Originally Posted by
Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2726229
I disagree, his choice to oppose the war at that time had bigger consequences to his political career because he was on the verge of running for the U.S Senate.... at the time we were very pro-war
what can you point to as proof that he would have gone against the Dem party re: Iraq if he had actually been in the US Senate at the time? because you can go on the website for (I believe) the Washington Post and it will tell you how all federal politicians have voted during their time in office. and if I'm not mistaken, Obama has voted with the Democrats around 91% of the time.
my point is this: it's easy to say what you would've done when you weren't even in a federal office at the time. but when you're actually IN office and most of your party is leaning one way, and you have a history of voting with your party, I think the chances are you go a different way than what you'd be saying otherwise. so, imo, his statements about opposing the war are non-points. sure, he's been vocal about being against the war since he's been in the US Senate, but that's been since public and political attention have turned against it. then, he goes on to say that he still would've voted against the troop surge though readily admitting that the surge has worked. which, imo, is completely moronic.
and if you think his being against the war was "a greater purpose" than his political aspirations, then I think you know absolutely nothing about your candidate. I just got done what a biography on him, he's been politically driven since pretty much his high school days. It was also interesting to learn how he drove his Republican Senate candidate, Jack Ryan, from the race by threatening to bring Ryan's wife's extra-marital affairs to the public. NOT Ryan, but Ryan's WIFE. pretty interesting considering Obama doesn't want his wife attacked in the media.
