home

Obama, Hillary and Social Security

As long as we're criticizing Barack Obama today, check out the Daily Howler which takes him to task for his "new" strategy of being more aggressive in his campaign against Hillary.

First off, he's attacking her character, not just her position on issues. Bad move.

Worse, he's pretending she has not taken a stand on social security. That's false. She has taken her stand and her stand is, as it should be, There Is No Crisis.

It’s astounding to see a Major Dem pimping Social Security as a big, troubling issue. It’s astounding to see one Dem attacking another because she won’t go along with that plutocrat claim—especially when he’s been reciting the old chestnut about college kids. This claim has been the tool of plutocrats over the course of the past twenty-five years. Now, we see a Major Dem pimping this line—and criticizing Clinton’s troubling “character” because she won’t go there with him.

By the way, tell us again: Which of these two is the “liberal?”

Update: Obama and Hillary are now in an ad war over social security. Here's Hillary latest salvo, to run in Iowa and New Hampshire, detailing what she has done on behalf of seniors.

More....

"When George Bush threatened to privatize social security, Hillary was there fighting every step of the way to stop him," says the announcer. "These days, it seems like every candidate on earth is coming here for you. But which candidate has been there for you all along?"
< Dodd Opposes Mukasey | Tom Tancredo Retiring From Congress >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well when Hillary or Dodd (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    for that matter, deserve it, I do not think we spare them.

    Your criticism of him is merited. I believe my criticism of him, which, as you recall began in the summer of 2006, has also been merited.

    Any criticism of Hillary is unfair - by definition (none / 0) (#2)
    by fiver5 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:03:32 PM EST
    Jeralyn:
    First off, he's attacking her character, not just her position on issues. Bad move.

    The Daily Howler:

    Increasingly, Obama is talking about Clinton's "character." Granted, that's an assessment by Bacon, not a quote from Obama. But when you say that someone is ducking, hedging, dodging and spinning a serious issue, you are, of course, critiquing her character. (emphasis added)

    So talking about Clinton's "ducking, hedging, dodging and spinning a serious issue" is inherently unfair.  That is amazingly convenient.  It gets her out of her Iraq War vote, Kyl/Lieberman, telecom amnesty, and virtually every other criticism from the left - including a weak "stand" on social security.

    Obama takes the side of the plutocrats against Hillary?  Why? It's not as if he was a director of WalMart, based his entire career on nepotism, or collected more corporate cash than any other candidate in history.  It's only because he had the gall to criticize St. Hillary, and all criticism of HRC must, by definition, come from the right, and is therefore, by definition, unfair.

    I don't want to be the language police, but (none / 0) (#3)
    by jerry on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    "pimping?"

    That Howler Bit Hit it Out of the Park on This One (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alegre on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:59:03 PM EST
    Obama's going after Hillary with attacks on her character.  The Howler's right in pointing out the similarities between Obama today and Bradley of 2000.