Obama Prepares For Full Assault Of Clinton's Ethics

Email Print posted by ihavenobias 03/16/2008 11:45:52 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Obama critics say "he just doesn't fight", and that if he can't handle Hillary, he doesn't deserve to get the nomintion.  Some of them also suggest he has more dirty laundry that we don't know about that could come back to bite him, while everyone is aware of the Clinton skeletons in the closet.

My response to the critics who'd rather see Hillary or McCain win?  Be careful what you wish for.

Obama Prepares For Full Assault On Clinton's Ethics

The Chicago Tribune reports that Barack Obama's is pushing this week for greater transparency in his campaign as part of a plan to launch a head-on attack against his opponent Sen. Clinton...(see Huffington Post link).
< Barak minister flap -- let's get real | An Amusing Political Animation >
 Display:
Obama Prepares For Full Assault Of Clinton's Ethics | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
did you read (none / 1)
Did you read the first comment? Let alone the rest

So he answered all the hard questions from an editorial board that already endorsed him. O.K.

Tell me, do you remember how many times whitewater was "criminally" investigated?

by LORD FOUL on 03/16/2008 12:45:00 PM EST

I assume you don't live in IL? (none / 0)
The Chicago Tribune is not known to be a liberal paper. In fact, I'd say it's a conservative paper:

The Chicago Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.

These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas.
In 2004, the Tribune endorsed President Bush for re-election, a decision consistent with its unwavering support for the Republican Party (it has not endorsed the Democratic Nominee for President since 1872...)

by ihavenobias on 03/16/2008 01:59:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes, but the Hometown paper has to support... (none / 1)
the Hometown candidate...regardless of party affiliation and all... its bad for the Tribune's business not to support your native son...

Look at the last 2 guys from Illinois who have been president... Lincoln and Reagan - Interesting histories and thoughts about both, wouldnt you think... One got shot, and the other one...got shot too...

Any thoughts on this twist... Wasnt Hillary born in Illinois too?

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 02:09:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But they don't *always* do that (none / 0)
And you're missing the point.  Obama is making these things public.

Hillary, meanwhile, is being secretive about certain things.  What a perfect illustration between the fresh and new pushing for transparency in government vs the Old Guard with all it's secrets (tax returns, old Clinton records, etc.).

God knows one of the horrible aspects of the current administration is their extreme secrecy.  While EVERY administration has (and should have) *some* secrets, it sure seems like an Obama presidency would be refreshing to a greater degree, while a Clinton presidency would be, at best, slightly better in this regard.

And remember (before you try to argue that ALL politicians *say* that want more transparency), part of Obama's senate credentials relate to fighting for increased transparency. 

In other words, he's more than just talk.

by ihavenobias on 03/16/2008 02:58:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, they dont always... (none / 0)
but I would give my opinion to say that Obama is airing out some minor details in order to "throw off the dogs" if you will.. to try to divert attention from these Resko and Pastor Wright comments to pay attention to some major damage control... Read the ancient Chinese text Sun Tzu - The Art of War. I know Obama has...

Im not debating you as to whether Bush or Clinton are secretive... they are to the hilt, and you have my full support there...

Just dont be so foolish to believe that Obama is showing all of his cards here..hes not, He IS too smart for that...

There is more to come...

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 03:06:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)
no one shows ALL of their cards.  Nor should they.

But there's evidence to suggest that he's better than Clinton, and that's the ballgame on tap.

by ihavenobias on 03/16/2008 03:13:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And that makes it OK??? (none / 1)
So he's less secretive (but still dirty). He wants transparency, but hasn't been effective in getting it (Is the US Senate any more transparent in the 2 years he has been there?)

Man, you are probably right to say hes better than the other 2, but those are some pretty fragile reasons to be so supportive of him...Do you Obamabots have any internal voice that says "This sucks, why cant we get somebody who will represent us without being a slimeball?"

I think thats my main issue with you guys, nothing you say indicates that any of this about Obama bothers you... I think you will find that it will begin to bother the general electorate immensly come Novembner...

thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 03:27:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You know what's funny Bobo? (none / 1)
On the one hand, you (and your ilk) tries to badger all Obama supporters and say that we all think Obama is the second coming of Christ, FDR and JFK rolled into one.

You argue that we're blinded and that we think he's perfect.  You use your resentment over this idea to justify bashing him and us.

Guess what?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't make these gross (and ridiculous and insulting) overgeneralizations about Obama supporters but then at the same time, try to rip on us if we say that Obama is not PERFECT, but rather, simply better in some ways than Hillary or McCain.

That's just being realistic. 

If you want to insult Obama supporters for being unrealistic AND realistic (which is what you're doing), than it's quite clear that you just simply want to bash Obama and his supporters *no matter what*.

by ihavenobias on 03/16/2008 04:07:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now back to your point, bias... (none / 1)
I can have it any way I want. America is kinda like Burger King in that respect. Its that damn pesky First Amendment circa 1791 ...

But really, Obama supporters have this air of invincibility still even after all of this tripe about Pastor Wright, Rezko etc... I have conceded on several notes that Obama is going to get the nomination... so dont get your panties into a wad...

Nothing I have said about Obama supporters have been gross overgeneralizations - they have simply been my opinions... Its the fact that Obama supporters like you cannot take criticism that pisses me off about the whole deal... it gets back to the whole Liberal Pussy argument, but I aint going there again...

He's not perfect...he's not even close in my opinion, but thats what is great about the internet...we can have differing opinions and still have discussions if we so choose... We're not in Russia or China for Chrissakes, you dont have to reply if you dont want to...(although you would surely be missed!!)

You guys need to chill. gGet a drink, listen to some Bonnie Raitt or Natalie Merchant and RELAX...

:) Smile, bias!!!




by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 05:48:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's talk about Obama's record. (none / 0)
He wants transparency, but hasn't been effective in getting it (Is the US Senate any more transparent in the 2 years he has been there?)

Right.  He hasn't been effective at all.

by jarett on 03/16/2008 04:29:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, so... (none / 0)
Internet Junkies and tech geeks like me and you can now read endless graphs and charts about spending and decipher where our money has gone and why...

Yeah, this kind of site is real effective to Joe Sixpack who actually just looks at google and porn on the internet...the majority of Americans

The problem is, jarrett, that Obama hasnt changed anything about what is going on, nor will he because it directly effects his job security... if we had a public that knew what was going on, then these guys would have been tarred and feathered and drawn and quartered years ago...

Im glad to see these kinds of sites up in a way, so intelligent people can pretend like they actually know anything about what goes on in congress...

Thanks for your link. I hope others do check it out...

by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 04:35:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why is this site good for Joe Sixpack? (none / 0)
It means that now the news has access to this data as well and can digest and present it to Joe Sixpack for easy absorption.  The fact is that now the information is out there.  That is ALWAYS important.  It is governmental transparency, and it's good for everyone.

by jarett on 03/16/2008 05:28:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was being sarcastic, but... (none / 0)
As I just told the other lone poster with no comments on the other deal, its not the medias job to inform us or to keep track of this...Its the medias job to make money for their advertisers - reading boring charts and graphs and disseminating information does not sell ads, guys...

Can we at least agree that the media is not our friends in this scenario???


What the hell do the news people care if Joe Sixpack has relevant information - they'll keep spewing out Client #9 and Britney Spears as long as people keep spending on their advertisers...

Its always the money, Lebowski!!!

thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/16/2008 05:34:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama wants to talk ethics? (none / 0)
Then he should start by asking these questions. In fact, every Democrat should be forced to ponder these questions.

Do you believe loyal Democrat, Kathleen Willey?
Do you believe former Clinton family friend, Juanita Broaddrick?
Do you believe former Arkansas state employee, Paul Jones?
Why did Hillary Clinton help cover-up these acts of sexual assault?

by KenTX on 03/16/2008 03:35:06 PM EST

I LOVE the easy ones... (none / 1)

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Why in the world would she bother "covering up" other people's crap stories? She has enough of her own to keep her busy.

by MedfordTim on 03/16/2008 03:45:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And yet Tim had bumper stickers that read: (none / 0)
I believe Anita Hill!
I believe the victims of Bob Packwood!

by KenTX on 03/16/2008 03:58:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Never have liked bumper stickers (none / 0)

...they ruin a perfectly good bumper.

Whether I believe Anita Hill or not, my objections to Clarence go way deeper than some superficial pubic hair in a Coke joke lifted from The Exorcist. His asinine judicial decisions are what should have kept him from being the worthless lump on a bench he is.

Bob Packwood? Is that just because he was from Oregon or did you really have to go that far back to find an example? Didn't really care then, even less so now.

But I gotta say, that's a helluva name to be born with. "Packwood" sounds like an actor in a Mitchell Bros. film. Yours ain't bad either. A lot better than mine. That's probably what kept me away from a career in porn (that, plus the fact that they want movies longer than two minutes, including credits...).

by MedfordTim on 03/16/2008 04:24:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am disappointed (none / 0)
Ken, my friend you are slipping.

You cannot kill the bitch with "long dead" skeletons. Ken Starr sucked out all their usefullness years ago

Run, Ken, Run she's coming for you Ken. Look behind you.

by LORD FOUL on 03/17/2008 09:05:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama Prepares For Full Assault Of Clinton's Ethics | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: