Clintons Making Statements Not Supported by the Facts

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-20-08 08:06 PM
Original message

Clintons Making Statements Not Supported by the Facts

Clintons Making Statements Not Supported by the Facts

January 20, 2008

CLINTONS CLAIMED OBAMA SAID REPUBLICANS HAD BETTER IDEAS Hillary Clinton Said Obama "Said That He Thought The Republicans Had Better Ideas Than Democrats The Last 10 To 15 Years." Hillary Clinton said, "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That's not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years. I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt. I think we know what needs to be done in America and I think we're ready to do it. I'm ready to lead on day one." (MSNBC, 1/18/08)

Bill Clinton: Obama Claimed Republicans Had "All the Good Ideas." Bill Clinton said, "Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas...I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years. But it sounded good in Reno I guess...So now it turns out you can choose between somebody who thinks our ideas or better or the Republicans had all the good ideas." (MSNBC, 1/18/08)

OBAMA SAID GOP WAS CONSIDERED PARTY OF IDEAS, WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHY THOSE IDEAS ARE WRONG

Obama: "Fair to Say the Republicans Were the Party of Ideas For a Pretty Long Chunk of Time," Then Laid Why Many of Those Ideas Were Wrong. Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help congressmen and senators, down-ballot candidates, get elected. Obama said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people." (Reno Gazette Journal, 1/14/08)

BILL CLINTON TWICE CRITICIZED NON-EXISTENT RADIO AD ENCOURAGING REPUBLICANS TO SWITCH PARTIES FOR A DAY, CLAIMED VOTER INTIMIDATION THAT DID NOT HOLD UP UNDER INVESTIGATION

Bill Clinton Twice Claimed An Obama Radio Ad Encouraged Republicans to Switch Parties for A Day�No Reports of Such an Ad; Also Claimed to Have Witnessed Voter Intimidation That Was Not Verified. After criticizing Obama, Bill Clinton said on January 18th, "It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary." Ben Smith reported that Bill Clinton said, "There's a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me. Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn't care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary. There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you're not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can't be there.'" Smith wrote, "To go over the facts here, the only publicly reported radio ad anything like what Clinton refers to is one that encourages Republicans and independents to caucus, but doesn't mention Hillary. And the Vegas papers haven't found any evidence of the kind of straightforward voter suppression Clinton reports. The Obama campaign has suggested the Clinton campaign file formal complaints if it has evidence." (MSNBC, 1/18/08; Ben Smith blog, 1/19/08)

Clinton Camp Claimed Voter Intimidation�A Claim that Didn't Pan Out Under Examination. "New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign had a story it wanted to tell this week, so it turned to a friendly blogger. Taylor Marsh, who in the past has been paid by a union now backing Clinton, quickly ran with the story: Members of the Culinary Union were being intimidated to vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whom the union endorsed last week. Under scrutiny, the story didn't exactly pan out. But no matter. Thursday, the Clinton campaign put out a statement expressing "concern" about "news reports" of "voter intimidation" -- media reports that were the campaign's own doing and all came back to Marsh, as well as a Sun report that questioned the story." (Las Vegas Sun, 1/18/08)

CLINTONS MADE DEBUNKED ATTACK ON OBAMA'S IRAQ WAR OPPOSITION

ATTACK: 1/7/08

Bill Clinton Attacked Obama For Saying In 2004, During The Democratic Convention, That He Didn't Know How He Would Have Voted On The Iraq War Resolution And Saying That There Was No Difference Between Himself And Bush On The War. The very thing that Hillary Clinton doesn't need is what she got from Bill Clinton at a campaign event at Dartmouth College. That's where he accused the media of being soft on Obama, of having a double standard when it comes to the Illinois senator and the former First Lady. Bill Clinton said "But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' ... It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." (Chicago Tribune, 1/8/08)

DEBUNKED: 3/22/07, 1/7/08 & 1/12/08

New York Times: "A Review Of Mr. Obama's Statements On Iraq Since 2002 Shows That He Has Opposed The War Against Saddam Hussein Consistently." The New York Times reported, "Over the last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has opened a new offensive against Senator Barack Obama: Former President Bill Clinton has asserted that Mr. Obama was initially ambivalent about the Iraq war, and Mrs. Clinton's strategist has highlighted his votes to finance a war he says he opposes. But a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it 'dumb' and 'rash.'" (New York Times, 3/22/07)

TPM: Clearly Obama Was Pointing To The Fact That He Wasn't In The Senate At The Time As A Way Of Tactfully Avoiding Criticizing His Party's VP And Presidential Nominees; It's Pretty Clear That Obama Was In Fact Against The War At The Time. "So, clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees. It's perfectly clear that Obama was in fact against the war at the time. His position then -- as now -- was that the case for war had not been made and that the invasion wasn't justified." (TPM, 1/12/08)
more