(CNN) - Democrat Hillary Clinton is launching a radio ad in South Carolina Wednesday that targets Barack Obama's recent comments on the Republican Party – her campaign’s latest effort to capitalize on the Illinois senator’s recent remarks.
The spot highlights a portion of his recent interview with the Reno Journal-Gazette in which the Illinois senator said in part, "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years."
"Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street," the ad's narrator asks.. "Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?"
Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have repeatedly raised those comments on the campaign trail. Obama's campaign has said the two are mischaracterizing the original comments.
Responding to the radio ad, Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the ad a "negative, dishonest attack."
“In her newest negative, dishonest attack, Clinton claims that Obama praised Republican ideas apparently in an attempt to obscure her record of voting for Republican ideas like bankruptcy, NAFTA and, of course, the war in Iraq," he said.
"That fact that Hillary Clinton has praised Ronald Reagan and supported some of the very worst Republican ideas just underscores that she will say or do anything to get elected,” said Burton.
The Clinton campaign maintained the ad was straightforward.
"This ad straightforwardly uses Sen. Obama’s own words in his own voice saying the Republican Party was the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said. "We can understand why the Obama campaign would be frustrated with that. The bottom line is that Sen. Clinton is running for president in order to replace those ideas with new ones like jumpstarting our economy, creating jobs and protecting people’s homes."
There is one fact that resounds loud and clear from most of the comments posted on this story: this nation maybe farther away from unity and diversity than it has ever been. The vitrolic and anger-driven comments presented by commenters do a major disservice to this election and our country. This is, after all, an election - a time when differences of opinion, strategy and tactics are presented to the public in the hopes of persuading people. Each of us is responsible for sorting through all the messages and presentations and determining whom we wish to support. Nothing about that process should produce the acrimomy and name calling that I see posted here. Not supporting one candidate or another, does not give someone to right to spew forth the kind of charges and language posted here. How can there be compliants about "dirty politics", if so many of the comments contain language much worse than anything put out by any of the campaigns. I think everyone should take a deep breathe and then express their support for their candidate in positive terms and not participate in the very thing they are complaining is coming from the candidates.
I wish that the Clinton campaign would read the entire transcript of Obama's comments. To pull a phrase out by itself is irritating, to say the least.
I agree with many of the writers: anyone but Clinton on the democractic ballot. Sad as I feel about this, I can't think of anything said that will lead me to vote for this woman.
From the nastiness of many of the comments here, I would say both Obama AND Clinton could split the party. Personally, I'm tired of the Clintons' sense of entitlement and Bill's antics (and I used to really like him). I will vote for Obama or Edwards but I will vote Republican if Hillary is the Dem's nominee.
American does not need Billary!! They already disgraced the White House once! We do not need for it to happen again!!
At the rate on the Clintons dirty campaign tactics, Bill and Hillary are making it difficult for a number of Democrats to be inspired to vote for them in November.
As George Stephanopolis said the other night, seeing Bill Clinton on the campaign trail is more of the past, and not change of or for the future.
Two Clintons is NOT better than one, and Hillary has no idea how many people simply dislike her, and will not vote for her, regardless of party.
Actually Alice, there is alot more to keeping the economy going then the "fiscally responsible bills" you suppose the republican congress brought to Clinton. So while you may think the republican congress was responsible the prosperity of the 90's I would have to protest. I am not saying Clinton was either but lets be clear the MAJORITY of the credit goes toward the cyclical nature of the economy.
The problems we are experiencing now are a result of a lack of regulation (big business republican policy) and the actions of the Fed over stimulating the economy with rediculously low interest rates for toooooo long.
I believe it was Obama's campaign that put out the add stating Hillary Clinton does not respect the latino community. Too bad for Obama that Latinos in Nevada have some brain cells. The anti-Hillary ad had nothing to go on. To me, a Democrat; the Republican comment made me cringe. The Republicans have been brutal with the Democrats. Now they are trying to blame the Democrats as the do nothing Congress, under this cold and callous administration. Oh no they don't! I remember....If we want Republicans to vote with us, they can. There is no way I am selling our party out. The Republicans have had it wrong all along.
Um, Nick in Denham Springs Louisiana! Hillary Clinton had VERY LITTLE TO SAY ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF GULF COAST FLOOD VICTIMS POST KATRINA! As a former First Lady, that alone would have given her a platform on which to reach out to the horrible suffering that is still going on. When a state doesn't have someone speaking out on their behalf, it is incumbent on others to. Which is why Edwards and Obama have both addressed the issue of natural disaster in terms of environmental issues, poverty, and those who voices are usually unheard. This is the true spirit of a Democracy, and in particular the Democratic Party of the 20th Century, remember?
I watched the entire hour long video. He said he didn't agree with the ideas of the republican party. If you only take a min. out of it you can make it say whatever in handy for a Clinton campaign. What he actually said was that JFK in the 60's and Ronald Reagan in the 80's brought about change. They did! B.O. then went on to say he did not agree with Ronald Reagan on the issues. I wish more people would get the whole story instead of taking what is convenient.
If anyone really heard Obama the whiner, what he said is "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.. he put us on a fundamentally different path." Now I don't know about you, but if you say that he changed the trajectory of America in a way others have not, then you are giving him credit for doing something the others could not do (especially Democrats). But that is completely not true from a Democratic view (Repub will obvioulsy disagree). Bill Clinton changed the trajecotry of America for more minorities than most presidents in America. Also what about child health insurance to name a few. He is not coined the First Black President for nothing. Plain and simple, he created a lot of jobs and programs for so many that one would argue CHANGED THE TRAJECTORY of AMERICA (in a way Reagan did not do). So from a Democrats point of view, Obama committed a sin. Moreover, if I were Hillary, I would call Obama on that and basically tell him with his own words, so basically you don't think creating more jobs for minorities that the past 5 presidents changed the trajoectgory of America??? HILLARY is the winner of that point, and I am sorry, Obama is just so darn wishy washy, he is slippier than an oily fish.
His campaign can deceitfully twist the obvious reference from Bill Clinton that Obama's votes since 2004 on the Iraq war is a fairy tale to somehow change the meaning to the lying smear Obama's camp promoted that his whole presidential campaign is one. Now if Obama's camp can make such a lie (inlcuding his wife Michelle who clearly referenced this in an angry speech she gave) which has now turned this campaign into a white v. black (all due to OBAMA's People), then please don't tell me Hillary can't call Obama on hie ridiculous Ronald Reagan admirational rants!!!
If Bill is a "brother", then why is he not in prison?
Many more "brothers" are in American prison for far less than what Bill Clinton has done!
But he is out there giving the living hhhh to America! Eight more years of Clintons? I don't think so!
The Clinton's are bringing shame on this country , and it is sad. They are so self seeking. For them it has nothing to do with the American people. Win at any cost and to hell with the people.
Chris, good point! Obama, and Edwards should continue to speak on his ideas and his HOPE for the United States of America and the World! If the Clintons attack with the usual foul brand of campaign tricks, respond in kind by underscoring how desperate one must be to stoop so low. That's the kind ad Obama should respond with, underscore what that says about the 'character' of the one who is attached to such venom.
He's absolutely right . The news people have the chance to ask poignant and interrogatory questions but , instead at the debates throw softballs or bring up out of context meaningless slights by one campaign or the other to start a spitting match. Not one person at the debates asked how they were going to handle immigration reform , lobbyists , China trade , Hugo Chavez , -and all of these issues affect at the foundation , our ECONOMY!!!! Wake up . Are they , the powerful , once again going to be allowed to draw us into a racial divide , sparked by some well planted turncoats. ? After 59 years here I am growing remorsefully ashamed of us.
It is very sad to see that people of this great country are falling for CLINTON's BS...and MSM is promoting that...
Personally I don't care what they say about each other unless I can see , read , or hear the source itself. In this case the old adage applies , if you don't wantto read i it in the papers the next morning , don't do or say it. Obama gave away some Republican leanings. But , the news people have the chance to ask poignant and interrogatory questions but , instead at the debates throw softballs or bring up out of context meaningless slights by one campaign or the other to start a spitting match. Not one person at the debates asked how they were going to handle immigration reform , lobbyists , China trade , Hugo Chavez , -and all of these issues affect at the foundation , our ECONOMY!!!! Wake up . Are they , the powerful , once again going to be allowed to draw us into a racial divide , sparked by some well planted turncoats. ? After 59 years here I am growing remorsefully ashamed of us.
You apparently have selective memory as well. In the 90's under the Clinton White House... there were several genocides going on... However the Clinton Administration addressed the one in Bosnia, in Europe, but completely ignored the millions that were being slaughter in Rwanda, and the Congo. As a matter of RECORD, Both Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright (Secretary of State), both denied and refused to refer to Rwanda as a genocide even after the press continue to pressure them into defining the atrosity.
Yes the economy was doing exceedingly well, and you can thank the genuises of the day... Greenspan, Gates, Jobs, dot.coms for the bull market and job growth in technology. However many who did not have access to quality education and liveable wages got left behind during the great Clinton boom. Also Alan Greenspan's gift as brilliant economist, and the dreamers like Gates, Jobs and others in the technology world were more responsible than Mr. Clinton for the economic success of the 90's. Of course aren't we paying a price today for the great success of that period with the disappointing outcomes of Nafta and Globelization?
Bill and Hillary you are the hope for this great nation.
god be with you.
This Clinton tag-team strategy is going to work against them. People will realize how dishonorable this fight is, when you pit 2 pros against 1. When the smear campaign on Obama is coming from 2 mouths, Obama's voice sometimes gets lost. But the cheapness of this strategy is not lost on the American public, and Obama just has to stay valiant and fight back in what way he can. If he does that, the Clintons will end up with a Pyrrhic victory – they will have won the smear campaign, but lost the respect of the public.
OOOObama the street tag
You can try to side step this one Obama. Yet we all heard and read your statements about the Republicans and Reagan. You were holding them in a more positive light than President Clinton, whom you mentioned only to take a swipe. You cannot deny it to those of us who refuse your media love fest campaign. I guess you're not so above sleazy tactics. You are simply smoother at behaving the "Victim." Wow, you sure have that victim role down. Rezko needs a whole lot more looking into.
Lana, I remeber the 90's and I'm no kid. The times were largely good economically. We felt safe, for the most part. Guess what? We can't relive the past. We live in an entirely different world- and it's not generational. It has nothing to do with the presumptuiosness of youth or the theory of entitlement- it has to do with disillusionment with American Government. We feel let down and fed up and mislead. We feel foolish for believing in the wrong people to do the right thing. This is an exciting time! People are getting involved in the process again. They believe again that their voices will be heard! Edwards and Obama capture that spirirt and can run with it. Hillary is too stuck reveling in the past to even get it.
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
So basically what he is saying is the Reagan changed the "trajectory of America" in a way that Bill Cliton did not. That is the pivitol sentence there. It implies that Bill Clinton did nothing to change the trajectory of America. It gives a sense of sides Regan vs Clinton. He does imply that one is better than the other just from that sentence.
This is actually what he said in entirety. I see alot of people commenting on it, but no one actually quotes him.
this continues to get more absurd by the day... semantics-based attacks in a neck and neck race are only making this more ridiculous, and are quite frankly turning me off to this entire process.
let's just decide which one of them is running for President and who will be the VP already...
is it Feb 5th yet?