• 
• 
• 
• 
by John McCormick
Another week, another interview with Sen. Barack Obama, who discusses a variety of topics -- ranging from driver's licenses for illegal immigrants to the Clinton White House to UFOs -- with Newsweek's Howard Fineman and Richard Wolffe for this week's magazine.
The Illinois Democrat repeatedly goes after Sen. Hillary Clinton, as he is prone to do these days, including on the New York senator's answer in last week's debate on whether illegal immigrants should be given driver's licenses.
"Look, watch the videotape," he says. "She said that she was for the [New York Gov. Eliot] Spitzer plan and in the span of two minutes said she wasn't for the Spitzer plan. That wasn't something that was prompted by me or anybody else but it was characteristic of her answers on Social Security and her answers on the papers from the Clinton years."
On whether he is in favor of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Obama says, "What I have said is that it is better off that we know that people who are driving know the rules of the road, are subject to insurance, are making sure that we know we can track them if they get in an accident. A lot of security experts agree with me on this issue. It's not optimal. What we need to do is make sure that we don't have undocumented workers coming into the country in the first place. But here's the more important point: people know where I stand on this and we can have a serious conversation and debate about it."
Obama also discusses the major failures of the Bill Clinton presidency. He tells Newsweek:
"Issues like health care. She wants to take credit for having tried but there were a lot of big mistakes in preventing us from getting health care back in 1993 ... What was she involved with? Where did she participate? Where did she not participate in decision making? And that's one of the reasons why these papers that are currently in the presidential library could be helpful in sorting that out."
The interview, including video from the sit-down at Obama headquarters in Chicago, is linked here.
Comments
It was revealed over the weekend that Hillary DOES have the right to release the papers she is keeping secret at the Clinton library. Further, that there are over 3 million such documents that have not been released. WHAT IS SHE HIDING/
Posted by: Hardy | November 5, 2007 8:11 AM
Right on, Obama.
How refreshing to read or hear any truth from a national politician, of either party.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 5, 2007 8:13 AM
Another day, another dozen Swamp stories about the New Messiah.
Meanwhile, the New York Times, the church bulletin of the political left, has an interesting tidbit about the New Messiah's appearance on SNL:
“The comedy show portrayed Mrs. Clinton dressed as a bride at a Halloween party, while the actors playing Bill Clinton and some of the other Democratic candidates called her a witch. All the candidates were lampooned except Mr. Obama, extending what some rival campaigns privately complain is a glut of positive news coverage.
The Obama campaign said yesterday that they were allowed to “tweak” the script, but the extent of such tweaks was not clear. ... "
Obama's not only given the free tv exposure, but is allowed to write his own script.
No bias here. Nope.
Posted by: Bruce | November 5, 2007 8:25 AM
Watch the interview. Obama is repeatedly asked about the Clintons and he answers kindly and graciously but truthfully. The interview questions seem to me like a set up to then headline 'Obama challenges Clinton'. Anyway his answers are impressive and presidential.
Posted by: Gerald | November 5, 2007 9:03 AM
Bruce,
That's a truly ridiculous statement you made.
"...the New York Times, the church bulletin of the political left...."
First, the New York Times is anything but left. Its record of supporting the Establishment is there for anyone who cares to read.
It beat the drum for going to Iraq. It beat the drum for going to Vietnam. It conducted a nasty vendetta against a Chinese-American scientist, Wen Ho Lee, at Los Alamos based solely on suspicions of America's political police, the FBI. It published the lies of a CIA associate concerning matters in Iraq.
One could easily write a long essay on The Times' record of supporting war, repression, and imperialism.
Only someone who either hasn't read the paper over time or someone who can't read could possibly call it liberal.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 5, 2007 9:08 AM
Chuckman, the NY Times is the gospel to the Left. Perhaps not the Far Loony Left Kook fringe that you belong to, but make no mistake, the Ny Times is a bastion of Leftists thought and propaganda.
Posted by: John D | November 5, 2007 9:29 AM
John D -
The NY Times is hated by many people you might consider "Lefties."
Remember Judith Miller? Remember the run up to war?
Sure, their editorial pages have some lefties. Nobody denies that anymore than they deny that the Wall Street Journal has some right wing editorial writers.
But the actual news that the NY Times reports... That often has a right wing bias. Remember the reporting they did during Whitewater? This isn't just about the reporting during Chimperor Bush's reign of terror, this is a long standing issue many have with the NY Times.
A case can be made that it is not right or left wing bias, but a corporatist bias. Many say that they report the news that they think we want to hear in order to up their circulation. I don't know if I believe that, but they sure weren't doing their job in 2002. As a matter of fact I think the only major news paper that was doing their job was Knight Ridder.
Posted by: nisleib | November 5, 2007 10:35 AM
A thoughtful rebuttal by John Canada; regardless if you agree with the content or not. A thoughtful rebuttal by nisleib taking a different angle on it; also regardless if you agree or not. John D's usual self explanatory one liners of everything folds unto itself sandwiched in between; begins with loony and ends with loony. Can you put some thought to support your claims. I don't need numbers. I don't need a list of grievances that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't need opinion stated as widely accepted fact just because you say so. I don't need to know I'm loony or that my "ilk" is no better. I used to think you do it for kicks to get people talking but now it seems to me you've got nothing else.
Posted by: Tired | November 5, 2007 11:06 AM
Obama is not a plain speaker either. Looks like Edwards is capitalizing on Hillary's sophistry:
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/too-slick-hillary.html
Posted by: BackyardConservative | November 5, 2007 11:18 AM
Obama's answer still sounds like Hillary, QUALIFYING instead of just answering yes or no. That was what Hillary did, trying to explain but the moderators just want an answer yes or no so it appears that Hillary was wobbling.
Posted by: glen | November 5, 2007 2:10 PM
Nisleib, if you think the NY Times news pages has a rightward tilt to it, then you are crackers. Whitewater? Come on! Just because the Times may do some occasional digging into Clinton's scandals, and there were many to dig into, doesn't mean they have a "rightward" slant.
Heck, if the NY Times editors and reporter see these claims of that paper being conservative, all of them would slice their necks in horor.
Judith Miller? How is the fact that she wouldn't reveal her source make her a conservative?
I know, I know, anything to the right of the Village Idiot Voice or the DailyKook is considered a right wing rag to the Loony Left. And, Loons, glad to see you hate being called that. Shows me I keep hitting the nail on the head.
Posted by: John D | November 5, 2007 3:54 PM
John D
Judith Miller, just so you know, repeated Bush admin lies verbatim. Her lies helped get us into this stupid war in Iraq. Her editors let her do it. I was not referring in the least to her decision not to testify in the Scooter Libby trial. I actually applaud that decision. Freedom of the press is vital.
As to whitewater my point is that if the NY Times were a liberal rag, like you claim, they wouldn't have followed these obviously bogus anti Clinton stories. (For the record I think the Clintons are scum, granted, but not for the reasons the media went after them.)
Please John D, give me a few examples of left wingers calling the NY Times "the gospel to the Left." I've never heard it from anyone but right wingers.
I don't know why I am defending the NY Times. Their reporting is geared towards selling papers, not telling the truth. That said, you are wrong to suggest they are biased. They aren't, they are just not very ethical or very good at their job.
Posted by: nisleib | November 5, 2007 4:33 PM
I think we should pay attention to the point being raised by Obama. The American people need to know what she achieved, what her contribution was in order to have a good look at the experience of each candidate. If she fails to do so, I would say she is hidding something from us, may be she was just like any first lady--no much contribution but with their conception of politics as a game, they can tell the American people anything they want. People are not blind, they will vote for the candidate who is telling them the truth. We don't pay them to hide things from us.
Posted by: Chris | November 6, 2007 3:07 PM
Whether your a Democrat, Republican or Independant the voters should remember how all our politicians voted in the infamous March Comprehensive Immigration that would have wrecked our wilting economy.
In 1986 Sen. Ted Kennedy promised THE PEOPLE of this great nation, that their would never be another illegal alien amnesty. In 1986 the Simpson/Mazzoli Immigration & Control act was made law, and some 3.1 million illegal aliens was given a avenue to citizenship.
During March of 2007, he assisted the International Globalist Elites, the open border nuts and all flan dray that encircles a crippled wagon train to allow another 20 million foreign nationals for the American citizens to support. Sen.Harry Reid, John McCain and others of his ilk, tried their level best to thwart public opinion. However Illegal immigration is such a searing acid in the taxpayers stomach that it never passed. We as Americans should condemn all these conspirators and throw them out of office; recall them, or otherwise dismantle their seat of power.
People who vote in the primaries should illustrate their own source of power; the ballot box. Rid ourselves of these wretches and place in the White House another George Washington. A great man of integrity, who asked nothing for himself. Because if the history books are correct, he didn't even want to be president?
If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States. (According to The Heritage Foundation).
THANK HEAVENS THE PEOPLE STOPPED IT!
These are the jokers who are either open-border globalists, corporate puppets and perhaps, but not probable; misinformed?
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---62
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
All these politicians should be removed from office? No more incumbents or influence-grabbing peddlers.
Posted by: Brittanicus | November 7, 2007 1:47 PM
Politicians and Americans for that matter should take a look at "American Harvest." Its a non-partisan feature length documentary about immigration as it relates to agriculture. It presents the facts as they are without political bias.
www.americanharvestmovie.com
American Harvest Synopsis
Anti-immigration sentiment sweeps across America. A journey from Florida to New York, including a trip to the Mexican border, reveals the lives and issues of legal and illegal migrants and farmers working toward a better life. Is the immigration system in America flawed? Immigrants are dying to feed America.
American farmers and agriculture rely on immigrants to do jobs that Americans won’t do or feel that are simply beneath them. Some only see the problems in the news from the perspective of those extreme points of view of the left and the right side of our political system.
Discrimination of immigrants has existed in the United States since the English persecuted the Irish. It was once generally considered that if you were Greek or Southern Italian you were not white.
American Harvest points out the inconsistencies of the current policy on immigration. See the changing face of immigrant America as it relates to Agriculture.
Follow legal and illegal farm workers and the farmers caught in the middle of a flawed immigration policy.
Posted by: Angelo Mancuso | November 7, 2007 11:08 PM