Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama Hammers McCain on Lobbyists; McCain Fires Back on Ayers
- Obama's Big Cross Kentucky Flier
- Good Morning, 'Sweeties'
- The McCain Lobby Dance
- Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?
- McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas
- Stories From the Near Future
- Welcome to the Show
- Women Threaten Obama Boycott
- Tale (of) the Pin on the Donkey
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« NAFTA Confusion | Main | A Good [Expletive] Story »
Clinton Camp Compares Obama to Ken Starr
March 06, 2008 11:00 AM
On Sen. Barack Obama's new pledge to run a more aggressive campaign against Sen. Hillary Clinton -- asking what her national security credentials are, pushing her to release her tax returns -- Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson just said on a conference call with reporters: "I for one do not find that imitating Ken Starr is a way to win a Democratic primary election for president."
- jpt
UPDATE: I asked both campaigns for comment on Wolfson's remarks.
Wolfson said that by making attacks on Sen. Clinton's openness (or lack thereof), her failure to release her tax returns even after loaning her campaign $5 million, and Whitewater, the Obama campaign is employing Ken Starr-like tactics
The Clinton campaign's evidence includes:
1) An Obama campaign memo which noted that when the Clintons in the past didn't release tax returns, there was interesting material in the unreleased returns, per the Wall Street Journal editorial: "During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit."
2) The same Obama memo pointing out that "here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:
"Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
"Amount of income for spouses by source
"Amount of stock gains and losses
"Gross income for the couple
"Amount earned from stock dividends
"Amount of household employment taxes paid
"Personal exemptions taken
"Charitable contributions made."
3) Obama senior campaign strategist David Axelrod, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos last Sunday, saying, "with all due respect, I would think that the Clinton campaign would be the last person to be wanting to characterize any real estate transaction as unusual," an oblique reference to Whitewater.
4) Axelrod pointing out that the Clintons have not released many materials from the Clinton library, as quoted in Time.
The Obama campaign, noting that Obama has released his tax returns, responded to the Clinton charge, spox Bill Burton saying, “It is absurd that after weeks of badgering the media to ‘vet’ Senator Obama, the Clinton campaign believes that they should be held to an entirely different standard. We don’t believe that expecting candidates for the presidency to disclose their tax returns somehow constitutes Ken Starr-tactics, but the kind of transparency and accountability that Americans are looking for and that’s been missing in Washington for far too long. And if Senator Clinton doesn’t think that the Republicans will ask these very same questions, then she’s not as ready to go toe-to-toe with John McCain as she claims."
Why the Clinton campaign would want to engage in this fight is a question -- Sen. Clinton and her allies have not disclosed a lot of information, that's just a fact.
A bigger question may be why Camp Clinton would want to invoke Ken Starr, conjuring forth memories of grand jury testimony and images of certain presidential mistresses. Will voters really think of Obama as part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? I'm not a well-paid political consultant, maybe there's an upside to this that I'm not immediately grasping.
March 6, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (483)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/26846260
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Camp Compares Obama to Ken Starr:
Mr. Obama is definitely lot more shrewd and smart than i had ever imagined. We the common citizens really need to be cautious more so now as he has this amazing capability to hypnotise us for his own ambitions and pride!!
I wish he had little bit of innocence and his heart would have been for all the americans(white or black or brown or yellow), but unfortunately as much as he tries he does have a deep hidden anger against the "typical white americans", and that is scary. If he'd have been one running for senate or congress than i'd have been ok, but he is running for PRESIDENT, for God's sake!! His anger which i'm sure he discusses in private with his own wife sometimes unwillingly comes out through his wife's mouth, when she unwittingly said that she was proud of this country for the first time after realising the wins and support during last super-tuesday. If she didn't mean the way the regular American perceived it, tha why doesn't she say it again??
Politics, and Obama says he is not playing it. What a hipocrisy, and how long should we keep getting fooled? We got fooled 8yrs and even 4yrs back by the same kind of hypocrisy, and we good-hearted people keep repeating ur mistakes time and again!
Posted by: jamel | Mar 23, 2008 3:23:01 AM
Obama said that his pastor was never his political advisor… and he is correct…. but, he was his religious advisor… and personally I think that is much much worse… it is a lot easier to go against something that a political advisor says rather than a religious advisor… and it is a lot easier to not listen to a political advisor rather than a religious one.
Posted by: greg | Mar 23, 2008 3:19:08 AM
Look like Another Tony Rezko story
First $160,000 then 250,000 that is close to $300,000 less than house value
Obama we watching every thing
you are under our Microscope
Posted by: patterson | Mar 23, 2008 3:15:31 AM
I just figured it out!
Obama has ALREADY ADMITTED being "SHOOK UP" by the Pastor incident. Hmmmmm. If his nerves are THAT FRAGILE, THAT SHAKY…
what would he do if there was another 9/11? Huh?
Or if that RED PHONE rang at 3AM.
All we need is for him to come UNGLUED - his mind to fog up under pressure, and sending him over the edge.
That's the MESSAGE I got!
Posted by: kerry | Mar 23, 2008 3:12:32 AM
People open your eyes Obama is not what he has been claiming to be. Stop being so idealistic for a moment, just a moment and take a good look.
He is more business than usual than anyone else simply because he claims not to be.
And, while Hillary is a Clinton and the Clintons are the Clintons, we know what the results can be. And, don't be silly any trips made abroad by the Clintons, McCain and Obama since they have been public official have been through diplomatic channels.
This would have a lot more validity if Obama would not have ties to the CEO of the company that has been doing the snooping.
I am so sick of Obama's whining I can't take another four years of this. even Bush is willing to take on more responsibilty than Obama.
Or maybe he just has no judgement.. But he did get it right on the war although we really don't know since he did not vote on it.
Posted by: kerry | Mar 23, 2008 3:10:13 AM
Equal Opportunity schedules seem to be the only cure for determining if either Obama or Hillary are qualified. Or, better yet, why not videos?
Unless, people think Commander in Chief material runs in the blood.
Posted by: Pat | Mar 19, 2008 4:39:04 PM
I believe it's time the DNC take's note of Clinton's statements and question her allegiance to the Democratic party. Stating that only herself and John McCain are qualified to be commander and chief leads me to believe she wouldn't support Barack if he were to win the nomination. Would she support McCain instead? Someone needs to ask her this question. Also her recent statements insisting the MI. and FL. contests remain as is, and be accepted , and if the DNC reversed their own rules to proceed with another primary or caucus, her statement that she "would not accept the results", indicates only one thing to me. Hillary is out for one thing and one thing only. To win at all cost, no matter what the fallout would be. This stance and dictatorial attitude to the DNC, is extremely damaging to the Democratic party and playing right into the hands of the Republicans. I also question her wisdom in stating McCain is ready to be CIC when he was the one that was instrumental in the delivery of a large part of our national defense capability into the hands of the French government, and the loss of over 9,000 American jobs. McCain was instrumental in the demise of the Boeing contract to renew our KC135 air re-fueling fleet, and the eventual award to the French consortium Airbus. Do you think it's a good idea to have a foreign government having such a control over such a large part of our national defense?
Posted by: GC | Mar 9, 2008 10:23:53 AM
Does the word 'integrity' have any meaning anymore?
Posted by: tom | Mar 9, 2008 9:40:56 AM
Attention Delegates/Super Delegates; Hillary made her mistake by Praising John McCain on National T.V. To back Hillary now will show, you to are not True Democrats
Posted by: Demo Rules | Mar 9, 2008 7:44:27 AM
To read Obama supporter's remarks, one would think that the whole US population was against the war in Iraq. When I stood week after week getting pelted by cans from passers-by as I protested before this war started, where were those Obama supporters and anti-war people?? As firemen spat at us, and fundamentalists railed against us, and soldiers and their families flipped us off, where were all of you?? EVERYONE was for this war. The few of us who actually protested it, were mocked and decried as terrorists. All I can say is "WHERE WERE YOU???"
Posted by: sl | Mar 8, 2008 1:32:56 AM
Hilary obviously has something to hide, that is why they can't seem to release those records...but, they still expect us to vote for her....
Such Arrogance...
She said she was the INEVITABLE NOMINEE...
Such Arrogance...
She has soooo much experience, but no one can say specifically what foreign policy experience she has....
Such Arrogance......
Even though Obama has the lead in delegates and she has no chance of winning the democratic nominee unless she breaks the rules, or override the will of the people, she's saying there maybe a Clinton/Obama ticket....(shouldn't it be a Obama/[whomever he chooses] ticket?
Such arrogance....
Posted by: e.a. | Mar 7, 2008 9:57:29 PM
Omama all the word. The true American has spoken. Release those tax papers Hillary
Posted by: martha myers | Mar 7, 2008 9:55:47 PM
hilary's husband was once the ptreident doesnt make her a better candidate to obama ,if america can be truthful and patriotic they will vote for obama this time cause he has the ability to represent Americans be wise in ur choice,,,and hey hillary go and seat down is not a family business,,,,,xoxoxoxo
Posted by: kingsley | Mar 7, 2008 9:27:49 PM
Clinton uses her Civil Rights experience as a focal point duing her campaigns. I admire that, however, who would be more qualified on that level than one who had lived the discrimination and earned their way to the top. Besides, Obama obviously has the interpersonal skills to present common sense arguments that get the RIGHT things done.
Posted by: JD | Mar 7, 2008 7:45:36 PM
I am sorry folks Hilary's actions remind me of Eddie Armean. Lets be for real her actions are far more than the acts of a monster.....
Posted by: Henry | Mar 7, 2008 7:38:19 PM
Lets get back to the real issue at hand. If Mrs.Clinton release her tax statement will it solve the war in Irag, will it help with the health care for the American people.I doubt it and does it matter to the person who is looking for a job.
Once again the answer is no...
Posted by: Laurence | Mar 7, 2008 4:46:27 PM
I thought Hillary was the GOP Nominee ? Hmmm ....my bad ....NOT !
It wont matter, what she will release will be doctored by an accountant - then if she through some miracle were to be the nominee would be going through Scandal Hell as the REAL Kitchen sink would over flow to her . Live and learn people , live and learn.
Posted by: SoFlIndie | Mar 7, 2008 3:43:33 PM
Obama Supporters --- If you are going to post anything on these boards. Make it one thing and one thing only until it happens......................................... >>> Release your records Hillary. What are you hiding? <<<
Posted by: rocko273 | Mar 7, 2008 2:27:17 PM
This is not the time to take a chance, to roll the dice. Obama has proven that he can make important changes within our government. He passed the Lugar-Obama bill that works toward nuclear and conventional weapons disarmament. He pased the Coburn-Obama bill to give us federal spending transparency, for the first time ever. In both the Illinois and US Senate, he passed government ethics legislation called the Golden Standard. In Illinois, he created a working, affordable health care plan in Illinois, that covers 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults, where all kids qualify for $40 per child.
Some of these programs were tough to pass, he worked hard with Republicans and others. These programs show that he can pass great legislation, even with Republicans in office.
For more, go to:
http://obamarecord.blogspot.com
Posted by: Kiku | Mar 7, 2008 2:22:21 PM
Hillary cosponsored Obama's government transparency act, so she is supports the idea of transparency.
The White House papers will tell us what kind of experience Hillary really had.
Bill's list of foundation donor will tell a bit about how he uses his influence. We already know that he profited with $51 million dollars for propping up the Kazakhstan president, against US foreign policy, and was pledged another $100 million more.
Their income tax is the same thing.
We should not be electing people blindly. We've already seen how secrecy plays itself out with Bush. It's time that we demand more.
Posted by: KarenZZ | Mar 7, 2008 2:07:30 PM
I am not here to talk ill about either of them. They are both great candidates. I feel as our country does need a change. We are taking a giant step toward depression and we need to have a leader seasoned in being able to handle this situation. I think back to the White House when Eleanor Roosevelt had to take over for her husband due to his illness. She showed America that she could handle the job even though she is not given credit. Do people really know that Hillary fought her way to the top? Do we really know that as Obama is saying what he would have done, she has done it. I do not want to hear from him about what he would have done if given the chance to vote against the war in Iraq. At that time, we all know America was out for blood and anyone who stood against punishing others, were Unpatriotic. You might as well say we spoke out against the war, we were committing treason. There was no choice but to vote for the war.
SNL did a great job of showing how the debates were going. It was a double standard for her being a woman. As she speaks good about Obama, she is called soft. As she goes round for round with him, she is dirty. As Obama speaks good words about her, he is seen as a great man. Sounds like a double standard to me....
I am female and I am also African American. I am going against many of people in my community but I stand for what is right and truth.
We are not in a time where we can take a big risk on someone who has barely spent one term in the US Senate. We have no time to take chances on someone who is ill-advised by his dealings. He said earlier in the campaign that he wanted to Attack Afghanistan. The media let that roll right over Americans. They faded it out because they were weak for him. I remember though. Words you cannot take back. Once you have said them, you really cannot retract them. Obama is like a record. If you play it normal the music sounds so sweet but if you play it backwards, you realize that the sweet music you once heard is really filled with screeching noises...
Posted by: Dakota | Mar 7, 2008 1:57:58 PM
These questions are very important. Given the questionable activities that we have seen coming from the couple, it's very important for the Democratic Party to explore these issues, the Republicans certainly will.
We can't afford to look at the world through Hillary colored glasses.
Posted by: KarenZZ | Mar 7, 2008 1:55:07 PM
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) needs to step in against the Clintons lies, misrepresentions, and character assassinations. Obama thus far has taken the high road. I for one would have brought to the forefront what Bill did while in the White House and the lack of experience of Hilary. Hilary went into politics after leaving the White House and is only in her second term in the Senate. The tactics of the Clintons demonstrate they are business as usual and not the change candidate. People you neet to wake up....
Florida and Michigan was agreed upon by all involved before the election process started, now because it will help the Clintons they are trying everything in their power to over turn rules the were agreed upon. Again do these acts demonstrate Presidential ability. If wew are true to ouselves and have been paying attention since day one, there is only one candidate with the skills to lead and unite our Country. Some of us are just as pathedic as the Clintons.
Posted by: Henry | Mar 7, 2008 1:52:42 PM
The underhandedness of Obama's side is to prevent Hillary from getting her winning votes in FL & MI. Who subscribes to dirty politics? Obama. When Obama had more popular votes and losing in delegates he was proclaiming the fair way was to have superdelegates align with their states popular vote choice. Now that he has more delegates and has lost more states in popular votes he is proclaiming the fair determining factor is the number of delegates a candidate has. He is such a flip flopper, double talking, and intelligence insulting person. I know he cannot remember things, but he should realize the public has a better memory than his.
Posted by: this election counts | Mar 7, 2008 12:53:48 PM
One would have to see exampes of her 35 years of experience. She opened the door to that by bringing up the issue.
One would have to be very concerned that the unelected spouse of a US President is making foreign policy decision and also national security decisions. (remember that approx. the last 2 years of the Clinton administration, Al Queda was able to plan 911).
So one would assume that Bill Clinton would also be taking care of foreign policy and nat'l security if his wife were elected?
Very disturbing.
Posted by: William | Mar 7, 2008 12:20:51 PM
Obama is calm and levelheaded even when down in the polls. Hilary losses her voice, breaks down under pressure, and just like Hugo Chavez, becomes brash and undiplomatic at the slightest provocation. “…shame on you Obama, shame on you…” Can a Commander-in-Chief with such a disposition handle foreign policy crisis? A ticket with Obama and Hilary would therefore be ill considered. (Lillian Oyama – Nigeria)
Posted by: Lillian Oyama | Mar 7, 2008 12:10:19 PM
While Obama works to mobilize Americans collectively to bring about real change in America, Hilary professes to be the only experienced American to handle a crisis. A ticket with these two irreconcilable ideologies will definitely be futile. (Odey Oyama – Nigeria)
Posted by: Odey Oyama | Mar 7, 2008 12:05:21 PM
"with all due respect,..."
I think the Obama campaign and Obama need to stop saying this kind of crap -- 'with all due respect'. Clinton never prefaces her sentences with anything like this before saying something about Obama. They need to stop showering her with praise before they go into an attack on her. Obama also needs to stop answering questions about 'why he lost'. They need to act like a lost never existed and just rocket forward, just like Clinton does. To look at her to hear her, you would never have thought she lost those contests that Obama won. They need to respond rapidly to the Ken Starr comment and any other comment. I think Obama needs to say so what about Ken Starr comment, that won't stop him from exposing her, and to let them know they can call him whatever they want he will still stay on message and still expose her to the American people just like she exposes him. Are they afraid of her? They shouldn't have had their aide apologize for calling Clinton a monster either because they never apologize to Obama for calling him anything and everything. Also I've been following this election cycle very closely and for the life of me I still don't know what Senator Clinton's 35 years experience amounts to, also don't know what her foreign policy experience amounts to. I do know that her 'foreign policy' experience must be awfully screwed up since it lead her to not read intelligence reports and it lead her to voting for Iraq and voting for Iran attack. So for all those who want her to answer that phone at 3a.m. you need as much mental help if not more than she does.
Posted by: RuthieM | Mar 7, 2008 11:54:13 AM
I think that obamas the next president because at least he can trust his family members and doesnt take cheapshots or make stupid remarks. especialy when clinton's oppnent obama has a better chance of winning the campain.
p.s. GO OBAMA, ALL THE WAY
Posted by: stud_2 | Mar 7, 2008 11:42:58 AM
The Ecomony BOOMED in thwe 90's because of High Tech NOT the Clintons!
Posted by: sue | Mar 7, 2008 10:51:55 AM
GC....maybe you are right about image....If I was on Obama's team I would formulate adds highlighting Hillary's experience....start with bright sunny day of Bill's promise of a 2:1 presidency in 1992....show clouds starting to form by mentioning some of the scandals at the beginning of Clinton's presidency, show the wind kicking up with the Ken Starr investigation...the show the hurricane hit with the Clinton impeachment procedings....Unfair to link to Hillary to Bill's troubles? Well she is touting those years as experience. She is part of all good and bad during those years.
Posted by: John | Mar 7, 2008 10:44:20 AM
Either of these two would place your healthcare dependency into the hands of the same government that botched the Katrina response in New Orleans. Gee, what result would you expect? Then again, the Dem buzzword seems to be "dependency", breeding voters through entitlements.
Posted by: We the Sheeple | Mar 7, 2008 10:33:45 AM
Someone said that Hillary has a plan and Obama doesn't. But what good is a plan if she cannot get the country to support it? She had a plan in 1994 for Healthcare. How'd that go? A leader must motivate people to follow his/her lead. Hillary does not motivate anyone other than her core constituancy.
Posted by: John | Mar 7, 2008 10:32:19 AM
Is it really about winning at all costs. Invading IRAQ because we want to win. Where did truth, justice and understanding go. Sorry I don't want a president that will do anything to win. I want a president that will do what's right. Listen to others thoughts even if they are different. I don't want someone that will push the button at 3AM becuase she knows that she is right, with out being open that she may be wrong.
Posted by: DD | Mar 7, 2008 9:52:01 AM
Hillary Cover up. It turns out that it was Clinton's campaign that was reassuring the Canadians about NAFTA. She failed to mention that prior to Ohio's vote. Hmmm. If the people of Ohio knew it was her, I think that would have voted differently. So... let's redo the voting in Ohio as long as we are redoing Florida and Michigan.
Posted by: spoon2456 | Mar 7, 2008 9:32:15 AM
why in the world would anyone want a politician that has been in washington, or any other government capacity, for more that 20 yrs????? it be like electing strom thurman to the presidency and expecting a radically different game plan.....
Posted by: ray | Mar 7, 2008 9:17:15 AM
Isn't the Clinton camp mentioning Ken Starr like Rush Limbaugh telling a joke about mixing Oxicontin and Viagra?
Starr was associated with the lowest point of the Clinton administration and ensures that Bill's name will forever be the byline for a joke about a humidor. What idiocy... mentioning Starr's name!
Posted by: smartprimate | Mar 7, 2008 9:12:51 AM
The whole thing of the Bush-Clinton deal has been like a small family in which the kids are having incest and running the country together with big corporations. And then their kids are going to have incest again and run the country again and again and again...
By the way, Rush Limbaugh has been urging people to vote for Clinton. That tells you people what you should do.
Posted by: Louise | Mar 7, 2008 8:59:37 AM
We've had 7+ years of fearmongering, lying, and cover-ups. These do not reflect what America wants and it's reflceting in Georgie-Porgie's approval ratings. So when Pespi says, "Hilliary will do any thing to win, well that is what...winning is about, this is for the leader of our nation,and we need a leader that is willing to fight" I and America disagree with you that the ends justify the means. And if you are interested in getting your NAFTA information from some unnamed person in a right-wing Canadian administration, then I've got another source for you. There is this guys named Rush Limbaugh...
Posted by: TSnow27604 | Mar 7, 2008 8:56:21 AM
Ken Starr? Then it's as if Karl Rove is running the Clinton campaign. America will not elect a Clinton to the White House. Republicans have been/still are salivating at the idea of having so much fodder for a run against Senator Clinton. And she is stooping to any level to win the Democratic race. First there was South Carolina where she sent out her husband to dismiss Senator Obama as, among other things, another Jesse Jackson. She lied, misquoted, misrepresented his interview about Ronald Reagan and Republicans, then she tries this red phone ad!? Someone please tell me just one, single, solitary crisis to which she has led a response. (Queue the chirping crickets.) Sitting in a committee meeting with a group of peers days or weeks after the fact does not come close to qualifying as being able to have the judgement needed. Give me a break. I live in NC and I not only look forward to voting for Barack Obama, I look forward to volunteering as well.
Posted by: TSnow27604 | Mar 7, 2008 8:25:42 AM
looking at this campaign and the way that HRC has campaigned makes me question her ability to accomplish anything in foreign policy. She has gone to great lengths to create chaos within her party. I am afraid of what she will do in the realm of international negotiations.
Sometimes being smart is great. Sometimes being too smart is dangerous.
Obama has to show that he has some fight in him to impress me. HRC has shown me that she will be a terrible, terrible leader. To polarizing. If she wins the nomination, I will leave the party.
Posted by: Brian | Mar 7, 2008 8:12:59 AM
Hillary will not beat McCain, unless Obama is willing to run together.
I have read so many folks said if Hillary loses the nomination, they are going to vote for McCain or stay at home.
Watch out, with McCain in the office, more and longer wars are coming. Our country is going to sink much much deeper with McCain in the office. The Neo-Republicans are whole bunch of greedy people and opportunists, who want to squeeze every single drop of blood from us. America is going to doomed under another Neo-Republican's administration.
Voting for Hillary now is same as voting for McCain later, that's what the heartless and shameless Republicans did in Texas and Ohio.
Posted by: Louise | Mar 7, 2008 7:49:45 AM
Alice,
Yes, you were there when Clinton bombarded Yougoslavia just to avoid impeachment. The Clinton will do anything when it comes to keeping the presidency...
Economy was booming? Right... But did they have to inherit a "9/11"? Matter of fact, isn't it the irresponsible diplomacy of the Clinton that created the path for 9/11?
The Clinton just won't engage in any world peace effort. Look at what happen in Rwanda where 800,000 innocents died from one of the most cruel genocide of the last century. Clinton did Nothing cause he probably was busy getting a bl*w job done by one of the staffers. Oh! I forgot, he did try to remove his american citizens.
I guess, we should leave those alone cause they are all old news and sound so like Ken Starr...
Posted by: TheOne | Mar 7, 2008 7:32:15 AM
Expect more fall out in the Obama campaign today. His national security adviser said Obama is not qualified to answer the phone at 3:00 a.m. and then said that Clinton is a "monster". I guess she will be going away like Caroline, Maria and Oprah. Where does Obama hide all these clowns?
Posted by: jim | Mar 7, 2008 7:30:10 AM
You were there when Clinton bombarded Yougoslavia just to avoid impeachment. The Clinton will do anything when it comes to keeping the presidency...
Economy was booming? Right... But did he have to inherit a "9/11"? Matter of fact isn't the irresponsible diplomacy of the Clinton that created the path for 9/11?
The Clinton just won't engage in any world peace effort. Look to what happen in Rwanda, 800,000 innocents died. Clinton did Nothing cause he probably was busy get a bl*w job by one of the staffers.
I guess, we should leave those alone cause they are all old news and sound so like Ken Starr...
Posted by: TheOne | Mar 7, 2008 7:22:03 AM
How about running the story that it was Hillary's campaig that made the call to the canadians about NAFTA. This was ungodly and this cost him 3 states, may God have mercy on their souls.
Posted by: oquail | Mar 7, 2008 7:09:18 AM
Ask anyone around how the country was booming economically and how up beat the country was when President Clinton was in office.
The old timers know the truth and would never vote for anyone but for Hillary. Our country had NO debt and the world was at peace.
It was so much fun having them in office.
I remember...I was there.
Posted by: Alice Rea | Mar 7, 2008 6:59:34 AM
Americans Wake UP!
Obama is not qualified to run our country.
Hillary IS qualified to run our country.
For those that would like Universal Health Care...Vote Hillary
For those that want to see a complete change in the White House for the better...Vote Hillary
For those that want someone with no experience handling their bills vote Obama.
For those that don't care if they are one of the 15million that don't have health care, vote Obama.
Posted by: Alice Rea | Mar 7, 2008 6:56:22 AM
If the media had exposed Obama's Rezko affair during the early part of the primary, there might not be any Obamamania because right now those who voted for Obama are wishing they could have a redo of the voting so they can change their vote and could have voted Hillary. This is the fault of the media who treated Obama with kid gloves. Just three days of showing Obama hugging Rezko in jovial mood, the Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio voters were intelligent enough to discern who is the real Obama. Super delegates will have to decide with good judgment who is the best choice between Obama and Hillary. No amount of numbers will determine who should be the rightful nominee. Obama is not strong enough to lead this nation, his past life or maybe present life now is full of secrets. A trasparent personality makes him trustworthy but he decided to cover up and tell lies instead. During the debate with Hillary he said that "I only have 5 minutes of realtionship with Rezko but it turn out he disclosed( in 2007) that they have a house hunting in 2007 and then in the trial of Rezko,the lawyer of Rezko presented an evidence that Obama and Rezko are having a relationship that is more than acquintance. Obama should set this clear to regain his credibility among super delegates who will decide on his fate. His big corporate financial supporters like Execon will have to exert effort and influence in convincing the super delegates because their money and efforts in his campaign will just go down the drain. The best policy is HONESTY AND SELF RESPECT
Posted by: ds | Mar 7, 2008 5:15:59 AM
I am so happy to hear that a lot of my friends who were so enamored with Obama last month has finally gotten that buyer's remorse. They now think that his novelty wore off quickly and that he sounds more of the same to them.
Posted by: Maddie | Mar 7, 2008 4:01:23 AM
It is amazing how Hillary thinks she should be the only one on the offensive. An important issue in this race is character. We need to have her negative record outlined to voters.
Posted by: Uretha | Mar 7, 2008 2:54:59 AM
Why are so many women fanatical about Hillary? I see women politicians on tv all the time, any one of which would be 100 time better than Hillary.
I don't care about experience, I don't care about race, I don't care about gender, I don't even care about their positions on issues, BEING PRESIDENT IS ENTIRELY ABOUT CHARACTER.
Judging by the way Hillary has handled herself so far...SHE HAS NONE.
Her "victim" tactics should be a source of embarressment to women everywhere.
Posted by: Supermatter | Mar 7, 2008 2:30:59 AM
Obama lost the last 3/4 races because he IS becoming more transparent and people are starting to see him for who he REALLY is.
Posted by: YOU CANT FOOL ME | Mar 7, 2008 2:11:49 AM
I can't believe someone said "who cares about tax returns?" If you can hide things as "supposedly" basic, clean, and clear-cut as tax returns, what else can't and won't you hide?
Posted by: Louise | Mar 7, 2008 1:03:09 AM
Clinton's NAFTA-gate?Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:37 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:
“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’
“The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
“Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign.”
*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.
CLINTON is A LIAR!
Posted by: marcel | Mar 7, 2008 12:08:55 AM
Wow, I have read all the pro-Hillary comments and Im just amazed that this country is still naive enough to elect yet ANOTHER person who will continue to lie and decieve not only our country, yet the entire world. Hillary is great at playing the victim; not a great attribute for being the President though. What people fail to see is that the Republicans will have a feild day with Hillary and her past- they are banking on it! 24 yrs straight of Bush/Clinton is NOT change. And, for the record: The Clinton Camp spoke to a higher level Govnt official in Canada about NAFTA, not the Obama camp. Every other candidate had their tax returns available when they were running, so why is Hillary so special that she shouldn't have to, and furthermore what is she hiding? The Clinton's are infamous for using smear tactics; I for one am sick of that type of Politics. Obama not only speaks of change, he will bring change to Washington, and he is not a polarizing figure like Hillary- hence both sides of the aisle will work with him with a bit more ease. Out with the old and in with the new! Excellent article Jake Tapper! It's great to see news stations reporting the news accurately!
Posted by: Lisa | Mar 6, 2008 11:23:56 PM
There are things that are so clear that I do not undrstand some people. It is obvious that Rush Limbaugh pretendes to alienate Democrats from Hillary Clinton pretending to ask Republcans to vote for her. Obama is not receiving 50 million donations from individuals donating 10 dollars, that money should be traced. No matter how much Obama talks about change, his campaign is politics as usual attacking Bill Clinton because he is uncapable to confront Hillary Clinton on the issues.
Posted by: raul | Mar 6, 2008 11:19:28 PM
It must be so nice to be able to gloss over the faults of those we support and ignore their nearly (WAR)criminal position taken without regard to the intelligence reports she claimed to have to read, or the competency or morals or proof, of and from those asking, then finally, finally admitted that she didn't. That's experience, day one. America's international standing improve a little because we dolt in office. Fault in everyone but my candidate.
Posted by: Apprxam | Mar 6, 2008 11:11:22 PM
The media establishment put Mr. Obama on a pedestal-- Maureen Dowd of New York Times called him "the golden boy"..."the blessed child!" William Kristol, George Will and others who cheered us all along into the quagmire of Iraq in a big way now love Barak Obama. Mr. Obama was going to CHANGE everything in Washington, CHANGE the status quo, CHANGE the ways in which we have our political divisions and to bring the country together into a one big hug fest! A true American peaceable kingdom! So that in those Oprah moments people went crazy with euphoria, with the idea that their true savior of America has arrived, that they have been waiting for all these years! Their madness was an over-reaction to the enormous destruction of the Bush years, and but few people realized that most of it was just hype and marketing; all that was nothing but Oprah style made up hyperbolae, made up by his campaign managers. But it was the media who placed Mr. Obama on a very high branch who made him into a political Humpty Dumpty. The truth of the matter was that Mr. Obama is no Mr. Clean as he claims and comes from a very corrupt system of Chicago politics. He's no lotus that sprang out of Chicago mud! People don't realize in the last analysis that all the talk about change was only a marketing ploy. The Washington media establishment has been hiding his weaknesses and amplifying his strengths. And similarly the media establishment has being doing the opposite to Mrs. Clinton, down playing her achievements and strengths and exaggerating her weakness’ and faults. Now that truth about Mr. Obama is slowly beginning seep out, all the nonsense that Oprah told us about Barak Obama and the media told us about him is already dissipating; Ohio and Texas shows us Mr. Obama has begun to disappoint lot of people, because he got their hopes up really, really, high and now as the truth about him comes to light, the consequences could be very disastrous; what we are about to witness is a tragic undoing of a politician, who’s carrier was based on few facts and lot of made up feel good fiction.
Posted by: chandp | Mar 6, 2008 11:09:28 PM
Raul, back channels as part of foreign policy, kept the cold war from getting too crazy. I wonder how her camp found out? Maybe they got there to plant their own story after the Obama camp. Bach channeling is a sign of good foreign policy managment, if you ask me, or Huntington, Schlesinger or Kissinger. Duplicity, the game of diplomacy. Besides, if American really cared about foreign policy, Bush would/ve never get relected.
Posted by: apprxam | Mar 6, 2008 10:49:40 PM
So Ken Starr tore down the Clintons for while. I'm not sympathetic.
I recall a politician who rose above being imprisoned for 27 years, and going on to being president of South Africa, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He had NO legislative experience, but led a country more effectively, and with greater union, than his predecessor, who shared the Nobel prize. (I'm not making this up ... I lived there at the time.)
Barack Obama has the demeanor, intelligence, and forgiveness of a Nelson Mandela, but more experience within the governmental structure, as it is. Mandela, like Obama, was willing to talk to rogue nations. You can thank Mandela for the new Libya we know today.
By every measure, Obama is more qualified than the Clintons. He'll withstand their untrue assaults in a distinguished fashion, and he is MUCH more likely to win in a general election in November.
Posted by: malthusian77 | Mar 6, 2008 10:43:28 PM
Josie, I see where you're coming from, but you've said nothing about Hillary's faults and there are many. Bill's policies aren't hers, beccause she says so, and the records requested from those hearld moments of prosperity has been ignored by her campaign.
Posted by: Apprxam | Mar 6, 2008 10:41:48 PM
After the last 7 years I love being inspired and seeing others inspired too.
Will Hillary complain about getting the first question if she picks up the phone at 3 AM?
Posted by: mia | Mar 6, 2008 10:38:12 PM
Hillary, as 1st Lady, was defending herself from TravelGate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, MonicaGate, HealthCare reform, and the vast- right-wing-conspriracy, as well as before-the-job-training for the Senate. Experience outside of that of her current station is hard to find, unless she served as proxy in the situation room without security clearance and the public's knowledge, I'm at a lost as to this fabled "experience". Rote drilling seems to be her specialty, "Sen. McCain has a wealth of experience, I come with a wealth of experience and Obama has a speech he made in 2002. I guess, hillary, that the vote for war against Iraq without reading the NIE counts as experience.
Posted by: Apprxam | Mar 6, 2008 10:35:18 PM
Strongblood1, BRAVO!
Posted by: concerned Dem | Mar 6, 2008 10:30:09 PM
"the highest levels of the Canadian government", reconfirmed the story to CTV. One of their primary sources provided a timeline of the discussion to CTV. Contrary to some reports, CTV has not retreated at all from this story.
Obama double face and creating International problems already
Posted by: raul | Mar 6, 2008 10:29:55 PM
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT HILLARY'S TAX
RETURNS NOR ABOUT OBAMA'S TAX RETURNS
WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT IS WHO CAN STRAIGHTEN OUT THE MESS WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE TWO WARS WHICH WE ARE BORROWING MONEY TO SUPPORT OUR ECONOMY
IS HAS GONE DOWN THE THE TUBES OUR JOBS
ARE BEING SHIPPED OVER SEAS .WE HAVE
MILLIONS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE , PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES OIL IS AT 105
DOLLARS A BARREL FOOD STAPLES ARE
UNAFORDABLE WITH MILK AT OVER 5 DOLLARS A GALLON AND EGGS OOVER 2 DOLLARS A
DOZEN . INCREASING HIGH SCHOL DROP OUT
RATE . COLLEGE UNAFORDABLE WHAT YOU ALL SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHO CAN GET THE JOB DONE . AND AFTER MUCH
RESEARCH I HAVE DECIDED THAT ALL OBAMA
CAN DO IS TALK. HE TALK'S WELL MAKES ME FFEEL GOOD BUT IT IS EMPTY .IN FACT HE
SOUNDS MORE LIKE A MINISTER THEN A PERSON RUNNING FOR THE WHTE HOUSE. I
NEED THIS COUNTRY NEEDS SOMEONE WITH
EXPERIANCE AND SUBSTANCE. I FEEL THAT
IS JUST WHAT HILLARY HAS MAYBE NOT AS MUCH EXPERIANCE AS I WOULD LIKE BUT
CERTAINLY MUCH MORE THEN OBAMA. IF
HILLARY DOSEN'T GET THE NOMINATION
MY VOTE WILL HAVE TO GO TO MCCAIN
BECAUSE DESPITE HIS FAULTS HE DOES HAVE
EXPERIANCE MAYBE IN 8 YRS OBAMA WILL
BE READY BUT NOT NOW
Posted by: BARBARA | Mar 6, 2008 10:27:18 PM
truth-2-power: I still think that there shouldn't be Super Delegtes. Does anyone know when and why in our American history the super delegate system came into being?
I also would like to add that I want a President who will stop the flow and use of drugs in our country. If we have a draft non of the people who use drugs will pass the drug test, they will get to continue there drug life style while other young men who don't use drugs, will be drafted, go to war, lose their lives,DIE for nothing. My sons are too old to be drafted, are your's or are you? I hope so.
Posted by: Josie | Mar 6, 2008 10:26:35 PM
Hillary Clinton always plays the victim but wants to bully people. She dishes it out but can't take it.I am sick of the VINDICTIVE and SNEAKY Clintons.
If Hillary gets the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION I WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN. At least he is a decent man.
Posted by: Pauly Fred | Mar 6, 2008 10:20:11 PM
Obama is notacting like a Democrat candidate, He attacks senator Clinton by demonizing the best Democrat President and minimizing all Democrat politicians chievements. Why does he want to represet a party that he hates?
Posted by: raul | Mar 6, 2008 10:20:07 PM
Jerome - Exactly!!!!!!!! Couldn't have said it better, I'm a 53 yo white woman, but am really disgusted at Hillary's antics.
Eric - Well said.....really!!!
Posted by: mia | Mar 6, 2008 10:18:57 PM
Pemb