In Democratic slugfest, Clinton goes overboard
By Scot Lehigh | Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | The Boston Globe
“…Edwards was passionate and effective, drawing distinctions that were usually fair and legitimate. Obama, showing flashes of real annoyance with Clinton’s attacks, defended himself reasonably well. Hillary Clinton went overboard – and in the end, she left me grimacing….”…BS
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 AM and filed under Elections/Voting, Media, Politics. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
One Response to “In Democratic slugfest, Clinton goes overboard”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yet another reporter wearing Barack-tinted spectacles. He and I must have been watching two different debates.
The ONLY comment Hillary made that was over the top was about the slumlord. That was a cheap shot. But so was Obama’s comment about her being on the board of Wal-Mart. Is he aware that almost immediately after being appointed, she was almost single-handedly responsible for changing some of the company’s policy such that it increased its environmental “green-ness” by over 65%? True, she was not able to do anything about their outrageous anti-union policies, but it is possible that she tried.
As well, Hillary was absolutely correct when she said it was impossible to have a real debate with Obama because he never “took responsibility” for his words and votes. Indeed, given the amount of rationalizing, obfuscating and spinning that Obama did about almost everything she brought up, he actually proved her point. In fact, I have never even seen Hillary spin, obfuscate or rationalize as much in a single 2-hour period.
Even Edwards had to jump in to attempt to unravel some of Obama’s obfuscation and spin. When asked about all those “present” votes, Obama made some comment about how he actually supported the bills. Setting aside the complete lack of logic here (“I am for the bill, so I will vote “Present?”), Edwards noted, correctly, that this did not show a particularly “principled” approach to voting; that one “takes a stand” even if it might be perceived as wrong. As well, in the debate about the number of “present” votes, Obama said that they were “cherry-picking 100 votes out of 4000.” And again Edwards had to stop him in his tracks by saing (I paraphrase here): “Well, then you shouldn’t cherry-pick the few votes out of hundreds that Hillary or I make.” [N.B. For a complete exegesis of the Senate voting records of Hillary and Obama, see the first of my 3-part MB-Civic series on Obama: http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/09/mb-civic-original-opinion-reality-check-who-is-barack-obama/.%5D
As for the Iraq issue, Hillary was correct AGAIN. After making his famous speech – PRIOR to entering the Senate – Obama then voted IDENTICALLY to Hillary on EVERY appropriations bill for funding the war: either “yes” or “present.” So, again, his ACTIONS belie his rhetoric.
Obama is not the second coming of Christ. He is an ambitious politician who wants to be president – no different from any other presidential candidate. He is just as “bought and paid for” by various businesses and industries as is Hillary (and, to a lesser extent, Edwards). He is just as prone to error in judgment as any other candidate. And he is just as likely to rationalize, dissemble, obfuscate and spin as any other candidate.
The free pass he gets from reporters like this – and from a large part of the major (and even alternative) media – must end. It is a lie.
Peace.
Posted on 23-Jan-08 at 10:20 am | Permalink