Obama: Hillary Will 'Say Anything and Change Nothing'

They are just saying that Bill should tone it down.

He is too angry and frustrated because Obama is trying to have it both ways.

He is the one who will "Say Anything" as he demonstrates with all his double-speak.

Clearly this is an irrefutable example:

What exactly did he mean?

The Republicans "were the party of ideas."

Why exactly did he say it?

To try to win over former Republican voters in the Nevada caucus!

Pandering for votes!

Duplicity!

And not owning up to it, or taking responsibility for it!

Yawn!!! Actually, double Yawn!!!
I have never seen a shred of evidence that Barak Obama can bring about change, and Hillary Clinton is, of course, a dyed in the wool centirst politician, so we can expect basically more of the same from her. Obama's campaign seems to be based pretty much on the fact that he can, on occasion, give a good speech (I've heard him several times and he can also be flat as a pancake). Politicians like Obama and Clinton are a dime a dozen. Ones like John Edwards don't come along very often. If you want change, he is the one to support. If you don't want change, either Obama or Clinton will do just fine.

Then what exactly did he mean when he said they "were the party of ideas"?

They didn't have more ideas!

Democrats always have lots of ideas!

I watched the taped interview Obama gave to the Reno Gazette. I would like to know how anyone could draw from it that Obama insinuated the Republicans had better ideas.

If i say that someone is wealthy, but i don't agree with how they acquired that wealth or how they spent it, is that a compliment? Absolutely not. It's a statement highlighting some strengths and suggesting weaknesses.

If he says that on average the republicans/reagan had more ideas than democrats in the past, does that mean he liked those ideas? no, it does not...it means he acknowledges they had more ideas, but the statement makes no comment on whether Obama LIKED the ideas. It's more like saying "...at least they were trying".

Even though he thought the Republicans were trying to come up with new ideas, he clearly didn't like them...since he opposed all the [republican] votes that the Clinton campaign suggested he voted for in the ad they just lanched. The Clintons associated him with voting against minimum wage increases and increasing tax cuts for Wall Street. All UNTRUE.

...then Willy has the audacity to tell CNN that Obama is trying to funnel mud through the media. what a freaking joke. Then why is it Willy that Senators and leading democrats in Massachusettes, Vermont, Illinois and South Carolina have all said that your behaviour has been inappropriate, and blame you of playing dirty politics?

The Ad about what Obama said is not lying. Obama is trying to have it both ways. His own version of lawyer double-speak. He tried to both give Republicans a compliment by saying that they were "the party of ideas" for the last "10-15 years or so."

Before that he said that their ideas had played themselves out.

He is pandering to both sides.

What disturbs me is that he is giving a false compliment to the Republicans, saying "they were the party of ideas",
when those were horrible, disatrous ideas.

And he implies that during those years, the Republican party had better ideas,
than the Democratic party and that is not true.

They might have had more streamlined ideas, but they were bad ideas.

That is not unification, that is deception and pandering.

It's manipulative politics, and it's duplicitous, and he's not owning up to it, but it's all right there, for anyone willing to hear it.

I am stunned..... the Clintons were the LAST people on earth who could resort to the lies and distortions that have been used against them by republicans for years and years. We're all exhausted defending them.... and the MOMENT they get the chance, they prove they've been exactly as the republicans claim all along.

I am incredulous to see Hillary allow Bill to go out and sling the mud for her...the manly male getting the little lady the job she wants...not at all concerned that she is not, after all, the whole woman running on her own record and merit, after all.

Finally, this nation has been injured.
We have a LOT of work to do. We need leadership that can get republicans and democrats to agree to the sacrifices necessary to get our financial house in order, get us weened from mid-east oil... we needed an Elder statesman, we need a trustworthy leader.... Bill and Hillary have forfeited both.

The way that I see how Hillary kick Obama's ***, I am sure she will make a good president.

There's another thing to be considered if you want to get a woman elected as president of the United States. If Hillary wins while standing in the shadow of her husband, letting him take all the political hits, making all the speeches on her behalf while cutting into her opponent, is this really a win for women? Do the men hide behind the skirts of their wives? If the men win, could it ever be construed that they only got it because of their wife's intervention? With so many capable women to choose from, who could step into the presidency in a minute, and do it on their OWN, why do we women stand by and let this happen? I think it's degrading...that's why I'm going for Obama....

All i know is that I’m tired of our votes not counting. I just came across “The Leagues” page on Facebook. They ask you to vote for your favorite candidate and when your done they give the current national and city results. Also they show the national top issue result. Make a difference show them that we actually care Its cool check it out people.

Obama models campaign on Reagan revolt

By: David Paul Kuhn
Jul 24, 2007 06:16 PM EST

Awash in money and publicity but behind in the polls, Barack Obama, advisers say, is planning a classic insurgent's campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton -- one that relies on a surge of momentum from early-state victories and faces a make-or-break test in the South Carolina primary.

Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.

The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won't prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership.

Obama's need to transcend conventional politics is evident by looking at the practical hurdles to his nomination. He boasts best-selling books and magazine cover spreads and -- most relevant to his 2008 ambitions -- is winning the fundraising race in both total dollars and with a record number of contributors.

But bundles of cash and good buzz have not eroded what most national polls show as a durable double-digit lead for Clinton, built largely around her nearly two-to-one advantage with Democratic women.

This has Obama relying on a carom-shot candidacy, in which, come January, he will need to exploit Clinton's weakness in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, then have nearly all the bounces go his way in other early contests if he hopes to compete credibly once the race goes national with voting in half the states on Feb. 5.

Obama strategists say for now they are not running a national campaign but are depending on what senior adviser David Axelrod calls "a sequential series" of victories.

This is why Obama is already on the air with television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and so far is out-spending Clinton in every early state.

The trend includes more than twice as much spending in Iowa ($1.6 million to Clinton's $839,000) and nearly three times as much in South Carolina ($350,000 to $120,000) in the first half of this year.

The South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is usually more than half African-American, and Obama advisers predict these voters will back one of their own to give him an essential victory a week before Super Tuesday.

History suggests the hazards of this momentum-based approach. Nearly every Democratic nominating contest for the past 40 years has featured some variation on the same script: reform candidates trying to use grass-roots energy and media momentum to beat rivals with more traditional profiles and, usually, more support from the party establishment.

Occasionally it works, as when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination on an anti-war message in 1972 or when Jimmy Carter bounced off an Iowa victory to become unstoppable in 1976.

Usually it doesn't work, as reflected in the experiences of candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley or, most recently, Howard Dean, who in 2003 was riding a wave that looked much like the one Obama is trying to surf now, before wiping out once voting actually began.

A close parallel to the strategy Obama is trying to execute (with a different conclusion) is the one that took Gary Hart to the brink of a major upset of Walter Mondale in 1984.

Hart stunned the party establishment when his future-oriented "new ideas" message led to a big victory in the New Hampshire primary. Mondale soon rallied by saying Hart's supposed new ideas reminded him of a fast-food hamburger commercial: "Where's the beef?"

Obama's hope is to answer that question most fervently by emphasizing that he opposed the war in Iraq from the outset.

Hart, who in addition to his own insurgent campaign also managed McGovern's in 1972, sees new vitality in the old strategic model, questioning Clinton as he once did Mondale.

"There still is an enormous number of people in the party who are unhappy with [Clinton] for what they perceive to be her vacillation on the war and her reluctance to confess error," he said in an interview. "People who care about these things remember when, remember how, remember who took leadership.

"She's one of the best-known women in the world," Hart added. "She's been in the White House for eight years. She's a senator from one of the largest states. And 60-plus percent of the Democratic Party wants somebody else."

Wow, it is truly amazing just how out of touch some of you people are. I'm amazed at the Hillary supporters. So lies and distortions are what we want to continue to run our country? It is that easy for you? Then you will eventually get exactly what you deserve, another president that has no respect for you and will 'say anything and change nothing'. Priceless! (I love that man!)
Please allow me to say I voted for Bill, and I have voted democrat my entire life. But what I have seen for the past couple of weeks....the lies, the blatant distortions, voter suppression (for crying out loud), just anything, no matter how dishonest, no matter how deceitful, just anything to win, has completely turned me off and away from hrc and her attack dog bill.
And for those people that are still spouting this '35 yrs of experience', please tell me what planet you are on when you can co-opt someone elses job experience as your own, just because you were married to them and skated around the inner circle. That doesn't make you qualified for squat! geeez, so many topics to cover...
C'mon ladies, swing your heads up to the light. Stop being lazy and do some research to find out the truth of what's REALLY going on. Do you honestly believe if that subtle message put out by Claire McCaskill was somehow ummm dishonest, don't you think someone else would have jumped on the bandwagon by now to call her out on it??? No, because she, just like all the others telling bill to backoff and shut up, have recognized that the clintons have CROSSED the line. That is not campaigning, that is called deceitful lying! DNC, the party of deceit and dishonesty. Oh yeah, that is a great tag to hang on the party. THINK people, THINK!!!!! My goodness, please THINK for yourselves.
If you don't like Barack Obama, that is fine, but don't jump on the wagon just for the sake of being on it, because at the rate the clintons are going, you will be on that wagon when they let the handle go while you're at the top of the hill!
Barack Obama authored two books, the first in which he describes his drug use....while he was IN HIS TEENS. My goodness, and all this ranting about him being on drugs. He was a teenager, for Christs sake!!!

And for all those folks that are saying what the clintons are doing is just politics, and oh, its just fine, go read the Audacity of Hope so you can see what Barack is REALLY talking about when it comes to politics.
As a matter of fact, Hillary had the audacity to stand on that debate stage and say 'this is not a game'! Give me a break hillary, as you and bill have turned this into the biggest, ugliest game I have ever witnessed....with all our lives at stake, how dare you!!! They should try campaigning with some honesty, just to see how that works out for them. Let hillary run on her own merit, not on bill's.

Barack Obama, please win this, and bring some honesty and integrity back to our country.

This is about WE the People, not just hillary and bill clinton!

And to answer the question, this old Democrat will vote Republican for the first time in my life, should those two win the nomination. And if the republicans win, then that is what we deserve for four more years.

Think about it, it really is OUR CALL!

and by the way...

digging up dirt on someone is a different ethical issue altogether from telling lies and distorting the truth in order to win. the former is harsh the latter is dirty.

when obama said that hillary was on the board of walmart while he was busy doing community service...that was harsh, not dirty. in response, when hillary claimed that obama represented rezko that was dirty.

and yes, it is very harsh, and probably not fair ground, to bring up bill's infidelity...however obama has never commented on that during his campaign.

to be quite honest though, i find it hard to ignore Bill's remarkable ability to lie so convincingly...even convinced his wife twice throughout their marriage that he wasnt unfaithful (Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky).
i also find it hard to ignore that hillary has been lied to and cheated on twice by him, but still seems to want to be seen as some kind of feminist or beacon of issues, like respect, particulary relevant to women.

Time and time again I see it here on this blog, the people who are being shallow and criticizing the Clintons for personal (marital) issues when Barack could be criticized for his own as well, like his drug addiction.

And you would say, well, that was in his past. Good. But you don't allow the same for the Clintons. That is a double-standard, and that is unfair.

Drug addiction is not somehow better than marital affairs, if you're going to judge people personally.

Dysfunction is dysfunction, and Barack has had plenty of it in his life too.

You have no real understanding of the depth and complexity of the issues and how this is such a critical time and we need the Clintons competence.

The Clintons brought actual real change and hope to millions in the 1990's. Our country was in one of the best positions it had ever been in.

There is so much mis-information and therefore so many ill-formed opinions. Don't just believe what you hear!

Just Obama has co-opted the words of Hope and Change, does not mean that other people don't represent them as well.

He doesn't exclusively "own" them.

The Clintons actually delivered on them.

Now that's real hope and change.

Not just words, not just rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the easy part that makes you look good.

The very fact that one of the commentors here brought up the Rezko issue shows that the Obama campaign needs to refute the lies the Clintons have been spreading. Hillary's statement about Barack representing Rezko has been proved repeatedly to be an out right lie. Yet we still have people here mentioning it.

Obama needs to somehow balance his time optimally between refuting Hillary's slander and of course addressing key national issues (which her tactic has been to try and distract him and potential voters from).

He has a really difficult task before him and it may seem as one commentor said a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation...but he can pull it off. He and his campaign staff seem to be dynamic enough

Can someone do the math on this 35 years crap that she keeps running on? Was she really working for America back then?

Scott says "If Obama's and Edwards positions were reversed,..".

Well, they can't. Edwards is a clean and honest politician. Obama is a dirty politician. For details, I refer you to Jake's other post: Rezko-a-rama.

It would seem that Obama would be danged if he do or danged if he didn't respond back to the Clinton's allegations against him. What's the problem with defending or addressing the allegations against him? If he didn't we all would say he's afraid or to weak in the way Kerry did with the swift boat issue.I personally will not vote for Hillary if she is to be the Democratic nominee! Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton? Enough is enough America!

I've decided that I won't be voting if Hillary grabs the democratic nomination. I can't stomach 4 more years of this partisan non-sense.

The clinton never-ending dysfunctional drama: nonstop controversy and misrepresentation, sexual harassment, perjury and coverup.

I am a democrat and now I understand why the Repubs hated them so. Why on earth would we ever let the clintons back into our lives???

Hills big problem is Bill. Too many interns in the White House with Bill hanging around and nothing to do.

The Repubs can't wait for the general election with Hill on top of the ballot,
presenting titlating senarios of Bill to the voting masses