Shame on You Barack Obama!

Today in the city of my birth, Hillary Clinton began the long overdue process of confronting Senator Obama's disgusting and deceptive campaign tactics to both distort and smear not only the character of Hillary Clinton but to outright lie about the most basic tenet of Hillary Clinton's campaign: Universal Health Care.

After a very good rally this morning in Cincinnati, Ohio a woman in the crowd gave Hillary some fliers that Senator Obama's campaign has been sending around Ohio. Fliers I have posted  before in This IS Ugly! ( http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/1/12512 3/1714# ) that blatantly lie about what her Universal Health Care plan is and what her position is on NAFTA. In both cases the lies from the Obama campaign have been proven to be false. And yet in both cases the Obama campaign has continued to send out these fliers. In public Barack Obama promises hope and a new kind of politics but behind the scenes and beneath the mask of purity he has quietly been intentionally attempting to smear Hillary Clinton and to undermine the very thing all REAL Democrats believe in: Universal Health Care. And his methods are exactly the type employed by the right wing. They spout lies and distort facts. And when confronted they spout lies and distort facts. And they continue the cycle over and over again until they convince enough people that the lie is the truth. Thus you end up with a Hillary Clinton that is divisive even though people that meet her in person say she is one of the nicest and most approachable and sincere people they have ever met. Hell, even Kos admitted that.

As I pointed out in Barack Obama's Non-Universal Health Scare ( http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/18/1885 9/9038# ) Obama's health care spokesperson is none other than Jim Cooper, the very same Jim Cooper that sided with the insurance companies and worked intently on defeating Universal Health Care the first time Hillary tried to accomplish it. So just so there is no mistake about this I want everyone to know that the guy Obama chose to be his spokesperson for health care is the same guy that effectively defeated it the first time by siding with the insurance companies. Does that sound like hope or the new politics to you?

Today when she was confronted publicly with these fliers Hillary decided that enough was enough and decided to draw a line in the sand. With Governor Ted Strickland in the background Hillary held the fliers aloft and for the first time derided Senator Obama's campaign for lying.

"enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook."

Clearly Hillary has had enough as should we all. Especially after her graceful offer of civility and union after the last debate, actually reaching across to shake the hand of the man that has snubbed her publicly. The fighter that I know Hillary is came out today. And she isn't just fighting for her good name or for her campaign. She is fighting for the soul of our Democratic party that Obama has abandoned. And he hasn't only abandoned it, he is working in league with those that would rip the very core of our party out by it's roots. All in the name of new politics. All in the name of hope. It is as if there is some twisted universe where Obama and followers believe that the problem with our country is the Democratic party.

She said by his actions, Obama was giving "aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America. ...

Is it any wonder that Barack has openly courted Republicans to vote for him as a way to stick it to Hillary Clinton? He sent out fliers in Florida and in Nevada telling Republicans that if they wanted to stop Hillary Clinton from being the Democratic candidate they could become "Democrats for a Day" and vote for Obama. And then once they had done so they could change their party affiliation back to being Republicans for the fall election. And of course Obama's spin machine and horde of followers explained that Obama was actually reaching out to Republicans to bring them into the party. But when it was pointed out that their own flier told the Republicans that they only had to be a Democrat for a day to defeat Hillary but could then just switch back to being Republicans they went into silence mode.

Today, when Hillary finally called Obama out for his disreputable campaign he remarked as we should expect. He didn't understand why she was upset, it must be a new campaign tactic and everything in the fliers was the truth anyway so why is she saying this stuff. It must be because she is losing.

Isn't that just so sweet of him? Mr. Congeniality if I ever saw one. NOT. Lying through his very white teeth while he smiles and acts completely innocent I think is much more accurate. Because Barack Obama is not who he seems. Not to his followers and not to the media that has made him their personal darling. No, Barack Obama is a man with a troubled past and connections with some of the slimiest people in this country and in others. We don't hear about this in the MSM because they are either so completely convinced that he is The One or they are afraid to confront him because of the potential loss of revenue from his horde should they say something remotely critical of him.

But we will.

How is it that someone like Tavis Smiley has received death threats if he said ANYTHING detrimental about Obama? Who are the thugs behind his candidacy that would treat such a respectable man that way? What type of machine is supporting him? And how far are they willing to go to make certain their plan to take over our country doesn't fail? When a Civil Rights Icon like John Lewis is threatened it makes one wonder. When people like JJJ threaten to directly challenge any candidate that does not support Barack Obama fully what kind of hope is that bringing to our country? How is thuggery and strong arm politicking the new politics of hope? It certainly reminds me of the old style mob controlled politics of Chicago where mob and party bosses carved out territories and ruined anyone that dared to interfere with their plans. Sound familiar?

Today much more than a warning shot was fired across the bow of the Good Ship Hope. No, today an all out war was declared. A war to save the Democratic party from an interloper using the party for his own ambition and willing to use even the despicable smear campaigns of the Republicans to achieve his goals.

I know that many diaries have covered this event. But I feel that I have a right to discuss it more than many here because I was born in Cincinnati and I am campaigning here in the snow and ice going door to door for Hillary. In fact my canvass mate today attended the rally in Cincinnati this morning before joining with me to go door to door this afternoon.

I leave you with an unedited video produced by Glenn Hartong of the Cincinnati Enquirer, a gentleman and artist I had the pleasure of meeting and chatting with a few years ago. It isn't the CNN style video most people have been watching or the edited out versions making it through the news outlets. This is the raw footage and it is nearly 4 minutes long. And you will see very clearly that Hillary's outrage was not contrived. No my friends, it it very authentic. Just look at her eyes. And for the sake of our Party I am overjoyed that SHE is.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/s ection?Category=VIDEO

Tags: Barack Obama, Cincinnati State, Hillary Clinton, NAFTA, universal health care (all tags)

Comments

94 Comments

Why now?

I remember Obama's mailers were out like weeks ago.  Why is Hillary getting so upset right now?

If she was so outraged by it, she should have ranted about it WEEKS AGO when they first came out.

I wonder if Obama had said "Shame on you Hillary" how well that would have gone over with the public?  I think the public would have been appalled.  

Why is it okay for Hillary to say "Shame on you Barack" but NOT okay for Obama to say "Shame on you Hillary"?

by puma 2008-02-23 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

It's too late now.  Maybe HRC should have complained 3 weeks ago.

by tom32182 2008-02-23 04:02PM | 0 recs
Actually, the camapign has...

If you check the archives at facts.hillaryhub.com, you'll see the campaign's been talking about this and asking Obama to stop with the misleading mailers. But since Obama hasn't stopped, Hillary obviously had to call this out herself today.

by atdleft 2008-02-23 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, the camapign has...

YES!  AND how in the hell do you get the story told by the MSM when all they do is psychoanalyze her relationship with Bill?  I watched Russert's show today -- and they spent at least 20 minutes blathering about that crap.

Health care?  It got mentioned in passing ... something about it's "her issue."  

by susanhu 2008-02-23 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, the camapign has...

yeah, it's her issue, and john edwards', and ours. not obama's.

he slapped up a half-measures plan, calculated to offend the fewest republicans, only because hillary and john edwards were putting theirs out. and all these so-called progressives are falling all over each other pretending that it's universal health care.

by campskunk 2008-02-23 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, the camapign has...

This whole thing now make me think back to the Bush plans to cut funding to Public Broadcasting. They really want to control the media, just like in China (their competitor).

by devans 2008-02-23 04:41PM | 0 recs
great diary Undies

And I for one am thrilled that she is going on the attack publicly on this crap.

As I have said over and over here, it is unforgivable that a Democrat is running Harry & Louise-like flyers against a fellow Democrat, who has fought hard for universal health care, and has a better plan.  Unforgivable.  And as I have said before, nothing has ever made me this angry before in a campaign.

So good job Undies for getting this out there front and center.  Meanwhile at the "Orange site that pretends it is for Democrats," they once again burn Hillary at the stake for expressing outrage.

Seriously folks, does Daily Kos fool anyone anymore???

John

by SluggoJD 2008-02-23 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: great diary Undies
Thanks Undies, especially for the film footage.
I have insurance provided by my company, but I know that could end at any time. What I find deplorable, is this guy is adored by poor Blacks who think he cares about their plight. It is all about him and his wife, not  about the country or the needs of its people.
by bJ Chicago 2008-02-24 01:28AM | 0 recs
Destroying the Democratic Party

would be where one candidate loses eleven primaries in a row by an average of 33%, wasting millions upon millions of her supporters hard-earned money on luxury hotel suites , parking and donuts, then throws out accusations of plagiarism, then says "shame on you" for quoting her actual record, then goes on to lose big in three out of four states on March 5th.  That's what damaging the Democratic party would be.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Destroying the Democratic Party

Oh boy, you nailed me there.  I know perfectly well the primary is March 4th, but I've been focused on what some of Hillary's supporters are going to do on March 5th after Hillary completes her overdue withdwrawal.  Time for some fresh air.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

The Facthub did digest the flyer to be inaccurate and post the facts finding in her website.  The media never took notice.  And also looks like her opponent never took notice that his flyer contained incorrect information.

As the flyers are still being circulated, it is important to raise the issue so voters will not be manipulated for the incorrect information.

by JoeySky18 2008-02-23 04:13PM | 0 recs
The truth is that the Clintons are DLC to the core

They have not only been in favor of NAFTA, but MAI.  Look that one up sometime, Clinton fans:  

It is, in the words of the Director General of the World Trade Organization, "the constitution of a single global economy."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/ 043.html

This "audacious" treaty was deemed too extreme by almost everyone who examined it.  Bill Clinton wanted fast track authority for it.

Now, having looked that over, you'll know with whom you are casting your lot.

I claim no purity for Obama on this subject, so don't even bother with "but but but
Obama said XYZ."  I am simply selecting the more likely candidate to have the ability to withstand the powerful pressure of the corporations, not a dragonslayer.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

If not now, when?  If not us, who?

by Gabriele Droz 2008-02-23 09:22PM | 0 recs
Oh, please...

Perhaps Hillary just had it with all the crap out of the Obama campaign, and she was ready to fight back. And after all these months now of Obama's campaign manufacturing "outrage" over silly stuff like a Robert Novak column or a misdeed by a couple of volunteers that were soon released, Hillary's real outrage over Obama's misleading mailers just seems... well, GENUINE. I hope she keeps up the truthtelling, as the truth will surely set us all free.

by atdleft 2008-02-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
Let's see if Hillary will get the nomination

now.

Should be interesting to see what happens.  Hillary has to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania by double digits.  Perhaps she will.  

If Hillary starts winning the rest of the primaries, perhaps the superdelegates will swing towards her.

I don't what will happen to the Dem party if Obama has the most pledged delegates but still loses the nomination at the convention.

I'm afraid that the Dem party will be split.

by puma 2008-02-23 04:12PM | 0 recs
Unfortunately...

The party is ALREADY being split. Hillary's actually won more votes among Democrats, but Obama's been able to score big margins among Independents and Republicans voting in open primaries and caucuses. And while some of these new folks voting in the primaries seem not to like "the Clintons", many of us Democrats for Hillary haven't been liking Obama's scorched-earth campaigning using right-wing frames to target Hillary. No matter which of these two candidates comes out on top, there will need to be a HUGE effort to heal these wounds and bring the party back together.

by atdleft 2008-02-23 04:19PM | 0 recs
Out canvssing, LOL!

It looks a lot more like you're in here preaching to an ever-shrinking choir to me.  Thanks for the giggle, though.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Out canvssing, LOL!

How's that canvassing going?  Time is too short for you and your fellow Hillary people to be in here butting heads with Obama supporters and writing hit diaries. I can promise you, Undies, you will not change one single vote doing the blogging thing. This would be the day, Sunday, when you could make a difference, instead of pounding your keyboard.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 10:42AM | 0 recs
Undies in a twist., too many donuts!
With that intemperate blast, you have excused yourself from the company of civil discourse.  You have lied, twisted, omitted and otherwise distorted the record of the best candidate the Dems have seen in decades.  From now on, I'll have no more to do with you or any other unreasonable people.  
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some phone calls to make to some people in Ohio.  It's called working for the nomination.  
See you March FIFTH!  
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, please...

We don't doubt for a minute that her rage is genuine.  It is as legendary as McCain's.  I really wouldn't want to be within a hundred miles of the Clinton campaign at this point.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, please...

I don't like the smell of burning candidate in the morning or at any other time :^)

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:55AM | 0 recs
And you honestly do NOT think that

Hillary already knew that these mailers had gone out weeks ago?

Pssst.  I have swamp land I want to sell you.

by puma 2008-02-23 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: And you honestly do NOT think that

If she did it in the most classy way and still the media and her opponent will not take notice and continue with the incorrect attack with the same flyer,  I think it is fair call the action of her opponent into action.

Her campaign digested the flyer and presented the facts that the information in the flyers were not accurate already.  And that was a very classy and civilized response from Hillary's part. But her opponent continues to circulate the flyers with incorrect information.   I want to know why he continue with attacking her with incorrect information.

by JoeySky18 2008-02-23 04:28PM | 0 recs
Dear Psst

Obama's dirty trick "Harry and Louise" mailers made their first rounds during Super Tuesday. The mailers  were debunked then. Now, Obama is circulating the lies again. Pants on fire. He deserves the spanking that Clinton gave him.

by grlpatriot 2008-02-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Psst

After eleven straight losses, you're really talking about spankings?  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear Psst

After eleven straight losses by an average of 33%, staring at at least three out of four losses on March 5th, you're really talking about spankings?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

It's not being divisive, it's engaging in debate about an issue.

by mainelib 2008-02-23 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

HILLARY's CAMPAIGN has repeatedly told them this is false.  Typically a campaign would drop it. As Hillary's campaign has done when Sen Obama has called their campaign out on it. It was brought attention to her again by someone at a rally and she was surprised that the campaign was still spreading inaccurate propaganda. That is why now!

by fair elections 2008-02-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

It appears Hillary can't stand criticisms. She thinks she is perfect. She displays a lot of arrogance. Now she is looking for any reason to go negative. She fails to understand that negative campaigning is not working this year and is turning people off. Because he is so smart, Obama has, early on, set the tone for this year's campaign. Negative campaigning is viewed as Washington's dirty politics of the past. Since most people have embraced Obama's message of hope and the future, negative campaign will not work. Also, Clinton's message has serious flaws: She said she had 35 years of experience, which includes her time in the White House when NAFTA was signed by her husband. But she is acting like she is not responsible for NAFTA. She wants it both ways. The truth of the matter is that if she claims the 35 years experience, then logically NAFTA is part of it. She must take responsibility. In addition, her votes to go to war in Iraq, to give Bush the green light to attack Iran, the bankruptcy bill show she lacks sound judgement although she supposedly has 35 years of experience. She is full of contradictions!

by maymok 2008-02-23 08:14PM | 0 recs
Emotional HillarCoaster...
This short commercial sums up the emotions felt by We the People for BOTH her staged acts at the end of Thursday nights debate (civil) as well as at today's press conference (Shrillary). - http://www.geckotales.com/carcommercialg host.wmv
by VT COnQuest 2008-02-24 01:08AM | 0 recs
Oops! Here's the video for my comment above...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 3385579284690408654
by VT COnQuest 2008-02-24 01:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Oops! Here's the video for my comment above...
I work out everyday to make sure my asinine looks it's best.
by VT COnQuest 2008-02-24 03:38AM | 0 recs
NYT:Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Dark
The reason why she's going nuclear with a "scorched earth" exit is in todays New York Times: "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens" - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/pol itics/24mood.html?_r=1&hp&oref=s login Obama / Sebelius '08 (HRC for Senate Majority Leader)
by VT COnQuest 2008-02-24 03:54AM | 0 recs
What part of this statement don't you...

understand?  

She notes that he's "continuing" to send the flyers out (e.g., they've seen them before).  AND, they have "consistently called him on it.  It has been discredited...and yet he continues."

Maybe she thought he would be honorable and not continue to lie to voters when he was proven false the first time.  Fat Chance!!

"Today in the crowd I was given two mailings that Sen. Obama's campaign has been sending out. ... I have to express my deep disappointment that he has continuing to send false and discredited mailing with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio".

"We have consistently called him on it. It has been discredited. It is blatantly false, and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods".

by Shazone 2008-02-24 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Why now?

Ya know, I didn't hear any of these Clinton supporters complaining when Hillary was sending out anti-Obama Health care mailers in Iowa while pretending that they were from the Edwards campaign.

Comments like the "despicable human being" one above just show how myDD has become a pretty vile place.

by maxlongstreet 2008-02-24 07:49AM | 0 recs
by maxlongstreet 2008-02-24 12:47PM | 0 recs
Clinton: better on health care. Worse as a prez
Honestly, I think I agree with Hillary's healthcare policy slightly more than Obama's. The differences between their policies are fairly minor IMO, especially when you consider that the prez doesn't make policy, only influences (and potentially vetoes) it.)

But I think healthcare is secondary to foreign policy on the list of Important Issue For The Next President. And on that count, Hillary has a highly suspect record:

* voting for the Iraq invasion, and NEVER renouncing that vote in the way that Edwards admirably did.

* voting for Kyl-Lieberman, a Bush attempt to pave the way to the next war.

My analysis of those votes is that she either believes that's good foreign policy (which gives me great pause) or she just voted for what she thought was poitically expedient, without regard to the cost in lives and treasure.

Had she gone differently, I might have backed her when Edwards dropped out. But that wasn't the case.

Bottom line: I support the Dem nominee, and I very much hope that's Obama. The world needs a leader who will do everything in their power to avoid further conflict.

by PhilFR 2008-02-23 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton: better on health care. Worse as a pre

Ah yes. Obama was a real profile in courage on that Kyl-Lieberman thing. He skipped the vote, didn't mention it until he saw which way the wind was blowing, and then criticized her for it.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-23 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton: better on health care. Worse as a pre
Beats the hell out of voting FOR Kyl-Lieberman. Now, Obama isn't my first (or even second) choice, but he's higher than Hillary. And much of the reason is foreign policy.
by PhilFR 2008-02-23 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton: better on health care. Worse as a pre
Sorry, but the Dodd bill was different in important ways. I need to put my 6 yr old to bed, but will try to get back to this later.
by PhilFR 2008-02-23 06:25PM | 0 recs
Debunked many, many times

Tricked by Reid into leaving town, etc. etc.  Pay attention now, this is important stuff.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:58AM | 0 recs
Debunked a thousand times

Tricked by Reid into leaving town, never would have voted for it.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:37AM | 0 recs
Obama: better on talk...

But Hillary's better on ACTION. While I was saddened by Hill's 2002 Iraq vote (just as I was by Kerry's and by Tom Daschle's), I think she's doing a lot NOW to end this war. She's actually introduced legislation calling on the Pentagon to draw an exit strategy, as well as legislation to stop Bush from forcing us into a permanent occupation. And while Obama made a good speech on Iraq in 2002, he just hasn't done as much since to end this war.

Now let's talk Kyl-Lieberman. Hillary was there that day to amend it in the Armed Services Committee and take out the worst language. Obama, OTOH, wasn't even there to vote.

And while Hillary cosponsored Jim Webb's bill to stop military action on Iran, Obama did nothing. Once more, Hillary took action. While Obama's foreign policy rhetoric is nice, Hillary's actions are what impresses me MORE.

by atdleft 2008-02-23 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: better on talk...
By action, do you mean the 'yea' vote on Kyl-Lieberman? I don't respect Obama's cutting out on that, but it's at least better than a yes vote.
by PhilFR 2008-02-23 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: better on talk...
Pointing out a 'yes' vote on a warmongering bill is a cheap shot? I think not, and that's not what I call 'leadership'.

Now, I don't think Obama is perfect, including on foreign policy. But I think he's better than HRC, and based on the opinion of those I trust deeply (especially Feingold) I'm not crazy.

by PhilFR 2008-02-23 06:32PM | 0 recs
Once again, totally different bill

As you well know.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Give me a break
You'd rather be more Hawkish?!?!

I disagree completely. As I just wrote in another diary, when it comes to foreign policy, there seem to be Feingold Democrats and Lieberman Democrats. Obama tends toward the former, and Hillary tends towards the latter.

I choose the former.

by PhilFR 2008-02-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Give me a break

Hillary is a hawk, and has surrounded herself with many more hawks.  I, for one, am sick to death of hawks.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Give me a break

Obama has scheduled withdrawal of all forces within eitheen months.  Hillary, won't say.  The U.S. should do a surgical strike into Pakistan if we can take out Bin Laden.

Now, and this is a critical distiction, Undies, so bear down here:

There is a difference between voting to invade a country based on a finger in the wind combined with a fear of not looking macho enough and a raid or two into Pakistan.  There is as well a difference between voting to fund the troops, thus not giving the repukes a wide target during the general election and voting to designate the duly constituted army of a foreign country a terrorist organization, thereby satisfying AIPAC and Bush's wildest dreams (Jim Webb.)  There is as well a difference between voting to ban cluster bombs in CIVILIAN areas (Obama) and yet again deferring to right wing Israelis and voting AGAINST the ban (Clinton.)

I could go on, but policy means nothing to you Hillary supporters.  You're angry and bitter that She Whose Time it Was to Be has had her victory snatched snatched from her grasp by the most inspirational, hardest-working, best-organized, best-funded candidate this country has ever seen.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton: better on health care. Worse as a pre
It matters a great deal to this diary. We're picking a President, not an ala-carte set of policies.

My view is that healthcare is important, that the differences between their policies are somewhat minor, and that foreign policy is a MUCH more important question in the next 4 years.

And on that count, I truly believe that Hillary has a worrisome record, and I feel much more confident that Barack will guide the country in a wiser fashion.

by PhilFR 2008-02-23 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Give me a break

Hmmm, can US Senators vote "Present" the way they can in Illinois?

by mlr701 2008-02-23 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Fyi, the Obama calculation is totally wrong
Are you seriously judging the war by its economic stimulus? Shaky ground there, morally.
by PhilFR 2008-02-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Fyi, the Obama calculation is totally wrong

Do you know how much the no-bid contracts are costing the tax payers? Among the 156,000 mercenaries in Iraq, the majority are not Americans. Many thousands of them are former soldiers and para-military from infamous former dictatorships in South America and the Apartheid regime in South Africa. This will really make you proud of your country!

by maymok 2008-02-23 08:27PM | 0 recs
Let's talk about facts.

If there is anyone to be forced under Hillary Healthcare plan, it's the insurance industry.

Under Hillary's plan they have to cover pre-existing condition, mental illness, and the plan continue when you lose or change your job.  Insurance industry will be forced to cover conditions that they never want to do before.

Her opponent is in the wrong here by trying to discredit a very good healthcare plan using incorrect information. Her plan use tax credit to ensure that families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.

by JoeySky18 2008-02-23 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Thank you. I know Hillary has tried to ignore the inflammatory, disgusting attacks of BO's campaign but when he continues to do it someone has to take a stand.

I'm glad she finally spoke to the press about it. She's been talking to him about it before, but apparently he doesn't understand the real damage he's doing. The same thing with the aggressive, women hating, Hillary-hating campaign that goes unchallenged by him -- he doesn't understand that there are things more important than winning the nomination (like winning the general.) BO doesn't see that if he wins the nomination the way he's winning it he will most assuredly lose the general, and we as a party will be deeply harmed by his campaign.

It's disgraceful.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-23 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

I have to say that the Obama campaign has thoroughly disgusted and disappointed me on many occasions, with this being only the latest example. Even on the verge of victory, he's sending out false mailers that seek to destroy his opponent.

The central theme of his message is that he's uniquely awesome and able to bring real change to Washington. But just in this campaign, we have the following deceptions or outright lies:

- He claimed that he doesn't get support from lobbyists when he has lobbyist bundlers, and key staff leaders are lobbyists. Further, his 2004 and 2010 Senate campaign takes money from lobbyists.

- He told an Iowa crowd he passed legislation requiring nuclear plants to inform the public of leaks, when in fact the legislation was heavily watered down and never passed at all.

- He's repeatedly lied about Hillary Clinton's health care plan using RNC-style talking points, saying the government will force you to buy health insurance you can't afford, which is flatly false. Even Ezra Klein, who is generally in the thank for Obama, called this lying.

- He's lied about his own health care plan, repeatedly saying that it's universal or will cover everyone, when no serious expert thinks that it does.

- He lied when he said he had never been in favor of single-payer, even though video is available showing that he clearly was, and pretended he couldn't hear when confronted with the video.

- In one of the more odious acts in recent Democratic politics, he claimed his campaign had never pushed the ugly and despicable stories that Clinton was race-baiting, when there were multiple incidents, including a long memo, and statements from senior personnel, in which his campaign did exactly that.

- He claimed that his involvement with Rezko amounted to five hours of legal work, when in fact it was a decades long relationship involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in fundraising, letters written on behalf of Rezko to state government agencies, and a coordinated real estate purchase.

- In the debate in Texas, he claimed that he had predicted the Iraq war would cost us "thousands of lives", though he certainly didn't do so in his 2002 speech.

- He made a pledge to accept public financing for the general election, but is now attaching more preconditions and loopholes than there are in the tax code.

- He's continuing to suggest Clinton said that NAFTA was a "boon" even after the newspaper in question said doing so was misleading.

If this is the politics of hope, I'd hate to see what the other kind is like.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-23 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

What is inaccurate about Obama's criticisms, anyway.  I find the Obama campaign's quite persuasive and if you disagree, you should explain why:

Saturday Obama Campaign Release

Everything in those mailers is completely accurate, unlike the discredited attacks from Hillary Clinton's negative campaign that have been rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and across America. We look forward to having a debate this Tuesday on the facts, and the facts are that Senator Clinton was a supporter of NAFTA and the China permanent trade treaties until this campaign began. And she herself has said that under the Clinton health care plan, she would consider "going after the wages" of Americans who don't purchase health insurance, whether they can afford it or not," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

HILLARY CLINTON ON ENFORCING HER MANDATE: "And the reason why I think there are a number of mechanisms, going after people's wages, automatic enrollment, when you are at the place of employment, you will be automatically enrolled, whatever the mechanism is." [ABC's This Week, 2/3/08]

CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ON COMPARING A DEMOCRAT TO BUSH: "If you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it's about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George Bush. That's the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering." Clinton Spokesman Howard Wolfson [AP, 12/20/07]

CLINTON ON TRADE WITH CHINA:

2000: Hillary Clinton Claimed China's Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. "I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO." [CNN, 4/26/2000]

2000: Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. "Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing's restrictive birthrate policies." [AFP, 5/25/00]

SOME FACTS ON CLINTON'S SUPPORT FOR NAFTA:

2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton's Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America--the largest free trade zone in the world--would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

1996: Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

1996: Clinton "Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." AP wrote, "Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border." [AP, 11/2/96]

1996: Hillary Clinton "Touted" President Clinton's Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." [United Press International, 11/1/96]

COMMENTATORS AGREE CLINTON HAS SUPPORTED NAFTA AND FREE TRADE

Sirota: "What A Total Joke" That Clinton Camp Tries to Argue She Did Not Support NAFTA, "Clinton Has Made Statements Unequivocally Trumpeting NAFTA." In response to Barack Obama's attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode...The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House. What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools. Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread." [David Sirota, 2/14/08]

Bloomberg: Clinton "Praised" NAFTA, Friends Said She Was "A Free-Trader at Heart." Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. `The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better," she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. `Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.' Praise for Nafta At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting `a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." She added: `It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.' Clinton `is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. `She would absolutely do the right thing as president.' There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates. As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization." [Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

Ø Clinton's NAFTA Rhetoric Is Not Driven By Policy. Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton's positioning on trade reflects the changing nature of the debate in the U.S., which increasingly focuses on concerns over outsourcing and the shift of jobs to other nations such as China and India rather than on the benefits of tariff reductions. It also -- as with Republicans grappling over illegal immigration -- demonstrates the extent to which grassroots sentiment can alter candidates' platforms. A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted in January found 39 percent of Democrats believe free trade hurts the economy; only 18 percent say it is a benefit. Both parties agree that a backlash on trade helped Democrats in the 2006 elections. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said U.S. workers have been `so decimated' by unfettered competition that `I think the American people understand they will be hit by it.' Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart." [Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

SF Chronicle: "Add to this Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton's coolness to the idea. Her husband moved earth and sky to win passage of the NAFTA trade pact with Mexico and Canada in 1993. Now she favors periodic reviews to continue such deals, a "timeout" on new ones, and more federal officials to oversee complaints. It's clearly a flip-flop favor to unions and industry sectors hit by layoffs and cheap imports and bid to outflank her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is more favorable to free trade." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/07]

BILL CLINTON CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR NAFTA

JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Says "A Lot Of People Think NAFTA's A Bigger Problem Than it Is." During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said "She [Hillary Clinton] believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don't enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA's a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them." [Bill Clinton, 1/18/08]

by mainelib 2008-02-23 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Okay yeah, but when she wrote her book 5 years ago it was the greatest accomplishment of Bill's presidency. flip flop!

by amiches 2008-02-23 07:21PM | 0 recs
She did say

she could run for Senator for Punjab and win, after all.  Collected a nice check for $50,000 for saying it, too.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-24 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama! HE SUPPORTED NAFTA
Associated Press: Obama said the United States should `pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." [AP, 9/8/04]
Decatur Herald & Review: 'Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.' "While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said. Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade." [Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04]
by fair elections 2008-02-23 05:22PM | 0 recs
what is wrong with this

Sen. Obama is confusing voters and trying to make them think Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan will hurt them or that it is only government run. These are fear tactics which are inaccurate.  Both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton want to provide increased health care. It is a widely known fact if you read any article outside the campaign's propoganda that Obama's plan leaves more people out.  Hillary will not hurt people who can't afford health care, she will provide more subsidies then Sen Obama. It is ludicrous for anyone to believe that Sen Clinton would have a health care plan that would hurt poor people.  Sen Obama should look for another issue this one has no traction.

by fair elections 2008-02-23 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: what is wrong with this

No, he's criticizing individual mandates to buy health insurance, a system that has not worked well in Mass.

Personally, I don't like either of their plans and prefer Medicare for All.

But there is nothing underhanded with Obama disagreeing with a major feature of Clinton's proposal.

by mainelib 2008-02-23 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: what is wrong with this

Obama's plan doesn't "leave more people out," it just doesn't force everyone to purchase health insurance for themselves, as Clinton's does.

by mainelib 2008-02-23 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: what is wrong with this

It doesn't require "that they be covered" by a government mandate (which I would support).  

It requires that individuals buy health insurance.

by mainelib 2008-02-23 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Wow! Thank you, Undies Sided! I was thrilled to see that cincinnati.com video of an outraged Hillary telling it like it is! Obama's campaign is full of sleazy people pulling all sorts of sleazy stunts like that lying mailing. Really a bunch of disgusting people.

Obama has a real a$$hole for his healthcare point man, Jim Cooper. He's the insurance company shill who torpedoed Hillary's efforts in 1993-'94. No wonder this lying Rove-style mailer looks like the sort of dirty tricks pulled by the GOP.

All the stuff on Obama needs to come out NOW! No time to waste. Hillary is outraged and rightly so. It's time to take the gloves off and come out swinging. Obama is a lying hypocrite and the voters deserve to know the truth.

The debate on Tuesday should be very interesting. This thing is far from over, folks. Hillary Clinton will be our nominee and will win this election. The alternatives would be horrible.

Wow! As I'm writing this, a snippet of Hillary angrily attacking Obama was just on, a preview of the news at 11. Cool! Hillary is really going to get some traction on this one!

GO HILLARY!

by Nobama 2008-02-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

They talked about health care in depth in each of the two one on one debates.  What exactly will anyone gain from yet another discussion?  Personally, I will be bored stiff.  I already know what they both propose and I know I don't like individual mandates, as they haven't worked in Mass.

It's a mistake to act as if mandates was a big Democratic idea when it really came out of the centrist to Republican think tanks.  

by mainelib 2008-02-23 05:32PM | 0 recs
Just viewed the video

and I am fired up. Yes!!! She hit it on the head and I got out my wallet and went to http://www.Hillaryclinton.com/contribute and donated $50!

I am so tired of the Obama talking out of one side of his mouth about unity and a new kind of politics and then doing the very things he decries. The hypocrisy of his entire campaign saying they are for unity while trashing fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton has been stunning. If this is how he intends to unify the country then, no thanks. I am a hard core Democrat and he has me questioning whether I want to be a Democrat anymore if he is the nominee.

He, has been so disrespectful to Hillary Clinton throughout this campaign, a fellow Democrat, a United States Senator, former First Lady of the United States, a woman who has spent her life fighting for core Democratic issues. What is ironic that the Right has never been able to bring her down. Nope it is taking one of our own to do that.

Well, no more. Finally she has said ENOUGH!!!

by dwj 2008-02-23 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Just viewed the video

The claims about who would support who after the nominee is picked comes from national polls -- in other words, evidence rather than anecdote.

by mainelib 2008-02-23 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Just viewed the video

We can all find people on the streets who say these sorts of things about one or the other candidate.  That's not the same as establishing a clear national pattern with evidence.

by mainelib 2008-02-24 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Remind me once again.  Who was the president that signed Nafta into law?  Wasn't it Bill Clinton?  Didn't Ross Perot run against Bill Clinton in '96 on an anti-Nafta platform?

It seems fair to me to bring up the fact that Nafta was a Clinton-era production.

by Dumbo 2008-02-23 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Stop being such a sexist.

by amiches 2008-02-23 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

i think you are mostly all just women, wanting a women.  How the hell is he supposed to win without running aganist her?  And why doe someone have to agree with you on EVERYTHING or you call them the devil.  This level of purity is concerning, lighten up and get a life.

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Typical response from a "fratboy". Go back to pouring beer on yourself and beating your girlfriend, you degenerate misogynist.

(hint: I'm joking)

by amiches 2008-02-23 10:02PM | 0 recs
Who was the president that signed Nafta into law?

Was Hillary president at that time.  As far as I know, and according to Bernstein's biogrpahy of (and he's no Hillary fan), she specifically tried to talk Bill out of it at the time as she thought it was a bad idea.

I personally liked Bill Clinton, but I think his wife has even more sense than he did.

She'd fight harder for what she believes in, and after all they went through, she's way more prepared than he was at the time, to take them on.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-02-23 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Who was the president that signed Nafta into l

How about her own book, where she describes it as the greatest accomplishment of the Clinton administration?

Face it: your girl is a demagogue. She might have principled stances on some things (although I haven't figured out what), but certainly not on NAFTA.

by amiches 2008-02-23 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Who was the president that signed Nafta into l

I'm going through the book now, trying to find the passage, but while you wait here's a quote from a Bloomberg article:

"The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better," she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. "Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not."

Let's not get it twisted - I agree with her - but she's demagoguing because it's an unpopular sentiment in Ohio.

by amiches 2008-02-24 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Actually, I think it was signed by George H.W. Bush. Clinton pressed Congress to ratify it, which they did in a close but bipartisan vote (the winning coalition included more than 100 members from each party in the House, with quite a few left out on both sides). Clinton also pushed two companion agreements on environmental and labor policies between the three countries.

I personally am not sure what to think of trade agreements. There are certain trends that it seems futile to try to hold back, and it may be that trade is one of them. I imagine Obama and Clinton's positions on this aren't all that different--neither of them is a strict protectionist, I don't think. This is probably more political opportunism from Obama.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-23 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

This is the height of deception and hypocrisy by
Obama.

Thanks Undies I saw it here first as I stopped watching MSM with their disgusting way of bending truth and disservice to the public.

by BlueSea 2008-02-23 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: From TPM

In fairness, there seems to be a lot of dispute about the Present votes.

Illinois NOW disagreed with the strategy (although a former President sided with planned parenthood over her own organization apparently, and cut some video to blast hillary without mentioning that the organzation she had been president of had not agreed that obama should duck the vote). They particularly argued that since Obama was in a safe seat, he shoudn't have voted Present.

So basically, it's Planned Parenthood and I think NARAL vs. NOW on this one.  But there was and is, at least, a vigorous disagreement about whether to let Obama vote present.  That some allies agreed while some disagreed does not make it out of bounds for attack.

Certainly it's nothing like using Harry and Louise to go after Hillary's universal health care plan.

by dcg2 2008-02-23 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Get over yourself, Undies.  
She has been the attack dog since the inevitability tag slipped post super-Tuesday.  Was the mailer inaccurate?  

For your viewing pleasure -
http://www.ObamaIsWinning.com

by stryan 2008-02-23 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: From TPM

you are completely blind to the fact you candidate is losing?  And losing more and more of the people who voted for her only the week earlier each and every week.  You can hate Obama more each and every week (as you have been) but you to are losing.  

by affratboy22 2008-02-23 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Great diary.
I cannot even put into words how much this hurts and disgusts me.

Glad that you're in Ohio supporting her.  I live in Michigan, and I'm going down to the Toledo area this weekend with several other Hillary supporters to campaign for her as well.  Can't wait.

by musicpvm 2008-02-23 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!
"What type of machine is supporting him"?
.....................
Perhaps the saudi wahabbis?
by LauraEL 2008-02-23 09:22PM | 0 recs
That's not a good comment

to make without any backup material, even if you use the word "perhaps".

by Gabriele Droz 2008-02-23 09:42PM | 0 recs
I think your point would have been better taken

had you  headlined your response post "CAPS LOCK KEY IS ON THE LEFT", in all lower caps, just to show you're about action, not just talk.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-02-23 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

The more I think about it, the more I'm irritated by Obama's behavior on health care.

It's clear he took the politically easy way out by not including mandates, while Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were responsible and took a big risk by including them. Now he's using his act of political timidity as a weapon and falsely criticizing those who were courageous and did the right thing.

For someone who rails against divisive politics and keeps patting himself on the back for telling people what they need to know, not what they want to hear, this is an act of supreme hypocrisy, on an issue of critical importance.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-23 11:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Undies Sided, you come across as full of hate and anger.  Maybe you should seek some calm before posting diaries.

First:  The Harry & Louise ad is pretty negative, I'll give you that.  But even on facts.hillaryhub.com, they don't say what they would do if you couldn't afford health insurance.  Let's make this clear, neither Hillary's or Obama's plan calls for Universal Health Care.  Hillary's calls for Universal Health Insurance, and Obama calls for Universal Access to Health Insurance.  That's the difference.  It is a fact, that if she gets a mandate for insurance through congress that in order to enforce the mandate she will have to penalize people or garnish wages.  Will Obama have to do the same thing for parents who don't pay for their kids? yes.  But I wouldn't call the charge he makes in the ad false, or as you put it, "disgusting and deceptive."  If anything, it's as deceptive as the mailers Clinton has sent out implying that Obama feels some people don't deserve insurance, or that he voted on a bill giving tax breaks to oil companies, or that he's unwilling to take a stand on womens' choice.

Second: It is a fact that Hillary touted NAFTA as a success before this campaign started.  It's also a fact that NAFTA really hasn't been as negative to this country as some people are lead to believe(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinio n/24sun1.html?ref=opinion).  But the mailer is accurate.  The paper that retracted it's story is not the only paper that quotes Hillary and her stance on NAFTA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro ta/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.htm l)

by shalca 2008-02-24 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Ok, you're right.  She doesn't give an answer as to what people will do who simply cannot afford to purchase health insurance, and don't do it.  Do you know?  What will she do?

The argument about NAFTA is not what she's saying today.  It's simply about what she has said and written in the past.  I haven't heard her say that she's rescinding her past thoughts, or changing her mind.  I only hear something different, and honestly, I'm not sure what she believes.  I'll be honest with you.  I support NAFTA, and it's a policy issue on which I disagree with Obama.  I'm not sure if I can disagree with Clinton on the issue.  She's said one thing in the past and another thing now.

by shalca 2008-02-24 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

What Obama had said about Nafta? He was also in favor of it.

Being a hypocrite, why anslyze only Hillary? Because she has more experience and more years than what Obama has?

Typical Obama hypocrites!

by Sandeep 2008-02-24 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Link please.

by shalca 2008-02-24 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

It is fact Obama took lobbyist money before this campaign. Why is that not important when what Hillary did before this campaign is important?

Do you see a hypocrite in yourself?

by Sandeep 2008-02-24 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

I'm sorry, was this conversation about donations from lobbyists.  I didn't see that.

by shalca 2008-02-24 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Shame on You Barack Obama!

Barack Hussein Obama is conning people through techniques of hypnosis, and for that, shame on you, Barack Obama!:

"The hypnotist takes into confidence his subject through his confident posture, compassionate behavior and positive dialogue. The psychological supremacy over the subject is achieved by the hypnotist indirectly through his conscious speech and gestures. This communication will help the hypnotist to gain the confidence of the listener that will ultimately develop an unconscious neurological coordination between the hypnotist and the subject known as covert conditioning or covert anchoring. This state of mind of the subject will help the hypnotist to dominate the thoughts and behaviors of the subject.
The person practicing these techniques will be able to influence the thoughts of other persons make them agree to his point of view.  By using this method of hypnotism it is easy to make a person obey the commands of the person practicing this technique of hypnotism.  Whether hypnotizing a person without his consent is ethical or not is a question that is yet to be answered. The preachers of covert hypnosis claim that learning these techniques will help a person to bring miraculous changes to the life of the person practicing it." http://www.hypnotismsecrets.com/covert-h ypnosis

by april444 2008-02-24 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Democrat who swiftboats universal health c

No one has swiftboated universal health care. They just have a disagreement about the best way to get to full coverage.

I continue to find it odd that there's so much emotional energy involved in defending mandates when they were never proposed by a Democratic candidate until this election cycle and the idea came out of Republican think tanks.

by mainelib 2008-02-24 08:17AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads