• Home
  • Blogs
  • From The Road
From The Road
March 11, 2008 12:52 PM

Clinton Back To Firing 'Words' At Obama

Posted by Ryan Corsaro
(CBS)
From CBS News' Ryan Corsaro:

HARRISBURG, PA -- After a day of being ridiculed by Barack Obama for hints at making him the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton plans to take several swipes at him in a prepared speech this afternoon.

In excerpts released to the press this morning, one reads, “Senator Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months. But his top foreign policy adviser said he's not really going to rely on that plan. I guess that plan is just words, too.”

Yesterday, Clinton remained mum in criticism of Obama at her campaign stops in Scranton. She referenced him once with a small jab about his plan for healthcare on Monday, but chose instead to highlight her family history and familiarity with Pennsylvania coal-mining country.

But today, it’s back to biting at Obama, with heavy reference on the “just words” line Obama used without attribution from his campaign chair and Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick.

“On the campaign trail, Senator Obama talks about clean energy,” reads another excerpt. “But in the Senate, he voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies. When he faced a tough choice, his support for a clean energy future turned out to be just words.”

The Obama campaign responded by saying Clinton is no champion of clean energy, either. “Proving once again that she will say and do anything to win this election, Senator Clinton today has unleashed a kitchen sink of distorted and discredited attacks that she knows aren't true,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “Barack Obama isn't about to be lectured on words from someone who's actions spoke much louder when she voted against renewable fuels and higher CAFÉ standards until she started running for President, championed NAFTA as good for America until she started running for President, and supported George Bush's disastrous war in Iraq until she started running for President.”

Clinton will spend most of her week in Pennsylvania. Last night she promised a crowd at a Scranton rally that she’d return for this weekend’s St. Patrick’s Day parade.
Tags:
Clinton ,
Obama ,
swipres ,
vice president
Topics:
Hillary Clinton
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More From From The Road

Add a Comment See all 25 Comments
by shirlin1-2009 March 13, 2008 2:07 AM EDT
For those who complain that so many African Americans are voting for Obama, please remember that for over 200 years, white Americans have been voting in the general elections 100% for white Americans for President. Would we call that white racism or white supremacy? If one complains that Obama is merely a black candidate, should we label Hillary merely an older white females candidate? Why is it acceptable to racialize and slur Senator Obama''s candidacy but we need to be tactful about the way Mrs. Clinton, a multi-millionaire white wife of a US President, has been playing her gender and her RACE cards (see Ferraro''s statements) to divide the party and to win the primaries? Note that Hillary neither DENOUNCED nor REJECTED Ferraro''s playing of the anti-black card, but has only "regretted" the statement. We should demand that Hillary return all the donations raised by Ferraro, one of her major fundraisers, but of course, the Clinton dynasty has a different ethical standard for themselves than for the Obama campaign (or for the rest of the US for that matter). The Clinton dynasty''s disgusting banana republic tactics may win Hillary the nomination, but it is destroying the Party and our beloved nation. Those who win by appealing to the basest, demonic fears in the US are not just despicable, they are the most unpatriotic of Americans. I am an Asian American voter, and I deplore the Clintons'' playing of the anti-black demons so wickedly apparent in US history.
Reply to this comment
by ivanmg-2009 March 12, 2008 5:27 AM EDT
What a black eye for the Clinton campaign. We can only hope that her campaign is not behind the reprehensible words of Ferraro. However, some may suspect that there is complicity.

This complicity is given voice by the words of Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, an ardent Clinton supporter, whom stated that many voters in his state would not vote for a black person. His statement, in essence, suggests that that Pennsylvania is a racist state and cannot get by the color of skin. Now Ferraro%u2019s reckless statements are made. Conspiracy theorists would be hard pressed not to find complicity in order to generate needed votes in the Pennsylvania primary.

This controversy is an insult to every person and state that has voted for Obama. Its message is saying that whites, whom have voted for Obama, have done so out of guilt, and not because of his message. How very tragic and insulting.

If this sort of negative campaigning continues, the Democratic Party will need to wait another four years to capture the Whit House. Talk about a missed opportunity!
Reply to this comment
by lindsayt4 March 12, 2008 3:42 AM EDT
I''m sorry Hillary. I too am now suffering from Bush/Clinton fatigue.
Reply to this comment
by nmben March 11, 2008 8:57 PM EDT

I hope the good people of Pennsylvania don%u2019t buy the divide-and-rule retail get down and get dirty politics of the Clintons. In Pennsylvania they are trying to lower the caliber of discourse on the National agenda into a fist fight over a list of promises. They excel at this, because promises are cheap and most people are not going to ask a simple question: why should we trust you this time around?
Why should we trust you this time around when you setback the cause of universal health care the last time you were in office for two terms (if you are going to claim them as experience)?
Why should we trust you this time around, when you broke the kneecap of blue collar workers with NAFTA and GATT the last time you were in power?
Why should we trust you this time around when you voted for no-child-left-behind as a Senator?
Why should we trust you this time around on National security when you voted for the Iraq war and excused your vote on an every changing list of excuses?
Why should we trust you this time around on National security, even as late as last year you voted for the Kyle-Liberman amendment to give George Bush the same pass on Iran as in Iraq?
Reply to this comment
by nmben March 11, 2008 8:46 PM EDT
Here is input from Lord Trimble, the Nobel laurite (for peace in Northern Ireland), on Hillary%u2019s claim that her %u201Cwork%u201D on Ireland qualifies her as a commander in chief.


"I do not wish to rain on her parade," (This isn''t rain, but more like Victoria Falls.) Lord Trimble added, "though Hillary Clinton accompanied her husband and was in Ireland at the same time, she never attended any meetings, nor did much of anything to help bring about the peace settlement. She was there, however, for a photo opportunity."
Reply to this comment
by nmben March 11, 2008 8:40 PM EDT

Wolfson was pressed on this question, and said:
"Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not at the time of choosing passed the national security threshold. But we have a long way to go until Denver"
Am I the only one who feels insulted by these people?
Reply to this comment
by nmben March 11, 2008 8:39 PM EDT
The Clinton campaign has gone from sleaze peddling [Kerrey, Johnson, Sheehan , should I go on) to flippancy [we can train Obama to be president in six months] and now back to sleaze with Ferraro and Co.

Have we not had enough of this couple?

Do you want four more years of these people?
Reply to this comment
by mp2009 March 11, 2008 7:13 PM EDT
As we all know Obama (BHO) won more states than HRC. But lets look at the US Map and locate which states he won. Obama won most REPUBLICAN states which we all will see falling on McCain''s pot in general election(check out 2000, 2004 elections). Super Delegates are looking into the math which get them in White House not their "Middle Names".All those states Obama won has more Registered Republican Voters than Democrats. So to win those states you need all Democrats votes and 80% of unaffiliated voters. SO ask yourself, what you want!!!? 4 more years of Republican Gov.!!!! Get real! Get Life!
Reply to this comment
by mp2009 March 11, 2008 7:11 PM EDT
As we all know Obama (BHO) won more states than HRC. But lets look at the US Map and locate which states he won. Obama won most REPUBLICAN states which we all will see falling on McCain''s pot in general election(check out 2000, 2004 elections). Super Delegates are looking into the math which get them in White House not their "Middle Names".All those states Obama won has more Registered Republican Voters than Democrats. So to win those states you need all Democrats votes and 80% of unaffiliated voters. SO ask yourself, what you want!!!? 4 more years of Republican Gov.!!!! Get real! Get Life!
Reply to this comment
by mp2009 March 11, 2008 7:10 PM EDT
As we all know Obama (BHO) won more states than HRC. But lets look at the US Map and locate which states he won. Obama won most REPUBLICAN states which we all will see falling on McCain''s pot in general election(check out 2000, 2004 elections). Super Delegates are looking into the math which get them in White House not their "Middle Names".All those states Obama won has more Registered Republican Voters than Democrats. So to win those states you need all Democrats votes and 80% of unaffiliated voters. SO ask yourself, what you want!!!? 4 more years of Republican Gov.!!!! Get real! Get Life!
Reply to this comment
See all 25 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror. Watch Now

About From The Road

Description for From the Road