« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Questions Obama's Character

Share

December 02, 2007 6:43 PM

Eloise Harper, Sunlen Miller and Tahman Bradley report: Answering a follow up question about Sen. Barack Obama's PAC, Hopefund, Clinton was asked if she thinks this "is an issue of character when it comes to Sen. Obama."

Clinton responded that she thinks it is starting to look that way.

"I'm going to let voters make that decision," she said, "but it's beginning to look a lot like that, it really is ... where you can't get a straight answer on health care, where somebody who runs on ethics and not taking money from certain people has found out you have at least skirted if not violated FEC rules and used lobbyists and PAC money to do so."

This debate over the PAC  between the campaigns was sparked today when Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, speaking  on CBS' "Face the Nation," asked Obama strategist David Axelrod to close the political action committee.

"There's a lot that voters don't know about Barack Obama. And one thing they don't know -– we found out this week –- is that he has been using and operating a so-called leadership PAC, in apparent contravention of campaign finance laws, taking in money from lobbyists despite the fact he said he doesn't take money from lobbyists, taking in money from lobbyists and giving money out to candidates in New Hampshire and Iowa to support his presidential campaign."

Obama responded, on camera, at a Des Moines press avail today, connecting his good poll numbers to the influx of attacks from other campaigns:.  "Folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed and issuing whole bunch of rash allegations. Everything we've done has been in accordance to the law. They should focus on getting their supporters to caucus in Iowa."

December 2, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Obama has far better character than Hilary anyday ...she borders on criminal and by border I mean she just hasn't been convicted yet. God willing she soon will.

Posted by: Dennis | Dec 2, 2007 8:29:02 PM

Give me a break, characther. Hillary has no character at all. She stayed with a cheating husband for years because she wanted to "be someone." Now she wants to ride that all the way to the white house. She has a questionable character, I would like to know what she has done that is good! What is her past history which would make her a good president. I have heard nothing about that.

Posted by: Betj | Dec 2, 2007 10:00:40 PM

Clinton is trying to tear down Obama's character because the mainstream media is finally reminding us about her long history of questionable character. She is trying to neutralize the issue, just like she did with her Barbra Streisand endorsement to counter Ohama's Oprah endorsement.

Posted by: J. Madison | Dec 2, 2007 10:12:52 PM

Frankly it is past time Obama was questioned on his "Pac". There is not "trying" to tear down anything. There is only some facts about Obama that need to be known.
What is he afraid of? Let's see where that money is going.

Posted by: john Smart | Dec 3, 2007 1:41:19 AM

Obama has been handled with kid gloves by the media.(MSNBC,FOX) WHY? Because Clinton is much stronger against the Republicans. People are falling for the Obama rhetoric. I have to admit Obama is well spoken and has pretty teeth, but "That just won't doo" If Obama wins the nomination, Republicans keep the White House, squat and watch.

Posted by: mustkilltreemake2x4 | Dec 3, 2007 10:28:09 AM

Obama has been handled with kid gloves, are you kidding, he has been called everything from a token candidate, to associations by name with terrorism.

The FEC found no, NO wrongdoing or even took issue with the hopefund, that has been empty for some time BTW.
This is nothing but a smear by Clinton in the 11th hour to win.

Posted by: Louis | Dec 3, 2007 11:51:11 AM

obama is a loser. he is a divider. he is unelectable to the white house. he is buy able ,and has proven so.

why would any intelligent voter waste a vote on him and let the republicans have more time in the oval office?

ill tell you why...american voters arent intelligent and are ,largely, STUPID.

hillary clinton is clearly the only choice for the THINKING democrat. if you dont like her ,thats fine ,but this is not a popularity contest . this isnt high school and the most popular kid is NOT the best candidate this time. vote like real americans ,vote for what will HELP this country ,a democratic president. NOW!

a vote for obama is just a wasted vote that divides the party even more.

obama is the choice for blacks ,kids ,asians ,hispanics , the uninformed ,pseudo republicans, etc etc... mainly a large segment of newer voters who dont really understand american politics and vote mainly based on their immature emotions.

we NEED a democrat in the white house,and obama wont get there no matter how much you try/hope/pray. but go on, keep pushing for a non starter candidate be stupid ,it is truly your nature to do so.

Posted by: bah | Dec 3, 2007 4:34:56 PM

This post is strictly for the previous rant written by "bah". You went off the rails there, my friend. You wrote seven semi-literate paragraphs on "the thinking democrat" and their predisposition for Clinton, but I didn't read a single reason why she is the "real democrat". Come on, you gotta do better than that.

Posted by: rmb | Dec 3, 2007 4:43:51 PM

rmb , you are the personification of my post ,thank you for responding and validating my opinion.

why should i waste time pointing out the obvious to you? do your homework, then if you REALLY think there is a better ELECTABLE democratic candidate for the white house ,with more or better qualifications than hillary, you should vote for that person. just because you disagree with what she is personally has no bearing on whether or not shes the best choice for the democratic nomination, however ,there is a large segment of voters i alluded to previously that has little clue as to the more esoteric workings of the american political system,and you rmb are in that segment ,my friend.

what i said was, and i re-state for you once more , hillary clinton is BY FAR the best candidate OVERALL for the democrats to get in the white house and do some good for this country.

she is not perfect ,but are you? obama the terrorist surely isnt...shes blatantly obviously the BEST choice COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING ,and anyone who disagrees is the one who needs to prove their argument, not the other way around.

Posted by: bah | Dec 3, 2007 6:47:57 PM

Hillary Clinton saying that "Obama isn't giving a straight answer on
healthcare" is a Joke!
This from the candidate who gave 3-4
different answers regarding issuing
drivers licenses to illegal aliens!
Does anyone know what her latest position on the issue is?
She can't even give a straight answer on what she would do to save Social Security from going bankrupt!

Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 4, 2007 1:14:50 AM

bah: What exactly are Hillary Clinton's
qualifications for the Presidency?
That she was in the White House during her husbands 8 years? So was the Chef!
Is he qualified?
She claims to have shared some big decisions with her husband, but refuses to release the records that would prove or disprove her claim!
I conclude that she is qualified to be a
concierge!

Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 4, 2007 1:20:33 AM

Clinton's attack on Obama's character is truly low. She apparently enjoys attacking fellow Democrats. She just recently called it "fun." What kind of Democrat would do that to another Democrat, especially after claiming a couple of weeks earlier that she had no interest in attacking other Democrats and said Democrats should focus on attacking Republicans.

The truth is that Barack has enormous talent, character and charisma. He can win in November. Hillary is already behind in direct match-ups with all the top Republicans. Barack is tied or leading that same group.

Just imagine how powerful an Obama/Jim Webb or Joe Biden ticket would be and there would be no baggage from the Clinton presidency to re-defend.

Posted by: campaignman | Dec 5, 2007 5:26:52 PM

Sorry Louis,I mean bah

Posted by: wian | Feb 10, 2008 3:55:02 PM

Post a comment