Clinton Assails Obama As Iowa Lead Fades

Washington Post:

With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Sunday, raising direct questions about his character, challenging his integrity and forecasting a sharp debate over those subjects in the days ahead.

Clinton has hammered Obama recently over his health-care proposal, arguing that he is misleading voters because it omits millions of people and would not lower costs. But Sunday, in a dramatic shift, she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[Oldtimer]

05:37 PM on 12/03/2007

Fuck Iowa. We here in California are sick of
Iowans getting all this attention. while I'm
at it fuck the Democratic and Republican Party.
Who the hell do they think they are telling Californians when they can vote.

[OhPlease2007]

05:34 PM on 12/03/2007

Obama Vs. Clinton: The Battle of the Moneyed Political Status Quo Egos

Hillary = Bush lite

Obama = Hillary lite

Iowan voters wish Hillary had Obama's fresh ideas. Iowan voters wish Obama had Hillary's experience.

Iowan voters end up voting for JOHN EDWARDS, the complete package of fresh ideas -AND- experience in the democratic party WITHOUT the PAC money and lobbyist money shenanigans!

[SeanGardner]

04:45 PM on 12/03/2007

Guess what Robert Reich (Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton) wrote on his blog(http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html)? He defends Obama against Hillary's attacks. Here is a sample:

"I"m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend (Hillary Clinton). While I"m as hard-boiled as they come about what"s said in campaigns, I just don"t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked (Obama's) plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn"t need a whole lot to keep it going " it"s in far better shape than Medicare " but everyone who"s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it"s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn"t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent " maybe to $115,00. That"s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that"s what Greenspan"s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama"s plan would "raise taxes" and her plan wouldn"t, she"s simply not telling the truth.

"I"m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I"ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama"s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC"s."

Whoa?!!!

[SeanGardner]

04:23 PM on 12/03/2007

Guess what Robert Reich (Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton) wrote on his blog(http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html)? He defends Obama against Hillary's attacks. Here is a sample:

"I"m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend (Hillary Clinton). While I"m as hard-boiled as they come about what"s said in campaigns, I just don"t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked (Obama's) plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn"t need a whole lot to keep it going " it"s in far better shape than Medicare " but everyone who"s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it"s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn"t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent " maybe to $115,00. That"s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that"s what Greenspan"s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama"s plan would "raise taxes" and her plan wouldn"t, she"s simply not telling the truth.

"I"m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I"ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama"s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC"s."

Whoa?!!!

[Swift2]

04:20 PM on 12/03/2007

If you care to check, lots of Huffers have been urging Obama to go negative about the "controlling, triangulating, power-mad" Hillary for months. He's jumped in with both feet. His new website, following Rove's probably unsolicited advice (but why did Rove give it if he thinks Hillary's easy to beat?), is not the gushy-idealistic-Oprah Obama, but a street Chicago pol.

Hillary was asked a question. She raised some important questions about how Obama is getting away with murder with the truth.

To those who say that Hillary's principle-free: her downfall in 92-94 with health care was from being idealistic. Her new plan is much more practical, and less filled out. That's "being adaptable and pragmatic" in my book. Politicians practice the art of the possible. Bill's triangulation period defended the presidency against the conservative Congress, and he lived to fight another day. Give Hillary a Democratic Senate, and watch what happens.

[MNmommy]

04:19 PM on 12/03/2007

Why is the news of Obama's *attack* website buried on the politics page and not front page? Hmmm?

[PaulDonaldson]

04:17 PM on 12/03/2007

Want to see a very comprehensive archive of debate footage that includes all the candidates?

I've been creating this new page, check it out:

http://debates.redlasso.com/dbt/

[MNmommy]

03:55 PM on 12/03/2007

Was Hillary accused of whining at some point? Well she needn't worry now that Obama has created a whole website to whine at.

I wonder of this one will last longer that Edwards' planted site did.

Freaking LAME. As I said last week, Obama tends to come off as a whiny primary school brat.

[nolalily]

03:43 PM on 12/03/2007

If any of you care to check, this is an old poll. Someone from the Clinton campaign has been sending this out to the media and obviously the HuffPo didn't bother to check the date.

Hillary's not in first place anymore and, if she doesn't stop it, she'll soon be in third.

[eliandbo]

03:15 PM on 12/03/2007

Any body want to cast a vote here on this forum?
I will, Kucinich.
Anybody else?

[Dantheman99]

03:01 PM on 12/03/2007

This is why the sense of entitlement that Iowa and New Hampshire have need to be ripped away from their undeserving bosom.

We need a national "IGNORE IOWA & N.H." campaign and put the focus on the national primary day on February 5. I'm on Michigan's or Florida's side. It's time for metropolitan areas and more populous states to rescue our democracy from this nonsense. End this farce.

The fact that some candidate is playing well in Podunksville, IA or Tree Sap, NH is irrelevant to me and my life. In fact, the fact that they are playing well makes me think that urban/suburban Americans (i.e. most of the country) are going to get screwed by whatever they promised this self-important brats who think they are better judges of character than the rest of us. I don't need nor do I want their help in winnowing down my choice for me.

I don't care whether Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich or Mickey Mouse wins the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary and I resent the media coverage these idiots get for their county pancake flips and town barbecues.

We need ONE national primary/caucus day in the Spring where every vote in the country counts equally and a directly popular vote in November, with a runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote.

End the madness.

[SeanGardner]

01:56 PM on 12/03/2007

Another poll over the weekend showed Obama in the lead: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/NEWS09/312020006/-1/iowapoll07

[bbln]

01:02 PM on 12/03/2007

Lovely - love the way the Pew lead is not only buried on the Huff site, but also the Iowa State University Poll released today and taken just a few days ago bolsters the finding of Pew is nowhere in site: Here is the Iowa University poll http://thepage.time.com/2007/12/03/iowa-state-university-releases-new-iowa-numbers/

Dems: Clinton 31, Edwards 24, Obama 20, Richardson 11.

GOP: Romney 25, Huckabee 22, Giuliani 16, Thompson 9, McCain 8.

Margin of error: 6%

[balance]

12:30 PM on 12/03/2007

Both camps should keeps their gloves on, and save the bare knuckle pounding for the GOP nominee.

I doubt a nastier intramural campaign will help either candidate for the Democratic nomination. But it will definitely help the GOP nominee.

Wouldn't campaigning on the positives and shoring up one's own negatives do more to sway caucus voters more than launching negative attacks on a fellow democrat?

Umm... isn't this a big "duh?"

[Lis]

12:30 PM on 12/03/2007

The "new poll" that shows Hillary leading in Iowa is misleading. The poll was published today, making it new, but the poll was taken from Nov 3 to Nov 27 -- BEFORE Obama took over Hillary's lead.