Clinton tells press Obama 'looking for a fight'; Obama counters in conference call

LAT/AP: Clinton Says Obama 'Looking for a Fight'
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
January 22, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday accused Barack Obama of "looking for a fight" in their rancorous debate and suggested her presidential rival acted out of frustration over primary campaign losses in New Hampshire and Nevada. Obama argued that the Clintons -- Hillary and Bill -- have been distorting his record. "When it comes to Senator Clinton's remarks, I think it's very clear that Senator Clinton has and President Clinton have been spending the last month attacking me in ways that are not accurate," Obama told reporters in a conference call.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Hillary Clinton belittled Obama's various criticisms at the debate as "rehearsed points." "I think what we saw last night was that he's very frustrated," she said. "I believe that the events of the last 10 or so days, the outcome of New Hampshire and Nevada, have apparently convinced him to adopt a different strategy. He clearly came -- he telegraphed it, he talked about it -- he clearly came last night looking for a fight. He was determined and launched right in."

The morning after the debate, the back-and-forth between the two leading Democrats continued unabated. The two had argued bitterly and in personal terms at Monday night's debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., over issues such as the Iraq war and Bill Clinton's role in the campaign. The two also traded accusations over Hillary Clinton's work as a lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart and Obama's relationship with a political patron facing fraud charges.

"He was determined and launched right in. And I thought it was important to set the record straight," Hillary Clinton said. She restated her argument that Obama was unwilling to answer hard questions about his record, from his opposition to the Iraq war but support for military budgets to his "present" votes as a member of the Illinois legislature.

Obama countered that this was all part of Clinton's strategy. "Senator Clinton announced while we were still in Iowa that this was going to be her strategy and called it the fun part of campaigning. And, you know, I don't think it's the fun part to fudge the truth," he said. "The necessary part of this campaign is to make sure that we're getting accurate information to voters about people's respective records."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top13jan22,0,4315349.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines

that if Edwards didn't get the nom, he might vote for Bloomberg.

Hillary's GIANT EGO = Obama's GIANT EGO

can't match Bill's humongous ego.

Well... yeah.
"I think what we saw last night was that he's very frustrated," she said. "I believe that the events of the last 10 or so days, the outcome of New Hampshire and Nevada, have apparently convinced him to adopt a different strategy. He clearly came -- he telegraphed it, he talked about it -- he clearly came last night looking for a fight. He was determined and launched right in."

He was lookin' for a fight, and lost the decision.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhaahhahahahaaha LOSER

Give me a break

It was probably not the right thing to counter with. She should've said "Obama wants to make it personal, but I am not ashamed of my work with Wal-Mart."

Flawlessly written & impeccably researched + foot noted.

Good God, I can't believe this. I don't want to hear how bad the other one is (I can figure that out all by myself). I want to know what they are going to do to fix this disaster our country has become. Can they please discuss that instead of playing into the media's hands and creating a circus?

Jeez... my 2 year old behaves better.

just as she did for him when he was running.

I don't think it's going to work this time.

:)

But, he keeps getting caught telling his lies!

The one thing that Bill always bragged about from his 1992 campaign was that they had "a war room" to counter anything bad said about him.

But, that was before the internet and YouTube.

Any of the YouTube videos showing Bill lying about Obama is far more effective at defending Obama than just repeating talking points like the Clinton campaign did in 1992.

I thought they both took the low road at times - and all the while I hear Edwards in the background say to Wolf - "there is a third person at this debate".

On the who is looking for a fight question - neither Hillary or Obama can claim exception to that one. They both got down and dirty.

Just Edwards kept out of it - and it is too damn bad more folks across America did not tune in to see John staying above the bullshit.

The difference is that Obama was dragged into the mud, and he made repeated attempts to lift the level of the exchange while at the same time not allowing himself to be completely covered in the muck being thrown his way. But it is a difference that most more casual observers are probably not aware of. And as a result, the Clintons unfairly and dirtily win by forcing Obama to fight at their level or be simply submerged in slime.

what really was at issue with this and other canards? Politics is messy and Obama it seems held up with dignity in a difficult situation. It is true that Edwards took the opportunity to look good, but he's not being attacked as he has no chance of winning.

which I am sure you have stashed somewhere handy. You will not find the quote, but you will surely find inspiration for some other nonsensical garbage to spout. Or actually, maybe you won't. Rove is despicable but in his own way very smart. You on the other hand....

Is Oprah a racist/traitor or are Hillary's supporters sexist?

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/01/22/has-oprah-chosen-race-over-gender-or-are-hillarys-supporters-being-sexist/

which has shown itself many times, to make those who attack him suffer more from the attacks than he does.

(Something like this -- can't remember exactly...) "Was Clinton too aggressive? Was Obama too defensive? Did Edwards come out ahead by staying above the fray?"

I think that may be the soundbyte she wanted. After all the accusations that she is "playing victim," the question is about Obama's defensiveness, and whether she is too combative. And while Edwards looked good last night, the image of him as the tough fighter in the campaign was overridden as he was in the nice-guy role again.

IF the question becomes "Who can take on the GOP," I think likeability, charisma, and clean hands won't play as well as "Gee, maybe she's too tough and aggressive..."

I'd look for her campaign to push in that direction next -- about taking on the GOP. I could be wrong! I was caught totally off-guard by the debate last night!

Let's see her cry again and tell everyone "this is personal".

She just can't take it when she gets smacked down, that's all.