Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton and Obama, At War Over War's End


Sen. Clinton questioning Petraeus and Crocker at yesterday's hearing. (Reuters).

Barack Obama returned to Iowa today to lay out his newest plan to end the war in Iraq -- and to step up his sparring with Hillary Clinton. The question is whether the new policy adds up to a surge strategy for his campaign.

No issue better highlights the arc of the Democratic nomination contest than the competition over the campaign's dominant issue. Obama and Clinton have circled one another throughout the year, matching Senate vote against vote and trying to trump one proposal against another proposal.

They were, as everyone knows, the last two to cast their votes on an Iraq funding bill that lacked a withdrawal timetable -- with both voting against the money. Neither likely would have done so were it not for their campaign competition.

Today they were circling one another again. As Obama prepared to speak in Iowa, Clinton's office released a letter she was sending to President Bush. Clinton sought to preempt both Obama and the president.

She told Bush that a plan to reduce U.S. force levels by 30,000 a year from now -- which Bush is expected to announce Thursday night -- is "too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war." She also urged an accelerated timetable for withdrawal.

Obama's new plan contains four elements, the most significant of which is a timetable that would result in the withdrawal of all combat forces by the end of 2008. Obama also calls for a new constitutional convention for Iraq designed to force political reconciliation on the competing factions there. His plan further includes initiatives aimed at ensuring regional security and preventing humanitarian disaster after the withdrawal.

Obama's central disagreement with Clinton, however, is summed up in this paragraph from excerpts his campaign sent out early today.

"I opposed this war from the beginning," he said. "I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat troops by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now."

In his prepared remarks, Obama blamed "conventional thinking in Washington" for the support Bush received from Congress in 2002. Clinton of course was among those alleged conventional thinkers who backed the 2002 war resolution. "Despite -- or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington -- too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions," Obama said.

Obama's new timetable for withdrawing combat troops is more explicit than anything Clinton has personally proposed. His call for stepped up diplomatic efforts and United Nations involvement is similar to ideas Clinton advanced when she outlined her future-of-Iraq policy in a July speech in Iowa.

The entire Democratic field is playing a game of oneupsmanship on Iraq. John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have strong and well-articulated views that differ with Clinton and Obama is some important ways and they are doing everything they can not to allow the Iraq debate within the party to become a two-person conversation.

But Clinton's campaign long has kept Obama in its focus for two reasons. He is the lone candidate among the big six who did oppose the war before it started, and he is the lone candidate who has out-muscled the mighty Clinton fundraising machine in the first two quarters of the year

Neither of those two assets, however, has helped Obama move the polls. The evidence over many months is that Clinton's support for the war resolution in 2002 has done only minimal damage to her candidacy. Some Democrats cannot forgive her that vote, but overall, there is no large chorus calling on her to apologize, and among war critics, she leads the Democratic field.

The newest Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Clinton does equally well among those Democrats who favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq and among those who favor a more measured withdrawal.

A new Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll of Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina posed a direct question on Iraq. "Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think would be best at ending the war in Iraq?" Clinton was the clear leader in all three states, doubling Obama's percentage in two and nearly doubling it in the third. However, two in 10 Democrats said they weren't sure who would be best.

Iraq has been critically important to Obama in helping to define his differences with Clinton and in his efforts to argue that a short resume in Washington does not mean he lacks the kind of judgment voters are seeking in a president. But neither of those arguments has translated into increased political support.

The Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg survey showed Obama behind both Clinton and Edwards in Iowa and tied with Edwards in a distant second to Clinton in New Hampshire. Other polls have shown Iowa to be a competitive three-way contest, which is why Clinton, Obama and Edwards are investing so much time and energy in the state.

Obama's campaign looks at the post-Labor Day phase of the campaign as the time to turn a page. The caucuses are still well off and Iowa voters famously examine the candidates for a long, long time before beginning to make final decisions about whom they want as their nominee. Obama needs to be at his best as that time approaches.

--Dan Balz

By Washington Post editors  |  September 12, 2007; 1:05 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: War Top Issue Now,
Could Shift By '08

Next: Could Gingrich
Go For It?

Comments

EXACTLY why I made the world's only politcally CONSERVATIVE MUSIC CD called 'Blaming America First!'
www.conservativemusiconline.com

Someone had to do it!

Posted by: Truscott1 | September 14, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

All that America and the world need is peace, love and prosperity. Both candidates, Hillary and Obama have the profile for giving America and the world peace.

Posted by: epicurean222 | September 13, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

We are spending way to much time arguing over this war. Who cares who supported it in the beginning, that time is dead and gone. We need to focus on getting out of this war, but we must do it carefully. If we withdraw troops too fast the US casualty rate may rise dramatically. We got ourselves into this war and now we must work together as a group to get out of it, no matter what our veiws are.

Posted by: lauralion | September 13, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Of course the Iraq war is political. The administration blames the bombing of the Golden Dome mosk in Feb 2006 for all the sectarian violence. Yet, Bush waited until after the 2006 congressional election defeat in November to fire Rumsfeld and try a change in strategy. If that isn't mixing politics with war, I don't know what is. Obama is on the right track. U.S. forces are the magnet for al-Queda in Iraq, and the sooner our troops are gone from there the better for Iraq...and us.

Posted by: joy2 | September 13, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Scalia picked the President of the United tates in 2000. bin Laden picked the POTUS in 2004. If the Democrats do not get their act together fast, George Bush will pick our President in 2008.

Posted by: holywoodog | September 13, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Hows this for a new point no one has raisesd? The oil revenue sharing deal has collapsed (See NYT, posted about one minute ago). That was the big accomplishment the Iraqi govt was supposed to have managed to negotiate. So, war supporters, tell me what has been accomplished in more than five years at war that gives you any hope that a) the Iraqi govt can govern b) that the sectarian killing is showing any sign of subsiding c) that our troops are making any headway. Yes, it is nice that sunni tribal leaders are taking on Al Queda but they would do that without us because, just like us, Al Queda are foreigners bringing in customers that the tribes dislike. Time for us to leave and I really don't care who in Iraq hears me or any candidate say so. Why? Because any fool could guess that we would leave. Why? Because only complete idiots would continue to overstretch their army and deplete their treasury in a dangerous world.

Posted by: jlk1 | September 12, 2007 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is looking more and more like Bush-lite. An unrepentant, pro-war, word manipulating, corporate funded conniver.

I can't bring myself to even consider her.

Posted by: bovid4585 | September 12, 2007 10:39 PM | Report abuse

The one and ONLY reason we will NOT be voting for any Democrat for any office is the Democrat's position on AMNESTY. Diane Feinstein has done more than any other Democrat has done, ever, to disaffect members of the Democratic party, but it must be admitted Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Boxer run a pretty close 2nd and 3rd. That doe not mean we are going to vote for Republicans who just under the skin are also anti-Americans just as are the 3 women mentioned above.

Posted by: tucanofulano | September 12, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

dubois, with all due respect, I disagree with you. Edwards goes on about helping the poor, but he gets $400 haircuts. He seems approachable, yes, but competent? No.

Posted by: Heron | September 12, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Dear rat-the:

Could you better qualify your cryptic comments? I had trouble reading through all the typos and "furrin" words and such. Pray tell us your Wise words; we are mere putty in your intellectual presence.

Posted by: ngray2 | September 12, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Barak are GUARANTEED LOSERS. That is why the corporate media is promoting them so much.

Only John Edwards can win in the Midwest and the South.

He is the one who represents a real threat to the corporate establishment which is why they don't want him. Edwards resonates with the average person.


Posted by: dubois | September 12, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I do beleive the comments & in fighting are completely unnecessary between Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama serve no purpose except to create animosity.Both Clinton & Obama are knowledgeable,articulate & purposeful.I beleive Mr.Obama is possibly a little less knowledgeable,but a ticket of Clinton & Obama would be unbeatable.This war will not end no matter what while is in the White House,it will all be dumped on the next administration.hresnick@sbcglobal.net

Posted by: hresnicksbcglobalnet | September 12, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

The Neo-Cons worry about a Democratic Takeover. Yet they fail to elect GOP leaders who have integrity and ethics. The GOP backstabbed the Veterans by the budget they gave the VA. Now they want to sell you a lie that they support the troops. Do not fall for any more Republican lies. Do not vote for any more Republicans. They are liars and hypocrites. The cheat the Veterans. They cheat the poor. They side with big business and Halliburton profits at the expense of Constitutional Rights.
They are Facists.

Posted by: benmatheny | September 12, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Does Hussein's say Mr. Obasama?

Bad news for the Dims. Early withdrawl brings big penalties!

Sooooooo, Let's talk about Invasion of Illegals!

BAD Rat! Bad bad bad RAT!

The Dims love their little invading force of Twenty Thousand THOUSAND Job Stealing, Benifits Robbing, Hospital, School, and Community DESTROYING Illegal have-nots-they will vote for them!

Dims are united in screaming VIVA LA INVASORA!

Viva Aztlan! Reconquista amigos!

AMNESTY Para INVASARIOS!-Got Relatives?

BRING-EM ON, and IN, and OVER...

Aiiiyiyiii!!!!!

Posted by: rat-the | September 12, 2007 9:05 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect, there is nothing in the commentary here that hasn't been voiced many times before in one forum or another. None of it gets us any closer to a solution in Iraq, and I dare say posting opinion here, whatever side of the political divide you're on, is easy and far removed from having to make actual, hard thought decisions that will have serious, long-term consequences.

Posted by: JamesSCameron | September 12, 2007 8:29 PM | Report abuse

As I listened to Petraeus,Crocker and Jim Lehrer this evening I thought to myself how sad for the parents who will lose their children between now and July because Petraeus and Crocker are fearful - not of Al Qaida but of a failed and incompetent White House.

A war that we did not need; A civil war that Petraeus and Crocker cannot settle; An irreplaceable fortune in American lives lost (forget the money - it's just money - but you might ask "where did the money go?"). What is wrong with you people?

Are supporters of Bush stupid, ignorant, immoral or a combination thereof?

God bless America. God bless our military and God bless those who speak truth to power. Bring our Warriors home NOW!

Posted by: georgedohertycpa | September 12, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to agree with all Sen. Obama's positions (I agree with close to zero) to like the guy and think he'd be a fine, conscientious president. In this shouting match over the shell-game "proposal" to which Gen. Petraeus has been disrespected to submit (as the non-serving flatfooted Rapture-Rushers goad Mr. Smirk into attacking "Eye-ran"), Ankleless Annie, having, with the husband, cajoled her media & pollster idolaters into neglecting Obama and playing her up ("Hsu loves ya, baby?"), waddles again into a shrill attempt to outclass Obama among the Michaelmorons & the tortilleras. Go get 'em, Oprah! Geffen was right (you usually are if you sell your record company for $70 million)!

Posted by: philip_riggio | September 12, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

The Iraq War has ALWAYS been "political", right from Day 1. It was the Cheney/Haliburton White House gang that invaded a country based on lies. To blame anyone else for "politicizing the war" is a joke. To this day, the gang in the White House continues to perpetrate the myth of "9/11 was Iraq attacking us", in order to justify the war. People are STILL believing it. I don't know(yet) who will make the best new president, but I do know that we must elect someone who will return our nation to a democracy, by and for the people.

Posted by: caribootroutfitters | September 12, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow HILLARY is 'surprised' that HSU fled and abandoned his $2milliom dollar bond and was 'caught' so quickly. Just as she and D^CKHEAD were 'surprised' that CHARLIE TRE and 120 other CHINESE/FOREIGN AGENTS fled this country not to testify against CLINTON INC. Just as she and D^CKHEAD were 'surprised' at the death of RON BROWN - COMMERCE SECRETARY under D^CKHEAD only after he was 'appointed' to handle FOREIGN AGENTS DONATIONS at the COMMERCE DIVISION. Just as HILLARY was 'surprised' at the death of her long-time WHITEWATER 'PARTNER' JAMES McDOUGAL.
HILLARY has claimed that she was 'surprised' NORMAN HSU was a fugitive convicted felon giving her $MILLIONS in campaign donations - just as she was 'surprised' that her WHITEWATER BILLING RECORDS didn't surface on a desk in the WHITE HOUSE residence quarters until after the 'statute of limitations' had expired - just as she was 'surprised' that 'FATTY MONICA' and all the other 'BIMBETTES' were doing her 'pretend-husband' D ^CKHEAD - just as she was 'surprised' at whom fired those WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL PEOPLE - just as she was 'surprised' that someone had taken her personal papers/files from VINCE FOSTER's ofice immediately after he was found dead - what's next??? "Oh BILL(aka D ^CKHEAD) you are happy to see me - quite a 'STIFFY' after all these years" - YEAH QUITE A 'STIFF' SURPRISE EH??? HILLARY 'THE MOST SURPRISED FEMALE ON THE PLANET'.

Posted by: ZyskandarAJaimot | September 12, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The story of the day is Barack Obama's plan to leave Iraq. This is the most important development and speech by a Democrat since Robert Kennedy in 1968. To heck with Petreus and his ilk. The war machine is going to be ground to a halt one way or another.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | September 12, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I applaud Barrack for his bravery. I admire and respect Barrack for standing up for what he believes in, regardless of whether or not it gains him the presidency. In this era of mass denial-of-reality, I am glad that there is one person who will stand up for the truth.

Posted by: bigdaddyLA | September 12, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Why is there a picture of Hillary and not of Obama tell me that? He's the one who gave a full plan today!!! Let's turn the page on the media!!!

Posted by: crews2me | September 12, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Funny, zmptr, when I read a lot of the comments in the Post's many blogs, I'm reminded of just how Bush managed to stay in the White House. (I won't say he was re-elected; he didn't win his first election.) The inanity and group-think I see on display just make me shake my head.

Posted by: Heron | September 12, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Democrats realize that when THEY lose Iraq and with it the region, they will be handing the White House right back to the Republicans. Republicans are foolish to let the Democrats suck them in to the current cut-and-run mentality.

Posted by: Bluefish2012 | September 12, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I wish the Dems well in November 2008 but when I read a majority of posts such as these, I understand why the GOP may very well win the presidency again.

Posted by: zmptr | September 12, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Shhhh everyone - the ENEMY is listening! We all have to support the President whether we like it or not.

I now apologize for my previous post and ask the WP remove it post haste. I was wrong. We need to kill, kill, kill without regard for right or wrong.

Thanks for setting me straight, MARKM.

Posted by: mas92102 | September 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

If Obama has arbitrarily set an Iraq withdrawal date, we may as well pull out today. Neither Clinton nor Obama can sit there today and declare what they would do. Once either of them is actually in office, they may become privy to more information. Right now, our military in Afghanistan provides us with weapons launch east of Iran and having our military in Iraq provides us with weapons launch west of Iran. Is IRAN actually the big threat, then? Neither the media nor the candidates even broach this subject.

Posted by: bellhopp | September 12, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

A further thought on the war. If the Democrats had not politicized this war and tempted the Islamic radicals with promises to "withdraw at once" , the war just might have been over by now. The scum that we are fighting has never had the courage to face our military in a fixed battle. They are a scurvy band of bus bombers, cowards and child killers. Whenever we have stood firm they have run away. However, why should they stop fighting now that the Demcrats have promised them victory? Why should they stop bombing if bombing will make the Obamas and Clintons of the world accelerate our departure. Again, Democrats do not care. Democrats celebrate every dead American as a chance to increase their poll numbers (along with distorted media coverage). One Democrat Party official has publicly stated that "Good news on the war is bad for us." Never in our history has any loyal American political party sold out our troops just to gain power for itself. Democrats have a proud and patriotic history, but the current generation of post-vietnam pacifists are a disgrace to their party and their nation. Worse yet...they are traitors.

Posted by: MARKM2 | September 12, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I think if American,s wants a change for the better, we must vote for Barack. HILLARY would be something from the past we have already had only this time it will be in female form

CLG.

Posted by: cgraxs | September 12, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

It would be very Good for this country to have Hillery in the White House and I wish her all the Best. However, whatever aspiring candidate (Dems,of course) can bring our young people home PRONTO! gets my vote, and wipe that smirking good for nothing president's face in the mud where he belongs. He is a disgusting, siockening individual who deserves the worst kind of treatment form the Americans now and in future History books. In fact this so-called president who is a disgrace to all of us doesn't deserve one small comment in history, except to tell our future generations that he is a rotten mean little man

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | September 12, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

My sons are in Iraq. Every day they face Iraqis who are terrified that we will abandon them now that they have "stuck their necks out" on our behalf. One Iraqi soldier asked my son "why shouldn't I kill you to look good after the US runs away?" I realize that the Democrat party has never cared for the US military , and that the Demoicrat media organs have bad-mouthed the war from day one in order to "get Bush", but we have got to stop bickering in public and politicizing the war. Debates over troop pullbacks are fine and proper..but not in the media and not in front of an enemy who monitors our media. If this were a poker game we would not show our hand to the other players. If war was a matter of contract negotiation we would not prematurely hand our negotiating strategy (or our (bottom line") to the other side. Why, then, do we endanger our finest young men and women in the name of fetid party politics?

Posted by: MARKM2 | September 12, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wouldn't want Obama as her number two; he might outshine her. Given the chance, she'll choose someone safe. I for one hope she doesn't get the chance. Even if she does, though, Obama could still very well become President someday, once he's older and has more political experience under his belt. I like him a lot, since he seems to be a man of principle, while Hillary seems to say and do whatever's politically expedient.

I think Obama could differentiate himself from Clinton more effectively by pointing out that he has concrete plans to tackle a range of problems and issues, while Hillary has been awfully dodgy about doing that. People want to know how the candidates plan to end the war; who supported it when is old news for many of us.

Posted by: Heron | September 12, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Homeschool10, are you aware that when you post in all capital letters, many presume you are yelling your message at us? It's much more polite, and easier to read, when you used mixed-case letters. Thank you.

Posted by: Heron | September 12, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Please. A vote for Obama is a vote for Clinton. He just wants to be vice president for now, and is just pretending at wanting the presidency. Just you watch... Clinton/Obama is the unofficial Democratic ticket for 2008. They are just going through the motions now until they can make it official. That's how American politics works... the fix is always in, the media plays along, and the public doesn't know or doesn't care either way.

Posted by: errinfamilia | September 12, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

addressing sen. hillary clinton:

DEAR SENATOR:

WITH REGARD TO YOUR DEBATES WITH OBAMA, I AM AWAITING THE TIME WHEN YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO DISCUSS MATTERS WITH THE CANDIDATE THE ETHICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARE IN QUESTION.

MUCH LUCK TO YOU. MAY YOUR ENDEAVOR BE ONE OF GOOD FAITH.

SINCERELY,

THE FORMER PRESS SECRETARY CT SENATE REPUBLICANS MRS. PAMELA R. WHITE-FORD

TO ALL CHRISTIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:

MAY YOUR ENDEAVORS PLEASE THE LORD.

SINCERELY,

FORMER PRESS SECRETARY CT SENATE REPUBLICANS MRS. PAMELA R. WHITE-FORD

MY SON IS QUITE WELL READ WITH REGARD TO GOVERNMENT AND WE BOTH ARE COUNTING ON CHRISTIANS IN PUBLIC OFFICE.

Posted by: HOMESCHOOL10 | September 12, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

It is a pity most Americans are so stupid to have already decided Hillary will win. Give Barack a chance. He is the only chance America has FOR A CHANGE.

Posted by: pkusnick | September 12, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I am strictly opposed to voting for anyone who voted for this war.

Clinton has not apologized for her vote - which was meant at the time to preserve her presidential ambitions.

Clinton is not a leader. Though I want our next president to take the views of others into account when making decisions, I also want him/her to be a moral citizen of the world and act accordingly.

Posted by: mas92102 | September 12, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

former press secretary ct senate republicans:


DEAR EDITOR,

AS FORMER PRESS SECRETARY FOR THE CONNECTICUT SENATE REPUBLICANS , I AM AT A POINT WHERE I FEEL I MUST URGE YOUR EDITORIAL STAFF AND READERSHIP TO TURN THEIR ATTENTION TO MATTERS OF CRITICAL TRUTH. MY HUSBAND SPECIAL AGENT PATRICK FORD FORMERLY WITH THE NEW HAVEN CT FBI OFFICE IS ASSIGNED TO ST GEORGE ISLAND FLORIDA PLANTATION DEVELOPMENT FOR ONE REASON -MY CHILD HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED AND TAKEN THERE. WHY? HOW? I REPORTED DEAN PAGANI , FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE CONNECTICUT GOVERNOR AND FORMER WATERBURY SENATOR STEPHEN R. SOMMA FOR RAPE AND RACKETEERING TO SPECIAL AGENT PATRICK FORD IN 2003. THE TWO HAVE ARRANGED THIS BRUTAL CRIME TO HARM ME AND MY CHILD AS A RESULT. AS A FORMER JOURNALIST I CAN SAFELY SAY THE CHRISTIAN DUTY OF ANY ONE CALLING THEMSELVES JOURNALIST IS TO DO ALL FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE. SOMETIMES OUR ROLES ARE TO INFORM TO PROTECT AND TO INFORM FOR JUSTICE. WE HAVE THAT PRIVELEDGE. PLEASE USE YOUR PRIVELEDGE WISELY. MY CHILD UNDERSTANDS THAT NEWSPAPERS ARE KNOWN TO MANY AS USELESS RAGS. HOWEVER I REMIND HIM TO FOCUS ON THEIR ROLES FOR JUSTICE.

RE: HARTFORD COURANT DAILY -I AM REMINDED BY YOUR ARTICLES ON GIORDANO AND ROWLAND IMPRISONMENTS THAT WE DO SEE JUSTICE.

THE MATTER REMAINS URGENT.

SINCERELY,

FORMER PRESS SECRETARY CT SENATE REPUBLICANS , MRS. PAMELA R. WHITE -FORD
PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA

Posted by: HOMESCHOOL10 | September 12, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary new suppoerter video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKqLfoQNjBs

Fugitives for Hillary

She needs to worry about staying out of jail

Posted by: dsmith2 | September 12, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Forestflyer: An Obama/Hilary ticket or vice versa do little to win any more states in 2008 than Kerry did in 2004. This really is a race for the top spot, and each of the top 3 candidates knows they probably don't have a shot at the other's VP slot as it'll likely go to Mark Warner or Bill Richardson.

Posted by: thegribbler | September 12, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

It's all a lot of campaign noise. The horse race aspect makes me sick. All of 'em need to recall that the real enemy is Karl Rove and the Republican incompetents, and they need to not damage each other before the real fight is on. Obama and Hilary would be a fine ticket, as would Hilary and Edwards, as would Edwards and Obama. Democrats, keep your eye on the Prize, dammit!

Posted by: forestflyer | September 12, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

When are democrats going to realize how Clinton has been a political windsock on Iraq?! Obama called it a dumb war in 2002, and foresaw the exact situation we're in today as the reason. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson are all eager to bring down Obama. He was right they were wrong!

Posted by: markdmorris | September 12, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company