Obama: Hillary Will 'Say Anything and Change Nothing'

Lets call a spade a spade. Sen. Clinton is the greatest flip flopper of all times. She makes decisions based on what the polls say and not based on her conviction to do the right thing for the American people. As an American, I'm sick and tired of negative politics. We need someone positive to get something done for everyone in America. Read the writing on the wall and step down cause we are tired of your lies and fake tears. You only love voters in states you won. Someone of us leave work, brave the harsh weather for you and all we get is your middle finger. I was in your camp from day one, but I guess it's time to do better things with my time cause America has made a choice and it ain't you.

I have read, re-read the transcripts, and heard the audio numerous times - he's just pandering and trying to play it both ways; it's very political,
and hypocritical, and he's not owning up to it.

He could have just explained it - he could have insisted on explaining it. It wouldn't have taken much time. But he delayed, and hesitated because he had to come up with some kind of "tricky" answer that he didn't have ready. So instead he came out with a much broader and even more ridiculous attack ad against Hillary. One that is even more hypocritical - more of a departure than what he says he represents.

You are very, very wrong about the Clintons.

Why do you think Bill was called "the first black president?" Because he's so racist?

African-Americans loved the Clintons because of all the Clintons did for them.

Now sadly, in this race, everything that's said is being insanely distorted.

It's really gotten to the point where Barack can say whatever critical things he wants to say about them, but they can't say anything about him, without being accused of playing the race card, and more...

It's just a complete double-standard.

You could not be more wrong in thinking that the Clintons are racist, or are trying to make this about race.

I have heard many African-American political leaders in South Carolina testify that they know the truth - that the Clintons would never, never, ever, do that - that the Clintons have worked so hard for, and been dedicated to the African-American community for more than 20 years.

But the media will hype it, because the media thrives on sensation and hype. With truth and accuracy lost - for the sake of ratings. And many uninformed people will think whateve they want to think, and project things.

It's just the difference between people who believe most anything they hear or read, and people who have a longer term, more comprehensive, accurate knowledge of the truth.

These are dangerous times for truth.

It's like a rare gem that gets trampled and buried beneath the rocks...

*Cheers*

Lauren, Why doen't you go back and read the transcript of what Obama actually said about Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party during Reagans Presidency. Hilary and Bill Clinton distorted his comments. They also interjected race into the issue, not the Obama campaign. They REALLY want to stoke the flames of racism. They want to detract from who he is and what he stands for. They know that's the way Hilary will win. Their tactics are despicable.

And I find it funny that you call my arguments juvenile, when I am actually an award winning scholar.

And I never said anyone called me racist - I only mentioned it because that's what some people have been insinuating about the Clintons if they call anything into question about Barack. And it is profoundly ridiculous because they have always been tremendous race advocates.

It just shows how much information can be twisted and warped at times like these.

It's very sad.

I lived in this country as an adult during the Clinton Administration, and it was one of the best times for the socio-economic health and prosperity and optimism in the country.

And now, thank you for attacking me personally - that shows just how strong your understanding, logic, and arguments truly are...

When you lower yourself to that level.

You just don't want to listen to substantial concerns - that you can't refute.

I have presented plenty of facts and evidence - you certainly have twisted yours and not presented more.

*Cheers*

Socio-economically and around the world, this country thrived and prospered during the Clinton Administration.

Outside of poiltics and Republican attacks, there was a great amount of real - actualized, hope, change, unity, and growth!

Sure, they made mistakes. Every Administration does. An Obama Administration would make mistakes too.
But the Clintons learned from their mistakes (unlike Bush), figured out what the necessary changes were, and made them better as soon as they could, when they were in office. By their second term they were extemely efficient and succesful, even with a difficult Congress.

Clinton had exceptionally high approval ratings as President overall!

That is partly why he has been upset. He worked so incredibly, incredibly hard, and truly accomplished so much for the good and success of this country.

And now it's all being dismissed as "part of the problem" by Barack, when it wasn't/isn't part of the problem, at all.

The real problem has been the Republican "ideas of the last 10-15 years or so." And the Republican attack machine which brought us all the partisanship, division in the country, Iraq, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the bad economy. That is what is broken in Washington.

Not the Clintons, but the Republican "ideas of the last 10-15 years or so!"

It's all just so backwards! And wrong!

He blames the Clintons, and not the Republicans when it's the other way around. All so he can look like a unifer?

Is he unifying very well with the Clintons? He's been blaming them from the beginning, when it's not true.

It just couldn't be more wrong.

"...I lived through it all" LOL-- as if bill clinton's administration were some ancient bygone era. Your arguments throughout this debate have been juvenile in logic, and unsubstantiated by a lack of cited evidence.

also, way to call/bring attention to your ethnicity. no one here has expressed any interest to know your background and whether you're racist or not. as if somehow sharing the comment "...now if people are going to call me racist..." is strengthening your argument. looking through the posts i don't see anywhere that anyone has suggested "race" was a motive behind your juvenile arguments.

enough said though. i certainly realize the futility of discussing an issue with someone who doesn't exercise a capacity to make substantive claims...and so i will not be rebutting another one of your posts.

cheers!

Intially I respected him.

But because of his great and unadmitted hypocrisy (because he has been attacking the Clintons since the beginning of his campaign, saying that they are part of what's broken in Washington, when Bill's administration was one of the most competent, effective for both hope and change, and accomplished we've ever had. I lived through it all. )

And the divisiveness of the country has been caused by the Republican attack machine against liberals and against the Clintons because they were the Democrats in power.

But until Obama becomes more honest himself, until he proves that he truly can deliver more than all his glorious speeches, I have lost virtually all my respect for him.

Sad, but very, very true.

And now if people are going to call me racist (like they're calling the Clintons) due to the fact that I have a lot of serious concerns about him, and his true competency to run our country at this time - you should've heard what I think, and thought from the beginning - about Bush.

If there's anything we should have learned these last disatrous 7 years, it's that freshness, rheotoric, and likeability are not at all as important as experience and competency.

And all in all you're free to conveniently twist and manipulate things around in his favor, blame Hillary, and have him take no responsibility.

But has been being quite the hypocrite.

What happened at that particular point in the SC debate:

Hillary said that he [Obama] is the one who claimed he likes policies of the republicans.

Obama responded that he did not say he liked Reagan's policies.

Then Hillary raised her voice to cut off any further elaboration.

Now, why on earth would he continue to use precious public time to try and convince people who vote strictly among partisan lines not to punish him for mentioning some appicable strength in an opposition?

Furthermore, he's aired advertisements to counteract those same claims that Hillary and her supporters have made in regard to his Reagan comment....Hillary then pulled her ad, at which point the Obama campaign also pulled their ad (since there was no further need to explain or defend himself along those lines).

And let's not forget if you listen to the Obama interview he stresses "were" when he states that the republicans WERE the party of ideas...that Reagan had the ability to centralise people around a common issue.

All in all, you're free, as Hillary has also done, to feel/portray that Obama meant something that he absolutely did not say.

I have listened - numerous times, and that was not what he was trying to explain.

Plus he's had plenty of time and chances to explain it since, and he hasn't.

If you listened to the SC democratic debate, he did explain himself-- but incidentally was cut short by Hillary who spoke over his voice as he tried to elaborate.

My question to you is this:

What did he mean when he said the Republican party was "were the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so"?

Regardless of how false he is being and much he truly likes their ideas, it is misleading and deceptive, and gives their ideas credit that the ideas don't deserve at all.

He puts those same ideas down all the time. It's double-talk. It's exactly the kind of politics he says he's against.

Would you ever in a million years say that the Republican party were "the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so?"

It's duplicitous, and it's pandering, and he hasn't explained it or taken responsibility for it.

And that is wrong.

It's "changing positions." It's very hypocritical.

He would criticize Hillary for it, if she said something like that, he would say you can't trust her, and that is an unfair double-standard.

Look up the "Trinity United Church of Christ" website. Scary! I,m not sure how that will play a part in the White House. Any thoughts?

I support Edwards but I must say that phrase by Obama was taken totally out of context. Anyone with a minimum of objectivity and who takes the time to watch the whole video interview and not just that little 71 seconds quote, can see Obama doesn't say he likes the ideas of Republicans. This attack by the Clintons is ridiculous and not very flattering for them.

Here's just a little more of the New York Times Editorial Board's endorsement:

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of Americaâ's voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won't be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

*Cheers*

Dear Shane,

If you were paying attention:
I did answer your question about knowing she was born into a Republican family, and worked for Goldwater at one point. She has been a Democrat most of her life, by her own choice. But she is a good centrist, because she understands both sides. Her story is also a well-rounded American one.

I have been pointing out some of Obama's inconsistencies, twisting of the truth, lack of taking responsiblity, and hypocrisy, and you just don't want to see it.

What do you think he meant when he said that he the Republican party was the "party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so".

And why won't he explain it or take responsibiity for it?

He tried to point out Hillary's inconsistencies often misunderstanding them, but at least she tried to explains them, she has every right to point out his.

And he should explain them.

Instead he tries to blame her, so he is the one "Saying Anything" to win, and being evasive, and hypocritical.

My arguments are not at all dumb - it may just be that you are unwilling to try to understand them.

Obama has no chance of winning against McCain. The majority will not vote for someone who has no real experience governing, at such a critical time for our country. What he says is nice, and people like it - but what counts to people in the end - is real proven experience.

The New York Times Editorial Board is
strongly endorsing Hillary for the Presidency, but they say some good things about Obama too:

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

And there's more, but I probably shouldn't post it all here...

*Cheers*

Heartlander, maybe you haven't seen a shread of the change that Obama can bring about because you don't do your research on the candidates.

Obama was an illinois senator from 1997 - 2004 and a US Senator since that.

During his political career in illinois he has worked to improve living conditions of socio-economically depressed residents,getting the state to pay attention to the fact that these residents were living in conditions hazardous to their health and change that. He got residents, who didn't know how to improve their situation, to organize, rally around the cause and bring about change. He personally went and meant with these people to pull them out and fight for their own cause.

He also worked to improve the school system in poor neighbourhoods.

In addition to this, during his time as a senator, he has voted to increase minimum wage, has voted to increase tax cuts on the middle class and decrease tax cuts for Wall Street.

He has had a record of being a consciencious non-partisan member of congress by not simply voting to oppose issues that republicans have voted for, but by refusing to vote unless the alternative was something he believed in (hence his 'present' votes).

Let's also remember he voted against the war in Iraq before it started unlike many people who were voting for it. Once the troops were in Iraq and were stuck in a dire situation with waining supplies and a president that had no intentions of pulling them out he voted to support the troops financially.

He's obviously not afraid to put his ego aside and to go for what he believes is right, even in the midst of pressure from some of his peers.

Lauren, do you realise how dumb your arguments are ? Are you even old enough to vote ? If you a little tuch in the head i am sorry but otherwise your really just a lair ! Do some research or something ?

A vote for Clinton is a vote for a republican victory!!

Like i wrote earlier

Lauren, would be nice if you could give some examples of what he has lied about ?

Or name some things from the past he hasnt owned up to ?

You didnt answer my question reagarding if you new she was a republcain and that she worked for and support Goldwater ?
Because i am interested.

Let me make that more clear:

Obama is the one demonstrating his double-speaking lawyer abilities, and how he will "Say Anything" to win, and then later not take responsiblity for, or explain what he said, and why he said it.

He is demonstrating that he is being very seriously hypocritical and duplicitous.