Any Clinton supporters would be unhappy with Obama candidacy?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=Jophiel]
Part of what I stand for is honest campaigning and a break from Rove tactics. Maybe it’s a pipe dream, but I can’t see myself rewarding the worst offender.

If Clinton wants my vote, she needs to justify why she deserves it. If she fails at that, that’s her failing. It’s not mine for refusing to just give her my vote because she wears blue.
[/QUOTE]
That’s all well and good. I just have two points. There’s just no way in the world that one can know the political positions of Obama, Clinton and McCain, and with a straight face say that Obama represents ones own positions best, whereas McCain represents them better than Clinton.

Secondly, if you point to John McCain as an example of honest campaigning, you’re just a dupe.

[DSeid]

Interestingly enough Hentor your linked discussion only confirms that Obama never praised Republican ideas. Both sides of that linked discussion agree to that. The side that criticizes Obama’s comment does so because the poster believes that Obama’s statement somehow implies that the Democrats therefore had no ideas. One can quibble over whether it would have been more precise to say that the Republicans were better at communicating a cohesive set of new ideas to the American people while the Democrats had many more ideas, many of which were mutually exclusive and which were perceived as a muddled message by the American public, than what Obama said. I wouldn’t, but go ahead if you want to. But saying that Obama praised Republican ideas is a lie. And the Clintons know that.

[Jophiel]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
That’s all well and good. I just have two points. There’s just no way in the world that one can know the political positions of Obama, Clinton and McCain, and with a straight face say that Obama represents ones own positions best, whereas McCain represents them better than Clinton.

Secondly, if you point to John McCain as an example of honest campaigning, you’re just a dupe.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s a good thing then that I never said I’d certainly vote for McCain, but rather that I’d at least consider him and, more likely, skip that part of the ballot entirely and just vote for House rep, Senator & local referendums. What I won’t do is cast a partisan ballot for any sleazeball who makes it onto the Democratic slate.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Interestingly enough Hentor your linked discussion only confirms that Obama never praised Republican ideas. Both sides of that linked discussion agree to that. The side that criticizes Obama’s comment does so because the poster believes that Obama’s statement somehow implies that the Democrats therefore had no ideas. One can quibble over whether it would have been more precise to say that the Republicans were better at communicating a cohesive set of new ideas to the American people while the Democrats had many more ideas, many of which were mutually exclusive and which were perceived as a muddled message by the American public, than what Obama said. I wouldn’t, but go ahead if you want to. But saying that Obama praised Republican ideas is a lie. And the Clintons know that.
[/QUOTE]
I think your interpretation of the linked discussions is pretty skewed. Those two in particular were quite harsh with Obama’s message. I think the message in that claim is pretty clear. I think it was clearly praising Republicans for two extremely erroneous conclusions: 1)They were the party of ideas and 2) they were challenging conventional wisdom. He’s clearly not condemning the Republicans for these things.

When you take that statement in the context of this one from Obama about Reagan:

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that 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. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

It sounds to me like praise for Reagan, particularly in terms as a contrast against the “excesses” of the 60’s and 70’s. In another thread, we’ve been discussing Reagans economic record, and it is nothing if not excessive. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was steadily declining through the 60’s and 70’s. Reagan exploded it during the 80’s, and it took Clinton to reverse that trend again in the 90’s.

You don’t get that from Obama’s statement, however. It is another one that you can parse to suggest that he wasn’t particularly praising Reagan, just observing his ability to get a message out there. But if one has to continually parse a candidates statements to tell what he really meant as opposed to the way that it sounded, I would suggest that that candidate is crafting messages to crassly pander to one group while giving himself some cover when his core constituency scratches it’s head about what he’s trying to say.And that’s true whether you put it in bold font or not.

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
McCain first introduced a cap and trade bill in 2003.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting, I hadn’t heard of the bill. In details, it isn’t as strong as the one Clinton is proposing. For example, it contemplates giving away the permits and grandfathering in some sources, while Clinton calls for an auction to set the prices and distribute the permits. But it’s still pretty good. I wonder why he’s no longer advocating it? Political expediency?

[stolichnaya]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
You don’t get that from Obama’s statement, however. It is another one that you can parse to suggest that he wasn’t particularly praising Reagan, just observing his ability to get a message out there. But if one has to continually parse a candidates statements to tell what he really meant as opposed to the way that it sounded, I would suggest that that candidate is crafting messages to crassly pander to one group while giving himself some cover when his core constituency scratches it’s head about what he’s trying to say.And that’s true whether you put it in bold font or not.
[/QUOTE]

It’s clearly not a statement in the political sense, though. He didn’t give a speech talking about the excesses of the 60’s and 70’s and Reagan riding in on his horse. He got wonky with an editorial board. I’d really like to hear the whole darn show or interview or whatever, but I suppose that the damage is done (or the independents won, perhaps) one way or the other.

[DSeid]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Interesting, I hadn’t heard of the bill. In details, it isn’t as strong as the one Clinton is proposing. For example, it contemplates giving away the permits and grandfathering in some sources, while Clinton calls for an auction to set the prices and distribute the permits. But it’s still pretty good. I wonder why he’s no longer advocating it? Political expediency?
[/QUOTE]
Even that was too strong to pass at the time. The last one he didn’t sponsor because he objected that it didn’t include more for nuclear. He actually has continued to push the issues as part of his current run, despite the fact that it doesn’t particularly resonate with the Pubbie base.

Hentor FactCheck is considered by most to be impartial and their take is

it’s just flatly false that Obama said he “really liked the ideas of the Republicans.” … There’s a difference between praising someone for having ideas and praising the idea itself. Obama is doing the former – and just as clearly not doing the latter. He says the GOP approach has “played itself out,” for example.

It’s also false to imply – as Clinton did – that Obama endorsed Republican proposals to set up private Social Security accounts or that he praised deficit spending. We listened to the entire 49-minute interview, and Obama said no such thing…

Obama is correct: Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have lauded Reagan’s political skills.

Parse it how you want - it is a lie, it is an attempt at a smear, and it is a Clinton tactic.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Even that was too strong to pass at the time. The last one he didn’t sponsor because he objected that it didn’t include more for nuclear. He actually has continued to push the issues as part of his current run, despite the fact that it doesn’t particularly resonate with the Pubbie base.

Hentor FactCheck is considered by most to be impartial and their take is Parse it how you want - it is a lie, it is an attempt at a smear, and it is a Clinton tactic.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m not sure what facts they present here that help to address the issue. If he wasn’t saying that they were good ideas, or reasonable ideas, what was he saying?

Why did he choose an exact phrase from the Republican playbook (“party of ideas”)?

In what way is his assertion correct (that they were the party of ideas and that they were bucking convention)?

If we are going to parse things so finely, let’s do so with fact check’s implication that Clinton said Obama said anything about private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. She never said that he did. She was clearly making a point that their ideas over the last 15 years would include some really unpleasant and unpalatable ones right up among the forefront.

He was clearly trying to appeal to voters on the other side. I don’t hold this against him enough to not vote for him, but I do hold it against him enough to vote for Edwards over Obama.

[Anduril]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
The Big Lie in this case is Clinton’s claim that Obama praised Republican ideas. He never did.

I meant my list of which issues mattered most to me and how they each stacked up.

I guess we are all entitled to our senses of humor, such as they are.
[/QUOTE]

I read the transcript of what Obama said and anyone can be forgiven for making that mistake. The context of the statement is very suggestive of Obama praising Republican ideas. Since it wasn’t all that clear, I think it is only fair game to have Obama explain it to the Democrats. After all, the statement that he made was clearly a dig at the Clintons.

Now if you read the transcript of the ads that the Clintons came out with regarding this, it also doesn’t say that Obama praised Republican ideas. So, there’s no lie to speak of. There was the initial mistake which is all too forgivable given the context of Obama’s statement. Then there’s the ads which clearly avoid accusing Obama of praising Republican ideas.

[MovieMogul]

[QUOTE=Anduril]
Now if you read the transcript of the ads that the Clintons came out with regarding this, it also doesn’t say that Obama praised Republican ideas. So, there’s no lie to speak of. There was the initial mistake which is all too forgivable given the context of Obama’s statement. Then there’s the ads which clearly avoid accusing Obama of praising Republican ideas.
[/QUOTE]
It may not be a “lie”, but its a smear based on patently false association. The Clintons know the impression they’re trying to make and are doing so quite consciously.

As long as we’re on the topic: more lies from the Clintons about Obama.

[Jophiel]

[QUOTE=Anduril]
Since it wasn’t all that clear, I think it is only fair game to have Obama explain it to the Democrats. After all, the statement that he made was clearly a dig at the Clintons.
[/QUOTE]
I could potentially agree with this. However, after he did explain it and after numerous sources posted the full quote and noted how it didn’t mesh with what Clinton was suggesting…

…after this, Clinton runs a radio ad using Obama’s statements out of context to suggest that he was in favor of every failed policy of the 80’s.

That’s not confusion on Clinton’s part. That’s sheer dishonesty; a lie slandering Obama and a lie straight to the face of the Democratic voters.

[Shayna]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]

Uh-oh. When you talk to more than one person, it looks like it’s much less cut and dried.
[/QUOTE]
Clearly you didn’t bother to read the entire link, including the comments from (at the time of this posting) 165 readers, the majority of whom expressed exactly the same sentiments; if Obama doesn’t get the nom, they will NOT be voting for Hillary. So no, I did not link to the opinion of just one other guy on this matter. Read the comments and be enlightened.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]

What is it, in fact, that she is supposed to have done that makes her so freakishly horrid? Give me facts, not vague character assassination (such as she is more ambitious then the other people running for the fucking presidency of the US).
[/quote]
I’ve given you the facts that led me to my disdain for her, namely, that I find her to be dishonest and divisive. I have had enough dishonesty and divisiveness to last me 3 more lifetimes. E-NOUGH. I’m DONE accepting the type of nasty, hateful, dirty politics that have been shoved down my throat for the past 15+ years. I don’t consider it “vague character assassination” to take a stand against the type of campaign that Hillary and Bill Clinton are running. I hated it when the Bushites did it to us, and I’ll condemn it just as hard when it comes from my own party. I think it’s about freaking time we stood up and said WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Tell me what YOU are going to do to help fix this country, don’t denigrate your opponent because he happens to say something you perceive to be too nice about the other party. Bush and Cheney may be evil monsters, but the entire Republican party isn’t, even though some might want to portray them that way. I fall on the side that sees the remarks Hillary made as being not only distortions and wrong interpretations, but IRRELEVANT. So what if Obama said something nice about the Republican party? That does not make him unfit to be President of the United States. In fact, it just bolsters my impression that he’ll be much better able to bring conciliation from the other side, because they know going in that he doesn’t view them with disdain.

And I’ve got my IT guy standing over my shoulder needing to get to my computer for some upgrades, so I don’t have time to delineate them all right now, but there have been plenty of other lies, distortions and downright hateful remarks out of the Hillary camp, all of which completely soured me against her.

I’m sick of it, and I intend to take a principled stand against it.

And if you’re looking for one more (yeah, it’s only one, so sue me) person who has been so utterly turned off of Hillary because of her lies, that she switched from being a Hillary supporter to an Obama Supporter, watch these videos from the former President of Chicago NOW (youtube links): link 1, link 2.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Well, I’m not sure what facts they present here that help to address the issue. If he wasn’t saying that they were good ideas, or reasonable ideas, what was he saying?
[/quote]

He said they were ideas. And he said he disagreed with them. Explicitly.

Why did he choose an exact phrase from the Republican playbook (“party of ideas”)?

Because, in his view, they were the party of ideas (relative to the Democrats, that is). He’s saying he agrees with the Republican’s characterization of themselves, but not with whether the ideas themselves were good.

In what way is his assertion correct (that they were the party of ideas and that they were bucking convention)?

If she thought his assertion was incorrect, she should have corrected him-- not changed what he said so that she could smear him.

[Anduril]

[QUOTE=Jophiel]
I could potentially agree with this. However, after he did explain it and after numerous sources posted the full quote and noted how it didn’t mesh with what Clinton was suggesting…

…after this, Clinton runs a radio ad using Obama’s statements out of context to suggest that he was in favor of every failed policy of the 80’s.

That’s not confusion on Clinton’s part. That’s sheer dishonesty; a lie slandering Obama and a lie straight to the face of the Democratic voters.
[/QUOTE]

Like what I’ve said, that’s fair game. It’s clear from the context of the statement of Obama that he was trying to pander to the Republicans. It’s only fair that he should explain his statements to the Democrats.

Also, when it comes to lies about the other camps, I’m telling you, it’s not even close. When it comes to distortions on this campaign, Obama tops the rest. I am at a loss at explaining why that is a controversial statement in so many places on the net when the facts clearly support it. The Clintons have the moral high ground when it comes to keeping their campaign as clean as possible - not OBAMA.

The first negative ad came from Obama. The first attacks were from Obama. The most number of lies came from Obama - and this is even after he was called on those lies. I could list all of the lies from the Obama camp and all the alleged lies from the Hillary camp - all supported by cites but I have the impression that a lot of people here will just cover their eyes/ears and stick to their impression that the Clinton camp is the dirtier campaigner.

[Richard_Parker]

Let’s make it easy for you. Just pick the best one. The most obvious, egregious, totally unambiguous lie that Barack Obama has told about Hillary Clinton.

[stolichnaya]

Well, at one point during the New Hampshire debates he called her “likeable enough”.

[Anduril]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Let’s make it easy for you. Just pick the best one. The most obvious, egregious, totally unambiguous lie that Barack Obama has told about Hillary Clinton.
[/QUOTE]

Well, he insinuated that the Clintons had an agreement about the presidency, painting Hillary, in the process as ambitious. This started of the “kindergarten comment” from the campaign which the media lambasted not even considering that it was merely a factual response to Obama’s repetition of a Republican attack point. (This might not qualify as unambiguous but the reporter asked clarificatory questions and it was clear from his answers that he was referring to the nonexistent “agreement”)

He claimed that Hillary said tough and direct diplomacy was naive and irresponsible.

He claimed that he has a universal health care plan. He doesn’t. It’s universal access. Instead of clarifying his point when this was pointed to him, he attacked Universal Healthcare from the right (attacking the concept of mandates - and he still does today).

He claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a boon even after being corrected. He repeated this a number of times after the correction.

He claimed that the release of the white house records are within the control of the Clintons. He repeated this a number of times after he was corrected.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Here’s a post at The Left Coaster that reviews evidence for four sleazy acts/claims by the Obama campaign.

[DSeid]

Anduril
Well let’s take those one by one.

He insinuated Clinton is ambitious? That’s an unambiguous lie? Do you mean this?

“I have not been planning to run for president for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Iowa. The Illinois senator has previously alluded to a disputed allegation in a book by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. that Mrs. Clinton and President Clinton made a plan before he took office that she would also seek the presidency.

I don’t think either of us can prove the truth or untruth of an explicit agreement between the Clintons, but certainly the first run was initially trying to place her as co-President

Clinton himself remarked at the time that his wife would be a full partner if he became President, terming it a “two for one” deal.

It’s been hard to read her actions since as anything else but positioning for her turn on top. We can conclude for ourselves if we think they ever “agreed” to this plan, but an unambiguous lie about her? No.

As to HRC saying that Obama’s desire to have tough direct negotiation was irresponsible, she did.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday called rival Barack Obama’s debate claim that he’d be willing to meet with leaders of rogue nations “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Your third isn’t even an attack against HRC.

The NAFTA comment? This is factcheck’s take

Obama’s claim that Clinton flip-flopped on NAFTA is half-true. She did change her position, but she did so long before she began running for president… Obama is well within his rights to point out that Clinton used to hold different views. But it’s misleading to encourage the impression that he and Clinton currently differ on NAFTA or on the war in Iraq.

So a partial point for misleading but a clear unambiguous lie? No.

Release of White House records? Can’t say I know anything about this, but even if it is true that he has kept saying it after being told it is untrue and it is untrue, it is hardly the level of smear that the Clinton’s have been specializing in.

That’s what you got?

I will not take the position that Obama is without falsehoods. I am particularly aware of a few that he’s told spinning about his own healthcare position. But a lie is not a lie. There are lies at one end, the ones that the Bush administration told that get people killed. There are lies at the other end: “Gee Gramma, I love the underwear.”; “You look like you lost weight dear.” “Oh, that was amazing!”. And maybe the mid point is lies like “I never had sex with that woman!”

The smears from the Clintons are below Bush’s lies but above “I never had sex with that woman!” Obama’s spins are worse that “Gee Gramma” but not so egregious as “I never had sex with that woman!” He doesn’t qualify as the completely honest soul but far from their dirty pool.

[Phlosphr]

As an American, I am amazed at Anduril’s notion of Obama being the dishonest one in the pack of Dems…Tho he is not without falsehood, he is FAR from the dyanastic BS the Clinton’s are trying to achieve. It’s sad that Bill is so likeable to the American Public, because the American Public is not going to get Bill if Hillary wins [which I highly doubt] they are going to get his wife…But I don’t think a lot of people are looking at that. I think a lot of people believe they will get Bill back. Hillary was on the morning enws again today and she has toned down her delivery to almost a whisper, it’s sick to me to see her change her demeanor so quickly, she’s like the Kathy Bates of Kindergarten teachers and scares the crap out of me as a voting democrat. She’ll not get my vote.