Poll: Which is worse? Voting 'present' for 3% of your votes OR voting 'Yes' for the Iraq War

[TeamJordan23]

Poll: Which is worse? Voting 'present' for 3% of your votes OR voting "Yes" for the Iraq War

[annie1]

1. considering obama was not even able to vote on iraq cuz he wasn't there for another...

what, 3 years? which was what, 2 years ago? your man is talking about what he may have done, but the point is, we do not know for sure and neither does he.

[Andy823]

71. But we do know

That he voted to fund the war in Iraq, shouldn't that be int he poll also? Which is worse saying you would not have supported the war in Iraq, or voting for it every single time it comes up? Isn't voting to fund the war the same as supporting it?

[BeyondGeography]

2. It was 3/10 of 1% of his total votes or .3%

[TwilightZone]

10. Incorrect. It's 3.25%

(130/4000) * 100 = 3.25%

Somehow, this same math error keeps getting posted. Come on, people, the math really isn't that difficult.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Yep...you're right

Now what's the square root of 1,369, without a calculator?

[TwilightZone]

14. If you're going to correct someone in one of your posts...

it's usually a good idea to be correct in your correction. Otherwise, it looks kind of silly.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Now you're just being pompous

[TwilightZone]

16. Pompous? No, pompous is "correcting" someone else's accurate info, being wrong by a factor of 10...

and then acting as though you were right all along.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Get help

[calteacherguy]

3. You are presuming there is something negative about voting "present"

There is not. In the Illinois state legislature, it's equivalent in real terms to voting "no."

Otherwise, a fine poll. ;-)

[MADem]

5. I don't think the advocates for Obama agree with that take on it.

That Present = No.

[Occam Bandage]

4. I believe Obama would have voted for it if he were in the Senate, and

he's my #2 choice. It's very easy to say, "I am against this" when the cameras aren't on you. It's very easy to claim you would have made a principled choice and not an expedient choice when the choice is not before you. I'm not impressed with anti-war rhetoric; even Bush claimed he didn't want war. I am impressed with action and action alone, and Obama has not shown any more spine than Clinton has ever since his election to the Senate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. "even Bush claimed he didn't want war"

Quite a sharp turn of phrase.

[TeamJordan23]

8. Why did he came out and give a public speech about it when it was considered political suicide?

Remember, Hillary tells us he has been wanting to run for President since Kindergarten. So wouldn't he have not wanted to make such a public speech when it likely would have come back to bite him (which was not a far fethced idea back than).

[Occam Bandage]

42. "Political suicide?" Not on the South Side.

Keep in mind where he was at the time--in Cook, the most solidly Democratic county in the entire nation. I can't recall ever voting against a viable Republican; balloting is almost purely for show. If there was one place on Earth where you could stand and safely give an anti-war speech, it was in Barack Obama's shoes.

(I don't believe he's wanted the Presidency in particular for any great period of time. Rather, he wanted what every ambitious politician wants--the next rung. I'm not smearing him there; any politician who has no interest in advancement is a politician who is unlikely to listen to voters.)

[Tactical Progressive]

46. did you mean

viable Democrat?

And just for the record, Obama has professed his desire to be President to people in the Illinois state senate and before that in law school. Nothing wrong with that. There is however something wrong with lying about it and there is something wrong about using that lie to smear Hillary. Obama has been making subtle and not-so-subtle character slurs against Hillary from the beginning. Just listen to them whine when she hits back though. Character assassins are usually like that.

[maximusveritas]

52. He was also preparing to run for the US Senate

and it was not exactly a safe position for a challenger to take.

[Occam Bandage]

58. "Not exactly a safe position." You realize we're talking about Chicago, right?

From the beginning, he was running a charisma/popularity campaign, with his main support base as Chicago (which can virtually dictate statewide elections). He campaigned almost entirely in Chicago during the early stages of the campaign, and then moved downstate during the periods in which he had no challengers. He had very little to lose by making an anti-war speech early on--it increased his credibility among liberal activists (which was essential to get the ball rolling, so to speak), while at the same time being "only" a speech; it certainly wouldn't be an effective centerpiece for an attack ad.

[maximusveritas]

70. "wouldn't be an effective centerpiece for an attack ad." Really?

Him calling it a "stupid war" couldn't be used against him?

He couldn't have won a general election against Fitzgerald with just liberal activists in Chicago. It might have helped in a primary, but not the general.

[noamnety]

6. Care for an apple? Or perhaps an orange?

Which is worse ... stealing from your aging parents? Or peeing in someone's food when you are a chef?

Why not just debate the merits of an individual issue, instead of implying that people are above critique if they can prove someone else has done something worse?

[ClarkUSA]

9. Addressing the relative importance of the daily Hillaryous faux outrage talking point of the day...

It kinda puts it all in perspective, don't it?

[jgraz]

11. Voting for Kyl/Lieberman trumps both

[Quixote1818]

13. You should be Obama's campaign manager! Very well done! nt

[Bitwit1234]

18. Such a bunch crap....have you read the RESOLUTION

The resolution did not give bush permission to start a war. It gave him permission to find Saddam's WMD. AND IF SAINT OBAMA WANTS TO BOMB, yes he wants to bomb Iran tell me any where, any link, any place, any spoken word where Hillary Clinton said she wanted to bomb Iraq or Iran..but the Saint did......he believed bush...he believed bush. and wanted to bomb Iran

BUT WHEN THE CONGRESS BELIEVED BUSH WHEN HE SAID SADDAM HAD WMD THAT WAS WRONG WRONG WRONG. Bunch of twisters of facts. But then Obama doesn't know which end is up so he has to have lies manufactured for him. And it seems like the American Idoler followers can do that.

[CTLawGuy]

33. its YOU who hasn't read the resolution

considering it doesn't MENTION WMD in the operative clauses, it can't simply be permission to find WMD. What it did was give Bush a blank check to use military force to "protect us from the threat of Iraq" and "enforce UN resolutions" if he "determined" diplomatic avenues wouldn't work.

Also this was the resolution Bush himself wanted and signed into law. I don't think he'd sign a law that constricted his power in actuality.

[wyldwolf]

19. where's Obama's "judgement?" Where's his leadership?

when Clinton is pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes "present" when it matters. She didn't vote "present" for the IWR. She took a stand. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn't. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn't back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her.

Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. It's a lot easier. But it's not more principled, no matter your excuse. It's triangulating. It is also quite calculating. Because what better way to hit your opponent than to duck a tough vote where she was counted, and you'd been counted months earlier, then rail against her because no one is paying attention to the facts.

Thank you, Taylor Marsh.

[dailykoff]

20. Sticking up for Joe isn't exactly putting herself on the line.

And if she thought she'd get boos she probably would have said just the opposite of whatever she said.

[wyldwolf]

22. who else stuck up for Joe?

[dailykoff]

23. How about the bush-dog constituency that elected him

and that Hillary is abso-freakin'-lutely sure will elect her too?

[wyldwolf]

27. how about sticking to the topic

OBAMA was mentored by Lieberman.
OBAMA backed Lieberman.
CLINTON was the first to write Lamont a check.

You've had too much "progressive"* Kool Aid if you think Clinton's constituency is Lieberman-style voters.

[dailykoff]

75. If the topic is pandering to Neocons while pretending not to

nobody does it better than HRC.

[jenmito]

77. YOU'RE the one to talk about sticking to the topic...

didn't I ask you to stick to a topic of a thread and you refused, claiming you were going to keep pointing out my "hypocrisy" (which was proven you were wrong about?) :rofl:

Clinton voted for the IWR and didn't even read the NIE, claiming she got input from her husband (who later claimed to be against the war from the beginning)! Keeping the Clintons' stories straight is making me dizzy!

[mtnsnake]

31. Most of Congress. I love how they fail to say how Obama & McCain were the only ones with no balls

to put their asses on the line in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

[BenDavid]

30. Most of you can forgive kerry -edwards for their votes on the

iraq conflict, but oh hell no you want senator clinton to grovel.....Too damn bad she will not and that is what is pissing you folks off. Maybe that is why most of you like kerry and edwards caused both are just like harry reid, say something one day and then before sunset apoligize for it....HRC is not going to do that....and for months on end in here all I heard was we need a fighter, and I am damn sure it is not obama nor is it edwards....You asked for a bear in this election and friends you have a damn grizzley in HRC.
So can we move on pass the iraq vote. Goodness it seems most of you believe that hrc had the power to over rule the joint chiefs and planned and set in motion this conflict, and forget it was bush that tis to blame....and as john kerry stood in front of the grand canyon and its majestic view, and was asked, "if you knew then what you know now would you still vote for the iraq resolution? Kerry in all his splendor answered...YES.....

HRC asked the same or even said to reporters that if she knew then what she knows now she WOULD NOT vote for the iraq resolution. "you GET NO DO OVERS"

Shalom
Ben David

[Pawel K]

35. If all she did was vote for the war I would forgive her

but ever since she has refused to apologize for it. She plans on keeping our troops in Iraq for god knows how long. And the last nail in her coffin was when she voted for Kyl/Liberman. Yes, Obama voted for a similar bill months earlier, a bill that said Bush can not use that bill to start war. But Obama was against the Iraq war. So why would anyone here support Clinton over Obama when he was right on such an important issue and she was totally wrong? I want to keep her in the senate, she is a good senator. But I do not want 4 or 8 more years of the same old DLC bullshit, sorry.

[Tactical Progressive]

44. Obama's self-proclaimed 'anti-war' position is lost in a maze

of you shouldn't have voted for what I didn't vote against but once made a speech that didn't mean anything that said it was bad but when related votes came I did except when I didn't show up but would have voted like you did if I had but you shouldn't have ... .. .

[Perry Logan]

21. But we all seem to agree that voting 'present' for 3% of your votes is bad.

[JTFrog]

25. Nah, just the "we" in HRC agree. I have no problem with 3% out of over 4,000 votes. However,

I have lots of problems with 3,896 Americans dead, 60,000 Americans wounded and almost 1,000,000 Iraqis dead. And still counting.

[MNDemNY]

34. What is the number of the Senate bill that BHO has intruduced

to end the war now, and bring the troops home? I forget.And how many times did he vote to keep funding the war?

[JTFrog]

38. Which is worse? Voting 'present' for 3% of your votes OR voting 'Yes' for the Iraq War

I responded to the OP and a comment about the OP. What did that have to do with your questions? Perhaps you should make another poll with what you feel is relevant. :shrug:

[Tactical Progressive]

24. IWR wasn't a vote for the Iraq War

The people who say that know they're lying.

And Yes was the correct vote for the IWR. Actually, 'correct' isn't accurate since I think voting No was also honorable and a good vote. I'll say Yes was the better vote on the IWR.

Obama's stance on the Iraq war carries roughly as much weight as you telling a football team on TV what play they should be running. Without the committment of being in the Senate and having to place and defend the vote, it means just about nothing, though both Obama and his supporters seem to think words from the sidelines carry weight. Further, I have no doubt in my mind that Obama would have voted for the IWR. Which, as I said above, would have been the right vote, so that's a compliment not a slam from me.

As to Obama's tap dancing on tough votes, whether 'present' or not showing up, there's not much good you can say about that.

[JTFrog]

26. Are you sure you recognize a lie when you see one?

3,896 dead Americans, 60,000 wounded Americans and almost 1,000,000 dead Iraqis. Accomplishment = ZERO. "Correct" vote my ass.

And a yes vote followed up with a speech like the one below removes any possibility that I would mistake such yes vote as "correct". Why drum up such fear and then go so far as to point out how unreliable the UN can be and belittle their agents? I think we know who ended up "correct" on that issue.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

................

The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

[Pawel K]

36. Voting yes on IWR was the correct vote?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Yuugal]

28. I would have rather seen 3 choices:

1)voting present 3%

2)voting for Iraq war and then realizing you made a really bad call and saying you're sorry.

3)voting for Iraq war, then saying you're against it, then voting for blank checks for the war over and over and over, then saying you're against it again, then saying you're against it but you'll keep troops there during your whole administration to do the exact same things Bush said he wanted to do.

[rAVES]

29. No contest..

[MNDemNY]

32. Right, a freshman Senator who's "mentor" is Joe Lieberman,

would not have voted for the Iraq war resolution? That is laughable at best. Any one who really believes that is living in a different world....Obamanation?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LWolf]

37. Other:

Saying you were "against the war from the beginning" while you weren't in congress to vote for the IWR, but repeatedly vote to fund the war when you are, is just as unacceptable as voting for the IWR and then repeatedly voting to fund the war.

[JTFrog]

39. Not when those repsonsible at the time should have made the correct vote and

prevented any future funding votes to begin with. Debating whether to fund the troops that are already at war IS NOT the same as sending them to war to begin with.

It's only the same in the eyes of the cognitive dissonant.

[LWolf]

43. It's not the same, but it's no better.

Choosing to enable the continued occupation is not the action of someone who is "against" said occupation. That's a simple fact, regardless of how someone wants to "spin" it to cover political ass.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. A push poll from ObamaNation? What, no "Present!" option?

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

63. That's only for your push polls, silly.

[William769]

41. Other.

We will never know if he would have voted present or just not showed up for the IWR vote as his MO suggests.

[killbotfactory]

45. Considering the the present votes were part of a progressive legislative strategy

IWR, by far.

[Tactical Progressive]

47. Since Obama would have voted YES on IWR, the poll is contrived and invalid

A correct poll, based on an actual IWR vote by Obama would be:

"Which is worse:

- Voting 'Yes' on the IWR
- Voting 'Yes' on the IWR and voting 'present' for 3% of your votes"


Obama shills like to pretend that he voted against things he never did vote against, or even vote on, like IWR & Kyle, then challenge others to match the outstanding record that they all keep in their heads, since there aren't any actual votes on paper to show.

The above is the real-world poll. How does Barack make out in that one?

[AtomicKitten]

50. Don't let Barack's Oct 2002 speech condemning the impending war on Iraq get in the way.

edited for linky dinky:

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[Tactical Progressive]

51. Everybody gave speeches against the war

The Democrats who voted for the IWR gave speeches against going to war.
Even George Bush said he didn't want to go to war.

Get me a link where Obama voted no on the IWR.

Oh, that's right, there is no link for that on the entire internet.

[AtomicKitten]

53. and your accusation that he would have voted yes is as spurious as your memory

Fact: Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd voted YES on the IWR.
Fact: Clinton voted YES on Kyl-Lieberman.

Obama beat you to the punch with a very public, well-documented, well-timed as in BEFORE the war started anti-Iraq war speech.

[Tactical Progressive]

56. I didn't think you'd be able to address the question

And of course you can't.

Speeches against an Iraq invasion are a dime a dozen. They mean nothing.
Hillary's speech was better than Obama's.

Show me where Obama showed up to cast a vote against either Iraq or Iran Resolutions.

Oops, no punch there. Just Obama leaving the building.

Obama would have voted for the IWR, and if he'd had shown up, Kyle too.
That claim is easily as grounded as any claim that he wouldn't have.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Obama was against the war from the get-go. Them's the facts.

Please keep spinning, though. Seriously. It showcases how lame and desperate the opposition is.

[Tactical Progressive]

62. So was Hillary

That's a fact too.

And she stood up and voted. Obama didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

65. Ha, ha, ha!!! Yeah, we could tell by her YES votes on IWR and K-L !!!

If "standing up" is voting YES on war and war more, Hillary should sit down
and spare the nation the grief.

[Tactical Progressive]

66. Obama is the one who runs away from important votes

Let's not pretend that's Hillary.

Obama, the self-proclaimed 'leader' who talks big but skidaddles when it's time to put the votes down.

[AtomicKitten]

67. NOTHING trumps Hillary's YES votes for war and more war.

Best of luck trying to sell that turd.

Edited for the happy, smiley guy :hi:

I admire your spirit (as misguided as it may be) nonetheless. Have a great day.

[Tactical Progressive]

68. Hillary never voted for a war in her life, and Obama never voted against one

[dionysus]

69. can you really type that with a straight face?

[Tactical Progressive]

72. Easier than you can type that Obama voted against the IWR

[dionysus]

73. oh, can you find out where I've done so, considering he wasn't in office?

[JTFrog]

54. Give me a link where he voted YES to either IWR or Kyl -Lieberman.

Guess you can't do that either.

At least the poll in the OP deals with facts. You start your argument with an opinion and call it a fact thereby making it contrived and invalid and giving you zero credibility.

[Tactical Progressive]

60. Nobody can show you Obama's votes - he didn't make any

That's the whole point. Obama doesn't vote on these things, but then pretends he's taken a stand. That's the hypocrisy. That's the contrivance.

I don't have to prove anything, the person making the claim with no backing evidence - Obama and his supporters - have to prove what they fantasize Obama would have stood for.

And you can't. An anti-war speech isn't a 'No' vote on IWR. We have tons of actual proof of that. And a skipped vote on Kyle has even less standing.

Obama is the one with zero credibility on these issues. You just pretend that he would have voted No on IWR and that's it as far as you're concerned. I'm sure he would have voted Yes (which again, I think was the better vote). Neither presumption has any credibility, but you are certain yours does. I'm more than certain mine does, and I don't come with the baggage of extreme right/wrong (IWR) polarization to deal with. I'm far more objective and the evidence, like his other votes on Iraq War funding, his hard stance on Iran, and everyone else who voted IWR while speaking against an invasion, support my position. Not yours.

You have absolutely nothing to support that Obama would have voted no on IWR when all the evidence says he would have.

[JTFrog]

76. You still have zero credibility.

You haven't added a single thing of substance. All still your opinion.

No surprises there.

[Tactical Progressive]

78. I have the same credibility as you on this, zero if you like

You have no evidence that Obama would have voted against the IWR.

It's just your opinion.

[JTFrog]

79. But it's fact that he DID NOT.

Woulda shoulda coulda booga.

JFC.

[mikelgb]

48. lraq War is worse, but...

I include voting for funding as a "Yes" vote as well

[napi21]

49. I don't think Obama has the option of criticizing anyone's vote on the war.

He was NOT in the Seante at the time, and to say "but I spoke against it then" or "IF I would have been in the Senate I would have voted no" are not valid arguments!

[killbotfactory]

59. Many democrats in the Senate opposed the war

The ones who didn't were either hoodwinked or too scared about looking like peacenik cowards before the upcoming election. Obama came out against the war while running for an election. Not only did he oppose it in a hotly contested election, he spoke at an anti-war rally, which many other dems were scared of doing.

I'm sure in some alternate universe Obama would have supported the IWR, but in this one he didn't, and the reasons he didn't support the IWR were clear.

[GreenArrow]

55. Voting yes on IWR is worse

The "voting present" crap doesn't even register, although it probably isn't a stretch to assume that those voting for the "voting present" option likely had no problems themselves with supporting an illegal, immoral, aggressive war.

[LostinVA]

61. What a little push poll

[LSK]

64. this poll is meaningless, what were those votes on???

I have supported voting 'present' on several votes in Congress over the past few years.

[killbotfactory]

74. It doesn't really matter to the people who are making this an issue

They don't know why he voted present or what he voted present on.