Obama Campaign Push Back to the Clintons: Send in the Surrogates
EmailABC News Sunlen Miller Reports: After a morning conference call where Sen. Barack Obama pushed back hard against Democratic presidential rival Sen. Hillary Clinton’s "Meet the Press" interview, the Obama campaign had a second round of conference calls, unleashing their surrogates for even more pushback.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Obama’s national co-chair, and Susan Rice, Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor, were dispatched to dispel recent comments by both Clintons, especially Hillary Clintons’ interview on "Meet the Press" this morning.
"That interview contained, in my judgment, a record number of distortions and counterfactual statements," Rice said, "the purpose of which we have to assume was designed to obscure Clinton’s original vote for war and her long term support for it thereafter."
Sen. Dick Durbin agreed, and capitalized on the Clinton’s framing of Obama’s Iraq war record.
"I’ve really been troubled by the developments over the last several days and weeks," Durbin said, "where the Clinton campaign has been questioning Barack Obama’s sincerity when it came to his opposition to the war."
Durbin told reporters that he, as senator at the time, knew that the vote for war was a serious vote which assumed a very realistic option for invasion of Iraq. He said that Obama’s position on the war has never changed, and that he’s been consistently opposed to the war.
"When I hear President Clinton questioning the sincerity of Sen. Obama on this issue, I’m afraid he’s getting bad information and drawing wrong conclusions about Sen. Obama’s clear position and opposition to this war," Durbin said. "I don’t think this is good for the campaign, I don’t think this is good for the election, I don’t think it’s good for our party. I think the facts should speak for themselves."
Rice offered up evidence, which the Clinton campaign said was lacking, to demonstrate that after Obama’s initial speech in 2002 opposing the war, that he did something about it upon entering the Senate, citing Obama’s push for timelines, capping of the surge, and pressure to use influence with the Iraqis to bring about political accommodations.
Rice then turned the table on Clinton’s own assertion that Obama had not done anything to move toward ending the war while he was a senator.
"Sen. Clinton has not been a legislative leader to date on the issue of Iraq. She waited until Sen. Obama cast his vote on the Feingold legislation and after watching him do it then cast her own against funding."
Durbin compared this back and forth to the 2004 election and the series of "swiftboat" attacks on John Kerry.
"As we’ve seen in previous campaigns, what you try to do is go after your opponent’s position of strength," he said. "And I think Barack’s position of strength and credibility, with many voters in the Democratic primary was his early and consistent opposition to the war, so they’ve been trying to call this into question."
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer rejected the "swiftboat" comparison.
"It’s a false comparison, because the attacks against John Kerry were lies," Singer said. "We are talking about the record that Sen. Obama put together after he delivered his 2002 speech. It is a fact that after Sen. Obama spoke out against the war in 2002, he removed the speech from his Web site when he started running for the Senate. By 2004, he said there wasn’t much of a difference between him and George Bush on the war, and by 2005, 2006 and 2007, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. Voters should have complete information about the records of all the candidates."
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Without this report, i felt the exact same thing. I thing the force of statu quo are on their last attempt to play politics as usual.
We the people see through this and will make our voice heard, loud and clear. I think that in fact, HRClinton has nothing to lose since she is known for rewriting history and being a patented spin peddler.
So, if it can get her some votes, that is the last resort she has.
But sorry, i think that it won’t happen this time.
When the change comes, the force of status quo resist.
But change is coming to america.
Posted by: demos | January 13, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
How can the Clintons distort history. I sincerely agree with Senator Durbin about the records of Obama
Posted by: BimalGhose | January 13, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
Durbin is one of the worst Senators Illnois have had. WHat about his leadership in the senate now? He’s awful, we are in very bad shape in Illinois because we have at this time a couple of Senators that are just looking for their own gain, Durbin wants to be the Leader of the Senate and Obama President. They both have done nothing for Illinois. Durbin has not credibility here!
Posted by: Peter | January 13, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
Obama will lose and truth will prevail. Just good speech doesnot mean he is a leader to lead this country plagued with enormous problems. Hillary bashers.. you are out of reality. Get Clinton as President and the face of America will change.
Posted by: nabin | January 13, 2008, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm
The Clintons are very smart, shrewd, and they fight dirty, no-holds barred campaigns. I think Obama needs to be very cautious about how he responds, because as the old saying goes “”Never wrestle with a pig – you both get dirty and the pig likes it”. Obama should leave those two pigs in the mud and stay on the high road.
Posted by: John | January 13, 2008, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm
Eyzwidopn (Jan 13): I’ll bet you’re a Clinton surrogate.
How can anyone be fooled by these guys. They make Tony Soprano seem tame. If you disagree, it’s a conspiracy, if you cite examples, you’re “distorting” the truth. I watched Meet the Press today. It means something when so much of what you say and so much of what you do has to be explained and clarified. I do not see the other candidates having to “manage” all they say.
On Meet the Press, she said she was ready and tested to deal with (paraphrasing) “all the Republicans will bring.” We’ll that’s just the point. We’re all tired of all that. We need someone that wants to solve problems that exist for all of us, not just another round of internal political sniping.
Can you imagine how divided we would be if she wins?
I’d be the candidate who would get the most votes in these Primaries is the “not Billary” vote.
Don’t be bamboozled and don’t be intimidated. She’s a well trained, political hatchet-person and I believe she’d do anything (really anything) to win.
She’s “American Poison”
Posted by: Victor | January 13, 2008, 7:19 pm 7:19 pm
The Clinton’s should be careful. I have been voting since I was 18. I always voted and until Obama came along I was quite disullision by the whole process. Now I am quite invigorated and volunteering again with election campaigns. I read Obama’s book. I signed up to help him get elected. He is refreshing. It’s not the same old crap. The Clinton’s do play dirty. I’ve had enough of them and all of their scandals. Can we move on and get some new blood in the white house.
Posted by: Glenda | January 13, 2008, 7:20 pm 7:20 pm
To BimalGhose (Jan 13, 2008 5:43:47 PM)
Typical Clinton, attack the messenger. Elimiate the discussion of anything contrary to your perspective and play the victim should anyone attack your perspective.
What has Billary really done in 35 years? Where’s a list of this? Let’s get a list of this outside the Senate where her record is well documented.
In the NH debate, she slammed Edwards for saying he pushed for legislation but it was not passed. She said something like “if it did not pass it does not account (paraphrasing).” We’ll that shoots down any of the effort she did regarding health care (as botched as the effort was).
She’s a calamity.
Posted by: Victor | January 13, 2008, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
As a life long democrat, I am disgusted with “shrill Bill” and Hillary. I was on the fence, but no more. Her MLK remark was part of her new “voice” and it revealed more than her tears did. She now whines it was taken “out of context”. What context? How many times does she say her words and actions were “out of context”? It is just another triangulation and I am sick of hearing it. She supported the war for purely political reasons. I remember it all well. Neither she nor Bill took a stand against it, as Al Gore did, and Obama apparently. They are both liars to say otherwise. Their political calculation enabling Bush has cost a huge number of American lives and untold opportunity and they are accountable for that. She showed then that she has no morality OR LEADERSHIP. We all really need to leave this poisonous couple behind.
Posted by: pano | January 13, 2008, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
Who cares about the opposition to the Iraq war. Bush would do as he pleased anyway. Obama opposed the war but voted for the funding. So the story it equals out to the same. Who is he fooling. And the words fairy tale, Obama doesn’t know what those words mean or he’s trying to associate those words as racial. John Kerry this morning stated Obama wants to unite the country. Kerry doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He doesn’t like the Clinton’s that’s why he is backing Obama. There are many people very jealous of the Clinton’s but that’s too bad.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | January 13, 2008, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
If the Obama campaign is going to accuse people of racism every time his own voting record is brought up, they are in for a real surprise when people go to the ballot box. A voting record is fair gam ein an election campaign. it’s not smear. Its not swiftboating and it certainly isn’t racism. it sjust his voting record which is thin at best, but should still be open to examination.
Posted by: s.b. | January 13, 2008, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
For those who think this campaign will end with a “uniter” even if Obama is the candidate are naive. Say he gets the nomination, do you think the Republicans are just going to roll over and say, “well he’s a nice guy so let’s just give the election to him and hold hands?” Politics has been dirty since the days of Julius Caesar. So you think that one man is all of a sudden going to change that? Being realistic, the GOP are notoriously the dirtiest campaigners around. Therefore, Obama’s record and personal history are going to be brought out. The question is not if, but when. It has been well documented that Obama has one of the more liberal voting records in the senate. Many republicans are already licking their chops at the prospect of picking apart his record during a general election. This will likely have some affect on his appeal to swing voters. He has a lot of appeal right now, and frankly I personally think he is a wonderful speaker and politician, but, and this has been supported by many even in the media, there is still much of his record that has not been discussed. The fact is that he is eventually going to have to answer some tough questions about his record.
Posted by: R | January 13, 2008, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
The accusations are on the sideline for the moment and we see that Senator Obama comes trailing in a poor third as both Edwards and Clinton have already presented their views on trying to avoid a recession and repair the crumbling infrastructure.
Obama, as usual, throws in something less than a well thought out plan of action. The main thrust is a $250 tax cut. This sounds like another Republican bribe, but no, Obama still claims he is a Democrat.
Since he is now prepared to fund war in Iraq, what effect would a $250 tax cut have ? Less money for health, less money for education, less money for roads and bridges.
The last time the US faced serious recession the answer was to use government spending to stimulate the economy, leaving the US with an infrastructure for providing transport and power that it could be proud of. The world looked on in envy.
Obama’s answer this time is less than spectacular. Government handouts in terms of tax cuts only suggest he wants to jump on the Republican stage and join the boys in claiming he can give away more money than they can.
In reality, $250 does not go far, less than a month’s health insurance for a typical family. Hardly the vehicle for change is it ?
Posted by: David Florida | January 13, 2008, 8:14 pm 8:14 pm
Now Obama “sends in the clowns.” At the first sign that things aren’t going as well for him as he hoped, he starts getting nasty. He did this during the New Hampshire debate last week, and he’s getting worse now. Playing the race card will even further divide America. This is only the beginning – the real man and his divisive views will come out, despite his talent with emotionally manipulative “revival meeting” style speeches. People should look into his church, if they want to see an example of racial division/divisiveness. He has enrolled his entire family in this black-members-only allowed church.
Posted by: Ravenn | January 13, 2008, 8:25 pm 8:25 pm
Since 1980, it has either been a Bush or a Clinton as the vice president or president of the United States. Enough is enough. The U.S. needs a fresh face. The Bush/Clinton families have destroyed the image of the United States; Bill with Monica Lewinsky and George Bush with the Ieaq war. Hillary is a disgraced woman who refused to release her record that she claims show her experience. Shame on the Bushes and the Clintons.
Posted by: Sam Lobey | January 13, 2008, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm
I shudder to think of the prospect of of HRC becoming president. Anyone who has studied the Clintons from Arkansas to the white house should recognize that HRC is a power-hungry person with no regard for anyone or thing that does not empower her.
Posted by: Dee williams | January 13, 2008, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
I do not see race as an issue in this campaign. It’s about who will make a stronger leader. Someone who can own up to mistakes, missteps, and take responsibility. I was hoping for some of that here. What I got out of it was a full on attack on Obama, no apologies for past actions, and a bunch of defensive, “that’s not fair”, and “I’m the one who has experience”. But if I’m to base her campaign on experience then I’m to base some of it on BILL’s record. Bill was a good president, but that was the 90′s. I was reminded of a lot of blaming of others during his run as president. For someone who really wanted to believe that Hillary had something to offer me besides the same stuff, I was put in my place. I will NOT have this person as my president. If she wins the nomination I will look elsewhere (even republican—as awful as that seems). I’m leaning towards Obama or even Edwards now. This interview has turned me off to Clinton entirely. For some reason she keeps saying race and gender aren’t a factor but she keeps bringing up that “glass ceiling” line. As a woman I’m fully ready to have a woman president. Not this woman. No thank you.
Posted by: V Grendell | January 13, 2008, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm
The New Hampshire Clinton supporters are right up there with the O.J. Simpson jury. As history is written, both these groups of naive, well-meaning incompetents will be known for being distracted by the masters of deception. The Clinton bet is quite simple: once again, you can fool all people some of the time… or at least long enough to get the nomination.
Posted by: Gorgon '08 | January 13, 2008, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm
The “new” Hillary seems an awful lot like the “new Nixon” circa 1968.
Caveat emptor!
Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | January 13, 2008, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm
Those of you that are abusing Obama of playing the race card, I don’t know whether you read Obama’s response to the accusations. Clinton made the remarks and people outside Obama’s camp interpreted them in many ways, not exactly genuine ways. But how should Obama be responsible for Clinton’s remark and the way some people take them? Barack himself said that “the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicurous”. He has not made any of the comments you force into his mouth, yet you accuse him of playing the race card.
Posted by: Ronald | January 13, 2008, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
On Meet the Press today, Hillary had a chance to say the she knew Dr. King, that she was personally inspired by Dr. King’s work at that time, and that Barack is no Dr. King. She didn’t do it, and I was impressed that she didn’t.
Instead, she made her point with clarity: Speechifying inspires, but action needs to come from those in power, in support of the goals of the speechmaker. And the fact is, Barack Obama hasn’t done squat except talk. I mean, everyone likes what he says and how he says it. That makes him interesting as a candidate. But now that we know he can talk good, what is it in his personal history that qualifies him to be MY (or YOUR) preferred candidate?
Did you like JFK? War hero, accomplished Senator for 14 years, sharp as a tack, etc. Did you like Reagan? Accomplished governor, long-time conservative activist, record of accomplishment. Did you like Bill Clinton? Longest serving governor in the country, Rhodes scholar, fast on his feet…
And now, do you like Obama’s history? High school slacker and drug addict by his own admission, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, and a neighborhood leader in Chicago politics. Talks a good game. Lets make HIM the President! Great.
And then there’s Hillary. When we elected “two for the price of one,” twice, we got good honest effective government. We got 22 million new jobs, corporate profits thru the roof, all the good things got better, and all the bad things got, uh, less bad. Like crime for example.
Here’s my thing on Hillary: She votes in the Senate based on political considerations. They all do. She does things as a Senator that will help her in the public eye. And these things are not very important. She could not effect the war George Bush was going to start, PERIOD.
Folks, elections have consequences, and this country may never live down our inexcusable 50-50 attitude about this despot, this mass murderer, this psycho George W. Bush. But I trust Hillary to use her power as President for the good of all of the people. She will accomplish as much good work as she can under the circumstances of her first (or is it her third) term, and she will enforce her (our) priorities to the extent possible. And she will be handed a VERY powerful office, since the Presidency is more powerful today than it was before Bush usurped the powers granted to others.
I trust Hillary to do the right thing as President. And nothing in her past or in the present gives any evidence against that. She is the right person for this job at a very dangerous time, and that’s why, as of today, I hereby thank and dismiss both John Edwards and Barack Obama. I support Hillary Clinton for president, and so should you.
Posted by: Rick Motown | January 13, 2008, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
My main concern as a moderate liberal is that: 1) Democrats have a 2/3rds majority in congress. 2)There is a Democrat in the White House. From what I have been reading in this forum you would think these are accusations between fanatics in opposing political parties. Think of the 8 Bush years . . . Do you really want another four years of Republican rule?
Posted by: James | January 13, 2008, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
RE: Meet the Press — My sympathies for Mr. Russert. Would like to her his comments on the mess. Obviously H.C. had one motive only — used a program with a good reputation to “put down” Obama. Of course she did it with her usual “smile” but she did forget to shed a tear. She is soo much like Bush — always right regardless of anything or anyone else. I’d love to vote for a woman — not this one.
Posted by: JP | January 13, 2008, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm
We are fools no more…
George W. Bush relied on his “likeability” and ran on a platform of change and the ability to unify the country, but now we see what happened.
Barack Obama is doing the same thing.
When do we ever learn, folks?
Posted by: Otillap | January 13, 2008, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm
I watched Tim Russert interview Obama on Meet the Press, and watched him interview Hillary Clinton today.
I could see a big difference in demeanor in Mr. Russert, who spoke rather rudely toward Sen. Clinton when asking her questions, especially toward the end of the interview.
I then realized that Mr. Russert has already chosen his candidate — a candidate who voted “present” close to 130 times in the Illinois state legislature, effectively avoiding to take a stand on issues.
Should we elect a president who had sat on the fence these many times and who couldn’t take a stand on so many issues?
I admire Obama’s intellect and eloquence, but when I read about this, I shudder at the thought of us electing a president who is untested and has not shown political courage.
Posted by: Otillap | January 13, 2008, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
Two for the price of one… Now THAT is a fairy tale. First of all, Hillary has said that Bill will NOT be in cabinet meetings. Is she lying? Or are you imposing your wishes upon a candidate who has said the exact opposite?
If Bill Clinton could run for a third term, I would vote for him. Hillary – not a chance. Why? She is a rich girl from Chicago, not a poor boy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary Rodham has been riding on Bill Clinton’s accomplishments this entire election.
What has SHE done? Corporate lawyer in Arkansas… First Lady (tea with other First Ladies)… BOTCHED Health Care Initiative under Bill Clinton (her chance to “make a change”)… Senator for how many years? And she introduced which legislation that has been PASSED? (Her barometer, not mine – ask John Edwards)
From the University of Chicago (a pretty damn good school) where he is a Senior Lecturer on Law: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama
“Barack Obama received his bachelor of arts degree in political science from Columbia in 1983, and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1991. While at Harvard, he served as the president of the Harvard Law Review.”
Does that SOUND like a drop-out flunky? Give me a break. Oh – and unlike Bush Jr. and Hillary Rodham, money did NOT play a part in his getting into college.
Posted by: Vk | January 13, 2008, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
The fact that Clinton spent almost the entire hour on “Meet the Press” attacking Barack Obama, rather than talking about her campaign goals, is very telling about her desperation to be President. She is playing the gender and race card and trying to bait Obama into the latter. Clinton’s games have really shifted my opinion of her in a negative way and I’ll be voting for Obama.
Posted by: Disappointed in Clinton | January 13, 2008, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
Regarding Mr. Russert’s demeanor — have watched “Meet the Press” for years. He has frequently done very difficult interviews without revealing in any way what his personal opinions were. To me for the first time ever he appeared annoyed or frustrated. I’m sure because HC had an agenda –”dis Obama” — and consistently directed all her responses that way. He was even a gentleman and did not point that out to her. He is the best ever.
Posted by: jp | January 14, 2008, 12:44 am 12:44 am
Even in her most personal and emotional moment back in New Hampshire, Hillary still got her digs in at Obama … some are ready some are not, don’t want us to fall back … some have thought about day one some have not. Moist eyes or not, just the same old same old negative campaigning. I’m sick of it. I was (emphasis on was) a long supporter of the Clinton’s but no more. They will do anything to get Hillary (and Bill) back into power — even damage the Democratic party and in the process.
Enough. Get out of the way Hillary, the future is here and you’re not it.
Posted by: John H | January 14, 2008, 12:48 am 12:48 am
Bill was caught lying and now Hillary is lying too. Don’t forget he was disbarred for lying and he lied and lied until they caught him and then he told the truth. Many of us forgave Bill, but they’re at it again. Now if he wants to lie on hisself and say he didn’t approve the war we can live with that, but don’t lie about other candidates and destroy the party. So please let’s try to tell the truth and learn from experience, trust me the American people have.
Posted by: Dutchboy52 | January 14, 2008, 1:25 am 1:25 am
Your post: Now Obama “sends in the clowns.” At the first sign that things aren’t going as well for him as he hoped, he starts getting nasty. He did this during the New Hampshire debate last week, and he’s getting worse now. Playing the race card will even further divide America.
————————————
If people taking the time to blog are this uninformed, I imagine Hillary is all set to take the white house by winning the uneducated, “wal-mart democrats” as they’re called.
Barack never plays the race card. others are doing that, so stop blaming him.
Stop believing what Hillary is feeding you. I watched the entire NH debate, which you obviously didn’t, and Barack never attacked Hillary. She attacked him relentlessly for the first 30 minutes, and he tried to defend himself. I guess he’s not allowed to do that because she’s a fragile woman.
I wonder if she will fake tears and play the victim when our country is being attacked under her watch
I guess I shouldn’t expect so much from a country dumb enough to elect bush in ’04.
Posted by: George | January 14, 2008, 1:39 am 1:39 am
FORCES OF STATUS QUO!!! FORCES OF DARK POLITICS!!! FORCES OF LONG_STAYED WASHINGTONERS!!! FORCES NEEDED TO BE CHANGED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! THEY CAN NEVER BLOW US AGAIN> WE WILL DEFINITELY STOP THEM.
Posted by: vee | January 14, 2008, 2:03 am 2:03 am
For once, please! Watch the NH debates! Do not be fooled by the Clintons!Besides, how many members of the joint chiefs are women? ZILCH!!! Does anyone think that she can control her generals when she is supposedly “barring” Bill from all cabinet meetings?
People, either she is a woman scorned or a LIAR…..
Choose wisely……4 years can mean the difference of vulnerability or misjudgement.
Obama 08
Posted by: Seshia | January 14, 2008, 3:27 am 3:27 am
Meet the Press is a political hatchet for NBC/General Electric and Tim Russert is its “willing,” not “unwilling” servant. While the media in general, strives to distort the news according to its given agenda, Tim Russert took it to the extreme with his “interview” of Senator Clinton. One needs only to contrast the comparison between how Senator McCain, coddled and smooched, is treated with the vicious treatment afforded to Senator Clinton, in order to see, without question, the agenda(s) advanced by the media.
Posted by: mongo100 | January 14, 2008, 3:47 am 3:47 am
Both Clinton and Obama are fools
Posted by: Mike | January 14, 2008, 7:43 am 7:43 am
Seshia, as if Obama with his vast experience of the military, foreign affairs, well most anything a President needs to know! you are funny! Washington D.C. will chew Obama up and spit him out during his first 100 days. He will never be elected folks so do not waste your votes.
Posted by: Mike | January 14, 2008, 7:47 am 7:47 am
The Clintons are MASTERS in distorting all information that is not convenient to them, or all of a sudden “they don’t remember” or “they didn’t know” or “they were not told”, they have been in politics too long and power corrupts, so they should give young, honest, smart people a chance to work for America and frankly, they should retire…if the Democrats choose Clinton, McCain should become the next president!
Posted by: carmen | January 14, 2008, 11:11 am 11:11 am
I see no one has brought up the fact that Clinton supporters in Nevada are bringing up a lawsuit to prevent (and disenfranchise) voters from participating in the Nevada caucus.
For awhile, Clinton has complained that the caucuses were unfair because they excluded people who are unable to attend due to their work schedule. So, the Nevada Democratic Party decided to allow the caucuses to be held at the workplaces along the Strip. No one complained about this process until now.
After Obama won the Culinary Workers Union endorsement, Clinton’s supporters (the Teachers Union) are now filing a lawsuit to prevent the caucuses from occurring at the workplace, where many of the workers are members of the Culinary Union. I find this strategy to be very Karl Rove-esque and reminds me of what George W. Bush did with the Florida elections and the Supreme Court in 2000.
Posted by: Concerned voter | January 14, 2008, 11:42 am 11:42 am
Re: Posted by: Victor
“What has Billary really done in 35 years? Where’s a list of this? Let’s get a list of this outside the Senate where her record is well documented.”
I agree with you. In fact, I submitted that very question to msnbc for tomorrow night. I hope they ask her. I for one am sick of hearing of her experience. For someone with 35/36 years of experience, what has she produced besides SCHIP? Inquiring minds want to know, I know I do.
Re: Otillap
As far as Russerts demeanor, I would have been annoyed as well. The show is called Meet the Press w/ Tim Russert, not Hillary Clinton. She hi-jacked the show for her own benefit. I’m sure he didn’t invite her on there just to slam Obama. She was pathetic. She needs to learn some manners.
Re: Ravenn
Rav, the Clintons are the ones that first introduced the race card. They did so with the Magic Johnson endorsement. If you don’t think that was about race, then I don’t know what to tell you. You mention send in the clowns. Excuse me, but the Clintons have sent in the clowns from the very beginning. So, should Obama not defend himself? Please. It’s about time he or someone take a stand.
Re: nabin
You are correct, being able to give a good speech does not mean one should be president. However, having the same name or being the spouse of a former president doesn’t mean one should be president either!
Re John: you said it best my friend:
“The Clintons are very smart, shrewd, and they fight dirty, no-holds barred campaigns. I think Obama needs to be very cautious about how he responds, because as the old saying goes “”Never wrestle with a pig – you both get dirty and the pig likes it”. Obama should leave those two pigs in the mud and stay on the high road.”
The sad part is the Clintons will never drop these childish games, no matter what Obama does or does not do.
Posted by: Brad | January 14, 2008, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Hillary started this race thing with her MLK statement, she’s the one to blame for it. Obama never made any reference about this whole thing until mass media asked him and he still didn’t “rebuttal.” Listen to the facts before you judge and don’t go for the Clinton “Okey Doke.”
Posted by: Ms. Emerson | January 14, 2008, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Mr. Obama, where is your record of achievements? Don’t get annoyed or defensive or send your attack dogs or surrogates when someone ask about your records or scrutinize your positions. You have tricked us here in Illinois for some time and you own an explanation to the vast majority of the people in Illinois (including myself) that voted for you for the U.S Senate. You have disappointed us. Where have you been this couple of years besides running for President while we have to deal with energy issues, taxes issues and the huge massive transportation problem in Chicago?
We need Obama back in Chicago and Illinois to EARN the salary we have been paying him for doing nothing in Washington. Is time for him to work with his hands instead of using just his mouth. Why Obama don’t try to mediate in the huge transportation issue we have now and the CTA mass transportation funding bickering between his two friends the Governor of Illinois and the Major of Chicago. Isn’t Obama the one that is capable to negotiate and work for the people? Why he doesn’t do it here with the CTA funding problems we have in the city. Obama is all talk and his cult followers are desperate to buy into it.
You talk alot, you did it in Illinois; but where are your real achievements showing us all that you are the leader to be a President? You expect us to elect you to the highest office on earth just based in empty promises? Some of those are not even original ones!You gotta be kidding!
Posted by: mary_Chgo | January 14, 2008, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
Billary put that crown down! hey-hey, ho-ho dynasties have got to go…..!
Posted by: teopa` | January 14, 2008, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
Ahh…nothing like the facts!
It is a fact that after Sen. Obama spoke out against the war in 2002, he removed the speech from his Web site when he started running for the Senate. By 2004, he said there wasn’t much of a difference between him and George Bush on the war, and by 2005, 2006 and 2007, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. Voters should have complete information about the records of all the candidates.”
Posted by: gabe | January 14, 2008, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
Obama is a crook politician like many before him. He plays the race card now and try to blame on the other.
What a shame. I always voted for Dem I will vote for GOP if he get nominated
Posted by: MyLe | January 14, 2008, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
Obama is a crook politician like many before him. He plays the race card now and try to blame on the other.
What a shame. I always voted for Dem I will vote for GOP if he get nominated
Posted by: MyLe | January 14, 2008, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
Look – HRC has very high negatives, and will galvanize and unite the GOP against her. Obama will actually win over some GOP voters and grab the middle. In all the head-to-head polls OBAMA HAS THE BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING IN THE GENERAL ELECTION! Don’t be a sucker! If HRC is nominated, the White House will go to McCain!
Posted by: Daley Dunham | January 14, 2008, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
Posted by: R | Jan 13, 2008 7:59:39 PM
And you think the Repubs are just going to roll over for Hillary? Ha! Roll over and let her push
forward billions of dollars in entitlements? Please. They aren’t going to roll over for her
anymore than they would for him
Posted by: mary_Chgo | Jan 14, 2008 2:13:12 PM
Where is her record? She keeps talking about her experience and 35/36 years in office, well
what has she got to show for it besides SCHIPS which was only done recently? Get real. She has
no more of a record than he does.
For all you Hillary fans remember this: she will lose and fellow democrats will help her lose. The formula that will defeat your beloved Hillary is: fellow Dems. that don’t like her and know she will be the wrong choice, Indeps. that don’t like her sense of entitlement and Repubs. because they simply hate the entire family – and will come out in mass numbers. Four more years of a
Republican is better than 4 of Hillary. You see, not everyone is a sheep….
Posted by: Independent Voter | January 14, 2008, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
Speaking as a woman, Hillary Clinton is a disgrace to the female gender. By blaming everyone else for her own words/actions, instead of taking responsibility for them, she has proven that she is unworthy of the presidency.
I hope this division she is trying to create along racial and gender lines will bite back at her. She has certainly lost my vote.
Posted by: Clinton lost me vote | January 14, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Everybody should google Michelle Obama. Her speeches give real insight to the thinking of the Obama’s. No Caucasion could get away with her comments without being called a racist and run out of town tarred and feathered!
Posted by: Bs4shure | January 14, 2008, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
Many thanks to you — one and all. Long a Democrat and currently registered as an Independent. Rather than take the time to give a serious listen to what the candidates are offering, and probably leaning a tad toward change (real change) you have convinced me that experience is the most important. McCain is he older and more experienced candidate. Go McCain!!!!
Posted by: JC | January 15, 2008, 1:31 am 1:31 am
The truth is: both Hillary and Barak are qualified to be President, but not for the same reasons. With Barak there is hope for some degree of unity between moderate Republicans and Democrats; with Hillary it will be a continuation of partisan politics, but with the Democrats having the upper hand. America needs to pull together and be less divisive — Barak will be able to accomplish this to a greater extent than Hillary. In regards to foreign policy America’s position will be enhanced by black man and it will be much more difficult to stir Islamic radicalism against an American President named Barak Obama that against a white woman who is part of the American political mainstream establishment. Unfortunately, a woman as President will pose obstacles when dealing with certain cultures (as Rice has discovered). Also, the Clintons (who I respect) represent the narrow upper strata of privilege, while Obama is the embodiment of the American Dream (which we so sorely need at this time). Both will inspire young people, but who will inspire more of them? The presidential race should NOT be a popularity contest: WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We must elect the person who will do the most for America! It should be this simple. It’s not that Hillary is “bad” or Barak “good,” but simply that Barak as President will better serve our country, my family, and me.
Posted by: Ken Aiken | January 15, 2008, 10:55 am 10:55 am
I wish neither one of them would have run.They were the two worst candidates out of the entire Democratic field.Had enthusiasm going into ’08 elections but have lost it all.They’re the corporatists choices.Elections are a waste of time.Global capital rules the world and it’s fleeing the U.S. along with our economy.Obama,yea sure,I’m really excited.
Posted by: losingenthusiasm | February 10, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm