« It's Hard Out There For Conservatives | Main | The Firewall Is Down! The Firewall Is Down! »

Clinton Explains Last Night

22 Jan 2008 12:27 pm

A memo:

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008

RE: About Last Night

While much of this campaign has focused on Senator Obama’s rhetoric, there has not been much attention paid to Senator Obama’s record. Last night, that changed. With the fireworks now receding, it’s time to focus on the substance.

From questions about his commitment to fiscal responsibility to his relationship with a donor currently under indictment to his consistency on key issues, last night raised new issues that the Obama campaign must confront today.

Senator Obama, for example, was the only member of the Illinois State Senate to vote present on a bill that would have increased privacy protections for victims of sexual assault. Senator Obama claimed he sponsored that bill and only voted present because of "a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn't be struck down." But the reality is that he did not sponsor the bill and more than seven years after it became law, the measure has not been struck down. It was one of almost 130 present votes that he cast as a state lawmaker.

Senator Obama claimed that suggestions he does not pay for his spending proposals are false. But in fact, he has failed to say how he would pay for over $50 billion worth of the new programs he discusses on the campaign trail.

Senator Obama asserted that the Clinton campaign has suggested he was not really opposed to the war in Iraq. In fact, the Clinton campaign believes Senator Obama opposed the war – we are simply taking issue with what he did – or did not do – to end the war after he gave his speech in 2002.

As an attorney, Senator Obama represented now-indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko in his efforts to develop government-subsidized slum housing. Interestingly, Senator Obama has thus far failed to return all contributions associated with Mr. Rezko, which included money that was given through straw donors or obtained from Illinois taxpayers.

Senator Obama voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card rates at 30%. Senator Obama says he voted against the limit because it was “too high.” And today there is no cap at all on interest rates.

Finally, Senator Obama said last night that he “never said we should go ahead and get a single payer system.” But the reality is that he said exactly that when he was running in the primary for the U.S. Senate in 2003.

:: Comments (68) ::

Share This

Comments (68)

Still awaiting her "quote" that Obama praised Reagan.

"In fact, the Clinton campaign believes Senator Obama opposed the war – we are simply taking issue with what he did – or did not do – to end the war after he gave his speech in 2002."

That is high comedy. Barack Obama should have done more to end the war because as an Illinois state Legislator, he had so much power to do so, unlike say, a powerful New York Senator.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 22, 2008 12:57 PM


yes... he opposed the war, but it happened anyway.
so he voted FOR providing supplies to the troops who were put on the ground and in harms. This is the definition of opposing the war but supporting the troops.

Posted by Adam | January 22, 2008 1:41 PM

Dear Hillary,
You are poison, and so is your campaign. Please go away.

Posted by tinisoli | January 22, 2008 1:58 PM

Links? Quotes? I'm tired of this unsubstantiated word-twisting. No candidate is perfect, and you could pull crap like this on any of them.

I was hoping the democratic race woudln't have much of it, though.

Posted by Daniel Andrews | January 22, 2008 1:59 PM

Hillary will do anything to get elected: lie, cheat, distort, misrepresent,fudge-- you name it, she will do it. We are just sick and tired of Bush/Clinton dynasty being stuck on our neck.

Posted by siam Erzuah | January 22, 2008 2:26 PM

If you are also tired of the Bush and Clinton families taking Americans for granted, send emails to your friends and asked them to vote and oppose Hillary Clinton

Posted by Mubina Khan | January 22, 2008 2:30 PM

Hillary Clinton, shame on you! You will distort facts, tell outright lies, and stop at nothing to get back in the White House! God help you!

Posted by Laverne Berry | January 22, 2008 4:43 PM

Hillary Clinton, shame on you! You will distort facts, tell outright lies, and stop at nothing to get back in the White House! God help you!

Posted by Laverne Berry | January 22, 2008 4:44 PM

This letter is so lame. Was this really necessary? I was one of the many undecided young voters until the Clinton campaign decided to get involved in a game of dirty politics. The letter sounds just like one of those dumb advertisements you see just before election day...Makes me want to vomit. STICK TO THE ISSUES THIS COUNTRY IS DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW, NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST....

Posted by Fisher Lady | January 22, 2008 4:46 PM

There may have been 3 candidates in the debate, but there was only ONE that acted Presidential. That was John Edwards. While the kids pulled each other's hair out, Edwards proved he will be the Democratic nominee. It's just a matter of time.

Posted by JRE2008 | January 22, 2008 4:56 PM

Booooooooooooooooooooooo. This kind of garbage from Hillary only distracts from the real issues that we face. Please stop the cheap politics. Barack is the future and Hillary is using dirty tricks to try to prevent what must happen. HOPE!

Posted by Tyson Logan | January 22, 2008 4:58 PM

1-22-08 MESSAGE TO ALL FEMALE QUALIFIED VOTERS LETS ELECT A WOMAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE, THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET THIS COUNTRY ON THE RIGHT TRACK. MY VOTE IS FOR LADY CLINTON. I HAVE READ HER BIOGRAPHY AND I THINK SHE HAS GUTS AND COURAGE FOR HER DESIRE TO BE PRESIDENT. DURING HER PRESIDENCY WE WILL SEE GREAT CHANGES.

Posted by ELNA MATTHEWS | January 22, 2008 4:59 PM

a couple questions i would like to ask hillary:

1. "how do you do it?" not, how do you wake up in the morning, but how do you sleep at night, spewing lies about your competition and about your own past?

2. given that we now know you actually can shed a tear, how many have you shed for the hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives, and the thousands of american soldiers' lives that have been lost because of your and your fellow senators' weak kneed vote to go to war? (ps you are too smart to not have known that's what that vote meant)

Posted by jonnie | January 22, 2008 5:03 PM

Is there anyone mature enough to point out what's wrong with this email? facts?
I am sick of obama supporters beating around bush in stead of getting to the facts.

Posted by Lin | January 22, 2008 5:05 PM

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and was a big supporter. I was considering voting for Hillary. However, after Hillary's and Bill's ridiculous attacks against a fellow democrat, I will punish that behavior the only way that I can: by voting for the person being unfairly attacked. Consider mine as one vote lost by Hillary and gained by Obama.

Posted by James | January 22, 2008 5:08 PM

I am happy to know the truth.

Posted by rachel | January 22, 2008 5:10 PM

This is good example of Obama's way to deal with policies that concerned US people:

Senator Obama voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card rates at 30%. Senator Obama says he voted against the limit because it was “too high.” And today there is no cap at all on interest rates.

Posted by Judie | January 22, 2008 5:10 PM

I am happy to know the truth. Obviously Obama does have integrity problem.

Posted by rachel | January 22, 2008 5:11 PM

I will not vote for a woman president just because I am a woman--that would be the dumbest decision I could make for my future. I am an informed voter, and I will vote for a President based on their views on issues that are of most importance to the future of our country...

Posted by Lady Fisher | January 22, 2008 5:12 PM

It seems there are many Hillary haters here. However, those haters have only rhetoric without taking the time to find facts to support it or refute Hillary's claims! Young doesn't mean immature! Go do some work so that your opinions would be valued.

An independent. Well, actually I can't vote (:-

Posted by an independent | January 22, 2008 5:14 PM


According to CNN Election Center 2008, 2,025 delegates will be needed to win the Democratic nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention to be held in Denver August 25-28. Current pledged delegate totals before the South Carolina Democratic primary election Saturday January 26 are: Obama 38, Clinton 36, and Edwards 18.

Florida will be meaningless to Democrats because like Michigan all Democratic delegates have been declared illegal by the national committee because of the state party’s non compliance in setting their primary date no sooner than Super Tuesday February 5.

Should Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton Become the Democratic Party’s Nominee for President in 2008?

Which candidate is best able to inspire Americans with a new vision of a better America both domestically and in foreign affairs that will attract sufficient independent voters and disenchanted Republicans so that Democrats can win the general election in November?

Which candidate is least likely to cause a worsening division and polarization of voters and elected officials that maintains the partisan politics that currently paralyzes Washington?

Which candidate refuses campaign contributions from lobbyists and political action committees as a first step in seeking to change the money dominated special interest politics that currently rules Washington?

Which candidate has had the personal background and life experiences and possesses the vision and ability necessary to bring together Americans of all ethnic backgrounds be they white, Latino, Asian, African American, or native American in a sense of common purpose?

Which candidate do Americans most respect and admire given the facts of his or her personal family background, marriage relationship, intelligence and academic achievement, and the particular path by which he or she has become a candidate for president of the United States?

Which candidate does not have a spouse whose past political experience and personal behavior could prove to be a serious distraction that might needlessly complicate the office and duties of the President and potentially interfere with the normal functioning of cabinet officers?

Which candidate will the American people be able to trust when times are tough because he or she consistently values telling the truth, rather than choosing his or her words primarily with regard to the politics of the moment?

The inescapable answer is Barack Obama.

Posted by Robert | January 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Senator. Obama needs to address the specific concerns raised by Senator Clinton. The present votes are a red flag for behavior that has apparently continued in the Senate, missing 80% of the votes since beginning his run for the nomination. I for one would like to hear an honest and complete response regarding his relationship with Rezko. One last point. How is what Bill Clinton is doing any different from what we see from Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards? Are we seeing yet another double standard here?

Posted by MaryAnn | January 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Dear ELNA,

GOOD IDEA TO TALK IN ALL CAPS. THAT WILL SURELY SWAY PEOPLE TO YOUR SIDE.

And, of course, it's always a good idea to vote for people based on whether or not they have ovaries.

Posted by KJ | January 22, 2008 5:15 PM

WELL, READ IT HERE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW PHONY OBAMA IS.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

IM SORRY, BUT THE POLITICS OF HOPE JUST WENT PFFFT!

Posted by Andrew | January 22, 2008 5:16 PM

Has Hillary forgotten about her relationship with HSU?

Posted by amn | January 22, 2008 5:18 PM

I would like to point out that if Obama were not black, there wouldn't have been so much buzz about him. Just an inexperienced president-wannabe newbie, everyone would have laughed to death about his campaigning.
His supporters are either republicans/hillary haters or too lame to see it.

Posted by MA | January 22, 2008 5:21 PM

The Clintons gave us Bush...why would we want them back????

Posted by JP | January 22, 2008 5:21 PM

It is hard to admit to those of you that blindly support Obama Hussein. When you DO look at his record, he sounds like any other person in Washington. At least Hillary has a record of trying to change things. I do not recall anyone else trying to start universal health care in the 1990's. Unfortunately, RAPE-thePUBLIC-ans had control of the house and senate at that time.Now Obama Hussein thinks that was a good idea after switching from his Single-payer plan. He has the gift of gab, but so do car salesman. We need someone that can lead and has the vision for our future, not just a lot of talk. Seems that he gets frustrated when people dig a little deeper on his record, not just accepting everything he says as the truth.

Posted by Jesse R | January 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Ann,

Did you know what Hillary did about Hsu's donation?

Everyone makes mistakes. The key is how one deals with it. I guess you won't make mistakes by saying "present" (:-

Posted by An independent | January 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Love Hillary. I'm sick of Obama's rambling on for 10 minutes and not saying anything. His inability to be concise during a debate is a major flaw.

Posted by Angela | January 22, 2008 5:27 PM

oh, look. some links. now how about that? Hillary confronted him to his face at the SC debate. At least you can't say she was indecisive when confronting him face to face in front of everyone.

Present Votes
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Sex shops vote: present
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summary/920SB0609.html
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB0609_03292001_047000T.PDF

Posted by Andy | January 22, 2008 5:28 PM

You should be ashamed in bringing up such trivial "doo doo". There's no one in either campaign that's more crooked than you. What about the Chinese man who was convicted of campaign crimes who donated to YOU, Ms. Clinton. What about your vote to START THE WAR in the first place, Ms. Clinton. Barack just want to help the men YOU sent over there to be safe, and his vote was for money, not war. What about that shady shot you did on Mr. Obama last night for his 5 hours of work for a known criminal. How much work did you do for Mr. Chinese man? I bet a whole lot more than 5 hours. Shut up woman!

Posted by babs | January 22, 2008 5:31 PM

That's rich coming from her! Does she really want to bring up ALL the scandals and tainted money the Clintons are linked to? Swipe away witchy-poo, he will still come out smelling like a rose compared to you.

Posted by Vicki | January 22, 2008 5:33 PM

Did Obama really spend only 5 hours with Rezko?
Get real!
see this link
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwwA826vvaIucJQacWaLasENCiVwD8UB3IQG0

Posted by mike | January 22, 2008 5:41 PM

Shut up "babs"! People like you make me doubt about Mr. Obama. Your writing shows that you are an immature underbred racist.

--An independent

Posted by an independent | January 22, 2008 5:50 PM

Just like a woman. Always has to have the last word.

Posted by cprince | January 22, 2008 5:56 PM

WELL, READ IT HERE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW PHONY OBAMA IS.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

IM SORRY, BUT THE POLITICS OF HOPE JUST WENT PFFFT!

Posted by Andrew | January 22, 2008 5:57 PM

Senator Obama has one of the strongest records on ethics of anyone who has run for national office. He has the experience, judgment, eloquence, and vision to undo much of the damage that Bush and his cronies have done to our nation at home, and our reputation around the world. Among all those running for the office of President in 2008, Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to be Chief Executive of the United States at this dangerous and difficult time in our history.

If Americans don't recognize Senator Obama's potential to be a great president-- right now, when we and the world need him most-- I truly despair for my country.

Posted by Staton Rabin | January 22, 2008 6:20 PM

Have we forgotton that Bill Clinton, the "senior" statesman who is actually talking more than the candidate "Hillary" was actually impeached when he was president? So, this is the guy we should take direction from now? What a "fairy tale!" Also, Bill is now moving to defend his wife Hillary, let's see...how concerned was he with her feelings when he was involved with Ms. Flowers or Monica? Or have we all forgotten about that, too? And if we want to talk about clients that Obama or Hillary had in the past when they were lawyers, what was that little White Water thing that Hillary's law firm was involved? Bill's comments about his "girl" and how this African-American are being mean to her smacks of good old fashioned racism. Is this what anybody really wants for the future? Oh, and before we talk about drug use, isn't Bill the one who said he used drugs but didn't inhale? Please, give me a break!!!!

Posted by Melody | January 22, 2008 6:24 PM

MESSAGE TO ALL MALE & FEMALE QUALIFIED VOTERS:
LETS ELECT A WOMAN TO THE WHITE HOUSE, THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET THIS COUNTRY ON THE RIGHT TRACK. MY VOTE IS FOR LADY CLINTON. I HAVE READ HER BIOGRAPHY AND I THINK SHE HAS GUTS AND COURAGE FOR HER DESIRE TO BE PRESIDENT. DURING HER PRESIDENCY WE WILL SEE GREAT CHANGES. ECONOMY WILL TURN AROUND AND WE WILL SEE SURPLUS. JUST LIKE WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE, SHE WORKED ON HEALTH REFORM BILL, SHE COULD USE THE EXPERIENCE OF BILL CLINTON IN MAKING THE BUDGET DEFICIT INTO SURPLUS LIKE HE DID WHEN HE TOOK OVER FROM SENIOR BUSH.

Posted by Dean Saj Alan | January 22, 2008 6:26 PM

She should know, since Illinois is one of the states she is from, ha, that voting 'present' gives a chance to improve an imperfect bill. She knows all about imperfect Bills. Twisting words, she has her own set of crooked donors, mostly foreign.

We need people who redefine "is" in the White House again like we need another Middle East war.

Posted by T Johnson | January 22, 2008 6:30 PM

All caps..... I dismiss your opinion without reading it. get a clue

Posted by im right cuz Im loud | January 22, 2008 6:36 PM

OK Hilary, in 16 years you went from an idealist public defender, or so you say, to the Board of Walmart, somewhere along the line you lost my vote. It it comes down to Hilary Clinton and Bill Clinton for Vice , I would rather have Obama/ Edwards. Integrity does matter, not winning at any cost.

Posted by Eddie Nunez | January 22, 2008 6:40 PM

Why do all the hillary-haters use the same cliches that have been printed and repeated ad nauseaum? Are they just incapable of independent thought?

And WHY do you hate her? What specific, OBJECTIVE act has she ever done that made you hate her?

Or was it just in 1991 when the media decided to portray her as some evil bitch that you decided to go along with it?

And if your answer is the subjective negative commentary we have heard time and time again, is there anything OBJECTIVE you can state?

Posted by monwedfri | January 22, 2008 6:41 PM

Truth is what gets my vote...bye bye obama--who won't even admit his middle name is hussien

Posted by cn | January 22, 2008 6:43 PM

MA, I strongly disagree with your assertion that Obama's campaign has only gained a foothold because of his race. I do think that the Clinton campaign is trying to spin it this way to obscure the broad appeal that his campaign has to many people. That's because she's scared.

Obama has more years in elected office than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Those years just weren't all at a national level. While Hillary likes to claim "35 years of experience" do yourself a favor and try counting those years and see how many of them were in elected office. If the electorate really wanted candidates with long experience in national office, they would have paid attention to those who have already dropped out of the race, who were by far the most qualified by this measure.

And may I remind you that George Bush had a short and undistinguished record in office before he came to the white house. He's not black. How do you explain his candidacy?

I lived in the area of Illinois that Obama represented. He has a great record of forging compromises between parties and ethics reform. From observing the Kerry and Obama campaigns in 2004 (for president and senate, respectively) Obama was FAR more organized a campaigner than Kerry. Obama is a very talented man; don't sell him short.

Posted by Sally | January 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Liar just like your husband...we are tired seeing your lie can you please leave U.S for true motivated ppl like Obama Americans are tired of seeing old people on Poltics. That game is over now we are in the 21st century.Hello...experience??? it's better to change that word to money...the older they get they want more money, as if they live long.Live poltics away for young generation.

Posted by ayeetata | January 22, 2008 6:48 PM

It is such a joke to have the Clinton's, especially, Billy Bubba, pontificate on moral integrity.

I will take an Obama and put them him up against the swarmy Clinton's any day.

I don't get women that think by voting for Hillary it advances women's causes. She has her husband on the campaign trail doing her 'dirty work' and the experience she touts over Obama came from being a First Lady.

My vote for a women will happen when the female candidate shows leadership by campaigning on her own merits, and didn't stand by her 'dirty old man' for political gain.

An Over 60 Woman

Posted by Mary Connor | January 22, 2008 6:49 PM

Senator Obama has to grow up. Even if he got the nomination, he would get eaten alive by the GOP machine. His campaign theme based naivety, on the premise that GOP smear machine is gonna lock up their sabers and play kitty with him. He thinks after the usual 90-day honey noon, the GOP in Congress is gonna role over and play dead, let him pass the national health care, other progressive values without the fight? The guy has the gale to criticize Pres Bill Clinton for not doing any change while he has no hope achieve any close with his \\\naivety

Please Obama, bring substance to your style. Step down from your hollywood cloud, your JFKnesque, go back to the issues that affect American lives.

my last straw for Obama, he appeared to praised the President (Reagan) who questioned Dr King legacy in American history. It is in vogue now that the GOP politicians pay respect to Dr. King, but in the 1980s, they opposed giving Day for remembering him, many accused Dr. King of being a communist sympathizer.

Posted by joe | January 22, 2008 6:56 PM

While Bill is merely a sociopath (lack of conscience development), Hillary presumably is normal but twisted. I think I twisted may be worse.

Posted by getoo | January 22, 2008 7:05 PM

I would vote for a Woman in the WHITE HOUSE. I will not vote for THAT Woman, however.

Posted by Vince Foster | January 22, 2008 7:06 PM

I would vote for a Woman in the WHITE HOUSE. I will not vote for THAT Woman, however. It all depends on what the meaning of "is is." If Bill is a bonus, then talk about Mark Rich's pardon, and all the others, Hillary.
And if you will do whatever it takes to sell your health plan, what happened last time?

Posted by Vince Foster | January 22, 2008 7:07 PM

I was once on the fence on who I would vote for, however after recent events I can say it will not be for Hillary. Has anyone brought up whitewater? Or PETER PAUL? Or the inter that was removed for spreading false emails about Obama . Youtube peter paul Clinton. Hillary you shouldn’t toss rocks when you live in a big glass house.

Posted by D.Parker | January 22, 2008 7:34 PM

Here's the link to today's Associated Press article entitled, "Obama's Relationship with Alleged Fixer." If anyone wants to knock Obama, maybe you could read this first and make sure the attacks are founded.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwwA826vvaIucJQacWaLasENCiVwD8UB3IQG0

Sounds like he did very little wrong and owned up to what mistakes he did make. And according to this article, he never represented Mr. Rezko.

I'm starting to think that Obama is running against both Clintons, like he said in the debate. And at this point, I'm also starting to subscribe to the notion, especially with some of the things she's said and done lately, that Mrs. Clinton is out to win this by any means necessary. Unsettling.

Posted by Sam | January 22, 2008 7:53 PM

I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would want someone as underhanded and evil as Hilary Clinton to be their President. How can any voter ever trust what she would say if she were President if she cannot be trusted in what she says in her campaign. If we think GW Bush is bad, wait until Hilary takes control, I firmly believe that would be the end of the US as we know it.

Posted by VH | January 22, 2008 7:54 PM

Dear People;
Ummhhh.. about the great economic boom that the U.S. economy experienced during Bill-easy-zip period; I was just wandering if that was the case that getting ‘lucky’ in the Oval Office could produce such greatness? If so, Bush should start hiring some interns to pump-up our economy. Or such great economic period was a result of, let say, Reagan’s policies? I am not quite sure. By the way I really like Mrs. Hillary’s honesty and high moral standards. Mrs. Hillary’s integrity is clear as the sky before a hurricane (just ask Bill-easy-zip!). As for the honesty and moral standards (I like because I don't have access to!) I am tired of being Democrat!

Posted by Julio Proano | January 22, 2008 8:44 PM

From the e-mail: "Senator Obama, for example, was the only member of the Illinois State Senate to vote present on a bill that would have increased privacy protections for victims of sexual assault. Senator Obama claimed he sponsored that bill and only voted present because of "a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn't be struck down.""

While he DID vote "present" on many votes, many state legistators from Illinois have backed Obama up by saying that it is common practice as a tactical method of not being politcally ambushed by Republicans yet still giving a "no" vote. It is also used, as Obama has stated, to create a strategy for somewhat flawed bills.

From the e-mail: "Senator Obama asserted that the Clinton campaign has suggested he was not really opposed to the war in Iraq. In fact, the Clinton campaign believes Senator Obama opposed the war – we are simply taking issue with what he did – or did not do – to end the war after he gave his speech in 2002."

I don't think anyone would disagree that once we got into this stupid war, the troops NEEDED to be funded. This SHOULD need no further explanation, but is sadly brought up far too often.

From the e-mail: "As an attorney, Senator Obama represented now-indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko in his efforts to develop government-subsidized slum housing. Interestingly, Senator Obama has thus far failed to return all contributions associated with Mr. Rezko, which included money that was given through straw donors or obtained from Illinois taxpayers."

Obama's LAW FIRM represented Rezko, but Obama was not directly involved. He spent a mere six to eight hours filing papers and other such low-level tasks. To date, I believe Obama has sent around $86,000 to various charities just to be sure he gets rid of that money.

From the e-mail: "Finally, Senator Obama said last night that he “never said we should go ahead and get a single payer system.” But the reality is that he said exactly that when he was running in the primary for the U.S. Senate in 2003."

This is taken out of context. Obama said that, if he had to START A NEW SYSTEM FROM SCRATCH, he would probably do it this way, but the system has evolved, making single payer a bad idea.

This could go on and on, but anyone who wants to make an INFORMED decision can simply find all this stuff with a quick search of various news articles and websites.

Posted by Factchecker | January 22, 2008 8:47 PM

Hey, monwedfri...

You want objective? Here's the AP story on Obama's Rezko tie:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwwA826vvaIucJQacWaLasENCiVwD8UB3IQG0

Now if you actually read it, you can see that Hillary is twisting the truth and Swiftboating Obama on this issue. Like she always does. She is one of the dirtiest and most disingenuous politicians out there. I don't like her, I don't trust her, and I admit, sadly, that I do hate her... just a little.

I would hate HRC less if she was a Republican. Then there would be no need. Then her tactics, demagoguery, and dirty campaigning would fit in. Then I wouldn't have to worry about the Democrats blowing it AGAIN and ushering in WWIII on the backs of those Republican fools.

Because Hillary cannot and will not win the general election. And whether the reasons people hate her are valid and objective or not does not matter. The fact that too many people hate her does matter. Democrats are not the majority. Almost no Republicans and very few Independents have a positive view of HRC. Do the math. She can't win, especially against McCain, who is viewed positively by most Independents and a few Democrats.

Do. The. Math.

Hillary is a recipe for four more years of Republican foolishness and a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Further, hate is an emotion. Emotions are by definition subjective. Asking for an "objective" justification for hate is an absurdity, just like your apparent blindness towards Clinton's egregious and readily apparent character flaws and her inherent unelectability in the general election.

Posted by truthy | January 22, 2008 8:53 PM

A dynasty was good for J. R. Ewing, but they have not been so good for the people of The U.S.A. The Bush presidency is testimony to that.

The Clintons' experience would be valuable in the vice presidency or in the cabinet.

But we need a president who can inspire and lead.

We do not need a disbarred attorney and spouse of a nominee to create ill will in our own party.

We do not need to be patronized and treated as though voters are interfering with some preconceived dynastic plan.

In ancient cultures there may have been a belief in the divine right of kings (or queens), but in modern America, there is no belief in the divine right of Bubba.

:-)

Vote with your heart and don't be condescended to.

Posted by Robert Campbell | January 22, 2008 9:01 PM

hillary's scare tactics are pathetic. all of this "ready on day 1" garbage is merely a softer form of the republican's politics of fear. wake up everybody, we have a once in a lifetime chance to elect a truly transformational figure in barack obama

Posted by obamafan | January 22, 2008 9:02 PM

"Senator Obama claimed he sponsored that bill and only voted present because of "a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn't be struck down." But the reality is that he did not sponsor the bill..."

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/status/910SB0943.html

Maybe not, but he sponsored a nearly identical bill.

Posted by KJ | January 22, 2008 9:04 PM

I love the logic behind trying to discredit someone based on their middle name. Typically childish. Typically Clinton.
You are delusional if you think Clinton is electable in a general election. The latest poll indicates fifty percent of the voting population answered "Hillary Clinton" when they were asked who they would NEVER vote for.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain.
I'm one of many democrats who would never vote for Hillary. NEVER.
If Clinton wins the nomination, we know who to blame when we welcome another republican to the white house.
By the way, let me remind all of you that HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR!

Posted by Alex | January 22, 2008 9:52 PM

ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT CLAIM THAT REZKO'S SITUATION DOES NOT PROVE THAT OBAMA HAD DONE ANYTHING CRIMINAL ARE VERY SHORT SIGHTED. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER OBAMA DID ANYTHING CRIMINAL OR NOT BUT THAT AS AN ADVOCATE OF CHANGE AND OF HOPE THEN HOW COULD YOU ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM A SLUM LORD WHEN YOU CLAIM TO BE FIGHTING FOR THE POOR? HOW IS IT THAT YOU WROTE RECOMMENDATION LETTERS ON REZKO'S BEHALF ON YOUR SENATE STATIONARY WHEN THERE WERE LAWSUITS GOING AGAINST REZKO PROJECTS? HOW IS IT THAT YOU CLAIM YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS IN REZKO MANAGED BUILDINGS IN YOUR DISTRICT WITH ONE SUCH BUILDING BEING FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM YOUR OFFICE? IF YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR TINY DIDSTRICT THEN HOW COULD WE ENTRUST YOU WITH THE WHOLE COUNTRY? HOW COULD YOU REFER TO REZKO AS "THIS INDIVIDUAL" AT THE DEBATE WHEN REZKO IS YOUR FRIEND FOR 17 YEARS AND HE WAS GIVING YOU MONEY WHEN YOU WERE A NOBODY? YOU TALK ABOUT CHANGE BUT YOU WALK POLITICS AS USUAL. MR BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA...YOU ARE NOT READY TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES GREAT MEN WHO HAVE DIGNITY AND HONOR...YOU HAVE NEITHER.

Posted by GEORGE | January 23, 2008 12:46 AM

What has gotten into Bill Clinton, he of red-faced outbursts of anger, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson asked Tuesday.

Katha Pollitt of the liberal Nation Magazine, an unlikely ally of Hillary's "vast rightwing conspiracy" already gave one answer (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt):

"We will never know the truth behind Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in l978. The most you can say about it, which is also the least you can say about it, is that her story is credible ... investigations by NBC News and reporting from the Washington Post poked no major holes in it.

"She has as much corroboration as Anita Hill--friends who say she told them about the assault at the time, one of whom says she saw her immediately after with a bruised and swollen lip.

"So far as we know, Broaddrick has no motive to lie. Of course, the President's men are right to say you can't disprove an ancient charge like this.

"But the best Clinton's defenders can come up with is that rape doesn't fit his 'MO'--as if, after all the backing and filling and prevaricating and outright lying, we know what this man's MO really is."

More recently Christopher Hitchens, also of the independent left, has written
(http://www.slate.com/id/2182065):

"In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter 'Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?' in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."

Then there was one of the original Washington Post stories, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm), that was very sympathetic to Ms. Broaddrick:

"Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because 'I just don't think anyone would have believed me.'

"In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told "Dateline NBC" that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly 'turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.' . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.' . . . He wouldn't listen to me.'

Yet today, somehow, the media is more interested in covering the presidential "horse race" than looking at hard truths while professional "women's rights activists", whistle softly and look past the individual carnage and the possibilities for a reprise of Oval Office embarrassment.

On Tuesday, The State, the largest newspaper in South Carolina, in its endorsement of Barack Obama for president, editorialized:

"We...have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored."

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton (of all people) makes cheap shots in last night's debate saying that Obama "never take(s) responsibility" and the media dutifully chalks up the debating point in her favor but doesn't ask, as they say in Spanish, "and how are things at home?"

When, in one of those silly moments similar to how much of the media fall all over the Clintons as if the presidential campaign was a Restoration, a lone voice from the back of the U.S. Senate, that of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called out to remind a body that was about to rubber stamp Clarence Thomas' elevation to the Supreme Court about their responsibilities.

Anita Hill came forward and the rest was history. Unfortunately, it was too late to make a difference.

Unlike Hillary I do not believe in vast conspiracies. I believe much of the media reportage this season is better described as the work of a confederacy of dunces.

Posted by Martin Edwin Andersen | January 23, 2008 1:24 AM

Bill Clinton seems to have impluse control problems. Anger, sex...NOT a good thing.

Posted by carol | January 23, 2008 9:22 AM

It's funny to hear the Clinton's criticize another candidate about "shaky" campaign contributors. Hillary (and Bill) are so desperate to get back into the White House because of their own need for power. This is very scary.

Posted by Mary | January 23, 2008 4:40 PM

I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton is taking such a chance! HER record and that of Bill Clinton's is so monumentally negative in so many ways and Barack has been gracious enough to drop investigations into their closed records, nor air (again) dirty laundry. But all that could change, if she continues to push. It may not happen by his campaign, but as a result of very many Americans who are disgusted with her sly and unethical ways.

Who would want to vote for her, in the end? Hopefully America is made up of MORE 'delegates' and an electorate that considers integrity above spin and lies. At this time in this country, people WANT to hope and be inspired.

Hillary has no class or style. She would be a terrible representative of this country. As a wife of a past president she didn't have much of a role except as a hostess and visitor to other countries. Oh yes, there was that failed healthcare plan. (By the way, how does a spouse of a president get to act in such a capacity - is this not nepotism of the highest order???) There is no way we could say of her, 'she is a stateswoman' but we certainly can say that Barack has all the qualities of a statesman and can represent us internationally in a way that would make us proud.

He matches her in academic background, and in experience, he has done more for individuals in the country than most people are aware. His three years in Chicago in the trenches (what,at 10K a year plus 2k for car allowance?) can only be improved upon by Mother Theresa. I can't imagine anyone (certainly no politician, least of all the Clintons) doing that after a top notch degree and opportunity to earn a bunch.

Folks, read his book - Dreams From My Father -it's a classic and should be required reading (on a par with Faulkner's 'Native Son') in high schools and colleges. His CHARACTER is demonstrated clearly in that little paperback which speaks volumes.

Does Hillary have a story? If so, what is it??? Beyond going to Wellesley and calculating her way to the top. What does she model, and for whom? Has she 'given back' in a way that can be compared with Barack? I wonder how and where he lived in Chicago in the mid-80's on such a salary, how he survived emotionally, with no family or close network, how he amazingly actually achieved results (e.g. among other things, 150,000 additional registered voters, which, by the way, benefitted Bill Clinton hugely when he ran for office in 1992).

With no strings to pull, his story of success is amazing. Without being a rags to riches story, it is 'every person's' story, and one that reaches all corners of American society.

With skills par excellence and integrity and vision to match, Barack is above and beyond anything Hillary could offer us. She cannot hope the American people will vote for her after such a demonstration of poisonous behavior. How can we trust HER judgment (having already seen how flawed it was in 2003, when she voted for the Iraq invasion) when she is totally lending herself to untruths and the lowest methods of gaining the White House. Which, by the way, is all she's doing - trying to gain the White House. There is nothing altruistic about her, she is so transparent in her selfish desire.

Bill Clinton has been a HUGE disappointment. I gave him the benefit of the doubt once, and was pleased with what looked like some efforts for the taxpayer. He has shown all his stripes! How could we have ever trusted him, and now, her.

Posted by Carol McFarlane | January 23, 2008 5:12 PM