- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Scoffs at Clinton War Claim
November 28, 2007 4:32 PM
ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., scoffed Wednesday at former President Bill Clinton's recent claim that he opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning.
"Well if he did," Obama said on a conference call with reporters, "I don't think most of us have heard about it."
"My understanding is that Senator Clinton and him were talking frequently. So you'll have to talk to them about whether they discussed this issue at all," he said.
When asked about the difference between his health care plan and Sen. Hillary Clinton's plan, Obama said they're not all that different.
But, he said, Clinton has not specified how she would enforce a mandate for coverage.
"[It's] more of a political point that she's trying to make rather than a real point," Obama said.
The issue of mandates for health care has driven the debate between Clinton and Obama for the past few weeks. Obama says he would enforce his mandate for health care for all children by fining parents if they refused to allow health care coverage for their children.
"I am happy to be very clear how we enforce mandates for children, and the reason is because children don't have an option."
November 28, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (26)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Hillary Clinton, along with most of Congress, given the same information that Pres Bush had at the time, voted for war in Iraq. I find it extremely difficult with all her "supposed" experience in the white house, (meaning her husband's Bill's experience) that he was not a well informed & agreeing with her to vote for the war in Iraq. Later, if u will recall, Bush fired the head of the CIA for false information which was given not just to him alone but to all of Congress. What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive. The infomation can be found in the archives, folks. Those screaming loudest voted to go to war.
Posted by: yellowbird2525 | Nov 28, 2007 4:56:54 PM
I find it amuzing that HRC is now trying to draw the differences between here and senator Obama health care plan. She has failed so many time already and i dont think that the american people are so enthous to hear about those failure. We do need fresh ideas and new ways of carrying out the health care politics.
I am a student and if i had the money, i would get my health ensurance but i do not have insurance because i cannot afford it. Now if somebody would force me to pay for insurance, they better just take me to Jail because i wouldn't have the money. I am hardly able to pay for myself. And beside, she is working with the ensurance company that do everything to keep the price high, who is going to cover the cost? She talks about mandate and she should tell people how much they are going to mandate people.
People who are seek and cannot afford it just go to the emergency room when it becomes umbearable, and usually they dont pay afterward or the hospital find some means to help those to pay. The exess is then used to subsidize the payement. The viable solution is to make the cost affordable and accessible to everybody. With a low cost and less bureacracy, if there is any unansured, the government can help easily subzidize the plan.
It will drive the economy, and every body will be covered.
The idea of mandating people is just obsolete.
The Obama plan is viable.
Clinton has failed too much already, we dont want that anymore, we want new and fresh ideas, this is america, recognize your failure and let the place to other people with better ideas.
Go Obama.
Posted by: demos | Nov 28, 2007 5:17:25 PM
If you think health care is expensive now just wait until it's free. The most stupid group of people that could possibly be rounded up are now in D.C. running the country. Time for a voters revolt before the shooting revolt appears, and that's not too far in the future. Learn from history or die of repeated mistakes.
Posted by: Scrapiron | Nov 28, 2007 5:39:54 PM
I've never mistrusted a bunch of mobsters as much as I mistrust the US government. Why do we not get our say about war, when the very technology to do so is sitting right in front of you. The richest man in the world is a computer programmer,. remember that,. slime
Posted by: Rhys Hovey | Nov 28, 2007 5:48:49 PM
Congrss was NOT given the same information President Bush had. Congress was givent he information President Bush supplied. Congress was unaware, as we were of the tenuous nature of the intelligence involved.
Posted by: Louis | Nov 28, 2007 5:53:02 PM
Obama's plan is viable -- it's Hillary's plan which includes too much pharma and Insurance money to ever benefit the people.
As far as Hillary and Bill, there appears to be a lot they don't or ever talk about, whether it's Monica, Jennifer, etc., etc., Wars and/or Healthcare -- she may have been by his side; but I hace had the impression for a long time (12+ yrs) they each lived their own lives and came together when necessary; I don't think that has changed.
Posted by: Paulet | Nov 28, 2007 5:56:41 PM
If Congress did not get the information it needed to make a decision as important as the authorization to use force, who is to blame. Both the House and Senate have Intelligence committees that have access to the same intel as the President. To think otherwise is to suffer BDS. Remember, fire cannot melt steel.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | Nov 28, 2007 6:16:13 PM
Well. So both Obama and Edwards will use the punitive force of government to ensure we go to the doc on time...uh, when they are sure we will need to. How wonderful these guys are so in tune with my needs that they know what I should do.
What is next? Career counseling? Abortion for those they think need them? Mandatory grief counseling for those who lose a loved one? Where will it stop?
And these guys pose as freedom-loving, "choice" type politicians. What a sick joke, pun intended.
Obviously they have spent too much time with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
Posted by: Harry Schell | Nov 28, 2007 6:17:20 PM
If Hillary voted for the war in Iraq so what? That's old news and it is not interesting because she isn't the only one who voted for it. Are you saying all the senators who voted for the war should have not be in the senators today because of that vote? Regardless if they voted no Bush would have done what he wanted to do regardless of the vote. Bush wanted that war because he wanted Saddam because his father refused to go after him. And all that make comments about Hillary voting for the war including Obama (and he should know better alsi) should already know that bush doesn't pay attention to congress. I believe Hillary would make a better president than Obama or Giuliani. She presents herself better, very intelligent and has all the capabilities of understanding the issues. Not saying Obama is dumb but he is not smart enough to become the president although he think he is.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Nov 28, 2007 6:38:17 PM
If HRC gets elected president (and that's a big "IF"), will she will drop the "we did this" mantra she touts from Bill's presidency and become her own person... or will Bill as "First Gentleman" really be serving out his 3rd term, being able to take credit for all of the decisions/work in HRC's administration?
Posted by: Eyzwidopn | Nov 28, 2007 6:49:03 PM
If HRC or anybody else running in either party (except Guli.) would be a huge improvement to the group that is now in office.
Posted by: Ragan Courtney | Nov 28, 2007 7:01:42 PM
Its not so much that Hillary supported the war or not. The biggest issue is now, both she and her husband are trying to rewrite history claiming that they were really both against the war even though there are videos of both of them declaring support for the Iraq invasion. America cannot tolerate anymore lies and deception in the WH. We have had way too much already.
Posted by: bob | Nov 28, 2007 7:58:44 PM
What? The french and Germans and Canadians,ect. are better than us?? ,with three weeks vacation and great health care...we Americans are turning into a third world slave nation, bunch of Target shopping grunts doing all the work, crappy health care,fixed crap wages,a whole invisible "barbarian class", and the "bush" class just hanging out in their gated communities,figuring out new ways to screw us into the dirt.This Hillary broad is no darn better than either Bush, if anybody even wants to save the ship of state you all better start paying attention!! Eight more years of this and we'll all be in concentration camp factories working for Wal-Mart and Costco just like the Chinese and Koreans.No more imports! Whoopee!!!
Posted by: gp | Nov 28, 2007 10:21:29 PM
Wow, Slick Willy must be forgetting all the statements he made in the past about how he supported the move to target Iraq.
Seriously ... aren't we all sick and tired of the drama and double-speak of the Clintons? Do we seriously want to support a prolonged set of dynasties, in the Bushes and the Clintons? Do we want to become a totally socialist nation when the new Dem president doesn't give us a choice if we want healthcare or not?
Posted by: DisdainLady | Nov 28, 2007 10:35:22 PM
Hillary Clinton has a record, all right: failure.
She is incompetent as an executive.
She has never run anything except her and his grabs for power.
Obama's incompetent, too, of course.
They're both anti-American to the core.
Posted by: Bonnie | Nov 28, 2007 11:33:52 PM
The election is over. Go home.
The Democrats will nominate Clinton 46. With Kerry they did not know that his war record would be the cause of his defeat before they nominated him. They thought it would be a plus. Bad mistake.
The Democrats do know what Hillary Clinton is all about. She is divisive. She is intolerant. She is inflexible. She is paranoid. She has so many serious faults it is incredible that she is actually a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. The only person crazier than she is is Ron Paul.
The Democrats also know that she is HATED by about half the voters. She is distrusted and disliked for obvious reasons. The military hates her and her husband (look at the body language of troops in pictures with her and compare those pictures with pictures of Bush and the troops). A couple of weeks I was watching a video of Clinton 44 with some troops when he was President and one soldier standing on the second row mouthed or said the word A**H***.
If you do not think Clinton 46 has serious problems, go to your local library, look around for the FBI to see if they are watching you, and go to the Hillary Clinton bookshelf and browse through some of the books. There is a cottage industry of anti-Hillary books. Why? There are not anti-Laura books. There are not anti-Barbara books. There are not anti-Pat books. There are a few anti-Nancy books. There are not anti-Jackie books. There are not anti-Mamie books, anti-Betty books, anti-Rosaline books, etc. Why?
Posted by: Mad Jayhawk | Nov 29, 2007 2:46:57 AM
"If Hillary voted for the war in Iraq so what? That's old news and it is not interesting because she isn't the only one who voted for it. "
Be aware that this is the standard Clinton tactic. OLD NEWS. Expect to hear this over and over again. Because it is 'old news' that makes it okay. What it means is that I have already gotten away with it so you can't get me for it this time. Sweet.
And 'she was not the only one' is another phony excuse so old that it is laughable. My kids use to use it everyday. It is used by people trying to dodge responsibility for their actions. They made a mistake and are psychologically unable to admit it. Sad.
We need people in office who react to criticism this way?
BTW they have a notebook full of standard excuses that no one in the MSM questions so expect to learn how to weasel out of things from the masters this coming year.
Posted by: Mad Jayhawk | Nov 29, 2007 2:57:37 AM
AHHH, force the 'choice' B. Hussien Obama, either cover 'em with my plan, or kill 'em. Thats the 'pro choice' escense boiled down quite nicely, thanks.
Posted by: hellooo | Nov 29, 2007 8:02:09 AM
ill bet 5 out of every 100 democrats switch affiliation to vote for giuliani in the primaries in order to secure a liberal in the white house. those votes will likely come mostly from the hillary camp,not currently seen in the polls, which may help obama if obama doesnt slip up. im betting the election will be obama vs giuliani with an obama win because conservatives will stay home.
Posted by: geo | Nov 29, 2007 9:53:54 AM
U.S President wise in the last 20 years we've had.... Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush... Not HILLary Clinton! Please! HILLary GO AWAY and avoid the emberrasment of being rejected, thrown out by the American people, we are not that stupid, we are not Chavez supporters! GO OBAMA!
Posted by: pedro | Nov 29, 2007 9:59:01 AM
Post a comment



