Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Hits Back on SC Radio

By Alec MacGillis
KINGSTREE, SC -- One day after Hillary Clinton put up a radio ad here going after Barack Obama's recent comments that Republicans were the "party of ideas" over the past two decades, Obama has responded with an ad of his own slamming Clinton as a candidate who will "say anything, and change nothing."

The radio ad, which starts running in South Carolina today, is the most sharply worded to date from Obama, who has mostly limited his attacks on Clinton to comments on the stump, in interviews and debates. Previously, his only spot directly hitting Clinton was an Iowa radio ad striking back at her for criticisms of his health care plan. (A union supporting Obama ran a very harsh Spanish-language radio ad against Clinton in Nevada charging her with "shameless" attempts to suppress working-class voters.)

The new radio ad went up amidst a bitter back and forth between the two campaigns over the legitimacy of the Clinton campaign's use of Obama's comments about Republican ideas. The audio of the new Obama ad can be heard here. A transcript follows the jump:

Obama: I'm Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message.

Announcer: It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.
Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.

The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.
In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.

But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote "paid tribute" to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy.

She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs.

And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing.

It's time to turn the page.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 24, 2008; 10:59 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Uncommitted, a Winner at Last
Next: D.C. Democrats Try to Refocus Attention on Bush


Dear mysistagirl : Thank you for your detailed reflection on Hillary's work at Wal-Mart. I entirely agree that she has for the most part been an ineffective agent for change. Your details point out very well why Hillary has been a constant failure as a leader. She does not have the ability that either Obama of McCain has shown to be the voice and bridge the divide between ideologies. However her ineffectiveness does not necessarily reflect her intent which one can really only speculate on. Despite my feelings that Hillary has failed again and again to lead this country in the right direction she I for one do not feel we should consider all of her effort as nefarious or politically self-motivated. I'm not sure there was anything she gained by failing at Wal-Mart as well as her failure in healthcare reform. Spin or not we should give her the befit of the doubt. But her failures just go to show she is not ready to be President on day One.

Posted by: aschifter1 | February 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I also want to say that I want Obama to directly confront distortions of his record, but I don't want him to sink to using distortions himself. It demeans him and the intelligence of the voters. Rising above dirty campaigning doesn't have to mean being passive like Kerry was when the Swiftboaters were attacking him; it can mean just using civil tactics to forcefully push back. I was disappointed in both Clinton and Obama during the last debate. And, if the Clintons are in any way participating in keeping race up front as a way of siphoning off white voters, that would be disgusting to me. Hillary will lose my vote completely if she keeps the "winning at any cost" strategy up.

Posted by: bethechange1 | January 26, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

It is laughable to think that a Republican in the White House would be better than Senator Clinton. From my perspective, Senator Obama is hardly a victim here. He has used the same campaign techniques of Clinton. People can say what they want, but I prefer the Clinton years to the Bush years. Romney and Mccain are a continuance of George W. Bush. It is unfortunate that Obamma supporters would vote against their interests by voting against Clinton. I know if Obamma wins the nomination; he will get my full support. Right now, I think Hillary is the best candidate for the position!

Posted by: enamorate | January 26, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

What do we really know about Obama? We hear from him that he will be the President of Change. But isnt that what everyone else is saying too? Wouldnt he say ANYTHING to get us to vote for him? Why are we to believe a man no one knows, he doesnt make votes, isnt organized, or cant remember where he puts things. I truely dont infer any racial remarks in the Fairy tale issue but yet Obama's camp & the media insists that a racial slur has occured. Do they truely think that just because we are black that we are ingnorant? Everyone complains about the candidates using scare tactics to get elected, isnt that what Obama is doing? He is scaring the black voters into believing that the Clinton's are racist and they will bring SLAVERY back if elected. If we put this man in the whitehouse without knowing "who" he'll put there with him, then we truely deserve what we get!!

Posted by: felabrador | January 25, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

It is unfortunate that the people that represent our country have reduced themselves to such a childish state. With this in mind, I do not think that Obama is a politition. Polititions, by their very nature, are concerned with winning an office, not with fulfilling its obligations to the best of their ability. He is instead, a ruler of the best kind, though he does not yet have a position of such power.
Obama is an idealist, but that is his only fault. In fact, I do not believe that that is a fault at all, but merely a sign that he is visionary enough to bring about some much-needed change, and not yet jaded by the world enough to preach about what he won't honestly try to deliver.
I am sorry to see this race turn to race for derogatory purchase on the steep climb to the Oval Office. If Obama is nominated because he is championing an African-American ideal, then it will cause resentment for generations and undo the work of several civil rights visionaries, even though this is a result opposite the intention. If Obama isn't nominated or isn't elected, then Caucasions are accused of denying African-Americans a right to have a President that they can truly claim.
I am sorry that the election process for the government of my country has turned into a lose-lose for the best candidate for the post since William Jennings Bryan.
If this turns into a racial battle more than a Presidential one, then Americans are indeed, just as petty and short-sighted as we claim to be visionary and mature.

Posted by: theater_junky | January 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I am glad Barack is responding to the lies of the Clintons and firing back.

please God save us from another Clinton in the white house. we have endured the Bushes and now we have to endured the Clintons for another 4years.

No more lies from the Bushes/Clintons.

Let us turn the page America!!!

Posted by: nkgilb | January 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, are you dreaming like Obama? What makes you think people listen to you? You disturb the fair election, you like to destroy our right to vote, but people are smarter than you and Obama, they will vote whoever is the best. Hillary Clinton will be 44th President.

Posted by: kreisch | January 25, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

The Obama Campaign's ad hits the spot. It is about truth, and not about smearing the opponent! Fellow Americans let us turn our country around to face and live its earliest values of a true democracy--let us vote for Mr. Obama. Turn away from the wrong path of deceit, duplicity, lies and bullying. The Creator/universe is offering us this chance, let's take it. Turn the page and read a new story!

Posted by: vassiewb | January 25, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

The Obama Campaign's ad hits the spot. It is about truth, and not about smearing the opponent! Fellow Americans let us turn our country around to face and live its earliest values of a true democracy--let us vote for Mr. Obama. Turn away from the wrong path of deceit, duplicity, lies and bullying. The Creator/universe is offering us this chance, let's take it!

Posted by: vassiewb | January 25, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

The Obama Campaign's ad hits the spot. It is about truth, and not about smearing the opponent! Fellow Americans let us turn our country around to face and live its earliest values of a true democracy--let us vote for Mr. Obama. Turn away from the wrong path of deceit, duplicity, lies and bullying. The Creator/universe is offering us this chance, let's take it!

Posted by: vassiewb | January 25, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Bill's third term will be as Hillary's Vice President; Sort of in the Cheney mold. Tyhat's why he's campaigning so furiously.

Posted by: sam_dobermann | January 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

mauialoha-- I agree with you about the women in slick Willies life.

God forbid he gets back in the White House and has all those young interns to "not have sex with". It would be like putting a kid in a toy shop and telling them not to touch.

Posted by: mrmc23320 | January 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

This election is going to prove how powerful the establishment is.

If America wants change bad enough they can have it. If the establishment wins they will win forever. There will never be another chance for change again. America has one (1) shot at it this November, after that no more ever again. Simple as that.

Posted by: hinamanu | January 24, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

R.I.P. Yellow Dog Democrat. The Clintons have ended this long tradition amongst some loyal democrats like myself who will not vote for the party's nominee if it is Clinton. I won't vote for a republican--I will just not vote. The last time I did this was when President Carter lost. Please think about electability.

Posted by: sheilanoblitt | January 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Thanks mysistagirl for all the info on the Walmart Bd. This should be put out in the public again as most have no idea. Maybe it would open some eyes.
I am so disheartened the way this election is turning out. I was so excited that for the first time I would actually be voting FOR someone passionately either Hillary or Barack. But the way the Clintons are behaving there is no way I could vote for her. Sent an e-mail to her blog regarding this and, of course, it wasn't posted! I did get a response thanking me for joining Team Hillary!!!! REplied quickly that she has already lost me and remove my name from her "Team Hillary"

Posted by: Nancypz | January 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I cannot say this more. Please Hillary and Bill, if you really really care for America, and not just your own precious selves, leave the campaign now !!!

Posted by: thisworld | January 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse


Wow, has the LA Times changed its tune! Now, the LA Times publishes a HIT PIECE against Obama every day. (They are going to endorse the Clintons soon.)

Today they wrote a misleading article about the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll.

Here's the headline: "Times poll finds Clinton holding on to lead"

But the real headline should have been:
"Clinton's Lead Shrinks to 9% From 24% Nationally"

This fact is in the third paragraph of the article, which says:
"Clinton was preferred by 42% of the likely Democratic voters polled, and Obama by 33% -- a significant increase for the senator from Illinois since a similar poll in early December, when he was the choice of 21%. Support for the senator from New York remained virtually unchanged over that period."

Here are the true facts:
LA Times/Bloomberg Poll

CLINTON: 42 (decrease: 3 points)
OBAMA: 33 (increase: 11 Points)
SPREAD: Clinton +9.0

11/30 - 12/03
SPREAD: Clinton +24.0

I subtracted the current spread from the LA Times' last spread.

Posted by: hope4 | January 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

To Adam Schifter:

You said:
"It bothered me when Obama attacked Hillary for working on the board at Walmart when she was there attempting to make positive change for women and unions."

Respectfully, Adam, how the hell do you know this? (Was it another lie propagated by the clintons?) Hillary is a corporatist. She'll say anything to get elected.

Posted by: hope4 | January 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

To ALL Democrats:

Please join my pledge to NOT vote for Hillary even if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"It was not so much about what Obama said about Reagan, but that Obama was praising republicans in general"

Then why is Sen Obama responding with Sen Clinton's quote about Pres Reagan? Her criticism specifically referred to "the last 10-15 years", Reagan's presidency ended 20 years ago.

Posted by: zukermand | January 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I will say, Sen Obama seems remarkably comfortable adopting rhetoric long associated with right wing smears of Sen Clinton. I think this is a short sighted tactic.

Posted by: zukermand | January 24, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

zukermand you are uninformed and probably a liberal - yuk!

Posted by: candyzky | January 24, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

To zukermand about citing the event where Clinton criticized Obama about Reagan. It was at the SC debate. It was not so much about what Obama said about Reagan, but that Obama was praising republicans in general. This was Hillary's point; to rattle the democrats attending the event. Which only shows she would not be willing to walk across the aisle to work with republicans on policy issues.

Posted by: candyzky | January 24, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

candyzky, your lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

Posted by: zukermand | January 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama mentioned that Reagan was transformational and that the republicans in the 90's had alot of ideas. He is absolutely right. Clinton on the other hand is such a liar, and she makes me sick to my stomach, just to look at her makes me sick. Her husband is a disgusting letch and if he said the sky is blue, I would not believe him. These are the options some of you might vote for. You who would vote for the Clintons are dead wrong, and you would be harming our country to do so. Try not to think republican or democrat, ask is this person is a decent human being? Is this person honest? Does this person have high integrity? All of us can already see Hillary and Bill are awful and ridiculous. Why or how could anyone think either of them are capable of running this country with the issues we have been facing since 9/11?

Posted by: candyzky | January 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

So much for Obama the "Uniter". He gave up his new "tone" without a whimper. This should put an end to the whole claim that he is any different than any other politician.

Obama is the one that looks like George Bush. He is the one who won't say anything - HOPING to get elected.

Posted by: pkilgallon | January 24, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if anyone could cite the event where Sen Clinton criticized Sen Obama's reference to President Reagan? I'm curious to read it.

Posted by: zukermand | January 24, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank you blaaksky for the earlier post, and website to petition for Hillary to change her divisive practices. I signed the petition and included the below perspective.

Posted by: blaaksky | January 24, 2008 12:21 PM

I deeply feel that Hillary's near-sighted view of "win at any cost" is an intensely destructive practice that is generating disdain towards her/Bill the co-candidates. She is looking more and more like George Bush, who stole 2 elections and used numerous lies and propaganda to win at all costs, just like she is doing. We don't need another George Bush, and if Hillary wants to act like him, then my vote is certainly no longer in her favor!!!!! I feel Americans deserve much better than the lies and deception that we've had to put up with during the past 7 years. Please help Hillary regain some common sense, some integrity, and get back on a constructive track instead of the divisive, destructive, rant that she is accelerating on currently.

Posted by: eobler | January 24, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

From Slick Willy to Slick Hilly.

We've come a long way, baby. Not.

Posted by: whatmeregister | January 24, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Here's one thing I don't understandz: If the country wants change so badly, why are people out there trying to send the Clintons back to the White House?
Are we that dysfunctional?
How is Hillary, who voted for the Iraq war, takes tons of cash from corporations, helps send American jobs overseas, and used to sit on the corporate board of Walmart, change?
Let's stop lying to ourselves.That's no change!

Posted by: ednyo2000 | January 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

To Adam Schifter:
You said: "It bothered me when Obama attacked Hillary for working on the board at Walmart when she was there attempting to make positive change for women and unions"

Um, Sir, that is the clinton spin on her being on the board at walmart, but HERE are the facts from various news outlets as well as fellow members on that board with her:

Clinton Did Not Rock The Boat On Labor Or Gender Issues At Wal-Mart. The Los Angeles Time reported of Clinton's tenure at Wal-Mart, "Crowded with the others around metal folding tables in the kitchen of a converted warehouse -- a no-frills board room selected by 'Mr. Sam' himself -- Clinton assumed the role of loyalist reformer, making the case for measured change without rocking the boat. [...] Wal-Mart critics say her presence brought little lasting change to the firm. And former executives say she was not a voice for bold reform. 'She was not a dissenter,' said Donald G. Soderquist, Wal-Mart's former chief operating officer and the board's vice chairman during Clinton's tenure. 'She was a part of those decisions.'" [Los Angeles Times, 5/19/07]

A Lawyer Suing Wal-Mart Claims There Was "No Change For The Better" For Women During Clinton's Tenure. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Assigned to work on the diversity issue that preoccupied Walton's wife and daughter, Clinton joined an advisory committee that Walton had assigned to draft recommendations on pay parity and hiring women and minorities as executives. Rhoads said he and Clinton flew to New York to consult with a firm that helped corporations recruit more female directors. But Tom Seay, a former Wal-Mart vice president who was on the advisory committee, said that her 'involvement was limited' and that Wal-Mart staffers did 'most of the heavy lifting.' [...] The committee's existence -- and Clinton's role on it -- was not previously acknowledged by company officials said Joseph T. Sellers, one of the lawyers behind a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women claiming discrimination. 'There was no change for the better during that period for women at Wal-Mart,' Sellers said. 'If there was change, it was minimal. Nobody knew about it or else it was just too subtle to recognize.' " [Los Angeles Times, 5/19/07]

Fellow Board Member: Clinton "Stayed Pretty Much In The Background On The Board." The Los Angeles Times reports, "On the board, Clinton impressed other outside directors brought in by Walton. 'She stayed pretty much in the background. But she was an advocate for women, quietly and effectively,' said Toys "R" Us founder Charles Lazarus, who became a director in 1984." [Los Angeles Times, 5/19/07]

Former Wal-Mart COO: Clinton Did Not Object To Wal-Mart's Union Policies. The Los Angeles Times reported, "Bob Ortega, author of 'In Sam We Trust,' a history of Wal-Mart, said workers were provided with incentives such as stock purchase programs and bonuses for efficiency while the firm sent in teams of lawyers and executives to stiffen resistance to union organizing efforts. Although the details of Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were rarely broached during board meetings, Tate said recently, Clinton 'clearly knew the company's reputation.' Tate said that when he 'made presentations on what we were doing' during board meetings, Clinton did not raise objections. [Former Wal-Mart COO] Soderquist agreed, saying there was 'no sign that she had any criticism.'" [Los Angeles Times, 5/19/07]

Clinton Was Silent On Union Issues During Her Tenure On Wal-Mart's Board. Fellow board members and Wal-Mart executive said Clinton used her position on the company's board to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart's only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart's vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said Though she was passionate about issues like gender and sustainability, Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, board members said. During their meetings and private conversations, Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart's stance on unions, said John Tate and John A. Cooper, board members who served with her. "She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one," Tate said. "It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position." A spokesman for Clinton said, "Wal-Mart workers should be able to unionize and bargain collectively." [New York Times, 5/20/07]

Critics Said Clinton Did Not Improve the Experience of Female Employees During Her Time on the Wal-Mart Board. The AP wrote, "Critics said there was little tangible change at Wal-Mart during Clinton's tenure, despite her apparent prodding. 'There's no evidence she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place in ways Mrs. Clinton's Democratic base would care about,' said Liza Featherstone, author of 'Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker's Rights at Wal-Mart.'" [AP, 3/11/06]

While Clinton Was A Director, Wal-Mart Resisted Unionization. The Village Voice wrote, "At the time, Hillary Clinton was still on Wal-Mart's board, and the retail giant was still resisting the unionization of any of its workers." [Village Voice, 5/30/00]

There is much more info available that debunks the clinton spin on this, but I digress. You get the point. Don't believe the hype!

Posted by: mysistagirl | January 24, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Dr. King said it best "The measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands
at times of conflict and controversy."

Desperate people do desperate things. Stay on the high road Barack.

Posted by: dr_mariond45 | January 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Dr. King said it best "The measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands
at times of conflict and controversy."

Desperate people do desperate things. Stay on the high road Barack.

Posted by: dr_mariond45 | January 24, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I have read the Obama quote. It is evidence of his scholarly thought and rational conclusions. There is nothing there which indicates he favours the Republican policies. The Clintons are intent on distortions to gain an advantage.
Indeed Tom Brokaw states that Hilary has made similar statements to him. I hope the voters are not as gullible as Ms. Clinton believes them to be.

Posted by: les3carmen | January 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The Lee Atwater-Karl Rove-Clinton school of politics can win an election but lose a democracy. A democracy is based on an informed public, an independent press, and free speech. Their campaign techniques effectively draw a line through all those. The Washington Post reported last August on the admiration the Clintons and their campaign manager have for Rove, and how they fully intended, even then, to run their campaign along those lines:

Posted by: TomJx | January 24, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Anyone notice that Obama's ads are only to counter false claims and negative ads from the Clintons? Obama is still trying to run a clean campaign, but man, you wrestle with pigs and you're gonna get a little muddy. I hope Clinton doesn't drag Obama all the way to down their level.

I also hope Obama is able to convince SC, and the rest of the nation, to try to ignore the Clintons' sideshow and focus on the issues and what is good for out country.

Posted by: julieds | January 24, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

A new poll has Edwards threatening to overtake Clinton in South Carolina, which could be a huge blow to the New York Senator. Link:

Posted by: campaigndiaries | January 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

If all of you like I, am tired of the Clinton's lies, dirty politics and trying to destroy Obama's character, please paste the following link into your address browser and sign the petition. We are going to send all of the signatures to the DNC. It's time for the voices of the people to be heard. The future of the Democratic Party being elected is in serious danger because of this. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION NOW!

Posted by: blaaksky | January 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

While Bill Clinton's antics on the campaign trail are making him look increasingly like more of a liability than an asset, it seems legitimate to seriously consider Hillary Clinton's obvious dependence on him as an indicator of her own ability to independently fill the role she seeks. We seem increasingly to be getting a "package deal" with this campaign: not a candidate with her spouse in a supporting role, but co-candidates who seem likely to function as co-presidents if elected (one wonders how her vice-president would feel in a No. 3 role utterly in the shadow of the president's spouse). There are reasons why we have term limits in this country. Rather than a clearly-delineated picture of the candidate's individual record of achievement, we are getting an increasingly blurred story about their shared achievements. How many of us for a job interview would take our spouses along and attempt to gain favor on the basis of combined achievements? Democrats should seriously consider the effect that a Clinton co-candidacy might have on their hopes for November.

Posted by: meades | January 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

obama will need to be a street fighter to take on the Clinton thugs who deal in power and ambition over integrity. The Clintons had eight years and did a fairly good job but also left the country tired and fatigued over scandals, infighting and affairs. Its time to turn the page.

Posted by: michael.schmitz | January 24, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

For how long will Obama keep quiet and allow the Hillary to lambast and distort his record?. I believe it is time for Obama to speak out, Obviously there is a limit to every human endurance. Also this is 2008 not 1992, people are more aware and ready to embrace change.

Posted by: popponline | January 24, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Why Hilary the Goldwater girl had her law school memoir sealed?


Posted by: rbduval | January 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Gennifer Flowers.

Paula Jones.

Monica Lewinsky.

"I never had sex with that woman."

"I didn't inhale."

Do YOU trust this man?

Posted by: mauialoha | January 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the ad raises good points but these qoutes are not always in context as Hillary and Bill are guilty of doing to Obama. I'll have to look into it further. It bothered me when Obama attacked Hillary for working on the board at Walmart when she was there attempting to make positive change for women and unions. I'm not sure if the proper response to swift-boat attacks from the Clinton's is to swift-boat them back. Obama has always been above that. I hope he does not sink so low. Stay Positive B-Rock.

Adam Schifter

Posted by: aschifter1 | January 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

That seems to answer the question about whether Obama has the stomach for a political fight. Another Clinton claim shown to be false. Is anyone surprised?

We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | January 24, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

It is time to turn the page on the Bush's and the Clinton's who love this divisive win by any means necessary politics. We finally have someone running for office who is the kind of politician we have been looking for since Robert and John Kennedy. Let's turn the page to double talk, partisan and moral struggles and elect someone who you can trust! Do we truly want the Clinton's back to resurrect the fights of the 90's because believe me the Republicans truly dislike them and their tactics which we can see on display right now!!!

Let's Turn The Page!!!

Posted by: crews2me | January 24, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I really like this ad: to the point. I'm here in S.C. and have heard the Clinton "Obama is pro-Republican" ad and it is shameless in it's attempt to distort Obama's comments. I'd ask the question, "Is Hillary Clinton stupid (thus questioning her ability to lead) or just plain dishonest?"

Either way, there is such lack of respect for the voter in the Clinton's attempts to distort the truth and I believe the voters of S.C. are too smart for this to be effective.

Posted by: carolinwoodstock | January 24, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Team Billary are liars and the truth is not in them....

Posted by: TennGurl | January 24, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

This Ad was right on the money; it is time to turn the page on deception and lies. I am tired of the Clintons using their tactics to gain a fair advantage.

Posted by: gbuze007 | January 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company