by John McCormick
LOS ANGELES – Meeting with reporters this morning, Sen. Barack Obama gave himself strong marks in last night's debate, as he suggested his nomination opponent was less than honest in her appearance and that he would make a stronger general election candidate.
"I thought the debate last night was good," he said. "I though it was substantive."
But Obama said there were "at least three significant differences" for voters to weigh from the debate: their approaches to Iraq, health care reform and how they would deal with lobbyists.
"There is a sharp contrast in our attitude with respect to how we got into Iraq," he said. "I thought Sen. Clinton described some of her approaches for going forward, but still has not adequately explained her vote to go into Iraq. Again, I think that's important because it speaks to the judgment that is going to be applied to future conflicts."
Specifically, Obama criticized Clinton for a comment she made about an amendment debated during the lead up to the war.
"I think there continues to be a suggestion that it was not a vote for war, and I thought her explanation with respect to the Levin amendment was inaccurate," he said.
Obama said he believes that he was able to appear as experienced and knowledgeable as the former first lady. "Voters who watched last night recognized that I know what I'm talking about," he said.
The debate showed his party's eagerness to take on a Republican in this fall's general election, Obama said.
"It indicated the degree to which the Democrats are energized and excited, and I think we will be successful come the general election," he said. "But we will be especially excited if I am the nominee."
The Illinois Democrat had started his 24-minute news conference in a downtown hotel ballroom by speaking about the economy and a new, negative jobs report.
"It is clear that the economy is slowing down and that families all across the country need urgent relief," he said. "I urge the president, the House and the Senate to get together as quickly as possible to initiate an economic stimulus plan along the lines that I had recommended earlier, to provide tax rebates that can get into the pockets of ordinary citizens as quickly as possible."
If the economy worsens, Obama agreed, when asked, that he would have to make trims to his domestic agenda, although he said expanding health care would remain a top priority.
"We would have to make adjustments based on what the economic situation was. I can't project a year from now, when I am sworn in, what the economy is going to look like, what are revenues are going to look like….I am a strong proponent of pay as you go, which means I will not make proposals that are not paid for. If it turns out that we are in a tight budget situation, then I will make adjustments accordingly."
Asked whether he had specifically asked John Edwards for his endorsement, Obama said "absolutely," adding that he expects to "continue to reach out to him."
Obama downplayed any suggestion that he might pick up an endorsement from Gov. Bill Richardson during a stop later today in New Mexico.
"We have no plans of receiving an endorsement, but I would love to be pleasantly surprised," he said of Richardson. "I've been in conversations with Gov. Richardson, as I'm sure the Clinton campaign has."
Obama also said goodbye to California, where he spent relatively little time campaigning in the final days before voters in the delegate-rich state weigh in next week on Super Tuesday.
He said he believes he has a good chance in the state, but needs to focus his attention elsewhere in the next few days. "I think this is going to be very competitive, but we've got 22 states," he said.
"I hope everyone had a chance to enjoy the 65-degree weather because we won't see it for a while," he said, referring to an upcoming schedule that includes stops in New Mexico, the Midwest and the Northeast between now and Tuesday.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"BUSH SPEAKS"
IN THE WAKE OF OBAMA'S REQUEST FOR BETTER CLARIFICATION OF SENATOR CLINTONS WAR VOTE, BUSH SIGNS NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR ALL AMERICANS TO DISREGARD ANY COMMENTS ON HIS WAR.
HE WANTS NO SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN, OR CONGRESS WOMAN TO GET ANY CREDIT FOR THEIR VOTE. THEIR VOTE DIDN'T MEAN A THING.
THEIR VOTE WAS JUST PART OF A FABRICATED VOTE FOR A FABRICATED CONGRESS.
BUSH DECLARES AGAIN THAT HE IS THE "DECIDER" NOT YOUR VOTE, NOT YOUR CONSTITUTION AND NOT YOUR AMERICAN LAWS EITHER FEDERAL OR STATE ALIKE!
SO STOP TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT MY FABRICATED OIL AUGMENTATED RECONCILIATION OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.
REMEMBER MY EXECUTIVE ORDER RELATING TO THE HINDERING OF MY ABILITY TO KEEP IRAQI OIL REVENUES TO INVEST IN HALLIBURTON, AND BY INTERFERING OR MAKING INFERENCE ABOUT, MAY RESULT IN MY NEW "TREASURY SECRETARY" SEIZING ALL OF YOUR ASSETS.
STOP TALKING, OBAMA, WE KNOW YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT, BUT BIG DEAL KID, BIG DEAL.
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 1, 2008 1:17 PM
True. Clinton has never not adequately addressed a vote to go to Iraq. She is on the wrong side of history, and we'd be naive and irresponsible to vote for her.
Posted by: N Smith | February 1, 2008 1:59 PM
he goes on and on about his vote against the war..and his point is. In life would does change directions based upon conditions - things can change - can Obama?
Posted by: jim Royer | February 1, 2008 2:05 PM
Just like Obama has not fully explained why Rezko would help Barrack and his wife buy a house that they could not afford without Rezkos help. Also he has not explained why he wrote a letter on behalf of Rezko so Tony could secure $14mill gov funding for his company. Lets see the Obamabots spin this with their talking points given to them by the campaign
Posted by: VInny | February 1, 2008 2:14 PM
The Clintonites are liars and spin masters, and expect the public be fooled.
Posted by: joseph pierre | February 1, 2008 2:20 PM
It is primarily because of idiotic thinking like yours that we are now in this predicament!!!! It is a #$%$@#* big deal!!!
Posted by: Vicky | February 1, 2008 2:24 PM
I like Obama but I don't think the issue of Hillary's voting record on the war is going anywhere. Congress was lied to by Bush and his minions as they lied to the rest of us.
When do we get to be in the POST Bush era? :)
Posted by: Rick | February 1, 2008 2:34 PM
I feel change in the air.Obama for America!
Out with the old divisive politics embraced by the Clintons which results in gridlock in congress.In with Obama and the new politics of building bipartisan coalitions to get things done for the American people.
Mrs Clinton touts 35 questionable years of experience including her 16 years as Arkansas first lady and First lady of the Clinton era.What is 'experience'if you cannot get things done due to deep divisions which she fosters.
She is not electable in November as up to 47% of the country hate her.Her recent gutter politics on Obama will add to that percentage.
I hope more and more people see the light of day
Hillary's claim to "35 years of experience." Subtract her years spent as first lady of Arkansas and in the White House, and her time working as a lawyer in the Rose Law Firm and in other jobs. As Reason Magazine's Steve Chapman reported in November, Hillary Clinton has "just under eight years of experience in elective office -- one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama." And, to boot, Hillary the Feminist has her man to fight her battles.
Here's a great quote from tomorrow's NYTimes column by Gail Collins:
====
Hillary could start by purging her campaign of the lingering sense that the presidency is her due and anyone who stands in her way is a particularly mean chauvinist. You cannot run a campaign with the slogan: “Vote for Hillary — Think of All She’s Been Through.”
=====
Posted by: Ndali | February 1, 2008 3:26 PM
Not everyone was fooled by Bush's lies, that was Obama's point. We need a President who has good enough judgment not to be fooled. It's true that Iraq has dropped as a priority among the American public, but Clinton is also following Bush's lead on Iran - which Obama is not - and made a joke about the Russian president having no soul, which was gratuitously offensive. We cannot afford to have Hillary Clinton in charge of foreign affairs. She is dangerous. Obama would provide a much wiser and more effective use of our troops and resort to military force only as a last resort - which is the way it should be.
Not only has the Iraq war been horrific in terms of human suffering, but it has left us with a deficit of 4 hundred billion dollars that we desperately could have used at home. This was the single worst decision - out of a bucketful - from this administration and we will be paying for it in all sorts of ways for a very long time. Hillary Clinton has to take responsibility for her part in that decision, yet she has not. She is not fit to lead this country.
Posted by: RLT | February 1, 2008 3:35 PM
I like ya Obama.....but really..everybody has gotten the point. Clinton hasn't fully explained war vote....not to your staisfaction maybe, but don't ya think you got all you're going to get?
Let's move on!
Posted by: bill r. | February 1, 2008 3:51 PM
Senators weren't fooled as we average Americans were. They had reports and had they done their homework, they wouldn't have voted NAY. Clinton simply do her job and nothing excuses it. This is a big deal!!!! She slept on the job, whereas a few senators read the reports and saw enormous flaws and voted correctly.
Posted by: MO | February 1, 2008 3:59 PM
as ossama's tries to explain his version of the debate his clown act becomes more profound than obvious
Posted by: abz | February 1, 2008 4:18 PM
The explanation is an easy one. Hillary supported the war when it was popular. Obama, on the other hand, had his 2002 speech against the war, but admitted in 2004 that he had no access to Senate Intelligence Reports and doesn't know how he would have voted if he were a Senator at the time.
Posted by: Herbie H. | February 1, 2008 4:22 PM
Hillary's position on Iraq is wobbly and incoherent at best. Blaming Bush for her own errors on the Iraq vote is evasive and plays to the worst Clinton caricature of her notorious deceptiveness. She needs to own up to the huge mistake she made. Iraq will be an issue again in the general election and we need a candidate that can hold their own on the issue. She should have read the Intelligence Estimate before casting that fateful vote.
Posted by: Nancy | February 1, 2008 4:59 PM
While Obama raised an unbeliable $32 million last month, he goes into Super Tuesday the underdog. The Wall Street Journal says Obama trails Clinton by large margins in polls in most of the big states.
But as history shows, no amount of polls can predict what voters will do once they enter the voting booth. And both canidates seem very unlikely to give up the fight anytime soon.
http://emilyannecarlson.tblog.com/
http://emilyacarlson.wordpress.com/
http://www.zimbio.com/Emily+Carlson's+All+Things+Political
http://eacarlson3.bravejournal.com/
http://emily-carlson.com
http://emilycarlson.org
http://emilycarlson.info
Posted by: Emily Carlson | February 1, 2008 5:07 PM
When I heard the evidence presented by Bush, I supported the war as well. I was wrong in hind sight, but that does not mean that I am somehow less qualified in judgment. It just means I was, in one moment, wrong. Barack Obama, however, would let us all believe that you must be 100% perfect at all times to be president. He constantly says that Clinton's vote was wrong, but then says he's the on candidate looking forward and not back to trash his opponents. In the debates, Obama said that it was not enough to be ready, but you must be right the first day and insinuated that you must be right every day. I can guarantee you that Obama cannot and will not be right 100% of the time. He cannot be. He is not perfect. He said so not a half hour after his line about being right -- he can't be right all the time. That is reality, something that Obama often loves to ignore. Reality is that you cannot always be right, you will be wrong. You cannot always look back and judge votes through the lens of today. You cannot run a country on rhetoric, and happy fuzzy-time feelings will not feed children. Obama ignores all of this, and so do many of his supporters. Reality cannot be ignored. It is time that we have a REAL leader, but just a man who wants to tell others what to do and take credit for it. Hillary Clinton was the only one last night that gave clear, concise, full plans. That's the thing we need for America. We've had 8 years of vague ideology and a man that thinks that he is right 100% of the time. Maybe it's time to vote for someone who is willing to be wrong.
Posted by: Jack | February 1, 2008 6:00 PM
My favorite quote from the evening last night....
"We need someone who will be right from day 1" - Barak Obama
And then "I won’t always be right." - Barak Obama 5 minutes later...
Sooooo Which is it?
Are you perfect, or not Sen. Obama?
By the way, Hillary doesn't have to say she was wrong. Hindsight is always 20/20 and she made the right decision at that time given the lies that were fed to the country by Bush. She was serving her constiuancy which is what she was supposed to do.
Obama wants to blame Iraq on Hillary???? That just doesn't make sense and it's the only thing he has to go on. Sorry but I don't buy it.
Posted by: Bryce | February 1, 2008 6:04 PM
Give me a break. The bottom line is that Clinton will not admit she was wrong on this vote. To me that is scarey. You have to admit your faults which she fails to do. I personally prefer Obama. He is honest, intellegent and will change our country for the better and not rely on Washington insiders. I am excited about this election, I say no more Clinton or Bush and elect Barack Obama for real Change!
Posted by: Brent Gentry | February 1, 2008 7:11 PM
Obama's most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama's calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It's a pity. He promised so much.
Posted by: Mark | February 3, 2008 10:52 AM
Congress and the President need to trust each other and show a united front to the world. Hillary understood this. Get off her case about the vote, she was lied to like the rest of us, probably even more so since as a Senator she is privy to info we dont get as citizens. Yes, Obama opposed the war - all the from the Illinois STATE senate.
Posted by: reality | February 3, 2008 11:41 AM