After watching last night’s insipid debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (see transcript here), I’ve decided that, yes, the media really IS helping Obama.

Just not in the way Clinton supporters think. 

Predictably, moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson focused on such gripping issues as whether Obama was sorry for suggesting Pennsylvanians were “bitter,” and whether anyone could trust Clinton after her Bosnia sniper story proved false. So far, reporters seem more consumed with this stuff than anyone else, but they keep pushing it anyway — all while asking whether the candidates are “out of touch.” 

But either way, I think these questions help Obama — even when they are directed squarely at him.

Let’s take a look at this exchange from last night, which followed Clinton being grilled about “Snipergate”:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your campaign has sent out a cascade of e-mails just about every day, questioning Senator Clinton’s credibility…. Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?

OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn’t be here if she didn’t.

And, you know, I haven’t commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I …

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

OBAMA: Of course. But the — because we’re asked about it.

From there, Obama urged that we not get “obsessed with gaffes” and instead deal with real substance.

Sadly, there isn’t much truth to Obama’s pose of becoming reluctance. I certainly never asked about Clinton’s Bosnia remarks, and yet the Obama campaign sent me an e-mail about it anyway. It began thusly:

“The Clinton campaign claimed today that Senator Clinton ‘misspoke’ when she described a supposedly harrowing landing in Tuzla, Bosnia as First Lady in 1996 — despite the fact that the claim appeared in her prepared remarks. The Tuzla story, now thoroughly debunked, joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking.”

This isn’t how a candidate reluctantly answers a question; it’s how he eagerly tries to raise one.

But I’m not saying that Obama bullshits to score political points. I’m saying that Obama takes the bullshit to a higher level … and that in this campaign, the media’s focus on bullshit issues makes it easier. 

Much of Obama’s appeal, after all, is his pledge to transcend politics-as-usual. He talks a lot about unifying red states and blue, rejecting partisan distinctions, and so on. Frankly, I find a lot of that rhetoric naive and even somewhat disingenuous. But at least one thing really does unite us: Just about everyone hates the media, and at least claims to despise its focus on “gotcha” moments rather than issues of substance.

One legacy of the Clinton years, in fact, is that many liberals now hate the media as much as conservatives always have. And there’s good reason for that resentment, as the inane performance of Gibson and Stephanopoulos last night demonstrates.

Still, as shoddy as the moderating was, I think it helped Obama … because Obama does a better job than Clinton of rising above the attacks everyone professes to hate.

Clinton too objects to sniping (sorry) press coverage … but her complaints always make you think she just wants reporters to pick on her rivals. She doesn’t seem to mind the style of the attacks; she just wants someone else to be the target. 

Compare, for example, the following passage to the one quoted above. The moderators had just grilled Obama on — surprise! — the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s bombastic sermons. After Obama addressed the topic for the thousandth time, Gibson gave Clinton a change to change the subject. Predictably, she declined. 

GIBSON: I’m getting a little out of balance here. Do you want to take a few seconds or do you want to go to the next question?

CLINTON: I think in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright and what he said and when he said it, and for whatever reason he might have said these things, there were so many different variations on the explanations that we heard.

And it is something that I think deserves further exploration …

And so on. Instead of taking the high ground, she insisted that “further exploration” should be given to a topic everyone is already sick of.  

Politicians have always complained about media coverage, and Clinton does it as much as anyone. And yet there is actually a kind of sympathy between Clinton and the press. Both are treating this 2008 campaign like it was 1996. The Clintons may have lamented the “politics of personal destruction” back then, but it’s pretty clear they still think it’s a viable tactic now. Like generals in the Pentagon, they are still fighting the last war.

And too often, that’s all our played-out national media is capable of. Of the people in the spotlight last evening, only Obama seems to realize how weary people are of the media’s role in facilitating a bankrupt politics. Which is why he repeatedly denounced “the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with.”

The media’s “gotcha” games are part of what he is running against. Gibson and Stephanopoulos may have thought they were giving Obama a hard time last night, but they just ended up acting as foils for Obama’s claims of political virtue. 

Of course, Obama may be a hypocrite — denouncing such attacks in person while pouncing on them in campaign e-mails. But if he’s hypocritical about the politics he claims to want, I’m not sure he’s alone.

This article appears in Apr 17-23, 2008.

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

15 replies on “Beyond Debate”

  1. Dumbest debate ever. Its only shot at any redeeming value is if it becomes a watershed moment for political stupidity hereafter, from which we all rebel in shame.

  2. I actually wrote to the ABC news department. I was really insulted. I mean seriously, do they think that we’d rather watch “contestant idol” rather than hear what these people might be planning to do as the leader of our country?

  3. I guess we should change Clinton’s Campaign Bus from SOLUTIONS EXPRESS to DOUBLE SPEAK EXPRESS. The Clinton’s sold the rights of workers & the Unions in America for $800,000 in 2005 to Columbia. Bush sells America to the Chinese for $12b each month to fight Cheyenne’s /Haliburton’s war in Iraq and Mark Penn tried to continue Clinton’s plan in Colombia for 2009 until they got exposed. Double speak is all I can say. America is not for sale. No Vote for Bill/Hillary in 2008/2009. Enough is enough.

  4. WHAT SEN. CLINTON THINKS OF THE HARD WORKING AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    Ben Barber later wrote a 2001 book about this and other Clinton salons with intellectuals, and I remember him taking lots of notes at Camp David — which obviously lay the basis for his 2001 account. In that book, which many of us read when it came out years ago, he gave vivid and accurate renditions of the discussions I heard and participated in, and I have spoken to other attendees at various Clinton salons who agree on Barber’s accuracy. Obviously, contemporaneous notes and a book written years ago, long before today’s arguments, are the best possible evidence — especially since Barber is reportedly now a Hillary Clinton supporter. His previously documented reports are much better evidence of what was said in 1995 than instant “recollections” now scrounged up by the HRC and Obama campaigns.
    Barber reports in his 2001 book that Hillary Clinton said “Screw ’em” about southern working class whites who did not support Bill Clinton. Two other scholar-particiants, Alan Wolfe and Harry Boyte, agree she said this. Reported demurrals (and not a clear denial) come from Clinton staffers Bruce Reed and Ken Baer, not from the independent intellectuals in attendance. But independent witnesses who keep notes trump employees any day.
    I have gone back to my 1995 notes to check my recollections of the event. My notes do not have any exact words, so I am not going to try to corroborate a particular phrase from Hillary Clinton or any other speaker.
    But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices — usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.
    I vividly remember at the time finding it impressive that Bill Clinton (not Hillary Clinton) showed real empathy for the ordinary people whose motives and supposedly misguided choices were under analysis. Ironically, just as Barber reported, Bill Clinton was the one who combined analysis and empathy, much as Obama himself did in his full San Francisco remarks.
    I think this whole angle of “gotcha” politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America — and I cannot fathom why the Clintons or George Stephanopoulos are descending to this dirt, not to mention the guilt-by-association crap. It is particularly despicable of them to criticize Obama for the sort of observation/analysis that was routine in and around the 1990s Clinton White House. And I cannot help but feel there is a psychological edge of pure envy in Bill Clinton’s attacks: Obama is empathetic and charismatic as well as smart, just like Bill was back then, in those so much better days!
    Over and out. I am going to try to find a way to preserve in amber my better memories and feelings about the Clintons, so as not to lose altogether the sense of admiration I once felt, but can no longer.

  5. Now is the time to ask the Sen. Clinton what her 35 yrs of experience really is. Now is the time to ask questions about what the American public need to know and are going to ask very soon. If we don’t ask these questions, the republican’s will. Every American knows all of the stuff that’s part of Clinton’s experience like: Whitewater, Travel gate, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the loss of the Rose Law Firm billing records for nearly 2 years until they were miraculously found in the White House living quarters, removing files from Vince Foster’s office following his suicide and before investigators could get there. Has anyone asked why she hasn’t released all her library records (not part of it) or all her tax returns (not part of it)? What if she’s hiding something negative that might cost our party the White House? Most people believe she is hiding something terrible. While you guys are deciding the republicans will consolidate and take the white house again.

  6. This debate was an insult to the American people, and ABC along with Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos need to apologize to all who wasted their time on that nonsense! Senator Clinton was indeed in her element, and reminded me that her service as First Lady in no way qualifies her to be the President of the United States. Perhaps then she and Laura Bush should share a ticket. It would, however, be difficult to determine who of the two has the most experience to be President. After all, Laura Bush has traveled around the world and given her opinion regarding many significant issues. However, I don’t recall Laura Bush, (as first lady) blatantly lying about being shot at in Bosnia, risking a possible US invasion of that country! Or lying about her daughter being near the twin towers when they got hit, and spinning an outlandish tale of how she (Chelsea) had to run for her life, just to win a seat in the senate! The fact is Senator Clinton is a liar! She lied when she said she put pressure on Bill to intervene in Rwanda, and she lied to the voters in Ohio as she now lies to the voters in your state, when she says she fought against NAFTA. As the White House papers show, there was no attempt to pressure President Clinton to put an end to the genocide in Rwanda, nor was she pushing against the institution of NAFTA. In fact, she was a huge proponent of NAFTA. And what about her top adviser? Mark Penn is not just a heavy hitting PR person, he’s an unscrupulous PR person, giving advice to clients such as the tobacco industry, instructing them on how to target inner city minorities via smokers rights groups! Blackwater on how to effectively respond to questions from the 911 commission, to cover up their indiscriminate killing and torturing of men, women and children in Iraq! Advising subprime lending groups on how to move forward with their illegal agendas and deflect fallout while ruthlessly leaving people homeless and bewildered! Not to mention the Colombian Free Trade Deal. While Senator Clinton appears to have “demoted” Penn from chief strategist, she fell quite short of removing him from her campaign altogether–he will serve as one of her top advisers. Senator Clinton’s retention of Mark Penn, exposes her contempt for the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs to NAFTA, and stand to lose their jobs to CAFTA! She will say and do anything to win this nomination and she has completely fabricated her foreign relations experience!

    During Bill Clinton’s presidency Senator Clinton was not qualified to speak in any official capacity, nor was she in a position to sign peace treatise or broker deals. It’s absolutely absurd and offensive to the intelligence of thinking individuals to suggest otherwise. She was however given the official position to head and be the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. As usual she attempted to secretly draft the bill, botched the job, turned Democrats against her and effectively galvanized the Republican Party to work in unity against the Democrats! Needless to say, for the first time in twelve years, the Democratic Party lost their majority in Congress

    Now fast forward to the Clinton’s tax returns revealing 118m gross income, much of it earned through former President Clinton’s speeches, and the not so subtle lobbying of the insurance company responsible for halting the 1993 health care reform plan of the Clinton Administration. Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), now America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), paid President Clinton $150,000.00 dollars in June of 2005, to deliver a speech to their board. I believe it should raise a red flag to those supporting/endorsing Senator Clinton to recognize the problematic relationship created by this. The language that now crafts Senator Clinton’s health care plan, mirrors AHIP’s proposal in remarkably unsettling ways that warrant examination, particularly if these speeches point to the possible currying of future favors granted by Senator Clinton, “should” she become President. Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor and the head of Clinton’s economic transition team has the following to say about the Health Care Proposal Debate:

    “Both of them are big advances over what we have now.

    But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help — including all children and young adults up to 25 years old.

    Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance — and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated — that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. ”

    Senator Obama has far more legislative experience than Senator Clinton. He served as an Illinois senator for 8 years and has only 2 less years of congressional experience than Senator Clinton. His honesty and integrity, coupled with his experience as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, Illinois State Senator and US Senator will enrich the position of President and bring about a positive change much needed in Washington.

    Sincerely,

    J. Taylor

    Robert Reich Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.htm

    America’s Health Insurance Plans: http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx…

  7. This was Obama after the debate. Maybe his supporters didn’t want to see this side of his character!

    http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-gave-clinton-finger-at-campaign.html#link

    As it was expected, Barack Obama and his supporters have dedicated plenty of time to whine and complain about the supposedly unfair treatment that their candidate received from ABC in it’s debate. The claim of most of these characters (and the rest of the Mainstream Media) is that “the issues” were not discussed and instead “petty and irrelevant” subjects like flag pins, Rev. Wright, bitter comments, and his association with a domestic terrorist were given importance in their stead. Apparently, these countless months of campaigning and dozens of debates were not enough for Obama’s followers to already figure out what his (and Clinton’s) policies are. It seems, that we have acquired a new political tradition in this Country, were we believe every single proposal that a politician sends our way, without ever questioning a single aspect of it. Suddenly, we are supposed to throw away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge “out the window”, and instead accept the subjects that a campaign establishes for us, discarding any information that might give us a clue as to who these people really are.

    http://savagepolitics.com/?p=295

  8. I happen to support Obama, but I am not proud, at the moment, of either candidate or ABC news. Nicholas Kristoff had an insightful opinion:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17kristof.html

    Which is to say we get the candidates and the coverage we deserve. So maybe ABC news was right, scandals are the issues we care about. Or don’t you slow down when you see an accident on the highway?

  9. Yes, Senator Clinton seemed to buy into the ABC hype a little and lose sight of the issues a bit. Senator Barack Obama has been right on more issues than the other Presidential candidates.

    Senator Obama was the only candidate who had the judgment necessary to take a stand against our misguided war in Iraq from the start.

    Obama is the candidate has most consistently called for America to end the wild goose chase in Iraq and redirect its might to the unfinished business of finally tracking down the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

    Obama has been the strongest candidate on cleaning up Washington. He spearheaded major ethics reform laws in Congress. He is the only candidate to reject money from registered lobbyists. He is the only candidate to pass laws showing where all our government money spent on contractors is going.

    Senator Obama is the only candidate who had the foresight not to vote for Bush’s warmongering resolution last Fall declaring Iran’s military to be terrorists. Only weeks later we learned that at the same time the President was painting the imminent picture of a nuclear-armed Iran, a secret top-level National Intelligence Estimate report had found that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development in 2003 and probably hasn’t restarted it since then. The other candidates as recently as last Fall fell into the trap of nearly going down the path towards another unnecessary war we cannot afford.

    Obama is the candidate who is inspiring people with a clear and consistent message of unity and hope for change. He is the only candidate who understands that the usual grind it out, Washington attack politics has not worked and will not work to bring real and lasting change to America. Without a unity of purpose and hope, no change can stick. Future politicians will tear down any change that does not have broad and unified support.

    Of all the Presidential candidates, Obama has shown the most promise in being able to deliver. He has proven he has the ability to execute on his message. He managed and organized his campaign better than the other candidates. He went from being the long-shot to taking the lead in delegates, the popular vote and states won. Senator Obama has tried to stay on the high road and has been the most honest with Americans in his campaign. He has done something big right, in a big way.

    Senator Obama is not perfect, but he is our best hope. Please vote to enable us, the People, to take the next steps to changing America for the better with President Obama leading the way.

  11. The media has been giving Obama a free ride! Why? ABC finally had the courage to ask some of the tough questions!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_rules_change_for_obama.html

    arack Obama seemed puzzled. Angrily puzzled. The apostle of hope seemed flummoxed by the audacity of the question. At the April 16 Philadelphia debate, George Stephanopoulos, longtime aide to Democratic politicians, was asking about his longtime association with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers.

    The Weather Underground attacked the Pentagon, the Capitol and other public buildings; Ayers was quoted in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”

    It was at Ayers’ house that Obama’s state Senate candidacy was launched in 1995; Obama continued to serve on a nonprofit board with Ayers after the Times article appeared.

    Obamaites live-blogging the debate were outraged. The press is not supposed to ask such questions. They are supposed to invite the candidates to expatiate on how generous their health care plans are. Or to allow them to proclaim that “we are the change that we are seeking.” Or to once again bash George W. Bush.

  13. I thought the questions were good ones and gave each candidate a chance to speak directly to their negatives–Senator Clinton about honesty and Senator Obama about “cling.” Each had more than sound bite time to speak to it as they saw fit before this crucial primary. The rule of no audience clapping helped the debate to stay serious, and not feel like entertainment.

  14. OBAMA PROVED IN HIS HUMILIATING DEBATE PERFORMANCE what some people have already figured out. He’s not QUALIFIED to be President, : Don’t be put off by all the OBAMATRONS. Remember they’re PAID to be here–putting up positive comments for their guy. 150 of them. Paid. Can you believe it? According to the campaigns very own financials. WOW. THAT”S A LITTLE EMBARRASSING.
    I’m glad someone finally started asking some tough questions of Obama & someone should finally pin him for lying about Wright. He called him “the most influential person in my life”–and now, he’s a crazy uncle?
    Let’s ask about ODINGA (it’s not cool to campaign for a cousin who encourages his supporters in “ethnic cleansing” of their opponents, BarackO)
    Obama’s debate humiliation:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/17/2008-04-17_obamas_honeymoon_over_and_it_shows.html

  15. This debate was definitely an all out attack of Obama without any real questions presented to Clinton. This was definitely a travesty of justice and Obama was the target. I will never watch or listen to ABC ever again. Their bias against Obama was so apparent. I am a working class American and I am angry frustrated and sometimes bitter. None of the people that had anything to do with the debate (besides Obama) has a clue on what the average American is going through. Clinton with over 100 million dollars and never grew up struggling as many of us (working class American) has done and continue to do. I pray that the American people will see through this attack job on Obama and overwhelming come out for Obama and put an end to this obvious pro Clinton charade that these so-called moderators put on. When the race comes to Indianapolis, I pray that we will be more in tuned to the truth and that will give Obama a huge victory (25 points or better). Obama do not worry about those clowns and stay honest.

    Fowler and others that perceive the Obama comments to be negative towards the working class people in Pennsylvania are definitely wrong. I am a working class citizen and Obama is right we are angry, frustrated and bitter in some instances. Therefore, what Obama said is true but Clinton (for political gain) and McCain are trying to twist it to mean something else.

    What does Hillary know about the working class citizen in America? She has never been a working class citizen so how could she understand the frustration, anger, and bitterness that we the working class citizen feel.

    Why is it that every so-called controversy that come from the Obama camp stays in the news for weeks and sometimes months but when it is McCain or Clinton it dissipates within days. Why is Obama’s so-called controversies covered by the media on average much longer than the other two candidates?

    What about the promise that Clinton made about getting 200,000 new jobs to upstate New York about 6 years ago when we ended up losing 40,000 jobs? Way to go Hillary. If you promised 200,000 jobs in New York and we lost 40,000, what will you do nationally?

    • Every time you turn around someone from the Clinton’s camp or supporters are continually injecting race into the election.

    • Clinton prevarication on the Bosnia incident was a total fabrication with visual aids (Clinton acting it out on more than one occasion).

    • Clinton Said that Obama did not own up to what he said? This coming from someone (Clinton), who voted for the war in Iraq and still refuses to apologize for her vote or admit that it was a mistake. The closest she has come is to say if she had it to do over, she would not have voted for the war in Iraq.

    • Hillary Clinton said that Obama’s words were divisive. Listen to what Clinton (be honest) is saying and tell me who is the one being divisive in this campaign.

    • . The Clintons made 100 million dollars over 8 years. Most working Americans will never see that type of money in our lifetime.

    How would Clinton ever know how frustrated, angry and yes sometimes bitter the working class American citizen feels? Obama spoke the truth even though I do not agree with how he stated it, but it was the truth. I know because in the field (technology) that I am in has been struck particularly hard by outsourcing and very hard to find work. I do not know about you but I (working class citizen) am frustrated, angry and at times bitter.

    Hillary Clinton has touted her foreign policy experience, so let us look at the countries that she has purportedly helped or attempted to help by her own account.

    Rwanda – Beginning on April 6, 1994, it was the start of one the most horrific cases of genocide in recent times. On that date (aforementioned), a plane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian presidents, both Hutus, was shot down over Kigali, the Rwandan capital, 8 months after the peacekeepers arrived to help (from Bangladesh and Ghana lead by General Romeo Dallaire of Canada). The red phone rang off the hook but neither Clinton chose to answer the phone. The Clintons were kept informed of the escalating situation in Rwanda but chose to ignore it. General Dallaire states: “He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier.” This statement came from the Clinton Administration. In the next 100 days following April 6, 1994, upward of 1,000,000 Rwandans (men, women and babies) were slaughtered. This number works out to be 10,000 men, women and babies killed each day. Machetes (not exactly a powerhouse military) killed most of the Rwandans. There were arguments from the Clinton administration about who would pay for it and if it should be called genocide. While the Clintons were arguing about semantics babies were being slaughtered. General Romeo Dallaire of Canada did what he could even when ordered to leave Rwanda he refused doing what he could. Where was Hillary Clinton’s voice through all of this, but she claimed to wanting to do something. Rwanda is an example of her foreign experience that she likes to tout. Is this the experience we want to answer the red phone or shall I say not answer the red phone.

    Bosnia – Macedonian had opened its border to refugees before Hillary Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. Hillary Clinton’s so-called mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea (I guess these were Hillary’s foreign advisors). That was Hillary Clinton’s involvement in this particular situation. This is another claim of her experience in foreign policy.

    Northern Ireland – Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women’s groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as “helpful” but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as “ancillary” to the peace process. Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady’s visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland. Hillary played no role in negotiating with any leaders in the peace process.
    China – Hillary Clinton “got strong reviews for threading the diplomatic needle with an impassioned speech that contained a wide-ranging denunciation of human rights abuses worldwide. She criticized China, without naming it directly.” Sounds familiar to what Hillary Clinton has been saying about “giving good speeches”, we know her speech came without any action on her part.
    Iraq – Voted to go to war in Iraq, even though she claims it was for diplomatic purposes as she has previously proclaimed in her speeches leading up to the Iraq war. There is one problem with that and that is she held a press conference (the same day as Bush said that it seemed inevitable that there would be war) that stated that she was backing Bush all the way. Hillary had a meeting with a women’s organization 2 weeks before the start of the Iraq war to reiterate her stance on the running Saddam out of Iraq. Here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE . Listen to what the women’ organization has to say and Hillary’s response.

    Clinton claimed that she “helped to bring peace” to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited “standing up” to the Chinese government on women’s rights. If this is the foreign experience that she claims she has we do not want near the red phone, America cannot afford that kind of judgment and fabrications that Hillary brings.

    “Obama simply has the problem that he happens to be Black,” Adelfa Callejo said when asked if it was smart for Sen. Obama to reach out to Latino voters.
    The newscaster quoted her saying “Obama’s problem is that he happens to be black.”
    Rather than doing the right thing and reject and denounce her comments of her supporter, she laughed it off, according to the transcripts of the interview.

    Clinton: “Well obviously I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an African American and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I’m very very proud of that. I want people thought to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look what we stand for, look what we’ve done and I think that’s what most voters are looking for.”

    Q (paraphrase) Is this something you reject and denounce?

    “People have every reason to express their opinions. I just don’t agree with that. I think that we should be looking at the individuals who are running.”

    Q – Do you still want her support, though?

    Clinton laughed and said, “You know This is a free country. People get to express their opinions. A lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign. You can’ take any of that as anything other than an individual opinion.”

    Way to go Hillary you do not stand up for what’s right if it means losing support but expects her opponents to stand up. The American people need someone that will bring us together not tear us apart.

Comments are closed.