Video: Hillary Clinton MSNBC Democratic Town Hall In Philadelphia - April 25th 2016
Extracts from the FULL TRANSCRIPT;
MADDOW: We're doing these town halls tonight before this great body in Philly, you and Senator Sanders back to back. At this point in the primary I think a lot of people think no matter who gets the nomination, there is something that has changed in the Democratic primary because of this contest. I think a lot of people would describe it as Senator Sanders kind of putting his mark on the party, that after this contest the Democratic Party may be more populist, more aggressive on economic inequality, maybe more progressive overall. Do you see it that way?
CLINTON: Well I think that what we've had is a very spirited contest. Certainly we share a lot of the same goals. We have a commitment to doing something about inequality, more good jobs and rising incomes, we have a commitment to try to counter the much-too-heavy influence that money has, particularly by overturning Citizens United -- I think we diagnose the problems in very similar ways. But as I have said repeatedly, it's not enough just to diagnose the problem, you have to have solutions, you have to be able to demonstrate you can achieve results.
ME: It doesn't really seem that they share alot of the same goals, unless you focus JUST on this primary season when Hillary changed positions on multiple issues, including issues she pushed 45 times before making her claims of having changed position untenable, to be competitive in this election (i.e. she's changing her positions in appearance ONLY to win votes... that's why rather than answering Rachel Maddows question in the affirmative she is talking randomly.
MADDOW: Senator Sanders has been asked about how this all ends. He seems to be saying now that even if you beat him in the primary it's not necessarily a given that he will implore all of his supporters to go out and work for you. He says that he thinks that they'll support you if basically you adopt some of his platform on the issues that are most important to him. He's specifically talked about Wall Street and some other things in his platform. Does that make sense to you? Is that something you'd be open to? Are there significant enough differences between you on what you'd like to do, for example about Wall Street, about the bridge too far?
CLINTON: Well Rachel, let's look where we are right now. I've got 10.4 million votes. I have 2.7 million more folks, real people, showing up to cast their vote, to express their opinion than Senator Sanders. I have a bigger lead in pledged delegates than Senator Obama when I ran against him in 2008 ever had over me. I am winning. And I'm winning because of what I stand for and what I've done (APPLAUSE) and what I stand for.
Not really. Clinton is winning because of cover ups, media blackouts on Bernie Sanders, creating high expectations through Super Delegates AND because Bernie didn't go all out with exposing Hillary like Obama did in 2008. In other words, she won by cheating and not fair and square THUS she doesn't deserve to be the nominee.
Related blog posts:
Super Delegates And Corporate Media Bias Prove That The "Democratic" Party Should Be Disqualified AND Disbanded For Rigging The Elections To Serve It's Party Agenda
(APPLAUSE)
HC: Look, I think we have much more in common and I want to unify the Party, but my Wall Street plan is much more specific than his. We saw that when he couldn't even answer questions in the New York Daily News interview.
The Daily News interview was a hit job that even the Huffington Post mentioned, so that fact that Hillary mentions it here deserves a clarification questions (which never comes). In any case, this statement proves Hillary is lying or 'distorting the truth' while Maddow is helping her by letting it slide or not seeing that in the first place. I covered this here:
HC: He has yet to join me in going after the shadow banking industry.
Something which Paul Krugman likes to talk about and which may have been a result of the deregulation push by Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton. (very little information on this topic around) Seems like a risky play.
HC: So there are so many areas where I'm more specific, where I have a track record, where I explain what I will do and I think that's why I have 2.7 million more votes than he does.
No you have more votes for the reasons I outlined above... deception is the main way she is winning... like a GOP Establishment Republican! All she is doing is repeating her lies unchallenged.
MADDOW: Am I right in hearing that as basically you saying that there's nothing you're going to do differently than you're already doing as a way to try to win over his supporters, even at the end of the primary season?
CLINTON: Let's look at what happened in 2008, because that's the closest example. Then-Senator Obama and I ran a really hard race. It was so much closer than the race right now between me and Senator Sanders. We had (ph) pretty much the same amount of popular votes. By some measures I have (ph) slightly more popular votes. He has slightly more pledged delegates.
We got to the end in June and I did not put down conditions. I didn't say, "You know what, if Senator Obama does x, y and z, maybe I'll support him. I said, "I am supporting Senator Obama, because no matter what our differences might be, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and the Republicans." That's what I did.
Her argument here is that I nominated Obama and now you should nominate me. Nothing about why she had no choice BUT to nominate Obama since he had destroyed her reputation and fighting him would have been dangerous. What is going on now is the opposite, i.e. Hillary is not winning because she damaged Bernie Sander's reputation but because she and the media WITHHELD information.
At that time 40 percent of my supporters said they would not support him. So from the time I withdrew, until the time I nominated him -- I nominated him at the Convention in Denver -- I spent an enormous amount of time convincing my supporters to support him. And I'm happy to say the vast majority did.
And later Obama made her Secretary of State. Helped her kill people. Went back on several campaign promises in unique ways (apparently executive power for banning unconstitutional prisons wasn't enough and reports on unconstitutional torture programs disappeared). Related post:
HC: That is what I think one does. That is certainly what I did and I hope that we will see the same this year.
Clearly, Hillary believes lies and smear is part of the political process! I have multiple proofs of this;
Related blog posts:
Bill Moyers: Flashback: Elizabeth Warren Tells a Story About Hillary Clinton, Wall Street and Lobbying
MADDOW: A lot of Republicans had verbial (ph) heart attacks this weekend when a gentleman by the name of Charles Koch, one of the billionaire Koch brothers, said that you might very well be a better president than either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Now I know that you don't want Charles Koch's endorsement, and you have said that, but it struck me that that might be a little bit of a preview of what's to come. If Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz is nominated, I think a lot of Republicans will find them to be unacceptable as Republican nominees. If you were the Democratic nominee in that situation, do you have a plan to basically lobby for Republican votes? They're having a weird primary.
CLINTON: And you know I tweeted I really am not looking for endorsements from people who deny climate change
Yet she supports Fracking.
HC: and who have the views that the Koch brothers have had for so many years, so I'm gonna stay focused on what I'm doing right now.
Such as continuing with your support of the pipeline the Koch Brothers have so desperately wanted (Hillary is obviously lying and this information is too easily accessible for Maddow not to be doing a cover up job)
HC: But I'm gonna keep making the case to the American people about what I think we need to do right now to try to make sure we have broad-based prosperity, that we create opportunities for every American, get back to the basic bargain that I believe in, that if you work hard, you should get ahead and stay ahead, and your family should be coming right along with you.
The way people got ahead with her & her Ex-President husbands NAFTA plans, which Obama talked about and everyone in the media forgot this year? Here is a review;
MADDOW: When you -- when you say you shouldn't make promises that you can't keep -- I know that you've reiterated that a number of times on the stand (ph), are you talking about about Senator Sanders when you say that?
CLINTON: Well, I think that there certainly have been questions raised about the numbers not adding up for his college plan or his health care plan and those legitimate questions that people have to be able to ask and answer.
The point here is DIRECTION for the country and party. A few numbers not adding up doesn't mean the policy direction isn't right. For example, Bernie Sanders may not have got the numbers right on Israel's mass murder tactics BUT he got the sentiment right. In detail;
And again I would just refer to the New York Daily News interview which was a very long interview and certainly in New York people read it very carefully. And it demonstrated that there weren't a lot of answers to some of the hard questions that were asked on both domestic and foreign policy.
And again I would like to point out that the New York Daily News interview was clearly a dishonest hit job by a person who contributes to Hillary's campaign and had declared before the interviews that they were endorsing Hillary. The general population of New York doesn't have the knowledge to debunk an interview hit job when even the interviewers couldn't keep their facts straight. Here is the research I've done of the Daily News deceptions;
The New York Daily News... ARE TRAITORS!
But you'll have a chance to ask him about that. I think my goal is to keep talking about what I believe will work and I have said I will not raise taxes on middle class families because too many Americans haven't even yet recovered from the great recession and I think we can do what we need to do without having to even look at that. Instead, we ought to be looking at making the wealthy pay their share of supporting our country.
Yes, but moving jobs abroad puts a downward pressure on wages which is a kind of tax on the people's welfare in favor of the welfare of the already establishment wealthy class. Related;
QUESTION: Will you say what role you would trust Senator Sanders in, in the Clinton administration?
CLINTON: Well, I can't answer that because obviously I don't have the nomination yet. I'm not yet elected president but here's what I will say. I'm already raising money for Democrats up and down the ballot. I am dedicated to electing Democrats -- it's something that I've spent many years doing. I am a Democrat and I want to see more Democrats elected from the small boroughs in Montgomery County to Philadelphia to across the country.
True. She helps Democrats ... unless she has to win an election, such as the second term of her husbands. Then she and her hubby turn right ("super predators") to win since it's not like the Democratic party can renominate a person who is already President. That's when she becomes Republican. Won't be the first time she's done this.
MADDOW: Can I ask you as a follow-on to that. It said at the outset that a lot of people have talked about Senator Sanders kind of putting his mark on the Democratic party. Are we raising (ph) questions whether that's happening? How will you change the Democratic party?
CLINTON: Right now majority of states are run by Republican governors and we see what they're doing. On choice, on voting rights, on LGBT rights. It makes a difference so my job will be to make sure that the Democratic party is producing results through our elected officials, electing more Democrats and then convincing our supporters to turn out and vote in midterm elections.
That's a crazy plan. No one but turns up for midterms. Shows she is making stuff up that she know will not work. Anyways, more hypocrisy here too;
----
MADDOW: Welcome back to Philadelphia. Welcome back to our MSNBC town hall with Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Let's stick with some more questions from our audience. We've got (Evalisse Pilates) here. She's a Democrat and she is undecided in this race. Hi.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Clinton. I was born and raised in Harlem, New York to parents who struggled and suffered from drug abuse and poverty. Like many black women, most of the men in my family have been in jail. When I was born, my father held me and he said, "you're going to get an education," because like you he believed that education was the great equalizer.
So I went to college, graduated with honors, I'm a practicing attorney and despite the fact that I'm intelligent, articulate and ambitious I face racial discrimination as a member of a profession that's almost 90 percent white. My question for you is, what as president you would do -- what initiatives, programs you would institute to address the racial and systemic racism that still exists and predates the glass ceiling for many twentysomethings like me?
CLINTON: Well, you are absolutely right. We are still facing and struggling with systemic racism. It's true in employment and promotion and other job opportunities. It's true in education, it's true in health care, it's true in the criminal justice system. That's why I talk about breaking down all the barriers. We have economic barriers to be sure but we have very entrenched barriers of discrimination.
This just makes me laugh;
Hillary Clinton holds the great promise of becoming the first woman elected to the presidency. Recently, many of her partisans have accused her main opponent, Bernie Sanders, of sexism. Sanders, defending his gun control record, said that “all the shouting in the world” wouldn’t stop the violence; Clinton responded that “I haven’t been shouting, but sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting.”In the second incident, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver, poking fun at their underdog status, joked that Clinton would “make a great vice president.” He continued: “We’re willing to give her more credit than Obama did. We’re willing to consider her for vice president. We’ll give her serious consideration. We’ll even interview her.” In response, Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock tweeted that the comment was a “condescending insult by a team who knows better. Hillary is possibly most qualified ever to run & Americans know it.”Those two smears don’t convince as sexist. By contrast, examine Hillary Clinton’s comments defending welfare reform, assembled by Buzzfeed, in the late 1990s and early 2000s: Clinton wrote that “too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives.” She suggested that women recipients were “sitting around the house doing nothing.” She described the “move from welfare to work” as “the transition from dependency to dignity.” Or a “substitute dignity for dependence.” Put more simply, she stated, “these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive.”
In sum, she has frequently validated a pathologization of poor black women that has often served as a pretext for Republican assaults on the social safety net. She has not repudiated these remarks.Indeed, Clinton has long embraced welfare reform, a policy more hostile to women than almost any other enacted recent decades. Passed by a Republican Congress, the bill was signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, eager to make good on his pledge to “end welfare as we know it.”What that meant was a five-year federal limit on receiving welfare. States, which henceforth received funding as a block grant, were incentivized to set even stricter limits. States that kicked people off the rolls could spend the money elsewhere, and they have. States could also evade job participation requirements by kicking people of the rolls. Whether the gutting of welfare was a cynical political calculation (Clinton’s penchant for “triangulation”) or derived from deep-seated belief likely has made little difference to the poor women, often black women, cut off from government aid.In 1996, the number of families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children was 4.5 million, according to Fred Block and Frances Fox Piven. In 2009, as economic crisis set in, just 1.7 million families were accessing Temporary Aid to Needy Families, AFDC’s eviscerated replacement. That’s a cut of 62 percent. According to a recent Harper’s story by Virginia Sole-Smith, “For every hundred families with children that are living in poverty, sixty-eight were able to access cash assistance before Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. By 2013, that number had fallen to twenty-six.”TANF block grants were not set to adjust for inflation and, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the program’s buying power has declined by more than a third since 1997.As welfare reform shredded the social safety net, other Clinton Administration policies buttressed corporate and Wall Street power. The shift from good-paying manufacturing jobs to horribly compensated cashier work in the service industry accelerated. Wall Street went on to tank the global economy. When the bottom fell out, there was little to catch poor people falling hard to the ground. As Ron Haskins, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who played a key role in welfare reform, put it, “any mom who does not have the ability to maintain her household and work at the same time is going to have trouble.”And so they have, as Sole-Smith’s story describes in painful detail.In the 1990s, for what it’s worth, Sanders condemned welfare reform efforts as combining “an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants,” and “the grand slam of scapegoating legislation” that “appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices.”Clinton’s paternalism should not surprise. The entire enterprise of welfare reform was paternalistic, premised on the idea that poor people, especially poor black women, are poor because they don’t want to work; in reality, poor people, especially poor black women, are mostly poor because there aren’t enough jobs, too many of those that exist pay horribly, and childcare is too expensive. Rampant job discrimination and segregation in housing and education sets poor people on a path to economic marginalization. What follows is political demonization.“Nearly half of welfare recipients were non-white, so the attack on welfare fit nicely into the larger Republican effort to discredit the Democratic Party by associating it with blacks and liberalism,” writes Block and Piven.Welfare reform was a harsh repudiation of the notion that women’s work caring for children was just that: work. Reagan invented the idea of the welfare queen. But it was the Clintons who actually took welfare away.
-----
CLINTON: It is not only wrong but it is holding us back because for every young woman like yourself -- ready, willing, able to get to work who is held back that not only hurts you, it hurts us. We want as productive a society as possible. So we have to enforce the civil rights law. We have to use the bully pulpit which I intend to use to speak out about systemic racism every chance I get -- to talk to organizations like the American Bar Association in your case as a lawyer. To speak up and say, "we still have work to do."
She already used the bully pulpit to push the 1994 crime bill and got these VERY effective results (decimating the black "super predator" communities)
What Hillary accomplished with her 'bully pulpit' but directed at black people (last time she had access to the bully pulpit, i.e. it's too risky to let her near it again);
Politifact: A ‘tough-on-crime environment’
As Jones suggests, the United States has the highest incarceration rate among developed nations, at around 700 prisoners per 100,000 people.
African-Americans in particular are locked up at disproportionate rates. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 37 percent of the 1.5 million men in state and federal prisons in 2013 were black, more than twice the percentage of their share of the population.
It wasn’t always this high; before 1975, the incarceration rate hovered around 200 prisoners.
Some of the growth had to do with Clinton policies, but experts said not all.
Crime policy during the 1970s and 1980s was driven by the "War on Drugs," an initiative launched by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Nixon famously called drug abuse "public enemy No. 1," which led to tougher sentencing and more arrests.
New York passed the nation’s first mandatory minimums for drug offenses in 1973, and Washington passed the first state-level truth-in-sentencing law in 1984. By 1987, five states had adopted sentencing guidelines for judges to follow.
President Bill Clinton took office in January 1993 touting a "tough-on-crime" agenda in response to an increase in violent crime and swelling homicide numbers. High-profile killings, such as the murder of Polly Klaas, followed later that year.
Bill Clinton was instrumental in the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Authored by then-Sen. Joe Biden, the sweeping crime bill provided $10 billion to fund new prisons, $6.1 billion for crime prevention and money for 100,000 new police officers.
It also enforced harsher sentencing in federal prisons and incentivized the creation of "truth-in-sentencing" laws at the state level. These laws require violent offenders to serve a minimum portion of their original sentence by ruling out the possibility of early parole. Under the bill, states that set this minimum at 85 percent of the sentence were granted funding for new prisons, and by 1998, 27 states and the District of Columbia had qualified.
The president took the final minutes of his first State of the Union to lobby for the bill. Hillary Clinton, too, campaigned for the legislation in speeches and interviewsacross the country.
The bill ultimately found wide support among Democrats and a handful of Republicans.
Just five years after the crime bill was passed, 29 states had truth-in-sentencing laws, and 24 had three strikes laws.
The bill’s effect
So did the crime bill lead to mass incarceration?
The Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit group that supports reducing the prison population, has tracked the massive expansion of people in federal, local and state prisons over the past century.
Yes, the overall inmate population of the United States has grown significantly since 1994. But the sharp upward trend actually started in the early 1980s. Prisons were adding inmates in 1990 at about the same rate they were in 1997, three years after the crime bill became law.
In addition, the bill’s new sentencing standards only directly applied to federal cases. But most of the growth since 1980 has taken place within state systems, which have added almost 1.25 million prisoners over that time.
i.e. this is what she accomplished towards black people with her access to the bully pulpit last time. She made States go even harder on black people as prison fodder (private prisons with a profit motive).
----
HC: When I was a young lawyer, I chaired the commission on women in the profession because there's also a lot of sexism still. And even though we came up with a lot of good recommendations we still haven't fully implemented them and people are still not being fairly based on gender, based on race. So I want to enforce the laws, I want to make it clear that this is unacceptable, I want to speak out about it and then I want to call people into the White House because one of the great powers of the president is to be the conveyer in chief.
She chaired a commission on women and then harmed women when it came to actions. Big deal. That's not a qualification. Just more lies.
----
QUESTION: Hi. Good evening. Secretary Clinton, we've heard some ways in which we might expect a Clinton presidency to be similar to President Obama's but what are some points of differentiation that we might expect?
CLINTON: Great question. I think -- I agree with a lot of what President Obama has done and I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for all that he has accomplished. And in particular saving our economy from what could have been a great depression. People I think now don't really remember how bad off we were. So I do want to build but there are things that I want to go further on.
Just seems like more hypocrisy when you see what she said about Obama's ability to bring us back from economic collapse that her husband's deregulation policies helped with (especially where not having accountability is concerned)
----
CLINTON: I will build on the Affordable Care Act but I want to tackle the prescription drug costs and make sure that Medicare gets the authority to negotiate for lower drug costs and those costs are then spread throughout our health care system. And I will make a very big push on mental health and addiction. We are not doing enough in either area and we're paying a very big price.
This is a Bernie Sanders idea she has adopted for the campaign. probably one of many. I don't believe she will work on these issues without considerable moral hazard. i.e. she can't be trusted not to make the situation worse.
----
CLINTON: And then finally, let me just quickly say when it comes to criminal justice reform, I want to build on some of the recommendations that President Obama's policing commission has made because I think that we've got to do more to retrain our police forces. We have to get best practices from those department that have good records. We have to make sure that we deal with the -- what is called the school to prison pipeline and turn it into a cradle to college pipeline and also ...
This is just funny. Hillary & Bill are the ones that created this "school to prison pipeline". A person who has proven she makes BAD decisions that destorys people's lives wants another chance at the White House. I think that's a VERY dangerous proposition
From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.
----
CLINTON: Go right after incarceration. And then I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulation on guns but we're going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby to try to reduce the outrageous number of people who are dying from gun violence in our country. And I will take that on and (INAUDIBLE) ...
The gun debate is a mess. Here are my views;
Gun Debate - My Views
----
We were talking about people not showing up in midterm. Well, that's when you can hold legislators, members of Congress accountable with -- if they continue to be intimidated by the gun lobby and indeed here in Pennsylvania and I see my friend Red Rendell (ph) there -- the legislature in Pennsylvania has passed some of the worse kind of legislation favoring the gun lobby. It's just outrageous.
People still won't show up for mid terms.
----
MADDOW: Canada has a new prime minister, Justin Trudeau. He promised when he took office that he would have a cabinet that was 50 percent women, and then he did it. He made good on his promise. Would you make that same pledge?
CLINTON: Well, I am going to have a cabinet that looks like America, and 50 percent of America is women, right?
She's just pushing her 'I'm for women' thing again because it's a viable election tactic, i.e. what Trump said is right;
----
CLINTON: Right. Well, I have a really robust jobs plan, and let me tell you about it because it includes exactly what you are asking about. First, we need a much bigger investment in infrastructure jobs. They can't be exported. They have to be done in Pennsylvania. So roads, bridges, tunnels, roads, water systems, ports and airports, we can employ literally millions of people over a ten-year period.
Using the EXACT same argument Clinton is using against Bernie Sanders... HOW does the EX-Secretary expect to accomplish that with present GOP obstructionism? By passing GOP Establishment approved policies? Like you did with the Crime Bill, Glass Steagal repealment etc.?
Anyways, she actually HAS A RECORD on jobs. Here it is;
Politifact: Hillary Does A Full Flop On Policies She Helped With In Her Husbands Turn At The Presidency;
Anyways, she actually HAS A RECORD on jobs. Here it is;
Politifact: Hillary Does A Full Flop On Policies She Helped With In Her Husbands Turn At The Presidency;
Salon: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Written by and for the rich to further enrich themselves at our expense Don't be fooled by the reports gushing that TPP will increase real incomes in the U.S. They don't mean your income
----
HC: Second, we need to bring back advanced manufacturing to Pennsylvania. How are we going to do that? Change the incentives in the tax code and override the incentives in the trade agreements that enable people to take jobs and move them overseas. Instead, have them bring jobs back, because what we are finding, we are finding that there are economic benefits to do that so I want to incentivize them.
This is just ridiculous. The person involved in sending jobs abroad... TILL 2015 ... is saying we need to bring jobs back. An obvious lie.
----
HC: So I'm going to take a lot of actions that will prevent that kind of exodus of jobs and make those countries and those companies pay a price. That's the way to change their behavior, and that's what I intend to do.
Such as supporting the job exporting TPP 45 times? OK. Lets see what Obama has to say about her record of 'sending jobs abroad';
CNN;
Meanwhile, Obama railed on Clinton for supporting NAFTA when her husband was president. 
Watch the latest on the back-and-forth »
Watch the latest on the back-and-forth »
"Sen. Clinton has been going to great lengths on the campaign trail to distance herself from NAFTA," Obama said Sunday in Lorain, Ohio. "In her own book, Sen. Clinton called NAFTA one of 'Bill's successes' and 'legislative victories.' "
"One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have," he said.
The weekend feud kicked off when Clinton blasted recent mailings from the Obama camp, telling a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, an Obama mailing spread lies about her positions NAFTA. Watch analysts discuss latest Democratic controversy »
Watch analysts discuss latest Democratic controversy »
The mailer says Clinton was a "champion" for NAFTA while first lady, but now opposes it. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Citing a 2006 issue of New York Newsday, the mailer says Clinton thought NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy. The term "boon" was actually the paper's characterization of Clinton's stance, and not a quote from her.
"Bad trade deals like NAFTA hit Ohio harder than other states. Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA," the mailer says.
A visibly angry Clinton lashed out Saturday at Obama over the campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false."
"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said, adding that she is fighting to change NAFTA. Watch Clinton demand a 'real campaign' »
Watch Clinton demand a 'real campaign' »
Obama "is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio," she said.
With Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland nodding in agreement behind her, Clinton accused Obama of emulating the tactics of Karl Rove, President Bush's former political director who is reviled by Democrats.
Obama described Clinton's anger as "tactical" and defended his campaign.
"We have been subject to constant attack from the Clinton campaign, except for when we were down 20 points. And that was true in Iowa. It was true in South Carolina. It was true in Wisconsin, and it is true now," Obama said.
Related Article:
Trump 2016? (Should we become Trumpetts now?)
No comments:
Post a Comment