Clinton Further Responds to Obama's Remarks

Watch:

Fiscal Responsibility: A Necessity For A Sustained Economy

Balancing the federal budget, reducing spending, and paying down government debt has never been a priority or policy for Republican Presidents in the last 50 years.  That is the main reason the economy has never been on an even keel or sustained itself on the Republicans' watch.  Their ideology is to bankrupt the federal government so that social security, medicare, and other federal programs that work will have to be dismantled.  That is just one of the reasons that George W. Bush wanted to remake social security into private accounts. 

 

Contrary to what the American people have been led to believe, the federal government can afford needed programs if the budget is balanced and debt creation is eliminated.  Tax increases are not necessary to pay for needed programs when our house is fiscally sound.

 

Senator Clinton is the only presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is campaigning on fiscal discipline and a balanced budget.  She recognizes that without both, the economy will never be sustained and action after the fact will have to be taken, such as what is happening now with the fiscal disaster that Bush has laid on our country and its people.  It only takes common sense to realize how well off our country would be today had Bush not recklessly spent the $5.6 trillion surplus and had he followed the path of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility the previous administration left him.  But instead, he embarked upon a record deficit and debt spree never seen before in American history.

 

Senator Clinton understands the big picture of the benefits to the nation and its people and the rewards of being fiscally responsible.  The mess we are now in with the mortgage and financial industry would never have happened if Bush had the federal government's fiscal house in order.  During the campaign, the Republicans will once again try to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes.  The voters need to catch on to something: it has been the Republicans who are getting into their pockets in so many different ways.  $3.25 gallon gasoline is only one of the many examples.

 

Senator Clinton is in a position, with her experience, to bring back fiscal sanity and a balanced budget, to not only have a sustained and growing economy that creates new jobs, but to have the resources to do what is necessary to move our country forward and service the people's needs.  

The Morning Dose---4/12

Today's Morning Dose comes from Christy Macy of the Baltimore Sun, titled, "Clinton Offers a Bold Vision for American Foreign Policy":

_____________________________________________________________

While she clearly erred in her recent description of what happened at an airport in Bosnia years ago, the incident has been blown out of proportion. As one who has worked closely with her, I can say that Senator Clinton's experience and work overseas point to something far more significant: a new direction in American foreign policy, which is in desperate need of change.

When I was on her staff, Mrs. Clinton pursued a daunting schedule of foreign trips. She addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, exhorting the world's business and governmental leaders on the importance of international development as a foundation for civil society. She understood that peace in Northern Ireland depended on the engagement of citizens at the grass roots, especially women - a point she stressed in the Millennium Lecture at the University of Ireland in Galway. And she stood on the stage at the Palermo Opera House in Sicily, speaking passionately about the critical role of citizens' movements in the quest to defeat organized crime and reclaim communities.

For me, the depth of her commitment to these issues was evident not only during her moments in the spotlight. It also emerged behind the scenes, as she pushed us off the beaten track to consult people about their everyday lives and struggles. Over the years, in nearly 80 countries, these personal experiences and conversations deeply shaped her policy agenda and explain why she believes we must invest our prestige, power and dollars in human development.

One such occasion remains vivid: Mrs. Clinton's visit - up five flights of stairs - to a small women's legal clinic in Beijing. It was hot and stuffy, but the room was packed with women eager to meet with the first lady of the U.S. In a totalitarian country, where women's rights were still marginal at best, these women lawyers worked tirelessly to help others claim their rights on such issues as divorce and housing - often at some risk to themselves. They were stunned at Mrs. Clinton's knowledge of the issues they faced. After a lively discussion, one woman stood up. "You have no idea," she said, "what it means that you are here today with all of us. We will never forget this." And she began to weep.

A long drive to an isolated school in rural Morocco offered another example of Mrs. Clinton's immersion in grass-roots issues around the world. She believes that no nation can fully advance with half its population left behind.(...)

(...)What struck me about these numerous visits and conversations was Mrs. Clinton's unwavering commitment to identify and promote strategies with positive effects on people's lives. Wherever she went, she searched for concrete solutions to lift people out of poverty, create stronger communities, and bolster democratic institutions worldwide.

Mrs. Clinton has the interest, experience and credentials to reverse the incalculable damage that the Bush administration has inflicted on America's standing in the international community. We need a commander in chief who understands that American leadership depends on balancing military strength with our nation's heritage as a beacon of freedom and hope.

With Hillary, I think we get that balance - and more.

UPDATE: Clinton and McCain Camps Respond to Obama's Rural Pennsylvanians Comment

Sen. Hillary Clinton responded this way:

“I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience.

As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

Sen. McCain's campaign spokesperson responded, saying:

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking.  It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

THIS JUST IN: Rural Pennsylvanians Are Radical Religious Gun-Carrying Xenophobes

Well, that's according to Barack Obama, at least.  It was at a fundraiser in San Francisco where Obama had this to say:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.(...)

(...)So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is a real and growing problem for Barack Obama.  First, his wife says that for the first time in her adult life she is really proud of her country.  Then we find out that Barack Obama has been friends with Jeremiah Wright, a racist and anti-American pastor, for over 20 years.  Then he stereotypes white people in his "typical white person" comment about his grandmothers's racist attitudes.  

Now, let me be clear, I'm not claiming to know what Barack Obama believes in his heart, but I am increasingly troubled by what I hear --- if not for the pure anger it arises in me personally, for the harm it does Obama in the general election should he be the nominee.  

This latest comment is particularly disturbing.  In it, Obama sounds elitist and snobby.  He plays up the stereotype that liberals are big city guys who don't care about small town America.  Kerry was painted that way in '04...and Democrats lost.  In '92, Clinton was able to connect with rural voters, and look what happened --- he won.  

I'm also not sure what exactly Obama meant by what he said.  Sure, it's clearly condescending, but how does losing your job make you more likely to "cling to guns", making it sound like rural people are gun-obsessed gangsters?  How exactly does it make people racist and bigoted to people who are different from the them? 

I don't get it.  Obama's campaign is supposed to be about uniting the country.  Instead, he's dividing us.  Not just by race, but now by big city vs. small town.   Comments like this are just plain not helpful --- not just to Obama, but the entire party.  They're surely not helping us win the White House.  

Why The Democratic Race Should Continue...To The Convention

The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination that is playing out is a healthy sign of Democracy at work and at its best.  The American people have two final candidates who are in a close race (despite what the news media says) and the voters are taking their time in their assessment of the two.

 

Those who want Senator Clinton to drop out the race appear to be afraid to let the people vote in the final primaries and are dead wrong.  Those are the same people who say they do not want a brokered convention, but are clamoring for that in the primaries.  The primaries need to play out and the people need whatever time it takes to make sure that the best candidate is selected, not just as a nominee, but as a potential President.  That process will not hurt the Democrats chance to win in the general election in November; if anything, putting the best candidate forward will help the Democrats to win.    

 

The delegates who end up casting their votes should not rush to judgment before the voting process is completed.  There seems to be a movement for change, but who between the two candidates has actually articulated what they would change; how they intend to do it and carry it out.  George W. Bush ran on change in 2000---to change the tone in Washington.  He did not define it nor how he would accomplish it, but we all know that the change under his administration has been a disaster for our country.

 

The voters have to look beyond mere slogans of change, and instead focus on the issues and who can best handle those issues with a plan and deeds.  Experience at the federal and national level does matter; that is what the President has to manage and deal with.  Which of the two candidates has actually accomplished more for the people since they have been in Congress? That is a good indication of who would do better as President.

 

The larger problem that the voters face in the upcoming primaries is the news media having already made up their minds and pushing the candidate of their choice, failing to fairly and accurately report on this race.  I would hope that the voters exercise their own thoughts, listen to what the candidates actually propose to do, disregard what they hear in the news media, and then make their own judgement.  That would be the democratic way to choose the Democratic nominee for President.  

The Iraq-Iran Alliance

I have mentioned in several past commentaries that when it is all said and done ,and no matter how the war in Iraq ends, Iran and Iraq will be united allies.  They will enjoy the fruits of the billions of American dollars used to rebuild Iraq. Iraq and Iran as well as other countries in the Middle East, will also have even a greater advantage in the control and price of oil for years to come.---All of this because of Bush's reckless policy in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.

 

Just this past week, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's troops were locked in combat in Shiite controlled-Basra against Iraqi forces.  At the same time, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was making trouble all over Baghdad.  Iraqi officials have now reported that over 500 Iraqi solders, police, and civilians were killed in the Basra and Baghdad fighting, with hundreds more wounded.

 

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, who vowed to see the Basra campaign through to a military victory, instead came to an agreement with al-Sadr to end the fighting and agreed to al-Sadr's nine demands.  Once again, al-Sadr told his army to stand down.  That can be deemed success---for now...

 

But the fighting in Basra and Baghdad this week has exposed the weakness of the American troop surge.  Al-Sadr and his army can and do turn the heat and violence up any time they want to.  The surge did not have an affect on this operation.  It should be noted, however, that the Iraqi representatives who handled the cease fire with the Shiite in Basra and Baghdad also had to send representatives to Iran to deal with al-Sadr to help negotiate the cease fire.  In other words, al-Sadr is operating from Iran.  The American people should and need to understand just what is taking place here.

 

All the while, our troops are still dying in a country made unstable by the President's invasion.  It should also be noted to the American people that the fight in Basra and Baghdad was between al-Sadr's army and the government and not al-qaeda.  Al-Sadr does not like the way the government is handling the Shiite-Sunni problem, and he has no problem raising hell to get what he wants.

 

In other words, the civil war is still going on in Iraq and Americans are dying because of forces that our military can not control.  If Bush or McCain or any other  neoconservative Republican thinks that America is waving the white flag of surrender by bringing out troops home, then they are the ones who care nothing about our men and women in uniform.  If all our troops came home tomorrow, they will all come home just like they served, with the highest honor. 

 

If any one thinks that America, the greatest military power in the world, has to occupy a foreign country in order to keep our country safe, then our children's future is really in jeopardy.  Indeed, this country's future is in jeopardy if that is the case. Think about that.

The Morning Dose---4/8

Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post is today's source for the Morning Dose. In her latest article, Anne highlights the facts concerning Clinton and her hospital story, which despite what many in the Obama-loving media would have you believe, was true:

_____________________________________________________________

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.(...)

(...)Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital she when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35. 

Casto said she has been stunned by the amount of negative attention her niece's story generated, and that she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign. She was, and is, she said, a supporter. "Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."

Anne's article, important to note, also clarified the issue on the patient's insurance situation. The woman did not have insurance originally, as Clinton correctly noted.  At the time of her death, however, she was insured, but, "the damage", so to say, was already done to her health from not being able to be treated originally.  

Clinton's Latest "Lie"; The Video Says It All

Ooops, you mean those in the Clinton-hating media were the actual ones lying when they reported that Clinton lied about a woman not receiving medical attention because she couldn't afford it.  As ABC News reports, "the hospital that denied Bachtel the coverage was not O'Bleness Memorial."  Read the entire article, proving the story Clinton told TRUE, here.  

I'm wondering if the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, and others who promoted this story will apologize to Sen. Clinton for tarnishing her record without the proper research and reporting to back it up.  Sadly, I doubt Obama lovers in the media will ever admit their flaws in their Clinton hating, biased ways. 

The Morning Dose---4/7

Today's Morning Dose comes from New Jersey Governor and Democratic superdelegate, Jon Corzine.  In a article that Corzine wrote for the Huffington Post, Corzine argues why listening to the will of the people in Michigan and Florida is not just an issue of process, but an issue of Democracy:

________________________________________________________

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.(...)

(...)I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all (emphasis added by me) of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.