Just Embellished Words: 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, 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]

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

These appear to be legit

However, I would not like anyone to use the L word for Sen. Obama

I hope Sen. Obama's supporters would likewise refrain from using the L word for Sen Clinton.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-25 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

It is too late.  Hillary went where she should never have gone.  You know what I am talking about.  The democrats take pride on our standing up for AAs, but the Clintons want to throw AAs to the back of the bus.  I am a white woman who is part latino, and Hillary has finally crossed the line.

by Spanky 2008-03-25 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

Throw AAs under the bus??

On what planet??

Seriously man - that claim is sooooo over the top it's not funny.

by alegre 2008-03-25 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

Her exact quote was "to the back of the bus", not "under the bus" =)

by SevenStrings 2008-03-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

Actually, it's Obama throwing AA's  under the bus.  First, by cynically using the race-bait-and-switch tactics against Hillary.  Second, by staying up till 2a.m. to write an ass-saving speech that superficially purports to speak honestly, but actually exploits racial issues from every perspective in order to divert blame from himself and cast him as a great philosopher/healer.  How much healing have you seen this last week?  When you have a self-serving motive, no healing can result.  It's so depressing: the democratic party is more divided along racial lines than it has been for decades, and that's even more true after the speech.  You want to blame Hillary for that?  He has used race as a sword and a shield to benefit himself.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-25 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

Now sit there and ask yourself why the Democratic Party is divided along racial lines.  You blame Barack Obama. If that lie is psychologically soothing to you, be my guest.  The fact of the matter is the race baiting started in South Carolina.

But the big lie came with the one of "inevitability".  Good luck with them all.  Your rationale is intellectually dishonest and pathetic.

by LtWorf 2008-03-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

"the race baiting started in South Carolina."

That's one of several grossly untrue and mischaracterized slanders of Bill Clinton that the Obama campaign has foisted onto this race. Obama supporters continuing to play the race card is discrediting the victims of real racism, by crying wolf.

Continue with the disreputable tactics, they are backfiring miserably for your candidate. Don't let the truth stop you.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

"I am a white woman who is part latino, and Hillary has finally crossed the line."

Does your being a white woman who is part latino lend any additional credence to your belief that Hillary has finally crossed the line ?

Or, are you implying that Hillar has finally crossed the line BECAUSE you are a white woman who is part latino ?

That would be like saying "I am part Gothic and part Boer, and Hillary has finally crossed the line"!!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-25 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

When did Clintons throw AA under the bus?

by JoeySky18 2008-03-25 11:53AM | 0 recs
I hate to be prissy,

but...her exact quote was that AAs were being thrown to the BACK of the bus, not under the bus.

There is a significant difference: if you were thrown under the bus, then you would no longer be on the bus.  On the other hand, if you were thrown to the back of the bus, you are still on the bus.

I would rather be thrown to the back than under. <SNARK>

by SevenStrings 2008-03-25 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to be prissy,
Right.  Besides, Grandma's already under the bus.
***A
by adrienne4dean 2008-03-25 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: These appear to be legit

"the Clintons want to throw AAs to the back of the bus"

Your statement is offensive and outrageously untrue. Playing the race card where it is patently false really undermines the problem of identifying real racism. You cut the legs out of the real victims of racism by making this kind of slander.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 12:12PM | 0 recs
What are you talking about?

Seriously - you must have your candidates mixed up!

by Shazone 2008-03-25 03:47PM | 0 recs
Agree with you

I don't think either is a liar.

Memories are notoriously unreliable.  So are observations of the same events.  There are lots of scientific articles on memory distortion and event interpretation.

A famous experiment involved a law school class being interrupted by a scene where someone stabs someone else with a banana.  Then the professor asks the students for their eyewitness accounts.  The accounts differ dramatically.

The legal profession recognizes the limits of direct observation:

The legal system always has relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses,nowhere more than in criminal cases. Although the evidence eyewitnesses provide can be tremendously helpful in developing leads, identifying criminals, and exonerating the innocent, this evidence is not infallible.
Even honest and well-meaning witnesses can make errors, such as identifying the wrong person or failing to identify the perpetrator of a
crime.
 http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/17824 0.txt

by katmandu1 2008-03-25 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words: Obama's

And yet Hillary lies 3 or 4 time on her Bosnia trip.  She say she said it because she was sleep deprived, but records show she said the same thing 3 or 4 times.  Lies, just lies.

by Spanky 2008-03-25 11:17AM | 0 recs
Gimme a break...

by atdleft 2008-03-25 11:26AM | 0 recs
Gimme a break...

Do you really want to continue this? Look, your candidate's already been caught making statements that have later been proven to be false. Would you like it if we start calling Barack Obama a liar for writing things in "Dreams of My Father" that actually never happened? Hillary may not have remembered the Bosnia incident correctly last week, but she never misrepresented it in "Living History".

by atdleft 2008-03-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
Where to draw the line?

Rezko is a friend.  No Rezko is an individual that I know.

Rezko help me raised $20k, no $50K, no $100, no $150k,  still no $250k, to be continued.

I don't take money from lobbyists.  But I never tell you that have 3 active lobbyists on my campaign payroll.  Also I didn't tell you that I received $2,650,000 raised  Feb 16-29, 08, by the bundlers from 27 law firms that engage in lobbying.  

Lies and more lies from Obama.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-25 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Where to draw the line?

But of all his lies I like this one the most.

NAFTAgate?  "It did not happen"

by JoeySky18 2008-03-25 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words: Obama's

And none of us have ever embellished stories to make a point? - Glass half empty, glass half full - you'll see what you want to see. I see an honest mistake trying to sort out a couple of separate events that happened over 12 years ago. The point is - she went to Bosnia, met with people there, briefed herself on the situation and had some substantive conversations with the people there. What has Obama done that comes even close to either version.

by pan230 2008-03-25 01:26PM | 0 recs
oohhh

tenured lecturers...damning evidence...

When was in calls the called them all professors, not lecturers

by kindthoughts 2008-03-25 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: oohhh

You may have called them all professors, but they weren't all professors.

I know that colloquially students think anyone who stands in front of them is a professor, but in the ranks of academia, there is in fact a huge difference. It's no big deal when students or outsiders get it mixed up, but someone from academia really shouldn't and wouldn't.

In my experience, no university employee who is not a professor would ever use that title to describe him/herself. They would not use it on their resumes, nor would they sign it that way on a letter of recommendation they were writing for someone else. Barack Obama clearly knows better than to call himself a professor. He would never do so in a faculty meeting. That he keeps doing so out in public is a little odd.

by OrangeFur 2008-03-25 11:31AM | 0 recs
yeah

this is so a non starter.

Seriously, noone cares.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-25 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah

You are whistling in the graveyard.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
you'd have to be

in academia to understand how this is such a big lie, they really value tenure, have to jump through hoops, and write and publish academic stuff, and when he was editor of the Harvard Law Review he didn't publish anything I don't think he has one published paper. But teaching, that's much easier, being an instructor, or even an adjunct professor which is a less humble word for instructor.  It's very funny that he puffs up like this, it he was ever hired with that in his vita he'd be fired for fraudulently inflating his experience.  So, you see, it's quite amusing. The poor fellow opens himself up to this by calling Hillary names. Guess he never learned why people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  Sad, predictable, look to more foolish charges that make him look small and unpleasant.  

by anna shane 2008-03-25 12:39PM | 0 recs
You're right

Academia is very precise as to who is a professor.

It's somewhat like a nurse practitioner calling himself a physician.  Getting tenure is a very very tough proposition.

by katmandu1 2008-03-25 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

You know that's not what happened.  Stop being dishonest.

by mefck 2008-03-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
Actually, it did happen...

by atdleft 2008-03-25 11:31AM | 0 recs
Actually, it did happen...

Remember when Obama did "Anderson Cooper 360" on CNN over a week ago? Remember when he said that he was never present for any of Jeremiah Wright's "Gawddam America!" diatribes, only to admit just days later in his now famous "race speech" that he was? Sorry, but you can't rewrite history here... Maybe on that Big Orange "blog" that will say or do anything to bash Hillary and praise Barack, but not here.

by atdleft 2008-03-25 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, it did happen...

He did not admit any such thing in his speech on race, and either you know that and are lying, you do not know it and are only listening to what liars have told you about the speech, or you are devoid in reading comprehension.

What Obama actually said is this:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.


But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

If you can find a place in that set of remarks in which Obama says that he heard the inflammatory, incendiary, etc., comments, please enlighten the rest of it. Because what I see is entirely consistent with what he's always said, and entirely inconsistent with a statement that he'd heard those comments.

Since it's virtually impossible that Obama could have been at TUCC for any of those sermons, it would be particularly bizarre for him to have said that he had heard them. But since he did not say that, there's no problem there.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-25 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, it did happen...

"Because what I see is entirely consistent with what he's always said, and entirely inconsistent with a statement that he'd heard those comments"

That is a self-serving belief. He said, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

He heard Reverend Wright's remarks, and we all know that those remarks were made repeatedly in that church, they are pretty standard fare. If Obama tries to parse that he didn't hear the same exact remarks as appeared on the early videos, that is just parsing and dodging the question, trying to avoid the real substance of the question, which was did he know of his pastor's views. He first said no, then later copped to it.

This was a much more significant issue of credibility than Obama supporters are willing to look at.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, it did happen...

We do know those remarks were made repeatedly. About 5 times out of 4000 is repetition. However, we also know that Obama virtually could not have been at TUCC for them.

We also know that on many, many occasions -- far more than the 5 or so times that Wright made such remarks -- white people attended TUCC. None of them are talking about what a hateful, racist place it was. Why is that?

What we actually do know is that Wright's remarks can be considered standard fare only if you believe that something that happens about 0.125% of the time is standard fare. I don't happen to believe that's a reasonable standard.

And of course by that standard it would be standard fare for Clinton to lie about her experience; after all, she did lie at least 0.125% of the time.

Willing to make that your standard? If not, stop the lying.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-25 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words
Anyone in academia - and Obama would certainly know this - understands this to be a lie, not just an exaggeration.  Just as the military has ranks, so does academia.  At Harvard, as elsewhere, the ranking from bottom to top is Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor.  Calling himself a Professor when he was hired as a Lecturer, is like calling himself an army Captain, a commissioned officer, if in fact he was a non-commissioned Corporal.  It's just as much of a lie, only less familiar territory, so it appears less blatant.  Anyone who had been hired in academia and discovered to have called himself a a full Professor on his resume, when he was in fact a lecturer, would be fired.
Sorry about the L-word, but this doesn't fall into the exaggeration category; it's an untruth.
by oh puhleeze 2008-03-25 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

Well, at least you apologized for using the L word =)

by SevenStrings 2008-03-25 11:52AM | 0 recs
hey, i'm a professor, too!

and all the while, i thought i was just a grad student with a teaching assistantship.  now that teaching a class makes you a professor, i'm gonna sue them for back wages- AND a better parking spot.

by campskunk 2008-03-25 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: hey, i'm a professor, too!

I never had to teach any classes when I was a Grad STudent.  I guess I cannot claim to be a Professor :(

by SevenStrings 2008-03-25 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: hey, i'm a professor, too!

I gave a lecture once when the prof was out of town. Does that make me a professor?

Though on our campus, not even the profs got parking spots.

by OrangeFur 2008-03-25 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: hey, i'm a professor, too!

sure, there's no time requirement. poof! you're a professor!

by campskunk 2008-03-25 05:01PM | 0 recs
Please add this

Washington Post: Obama tried to take credit for working out a deal on new immigration policy on April 6, 2006, but he wasn't a part of those negotiations. From the article:

As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

WP, March 24, 2008, front page.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706. html

by Nobama 2008-03-25 11:35AM | 0 recs
source .... Arlen Specter

The only source for that side of the story was Arlen Specter....but I guess we can't complain at lest this smear has a source.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-25 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Please add this

The same article makes it pretty clear that Clinton greatly exaggerated her role in SCHIP. Obama does not widely claim that immigration bill as an achievement.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-25 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

Except everyone is calling Hillary untruthful and no one is buying your spin on Obama.

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-25 11:43AM | 0 recs
Obama's Record of Exaggerations

Someone should take a look into all of this.  Let's be vetted before the General.

by venavena 2008-03-25 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

Folks, it's time for the Clinton Campaign to come clean.  These litanies of dishonesty got to stop if Hillary is to preserve her chances of becoming the democratic nominee.  Hillary needs to come clean once and for all.  The BO campaign has been saying it and now this Tuzla example has proven them right that "Hillary Clinton in dishonest" in her dealing with America people on every issue of importance in this campaign:

  •    Hillary was dishonest about her Michigan intention back in October
  •    Hillary was dishonest to Iowa and New Hampshire voters about her Florida intention
  •    Hillary was dishonest about her Tuzla - Bosnia trip
  •    Hillary was dishonest about a SCHIP role
  •    Hillary was dishonest about her NAFTA role
  •    Hillary was dishonest about a FMLA role
  •    Hillary was dishonest about an Irish peace mission role
When do you think that Hillary would end these cycles of lies?
Can the voters trust Hillary on anything she said or promised?

Quote me on this:
"It takes more lies to make a lie complete" Hillary Clinton did not disappoint in that respect.

by igwealth5tm 2008-03-25 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

What??

* Hillary was dishonest about her Michigan intention back in October - NOPE - you need to read the WHOLE quote:

You are referring to an October 11, 2007 interview with New Hampshire NPR. She noted that the election scheduled for Michigan would not "count" under the current DNC rules. But she added this, explaining why she kept her name on the ballot:

   "I did not believe it was fair to just say goodbye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009."

* Hillary was dishonest about her Tuzla - Bosnia trip - already disproven by you know, people that were there, including General Nash.  No, snipers weren't firing AT her, but there was sniper fire in the hills. And there was a corkscrew landing (done as a maneuver to, you know, not get shot at).  Fine - Obamabots have her on this one.  She admitted she misspoke.  They all do (yes, even precious BO has had his share of "misstatements").  You got her.  All hail Obamabots!

* Hillary was dishonest about a SCHIP role - NOPE

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html

*Hillary was dishonest about her NAFTA role - NOPE (with video of David Gergen)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/27/ 234248/348

*Hillary was dishonest about a FMLA role - NOPE (yes, it's her website, but there are too many links to media outlets and people who were involved to list them all)

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id= 6670

Hillary was dishonest about an Irish peace mission role - NOPE - not unless the Irish Prime Minister is a shill for her. (Even Obama admitted this

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/new s.cfm?newsid=19398210&BRD=2185&P AG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=

by cmugirl90 2008-03-25 12:44PM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

All this is such nonsense. The most important issue is that Hillary has blood on her hands for voting for Bush's war that has killed 4000 Americans. Oh and for doing nothing about the Rwanda genocide.

by munodi 2008-03-25 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

La la la...

The most important issue is that Hillary never cured cancer.  Oh and she thinks evolution is bunk.

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-03-25 01:55PM | 0 recs
And you are either misinformed

or a liar.

The public can judge.  Here is a link to Hillary's direct answer on evolution.  She believes in it, and believes in science ed very strongly.  http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/179861.aspx

You need to apologize to this blog community about making reckless and/or untruthful statements.

by katmandu1 2008-03-25 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

Thank you, that is excellent.  I read that Scranton Times-Tribune article too!

Speaking of foreign policy successes, has anyone noticed lately that Obama tried to inject himself into the Kenyan civil strife (to his credit) but that despite his fame there he was ignored?

I guess hope goes only so far.

by katmandu1 2008-03-25 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

[Preface: please know that this is not specific to this comment or commenter. It comes out of a pattern of dozens of people, all of whom should know far better]

You know perfectly well that never happened. Quit trying to peddle that line to people who know better.

The truth is:
Obama told the American people he was not present when Pastor Wright said racist and un-American things, then 3 days later he reiterated that he was not present.

The truth is also:
Pastor Wright said those things on a very few occasions over a career of hundreds of sermons. It's pretty much been proven beyond any credible doubt that Obama was not present at any of those sermons. Thus, it's not only false that he "admitted that he was", but it's also virtually impossible for him to have been at them.

The truth is:
Obama said he was present at some controversial sermons. He said that on day 1, he said that on day 4, he's continued to say that. What are controversial sermons? By context, they're sermons that do not make wild claims, are not racist, do not use inflammatory language, but do take issue with policies of the government. I know that's a big no-no around here, but in most progressive circles, that's called standing up for what you believe in.

The truth is:
In one of the "inflammatory" sermons, Wright said this:

Under Clinton, blacks had an intelligent friend in the white house.

Oh but governments change. The elections were stolen. We went from an intelligent friend to a dumb dixiecrat.

What a racist and bigoted view that is. Clearly, the man hates all white people and sees no good in them. Now who would want to support a minister who felt that way?

This is a call to all Clinton supporters: stop the lying. Stop claiming that Obama lied about what he heard Wright. He didn't. Stop claiming that Obama was "in the pews for 20 years of racist and inflammatory language". He wasn't. Stop saying that there were 20 years of racist and inflammatory language. There weren't. Stop saying that Wright is a racist or a bigot. He isn't. Stop saying that TUCC is a racist, bigoted, anti-American church. It isn't.

We have video showing what really happened. We have audio of the sermons. We know how often this happened. We know what Wright really said. We know how he treated white churchgoers, whites in the community, how he referred to white people in high offices who weren't racists, who did do good things for black people.

By the "logic" displayed here, anyone who says something on a very few occasions has said it every day of their professional lives. Anyone who criticizes the government must be made a pariah. Anyone who draws a distinction between criticism/controversy and inflammatory/inappropriate/unacceptable language should be judged as if they think those are the same thing, and if they accept one they must accept the other. Anyone who says something and says the same thing 3 days later is lying. Anyone who thinks black people have gotten a raw deal over the history of the US is a racist and a bigot and cannot be associated with.

If that's really your standard, stand up and say it. If you're so far without sin that you've never criticized the government; if you really believe that black people have gotten a fair shake over the last 200 years or so in America and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist bigot; if you really believe that anyone who's associated with someone who said something offensive, even if they never heard it, must be judged as if they heard every word of it; and if you think saying something thing and then saying it again is lying, stand up for that standard and be judged by it.

Otherwise stop with the smears.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

"Stop claiming that Obama lied about what he heard Wright. He didn't."

He did lie, in substance. Trying to discount his lies won't help your candidate. There is no appreciable difference between Obama knowing very well what his pastor's views were and lying that he "was not in the pews" at the very moment those exact comments were made and even more technically exact lying that he didn't know his pastor's views. He knew his pastor's views because they were standard fare at that church, and many others.

Parsing terms only serves to compound the issue, like arguing about  what the definition of "is" is. It doesn't work for anyone.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words

See my comment a little ways up. If you believe that about 0.125% of the time is "standard fare", be my guest. I'll hold you to it.

Brite Divinity School, in Dallas, will be honoring Reverend Wright on the 29th of this month. They reconsidered their decision in light of the controversy and have decided he is still worthy of their honors.

Brite has this to say about Reverend Wright:

All speeches, sermons, and documents need to be understood through the setting, historical moment, issues, and audience they address. Religious leadership always includes the prophetic responsibility to speak and act in behalf of God's justice. As a religious leader, Dr. Wright's preaching is clearly in the broad stream of scholars and preachers who stand on the biblical foundation of prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus who also spoke words of God's judgment to the political and religious community of their day. Such prophetic preaching is especially valued in the tradition of the Black Church which serves for many as the only safe place where African Americans may speak honestly about the experience of racial injustice in this country. The righteous anger of a prophet, as shown in scripture, must not be confused with hate speech. In the tradition of the biblical prophets, Dr. Wright is challenging forms of oppression that demean any of God's children. He preaches regularly to persons who daily experience the stigma and oppression of racial and economic injustice that have plagued us since the earliest years of this country. As a minister of the Gospel who relies on scripture, his preaching and teaching support the dignity and worth of all people while challenging actions and policies that threaten God's vision for peace and justice.


Dr. Wright's career and contributions provide an excellent model of ministry and profound theological vision that ensure the ongoing legacy of the historic Black Church tradition.  He served as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC) in Chicago from 1972-2008. During this period, Trinity UCC grew from 87 adults to over 8700 members. Today this south Chicago congregation provides numerous ministries ranging from Food Share programs, Dance and Math tutorials for youth, and small groups that benefit families and individuals. The congregation tithes its annual revenues to support other congregations, denominational missions, and agencies supporting mission work in Liberia, Haiti, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Brazil, and South Africa. Trinity has also birthed four new congregations of the UCC--two in Atlanta, Georgia, one in Gary, Indiana, and one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In 2001, Dr. Wright was the Wells Preacher for Brite's Ministers Week of lectures, a continuing education event that draws pastors and lay leaders from across the nation. No Wells Preacher in recent years has been better received than Dr. Wright. Unfortunately, many have not heard segments from his sermons such as the one in which he says, "I am glad I follow a God who taught me to love my enemies."


Like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Brite trusts in a God whose love and justice are never divided. In this spirit of Christian witness, Brite Divinity School honors and celebrates a tradition of dialogue, diversity, and finding common ground.

Quite a summation of "Wright's views", isn't it? Sounds to me as if they would take just a bit of issue with your claims about what Reverend Wright's views are, or to what extent someone should associate with him. I certainly don't see a portrait of a racist, bigoted, anti-American minister there; do you? Are you claiming more insight into the character of a minister, of a church, than a group whose profession it is to teach and evaluate ministers?

Brite is an interdenominational seminary, recognized by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), approved by the United Methodist Church, has a relationship with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and supports ordination in the Presbyterian faith as well. It is predominately white. Does that sound like a bunch of people who'd be honoring someone if they thought he was the sort of person you're trying to paint Wright as?

Obama did not lie about what he heard and you know it. Wright is not the person you're trying to paint him as and you know it. Obama is not the person you're trying to paint him as and you know it. The person who is parsing terms to try to stir up controversy where there rightfully should be none is you.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-25 12:52PM | 0 recs
A few more

There is his ever changing tale of where his 8 years of records from the Illinois Senate are: http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/o bama-s-records-problem.html

Then there are his Illinois legislative accomplishments, which he is broadcasting in Pennsylvania.  Only problem, he really didn't do them.  His name was planted on legislation because Emil Jones wanted to make Obama into a U.S. Senator.  http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/n ews/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

The Washington Post did an article on both candidate's embellishments, but started off the story with a great tale of how Obama horned into the press conference on immigration reform, and claimed credit for work he did not do, greatly annoying Arlen Specter.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706. html

Then there's this NYT story about how Obama's bio of his years in New York does not square with others' recollections.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/pol itics/30obama.html

For example:

Dan Armstrong, who worked with Mr. Obama at Business International Corporation in New York in 1984 and has deconstructed Mr. Obama's account of the job on his blog, analyzethis.net, wrote: "All of Barack's embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ's temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks."

In an interview, Mr. Armstrong added: "There may be some truth to that. But in order to make it a good story, it required a bit of exaggeration."

 

Armstrong's blog said he was a big fan of Obama, but:

http://www.analyzethis.net/blog/2005/07/ 09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/

And yet I'm disappointed. Barack's story may be true, but many of the facts are not. His larger narrative purpose requires him to embellish his role. I don't buy it. Just as I can't be inspired by Steve Jobs now that I know how dishonest he is, I can't listen uncritically to Barack Obama now that I know he's willing to bend the facts to his purpose.

Once, when I applied for a marketing job at a big accounting firm, my then-supervisor called HR to say that I had exaggerated something on my resume. I didn't agree, but I also didn't get the job. But when Barack Obama invents facts in a book ranked No. 8 on the NY Times nonfiction list, it not only fails to be noticed but it helps elevate him into the national political pantheon.

by katmandu1 2008-03-25 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Embellished Words: Obama's Record of Exa

Forget FL and MI, can't we do a total do over?

I get that after two terms of the worst presidency in our history that every Tom, Dick and Harrieta would think it an optimum time to run and these two historical candidates surely knew they'd have an edge but neither of them are what our country needs at this juncture. Broker the convention, release all delegates and make Gore or Edwards the nominee -it's our only hope.

by BPCross 2008-03-26 07:42AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads