ABC News: Bill Clinton: No 'Whining' from Hillary

[Heisenberg]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...linton-no.html






Are you serious? The same Hillary who brought up SNL skits during the middle of the MSNBC debate a few months ago? The same one who spent her time talking about how the media was out to get her?

[StillUnknown]

she has literally cried, qualifies as whining in my book

[ECU-ALUM]

That's because the damn debate was rigged in her favor...of course she won't whine.

[Heisenberg]

That's because the damn debate was rigged in her favor...of course she won't whine.

I don't care as much about that anymore simply because Obama is going to have to learn to deal with that if he has any intentions on winning the election.


Just comments like this make me think the Clinton's are completely dillusional.

[ECU-ALUM]

I don't care as much about that anymore simply because Obama is going to have to learn to deal with that if he has any intentions on winning the election.


Just comments like this make me think the Clinton's are completely dillusional.

Point...but the way Hillary and company are carrying on you'd thought she just pulled off an upset.

[Smoot Point Really]

Up until this point, Senator Obama has gotten a free pass... Finally, someone asked him a few tough character questions that he continues to call "distractions". He needs to start answering questions and stop dodging them as "distractions".

For your campaign to say that you are "friendly" with Bill Ayers, and then for you to say in the debate that he was an English Professor who lives in your neighborhood and you don't exchange ideas with him. Oh, and btw, he also happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers for a period of 3 years... And you happen to have funneled through the Woods Fund $75K in funds to the Arab American Action Network founded by Rashid Khalidi, a "longtime supporter of Palestinian resistance attacks against Israel."

There have been 21 debates... I think it's worthwhile to hear Senator Obama finally talk about this stuff for 45 minutes. Stop saying it is a distraction, because it won't be a distraction around the General Election. ELECTABILITY is the word here... If he can't answer those questions now, he won't get by calling it a "distraction" in October/November after more information is uncovered. This could be the tip of the iceberg with the Senator.

[Ax]

Just comments like this make me think the Clinton's are completely dillusional.

Some of us knew this the first time we heard Bill open his mouth. Nothing over the years has happened to change that. And, "dillusional" is the kindest word I would use to describe either one of them.

[Heisenberg]

Up until this point, Senator Obama has gotten a free pass... Finally, someone asked him a few tough character questions that he continues to call "distractions". He needs to start answering questions and stop dodging them as "distractions".

For your campaign to say that you are "friendly" with Bill Ayers, and then for you to say in the debate that he was an English Professor who lives in your neighborhood and you don't exchange ideas with him. Oh, and btw, he also happened to serve on the board of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers for a period of 3 years... And you happen to have funneled through the Woods Fund $75K in funds to the Arab American Action Network founded by Rashid Khalidi, a "longtime supporter of Palestinian resistance attacks against Israel."

There have been 21 debates... I think it's worthwhile to hear Senator Obama finally talk about this stuff for 45 minutes. Stop saying it is a distraction, because it won't be a distraction around the General Election. ELECTABILITY is the word here... If he can't answer those questions now, he won't get by calling it a "distraction" in October/November after more information is uncovered. This could be the tip of the iceberg with the Senator.

LOL considering he was pounded with the Rev. Wright stuff for a solid week and made the rounds on every cable news outlet I would say that maybe you haven't been paying attention. The lapel pin issue he has discussed on about 50 occasions and he addressed the "bitter" comment several times last week. If you haven't been keeping up with the storylines before the debate that is on you . . . the debate forum isn't meant for that sort of tabloid journalism. That can be left up to the various talk shows on the cable outlets which is where it had stayed. You are right when you say he should be forced to answer these questions but the point is that he has . . . many times . . . and will continue to do so. The debate is an opportunity to discuss the major issues that actually has a huge impact on the average American.


The way the debate was set up for the first hour or so was basically a question about a "controversy" followed by a short Obama response and then Hillary being given an opportunity to pile on with her own holier than thou bull****.

Leave this mess to the nightly news and Anderson Cooper, Hardball, etc.


I wanted to hear more about real issues.

[Smoot Point Really]

You'd like to hear more substantive questions... I'd like to hear more substantive answers. Constantly referring to questions you don't want to answer as a "distraction" is the problem. He got his arse kicked in the debate. Face it! Hope he does better in the future. This is just the beginning.

The difference with McCain is that when the alleged "scandal" broke that he had an intimate relationship with a Lobbyist, he held press conferences and answered every question. He didn't call them "distractions" because he knew that if those were thought to be true it would make others question his integrity. That issue went away completely... THAT is how you deal with a potential scandal if you don't have something to hide!

Now we can question the integrity of Obama, whose campaign says Ayers is on "friendly terms" and he now claims is just a neighbor down the street. Or maybe he isn't a neighbor at all... maybe he is just a "distraction".

[Heisenberg]

You'd like to hear more substantive questions... I'd like to hear more substantive answers. Constantly referring to questions you don't want to answer as a "distraction" is the problem. He got his arse kicked in the debate. Face it! Hope he does better in the future. This is just the beginning.

The difference with McCain is that when the alleged "scandal" broke that he had an intimate relationship with a Lobbyist, he held press conferences and answered every question. He didn't call them "distractions" because he knew that if those were thought to be true it would make others question his integrity. That issue went away completely... THAT is how you deal with a potential scandal if you don't have something to hide!

Now we can question the integrity of Obama, whose campaign says Ayers is on "friendly terms" and he now claims is just a neighbor down the street. Or maybe he isn't a neighbor at all... maybe he is just a "distraction".

Like I said you must not be paying attention. How is that different than the press conferences Obama has called? Or how about the big speech he gave after the Rev. Wright story broke? Or his rounds with the news networks that I have already spoken about?


You either don't know what you're talking about, haven't been paying attention, just have a genuine dislike for Obama . . . or some combination.


McCain's story went away because the press stopped asking questions about. That hasn't been the case here. You're right when you say he needs to answer to them but he has already done so in-depth and multiple times. The people who don't pay attention are the ones who thinks these are new questions.

[Smoot Point Really]

Like I said you must not be paying attention. How is that different than the press conferences Obama has called? Or how about the big speech he gave after the Rev. Wright story broke? Or his rounds with the news networks that I have already spoken about?

Actually, you aren't paying attention... Wright made a speech less than a week ago and claimed our founding fathers planted white supremacy in the DNA of America. This was the Senators pastor for 20 years and "baptized" his two children. BTW, he also got the title of his book, "Audacity of Hope" from a Jeremiah Wright lecture. I think it's fair for Obama to reiterate his relationship with Wright every time Wright says something controversial. His answers haven't been very good (aka "substantive") up until this point. He even went as far to say he "disowned" Wright and then retract that statement to say that he "disowned" the comments...

The Flag issue came up because he wore a flag a few days ago... He answered well, if he answered truthfully. I don't think we know where he stands, but he won some reprieve by answering that he wore the pin because a disabled vet gave it to him. Not much was really made of this, and it was GOOD FOR OBAMA that he answered this one.

You either don't know what you're talking about, haven't been paying attention, just have a genuine dislike for Obama . . . or some combination.

You dwell on Wright, which has been a story for a number of months. You don't mention Ayers or his "bitter" comments. Those stories are recent and he had never been questioned on those in a debate.

McCain's story went away because the press stopped asking questions about. That hasn't been the case here. You're right when you say he needs to answer to them but he has already done so in-depth and multiple times. The people who don't pay attention are the ones who thinks these are new questions.

Ayers and "bitter" were definitely new. The other two were timely just because Obama and Wright made them timely. Wright with his speech and Obama by wearing a flag again.

[Heisenberg]

This was not about Wright, it was about Ayers. A blanket "mea culpa" about ALL past relationships does not work in a political campaign. Each occasion has to be addressed individually. If Obama really thinks that he is above answering these questions, he will get slaughtered in the general. Every issue he has already faced will be revisited and 50 more are going to come out.

I agree completely.


However, the Ayers part of the debate was extremely short and was definitely his worst answer of the night.


This part took maybe 10 minutes max.


The rest of the hour was spent on flag lapel pins and Wright . . . which I think have been covered enough. I think the right wing can continue to have their fun wiht that stuff but to everyone else I think they made their mind up about how to feel about the issue a long time ago.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think HRC's best moment was when she pointed out that Ayers and BHO served on the Woods Fund Board... What it tells me is that she didn't think Stephanopolous hammered enough at this issue and she wanted to make sure that BHO didn't get away with it by just calling him "a neighbor".

She also scored points on "capital gains" and "affirmative action" by closing her mouth and watching BHO talk.

I'm really starting to believe that BHO will be a lightweight in this election and that HRC would be the more formidable candidate for McCain. The good thing about HRC is that everyone knows her baggage... They can't say much more than they've already said and she is still around. My prediction: Unless the Super-Delegates step in, by October the Democrats will likely wish they had.

[RabidFan]

Actually, you aren't paying attention... Wright made a speech less than a week ago and claimed our founding fathers planted white supremacy in the DNA of America. This was the Senators pastor for 20 years and "baptized" his two children. BTW, he also got the title of his book, "Audacity of Hope" from a Jeremiah Wright lecture.

Didn't Condi Rice basically say the same thing a week or two ago??? yet cause its Wright its an abomination???