Anyone who thought the sickening sweet `love fest' in Nevada meant that the race war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ended in a truce got those notions disabused after a knockdown bare knuckle fight last night in the South Carolina Democrat debate.Clinton accused Obama of representing a Chicago slumlord and Obama countered that she was the corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart... entirely factual statements on both sides, I might add.And both of them also complained about `dirty politics' by the other during the campaign.
The fun started when Obama was complaining criticized for embracing `Republican ideas' over a fatuous statement he made comparing himself with ex-president Ronald Reagan.
"What I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart," he told Clinton.
To which Lady Macbeth countered that Obama's comments showed he had embraced the GOP ideas which Clinton said she had been challenging "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."
(She's talking about long-time Obama shill and fundraiser Tony Rezko, who's currently under federal indictment for fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering over a scam related to getting campaign funds and payoffs from vendors and companies who wanted to submit bids and garner contracts from two Illinois state boards. Just bizness as usual in Chicago..)
Even funnier, when Clinton said she had never criticized Obama over the Reagan remarks, Obama spat back "Your husband did."
"I'm here. He's not," she snapped back.
"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.
He then used that as a springboard to accuse the Clintons of misrepresenting his record.
"There was a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate," Obama said. "I think that part of what people are looking for right now is someone who is going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in Washington."
Clinton came back with: "I believe your record and what you say should matter."
And exactly what the Obama `record' might consist of also came into question.
As a Senator, Barack Hussein Obama must have set a record for non-stances on the issues, voting `present' over 100 times.
"Senator Obama, it's hard to have a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote," Clinton said. "On issue after issue, you voted present ... Whenever someone raises that, there's always some sort of explanation."
Even John Edwards got into the act, which is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, if you get my meaning..
"Why would you over 100 times vote present?" Edwards said, noting that when he was a senator, he didn't simply avoid voting on bills in Congress. "It would have been safe for me politically ... but I have a responsibility to take a position even if it costs me politically."
Strictly speaking, that's not exactly true in Edwards case, since he was seldom actually in the Senate to vote during his one term, but no need to spoil a good story.
One thing that hasn't changed, of course, is that all three Democrat candidates remain committed to a US defeat.
When Clinton was asked if she is looking to end the Iraq war or win it, she replied:
"I'm looking to bring our troops home, starting within 60 days of my becoming president," she said. "There is no military solution, and our young men and women should not remain as the referees of their conflict."
Edwards said that within his first year as president he would have all combat troops out of Iraq and there would be no permanent military bases in Iraq...so I suppose he's planning on not abiding by the agreement made between the US and the Iraqi government for US bases there. That will go over well with both our friends and our enemies in the Middle East who may have been watching.
As for Obama: "I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all of our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely."
Coming from somebody who was talking about invading Pakistan with a mere two brigades of US troops, Obama's comments on caution when it comes to a victory in the making in Iraq seem just a tad politically calculated and hypocritical to my ears.
These are the people who want to assume the position of commander in chief of our armed forces. Remember that when you vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment