Obama ad: Clinton says anything, changes nothing

New Radio Ad From Obama - “Hillary Will Say Anything and Change Nothing”

Here’s the link from ABC News, so you can LISTEN to it.

http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/Tapper.mp3

He sticks to the facts. It’s all true, and he delivered the ad in an appropriate tone that is in keeping with his campaign.

Oh, it’s on baby. It’s on.

I like! time for Obama to start fighting back against Kamp Klinton's lies and smears

CLINTON, ANGER AND A QUESTION OF RAPE

Bill Clinton likes to say, “You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.”

For him, that means lying, race-coding elections and trashing some of the best and brightest of the Democratic Party.

Well, we’ve got to do what we’ve got to do.

But we’re not going to make any accusations.

We are just going to let Democrats make their own judgment.

We do believe a party of change cannot be a party to corruption and that government accountability starts with personal responsibility, a quality neither of the Clintons can claim.

Here is some reporting from reputable sources that might allow fellow Democrats decide whether we believe what we say we do–including in women’s rights–or are, dare I say, “shameless.”

Katha Pollitt of the liberal Nation Magazine, an improbable ally of Hillary’s “vast rightwing conspiracy” has reported that(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…. 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…. 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 …), 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.’

The media seems 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.

Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s “Public Servant Award” for uncovering what the U.S. Department of Justice’s Inspector called “egregious misconduct” and “willful disregard for national security” by senior aides to Attorney General Janet Reno in a major corruption and security scandal at the DOJ.

(http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/1998/pr98_01.htm)

Obama needs to go after Hillary with alot more vigor than a few whimpy ads.
During the debate, Hillary brought up Barack's friend Tony Rezko and called him a slum-landlord...this would have been a perfect time for Obama to bring in Norman Hsu and the $850,000 he bundled for Hillary....and how do we know she returned all the money ? Where is the proof that she returned the money?
Also, Hillary says she's been vetted 100%....well then, where are the documents everyone is calling for from the B.J. Clinton library concerning Hillary-Care?
The Clinton's are starting to wipe the floor with Obama...Fight Back Barack!
I'm getting bored...

Paulo

Shorter Bill Clinton today when speaking to the CNN reporter:

"Voters aren't interested in pushback against or factchecking of our lies and distortions about Obama. At least not any I just talked to. They want to hear you echo our lies and distortions."

The honesty of the Clinton's will always be questioned. There is no way we should support a candidate that we know will say and do anything to get elected. Right now they are attempting to divide the democrats by pandering to constituencies and saying anything. By the way Hillary, how do you expect to enforce your MANDATE. Affordability is the problem. First things first.

A Word of Warning--Bush's Brain For Sale

As the presidential campaign gains momentum in favor of change, it would appear that the neo-cons, the hierarchy of the status quo, remain curiously calm. The Democratic frontrunners and the National Committee would collectively commit a grave error by breathing any sigh of relief upon the departure of Karl Rove from his perch in the Oval Office. One must only examine the qualifications, credentials, and history which earned Rove the position of Deputy Chief of Staff to the Great Imposter. First and foremost, Rove is a college dropout with no degrees, licenses, or prerequisites for professional life. He is, however, an accomplished liar, schemer, and character assassin. On several occasions throughout his “career”, Rove has successfully demonstrated his “abilities.” When George W. Bush’s gubernatorial campaign in Texas had fallen far behind the Democratic opposition, Rove concealed a listening device in his own office. Rather than notify law enforcement, Rove summoned the media. Further, he succeeded in preempting the investigation by the Republican run FBI until after the election. The negative press, reminiscent of the Watergate era, erased the Democratic advantage. It was later discovered that the bug had been planted approximately fifteen minutes prior to the arrival of the media. Another example of Rove-style political maneuvering occurred in 2002. Upon receiving advance notice of Pope John Paul II’s condemnation of the war in Iraq, Rove assembled a goon squad of tabloid-type investigators and professional propagandists to sabotage the proclamation. To discredit the Catholic Church in its entirety, Rove’s team flooded the media with allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of the clergy some of them dating back twenty-five years. This practice is indicative of Rove’s formula of exploiting personal tragedy for political profit.

Rove’s principle tool of choice is fear. He is a master of shifting the focus of a legitimate issue to that of unsubstantiated phobias. He was cleverly able to convince an entire population of voters that, in return for sacrificing their children for oil profits, the President would prevent gay Americans from getting married in their churches. Rove, along with Addington and Chaney, implemented the residual fears of 9/11 to expand the powers of the presidency to a near-dictatorship. The Bush administration has done absolutely nothing to prevent nineteen individuals from hijacking four airplanes and flying them into population centers except ordering the installation of locks on cockpit doors, what genius.

It is a foregone conclusion that the domestic as well as international policies of the current administration are dictated by private interests. Lobbyists have written the majority of legislation passed in the last eight years. These same multinational corporations stand to lose billions of dollars resulting from any shift in these policies. Despite the fact that Rove has vacated the Oval Office, he remains an independent contractor, available for employment by the Republican Party as well as the corporate oligarchy, which it represents. Rove has inexhaustible resources to be used for the purchase of media time. He will continue to develop a network of investigators, tabloid journalists, and political thugs who will assassinate the character of any individual or organization opposed to the doctrines dictated by this self-proclaimed illuminati. Based upon his resume, it’s the only work for which he is qualified.

Obama just stepped into quicksand. He pandered to a conservative rag and praised the GOP. The only way he can save himself is by apologizing or by saying he must have been slipped a drug to have said something so remarkably stupid. Trying to blame Hillary for his own error is just sinking him deeper.
My advice to Obama: stop praising the GOP and start attacking them.

Sometimes, the only way to fight fire is WITH fire! It's unreal to expect someone who has been taking SO many blatant attacks from the Clintons to just sit there and take it...and I'm sincerely glad Obama's just not going to take it any more! And his ad is honest!

Definitely 'Fired up and ready to go!.

Obama is proving to be a worthy adversary!

From Daily Kos...Put nothing Past Hillary indeed.
"Wow. Lorna Brett Howard, who apparently used to be the President of the Chicago chapter of NOW, has taped a pretty devastating account of why she recently switched from supporitng Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.Her final statement was what really cuts to the core: She said that she's supporting Obama now because he's 100% pro-choice AND 100% honest."
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/213221/309/346/442059

I don't guess the Clinton's would have had much red meat, if they had stayed with Obama's context.

"And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out."

"I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times."

It really does make it seem like the Clinton's are merely about "business as usual" and apparently, like George W Bush, they're "workin' hard" at it. Somebody needs to send the Clintons the memo: "The Republican approach has played itself out."

Time for a CHANGE.

They BOTH could be making BIG changes RIGHT NOW! All they have to do is get back to DC and propose some bills and get them passed...things that would benefit the most Americans. They both should stop talking...I want some action!

IF nominated, no one will unite republicans better than hilLIARy

IF elected, no one will divide Americans more than hilLIARy

make no mistake about it, the clintons did NOT plan to go negative this early in the campaign

the clintons are VERY desperate

they had NO idea that Obama could possibly do this well

THE CLINTONS ARE SCARED

very scared

so scared they are showing their true colors early

their plan was to save negative campaigning for the republicans and then say two wrongs make a right

BUT OBAMA HAS DONE SO WELL, THEY CANNOT STICK WITH THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN OR THEY WILL SURELY LOSE - SO THEY GO WITH THEIR UNETHICAL ATTACK TACTICS

always remember - whatever hilLIARy accuses Obama of, she is guilty of

it's an attack the attacker strategy that has helped the clintons come back before

the problem for them now is they CANNOT BEAT OBAMA unless they go negative

THE PROOF OF SUCH CLINTON DESPERATION; the clintons carry out these attacks knowing full well that doing so will further alienate the clintons in the general election IF hilLIARy gets the nomination and it will practically make them lame ducks from day one even IF they lie well enough to win the general election - but the clintons who are already reviled, truly have no choice - they cannot possibly beat obama without beating up on obama

guess what ?? people are realizing that hilLIARy is not only far from inevitable but now they are realizing she is a very, very bad choice for anyone who cares about changing this country in a positive direction

but the clintons do not care about their country as much as themselves

MEET THE CLINTONS - THE NEGATIVE-CAMPAIGNING NARCISSISTIC NEPOTISTS

I heard Obama's comments like many here. The Clintons are lying about what he said. They know they're lying, it's a strategy to bring Obama "down to earth" -- to put him in a defensive stance. It's working. It worked in George Bush's campaign when Karl Rove used these tactics to smear McCain, and then to swiftboat John Kerry.

I like Obama and will vote for him in the primary. I think he chose to offer faint praise of Reagan (and indirectly at republicans) because he wanted to send a message that he is capable of reaching out to them. I think we need this. Clinton seems unwilling or incapable of doing this, and seems more intent on gearing up for a big fight. I think she thinks that "reaching out" to republicans is naive. And while I love Obama's message of hope, I can't help but agree with Clinton. I'm all for reaching out, but the other side has to show some small indication of willingness, and the only candidate who has done that is Huckabee, with his populist message.

If Clinton wins, I'll vote for her because I feel it's imperative that we reverse at least some of what Bush has done in the last 7 years. Whatever happens, I hope Obama understands that the lying and dirt will get much worse if he wins and is running against McCain, Romney, or whomever they choose. In my view, the most important thing we can do for the country is unite (at least among ourselves first) and elect a leader who will put the needs of ordinary people first. Obama, Clinton or Edwards will do a better job of that than any of the republicans.

I won't let these nasty, disheartening squabbles cloud my judgement at election time.

What is it about Obama's position on Ronald Reagan, the Republicans, and the last 15 years that makes so much sense? Reagan had broad based appeal due to his ability to communicate a positive vision of America. He was able to work with a Democratic congress to advance his agenda. Clinton was able to work with a Republican congress. In other words Reagan was able to advance his bad ideas better than Clinton was able to advance any progressive ideas, which were few during the 90's.

"And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out."

Barack Obama

I'd say he's right!!!

This is utterly hilarious and amazing. Even when confronted with a recording of Obama's own words in Obama's own voice as Obama originally utters them still his supporters try to deflect by calling the Clintons liars and calling Obama honest. The Clintons didn't videotape his interview with that newspaper as far as I know.

He said what he said, and the Clintons simply put it out for all to see, hear and judge for themselves. And the only thing Obama's supporters can come up with in defense of Obama is the Clintons are liars? What? Is that not really Obama we really see and hear in that video? Maybe the Clintons got the newspaper to alter the audio, huh?

Right. Believe Obama, not your lying eyes and ears.

This blind Obama worship is almost cult-like.

I heard Obama's comments like many here. The Clintons are lying about what he said. They know they're lying, it's a strategy to bring Obama "down to earth" -- to put him in a defensive stance. It's working. It worked in George Bush's campaign when Karl Rove used these tactics to smear McCain, and then to swiftboat John Kerry.

I like Obama and will vote for him in the primary. I think he chose to offer faint praise of Reagan (and indirectly at republicans) because he wanted to send a message that he is capable of reaching out to them. I think we need this. Clinton seems unwilling or incapable of doing this, and seems more intent on gearing up for a big fight.

I won't let these nasty, disheartening squabbles cloud my judgement at election time.

Posted by: Tom | January 24, 2008 8:43 AM

Their strategy may be working, but then again it may not. No doubt Bill being the attack dog is working that Clinton (dirt throwing) magic. I'm not so sure it isn't backfiring. Pushing Obama on this stuff has made him show a little backbone, which I for one like. I thought he responded well to these baseless charges.

He's got my vote and so do the Democrats in the general election, regardless of who wins the nomination. I like John McCain allot but I just feel like this time around we need to give a Democrat a shot. Whoever gets elected they have their work cut out for them. Bush sure made a mess of things!!!

End of the day: Hillary Clinton is no Margarete Thatcher, Golda Mier or Indira Gandhi. What she is is a power-hungry egomaniac with a sense of entitlement. To all of you rubes who say you'll vote for her just to put a democrat in the White House - all you do is reveal what political naifs you are. A Hillary presidency would rip this country apart - with Bill pulling the strings.

The country is already ripped apart, it can't get any worse than the dog s--t we have in the white house - with Cheney pulling the strings.

To all of you rubes who say you'll vote for her just to put a democrat in the White House - all you do is reveal what political naifs you are. A Hillary presidency would rip this country apart - with Bill pulling the strings.

Posted by: Wolfgang | January 24, 2008 12:51 PM

We just want to drink a beer with her!!!

big T - Tom said,
"The country is already ripped apart, it can't get any worse than the dog s--t we have in the white house - with Cheney pulling the strings"

maybe so, but why would we want 4-8 more years of that when we could do so much better ???????

answer that you clinton-loving lock step mindless robots/parrots (whose numbers are dwindling by the thousands each day as people open their eyes to the clinton's true nature)

BUSH/CHENEY ISN'T RUNNING IN 2008 - BUT BILL CLINTON IS AND OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS HE SHOULDN'T BE !!!

COUNTING CLINTON'S 8 YEARS, WE'VE ALREADY HAD 16 STRAIGHT YEARS OF GRIDLOCK AND DIVISIVENESS

we CANNOT vote for hilLIARy if we care about our country

we must instead
SAY NO TO DYNASTIES
SAY NO TO NAFTA
SAY NO TO UNFETTERED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
SAY NO TO EXCESS INFLUENCE OF DRUG COMPANIES, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OTHER MEGA COMPANIES LIKE WALMART
SAY NO TO NEPOTISM
SAY NO TO EVEN MORE OUTLANDISH SPENDING
SAY NO TO DIVISIVENESS
SAY NO TO OSAMA BIN LADEN
SAY NO TO NEGATIVE POLITICS

hilLIARy's fingerprints and DNA are all over these negatives about our country

her hubby is running to get his precious power back

just say "no" to the clintons - the clintons are the absolute worst choice in either party of any candidate who is ACTUALLY running - if cheney was running that probably wouldn't be true but cheney isn't running - is he ??

this stupid/insane "let's go ahead and pinch our noses and vote for the clintons anyway just because we like them more than bush" makes no sense at all - bush isn't running - and the democrats have more than one legit candidates (and hilLIARy isn't one of them)

no no no willie doesn't get a do-over

move aside and let someone else get the job done

go away hilLIARy - you've betrayed your country , your gender and your party - just go away

from little t - tom - the true independent

FACT: voting for the clintons is a hate crime against america

The Clinton's are starting to wipe the floor with Obama...Fight Back Barack!
I'm getting bored...

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2008 11:06 PM

Try reading a book!