On the whole, the mainstream media is so bedazzled with Barack Obama that it won't do its job in holding the Illinois Senator accountable to his words. That job is left to the fact checkers, the blogs and Friends of Hillary and Bill. No wonder Bill Clinton is so angry. Obama's getting away with it and Team Clinton is not. When Obama started his campaign, he promised a new kind of politics, but what we've actually seen--especially in the last month--is a growing pile of old-style untruths. Instead of a new way, we're getting the Chicago way. Let's recap:
The 100-year war.
Obama said this:
You know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.
The Columbia Journalism Review makes the harsh assessment that Obama is "seriously misleading voters--if not outright lying to them--about exactly what McCain said." Michael Dobbs' Fact Checker site is less harsh but comes to a similar conclusion. Here's what McCain actually said.
Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…
McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
For Obama to be honest about McCain's statement, the Democratic frontrunner must also believe that we're still at war in Germany, Japan and Korea. This is what a senior Obama advisor called a "clean shot" against McCain. That was a clean shot? I'd like to see they consider a dirty shot.
Obama's JFK-Selma Connection.
In Obama's own words:
What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, "You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites." So the Kennedys decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.
The Fact Checker concludes that Obama's words are "misleading in a number of ways":
● It implies that the airlifts of Kenyan students in 1959 and 1960 were somehow a response by the Kennedys to the bad image that America was getting around the world as a result of the civil rights protests in places like Selma and Birmingham. That is not the case. Mboya organized the airlifts as part of an effort to prepare his country for independence. Nearly 8,000 Americans had contributed money to the program by the time the Kennedys got involved.● Obama credits the Kennedys with bringing his father to America. The Kennedys did not fund the 1959 airlift.
● Obama implies that he is somehow the product of the Selma events. As other bloggers have pointed out, the Selma march took place in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. (The Obama campaign now says that he was referring to the civil rights movement in general, rather than the Selma protest in particular.)
A casual listener to Obama's Selma speech could come away with the impression that he is the offspring of a mythical union between the Kennedys and the civil rights movement.
Obama earned three Pinocchios for this one because of significant factual errors and/or obvious contradictions.
Obama and his taking of money from oil companies.
Factcheck.org calls this statement "too slick":
I don’t take money from oil companies.
Their conclusion:
Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.We find the statement misleading:
● Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
● Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Obama masking his liberalism.
From The Politico:
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign.The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he "never saw or approved" the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who "unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position."
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.
As Ed Morrisey notes, the Obama team's response makes no sense. Barack Obama is trying to package himself as a transcendant candidate who can cross party lines for change, but the sad fact is that his views are left and liberal, and he has the most liberal 2007 voting record in the U.S. Senate. Someone needs to explain to me how a person on the far left can convince people on the right that their views are wrong and that they must join him to bring about "hope" and "change". Seems like someone more centrist [*cough McCain*] could do a better job of it.
A McCain presidency would be a Bush third term on energy?
On the subject of energy and oil, Obama said this:
Make no mistake, this is an area where John McCain is offering a third Bush term.
Obama's statement is dishonest because it is so disingenuous. When it came to the 2005 energy bill, the Senate voted 74-26 in favor. According to Jake Tapper, Obama voted "yea" and McCain voted "nay". Whose vote is closer to a Bush third term? It looks to me like Obama's. President Bush has been pushing for drilling in ANWR since his first term. To the chagrin of most Republicans, McCain is opposed. McCain's energy security plan is significantly different from the Bush version.
Obama on his pastor's "acknowledgment".
On The View as reported by AP, Obama said this:
Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.
There is no record anywhere of Reverend Wright making any such acknowledgement (cite).
Obama's anti-NAFTA mailer.
More from factcheck.org:
Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading:● Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain.
● The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.
All of this dishonesty has happened in the last month or so. How much more can we expect in a head-to-head contest? Why is Obama getting a relatively free pass from the mainstream press? When will the mainstream media step in and start doing its job? The bets are on.

Well, Okay
(#88621)This is not as funny as the last Obama diary, but still loads funnier than the dashiki stuff.
Enjoyed the Pinocchio's for Bird Dog below. Heh. No free passes in here!
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
How many outraged diaries
(#88594)will it take to get through this year's election?
This place is my vacation.
fewer than the outraged diaries
(#88595)after the last two presidential elections?
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentNAFTA job gains
(#88498)I still haven't seen any studies that show this; the last time we discussed it, we were talking about large net gains. Are there any citations I can track down?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
I'm still waiting for some background on the factory
(#88560)that was shipped lock, stock and barrel to another country.
It is my general understanding that Ohio ships about 30% of what is manufactured to foriegn countries.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentThin gruel after 8 years of bad faith. -nt-
(#88492).
Thank you! Vote Republican!
How many Bird Dog untruths will it take?
(#88491)Hence begins the Goring of Obama? Not this time. On the Kennedys:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/key-part-of-jfk.html
They were off by a year, they acknowledged this, the Kennedy money went to the same program and maybe even to pay off costs directly associated with Obama Sr. Not that those details matter, since the point was that the Kennedys were indeed funding the program at around the same time. They funded many Obamas.
In the same link
(#88547)That was in [...] part that you left out. Credit the Kennedys for paying for later airlifts, but it doesn't make Obama's statements any truer. As for your dirty insinuation that this post contains untruths on my part, you really should back it up or take it back.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentI left out the guy's opinion
(#88674)You apparently endorse or push factcheck.org calling Obama a liar (Pinocchio) regarding the Kennedy story. As someone else pointed out below, "His father came here as part of a program that the Kennedy's later joined in as a part of the Civil Rights movement. He was off by a year on the causation point, but correct as to the overall context of what was going on," and I made a similar point upthread. If you want to call Obama a liar over this -- or, in your own words, peddle "dirty insinuations" with that title -- then don't be surprised when people recognize old patterns and give you the same treatment.
- reply
parentPlease point to where...
(#88867)...I called Obama a liar. Your truck isn't with me, it's with Michael Dobbs and factcheck.org.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentAnd your unqualified endorsement thereof. -nt-
(#88882).
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentand the dirty insinuation, of course
(#88921)- reply
parentIt has been supported repeatedly in this thread. -nt
(#88573).
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentAwesome.
(#88496)To believe that this statement represents a deliberate untruth of any kind says far more about the believer than the statement.
Perhaps it would be quicker for a mod to post "Obama is still a Democrat running for President" every few days, and we can infer that whichever sad little meme the Wingnut Wurlitzer is pushing at that moment has been faithfully repeated on this site.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentSheesh
(#88490)1. McCain's war. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. We are currently at war in Iraq. Therefore, why is it a stretch to say that McCain wants a hundred years of war? If anyone is being dishonest, it's McCain, with his assumption that Iraq will somehow morph into South Korea.
2. JFK-Selma. Please. This is emotional rhetoric, not a factual claim. If we applied these standards to George W. Bush, we'd be able to say that he held Saddam responsible for 9/11 and believes that anyone who opposed the Iraq war hates freedom.
3. Oil company money. Sure, this is something of a distortion, but not exactly a new or unique one.
4. What you think about Obama's liberalism is your opinion -- or, from the look of things, someone else's opinion. Liberalism and unifying potential are subjective characterizations.
5. Bush third term on energy -- obviously this is open to debate, depending on which of Bush's policies one picks as central to his energy policy.
6. Wright's acknowledgment. There's no record, therefore it didn't happen? Huh? Ever heard of private conversation?
7. Anti-NAFTA mailer. Both Obama and Clinton have been disingenuous about NAFTA. This and #3 are the only accusations of the lot that have any meat to them at all.
Is that all you got?
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Why is it a stretch
(#88642)because of this
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentAs long as Americans are not being harmed
(#88808)Is his energy policy to harness the power of rainbows? Because this statement of McCain's is pure fantasy and I suspect even he is sane enough to realize that.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentSay wha?
(#88544)On point 1, McCain couldn't have been clearer that 100 years in Iraq would be OK provided that the conditions are similar to South Korea. We are not at war in Korea. Haven't been for 60± years.
On point 2, Obama spoke his words as if they were facts. Dobbs is a disinterested party in this, and his conclusion was three Pinocchios. Maybe Obama could have give us hand signals or something to tell us when he goes into "emotional rhetoric" mode. But as it is, I'll judge his words by the same standards as any other political candidate's.
On point 4, Obama's handwritten and approved positions on the questionnaire are deeply on the left side of the political spectrum. Instead of saying his views have evolved, he took the dishonest route and blamed it on an aide who was on work release or some such.
On point 5, where exactly did Obama support his statements? He could've pointed out the similarities, but he didn't. All he did was throw out a load of bullsh*t.
On point 6, show me where Wright made such an acknowledgement. Obama said it, so he should back up his words with something more than flights of fancy.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentPinocchios for Bird Dog
(#88578)Point 1: McCain made no effort whatsoever to qualify his 100 years point as you have done, and it makes no sense to modify his 100 years in Iraq to mean only if the war does not continue. Since Iraq is actively at war and he defends keeping troops there 100 years, the reasonable conclusion is that he would continue the war for 100 years. To call that conclusion a lie is just garbage.
Point 2: His father came here as part of a program that the Kennedy's later joined in as a part of the Civil Rights movement. He was off by a year on the causation point, but correct as to the overall context of what was going on -- wow, such lying. The accurate statement would have been that his father came here as apart of a program later embraced by the Kennedys and the civil rights movement.
Point 3: So now getting money from someone who works for an oil company is the same as getting money from oil companies. And a true statement becomes a lie for this reason? Do you actually think before you write this stuff?
Point 4: Uh, only someone demented would think that Obama is not portraying himself as a liberal. As for views changing slightly over time, so what? That standard makes McCain a liar many times over.
Point 5: There is little reason to expect McCain to do much of anything different from Bush, which is the point of Obama's remark. How that becomes a "lie" takes some skewed thinking. And do you think Obama is closer to Bush than McCain on energy policy? That seems to be your point.
Point 6: There is no record that Obama's description is not exactly what happened. You should back up your accusation of lying with something more than a flight of fancy.
Point 7: Wow -- such a terrible thing in a campaign. Exaggerating in political rhetoric.
Can't wait for your next missive.
- reply
parentPosting rules, Anon
(#88634)You don't get to call me a liar, unless you can back it up, which you can't. Beyond that, there's nothing more to say except to note that Andrew's first observation is apt.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentI agree. Let's refrain from calling each other liars
(#88639)unless the commenter's mens rea, foreknowledge and all that chain of evidence jazz are actually part of the topic. Otherwise, please stick to what's wrong with the diary, not what's wrong with the diarist.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentMcCain vs. Iraq
(#88576)McCain actually supports both interpretations strongly -- he first implies that Iraq would be like South Korea, then discusses US forces fighting elements of Al Qaeda.
Since McCain has made clear his interest in opening up an additional front in Iran, I view Obama's interpretation as much more credible than the "Iraq is like South Korea" interpretation.
As for using the group who happened to find the last Democratic candidate as "the most liberal Senator," well, that's a heck of a coincidence, isn't it? Either the Party is far to the left of its Senators, or . . . yeah.
As for attempting to find daylight between McCain and Bush on energy policy, even Bush put "switchgrass" into his SOTU. McCain's voting record is against improving CAFE standards. And calling drilling in ANWR energy policy is silliness; doing so would have no appreciable effect on our overall situation.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentLet's not do the twist
(#88644)This is about what Obama said, not what McCain didn't say. McCain was clear in saying that a presence would be fine so long as U.S. soldiers were in as much danger as it is in Korea. Al Qaeda is a separate issue. They're to be fought wherever they are. If they're still around in a 100 years, then it would be fair to say that we've lost this war.
On Iran, McCain has not made clear his interest to make Iran an additional front. You're fantasizing. He has made clear that he would increase diplomatic efforts and take steps to pressure the mullahs away from destabilizing the region.
I view Obama's interpretation as much more credible than the "Iraq is like South Korea" interpretation.
You would. Reasonable folks such as CJR and the Fact Checker view otherwise.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentAs seems to regularly take place,
(#88728)the post above has violated the posting rules.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIs that all you got? He's
(#88493)Is that all you got?
He's just getting started.
- reply
parentI'm waiting for the diary
(#88494)entitled "pathological liar Obama claims to have invented the internet"
- reply
parentThis is how the game is played
(#88487)Nothing you have written would lead me to conclude that Obama is less honest than your average politician. Do you really think McCain believes cutting taxes increases tax revenues? If so, then his ignorance on the subject is much worse than Obama's "dishonesty".
If you want to condemn all less than 100% honest political ads/statements we will hear in this election then I admire your consistency. If you want to hold Obama to a higher standard than McCain then I think you will be disappointed.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
I'm thinking a few more
(#88486)Some of this stuff is a bit thin IMHO, like the Selma/JFK one -- he wasn't born then, I'm inclined to cut him a little slack since he acknowledged the error.
Second-from-last: one interpretation is that "and" means, well, "and" -- both conditions would have had to have been met for Obama to leave.
Last: I think the recent surfacing of old documents and videos establishes that Hillary supported NAFTA initially. The specific cite may or may not be misleading but the point is accurate.
Uprated because most of the points are fair if minor.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Why They Don't Matter
(#88483)That Obama says things that may stretch the truth is sadly unimportant to the basic dynamics of the presidential race because:
1) The people who have allowed his charisma to get them to throw their brains away will ignore any evidence that their Messiah is anything other than a god walking the earth.
2) The people who realize that he is, in the end, a politician who happens to be better looking and more charismatic than most already know that politicians stretch the truth.
End result. Obama untruths won't effect the dynamics of the presidential race unless they rise to the level of something really serious.
Does Obama know the difference between..
(#88499)al Qaeda and Taliban Sunnis and Iranian Shiites and why knowing this difference is important?
I'd like the next President to be aware of this, I know it's a small thing, but if the next President wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years..it would be helpful, don't you think?
- reply
parentAs they shouldn't. -nt-
(#88489).
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentWell said, sadly.
(#88484)-nt-
- reply
parent