MyDD :: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies About Obama's Record?

Fed Up With Clinton's Lies About Obama's Record?

by HatchInBrooklyn, Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST

So am I, and we're not alone.

The former head of the Chicago Chapter of the National Organization For Women was supporting Hillary Clinton before the Iowa caucuses. But she is so angry about Clinton's flagrant distortion of Obama's pro-choice voting record that she's decided to back Obama instead. Lorna Brett Howard worked closely with Obama when he was an Illinois State Senator. She contends that Clinton's direct mail pieces accusing Obama of being "unwilling to take a stand on choice" are completely dishonest. She says that Barack Obama had a 100% pro-choice voting record in the Illinois State Senate.

Before you start accusing her of lying about her prior support for Clinton, just look her up on the Huffington Post's Fund Race page. She and her husband both donated the maximum amount to Hillary Clinton in 2007.

It almost seems pointless posting this video in the Clinton echo-chamber that MyDD has sadly become, but Democrats like me--not PINOs or Naderites or whatever some of you are calling Edwards and Obama supporters these days--have had it with Bill and Hillary Clinton's constant dishonesty about Senator Obama's statements, positions, and record. We don't need this kind of behavior in the Democratic race. We don't need a dishonest Democratic nominee, and we don't need a dishonest President.

Tags: hillary clinton, barack obama, pro-choice, now (all tags)

Permalink :: 40 Comments :: Post a Comment

The Clinton tactics are DESTROYING (2.00 / 1)

the Democratic party.

Everything they do are FRACTURING the party more and more.

by puma on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies (2.00 / 1)

Has Illinios NOW endorsed Obama? I heard they refused to.

by americanincanada on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:22:05 PM EST

They Didn't (none / 0)

And when they attacked Obama's record in their endorsement of Clinton, the Chicago Tribune reported that the former President of the Chapter protested:

"There's never been a problem with Sen. Obama. It's really a shame," said Lorna Brett, a Clinton supporter and former president of Chicago NOW.

Brett and other women's rights and abortion rights advocates say they often asked lawmakers to vote present as part of a larger legislative strategy.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IL NOW (none / 0)

has endorsed Hillary Clinton

http://www.illinoisnow.org/

by AnnC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There (none / 0)

Interesting, so on the front page of Illinois NOW it says: "Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There On Issues That Mattered to Illinois Women"

The diarist would have us believe a former president of a local over the state-wide organization itself?

by souvarine on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:56:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There (none / 0)

Yup - in 2004.

Because they endorsed one of Obama's Senate opponents -- Blair "wife beater" Hull.

NARAL endorsed Lieberman in 2004, too.

Orgs mean shit. People matter.

by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Was Present, But He Was Not There (none / 0)

You're a good fit with the Obama campaign, swimming in the muck with the lowest of the bottom dwellers. The "Mr. Clean" act falls apart when people start poking into his political history, and casts his presidential campaign in a whole different light.

by souvarine on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL NOW (2.00 / 1)

I can't wait for the two internet statements from Ms. Brett Howard to start going viral around the internet to show once and for all how dishonest Hillar really is. The fact that this major supporter has switched to Barack, along with the Washington Post piece from the women in NH who say that Hillary lied about Barack's position on choice will resonate wih average voters.

by commoncents on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:00:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fed Up? (none / 0)

The tapes that were shown today were Obama's own words. Don't blame the Clintons for Obama's lack of discipline. And it is a lack of campaign discipline. He has never had to run a hard race and it shows.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:34:20 PM EST

Tapes? (2.00 / 0)

What are you talking about? The South Carolina radio ad, which dishonestly implied that Obama said Reagan's ideas were good? The YouTube single-payer spot, which attacked Obama for having once been further to the left on health care policy?

For someone who "has never had to run a hard race and it shows" Obama is doing pretty damned well running against the most powerful couple in the Democratic Party.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tapes? (none / 0)

The single payer statement was what I was talking about. And he hasn't really been challenged much in the media. I don't think that losing the last three caucuses/primaries shows that he's doing a good job.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:03:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Challenged (2.00 / 0)

Right, like Bill said. They've been perfectly fair to him, with all of the early "Is He Black Enough?" coverage. That was great for him.

He narrowly lost one primary and one caucus by my count, is still ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates, and is expected to win by a large margin in the next contest. Like I said, not too bad for running against a popular former President and First Lady.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tapes? (none / 0)

Yeah... I know.

Someone should really bring up his admitted drug usage.

Oops.

Someone should really bring up his middle name.

Oops.

Someone should really ask if he's a Manchurian Muslim.

Oops.

Someone should ask about his kindergarten time abroad.

Oops.

Yeah - absolutely - this guy needs a closer look because he's just gotten off waaayyyy too easy.

by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tapes? (none / 0)

And how much of that is about his record in the IL senate?

If he didn't want people to know about his drug usage he shouldn't have put it in a book. He did that to himself. He's the one who thought that his childhood in a muslim country was an important qualification to be present. Thanks for conceding that his middle name is a problem. You better get used to hearing it if he's the nominee.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hey naderite pino...one word... (none / 0)

rezko.

two more.

dead meat.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton will say anything (none / 0)

Barack's new ad explaining that Hillary will say anythig to win should really be used as part of the national campaign. Most people already believe this is true with the Clintons but this would just make it explicit.

She would literally say anything, no matter how dishonest or ludicrous it sounds, if she thought it would lead back to the WH.

by commoncents on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They aren't all lies (none / 0)

They aren't all lies. I can't stand Clinton, will never vote for her, but before you put that plaster halo on Obama's head, you should read the source articles that reveal Obama's relationship with con man Tony Rezko here (there are links to legit sources.)

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008 /jan/22/didn_t_obama_watch_the_firm

by JPerry on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:38:48 PM EST

Who Said Anything About Rezko? (2.00 / 0)

Obama hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing there, period. All that's there are insinuations and speculation. Any comment from Obama would just add fuel to the fire. This is like the Clinton's being attacked by Democrats about Whitewater. "The Politics Of Personal Destruction," now just another weapon in the former victims' arsenal.

No one's putting a halo over the guy's head. He's not perfect. He's not a saint. But many of the Clinton's campaigns statements about him--about his present votes, about his opposition to the war, about his social security policy, about his historically accurate comments about Reagan--have been demonstrably untrue.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They aren't all lies (2.00 / 1)

I read your link, and there's absolutely nothing alleged that Obama did was improper, much less illegal. Its a typical Clinton smear -- oh, he knows this guy who got indicted, so he needs to "answer questions" about his relationship. And after he answers them, they continue to claim that he hasn't "answered questions" about his relationship. The point is to smear him by association, without actually having any suggestion he did anything wrong.

By the way, has Hillary ever "answered questions" about how she came to prepare documents at the Rose Law firm that Jim McDougle used to perpetrate fraud?

Maybe she has, but I'm not privy to her grand jury transcripts, so maybe she could answer those questions publicly before she asks us to elect her president.

by davey jones on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They aren't all lies (2.00 / 1)

As a reporter from the Chicago Tribune pointed out today, there is no evidence that Barack Obama did anything wrong. I love how people say Rezko's name like that is a charge in and of itself. But he is accused of doing nothing but exercising poor judgment in associating with him.

Now can the same be said about Clinton and Norman Hu and a whole list of Clinton scandals dating back to Arkansas?

by commoncents on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They aren't all lies (none / 0)

Uh, of course the same thing can be said about Norman Hsu. Do you even know what you are talking about?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They aren't all lies (none / 0)

Of course...

I think Hsu has been convicted and sentenced, and Rezko is just under indictment, right?

that sorta thing used to kinda matter

by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They aren't all lies (none / 0)

Unless you want to point to the evidence that Hillary Clinton did something wrong in the Hsu matter, which doesn't exist, you probably shouldn't jump into the middle of a discussion like this.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies About Obama's Recor (none / 0)

I'm not fed up because it is factual, substantive and based on hard evidence.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:39:05 PM EST

Oh Are They? (none / 0)

The big lie. If enough surrogates, supporters, and Clinton's Bloggers say Obama won't take a stand on choice-- in spite of evidence to the contrary provided by the very reproductive rights advocates who worked with Obama in Illinois--then it must be true.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies (2.00 / 1)

The bottom line is that NOW Illinois as well as NOW as a national organization have endorsed Clinton. The former President of the Ill chapter disagreed then and still does.

Ok, and the big deal is?

As a woman, I feel the Senator Clinton will represent my feelings, desires and needs better than any other candidate. there is no doubt about that when it comes to women's reproductive and sexual health.

by americanincanada on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:39:16 PM EST

Of Course Clinton Will Fight For Choice (none / 0)

No one accused Clinton of being soft on choice. That's not the issue. The issue is that Clinton has been telling voters that Obama doesn't have a strong pro-choice record, and that is simply not true. End of story.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where was Hillary (2.00 / 1)

when South Dakota pro-choice groups were trying to fight the abortion ban? All Democratic Senators were invited to help. Guess who was the ONLY one who did....Barack Obama. (Helen Halpin, Director of Health Policy at UC Berkley - posted on You Tube.)

If she will mislead women about who is pro-choice and who isn't why would you trust her to represent your "feelings, desires and needs"?

by royce on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies (none / 0)

IL NOW also endorsed Obama's wife-beating opponent, Blair Hull, in the 2004 Senate primary...

NARAL endorsed Lieberman over Lamont.

Organizations don't always support the best interests of the causes they purport to support -- often times, they support the best interests of the organization... neutral of the cause.

by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:20:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's (none / 0)

I'm not fed up because they aren't lies.

by reasonwarrior on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:49:21 PM EST

So What Are They? (2.00 / 1)

Fudges? Fibs? False statements? Fictions?

by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So What Are They? (none / 0)

No, Obama's campaign is what is "fiction," and people are seeing that clearer and clearer these days.

by reasonwarrior on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So What Are They? (none / 0)

Which is why Obama's numbers keep rising, while Hillary's basically at the same level she's been at since 2006.

by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Up Will Be Down (none / 0)

Left will be Right. Lies will be the truth. What a great country this will be when Hillary Clinton is President.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:02:24 AM EST

Did I Mention... (none / 0)

Change will be More Of The Same?

If the Obama campaign "dies an unpleasant death," Hillary might not do so well in the General Election. Be careful what you wish for.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The delusional construct of the (none / 0)

I hope Hillary will be man enough to help pick up the pieces after the convention. Oh, I mean Bill or whichever one of them is the actual candidate.

by commoncents on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies About Obama's Recor (none / 0)

Did Obama ever mention his wife's deep ties to WAL-MART?

Michelle Obama has deep and controversial ties to WAL-MART.

by truthteller2007 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:22:09 AM EST

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies About Obama's Recor (2.00 / 0)

My understanding is that the direct mail in question brought up Obama's seven present votes on abortion-related issues in the Illinois senate, and implied that he couldn't be counted on to support pro-choice positions.

The mailer probably counted as factually accurate but intentionally misleading. Obama has a very strong pro-choice voting record, and it wasn't right to suggest otherwise. (I confess it's odd that Illinois NOW didn't endorse him in his race against Alan Keyes.)

Are there reasons for concern? Maybe a little.
I think one concern people might have is that he talks so much about working across the aisle and coming together it's hard to tell what exactly is off limits for him. What are the things that he'll refuse to compromise on? Is abortion one of them, or will he seek to find common ground somehow? It's not really clear, since he never really tells us.

I just took a look at his website to see how much emphasis he places on abortion rights. It's not one of the issues listed under the Issues tab (at least it's not under "civil rights" or "health care"). There is a "women" section under the "People" tab, and much of that is devoted to refuting Clinton's criticisms. On the women's issues page (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/w omenissues), there's only one vague paragraph on abortion rights. John Edwards, by contrast, has a page-long PDF file talking about abortion rights, including the right to abortion, access to abortion, gag rules, judicial nominations, and bans on certain procedures.

All that said, I respect anyone's right to choose their candidate, and if Ms. Howard feels that Clinton unfairly criticized Obama, she's entitled to that choice. I won't object to it.

by OrangeFur on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:22:45 AM EST

Re: Fed Up With Clinton's Lies About Obama's Recor (none / 0)

Obama lied about his relations to Rezko during an interview with George Stephanopolous. He also lied about his ethics record in Springfield, Illinois.

by truthteller2007 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:04:48 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Key words:

"Former" head.

"Illinois"

"Lorna Brett Howard worked closely with Obama when he was an Illinois State Senator."

She is not active with NOW, in no way speaks for them.

She is from Illinois, Obama's home state.

She worked closely with him, perhaps there is even personal friendship.

I don't think that type of testimony is very telling or poignant, given the circumstances.

NOW did not endorse Obama when he ran against ALAN KEYES. The obvious reason were his many "present" votes on vital abortion legislation. That is a fact. They were obviously troubled by that voting history. Now, the IL chapter of Planned Parenthood is a different story, but I would not call it exactly LYING if the Clinton campaign picked up on the official position of the Illinois chapter of NOW to be "troubled" by Obama's voting record on women issues.

Clinton echo-chamber that MyDD has sadly become, but Democrats like me--not PINOs or Naderites or whatever some of you are calling Edwards and Obama supporters these days--have had it with Bill and Hillary Clinton's constant dishonesty about Senator Obama's statements, positions, and record.

If you look carefully, you will notice that a vast majority of Edwards supporters on this site have stated that they are troubled by Obama and would, given a choice between the two, pick Clinton. Again, almost all known Edwards supporters on this site have come around to disliking Obama and preferring Hillary over him. I guess that puts a pretty big wrench in the machinations of the sentence I quoted above.

by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:14:31 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.