Hillary Clinton Continues Negative Campaign

There’s been speculation now that pretty much everyone realizes that the race is over and Obama has won the nomination that Hillary Clinton would at least drop the negative campaigning if she remained in the race. Clinton sure has proven those who believed that to be wrong. She launched another negative and misleading attack against Obama today:

You’ve got to have a seamless health care system which covers every single person. My plan does, my opponent’s doesn’t…. How can anyone run to be the Democratic nominee and not have a universal health care plan?

Let’s see. Obama’s plan includes everyone except those who voluntarily do not want to be included. That’s called choice–what Democrats support on issues such as abortion and should support on private economic matters. As for running for the Democratic nominee, Obama’s plan is more universal than John Kerry’s plan in 2004. It is also more universal than the plans of John Edwards, Howard Dean, and pretty much all the other candidates other than Dennis Kucinich.

I have a better question. How can anyone run to be the Democratic nominee and not have opposed the Iraq war before it began? Anyone who made this big a blunder on the biggest foreign policy decision in many years has no business running to be president, at least as a Democrat. (Note I’m stipulating before the war began. I forgave John Kerry for voting for the IWR as he made it clear at the time of the vote that he did not consider it a vote to go to war, and he came out against the war well before it started. Hillary Clinton has also used John Kerry’s arguments except it doesn’t count when she didn’t make them until well after the war started and it was the politically safe position to take.)

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    MsJoanne says:

    Worse than her initial vote on AUMF (considering the political climate at the time – no, it’s not an excuse it’s a bit of, oh, acceptance in what was at that time), is her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. THAT was a vote that had no place having a single Yea on.

    Tell me why another country shouldn’t say that our military defenses are terrorist organizations?

    Talk about the slipperiest of slopes.

  2. 2
    Debbie says:

    Obama while he has been in the U.S. Senate has voted with his party 97% of the time. How would he had voted on the Iraq war if he had been in the U.S. Senate. Some people believe that he was in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq war.If Obama had been in the U. S. at the time of the vote . then him repeating he was against it would matter. But since he didn’t vote I wander how he would of voted.

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:


    This is another reason I concentrate on position on the war as opposed to a single vote.

    Before the war Obama spoke out against the war and got the reasons against going to war right.

    At the same time, Clinton was actively backing the war, even repeating the neocon rational for going to war. For example, she cited 9/11 as reason for attacking Iraq. That should disqualify her to both be considered for president and to be returned to the Senate. Clinton has also pandered to fear of terrorism during the campaign this year.

    These positions of Clinton on Iraq and terrorism, not their differences on health care, are what should disqualify someone to be considered for the Democratic nominee.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I should also add that the frequent attempts to rewrite history only further reduce the credibility of the Clinton campaign. While a candidate cannot necessarily be blamed for what their supporters say on line, in this case we are dealing with talking points being spread by the campaign.

    Clinton’s dishonesty is demonstrated both when they try to deny that Clinton had backed the war and when they try to deny that Obama had been opposed.

  5. 5
    mbk says:

    Thanks for making the distinction between Clinton’s and Kerry’s positions on the war. It’s an important distinction, and one that gets lost in the high noise level and low  quality level of current journalism and current politics.

Leave a comment