Why did Obama delete evidence of his opposition to the Iraq war from his website in 2003?

[Karmadillo]

Interesting article.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14492

Oprah & Obama: Corporate Marketing for a Corporate Campaign
Bruce Dixon
December 13, 2007
BAR

<edit>

When Barack Obama was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2003 opposition to the war in Iraq was extremely popular in African American communities and among the progressive voters he needed in order to win. Brother Obama was on the case, doing what he had to do to sew up that vote early, showing up at local antiwar meetings and rallies, and making speeches like the one opposing "a dumb war" which is now trotted out as evidence of his fervent and prescient antiwar stand.

Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003, and by late May declared "mission accomplished" and victory in "the battle of Iraq" from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. With the president riding high in national polls, this reporter checked Obama's campaign web site and noted that all the evidence of and references to candidate Obama's prior opposition to the invasion of Iraq had been deleted. The visionary Barack Obama appeared to be leaning rightward with the prevailing wind, distancing himself from his prior opposition to the war.

After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its "100 to Watch" that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do --- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire.

<edit>

[Adelante]

1. Good find

Somebody who hates Obama as much as he hates Clinton. Well done.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Wow.

Bruce Dixon, huh. Kind of scraping the bottom of the barrell with this attempted hit.

[Karmadillo]

3. I don't know. Is what he says untrue?

nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Xcuse me...but this article is all wet.....

When Barack Obama was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2003 opposition to the war in Iraq was extremely popular in African American communities and among the progressive voters he needed in order to win.

Wrong time line!

In 2003, Obama began his run for the U.S. Senate open seat vacated by Peter Fitzgerald. In early opinion polls leading up to the Democratic primary, Obama trailed multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes.<43> However, Hull's popularity declined following allegations of domestic abuse.<43> Obama's candidacy was boosted by an advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and the late U.S. Senator Paul Simon; the support of Simon's daughter; and political endorsements by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.<44><45> Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.<46>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama


Obama gave his "dumb war" speech in October of 2002

Primary vote for Illinois Senate race for the Democrats was in March of 2004

Why would Obama say 1.5 years ahead of any senate primary votes that he was against the war and not mean it?

Senate race was a statewide run, and so he would have had to appease more than just Black folks to win.

Does Obama have to prove that he never beat his wife too? :shrug:

The Black commentator is a joke. As a Black commentator myself, I can attest to that.

[madrchsod]

8. hmmmm...i have heard that before about the black commentator

so i`ll listen to your opinion..actually i have`t read the commenator for over a year now. thanks for the info and by the way he`s my senator.

[cali]

5. zmag and counterpunch articles on the dem candidates

should, imo, be banned for the duration of the primary and general election. In my more tin foil moments, I think they're both heavily funded by the extreme right.

[Karmadillo]

15. Should we ban articles from the Corporate Media that helped give us GWB & the Iraq War?

I think they might be heavily funded by the right, too.

[cali]

18. I'm just addressing zmag and counterpunch

both of which actually have a worse record on dem candidates than the MSM, in 2000 and 2004. They both put out unbelievable hit pieces on Gore and Kerry. I wasn't serious about banning them as sources, but I am serious about their funding and the fact that their hostilitity and lies about dems should be completely dismissed.

[BeatleBoot]

6. Because Hillary Clinton Told Him To...

That way she could secretly get back at him when the election came.

And 9-11 was an "inside job" to which Bill Maher won't admit.






:crazy:

[madrchsod]

7. interesting ...

bruce dixon has been calling out the "leaders" for quite sometime now. yes there is not a lot of difference between hillary and barrack.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Which Web Site Are They Referring To?

We can check out what his site had back then using the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/collections/web.html

[Mass]

10. Did he? Because I have only limited trust in people who write editorials.

Sometimes, they are wrong.

Also, I remember Obama stating his opposition to the War during his 2004 campaign speech. The blogosphere was in love with him because of that.

[jefferson_dem]

11. I have no idea what was on Obama's website in Summer 2003.

However, we do have video and written record of Obama in Fall - Winter 2002, Spring 2003, and since, in opposition to the War, discussing how it is a "dumb war" and it should not happen. All the while, Hillary was beating the drums for Chimpy.

I suspect Mr Dixon has a pretty heavy axe to grind with Obama (and Hillary, by the way) and is simply dredging up this irrelevant attack because he thinks the time is right.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Don't forget Edwards who wasn't sorry till November of 2005, and the possible motives for

saying sorry after 3 years of supporting war.

But I guess that Zmag is to busy to want to talk about that one too much. :eyes:

[Kat45]

13. I loved his description of the DLC:

"the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party"

I never thought of it that way, but that's a perfect description of them.

[wyldwolf]

20. yet Lieberman was his menor and his PAC contributed heavily to DLC candidates

:shrug:

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. Because he takes a stance on nothing and is nothing more than a

charismatic politician

[zulchzulu]

16. This pathetic continous series of lies about Barack Obama brought to you by...

People Who Are Full Of Shit. Look for more today.

Oh wait! Gee, what's this?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

[maximusveritas]

17. Who cares what's on his website?

This reminds of someone here who cared more that Obama didn't talk about something on his website than the fact that he introduced a bill on the subject.
Candidate websites change all the time as they add new stuff and take old stuff down. That's how Obama explained it and I see no reason to doubt it.
It wouldn't make sense for it to be taken down for any political reason. He was still fighting a tough primary and the war was less popular at that time than it had been previously. I realize Dixon and BC was and is desperate to show that they're real journalists, but this doesn't show it.

[MethuenProgressive]

19. Go see for yourself: The Internet has a time machine: link here

http://www.archive.org/index.php