The Home of Steven Barnes
Author, Teacher, Screenwriter


Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Clintons lying

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/
clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html

Thank goodness someone is starting to talk about this. I find it offensive, and find it VERY difficult to believe its accidental, or inadvertent. It's lying, out and out.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

here's some good coverage of it
and the comments are also interesting

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html

suzanne

CV Rick said...

it's "anything to win" politics as usual. it also disgusts me.

I've been a lurker - love your writing, good blog, etc.

Kami said...

I hated the commentary on the news early this morning. I don't know how it developed over the day (except from what I've read in the links provided by Steve and Suzanne,) but I was fuming. I saw the same clips over and over again, and none of the newscasters or commentators checked facts. No one. The impression that millions of viewers got was that Hillary got major cheers (and some booing, thank goodness) and that she adequately defended her husband's statements.

I did like one clip where a retaliatory statement from black community leadership--with Bill sitting in the front row--had the former president sitting way back in his seat, mouth hanging open like he'd just been whacked with a baseball bat. In a way he had. I don't think that Obama should be spared criticism, but lying about what he's said and done, that's a whole other can of worms and I believe that the Clintons should get slammed with some serious backlash.

I have more to say but I'll stop, because I am very biased. I would love Obama to win, and I've never liked Hillary.

Anonymous said...

What? The Clintons lie? Who knew?!?


--Erich Schwarz

Steve Perry said...

A politician who lies?

No! Say it ain't so ...

Anonymous said...

No, this isn't just "a politician", this is ... the Clintons.

Which is oh so special, as Barack Obama is belatedly finding out:

"Then there's Mr. Clinton's moaning before Saturday's Nevada caucuses that his wife's supporters were being strong-armed by pro-Obama unions at casino voting sites. Clinton campaign allies sued and lost on the matter, and the former President sounded like a Chicago ward heeler as he told reporters about the Obama campaign's voter-intimidation tactics. Yet on the day of the vote Mrs. Clinton won at seven of the nine casino sites, and the Obama campaign was left asking if its vote had been suppressed. It wouldn't be the first time Mr. Clinton accused an opponent of doing something his own campaign was planning to do."


--Erich Schwarz

Lynn said...

Off topic but this might be helpful to some people. Here is a page that tells how to post links.

Frank said...

I seriously have no idea what the appeal of Clinton is for Democrats.

Given that both Obama and Clinton have roughly the same qualifications for the job (which is to say none) Obama appears to be the more moral, introspective, and charismatic individual. What's more, he has leadership qualities.

I do believe that he will likely lose in a general election, but I think that Clinton has an even worse chance of winning.

To me, if I were a Democrat, it would be a no-brainer: Obama over Clinton hands down.

Frank said...

From the New York Times

...Mr. Clinton said the Obama campaign was “feeding” the news media to keep issues of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of the presidential campaign here of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“They know this is what you want to cover,” Mr. Clinton told a CNN reporter in Charleston, in an apparent reference to the Obama campaign.

“Shame on you,” the former president added....

Mr. Clinton dredged up complaints about voting in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, where Mr. Obama won more delegates but Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote, and continued to mull publicly the role that race could play in the primaries.

That issue has permeated the campaign here in advance of the Democratic primary on Saturday, in which at least half the voters are expected to be black.

Mr. Clinton also suggested in public remarks that his wife might lose here because of race. Referring to her and Mr. Obama, he said, “They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender, and that’s why people tell me that Hillary doesn’t have a chance to win here.”


Who is really highlighting the race issue and to what end?

Steven Barnes said...

Clinton has mentioned "a woman in the White House" far more often than Obama has said "An African American in the White House." In fact, I don't remember him using that line. I've seen him discuss the fact that it is historic for both a woman and an African-American to be running, but that's as close as I've seen him go. I REALLY feel they're trying to lure him into more discussions of his race, and that they know that's a losing position for him. Discussing gender COULD be a winning position for Hillary, since if she got all the women, and not a single man, she'd win the White House. It's an interesting chess game to watch.