RECENT POSTS
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama v Clinton/Clinton
January 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told South Carolina's The State newspaper that former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, are lying about him and his record purposefully.
“There is a concrete strategy by the Clintons,” Obama said.
Any objective review of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have been twisting comments Obama made about Ronald Reagan and the Republican party would concur.
As we've previously reviewed, Obama, asked by the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, how his being the nominee might help down-ballot candidates, such as Senators and Congressmen, get elected, said: "I think that we're shifting the political paradigm here. And if I'm the nominee, I think I can bring a lot of folks along on my coattails. You know, there's a reason why in 2006, I made the most appearances for members of Congress. I was the most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn't have any other Democrat.
"That was based on their read of the fact that, you know what, this is somebody who can reach out to independents and Republicans in a way that doesn't offend people…I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times.
"I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60's and the 70's and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.
"I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60's. I'm not as invested in them.
"And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."
You can watch the whole thing HERE.
Sen. Clinton twisted this into: "I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years."
That's not what Obama said.
And in Buffalo, N.Y., former President Bill Clinton twisted this into Obama "said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day he said, 'In the 90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans. Which it'll be costly maybe down the road for him because it's factually not accurate.”
What's factually not accurate is what President Bill Clinton said.
I know he wants his wife to beat Obama. And it seems that unleashing the Big Dog seems to be working for the Clinton campaign.
Perhaps some voters are even touched by his passion.
But let's be clear -- Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information.
There's winning ugly, and there's winning with honor.
Does it matter? Or is all fair in politics and war?
-- jpt
January 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (172)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I was a big fan of the Clintons in the 90's. Their conduct in this race has sickened me so much that I may very well not vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination.
Posted by: Enrique | Jan 23, 2008 2:39:31 PM
How about this...Who cares? Neither one of these candidates seems to know much of anything other than how to avoid answering a question by talking a lot about change. Have fun voting for who the media tells you to, I think I'll move...
Posted by: J | Jan 23, 2008 11:24:22 AM
I'm very disappointed with the Clintons and will now vote Obama. I liked Hilary but I'm getting more and more upset with the Clinton's tactics.
Posted by: Ronald | Jan 23, 2008 11:00:30 AM
Thank you for this clarification!! But where is the rest of the media who continue to report this story without pointing out how the Clintons have distorted what Obama really said and meant?
Posted by: CiCi | Jan 23, 2008 10:40:04 AM
sam madino - Vote Romney then
Interesting Obama is in the so called mud deeper then Hilary, just that for some reason the press ignores it!
Now with the press being so liberal and mark my words, when Hilary wins the nomination they will not say a peep abpout her, and then use the defense oh we went after her during the primary!
Obama is a Sharleton snake oil salesman.
Posted by: spock | Jan 23, 2008 10:12:09 AM
I love you , Bill, but please shut up.
Posted by: Kurt | Jan 23, 2008 9:49:20 AM
good article. keep em coming. beware of provocateurs stating they are for a candidate, then proceed to make statements that contradict their alleged support. the difference is palpable and odious. go Kucinich and Paul!
Posted by: Ed | Jan 23, 2008 9:44:13 AM
Thank you for this article! We've needed more truth analysis from the media for the last 8 years. This should be on the front page of the newspapers right next to the Clinton attacks!
Posted by: RobC | Jan 23, 2008 8:43:35 AM
This is what the press is supposed to do. Expose falsehood and lies wherever it comes up.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 23, 2008 7:48:06 AM
It is amazing and a bit sad to me that this article is being praised as a resurrection of competant/objective journalism in the mainstream media. I don't think Hillary is evil, but I am not particularly a Hillary supporter. I Like Obama, in fact. However, in my estimation:
(1) This article is quite biased. I don't see the Clintons' extrapolation as a huge leap - well within the bounds of normal political combat, and a valid interpretation of what Obama said. Words like "twisted" indicate the author's bias.
(2) The article doesn't present the perspective of both sides. There is _clearly_ room for comment on Obama's choice of Reagan as an example of change the country was "ready for." Corporations certainly were ready for it, and have subsequently benefited massively, while the average American did not.
(3) Not that it's required, but there wasn't a huge amount investigative journalism here. A big long Obama quote, verbatim (yes, I know that's refreshing ;-), a few short Clinton quotes and the condemnation.
To me, the big shame in all this is that while Hillary and Obama sling mud, the mainstream media is unilaterally excluding Edwards. I find him to be level-headed, concerned about the correct issues (the poor, corporatization) and, frankly, presidential.
Posted by: Paul not Ron | Jan 23, 2008 7:41:35 AM
I often vote Republican, but I have been following this election with some interest. I have to say that the truth ALWAYS matters. After all, our dollar bill still states "IN GOD WE TRUST," and we know that basic morals go without saying, or do they? One has to wonder what we are portraying to our children if a former president consistently lies. During his presidency and after.
Posted by: susan | Jan 23, 2008 7:14:59 AM
Great Post!! Keep the truth coming!!
Posted by: eking | Jan 23, 2008 6:21:48 AM
The Clinton's just can't seem to understand the principle of honesty. They both have quite the track record of misleading, covering up, and flat out lying.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 23, 2008 4:07:30 AM
I support Barack Obama because he doesn't seek to perfect the politics of Swiftboating. He seeks to end it.
As a veteran, it disgusts me that credible news organizations are not question twisted politics and the lies formulated by other campaigns about someone's character just to win an election.
One way to end this kind of politics is for the media to do their jobs and report the facts to the American people. The other and most important element is for the American people themselves to use their critical thinking when they cast their vote. If you want America to change, you must stop feeding Mr. Smear with your vote.
Posted by: F Rodgers | Jan 23, 2008 2:52:57 AM
You are all just jumping on the clinton hating bandwagon. What the clintons are saying are exagerated, but aren't the out right lies you're making them out to be. What? Obama has never exagerated something another canidate has said?
Posted by: jimmy | Jan 23, 2008 2:34:42 AM
Here you can find out everything you need to know about the candidates in 2008.
Posted by: president | Jan 23, 2008 2:15:22 AM
Thanks for writing this entry - it's great to see the "4th estate" doing their job.
Posted by: Ron | Jan 23, 2008 2:10:12 AM
The way the general public accepts these lies as fact annoys me to no end.
Posted by: yoshi | Jan 23, 2008 1:44:00 AM
Wait...no weird spin on how Obama is retaliating and initiating the "race war" conflicts? Honesty in the media?? ABC??? (gasp!)
The fact that you have a commenting system says alot about your integrity..and that you actually care about us. Thank you
I sincerely applaud your boldness when all the other stations have caved.
Posted by: POINT | Jan 23, 2008 1:34:35 AM
I'm glad they are calling out on the Clintons' lies, you can only fake your character so long, but it helps if the media notices.
Unfortunately when the Media lies and smears or hurt a candidate there is no higher power, law suits do no good because the media would not be covering their own suit if it hurts it.
They have been biased towards the best candidate this race has to offer, they try sabotaging him, and tripping him, they throw straw men at him, yet he comes out with class clean and honorable as ever before.
I'm talking about RON PAUL, who?
Posted by: C.P.B | Jan 23, 2008 1:15:36 AM
Post a comment
