Obama Campaign: Hillary's Debate Performance Proves She Can't Attack McCain On War
The Obama camp continues to press the argument that he's the more electable Dem today, sending out a memo highlighting what it wants us to see as the key moment from yesterday's debate: Hillary's criticism of John McCain for supporting the Iraq War.
The moment that the Obama camp is pointing to came yesterday, when Hillary attacked McCain for supporting "the wasteful tax cuts of the Bush administration and the Iraq war." To which the Obama camp's memo has now rejoined:
The question is: how can Senator Clinton attack Senator McCain for authorizing the war, when she cast the very same vote?When it comes to the key issues facing the American people, Obama is the one Democrat in this race who can give voters the clearest choice in this election. Obama opposed the war in Iraq, Clinton supported it. Obama has been clear on torture, Clinton has not...
Barack Obama, on issue after issue against McCain, offers the opportunity to choose change we can believe in versus a third term of George Bush’s policies.
This is a key argument Obama will try to use to close this thing out -- a case that's forward looking and seeks to reassure Dems about his electability in the general election.
As noted here yesterday, new polling from The Washington Post suggests that he's winning the argument over who's more electable, finding that Dems say he's better positioned to win in November by a greater than 10-point margin in both states.
Late Update: It's worth noting that another benefit of this argument is that it allows the Obama camp to remind the electorate of Hillary's war vote in a forward-looking manner.
The electability argument is his strongest hand at this point. Democrats who are torn between the two candidates will likely be making their decision based on electability in the general election and Obama has the clear advantage on that point.
February 22, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't believe she said that - what a brain freeze, and what a gaffe.
February 22, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was so bizarre. It reminded me of when WJC said on the stump that he'd opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning." All you could say was, "Huh?"
This is a much better point of attack than the tit-for-tat over lines in a speech or debate. The Obama campaign should have just dropped it. The narrative died during the debate when she was booed and their idiotic press releases trying to tie Hillary's lines to those of Edwards just keeps dragging it out.
February 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night Keith Olberman, interviewing David Axelrod, noted the Iraq/experience exchange approvingly as apparently the first time he'd ever heard it.
Maybe the rest of us have just been hearing voices in our heads for the past year?
February 22, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is unbelievable that Hillary could face the wounded and disfigured soldiers she sent to war, cluelessly unaware of her complicity in their predicament. Then she talks in front of the entire nation about making their lives better.
Some people should be kept as far as possible away from power.
February 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain says " Senator Obama, since your solitary speech opposing the war, given when you were running for office and at a time when you had neither responsibility nor authority to decide the issue, isn't it true that, just as I have, you supported every Iraq funding authorization requested by the President, including support for the Surge?
And looking forward, isn't it true that you have now adoted my position on US troop involvement in Iraq?
Isn't it also true that you were for withdrawal timetables before you opposed them?
In your speeches you now claim that, if elected President, you will bring all our troops home within a year. Are you aware that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said withdrawal will require a minimum of 18 months? Do you value you judgement on military matters, the security of our brave troops, over that of the Joint Chiefs? Where did you acquire you military expertise?
How can the American people trust your judgement when you have so often flip flopped on these vital questions."
February 22, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary's responses to these questions would be ... what? Any different? Would McCain go after her any differently? The answer is no - he'd probably be worse.
Both candidates will get those kinds of questions, so saying that Obama would be uniquely handicapped by this line of questioning is false. And the sad truth of the matter (for you, at least) is that Hillary and McCain are MUCH more aligned on the Iraq War than Obama is. McCain could get her on flip-flopping a hell of a lot easier (I can just see him saying "after all, Hillary, you voted to use force, and you're just pandering now") than he could Obama.
February 22, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not say that Obama is uniquely handicapped. HRC is not in my reckoning. She has no chance against Obama now.
But in fact HRC is less handicapped. HRC can say she supported giving Bush all the authority she thought he needed to bring Hussein (yes, THAT one) to heel. That the war goals as stated by Bush have been met. That our continued presence is now more problematic than not. And, as she has been saying for a long time, it is time to responsibly redeploy our forces out of Iraq.
She is not flip flopping because she never voted for a 100 year military occupation of Iraq. Nobody, not even McCain did.
And she has a lot more knowledge of military matters and respect from the commanders than does Obama.
But as I said, HRC no longer enters my calculations except, perhaps, in 2012 when after the calamitous '08 Obama loss the Dems might be a tad less enthralled with THIS Hussein.
February 22, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't speak for Obama, but my response would be: "I never flip-flopped on the question of whether this war was a good idea, but your and Hillary's tragic blunder left us with no good options except to make the best of a catastrophe."
"And I'm actually getting lectured on judgment by the guy who thinks bombing Iran is worthy of a joke and a song?"
February 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent responses! :)
February 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course HRC is out of the race so Obama must attack MCCain directly.
And your reply does not answer McCain's criticisms. That is because Obama has no replies to those points other than snark which hardly comports with his purported seriousness.
"Senator Obama, I and 85% of your fellow Americans agreed with President Bush and our allies that Hussein was a danger needing to be finally confronted.
Do you or do you not now agree with my position on troop deployment or have you flip flopped yet again?"
February 22, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama will take care of John McCain, all in good time. No need for you to start worrying your Hillary little head about it. Worry about why Senator Obama has been able to put Hillary The Fighter on the canvas in each of the last ten rounds.
Hillary is all Gloves and Glass Jaw.
February 22, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
JTHB
There's a whole heap of difference between signing off on a single issue resolution that sets the wheels in motion to send our country to war (without considering the consquences) [Clinton]
...than having to sign a number of multifaceted spending and supply bills that are no-brainers considering our troops are still in combat... [Obama]
February 22, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely!
But that does not answer McCain's criticisms, it is simply an excuse for Obama's flip flops.
February 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No answer is going to satisfy you, so what's the point of asking the question, other than to take some impaginary dig at Obama that makes you feel superior to his supporters?
At least you left out the racism this time.
February 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was reported here fairly recently that Obama said he would study the issue once he were president before pulling out the troops within a year. (I'm not getting the phrasing quite right.) I was actually relieved to read that as it seems this issue should be examined carefully. We've already killed too many people.
February 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama has consistently stated, over and over, "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq, as we were careless in getting into Iraq".
February 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he has. He has also called for a withdrawal timetable. He has also renounced a timetable. He says he will withdraw troops within a year. He says it depends.
Which is it today?
February 22, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is back to saying on the stump that he will withdraw US forces within his first year in office.
And he was for timetables, then against them, now it depends it seems on the day.
He does not have a cogent response to Obama's criticisms.
February 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, McCain is going to attack Obama from an entirely different front, namely Obama's opposition to AUMF.
Here's how he does it. He says, "Senator Obama, let's take a look at your famous speech from 2002 opposing the war. Now, you have admitted that you really did believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time. And yet in your 2002 speech, you basically say that you would not even threaten war in order to force Saddam to admit inspectors. That is the absolutely clear meaning of your words. But how is that not a sign of weakness in a President, to refuse to use even the threat of war against an enemy who, by your own acknowledgment, presumably had WMDs? What will you do if Iran is discovered to have WMDs? What will you do if it develops a nuclear bomb? Why should we believe that you would ever do anything but talk, without any threat of military force to back it up? Now, I'll grant, my stance on Iraq may be a bit too strong for some people. But how is your stand anything but very weak, perhaps to the point that it might encourage our enemies?"
I guess I'd like to know what Obama says in response. And remember -- this won't be a Democratic debate, but one in front of the entire American electorate, so just coming out against virtually any kind of use of military force just isn't going to fly.
February 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly:
If McCain is smart enough, he will focus a lot less on WMB.
People get the flashes of Cheney gripping his lips, Rumsfeld wagging his finger and the host of other fiascos whenever they hear the word WMD- then their stomach hurts and they feel sick all over again on the idea of Iraq War. I don't think he will venture into those nightmares. That's the can of worms he'll stay away from as much as possible.
He'll focus on the surge, and distance himself from every Iraq "policy" that predates the surge.
February 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking that you only wish he would avoid the topic of what Obama really stands for on the subject of WMD.
The fact is that Obama will be pressing McCain on his support of the Iraq war. McCain's natural pushback to depict Obama as weak compared to him. His 2002 speech would be exactly the evidence needed to make that criticism.
What people forget is that there was actually a reason that 3/4 of the Senate voted in favor of the AUMF. That had to do with forcing Saddam to admit inspectors and disarm at the threat of military force. All McCain has to do is to remind voters of that original context, and show why it would suggest weakness on matters of national security to have opposed it.
Opposing the AUMF works great in the Democratic debate. It's not going to work so fantastic in the general election.
February 22, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will respond with "dumb war". What is McCain going to do--say it was smart when the majority of Americans don't think it was such a great idea?
The majority of Congressional Democrats voted against this war. You think Obama is going to allow the conversation to focus only on the Senate? Yeah, right.
February 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, you don't get the point.
Obviously, Obama is going to blame McCain for being responsible for the war.
But what you don't get is that McCain gets to talk too. And when he talks, he pushes the issue in another direction. He talks about how, while his position on Iraq may be too strong for some people, Obama's original position was far, far too weak -- and he uses Obama's opposition even to threatening war against Saddam -- even when Obama admitted that he thought at the time that Saddam had WMDs -- as indicating how weak he'd be in defending us against potential enemies.
Really, you have to accustom yourself to the idea that there both sides get a chance to get in their licks. Maybe you can shout down opposition in the Democratic Party, but you can't in the general election.
February 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
One possible response: "Senator, one of our greatest presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, advised that we 'speak softly and carry a big stick.' President Bush spoke loudly and foolishly, and completely neglected to prepare for the consequences of his words and actions. Bush created a tragic situation with his ill-considered bluster: he had to take our country to war to back up claims and threats he never should have made. That isn't strength; it's folly of the worst kind, and it has done incalculable damage to our country."
February 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's going to sound like a lot of blah, blah, blah.
McCain simply will press the point: why, Senator Obama, if you believed an enemy possessed WMDs, would you not be willing to use military force even to force them to admit inspectors?
I'm still waiting for an answer that might not make Obama look weak on national security.
February 22, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are an idiot. The reason so many Senators voted for this war had nothing to do with WMD, and everything to do with craven political calculation - i.e., they feared being branded "soft on terror." 70% of the country knows this war was sold on lies and ended up being a complete disaster - yet you continue to trot out tired arguments in support of it that were demonstrably false shortly after the war began.
And, like the moron JTHB, no amount of persuasion will convince you otherwise, so why are you even engaging in this trollery?
February 22, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do everything but address my basic argument, namely that Obama chose to oppose even the threat of a war against Saddam, even though Saddam had refused to admit inspectors, and even though Obama fully believed that Saddam possessed WMDs.
Is answering that point just so hard for you that you have to engage in insult to try to deflect from it?
I'm sorry that it makes your guy look weak on national security to many Americans, but that's just the way it is.
February 23, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq offered on October 10th, 2002, to allow inspectors in. The Bush administration said "no" and that the offer should be made to the UN.
Get the implication, frankly0? McCain looks like a fool, just as all of these "aye" voters.
February 22, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look no one at the time accepted that Saddam's offer of unlimited access to the inspectors could be guaranteed without the threat of the war -- how could anyone know in advance that Saddam would allow inspectors to go everywhere they might need to go, unless they were able to do the entire job, a job which did not even get completed by the time the war was actually launched?
In any case, Obama's famous speech decrying the potential war was on Oct 2, 2002, BEFORE Saddam agreed to admit inspectors at all, even by your own timeline. So he was on record saying that he would not use the threat of military force even before Saddam admitted a single inspector under any conditions.
Look, anyway you look at it, it makes Obama look weak compared to McCain on matters of national security -- that is after all why 3/4 of the Senate voted in favor of the AUMF.
February 22, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read an article on Barack Obama months before he declared his candidacy. I think it was in the New Yorker, which traced his politics from early days as Illinois legislator and then being a U.S. Senator- that's when I first gravitated to his "progressive" stand.
He is an absolute anti-war candidate. He is also a politician and can't afford to appear weak on preemptive strikes. So, you'll see him adjust himself to the center in the general election season.
But I have no doubt, he is lot more dovish that he appears.
February 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right about that "adjustment to the center" before the GE.
But unfortunately by then Obama will have such a record of waffles that he'll be able to offer a Belgian Special.
February 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't correct. Obama fully supports deployment in Afghanistan which is certainly not what an anti-war pacifist would do.
February 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
...except on Pakistan, where you are TOO hawkish!
February 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of us will agree that McCain is a fool.
But his criticism of Obama on Pakistan will be a dead issue by the election and Obama will hardly be advertising his hawkish proclivities, assuming he has any. That's a problem there, we really don't know his proclivities. Thus the comparisons to Bush.
The point I'm attempting to make is that the Dem campaign, which Obama has won, has been remarkably free of real parry and thrust on the great issues of the day, the economy and the war.
And Obama will not have the best of either against McCain.
February 22, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't agree. I mean, I don't know about the war, I think it could go either way (though better to have the clearer contrast of Obama than Hillary), and I think if the election is about commander in chief, we're toast, no matter what. But if it's about the economy, I don't see how either Clinton or Obama loses. McCain is now for the Bush tax cuts (I got yer flip flop right here!) and has said he's not good with the economy.
I think there are three things this election could be about: security, economy, or disgust/change. The first McCain wins, the second either Dem wins, the third Obama wins.
February 22, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. I disagree. The GOP and the minority of our Dems in Congress have been trigger-happy with our military. That is dumb.
Obama is saying we need to use our military in an intelligent fashion in the world. That was not done with Iraq--and what will really tick the Clintons off is that it probably was not a good idea in the Balkans.
Obama is not a pacifist and is not anti-war. But he is certainly against dumb wars--and so am I.
This is a debate worth having, folks. This will decide the future of our country.
February 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched the plagiarism spat again in the debate and the "Xerox" line from Hillary really looks in retrospect like a Jump-The-Shark moment for her.
Immediately before that comment she got applause for stating simply that 'your words should be your own', which seemed to have encouraged her to whip out the nastier, scripted comment that he was offering "change you can Xerox". Getting booed by the crowd for that one then seemed to have prompted a definite behavior modification (fear) in her away from negativity for the rest of the evening.
What's interesting though is that the crowd showed they probably would not have booed if she did not deliver such an obviously prescripted line with that air of inauthenticity which reminds people of what they don't like about her. Just listening to the audience you can hear she could really have won that round simply by avoiding the stupid "Xerox" line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Y9tdh0d7Q
February 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She would have been booed for any comment considered negative about Obama. It is apparent that she is supposed to be positive at all times to Obama according to his supporters but he can come back with things against her and that seems "fair" because he is doing it and its "her". He got applause for not much last night from his supporters. That was obvious.
For the main topic of this using the line of not voting for the war, that won't cut it anymore since he wasn't in the Senate and didn't have the intelligence that was given to Senators at the time. Whether it was false matters little after 5 years now. The vote anyway wasn't for "war" but to geti nspectors back in there again and have a btter case at the UN. As well, Obama could easily have voted against the funding in protest since there were enough votes to pass the funds anyway. Look at Kerry when he took the stand of voting for the 87 billion before he voted against it because Bush wouldn't forgo the tax cuts to the wealthy. He took a lot of flack for that but at least he stood up for his beliefs and principles. It is more than Obama has done for someone so "anti Iraq". And in all reality isn't the time over for blaming who voted for it or not but how to bring the troops home at this point?
February 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it really to hard to understand the concept that she was probably being booed by rabid Obama partisans?
Why would that be surprising, given their feelings about The Protected One?
February 23, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink