Obama antiwar speech becomes fodder for Clinton

With the Democratic presidential race seemingly settled into a two-person battle (sorry, John Edwards), Hillary Clinton is honing her arguments against Barack Obama. She spotlighted one Sunday during her "Meet the Press" appearance and -- with a nod to Walter Mondale's famed (and effective) "Where's the beef" line against Gary Hart in the party's 1984 tiff -- the case she made against him can be characterized as: "There's only a speech."

The address in question was the one he gave in early October 2002 opposing an American invasion of Iraq. Clinton and her aides long have chafed over the mileage he has gotten from it, given the difference in their stature at the time.

He was an obscure state senator in Illinois, representing a district in Chicago with a strong antiwar constituency. She was a high-profile U.S. senator from New York, which suffered the most grievous losses on 9/11. He did not face a vote on the Iraq issue. She did, and later that October supported the congressional resolution that paved the way for the war a few months later.

From the start of his White House bid, Obama and his supporters have pointed to the 2002 speech (posted here on his campaign website) as the prime example that good judgment trumps experience. But Sunday, Clinton decided to try to use it for her own purposes, asserting that it demonstrates Obama may be long on rhetoric, but he's short on accomplishment.

"The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq," she told "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert just a few minutes into the program....

"I think it is fair to ask questions about, 'Well, what did you do after the speech was over?' And when he became a (U.S.) senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially," she said.

As the lengthy interview proceed, twice more she returned -- in a somewhat scoffing manner -- to the speech Obama so frequently mentions himself with such pride.

"Look, if you are running for president based primarily on a speech you gave in 2002 and speeches you have given since, most notably at the Democratic convention, then I think it is fair to say we need to know more beyond the words," she said.

And again: "The story of his campaign is premised on that speech."

Before Sunday, it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who most publicly had sought to take the glow off Obama's early opposition to the war. His remarks were made Monday in New Hampshire, and at the time were widely seen as a petulant response to his wife's expected loss to Obama the next day in the state's primary.

What happened, of course, was an upset win for her. And with that now has come a full-throated effort by Camp Clinton to depreciate a key Obama asset.

You can watch the Clinton interview here.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Enough]

Clearly, Obama has no experience to be President.

Foreign policy experience while attending school in another country?

I don't think so.

Now, he's presented his own stimulus plan (which of course, had to be bigger than Hillary's).

Where did he get this financial experience, while playing Monopoly?

Allowing others to pull the race card, while he pretends to be above it?

No, I'm not buying this. He's in it, deep.

In the end, we're going to see he's just all hype.

Obama is a liar!

[Kyle in San Francisco]

Top of the Ticket has become my favorite site for campaign news. Thank you Mr Frederick and thanks to the LA Times. Your intrepidity will be remembered.
p.s. You didn't mention that Obama also voted in favor of funding the Iraq War on at least four separate occasions, like Clinton and Edwards. And he voted for the Patriot Act...just like Clinton and Edwards. Remember, just one more week to register as a republican (don't worry, it doesn't hurt that bad). The Peace candidate is Ron Paul. Thanks.

[Marks]

Hillary will not get points harping on what Obama said in 2002.

Obstruction to Hillary becoming President is Bill. Bill having a third term. Hillary claims she can change Washington, by taking Bill back to the White House?

Does not compute. Her supporters are ready to throw sexism is the reason people don't want a woman President. They have to put her in the office now! She's the only chance ever?

I'll repeat it everyday if necessary, America is poorly served by rewarding the White House to two families. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

The world will frown. It's more important than ever that we show the World that America is changing. Not repeating times again and again in our government.

If Democrats think Republicans want that or will work agreeably with her as President, forget it! GOP woman will cross over to vote for Hillary because she's a lady?

People will get their partisan feelings up like never before.

We're going through the repeated times. Didn't George W. hire friends and supporters of his father's government? Hillary will reach back and go retro pulling Billy's old buddies from obscurity to the D.C. spotlights again.

People say experience matters, of course it does. Over experience matters too. We have the Decider in Washington who acted with his set in ways. Bush has made horrible decisions and where is the apology or acknowledgment White House made a mistake?

A Presidential candidate with a willingness to learn is needed today. I'm for bipartisan hiring in the White House. Obama is acknowledging there has to be some cooperation in Washington between the parties. The best way to have less partisanship is bipartisan hiring and appointments.

The GOP is weakened long as the focus is on Bush's decisions. If Democrats decide their nominee is Hillary, then the GOP has past ammunition to shell Hillary and Bill with.

Hillary is attacking Obama statements in 2002. Hillary will be distracted answering questions about her actions back in the 90's.

Who they pardoned will be a big story. What did those pardoned people do with their new life?

We're repeating the past in many ways with Hillary as President. What some felt in the 90's having the Clinton's running the White House isn't going to be repeated again.

This is a new Century we're we can define a new Presidency, not to repeat it again.

Few can say repeating under a Bush has been worth it. We've had 12 years under a Bush. I don't want 12 years under a Clinton.

I want change in Washington and Obama fits that description.

GOP candidates like to bring up Reagan's name, why? He sent Rumsfeld to shake Saddam's hand. Reagan ramped up spending on the military machines that didn't work like B2 bomber. Bush has the Osprey Helicopter transport for Marines failing apart in the same expensive ways.

Billion dollar per truck that's a little more resistance to road side bombs. The Iraq war was a fight by choice, its not supposed to be bankrupting future economics of our Federal Budget.

The Military decision will matter. Former command and x soldiers. Current soldiers around the world. They might be picking a candidate with no military experience. Some x military are coming out for Obama.

They acknowledge, he won't be a Decider. A definitive change from the current President.

Bill shot on Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban. He missed. They think Hillary will miss too, because its the same mental consideration. Bill's enemies were hers!

Don't people think Hillary and Bill think together after all the years?

Enemies have been at war with Clinton's around the world, they won't respect a do over. Clinton's old enemies can get publicity again. Clinton's in the White House will bring a lot of things back.

John McCain only wants one term he says. I say he's too old already, been in government longer than necessary. His rubber stamping Bush's war, doesn't mean he'll change anything. Everyone surely thanks him for his sacrifice in Service but that was a long time and different age ago.

McCain is not a change agent for Washington. Because he's x military doesn't mean he should be President.

[Warren Ben]

Hillary Clinton is more of the same. She has so much experience at changing nothing. Per the previous comment; Bush/ Clinton/ Bush/ Clinton? I sincerely hope not.
The Clintons have so much dirt one cannot begin to think that anything will get done in Washington. Some of the dirt includes Vince Foster etc. If anyone is in any doubt about the "shiftyness" of the Clintons, I invite them to look up the "Peter Paul" interviews on youtube. There are so many cases of irregularities with the Clintons that they should be behind bars for a very long time.
Another issue not discussed, the Clintons are by no means, common folk. Chelsea Clinton completed her studies at Oxford University and landed a job that paid her a six fugure salary. How many graduates with degrees in worthless subjects that Chelsea has, get six figure salaries right out of college? These people are just so dirty.
Hillary is rewriting history to claim the accomplishments of others, as her own!
Last point, a white woman from Park Ridge, IL (one of the wealthiest suburbs of Chicago), cannot possibly understand what people are going through in the US. Obama is a man of all the people of the great country who just happens to be black. We should give him a chance.
Change cannot come from the same dirty people that have spent an entire life in politics enriching themselves.

[rawdawgbuffalo]

like she has a war record...who ever wins they will have MAJOR problems . poor mr or mrs next president

not to change the subject, but u think Bill and Hill paid BETs Rob Johnson

[Dave]

Thank you for this article.

While I am a staunch supporter of Barack Obama for President, it is still essential that we examine candidates deeply to judge their qualifications.

In defense of my candidate of choice, based on his own testimony, once he became a senator it was obvious that an immediate pullout from Iraq would be disastrous. So he supported the troops as best he could, funding the war effort.

At first he did not support timetables for withdrawal, but when it became obvious that the situation was becoming a disaster (and that there were no weapons of mass destruction), he advocated for a phased withdrawal.

He is not perfect, and I acknowledge that, but he did come out against the war at a time when almost the entire media empire was rallying for it. That alone is courage and judgment to me.

[John Helding]

Here's the test.
If the war had come out wonderfully, then right now the Clinton's would have been all over Obama for his 2002 speech. Of course then it wouldn't have just been a speech but a grevious error in judgment, unpatriotic to boot and what you'd have to expect from an inexperience State Senator.

Stop it Hilllary. Stop it Bill. The fact is, in public, taking on a big political risk that the two of you certainly didn't Obama opposed the Iraq war before it happened. Al Gore did the same thing (of course you might start criticizing him as well, eh?) You two didn't. Just accept the facts and stop trying to sow doubt and half-truths. You're swiftboating big time. Stop it! You'll harm the Democratic effort in the process. But of course, maybe you don't really care about that. You're certainly acting as though you don't.

[saraz]

This 60 year old white woman thinks Barack Obama is the most electable Democrat. I hope I live to see a Democratic woman as president. But not Hillary Clinton. Let’s face it; Hillary’s political tin ear has been amply demonstrated during the last week. I fear she will not fare well under the intense public scrutiny of a national campaign.

And her attempt to paint Obama as somehow less experienced or substantive sits very poorly with me. Obama is a U. S. Senator and a top Harvard Law School graduate who was elected by his Harvard peers to be president of the Harvard Law Review.

He could have leveraged his credentials and connections to work in a top corporate law firm, as Hillary Clinton did. Instead, he went into public interest law and taught at University of Chicago Law School before being elected the U.S. senate.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, he has shown leadership skills by coming out publicly against the war in Iraq before it became fashionable. He has served 11 years in elected office to Hillary's 7. But that is not the point. The point is that he has the intelligence to make the best appointments and pick the best advisors, has a record that shows a commitment to progressive causes, and is clearly the most articulate and charismatic of the candidates, which will help him represent our country abroad, build coalitions at home and win in November.

Current polls have shown Obama and Clinton running about equally against McCain. Obama’s greater charisma will render him more likely to maintain and increase his lead over McCain during the long course of a tough presidential campaign.

As to the implicit concerns that a black man can't win, I would refer readers to the March 13, 20007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), that shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain's age).

[Calista]

Dear Obama: Good intentions aren't good enough. You are mostly all-talk and not action.

This is one of many reasons I am voting for and supporting Hillary Clinton for president!

Angeleno's for Hillary!

[Paul]

I've already heard two people say something rather significant to me: while Obama or Clinton may win the Democratic nomination, neither will win the presidency. When I asked them why, their response was the same: America is not "ready" for a black president nor is America "ready" for a female president. Has anyone else heard others say that? Can this be true? Do racism and sexism run so deep through this country that we would reject excellent presidential candidates because of such illogical biases? Would YOU vote against Obama and/or Clinton in part because of their race/sex?

[Rick Sroka]

Obama's my man;
He's no flash in the pan!
Let Hillary belittle
Obama's short fiddle.
The song that she plays
Will not cut short his days
As the candidate exemplar
Who exceeds her by far!

[Keith]

And if that doesn't do the trick, she can always cry some more, for the children.

[guyfawkes]

Voting against the Iraq war means opposing the war. Voting to fund the war means supporting the troops. Barack Obama has always opposed the war and has always supported the troops.

Obama is the only Democratic candidate who can win against all of the Republican candidates. That truth is as simple as can be, and everyone paying attention to this race knows this. So if you don't want four more years in Iraq, if you don't want a war with Iran, if you don't want four more years to start yet another pointless war, and if you don't want bin Laden running free for another four years, then throw your support behind Obama.

[Steve]

It's funny how Republicans say they won't work with Clinton. They don't work with any Democrats! They are already bi-partisan! They do buy Democrats, however, that's why the top 1% own 22% of the wealth, when they only used to own 7% -- they brought Democrats to get tax breaks for the rich, dismantle pension plans, healthcare, and education.

[CALIFORNIAMARTY]

If you liked Bill Clinton's presidency, even if you cannot stand Hillary, you can still expect more of the same. We all know that Hillary and Bill both will be running the country. If your taste runs to the far-left intern of charismatic oratory and your hatred for Hillary and Bill overcomes your good judgment, then vote for Obama. Obama, a former Chicago "community organizer" punted hundreds of time voting "present" on tithe tough issues facing the Illinois legislature. He authored no one major piece of legislation but he looked good and has the oratory In the debating hot air society of the Senate. He had done nothing of importance for only one year, when he has the unmitigated chutzpah to announce for POTUS.
Never a prosecutor, attorney general, mayor, governor, businessperson, private sector employee, ambassador, war hero, military member, he who never served in the ROTC or Eagle Scouts for that matter, says we should ignore General Petreaus, a military legend and run to the Baghdad airport ASAP allowing al Qaeda to claim victory and to make a comeback from their defeats, the victories our troops fought and died to obtain. He ignores those Iraqis who joined us and voted for a friendly government and would be content tossing them all to the wolves, women and children alike. Obama is the new Neville Chamberlain.
His judgement TO IGNORE butchering tyrant who had murdered the Kurds and ignored all U.N.Resolutions for twelve years was flawed. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, where was Obama?

[Dwight]

How Obama responds to "Where's the Beef" will decide this election.

Obama is very smart and very savvy.

Can he find the responses he needs?

Logic like this would seem pretty simple and powerful:

"1) Jimmy Carter was a hard-working, well-intentioned policy wonk who turned to his own smarts to get things done, and had one just one term.

2) Ronald Reagan used his communicaton skills to go directly to the American people, and had them pressure Congress to move past inertia.

3) This shows that the skill of communicaiton, of motivating and moving the majority of Americans, is essential to governing.

4) When I said with frustration that you are "likable enough", the frustration is how, for whatever reason, you and President Clinton are such divisive figures, who inspire and engage in such anger with a major portion of our electorate.

5) The direct experience of the last 25 years makes clear that the ability to motivate American toward a next genearation of the dream is essential.

6) In making the choice between us, American voters will decide whether they want a detail person like Carter, or a big-picture vision person like Kennedy and Reagan.

[Lupe]

Listening to Obama is torture now. After listening to several speeches I have come to the conclusion there is nothing substantive in those speeches.

Latinos for Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lolo]

Hillary is on the attack again with her underhanded dirty tricks. Bill yells and shakes his finger at us, telling us in NH that Obama's message is a fairy tale. Then HRC belittles Obama's message of hope, saying it took LBJ to realize MLK's dream, and that "it took a president" to realize the dream. THe Gall!!! Then she tries to minimize the insult of her comments. When prominent blacks speak out against what she says, she accuses Obama of twisting her comments and bringing up the race card. And he hadn't commented yet!! She will stop at nothing to smear Obama and get elected.

[mike khandjian]

My concern is that the American public gives the Clintons a free pass on framing who the other guy is and what the issues are. An educated assessment of what Hilary is saying exposes that she is attempting to use WHAT SHE WANTS US TO THINK regarding Obama - as fact - and it isn't.

And the greater concern is that it is obvious that she will say anything and do anything and act in any way to get what she wants.

My sense is that she is enraged because he has captured (and by the way, I'm undecided) the imaginations and hearts of the Democratic and Independent constituencies - where she believed that it was her turn.

She does have more experience - but as I watch her speak and listen - I see someone who is a deeply mean-spirited, self-consumed, ambitious individual who doesn't care what is true or untrue - and who has no respect for anyone who gets in her way.

In the end Obama may lose because he is not playing dirty.

One example - The Press is missing the point on the MLK/Johnson 'thing' - what she demonstrates in her words, is not racism, but an utter disrespect for all humanity - she is an elitist who thinks that if you are not in power, you are nothing - and that is what is so revolting about what she has said. It is her true philosophy.

[Susan L Martin]

Hooray for Barack Obama! His very run for the presidency is
an act of courage. He knew the Clinton machine would turn on him.
He is ready for the Republicans too. Let's all stand with him. . . he
is putting himself on the line for the rest of us.
I used to have some degree of respect for Bill Clinton but the real Clinton
came out in NH with swagger and bile. Shame on him. We honored Clinton
with our presidency and now he wants to install his wife.
Barack Obama, a man of accomplishment, discipline and good will,
is offering us an alternative. Let's take it!!!

[Del Spiva]

New voters came out in droves and for the most part flocked to Obama in the Iowa primary. If these new voters for Obama become apathetic and stay home, Clinton will win the nomination. The politically savvy Washington types know this tool so well, since it has been used against Democrats in the worst way.

Thanks, Don Frederick, for fanning the flames of apathy without coming out and saying whom you support, which is obvious.

[Ed Watters]

Whatever any of the candidates said regarding the Iraq war is a non-issue. All of the Dems, when asked at a debate, acknowledged that they couldn't foresee a complete withdrawal of troops at the end of their term, despite the fact that thier party regained control of congress because of anti-war sentiment in this country . Even if the Iraqi parliament passes "the oil law" - the centerpiece of this war (just ask that leftist US foriegn policy critic Alan Greenspan) - a huge US troop presence will be needed since an overwhelming majority of Iraqis are against the law which virtually hands control of thier one natural resource over to the control of western interests.
Journalists covering the election have an obligation to look past the rhetoric when analyzing candidates stands on the issues...

[michelle]

All these political blogs are entertaining, but I'm sick to death of reading comments that only praise the candidate the poster supports or denigrate that candidate's opponents. I also tire of the subjects and headlines of many of these pieces - so much free publicity is given to the public quarreling among candidates, and, lately (ok, the past six months), only the supposed front-runners have been covered. Am I not the only one to think this is a dangerous situation? In my personal opinion, both the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton have been a load of hype. It's as my friend says: If a prominent string theorist had had a physical incapacity, perhaps he would be as famous as another one for the novelty.

Of course, the outward quarreling isn't always a trivial matter and exposes the public to the tactics of the candidates. However, I thought the point is supposed to be that these tactics are ignoble (but, silly me, I am inclined to expect better of this country's leaders). Unfortunately, bad publicity is still publicity, and many a great candidate languishes in obscurity.

What I gather from this blog is that Clinton will not apologize (as Edwards has done) for her decision on the war while still giving off the impression that she feels it was a bad decision. Thus, she can have the support of both those who supported the war and those who didn't. Also, she's getting desperate finding anything to respond to with regard to Obama. Who wouldn't - for both Hillary and Obama? Both of these candidates haven't been politicians long enough for their oeuvres to accurately represent who they would be as president.

Who knows how many people are voting for Obama just because they don't like Clinton, and vice versa? I won't vote for either in this primary. I think someday people will realize they passed up some candidates who actually didn't grow to forget about the citizens they are serving. Perhaps I will vote for someone who loses, but, in the future, at least I can complain and know I didn't vote for a bad decision.

[PulSamsara]

Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.

Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.

Everything else is just BUNK !

[PulSamsara]

Barack Obama TOOK A STAND against the IRAQ INVASION when it MATTERED.

Hillary Clinton PLAYED politics when it MATTERED.

Everything else is just BUNK !