Hillary Clinton Questions Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton is fighting back against her muggers:

“A couple of my leading opponents, directly and through surrogates, have spent months criticizing me without having to answer any of their own questions. They’ve been attacking my character. As I have said repeatedly, I really would prefer to attack the problems of the country and let my opponents run their own campaigns.

“But I have to set the record straight. Because often what you don’t know can be far more important than what you do know. The people of Iowa, I know, are good people who are trying very hard to make the right decision in this caucus. But people can only act on what they know. And I’ve heard a lot of talk about turning the page, but what about the action to back it up?

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to set the record straight.

The record is that Hillary Clinton has fought for progressive values and the betterment of Americans for more than 35 years. Hillary’s ACTIONS speak for her.

Barack Obama believes “words speak louder than actions”. Barack Obama loves flowery words.

But when it comes to action – Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

Today the Democratic candidates will be in Iowa for a two-hour debate. The forum will be broadcast by National Public Radio and Iowa Public Radio, and webcast live on NPR.org, beginning at 2:00 p.m. EST.

Hillary Clinton will begin to set the record straight at today’s debate.

The record is that – Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

* * *

Jut Jaw

Where was Obama when his constitutents in Chicago needed him?

Obama’s constituents were freezing in the Chicago winter. His constituents were freezing in buildings owned by now indicted Obama close friend – slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Obama worked for slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko as a lawyer.

Obama helped slumlord friend and big Obama contributor Antoin “Tony” Rezko obtain over one hundred million dollars in citizen tax monies for his slumlord empire. Obama when asked about the slum tenements his slumlord friend owned gave a typical Obama legalistic answer:

“Should I have known these buildings were in a state of disrepair? My answer would be that it wasn’t brought to my attention.”

Yes Senator Obama, you should have known. That was YOUR JOB.

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago’s South Side. Obama should have known his constitutents were freezing.

But, Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

Obama says he did not know what was happening in his small state senate district. Obama trumpets that he was a “community organizer”. Where was Obama when the community needed organizing against his friend slumlord Rezko? Obama was not there, Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

His comments came in response to a Chicago Sun-Times report that he had done previously undisclosed legal work between 1995 and 1998 on a series of troubled low-income-housing deals involving Rezmar Corp., owned by the indicted businessman.

Obama worked for a small Chicago law firm — Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland — between 1993 and 2004. The firm worked on deals that got $43 million in government funds for 15 apartment buildings Rezmar rehabilitated with not-for-profit community groups. Four of the buildings ended up being foreclosed on.

In all, Rezmar rehabbed 30 buildings. A third of those were in the Illinois Senate district Obama represented between 1997 and 2004. Many of the buildings fell into disrepair and financial straits while Obama was state senator, prompting the city to repeatedly sue over problems including no heat.

Obama was getting money from his indicted friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko when his constitutents needed him. But of course, Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

Obama at the time was a State Senator representing the mostly African-Americans who lived in the Rezko owned tenements. These residents of the Rezko owned tenements presumably contacted elected officials when they found themselves living in substandard housing and freezing in the winter. Where was Obama with consitutent services? Obama should have known and it strains credulity to think he did not know.

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him:

Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko’s low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems — including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers. The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found. “Their buildings were falling apart,” said a former city official. “They just didn’t pay attention to the condition of these buildings.” Eleven of Rezko’s buildings were in Obama’s state Senate district.“

Obama wants to keep this recent and ugly Chicago history secret. Obama does not want to disclose his ugly involvement with Rezko. Obama does not want his state senate records open to scrutiny.

Just what legal work — and how much — Obama did on those deals is unknown. His campaign staff acknowledges he worked on some of them. But the Rezmar-related work amounted to just five hours over the six years it said Obama was affiliated with the law firm, the staff said in an e-mail in February.

Obama, however, was associated with the firm for more than nine years, his staff acknowledged Sunday in an e-mail response to questions submitted March 14 by the Sun-Times. They didn’t say what deals he worked on — or how much work he did.

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

Where was Obama when Move-On needed him?

But curiously absent from the vote was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, also a Democratic candidate for president, who had canceled a campaign appearance in South Carolina so he could be in Washington for votes.

Where was Obama when war weary Americans needed him? Obama was saber-rattling and destabilizing a problematic and unstable U.S. ally:

As commander-in-chief, White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would sponsor a U.S. strike in Pakistan to attack terrorists, sending a tough message to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf that if he does not act an Obama administration would.

Obama, typically, lied repeatedly about what he said about attacking Pakistan. But, bottom line, Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

When Gay Americans needed Obama to reject and reverse the Obama gay bashing tour in South Carolina?

So, in the end, Obama let his “best” and “favorite” artist slam gays to thousands of African-Americans, in his name, and neither he nor his hand-chosen white gay preacher said anything in response. Class act, that Obama campaign. For them, creating a “dialogue” means the gay-basher gets to spread his bigotry to thousands while the candidate and the token gay STFU.

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

When the Senate voted to oppose the Iranian Revolutionary Guard where was Obama? Obama denounced the vote well after the fact, as Hillary stated yesterday:

He didn’t show up for the vote. He didn’t speak out during a presidential debate that night. And finally, he decided to play politics and claim that the vote he missed – a vote for diplomacy – was really a vote for war. Well if he really thought it was a rush to war, why did he rush to campaign and miss the vote?

As Senator Biden said: “I wonder why he wasn’t there to vote,” Biden said. “We all knew that this vote was coming up.”

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

Again, when women needed Obama on reproductive rights:

In 1997, when it mattered, when he actually had a vote not just a microphone, when the issue of partial birth abortion came before the Illinois State legislature Obama twice gave a “Present” to abortion opponents. On House Bill 382 and Senate Bill 230 – bills that prohibited “partial birth” abortions, Obama took a dive. Like a character from Dr. Suess, Obama did not vote “no,” he did not vote “yes,” he gave a “present”. Obama did not take a stand in 1997. He did not take a stand in 2001. Then House Bill 1900 and Senate Bill 562 – on parental notification, Obama instead of voting “yes” or “no” voted – “present”.

Same thing with Senate Bill 1093, Senate Bill 1094, and Senate Bill 1095 which also dealt with abortion. No leadership, remain popular. No “yes”, no “no”. Let’s all get along and not vote on issues that matter. The audacity of being Present. The lightness of being.

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

On the battle for civil rights:

You recognize this primal truth when you stand on the bridge in Selma, Alabama, basking in the glory of those who were there when you were three years old. But you can’t have it both ways, revering the Selma march while trying to “turn the page” on the past.

On Social Security, while true progressives have fought for that great New Deal program, Obama took the opposite course. Paul Krugman, calling Obama a “sucker” and a “fool” wrote:

The Washington Post published an editorial castigating Hillary Clinton for, um, not being panicky about Social Security — and as we’ve seen, nonsense like the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme seems to be back in vogue.

Which brings us back to Mr. Obama. Why would he, in effect, play along with this new round of scare-mongering and devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years?

Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

On Universal health care, Obama offers lie after lie. Paul Krugman wrote that Obama was “giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform”.

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

Paul Krugman knows Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.

Obama claims he should be president for a speech he mouthed in 2002. But when Democratic unity on Iraq is needed Obama Is Never There When You Need Him:

So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.”

When the time for a united front against Bush and Bush’s war is necessary Obama gives speeches the Republican National Committee enjoys circulating. Obama blames Democrats for Ripublican failures and deceptions.

Obama blames a “broken system” but fails to state that it was the Ripublicans that broke the system.

Obama faults a broken system in Washington for failures that many Democratic voters attribute simply to having the other side in power. By contrast, Clinton more directly exploits Democrats’ feelings of resentment. She argues that the troubles of the past seven years — the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the widening income gap — are the result not of broken politics in Washington but of poor Republican governance, and she says that she would offer competent leadership to fix what has gone awry since her husband left the White House.

Democrats need a leader who will fight for progressive common sense Democratic values. Democrats know Hillary will fight for our values.

Democrats also know Obama Is Never There When You Need Him.


60 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Questions Barack Obama

  1. I dont like this line of attack against Obama. Its too negative.
    Still there are valid points to be made without sounding vitriolic:
    Obama is young and gifted but out of touch with realities of politics. He is unable to make the difficult decisions when he has to. He IS a microphone politician. He avoided voting on the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd issue but stood at the microphone and accused others of voting the wrong way.

    Its not just duck and cover. Its duck and cover, then point fingers at others.

    Obama- a good man with good intentions who doesn’t realize how complex the world and the American landscape are.

    Ron in Boston

  2. B Merryfield:

    Don’t expect anything different from the media for the next month. No point in complaining against them. Hillary should keep up her attacks on Obama. They were cheer leading him when he was doing it. Now the media cries foul. I want her to stick it to them after she wins because that is what they are doing it to her now.

    The national media have lost their credibility in 2000 when they were openly pimping for McCain. Now they are doing it for Obama.

  3. Jonathan Alter is a major Obama supporter at Newsweek. The washington media is filled with his supporters who are willing to color news to show him in a favorable light. And they say the media is neutral, trust us… They are a joke.

  4. More push polling going on here in Iowa. They posted about it on the main HillaryClinton.com website under the newsroom. I can’t believe all of this poison that obama and edwards people have been spewing here. Edwards people have been telling people on calls that HRC is unelectable, when he didn’t even win his own precinct in NC in 2004. Obama has also been quite rude to people when doing calls, chastising Hillary supporters on the phone. I want one to call me, so then I can unload on their rediculous asses all of the grand info we all know, but the msm is just beginning to pick up on.

  5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/rove-cheerleads-obama-for_b_75246.html

    Rove Cheerleads Obama for a Reason, He Thinks He Is Easier Prey for the GOP than Clinton

    Posted December 4, 2007 | 10:13 AM (EST)

    It’s one of the oldest ethnic clichés in the book. The one that says beware of Greeks bearing gifts. But there’s nothing ethnically incorrect about saying it when former Bush political guru Karl Rove bears political gifts to a Democrat. The recipient of the Rove largesse is Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. In an open memo to Obama, Rove caused a titter when he ticked off six things that Obama should and could do to nail Hillary Clinton. Rove’s sage suggestions were that he should mount an all-out no holds barred attack on her personality, record, and demeanor. Rove told Obama to stop sounding wishy-washy on the hot button issues such as immigration, and to tell the voters just who he is and what kind of change they’d expect in an Obama White House.

    Since Rove is not a paid or unpaid consultant for Obama, those sound political stratagems he offered Obama on a public platter come with a price, or maybe better to say with Rove, an ulterior motive. It’s not hard to figure it out what that is. Rove wants Obama to win. That seems to defy conventional GOP thinking that conservative Republicans are giddy with delight at the prospect of a Hillary nomination. Hillary carries mounds of baggage, being a woman, the Clinton name, the deep and resonant hate Bill residue from ultra rightists and Christian fundamentalists, and polls that consistently show Clinton has the lowest likeability ratings among the major candidates. She’s so polarizing, so the thinking goes, that she’ll single-handedly drive legions of Republican conservatives and fence leaning independents to storm the polls chanting an anybody but Hillary mantra. The clinical hate for Clinton in some circles dripped off shock jock Don Imus’s lips his first day back on the job. Imus picked up the throw-away line from the late avowed Clinton basher Jerry Falwell who likened Clinton to the great Satan a couple of years back and refused to take it back when he got flack for it.

    Rove also knows something else about Hillary. While she bottoms out on the issue of likeability, polls also show that voters like her for her strength and experience. And top gun Democrats will back her to the hilt. Despite a ton of negatives, these are the qualities that ultimately powered Rove’s boss back into the White House. These are also the same qualities that ultimately could prove fatal to Obama’s candidacy. Though he scores high on the likeability scale, he’s swaps places with Clinton on the crucial issue of experience. He’s still widely regarded as too new, too untested, and too inexperienced to win a head to head contest with Giuliani.

    Rove’s Obama ploy, and that what it is, is a slick, sophisticated, reversal of the conservative Republican’s Devil tag on Clinton. But it’s every bit as cynical, and calculating. Paint Obama as a good guy, a fresh face, and someone who can make a real change for America. The exact last things that Rove wants to see in a Democrat in the White House. But an on the attack Obama, that dogs Clinton at every step can create havoc in the Democratic Party. It could plunge the Party into an orgy of Clinton-Obama sniping, bashing, and finger pointing. That would fuel dissension, stoke bitter divisions and deflect attacks from Bush policies and the GOP candidates that for better or worse are Siamese twin like welded to him and his policies.

    The contest would be reduced to a referendum on Hillary. The sores and wounds would be so deep that countless numbers of Democrats, especially black Democrats, who are torn down the middle between Clinton and Obama, would be lukewarm toward the eventual Democratic nominee, maybe lukewarm enough in the GOP’s fondest hopes to stay home on Election Day.

    Rove banks that Obama as the Democratic nominee would be even riper for the Republican pickings than Hillary. Though Obama is touted as the post civil rights generation candidate; meaning that he doesn’t spew race politics as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and doesn’t make white voters viscerally cringe, he’s still an African-American. And race still matters in politics, and in some places matters a lot, especially as Rove well knows in the crucial battleground states of Ohio, Florida and other must win states.

    Obama is tailor made for sneaky, closet reminders that his color and allegiance to race neutral politics is suspect. While white voters swear to interviewers and pollsters that they vote competence not color, after all who wants to come off looking and sounding like a bigot, there’s still the ever murky phenomena of election booth conversion. That’s the phenomena where many white voters despite public declarations of color-blindness get sudden 20-20 color vision in the privacy of the voting booth when the race is between a black and a white candidate. Voter duplicity did in black Democrats Harvey Gant and Harold Ford in their respective Senate races against well-heeled white GOP opponents. Rove knows that too.

    Rove gave Obama seemingly some priceless advice on beating Clinton. But the advice was not given to put Obama in the White House, but to make sure that he and no other Democrat gets there.

    Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press)

  6. celiff:

    the msm is not picking it up. Hillary has made it a point to put it out there. MSM have their so far up his ass that they don’t realize what is a fact from fiction.

  7. wow…that’s an incredible post.

    Eventually pundits and reporters looking for a new angle will start sniping at Obama. They won’t have far to go to find the ammunition.

  8. Remember how before the Philly debate, the media and the other campaigns were screaming about how Hillary was going to be a “punching bag”? Hit her and differentiate yourselves, the media advised them. Nobody had a problem with that. Because its ok as long as you are attacking Hillary Clinton.

    The US Senate does not allow for a “Present” Vote. Now that can be a real problem for someone. So what does our brave man from IL, the one and only, the great Barry Obama do?

    Simple – he tip-toes out without making a sound. No statement, no speech, no remarks, nothing. He is so quiet that nobody notices that he’s gone till the roll call comes up. He’s probably taken his shoes off so nobody hears him.

    Then he waits. and waits. Checks the news, checks the blogs, checks what the word coming out of the Senate is. He has absolutely no idea what he is supposed to do. So he keeps waiting.

    Then he puts his finger in the wind and sees which way its blowing.

    And finally, our Brave Senator from IL, the one and only Barry Obama, who has never met a fight he wont duck from, has gathered all the courage he can muster and is now ready to speak. Of course, he stands straight, in the same direction as the wind and then opens his mouth and lo and behold, utters his momentous words. Hey, our great Senator from IL was right after all ! See – he knows and has such foresight to tell us how the vote should have gone !! Gosh, we didnt know that. Wow, Barry – he is so prescient !! All hail Barry !

    Hillary should mock him – mock him for what he is.

  9. I feel a blog post coming on … wait, wait .. “Obama can dish it out but can’t take it” (but I think I can do better than that).

    P.S. If you haven’t already, please visit TaylorMarsh.com and read my Hot Topics Diaries for today. … Then add your own.

  10. You know, it’s more than just that Hillary shows up, she votes, she also has showed up at nearly every forum and group she has been asked to address. She has courage and conviction. She’ll talk with anyone, anywhere about the issues, and she’ll give them answers, even if it is not what they want to hear. I’m proud of her.

  11. Today’s Foster’s Daily Democrat has interview with the three Rochester, NH, hostages.

    fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? [spaces] AID=/20071204/GJNEWS_01/712040062

  12. In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton continues to lose ground as well. The former First Lady now attracts 35% of the vote, down from 41% a week ago and 43% two weeks ago. Today’s result matches the lowest level of support recorded for Clinton since Rasmussen Reports began daily tracking in mid-July (see recent daily numbers).

    While Clinton has lost ground, Barack Obama’s support remains steady at 23%. John Edwards gained two points on Tuesday to 17% while Bill Richardson is the top choice for 7% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters nationwide. No other Democratic candidate tops 3% (see recent daily numbers).

  13. WELL now that we know that BUSH lied about the NIE information, we should change the name of this site to HILLARYIS45, since Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and Pelosi made the interim President.

  14. AP is releasing GOP early states poll.

    Romney 25
    Huckabee 24
    Rudy 14

    Romney 37
    Rudy 19
    McCain 15

    The reason why I cited these polls is to verify the ‘accuracy’ of AP’s polls. They do not seem to vary much from other polling firm.

    I’m more concerned about Hillary’s NH #s. So Clinton’s 38 to Obama’s 19 to Edwards’ 15 is definitely good news.

    Right now, the race is fluid, and I believe polls will generally reflect the transient bumps caused by MSM’s exaggeration of every little thing. This has been typical in polls of past elections in closing days. However, the actually votes will likely reflect the fundamentals, which I believe AP’s polls captured…

  15. Hillary should play her gender card to the hilt
    BY ROBIN GERBER | Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of “Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way” and the forthcoming novel “Eleanor vs. Ike.”
    December 4, 2007

    Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

    But they’re blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

    It’s not that voters and her opponents think Clinton’s experienced and competent, and they don’t like or trust her. It’s that they think she’s experienced and competent and that’s why they don’t like or trust her.

    A study earlier this year by Catalyst, a nonprofit business research organization, showed the stark dilemma that competent women face. In “The Double-bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership,” women were criticized for being “too aggressive and self-promoting,” but men with similar styles were praised for being direct.

    Women were forced to choose between competence and being liked and trusted by their colleagues, but leaders must have both to succeed. Stereotyed expectations about leadership styles led to conclusions that men were being assertive in the same situation where women were viewed as abrasive.

    As the study concluded, “These perceptions not only influence whether people respect women’s styles of leadership, but also the extent to which women leaders are perceived as trustworthy.”

    Clinton’s two main rivals for the nomination, Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama, are exploiting her double-bind. They realize that she’s secured her position as an experienced, accomplished politician. That’s why they’ve taken to accusing her of being dishonest. Edwards put it most baldly, at one debate saying, “The American people … deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth.”

    Is there evidence proving that Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted? To quote one of the great presidential debate responses: “No.”

    Take the example of abortion rights, where Clinton was accused of changing her position to match a shift in the political wind. The attack started in July 2006, when she said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” and was immediately pilloried in the media for abandoning her pro-choice stance. But she’d used those same words seven years earlier in a speech as first lady. Clinton is a strong defender of abortion rights and also hopes unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. Where’s the dishonesty in that?

    Clinton’s vote on the 2002 resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq has raised the loudest cries about trusting her. Obama’s been relentless in construing her vote as a blank check for war, and portraying her as dissembling when she disagrees. As proof of her perfidy, Clinton was accused of failing to make any effort before the invasion of Iraq to influence the president’s policy.

    In fact, she repeatedly pressed the case for weapons inspections in Iraq, and against President George W. Bush’s acting precipitously. She said she believed that Bush would live up to his statements about using UN inspectors, and that Bush “took the authority that others and I gave him and he misused it.” While it’s fair to disagree with her approach, there’s no fairness in the claim that her actions on Iraq prove her untrustworthy.

    As a presidential candidate, Clinton has held her know-how and experience up like a battle flag. But along with competence goes the ambition, assertiveness, even aggressiveness that she and other leaders bring to the tough job of leadership. And there’s the rub. Dominance, authority and ambition are widely viewed as essential leadership characteristics – as long as you’re a man. When Clinton displays this “masculine” style, she loses the public trust.

    What’s a woman running for president to do? Pull the gender card out of the deck and hold it up high. Most people are unaware of their bias or don’t want to recognize or acknowledge it.

    Clinton needs to challenge her opponents and voters with a simple test: Substitute “Henry” for “Hillary” and reassess his/her strengths and weaknesses. They may be surprised to find that the smart, competent, assertive, aggressive, ambitious “Henry” Clinton running for president seems like a very trustworthy man.

    Robin Gerber is senior faculty with the Gallup Organization and author of “Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way” and the forthcoming novel “Eleanor vs. Ike.”


  16. Donna Brazile says Black women will vote for Hillary because they believe she can win, that she’s stronger than BO, and want to see a woman elected first (before a Black man). Black women want to go with a winner.


  17. FYI – Looks like another round of BO’s Hsu smear is surfacing alleging that the Clinton’s invested with Hsu and continue to invest with Hsu even though there is not one iota of proof to back it up.

    And, of course, this comes via MSNBC’s First Read.


  18. Great articles by Robin Gerber and Earl Ofari Hutchinson.

    BTW, hwc is good at figuring out the day-to-day fluctuations in the Rasmussen poll. Maybe he/she can shed some light on what’s happened the past few days.

  19. I have a meeting scheduled to meet with the leader of the feminists group on campus this week. She, get this, is torn between Hillary and b.o. When I heard this, I asked for a meeting with her. I suspect she will choose HRC when she sees Obama’s record on pro-choice issues, and his positions on Iran and Iraq.

  20. Oh, and there’s a GLBTAU/Project Equality meeting tonight about caucusing and I will be there, loaded with Donnie McClurkin info 🙂

  21. leader of the feminists group is torn? Gee, what’s wrong with these women? Show her that article someone posted BY ROBIN GERBER.

  22. I know MJ. I was pretty much shocked. I am going to attend their meeting too and ask about this. She said the feminists group is half and half HRC and b.o.

  23. Of course, Obama’s really strong among college students, so you’d think that would be reflected among female students, too. But I’m left scratching me head a bit as well.

    celiff, What’s your take on Iowa at the moment? And how do you think Hillary taking the gloves off will play there?

  24. I think as long as she sticks to issues, not personal attacks, she will be fine. In that AP poll showing her ahead by 5, the main issue is healthcare. We and she have been hammering the voters with the info that obama does not have universal healthcare, and edwards doesn’t give tax breaks to small businesses. I think Iowa will be tough, I think we can win it. The situation on the ground in Iowa is different than the msm portrays it. Once Hillary, Bill, General Clark, Joe Wilson, and other surrogates come through, sweeping across Iowa this month, things will change. You can bring oprah, but in Iowa, so what? When we bring Bill Clinton, that matters. Democrats here LOVE Bill CLinton. All ages love Bill Clinton. We will see, but don’t be surprised when obama starts falling in the polls soon here. His shady stances are coming to public view.

  25. celiff,

    Maybe it’s still too early or too hard to detect. But do you have a feeling Biden is picking up steam. I’m wondering whether he’s going to shock the field this cycle…

    Maybe it’s good news for Hillary in the end…

    Anything that steals thunder away from Obama is good thing in my book since his only asset is big media…

    I’ve noticed articles on Biden in IA are picking up steam as well over the past few days.

    If you have four credible candidates over 15+% range, I doubt anybody can get the so-called ‘bounce’ out of Iowa.

  26. From DSM…

    Biden: Impeach Bush if he attacks in Iran

    He spoke to about 60 people at a foreign-policy forum.

    He said he wasn’t raising the issue of impeachment lightly or to be provocative. “I am dead serious. … I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the president from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.”

    The senator also said the administration’s mere mention of war allows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to drum up support among a population that generally dislikes the leader, and increases the cost of oil because of Middle East security risks.

    “Thirty dollars of that $100 a barrel you pay for oil is a security premium, which goes into Iran’s coffers and props up extremists,” he said. “It’s hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.”

    Tim Busse, 25, of Iowa City was skeptical. “While I know Biden is an informed guy, I doubt any of that stuff will translate into tangible results,” he said.

    Josh Pearson, 28, of Brighton lauded Biden for what he characterized as the senator’s penchant for campaigning on issues, not politics. “His policy-to-rhetoric ratio is much better than Hillary (Clinton)’s or (Barack) Obama’s,” Pearson said. “I’m planning to caucus for Joe Biden.”

  27. Biden is a longshot with a chance
    By JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD, Courier Staff Writer

    WATERLOO — When the crisis in Pakistan erupted in early November, the world’s leaders phoned Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

    On the stump, the Democratic presidential hopeful often tells the story of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto calling him in the hours after Musharraf imposed emergency rule.

    “The sad part is, they didn’t call the president,” Biden said at a stop in Waterloo last month.

    The Quad-City Times reported that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte called Biden in the middle of a stump speech last month for the latest on the situation in Pakistan.

    And weeks before Musharraf became a regular name in the news, Biden was sounding the alarm on Pakistan during a nationally televised debate as other candidates focused on Iran.

    So it should come as no surprise that the Delaware senator’s expertise on Middle East affairs — his plan to end the Iraq war enjoys bipartisan support — has won over many Democratic party loyalists in Northeast Iowa. Local party leaders say he has strong support among veteran caucus-goers in counties like Black Hawk, Clinton and Fayette.

    Biden regularly draws more people to his appearances than his poll numbers would suggest. And even those indicate some progress: The latest ARG poll showed him at 8 percent and moving ahead of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and he inched up to 6 percent in the latest Iowa Poll.

    Looked at in a vacuum of the issues most important to Americans, Biden appears to be the candidate for his time: Voters have made it clear that national security issues — the Iraq war and terrorism, in particular — are their most pressing concerns. That’s why many say a third-place place finish on Jan. 3 isn’t out of the question.

    “He’s one of the few that’s actually making converts as he appears,” said Dave Nagle, a former U.S. congressman and ex-state Democratic chairman. “He seems to be making some real headway with the thing. He could be a caucus night surprise.”

    But politics isn’t just about the issues. So Nagle cautioned Biden’s lack of fundraising could hurt him, especially in the final weeks when an advertising blitz becomes crucial.

    “Joe’s problem, frankly, is money,” he said. “He needs some air cover (advertising). If he can come up on the air, then that starts to establish that credibility he needs to go all the way.”

    Still, his national security message regularly resonates with voters, at times drawing praise from unlikely places.

    Jim Norton of New Hartford committed early on to supporting Hillary Clinton, but after seeing Biden last week in Allison he said the senator would “definitely” be his second choice.

    “The guy is like an encyclopedia,” he said. “I keep hearing a lot of people really like him.”

    At a stop in Waverly last week, two Republicans stood up to ask him a question. After the event both said they were strongly leaning towards Biden, despite having voted Republican for decades.

    One of them, Dennis Johnson of Waverly, said he found Biden’s blunt honesty refreshing. He was impressed Biden went against the advice of his advisers and voted in May to fund the Iraq war. Biden, who has a son in the military, has said he won’t take funding away from troops in harm’s way.

    “He will go against the grain to tell the truth,” Johnson said.

    Linda Engel has voted Republican ever since President Ford was in office, but switched parties for the caucuses. When Biden attacks Republicans — often President Bush or Rudy Giuliani — the partisanship irritates her. Even so, national security is so important to her that she’s willing to switch support from Obama, of whom she has concerns over experience. She’s now leaning strongly towards Biden.

    “That’s one of the things that irritates me about him (Biden), that he’s such a Democrat,” Engel said.

    After what appeared to be a successful event in Waverly last week — the audience gave Biden an enthusiastic ovation even though he lived up to his loquacious reputation and spoke for nearly two hours — he took a brief moment to assess his chances in Iowa.

    His legs crossed, revealing cowboy boots under his suit — a birthday gift from his brother — Biden said he looks back to his 1972 Senate race for inspiration as he criss-crosses Iowa.

    As a 29-year-old trial lawyer, he trailed the incumbent badly — 47 to 19 percent — with the election a little more than two months away. But he squeaked out a victory by 3,000 votes, even though Vice President Spiro Agnew stumped in Delaware on behalf of his veteran opponent, Sen. Caleb Boggs.

    More than 35 years later, Biden recalled a joke his sister and deceased wife, Nelia Hunter Biden, who died in a car accident shortly after his election, often shared:

    “If we could get everybody in Delaware who’s going to vote inside of the University of Delaware football stadium and hear Sen. Boggs and hear me — I win,” he said. “I believe if I can get everybody in Iowa who’s going to caucus to hear me, Hillary, Barack, etc. — I win.”

    While Biden’s bravado isn’t unusual for a politician, he wouldn’t need a first-place finish to declare victory in Iowa. Third place is within his and Bill Richardson’s reach, and would be considered a win heading into New Hampshire, said Nagle, who advises several of the Democratic presidential candidates.

    That’s because supporters of the top three Democratic candidates won’t necessarily support their top rivals if their candidate doesn’t make the cut in their precinct.

    “Same thing happened to (Howard) Dean and (Dick) Gebhart (in 2004) — they didn’t go to each other because they knew that would strengthen their opponent’s hands,” Nagle said. “All of sudden here comes John Edwards who managed not to offend anyone.”

  28. Alarm bell going off here …. Negroponte called Biden up to consult?

    Negroponte of botched Iraq coalition / Iran-Contra / Central America torture fame?

    That’s not a good thing.

  29. I like Biden. Not being on the MSM’s radar allows you to be yourself when you campaign, which brings out his policy strengths. He might be my second choice right now.

  30. Here’s are two quotes from Taegan Goddard’s site:

    “At a time when two new Iowa polls show Obama actually pulling into the lead and Clinton losing support among women, some political observers are wondering if Clinton will come to regret her newly assertive strategy. She already has the highest negative ratings in the race, and the shift in tactics comes only a month before the Iowa caucus — where voters are famous for their distaste of negative campaigning. Launching the attacks herself, rather than with via surrogates, only makes the move even riskier.”

    Meanwhile, Craig Crawford notes Obama’s own attacks on Clinton may hurt him as well. “Perhaps the best news for Edwards is that Obama is now bashing Clinton so much that Edwards has been able to back off and play the nice guy — always a good place to be at the end of a campaign.”

    I agree with what Crawford said. kostner’s mentioned that several times, saying a win in Iowa by Edwards is not bad for Hillary. Just as long as Obama isn’t first. As for what Time says, if Hillary’s already behind in Iowa, as they claim, then what’s she got to lose?

  31. Virtually almost everything what is announced nowadays officially in the media concerning Hillary Clinton contain half truth, untruthfulness, omissions and devastating manipulating information.

    I think, it is time now to avoid the media of the mainstream and try to find out other trustworthy sources. It is very annoying to see that you have to question basically every information which you receive in order understand where the facts are if any!

    I hope Hillary will address this problem in 2008, hopefully direct from the white house. There should be a reform in the way journalists are being educated and being paid for! I am tired of sensational and partisan journalism. Stops the insanity, now!

  32. Great post over-viewing the Obama hypocrisy and sleaze.

    And good articles by Robin Gerber and Earl Ofari Hutchinson (though I think the proper dissemination of copyrighted material is to offer select quotes and link direct to the copyrighted source).

    I think Senator Clinton is right on to hammer Obambi, daily. Reach and frequency are the rules of the marketing game. Given consistent attention by way of Senator Clinton’s megaphone, it should begin to resonate in the poll numbers in the next 10 days or so. And I agree with Celiff that, as long as it remains about issues, and skirts a focus on personality, it should not blow back on Senator Clinton’s campaign.

  33. celiff,

    do me a favor when you talk to the person in charge of the feminist group, if you could print off some of the articles of the last few days, talking about some of the filthy, degenerate sexist, comments the blogs and other hate hillary groups are saying it may help our cause, there is nothing that gets women more inflamed, than when men call them:
    C*-t, Bi–h, and other derogatory anti woman remarks…

    seriously, if you can tie the hate sites, to barak and his inciting men around the country to attack and condone these attacks, you may have some strong ammo…

  34. oh and Sajani,

    i am so with you on this one…
    she should use the power of the whitehouse, to address the dissappointment of the new president, that media has lost its way !!!

    and by the way, welcome, i remembered another post by you, that i thought was very astute…

  35. Hi, United 12,

    thank you very much for the complement.

    I have no more doubt; with your relentless support like you are showing every day in actions, Clinton will triumph. She has got better programs and means of implementing them, than all the other candidates combined, despite their unfair support they enjoy from the media. It is very ridiculous, in spite of the fact that people knows that the so called Hillary Negatives or Polarizing traits are the creation of the REPS and their dear MEDIA in their urge and ploy to destroy Clinton, ironically some Democrats without shame or self-control uses the same language to dishonestly attack Hillary.
    Is it polarizing to say that she is standing for the invisible Americans?
    Is it negative to say that she wants universal healthy care for all Americans?
    Ist negative or polarizing that she is a woman, mother and a wife?
    Is it polarizing that she has more brain than her opponents?
    Who is polarizing? Is not the MEDIA ? Is not the REPS?
    Is it flip-floping to say a complex question even if you want to be president you can’t answer it with no or yes?

    MEDIA and their FRIENDS REPS creats some nonsenses and try to plant them into the memories of people with all tricks and skills of an evil man. They act after motto: One thinks a 1000-fold repeated lie lighter, than of a truth heard for the first time.

    So friends, we have to repeat the truth for Hillary 1001 times in order to triumph over the evils of progress, till people will not believe them any longer even if they will be telling the truth.

    Sorowfully, part of the democratic party, errorneous think that America is ready for Obama? Rest be assured, only about 15% of the Americans are ready for Obama.

  36. That Oprah is crazy! I never thought she will get so bloody political and attack Hillary in not so veiled way. I want dozens of egg on her face. Bloody bitch. I cannot stand her. She has no clue whatsoever!!

  37. Hello, I’ve recently discovered your wonderful site! Not to sound like a fan-girl, but its attitude reminds me of Hillary: positive but realistic.

    Something was said about there being some links ‘about 2 weeks ago’ for material to cite on blogs about Hillary’s record etc but I haven’t found it yet. I’d very much appreciate if someone could post or email me a url somewhere in that neighborhood. (What’s at her official website isn’t as quotable as I’d like.)


Comments are closed.