RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama-Backing Senator Hopes Superdelegates Focus on Clinton Scandals from 1990s
April 23, 2008 2:48 PM
On MSNBC today, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, said that as superdelegates consider the controversies that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, will be forced to deal with should he become the Democratic nominee, they should also think about the 1990s-era scandals that will come up should Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, earn the nomination.
Specifically McCaskill was asked about a report by the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman that "a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign" said in the next two weeks the Obama campaign is "likely to turn to the controversies of Bill Clinton's White House years -- Hillary Clinton's trading cattle futures, Whitewater and possibly impeachment."
Would you support those types of tactics moving forward given how tight this race is? McCaskill was asked.
"Well, it's a really difficult decision," said the senator, who has endorsed Obama. "I mean, no one in the Obama campaigns wants -- I mean, Senator Clinton talked about her baggage in the debate last Wednesday. And everyone is very respectful and deferential to the Clinton family in our party and we don't want to do that.
"But, frankly, they keep throwing nails in front of the bus," she continued. "And as voters are considering whether or not some of the controversies around Barack Obama will be an issue in November, people do need to remember, there will be controversies about the Clintons that will also be an issue in November. And I think that's what we hope superdelegates also focus on."
- jpt
April 23, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (147)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It's obvious the Republicans want Hillary to win. Why? Because she is their ticket to another Republican White House. Do you think they're switching parties to vote for her because they all of a sudden think she's such a great person. C'mon - lets not be naive. Republicans want one thing now - Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, and one thing later, for John McCain to beat the tar out of her in the race for the presidency. One thing for sure, the Republicans do not want Obama to win the nomination. He scares the hell out of them for two main reasons. One, he speaks the truth. Two, he has the people behind him.
Posted by: Eric Funk | Apr 25, 2008 11:03:28 PM
Wow,
After reading all the comments posted here, I didn't realize how ignorant and racist some Americans really are. What a scary thought. All the derogatory remarks, all the name calling, come on people, I would hope that we as a country is better than this. Whether you are for Hillary or Barack. Stop all this none sense...geez.
GOD BLESS this country of ours and I pray for its future!!!
Posted by: Jay | Apr 25, 2008 12:10:21 PM
Oh, and further.. just like in PA and OH.. the rural Missouri counties went for clinton convincingly. The only reason she lost is the urban areas just have more people than the rural areas in that state, but if you look at the county by county breakdowns, the distinction is JUST like PA and OH. It's just there are more rural voters in PA and OH than there are city dwellers. Facts are stubborn.
Posted by: A reader in Georgia | Apr 25, 2008 10:17:25 AM
Is this the chick who said her 19 year old daughter prompted her to endorse Obama? Yeah, we should take what she says as gospel. LOL
Posted by: A reader in Georgia | Apr 25, 2008 10:12:02 AM
Obama can't win? Are you saying that you rather see McCain who promise a 100 years in Iraq. Are you telling me that?
Posted by: donis georgiou | Apr 25, 2008 4:09:14 AM
Hillary was originally projected the winner in Mo. She ended up losing by less than 1%? Obama will not carry the state & Claire McCaskill will not be re-elected.
Posted by: RL in Illinois | Apr 25, 2008 1:29:55 AM
Might either of these candidates lead opposition to confirmation of General Petraeus as commander of CENTCOM?
Posted by: mirth | Apr 25, 2008 1:02:11 AM
Bill Clinton was impeached, for God's sake!!!! And that is the least of their
deeds.
Posted by: kathleen | Apr 24, 2008 10:50:43 PM
This is the same Claire McCaskill who said "he, for the first time I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader," I don't know if she's lacking common sense or just a little empty in the brain.
Posted by: Cord | Apr 24, 2008 3:04:57 PM
The Republican leadership has ALWAYS counted on Hillary Clinton as their biggest asset in terms of both contributions and focus. NO ONE is hated more by the Republican Right Wing than the Clintons and they can always use her as a rallying cry, even to back the not-so-right wing John McCain. Why else would he man behind the right-wing-conspiracy endorse her candidacy? He wants to rally his base against her in the fall and he needs her to beat Obama by any means possible right now. The truth is the truth.
Posted by: Tommy Thompson | Apr 24, 2008 9:41:03 AM
I find it strange that Edwards backers are rallying behind Obama considering his Non-Universal Health Plan and propensity to focus on Black Poverty as opposed to Poverty. But whatever floats their boats.
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 24, 2008 8:56:43 AM
It's difficult to take McCaskill seriously since the main reason she's backing Obama is because her teenage daughter threw a tantrum and called her a slug. Unfortunately, that's the type of Democratic "leadership" that's trying to shove Obama down the throats of the voters. Ain't gonna work, no way, no how.
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 24, 2008 8:53:43 AM
Let me rephrase that: Who will be available to campaign in the fall?
Posted by: Mandy, CA | Apr 24, 2008 6:34:56 AM
Actually new "baggage" is about to arrive for Hill. April 25 the court will decide onthe date in the fall for the tial of Paul v Clinton on the biggest fraud case involving Hill's 2000 Senate Campaign for $17 million.
Superdelegates may want to considet that Hill will be testifying in the fall in Los Angeles instead of be available to camapign in the General Election.
So I ask you...who really is electable?
Posted by: Mandy. CA | Apr 24, 2008 6:33:05 AM
mccaskill, who lied for obama when he snubbed hillary at the state of the union, on international tv, thereby embarrassing the entire nation, says that they're respectful of the clintons- lol!
i am SO looking forward to her losing her senate seat when she tries to get reelected. i will laugh, and laugh, and laugh.
Posted by: so saddened | Apr 24, 2008 3:23:31 AM
Clinton stuff from the 90's? Best president in the last 30 years, balanced budget, Education improvments, job creation, World respect , striving economy. Resistance to the Republican/Ken starr inquiscition. What about Obama"s past? Will republicans start when he was hooked on drugs?
Posted by: Libre | Apr 24, 2008 3:03:33 AM
Clinton scandal from the 90's? Republicans have tried to rehash them over and over and Hillary Clinton is sitill standing. I prefer and oversexed Bill than a Michelle American hater. I preferwhite water scandals before the 90's over recent and present relations of Obama with Rezko, Ayers, and Farrakahn. If hypotetical misdeeds by the Clintons are going to be thrown by Obama, maybe I prefer those than tohear about Obama and Sinclair. Obama is unelectable Sen McCaskill.
Posted by: Libre | Apr 24, 2008 2:58:24 AM
let's see, old news from the 90s that's been rehashed over and over and that everyone knows about already, vs. stuff people don't yet know about obama - hmmm, wonder which has more legs....
mccaskill's such a tool.
the obamaites are just trying this out since their guy got trounced last night.
Posted by: so saddened | Apr 24, 2008 2:26:11 AM
I'm with most people here. What about the Clinton's greasy, sleazy history and when is that coming out? The MSM has been so polite to avoid all of this, in order to let HRC have a "fair" chance...but come on now, when mud is being thrown at you, don't you have the right to throw back. Obama has been a gentleman, standing by principles, NOT bringing up old billy's history of extra marital affairs, let's see, there is Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and oh yeah, the woman who was assaulted by hi, and says HRC tore her up like a banshee to protect her husband or more liekyl to protect her own political power and ambition....these people have more baggage than heathrow airport!
It is unbelieveable to compare scandalrs bw obama and clinton. She's got a hugh history and nothing compares to it.
I truly feel BO is going to win this nomination and we're seeing just a temporary moment in time when she's got the momentum...Good lord if she's the nominee, the Republicans, I hope they do "vett her" again. She deserves to be vetted again after the affair she has dragged her opponent through in this nomination.
Posted by: Pb | Apr 24, 2008 2:11:29 AM
Becky, this is about a ad with this Edward backer and Obama. he is fron LA
Posted by: bos123 | Apr 24, 2008 1:21:10 AM
Post a comment


