Obama Radio Ad: Hillary Will Say Anything To Get Elected

Comments (109)

dcshungu wrote on January 24, 2008 9:24 AM:

Now, let the dirty campaigning really begin, and see who'll come out of it smelling good...

stlounick wrote on January 24, 2008 9:28 AM:

Say anything. Change nothing. Excellent phrase.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 9:32 AM:

Costs due add up!

Dan wrote on January 24, 2008 9:33 AM:

She'll say anything, and change nothing.

Fantastic

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 9:35 AM:

It's hard to blame Obama for this one. Clinton all but asked for it.

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 9:36 AM:

There's a difference between fighting back and fighting dirty, DCS. Its not one the Clintons have ever recognized, but it does still exist.

Guess we'll see if the voters do.

MattA wrote on January 24, 2008 9:36 AM:

Good! They way you prevent swift-boating is to fight back with equal force. These responses need to be faster and as far-reaching as the attacks.

grover_rover wrote on January 24, 2008 9:36 AM:

Very nice ad, short, to the point, factually accurate.

And dcshungu, I hope you weren't referring to this ad as dirty campaigning, because unlike Hillary's fallacious attacks, everything in this ad is 100% true. There is nothing dirty about it, just Obama scoring one for honest politics.

He needs to air this in every state. The Clintons have ran so long on verifiably false attacks, they have given Obama (and any other Democrat running) more than enough rope to hang them with, if only they can inform the voters about how much she has been lying. I couldn't have said it better, she (and Bill) will indeed say (and do) anything to get elected, and yes, she will change nothing.

ParkSloper wrote on January 24, 2008 9:41 AM:

Here Obama goes again using right-wing talking points to attack other candidates. He is so politically naive that he has become an embarrassment.

If Obama cannot manage to effectively campaign against fellow Democrats, how does anyone expect him to be successful against the Republican big guns.

Baseballgirl wrote on January 24, 2008 9:41 AM:

"She'll say anything and change nothing." Absolutely brilliant. Hammer, meet nail.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 9:43 AM:

ParkSloper, I think this ad is an example effective campaigning.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 9:44 AM:

He needs to start spinning the media better, like the clintons are. They are getting a ton of free advertising through their manipulation of the right-wing media. He has to start manipulating the media against the clintons and for his benefit.

Carlos wrote on January 24, 2008 9:44 AM:

Well it seems like your right Genghis. It is amazing to me to look thru out all of the so called "TPM approved sites" (Thanks for that Josh) saying basically the same thing that Big Ed Schultz said last night on hardball. They will say anything to get elected. Personally as a Democrat I believe that the Clinton's are running a Red campaign. Just waiting for the terroristic threat ads start running from their camp. I mean C'mon! I

n a way I also believe that Sen. Obama is
accurate in saying that some of his supporters will not vote for her in the general if she wins the nomination. Check out this wash post blog to see how disgusted some Dems. have become.

They're not Democrats or Republicans. The belong to the "Clinton Party of no Lose".

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/23/obama_campaign_decries_clinton.html

Duckman GR wrote on January 24, 2008 9:45 AM:

Obama needs to get used to Hillary's attacks, because what she is doing will pale in comparison to what the GOP will do if he is the nominee.

Get used to it, Barack, you ain't seen nothin yet.

Clinton Hiller wrote on January 24, 2008 9:45 AM:

ParkSloper -- what "right-wing talking points" is Obama using? Your comment doesn't make any sense-did you even READ the script? Get a grip. This is a fair ad. Good for Obama.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 9:46 AM:

And, ParkSloper, I would like to know, why it is that all criticism of Clinton is "right wing talking points"? Just because the wingnuts hate her doesn't mean that no one else can criticize her.

jhv wrote on January 24, 2008 9:48 AM:

I'm so sick of supporters of the Clintons claiming everything said against them is a right-wing talking point.

you sound like zombies with a persecution complex.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 9:48 AM:

The funniest thing is how desperate the Clintonista's are, constipation-like straining to get out retorts like "See, Obama is getting dirty! Where is the hope?" - as if a presidential candidate shouldn't be defending himself. Just kill yourself already. lol

jim wrote on January 24, 2008 9:48 AM:

Off topic, but how come the one part of the TPM site that actually should have a comment section (the blog), doesn't? Also, how is it that you guys have a staff and a worldwide headquarters and yet somehow manage to update TPM (esp. the blog) less often than most bloggers who are sitting at home in their bathrobes? Sullivan, for example, probably quadruples your daily output. Yes, quality vs quantity and so forth, but for a group blog, the main TPM page is a bit lethargic.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 24, 2008 9:48 AM:

Another kucinich-free day at TPM.

wj wrote on January 24, 2008 9:48 AM:

Park Sloper,

Since when is drawing critical attention to Clinton's support of NAFTA and the Iraq War a "right-wing talking point"--aren't her positions on these issues precisely those of the right wing?

Are you denying she holds these positions?

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 9:51 AM:

Brilliant ad by Obama that captures the true essence of the DLC princess.

I am disgusted with Clinton's hateful racist campaign.

Hope she finishes third in SC

Time to really end the Bush-Clinton era of politics

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 9:54 AM:

I really think that this is right angle for Obama to take on Clinton (finally). It responds forcefully to her attacks, leverages existing perceptions that Obama has integrity while Clinton is calculating, and speaks to his core message of changing politics-as-usual in Washington.

bvd wrote on January 24, 2008 9:56 AM:

TYM - You've hit on the perfect slogan:

"End the Bush-Clinton era.
It's time for a change."

Spread the good word.

Dan wrote on January 24, 2008 9:57 AM:

Kucinich for prez,

It's a Kucinich-free day because he isn't, nor has he ever been a serious president. Sure he's got ideas, but any real, fleshed out policies? Any real record of accomplishment to think he could be leader of the free world?

Maybe when your guy starts running for president and taking the process seriously instead of trying to build a platform for himself to meet women, then TPM will take him seriously.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 9:57 AM:

jim writes

how come the one part of the TPM site that actually should have a comment section (the blog), doesn't?

I've often wondered the same thing myself. It took TPM a long time to add comments to any section in the first place. I suspect that Josh is an anticommentist.

MTR wrote on January 24, 2008 9:58 AM:

LIKE TELLING THE VOTERS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIM!Obama said he goofed on votes
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation:
He goofed.

Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

Desider wrote on January 24, 2008 10:00 AM:

Regarding NAFTA, for those willing to learn something, read Martin Wolf's "Why Globalization Works". He's not exactly a wingnut Republican. (And he's also not advocating installing treaties and then ignoring them).

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 24, 2008 10:04 AM:

"Say anything. Change nothing."

The obama camp found it's message again, back on message of change.

If that is the message between now and Super Tuesday, this going to get very interesting.

last exit wrote on January 24, 2008 10:06 AM:

Obama must wallop Hillary with her Iraq vote 27 times a day between now and feb 5. It's the only way he'll win.

LJ wrote on January 24, 2008 10:06 AM:

Excellent! I think it's important to call out the Clinton slime machine on their lies and distortions.

MTR wrote on January 24, 2008 10:08 AM:

MTR:

Do you really, truly believe that Obama was voting to strip monies from a child welfare office? I mean, Obama was working to raise standards in inter-city slums before he ever became a legislator. Isn't it possible he made a mistake and fessed up to it?

Or do you believe that Obama really wanted to screw over kids, acting against type, etc.

It seems pretty clear to me, based on his solid record of achievement on progressive causes, that this was a flub. Don't blow it out of proportion.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 10:08 AM:

"Obama said he goofed on votes"

..as opposed to Hillary's Iraq vote?

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 10:09 AM:

I see all these posts about obama's legislative record in the illinois senate. What is clinton's voting record clinton supporters? Why don't we ever see any articles or posts about her record? All we hear about is the slime and distortions and lies coming from clinton. What about her non-existent gd record? And I really don't give a sh*t about some group that gives her an a+ rating on 20 cherry-picked votes. I still don't understand that in light of the iraq and iran war votes and her vote on the bankruptcy bill. What is her gd record??????????

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 10:09 AM:

Here Obama goes again using right-wing talking points to attack other candidates. He is so politically naive that he has become an embarrassment.

If Obama cannot manage to effectively campaign against fellow Democrats, how does anyone expect him to be successful against the Republican big guns.

Ahh, you got to love those ignorant Hillbots, never short on effort. This is a perfect specimen, there is absolutely nothing to fault with this ad, yet they respond with characteristic contempt for reality, for example the so-called "right wing talking points". A typical Clinton response to anyone who criticizes them, everything to them is a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and anyone who would challenge them is "un-Democratic", very Bush/Cheney in itself if you ask me: "If you don't agree with me you are un-American, if you challenge me you are un-American". All in all, a pretty pathetic response. And apparently now we can add this to the list: "If you use facts and call me on our lies, you are a Republican", oh, yet when Obama stands up for himself and calls the Clintons on their lies he is somehow showing he is "weak" and "naive"...yes...that makes a lot of sense.

You gotta love the Hillbots, as pathetic and ignorant as can be. This is a perfect example of why I can't stand Hillary supporters, because just like the hardcore GOP, you CANNOT debate with them because they refuse to recognize reality or facts, you could have a video of Hillary clearly stomping a kitten to death and they would come back and say, "No, that was Obama, and he is stomping that kitten as a right-wing talking point against Hillary". I swear it is that goddamn impossible to reason with these people. I'm embarrassed to be in the same party with people so ignorant and contemptuous of critical thinking. Here I used to think the Democratic party was better than the GOP, yet now I see that not only do the Clintons run a Bush/Cheney-style campaign, their supporters also have a lot in common with their GOP counterparts.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 10:10 AM:

It saddens me that Obama has to resort to a negative ad in SC. But seriously, considering the blisteringly inaccurate ad the Clinton's are running, is anyone surprised?

The ad is actually quite tame. There isn't a single inaccuracy in it. It lays out a very damning indictment, of not only Hillary, but the Clinton dynasty. Very, very effective.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 10:12 AM:

"Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 10:08 AM:

"Obama said he goofed on votes"

..as opposed to Hillary's Iraq vote?"

I'm not certain what your point is here Jay. Are you suggesting that Hillary's war vote was simply a goof?

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 10:13 AM:

I'm glad to see the Obama campaign fighting back aggressively. I wish they'd use surrogates more often, though, like the Clintons are doing. It's not good when the candidate himself is forced to go on the attack. That's the job for the hit men. God bless Dick Harpootlian for pointing out the obvious: Bill Clinton has become the Karl Rove of the Democratic party. Obama needs a few more hit men.

Ad Absurdum wrote on January 24, 2008 10:13 AM:

The only lacking with the ad is that they lying is not merely a Hillary problem but rather one of both Clintons, both of whom are running.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 10:15 AM:

"I'm not certain what your point is here Jay. Are you suggesting that Hillary's war vote was simply a goof?"

Its worse than a goof, it shows a lack of clear judgement.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 10:18 AM:

Jay:

Ah, then we are in complete agreement.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 10:19 AM:

A good ad. Short and simple. I hope that it gets a lot of play because I think that it can do him a lot of good if folks hear it.

bornagaindem wrote on January 24, 2008 10:19 AM:

Excuse me but I am sick of obama supporters forgetting about the misrepresentations that they made. I guess it was so last week when there was all that flack about hillary dissing Martin Luther King because she also praised LBJ (watch Bill Moyers great resonse on his show on PBS last week) or the crap about Bill Clinton saying that obamas campaign was a fairy tale when he was clearly referring to the fact that it was a fairy tale to think that obama had been bravely standing against the war all through 2003, 2004 when the country hadn't turned against the war yet. So if we are going to talk about who flung the first piece of dirt lets talk about it.

I personally don't think obama will make either the best candidate in November or the best president but there is no way that I am not voting democratic in the upcoming election because anything , absoltely anything is better than another republican.

Bill Clinton did not do everything we wanted and NAFTA was/is awful but I will take those discomforts over perpetual war in the middle east, continued welfare for the rich and corporations, and the refashioning of the Supreme Court in god's image anytime.

Get a grip folks this is not the election to opt out. You tried that with Ralph Nader and we all know how well that turned out.

Brandon wrote on January 24, 2008 10:19 AM:

One of Obama's best claims last week was that the Clinton's were distorting his words so they can paint an inaccurate portrait of him.

I thought he was right when he made that claim and it was a tough stance to take. I don't necessarily empathize with him for being a target because this is a Presidential campaign and he needs to be prepared for even worse attacks by the GOP.

But more importantly, this ad by Obama is also a distortion. Like Obama or not, he is playing the same game he criticizes. Hillary has been quite explicit in pointing out that Obama made two points in his videotaped interview with the Nevada paper. One had to do with Reagan, the other had to do with Republicans having ideas. We can all debate whether the Republicans were the party of ideas until the cows come home, but the most important issue here is that Hillary has only addressed the second part of his comments. She has not said anything about Reagan.

In this ad, Obama says the Clintons are mis-characterizing his comments about Reagan. They actually aren't. I think its a small but important distinction.

Distinctions are very important to Obama. He isn't afraid to get into detailed explanations for his past votes and will even discuss the minutiae of Congressional procedure when explaining the purpose behind one of his votes. I like the fact that he gives these long explanations because it shows he respects the voters' intelligence enough to fill them in on all the details. But in this case, I think he is getting caught up in the mud slinging (which is what the Clintons want) and ignoring important details.

Michael wrote on January 24, 2008 10:21 AM:

This goes back to the post-debate comments. Honesty. Trustworthy. Etc. It's a quality Obama has cultivated with voters since the day he got into this race (remember all that hand-wringing over whether he should've brought up his drug use when talking to HSers?? Or for coming out in favor of merit pay in front of the teacher's union?), and it's a huge concern for Hillary among even voters who support her.

I think Obama's campaign runs best when the discussion is closer to where it was in Nov/Dec than where it is now, but it certainly seems like they had a plan for the event that things got dragged down to this level seemingly permanently (as it seems now), and it's a smart plan, at that.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 10:23 AM:

Mark F:

Alas, Obama unfortunately doesn't have a spouse who happens to be the last popular two-term democratic President of the United States running interference for him.

Even if Obama loses, what a story! He took on both Clinton's and gave em a run for their money!

But I haven't lost hope, I think it's conceivable that Obama can pull this one off. Time will tell. Especially if Clinton continues to go off on the press. Yeah, he may steal news cycles, but it isn't flattering stuff. I think he's hurting Hillary more than helping her right now.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 10:27 AM:

"Excuse me but I am sick of obama supporters forgetting about the misrepresentations that they made. I guess it was so last week when there was all that flack about hillary dissing Martin Luther King because she also praised LBJ"

..just like how people are sick of people laying all the blame of Clinton's LBJ comment at the feet of the Obama camp - as I remember it, Donna Brazille and James Clyburn were the first people to make a fuss over her commentary.(two people unaffiliated with the Obama campaign.) Also, before her comments became a thing of public fodder - why did Hillary find it necessary to clarify her LBJ statements at her next campaign stop?

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 10:27 AM:

you could have a video of Hillary clearly stomping a kitten to death and they would come back and say, "No, that was Obama, and he is stomping that kitten as a right-wing talking point against Hillary"

wwjb, thank you that is hilarious. I would write lol, but I'm the wrong demographic. Though I did lol.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 10:28 AM:

Bornagaindem, if you don't want perpetual war in the middle east or welfare for the rich and corporations, than why on earth are you for clinton?????? That makes no sense. Clinton voted for and promoted perpetual war in the middle east and mr. bill's administration as has clinton in the senate propogated welfare for the rich and corporations. Hello, please get the facts as opposed to buying the lies from the clintons.

green heron wrote on January 24, 2008 10:30 AM:

Hillary voted to invade Iraq. That's all Obama needs to say. Iraq iraq iraq iraqiraqiraqiraqdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathiraqdeath...

davis wrote on January 24, 2008 10:30 AM:

You really have to love the Hillary supporters, who either accuse Obama supporters of being right-wing agitators or naive Ralph Nader supporters. They accuse Obama of either being a Republican no better than Bush, or being too liberal. I love it. It is all too obvious these people don't know their heads from their asses, and that their attacks against Obama and his supporters are little more than the first things that pop into their heads, regardless of how ridiculous, ignorant, nonfactual, or contradictory they may be.

jaluo wrote on January 24, 2008 10:31 AM:

Obama please realize that Clinton's are lying about your records and taking advantage of the press not setting your records straight. Its high time you changed strategy.You will realize that as commander in chief you will have to make friends with no friends, act to fight without fighting. you can be a candidate of change without negative campaigns, just realize that the best way to fight is not to defend but for every attack you must counter attack, and strike hard with strength and power enough to deliver TKO.
Clinton's are very vulnerable but you choose to give them a pass. First realize that this is no game its real, this psychological and propaganda war will give you a real experience as commander in chief. know about your opponents weakness and go for it, its known that Clinton's are liars ,its known that Bill never achieved anything that Hillary wants to achieve now in co-presidency, they are nothing but war-mongers, use fear to get votes, distort your records , to cast doubt about you.
Tell the people if Billary never achieved universal health-care how are they going to achieve it now? if people vote for Hillary out of fear then they must be ready for draft, for war with iran is the next in billary presidency.
DO NOT DEFEND YOURSELF SET YOUR RECORDS STRAIGHT AND POINT OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT BILLARY.

Good luck

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:33 AM:

Hardly as effective as Hillary's own ad, quoting Obama in his very own words.

And it's worth noting that Hillary's ad never claimed that Obama "liked" the Republican ideas. In fact, for the ad to get across its message, all it had to assume was that Obama was quite tolerant of Republican ideas -- ideas such as refusing to raise the minimum wage. And I don't know how anyone can read Obama's original comments without concluding that he was tolerant of Republican ideas -- the worst he could bring himself to say about them was that they had been "played out" at this time. (And might they be worthy of being tried again sometime even in the relatively near future? Since Obama didn't repudiate them as inherently wrong, well, why not?)

Of course the Wash Post reporters, incompetent to the core, couldn't get that obvious point. Distinctions are hard for them.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 24, 2008 10:35 AM:

Dan,
Kucinich is far more serious about being president than Clinton or Obama or the corporate Republicans. Preparing for president means figuring out what should be done once elected, and telling the electorate. Not figuring out what APAC or insurance companies want to hear and weasling your way onto CNN or TPM saying it, or making a favorable poll, or photo-ops saying nothing. If serious means dishonest, then Kucinich isn't serious.
Just because MSM and TPM have been surgically removing kucinich from the discussion, doesn't mean he's not campaigning hard and introducing important legislation. It means his ideas have been censored.

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 10:36 AM:

jaluo, but..but...the media hates the Clintons remember? The media ruthlessly attacks them and meticulously researches all of their claims and weaknesses! What do you mean the the press doesn't set the record straight...you mean the media have been helping the Clintons this whole time by giving them a free pass on nearly everything while giving Obama's responses minimal coverage??

Gasp!

No waayyy...that's just crazy talk!

:P

Jake wrote on January 24, 2008 10:38 AM:

Funny, I started out for Obama...thought he might have something. But he is just another lying politician who will say and do anything to get elected. His record is lightweight and when he decided to go negative back in October he virtually stopped talking about the real issues. I suspect he did because he could never really explain his policies. If he really represented the rhetoric of hope that he keeps espousing he would not be running ads like this. There is no way that I (or a lot of people out there) will vote for him if gets the nomination.

last exit wrote on January 24, 2008 10:39 AM:

The blood of more than 3000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis drips from Hillary Clinton's hands.

eorse wrote on January 24, 2008 10:40 AM:

It will be worse now. I predict Obama (if he wins) will win by a very small margin (2-3%) in SC. The reason is the two Clintons' campaign (race, gender, and ethnicity baiting). Even Dick Morris is onto this. Of course, I predicted from the start that no one can beat the two Clintons. No one has. No one will. Ever. Forever.

The prediction again: The power of the Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even though you do not want to. The bait (race, gender, and ethnicity) is now in your DNA, especially if you are low-income (or low-education) white woman.

Please see --

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/24/reuterszogby_poll_obamas_lead_slips_in_south_carolina.html

I used to be feel sorry that Obama will not win. Now I will sorry for Obama himself. I mean what a way to be destroyed.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:44 AM:

I sometimes am amazed that people don't seem to realize that Obama's ad is hardly the final word here. Do they not realize that for every punch, there is a counterpunch?

What can we expect from Hillary? I'd guess a pretty good counterattack, even a very personal counterattack.

And now she can claim that Obama has engaged this kind of personal attack by calling her, in effect, a liar.

And I'm not sure it's going to be possible to dispute that it is the Obama campaign that will have been the first to engage in personal attacks, by calling the other a liar.

bornagaindem wrote on January 24, 2008 10:44 AM:

Every campaign grabs at every opportunity to stick it to the other so whether Obama started it is beside the point just like it is beside the point whether hillary started the reagan stuff (I doubt it).

Why did she find it necessary to answer at he next campaign stop? because she and her team know that you don't let ANYTHING go unaddressed. You have to get out in front of the media if you want to have any impact at all.

How long did that go on hillary and bill are racist -what nonsence- and it is still going on.

I'll tell you why I worry about obama as our nominee. It is because as a democrat I don't want to bring the country back together. I fervently believe that the problems we have had are a direct result not of democratic obstructionism but because of the willingness of the repugs to take out anything/anybody in their way. I don't like all the compromises that the democratically controlled congress is taking to "accommodate" the repugs and I don't want a democartic president that thinks he can play nice with these guys and that we need to compromise more. The repugs have shown us the way- get into office and do what you want without worrying about their delicate sensibilities.

I guess I appreciate the sentiment - she'll say anything to win (but you are wrong that she'll change nothing). Hillary and Edwards get it they know what we are up against and obama doesn't.

Gregor wrote on January 24, 2008 10:45 AM:

Dear Clinton Supporters,

Now that Bill has just made an unusually direct public statement saying that Obama will win SC because of the Black Vote--I hope you can now finally uncover your eyes, and accept that the Clinton Machine strategy all along has been to marginalize Obama's crossover appeal, and cast him as a just another African American candidate.

Welcome to the Machine, Clinton Supporters.

And remember, if you are not part of the solution, then, you are part of The Machine.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-sc-bill-clinton_N.htm

NC State Dem wrote on January 24, 2008 10:45 AM:

Say Anything. Change Nothing.

It expresses in 4 simple, direct words the exact problem I have with the Clinton campaign. It's an absolutely perfect AND FAIR argument against her candidacy. He's not fighting dirty, but he is fighting back. Go, Barack, go.

Of course, he made a similar point (not as concisely stated) during the NH debate, and Hillary responded to the effect of "of course it will be a change - I'm a GIRL!" Naked, empty, identity politics - but she got a free pass and then proceeded to tar Obama as "just the black candidate" despite all he's done NOT to play that card.

And sadly, it's worked so far. I'm still praying things will turn around.

last exit wrote on January 24, 2008 10:48 AM:

Hillary Clinton strangled Iraqi babies in their cribs--metaphorically speaking.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:48 AM:

Now that Bill has just made an unusually direct public statement saying that Obama will win SC because of the Black Vote-

I heard that Bill also mentioned that the sun will rise tommorrow.

I can't see why anyone could bring themselves to vote for Hillary after such an outrageous comment.

jim wrote on January 24, 2008 10:50 AM:

Now that Bill has just made an unusually direct public statement saying that Obama will win SC because of the Black Vote

Of course if Obama were to lose SC, they would say, "He can't even win the black vote." And if he wins SC, they'll say, "Well, of course he won. Look at all the Negroes down there."

Amazing.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 10:50 AM:

"Why did she find it necessary to answer at he next campaign stop? because she and her team know that you don't let ANYTHING go unaddressed."

..but at time it hadn't even been addressed yet, why the need to clarify your statements if you felt confident with what you said.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:51 AM:

What would I do if I were in the Hillary campaign?

Hit Obama long and hard on his Rezko connection. After Obama has in effect called Hillary a liar, how can he pretend that he hasn't started negative campaigning?

(All Hillary's ad did was quote Obama in his own words. Oh the humanity!)

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 10:52 AM:

frankly0

Bill and Hillary are liars and the whole country does not doubt that.

What they didn't know, and is now becoming apparent, that they are also race baiters, and run a Rovian camapaign.

They are a disgrace to everything the Democratic party should stand for. Even voter surpression in NV.

Time to finally end the Bush-Clinton era of politics

voodoobaby wrote on January 24, 2008 10:54 AM:

"Now that Bill has just made an unusually direct public statement saying that Obama will win SC because of the Black Vote-"

Those Clintons are just so clever. First, they made straightforward comments with no racial overtones/undertones, somehow knowing that they would be called racist for it. Then, they snuck into the Obama camp and compiled a memo of those supposed comments. Then, when African Americans started supporting Obama in larger numbers, they had the audacity to look at the obvious poll shift and call it like it is. I can't believe how EVIL they are.

jim wrote on January 24, 2008 10:55 AM:

After Obama has in effect called Hillary a liar, how can he pretend that he hasn't started negative campaigning

Is it "negative campaigning" to call someone a liar when they are, you know, lying?

Just asking.

voodoobaby wrote on January 24, 2008 10:56 AM:

"..but at time it hadn't even been addressed yet, why the need to clarify your statements if you felt confident with what you said."

Realizing your words might have been clumsy and clarifying your position? I'm so glad Obama is so pure that he doesn't have to do that.

Keith wrote on January 24, 2008 10:56 AM:

Nice ad, but before the Obama supporters gloat too much, just remember that his opponents are the Clintons. They aren't going to swayed by this ad. They aren't going to start playing above board. They play dirty. They play to win at any cost. So just keep that in mind over the next 36 hours. I suspect they are going to unfurl some nasty, but largely false, smear at Obama.

He's now playing, to some extent, on their field. If he wants to win this thing, he better make it a short visit and get back on message.

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 10:56 AM:

frankly0
I will give you a Rezko and bring iup Whitewater. A scam/swindle that the Clintons were indeed full business partners.

How about the most corrupt campaign financing ever seen - Norman Hsu

ParkSloper wrote on January 24, 2008 10:57 AM:

"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected."

It appears that some posters on this forum do not seem to recognize that this statement is a right-wing talking point. Perhaps the folks here are to young to remember that this tactic was already used against Clinton in 1992 & 1996, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. It is already be used against Hillary in 2008.

I can understand that many folks may not instantly recognize this. That is because the media has been ignoring these 'narratives' for years. They rarely write stories on how the leading Dem candidates are subject to these silly storylines.

It is inexcusable for Obama to once again adopt a right-wing tactic against a fellow Dem. Of course, the Republican machine will pick this up in the general election if Hillary is the Dem candidate.

BTW, despite the ridiculous accusations against my character levied by the folks here, I was originally for Edwards, Now that he seems to be out of contention, I have been examining both Obama and Hillary. Unfortunately, Obama's politically naive actions may be making the decision for me.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:00 AM:

What they didn't know, and is now becoming apparent, that they are also race baiters, and run a Rovian camapaign.

And which campaign was it that was caught red-handed with a memo inciting racial division? --Oops, that would be the Obama campaign.

It was obvious enough to everyone what the strategy of the Obama campaign was: to get African-Americans on his side by pretending that Hillary was making racial comments when it was perfectly obvious she wasn't.

Of course, the idiots in the media, TPM included, can't seem to see that for Obama to do so was many times more reprehensible than anything that could be claimed about the Clintons' use of Obama's Reagan/Republican comments. Obama was, again, caught red handed fomenting racial division in order to win votes: how does it get worse than that?

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 11:01 AM:

Jake:

Sooo, if you refuse to vote for Obama is he is the nominee because he is apparently a "lying politician" who will "say anything to get elected", and has been "going negative" since October, I seriously hope you aren't supporting Hillary, because that would indeed make you the biggest hypocrite on the planet. Last time I checked, Obama isn't the candidate who is lying left and right about their own record and their opponents' records and comments, and there definitely isn't a single lie in this entire ad. Also, Obama hasn't been negative, he has been incredibly positive. Unless "negative" is what people are using to describe him setting the record straight and constantly being on the defensive against the two Clintons, I don't see a hint of reality in your statement. Although, yes, Clinton supporters generally view anything Obama says as "negative" and if he dares to call the Clintons on their blatant lies, he is of course using "GOP talking points". Of course.

So, I really hope you are telling us that you are choosing to stay out of this race entirely, or at least telling us you are voting for Kucinich, who by your standards would be the only "clean and friendly" candidate running.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 11:03 AM:

frankly0, in answer to your question. When it's false and a trailer trashing talking point of the clinton restoration party.

LJ wrote on January 24, 2008 11:03 AM:

ParkSloper:

Defending yourself against lies and distortions is not a "right-wing tactic". It's what people with integrity do when slimed by low class gutter politicians.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 11:03 AM:

And sadly, it's worked so far. I'm still praying things will turn around.

Indeed, I cannot deny that I am feeling ill at ease of late as well. Here's hoping that things change between now and Feb 5. The encouraging news is that Clinton's lead continues to shrink almost everywhere. The bad news is that it has a long way to fall before Obama catches up. Can he do it in time? If there is any chance at all, this sort of ad is the thing that is needed.

What would I do if I were in the Hillary campaign?

Hit Obama long and hard on his Rezko connection.

For all I know, that might work. On the other hand, it might not. It is an open question in my mind whether the public cares about Rezko. He is more damning as an insinuation than as an actual fact. If the Clinton campaign were to make a major focus on him, it might well serve to highlight the fact that there is no real smoking gun there and thus eviscerate the power of the "Obama's dirty crony in Chicago..." meme. On the other hand, it might be that the immediate impact of that approach would drive Obama's support down enough before Feb 5 that he simply would not be able to recover. Hard to say.

jim wrote on January 24, 2008 11:04 AM:

It appears that some posters on this forum do not seem to recognize that this statement is a right-wing talking point.

It appears that some posters on this forum do not seem to recognize that this statement is a Hillary talking point.

What is funny is that this is the same tactic used by the wingnuts in the GOP. "Saying Bush lied is a liberal talking point. You have been brainwashed by the liberal media." Sound familiar? It probably does to people who merely want to substitute Hillary's war mongering for Bush's.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:08 AM:

Is it "negative campaigning" to call someone a liar when they are, you know, lying?

What you don't get is that many voters simply won't accept that Hillary is "lying" simply on the say so of the Obama campaign -- or even somebody in the media, who have their own biases and incompetences.

And calling someone a liar is in any case fraught with peril if you're running for President, because it doesn't seem, well, very Presidential.

And it opens up the other side to engage in whatever personal attacks it may itself be itching to push with relative impunity.

Chris wrote on January 24, 2008 11:10 AM:

"Realizing your words might have been clumsy and clarifying your position? I'm so glad Obama is so pure that he doesn't have to do that."

Snide, inconsequential remarks that don't have anything to do with the original discussion aside - who said anything about Obama being pure?

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:18 AM:

I will give you a Rezko and bring iup Whitewater.

Hate to tell you, but Hillary's various opponents have gone to the Whitewater well for years and years.

I'm obliged to report it's now run dry.

But voters now think Obama's pure as Ivory soap. Problem is, essentially no one in the larger public has heard about his Rezko connection. He was even caught in an out-and-out lie about it, pretending that he didn't know something about Rezko that he obviously did. (Talking about liars!)

Seriously not good.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 11:23 AM:

I will give you a Rezko and bring up Whitewater.

No way. This much I know - Whitewater has precisely no traction at all by this point. No democrat, or even republican for that matter, is going to vote against Clinton on account of the absolute nothingness that was the "Whitewater" story. There may be a million kilograms of dirty laundry in the Clintons' hamper to air against them, but Whitewater will not cut it.

Nice ad, but before the Obama supporters gloat too much, just remember that his opponents are the Clintons. They aren't going to swayed by this ad... He's now playing, to some extent, on their field. If he wants to win this thing, he better make it a short visit and get back on message.

How is this off message? It manages to reframe the terms of debate which the Clintons were attempting to set, all the while reiterating the "change" meme and emphasizing the departure from politics-as-blood-sport which so many of us see as one of Obama's selling points.

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 11:24 AM:

frankly0
It is Clinton supporters and the lying Clintons themselves that is turning this lifelong Democrat into an Independent.

Being a Hill and Bill shill must be the lowest job in the world

Billa and his trailer trash girlfriends

Paula Jones ex boyfriend's wife for President
Go shrillary

Mark wrote on January 24, 2008 11:25 AM:

"Seriously not good."

Sure its not good coming from an Obama detractor, objective concern about the Obama campaign coming from the likes of you is as natural as an oral bowel movement.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 11:26 AM:

And calling someone a liar... opens up the other side to engage in whatever personal attacks it may itself be itching to push with relative impunity.

I do not think that this constitutes much of a "cost" in the political equation here. The Clintons do not really need an "opening" in order to make personal attacks. They are quite prepared to do so uninvited. As such, Obama has little to lose from taking such an approach in this instance.

madmax wrote on January 24, 2008 11:27 AM:

Well like people have mentioned, Whitewater is just one example, Hsu is another, which is an even more recent and worse example than Rezko, then you have sketchy dealings surrounding donations to the Clinton library, and the Clintons taking bribes to give presidential pardons to felons, mystery surrounding the refusal of the Clintons to declassify Hillary's First Lady records, they've been accused of being involved in murder even, the list goes on and on. The point is, there is PLENTY more dirt on Hillary and Bill than there is against Obama on the hyped up Rezko thing, so it probably isn't in the Clinton campaign's best interest to try to make this campaign a battle of ethics, because they will lose no matter how you look at it.

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 11:27 AM:

Whitewater was a real scam/swindle and the Clintons were full business partners in it.

Please go read a balanced story on Whitewater. The Clintons were partners in the scam.

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 11:28 AM:

And which campaign was it that was caught red-handed with a memo inciting racial division? --Oops, that would be the Obama campaign.

Stop lying. Clinton surrogates have been pushing this one since Clinton was behind in the polls in NH. That memo detailed all the attacks by the Clinton campaign and it's supporters that contained subtle racial overtones. You know, like Karrey's madrasa stuff, Cuomo's "shuck and jive" line, the junk about Obama supporters considering him their new "hip black friend". Or this little classic, that slipped under the radar in light of the MLK dust-up the immediately kicked out afterwards.

While introducing Hillary Clinton to a NH audience, a campaign supporter made the comment that Obama talks about JFK and MLK, but they both were assassinated, while LBJ did great things. The Clinton campaign later tried to say that they didn't know about the comment before hand (kinda like they later said with Bob Johnson *wink*), but Hillary Clinton in an interview immediately after that rally on FOX made the exact same argument. This then touched off the negative response to her MLK comments that Obama did his best to stay out of.

Taken one at a time, you can dismiss these string of comments that were coming from the Clinton campaign. But when you see a real pattern emerge, then you've got to call them on it. That was the purpose of the memo. And this was before the Bob Johnson garbage.

You're pointing to that memo and trying to say that it was the Obama campaign was inciting racial tension is exactly the type of dishonesty that has pushed me away from the Clinton campaign in disgust.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:32 AM:

madmax,

You aren't getting the point.

The point is that everyone knows about Hillary's past "scandals". They have already been factored into people's decisions to vote for her or not.

But Obama is different. His very appeal rests critically on the notion that he's purer than thou.

Rezko destroys that perception of purity. Obama seems like another corrupt, cynical, exploitative politician.

As I said, seriously not good for Obama. (But great for Hillary!)

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 11:33 AM:

Hillary Clinton in an interview immediately after that rally on FOX made the exact same argument.

Exact same argument, minus the attempt to connect Barack Obama's campaign and the assassination of two of America's greatest icons, of course. Sorry, missed that part. frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:35 AM:

hello_world,

I seem to be the messenger of a lot of bad news to Obama supporters on this board.

I hate to tell you, but even Obama -- but not until confronted of course -- had to reject the memo and repudiate the political tactic it employed.

Obviously, he knew it was indefensible.

I guess you didn't get the message, so I'm relaying it to you.

Sorry!

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 11:39 AM:

But Obama is different. His very appeal rests critically on the notion that he's purer than thou.

That's not true at all, at least in my case. I don't think anyone out there thinks politicians are holier than thou at this point.

Obama's appeal to me is that he's willing to speak openly on honestly about the problems that our nation is facing, and he seems to have the good sense to accomplish the best thing for everyone, not just a core constituency. And he's shown good judgement in the face of poor judgement from many of his colleges.

I like that he's inclusive in his campaign and rhetoric, and doesn't sneer in the face of those that he disagrees with. And lastly, I think with Barack Obama, we have the best opportunity to make positive changes in the way Washington works, both for we the people, and with itself.

Scandals, or lack thereof have nothing to do with my support of Obama. Show me a politician that has never done something wrong, and I'll show you one that hasn't done anything at all, unfortunately.

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 11:46 AM:

Of course he was unhappy it was drawn up. It's exactly the sort of thing that he's wanted to stay away from in the campaign. And that memo was not designed to go out to the press. But that doesn't change the facts of the memo, which was there was a stream of low-conscious, racially tinged statments emanating from Clinton supporters. Obama took the high road, and I respect him for that, but Clinton supporters continue to push the story.

He's also tried to set the tone within his own campaign, directly commenting when one of his own supporters crosses the line. This is another reason I respect him.

Mark wrote on January 24, 2008 11:55 AM:

"As I said, seriously not good for Obama. (But great for Hillary!)"

Sure its not good coming from an Obama detractor, objective concern about the Obama campaign coming from the likes of you is as natural as an oral bowel movement.

Gregor wrote on January 24, 2008 11:56 AM:

The Clinton's and their supporters will pull out every logical fallacy in the book. The resident Hill-bot on this board today is doing a fine job (I mean that). With the public, fallacious tactics work. The Machine understands this.

Right now, The Machine continues to sell the idea that you need the Machine to beat the GOP in the Fall, because the GOP Machine itself is some super-bad-ass stuff. The Machine wants you to know that Obama can't get with the tactical program of the Machine.

The trap is being laid however, because Hillary is actually the most vulnerable in the general election. What you'll find is that it's the conservative, mainstream-thinking DEMS who are getting herded into the Machine regardless, thinking they are safe, in the Fall.

The Holier Than Thou talking point of course is another example of how The Machine wants you to divert you away from the issues, and keep you sailing along with the idea that to win, you need to join the Machine.

Welcome to the Machine.

NHCt wrote on January 24, 2008 12:15 PM:

I wonder how much of the nastiness on the Dem. side is a result of the proportional style of allocating delegates. If the party allocated delegates the same way as the GOP -- mostly through winner-take-all contests -- Hillary wouldn't have to go nasty at all. She leads in most of the big states and could cruise to the nomination. But if she wins by relatively small margins under the current plan, Obama stays right with her the whole way. So she needs to destroy him right now to depress his turnout and put some distance between them come Feb. 5. Meanwhile, McCain, if he wins Florida, can coast to the nomination with 35 percent of the vote. Nasty campaigning comes naturally for the Clintons. But because of the current Dem set-up, it also makes it utterly necessary. And provides Edwards with a damn good reason to stay in the race. Pick your cabinet post, John!

Pepp wrote on January 24, 2008 12:43 PM:

A noun a verb and an anti Hillary slur and thats it no there there. It is Obama who has the oops I pushed the wrong button I really meant to vote the other way, voting present instead of yeah or nay many times as the only Representative doing so and the famous I would have voted against it had I shown up for that Iran vote, I believe you are confused on the candidate willing to do and say anything to get elected or buy the home of his choice.

jim wrote on January 24, 2008 12:45 PM:

What you don't get is that many voters simply won't accept that Hillary is "lying"...

That is certainly true. That is what Hillary is counting on. Bush counts on that, too.

Ian Tepoot wrote on January 24, 2008 12:46 PM:

Mark,

I am an Obama supporter. That said, frankly0's analysis was thought out and valid. I think that we do our candidate no favors when we are vitriolic and name-calling when disagreeing. I believe we can advocate, work to correct the record. We have to have trust (no choice) that the Obama campaign can modulate itself... but in the meantime Barack Obama himself has asked his supporters to be civilized.

I do think, frankly0, that the dependance of Obama on being completely saintly is a little simplistic. If you really listen to him consistently, one thing that his supporters know is that he consistently says what he really thinks, and even when its inconvenient (aka "our hands aren't clean" at Ebenezer, or "my carbon cap-and-trade will cause energy prices to rise in the short term, although we will put in buffers for the low-income", etc.).

There seems to be a perception among Hillary supporters that ardent Obama supporters assume he is superhumanly saintly. We don't.

Also, I disagree in that I think the ad, while harsh, was not distortive and doesn't do that sly use of the narrator to ask a leading question. I think it may help. When I read about the "attack ad" by Obama I was worried, then I saw the transcript and it eased a little. He should be careful though, and modulate his message to not completely have his message become too singularly focused on the counter-punching contest.

Ian Tepoot wrote on January 24, 2008 1:08 PM:

I think another small, telling detail that illustrates what Obama supporters see in him. I know that federal law mandates that all official advertising has the voice of the candidate confirming approval of the content.

However, notice that in his radio ads, his voice is FIRST, forcefully stating in first person that "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message"... then with full knowledge of who's perspective you are hearing, launches into it.

Hillary's approach is typical, as done by almost everybody. A well produced ad, followed by a lower-level disclaimer.

Is it important in the larger scheme? No. However, I feel it captures a bit of why we support him. That, and issues and record -- which I researched extensively for all the dems before solidifying my support.

jpaul wrote on January 24, 2008 1:22 PM:

To imply that his voters won't support Clinton, while she has said that the nominee will have the support of all Dems, says a lot about who is fully committed to restoring a Dem to the White House. Also, this controversy about Reagan is nonsense. After Obama did his interview, William Bennett on CNN praised him for praising Reagan. If you say one group has ALL THE IDEAS, with the implication being that the Dems have none, that has to be viewed as praising Republicans and Reagan whether intended or not. If Obama is the candidate for hope, I hope he can discuss issues, develop plans, and not just use slogans and trade insults

cathe wrote on January 24, 2008 2:00 PM:

Obama, a liar. He said, he was not in favor of the Iraq war!!!! Yet when it was time to vote,,, guess what,,, his answer was "PRESENT".
Ha, ha, ha liar, liar, pants on fire.
Tony, Tony Rezko please rescue me "BRO".

ca-dem wrote on January 24, 2008 2:07 PM:

How is this an attack ad? There's not much dispute about the facts, and I imagine that even Hillary's most ardent supporters would agree that she is fundamentally dishonest.

LS wrote on January 24, 2008 2:36 PM:

Although I think the Reagan thing was taken to the extreme, Obama opened himself up for it. And the hit he has taken from Senator Clinton is nothing compared to what he can expect if he is the nominee.

I am unconvinced that there isn't more is his closet regarding his relationship with Rezko. People don't do you favors of that magnitude without an expectation of some sort.

Lisa wrote on January 24, 2008 2:39 PM:

The Clintons yell, cry, and lie.

"I did not have sex with that woman"
Remember when Bill lied to you on national telivision while wagging his finger at you.

There was nothing wrong with the affair,

But he was lieing to all americans

And all americans are now sick and tired
of the Clinton yell , cry, lie routine.

Time to put the Clintons out to pasture,
Let go of Hillarys skirt and Billys hand.

Time to grow up America.

Dottie wrote on January 24, 2008 3:26 PM:

People like Last Exit need to get a life. Harping on the Irak vote only shows the sad ignorance of the electorate. I beg everyone to read the transcripts of congress concerning the vote.
The vote to Authorize force was not a war vote. Our country has used this meassure to give the Pres more muscles in dealing with foriegn diplomacy. If the pres was trying to reign in a rogue leader having our congress already giving him the authoirity to use force has given our leaders a strong hand in dealing with problems and solving them without using that force. However imagine how much impact the office of the President would have had that vote failed. It would have undermined the entire dilplomatic efforts of our state department. The Resolution was meant to be used as a threat. What ever your opinions are about the War. ONCE that resolution came before our congress voteing it down would have undermined the Office itself. Not just Bush but how much are willing to weaken future Presidents in the eyes of the world because we as country did not take the election of our leaders serious enough. Take that in mind today. Hillary voted not in paritiship but because she knew that in order to be effective a TRUE cammander in chief would need that Resolution in order to do his job. I will not hold her accountable for what he should be held for. Her Speach on the floor is clear. Anyone with an open mind can see it. Great democracies are never distroyed by the outside they are bought from within because people are often mislead by simple minded tactics. Our government is complex and we spend very little time teaching about it in our public schools leaving most of you clueless about anything but the game of politcs. It far more than that. I will never support Obama because the one I am sick of is a change message. Every new guy runs on it. Think about no does the never turns why. Because by the time someone figures how to change something we called them status quo and vote someone who wants CHANGE. New greenhorns who want change but dont know hill of beans about the system to get it. Its a cycle. We are stupid and naive. OK Obama supporters here one for you. He talks about change and all his wonderful policies. Knowing what we do about our system, give me concrete ways that he is going to accomplish this. He cant't so it on crisma and speech. He only has four years 8 at the most. And i Hate to tell you this-- he ain't no Bill Clinton. At least bill had EXPERIENCE. 16 years as a goverenor. OBAMA IS A TRUE GREENHORN. The 90s attack machine nearly toppled Clinton-they will slaughter you little boy.

Jim Martin wrote on January 24, 2008 5:48 PM:

The Clintons are lying about Obama's Reagan remark, pure and simple.

Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune lays it all out. The entire Obama quote, in, you know, context. The way that the Clintons inserted stuff that Obama neither stated nor implied, like when Hillary misquoted Obama as saying that the Republicans "had better ideas than the Democrats or when Bill on he same date claimed: "[Obama said that] the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I'm not making this up, folks." Obama neither said, nor implied, that the Repugs had "better" or "all the good" ideas. And the full quote is there for you to read, if you care about truth, which apparently the Clintons don't. For example, the part where Obama also says, "And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out." I guess they just forgot that part.

Oh, and the Clintons have a problem with someone praising Reagan? Then, hmm, who said this?

I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people....Since President Reagan left office, the freedom and opportunity for which he stood have continued to spread....I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off, to lead freedom's march boldly into the 21st century.

That would be Bill Clinton, at the dedication of the Reagan Library, 11 May 1998.

Oh, and who said this?

[Reagan was] a child of the Depression, so he understood [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.

That would be Hillary, in Tom Brokaw's book Boom, p. 404, quoted in Zorn's blog post.

So: they both lie about what Obama said, take it out of context, ignore the negative things he said about the Republicans, and then they ignore their own praise of Reagan.

Classy, Billary. Reeeeal classy.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)