Obama Ratchets Up Criticism of Clinton

Barack Says Hillary Is 'Ducking' Social Security Issue

(WASHINGTONPOST.COM)  By Perry Bacon Jr.
Sen. Barack Obama yesterday slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for "ducking the issue" of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and signaled that he will take a more aggressive approach to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

At an event in Des Moines, Obama (D-Ill.) characterized Clinton's approach to addressing the issues as "You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

The statements marked the latest escalation of campaign rhetoric from a candidate who earlier this year declined to criticize his chief opponent for the nomination. Increasingly, he is taking on not just Clinton's policy views but also her character, and is casting the Democratic front-runner as someone who makes decisions based on polls and calculation, rather than on her convictions.

To emphasize this theme, Obama, who trails Clinton (D-N.Y.) by a wide margin in national polls, was introduced at the event by Tod Bowman, a Democrat and high school teacher in Maquoketa, Iowa. He said Clinton ducked his question about Social Security at an event this month.

"It made me wonder: If a candidate won't answer a question on the campaign trail, how can we be sure she'll be honest with the American people when they're president?" Bowman said at an event at a senior citizen center in Des Moines.

Clinton's aides counter that Obama has also failed to offer a detailed plan to address Social Security's solvency.

"Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent about her position on Social Security," spokesman Phil Singer said. "As president, her first priority will be restoring fiscal responsibility and fair tax policies, and then will work in a bipartisan process to address Social Security's long-term challenges."

This argument and Obama's tone in taking on Clinton are a clear shift. Last month, his aides said he would focus on policy differences with Clinton.

But in recent weeks, Obama has poked fun at Clinton, an Illinois native, for not answering a question in a debate about whether she would cheer for the New York Yankees or the Chicago Cubs if they both made the World Series, and he has criticized "triangulation and poll-driven politics," a reference to Bill Clinton's attempts to capture the center during his administration. In his attacks against Hillary Clinton, Obama only this month has begun regularly uttering the words "Senator Clinton," rather than criticizing "the Washington establishment" or unnamed others.

"There's a whole range of issues she has been less than forthcoming, and she's made a judgment that this is a good political strategy," David Axelrod, Obama's chief political adviser, said yesterday.

In an interview with the New York Times that will be published today, Obama himself made a similar criticism.

"Now, it's been very deft politically," he told the Times of Clinton's strategy. "But one of the things that I firmly believe is that we've got to be clear with the American people right now about the important choices that we're going to need to make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscate and avoid being a target in the general election."

Obama's critiques of Clinton come as his campaign -- once carried by enthusiasm, as illustrated by huge crowds and prodigious fundraising -- is increasingly beset by a perception that it has stalled. With Clinton in command of the lead in polls, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights activist who had praised Obama earlier this year and talked excitedly about the promise of the first black president, this month stunned Obama's aides by saying he will back Clinton. And late last week, Robert Farmer, a veteran Democratic fundraiser who was on Obama's national finance team, moved to the Clinton camp.

Axelrod said Obama's increasingly pointed comments represent a "natural evolution" as the primary season approaches, rather than a strategic reversal.

Obama, who said he did not want to "knee-cap" Clinton, is still careful in his criticism, not mentioning Whitewater or other 1990s Clinton controversies, which another rival, former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), has not shied away from addressing.

The Times reported that Obama said Clinton is "an admirable person" and "a capable senator," while suggesting that she would struggle to win a general election.

"If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then we have a repetition of 2000 and 2004," he said. "There's no change in the political map. I'm not making predictions specifically about which way Ohio or Florida will go, but what you do know is that 45 percent of the country will be on one side and 45 percent of the country will be on the other. . . . There's not going to be an expansion of the electorate. I don't think anybody would claim that Senator Clinton is going to inspire a horde of new voters. I don't think it's realistic that she is going to get a whole bunch of Republicans to think differently about her."

Singer pointed to Clinton's strong performance in her two Senate victories in New York as evidence that she would be a winning candidate if she got the nomination.

"Senator Clinton beats each of the leading Republicans in poll after poll, because voters know she has the strength and experience to end the war, reform health care and get our economy back on track," Singer said. "She's got a proven track record of getting things done in the Senate by working with Democrats and Republicans."

Clinton, Obama and the rest of the Democratic field will meet in a debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia.

[usaprophet]

You get the sense that the country is desperate for someone to show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50 years. Tens of thousands of them. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for more than 50 years, which means he doesn''t come to the race with the sort of baggage some of the other candidates for the White House do. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. He was once a pious Lutheran, but now attends a Baptist church. He never travels alone with women, and once even dressed-down an aide for using the expression "red-light district" in front of a female colleague. I support the 2008 candidacy of Congressman, Ron Paul for President of The United States. Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and track record of adherance to The Constitution Ron Paul always demonstrates only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky. Go Ron!

[usaprophet]

I don''t know about you, but I''m sick of no-win pseudo-wars, like The War on Drugs and The War on Terrorism. I''m sick of undeclared wars like The War in Iraq and unnecessary and protracted police actions like the one in Korea. I''m sick of income taxes, which are unconstitutional because they are are a direct tax and are not equally apportioned as the Constitution requires. I''m sick of back door national ID cards like The Real ID Act. I''m sick of warrantless domestic spying by the Department of Homeland Insecurity and the loss of my civil liberties as a result of Draconian, fear-based Laws with oxymoronic names like The Patrot Act. I''m sick of secret offshore prisons like the one in Guantanamo, where our government tortures prisoners, who have no right to redress of grievance, or to writ of habeus corpus. I''m also sick of the Federal Reserve (a secret group of private banks) manipulation of our worthless, fiat currency. Do yourself a favor. Support the 2008 candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for President of The United States. I believe he''s our only hope to restore peace, prosperity and freedom in this country. Presidential candidates with the integrity and bearing the positive message of Dr. Paul only come around only once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky. The cause of freedom is too important to let anything stand in the way of our participation in this 21st Century political revolution.

[gunownerdan]

Obama is a member of the CFR(Council on Foreign Relations) just like Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain.
The CFR has hijacked the foreign policy of both parties and their main goal is to destroy American soveriengty and our constitution leading to the formation of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.
Dr. Ron Paul is NOT a member of the CFR and he is the only anti-war and pro-liberty candidate running for president.
ronpaul2008.com

[bennyblack1]

Hillary is all about CONTROL. She wants a nationwide healthcare program, welfare program, control of the nation''s money, she wants to make the laws, and enforce them. She wants looky-loos and rats as spies. Why do you think Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are having problems? Why do you think Mr. Clinton has *** with other women? Simple. She''s a feminist, lesbian Nazi that uses *** to try to control him. He simply says like any other man, "If you won''t give it up, someone else will!" So, Hillary, if you want to save your marriage, give up dreams of the presidency, stop acting like a man, and start acting like a wife. You have conjugal responsibilities. And Bill is a man like ANY other. Of COURSE he''s a *** addict. We all are. That''s why we have MATES.

[bennyblack1]

The idea of financing retirement is to not work hard. It is to make the money work hard for you. There is no reason why a guy making minimum wage can''t not only sock away some money in his own investments and collect the investment of the social security, which should be HIS money and HIS alone. It is not a free for all. It is not a "give to a drug dealer, ***, pimp," to waste. There should be a separate program for welfare recipients, otherwise known as the children of the state. And it shouldn''t just be handouts. It''s high time we went back to our roots, and rebuild America with grit and sweat, not laying back on the couch waiting for someone to take care of you.

[bennyblack1]

Social Security is for the working man''s retirement. Plain and simple. You pay into it by working. At only 5% interest, compounded even monthly, the return monthly distribution would be enough to maintain a decent lifestyle, if not a better one than the job provided. For instance, at age 65, my VA benefits would transfer over to social security. Since I am disable, I get only 970 bucks a month, which is not really enough to have a comfortable lifestyle without having a second job. The retired man without any health problems pays a penalty, and only gets 650$ a month, and has to have a second job to make ends meet. Investment would make it possible to have $1500 or even $2000 a month, and all the retiree has to do is breathe. And if he/she wants to work, have at it.

[bennyblack1]

It would certainly solve ALOT of problems. Congress believed that when President Bush introduced the plan to them, that Social Security would be under the control of the beneficiary, which was not the case. The beneficiary would still pay into social security as per normal, the only thing that would change is how it would be handled. These are trust accounts labeled to mature at the date that the beneficiary turns 65, and act like IRA''s, except there is no option to roll over or withdraw the money from the account before age 65, with exception to sickness, death of a spouse, or disability of either parent or child.

[bennyblack1]

The fundamental problem with Social Security is that while it is being collected, it doesn''t have a chance to accrue interest. The money is pretty much transferred from hand to hand. I believe that the whole idea of Social Security needs to be reworked, so that rather than the money getting paid straight out of the pockets of taxpayers to the beneficiaries, that it needs to be deposited into individual accounts bearing their names to accrue interest.

[bennyblack1]

The problem with Social Security is that we do not have an account that is marked "Social Security." We have a bunch of people''s names, and a ledger that says they paid into it. No deposits are actually made into an account. As the taxes are paid, the money is then distributed to the collector.

[bennyblack1]

There is a tool that President Bush tried to introduce for saving Social Security. It will still be Social Security, only it is an investment plan. Which was a good plan. The difference in this investment plan is that though it will be in the name of the person collecting social security, it will be controlled by investors who are dedicated to utilizing interest producing tools in order to make that money grow into something much greater than the Social Security payment is today, which is peanuts.