02/25/2008
Hillary Clinton on Attack Over Obama Mailers; Barack Responds
Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama over the weekend over mailers sent to voters in Ohio that she says misrepresent her positions on health care and NAFTA, accusing Obama of using tactics "right out of Karl Rove's playbook."
Said Clinton: "Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages and public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior on this campaign."
Obama responded: "These are mailers that started going out several days, if not weeks ago. So I'm puzzled by the sudden change in tone unless these were just brought to her attention...Unlike some of the attacks theat have been leveled about me that have been debunked by news organizations these are accurate."
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:40 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Health, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
No matter what Billary throws at him, he remains calm, composed, and rational. Since there is very little policy difference between them, if one wants any part of their platforms enacted, one should vote for him. Hillary would bring about political paralysis. Nothing would get done.
HRC is surely fully vetted; she is reminding us why many in this country are re-experiencing Clinton fatigue. Who would you rather face McCain? HRC is McCain in a pantsuit: cranky, foul-mouthed, backward looking, and with not the slightest idea how to manage economic growth. Obama offers a striking contrast on almost every factor.
HRC could not manage her marriage, she could not manage healthcare reform, and she did not manage her campaign effectively. All that money and that large a lead has vaporized in the spotlight of national politics. It is precisely because many of us know exactly what she would do on Day One that we cannot support her.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 25, 2008 10:53:00 AM
Senator Clinton's behavior from Thursday to Sunday morning was uncomfortable to watch. I was hoping it wouldn't turn ugly again, but her outrage at the flyers came across as downright bizarre. I guess her new campaign manager has said, "go after him, it's our last stand." OK. but I don't know if it helped. But what is Barack or anybody going to do about NAFTA now? Is he going to attempt to rescind the treaty, or parts of it? All this foolishness for Ohio. My heart won't be in it till after the convention.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 25, 2008 11:18:59 AM
I meant the change in her behavior from Thursday to Sunday was bizarre, and uncomfortable to watch. She looked like she'd have physically attacked him if she could've on Sunday...Barack, not Bill.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 25, 2008 11:26:19 AM
Hillary is getting desperate and it's kind of sad to watch. The latest seems like a reactionary tactic to perception of her conciliatory tone at the previous debate.
Posted by: Blue | Feb 25, 2008 11:29:39 AM
the media loves obama. that's the biggest reason people are drawn to him. i wish people could see that obama is politics as usual. americans want a rockstar type person in office (how else do you explain GWB?).
Posted by: J | Feb 25, 2008 11:30:35 AM
J
Not true
CNN and others LOVE the cat fight and the long drawn out primary season beacuase they LOVE the ratings and money it generates.
CNN was really giving it to Obama this weekend with stupid attacks like Patriotic or not? for his not wearing a cheap falg pin. etc
When Clinton is up they trash her and when Obama is up they trash him to try to level it out and sretch the whole money making thing along.
If Hillary gets a huckabeeian miacle in TX and Ohio and goes up again then expect stuid anti-clinton stuff.
Back and forth
back and forth
The media wants the money train and ratings to continue via a longggggggggggg primary
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 25, 2008 11:42:49 AM
stuid should read stupid
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 25, 2008 11:45:03 AM
I caught the conclusion of the last debate, and I gotta say, they do compliment each other quite nicely. He would be the perfect Statesman, the bright, new face of America. She would be the strength to unify the congress where it is needed the most.
It would be a marvelous ticket.
Posted by: Rad | Feb 25, 2008 11:53:51 AM
She would invoke political paralysis. First of all, let's be clear, without a clear mandate (big win) in the election in November, no one is going to do much except have to focus on cleaning up the 8 year reign of George. Which will most likely work against whoever is elected than for them. Secondly, she has a much more impressive record in Congress of working across party lines to pass legislation. Obama has no such record. The only paralysis we will see is, assuming he even manages to get elected, the realization that a leftist liberal agenda has no traction in our government. Especially when the candidate has shown that he has no intention of working with Republicans to do a damned thing.
Posted by: BANNE | Feb 25, 2008 1:01:29 PM
"... unify the congress ..." On what planet?
Posted by: WMH | Feb 25, 2008 1:25:23 PM
She fights back to his lying about her and his only defense is effectively, "Doesn't the bitch know she complained too late after I slapped her?"
These negative comments prove once again that the Great Hoax of this campaign is style over substance.
He's "calm, composed" [except when he's snapping, "Oh, come on!" when challenged in the LOGO forum about his "old school" approach to marriage equality, or, as someone at Bilerico put it, "When pressed, he starts to look pissy and purses his lips like he's ready to burn Wolf Blitzer's beard with his laser eye beams or like he's going to wrestle John Edward's hair."]
She's "cranky," "foul mouthed" [HUH? When was that? Is there video? I'd PAY MONEY to see someone finally call him out on the phony asshat he is.]
What such comments really mean is NEVERMIND—pay no attention to the man BEHIND the curtain or to the substance—the fact that Obama's flyers LIE about what her health care plan would do [see details below from factcheck.org], and LIE when they quote her as saying that NAFTA was a "boon" to the country when it was a Newsday reporter who used the word in an article about her [the paper has verified this].
But what's ANOTHER couple of LIES from the Obama Borg when he's lied about passing a gay rights bill and a nuke industry regs bill in Illinois? In addition to running for "God," he's apparently training for the Gold in Olympic Lying.
From FactCheck.org:
"An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care. Specifically:
• It touts measures included in Obama's plan to help low-income individuals buy insurance but fails to mention that Clinton would provide similar financial assistance.
• It says Obama's plan would save the average family $2,500 per year – an estimate provided by experts at the campaign's request – but doesn't say that Clinton estimates hers will save $2,200 per year.
• It also neglects to point out that Clinton's plan isn't the only one that would have an enforcement mechanism for those who failed to purchase insurance. Obama's plan, which would require that children be insured, would need one as well, though it would affect fewer persons.
Barack Obama said at the Jan. 31 debate in Los Angeles that his health care plan has "about 95 percent" in common with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's. Nevertheless, his campaign sent out a piece of direct mail that lacks a good amount of context and could mislead those who are not familiar with Clinton's plan..
The mailer focuses on the primary difference between the two candidates' proposals: whether they would require everyone to obtain coverage. Clinton's plan would require all Americans to get insurance, though she hasn't said what will happen if they don't. Obama's plan would require insurance for all children but not for adults. Both plans would help consumers with the cost of getting coverage – although you wouldn't know it from reading Obama's mailer.
The mailer opens with the claim that "Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." Clinton's plan does require everyone to have health insurance, and there will be some kind of penalty for those who don't comply. The mailer is correct on that point. But the Obama mailer leaves out any information on cost-reduction measures and low-income help that Clinton's plan offers, while it touts such measures found in his plan – some of which very closely mirror Clinton's.
It leaves out the fact that Clinton, too, proposes allowing Americans to "choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress," as her Web site states. Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income.
The Obama campaign is trying to shift the focus to some unspecified "punishment" that Clinton's plan would mete out for those who didn't obtain coverage. It's true that a "mandate" implies penalties for noncompliance, and Clinton's campaign has yet to outline what those would be. But Obama's plan, which would mandate coverage for children, would presumably also have some enforcement mechanism, and he doesn't make explicit what that would be, either, at least as his plan is laid out on his Web site."
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 25, 2008 1:37:31 PM
I just love the way folks here refuse to deal with what is in front of them. The Obama bashers will be here soon, ranting about how "horrible" he is, never once dealing with nutjob that is Hillary. They won't talk about her flip-flopping behavior from race baiter to "unifier"(yet she has not congratulated Obama on any of his wins), back to "barb slinger" (that backfired and got her booed) to "being honored to share a stage" with Obama, and back to raving lunatic on the attack over fliers that were TRUE!! And MSNBC added this little tidbit:
"It’s worth noting, though, that the Clinton campaign has also sent out mailers distorting Obama’s positions. One used Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature to claim that he is anti-choice, a false assertion. And another attacked Obama on Social Security, claiming that he would raise taxes on working families a “trillion dollars.”"
So she spreads lies, he spreads truths, but SHE should be president?? Yeah, right!
GO OBAMA!!
Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 25, 2008 2:03:33 PM
Just hold your nose and vote Democrat in November, WHOEVER it is!
I frankly don't care, either way.
Either will do.
ANYONE BUT McCAIN OR ANOTHER REPUBLICAN!
Posted by: JOHNNY | Feb 25, 2008 2:09:59 PM
But SoulBrotha—why are you cherry picking what you want to listen to from your Messiah? Why aren't you practicing what he preaches? He publicly stated weeks ago that he doesn't think the Clintons are racists and wanted his supporters to stop with the Swift Boating them on race but you’re still playin’ it. Ya know like Jesse Jackson, Jr., did the morning after H rose from the dead and kicked O's ass in New Hampshire? Talk about desperate. Ya know—like his South Carolina staffer distributed that hit list of alleged "racist" things various Clintons or H supporters allegedly said. Ya know—like Donna Brazile race baiting Bill Clinton. Ya know—like Obama race card and gay bash card playing in South Carolina when he threw us under the Donnie McClurkin bus.
But APPLAUSE APPLAUSE! It may have been sleazy, dishonest, shameful—but it worked and, assuming the Dali Obama doesn't get knocked off of his pedestal by the Repugs, we will have our first elected black President. As Robert Samuelson describes below, Obama’s as hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny but I agree he couldn't mess the country up anymore than Bush has. But if he doesn't do any better—if he continues to be more sizzle than steak—don't hold your breath until another black man or Democrat is elected again. Voters will say, “Well, we gave them a chance and they blew it. Back to the Republicans.” Sad really.
Robert Samuelson, Newsweek:
“[Obama] has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue—immigration, the economy, global warming—he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. these issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion. ...The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems. The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media—preoccupied with the political 'horse race'—have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't”
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 25, 2008 2:26:24 PM
Michael, Michael, Michael: You are beginning to appear as unhinged as is HRC. It is over. It is all but mathematically impossible for HRC to win the nomination by securing sufficient votes in the remaining primaries. She and Bill established the rules but she refuses to play by them unless she is winning.
That it is all too clear to everyone but her that she has lost the nomination process, does not mean that she will not drag the party through a divisive and costly convention where once again she will argue against the rules that she put in place. One hopes that she would bow out gracefully but that has never been her style. The backbiting, mud slinging, lying and sleazy behaviour has been all too evident in her woefully mismanaged campaign.
Her claim of "experience" withers in the face of McCain's public service. The only chance the Dems have to beat him is to nominate Obama. At least then the contrast would be clear. HRC is McCain in a less well tailored pantsuit.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 25, 2008 2:40:12 PM
"BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK"
LOL
I hope the bitch wins!
Posted by: GOD | Feb 25, 2008 2:52:28 PM
Does anyone really believe that if Hillary wins TX, OH and PA, even by a slight margin, there is any chance on earth that she will not get the nomination? You can't win every major state in the country and lose the nomination.
Posted by: ReasonBased | Feb 25, 2008 2:55:02 PM
Oh, I agree it's over. But "HRC is McCain in a less well tailored pantsuit."????
Not only is it ludicrous for you to call ME "unhinged" when you can write that, but it doesn't stop there because you contradict your own argument. If, "Her claim of 'experience withers in the face of McCain's public service"—how can they be the same but in different drag?
Rudy, Rudy, time to change your meds.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 25, 2008 3:00:23 PM
"...we will have our first elected black President. As Robert Samuelson describes below, Obama’s as hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny"
Bedwell, wtf is wrong with you?
Posted by: Astonedtemple | Feb 25, 2008 3:00:43 PM
And yet she's managing to do it.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 25, 2008 3:01:09 PM
I don't think she can win the nomination now. I believe she really needed Wisconsin to propel her forward, but we'll see.
But I must say, Barack Obama supporters see an invincibility in him that defies logic and reason.
The media love affair with Obama will be over the minute he and McCain stand alone in the race. The only person they love more than Barack is their "Maverick" John.
Obama will get my vote in November - unlike many of his supporters I've encountered, I will vote for my party nominee - but I'll do it holding my nose. Let's hope he choses an excellent running mate if he wins. He'll need one.
Posted by: Marco | Feb 25, 2008 3:27:39 PM
Bedwell, you're making wild assumptions (surprise, surprise). You have no idea what I am paying attention to, because I refuse to address your raving commentary. I am quite aware of both candidate's strengths and weaknesses. And it changes my impressions of Hillary not a whit.
My opinion about the Clinton's race baiting proves that I am not an "Obamaton" and that Barack is very gracious. But you're still running that tired ass McClurkin gay bash angle, ain't cha? And how very clever of you to Google a journalist who shares your views. You quote it as if it is the Sermon on the Mount.
My, my, a raving supporter of "non-racist" Hillary calling Obama "hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny". The irony is delish!
GO OBAMA!!
Posted by: soulbrotha | Feb 25, 2008 3:29:18 PM
Oh damn, it just dawned on me... Michael Bedwell is dearly departed commenter Leland Frances. How did I not realize that until now? Does everyone else already know this?
Posted by: crispy | Feb 25, 2008 3:33:35 PM
I don't think so, Crispy.
While they both suffer from keyboard diarrhea and a tone that's beyond strident, Leland's arguments usually made sense, the language was often clever, and, with the the possible exception of Reichen threads, he didn't just repeat the same tired attacks ad hominem.
Posted by: 24play | Feb 25, 2008 3:49:01 PM
Senator Clinton's biggest mistake was unleashing Bill Clinton and the other Clinton operatives who unleashed racially tinged attacks against Senator Obama. It backfired very badly on all fronts.
Those attacks made Clinton look desperate: a non-racist person willing to traffic in racism to win. The question became "What won't Clinton say to get elected?" Bill Clinton tarnished his reputation as a statesman. Both Clintons lost support amongst many African-Americans who were either on their side or on the fence. Just a few months ago, Hillary Clinton had a huge lead over Obama amongst African-Americans. That melted away after the attack dog were unleashed.
It was just such a stupid move. She had a huge popularity amongst African-Americans but alienated them.
After that, the old guard feminists, Gloria Steinem, Eric Jong, and others, went on the attack with sexist arguments that women who didn't support Clinton were gender traitors. Many younger and older feminists were appalled that they were told to not vote their conscience but their vaginas.
Clinton should have fired her chief strategist, Mark Penn, after South Carolina. Mark Penn has been more hindrance than aid. Barack Obama is brilliant but his ascendancy in the primaries was propelled by the unfettered incompetency at the top of the Clinton campaign.
Posted by: noah | Feb 25, 2008 4:15:27 PM
Fork? Toast? Choose your metaphor:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/texas.poll/index.html
Posted by: 24play | Feb 25, 2008 4:18:43 PM
Leland used that "time to change your meds" bon mot dozens of times. I'm convinced they're the same person. Besides, it's a relief knowing there's only one screeching queen with that big of a chip on her shoulder.
Posted by: crispy | Feb 25, 2008 4:29:45 PM
C'mon guys, do the math. Unless HRC wins TX, OH, AND PA by more than 70% she will not capture sufficient delegates to secure the nomination due to the delegation apportionment rules that Billary themselves put in place. HRC would need to retain all of the committed superdelegates to have even a fighting chance but they are bolting in the face of political reality. The superdelegates are, for the most part, themselves facing election and are not about to vote contrary to their constituents. It's over for HRC. The coronation of inevitability has foundered due to unbelievably poor campaign management. It is way past time for bed; well, Michael at least for you and your HRC delusions. Overweaning hubris does not a successful political campaign make.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 25, 2008 4:36:10 PM
So you are saying that if Hillary wins TX, OH and PA, after winning CA, NY, CT, NJ and virtually every large state - compared to Obama's mainly red state wins, Obama is still going to win the nomination??
NO fucking way.
Posted by: ReasonBased | Feb 25, 2008 5:12:47 PM
What were all the Clinton race-baiting attacks against Obama? I've been hearing the "Clintons are racist"shit for so long, I've yet to see the proof.
Posted by: Marco | Feb 25, 2008 5:24:21 PM
Marco
You don't have to be a racist to race-bait. You just have to be a politician. :)
Posted by: astonedtemple | Feb 25, 2008 6:24:02 PM
ReasonBased,
How about this fucking way?
Here’s the 2004 electoral map:
http://www.race2004.net/maps-2004/mapnader.gif
I’d argue that every single state you see in blue, that went for Kerry, will again go for the Democratic nominee, regardless of whether it’s Clinton or Obama. To support that, I’ll point out that the 2000 electoral map was identical to 2004 except for 4 changes: NH went red; WI, IA, and NM went blue. The economy was good in 2004 and voters apparently were still giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt on Iraq. Not any more.
Note that CA, NY, MA, NJ, MA, and MI—virtually all of Hillary’s big wins (or “wins”)—went for the Democrat in both 2000 and 2004.
To win the White House, the Democratic nominee has to pick up 18 more electoral votes than Kerry did.
Which of those 2004 red states will Clinton be able to turn blue? Let’s look at her primary wins—minus the safely Democratic states I mentioned above. Well, she won the primary in her home state of AR, so she’ll have a shot at those 6 VOTES, but she’s not gonna win neighboring TN or OK, which are reliably red. (Gore even lost his home state of TN in 2000.) Hillary won NM, which will again be swing state, so she’ll also have a shot at those 5 VOTES, but McCain will surely win his home state of AZ. And she could win NV, which will also definitely be in play, so those 5 VOTES could also be hers. Also, she barely lost to Obama in swing state MO, so she’ll have a shot at its 11 VOTES. Finally, Hillary “won” FL, but teh Sunshine State's only gone Democratic once since 1980, so there’s no hope of a Democrat winning there, especially against senior citizen McCain.
Altogether, based on her primary performance, I only see Hillary with a shot at winning 27 of the needed electoral votes. She needs 18, and she’s only likely to have a shot at 27. Not much margin for error there.
Now, which of those red states might Obama be able to turn blue? Let’s look at his primary wins. In the South, he won VA, which will certainly be a swing state this year, even winning among white voters and voters near Richmond. That’d be good for 13 VOTES. In the South, he took SC, GA, AL, and LA. Of those, AL will certainly go red, but he could have a shot at SC’s 8 VOTES, GA’s 15 VOTES, and even LA’s 9 VOTES. In the heartland, he won very big in IA and squeaked out a win in MO, both of which will be major battleground states in November, so he should have a shot at their 7 VOTES and 11 VOTES, respectively. Governor Sebelius seems to think he can win her home state of KS, but I say no way. In the mountains, Obama won CO, which will surely be in play this year, and he’ll have a very good shot at those 9 VOTES. NM will also certainly be up for grabs, and since Obama’s loss to Hillary there was by 1 point, I’d say he has about as good a chance as she does at winning those 5 VOTES. Of course, I’ll gladly concede that he hasn’t a shot in hell of winning the general in ND, NB, UT, ID, or AK.
Based on his primary performance to date, I’d say Obama has a reasonable shot at 77 electoral votes in 2004 red states. He needs 18, and he has a shot at 77. And unlike Senator Clinton, Obama has consistently drawn votes from independents and even some moderate Republicans.
What about the rest of the map? Of states yet to have primaries/caucuses:
VT and OR will go blue in November, as they did in 2000 and 2004, whether the Dem is Clinton or Obama. Nothing in play there.
NC, WV, KY, IN, MS, SD, WY, MT, and certainly TX will go Republican, as they did in 2000 and 2004. Again nothing really in play.
PA (21 votes) and OH (20 votes) will be major battlegrounds. Based on polling right now, Clinton might be the stronger Democrat in both of those. But PA has gone blue 4 times since 1980, OH has gone red 4 times, and I’d argue that they’ll go that way again regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.
So, come on, which Democrat do you think has a better shot at winning the White House this November?
Posted by: 24play | Feb 25, 2008 6:57:02 PM