Washington and Texas.

There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will not be the next president of the United States. He is beginning to embody the image of the exact opposite of what most people would want in a president.

Congratulations, you smeared a Democrat.

You know very well that every member of Congress, Hillary included, could have a similar smear piece written about them. There is plenty of fodder to go all around.

1.  Is the diarist hoping that nobody looks at the ten videos?   Your own link shows that the incendiary clips weren't representative.  And, your link shows that some wingnuts think the guilt by association has gone too far.
BHO has strongly condemned the incendiary YouTube clips.  He wasn't in church when the incendiary YouTube clips took place.  In twenty years he hasn't known Wright to use racist language against whites or others.  He has heard Wright make controversial comments, although not the incendiary comments we've seen on YouTube.  He didn't throw his granny and all white people under the bus.
Again people should look at the diarist's  own link:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselectio ns/2008/03/ten-must-see-je.html
And this:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/23/0433 4/5836#10

But, OOPS... this diary is manipulative.
2. From the diarist's own Sun-Times link:
THE NEW YORK TIMES:
"There is no evidence that any of [obama's] actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks...
[OBAMA] SOLD THEM AT A NET LOSS OF $13,000."
In 2005, Barack Obama entered into a trust agreement -- the terms of which did not permit his stockbroker to solicit advice from Obama or consult him on the trades that were being made - to manage his stock portfolio. As the New York Times reports today, Obama owned stock in two companies which he did nothing to help - an investment that lost him $13,000. At the end of a thorough examination of Senator Obama's portfolio, it's apparent that his dealings were completely above board and his decisions were proactively made in the interest of avoiding the potential for conflict.
THE FACTS
Obama Set Up a Trust That Would Independently Manage His Funds. In February of 2005, Obama began the process of creating a trust - the terms of which do not permit the broker to solicit advice from Obama or consult him on the trades that are being made - in an attempt to manage his financial portfolio without a conflict of interest. The intent was that this was a portfolio that would grow over time. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Obama Trust Agreement, 5/31/2005]
UBS Broker Chose Stocks For Obama; Obama Was Not Consulted. A UBS broker chose the stocks for Obama to invest in, and as per the trust agreement, Obama was not consulted. On Obama's behalf, the broker purchased $1,001 to $15,000 of Avi BioPharma on 2/22/05 and $50,001 to $100,000 of SkyTerra on 2/10/05. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Obama Financial Disclosure Form 2006]
Obama Closed Trust Because He Realized It Was Not Truly Blind. In late 2005, after receiving an informational communication from his broker about his investments, Obama realized that his financial arrangements did not significantly protect him against even the perception of a conflict of interest. He contacted his lawyer and steps were taken to sell his stocks and close out the trust. Obama's stock holdings were liquidated by November 1, 2005, and documents to close the trust were filed on December 15, 2005. [Conversation with UBS Representative, 2/26/07; Trust Distribution and Termination Document, 12/15/05]
Obama Made Less Than $2,500 On AVI BioPharma; Sold Stock As It Finally Began To Trend Upward. UBS purchased AVI BioPharma on Obama's behalf when it was $2.57 a share in February of 2005, and sold it in October of 2005 at $3.30 a share, for a profit of less than $2,500. The stock price wavered throughout the summer, took a dip to $2.15 in August, and only started to recover at the end of September. [UBS Records Provided 2/26/2007; Obama Financial Disclosure Form 2006; Yahoo Finance Historical Stock Prices, Accessed 3/6/07]
Obama Lost $15,000 On SkyTerra. UBS purchased SkyTerra on Obama's behalf when it was $36.35 a share in February of 2005, and sold it in November of 2005 at $30.49 a share, for a loss of approximately $15,000. [UBS Records Provided 2/26/2007; Obama Financial Disclosure Form 2006; Yahoo Finance Historical Stock Prices, Accessed 3/6/07]
NO EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA TOOK ANY OFFICIAL ACTION TO HELP COMPANIES
AVI BIOPHARMA
Obama's Office Took No Action On Behalf of Avi BioPharma. Obama's Senate office did not have any interaction with or take any action on behalf of Avi BioPharma. Company executives have had no interactions with Obama, company officials said they never talked to Obama about his work on avian flu, and they were not aware of his buying and selling in AVI shares. [www.thestreet.com, 3/5/07; New York Times, 3/7/07]
Obama's Senate Bill Addressed Preparedness And Early Warning Systems For Avian Flu in Asia, Did Not Fund New Drug Development. Obama's bill was focused on developing early warning systems for avian flu and encouraged NIH to expand research on influenza but did not fund authorize new drug development. [S. 969, 109th Congress]
Legislation Proposed By Obama and Others Had No Positive Impact on Avi BioPharma Stock. Obama and eight cosponsors introduced his avian flu bill (S. 969) on April 28th, 2005. On the day the bill was introduced, the price actually dropped slightly ($2.71 a share to $2.68 a share). The stock price also dropped during the week the bill was introduced; on April 26th, the stock opened at $2.80 a share, and the price dropped over the next six days, closing at $2.49 on May 4th, 2005. [Yahoo Finance Historical Stock Prices, Accessed 3/6/07]
Bipartisan Senate Amendment Cosponsored By Obama Did Not Earmark Funds for Particular Companies. The bipartisan Harkin amendment, which Obama cosponsored, provided $3.8 billion related to the flu and included funding for new drug development. However, it did not direct funds to individual companies. [SA 2283, 109th Congress; introduced 10/26/05]
Amendment Passed By Full Senate Had No Positive Impact on Avi BioPharma Stock. Obama was one of 15 cosponsors on a Harkin amendment that included funding for drugs designed to combat the avian flu. The amendment was introduced on October 26th, 2005 and passed the next day. On the day the amendment passed, the price actually dropped 21 cents ($3.63 a share to $3.42 a share). The stock price dropped from $3.94 from the day the bill was introduced to $3.56 on October 31, 2005, a drop of 38 cents. [Yahoo Finance Historical Stock Prices, Accessed 3/6/07]
Avi BioPharma Did Not Receive Contract For Stockpiling Drugs Or Any Federal Money For Its Avian Flu Research. "AVI spokeswoman Jenny Moede says the company, based in Portland, Ore., has collaborated with various agencies of the federal government to test its technology on animals. It has not yet been used on humans, and the government has yet to stockpile any of its drugs." The company confirmed to the New York Times that "it still has not received any federal money for its avian flu research." [www.thestreet.com, 3/5/07]
Avi BioPharma Did Not Tout Senate Action Connected To Obama In Press Releases Or Conference Calls. A review of Avi BioPharma's press releases from 2005 shows that they did not tout any Senate actions connected to Obama in either press releases or conference calls.
Money Avi BioPharma Received Was Unconnected to Obama Or Avian Flu. In October 2005, AVI BioPharma preliminarily announced DoD funding for research on four viruses. That funding was unconnected to Obama and was not related to research on avian flu. The press release from the company stated, "AVI BioPharma, Inc...announced that the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations has approved $22 million for AVI's research and development programs as part of the FY2006 defense spending bill...the spending bill would direct $22 million to AVI for the continued development of technology to test for and find therapeutic agents for Ebola ($6 million) and Marburg ($6 million) viruses, and anthrax and ricin toxins ($4 million). In addition, the allocation includes new funding for an AVI project to test for and find therapeutic agents for dengue virus ($6 million)." AVI BioPharma eventually received $11 million in the DOD Appropriations bill for 2006. [thestreet.com; Avi BioPharma Press Release, 10/3/05
SKYTERRA
Obama's Office Took No Action On Behalf Of SkyTerra. Obama's Senate office did not take any action on behalf of SkyTerra. A spokesman for Skyterra said the company's top officials had not been aware of Mr. Obama's investment. [New York Times, 3/7/07]
CORRECTING THE RECORD: REZKO
NYT: The Obamas House Sat On A Large Property Subdivided to Make It More Affordable
FACT: The original seller divided the land into parcels for individual purchase prior to the Obamas interest in the house and bid on the house. [Obama Financial Records, June 2005]
Oops... this diary is worthless.
3. We've known for more that a month that BHO didn't get any deal on his house.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n ewsarchive&sid=aR8NLIoQEDc4
HRC has received donations of much more money from fundraisers with criminal problems.  Then, there is WJC with his selling pardons, unsavory business deals, and hidden library donors.  Don't forget HRC's brother picked up a couple hundred grand for selling WJC pardons.  It's a family thing with them.
OOPS... this diarist isn't familiar with glass houses.
4. "She's terrific," added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/200 6/09/hospital_offici.html
BHO released earmark requests that show he was looking for funding for big employers in his state, that's what politicians do, big deal.  He, unlike most, is open and honest about his requests.  The diarist didn't note that HRC refuses to release her earmark requests.
The diarist must hope that nobody looks at the links provided.  From the Tribune link:
Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa

Oops... dissembling is the diarist and HRC way.
5. Again, the Hill piece you link to shows that BHO is keeping his distance from lobbyist money that distinguishes him from HRC.  The diarist must hope that people are to stupid to read the links.
Oops... bluster, bluster, and bluster brought to you by the diarist and HRC.
6. This diary isn't ready for prime time.  Again, from one of the provided links (Politico):
UPDATE: An Obama aide said: "Obama is pleased that all of the records that the state considers to be public are currently available. We are not in possession of documents from his time in the state senate that are not available to the general public and any pertinent files were passed on to his successor in the State Senate, Kwame Raoul. This is as opposed to the millions of documents that should be publicly available from the Clinton White House that currently are not. In fact, tens of thousands of documents are currently being kept from public view by a representative of the Clintons and that is just a miniscule fraction of what is available to archivists right now."

Also, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday morning that Obama "Senior strategist David Axelrod said Sunday night, 'Files pertinent to ongoing casework were passed to Kwame Raoul, his successor.' "
From day one in the Senate BHO was worked on and succeeded with difficult legislation.  When he started he had to build a coalition to pass ethics reform, which isn't always popular with politicians.  He has a record of hundreds of pieces of legislation in IL.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/ 2007/06/13/obamas-voting-record-in-the-i llinois-state-senate/
Oops... this diary is garbage.
7. This is an open system.  There was also and HRC, Hannity, and Fox site.
OOPs... HRC and the diarist want to trick you into voting for HRC.
8. Again, your own link (NYT) shows that BHO wasn't using present to hide.
Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.
"It's just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership," Ms. Madigan said. "In fact, it was the exact opposite."
Of course BHO has missed votes in the US Senate, all Senators in the presidential campaign have done so.  Your link even shows that BHO was better than many Senators on the trail.  HRC missed relatively fewer votes, but time has shown that she should have worked on the campaign instead of feeling so inevitable.
DEMOCRATS
Joseph Binden [sic] (D-Del.)
28.6%
Votes missed: 99
Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
27.7%
Votes missed: 96
Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
23.7 %
Votes missed: 82
Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
8.1%
Votes missed: 28
REPUBLICANS
John McCain (R-Ariz.)
49.4 %
Votes missed: 171
Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
36.1%

OOPS... this diary is ready for the trash.
9. The diarist tells you all a lie.  The truth is that CTV was wrong about who was talking to whom, who initiated the contact, where a conversation occurred, when a conversation occured , what was the mode of a conversation (i.e. call versus meeting), what was said.  Yes BHO denied that the CTV story was correct, and BHO was right--CTV was totally wrong.
It was shown that Goolsbee was asked to meet with the Canadians in Chicago.  And, the memo (from the Canadians) of that meeting even states that Goolsbee told the Canadians that BHO wanted to change Nafta to improve environmental and safety standards, which is exactly BHO had said publicly.  Goolsbee, clearly states that the memo misstates his comments regarding politics in the States (that's a lot of states).  And, the Canadians agree with him.

OOPS... the diarist is hoping you're a fool.
10. The diarist uses half quotes out of context.  BHO has always said that the war was a mistake.  Before the war started he predicted that Saddam would be removed because the US military is unstoppable.  But, he predicated that the aftermath would be a mess, he was correct.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html

OOPS... the HRC strategy is half truths and fibs.
11. Again, from the diarist's link:
"But Clinton's claim, while technically true, is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee.
Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO's role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama's European subcommittee. "
Also,  this subcommittee had only met seven times in the nine years before BHO, so HRC is hyping this.

OOPS... This diary and HRC are hype central.
12.  Thankfully BHO is running.

OOPS... HRC sitting on the sidelines in the Senate, not building support for difficult legislation, making political calculations as she waits to run.
13. It's still on the table.  He has said he'd do it as long as there was a fair process where the Repubs (and they're outside supporters) are not given an unfair advantage.
OOPS.... This diary is getting desparate.
14. Clinton Claims Obama Engaged In Backroom Deals for A Nuclear Company--Even Though She Cosponsored the Bill
RHETORIC: "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind close doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."

REALITY: Clinton Co-Sponsored Obama Bill
Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Obama Bill Required Additional Disclosure From Nuclear Industry
National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

REALITY: Nuclear Industry Did Not Support Obama Bill -- Believed Congressional Action Was Unnecessary
CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]
NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]
NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]
OOPS.... the diarist must think myDD readers are dumb.
15. In context: BHO has said that single payer would be best, but it's not an option in our existing system.
OOPS... this diary is silly.
16.   Everyone knows that BHO doesn't take money from federal lobbyists, but HRC does.  How is that an effective argument in favor of HRC?
The diarist left out complete quotes:
"Sen. Obama helped his constituents obtain foreign products necessary for their business at an affordable rate," said Ben LaBolt, noting that Obama made sure all the products "met strong environmental standards" before pushing to make it cheaper to import them.
With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., has introduced none, although she has co-sponsored 19 that were introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Seven were to benefit the Honeywell Corporation, whose lobbyist has contributed $6,500 to Clinton since 2005. Sen. Joseph Biden, Del., has introduced none.

OOPS... the diarist and HRC are grasping at straws?

Your post reminds me, more than anything, of the absurd smears against the Clintons from the 90s that tried to somehow cast suspicion on them for every death that occurred in the past 40 years. Congratulations, you have become what you hate.

mbolack - great comprehensive diary!
Thanks so much!

Bookmarked and forwarded.

One little error -- Obama opposed Kerry's June 2006 redeployment bill.
But 6 months later - Obama sponsored a redeployment bill a month before he entered the prez race so that he could tell Obama Girls he supported redeployment.

>>>In June, 2007, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. He voted instead for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.

One little error -- Obama opposed Kerry's June 2006 redeployment bill.
But 6 months later - Obama sponsored a redeployment bill a month before he entered the prez race so that he could tell Obama Girls he supported redeployment.

>>>In June, 2007, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. He voted instead for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.

Both sides (Clinton and Obama) have absolutely lost it.  We trash each of our candidates.  Comparing them the current President?  Are you effing, kidding me?  Comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy?  Seriously?

Remember this period of time in the campaign, so when we wake up on that Wednesday morning in November, we can say, "So that's why McCain is President."

Your first point is so absolutly pandering to "white fear" that I have to honestly ask you what is in it for you?  I have been a progressive my whole life and I can honestly say that I have nothing in common with someone like you ideologically.  I am not judging you, if you want to call yourself a "liberal" then I an certainly not a liberal.  I only know what I am not, and I am not like you.

This diary is full of half-truths and innuendo and information that has long been discredited. Just one example -- the Black Panthers on the website -- comes straight from Fox News and has already been much discussed -- like many blogs anyone could register there and post under any name.

There are many reasons to support or not support either of our candidates but taking items out of context and repeating right wing talking points is just unacceptable. Let's not stoop to Karl Rove tactics.

Do you really want to get into Hillary's lesbian muslim lover who's family has tes to Al Qaeda?

I'm not making that up! That is "out there" in wingnut land right now, and will be all over Hannity, and Limbaugh, and Fox News, and Drudge as soon as she's the nominee.

Thank God Barack Obama has more class than Hillary.

This is my first post ever on any blog

Let me say something that has been severaly bothering me lately.

I was a supporter of Senator Obama until about a week ago. His lost my vote and respect.

See, i am veteran and honest to god it does not bother me that people protest the war; hell, i protested this one. It does not bother me that people burn the flag. It does not bother me that people insult the president, the administration and every single walking talking politician; i do it so much that my wife cannot stand it anymore. It does not bother me that my vet brothers throw their medals away. It does not bother me that a candidate (Senator Kerry) protested the war and testified before Congress and was a strong anti-war voice. Someone like that tells me that he has a strong character and he is not afraid to voice his opinion even if it is not popular.

What bothers me; however, is someone that DAMN AMERICA. America is an idea and a dream and a set of ideals that millions have died for. To me, it means that that person, Rev. Wrong, is damning and spitting on the tombs of my brothers who died in Vietnam, who died in this war and who died in the previous wars. Soldiers die for each other and for the flag to keep the idea of makes America this exceptional country alive. If you take this exceptionalism way, there is no difference whatsoever between America and Uganda or Thailand or any other country out there. This is what damning American means to me. It means damning the IDEA that millions of brave men and women have died for. Damning those friends of mine who bleed and died in Vietnam so i can live and come back home and have a family.

I cannot support someone who sit silently in a church and listen to his pastor talking total nonsense and insulting those who died for this country. To me, i am sorry to say this, to me that person cannot be a commender-in-chief. More importantly, i cannot respect someone who behaves as such. Why didn't he say something to his pastor? He either shares those views or did not have the guts to confront his pastor. Either explanation is a damning one.

does not exist in politics.

It would not be difficult to find hypocrisy and misstatements in any human being's much less any politician's lifetime. Let's not forget that even Thomas Jefferson spoke of equality while owning slaves.

I think over all Obama is a pretty darned good choice as far as politicians go, and we're very lucky to have him on our side of the aisle.  Although I disagree with her campaign tactics, I think that Senator Clinton is pretty darned smart as far as politicians go, and I'm glad we have her on our side of the aisle.