by Rick Pearson, updated
DES MOINES—Illinois Sen. Barack Obama lashed out at Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton's electability this morning, contending her nomination would let a Republican election opponent say they both support the Iraq war and allow her to be attacked for changing positions and not being open with the public.
"When I am the nominee of our party, the choice will be clear," Obama told a few hundred supporters inside Old Main at Drake University. "The American people want that choice. I think they welcome that choice because I believe that's what we need in our next president."
A day after saying his campaign was turning to a new phase in the approaching weeks before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, Obama delivered his strongest criticism to date of Clinton, the New York senator who is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in national polls.
Contending Clinton was part of a Congress that "failed" the American people by leading the nation to war with Iraq, Obama said her vote in support of authorizing the war says much about what she would do as president. Obama opposed the war as a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
"Every single one of us running for president only had once chance to make a judgment about whether or not to go to war," Obama said.
Obama noted that while rival John Edwards also voted to authorize the Iraq war as a North Carolina senator, he has called the vote a mistake "instead of pretending that the vote was for anything but war."
"Senator Clinton has made a different argument," Obama said, contending she has explained she was "voting for more inspections or she was voting for more diplomacy" instead of war.
Obama also attacked Clinton for being the only Democratic presidential candidate to support a sense of the Senate resolution that warns of the dangers of Iranian insurgents in an unstable Iraq and that the U.S. military in Iraq should check that influence.
"She said, like she did five years ago, that it is a way to support diplomacy," Obama said of the recent Senate vote.
"This is a real difference. I disagree," he said, adding that diplomacy should be conducted "separately from any saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our military presence in Iraq."
Obama did not vote on the resolution and was campaigning in New Hampshire when the vote was taken.
The Illinois Democrat also said that while Clinton chided him for being naïve for saying he would meet, as president, with leaders of rogue nations, she has now said she would encourage talks with Iran without precondition.
"So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she's standing on this issue," Obama said. "But I can tell you this—when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."
Edwards' campaign also weighed in, with a statement that suggests Clinton offers "flip-flops and political double-speak.”
“Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans – but on everything from Iran to Iraq to Social Security, it seems she's trying to have it both ways," the statement said. "In July, she criticized those who said they would meet with the leaders of Iran for negotiations without preconditions, calling them ‘irresponsible’ and ‘naïve.’ But yesterday, she told New Hampshire voters she’d do just that – negotiate with Iran ‘with no conditions.’ Now, her spokesman suggests that’s not what she meant. But you can’t have it both ways – on this or any other issue."
Clinton's campaign noted that the New York senator said the United States should enter into diplomatic talks with Iran, not a face-to-face presidential meeting as Obama said he would conduct without precondition.
Her campaign rapidly issued a lengthy statement following Obama's speech:
"Once again Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope to engage in the same old attack politics. If Senator Obama really believed that this measure gave the president a blank check for war he should have been there, speaking out, and fighting against it. Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton.
"Senator Clinton agrees with Senator Obama's closest supporter Senator Durbin, who said: "If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.
"Senator Clinton opposes both President Bush's saber rattling and Senator Obama's inaction on Iran. She believes instead in smart diplomacy that would ensure tougher sanctions against Iran while making clear that the Bush administration does not have the authority to wage war."
Obama covered some of this ground Thursday in an interview with CNN, where he said he planned to draw greater distinctions between himself and Clinton.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The New Phase™:
In all these months Obama® hasn't given you a single reason to vote for him, but at least he's not (EE-ew!) Hillary!
!AMABOG!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 12:33 PM
This action by Obama is lonnnng overdue. You would have thought he was running against George Bush instead of Hillary Clinton up to now. She has such high negative polling numbers -- approximately half of all voters say they would never vote for her -- that Obama has to start hitting her where's she's vulnerable. Certainly, her strange relationship with Bill, her questionnable record in the White House on so many matters and before with the Whitewater scandal and her being a shill for Walmart. If Obama doesn't get going and show some guts, Al Gore is going to jump in and take it all away from both of them.
Posted by: Grover C. | October 12, 2007 12:37 PM
Careful Barry! Hillary will destroy you if you get too critical of her.
Posted by: mpr | October 12, 2007 12:54 PM
You mean to tell me that Obama opposed the war? Really? Gee, I didn't know that.
You'd think that he'd mention it more often. I mean, that's a good thing to have opposed, isn't it?
If I were him, I'd use that issue like a club and mention it everytime I spoke!
But that's just me.
Posted by: Dan M | October 12, 2007 12:57 PM
I like all the democratic candidates and will support whoever wins.
Posted by: Tom | October 12, 2007 1:07 PM
Hillary's own lies will take her down. She broke her signed pledge re: the Michigan primary. Now she is trying to redefine the word "participate."
The campaign makes no reply to the substance of what Barack Obama points out. This stupid catch phrase "now he abandons the politics of hope and embraces the politics of attack." Shut up. Hillary makes me sick.
Posted by: jdr | October 12, 2007 1:24 PM
The race for the Dem Prez nomination isn't over yet, just ask President Howard Dean.
Posted by: John E | October 12, 2007 1:27 PM
Sorry, but he doesn't get to take credit for saying what he would have done if he had voted. That Iran Guard vote was a duck, plain and simple. Like, there are no plains from NH, where he said he was campaignining, to DC. Like, every hour, I mean.
He's right about there being no difference between Hillary and the Republicans on the Iraq war. Sure there'd be some withdrawal rhetoric by Hill/Bill but then it would be right back to spending our trillions on Iraq and letting Americans die doing work that Iraqis don't want to do. Because they are smarter than we are, apparently. They know
it's hopeless but they might as well extract as much money from us as they can over the decades our leaders, Repub and Dem, apparently plan to keep us
saving Iraq.
The problem is that in addition to ducking on the Iran Guard vote, Obambi is
also ducking on the Iraq war. Like Hill/Bill he has been very vague about how many troops out by when and how. So, there may be little difference on Iraq between Hill/Bill and the Repubs, but there's also little difference between
Obambi and Hill/Bill. Whatever he said umpteen years ago.
Posted by: Helena | October 12, 2007 1:33 PM
What Obama is doing is the exact definition of DESPERATE! So much for a diff kind of politician, and the politics of hope huh?
Posted by: VInny | October 12, 2007 2:13 PM
What Obama is doing is the exact definition of DESPERATE! So much for a diff kind of politician, and the politics of hope huh?
Posted by: VInny | October 12, 2007 2:13 PM
It's kind of funny that you and "anonymous" always show up at the same time on all the Obama threads, it's almost as if you're....the same person...
People with deep seated hate make me sick.
Goodluck to Senator Obama
Posted by: Jesse | October 12, 2007 3:00 PM
If you don't have animosity toward an establishment that brought you into a unjust war then you are ignorant. Obama is not desperate when he points out the bad judgement and deceit Clinton represents. These are points are worthy of consideration. They are not attacks rather caveats. Clinton's camp and supporters never address the substance.
The problem is if you ignore the conflicts of interests Hillary carries with her you are vulnerable to her cheap rhetoric. You should be more skeptical and dig deeper. She is evasive, calculated and formulaic. Period.
Posted by: jdr | October 12, 2007 3:37 PM
Give her a break. She said if she knew then what she knows now she might not have voted the same or used the exact same words to explain it. Besides that is all so yesterday. She's about building a bridge over troubled waters or some other insipid sentiment.
Posted by: whatnow | October 12, 2007 4:33 PM
Oh OBAMA, GO HOME!!! Now all of a sudden, Obama is on the attack with Hillary and WHY? Because he is running SCARED!!! He knows he is so far behind and doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination much less the presidency!!!
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON IN 2008!!!!
Posted by: AlwaysforHillary | October 12, 2007 7:02 PM
I too will support whoever the democratic candidate is. I think Hillary is more prepared at this time.
Vote Democrat in 2008
Posted by: Alberto G | October 13, 2007 5:33 AM
It's kind of funny that you and "anonymous" always show up at the same time on all the Obama threads, it's almost as if you're....the same person...
People with deep seated hate make me sick.
Goodluck to Senator Obama
Posted by: Jesse | October 12, 2007 3:00 PM
So you make yourself sick, eh Jesse? How sad.
It's also sad to see a case of delusional paranoia such as yours. Would it do any good to point out that Vinny didn't "show up at the same time" as me, but posted over 2 hours after I did? Or to tell you that there are many anonymouses here? Of course not.
Posted by: The many faces of anonymous | October 13, 2007 1:45 PM