Clinton Camp Jumps On Lack Of Obama Hearings

By: Vaughn Ververs
Topics: Hillary Clinton

The Clinton campaign released a statement today questioning why Obama has not held any oversight hearings on the national security subcommittee he chairs. Clinton raised the point in last night's debate, pointing out that the subcommittee has oversight on NATO, a key part of the war in Afghanistan. From the release:

"Barack Obama has presented himself as a unique political figure who says what he means and does what he says. Last night, we saw a glimpse of the real Barack Obama – the Barack Obama who became chair of a national security subcommittee, put it on his resume, but did not hold a single oversight hearing because he was too busy running for President; the Barack Obama who spends his time talking about change you can believe in instead of change you actually can count on. … Hillary Clinton doesn't just WANT the job of President. She wants TO DO the job or President. How can we tell what Barack Obama would be like as president if he did not carry out his responsibility here?"

In the debate, Obama responded to Clinton's charge by saying, " I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan. I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan. I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort. I think we have to show that we are not maintaining permanent bases in Iraq because Secretary Gates, our current defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq."

14 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 14 Comments


by notbuynit February 28, 2008 1:02 PM EST: A few more days and we won''t have to lister to her ******* anymore.; Reply to this comment


by jpspec February 28, 2008 12:35 PM EST: So far the blogs are typical of most.
For, against or just plain nasty. Doesn''t anyone understand how important oversight hearings on national security are? As chairman Obama has not held even one meeting!!
And this is the guy who repeats that he was "against" the Iraq war. (NOte the word against because Obama was NOT in the US senate and therefore could not vote.) He was no different than you or me. As a private citizen, I also was "against" the war. How would I have voted if given the same false information as US senators?

This election is not a game. Remember 9-11. I will sleep better if Hillary is elected.; Reply to this comment


by torch1000us1 February 28, 2008 7:23 AM EST: NickSP2 Yep we are a nation at war. Who voted for that war? I believe that was Hillary Clinton.; Reply to this comment


by hillary4us February 28, 2008 4:30 AM EST: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE MODERATORS WERE ASKING THE QUESTIONS OF OBAMA, NOT HILLARY. OBAMA IS JUST WINGING IT AND THE MSM IS ALLOWING IT. WONDER HOW THEY WILL FEEL IF THEIR SINISTER PLAN BACKFIRES AND THEY HAVE TO LIVE UNDER AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY. HAHAHA; Reply to this comment


by linda554 February 28, 2008 3:46 AM EST: Hmm, yet when Hillary replies that she has been too busy for things due to her campaign travel that is okay with everyone.
They have had the record of her time in the White House for about a month, yet they have not had time to give it to the Bush''s.
She plays dirty politics then cries when something is done to her. I''m not just talking about this race, but with every race she has entered. Clinton''s lied,even under oath, were into one scandal after the other, while governor and president ( and co-president) blamed everyone else for anything they got themselves into, Hillary could not work well with others and that is why her health care plan did not make it, and they were impeached, yet I keep hearing people talk about what she is saying now as if you can believe her! Look at her record, she wants you to.

I will vote for someone who would love the chance to prove themselves and who seems to understand that the people are what is missing in our country to make a good government. Who won''t be working behind closed doors and refusing to work with other party members. He is not perfect, however, he does deserve the chance that all of our other presidents received to prove themselves. When the Clinton''s first ran, what experience did they have?
Regardless of what Hillary believe''s, I happen to believe that honesty, character, good morals and a willingness to get along with others, does play a big part in the person who represents us and our country.; Reply to this comment


by greenfun February 28, 2008 3:04 AM EST: Has anybody noticed that you can no longer watch the SNL Debate skit on You Tube?. Hmmm. Seems strange.; Reply to this comment


by cc76-2009 February 27, 2008 8:03 PM EST: Obama hasn''t needed a one line zinger. It would only make him look bad and would unnecessarily create further divisions in the party. We need to quick bickering amongst ourselves, confirm Obama as our nominee, and focus on beating the Republicans!!; Reply to this comment


by cc76-2009 February 27, 2008 8:02 PM EST: Obama hasn''t needed a one line zinger. It would only make him look bad and would unnecessarily create further divisions in the party. We need to quick bickering amongst ourselves, confirm Obama as our nominee, and focus on beating the Republicans!!; Reply to this comment


by j00121 February 27, 2008 7:17 PM EST: If one wanted to be totally honest, in truth, Obama is really NOT as qualified to be President in the technical (political theology) sense as is Hillary. I think everyone knows that. But he is---at this critical juncture in American history---the best person to bring the Country together. He is the best Inspirational leader...the best orator...the best unifier...and ultimately...the best man for the job---at this time in America''s history. Obvious, Hillary%u2019s best chance at the President is 4 years too late! Her time was John Kerry%u2019s time in 2004. She will go on to be one of Americas greatest Senators. Her contributions bolstered by her superb grasp of the issues will serve her well as the Junior Senator from the great State of New York!
But I say Kudos to America for putting aside petty racial and ethical differences and recognizing a great, young, dynamic inspirational leader in Barak H. Obama. He will do America proud internationally. Might as well get use to it now"...Ladies and Gentleman, the President of the United States, Mr. Barak H. Obama." Not a bad ring to it all!; Reply to this comment


by j00121 February 27, 2008 7:14 PM EST: I am split down the middle on this debate. While it is pretty clear that Hillary is on the "ropes" (so to speak), Obama did not AND COULD NOT (in my estimation) deliver a knock-out blow! But why? I don''t think it is in him to do so. In the post-debate coverage by MSNBC%u2019s Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman, Matthews said something that is very telling; and I don''t know if a lot of folks picked up on it. He said that Obama does not seem to have the ''ability to score a thrilling comeback line...or a knock-down one-liner.'' So true. In almost all the debates (not just last night), whenever Hillary said something that Obama did not agree with, he (Obama)has never shot back with a sly, verbal jab. In truth, I don''t think he can. I don''t think it%u2019s in his character to do so. But that might be a good thing! In that it makes him look confident, bullet-proof, and unflappable. In a word, it makes him look Presidential, and not petty, as Hillary comes off at times.; Reply to this comment