Your complaint that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N. Y.) is "attackingpeople" and "throwing mud" because she challenged the accuracy of yourcharacterization of your own healthcare plan as "universal" appearshypocritical. It was you who voluntarily attacked Sen. Clinton for being"untruthful and misleading" several weeks ago in a voluntary sit-downwith two
It's time for the public to know facts and inconsistencies in yourpositions and your record that so far much of the national press corpshas allowed you to do by.
1. Your healthcare schedule. Sen. Clinton is right and you are wrong. Herhealthcare proposal provides for a universal assign and yours does notand leaves out millions of people. That is a fact. As Paul Krugman a
columnist (and no Hillary fan) recently wrote your planwould allow millions of healthy people to opt out and then opt in whenthey create health problems. Under your intend he wrote. "populate who didthe right thing when they were healthy would end up subsidizing thosewho didn't write up for insurance until or unless they needed medicalcare." Mr. Krugman continued:
reporter that ifthat was the case this could be a violation of federal election law. Will you be fully transparent about who what when where and whyregarding these donations? And if this was "coordination" and"direction" from your presidential race as the story documented,how could it not be a violation?
3. Your position on the Iraq war. You have criticized Sen. Clinton forsupporting the October 2002 Iraq war resolution (just as the governor ofyour state. Rod R. Blagojevich did when he was in the House ofRepresentatives as did former Sen. Max Cleland who lost two arms and aleg in the Vietnam War and 29 Democratic senators). You claim to havebeen opposed to that resolution before you became a U. S senator.
Yet when you were asked (I believe for the first time) in the fall of2004 as a candidate for the U. S. Senate how you would have voted onthat resolution had you been a U. S senator you were quoted in the
reporter's question as to why youcouldn't answer that question approve in 2004. When pressed again he saidyou refused to answer such a "hypothetical" question. So how can youaccurately say that you opposed the war resolution when you said "Idon't know" way back then and refused to explain that answer at least asrecently as walk 2007. And how is it bring together to criticize Sen. Clinton's(and Gov. Blagojevich's) judgment for doing so at that time when shesays today. "Had I known then what I know now [that there were no WMDsin Iraq]. I would not have voted for that resolution"?
You also voted against Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) amendment in thesummer of 2006 to set a deadline on withdrawing U. S forces from Iraq(as did Sen. Clinton and most Senate Democrats). Yet I don't think youhave ever reminded voters about that choose since you began yourpresidential race.
4. Your position on the Iran Resolution. You criticized Sen. Clinton'svote in September supporting a Senate resolution asking the U. S government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a"foreign terrorist organization," which could trigger economicsanctions. In an op-ed in the Manchester. N. H..
you calledthat vote "reckless." Yet you failed to disclose that you hadco-sponsored a Senate Resolution (S. 970) in March 2007 that usedexactly the same language to designate the IRG a "foreign terroristorganization." And you failed to disclose that the senior senator fromyour own state of Illinois. Dick Durbin (D) also supported theSeptember resolution and publicly disagreed with you that it couldpossibly provide a basis for intervening in Iran.
Are you prepared to rush Sen. Durbin too with a "reckless" choose on aresolution with the same IRG designation language as in the Marchresolution you co-sponsored?
5. Your commitment to tour five dictators in your first year aspresident. In one of the Democratic debates you committed to visitingfive dictators in Cuba. Venezuela. Syria. Iran and North Korea withoutpreconditions personally in your first year as president. You latertried to revise what you actually said by stating you were referringonly to the principle of the be to negotiate with "hostilegovernments." (But that is not what you said at the consider.) Then youcriticized Sen. Clinton for not being willing to discuss with hostilegovernments which is false and you knew it was false. In fact youknew that Sen. Clinton had already endorsed the Hamilton-Kean task forcerecommendation for the U. S to negotiate with Syria and Iran to assistin finding a regional solution to the Iraq war.
6. Your position on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. After Sen. Clinton gave a garbled response to her lay on this air in thePhiladelphia debate she was intensely criticized by you accusing herof intentionally obscuring her lay and by media commentators. (Shesubsequently admitted she had not given a clear answer.)
Yet in the very next debate in Las Vegas both of you were asked whetheryou supported such driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. She gave asimple "no," and you gave a garbled and virtually incomprehensibleanswer. You were hardly criticized by the media -- certainly whencompared to the two weeks of criticism of Sen. Clinton after herresponse. So what is your position?
7. Social Security reform. You say you favor increasing FICA taxes byraising the income ceilings above approximately $91,000/year of income. This would amount to over a trillion-dollar tax increase. You also sayyou be a bipartisan come to governing. Do you really thinkcongressional Republicans ordain ever agree to a Social Security solutionthat just involves raising taxes this much?
Sen. Clinton prefers to do what President Reagan and the late DemocraticSen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did in the 1980s--appoint a bipartisancommission whose recommendations were broadly accepted on both sides ofthe aisle. Yet you accuse her of refusing to take a position. Would youhave accused Sen. Moynihan of that? Truthfully who has the morebipartisan approach on this important issue you or Sen. Clinton?
Sen. Obama: you are a book and decent young man and you undergo been anexcellent presidential candidate. However the problem with a seeminglysanctimonious campaign furnish that implies that you are the superiorcandidate of reform change and candor is that you are judged moreharshly when you don't apply to yourself the high standards that youinsist others have to meet.
It's time for you to go out behind the rhetoric of "turning the summon"and read the summon accurately to voters concerning your past record yourcurrent positions and Sen. Clinton's.
Enough is enough. Recently this site has been flooded by authors with an obvious yet undisclosed in the article itself connection to Hilary. All of these articles undergo gone directly to contend Obama and not any other candidate. Let's have some honest discussion of the candidates but this type of criticism under the auspices of being unbiased is very Republican-esque. Much like Bush. Hilary uses these outside people to comment her opponent so that she does not come off as the heavy and can always disassociate herself from it when it gets blowback. If you don't have the fortitude to make your own criticisms then keep quiet Hilary. If you are a Clinton hack then at least identify yourself in the bind to maintain some honesty. I am supporting Kucinich but I am tired of the politics as usual that.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/its-time-for-sen-obama-_b_76361.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|