Obama Ties Clinton Changes To Politics

Jon Favreau pulled another all-nighter, and some crisper language against Hillary Clinton and the economy were the result:

In the debate last night, we spent some time talking about the economy. And one of the things I brought up that concerned me was that when Senator Clinton first released her economic stimulus plan, she didn’t think that workers or seniors needed immediate tax relief. She thought it could wait until things got worse. Five days later, the economy didn’t really change, but the politics apparently did, because she changed her plan to look just like mine.

It reminds me of what happened when we started debating the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill – a bill that would make it much harder for working families to climb out of debt. Believe it or not, Senator Clinton said again last night that even though she voted for the bill, she was glad it didn’t pass. I know you can get away with this in Washington, but most of us know that if you don’t want to see a bill pass, there’s a pretty easy option available – you can vote against it.

And we’ve heard her say the same kind of thing about NAFTA and China trade –agreements that sent millions of American jobs – thousands from this very state – overseas. Because only in Washington could Senator Clinton say that NAFTA led to economic improvement up until she started running for President. Now she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.

The point is – this is exactly the kind of politics we can’t afford right now. Not when the stakes are this high. Not when the economy is this fragile. Not when so many banks are foreclosing on people’s dreams. We can’t afford a President whose positions change with the politics of the moment, we need a President who knows that being ready on day one means getting it right from day one. And South Carolina, if you give me the chance, that’s the kind of President I’ll be.

In my twenty-five years of public service, my positions haven’t changed when the politics got hard, and neither will the policies I pursue as President.

Comments

He was so money in "Swingers." Oh, different Jon Favreau.

"Believe it or not, Senator Clinton said again last night that even though she voted for the bill, she was glad it didn’t pass"

Geez, she voted for that thing? Obama should be hammering her on that. Great "experience" she has there.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 22, 2008 12:54 PM

HIllary was against rebates before she was for them. She was for Iraq before she was against it. She was for unconditional negotiations with Iran before she was against them and before she was for them again. She was for taking nukes off the table with Iran before she was against it and before she was for it again. She was against raising social security taxes before she was for it and before she was against it again. She was for NATFA before she was for it. She was for Baby Bonds before she was against them. She was for drivers licenses for illegals before she was against them and before she was for them and before she was against them, and before she was for them...etc, etc.

Posted by RKA | January 22, 2008 12:57 PM

Obama needs to target large blue collar cities. We've only lost in Manchester NH and Las Vegas, NV.

Red meat democrats need to know we'll fight for them and that we can fight republicans.

Posted by yiannis | January 22, 2008 1:08 PM

I think those who accuse Hilary of crying crocodile tears are wrong. What baffles me is why her supporters consider her crying words, "I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards..." to be so moving. Where is the patriotic sacrifice which these choked-up words declare? Where is the political humility to which these moving words even allude? If we agree for a moment that there were no patriotic sacrifice and no political humility, then it is not hard to see why Hilary was truly crying. I think she could sense that the crown of the Clinton dynasty was slipping away--the crown she knows in her heart she alone deserves. I think the revolutionary philosopher, Karl Marx, got it wrong when he said religion is the opiate of the people. I think political dynasties are the true opiate of the people. This is ironic considering her surrogates' less-than-subtle references to Obama's teenage drug use. Perhaps one should pause to ponder an opiate that afflicts--not just one person--but our entire nation.

Okay people, one more:

This is our nation:
"..life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

These are our dynasties:
Bush--Clinton--Clinton--Bush--Bush

This is our nation "on" dynasties:
"Read my lips: no new taxes." (Bush)
"I did not inhale." (Clinton)
"I did not have sex with that woman." (Clinton)
"Iraq has...weapons of mass destruction." (Bush)
"This economy is strong and solid." (Bush)

Any questions?

Posted by Hispanic4Obama | January 22, 2008 1:18 PM

I learned one thing last night: Hillary Clinton will never be the President of the United States.

If she loses the Democratic primary, she won't be in the general; if she wins the Democratic primary, she'll lose in the general.

Here's why: the bitch came back, and I'd missed her. What Americans saw last night was the Hillary they always knew they didn't like. They also saw an Obama stand up to the person they already know they don't like. Two good points for Obama.

The Clinton campaign clearly think they have a winner with the "frustrated" meme; I would note to them that word is EXACTLY the one used by Obama in NH in response to their frenzied, throw-everything-at-him reaction to the Iowa loss. It didn't work out for Obama then, and I suspect that same sense of "I've got this thing won"-ness that the Clinton campaign is displaying by deploying it now will be disputed by the results come Feb. 5.

Finally, Hillary Clinton will never again, not even in NY, enjoy the kind of uniform allegiance of minority voters to her or the party after this campaign. They have said, and they mean it, that minorities exist to vote for them, period; otherwise, they have no gifts to give, no uses. That is a long-term losing strategy. The number of people, myself included, who will vote for Bloomberg in the general should serve as a wakeup call to the Democratic party. It should, but I know it won't.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 22, 2008 2:43 PM

i hate hillary and i hope that obama wins

Posted by sarah | January 22, 2008 2:56 PM

i hate hillary and i hope that obama wins

Posted by sarah | January 22, 2008 2:56 PM

Has anyone out there heard Obama mention the word GOD??? In his speech in Iowa(?) he referred to our constitution, but omitted "In GOD we trust" Please, anyone out there, tell me where and when he has actually mentioned the word GOD

Posted by lois | January 22, 2008 5:24 PM

I think it is high time for anyone NOT in politics to be chosen. just as George #1 (Washington) was. He didn't WANT the job, but he did His best, without any special intersts other than America.

In the depression and WWII, FDR asked business leaders and the finest minds in the country to 'volunteer' for $1 a year to work together to solve the crisis. We need this same attitude now. From Wall Street, From Washington. or else Kruschev will be proven right, America will destroy itself from within, through the same greed and self interest that crushed Rome 16 centuries ago.

Posted by Stephen, Colorado | January 22, 2008 6:56 PM

Keep in mind when you hear Bill Clinton talking trash this week about Obama that he was a failure as a President because he lost two years of his second term - and an ability to leave a legacy - because of a lie that led to an impeachment attempt. The fact that he is lying now shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. We simply cannot afford, as Democrats, to risk losing our momentum, our majority in the legislature (Clinton lost that in 1994), and a real chance to move Democratic policies forward in DC by installing the divisive Clinton gang back into the White House.

Posted by Thutmose | January 22, 2008 8:12 PM