Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« New Year's Parties, Comin' Atc... | What Happened to 1200 Bistro? »

Monday, December 3, 2007

Clinton on the Attack

posted by on December 3 at 12:14 PM

In Iowa today, Hillary Clinton rolled out her new lines of attack against Barack Obama and John Edwards (and her campaign quickly shot her remarks out to the press). Be sure to check out the ratcheted-up attack on Obama for not voting on the Iran resolution and the new attack on Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois state senate.

A couple of my leading opponents, directly and through surrogates, have spent months criticizing me without having to answer any of their own questions. They’ve been attacking my character. As I have said repeatedly, I really would prefer to attack the problems of the country and let my opponents run their own campaigns.

But I have to set the record straight.

Because often what you don’t know can be far more important than what you do know. The people of Iowa, I know, are good people who are trying very hard to make the right decision in this caucus. But people can only act on what they know. And I’ve heard a lot of talk about turning the page, but what about the action to back it up?

When it comes to health care, one of my opponents believes it’s acceptable to leave out 15 million Americans. That would be 100,000 here in Iowa. Leave them out from his health care plan because universal coverage might be too hard to achieve. I disagree. I don’t think we should start by giving up on 15 million Americans. That’s why my health care plan covers everyone…

When it comes to Social Security, one of my opponents uses the Republican talking points and has been open to raising the retirement age and cutting benefits. Now he says he is for lifting the payroll tax, which would be a trillion dollar tax increase. Again, I disagree. I don’t think we should fix Social Security on the backs of our seniors and the middle class. I have always fought for Social Security, I have always stood up against privatization, and as President, I will restore fiscal responsibility so we can keep Social Security as a sacred promise to our seniors.

When it comes to Iran, I took a stand for aggressive diplomacy. One of my opponents made a different choice: He didn’t show up for the vote. He didn’t speak out during a presidential debate that night. And finally, he decided to play politics and claim that the vote he missed – a vote for diplomacy – was really a vote for war. Well if he really thought it was a rush to war, why did he rush to campaign and miss the vote?

Now, there’s been a lot of talk about yes or no answers to complex questions. But most people don’t know that for legislators who don’t want to take a stand, there’s a third way to vote. Not yes, not no, but “present” – which is kind of like voting “maybe.” Well, in the Illinois State Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted “present,” instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a woman’s right to choose. Two of those votes were on measures to protect families from gun violence - one of which was a measure about firing guns on or near school grounds.

A President can’t vote “present.” A President can’t pick and choose which challenges he or she will face. My opponent’s campaign said that voting “present” was a strategy to provide political cover. The Chicago Tribune said the present votes were the equivalent of taking a pass. Instead of looking for political cover or taking a pass, we need a President who will take a stand and stand there and do whatever is necessary for their country.

Standing up for America’s values and protecting our country and our people is the first job of the President. Bringing us together to end the war, fixing our economy, and taking on big challenges like immigration, health care, energy independence, climate change and so much else is what I will do.

A President can't dodge the big fights, can’t find political cover, or have words speak louder than actions. A lot of words we have these days aren’t matched by action. And much of the actions I see, I simply disagree with. I have a very clear record on all of these issues. A record of 35 years of fighting for children and families, fighting for working people, fighting for our future – and as President, I will keep on fighting. But I’m running on more than just my record and my experience. I am also running on my vision and agenda of a new beginning for America.

We need a new beginning on health care. We need to stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies and provide health care for every single man, woman and child, at a price that people can afford and we’re going to give them the help to do that.

RSS icon Comments

1

Hillary shouldn't be elected Dog Catcher, let alone president.

Women should not be in positions of leadership whatsoever. They are far too emotional. If they aren't too emotional then there are deeper problems, like metal instability, that make them that much more problematic.

Posted by ecce homo | December 3, 2007 12:28 PM
2

Eli,

Pray tell, what does the Clinton campaign pay you for your stenography? Don't take nothing for an answer; your labor is valuable!

Concerned Reader

Posted by wow | December 3, 2007 12:29 PM
3

Oh, ecce.

Posted by tsm | December 3, 2007 12:37 PM
4

i would like to know - exactly how stupid does she think we are? "they've been attacking my character." she just attacked obama's character *herself* in plain english this past weekend.

please, hillary, continue to play the role of the victim. from the "vast right wing conspiracy" to today - you do it so very well. that's always the first quality i look for when selecting a president.

Posted by brandon | December 3, 2007 12:44 PM
5

nobody cares about this crap. let's vote for someone who's stayed out of the poo slinging and can get something done-

richardson. someone with real executive experience, direct experience with diplomacy, and the green-minded candidate who can make emissions reduction happen.

enough with the opinion shouters, let's elect someone who can undo the mistakes of the bush administration, not someone who was a part of them.

Posted by Cale | December 3, 2007 12:48 PM
6

Sen Clinton seems to think that tactical victories will allow her to win a war for the nomination.

Sen Obama correctly realizes that you can win all the battles you want, but a better strategy is to win the war.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 3, 2007 12:55 PM
7

Who would've guessed that ecce is a woman?

Posted by keshmeshi | December 3, 2007 1:04 PM
8

Why's the record always gotta get set straight? Why can't we let it be gay, which is clearly what it wants to do?

Posted by Greg | December 3, 2007 1:23 PM
9

Bareback Osama is a GIANT queefing Douche bag! er Barak Osama... er Babeback Obama...

Posted by Madge-YoursoakingINIT! | December 3, 2007 1:27 PM
10

We have to be concerned with nominating a candidate who can actually beat the Republicans this time. While I think many of the Democratic nominees have this chance (did you see the Republican YouTube debate? They're screwed), Hillary does not. 50% of people are already not likely to vote for her. I don't think anyone is excited about extending the Clinton / Bush era of the past. Hillary is the only one that can solidify a fractured Republican apparatus (especially the evangelicals), out of pure hatred of her and Bill. And for a person that polls the lowest in credibility, it would seem Hillary would try to avoid adding fuel to that fire!

We have to concentrate our support for the candidate most likely to beat Hillary for the nomination. For now, Obama is the only one with that ability.

Posted by sam_iv | December 3, 2007 1:38 PM
11

I seem to recall a similar argument that put Kerry into the general elections...

Posted by Cale | December 3, 2007 1:42 PM
12

@1: Metal instability sounds pretty BRUTAL.

Posted by Vasya | December 3, 2007 2:16 PM
13

presidential politics makes me want to move to yurip.

Posted by max solomon | December 3, 2007 2:40 PM
14

i thought it was a pretty strong statement. not a lot of holes in that, because hillary knows her shit, which is why she should win.

Posted by kim | December 3, 2007 2:49 PM
15

@10,11 - no, one needs to choose the candidate who would be the best President for America. Luckily, that's Sen Obama, since President Gore isn't running again.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 3, 2007 3:00 PM
16

@ 15-

See GIANT queefing Douche Bag comment @ #9

Posted by Lola | December 3, 2007 3:39 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).