Hillary Slams Obama Over Deceptive Ohio Mailers

The AP and New York Times report Hillary Clinton is fighting back today.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference after a morning rally, holding the flyers and shaking them in the air as she spoke. “It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

....“Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics, reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats,” Mrs. Clinton said.

The backstory, about the Obama campaign wrongly claiming Hillary said NAFTA was a "boon" is below:

It was not the first time the Clinton campaign has seen the flyer, which cites an article from Newsday that says Mrs. Clinton believed Nafta was a “boon” to the economy. Mrs. Clinton said the newspaper has since corrected the article.

(Reporters from Newsday responded on its Web site last week, but stopped short of a correction. “The word was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements,” they wrote, adding that the Obama mailer made the word ‘boon” appear to be Mrs. Clinton’s statement. “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading,” they wrote.)

There are two Obama mailers Hillary alleges are deceptive. From Hillary's Fact Hub:

The Obama campaign is distributing two dishonest mailers in Ohio. The first mailer falsely claims that Hillary said NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy. Hillary never said that. The Obama campaign is basing the quote on a 2006 Newsday article that characterized her views this way without any substantiation. In fact, Newsday recently said that the Obama campaign's use of their article was "misleading." The Politico called the Obama campaign's use of the quote "bogus."

The second mailer from the Obama campaign mimics Harry and Louise ads that the health care industry used to scare people into opposing universal health care. The ad claims "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it."

She goes on to say:

Here are the facts:

Sen. Obama fails to mention Hillary's plan cuts costs just as aggressively as Sen. Obama, if not more so.
Hillary's plan contains more generous subsidies than the Obama plan. Noted health expert Ken Thorpe of Emory University concluded that under the Hillary plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage.
The Obama plan leaves 15 million people out, which drives up costs because everyone else ends up subsidizing their emergency care.
Paul Krugman called the mailer "ugly" and "destructive."

Hillary can't afford to let Obama mislead Ohioans about her position on NAFTA -- as in Wisconsin, it will be a big deal there. I'm glad to see her fighting back hard on this one.

< Saturday Open Thread | If The Race Is Over, Why Is Obama Attacking Clinton? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Shame on you, Barack Obama." (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    If HRC reminds young people of their mothers, and this is why they support Obama, this was a poor choice of words by HRC.

    what mother says (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    "shame on you" to their kid? I never did and neither did my mother.

    I agree that is a better form of (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    mothering, but mine actually did say that in extreme circumstances.

    as a mother.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by lorelynn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    let me apologize to you. Hopefully, she loved and loves you more than life in all the other ways that matter. :)

    my dad said it to me (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:07:44 PM EST
    father/daughter.  Mothers just say, "what the he*l were you thinking?"

    I, for one, am very glad to hear Clinton making these charges.

    And for those of you who say, "so what, Clinton sent out mailers about him, too," the difference is that Obama is running as a "new" kind of politician.  These are old political tricks.

    Speaks to character.


    Nothing wrong with those words (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Prabhata on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    If those words reminds them of "mother", get a grip on yourself and stop projecting.  He should be ashamed to do anything to win.

    Common words (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Prabhata on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    I've heard men and women say "shame on you" when offended by outright sleaze.  Why do people project on Hillary some kind of mother or parental figure?  People do that with their bosses too.  Grow up!

    HRC does remind me of my mother (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    in many good ways, and I'm voting for HRC because I can't vote for my mother anymore.

    Btw, BO reminds me of an obnoxious, supercilious sibling of mine.  But I'll try to vote for him, if I must.


    Aha. All is revealed. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    Cream City's aversion to Obama really is personal!

    You must have missed the '60s, too (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    when we knew that all politics is personal.

    Yep, I take every attack on women in this campaign very personally, too.  I take every attack on the '60s and '70s that way -- and now on the '90s, too.

    I take what has happened to my country very personally, so I personally am voting for the one who does not sound so much like the the same people who have been wrecking my country for years now.


    Who sd. that, Sam Rayburn? (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    Tip O'Neill used to say that (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    "all politics are local" -- probably not the first to say it, but he often gets credited for it -- but I'm riffing as much on/reversing Carol Hanisch's "the personal is political," a slogan of the modern women's movement.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    I am going to leave my post up that is related to this because I think there is an important aspect of this you did not cover, to wit, if this race is over, why is Obama attacking Clinton?

    Thanks BTD (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    good point.

    Never over... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by tsteels2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:20:18 PM EST
    Because the race isn't over and Senator Clinton can get the nomination.  I say it's 50/50.  And I'm a Obama supporter.

    And for the record, if Senator Clinton gets the nod, I will support and vote for her.  Plain and simple.


    Obama attacks Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Prabhata on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    Obama has been attacking in an underhanded way.  That's what Hillary is saying.  From Michelle to the to his campaign people, like Jackson.

    The obvious reason (none / 0) (#170)
    by tree on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:08:58 AM EST
    would be to say that the Obama campaign doesn't really believe that the race is over.

     But another possibility would be the vaunted Obama campaign team isn't as clever as its made out to be.  If they really do believe the race is over, they should be making nice-nice with Clinton, but maybe they are too enamored of themselves to see that they need to start showing some of that alleged "Unity" they are touting, or their democratic base won't just roll over for them come the GE.


    take the low road (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    it always makes me laugh when Obama supporters whine about Hillarys "attacks".
    if he is the nominee they will come to find out what an "attack" really is.

    Plus how is it (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    That an Obama attack is somehow the high road while a Clinton response is the low road. Makes no sense.

    Because (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    he criticized her over NAFTA and her Health care plan.

    She called him a plagiarist and Karl Rove.  See how one is issue based the other is name calling?


    And he used a retracted quote (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    from Newsday.  Heckuva high road there.

    Has anyone here seen Hillary's mailers? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Siguy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:24:24 PM EST
    These are the first two negative Obama mailers I've heard of. Out here in California she damn near inundated my house with negative Obama mailers.

    I think I got like four negative Obama mailers and one positive mailer about hillary. Now I wish I'd kept them so I could compare.

    I'm not even commenting on the specifics of Obama's mailers. I'm just saying that I think Hillary's outrage here, her "shame on you!", rings pretty false to my ears because I didn't hear Barack talking about her mailers that have already been out in all these states for months.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    Obama has been using negative mailers for a long time, just like the other campaigns. Where've you been?

    Negative and false are not the same thing. (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    No, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    He has sent out negative mailers in most states. I have seen pdf's of the Harry and Louise ad since before super Tuesday. Mailers are under the radar so the press pretty much doesn't comment on it.

    Out here in my parts of California (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:51:18 PM EST
    I received no negative mailers from either campaign.

    She always was against NAFTA (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    See Bernstein's biography or google or search past threads here.

    Richard Clarke praised the Bush Admin (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    on its terrorism strategy in 2002.

    Does that mean he did not complain about in 2001?


    Any public speeches from Clarke? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    Seems like my point Whizzed right by you.

    Right...exactly (none / 0) (#142)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    Like Obama's "politically expedient" softening on his vaunted anti-war stance when he was supporting Kerry.

    When Clinton does it, it's evil.  When Obama does it, it's...what?  A beautiful thing?


    Nope (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    Do you know who Richard Clarke is?

    your points seem clear enough (none / 0) (#185)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:43:19 AM EST
    No, you wont buy in because Berstein postion favours Hillary, had it been otherwise, you wouldnt even bother , his postion would have been hook, line and sinker! So much for Obama twisting! hmmmmm

    uhhh... (none / 0) (#68)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    being for it publically, while privately against it -- is not exactly clear cut. GIVE ME A BREAK. This is absolutely absurd. IF she wants to run on her husbands records, she has to take the bad with the good.

    I threw it out (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    before reading it after seeing his ridiculous punditry on CNN on primary nights.

    Hillary should continue to press this (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    Obama while decrying negative campaign tactics has run a very negative campaign often adopting Republican talking points. She should press this theme every day until March 4.

    To use harry & Louise talking points to attack a fellow Democrat on health care is disgusting.

    Obama is showing that he will do anything and say anything to win. This will backfire on him.

    The free use of (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM EST
    Republican talking points is what inextricably turned me off Obama.

    There is nothing I hate more in politics that what Republicans do to Democrats...and to see Democrats doing it to other Democrats?  Big ouch.  Big ouch.


    the best proof (none / 0) (#164)
    by diogenes on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:51:23 PM EST
    The best proof here is the Clinton records of the 1992-1996 period-why don't Bill and Hillary release them to "prove" that Obama is lying about her position on NAFTA back then.

    The recent arbitration award (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    against Health Net would underscore the importance of universal health care:

    $9 mil award against Health Net

    Health Net award (none / 0) (#178)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:07:26 AM EST
    Wait a second, if car insurance was not mandatory but optional think anyone would consider buying??
    ANyone who understand the way any type of insurance works would know that it is based on a pool of funds, invested with the premiums.
    and 'claims' (medical bills/costs) paid essentially from the returns of the investment of the pool of funds otherwise the system would go bankrupt the moment the premiums and returns falls short of the claims which nearly always happens when unisured shows up at the ER, so in order to shore up the funds base insurers routinely raise thier premiums on those who are paying..This ought to be simple logical which Obamabots and many americans dont get!
    How else does Americans expect an insurer to fix a luxury car in a collision with a 'rickey' car whose premiums are much lower than that paid by the owner of a luxury car! So the whole thing boils than to the pool of fund! Get smarter and do away with Obama Plans which is very selfish even if you scretch the 15 million people to mean only those who can afford and dont want to buy , is anybody expecting anyone of the 15 million to be brought in by air ambulance and the ER first insists they pay thier premium before been treated 'since they could afford it and choose not to??

    Bogus Unity (4.42 / 7) (#2)
    by Prabhata on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:07:42 PM EST
    I lost all respect for Obama in SC when he played the race card, and I was disappointed that the blogs and many who should have been fair but went off the deep end attacking Bill for racism.

    off topic (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    Did I miss something? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:53:27 PM EST
    I was gone all day...did BTD or Jeralyn make you a mod?

    Re: Bogus unity (none / 0) (#181)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:22:05 AM EST
    Obama, as much as comfirm that his team  interjected race into the campaign when Tim Russert confronted him with the 4 page memo and he promised to stop been negative  going forward but the very next day on the campaign trail said something totalluy different! what I find surprising is that CNN can inlcude in it's worst political team CARL BERSTEIN a known Hillary basher but wont bring on the show anyone who has something or anything negative to say about Obama. I guess being the messiah that he is OBAMA has no blemish! Time will tell! It is my fervent prayer that he gets the nomination because if he doesnt  and the Democcrats lose the GE,Michelle may renounce her American citizenship, right now she is been proud the first time in her adult life..
    As she would not consider voting the Democratic party unless her husband wins, then the clinton family , friends and all thier well wishers shouldnt also vote the party if clinton fails to get the nomination. As for the super delegates since obama is winning they should vote how thier constituency wishes , therefore in NY, NJ, CA,MA (KERY,KENEDDY NOTE)they should also vote the wishes of the constituencies! Obamania has done only one thing destroyed the democratic party with the active support of news media like cnn and their worst political team.

    not a very wise move (none / 0) (#7)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    to claim that his mailers are deceptive, when hers are even more so.

    Unless she could guarantee, 100%, that her package of subsidies is absolutely perfect, out of the box - i.e. that it really would give a fully adequate subsidy to everyone who needed it, then the claim in the Obama mailer is true.

    There has never been, in the history of the universe, a policy program that is 100% perfect on day one of its roll-out. We humans don't have that level of insight. At best, you have a very good program, then you see how it works, and then do all the little tweaks and adjustments to finally make it as good as it can be.

    But the mandates would kick in on day one. As a result, the people who you overlook will bear the burden of your imperfection - they will not be adequtly subsidized, but they will be force to buy in none the less, and it would be up to them to try to appeal to the government to fix the mistakes - all the while paying penalites.

    It just makes no sense. Roll out the program first, do all the tweaking and adjusting until you can be sure that everyone has an affordable plan available to them, THEN you can start talking about mandates to gather up those who are gaming the system.

    Obama's mailer is correct.

    But Hillary makes the claim that Obama's plan "leaves out" X number of people - 15 million is the most common figure. But that is truly deceptive. It leaves the impression that 15 million will not have an affordable plan offered to them. But what she really means by the claim is that 15 million will not CHOOSE to sign up.

    How on earth can you justify claiming that people who choose not to sign up, even though an affordable plan is offered to them, are being "left out".

    Then she runs with this theme by pointing to all these poor little hypothetical sick people, asking if this is the person Obama wants to leave out. But of course, they would be "left out" only if the CHOOSE not to sign up - they will have an affordable plan in front of them.

    I guess she has decided to take the low road out of this race after all.

    Surely you aren't suggesting (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    Obama's health care plan will be passed "as is" by Congress and land on his desk in the form his campaign literature lays out.

    I doubt anything he proposes (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    will be passed "as is." He's not going to have that kind of clout, he's hasn't been around long enough to have learned the ropes and he doesn't want to play the game, he wants to change it. He's going to have to play the game to get anything done. That's why all this "change" talk is so silly.

    I'm worried how he'll get his judicial nominees past Congress.


    I agree re judicial nominees, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    unless he nominates people so attractive to the conservatives that they won't fight him.  

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:10:11 PM EST
    he has no political clout, no one owes him favors and he doesn't understand the entrenched interests on BOTH sides of the aisle.

    Someone needs to tell him that the reason Hillary couldn't get through healthcare the first time, even though the dems controlled both houses, is because her OWN PARTY did not automatically fall into line.


    You better hope the same is true for Hillary (none / 0) (#38)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    Do you recognize that one of the main reasons for the '93 health care fiasco was that Bill and Hillary decided that she would get together with her own private commission to devise a plan, bypassing that little institution that our founders put in place for purposes such as this - i.e. the Congress?

    By dumping a final product on the Congress, and taking the oh-so-tough attitude of take it or leave it, she guaranteed that the plan would have as little political support as possible. No participation in the writing of the thing, no buy-in to the product. Hence little incentive to defend it when the oceans of oppo money and advertising came along.

    Of course,  neither Hillary's or Barack's plan, as written today, will end up being the final plan approved by Congress. Thats another reason why this huge fight over mandates is kinda silly.

    I imagine that the final product will be rather similar whether the Hillary plan or the Barack plan is the starting point.

    As to your larger point - I respectfully disagree. Obama will have far more power in the Congress than Hillary will. He would probably help elect larger majorities - that is certainly the feeling that Dem officials in purple and red states have. Plus he will have a far more excited, almost cult-like :) populace pressuring their congresspeople to do what the president proposes.

    That is one of the key attractions to an Obama presidency. His appeal to people to feel ownership of the process, to get involved, is specifically designed to operate as a counter-weight to the moneyed interests that will be pushing the other way in DC.

    What a concept for a Democrat. Citizen involvement to pressure the Congress to do the people's business. Hillary wouldn't have that. Nor would the red and purple state representatives feel any pressure to go along with her, since there is so much antagonism against her back home.


    The whole idea that (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by g8grl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    it would have been possible to put through Universal Health Care back in the 90s is ridiculous.  It was barely a blip on the national consciousness.  Like any good idea, it takes several passes before anything ever gets done.  Nobody could have passed it in 92.  Instead of vilifying HRC for not getting it done, we should be praising her for actually getting it on the radar and keeping at it for the last 15 years so that now, a majority of the country is for it.

    lesson learned (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by mexboy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    If you've never came short in accomplishing any any of your goals in life, then you can, with all righteousness, indict Hillary for not succeeding in universal healthcare in the 90's.

    Hillary has however developed and grown as a person and a politician. She has proven it over and over again, by working with Republicans to pass legislation that benefit the  American public. I am confident she is better prepared now to pass universal healthcare that Barak.

     But I guess this is all about scoring political points.


    Link re his coattails, at least (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    in Wisconsin?  I really would like to read that Dem officials here think it will help, but that's not what I'm hearing, reading, etc.

    If HRC's health care planning (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    during Bill Clinton's first term had included insurance company lobbyists, she would now be accused of catering to special interests, D.C. insiders, etc.  Of course, since she was not a member of Congress at the time, she did not have the ability to convene a Congressional committee.  Seems to me putting together a proposal and trying to persuade Congress to craft health care legislation was about the best she had the power to do at the time.  

    wow, with all due respect (none / 0) (#92)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    you seem not to have a clue as to how the government works.

    The president is the leader of his party. Clinton had majorities in both houses. You call in the Congressional leadership and committee chairs, you tell them what your policy principles are, and you set them to work hammering out a plan. And you hold thier feet to the fire if they do not give you what you want.

    This is how policy is made in every administration, on every issue.


    Your "with all due respect" (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    wasn't entirely respectful, but nevermind.  Is that how you anticipate Obama, if President, will work?  If so, what do you anticipate he will do if the majority of one branch of Congress says pound sand?

    the same as President Hillary would (none / 0) (#111)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    I don't see your point. I was describing the way the system works. It works that way no matter who is president. You try to build majorities - sometimes it works, sometimes you fail.

    And I made the point that the Clinton's attempt to work outside the system in '93 helped to doom the plan. I can't guarantee that it would have worked if they had worked with the Congress, but by not doing so, they guaranteed that it would fail.

    If Hillary thinks that her plan, as it stands today, will be dumped on Congress with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, then she will have learned nothing from the '93 experience. I kinda suspect that she has though.


    Yes, I think she has learned a great (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:26:41 PM EST
    deal since '93.  That is one of the reasons I support her.  I think she will work quite hard to try to convince Congress to send her, if Pres., a health care plan as close to universal as possible.  Will she succeed?  I don't know.  But I am impressed she is willing to take a stand now on an issue that could be a deciding factor in the GE.  Gutsy, courageous, and shows me what she cares about.  

    LOckstep Plantation Mentality (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    Is what both of them are facing. It is almost delusional to expect either of them to get anything passed without more democrats in congress. It is Obama's advantage to have a adoring press to bring in more voters who will vote for Democratic congresscritters.



    I actually think he'll be worse re: coattails (none / 0) (#82)
    by g8grl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    He's far more of a centrist.  Without emphasis on the distinctions between Democrats and Republicans how will he be able to get folks to vote for Democrats.  Or is he just going to get moderate republicans and independents elected down ballot.

    All Congress has to do is look at his website! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by lambert on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:12:21 PM EST
    What could go wrong?

    website (none / 0) (#160)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    I keep checking the website looking for the halo to appear.

    any day now I'm sure it will (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    Can you answer my question (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    If this race is over, why is Obama attacking Hillary?

    Forget about the accuracy, why go negative at all?


    If this race is over (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    it seems to me that I am seeing quite a bit of "buyers remorse" concerning Obama around the web.
    not just here for a change.

    It ain't even close to being over (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    The only ones really trying to make this race over is Obama - for obvious reasons - and the media - again for obvious reasons. Let's get real. Go over to CNN and look at the current delegate counts. Hillary is 69 delegates behind. That's it. If FL and MI were counted, she would be ahead right now. That is the big reason that people are hollering and screaming that they don't want to seat FL and MI - because it would put Hillary in the lead. You can bet they would be seated if Obama had taken them. This is also the reason for all the screaming about super delegates voting for who their state voted for.

    There is simply no way this race is over. It is way too close. There is also no way that if it continues either one will win the required number of delegates by August. (Not unless all the super delegates are threatened into going for Obama).  Anyone really honest about this has to acknowledge it. That's why we keep hearing the Obama camp trying to get Hillary to drop out. They can't win any other way.


    its not really over quite yet, of course (none / 0) (#43)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    Maybe he just wants to make the final sale with the Clinton supporters by proving that he is "tough", by their standards of what that means.

    Lets face it. When Hillary goes negative, all her supporters cheer her on, and take it as proof of what an effective and non-naive political operator she is.


    healthcare (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    is 95% of why I support Hillary.
    she is absolutely correct.  if you dont start with the goal of universal healthcare nothing will change.

    Wholeheartedly I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sas on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    It must be universal to work.

    That is the only way.  I'm glad Hillary stuck to that point in the debate the other night.

    Obama's plan is Republican Lite to me.  He says "to make it MORE affordable".  To me that sounds as if there are some folks who still can't afford it.


    Posturing is another word for (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:44:16 PM EST
     . . . ?

    Acting. Lying. Performing.. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    triangulating? (none / 0) (#58)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    Insurance? Nail in coffin? (none / 0) (#51)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    and when they CHOOSE not to sign up (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    and later find they need health care, Obama's solution is to make them pay ALL the back premiums.

    And how do you think this will play out? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    Fining people when they are sick and in need of health care? It's not going to happen. We will all end up footing the bill.

    why would anyone buy in then? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by g8grl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:58:49 PM EST
    If I don't buy in and I never get sick I never have to pay the premiums.  If I get sick, I just pay what I would have paid anyway.  Meanwhile, insurance goes up for everyone else because only sick people buy in.  It would never work.  That's why you need mandates.  If you think you're never going to get sick, you don't need to buy in.  I can see about 15 million folks between the ages of 20-45 who think they'll never get sick and thus will save all their money.

    Unless you can guarantee 100% (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    that on day 1 the Obama plan would present all Americans with affordable health insurance, then I don't see how you can make the claim that anyone left without insurance has chosen not to have it. Just sayin'.

    The Obama camp fails to recognize or acknowledge that part of the reason why health care costs are so high is that caring for the uninsured is bloody expensive and those costs are borne by everyone. It is far batter to cover everyone as a mechanism to help hold down costs.


    Goes to show (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    Obama's grasp of economics is extremely naive; that's why he lifted Edward's economic plan for his own needs.

    Obama: The Crib Candidate?

    I have to hand it to him though; you have to have a LOT of chutzpah to pull what he's been pulling. If he wins, he will have been the best sleight-of-hand magician since Blaine.


    you are right (none / 0) (#63)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    But you seem to be missing the point.

    Yes, Obama's plan, like Hillary's is guaranteed to be less than 100% perfect, right out of the box.

    The difference is that under Hillary's plan, those the plan misses will still be forced to particapte, and under Obama's they will not be.

    Should people be penalized while the government goes thourgh a couple of rounds of tweaking their program to make it work the way they should?

    Thats the issue addressed in the mailer.


    i just want to point out (none / 0) (#93)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    that your comment makes no sense.  "those the plan misses will still be forced to participate" means everybody participates.  why do obama supporters decry this unity?  the position, i have concluded, is dishonest or, worse - an insult to my intelligence.  

    you call for unity because it will bring about transformative change with regard to obama's candidacy, but decry it as the resolution to one of the most vexing economic and social problems of our day?  

    you use the very same right wing playbook to divide on this issue, the one thing this country can and must solve, and try to explain why unity in this case is bad and that clinton is wrong to call for it vis a vis mandates?

    i say the whole of obama's candidacy is duplicitous spin.  that is why i too have decided i will not vote for him if he is the nominee.  i simply will not vote for him.  and i've voted for every dem nominee since 92.

    i just do not understand.  the logic is so simple.  mandates for health care is the definition of unity, coming together to solve a collective problem.  and obama is trying to talk us out of that?  and destroy the clinton legacy in the process?  


    huh? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    "Those the plan misses" means those the plan does not provide adequate subsidies to. And they will be forced to particpate nonetheless, meaning they either sign up to unaffordable health insurance, or they are penalized.

    "Coming together" to solve a problem is one thing. Forcing people together is another. I find it odd, and a little scary, that you can't see the difference.


    You really don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    You need to read more about both plans. As Krugman has pointed out, Obama's plan means that health insurance will cost each person $2500 more per year. So whose plan is more affordable? On top of that, Hillary's plan offers more subsidies to those who can't now afford it. Did you notice that? MORE subsidies than Obama's plan does. Under Obama, health care will STILL be unaffordable to 15 million people. That's why they won't get it. And that will make it more expensive for everyone else, because we'll still end up footing the bill when these people end up in hospital emergency rooms. It really doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I have far more trust in Krugman, an economist, than in Obama, who has been more than dishonest about this issue at every turn.

    this is where the LIES get you (none / 0) (#151)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    in Hillary's rhetoric.

    "Obama, health care will STILL be unaffordable to 15 million people"

    She tells her lies, and people like CD draw this conclusion.

    Sorry, but you dont even understand what your own candidate is saying. The 15 million refers to the people that she estimates will CHOOSE not to buy health care, even though they can afford it. It does NOT refer to 15 million people not having an affordable plan available to them if they want to buy it.

    And you dont seem to understand what Krugman was saying either. The disparity in cost you refer to is one economists estimate of the average cost to TAXPAYERS, not individual policy purchasers between the two plans. And that cost per taxpayer number is achieved simply by expanding the denominator by forcing people into the system. It is not a claim that the overall tax burden would be higher or lower, it is simply a math trick to make the differences appear large.

    Both plans make serious attempts to offer affordable plans to everyone. The only difference is that Hillary forces you to buy in, from day one.

    I'm sorry to be blunt, but you really dont see to have even a slight grasp on the issues here.


    This attitude (none / 0) (#195)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    that you espouse is exacty the attitude that the Democrats in Congress had in the 90's when HRC was trying to pass universal health care.

    You deride her for not passing it in the 90's, blame her for the failure to enact UHC, then you take up the VERY SAME attitude of those who obstructed it back then.

    As long as there are Democrats like you (and Obama), UHC will indeed never pass. And I agree with the poster above who said that Obama's motto should be changed to read "No we can't".

    It's very sad.


    but if you (none / 0) (#119)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    intentionally miss so many by not mandating participation, the unaffordable insurance people who do not receive adequate subsidies to cover would be forced to buy would still be several factors more expensive.  so i do not see your point.

    obama's plan will miss millions more than clinton's. those missed will still be forced to buy coverage.  obama will probably garnish their wages.  and the coverage they will be forced to buy over and above the subsidies (?) you suggest would be much more expensive.  

    obama's plan is better how?

    unless you are conceding that coverage will just cost more under obama's plan because it is in actuarial terms less sound than clintons and that is okay with you, i do not see your point.  

    or you could concede that clinton's plan goes much farther to curb costs than obama's and therefore gets much closer to the heart of the problem.  that to me seems to be what you are objecting to anyways, measures which clinton proposes that go much farther towards controlling costs.  


    huh? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    I dont know where all this wandering is leading you. Let me be clear.

    I think Obama's plan is every bit as capable of reaching everyone as is Hillary's, perhaps better. But both plans are probably not perfect in that regard, and will take some tweaking.

    I object to mandates up front, because it is unfair to those who you inadvertently fail to adequatly cover at the beginning, and it is politically dumb to propose a plan that has the penalties in place before the promises can be shown, in the real world, to work for everyone.

    I have tried to make the clear many times here.

    I don't know where you get this notion that Obama's plan would "miss" more people than Hillary's, and that they would be forced to buy in anyway. That doesnt sound to me like you understand these plans at all.


    Again, Obama's plan has penalties (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    for parents.  And yet again, you use penalties as part of only Clinton's plan.  If you are informed about both plans, this is duplicitous.  If you are not informed about both plans, why not?  

    bs (none / 0) (#148)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:17:27 PM EST
    neither I nor anyone has ever denied that Obama's plan has mandates for children.

    Mandating care for children is a far eaiser case to make politically, and is far more of a moral imperative.


    i don't know (none / 0) (#157)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:21:26 PM EST
    something about saying it is "easier" just sounds lazy.  universal care for adults is just to hard.  i guess obama should change his slogan to no we can't!

    Not addressing the point: penalties (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:25:00 AM EST
    Do you, or do you not, admit that the Obama plan ahs penalties for parents not insuring their children?

    Yes or no.  Enough with your changing the terms.


    Obama's plan penalizes parents (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    but you talk as if only Clinton's plan has penalties.  Give an objective comparison or give up trying to convince.  One-sided, biased arguments do not do so.

    we fought the Insurance industry's (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Josey on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    very successful "Harry and Louise" ads in '94.
    Now, Obama is screwing us with the same ads.
    Obama will do anything to win and that's as far as Obamabots can see.

    Obama will do anything to win (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    . . and that's as far as Obamabots can see.

    it seems more like he CAN do anything to win.
    while Hillary is expected to walk on eggshells.


    The (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    ads work because mandates are a bad idea.

    Serious question (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    Not meant to be rhetorical or a slam: Do you understand the economics of health care? Every economist that I know who works in the health policy field thinks mandates are essential.

    Do you mean "bad" in some other way? Politically ill-advised? Would hurt him with youth? Something along those lines?


    May I suggest that you have (none / 0) (#54)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    a non-random sampling of health care experts?



    Just for a start.


    Fair point (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    My sampling is not random, but allows me to discuss the matter in depth with people who know what they are talking about, not just read a magazine article.

    As for your links, I have a lot of respect for Brad DeLong, he's a smart guy.  The link indicates that part of Obama's plan is: "if, say, young, healthy and rich people become free riders in large numbers - then they move on to mandating coverage and levying taxes." So, now I'm confused: does Obama have mandates and he doesn't want to talk about them? Or does Brad not understand Obama's plan?

    Brad also said, in a different post, that he voted for Obama because he gives good speeches. Take that for what it's worth.


    Obama has been clear (none / 0) (#66)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    that he does not dismiss the concept of mandates out of hand.

    At some point, if everyone really does have access to afforable health care, and the only people who dont actually have it are those who are gaming the system, who choose not to buy it even though it is available, then he would consider mandates if it is demonstrated that they would make the system more efficient and afforable for all.

    He has repeated this often. MAybe it would help to pay attention.


    This is such a dishonest answer out of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by frankly0 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    Look, what's incoherent and absurd about Obama's saying this is that he himself is admitting that it will be important to force people to get health insurance.

    And yet that is exactly what the mailers are criticizing Hillary's plan for. And that criticism is exactly the Republican/Rovian talking points that Hillary is denouncing.

    The man is just trying to pretend that the clear meaning of the words in his mailer are something other than they are, and that those very words won't be thrown in his face, and in the face of any Democrat, when they try to bring true universal health care to pass.


    this is such a dishonest convoluted argument (none / 0) (#158)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    Obama would consider forcing people into the system only when it can be demonstrated that the only ones outside the system are those who choose not to buy a plan even when one is available and affordable.

    The mailers are criticizing Hillary's plan for forcing people to buy plans even when they cannot be sure it will be afforable.

    Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your mind around?


    You're just making things up here (none / 0) (#191)
    by frankly0 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    The mailer says no such thing, and makes no such distinctions. It NEVER broaches the idea that people might be forced to buy health insurance. It ONLY disparages the idea that people might be forced.

    I defy you to point to a place in the document where it is said that Obama's plan would force people to buy health insurance if they can afford it.

    Can't you be honest about the fact that the mailer does not make that point?

    Didn't think so.

    (And why doesn't it make that point? Because it would detract from the Republican talking point damage it was trying to do to Hillary. It wanted people only to think about being "forced" to do something -- Republican talking point gist. And it didn't want people to wonder, well, what does "affordable" mean here? How is that really going to differ from Hillary's plan?)


    he does not dismiss the concept of mandates (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    that is correct.
    he just takes the cop out position of not requiring them until you need health care.

    its not a copout, for chrissakes (none / 0) (#88)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    it is SMART politics. You dont give people a package with a stick and a bunch of promises. You tell them honestly that the stick might be necessary, but it will only be deployed against those who game the system, after the promises are fulfilled.

    It is a cop out (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by g8grl on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    because by talking about people gaming the system he knows that it will happen.  At what point does he plan to change to mandates?  When 1 million game the system?  2 million?  8 million? or 15 million?  He knows he will need mandates eventually but he's too chicken to state that he wants them up front because he wants to be popular and it's the harder row to hoe.  Meanwhile, even if he does get a flawed non-mandate system passed, how long will it be before we get real UHC?  People will say oh we have something in place so the urgency will be gone but it will still be much more expensive because healthy people won't buy.  Think of it as though it was Social Security.  If there were no mandates, people would wait to buy in until they were maybe 60.  Those that participate earlier would bear the larger burden.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#171)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:09:35 AM EST
    "He knows he will need mandates eventually but he's too chicken to state that he wants them up front because he wants to be popular and it's the harder row to hoe."

    Sure sounds like his usual pattern of taking a firm stand on important issues, doesn't it.


    I do pay attention (none / 0) (#81)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    If I misunderstood his plan, maybe it's because he hasn't been clear.

    Maybe all those people who go around saying that Obama doesn't have mandates because they are a bad idea should stop spreading rumors.


    mandates are a bad idea. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    there are mandates for car insurance. and for the same reason.  if you hit a pedestrian and they end up in a body cast someone has to pay for it.
    if you fall off your roof and end up in a body cast someone has to pay for it.
    if you dont it has to be me.
    that is NOT acceptable.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    Mandates that children be vaccinated before attending public school; that companies not dump toxic waste into sewers; that cigarette smokers cannot smoke on planes. It's a very broad term.

    Something doesn't become "bad" just because it is mandated. Mandates (or rules, or laws) are used through our society to, among other things, control the problem of externalities. Maybe Sen. Obama needs to retake freshman Economics.


    Every government program is a mandate. (none / 0) (#50)
    by my opinion on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    mandates are a great idea (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
    because they are the most effective way to control costs...

    because the actuarial advantage of covering more rather than fewer people speaks for itself...

    because they would facilitate administration and help dampen profit mining through administrative costs unrelated to care...

    because they are the only way to control costs for those with expensive and serious health problems, pay for long term care, and prevent people from going deeply into debt due to serious medical problems...

    and because they bring everybody together in the common purpose of unifying to make real transformative progressive change.  

    that is why i am voting for hillary clinton, because when it comes to universal coverage, she is the candidate saying yes we can.  all i hear from obama is no we can't!


    Pardon me but you do your candidate (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM EST
    no favors by repeating his lies.  What part of deceptive is not clear?  On the health care front, more than enough economists have already said his is worse, so that's clear as well.

    more than enough??? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    what does that mean?

    There are plenty of prominent health care experts who think that mandates are essential.

    And plenty who disagree. Why not engage the argument seriously, rather than take sides because your candidate takes one side?


    why doesn't unity (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    apply to mandates?  i find this aspect of obama's rhetoric deeply troubling.  on the one issue where unity is obviously required, i.e. mandates, he wants to back off.  it's completely hypocritical in my opinion.

    the unity he speaks of (none / 0) (#69)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    is a positive, voluntary one. He solicits support from a broad range of people, trying to build a sustainable political majority.

    Mandates are coercive unity. People tend to resent that.


    the unity he speaks of (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    amounts to "everybody should vote for me."  That would be unity.  The problem some of us are having is that many of his voters believe NOT voting for him is grounds for the kind of mockery and scorn we've commonly associated with Republicans.

    As far as universal health care, the issue we're arguing about is whether or not controlling costs requires that everybody be in the pool of payers.  IMO, that's built into the nature of insurance.

    On the question of why he's attacking her if she's already toast . . . my guess is that his campaign has made a calculated gamble.  They want her to drop out on March 5th, and so far they've paid no price for their negative ads and flyers.  If they can get away with it once more, it will be over.

    Seems like a dumb risk to take with so much going their way, but probably the last few weeks have left them feeling strong.  We'll see soon enough.


    and (none / 0) (#101)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    the phrase

    "Mandates are coercive unity"  is a right wing frame.  people tend to resent that, too.

    i think you are totally wrong about mandates and the viability of payroll deduction programs to facilitate universal coverage.  the great argument for a payroll deduction system is the reduced administrative costs.  and if you don't recognize the absurd burden administrarive costs imposed by private insurers place on the healthcare delivery system, you are missing the entire point.  

    a payroll deduction scheme will greatly reduce administrative costs several billion dollars a year.  what say you to that point, that mandates are important for cutting costs, not only from an acutarial but also administrative point of view?  do you deny there is gratuitous waste, fraud, and abuse among private insurers today?  do you think competition is healthy, and if so, why are you trying to protect private insurers from the competition a government sponsored employer participating payroll deduction scheme would create.  there is no easier and more efficient way to get healthcare for every one than by some sort of payroll deduction.  working people without health insurance i think are enthusiastically behind this concept.  i know i am.  


    Because I don't want to talk to you (none / 0) (#64)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    I don't think it would be productive for either of us.  I am a firm believer in mandates for UHC, due to my own research, and we just disagree.

    Re: Not a very wise move/ obama is correct (none / 0) (#184)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:40:24 AM EST
    If it is affordable and in front of them why would they (15m) choose not to buy? Would you buy car insurance if it was optional even if you could afford it? How is that the cops could easily pull you up and ask evidence of your car insurance if it was optional.. Even at that not many people have car insurance and guess what happens to those who have thier premium routinely go up because not every one has car insurance. simple logic, it is easier to enforce what is mandatory for the good and betterment of everyone; than what was left to the whimps of those who can afford but dont want to buy..
    How is that those who can afford dont want to buy but those who cant would buy to get covered? makes no sense to me! Clintons is more reasonable , hard to enforce or achieve you bet! Obama's can't even be implemented because the underlying factor that should me make it affordable 'spreading' cost of health care across a larger population.
    Just the way taxes provide revenue to Govt to fund it's social and economic responsibility think about a situation whene EXXON mobil make billions in profit could afford to pay taxes but choose not to !
    Has people become so blinded by Obamania to find it so hard to be objective and rational??
    This is all about clinton bashing and hating! Enough is Enough!

    As for the second issue (none / 0) (#24)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    I guess Obama really goofed on this one.

    Instead of writing that Hillary thought NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy, he should have written that Hillary thought NAFTA was a boon to the economy.

    I agree - he should redo the mailer to reflect this.

    NAFTA (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    IIRC, Bill Clinton's biography noted that Hillary vehemently opposed Nafta. FWIW.

    Um (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    no he should have stuck to the facts.

    That Hillary opposed NAFTA.

    She was wrong btw. As is the entire Dem Party on NAFTA.


    UMMMM (none / 0) (#71)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    opposing NAFTA in "private" is not really opposition. GIVE ME A BREAK. This is an utter joke.

    Hmm, Opposing in private is supporting in public? (none / 0) (#78)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    So, let me see, you are saying that because she opposed it in private it must imply that she supported it in public, right?



    google is your friend... (none / 0) (#80)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    ... or so are other comments in this thread.

    But either way, Hillary has a long list of issues that she has kept her mouth shut on, because at that time public opinion was against it or neutral. At some point -- you can't just let all that slide
    (1) Iraq
    (2) Iran
    (3) WalMart Board of Directors (anti-Union)
    (4) Quite on NAFTA
    (5) Bankruptcy Bill


    is keeping your mouth shut the same (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by mexboy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    as voting present?

    re: google is yoru friend (none / 0) (#186)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:55:17 AM EST
    Please go check Obamatruth.com for more on Obama and Michelles links to hospitals that charges high premiums to minorities and companys in which Michelle is also on the board! Why was Obama 'boneheaded' on Resko deal? Why could he not mentions rezko by name in the one of the earlier debates. Rezko is due in court on Feb 25 then shall see who the political candidate referred to the in the indictment was.
    Obama should let Americans know why in July 2006 he voted against the bill that should have requested Bush to bring the troops home by 2007 but by  Ocbtober 2006 when he had decided to run, he started making calls for troop withdrawals! Just as he showed how naive he would be to meet with with enemies without preconditions and by the texas debate he has fine tuned his postion.. Guys,the GOP attack machine is coming! I so badly want Obama to be the nominee so he would be showed for who he really is!  

    Hillary was not in the Senate & didn't vote (none / 0) (#110)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    Obama Campaign Wrong On Hillary And NAFTA
    By Eric Kleefeld - February 14, 2008
    The Obama camp has repeatedly charged that Hillary was pro-NAFTA during her husband's presidency, an allegation the Obama campaign has used to try to weaken her support among a critical constituency, working-class voters.

    A new report says that the Hillary camp is right on this one. The Huffington Post talked to biographers of the First Lady and former advisers to Bill Clinton, and they all said Hillary was against the trade deal the whole time, even if she was constrained from saying so publicly.


    In her own words (none / 0) (#165)
    by marcusinclt on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:34:19 PM EST
    This is my first post, so take it with a grain of salt.  There has been so much arguing about healthcare and NAFTA.  

    I want to point out that HRC has been quoted supporting NAFTA.  I saw a piece on meet the press and I am providing a link.


    youtube link of HRC on NAFTA (none / 0) (#166)
    by marcusinclt on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    Hillary Did Support Nafta (none / 0) (#67)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    Here's an undisputed Hillary quote where she admits support for NAFTA but tries to backtrack:

    TIME: Do you think NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by Bill Clinton] was the right thing to do?

    CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example--

    TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

    CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.

    For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.

    As we look at trade today, I don't think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don't think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we've kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.

    Where is Obama on Free Trade? (none / 0) (#85)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    BARACK OBAMA (See Obama in 2008 News & Info Hub)
    About NAFTA, Sen. Obama said in a Democratic primary forum in 2007: "I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street."
    About free trade, Sen. Obama said at the same 2007 forum: "... people don't want a cheaper T-shirt if they're losing a job in the process. They would rather have the job and pay a little bit more for a T-shirt. And I think that's something that all Americans could agree to.

    "But this raises a larger point, which is: globalization is here. And we should be trading around the world. We don't want to just be standing still while the rest of the world is out there taking the steps that it needs to in order to expand trade."

    On granting to China "most favored nation trade status", Sen. Obama stated in 2004:

    "The U.S. should be firm on issues that divide us [from the Beijing government... while flexible on issues that could unite us. We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses - but without triggering a trade war, as prolonged instability in the Chinese economy could have global economic consequences."

    Sen. Obama voted NO on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2005, and voted YES in 2006 on a free trade pact with Oman.

    When he voted against CAFTA, Sen. Obama stated: "There are real problems in the agreement itself. It does less to protect labor than previous trade agreements, and does little to address enforcement of basic environmental standards in the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic...

    "So far, almost all of our energy and almost all of these trade agreements are about making life easier for the winners of globalization, while we do nothing as life gets harder for American workers."

    Summary for Barack Obama on Free Trade

    Is he generally a supporter of U.S. free trade: YES

    Does he actively push for major modifications to U.S. free trade arrangements? YES


    So, where does Obama stand on free trade?

    EVERYWHERE as in every issue.


    where is obama on free trade? (none / 0) (#173)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
    You are a very smart man! Thank you for bring this point up, wished the Clinton campaign can pick this up and show all Americans how 'honest' this Washington 'outsider' called Obama is! Same as with Iraq war in 2004 while he was in support of Kerry/edward, he had said that the world was better without Sadaam, pray how could Sadamm be removed without invasion,, tells me how shallow he is! This guy is as fake as the 'xerox' words that comes out of his mouth!

    "in priniciple" (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    is not supporting NAFTA. She says it was inherited from Bush. That's hardly calling NAFTA a "boon."

    See, for example, (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM EST
    JFK and the Bay of Pigs, Truman and the atom bomb, etc.

    It was negotiated under fast track (none / 0) (#123)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    by the Bush 1 admin, but was not voted on by congress before he left office.  Agreements negotiated under fast track legislation can't be amended by the Congress.  Thus the choice is an up or down vote.

    Of course (none / 0) (#130)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    but Bill Clinton was essentially a "free trader".  I don't think that's been argued.

    Are Bill and Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#138)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    the same person?  Is Bill Clinton's name on the ballot?  Do you remotely have a point?

    1st, it was inherited, 2nd HRC wants to change it. (none / 0) (#114)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    Obama Campaign Wrong On Hillary And NAFTA
    By Eric Kleefeld - February 14, 2008
    The Obama camp has repeatedly charged that Hillary was pro-NAFTA during her husband's presidency, an allegation the Obama campaign has used to try to weaken her support among a critical constituency, working-class voters.

    A new report says that the Hillary camp is right on this one. The Huffington Post talked to biographers of the First Lady and former advisers to Bill Clinton, and they all said Hillary was against the trade deal the whole time, even if she was constrained from saying so publicly.


    Re: HILLARY DID SUPPORT NAFTA (none / 0) (#187)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:12:08 AM EST
     china which is clearly stated in Hillary's respomse is not part of NAFTA and the trade imbalance that hurt americans most is actually with China and India but the people especially trade experts and Economics who know the truth wont speak because they are avowed clintons haters for no just cause. It i really evident to anyone who cares to check the facts Nafta isnt the problem! American rougue corporations who would rather send jobs overseas for cheap labour but guess what is the strongest reason for doing so, health care cost! If the big 3 auto companies could they Would have shipped all manufacturing overseas due to health care costs and the facts shows that that is where US car manufacturers are less competitive then the Japanese. Does anybody ever consider that if the health cost were reduced manufacturing jobs may well come back instead of blaming everything on nafta simply because Mrs Clinton is runnig. For one moment lets pretend she was not in the racee would obama have attacked, Edwards, kuccinich nor anyone else for that matter??
    Did we hear of any Nafta in the '04 debates!
    Obama is not any better infact he is worse because he claims to ne a change againt but he is not!

    A Rose By Any Other Name.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    Even if Hillary never used the word "boon," David Sirota has amply documented that she said the same thing in other words.

    I don't believe David Sirota (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    or the other trade isolationists on anything.

    Actually, her position is pretty (none / 0) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    much what I would expect from any democrat, if they are not isolationists.  NAFTA in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing but there should have been added environmental and labor standards.  Unless my memory fails me, Bill Clinton wanted them but could not get them added since it was inherited from Bush 1 under fast track.

    As Carl Bernstein says in his biography, she opposed them internally but was not willing to publicly torpedo her husband's postion.  I doubt that's unique but is defendable.

    By the way, until I heard from some Obama supporters that the Clinton admin from '92-'00 was a horrid debacle, I thought I had enjoyed the relative peace and prosperity.

    OBAMA says he is for FREE TRADE (none / 0) (#86)
    by BigB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    couldn't you have posted (none / 0) (#103)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    a link so I wouldn't have to scroll past that junk?

    I deleted it -- feel free to repost a link (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    with a short quote. Bandwidth is expensive. And make sure to put the url in html format using the link button at the top of the comment box. Long urls skew the site.

    Thanks very much (none / 0) (#121)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    and even more heart felt thanks for this site.  It's really the best!

    Anyone see this? (none / 0) (#141)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:27:14 PM EST
    Here is the video where she gets "fired up"
    reponding to this mailer.  I tried to post this earlier but this thread seems more appropriate for it:



    CNN link won't play. Longer video is here ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by cymro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM EST

    By the way, I disagree with that heading. It's certainly NOT too late, since the race is still going on, neither candidate has enough delegates to guarantee victory, and Obamamania is showing signs of hitting the wall.


    Hillary has a long history in support of NAFTA (none / 0) (#125)
    by Baal on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    and Edwards attacked her bitterly on this point, it is not just Obama.  Her recent conversion on this issue is not convincing, at least to me.  I think she owns it, and I can't see that pointing this out is something other than fair game.  Unless she thinks we are all idiots.

    Can't say about her thinking you're idiots (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    but take a look at comment #114.  That seems substantive and disagrees with your belief.

    how about public statements? (none / 0) (#136)
    by selise on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    do you know when senator clinton first started making public statements in opposition to nafta - or any other so-called "free trade" agreement? that way i wouldn't just be deciding who to trust - which just seems too uncertain in this political climate.



    No I don't. Since it was part of Bill's (none / 0) (#149)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    administration, I doubt you will ever see a statement "against" it.  What I have seen are statements that it hasn't worked as expected and should be modified.  She's a smart lady and won't go further than that I'm pretty sure.  By the way, no other candidate has called for it's repeal either.

    seems a bit weird to me. (none / 0) (#152)
    by selise on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    just trying to get a handle on her position is all. not saying anything about anyone else's.

    just seems weird to me that (if this is true) she's had 7 years since bill's administration and only recently starts saying she was against it? not sure i'm willing to believe that one.

    otoh, if there are earlier quotes - like from 2004... then i'm more inclined to think that's her real position.

    thanks for the reply.


    To be frank, I don't believ she is the one (none / 0) (#161)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    who said she was "against" it.  That comes from 2 biographers and people who worked inside the Clinton Admin.  All I've heard Hillary say is what I said earlier, that NAFTA has not worked out as expected and needs to be modified so it works for workers in America, Mexico, and Canada.

    From my point of view, that's a perfectly reasonable way to handle NAFTA and any other trade agreements going forward.  NAFTA is not going to be repealed but environmental and labor standards should be added for basic fairness.

    However, I have not heard all the statements on this or any other policy, so I can't speak to it with certainty.


    why weird... (none / 0) (#163)
    by selise on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    1. no one could have expected....

    lot of people expected nafta to work out as it has.

    2. if one is going to have labor and environmental standards that can work, then chapter 11 has to be pulled out. that clinton (or anyone else) who claims to have an opinion on nafta, doesn't address this issue, is not a good sign in my book.


    nafta and obama words (none / 0) (#176)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:47:49 AM EST
    I believe the problem with American trade and shipping of jobs overseas happens outside the famework of NAFTA; to China and India who are not even part of the original Nafta plan. With Canada and Mexico the negative impact of NAFTA is minimal, how could Nafta be blamed for the loss of AMerican jobs been sent to china and India? Even, Obama in his words when he voted against CAFTA, claimed NAFTA(previous trade agreements) was better than CAFTA! so much for a maverick, you never know where he stands! If he was not dishonet with the writer of the article in his mailer saying his rhetorics was misleading shouldnt he have desist from using that line to attach Hillary?

    Re; Edwards attacked her (none / 0) (#188)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:17:31 AM EST
    Does Obama and Edwards attack makes it truly?? see, same herd mentality, the more lies are touted as truth the more 'trutful' it becomes! Anybody recalls teh swift boat add?? that was exactly what happaned,, just same way you democraticts could not turn things around for Kerry, otherwise we wont be having this whole conversation now!
    Would Obama be running against kerry now??

    Out though AND out maneuvered (none / 0) (#140)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    Obama's inside her OODA loop. Because Obama has been so successful Clinton is now forced to run against NAFTA, and in effec, Bill Clinton. She is also running against 8 years of own 35 years of experience. The Clinton campaign has been out thought and out maneuvered. Again. One can fault the Obama mailer for the manner in which a third party quote appears to be from Clinton. I would prefer that minor error not be present, but it is quite trivial when compared to how Clinton has campaigned. Here's a little treat from Jane Hamsher:
    "It took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush" line in one breath, and then in the next admit that he[screwed] up the job.
    Ouch! If you are concerned about Rovean campaigning I recommend Larry Lessig's very fine video supporting Barack Obama. So, yes, Clinton is fighting back. I believe this form of fighting is called shadow boxing.

    He should watch his glass jaw! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    I deleted a comment that was a (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    personal attack on Hillary by a new commenter.

    New commenters: Read the comment rules.

    Mydd (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    Has an interesting diary on the flyer incident.  Apparently, the Clinton campaign had already disproven the mailer and assumed Obama would not use it anymore.  A woman in the audience handed it to Clinton as she was taking the stage and Clinton was understandably annoyed.  Here is raw footage of the event (four minutes long)

    Here is the LINK to Mydd.

    It will be interesting to see how many of the talking heads who called for Clinton to show more gumption during the debate will handle her calling out Obama today.  I'm sure they will find something unseemly, unladylike and unpresidential about it.

    Hillary's Contradictions (none / 0) (#167)
    by maymok on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:48:36 PM EST
    It appears Hillary lacks good judgement. She failed to understand that negative campaigning does not work 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 now 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 and Hillary is confirming she belongs to the past. Also, Hillary's own 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. However, 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 of experience, then logically NAFTA is part of it. She must take responsibility. In addition, her votes to go to war,for the bankruptcy bill, to authorize Bush to attack Iran show she lacks sound judgement although she supposedly has 35 years of experience. She is full of contradictions!

    I don't know where you're coming from with (none / 0) (#174)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:37:13 AM EST
    She said she had 35 years of experience, which includes her time in the White House when NAFTA was signed by her husband. However, 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 of experience, then logically NAFTA is part of it. She must take responsibility.

    but whatever it is, it isn't Earth Logic, and goes to point that you have effectively ignored all rational discussion that has taken place about the subject in the above comments.


    Re: HILLARY'S CONTRADICTIONS (none / 0) (#189)
    by linzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:27:59 AM EST
    who is more full of contradiction than Obama, wont support Cafta but would vote to support trade deals with Oman! when I last checked OMAN was a moslem country enough said!
    If anyone wanted to be honest, Hillary has clearly stated it was not the nafta idea that was bad but how it was implemented and the labour and environmental issues involved. But, that said if Obama was not dishonest why use a quote by a third party even after original author has declared obama's characterization of he word 'boon' as misleading,, well, everybody knows what happens when you try to (xerox) copy  during any exam from a student who who dont know and because you do not know any better you xerox the wrong quote so much for a change

    Clinton v. Obama (none / 0) (#177)
    by clikdawg on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:00:43 AM EST
    "What am I supposed to do  --  accuse him of cheatin' better than me?"

    --  Doyle Lonigan (as played by Robert Shaw) in "The Sting"

    Even nasty racketeer Lonigan knew what a losing ploy that is ...

    Shame on You and CNN ad (none / 0) (#190)
    by boogiemama on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:49:33 AM EST
    First of all, who the hell is Hillary to talk down to Obama as if he's a little kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar? "Shame on you," Hillary. There's a way to fight back without using such an infantile phrase. We'll let that pass for now since Mr. Obama did not find it necessary to respond to it.

    Next...did CNN and Mr. Obama agree to the use of its logo and his face in her most recent commercial? She has taken a snippet of the debate and turned it into an ad for her bid for office. This seems to be a little out of order for the station and, I'm sure, Mr. Obama didn't agree to this. It does, however, give Mrs. Clinton the opportunity to get an easy ad out of pre-existing footage.

    No, I don't hate or dislike Mrs. Clinton. I admire her strengths, her determination and grace. It's just a shame to witness the meltdown to ugly that's been happening in this campaign.

    fair use-- (none / 0) (#193)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    google it.  She can use his image just like he uses hers.

    As for the infantilization, if the bib fits...  


    Obamanation or SUBSTANCE you can COUNT on? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Alfie Montanez1 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Hillary is the stronger candidate. I agree with the cult of personality style of this OBAMANATION. He is not my choice for anything. At first I thought that it would be cool, but I respect the seriousness of Hillary Clinton.  She is friends, GEUINE friends of the Mexican people and many other Latinos feel the same. Obama supporters are given to vitriol and arguing and downright silliness.  IT IS EASY TO PULL THE WOOL OVER IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO, TRUTH BE TOLD, ARE ABOUT AS INTELLIGENT AS KELLIE PICKLER!  Sorry, but I appreciate a woman who can stand up to any man with straight up facts.  I don't want passion and eloquence when what we need is STRENGTH and EXPERIENCE.  I am 22 years old and not for Obama.  Obama is just a straight perpretator, a fraud. Just because Oprah treated him like a Book of the Month club shows that she would choose RACE over REAL ISSUES. We are seeing that she likes to have white woman line her pockets since 1986, yet she jokes all over the place how white people are eating out of her hand. I am not into Oprah. Isn't she one of those secret Scientologists?? Oprah's trying to pull the wool over our eyes and lead us into a PUPPET PRESIDENCY, cause that is what is going to happen. They will ALL write his speeches. CHANGE CANNOT BE XEROXED!! lol  That was the highlight of the night for me. Hillary has proven to be the one to knock down the Republicans. Obama is fluff. Latinos see through this. And, all the Black people who are jumping on Latino backs just so that we do like them is SELFISH. They portray the Latino youth as being for Obama overwhelmingly. FALSE. This is just more of their propaganda to hate on Hillary.  We pick the best choice and we don't hate on people just because they are Black or whatever. Obama is not a strong candidate. He just has the backing of Hollywood, a place FULL of cult members and nuts. This is WHY the media is biased the way it is.  But, Latinos have seen FOR THEMSELVES that Hillary is for us. She has a solid background and hers IS the change we can believe in. Enough with Obama and his BS TALK.  Mexicans 4 Hillary.

    SHAME ON YOU HILLARY RODHAM (none / 0) (#196)
    by Trenton Sims on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    On Sunday? 2/24/2008

    OH NO... She didn't..?!

    Sacreligious? Blasphemy? Atheism?

    For todays [SUNDAYS] Mocking the Christian  Belief in Salvation...
    Poking fun and sarcasm at Believing that Heaven can Open up to those that believe.
    Laughing sarcasticaly at the very notion that there are Celestial Angelic Choirs that those who believe can hear. Laughing at Hope.. Laughing at GOD..!!?
    Hillary..can you say Moses?
    Did he not part the Red Sea? Did he not deliver his people from the Pharoh?
    Who in God's name are You Hillary Rodham, to tell us all not to believe that all things are possible through the Lord our God??!!
    The Lord God would never extend his ever redeeming ever forgiving, ever lasting Love to Our Nation? To America and her United States?
    To Think that it could happen is Dillusional?

    Your right about one thing Hillary..It won't be possible under your leadership.. You're a Non-Believer.
    Thanks be to God for exposing your Satanic Evil Soul...
    I suppose the deceased Dallas Police Officers Family should abandon any hope for his salvation.
    His life was lost performing a difficult and demanding job too.  Until he met reality in the form of a Concrete Curb..Hey Hillary?  There isn't any God coming to save him either?
    May God have mercy on your soul Hillary.


    THe Lord Works in mysterious ways. And through God all things are possible.
    How Dare you Mock My God???