From The Road
February 3, 2008 2:14 PM

Obama Says Clinton Positions "Similar" To McCain's

(CBS)
From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic:

WILMINGTON, DEL. -- Two days before Super Tuesday, Barack Obama stepped up his criticism of Hillary Clinton, comparing her policies to John McCain’s.

“We expect that John McCain may be the [Republican] nominee and if John McCain is the nominee then the Democratic Party has to ask itself, do you want a candidate who has similar policies to John McCain on the war in Iraq or somebody who offers a stark contrast?” Obama asked the crowd.

He pounced on Clinton for her vote for the Iraq war and for her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment.

“I can offer a clear and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush. I won’t have to explain my votes in the past,” Obama said.

Obama went after Clinton’s domestic policy as well, alluding that she worries about the political implications of her positions.

“When I went to Detroit, I said you have to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars,” Obama said, “When Senator Clinton went there, she wouldn’t say it because the concern was 'well may be I don’t know how that’s was going to play in Michigan.'”

He also accused her “talking 'Washington speak.'”

“We need clarity in this campaign. And that is what I offer,” he said.

Obama went on to criticize McCain for his support of the Bush tax cuts. He called his approach “more Bush.”

“You know I respected when John opposed Bush tax cuts early on, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes at the same time we were going into war but now the wheels have fallen off the straight talk express and he is starting to say we need to extend them.”
Tags:
Obama
Topics:
Barack Obama
Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by bluefusion2 February 3, 2008 5:21 PM PST
If you think that having health insurance through your job means you won''t have to pay Hilary''s mandatory health insurance premiums - think again! According to a September 18th, 2007 Associated Press article, Clinton said in an interview with the AP: "... she could envision a day when ''you have to show proof to your employer that you''re insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,'' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070918-0856-clinton-apinterview.html
Reply to this comment
by andersenme February 3, 2008 5:46 PM PST
HILLARY HANDS REPUBLICANS A DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR FALL ELECTION ...

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC''s "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people''s wages ..."

"GOING AFTER PEOPLE''S WAGES" ...

IS THAT THE WAY REAL DEMOCRATS TALK? ...

THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS WITH THAT KIND OF LOOSE-LIPPED LUNACY NEXT NOVEMBER ...

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland
Reply to this comment
by Marniebowen February 3, 2008 5:54 PM PST
John McCain - Hillary Clinton on the Middle East.

Same difference?

Due to the increasing unpopularity of the war, the Senator has had to dissociate herself from her most hawkish position on the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, and has been walking a thin line, positioning herself - depending on who her audience happens to be - as either a hawk or an "anti-war candidate," or both at the same time.

Which Hillary is the true Hilalry? Is the Senator just as hawkish as John McCain, and just as warlike as the current Bush administration has ever been %u2013 she just thinks that she would have done it better or can do it better. Or is her voting record and all her rhetoric just a show, a front she is putting on, to out-AIPAC the AIPAC whose support she needs both as a New York senator and as a presidential candidate.

Either way, I do not see anything to rejoice about. If you can''t get a straight answer out of Senator Hillary Clinton now, what reason is there to believe that we will get any better out of President Hillary Clinton (with all these newfound Presidential powers that have been accumulated for the Presidency)?

Reply to this comment
by Marniebowen February 3, 2008 5:57 PM PST
Since her New Hampshire "moment," a lot has been made about Hillary Clinton being a woman.

It is interesting then perhaps to note that being a woman doesn%u2019t seem to have made presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, any less warlike than any of the men, Republicans and Democrats alike, in this Presidential campaign.

Reply to this comment
by Marniebowen February 3, 2008 5:57 PM PST
Everything Hillary Clinton has done or said so far as a Senator, all seems to indicate that insofar as foreign policy is concerned she will follow in the footsteps of the Bush administration%u2026 and probably up it one.

The Senator%u2019s anti-Iranian rhetoric is exemplary to that regard.

On September 26, Senator Clinton voted for a Senate resolution (proposed by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent of Connecticut who votes with Republicans on war issues) urging Bush to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a major branch of the Iranian armed forces, as a foreign terrorist organization.

What was the meaning of this vote? A wink to AIPAC? A bid to outflank the GOP on the right? A %u201Cnon-binding,%u201D %u201Csymbolic%u201D gesture as she claimed in New Hampshire.

She said that the resolution simply gives the president authority to impose penalties.

Right! And in 2002, when she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, she did so only ON HER OWN UNDERSTANDING that the president would first get approval from the United Nations (and yet she voted at the time against an amendment - moved by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan - that would have required the president to do precisely that.)
Reply to this comment
by Marniebowen February 3, 2008 6:00 PM PST
Senator Hillary Clinton has refused to rule out presidential use of nuclear weapons, notwithstanding the 1996 World Court ruling that use of the weapons violates international humanitarian law because they blindly strike civilians and military targets alike. And she voted to end restrictions on countries violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Senator Clinton, a woman, has opposed bans on land mines and cluster-bomb exports, and advocated (along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman) even more military spending than Bush requested. (Remember the United States Army Relief Act?)

Is it any surprise that more contributions from war contractors have reached Hillary for President than any competing campaign?
Reply to this comment
by leddied February 3, 2008 6:05 PM PST
This is of course not only forceful and not democratic, it is also stupid.
It would mean that a disabled person or someone with a costly condition couldn''t get a well paying job in financial strife (when they cannot afford costly premium) exactly when they most need it to get back on track.
Insensitive, one-sided and cynical. Their is no way she can triangulate such proposal, as no party will support it. Back to 1992+ when she already tried it and failed. Why can''t people learn?
Reply to this comment
by leddied February 3, 2008 6:06 PM PST
This is of course not only forceful and not democratic, it is also stupid.
It would mean that a disabled person or someone with a costly condition couldn''t get a well paying job in financial strife (when they cannot afford costly premium) exactly when they most need it to get back on track.
Insensitive, one-sided and cynical. Their is no way she can triangulate such proposal, as no party will support it. Back to 1992+ when she already tried it and failed. Why can''t people learn?
Reply to this comment
by kara51 February 3, 2008 6:41 PM PST
In my opinion, we as a nation need a National Health Care Insurance Plan that is paid for through our current tax program and available to all. In this way, all employed citizens would be paying their "fair share" and all those, such as children, elderly, disabled, students or adults without employment for any one (or more) of a multitude of reasons, persons who become ill or are terminated from their job, and the list goes on, would be covered. Period and the end - the way ALL other westernized countries pay for their programs which by and large, work quite well.
Reply to this comment
by kara51 February 3, 2008 6:44 PM PST
In my opinion, we as a nation need a National Health Care Insurance Plan that is paid for through our current tax program and available to all. In this way, all employed citizens would be paying their "fair share" and all those, such as children, elderly, disabled, students or adults without employment for any one (or more) of a multitude of reasons, persons who become ill or are terminated from their job, and the list goes on, would be covered. Period and the end - the way ALL other westernized countries pay for their programs which by and large, work quite well.
Reply to this comment
by kara51 February 3, 2008 6:44 PM PST
In my opinion, we as a nation need a National Health Care Insurance Plan that is paid for through our current tax program and available to all. In this way, all employed citizens would be paying their "fair share" and all those, such as children, elderly, disabled, students or adults without employment for any one (or more) of a multitude of reasons, persons who become ill or are terminated from their job, and the list goes on, would be covered. Period and the end - the way ALL other westernized countries pay for their programs which by and large, work quite well.
Reply to this comment
by katefranklin February 3, 2008 7:09 PM PST
I live in Massachusetts where a version of Clinton-style universal health care has actually been implemented. Obama''s is hands-down the better approach. Re Clinton''s plan, voting for a president that intends to loot our pay checks to fund their programs should be alarming to all of us.
Reply to this comment
by winghunter February 3, 2008 9:48 PM PST
Of course the voted most liberal, inexperienced and woefully unqualified freshman senator would offer the comparison of Juan McCain and Clinton.

They are ALL liberals without the slightest claim to the highest office in the land.
Reply to this comment
by kara51 February 4, 2008 9:21 AM PST
In my opinion, we as a nation need a National Health Care Insurance Plan that is paid for through our current tax program and available to all. In this way, all employed citizens would be paying their "fair share" and all those, such as children, elderly, disabled, students or adults without employment for any one (or more) of a multitude of reasons, persons who become ill or are terminated from their job, and the list goes on, would be covered. Period and the end - the way ALL other westernized countries pay for their programs which by and large, work quite well.
Reply to this comment
by dannymyers2 February 4, 2008 3:04 PM PST
Obama is right on this, which is why conservatives support Mitt Romney. Huckabee want''s to be McCain''s VP... how conservative is that? McCain is running on the promise to once again "reach across the isle". Wow, what a surprise! Do Republicans really want someone who will cave in to Democrats and abandon conservatives for the nth time? That''s John McCain all over. Just ask his preferred running mate... John Kerry.

Mitt Romney is the only conservative choice for President.
Reply to this comment
by ellenandron February 4, 2008 8:38 PM PST
Sen Obama is really reaching in his challenges to Sen. Clinton. What a shame! Sen. Clinton''s plan is valid, and having been there she will know how to pass it!
Reply to this comment
by Harpersage February 5, 2008 11:50 AM PST
I don''t understand some peoples reasoning. We finally have a decent chance to put some one in the white house that will do what''s right for us as a free people and our country as a whole. but instead they seem to want the person with the least experience, who will tell them what they want to hear and most of what they already know but has no idea how he intends on getting it done? He ( and we all know who "he" is ) will twist the facts to make his own record look better, even though it is only one issue he keeps talking about from DAY ONE!. My question to him is this, " what were the others that he failed to vote on one way or the other???" Fence sitting can be just as dangerous as making the wrong one. Wake up, think before making a decision that could be another very loooong four years.
Reply to this comment
by Harpersage February 5, 2008 12:04 PM PST
My opinion, How can Obama say that Clintons positions are similar to those of McClains?? She has told us time and time again that the situation on day one was totally different than it was later and Bush fooled alot of people back then. Her stand today is (and has been for some time now) that she wants to withdraw our troups--WITH CAUSTION and not just rush us into something we will regret later. So if he''s going to be honest with the people like he states he wants to then I wish he would say it like it is.
Reply to this comment
by Harpersage February 5, 2008 12:16 PM PST
If some of the people who makes remarks like the ones we are reading in these comments, my question to them is 1. Why haven''t you confronted her on these issues in some of the rallys near your home town? It''s easy to make remarks like these but proving them is another. Let''s hear the truth for a change!
Reply to this comment
by elsylee28 February 5, 2008 1:41 PM PST
Guys make sure you check out the article "The Intoxication of Inspiration" on the blogzine SAVAGE POLITICS (not related to Mike Savage) at www.savagepolitics.com. It is awesome......everyone should read it before voting.
Reply to this comment
by akona2 February 5, 2008 2:54 PM PST
D-emocrats and independents should ask themselves
I-s barack HUSSEIN OBAMA a MUSLIM or NOT?
S-eek for the truth, is that you say
A-ll of you who thought you knew
S-eek for a DNA test and you will know
T-he father is a MUSLIM, the brother and sister are MUSLIMs.
E-ducated in MUSLIM school
R-ight under our nose that we might not know...

DISASTER is spelled out if we get the FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT.
Reply to this comment
See all 21 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented