« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Again Compares Obama to Bush

Share

April 05, 2008 7:55 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Speaking in Eugene, Ore., Sen. Hillary Clinton went further than she has before drawing a comparison between Sen. Barack Obama and President Bush, saying he gave a lot of "speeches" too, but lacked "specifics."

"Some of you might may remember that President Bush in 2000 ran as a compassionate conservative. It sounded great. Who could argue with that?" she said. "I never knew what it meant. He sure didn’t enlighten us about what it meant. But he gave a lot of speeches about how he was going to be a compassionate conservative. Well, because we didn’t have the specifics to tie him down because we didn’t say 'What exactly does that mean?' It turns out he was neither compassionate nor conservative. He was uncompassionate and radical."

When Clinton was asked about her Iraq war vote, she defended herself by saying that she was critical of the war before Obama was, and that she was the one who made a decision.

"When you want to compare, compare decisions, so when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts," she said. "We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he made in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech, but that was not a decision. And I think it is fair to say as he said in 2004 he wasn’t sure how he would have actually voted had he had to cast a vote. I think we ought to be as fair and accurate in comparing apples to apples about various records and decisions."

In what may be a sign of the wear and tear the campaign is taking on Clinton, it appears as though she is not getting much sleep. She said she is averaging about three hours a night.

"I wouldn’t be getting up at 5 a.m. and going to bed at 2 a.m. if I didn’t believe I would be the better candidate to beat John McCain," Clinton said to a cheering crowd.

April 5, 2008 in Bush, George W. | Permalink | User Comments (185)

User Comments

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

Yeah a compassionate conservative that shows no compassion and a self proclaimed uniter that can't even unite his own party.

Posted by: Mack | Apr 5, 2008 8:49:26 PM

Don't fall for the tripe these two candidates are feeding you. Vote for a person who actually cares for the public. Vote Nader!

Posted by: Turku Wren | Apr 5, 2008 8:52:43 PM

sadstateofaffairs has it right. Obama has not been honest about Rezko and his close relationships with the worst kinds in Illinois politics. Unfortunately the MSM will not cover it in detail They treat any issue involving Obama as old news. sadstateofaffairs there is a book in this about how the MSM stole the election.


Posted by: Kenny from Ct. | Apr 5, 2008 8:53:21 PM

Sorry? Standing up in 2002 against the Iraq war is, for a state senator, not a decision?

Hillary was 'critical' of the war before Obama was? Is that why she supported the idea of a military "SOLUTION" for the conflict with Iraq in the Senate even before she handed Gaorge W. Bush the right to invade and occupy the country?

Do we want a President who lives in a topsy turvy world?

In that 2002 speech Obama said, among many other things:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Isn't that a proof of sound judgment on day 1?

From that same speech:

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

And it ain't a decision, to stand up and tell the President this in a publiced speech?

I feel Hillary is losing some mental sanity, and all what was left of her sincerity and good manners. And her supporters simply think 'she's right' again. My o my. Well, her fellow Senators certainly do not, for they admire Obama for having had the courage to speak out when they failed to do the same.

Posted by: greg | Apr 5, 2008 9:04:44 PM

ROTFLMAO Not a pretty picture? Check out the Clinton tax returns and the 4 investors that are under indictment right now LOL Go ahead hon if you think that line of attack is anything more than just that...a stupid line of attack.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 5, 2008 9:10:14 PM

Hillary is a desperate woman who has real problems with the truth and now she is tossing away her chance at relection as a senator because NY won't forget what she is doing to the democratic party....all she really does to healthy people these days is make them want to toss their cookies....go ahead Hill and try to lure the elected delegates to the dark side after stating Feb. 23th that you would never do that......just like you disenfranchised the voters in FL and MI a year ago but now that you need them, your screaming like an insane monkey.

Posted by: Brian | Apr 5, 2008 9:13:01 PM

Did someone say "CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION"? For the longest time, I could not for the life of me figure out why Kennedy, Kerry, Richarson et al were backing Obama. Zero credentials! Could it be that this Auchi fellow has been penetrating U.S. politics for decades? Pilfering taxpayers coffers while filling politicians pockets?

There is much more to Obama and the traitors who are backing him then meets the eye. I bet the Republicans can't wait!

Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | Apr 5, 2008 9:13:47 PM

Travelgate, Bosnia, Whitewater, NAFTA, Ireland, 9/11 ....we can do this one all day and you will lose D because your candidate is a neferious liar and the facts are not just inuendo which is why she is losing in all counts and her polls are at the lowest they have ever been.

Posted by: Brian | Apr 5, 2008 9:14:52 PM

Obama was elected to office 3 times and served a total of 8 years before he decided to run for President. Geesh I wish you Clinton people would at least try to factual.

Posted by: Sam | Apr 5, 2008 9:16:17 PM

Obama is a liar, Brian. apple and oranges. Hillary,in some polls has her beating mccain, and obama isn't, so pick a poll that suits your boy.

Posted by: D | Apr 5, 2008 9:19:47 PM

I am a Clinton supporter and making the final decision to go for McCain if she fails to win the nomination. I am sick and tired of these Obama guys!

Posted by: mark | Apr 5, 2008 9:21:51 PM

SHE IS SAYING THIS...
Wake up all you fools who are following Obama so blindly! This is the same BS that happened in 2000 and then 2004 - a bunch of idiots choosing a president on likability and who they would rather have a beer with rather than selecting a president with ideas, solutions and experience to run this country. I thought after almost 8 years of Bush Americans would be smarter. If Obama is nominated he WILL NOT win the general election and we will again have a republican running the white house. If he is lucky enough to win the nomination and the general he will flounder around not knowing how to get anything done (look at his track record) and the republicans will ambush him repetitively and not one promise made by him will be delivered upon.
My only complaint with Clinton making this comparison is that she didn't make it earlier.

Posted by: Andrea | Apr 5, 2008 9:22:33 PM

No. Obama is stealing the nomination with him not counting all the votes. WRIGHT!

Posted by: D | Apr 5, 2008 9:22:49 PM

Sam,

Under which presidency did Americans prosper the most, in your lifetime?

Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | Apr 5, 2008 9:23:25 PM

Sorry, comparing anybody to Bush is the ultimate insult. Grandpa mccain should be driving a golf cart, not a campaign.

Posted by: poggy | Apr 5, 2008 9:23:49 PM

When Clinton was asked about her Iraq war vote, she defended herself by saying that she was critical of the war before Obama was, and that she was the one who made a decision.

Yeah she was critical alright after she signed on.But when did the critical thinking take place?
Always a dollar late and a day too short

Posted by: Lauren | Apr 5, 2008 9:25:50 PM

Many Americans were against the war back in 2002 and with a similar reasoning and logic like Sen Obama did. Should we get all of them into the White House? Most democrats hold the same principal when it comes to our foreign policies, which is engaging in dialogue rather than constantly demonstrating our hegemonic power. And most believe that both of them would govern by this principal. However, Sen Obama has shown weaknesses in substance. Sen Clinton's attack is right on target.

Posted by: Vickie | Apr 5, 2008 9:26:13 PM

Hillary never gave up on the voters in flo. and mich. If she did, she would have taken her name off the ballets. they agreed not to campaign in those states, which meant those states would lose money from them campaigning. On election night all the media said was these votes could still count if this race is close. Bosnia, that was not good. How about Obama on the media questionaire he claims he never filled out in 96 and now they have proof he did fill it out and now he is claiming still he didn't do it? Seems the media isn't hitting this very much.

Posted by: D | Apr 5, 2008 9:29:00 PM

I'd say that Senator Obama's voting behavior during the war is a sound indication that he has been as concerned about American soldiers doing the dirty job in Bush's war as any American patriot, and that his speech against waging the Iraq war was not some sentimental anti-war stand from some pacifist idealist.

"I don’t oppose all wars," he repeated a few times in that speech. And he clearly saw that since the USA was trapped in the dirty guerilla fights in Iraq, our people and army over there would need all possible means to overcome that extremely hazardous and unfortunate situation.

A situation they never would have been in (and 4000 American lives that would not have been lost) when it had been Obama who as a President had started our war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as possible.

Thanks to Bush, Clinton, McCain and others they killed 4000 since they killed 3000 on 9/11. THAT is the major and most telling part of Clinton's 'experience'. She should be ashamed about playing word games with all this.

Posted by: herta | Apr 5, 2008 9:31:00 PM

I just hope she pays all the people her campaign owes money to on the way out.

Posted by: Texas Voter | Apr 5, 2008 9:32:47 PM

Post a comment