i really don't think this is the fight the Clinton camp wants to have...

[carpe diem]

...they are trying to do a Rove and attack their opponent's strong point, but by drawing attention to it, it only makes Obama look better and they look desperate and petty...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902165.html

Clinton, Obama Camps Spar on War
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A06


CAMBRIDGE, Mass., March 19 -- A brewing argument over Iraq between the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama broke into public view here Monday night when Clinton's chief strategist challenged Obama's credentials as a consistent opponent of the war.
..............
Clinton (N.Y.) voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war, while Obama (Ill.), then a state senator, publicly opposed the war. The exchange marked the most substantive clash to date between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and reflected frustration among Clinton advisers over the Illinois senator's use of the issue to distinguish his candidacy.
................
The Clinton campaign later supplied several Obama quotations from 2004 to buttress Penn's attack. One came from the New York Times, in which Obama declined to criticize the Democratic Party's presidential and vice presidential nominees, Sen. John F. Kerry and then-Sen. John Edwards, for supporting the 2002 war resolution. "But I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Obama said, according to the Times. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

The Clinton campaign also distributed an e-mail citing an Obama interview from the week of the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and was asked by moderator Tim Russert: "How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and intelligence committees in Washington?"

Obama replied, "Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have."

Russert then asked whether Obama would have voted for the resolution authorizing the war. "I would have voted not to authorize the president, given the facts as I saw them at that time." Asked if he therefore disagreed with Kerry and Edwards, he said: "At that time, but, as I said, I wasn't there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don't have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we're going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq."

Axelrod said Monday night that the Clinton campaign has distorted Obama's remarks and has tried to offer a selective view of history. "I don't think that full disclosure is their friend on this," he said.
....................................................................................................................................



Obama's campaing has posted this video on their website and on youyube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

[sandnsea]

1. Using Kerry to bash Obama

No, not a brilliant strategy. Especially when most of the Democratic grassroots knows it was the Hillary/Lieberman wing that was pro-war in the first place. She was a key reason he had to tip-toe around the war as well.

[FogerRox]

2. Is this the beginning of the end for HRC, I dunno, but gaffs can blow up

in your face. DEMs are on to ROVE, and mirroring thr Rovian tactics, well, we know what that smells like.

From a draft Gore guy, who really likes Obama.

[jobycom]

3. One of those exchanges that will be called a win by supporters of either side.

Clinton is obviously pointing out that Obama didn't have the same objection to Kerry's voting record, even admitting that Obama understood that Kerry had information he didn't have, and that he might have voted differently if he had seen the same info that Kerry and Clinton had.

It's a fair point, and it will make Clinton supporters say "Gotcha!" and Obama supporters say whay you said. Undecideds like me will shrug and be back at the same place we were before the exchange. Maybe a little less happy with Obama than before, since claiming victory on this exchange seems amateurish, at best, and that's the main hesitation I have over Obama. But not enough to really turn me away from Obama, or to Clinton. Mostly it makes me hope that both candidates grow the Hell up before the primaries.

[sendero]

6. No...

.... it is a ridiculous point that only the feeble of mind will buy.

there is a huge difference between casting a vote and not criticising someone else over theirs. Obama had no reason to second guess Kerry, even if he disagreed why would he say so?

This is the start of what will be a DESPARATE ATTEMPT of the HRC campaign to prove that she is what she wasn't until very recently - against this war. If Obama wants to he can find a fucking BOOK FULL OF QUOTES HRC made right up until late last year in support of the war.

HRC has no leg to stand on when it comes to this issue, if she's smart she will STFU about it.

[jobycom]

7. Proving my point...

[sendero]

11. Except one side..

.. has a leg to stand on and the other hopes everyone has really short memories.

Your "point" is roughly equivalent to when the MSM says "we get angry letters from both sides" as though that proved anything.

[blm]

9. Another difference: Kerry opposed Bush's DECISION to go to war when weapon inspections were proving

that no military force was needed.

Hillary still sided with Bush on his military decisions all throughout 2003 and 2004.

[rinsd]

10. I think you nailed it. Both grabbed grist for the mill (nt)

[karynnj]

13. Kerry backed up his IWR comments that he would be the first to speak out

if Bush betrayed the promises he made to get votes, by speaking out on January 23, 2003 at Georgetown telling Bush not to rush to war - to let the inspector's fininish and to exhaust the diplomacy. (Kerry had cancer surgery in February 2003 which kept him out of the DNC's 2003 event where Dean spoke strongly against the war.) He then spoke again the invasion in April when the war was at 70% popuarity - calling for "Regime change at home." In that early 2003 time frame, he was labeled "anti-war" by the media.

[Andromeda]

4. Ooh, two candidates ...

disagreeing with each other. How unusual.

Things are going to get a lot worse than this. They're just warming up like athletes getting in shape for a game.

The whole issue is moot anyway. Obama didn't even vote on the IWR because he was a state senator so he can say anything he wants. It serves his purpose to say he wouldn't have voted for the resolution so, like an astute politician, he uses it to his advantage.

Media whores like Russert like to pit people against each other; it's a game they play to stir up animosity.

[papau]

5. I think these Obama says he doesn't know how he would have voted quotes work for Hillary and

anyone else running against Obama.

Obama needs to sell something else beyond the October and November 2002 comments to media in his state district - it was not the real "risk taking" that would have accompanied any of the national names saying the same thing. IMO

[Learn2Swim]

8. K&R

Thanks for posting. :-)

[Clarkie1]

12. This tactic is going to destroy the Clinton campaign.

Democrats are going to see right through it for the low-ball politics it is. Obviously, Obama was protecting the Democratic nominee. How could he have said anything differently?

The Clinton campaign has sunk to a new low with this.