Update on Obama as he rips into the Clinton Political Regime
On Friday, Obama ripped into Bill Clinton during an ABC interview with Good Morning America host Robin Roberts. He said – which I fully agree with – that he feels like he is running against both Clintons:
Bill has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it’s about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we’re going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements that are not factually accurate.
Obama was dead on…Bill has been making inaccurate statements his entire career as President; and I wish he would shut his mouth. This is exactly why the Democrats will not win the election, again. They spend the majority of their time attacking their opponents instead of talking about how they are going to lead our country. Here is another example of how the Clintons mischaracterize their opponents and display their hypocrisy at the same time.
Obama has taken harsh criticism from his Democratic rivals, specifically Billlary, for giving a little love to President Reagan. This is what Obama said:
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” the Senator told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. . . . He just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, ‘We want clarity, we want optimism.
And here’s Hillary’s rant:
I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That’s not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years.
And then her husband Bill’s rant:
Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary. I’m not making this up, folks.
Better ideas? Obama did not say that Republicans had better ideas than Democrats. Here is another blatant example of how the Clintons manipulate the media and attack others in their own party. While Obama is preaching unity – and I respect him for that – the Clintons are all about the politics of division. What they are trying to do is invoke the same level of hatred that extreme liberals have always had for Reagan. They’re trying to keep this country divided by attacking an opponent who chose to praise a past leader of this country from the opposition party instead of insulting him, as the Clintons usually do. It’s no wonder why other leading democrats want Bill to shut the hell up!
With all this criticism of Obama for his comments, I am wondering why Hillary listed President Reagan as one of her favorite Republican Presidents directly on her own web site….puzzling, isn’t it?
Technorati Tags: hillary clinton, Obama, Bill Clinton, ABC News, Good Morning America, President Reagan
- And this years Academy Award goes to Hillary Clinton
- You Decide: Who won the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas?
- 2008 Unleashed: The Dem’s, McCain and Our Nation’s Future
- You Decide: Who won the 2008 Democratic Debate in New Hampshire?
- Barrack Obama on Abortion, Capital Punishment, Healthcare and Gun Control
Share this post
If he is going to confront Bill--disbarred for perjury--Clinton every time Bill lies, Obama is going to be the busiest man in America.
I wonder what part of Bill grows each time he lies. From the looks of the women he attracts it must be his ego. It can not be anything else. One would think Bill would have made peace with Cuba while in his term as president, so he could push the market for "dipped insider" cigars. Ha ha
Go anyone but Billary
Yeah Billary is right
This Canadian sure hopes that two headed monster doesn't get all that power. *shudders*
I like Obama, he's straightforward, sticks to what he believes in (very important!), even though I disagree with some fundamental things that make me conservative, I would rather see him than any of the other Dems win.
I also like that he plans on working WITH the Republicans to solve problems, whereas the others Dems just keep bashing the very people who they'll be begging for votes later...not smart.
I would prefer a Republican that works with Democrats. Mcain might just do it to the detrement of our counrty. So who else
Romney is probably perceived as the least polarizing Republican candidate
For years, the Democratic Party has prided itself as the "Party of Inclusion", in other words, the party that represented women and minorities. In recent decades, they have dominated the black vote as well as the Hispanic vote (with the notable exception of Cuban-Americans). In addition, the Democrats and their liberal supporters have demonized the Republican Party as the party of "the white boys", to borrow a phrase from Donna Brazile. True, Republicans have been slow to attract black voters with their conservative message as opposed to the liberal give-away programs of the Democrats. Their most recent president, Bill Clinton, has often been referred to as "America's first black president." However, with Barack Obama making a strong challenge to Hillary Clinton's expected coronation, the Democratic Party, led by the Clinton machine, is finding itself increasingly divided by race and gender-more reminiscent of the old "Dixiecrats".
As things stand now, Obama is getting the black votes, as evidenced in Michigan and Nevada. Hillary is getting the white vote, especially white women. With South Carolina coming up (with half of the Democratic voters being black), the lines are apparently being drawn even more clearly. Mr Clinton has acknowledged that Obama will win the black vote in South Carolina (and thus probably win the state). Some of the Clintons biggest detractors, like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris, are pushing the theory that the Clintons are planning to use the loss of South Carolina to create a "white backlash" in Florida and the other major states.
Hillary has also raised some hackles with her comparison of the civil rights contributions of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson. (That seems to me to be a case of hyper-sensitivity-ditto for Bill's "fairy tale" remark, which was taken out of context.) Bill, for his part, has made the usual fool out of himself with his angry attacks at reporters who ask inconvenient questions. In spite of the pleas of many in his party, Bill can't stop being on center stage.
One factor that I think has been largely overlooked is the Hispanic vote-particularly Mexican-Americans. Largely Democratic, like black voters, it seems the (Mexican-American) Hispanic vote is going to Hillary as evidenced by the 64% who voted for her in Nevada and the endorsement of the United Farm Workers. Why is that? Unfortunately, notwithstanding public statements made by black and Hispanic public figures, there is a degree of antipathy between the Mexican and black communities in places like Los Angeles and other large cities, where black and Hispanic gangbangers are killing each other on city streets. The same situation exists in California prisons. (I don't mean to suggest that gangbangers and prison inmates are representative of those communities, but this conflict can't be ignored.)
This is what happens when you put ethnic groups into categories or tribes, if you will. Now the Democrats are learning that race-based politics can boomerang. Now the Democrats are tearing themselves to pieces over race and gender. But who will call them racists?
In addition, two significant events have occurred regarding Hillary in the last 48 hours. First, she won the endorsement of the New York Times, not surprising, but notable in the gushing tone of the editorial. (Of course, the New York Times is now only a shell of its former great self-now one of the most partisan newspapers in the country.)
Then there's this: Remember the South Carolina debate a few days ago when Hillary threw out the charge that Obama was doing business with "that slum lord contributor, Rezko"? (Tony Rezko, friend of Obama, Chicago developer and accused racketeer, who is under federal indictment on corruption charges). On today's Today Show, Hillary Clinton appeared with Matt Lauer who threw up an old photograph from the Clinton White House years showing Bill, Hillary and guess who? Tony Rezko! Explanation? "We have had our picture taken with thousands of people- Can't be expected to know them all". (I'll say!)
I sure hope that the mainstream news media does their job and reports on Mr Rezko. The Chicago press has reported for some time on the relationship between Obama and Rezko. This week, the LA Times has followed suit. Many of the details are out there just waiting for nation-wide dissemination. Now, it is the job of the news media to investigate the relationship between the Clintons and Rezko. How did Rezko get his picture taken with the Clintons? What did he contribute to the Clintons and what did he receive from them?
Maybe the New York Times will get to the bottom of it. (Don't hold your breath.)
gary fouse
fousesquawk
I'm about as liberal as anyone can get, but I don't think there's anything in this post that I disagree with. Here's hoping 'Bama get's the nomination!
@ Phil
Well, we welcome liberals here.
But I must ask...do you really agree with the following statements?
"This is exactly why the Democrats will not win the election, again. They spend the majority of their time attacking their opponents instead of talking about how they are going to lead our country"
and...
"What they are trying to do is invoke the same level of hatred that extreme liberals have always had for Reagan. They’re trying to keep this country divided by attacking an opponent who chose to praise a past leader of this country from the opposition party instead of insulting him,"
@ Urban
haha, yeah, I do disagree with both parts of that first statement. All politicians attack each other in the primaries, and think you would have to write a whole book to try to prove that one party does it more then the other. Sure Clinton's been bashing Obama, but just look at how everyone on your side constantly gangs up on Paul.
And I think there's a very good chance that there will be a Dem in office next year. They have a habit of nominating the most unappealing candidate running, but if they can avoid the urge to do it once again with Hillary, I think they have a very good shot. I think if people can avoid getting hung up on Barack's middle name, he would wipe the floor with Romney could pull out a close win against McCain.
Check back with headquarters. I think you're supposed to start bashing Obama now - too much sympathy for Obama will make it hard to convince independents to hate him in the general election.
@ David
What's up with your comment? This blog is nothing about hate and I don't appreciate your sarcasm. If I had to vote for a dem, it would most likely be Obama.
OK, no sarcasm, although what you posted in your about section about bashing liberals and people hating you makes you sound rather thick skinned.
Just hypothetically, suppose all the news sources you rely on start saying negative things about Obama soon. Will you be skeptical, perhaps even compare to the practices of past presidents you support?
Actually David I've yet to see any Obama bashing on this blog (correct me if I'm wrong) -- whereas its rife on other Conservative blogs. Personally, it's refreshing, I think we have more than enough material against Dems like Billary (plenty of bashing here
and don't stop!), Edwards, and Kookinich (oops he's dropped out), to bash.
That being said, I'm not afraid to criticize Obama on our disagreements.
@ David
Yeah, I am just getting over a cold so I am a little overly sensitive. That's my excuse.
The reality about Obama is that I don't agree with most of his politics; and there are many news sources that are already bashing his voting record. But I do like him and his message of unity.
JUST MY OPINION!!!!!!!
I cant believe as AMERICANS that we are even considering the idea of having BARACK OBAMA as leader of our country. Did we not learn our lesson with 9-11. Have we no heart or soul that we forget so easily all we lost on that day to allow this person to run our country. This is AMERICA not the republic of KENYA.
Do you people not think that if the BIN LADEN and all his followers went to so much trouble to seek out all the planes in which they would need to carry out their plans of torture on our great land, all the time and money spent, all the people involved to carry it out that they would not set the wheels in motion to have one of their own come into our office and destroy our country.
I am sorry but if the people of AMERICA think thats its ok to have a Represenative with a foreign SOIL background rule our country that we are no longer the LAND OF THE FREE. We are no longer the LEADING COUNTRY of the world. Do you think that KENYA OR IRAQ OR SAUDI ARABIA would allow an AMERICAN family to move there, give birth to a child and then let that child become their LEADER. I THINK NOT.
Do you people not remember all the talk of a man in a TURBAN who will be the one to start a NUCLEAR WAR. Well BARACK in that TURBAN does not make me want to invite him to lead our country. If we thought having the BUSHES run our country was bad enough I think we are in big trouble inviting BARACK OBAMA which to me OBAMA sounds a little to close for comfort to OSAMA, to run our country.
HAVE WE ALL GIVEN UP SO EASILY.
WE ARE AMERICANS AND AN AMERICAN SHOULD RUN OUR GREAT LAND.
B-Born
A-A
R-Rebel
A-American
C-Citizen
K-Killer
O-Observe
B-By
A-Assassinating
M-Most
A-Americans
IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE COME TO.
@ Gale
Your opinion is always welcome here. But please don't think that this is a place that supports Obama. It isn't. I just like the fact that the two democratic nominees are tearing eachother apart. It's fun to watch.