Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Steps Up
the Attack

Barack Obama's top political advisors, campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod, have repeatedly said over the last few weeks they will resist calls to make gratuitous attacks on Hillary Clinton, while emphasizing that Obama will take her on when they differ on policy issues.

But Obama, in both a speech last week in New York and one today in Chicago, is now moving past his earlier strategy, which was to distinguish himself from Clinton by arguing that she voted for the war and suggesting that she is more divisive than he because Republicans have spent years targeting her. He's not using Clinton's name or talking about Whitewater or scandals from the 1990's, but Obama is in an area some of his advisers had suggested earlier he would not go: a critique that moves beyond policy toward her character.

"After Vietnam , Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes," Obama said in Chicago. "But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it. "

He added, "That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy... I will always tell the American people the truth. I will always tell you where I stand. It's what I'm doing in this campaign. It's what I'll do as President."

Without naming Clinton, Obama was criticizing her for not reading the full intelligence before voting for the war, refusing to answer questions in a debate last week on several issues and using a closed task force to reform health care in the 1990's. In this section of the speech, he not only blasted Clinton, but connected her rather directly with President Bush. In New York last week, he said "There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing. That's not the kind of politics that will deliver on the change we are looking for," all but using the word "calculating" to describe Clinton.

But without directly naming Clinton, is it too subtle to work?

--Perry Bacon Jr

By Washington Post editors  |  October 2, 2007; 5:40 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Some Biden Supporters Have
Had a Helping Hand

Next: Obama Sells Himself as the New JFK


Careful Peterdc - are you a NY resident? Saying Senator Clinton is a great senator should be a call made by those who live under her administration.

I do.

She is not.

Posted by: cdcihak | October 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama speaks truth to power. The American people need a President who cares more about the country than he or she does about personal power. We have seen blind ambition before during the Nixon years. HRC voted for the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment giving George Bush authorization to bomb Iran. I am not convinced that the intelligence on Iran is any better than the intelligence on Iraq.

Poor judgment is doingthe same thing over and over again, expecting different results. The vote to authorize Bush to go to war with Iran may give HRC the appearance of being tough on terror but it will not save us from another huge foreign policy disaster. The human cost of a third war is unspeakable.

Americans need to wake up and realize that our country is headed in the worng direction on the world stage. We are isolated from the reat of the world in our war mongering approach to fighting the enemies of Israel.

If Hillary Clinton is not pushing diplomacy over war, she will be a Democrat in name only if she is nominated. She, Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl will become the poster children for the Iran War. We have no army to fight this next war and our soldiers in Iraq will be overwhelmed if we draw Iran into this war. How stupid is this?

Posted by: arizona7 | October 9, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I am an old fashioned liberal...meaning I believe in freedom of thought and making my own choices after steeping myself in information. I am really disappointed in the way the so called free press in this nation has already picked the candidates for our 08 election. The article which states that Obama is starting to finally attack Hilary Clinton is totally the spin and interpretation of the writer, not necessarily the truth coming from the mind of Mr. Obama.

When we went to war in Iraq, again it was partly the fault of the same free press and the spin that most "pundits" chose to put on the facts. Only a few of the established writers pointed out the actual facts at the time. Yet the actual facts were there for all to find out, and even I, a 76-year-old grandmother, a student of history, read all I could and used my own intellect to write to my representatives and urged them that it was a terrible mistake to believe the case being made for war. If you have to work so hard to make a case for war, manipulate the media so obviously,then the war must be wrong. How could so many of those representatives and Senators be so wrong? Hillary was wrong then. Edwards was wrong then. And above all, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and a handful of neocons, could all fool so many? Because they wanted to be convinced. And now, the same thing is happening again with the Leiberman-Kyl resolution. The reason Iran is involved in Iraq is not so much to kill Americans, it is to support their friends in Iraq in the civil war against the Sunnis, and if Americans get in the way, so be it. That is why we don't belong there. Moderates in Iran don't want a war with the US! Just like moderates in this country don't want another war. And Hillary is making the same mistake again.

No, I won't vote for her in any primary. I won't vote for Obama either, because I don't believe he can win a general election in this country, and we desperately need a winner to not let the Republicans completely destroy this nation. The sad thing is that the man I believe who could run this country with some kind of decency of leadership is Edwards. In fact, if money and influence with the "establishment" weren't the deciding factor in the corruption of our elections, and character and integrity were truly important, there are a few of the second tier candidates who would make good leaders. But for me, Edwards will get my vote in the primary. I trust what he says, even though he made a mistake that first vote. I don't dislike Hillary, I just don't believe in that "dynasty" thing. And a lot of her answers are just too carefully and politically measured.

Posted by: MariaDavidson | October 9, 2007 1:31 AM | Report abuse

I am not an American citizen, and I too, like Mr. Obama, did not read the documents sent to Senator Clinton. But perhaps I should contend for the Presidency because I wrote against the war in Iraq in Liberalslant net magazine on 25/09/2002 in an article titled' Weave a tangled web: Then What?

In the piece, I stated that: "Americans should demand answers about future considerations after an attack on Iraq. They should not let the current memory of the horrors of 9/11...blind them to the consequences of an attack on Iraq at this time."

Later I wrote: "What the world needs now is direction towards unity. As the world's only superpower, Mr. Bush and America share the greatest responsibility for leadership". Does this mean that my judgment is equal to Mr. Obama's and greater than that of Senator Clinton?

Senator Clinton's situation was different to all of the other members of Congress. The Bush administration was also positioning themselves as following through on the decision of her husband, Bill Clinton, while he was President even though the people from PNAC who had written to him requesting that he follow their directions had determined that he had failed to act and they, then, appealed to the Republican controlled Congress to do everything in their power to make things happen as PNAC wished it would. It was this, the horrors of 9/11 visited on the State that Senator Clinton represented and the need to support your President where declaring war was concerned, and especially when it was known that the Congress would support the vote that the Senator from New York had to deal with. Mr. Obama and I were not in her shoes.

Mr. Obama's opposition to the war and mine, did not stop the war and Senator Clinton's vote for the war did not cause the war. Politicians would not be politicins if they did not make political decisions and no one knew at the time that President Bush was attempting to democratize Iraq and that he would invite insurgents to come to Iraq to engage in his pre-emptive war on terror.

Mr. Obama should realize that he too, as President, would sometime have to make political decisions.

Posted by: CalP | October 8, 2007 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Is it too little, too late? At any rate, it is about time to let the public know what trump is in this game. It's the truth all the time, not just the half truths. It's time to get rid of these scathing backroom smokers that routinely cut the big deals. And it's time to get some light in those corners where these six legged lobbyist hangout. It's time to get rid of this secret government that exclusively benefits the elete, the insiders, and the rascals. It is time to get the ten commandments off the wall and into the game, and time to resurrect our Bill of Rights.

Posted by: oren1956 | October 8, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

George asks what was it that those who opposed the Iraq war know that Clinton and the majority of the Senate not know? That is a very fair question and one that I have not heard anyone ask before. It is a question I have asked myself in questioning why I was so opposed to the War from the very beginning.

My answer, George, is that I knew far less than Clinton et al, but I was highly suspicious of the urgency with which the Administration was pushing to get into a fight. Remember the mushroom cloud? The Administration could not wait for the UN inspectors to complete their work because we were under immediate threat of attack by Iraq. Please, Iraq?

A former battery commander of mine in the Army suggested finishing a cigarette before acting in response to a crisis situation, no matter how urgent. If only the Senate had collectively lit up before that fateful vote.

Posted by: wpblake | October 8, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

What everyone seems to have forgotten is that NOT ONE PERSON IN THE WHITEWATER INQUISITION was ever found to be guilty of anything, unlike the present administration which has broken many laws, not to mention mangling the Constitution.

The "sin" of Bill's is so hypocritical that I have to remind people that Eisenhower had his mistress in England, Roosevelt died at his mistresses home, Kennedy and Monroe... Show me a politician and I'll show you someone who has done "naughty" things.

Whitewater was a true inquisition from the beginning through the end. The Reagan years were rife with unlawful individuals having to be fired or imprisoned. But after eight or nine years of being harassed by the Republicans, they found NOTHING wrong. Not because Bill was "slick," but because he and Hillary had done nothing wrong!

Europeans laughed their heads off because of how the American Puritans reacted to Bill's sexual encounter. We are such a bunch of hypocrites and phony moralists. Americans make me sick sometimes and before anyone tells me to go back from whence I came, I am a fifth generation American.

Posted by: beverly | October 8, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I commend Obama for making clear the distinction between his correct reading of Bush's bogus argument for the war that he rejected and Sen. Clinton fell for.
Why DID Sen. Clinton and Former Prime Minister Blair fall for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies when so many of us, so far removed from the corridors of power saw how wrong it was long before the first bombs started falling on Iraq. Clinton's failure to get that right is a compelling argument to vote for Obama

Posted by: gopadres | October 8, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

My vote will go to Dennis Kucinich, the candidate that will begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Posted by: ghostcommander | October 8, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton voted to support Bush's invasion of Iraq because the momentum was going in that direction. She's sidestepping questions now about it because the truth now would hurt and she has the momentum going her way. It's over for the Obama campaign. He was in the game for a minute. So was Dean. Obama clearly has a future and I think it is just not now. Some seasoning at the VP level would really get him ready. Bigger organization overcame bigger money. I had hoped for a Clinton-Obama ticket, but Obama is going to do away with that possibility. Maybe not, since Bush,Sr.'s "voodo economics" comment about Reagan didn't do him in!

Posted by: jleon69 | October 8, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

HRC will never change because, much as she means well for the country, her priority will always be what's best for the Clintons.

Her feet most certainly should be held to the fire. I believe most candidates - and especially the MSM - are terrified of the pit-bull response from her machine and the ramifications of pissing off the Clintons, lest they lose access to her husband. (Ask Josh Green and the lily-livered editors of GQ...)

Just like George W. Bush, she refuses to answer hypotheticals, lest she go on record on anything that may bite back. On the other hand, she doesn't hesitate to pose the same type of question - ask Gen. Petraeus who she dressed down for refusing to answer a hypothetical.

Isn't it time for the country to move beyond the cults of Bush and Clinton???

Posted by: GordonsGirl | October 8, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I am yet another old time liberal Democrat who will not vote for HRC. So many of us are sick of politicians taking safe positons on vital issues. Her vote for the Lieberman/Kyle resolution was the last straw. Wasn't it enough that she voted to give Bush the authority to go to war? Doesn't she learn? Gravel was right when he said he was disgusted by her vote. Her strategy is to play to the Republican side while convinced that democrats will vote for her rather than any Republican. She should not take us for granted. This is one Democrat who will not vote for her. Its hard for me to believe, but this may be the first election in more than a half century in which I may not vote.
Enough of voting for the least bad choice.
If the Republicans win let them deal with the end of their own monstrous war.

Posted by: compass1 | October 4, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

HRC' is ahead in the polls for only one reaason because republicans think they can beat her in the general election with Giuliani. The republicans will do everything to WIN even if it is the 9/11 boy they don't like. The polsters were wrong in the Iowa 2000 polls and they are wrong now. Barack and John will lead the pack out of Iowa. What the pollsters fail to tell everyone is how many republicans are for HRC!!!!!! Here we go again with the Joe Liberman republican saga. I think the American people are too smart for this republican trash but I may be wrong. We will see.

Posted by: n2avalon | October 4, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone honestly say that Bush was honest & the problem with Obama is that he is honest. Guess I'll have to give in and contribute to his campaign. Not a single primary has been voted on, but they are crowning Hillary & we all know that all the disgusted republicans who wouldn't vote will come out to defeat her!

Posted by: eriley | October 3, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

He added, "That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy... I will always tell the American people the truth. I will always tell you where I stand. It's what I'm doing in this campaign. It's what I'll do as President."

This is an Obama qoute from the article. It demonstrates why he can not win either the democratic primary or the general election.

Bush, like Obama, always tells us his "truth," and we always know where he stands. Such candor does not a good president make.

We need less vacuous oratory and more specific references to who these candidates are, who they aspire to be and what, specifically, are they going to do to move this country upward from the abyss young Bush has pushed us into.

Edwards is our best bet for awakening our country and climbing out of the bush abyss. He has shown, through word and deed, that he is the best prepared candidate to inspire the nation and get the work done that needs to be done.

Posted by: kolp999 | October 3, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

When are you and the rest of MSM going to stop pandering to the CLINTON MACHINE and ASSUME she will win the Primaries. Know something we voters don't? The polls show nothing at all. They sample approx. 1000 people in these polls which equals approx 20 people per state. I hardly think that is an endorsement of the so called Hillary "the candidate". Secondly, Senator Obama was stating fact, not ATTACKING. You can read into Senator Obama's comments anything you want and take excerpts to fit your article to MISLEAD the readers. But we KNOW what he said and it was FACT. Why don't you attack Hillary on her flipflopping, refusal to answer questions in a debate, and her "cackle" when she doesn't know how to respond? Afraid of the "power brokers" in Washington? She showed LACK OF JUDGEMENT which if you watch her husband's debate while running he stated "Judgement is more important than any kind of experience" and this Hillary Clinton does NOT have, good judgement. Here in New York we know her as an "outsourcer of jobs", a liar and more. We don't pander to her and if she were to run for Senate here again, I guarantee you she would not win. But her machine just loves to slander her opponents and she targets low income poor people for their votes then forgets all about them. Give me a break. The Marxist New World Order of Clinton is what the US would get and I for one am not willing to put that woman in charge of cleaning up after my dog. And I am a female voter from New York.

Posted by: francny | October 3, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I agree with many of the above posts. This article is a bit of a stretch in trying to portray Sen Obama's comments as a character attack against Sen Clinton. His criticisms are legitimate comments on the differences between the two candidates. To characterize them as inappropriate or 'gratuitous' is an exaggeration.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

bridgette and jill - you sound like the whiners to me. The man didn't vote in the Senate because he hadn't yet been elected to the Senate, just as Senator Clinton has not yet been elected to the Presidency. Do you have similar problems with her "when I'm President" comments? That's what campaigning politicians do, indicate what they will or would do once elected.
I sat in my living room and watched the Senate debates, not running for any office, and I know perfectly well how I would have voted if given the opportunity. Conviction and judgement are not qualities that only elected officials are allowed to possess. She was wrong, and I'll bet she knew she was wrong. We don't need another President who will give into hysterical flag-waving when real, pragmatic decisions need to be made.

Posted by: squintz | October 3, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Nothing in the comments you've quoted appear to be personal or charater attacks. Senator Obama is drawing a distinction regarding his approach to policy, voting, and relating to the public at large. Nothing about his comments were nasty or out of the scope of the campaign.

Posted by: squintz | October 3, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wants to win, he needs to hit hard. "The Different Kind of Politics" brand may work in a general election -- witness the success of "Uniter not a divider" in 2000 -- but, this framing does not auger well in either party's primaries. In the primaries, he needs to define how how he offers a platform that is truly distinctive, how he is the better candidate to win the general election, and how he is best positioned to win the battleground states.

The Political Brandwagon

Posted by: pscohl | October 3, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Whoever expected Obama to have it easy with the Clintons,who currently have the strongest political machine in modern America.Obama should keep doing what he has been doing and be completely oblivious of Clinton . He won't have the power to bring down the Clinton machine. The Clinton machine will self destruct very soon when all the charade peaks .Obama's biggest asset will be his staying power and when the time comes ,he will beat the Clinton's without a fight.Take my words and remember this day.

Posted by: Mypostcopkiller | October 3, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Like another poster, I am a liberal democrat who will never give my vote to hillary.
She played with young people's lives when she made that cold calculation for her own personal gain and glory by voting for the war.
If you hear her speech she backs up all the neocons version of why we should invade. she did not bother to read the NIE because she was not interested in doing the right thing for the country. Only what was right in her calculating of her presidential run.
Then, when called on it in the early part of her campaign she began the usual clinton tripe of blaming everyone else for her mistake. and playing the victim as she so loves to do. Oh, Bush lied to her. It's his war.
No, it's your war, too.
Then, when it came time to prove that she just was not pandering about 'changing her mind about the war', she went and gave Bush permission again with Iran.
Now she is furiously trying to cover that up with glomming onto Sen. Webb's bill.
It doesn't matter because in the whole sorry tale Clinton has proven herself to be a follower and not having a real backbone when it counted.
it doesn't take awhole lot to stand up to the republicans, Hillary. But, it does take courage to take a stand and have some convictions outside of yourself.

Posted by: vwcat | October 3, 2007 2:29 AM | Report abuse

I am so sick of Obama saying he voted no for the war.

Obama - you were a first term state Senator when the vote took place. You didn't vote for it because you weren't there.

You weren't even involved in the debate that took place before the vote. How do you know what you would have done when you weren't even there????

This is such an empty campaign slogan.
I can't believe how many people fall for it.

Posted by: jillcinta | October 3, 2007 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Whine, whine, whine. Hillary is the leading candidate for president at this point. This is a fact.

We can all pontificate on how Obama might have voted had he actually been in the Senate when the vote to authorize Iraq was cast. The truth is, we will never know. He has voted to keep the war going since he's been there, so....

Posted by: brigittepj | October 2, 2007 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama noted that, on the most critical vote of Senator Clinton's senatorial career, she WAS WRONG. And, more importantly, she did not even read the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) even though she had 10 days to read those 90 pages.

So, in essence, Senator Clinton showed GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY in not reading the report, which, had she done so, would have seen many caveats, as pointed out by former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who read it and therefore could not vote for the war.

We are talking about judgment, and Hillary showed BAD JUDGMENT on her vote for the war, compounded by her not reading the report before sending other people's kids off to die or be maimed in this war of choice.

More bad judgment...she just voted FOR the Lieberman bill that calls the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which is essentially taking the first step towards helping Bush go to war with Iran.

Hillary HAS NOT learned her lesson, and continues to exhibit bad judgment for the American people.

One more thing, she is also very PRO increasing the H1B visas which bring in high tech professionals who earn about $20K less than our own unemployed IT people all over this country, and the companies don't have to pay benefits, either. She is directly responsible for HELPING TO GUT THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Fellow democrats, please remember some more history. President Kennedy was advised to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this young, wise president told them NO, and opted for a naval blockade, thus saving us all from an all out nuclear war. Declassified documents show just how close America came to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

President Kennedy had the wisdom and good judgment that Senator Obama has shown, going all the way back to 2002 when he gave his public anti-war speech at a rally in Chicago when he was running for U.S. Senate and could have jeopardized his Senate seat. He did it, anyway. That's called courage of his convictions and GOOD JUDGMENT.

We do not need someone in the White House who got there by playing the game via the vaunted Clinton Machine, triangulating and changing positions like a reed in the wind.

One more thing...if being first lady for 8 years in the Govenor's Mansion and first lady for 8 years in the White House qualifies as relevant 'experience' to be president, then why not have Laura Bush run for president? How preposterous does that sound?

Let's wake up and pay attention, and don't rely on the mainstream media because they have alrealdy coronated Hillary, which is an extremely un-democratic thing to do in a democracy, and they do it every single day.

Posted by: pacifica1 | October 2, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

This is such a disappointing, cliched piece coming from Perry Bacon. The speech was not an attack on Hillary's personal character; it was a challenge to Hillary's -- and Edwards and Biden and Dodd's -- actual voting record. And with respect to their votes, they were either sincere or insincere. If they were sincere, then their judgment was horribly wrong. IF they were insincere, that is disqualifying, because they voted "yes" to a war they secretly opposed solely to appear "tough" and to avoid appearing "anti-War."

Posted by: LincolnDuncan | October 2, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post, make a decision:

In one story, you say that Obama has not really attacked Hillary and in another you say he attacks and is going further than usual.

Could you please make up your minds? And this goes for all of the MSM.

Posted by: Lioness1 | October 2, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

In this speech Obama finally said more directly what so many of us who support his campaign believe - especially the part about telling Americans what he thinks. Imagine that. It's not "negative" - it's the truth. Despite the fact that HRC and her cohorts will probably whine about "what is happening to the politics of hope" - at some point, since the media won't do it, SOMEONE has to make these points.

Posted by: literate1 | October 2, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Ho hum.

Since the story is not "Obama attacks Clinton", but rather "Obama says Americans failed by Bush, Washington, media, foreign policy elite and Congress" I will report it here for your readers. Here's what he said today:

"The American people weren't just failed by a president. They were failed by much of Washington, by media that too often reported spin instead do facts, by a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war, and most of all by the majority of a Congress, a coequal branch of government that voted to give the president the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day. So let's be clear, without that vote there would be no war. Some now seek to rewrite history. They argue they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors or they were voting for diplomacy. But the Congress, the administration, the media, and the American People all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then and as we need to understand it now. We need to ask those who voted for the war, 'How can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?'"

That seems pretty clear to me. But then, I guess you're still failing people by not quoting the actual content, but rather focusing on whatever little crack you can find. Tell me: why is that?

Posted by: tony848 | October 2, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

As a liberal democrat and proud of it I will never vote for Hillary Clinton!! Her most recent vote giving Bush the authority to name the Iranian guards terrorist is another example of her poor judgement. She is trying to play it safe and down the middle and this is exactly what we dont need.

Posted by: rbprtman23 | October 2, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

What did all the people who voted against or opposed the war know that Hillary Clinton didn't know at the time she voted for the war?

Posted by: yiannis | October 2, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the members of the press will help us get straight answers from candidate Clinton, please.

1) Why did she vote against the Levine Amendment, which would have required another round of diplomacy, and if that failed, a return to Congress to authorize military action in Iraq.

George Stephanopoulos recently asked her this question on his Sunday morning show, and to my disappointment, she side-stepped the question.

2) Why did she fail to read the classified Iraq National Security Assessment. She said she was 'briefed'. For me that's not an adequate answer.

Florida Senator Bob Graham voted against the Iraq authorization based on information he read in this assessment.

In my opinion, you don't authorize the option of war, and open the door to young people going off to die in a foreign land, without having done your homework first, and requiring peaceful options to have been tried first.

In my estimation, good judgment and good leadership demand both. Senator Clinton failed to do either. I would like to know why, please.

Obama recognized how foolish this Iraq war would be. On that most critical of points he was right, and Clinton was wrong. And, that by itself is enough for me to decide which candidate to support, Obama.

Posted by: george25 | October 2, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Well Obama is going to prove that he is no different from any other politician- something that many who know him have said all along- If he gets into personal attacks on Hillary Clinton. The end result is that he will definately lose.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. How many friends of Obama got govenrnment contracts through him in Illinois and how much money did they then contribute to his campaigns? This is public record.

If Obama believes that dredging up old stories that Repubicans tried to use to attack Bill Clinton in his reelection campaign in 1996 about Hillary meeting behind closed doors on a health care plan- or other stories- he will find out what others have- they illicit a yawm- Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole big that year and Hillary won two NY Senate races despite people trying those tactics.

The reason being that this country and the world was better off when Bill Clinton was President and Hillary Clinton won 67% of the vote in her reelection campaign because she is a great Senator.

Obama should just realize that Bill Clinton is the most popular politician in the United States and maybe the world. And in the most recent poll of the most respected woman in the US Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey came out second- number 1 was Hillary Rodham Clinton.

People don't want negative campaigns and Obama will only hurt himself and his own image if gets into that type of campaigning- much more than it will hurt Hillary. Obama could not only lose now but sully his reputation for future races. That would be a shame.

Posted by: peterdc | October 2, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knew that Bush/Cheney/Rummy were lying through their teeth about Iraq and mushroom clouds. There were Senators (Byrd) begging the Senate to not be rushed into approving an Iraq invasion. Senators who voted to authorize the unlimited authority the Bush Crime Family now claims, need to be held accountable. Her vote is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: thebobbob | October 2, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company