Clinton’s hypocrisy on Sanders’ tone: check out her 2008 “tone” against Obama

Hilary Clinton has said that she won’t debate Sanders unless he changes his “tone” and stops making “negative” statements. She has been particularly critical of his statements about the huge campaign donations and speaking fees she has taken from Wall Street and other special interests, as well as any mention of legislative actions she has taken that benefitted those large donors, or how that money might impact her future decisions.

But back in 2008 when running in a primary against Barack Obama, she aired a TV ad accusing Obama of accepting $200,000 from oil industry representatives and voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.”
She also accused Obama of trading legislative favors for campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. “Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors—Exelon, a big nuclear power company,” she stated, going on to suggest, “apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry.”

Her accusations of a secret deal that impugned Obama’s integrity was not only negative in tone, it also earned Clinton “two Pinocchios” from the Washington Post for dishonesty. The newspaper’s fact checkers found that Clinton failed to provide evidence of any secret deal between Obama and the nuclear industry.

Why, then, might she be ducking a debate with Sanders?

International Business Times, in an article exposing her hypocrisy, points out that Clinton has backed trade deals, offshore drilling and arms deals that benefitted her major campaign donors as well as supporters of the Clintons’ foundation. She switched her position on single-payer healthcare after receiving $2.8 million in speaking fees from the healthcare industry, and she backed a bankruptcy bill that helped her financial industry donors.

Who candidates take money from, and their voting records, should be legitimate topics for debate in any political campaign. But in Mrs. Clinton’s case, apparently she believes it’s fine to dish out such criticisms of her opponent –but not to answer similar questions posed about her own political record.

Sanders has been honorable in his campaign, refraining from mud-slinging and even doing a favor in a debate by dismissing a question on her emails that are the subject of an FBI problem, stating he preferred to focus on the issues.

If Clinton can't handle a debate against an honorable gentleman raising legitimate questions about her donations and voting record, how would she fare in a debate against a scrappy opponent like Donald Trump who is not averse to low blows, name calling, personal insults and probably worse?