It was Barack Obama, not Larry Johnson, who made the speech (cribbed from Deval Patrick, but I am not focused on plagiarism) that “words matter.” I have received two messages from media friends carping that I am nit-picking Obama over his claim in last Tuesday’s debate that he was taking a tough stand on Iraq in 2002 at great personal risk because in was in the midst of a hotly contested race for the U.S. Senate.

HORSE HOCKEY! Words matter and then there is a little thing called historical evidence. Consider the following.

A December 2, 2002 article in Roll Call reported:

With Sen. Peter Fitzgerald considered the most vulnerable Senate incumbent up for re-election in 2004, an energetic handful of Democrats began laying the groundwork to take on the Illinois Republican even before this year’s votes were tallied.

The Senate race in the Land of Lincoln is among those expected to share top billing in the upcoming cycle, and the Democratic field so far includes four candidates, either announced or expected to announce, and three wild cards.

Former Chicago school board President Gery Chico (D), the only candidate who has formally announced he’s running, is on target to have at least $1 million in the bank by the end of the year.

Other Democrats expected to enter the race in coming months are state Comptroller Dan Hynes, state Sen. Barack Obama and wealthy investment banker Blair Hull, who are all working behind the scenes to secure money and support before making their intentions official. Both Obama and Hull have formed exploratory committees.

So by early December 2002, Barack has an exploratory committee. But he does not commit to the race because Carol Moseley-Braun, the woman Peter Fitzgerald defeated to win his Senate seat in 1998, might run again. Well, guess what happened?

Former Senator Moseley-Braun decided to run for President and leaked same to the press on 17 January 2003.

And who jumps into the race on 21 January 2003? Barack Obama. According to Herbert McCann of the Associated Press:

State Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday announced plans to run for the U.S. Senate and began his campaign by accusing incumbent Sen. Peter Fitzgerald of “betraying” Illinoisans.

And what did Barack say about the debacle in Iraq on that fateful day? Not a damn thing, at least according to press reports.

Senator Obama, to his credit, did oppose the war primarily because of the adverse economic impact it would have on his constituents. On September 26, 2002, Chinta Strausberg reported:

Elected officials like Reps. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), Bobby L. Rush (D-1st), Danny K. Davis (D-7th) and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th) urged Bush to end his “pattern of destruction” for the sake of America and its economy.”The president has not made his case for going into Iraq” said Obama.

“What is clear is that we have severe problems here at home.”

Barack also attended a 2 October 2002 anti-war rally in Chicago that was headlined by Jesse Jackson. But his vision about the war, understandably, was being couched in terms of how it could harm his constituents’ interests. That’s not a bad thing.

But during the ensuing campaign, Barack changed his tune. According to a Christopher Wills Associated Press piece on 19 September 2004, Barack said:

he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

“If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that’s something I would support,” said Obama. . . .

Not an irresponsible position, but that’s not the message he’s selling now. Do words matter?

And then there was this exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 25 July 2004:

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re not charging that President Bush sent men and women to die for political reasons?

STATE SEN. OBAMA: No, I don’t think that’s the case. As I said, I think that this administration is sincere but I think it’s misguided.

MR. RUSSERT: You also said this: “…I also know that Saddam possesses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

The nominee of your party, John Kerry, the nominee for vice president, John Edwards, all said he was an imminent threat. They voted to authorize George Bush to go to war. How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they’re on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees in Washington?

STATE SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have. And what is absolutely clear is that John Kerry said, “If we go into war, let’s make sure that we do it right. Let’s make sure that our troops are supported. Let’s make sure that we have the kind of coalition that’s necessary to succeed.” And the execution of what was a difficult choice to make was something that all of us have to be concerned about. And moving forward, the only way that we’re going to be able to succeed is if, I think, we have an administration led by John Kerry that’s going to allow us to consolidate the relationships with our allies that bring about investment in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you had been a senator at that time, you would have voted not to authorize President Bush to go to war?

STATE SEN. OBAMA: I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time.

MR. RUSSERT: So you disagree with John Kerry and John Edwards?

STATE SEN. OBAMA: At that time, but, as I said, I wasn’t there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don’t have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we’re going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.

Note. No condemnation of Kerry or Edwards as being unfit to be President because of that vote. They voted the same way as Hillary. Barack, again to his credit, said he would have voted against the Presidential authorization, as did Senator Durbin. But can anyone point out for me where he called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

My point in belaboring this issue is that Obama is disingenuous at best in his criticism of Hillary Clinton. If you do a Lexis Nexis search for 2003, you will be hard pressed to find Obama advocating for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Yes, he spoke against the war during his 2002 state senatorial campaign, but there is scant evidence that this was a fundamental issue for him. As Barack says, “words matter.”

Previous articleObama Present on Continued Use of Blackwater
Next articleVeterans, National Security (with sizzle)
Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.
  • kenoshaMarge

    Words matter only when the same bright light is used to disect and evaluate the words from both candidates.

    Time after time Obama gets to explain what was meant as opposed to what was said. Other times, obvious lies are simply overlooked. Just sour grapes from the Clinton camp, don’t you know.

    Using a entirely different criteria for Hillary Clinton there is nothing she says that isn’t spun until it’s scarcely recognizable as what she actually said. Then all the pundidiots begin telling us what she meant by what she said. As are all the crystal ball gazing little Obama supporters. They who spew vileness with one breath and then accuse others of “hating” their poor candidate with the next.

    I don’t like Obama. I don’t like McCain. I don’t hate either of them. I disagree with much of what they say and am appalled at the lack of ethical behavior coming from both of them. Thus while not hating either man, I certainly could never vote for either of them to hold the highest office in this country. They simply are not fit.

  • Sally

    If BO makes it to the White House, there will be no stopping him and his thugs just as no one has been able to stop Bush and his thugs. I’m not sure anyone in Congress much cares about what Bush has done or, judging by the endorsements of BO from our esteemed leaders, will care about what BO will do since they are totally ignoring what we know about his past shady deals while praising him to high heaven. Fools.

  • Mike Howell

    Words don’t matter to The Charlatan from Chicago.

    Unless it’s:

    1. His middle name, which you can’t use.

    2. Or slumlord Rezko’s name, who he’s no longer buddies with since the Feds indicted him.

    3. Or Iraqi billionaire Auchi’s name – who the Charlatan says he’s never met – but who lent millions of dollars to the Charlatan’s fundraiser Rezko – just 3 weeks before Rezko helped the Charlatan get his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

    4. Or The Nation of Islam (NOI)- which the Charlatan has denounced, but won’t say whether he has them working for his campaign.

    5. Or Louis Farrakhan’s name, who is the leader of the Nation of Islam, and who recently endorsed the Charlatan.

    6. Or the word Muslim because the Charlatan claims he’s never been Muslim, thus managing to insult millions of people – even though he prayed to Allah as a child and all of his paternal relatives and step relatives are Muslims. At 26 he started attending a black allegedly Christian church that recently honored – you guessed it – Louis Farrakhan, but the Charlatan doesn’t want you to mention it.

    7. Or gay rights – he doesn’t want his picture taken with the Mayor of San Francisco (who isn’t gay) for fear of someone questioning him about gay marriage.

    8. Or costumes – even if it’s dress up time at the taxpayers’ expense, the Charlatan doesn’t want to talk about it. He’ll go so far as to blame another candidate for releasing the pictures that his own staff took.

    9. Mums the word about his continually funding the war in Iraq.

    10. Don’t even think about mentioning his standing with big business and selling out the little guy time and again on credit card interest rates and

    11. Class action lawsuits and

    12. Payment for injuries from careless hospitals – of course his wife gets money from one – and

    13. His lying about NAFTA and

    14. His selling out the workers at Maytag and taking money from the owners the Crown family instead of helping the American workers as he had promised and

    15. His wife sitting on the Board of Treehouse Foods, which closed plants, while paying its CEO millions and

    16. His V.P. of a Chicago Hospital wife turning away the uninsured and allowing the poor especially black poor to be overcharged and harassed about bills and

    17. You don’t care about citizen complaints about miserable conditions and the City suing Rezko so that you can suspend your disbelief and accept his claiming to be a community organizer, yet also being unaware of his constituents freezing in Rezko’s unheated buildings while he took donations and attended fundraisers from Rezko.

    18. You believe like his wife that there was never really anything to be proud of about America except for him.

    • Mike Howell

      19. Not a word about his refusing to convene his subcommittee either. Senate oversight?! It’s just NATO and Europe during two wars.

  • Obama “Talks too Much”. He’s All Hat, No Cattle.

    Go Hillary!

  • Mike B.

    Roughly two weeks before the U.S. invaded Iraq, there was an anti-war at Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago. One of the speakers at the rally was Barack Obama, who gave a passionate speech denouncing the war. I was there and I was very impressed. He also was interviewed on local TV, and provided specific reasons for his position. He did not just make a 2002 speech — his opposition to the war was ongoing.

  • Mr.Murder

    Send more soldiers = exit strategy.

    Up is down, etc.

  • Andy

    Simon and All:

    March 1st @ RCP

    Here is the first article I see about Auchi, Reszko and
    Obama. Take a look !!

    • Andy

      A better article yet (from the London Times):
      about Auchi, Reszko & Obama:

      • TeakWoodKite

        So Rezko was in the hole to Mr. Auchi to the tune of 27.9 million? Thats a big hole. Rezko connected to the Gov and Emil Jones. Obama was Mrs Jones (they had thing goin’ on…) This exactly how pol’s get hooked up by orginized crime.

        Mr Auchi visited the United States in 2004. Pictures show him meeting Emil Jones, the president of the Illinois state senate, an ally of Mr Obama, a former state senator.

        According to court documents, Mr Rezko’s lawyer said his client had “longstanding indebtedness” to Mr Auchi’s GMH. By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million.

        Under a Loan Forgiveness Agreement described in court, Mr Auchi lent Mr Rezko $3.5 million in April 2005 and $11 million in September 2005, as well as the $3.5 million transferred in April 2007.

        Words Matter. Especially under oath.

  • vee

    Give Obama credit for saying he was against the Iraq war as he ran for Illinois State Senate, but what about his words on funding from 2003?

    ‘In video obtained by ABC News of a Winnetka, Ill., Democratic event from Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003, then-state senator Obama told a cheering crowd that it was wrong to vote to fund the war.

    “Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said ‘No,'” Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    “I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say ‘No’ to George Bush,” Obama said. “If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance,”‘ .

    Obama never voted against funding once his vote actually mattered. Read the article for classic Obama weaseling as he explains his change in tune in the U.S. Senate.

  • Sajo

    Great detective work, Larry.
    However, Obama launched a campaign committee to run on July 3, 2002, and knew his exposure to criticism about his anti-Iraq war speech when he made it in October.
    Synopsis of an article:
    Obama could add drama to Senate race
    Click here for complete article
    Author: Steve Neal
    Date: July 3, 2002
    Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
    Page: 41
    Word Count: 826
    He could win it all. State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Chicago, is hoping to be the 2004 Democratic nominee against Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald.
    Earlier this week, Obama launched a campaign committee to challenge Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald in 2004.

    • No he did not. Setting up an exploration committee may be a first step to running, but he did not announce he was running until Carol Moseley-Braun dropped out. That’s an unambiguous fact.

      He was not in a tough race, as he said, in 2002. Nice try, but the facts don’t back you up.

  • TeakWoodKite
  • TeakWoodKite

    Mimi’s idea about a side by side is on point, timelined some how. The last 7 years have been a blur of failures, I appreciatte 21 January 2003.
    Just for a friday trivial pursuit, I google that day in history.Half way down the page is Ari hookin’ us up:

    MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, it is not about whether inspections are or are not working. It is about whether Saddam Hussein is or is not disarming. That’s the issue. The inspectors are not there to disarm Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has an obligation under the United Nations Security Council resolution to show the inspectors that he is disarming.

    Q Well, he says he’s certain that he’s not disarming, so that is —

    MR. FLEISCHER: That’s correct.

    Q That’s the conclusion. What’s the consequence?

    MR. FLEISCHER: And that’s why the process continues. It’s a process where the President has indicated time is running out.

    Q Ari, two questions. UPI reported last week that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel has given the green light to Moussad, the Israeli intelligence service, to engage in targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries. The report says, Moussad has in the past engaged in assassinations in Belgium, Norway and other European countries but never in the United States. Is the administration aware of this policy, new Israeli policy, and has the administration agreed to it?

    MR. FLEISCHER: It’s the first I’ve heard of it, so I have no comment to offer on it.

    Q Can you get a comment —

    MR. FLEISCHER: I’ll see if there’s anything to the report.

    a blast from the past to see what the decider dictator was up to and contrast that to “Where’s Obama?” …leave some bread crumbs for the return trip.

  • I agree completely with you that “Obama is disingenuous at best in his criticism of Hillary Clinton.”

    Just look at the fact that his “mentor” Republican Senator Dick Lugar, voted one of 10 Best Senators by Time Magazine, also voted for the Iraq invasion. If Obama knows ANYTHING about foreign policy, he learned it from Senator Lugar!

    Check it:

    • joe

      Whats worse is how he touts in his new “national security” ad that he “led the fight to round up loose nukes.”

      Now I know Dick Lugar has been actively pushing these loose nuke programs since the fall of the Cold War. The Lugar-Nunn programs were around far before the Lugar-Obama legislation. The fact that he biggybacked on Lugar, who didn’t even need the help, and now is claiming it as his own, is another example of the messiah being disengenuous.

      If I was Dick Lugar, I would blast Obama for saying he led the fight. Bull Shit, Sen. Lugar says. He says, “Sen. Obama, I was leading the fight against nuclear proliferation and loose nukes while you were in law school, so when you say that you have led the fight you are not being truthful to the American people and I think they deserve better out of someone asking to be their President.” That would smart!!

      BHO would not have done any of this had Lugar not had the decency to allow the freshman Senator from Illinois to work with him on his career-long project. Obama, once again, should be ashamed. Maybe Lugar, one of the most respected members of the Senate, can knock BHO of his pedestal for a few news cycles one of these days. That would be fun to wach.

      • barbh

        It reminds me of that article that I read the other day about Emil Jones and what he did for Obama in the Illinois Senate, it is a great read and if you missed it the first time around here it is again – I would recommend you have a barf bag close by, it just about made me sick. Not only is Obama a plagarizer, but he steals credit from others.

        Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

        “I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” state Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

    • His Democratic “mentor” in the Senate was Joe Lieberman.

      The Nation:

      “As a freshman senator, Vietor insisted, Obama had been assigned Lieberman as mentor. Read the Hartford Courant and you’ll find Lieberman boasting that Obama picked him.”

      Carolyn Kay

      • barbh

        Yep and he endorsed Lieberman over Ned Lamont when they were both on the Dem ticket, so much for “antiwar”, but try to argue that fact at the Orange Obama…

  • Andy

    Check this out !! It’s (for a change) a good article on today’s Ads in the NYT. At least it quotes well what Clinton said and since hers were powerful comments today I am happy they are “in print” and being cited.
    (How sad that something that should have been so natural has become exceptional….)

    • barbh

      Great article, thanks for posting the link to it. She did a great job of hitting him back with his response to it.

      She is the only one who will be able to win GE against McCain. I was over at Orange Obama last night and I see all these people thinking Hillary should get out now, she is ruining his chances, blah, blah, blah. It made me particularly angry. My life would be a lot more serene if I avoided that place completely, but like some kind of drug addict, I find myself compelled to go over there. At least I can uprate some sensible comments (justifying it).

      She isn’t ruining his chances, he ruined his own by running before he had enough experience and knowledge of foreign affairs to run. If he should win the GE, heaven forbid, please Lord no, they will somehow turn it around that it will be the Clinton’s fault, not they erred in their judgment to choose him. Not that he sucked as a candidate.

  • OxyCon

    What Obama is saying is that faced with an enormous amount of evidence that an anti-American dictator we had been to war with was accumulating tons of WMD, at a time when our country had just endured two terrorist attacks, one of them weaponized anthrax, he would take no military action to protect our homeland.
    Sure, the evidence was bogus, but no one at the time knew this for sure (except for Barry “middle name which must not be mentioned” Obama who is obviously a clairvoyant to go along with all his other supernatural powers).
    Hillary should have hit him over the head with this. She should have confronted him at one of the debates when he went into one of his attacks and said “wait a minute. Are you saying that if you were presented with evidence that one of our enemies was stockpiling weaponized Anthrax, Sarin, Mustard, Ricin, Uranium centrifuges, Yellowcake and other WMD, right after 911, you would not take military action to protect our country?”. Then she should have ridiculed him when he said no.

    • yttik

      I don’t understand why Obama is getting the antiwar vote in my community. Seriously, I read his book, his speeches, his talk of increasing the DOD budget, invading Pakistan, keeping troops in Iraq to battle Al Qaeda. He talks of building a 21rst century military that will stay on the offensive worldwide. He talks of moving the battlefield to Afganistan and Pakistan and pursuing terrorists wherever the fight takes him.

      He’s talking out of both sides of his neck and for some reason people suck it up.

      • barbh

        I think the thing about Obama, and I read this somewhere, can’t remember where or I would attribute it, is that Obama is a “blank screen that everyone just projects what they want to on to” or something to that effect.

        When I read that statement, it was a light bulb going on moment for me. That’s why all his supporters are like a deer caught in the headlights when they are asked what he has done, what he stands for etc., well he just stands for everything they believe in and when you try to point out some of his problems, it’s a personal attack on them and the beliefs that they have that are projected onto that blank screen. That’s why all the unreasonableness and failure to discourse in a rational way, it’s them being attacked not their candidate!

        If someone could figure out a way to smash that blank screen, he would have some real problems.

    • Mike Howell

      OxyCon –

      Great point!

  • Really good piece, Larry. His support among progressives hinges on that one speech. It’s a pretty flimsy structure upon which to build a House of Hope.

    • Andy

      Indeed; a pretty flimsy structure on which to claim the mantle of “judgment” as well (how full of himself…).

    • Simon

      Obama is connected to Auchi, Auchi, as verified by the Pentagon, was Saddam’s bag man.

      Saddam did not want to leave his gig in Iraq.

      Guess why Obama spoke out against the war, in 2002?


  • mimi

    Yes, words do matter. This is the fairytale Bill Clinton was refering to. NOT that Obama’s candidacy was. The whole notion of posturing about a hypothetical is just downright immature. So, he was against the war. I was against the war. A lot of people were. But we were all just so beat down at that time. Especially here in Hillary’s state. In the end I was like fuck it: do what you gotta do. And it appears that 28 other senators and Hillary who all had the classified info right in front of them felt the same way.

    So why does he keep insisting that he wouldn’t have voted for the war? There’s no way he can PROVE that. Why grandstand about it? That’s the kind of thing that teenage boys do: “yeah, if I had been there, I woulda smoked all you dudes!” Would’ve… could’ve but in reality wasn’t there. Sounds like a fairytale to me. AKA politics as usual.

    “Once upon a time when pigs could talk and nobody heard of bacon….. or bullshit…”

  • Mel

    Larry, a good topic for your site would be to simply list all the contradictions and all the lies and all the discrepancy’s Obama has made, and not limiting it to just Obama, but to Camp Obama, the list is going to be long, but will give a great insite to many as to the entire vision of this self proclaimed savior!

  • Andy

    Wow Larry, did “reporters” actually chastise you for picking on Obama’s lies? Unbelievable…. Have they no shame? Maybe you should ask them whether they are on his campaign’s payroll…

    By the way, are you familiar with this video?

    It’s quite damaging. Is this reliable info.?

    • mimi

      In following the youtube video link above I found a 25 sec video of Wolf Blitzer talking about Michelle Obama. The video was posted Nov. 2007. Guess who Blitzer is interviewing? Deval Patrick!

      This validates what I’ve believed along: the media ignored the Obama/Deval Patrick similiarity in order to keep their narrative alive about Obama being this fresh and new kind of candidate. No bias or consipiracy, huh??!!!!

      Check it out. That’s Patrick you see for about 3 seconds.

      • Andy

        Yeap…I am for MA and heard his familiar (Deval Patrick’s now Obama’s I guess) speeches in 2006…
        Pretty amazing huh?

        • Andy


          I meant I am “from MA” (not “for MA) sorry…

    • barbh

      Great video. You know they should have included some information about all the earmarks he tried to get in for the hospital that Michelle works for and clients of his former law firm.

      Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      The beneficiary of the Aug. 2, 2006, earmark from him and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) was undeniably close to home: the University of Chicago, where his wife, Michelle, worked as the university hospital’s vice president for community and external affairs.

      Earlier this year, Obama made dozens of additional earmark requests, and — consistent with his position that such requests be transparent — he publicly disclosed the beneficiaries. More than half a dozen requests were meant for clients of a lobbying and law firm whose partners have donated more than $38,000 to Obama in the past two years.

      Nothing wrong with the purpose of the earmarks, but I notice that he always seems to direct things toward his supporters. Of course he can always say, but it’s a good thing, it may or may not be a good thing when it looks like and likely is pay for play.

      It would be nice if the media would pick up on this also: OBAMA DID DO FAVORS FOR REZKO.

      As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.,CST-NWS-obama13.article

      Now the Obama people could argue that this is a good project for the community, likely so, but the fact remains that Obama LIED about it and it’s not in his district either.

      The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama’s former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama’s state Senate district.

      Why the hell does Obama get a pass in the press for all of this. It’s so frustrating to see. Someone ought to connect the dots and follow the money.

  • Tom

    Larry, great article! Words do matter! Tell your media friends to stop making excuses for Obama and start doing an impartial job of vetting him and covering him. They are not his campaign advisors and they shouldn’t behave like they are.

    • Simon

      They are not his campaign advisors and they shouldn’t behave like they are.

      Controlled demolition.

    • susanunpc

      To quote Laura Ingraham (dare I?), “reporters should stop covering for him and start covering him.”

      She quoted some tripe from Adam Nagourney whining about how the GOP will conduct a “whispering” campaign against Obama. Boohoo.

      (Watch Fox occasionally for research purposes. It is at least different from MSNBC and CNN. They hit Hillary hard, but they also hit Obama.)

      Btw, Rush Limbaugh is urging his listeners to vote for Hillary. Fox says. Haven’t seen the segment.

  • Tom

    Larry, great article! Words do matter! Tell your media friends to stop making excuses for Obama and start doing an impartial job of vetting him and covering him. They are not his campaign advisors and they shouldn’t behave as one.

    • Patrick Henry

      AGREED TOM..

      Today..THE MSM (MAIN STREAM MANIPULATORS) made a big deal over Hillarys new ad about Who Do You Want Answering the White House Phone at 3 AM..if there is an Emergency.. All It Meant was that There will be a sense of Security in knowing that Experience like Hillarys does Count..

      What did the MSM Call Hillarys AD all Day..

      “A FEAR TACTIC..”
      Those Stupid Biased Subjective Ass’s..IDIOTS..(A Favorite Lou Dobbs Description of the Bush Administration..)

      By The WAY..Speaking of FEAR TACTICS…Where the HELL Was the MEDIA for the LAST Seven Years while G.W. BUSH Used Fear Manipulate the Amerrican People into Invading Iraq..remember “MUSHROOM CLOUDS..” WORDS DO COUNT..

      The Only One even Making a real effort to Expose what the Bush administration was doing to Mainpulate The Government and Exposing thier Lies was LARRY JOHNSON..Col.LANG.. and a Few others..

      Thier words Did NOT COUNT to the media..Thank God for No Quarter and other Blogs..

      But Guess What..WORDS DO COUNT..The Media is using them to manipulate Public Opinion and Discredit Hillary and Bill..Hinting at thier Implied Racism
      and calling them Weak and whiners..and Old Has beens..Drudge shows the most horrible unflattering pictures he can find of hiullary..Today He showed her with a picture of the DEVIL on the wall behind her..

      WHY..?? What the hell is Wrong with the MSM..

      Why are they Manipulating things..??

      ..Words..OBAMA is using them to Distort Facts … He has the Best ACT in Town..God..everyone wants to see the Show..Promote the show..and make sure Obama gets his OSCAR for Best Actor..

      Burack Obama …Super Star..
      He’s the ONE they were waiting For…

      Time for the Next Coronation..??

  • rjj

    How often does MTP book obscure state senators (unless there is some sort of scandal) – even ones campaigning for national office?

    • rjj

      I know the point is what he said, but is it not a bit odd that he was there to say it?

    • He was scheduled to do an address at the Democratic National Convention. I’m sure the DNC pushed him with MTP.

  • ChicagoResident

    He tells at least one white lie per debate. Since NH when he lied and said his Co-Chair was not a lobbyist nobody in the media has either picked up on them or called him out on all the little lies he makes in the debates.