Obama, Clinton Spar Over Cuba, Health Care

N.Y. Senator Accuses Front-Runner Of Plagiarism, Says He Represents "Change You Can Xerox"

(CBS/AP)  Hillary Clinton accused presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism Thursday night, but drew boos from a Democratic debate audience when she ridiculed him as the candidate of "change you can Xerox."

Obama dismissed the charge out of hand, then turned the jeers to applause when he countered, "What we shouldn't be doing is tearing each other down, we should be lifting the country up."

The exchange marked an unusually pointed moment in an otherwise civil encounter in the days before March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio - contests that even some of Clinton's supporters say she must win to sustain her campaign for the White House.

The former first lady has lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses, and trails her rival in convention delegates. Obama has won a pair of big union endorsements in the past two days.

Overall, the night did little to stop Obama's momentum, which has helped him pull even with Clinton in Texas polls after trailing her by double-digits only a few weeks ago, CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs said.

"Anyone looking for a knock-down, drag-out debate in Texas tonight was instead treated to a gentle waltz that only increased Obama's edge over Clinton," Ververs said. "The New York Senator did nothing to stop Obama's momentum and, in fact, allowed him to upstage her on both substance and style. Time is growing short for Clinton to regain her footing. This debate just kept those seconds rapidly moving forward. And the time is all on Obama's side."

In a university auditorium in the heart of Texas, the two rivals agreed that high-tech surveillance measures are preferable to construction of a fence to curtail illegal immigration.

They disagreed on the proper response to a change in government in Cuba in the wake of Fidel Castro's resignation. Clinton said she would refuse to sit down with incoming President Raul Castro until he implements political and economic reforms. Obama said he would meet "without preconditions," but added the U.S. agenda for such a session would include human rights in the Communist island nation.

They also sparred frequently about health care, a core issue of the campaign.

Clinton said repeatedly that Obama's plan would leave 15 million Americans uncovered.

But he, in turn, accused the former first lady of mishandling the issue by working in secrecy when her husband was in the White House.

"I'm going to do things differently," he said. "We can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen."

Clinton was combative and complimentary by turns, and reflected on her well-known personal struggles in the debate's final moments.

"Everyone here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life," she said - a thinly veiled but clear reference to her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. But she added that nothing she had been through matched the everyday struggles of voters.

Then, offering unprompted praise to her rival, the one-time front-runner said, "No matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama."

Both candidates were plainly popular with the debate audience. During one break someone in the crowd shouted "Si, se puede," Spanish for Obama's trademark phrase, "Yes we can."

[alphaa10-2009]

If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE?..."
---
I hesitate to ask, but were you asleep when Bush stole into the Oval Office and did exactly what your laundry list of nightmares details?

You worry--
1. Would He CHANGE the way to make it easy for terrorists to get into this country to over throw this country?
2. Would He CHANGE the laws for any of His kind?
3. Would He hang out with those who supported tyranny against this country?
4. Would He impose martial law? (in de facto fashion, of course)
5. Could He start unjust wars for His hidden ideology?
6. Could His decisions CHANGE the course for America?
7. Would He CHANGE your civil liberties?
8. Would He CHANGE your mind that you voted for Him? (most have already, in utter disgust with Bush)

Exactly what were you thinking for the past seven years-- or not, as the case may be?

[rowdytexan2]

Abandoning hope and settling for status quo is the surest sign of a coward. Throughout human history the greatest changes that have occured were championed by visionaries, people of foresight, judgement and courage. Our founding fathers knew our chances of defeating the British were small, but they believed and triumphed. The slaves of Rome had no weapons or organization, but leaders with hope among them arose and threw down their masters. Any of you who say hope isn''''t a weapon, that words don''''t carry weight, or that experience is more important than judgement are traitors to America''''s greatest ideals, and you may kindly remove yourselves from my country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by tru_america1 at 02:25 PM : Feb 23, 2008

Well, sir, I agree that hope inspires people to do great things. But what we have here is two people with almost the exact same vision...

Are you going to go with the buffooon whose track record is very iffy? Or are you going to with a person that has a demonstrated track record for actually getting the job done?

Considering that we have just had one inexperienced buffoon in our White House, and considering that most of Obama''s support comes from youth following a cultist star who can barely find Washington, DC on the map!

[rowdytexan2]

Experience vs. Inspiration

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what''''''''''''''''s wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It''''''''''''''''s not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won''''''''''''''''t. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn''''''''''''''''t "hope" they can''''''''''''''''t break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can''''''''''''''''t break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

I have to agree with this post!

Go Hillary ''08!

[sjbj2322]

Again Inspiration vs. Experience.....In 1998 my mother was told by an oncologist that he could cure her cancer; that all she needed was hope. Thankfully I insisted that we get a second opinion. The second opinion was that, No, the cancer could not be cured but with aggressive treatment we could anticipate added time and quality to her life. HE WAS RIGHT! Yes, experience counts...yes, being realistic about what is possible versus what hope unrealistically sets people up for counts. Obama has promised sooo much in the process of winning votes yet all the experts agree that there is no way he can actually anticipate being able to deliver. As such he is setting everyone up for little more than disappointment for several reasons. He admitted that when he first arrived in the Senate that his priority was learning the system - is that not on the job training. Just how much time on the job as president are people willing to wait before demanding any results from all the promises he''s made. Moreover, on the issue of meeting with world leaders without preconditions.....Obama has been touted as another JFK. REMEMBER....JFK was not so stupid as to meet directly with the Russians during the crisis in Cuba. Robert Kennedy didn''t even meet with them....he met with intermediaries. Lessons from history....I''m always amused by young people who say they don''t matter.

[vmcneal2]

Radical Muslim, blah blah blah blah blah. This is so silly. What we need to be concerned with is another "stay the course" Christian in the White House.

[pilgrimsway-2009]

I just hope to all who read my comment on the radical Muslim do not think I am talking about any of the presidential candidates! If you do it just shows your short sightedness!

[vmcneal2]

For those who value experience over the ability to bring people together in order to get things done, can always vote for John"no change" McCain. If you like old men with old ideas, McCain is your man. If you want 4 more years of a Bush type White House, McCain is your man. If you want a never ending war in Iraq, McCain is your man. If you want a President with the personality of a piece of cardboard, McCain is your man. You don''t have smear Obama, just vote for McCain.

[pilgrimsway-2009]

That guy Atta wanted CHANGE! I guess there are no more like Him?

[pilgrimsway-2009]

That guy Atta wanted CHANGE!

[pilgrimsway-2009]

If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE? Would He CHANGE the way to make it easy for terrorists to get into this country to over throw this country? Would He CHANGE the laws for any of His kind? Would He hang out with those who supported tyranny against this country? Would He impose martial law? Could He start unjust wars for His hidden ideology? Could His decisions CHANGE the course for America? Would He CHANGE your civil liberties? Last of all would He CHANGE your mind that you voted for Him? Believe me when I say there are no one with hidden agenda%u2019s in this world!

If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE?

[dddcohen]

Tell those idoits commoners and peasants to pay up the bill of Bellagio Luxury Hotel, I am the queen

[taotxzen]

Dems: What About the Military Budget?
by William D. Hartung

One issue that will not be discussed in tonight%u2019s presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is our nation%u2019s burgeoning military budget. Earlier this month, the Bush administration announced a proposed military budget of $614 billion, not counting the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents the highest level of spending since World War II, even though our most dangerous adversary is a dispersed terrorist network measured in the tens of thousands, not a nuclear-armed Soviet Union whose armed forces were measured in the millions.

If Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen have their way, these massive levels of spending will continue even after the end of the war in Iraq, with a %u201Cfloor%u201D on military spending of 4% of our Gross Domestic Product.

Not only have the major presidential candidates been largely silent on these record expenditures, but they want to increase them. Barack Obama has said we will probably need to %u201Cbump up%u201D the military budget in a new administration, and both he and Hillary Clinton have committed themselves to increasing the size of the armed forces by tens of thousands of troops. On the Republican side of the aisle, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are looking to spend even more than their Democratic counterparts.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)
We are long overdue for a national debate on how much we actually need to defend America in an era in which our greatest threat is the possibility that a terrorist group might get its hands on nuclear weapons. Even if Iraq had possessed nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, military force would not have been the most effective way to address the problem. The lesson of Iraq is that rigorous inspections are the best way to root out dangerous weapons programs.


More importantly, the most likely route for a terrorist group to get its hands on nuclear weapons is not by receiving them as a %u201Cgift%u201D from an existing nuclear weapons state, but by stealing bombs or bomb-making materials from a nation like Russia where they are not adequately secured. Much progress has been made on this front through the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program, which invests in dismantling and protecting so-called loose nukes and bomb-making materials in Russia and other nations around the world. Despite these successes, there is much more to be done. Yet the Bush administration has actually proposed cutting Nunn-Lugar funding in this year%u2019s budget, to $414 million dollars, or less than two days worth of spending on the war in Iraq.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

As for conventional threats, the United States is already spending more for defense than all the other nations in the world combined. If all of these lavish expenditures were needed to protect the country that would be one thing. But tens of billions of dollars are being wasted on systems like the F-22 fighter plane, the V-22 Osprey (a helicopter that can be transformed into a conventional aircraft), the Virginia class submarine, and an unworkable and unnecessary missile defense system. All of these programs were initiated during the Cold War, and none of them is suited to current challenges. Likewise, proposals for troop increases presume that we might once again engage in a military occupation like the current conflict in Iraq - an unwise course which should be ruled out in any new defense strategy.

(cont)

[dddcohen]

Ah.. I love HRC supporters, now is your time to shine, put your money where your mouth is, so the queen can burn your hard earned money in luxury, by sipping best french wine, eating best french cheese, caviar and foei gras you commoners and peasant pay the bill of Bellagio Luxury Hotel

[taotxzen1]

(cont)

Furthermore, there are far more urgent uses for some of the funds now devoted to the military, from investments designed to reverse the current recession, to spending to curb the threat of climate change, to beefed up spending on diplomacy. A recent report from the Institute for Policy Studies has revealed that our government currently spends 88 times as much on the military as we do on addressing climate change. And even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called for an expansion of the U.S. diplomatic corps, which is currently smaller than the crews needed to run one aircraft carrier task force. To its credit, the Bush administration has requested funded for 1,000 new diplomats in this year%u2019s budget, but this is just a small down payment on what is needed.

So, rather than artificially reserving a fixed share of our national income for military spending, we should adjust the budget based on a critical assessment of what is actually needed to protect the country. If this debate doesn%u2019t begin during this year%u2019s presidential and congressional elections, it will be that much harder for the next president to rein in our current practice of overspending on the Pentagon.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Advisory Board of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Furthermore, there are far more urgent uses for some of the funds now devoted to the military, from investments designed to reverse the current recession, to spending to curb the threat of climate change, to beefed up spending on diplomacy. A recent report from the Institute for Policy Studies has revealed that our government currently spends 88 times as much on the military as we do on addressing climate change. And even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called for an expansion of the U.S. diplomatic corps, which is currently smaller than the crews needed to run one aircraft carrier task force. To its credit, the Bush administration has requested funded for 1,000 new diplomats in this year%u2019s budget, but this is just a small down payment on what is needed.

So, rather than artificially reserving a fixed share of our national income for military spending, we should adjust the budget based on a critical assessment of what is actually needed to protect the country. If this debate doesn%u2019t begin during this year%u2019s presidential and congressional elections, it will be that much harder for the next president to rein in our current practice of overspending on the Pentagon.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Advisory Board of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[jerkeedoodle]

truth-hurts,I thought it was smart on his part to bring it out in the open,making it more or less a "dead issue".Mr.Obama is my age,although a little younger.We are NOT babyboomers,we don''t tick the same way.With boomers,drugs are a "maybe he did,maybe he didn''t" issue,there''s room for doubt.Whereas someone our age that says they didn''t is probably lying.Doe''s that make us unfit,or un-intelligent?No.Foolish in our youth?Yes.Wiser for the experience?Could be.

[jerkeedoodle]

truth-hurts,I was arguing with the "ball and chain" one day over I can''t remember what.In the heat of battle,she says"You aren''t nothin'' but a burnt out ex-junkie.",to which I replied "At least I had the brain cells to spare!".One of the few times I managed to get the last word,LOL.i think Mr.Obama has the brain cells to spare.

[iceman_1960]

"That Atta guy wanted CHANGE!"
- Posted by pilgrimsway at 10:47 PM : Feb 22, 2008

So did America"s Founding Fathers.