While thoroughly liberal Moveon.org is impressed that Obama's original opposition makes a qualitative difference, there's another piece of reality floating out there now about the different judgment that Obama had of 2004 party nominee, John Kerry:
Here's what Obama said at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in his keynote speech endorsing John Kerry as the Democratic nominee for president:This contradiction renders Obama's one-time opposition vs. Clinton's vote a distinction without a difference. I believe that most voters, especially independents, do not care who voted for what and why at this point. We have moved on from the knee-jerk anger stage of two or three years ago. If he wants to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton, he should take a page from John Edwards on domestic policy, which might, however, soften the Moveon.org zeal-to-vote.
And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.
When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world
So, which is it Senator Obama? Being deceived by fudged numbers and shaded truth, or bad judgement? He can't have it both ways. Why has he changed his position? Why did he support Kerry and excuse his vote for the war, and attack Clinton for hers?