Hillary (hypocritically) Directly Accuses Obama Of Politicizing Bhutto Assassination

Hillary Directly Accuses Obama Of Politicizing Bhutto Assassination
By Greg Sargent - December 28, 2007, 3:40PM

Hillary herself has now directly accused the Obama campaign of politicizing the Bhutto assassination in response to the Obama camp's effort yesterday to indirectly link Hillary's support for the war with the tragedy.

Hillary taped an interview today with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in which she made the charge. It hasn't yet been fully aired. But her campaign has sent over a transcript:

Blitzer: I interviewed your rival, Barack Obama, for Democratic presidential nomination last night and he had some implied criticism of you saying some of your past decisions do not necessarily warrant your stepping up and becoming the next president of the United States. Listen to this:

Obama: I think it’s important for the American people to look at the judgments they’ve made in the past. The experienced hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That’s part of the reason we are now in this circumstance.

Blitzer: Now I think he was referring to your vote giving the President authority to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and your more recent vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In effect, he says that gave a blank check to the President to go to war against Iran. You want to respond to Senator Obama?

Clinton: First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy. I personally knew Benazir Bhutto. She was Prime Minister when I visited Pakistan on behalf of our government. I stayed in touch with her over the years. I don’t think politics should be playing a role in how our country responds, both on the personal level to the tragedy of this assassination.

A bit later, Blitzer asks again:

Blitzer: What about the specific criticism of your foreign policy judgment that we heard from Senator Obama, we heard earlier in the day from his chief strategist, David Axelrod. What about that, that implied criticism that some of your decisions on these national security, foreign policy issues raise questions about whether or not you should be president?

Clinton: I just regret that both of them would be politicizing this tragedy and especially at a time when do we need to figure out a way forward. That’s what I’m focused on.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_directly_accuses_obama_of_politicizing_bhutto_assassination.php#comments

****

As if the blatant hypocrisy of her complete statement (especially beginning in bold) is not enough...perhaps Hillary forgot this bit ----

Hillary Backer Bayh: Assassination Reminds Us That If We Don't Pick Hillary, GOP Could Paint Dems As Weak
By Greg Sargent - December 27, 2007, 4:14PM

Looks like Obama adviser David Axelrod isn't the only key player talking about the effect the Bhutto assassination will have on the Dem primary.

Here's Hillary supporter Evan Bayh, saying that the killing is a reminder that the Republicans will use such occasions to paint Dems as weak, which is why we need to nominate Hillary:

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans , ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”...
“The job of the next president is not to be entertainer in chief. The job of the next president is to move our country forward to make the substantive changes that will matter in our daily lives, and to protect us in an uncertain and dangerous world. And that’s why in a field of very good candidates, I believe Senator Clinton has the right combination of experience and strength to accomplish all of those things.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_directly_accuses_obama_of_politicizing_bhutto_assassination.php#comments

But she should accuse him, because he did.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/clinton.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch#cnnSTCVideo

How desperate will the Obama campaign get? I guess, the answer is obvious by the looks of the OP!

Why can't people just be honest? Why grasp at straws? I think Obama would make a wonderful nominee and president, but I wonder about a lot of his supporters. They are so damn hypersensitive and always tossing stink bombs.

There is no excuses, that decision has been devastating to our efforts to fight terrorism! Of course they don't want to talk about it.

Considering how directly Obama's hatchet man spokesman has turned it into an issue to bash Hillary with...

2. Axelrod replied to a question asked by reporters and when Wolf brought it up yesterday, Obama commented on THAT since Wolf failed to mention that.

3. Obama's response was to a question from Wolf.

:eyes:

:rofl:

what Axelrod meant by what he said. And why silent on BAYH'S politicization?

:rofl:

:rofl:

“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don't need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it."


He could just said "Uh, please don't say it again. I can't believe Alexrod was that stupid."

how this would help Hillary or not. Now he's interviewing Hillary showing, AGAIN, selective clips of OBAMA'S comments...not the comment where he told Wolf that it was in response to a question, AND the reporter's question was inappropriate. SO BIASED!!!

Clinton
News
Network

asking her everything she probably WANTED to be asked. And he just said there will be much more later, including her response to Obama's criticism. :eyes:

But you already knew that.

"Okay, the battling among Dems over how the Bhutto assassination will affect the Dem primary is officially underway. Today after Barack Obama's closing argument speech in Iowa, Obama adviser David Axelrod parried questions from reporters who pressed him on whether the killing could help Hillary."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/obama_adviser_bhutto_assassination_reminds_us_that_hillary_made_wrong_call_on_iraq_war.php

Looks like Obama adviser adviser adviser Axelrod ..
Here's Hillary supporter supporter supporter Evan Bayh.. there IS difference!

Seamy snake-oil political gamesmanship.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5imMJi2hvCZ-dANaRhVu2mDcdgG0wD8TQKF780

You should add that to your OP.

Every instance of terrorism was evidence that no one else could be trusted with the job.

When you pointed out that the rise of terrorism was a direct result of the Iraq war, then they start bitching about "politicizing" tragedy.

Rotten motherfuckers, the lot of 'em.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

facilitated by CiaNN, natch. Pretty shameful.

throws stones at every passerby, until another kid finally picks up the stone and throws it back. Then the snot nosed kid fat goes screaming for an adult to punish the one who returned the favor.

Classic Hillary.
She feigns outrage at Obama that he would even bring up her disastrous vote.
She just cannot seem to deal with all the unintended repercussions of her mistake.

She first accused Obama of politicizing Bhutto's death, and showing that for her it was personal. And then she pretty much said, if he had any historical knowledge he would know that his accusations are a load of bull--that Pakistan has been in upheaval for generations from Bhutto's father's time to Musharaff to Bhutto.

It was classic.

It was classic Hillarism.
She did as she always does.
She changed the subject.

Al Qaeda has not been in Pakistan for generations. Check it out.

We all know Iraq has done so! It was predicted beforehand, and the prediction came true. hillary did not even read the intelligence briefings before voting, let alone ponder the destablilizing (obvious) influences of invading Iraq.

But, to the Hillary Herd, that was ever so "followable"

Even though the question was about IWR.

Hillary's quote looked like a robot repeating the same phrase....

lots of time memorizing this speech Wolf's letting her give.

:puke: in her general direction.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

But I guess you already knew that:)

Maybe they should've given HIM an exclusive interview with all that time and all the easy questions, too.

did you see her roll her eyes before they went to obama's statement? she did not look happy.

about history knows that Pakistan has been in upheaval for generations. She referred to Bhutto's father who was killed in the 1970's and referred to Musaraff who came to power by overthrowing the government.

She was awesome in stating that had Obama any knowledge of history he would not have said something so superficial.

how your candidate's Axelrod should have handled the other reporters' question.

And we all know that that means ;) ;) }(

" :puke:

THE Obama Idolers are trying to stick any damn thing they in to bash Hillary..THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN HER REPORT THAT SAYS ANYTHING POLITICAL....HER ANSWER TO THE CRITICISM OBAMA THREW AT HER IS NOT HARSH ENOUGH FOR ME...all he is doing now is bashing flaming and slurring her one comment after the other...shame his mother didn't wash his mouth out with soap he might have more respect for people.

I see a statement by Axelrod, indeed in response to questioning from someone in the press, that as a political pro he should have known NOT to say. And I speak as an Obama supporter.

But I DON'T see even any concrete claim regarding what Obama himself has said, as is clearly implied in HRC's statement. If there IS a quote by Obama himself that is the basis of HRC's remark, then I'd like to see it up on the thread.

Again, it was politically perverse of Axelrod to try to draw any link from HRC's policies to the Bhutto assassination, and it was wrong what Evan Bayh said, and now it appears that HRC has also misspoken.

At any rate, the problem is that HRC is hated, fairly or not, both by GOP stalwarts AND also by HUGE NUMBERS of independents and Democrats -- people who (unlike myself) will not vote for her if she gets the nomination. Plus HRC is a Clinton Democrat -- so as one poster said -- you sacrifice the most to get the candidate with the weakest chances of winning.

I know Edwards' campaign argues that he is the most electable of the leading Dems, but after seeing him in the 04 campaign, and seeing Obama, I think Obama looks much better under the glare of the harsh political spotlight (of which this whole thing of linking the Bhutto assassination to the election campaign is a spectacular example).

I agree that Edwards would be a stronger candidate than HRC.

both the one by Axelrod and the one by Bayh. The answers/counter-answers were above the paygrades of both Axelrod and Bayh. Axelrod should have used his head and just told the press that they would have to speak to the Senator(or Mister)Obama about that.

Flunkies do not get involved at that level. The stakes are absolutely too high.

The OP flamebaits when he inserted the term 'hypocritically' into the thread title. That much was deliberate.

Again the statement was made that Hillary voted forthe war all by herself. Not once have I seen the addition of: 76 Senators voted for the cause BushCo gave them. In no case, have I seen posters blame Bush for rushing off to war. That was not what the IWR was about.

Hillary took the high road with Blitzer, Obama stated the same charges. A little problem there.

Not going to change anyone's mind here. A bit more honesty would help but we are not going to see that.

Calling a candidate "an ass". Wow. How instructive. More instructive about Hillary's Slash and Burn poster than about anything else....

Don't you Hillary folks realize that the rest of us are Democrats?

If Obama's election could indeed change the tone in Washington away from the politics of personal destruction that would itself be worth it! This is the same hate that followed Bill Clinton during the 90s. It is the same hate that was unleashed by Rovian tactics towards anyone who didn't follow Bush's every whim, expecially Iraq. It is the same hate that was demonstrated with the Republican convention's flip flop mania.

We are not going to rise above this by calling others asses. Sorry.

in the Senate? What did He do? According to Axelrod, is Obama to blame for the Bhutto assassination too? Outrageous stuff from the Obama campaign.You don't blame your opponent for a political murder for which there is no direct connection between the assassin and your opponent. Seriously, the celebrity candidacy of Barack Obama, now threatened by a foreign policy emergency, has slipped into the nonsensical.

It was a talk about policy. The iraq war destabilized the entire region, including Pakistan. That was the point. And you try to say Axelrod or Obama BLAMED Hillary. Nonsense!

Problem is, mistakes have consequenses. Iraq was a total disaster. Not just for the hundreds of thousands who died. But it weakened our foreign policy, our military, our credibility in the world, it strengthened al queda, and we took our eye of the ball in the real war on terror by distracting ourselves into Iraq, where al queda wasn't until we invaded. And...one of the consequences of the IWR, which Hillary voted for...was the destabliization of the Middle East.

If Hillary had listened to her judgement instead of her political ambitions she would have joined Paul Wellstone in voting no!

But she didn't

typical politician's avoidance tactic and the interviewee rarely call them out on it like they should.
everything uncomfortable to her is 'politicizing' - that's the same ducking system bush uses all the time.

gawd help us all if she wins.

He was "disgusted" at the way she didn't answer Wolfie's questions and tried to hide behind her "let not play politics" talking point, while doing that very thing. True story.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/clinton.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch#cnnSTCVideo

I guess we know what your meaning of "apolitical" is..it has little to do with the Truth...just another meaningless word!

she said: this upheaval is historic. It did not just start because of Iraq! That is what she said!

people aren't fooled by a Clinton complaining about a political story being politicized. Many of them also know that Bayh threw the first punch and Axelrod was responding to a question about it.

He's just an innocent babe in the woods and mean Hillary is attacking him.

Please, Axelrod was shilling for Obama when he put in question her judgment and indirectly blamed her vote on IWR for Bhutto's assassination.

Typical Obama campaign tactics, throw the stone and hide the hand. Then, act innocent when the person attacked responds in kind. Hypocrites.....

revealed what an unmitigated fraud the notion was from the start.

"I know Axelrod wants to not only blame Bhutto's assassination on Clinton, but also the ensuing disaster of his comments on the Clinton camp, but sometimes you just have to look in the mirror and admit you're the one who loaded and let fly hitting your own campaign." Taylor Marsh

That video of Obama reacting to Bhutto's assassination was unsettling. He looked as though the gravitas of real political upheaval was being understood for the very first time.

If you want to get a better sense of Obama, watch the park scene with Robin Williams and Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting. You know the one where Robin Williams tells Matt Damon you can't begin to understand an orphan by reading Oliver Twist. Obama is like the Matt Damon character--brillant but no acutal life experience. motest