Ted Rall for February 07, 2008

Transcript:

Since Barack Obama joined the senate, his voting record on Iraq has been exactly the same as Hillary's* "It's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the senate... I was not in the senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence." - 2006. But there's a difference: Obama says he probably would have voted against the war in the first place. Obama's theoretical voting record is breathtaking for its prescience, wisdom and alignment with current polling. If I'd been in the senate in the 1800s, which I wouldn't have been because I would have been a slave, I would have opposed the Missouri compromise. Hillary, on the other hand, would have triangulated herself into the wrong side of history. I would've loved to have owned you! Comparing theoretical voting records, of course, depends on which time-space continuum you're in. On a planet where the Nazis won WW2, Obama would be pro-red scare, anti-stem cell research and Nixon's running mate.