George W. Obama?

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, as we now know, began falling apart the moment her husband compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson back in South Carolina. Its final death rattle may well end up being her latest gambit - comparing him to George W. Bush.

Twice in the last three days, she's tarred Obama with the Bush brush, suggesting her rival is just as untested and, potentially, just as dangerous as the man now occupying the Oval Office.

First, on Saturday, she told an audience at the Cincinnati State Technical and Community College that voters in 2000 fell for Bush's promises of change -- "and the American people got shafted". For good measure, she said the Obama campaign's latest mailers, on health care and NAFTA, were "right out of the Karl Rove playbook".

Then, in her foreign policy address at George Washington University today, she couched the same argument in the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, the AIDS crisis and the Darfur genocide. "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," she said. "We can't let that happen again."

Why is this a campaign strategy doomed to failure? Because she underestimates Obama - and her own propensity to enrage the electorate - at her peril. And because, when it comes to experience and wisdom in foreign policy matters, she is hardly on the side of the angels herself.

Back in January, when Bill Clinton tried to insinuate that Obama, like Jesse Jackson before him, was just another black guy making vigorous but ultimately futile inroads into the power of the Democratic Party establishment, it instantly lost Hillary the black vote, not just in South Carolina but across the country.

Now, she is essentially insulting the intelligence of millions of Democratic voters who have already cast their ballots for Obama, and insulting millions more who, up to now, have thought of her as the better candidate but want no part of demonizing her rival, in whom they see much to be attracted to also.

Clearly, Hillary is in mega-negative mode because she can think of no other way to keep fighting as her presidential aspirations evaporate before her eyes. But it's also worth unpacking some of statements, because they are more broadly revealing of who she really is.

1. Obama is untested, just like Bush was. Actually, Bush wasn't all that untested. We knew he was calling himself a compassionate conservative who had no interest in "nation-building". But we also knew that, as governor of Texas, he had pandered to corporate interests and the Christian right like there was no tomorrow. He had signed the execution warrants of Gary Graham and Karla Faye Tucker, and almost 150 others, in a mockery of his claim to be either compassionate or "pro-life". He might have acted dumb on the Middle East in his debates with Al Gore, but he was already starting to associate with the neo-cons of the Project for the New American Century - Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Perle - and had told some people on the campaign trail that he intended to "finish the job" his father had started with Iraq.

Where is Obama's similar record of saying one thing and doing another? If it exists, she hasn't exposed it yet.

2. Bush promised change too. The only change I recall Bush promising was to "restore honor and dignity to the White House", which was a coded way of saying he wouldn't drop his pants in or near the Oval Office to pizza-delivering female interns. As far as we know, this is one promise Dubya has managed to keep.

3. Experience and wisdom. What exactly is Hillary talking about here? She was wrong on Iraq. Just in the past week, she was spectacularly wrong on Kosovo. She blew health-care reform in 1993-94. I'm not saying she is without achievements, but a little perspective, and humility, might be in order here.

4. Shame on you, Barack Obama! Shame on him for saying what exactly? That Hillary has talked about garnishing wages to make her health-care mandates work -- absolutely true. And that Hillary was a fan of NAFTA -- at least until she tried to make out that she wasn't for electoral purposes. NAFTA' s an interesting one, because Hillary is really trying to rewrite history -- by pretending that the original 1994 trade deal somehow had more to do with President George H. W. Bush than with her husband, and that he and she both had reservations about it from the get-go. The truth is the Clintons were huge free-trade advocates -- against stiff opposition from their own party -- until Bill was humiliated at the 1999 WTO talks in Seattle, when 50,000 street protesters besieged his hotel (and everyone else's), closed down the official proceedings and forced the president into acknowledging that some aspects of corporate globalization might be problematic after all. If Obama is going after her on this issue, the only possible shame attached is hers.

The greatest damage Hillary is doing to herself is coming across as just another self-interested candidate willing to do and say anything to stay in the race. Her likeability has always been a weak spot. The more she lays into Obama, the more she risks coming out of this campaign not just defeated, but actively loathed.

Comments

[AnotherTry]

Can we all just take a second to remember that Barack is a politician and politicians tell us what they think we want to hear in order to win votes. This has not changed.

People need to grow up and let the adults run the show for awhile. Obama will be ready in 8 years. This is Hillary's time.

[dawlishgal]

The presidential race is not KINDERGARTEN where kids have to stand in line and wait their turns. It is also not a job handed out to the one with the most self-ascribed feelings of entitlement, nor is it a nepotism-driven position. It is more like "seize the moment." Too bad for both Clintons that their moment has passed.

If you think Hillary Clinton is behaving as an adult, take another look at her rants over the weekend.

[JimR]

"This is Hillary's time."

Yeah, that was the only thing Bob Dole could come up with for why he should be president.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[myhomeo]

According to this logic Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich and probably even Gravell are far more qualified than Hillary.

[Fabienne]

It is NEVER Hillary's time because she is a corporate shill and a hawk.

[RobertHewson]

From today's "Head of State":
headofstate.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Clinton Compares Obama To Bush

In a speech at George Washington University yesterday, Hillary Clinton compared Barack Obama to Bush, saying "We cannot let that happen again"

Obama, of course, is not Bush.

Whereas Bush in intellectually incurious, and views intellect and complexity with fear, masked by a reflexive and reductionistic contempt, Obama is intellectually curious, seeks out and embraces ideas, and is interested in their utility, rather than their conforming to a narrow and predetermined plan, and will bring this intellectual strength and ability to his policies.

Whereas Bush is inflexible to the point of parody--and tragedy--making a virtue of failing to reexamine assumptions even when it is clear they are not working-- because cognitive rigidity is, for him, equated with strength, as opposed to the "weakness" of making distinctions--Obama has both firm convictions and the ability to advance and adapt those beliefs to changing circumstances. He has the ability to adapt on the basis of effectiveness and utility--rather than to react impulsively, to stand stubbornly still without any substantive basis, or to fail to adapt, based on fear.

Whereas Bush begins from a point of defensiveness, viewing much of the world in terms of those who need to be taken down a peg from their know-it-al­l-stance--­the hallmark of a life of earlier resentments, imposed on the world of foreign policy--Obama operates from a position of engagement with people and with ideas. He wants to know; is capable of objective evaluation, and seeks to bring new voices into his dialogue, rather than deflecting them.

Whereas Bush has used advisers as a circle of wagons and a complexity filter, keeping criticism, real-world intricacies, and cognitive dissonance to a minimum, Obama appears to welcome advice, using advisers as a resources rather than as a shield.

And, whereas Bush, connects with the resentments of the angry everyday man, who feels unfairly downtrodden by those that, in their intellectual and emotional confidence and passion, remind them of their own flaws and fears, and who resents those who might receive help, when they feel they have received none, is unlike Obama--who connects with the willingness to aspire rather than to the fear of it; to the hope of devoting the best of oneself to a community and nation rather than self-protectively dividing it; and to the desire to replace the primacy of tactics and cronyism in favor of shared principle and truth."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-compares-obama-to-bush.html

[snowcat]

this is brilliantly stated. Everything Hillary is doing now is meant as a smoke screen and distraction to the truth Obama is saying about her stance on NAFTA

[OETKB]

Sen Clinton is clearly upset that she has to work for this nomination. It is a very telling insight of how she might react when the chips are down. No rolling up the sleeves and coming to grips with an issue. Rather she shifts to personal attacks. This is not presidential. Her numbers are slipping not because of the MSM but when she is observed in this debased mode, she loses votes.

[ChiGuy]

If Hillary had been paying attention, she'd have canned most of her campaign "strategists" after South Carolina.

She's been getting bad advice since prior to that primary.

[GingerB]

"If you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it's about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George BUSH. That's the worst kind of tactical political maneuverin­g."

CLINTON Spokesman Howard Wolfson [AP, 12/20/07]

[demlover1]

To those who suggested Bill Clinton's experience in 1992 is comprable to Sen. Obama, I disagree. Bill Clinton had an extensive record as governor of AK and had been head of the National Governor's Assoc. Being governor is an executive level job and great preparation for being President. Being a part-time state Senator and a 3 year Senator is hardly equivalent. Plus, Bill Clinton was a much better debater than Sen. Obama--in part because he had lots of accomplishments and programs as Governor to talk about. In all honesty, Bill Clinton of 1992 would wipe the floor with Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton and McCain as well. Bill Clinton of the 1990's is probably the greatest politician I've ever seen. I mean the press hated him, the right hated him and he got caught having an affair with an intern and he still managed to see his approval rating rise to 70%.
And for all those Obama supporters who think he won't meet be savagely attacked by the right wing media as the Clintons were, I suggest you look back at history. Dukakis, Gore, Teddy Kennedy, the Clintons, Kerry, Jesse Jackson and every other major Democratic leader has been villified by the right wing. They haven't gone after Sen. Obama hard yet because I think they want him as the nominee. But it's starting already. They were already bashing him tonight on Fox about his supposed racist church. I wonder what's next. I just hope he doesn't implode like Howard Dean did (who I have always liked).

[GingerB]

Hillary's FIRST LADY experience does not make her fit to be president.

Obama has held elected office longer than she has. MORE experience.

[demlover1]

Elected office is hardly the only measure of experience. People get governmental experience as appointed officials as well. Just look at Bill Richardson. He has only in his second term as Gov of NM, but he is considered very experienced because he was Energy Sect and UN representative. Also, being a part-time State senator is hardly equivalent to serving in the Senate. Sen. Clinton has two terms in the Senate, Sen. Obama has less than one. And being a senior advisor to a Governor and President (which is what Sen. Clinton was to Bill Clinton in addition to First Lady) and some books even say she was like a co-President, seems like pretty good training to me. Plus, she has a lot of other private sector and governmental experience as well (e.g., legal services corp, watergate attorney, children's defense fund, etc.). She is roughly 15 years older than Sen. Obama, so it is no surprised that she is more experienced.

[kennedy]

No he has not. Only in your dreams. A part time leg. and less than two years in the senate doesn't qualify this man to be president of any country on earth.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

demlover1, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas (AR). Alaska is AK.

[LongTom]

The idea that Hillary is "fully vetted" is absurd. Where's her tax return? The goodies lurking there are unknown, but you can bet there are reasons she hasn't released it. And Hillary obviously HASN'T been able to deflect the right wing attack machine. She was the most unpopular first lady in history, and even after she gained a measure of public support in the wake of her husband's infidelity, she allowed it to dissipate to the point where her unfavorabilities began pushing 50% again. And in two years before running for president, she's done nothing to lower that unfavorability.

She's a bad politician, period. Obama has shown every ability to deflect "savage" attacks from Clinton, and starts with a favorable/­unfavorabl­e rating of 57-32. He's more popular than McCain, who until Obama came along, was the most popular politician in the US.

It would be an insane act for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. She can't possibly get more than 45% of the vote against McCain.

[Witkacy]

One could even debate whether Hillary Clinton's a politician in any significant way, at all. Let's be honest: she's a carpetbagger who swooped into New York with her powerful ex-President husband and grabbed a congressional seat. And I find it offensive to imagine that the seat couldn't have been better occupied by a native of the state (it's a big state, and kinda sorta significant in the scheme of things), and by a truer Democrat. Sen. Clinton's great "gift" to the country will always be her acquiescence in the invasion and brutal dismemberment of the sovereign nation of Iraq. That she's little more than a Dem version of Chamberlain is something she'll have to live with, long after she's lost this race to Barack Obama. And I hope that shame troubles the hell out of her.

[JimR]

You make some good points, but it should be noted that Hillary Clinton also lacks executive experience, as does John McCain.

The GOP hasn't gone after the Democratic nominee yet because the Democratic nominee hasn't been selected.

[GayGrandpa]

Hillary VOTED FOR THE WAR

SHE GAVE BUSH THE AUTHORITY

SHE WON'T CALL IT A MISTAKE OR APOLOGIZE

SHE ACTED OUT OF EXPEDIENCY

SHE HAS NO MORAL COMPASS

AND IS THE WAR PROMOTER, SHE IS AS BUSH!

OBAMA will be RIGHT ON DAY ONE!

[AnotherTry]

Stop blaming your own apathy on Hillary. If Americans didn't want this war, they would have taken to the streets in the millions. But they didn't. They sat on their ass and watched it on TV.

Now it is 5 years later and you want to blame the fact that you did nothing to stop this war on Hillary's one vote. A vote, BTW, that wouldn't have changed the outcome one bit.

Stop blaming Hillary for the fact that you did nothing.

[GayGrandpa]

I do blame her and others like her. I have done plenty and continue to DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO PROMOTE PEACE. I fought the draft in the seventies and won my battle against the draft board. Five brothers served but I would not. I did not go and wouldn't. WAR IS A BRUTAL ATTACK ON THE FAMILY any mother or father who voted for an unnecessary war should not have the gall to suggest they should be the leader of anything! You speak like Hillary unwilling to admit a mistake or to declare any apology or responsibility relating to this war! SHAME ON YOU BOTH! She was gutless and you are shameless in your defense of her. My congresswoman had the guts to stand up to Bush where was Hillary?

[JimR]

Stop trying to force everybody to make a false choice.

You are correct, Americans have been astonishly apathetic about the war.

But Hillary voted to authorize it. You can't change that.

Lots of blame to go around.

[Fabienne]

I did a great deal, thank you. Went to all the demonstrations, wrote letters and emails several times a week, sent money to anti-war organizations. Fortunately, my Senator Russ Feingold listened. Senator Clinton did not.

[kennedy]

OBAMA WAS NOT IN THE SENATE TO VOTE ON IRAQ BUT ACTS LIKE HE WAS.

WHEN ASKED BY REPORTERS ONCE IN THE SENATE IF HE WOULD HAVE VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ HE SAID
"I DON'T KNOW"

ONCE IN THE SENATE HE HAS VOTED EVERY TIME TO FUND THE IRAQ WAR.

EVERY TIME THAT IS OBAMA WAS THERE TO VOTE. OTHER TIMES IT WAS NO VOTES.

SHE IS SORRY ABOUT HER VOTE BUT IF SHE SAID THE WORD "MISTAKE" REPUBLICANS WOULD RUN COMMERCIALS EVERY SINGLE SECOND OF EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND IT WOULD BE THAT MUCH HARDER TO ELECT ANY DEMS TO OFFICE.
( I KNOW AS A REPUBLICAN YOU WOULD JUST LOVE THAT)

HILLARY HAS A STRONG MORAL COMPASS. SHE DOESN'T SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION THE WAY OBAMA DOES. ( KENNEDY, KERRY, CLINTON SAID NO. EVEN NARAL BACKED OFF. THAT RIGHT THERE SHOWS HOW RADICAL OBAMA IS IN HIS BELIEFS)

SHE DOESN'T PROMOTE THE WAR. SHE WILL BRING OUR TROOPS HOME SAFELY. OBAMA WILL NOT. HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE TO KNOW HOW TO WITHDRAW TROOPS.
( AND GOD FORBID IF OBAMA GOT IN, ANY TROOPS STILL AVAILABLE HE WOULD SEND TO KENYA)

I DON'T TRUST OBAMA AS FAR AS I CAN THROW HIM.
OBAMA IS WRONG NOW, TOMORROW AND EVERY SINGLE DAY HE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

[JimR]

So you think lawmakers should vote against war funding, and choose not to give troops over there needed supplies? Because that's what that would mean. You can't separate the two.

[Tellmethetruth]

We have all seen the remarkable similiarities between Obama and GW Bush - most notably the lack of experience to be President. Laura Bush was once asked what was her husband's worse failure and she said "impatienc­e." GW will not wait, he rushes into everything before he gets all the facts according to Laura before the rush to war. GW after one term as Governor rushed to run for the Presidency.

Obama couldn't wait to run for the office of President according to his wife Michelle, against her better advice. Obama, like Bush is impatient and can not wait to gather facts or pay attention to details as Obama pointed out his own weakness in the debates.

Will Obama, like Bush rush us out of war as GW Bush rushed us into war before gathering all the facts? Rushing the US out of war, leaving behind all the weapons necessary for a regional war, will not help to keep the world stable, but will unstabilize the whole world currently dependent upon the Middle East, specifically Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran for oil.

Obama, like Bush is impatient, he didn't wait to give himself the necessary experience to be President, and this will cost us in American lives and wealth, just as GW Bush's impatience to get into the war in Iraq has cost us.

[IndependentJones]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Obama admitted to having a disorganized desk - not to being unwilling to gather facts or pay attention to details. Stop projecting.

[kanyingi]

True. But in the debate the question was what each of the candidate's weakness was.

Obama stated that he needed help organizing his desk.

Clinton stated that her greatest weakness was that she CARED TOO MUCH!!!!
What utter BS.

[kennedy]

Obama admitted to being such a dim wit if information is not written down he forgets it like that. Now thats the guy I want with his finger on the nuke button. NOT!

[LeftLeanWing]

"Obama couldn't wait to run for the office of President according to his wife Michelle, against her better advice."

Now where did you get this Breaking News story ?

Michelle never asked Obama to Wait. She did express early doubts about him running for the presidency because of the stress, strains and scrutiny it would have placed on their family.



Alrighty then ....

[JoelNH]

If Hillary runs the White House as poorly as she has run her campaign - we are in really big trouble.

The contrasts in this campaign couldn't be starker. Hillary; Incompetent, whining, excuse making. Obama; Competent, Confident, successful.

[kennedy]

Ask Obamas manger how long Obama has being actively planning on running for president. Four years before Obama announced he was running, his manger started going around filming Obama. Obama then once in used that footage in his campaign commercials. So some of those hands you see him shaking are five years old. What a scheme.

[Rachiavelli]

"We" have all seen what? Taylor Marsh, is that you?

Bush was Governor of a large state and son of a president, which is certainly more experience than Mrs. Clinton. He also happened to be an amoral jackass, on par with Mrs. Clinton.

[LongTom]

This doesn't even merit a response. Obama has been on the correct side of all the issues Hilalry has been wrong about, and HE's too unseasoned or impatient?

Hillary is the W. Bush of this campaign. A nepotist whose own accomplishments and attributes do not qualify her as the party's nominee. her front-runnership, now mercifully gone, was based solely on her husband's popularity as ex-president. She's done nowhere near enough to have warranted her exalted status, and her political judgmment and abilities (in contrast to Obama's) are piss poor.

She's basically been a parrot sitting on Clinton's shoulder, claiming to be six feet tall. She's got no game, and the Party should be eternally grateful to Obama for keeping her from leading the Dems to certain defeat against McCain.

[kanyingi]

None of the presidental candidates have ever run anything large as mayor, governor or CEO.

The best way we can get a clue as to how they will run their presidency is by looking at their campaigns.

Clinton was so broke even before super Tuesday that she "loaned" her campaign 5 million dollars. She actually burned through more than 100 million dollars in January.

Her advisors were incompetent and grossly overpaid. Case in point look at the double digit whipping she has received in the last 11 contests.

Look at how dismissive and arrogant she is when she loses a state and then suggests that that state is unimportant.

Clinton is the one who has mismanaged her campaign from day one just like GW Bush has mismanaged this country.

[Uselessboy]

She was clearly not ready to campaign on day 1.

[scandinavian]

Right on target. Her ego seem to hinder her to plan for worst case scenarios which is far from getting real and making sound judgement. ((btw: clinton adm. was warned about possible terror attacks since 1995 but didn't pay attention))

[kennedy]

Did you read those lies on a REP web site or were the lies from Obama himself. And how big of ego does it take to think your already president. Now all Obama has to do is fit his big fat head through the WH doors. Ouh, to big.

And every single president is warned about possible terrorists attacks every single year they are in office. Give me break from all the lies. Learn how government works then get back to me.

[Collielady]

When Bill Clinton started his attacks a few weeks ago it seemed like he was ruining Hillary's campaign. Now she has adopted those tactics and is making herself look desperate. The Clintons have become their own worst enemies. Sad.

[gcswift2]

Everyone calm down. Lets let this play itself out. There are two things which can happen from this.
1) He is incapable of defending himself, and His campaign falls apart; in which case he shouldn't be President.
2) He is capable of neutalizing these attacks; his campaign is innoculated from these attacks headed into november, Barack Obama becomes the 44th President of the United States.

If he is able to survive or even thrive in the Hell that Hillary Clinton will create until March 4th, it will make him a better candidate.

There is only one possible issue with my above statement. WJC & HRC, will they let go of the bone if She loses Both texas and ohio? If she loses both I expect to see her exiting the race by March 10. Any later is just sour grapes.

[livetotell]

3)Obama loses a close election with McCain and the riots will make the LA riots look like Romper Room.

[AnotherTry]

Yeah right. Like all those riots after Bush was illegally installed as president.

So naive and inexperienced.

Obama? Is that you?

[Fabienne]

Yeah, because you obviously believe all African-Americans are out of control. What rot!

[LeftLeanWing]

3) She aims the punches at his jaw, but she ends up punching a concrete wall instead



"if She loses Both texas and ohio ..."

If she loses either she is toast, actually she is toast if she doesn't win both by large margins.

[AnotherTry]

The superdelegates will put us back on the right track. They know better than to trust the unknown Obama.

[EyeballKid]

I agree with a guy on the radio today who said that HRC would be well served by getting out of the race now, declaring that the Dem Party and the American people deserve a unified effort to beat the Republicans, and then, in the next election cycle, compete for Harry Reid's majority leader post. If she played her cards right, she'd be a shoo-in.

But no. It seems like HRC is running down a dangerous road by going negative on BO. By doing so, she's increasing her own negatives in a general election, and she's giving Republicans plenty of red meat by exposing her own weaknesses.

[JoelNH]

I think its fine is she stays in til 3/4, Let TX, OH, VT and RI vote.

But the Senate Majority leader spot belongs to Chris Dodd. Someone who stood up against telecom immunity. Stood up against the Bankruptcy Bill.

A true progressive leader, even when the spotlight of the campaign is off of him.

[JimR]

Agree. I'd much prefer to see Dodd in that post.

In any case, Reid has GOT to go.

[FauxNewsAlert]

I find it amusing that Hillary compares Obama to Bush on foreign policy, but it was actually her that voted with Bush to invade Iraq. HRC has also been very similar to the neocons when it comes to pushing for war with Iran. Isn't it funny how the truth has a habit of getting in the way.

[AnotherTry]

Trust me. If Obama were in the senate at the time, he would have voted yes, too.

Why do you trust the mainstream media when it comes to Obama? If corporate-­controlled media is where you go to choose a candidate, you are in for a BIG surprise.

[JimR]

I understand your cynicism. But, I don't trust you.

[Fabienne]

Why do I feel I don't want to trust you?

[RichLiberal]

Hillary is absolutely right calling attention to the similarities between Obama's campaign and the Bush tactics. And like Bush, Obama is attempting to "brush it off" as simply Hillary's "desperate attempts" to avoid losing.

No question Obama's cynical strategy seems to be working, just as it worked for Bush. He's no dope in that regard, if it worked for Bush, it's good enough for him.

If Hillary goes down fighting because the media is once again sucked into this Bush/Obama style of refusing to engage and treating all criticism as a fault of the criticizer, that's not going to go down in history as Hillary's fault.

Just like all the other attacks on the Clintons that have proven to be empty, so will this one. Hillary may not win the presidency, and the press by believing Bush, and now Obama will have once again steered us onto another potential disastrous course. Bill Clinton is absolutely correct that with Obama we are "rolling the dice". As with his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature and his failure to show for Kyl-Lieberman Iran vote, Obama continues to duck difficult votes so he has no record that can be criticized. So, no one has any idea where he stands on anything, he has almost no experience whatever that can be leveraged to the Presidency, and he will take advice from whoever has backed him, if they can still offer him anything.

No doubt his tax package will whack people in the 75K to 250K bracket, the real heart of the middle class, and no doubt he will back away from any tax on the real rich, because he will find a way to "compromise". Good luck with this guy and his Fairy Tale Crusade.

[IndependentJones]

Could you please clarigy your claim that Obama is refusing to engage?

From what I've seen he has been far more straightforward in answering questions than has Sen. Clinton.

[AnotherTry]

If just repeating her answers back with swagger is straight-forward, then sure, why not.

[Tumult]

Clinton is associated with a scandal, Clinton's associates are convicted in the scandal, Clinton issues pardon. Due to lack of evidence Clintons get off, attribute scandal to "vast right wing conspiracy". The level of corruption in the Clinton Administration is every bit as obvious as the corruption of the Bush Administration. Clinton and Bush between them must have Nixon rolling in his grave.

The "present" votes in the Illinois Legislature, have been explained, and are what is known as "political savy". For example if someone was afraid to cast a no vote on something major like the Iraq War, for fear it would ruin their political, they could vote "present" and it would still count as a no, but be harder to use against them.

And you seem to be missing the Iraq War vote when saying Obama continues to duck difficult votes. It was the most important vote since he has been in the Senate. He voted "No" which at the time with a hysterical country that vastly supported military action, his vote showed great leadership and could have ended his political career. Unlike Hillary, who cast the "safe" vote putting her political survival above the lives and well being of Americans.

"No doubt" a little speculative there. You might want to check with Hillary first, I think she might still be trying to say he either doesn't have a plan, or hasn't given any details. She might be offended that you decided to make up a tax package to bash him, she might decide to tell a diffrent fairy tale then you.

[Giglawyer]

ANother shill from the HillaryHub.

[Rachiavelli]

Oh my god, can I get into your "middle class"? My research shows that less than 20% of American households bring in more than $100,000. That's households, not individuals.

Top fifth does not equal the middle. It equals the top.

[AnotherTry]

That's because Bush was so successful at eliminating the middle class. He set the bar so low that even Obama seems like a good idea, to some anyway.