The Obama Record: Just Words

[no name 1]

3/27/2008

The Obama Record: Just Words

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

Date: March 26, 2008

RE: The Obama Record: Just Words

Yesterday, a Pennsylvania editorial board asked Sen. Clinton how she would have "responded if [her] pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?" In response, she said Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor, an honest view shared by many Americans.

The Obama campaign's response? Attack Sen. Clinton and accuse her of trying to divert attention from the Bosnia trip story and her record of foreign policy experience.

Sen. Clinton's response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.

We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton's foreign policy experience and her record overall. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss its candidate's record and prefers personal attacks instead.

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy. They won't.

In the end, Sen. Obama's words cannot erase Hillary's 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren't action. They are just words.

link

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sen. Clinton's response was sincere.

That's BS. Sen Clinton wants to ride the Jeremiah Wright wave as long as she can to do as much damage as possible to the Obama campaign. If she's so concerned about associates, then maybe it's time for her to take a look in the mirror:

Here's an interesting piece addressing the double standard.

(CNN) -- Its been an interesting week watching folks analyze the outcry over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments, especially when they try to link them to Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama's supporters say it's wrong to associate his views with those of his pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

His opponents say that surely his views are linked with Wright's, including the pastor's praise of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Conservative talker Sean Hannity -- who incidentally many have accused of associations with white supremacist Hal Turner, which he denies -- was foaming at the mouth. He called Wright a racist and an anti-Semite, and then said we all should assume Obama is also a racist and an anti-Semite.

Talk about a stretch.

Frankly, it's just not plausible to suggest that you always share the same feelings or views as someone you know.

In remarks to a Pittsburgh newspaper, Sen. Hillary Clinton responded to a question about the Wright controversy by saying: "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

True. Very true. But there's also some reality that politicians pick and choose who they want to be associated with.

Clinton pressed Obama during a debate this year to repudiate and denounce Farrakhan's unsolicited praise of him at an event the Nation of Islam leader organized for his group in Chicago.

The moderator, NBC's Tim Russert, brought up comments made by Farrakhan 24 years ago in his question to Obama.

Fine, so what do we make of then-President Bill Clinton publicly endorsing the 1995 Million Man March? Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

After he was out of the White House, President Clinton also endorsed the Million Man March. Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

Did Sen. Clinton privately or publicly rebuke her husband for supporting a man whom she has determined to be hateful and divisive?

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is national co-chair of Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, once stood on stage with Farrakhan in 1997 -- at an event the Times said was "called to promote racial reconciliation after several recent high-profile crimes" -- and praised him for his commitment to ending violence in the black community. Rendell was the mayor of Philadelphia at the time.

According to the April 15, 1997, story in The New York Times, Farrakhan praised Rendell before 3,000 people at the anti-violence rally for ''his courage and strength to rise above emotion and differences that might be between us or our communities.'' Roland Martin argues that Obama is not alone in his controversial associations »

According to the Times, Rendell, who is Jewish, commended the Nation of Islam for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency.

Must Clinton repudiate and denounce Rendell's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

Former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp is a huge supporter of Sen. John McCain, and he also has a Farrakhan story.

In 1996, when Kemp was the vice presidential running mate of Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, he told reporters that he wanted to meet with Farrakhan and praised his organization's focus on economic empowerment, family values and its pull-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstrap message -- right in line with the GOP talking points. Kemp said he wanted to speak at the Million Man March.

Boy, was he torn apart by Jewish critics, and many in his own party.

Kemp summarily criticized Farrakhan's comments about Jews and whites, but he didn't take his words back. By the way, Hannity pressed every African-American supporter about Farrakhan, but he never got in Kemp's face about his comments. I wonder why?

Must McCain repudiate and denounce Kemp's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

When it comes to homosexuality, no Clinton or Obama supporter should think of criticizing the other campaign's black ministerial supporters because that means most of their own would have to be disassociated from their campaigns.

On CNN's "The Situation Room," Paul Begala mentioned "hateful" things said about gays by the Rev. James Meeks, founder and senior pastor of Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, and an Obama supporter. Meeks has made no bones about his firm opposition to homosexuality (and abortion), which is one of the reasons he's very close to many of the nation's white conservative pastors. (I know him well; I'm a member of Salem).

And then there was the hoopla over gospel singer Donnie McClurkin when the Obama campaign recruited him to take part in a gospel concert tour around South Carolina. McClurkin has preached that homosexuals can be converted to heterosexuals. That set off a firestorm.

But Clinton also has her own issues with anti-gay pastoral supporters.

The Rev. Harold Mayberry, pastor of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland, has voiced for years his opposition to homosexuality. In fact, some have said he has compared homosexuality to thievery.

When Mayberry came out in support of Clinton, her campaign touted his endorsement, sans any mention of his anti-gay rants.

She has also received a $1,000 contribution from Bishop Eddie L. Long of the mega-church New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, who previously led an anti-gay marriage march in Atlanta.

Of course, when it comes to McCain, it wouldn't be a story if his ministerial supporters are anti-gay. It would be news if any of them actually supported homosexuality.

The bottom line: Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

[SteveLaura 0]

The ironic thing is, Hillary's supporters don't care about 'experience' any more than Obama's supporters do. If this race was about 'experience', we'd be debating Joe Biden right now.

Edited March 27, 2008 by SteveLaura

[no name 1]

Taking Wright out of the picture, it still leaves these issues...

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taking Wright out of the picture, it still leaves these issues...

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes. They all have one of those too.

[metta 0]

Taking Wright out of the picture, it still leaves these issues...

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes. They all have one of those too.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes BO's bald-faced lies. They all have one of those too.

There! I've fixed it for you

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taking Wright out of the picture, it still leaves these issues...

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes. They all have one of those too.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes BO's bald-faced lies. They all have one of those too.

There! I've fixed it for you

Bald-faced lies? Like running under sniper fire? Nobody beats a Clinton in the lies department.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The ironic thing is, Hillary's supporters don't care about 'experience' any more than Obama's supporters do. If this race was about 'experience', we'd be debating Joe Biden right now.

Good point. It was odd how Biden really didn't do too well when he was in the race...I assumed it was because he was considered too much of the old guard, Washington insider. Hillary is desperately reaching for straws...she doesn't know how else to draw more voters to her except by scaring them away from Obama.

[no name 1]

Taking Wright out of the picture, it still leaves these issues...

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes. They all have one of those too.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes BO's bald-faced lies. They all have one of those too.

There! I've fixed it for you

Bald-faced lies? Like running under sniper fire? Nobody beats a Clinton in the lies department.

Like lying about being a law profeesor is on the up-and-up?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taking Wright out of the picture, it still leaves these issues...

Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.

He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.

Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.

He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.

He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes. They all have one of those too.

I'm not getting into a pizzing match over embellished resumes BO's bald-faced lies. They all have one of those too.

There! I've fixed it for you

Bald-faced lies? Like running under sniper fire? Nobody beats a Clinton in the lies department.

Like lying about being a law profeesor is on the up-and-up?

A law professor? It's actually the first time I hear of him having made that claim. I wonder where you Clintonites dug that one up. And since nobody really trusts Hillary to begin with, it doesn't really matter.

Hillary's repeated claim to have run from the plane to her vehicle under sniper fire, on the other hand, is rather well document. As are her other claims that the pilot of that very aircraft impressively rejected.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The nastiness of this race is really disturbing. Of all the years I've been a registered voter and followed the races closely, I've never seen anything like this. I keep saying the longer this kind of negativity continues, it will irreperable damage to the Democratic Party. I still don't see how Hillary's camp is going to make amends with regarding Obama's candidacy as illegitimate. Very sad.

[no name 1]

The nastiness of this race is really disturbing. Of all the years I've been a registered voter and followed the races closely, I've never seen anything like this. I keep saying the longer this kind of negativity continues, it will irreperable damage to the Democratic Party. I still don't see how Hillary's camp is going to make amends with regarding Obama's candidacy as illegitimate. Very sad.

Steven, when will you acknowledge that Obama is JUST AS DIRTY as she is? Open your eyes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you really believe though that all Hilary stands for is an 'anti' campaign? Your posts seem to be as divisive as those from some of the Hilary supporters, despite your 'she ran a good campaign posts' that appear from time to time.

Either you believe that the way the Dems elect their nominee is legitimate or you don't. Either you believe she has the right to continue her campaign or you don't. Either you think a positive campaign is the way to go or you don't. Really, all this painting Hilary with the devil brush is wearisome. She is a flawed person, yeah, how novel? However Barack is also a flawed person and yet he has the audacity to claim he stands for some new, unmarred politics while at the same time ramping up the Anti Hilary sentiment out the other side of his mouth.

I am not sure that either one is the best candidate the Dems could have chosen but this is the position the Dems are in and anyone that continues the Hilary this and Hilary that rather than posting the positive message on policy is as guilty of the 'old politics' as anyone else.

As I have said, I wonder at the tactics of both large parties and whether it really produces the best candidates for the presidency. I am not so sure it does and I am not so sure that a closed nomination election would be a bad thing for democracy - it might even prove a much more simple and cheap way to elect a candidate which would be also be good thing.

[Alex+R 0]

He really isn't. He's actually running a pretty decent campaign.

I've never heard anything about him claiming to be a law professor, but it seems obvious to me that he wouldn't do that. Everyone would know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The nastiness of this race is really disturbing. Of all the years I've been a registered voter and followed the races closely, I've never seen anything like this. I keep saying the longer this kind of negativity continues, it will irreperable damage to the Democratic Party. I still don't see how Hillary's camp is going to make amends with regarding Obama's candidacy as illegitimate. Very sad.

Steven, when will you acknowledge that Obama is JUST AS DIRTY as she is? Open your eyes.

Just as dirty? For me, I think there are differences between hitting back vs. trying to smear your opponent. Just on the single issue of Hillary basically saying that Obama is not fit to be President tips the scales on her side for doing irreparable damage to the very party both of them are seeking to represent. I still haven't heard a good answer for how she'll be able to tell her supporters to join her in supporting Obama if he is the nominee without admitting that she really didn't mean he wasn't fit to be President.