Political Punch

Obama is just like the rest of them. There's this article/clip, and the deal with Rezko (not returning the funds, not auditing his own campaign finance trail), the issue with the nuclear group Exelon in Illinois that have been backing him financially (the two top execs for this company are his top fund raisers and David Axelrod, a consultant to Exelon, is his chief political strategist. What's that about eliminating lobbyists from Washington? He wants to increase the size of the military by 90,000 to 100,000 troops (this is on his campaign website. How will this happen (and why) and where will these people come from? All of you young people on the Obama band wagon better brace yourselves for the draft because the military can't recruit people as it is. He says he'll take some troops out of Iraq but not all of them and the ones he does take out of Iraq he will send to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He's in favor of sending troops back to Iraq after taking them out (see his website) and in unilateral control of the military by the president. He's a proponent of the 2nd amendment in Idaho. You see this and it's no wonder the Republicans love him. But he's all for gun control in DC? Which is it? Is this politiking or what? So where is the change?

The take on this video strikes me as kind of a canard. Obama didn’t know the man personally; he was saying he seemed like a fairly normal Republican technocrat circa Reagan 1 or 2. The right portion of the stream is considerably farther over than it was then, virtually a different river now. Nobody really imagined just how deranged the Bush admin was going to go. Nader would have been run out of town on a rail if he’d tried to run with the Bush we know now, vs. the weak governorship/‘humble foreign policy’/apple doesn’t follow too far from the tree candidate Bush of the 1st campaign. He looked like a spoiled rich kid, and I didn’t much like the tree he fell off of (& worried maybe he hurt his head in the fall), but most liberals thought of Cheney and Rummy as steadying influences, unattractive in terms of policy preferences, but probably not as bad as some movement conservatives he might have chosen. Reagan only had one James Watt, Bush might have had a dozen. So it’s kind of a cheap shot to say now “Oh my heavens, he didn’t know that Rummy was going to bully the generals and that they wouldn’t stand up and say the war plan’s stabilization phase isn’t strong enough, and that he would effectively exile Shinseki when he answered honestly and talk only to his subordinate ’. No one expects that kind of judgment (at least, not from the candidate they prefer). If they do, their looking for a prophet, not a president.
Also, if you look at the complaints in the article that were raised at the time of Rummy’s nomination, the main complaint was that he was a “throwback to the Reagan era” - the Cap Weinbergur, Ed Schultz crowd. His “approaches to defense policy and spending,” he was “a dyed-in-the-wool hawk,” [says some fellow from the Council for a Livable World, which I’m sure was right up there with the Council on Foreign Relations and The Ford Foundation back then]. Just listen to the concerns: “Rumsfeld's unquestioning support of …Star Wars…the B-1 bomber, the Trident…and the MX missile…his …opposition to…SALT II… the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war...” They were mad because they thought he was like a Secretary Gates from an older generation. Well such a throwback to Reagan, sadly, would still be a big step up.
So the critics were completely ignorant of the real problem that emerged, the complete unilateralism, the utter lack of respect for military professionals and politicizing of the defense Department’s intelligence product, the incompetence and blithe condescension towards disagreement even with those who largely shared his own paradigm,’ the support for extrajudicial action like extreme rendition, the incompetence.

The reality is that what those people thought was wrong with Rummy & Cheney THEN wouldn’t have put our bacon in the fire in the first place without a real reason, a plan, and enough support. Those people had really no idea what these men were bringing to the table. It wasn’t just more Bechtels, a six hundred ship navy, reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and picking fights with Khadafy over the international boundary. Man, what some wouldn’t give for those days.

Contrary to the reporter’s concern with what ‘we don’t know about Obama’, I think this underscores what we do know. I think the fact that Obama was willing to go part way and give the man the benefit of the doubt when he’d served his country from a different ideological stripe fairly ably is WHY people who think they don’t like us Left Coaster & so-called Eastern Establishment folks still find themselves liking Obama. This video, along with his position on the war, actually makes his case quite well in a nutshell: he can give the benefit of the doubt and listen to people who disagree with him, but he still keeps his own council on the policy. Plays well with others and decides straight. That's what we want in a President.

Did Hillary's campaign write this article?
The point is Obama doesn't have gơod judgment all of the time. There were plenty of people who thought Rumsfeld was a bad choice.
It's just like Iraq. There were people who thought Hussein had WMD. There were people who trusted Bush. Obama sêemed to have crystal-ball judgement about Iraq. But this proves that he doesn't.
You must be dreaming if you think Obama can be right on the time. He even said he will make mistakes.
It sounds like he was trying to deflect the Ashcroft comment with this one to appeal to conservatives. Obama the Republican-loving flip-flopper.

Obama is a master of illusion. He creates spectacular light shows, sings ideological ballads, and plays a fiddle with opposing tunes. His apostles buy into his magic act and ignore his flips and flops and inconsistencies.

Obama has spoken out of both sides of his mouth many times, and it is been well documented but his apostles ignore the inconsistencies. His followers are no different than the neo-con supporters of the Bush Administration; they are just on the opposite end of the political scale.

Sen. Obama has flip floped on issues. He is not ready to be president. He needs to be questioned with tough questions and see where does he stands. As soon as he is questioned with something, he say that is not what he meant. Is Obama ready? or he is just a great preacher, but not a great accomplisher?? Vote for leadership, experience and not a unseasoned senator that might not be able to do the things he is promising. REMEMBER THE FRASE..." I am going to be a uniter and not a divider??? George Bush said when he was running for president and look at what happened!

Where's the story?

Here come the attacks, get used to it, Obamaites. It's going to get A LOT worse.

There you go again 2009, hugging on POLLS to guide your thinking. Fluid situations change rapidly...tsunamis do that. Banking on your super delegates that count 10 times as taking Hillary to fruition? stop that...don't tell nancy who I am pulling for...the USA!!!! ronnie rayguns

Back here in Madison, the thought of The Capital Times & Wisconsin State journal being one paper is pretty funny.

DREAM, I always vote Democratic and will be there for Hillary if she wins. I voted for a republican once, for CESS POOL SUPERVISOR, because the job description fits them to a TEE...GO HEELS

I happen to think Hillary Clinton is the better candidate and would be a better president than Obama would ...

But ...

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I will fully support him and hope he wins the general election, because Obama would certainly be better than any of the Republicans.

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters here would make the same statement if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

oBAMA SAID HE DISAGREED WITH RUMSFELD BUT THAT RUMMY WAS MAINSTEAM AS FAR AS AMERICANS WERE CONCERENED.WHERE IS THE CONTROVERCY?

PLEASE PLEASE .. WHERE IS THE PRAISE AGAIN? THIS IS THE SAME THING AS THE REAGAN COMMENT .. HONESTLY THIS IS INSANE!!

DREAM on clown. As I have said before, many Hillary supporters, especially the gals, are going to be disappointed that the first woman president is not going to happen yet. It should have already been Pelosi after bush and cheeny were removed, and our recovery should have been underway. That is where you gals and steny hoyer failed us.

RE: the handshake that didn't happen:

(excerpt)

"Reporters who witnessed the encounter claim that Obama stared stonily at Hillary as she approached Kennedy and Obama, who were seated across the aisle, and deliberately turned away from Clinton as she greeted Kennedy.

The first spin issued by the Obama camp came from his campaign manager David Axelrod, who explained on MSNBC that Obama turned away in order to give Clinton and Kennedy a moment of privacy.

When this story failed to connect, Obama campaign supporter Senator Claire McCaskill – seated at Obama’s left - modified it by spinning that she had distracted Obama by starting a conversation with him just as Hillary approached.

Bystanders report that the two spoke briefly after Obama had already turned away, and seem to be clear on the sequence of events.

After entering the HR chamber, Hillary spotted Kennedy seated on the aisle next to Obama and approached them smiling.
Kennedy extended his hand in friendly greeting, but Obama deliberately turned away.

Obama supporters who furiously claim there was no intent by Barack to avoid Clinton’s greeting are still trying to explain Axelrod’s original statement that Barack did turn away deliberately, albeit for a benign reason"

Obama talks a lot, but his deeds don't always match his words.

Obama was elected in Nov. 2004 and entered the U.S. senate in Jan. 2005.

------------------
As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he WOULD HAVE voted AGAINST an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted FOR the $87 billion,' I said 'NO,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' UNEQUIVOCALLY because, at a certain point, we HAVE to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama HAS voted FOR ALL of the president's WAR FUNDING requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

Obama allowed no interruptions (from people who wanted to talk to him) as he maneuvered his way to shake Bush's hand after the SOTU. Obama went out of his way to push through to Bush.

But even with Hillary visible in a red suit, he couldn't see her?

Give it a rest, folks; what Obama did was rude and childish.

How's he planning to treat leaders of foreign nations that don't please him? Would Obama be this tone deaf at a summit?

Obama is not ready for the big leagues.

"sam":

What about Whitewater?

You apparently know zip about Whitewater and just like throwing it around like an accusation.

The Republicans spent $80 million of our tax dollars "investigating" the Whitewater land deal -- two separate Independent Prosecutors led separate investigations into Whitewater and came up with zip about the Clintons.

The Clintons were never found guilty of anything in the Whitewater land deal and, in fact, they had lost money on it.

Were there ever any formal charges brought into a court about all the other things you mention?

So, after spending $80 million of our tax dollars "investigating" every nook and cranny of Bill Clinton's life, they came up with the fact that he had a flirtation with a woman old enough to know what she was doing -- and it was an affair that was never consummated.

Boy, I guess that's rare in Washington D.C. (sarcasm) -- having an affair and lying about it.

I'll bet if we spent $80 million on any politician, the investigators might come up with something -- an affair would be the least of it.

You had better come up with something better than Whitewater, because that well is dry.

Rupert Murdoch knows his failed neo-con right wing wacko backing is so wrong, Rupert himself said he was moving to the left. FIX NOISE like their business channel may indeed die a whining and well applauded death. Rupert, before he passes, hopes to keep them around in some kind of shape.Now, about that Rev.Moon lunatic??????

How do the Obama supporters explain away Rupert Murdoch's endorsement of Obama?

Rupert Murdoch also supported George W. Bush in both of Bush's presidential campaigns and Murdoch LOVED Ronald Reagan.

Doesn't that even give the Obama supporters a bit of a pause?

Good grief, is the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News also going to endorse Obama?

But we do know about “Whitewater." Travelgate, Filegate, missing billing records, lying under oath, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie and that's perfectly fine. So what seems to be the problem?

"dionysus " writes: "This is STUPID!!! In January 2001, everyone thought Bush could do no wrong."

You couldn't be more wrong.

I -- and a lot of other people -- tried our best to get Al Gore elected. We KNEW the truth about George W. Bush because we had done our homework.

Do not ever think "everyone thought Bush could do no wrong."

If that had been the case, how would you explain the fact that Al Gore garnered a half million MORE votes than Bush did?

Do not ever try to explain this stupid Obama comment away by saying "everyone thought Bush could do no wrong."

The point is that Obama's judgment is NO better than anyone else's. He's just another politician: he has good points and weak points.

And in this case where he credited Bush (when Bush announced who his Cabinet members would be) with picking people in "mainstream of American political life," Obama displayed his poor judgment.

Thanks for the OBAMA bio BOB...I am a Kucinich fan who now backs Obama without knowing half of the BIO you posted. Keep posting as the HILLARYITES at absqueeze network can't quite print stuff like that...YET!!! My last post lasted a few minutes, hope somebody saw it, as I can say it again somewhere else.

dear MILITARY...I plan a payback for the GANDER deaths that happened during ronnie rayguns reign...curious how the powers that be cover for such as that...

So I'm wondering. In all this digging you think needs to be done, do you plan on informing people of Obama's spectacular successes as a community organizer, constitutional lawyer and legislator? Or are you only going to focus on nit-picking old quotes that you don't really put into context. (e.g. - um, most people thought Rumsfield was a good balance of experience for an inexperienced president.)

Why don't you tell your readers how Obama has accomplished things over the years? He has risen not because he gives good speech, but because he has truly impressed his co-workers at his abilities to get things done that no one else had managed: video surveillance of interrogations/confessions in Illinois and ethics reform in the US Senate are two examples. Talk to his opponents on those as see how they feel about the outcome. In both cases he was expected to fail spectacularly and ending up passing legislation with everybody's praise.

This is why Obama supporters want him in office. They like THE WAY he gets things done. He's a stark contrast to the contentious style of the Clintons.

The people who are blindly following and making excuses for Obama remind me of the people who blindly accepted the WMD argument. Whether on the extreme political right or extreme political left, people are easily manipulated and cannot independently gather all the facts and analyze situations. What a sad statement about the level of intelligence in America.

What about Hillary's attacks against Obama in Iowa, NH (I live here so I saw them first hand), NV, and SC? I'm sorry but you are peddling false information once again.

Thanks Jake for finally asking the questions that all of your colleagues on networks all across the dial should have been asking!!!

Each time Hillary wants to be listened she runs to ABC. You work for ABC, obviously favor Hillary and want to be taken as a credible source. Once again, this reafirms my position about Obama. He is my candidate. I can't even start thinking about all the scandals, contradictions and flip flops that Hillary Clinton was involved. Desperate and dirty tactics used by desperate politicians and their aids. Say and do anything so you can win.

This is STUPID!!! In January 2001, everyone thought Bush could do no wrong. And if he did Cheney and Powell would guide him to the right path.

When Obama made these comments, Bush hadn't even been sworn in yet!!!

If you want to find dirt on Obama, you'll have to do better than this......sheeeeeeeeesssssh!!

Pathetic. This constitutes reporting?
Obama clearly was using his remarks about Rumsfeld as ballast against his rejection of Ashford. This is what politicians, and the rest of us, tend to do when giving bad news: look for some honey to help the medicine go down. Many of the posters here have pointed out the tide that Rumsfeld was surfing at the time, one that Hillary thought impressive to avoid by voting to confirm him.

This is patently ridiculous. This is such a blatantly transparent shill job that it doesn't even deserve a response. I know you aren't better than this but please.

This is a non-story. Have you seen Senator Lincoln Chafee's recent story about how the Senate Democrats, including Hillary, disregarded their Constitutional responsibility in authorizing the Iraq War. Chaffee said it was a disgrace that these senators went along with Bush solely for political reasons and they knew there was no case for war. They all wanted to look "tough" and thought the war would be a walk in the park and popular like the first gulf war. That's the real story and Hillary to this is unaplologetic.

"Unite that!"

You are a clown.

You know what, I know absolutely NOTHING about Barack Obama other than he gives a pretty good speech. That doesn't cut it for me, and it doesn't cut it for the majority of Democrats. I'm done arguing with you cult of personality idiots. Those of us with clearer heads are taking back the white house! For REAL democrats!

Unite that!

So, every other Democrat who voted to confirm Rumsfeld is also unworthy of holding the office of President?! I'm sure the Republicans will use this video or vote against both Obama and Hillary in the general. This is news unworthy of any time or space.

Wow.
This is really devastating.
If I had known this about Obama... well... my goodness... I just don't know WHAT I would have done.
I just don't know...
Vote for him, I guess.
Thanks, Jake.
That... was... close.

Yea, if that is all we can find the media can find about Obama, he gets my vote.

How the media distorts the truth, points out unbalanced reports, . . . the media, you just increased my love and respect for Obama.

Please. Stop with the "everyone thought Rumsfeld was a great guy" arguments. I didn't. The Capital Times didn't. W's supporters trot out the "everyone thought Saddam had WMD's" BS every chance they get, and they get rightly torched for it. With Edwards out I'm now an Obama supporter, but he better be ready to address crap like this.

If this is a story, here's a brand new novella in the life of the Clinton's. Hillary should be careful about this vetting stuff...vetting starts at home...

Joe is absolutely dead-on right about this. This is a pathetic post. It's even picked up by the likes of Taylor Marsh. The Clintonistas embarrass all Democrats with the triviality.

OK you all can hate me if you want to but I'm going to say it. This thing with Clinton and Obama has really got out of whack. Obama raised the race card when he implied Clinton diminished Rev King role in the civil right movement in the sixtys. When in fact she simply stated that all people white and black together worked to see it happen. She stated President Kennedy and Johnson pushed for the civil rights laws we have today.That white people marched along side of black people to see this through. What she didn't say was she was one of those white people as I was too who believed deeply in Rev King's message of equal rights.As for Mr Obama he scares the dickins out of me. Why you ask. Because he is trying stir up a race clash. I have one thing to say to Mr. Obama . THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE! This is about picking the best person for the job. The best person with the most experience. The best person to fight the elephants! Clinton's life is a open book they all know everything about her. And they are scared to death of her. But we know nothing of you Mr. Obama. What will the elephants find to trample you with?

"Bill"'s comment on Jan. 30 @ 4:42:32 PM is a MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have always believed that politicians have the right to change their minds. For example, there is a vast difference between voting for the war years ago, and voting with the information known today. I would not want a politician who was inflexible.

What I do get goosebumps about is the whole point of this article. What don't we know about Obama? Obama is a candidate for US President, with strong Muslim ties. I get the same creepy feeling about him that I had with Bush in 2000. I told everyone I knew NOT to vote for Bush. I have never voted for him. Has Obama ever come out and said anything definite about anything? And, based on the photograph of him clapping (along with the audience) at Bush's speech, with his back turned when Hillary shook hands with Ted Kennedy, I sure hope a world leader somewhere doesn't hurt the poor guy's feelings. I don't see strength in Obama. I see an idealist who lives in theory land. Things he might have done well in Illinois (along with his mob-tie funding) is vastly different to running and country and dealing with the world.

Obama praised Rumsfeld on January 17, 2001...so what? The praise was given before September 11, 2001 and before war declared on Afganistan and Iraq. Typical Clinton nonsense.

Jake, what's going on here?...half the people in this primary are screaming for people with experience. Senator Obama looked at Rumsfeld's record and assumed like most Americans a guy with that background and EXPERIENCE should be in charge of our military. How were we to know that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were war-mongers? Obama did not choose to demonized Bush's administration at its outset.. what is wrong with that...he didn't hear the name Bush 4-8 years ago and behave as though they were heathens...when he learned more...he acted on it. So-call journalists are behaving more and more like the paparazzi...no ethics, no class

Good grief. THIS makes you wonder "what else we don't know about him? He was wrong about Rumsfeld and that makes him unreliable? I was very happy with Rumsfeld because with Bush as President I thought we needed someone with much experience heading Defense. I knew LOTS of people who felt that way. Democrats all. I do not think Obama has never been or will never be wrong, but I am starting to think he must not be wrong about much of substance if this is a scoop for you all.

The date January 17, 2001 makes this story irrelevant. Clinton did run a negative ad last week in regards to Obama's Reagan comment. She pulled it after one day.

A comment from 2001 about an appointment that no one in the media (that's you, in case you've forgotten) opposed.

Nice investigative reporting.

Jake , George Stephanapolous & Other ABC Supporters of the Clintons!

Wake up! ABC is becoming a mere Clinton mouthpiece. Show me another nationally recognized web site / TV show that so brazenly exhibits their anti-Obama bias. You guys are stuck on Rezko and now, with painstaking effort, you found something else that nobody would even find of mildest interest, to trumpet anti-Obama line.
I guess you are trying to get anti-Russert viewers.
Good Luck!

So? In 2001, Rumsfeld was not out of the mainstream. Americans (reporters in particular) have a very short memory. This comment was made before the Iraq debacle.

Hellooooo!

I wonder how many hours Jake had spent to find anything on Obama to trash him. I don't remember Jake or any other reporters trying to be objective when Bush administration was lying about WMD and sadam-bin laden connection. It is not surprising to see so-called "main stream media" try to split Dem. supporters and fight each other. thanks for the another useless piece of "reporting",Jake and ABC.

I had rather him make a mistake on Rumsfeld than a vote for the war, a "vote I'm glad didn't pass", "I had no knowledge", and "I can control Bill". Good Lord, that experienced leader is for sure one we don't need.

By the way, there were a lot of people that were fooled by Rumsfeld. At least he didn't vote for the war.

The point is Barack Obama told us he has better judgment than the other Democratic candidates, and he does NOT seem to.

He's no better and no worse -- he's just another politician.

Obama + Rezko = Bernie Kerik

Bid deal, next story please :)

why should wee not look closser at obama his church values on abortion and same sex marriage olso barack husain obama pastor rev jeramiah speakes favorably about anti semite nation of islam louis farrakhan acording to washington post columnist richard cohen

Let's remember one simple fact: whatever Obama may have said in 2001 (and yes, Hillary voted to confirm Rumsfeld), only one of the candidates is still applauding George Bush and his dishonest SOTU. That ought to tell the Hillary supporters something big about judgment.

Rupert Murdoch's New York Post (a conservative rag) endorsed Barack Obama today, but it's a pretty peculiar endorsement.

Here's what Rupert Murdoch's newspaper says about Obama in the endorsement:

"For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

"His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator."

I am so tired of Obama's fan club rationalizing literally EVERYTHING he says. This guy is such a phony and hypocrite accusing everyone else of having poor "judgment" and yet look at this. He will get ROLLED OVER by the Republicans he sucks up to so much, watch it happen.

Once again this one of those remarks that is not really complimentary, but is being taken into context that is IS complimentary. The fact is- is that he said it, and now the lesser folks who only see black and white (no pun intended) will just use it to their advantage.

I think the problem inherent is that Obama is not perfect. He never claimed to be. But honestly he's way more perfect than any other candidate out there. I'm mean, if we had to listen to all the idiotic things that Hillary or McCain had said throughout the years...enough said.

It's humorous really that the right has to try so hard to find anything that Obama has said that might be somewhat, but, of course, never truly outright hypocritical. Keep digging.

Someone who is barely national politics doesn't have a record to vet. That's the point. We don't know Obama. It's like people are blinded by his oratory skills similar to the way people were blinded to GWB's aw shucks personality. We didn't look close. He is a neophyte and we are just about to hand him the White House without having to earn it.

PLEASE LOOK AT THE DATE! He said this, Jan. 17, 2001 In fact, it was right around W's inauguration. At that time, Rumsfeld was highly regarded as a qualified Sec. Defense. I think it's impossible for anyone to know how the Bushies would pervert 9/11 and scare the country into the Iraq fiasco. Obama was clearly against Iraq from the very beginning. The key to this is the date.

Thanks Jake Tapper. It's nice to see someone finally scrutinizing the OTHER Democratic contender. The media lovefest for Obama is nauseating.

Barack Obama claims to be special.

He isn't.

He's just another politician wanting to get elected.

Obama is a lightweight, plain and simple.

"Why are Obama supporters bristling at someone even suggesting that Obama needs a closer look."

This isn't merely suggesting Obama needs a closer look. This is suggesting that he's a Rumsfeld fan, which is categorically untrue, just as it was untrue that he was a fan of Reagan's policies. There is a difference between looking closely at someone and misleading the public by distorting his comments, which if read in their entirety, are perfectly reasonable.

The thing of it is that Barack Obama has been bragging about how superior his judgment is -- and this statement does not demonstrate any particular wisdom

Obama is no worse than any other politician, but he also isn't anything new or different.

please.. vet away all you want.. harvard law degree..first african american to head Harvard law review board. A Constitional Law Professor for ten yrs at the highly respected Univ of Chicago.. only african american elected and currently serving in the US senate in the 5th largest state.. community organizer-won a tough primary in 04-surged late to win and scared off any GOP opponent in the state as they knew they had no chance to beat him so they mailed in Alan Keyes. wonderful wife and two beautiful kids..an ideal candidate for president! Only candidate to oppose the war from the start as he understood the powell pottery barn doctrine of you broke it-you bought it. hilary and mccain though it was a cake walk and just wanted political cover when they ran in 08 .. little did they realize what a fiasco it would turn out to be that they voted to authorize the first pre-emptive war in our history ..the definition of operational excellence is to do it right the first time! go OBAMA!!!!!!!

Sounds like a reasoned person speaking of a new Presidents appointment. Rare and curious.

Please don't make me *gag* at this~!!! Everybody, including Hillary Clinton....who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to confirm Rumsfeld.....and none of us, including Obama had any clue about the kind of Defnse Sec. he would turn out to be....none of us have crystal balls....so I suppose abcnews.com wants to make having a crystal ball a prerequisite to getting the nomination~!!! If you are backing Sen. Clinton.....why don't you come out and say so.......I would rather have someone fresh and unspoiled like Obama...than someone used and worn-out like Clinton

So...LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. There's two candidates left. Hillary Clinton ACTUALLY VOTED RUMSFELD IN, but we shouldn't trust Obama because he thought Rumsfeld was in the mainstream?

...

Is this how it's going to roll? "Sure, Hillary Clinton actively supported it, but Obama, well, he didn't NOT support the fact that she personally supported it."

Oh here we go again, now he's got to defend a comment about Rummy made back in 2001 -- when I will remind you everyone thought Rummy was a good guy. It really is unfortunate for anti Obama folks, they can't find enough concrete to sink him.

It is really surprising to see the "OBAMANS" react to everything negative said about their candidate. What is wrong in saying that he needs to vetted enough. The public needs to know what is not known about this "man".The whole media glorifies him as such he is a messiah who landed in USA to change it forever. The "obamans" gleefully support them. I am a neutral guy , but this oversupport to OBAMA really ticks me off. Already we made a folly of give the presidency to Mr. Bush and don't want to give it someone who doesn't seem right.Seriously thinking of NOT voting Obama. Better vote HRC or the worse voting.... hmmmm .....Mccain.

Fair point, but i dont know how you can really fault him for not knowing what rumsfeld was going to do because this was january 17th, its not like this was post 9/11, or even after his policy was really put on display.

At the time he was preaching non-aggression, and a more reserved role for the US, he wasnt running around like a war hawk.

ooooo!

Hard hitting journalism from Chicago newscasts.

What did Obama say in high school, people?
There's a story there I'm certain!

is this whbta investigative reporting has become?
Upton Sinclair would be so proud...

Do you people follow politics or just write anonymous comments about it?

The Republican Party has veered out of the mainstream since 9/11 and the decsion to go to war in Iraq-that is not to say we agreed with them before (grin).

Rumsfeld was NOT out of American Mainstream thought in early 2001. Neither was Bush or Cheney. These guys were simply cold warriors, a tough crusty, old cold warrior.

I only wish the had stayed that way.

To act as if Obama is some sort of neo-con for saying what he did is silly.

Thats it? One sentence? ROFLMAO!!!!! From 7 years ago? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Hillary vote from Rumsfeld?

In your opinion doe