From The Road
March 7, 2008 4:52 PM

Countering Clinton, Obama Says He's Committed to Ending War

(CBS)
From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic:

CASPER, WYO. -- Today, Barack Obama stuck to his campaign’s promise to respond to every criticism by Hillary Clinton. During a town hall meeting here, Obama addressed the Clinton campaign’s latest criticisms of his Iraq withdrawal plan, which were based on comments a campaign adviser made to the BBC.

“Senator Clinton used this to try to imply that I wasn’t serious about bringing this war to an end. I just have to mention this because I don’t want anybody here to be confused,” Obama said.

“I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war. A war that should have never been authorized, a war that should have never been waged.”

Samantha Power, the Obama campaign adviser who resigned today, recently suggested in an interview with the BBC that Obama's plan to that withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he'll reassess if he becomes president.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator," she said. "He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president," Powers said.

Meantime, Obama took every opportunity available to go after Clinton and occasionally John McCain during the question & answer session. He accused Clinton of conjuring up the “politics of fear” with the “3 a.m. ad” that aired in Texas.

“That was designed to feed into your fears, right?,” Obama asked, “What do people think I’m going to do? I’m going to answer the phone and I will find out what’s going on and I won’t be browbeaten into launching a war that wasn’t necessary.”

Obama said his presidential campaign should be looked at by those who question his experience.

“Look who’s run the best campaign. Look who’s managed this campaign from scratch. That’s worth taking a look at. Look at what we’ve built from scratch to compete against people who have been building this thing for 20, 30 years, and we’ve done just fine.”
Tags:
Obama
Topics:
Barack Obama
Add a Comment See all 38 Comments
by dari253 March 7, 2008 7:20 PM PST
Part 1

Senator Obama has always said that he will surround himself with people who may not always agree with him but he will listen.

Most academics are proud of their own area of expertise and may be a bit naive about newspapers or media that ask them to get together for one thing (Powers was/is on a book tour in England).

In my opinion, regarding Iraq, her answer was a feasible and educated one. How can one declaratively answer a hypothetical, future tense without sounding ridiculous?

It might have been better had she pulled out a crystal ball and waved her hands over it.

Whoever wins the White House will have a vastly different Iraq than we have now.

Regarding NAFTAgate, if you watch this clip from the oldest and most venerated Cdn. TV networks, you will see that Obama''s explanation was substantiated.

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

Unlike the American press who do not make the distinction that the Cdn. Consulate in Chicago approached a Professor of Economics for a meeting, the Canadians have.

The Globe & Mail in Canada has QUOTED Harper''s top aide as stating that it was the Clinton campaign who called to reassure the Cdn. gov''t.

MEMOgate, as the Canadians might call it, won''t be going away any time soon.

Reply to this comment
by dari253 March 7, 2008 7:21 PM PST

Part 2

Outside from the obvious problems caused by Senator Clinton aligning herself & endorsing Senator McCain%u2019s %u201Cbona fides%u201D while she tears into her Democratic opponent, Senator Obama, the Republican attack machine can far more easily blame and USE her as an excuse for any dirt that they want to throw covertly.

Today on CNN Morning, a Republican strategist accused the Clinton campaign of creating a Rezko website and gave the website domain.

When my son was young, one of my primary responsibilities was to teach him that his choices had consequences and that he needed to consider the consequences BEFORE he acted on his choice.

Senator Clinton is attempting to change the rules; or, perhaps it is more accurate to say that she & her campaign changes themselves as they go along.

I not only agree with Howard Dean, I applaude him. He is the wall that the Clintons'' and their co-horts have not been able to crash through and they are out to destroy his credibility.

However, both my son and Howard Dean know that choices have consequences.

Both states were repeatedly warned that they were not to move up their primaries and if they did so, there would be consequences for violating the rules.

Reply to this comment
by dari253 March 7, 2008 7:25 PM PST
Part 3


However, in a sense of fairness to all candidates, I would like to see each candidate%u2019s 2004,2005,2006 and after April 15th 2007 Income Tax returns.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Senator Clinton nor McCain have done so yet.

Also, for the sake of transparency, I would like to see EACH OF THEM make public their Appointment Books for the same time frame.

Since Senator Clinton is touting 35 years of experience, AND loaned her campaign 5 million from their JOINT account, I think it is only fair to ask for Phone Logs, Meeting Memos, etc from her White House years.

Also, since Senator McCain has no problem SAYING he is a Lobbying Reformist BUT has his Senate Office & his campaign being run by Lobbyists, I think that he should be willing to have those parties provide a list of clients that they lobby for, so that the watchdog groups can monitor any abnormalities.

When the unflattering NY Times story broke, McCain asked and answered ONLY ONCE, just hours after the story broke and has refused since.

The Washington Post and other publications have done follow up articles.

This goes MORE to McCain''s JUDGMENT than any particular wrongdoing.

And, since Senator Clinton also takes both Lobbyist and PAC monies, a similar list would be needed to provide FULL transparency.

For this educated voter, there is a VAST difference between DOUBLE speak and DOUBLE doings and actual, factual information for the voters to elect their President.
Reply to this comment
by parsnip3 March 7, 2008 7:27 PM PST
Clinton''s fraud trial has already begun:
"While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party."

Read full article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

And what about her top adviser?:
Mark Penn is not just a heavy hitting PR person, he''s an uscrupulous PR person, giving advice to clients such as the tobacco industry, instructing them on how to target inner city minorities via smokers rights groups, blackwater on how to effectively respond to questions from the 911 commission, and advising subprime lending groups on how to move forward with their agendas and deflect fallout.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6213

Voters need to educate themselves before casting their final vote.
Obama ''08
Reply to this comment
by obamamabo March 7, 2008 7:32 PM PST
Hillary Clinton''s ambitions are clouding her already foggy judgement--the same judgment she used to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq. She continues to slander Obama, the man with the math who will eventually win the nomination. I am a democrat, and I do not want to vote for her. I''d rather vote for Nader than allow her to continue "business as usual" in Washington. We must rally around Obama if we are to win the White House. Hill Billy should sacrifice her ambitions for the sake of the country.
Reply to this comment
by westafer2 March 7, 2008 7:45 PM PST
History has shown that great American Presidents have had vision, sound judgment, courage, and strong character. On October 2, 2002 Barack Obama%u2019s judgment told him that starting a war in Iraq would be a big mistake and he forcefully said so. Much to the contrary later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for funds authorizing President Bush to begin the Iraq war.
Unlike his opponents Barack Obama has made the significant decision not to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists and political action committees. It is Barack Obama%u2019s judgment that the President of the United States should be elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington or anywhere else. Barack Obama raises the money necessary for his campaign for president directly from the people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me. Barack Obama has a love of America and its people and a belief that together ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things, like 1 million ordinary Americans giving $25 each to raise $25 million dollars.



Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 7, 2008 9:25 PM PST
LIES! In October 2002, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the threat of force if Sadam didn''t allow the inspectors back in to Iraq. Yes, the authorization did give Bush the power to declare war but it was based on his promise that war would be a last resort that he garnered Senator Clinton''s support. HE LIED! Secondly, Obama himself has waffled on what if anything he would have done had he been in a position to vote on the issue - which he wasn''t. However, since then he has voted down the line with Clinton on every issue regarding the Iraq War. And GEEZ - the only reason that Obama is now back-peddling in his decision not to take money from lobbyist is because he got his hands dirty with Rezko but he sure hasn''t given back money from the STATE lobbyist that support him. I don''t have a problem with people choosing to side with Obama over Hillary but for heaven''s sake - tell the truth in your arguments. Otherwise all that''s accomplished is further proof that Obama''s supporters haven''t done their homework.
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 7, 2008 9:27 PM PST
AGAIN - DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Hillary was removed as a co-defendent in the Paul trial in California. Spin the truth - not lies.
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 7, 2008 9:32 PM PST
Dari - are you also suggesting that Obama present the public with his appointment books for those years in question. Only one problem. Remember he says that he didn''t keep records during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. Hmmm - do you really buy that one? Let''s see - those would be the years that he was up to his ears in his involvement with Rezko. Yep - I think I''d do my best to lose those records too.
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 7, 2008 9:37 PM PST
As for Maria Gavrilovic, I notice that you conveniently leave out the fact that Samantha Powers was just a tad bit more than your average advisor....she was Obama''s Foreign Affairs Advisor. As such I would suspect that she was quite privy to his ideas, opinions, and plans for intervention in Iraq. Moreover, in truth - what she stated was far more logical and prudent than the pat response that Obama gave that he would without question end the war in 2009. That only makes him sound rash and incapable of using sound judgment should events on the ground warrant reconsideration. But logic and sound judgment isn''t what he''s relying on to get elected now is it.
Reply to this comment
by speakthetrut March 7, 2008 9:57 PM PST
Pledging to run a clean campaign and doing so must be a sin in this country. Just because Clintons are corrupt and only know how to play dirty, doesn''t mean that eveyone else in this country must engage in corruption. REMEMBER, GOOD WILL ALWAYS WIN AT THE END. Myself, and many of my friends support Obama because he is running a clean campaign. We believe in the truth, and treating others with respect. You see, one must show respect to get respect. Hillary doesn''t respect others. She uses others. In the end, she will not get respect, and will get used. Barack Obama shows respect, and for that reson he is receiving respect. There will always be bad people in this world, and they will trod on the good people. No matter what happens, through the unselfish work, through the dedication to the public, good people like Barack Obama will continue to inspire the younger generation that is here now and yet to come.
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 7, 2008 10:09 PM PST
HILLARY DOESN''T SHOW RESPECT. WHAT!!

REMINDER: Quotes from Barack Obama''s book, Dreams Of My Father:
"I found A SOLACE in nursing A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER''S RACE".
"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
"I ceased to advertise my mother''s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
"never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn''t speak to my own. It was into my father''s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I''d packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".
"That hate hadn''t gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people %u2014 some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"
"I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicions between the races."

NOW - WHO ISN''T ABOVE USING OTHERS TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Reply to this comment
by kat1park March 7, 2008 10:53 PM PST
That''s a valid point that you make about Obama. I would only counter with this: Is Hillary Clinton using sound judgement when she claims that she will begin withdrawing troups in 60 days? Even though she has no intelligence information or reports from the people on the ground. At least Obama is responsible enough to say it will most likely be 2009. But we''re all intelligent here. As he has said many times before, he wants to be as responsible getting out as the Bush administration was careless going in. If you''re voting for clinton because you think she can be trusted to stick to her word and do exactly what she sayd while campaiging, good luck with that. You will eat these words if she becomes president and decides to take a more prudent approach, as any president should. After all, there are lives at stake. So they both need to examine the situation carefully before making rush decisions. If it were my son over there, that''s exactly what I would want them to do.
Reply to this comment
by kat1park March 7, 2008 10:58 PM PST
Dari, you might want to do a little research about how many state senators keep records of their tenure in the state senate. Most likely Hillary has records because she was the first lady.
By the way, the inuendo about Rezko is getting old. If you have factual information, please share it with us. Otherwise, you are playing the game that the Clintons want you to play with regard to the Rezko trial. In the meantime, if you''re concerned about Obama and Rezko, then you should also be concerned about Hillary and Norman Hsu or the Clintons and Vince Foster. Their list is a lot longer than his. Before you start pointing out Obama''s issues with Rezko, go down the long list of issues that the Clintons have. And by the way, if you know why so many people associated with their adminstrations in Arkansas and in the White House are now dead, you can share that with us also.
Reply to this comment
by zavatchen March 7, 2008 10:59 PM PST
I just read that Samantha Power (who made the hateful statement about Hillary) also told the Scottish press that what O''Bama was telling the American people about his plan of getting out of Iraq was not what he believed he could do.
Reply to this comment
by kat1park March 7, 2008 11:02 PM PST
obamamabo, I couldn''t agree with you more. I will vote for Ralph Nader, not John McCain, but Ralph Nader, before I will vote for Hillary. She has gone negative and I don''t like it. That''s not what Obama is about and it''s not what I''m about. When this campaign first started, I was trying to decide between the two of them, but not anymore. She is completely off the table for me. Period.
Reply to this comment
by kat1park March 7, 2008 11:05 PM PST
sjbj2322, how much homework have you done on the Clintons? Did you know Rezko actually donated to Bill Clinton''s campaigns in the 90''s. Did you know that several people who were close to the Clintons have been killed or committed suicide? These were people who had firsthand accounts of their "deeds" when Clinton was Govenor of Arkansas and President of the U.S. Did you know that Clinton settled with Paula out of court for 850,000 in her sexual harrassment suit? These are the facts. I do not dislike the Clintons. I just don''t think people know as much about them as they think they do.
Reply to this comment
by kat1park March 7, 2008 11:07 PM PST
Zavatchen, your quote is wrong. Do not believe everything you hear or read in the media. That is not what she said. What she said was that he would examine the situation after he became president to determine if his 16 month time table is a realistic one. Given the fact that Hillary claims she will begin bringing troops home in 60 days, which one do you think is more realistic about the war in Iraq?
Reply to this comment
by kat1park March 7, 2008 11:27 PM PST
btw, she didn''t use the word "realistic". that was a paraphrase. bottom line, she said he would take a look at the state of things after he was elected to evaluate the time line for withdrawing troops.
Reply to this comment
by reece2076 March 8, 2008 12:40 AM PST
It''s obvious Hillary Clinton is attacking Obama to either convince the super delegates to overturn the will of the people and nominate her, or set herself up for 2012, by helping McCain defeat Obama. Just look at how many times she has said McCain is ready to be commander in chief, she is ready to be commander in chief, but Obama is not. She truly is a selfish Monster that puts her wants above the needs of the party and most Americans.
Reply to this comment
by PulSamsara March 8, 2008 12:42 AM PST
Barack Obama has the strength and moral fortitude to grow with America into a new era. Clinton has nothing but the same old tired politics we have lived with for far too long. She is the Rovian antithesis - opposite in parallel...the yin to the yang of the dark machine. I will vote against the democratic party for the first time in 20 years if she steals the nomination. I have voted for her family 3 times and finally saw the light when she chose the ''politically expedient'' choice of voting us into Iraq. I''ve simply had enough. - Enough.
Reply to this comment
by cecil4obama March 8, 2008 1:34 AM PST
To Sen. Clinton, Know What Your Signing. "Experience 101"

Lets not forget, A lot of Men and Women have lost there lives in this Iraq war, because of the "YES" vote.

Better prepared to be commander-in-chief. I don''t think so.

To this day I can''t beleive that Sen. Clinton didn''t read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted "Yes" in 2002. This vote gave President Bush the POWER to use military force against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Why didn''t she read this important report to get a better understanding of what was going on?

What a great leader she would make. Doesn''t bother to read very important report''s Then says President Bush lied about the Report. When did she read it. Where is the experience in this matter.

Pointing the finger at Bush, when she should point it at herself.

Obama 08
Reply to this comment
by cecil4obama March 8, 2008 1:35 AM PST
Lets Not Forget;

-Billing-gate, Hillary Clinton''''s missing law-billing records. Those records -- which raised questions about Mrs. Clinton''''s role in the Castle Grande deal -- were subpoenaed in 1994. They were missing until early 1996, when they turned up in a White House room next to her office. She says she doesn''''t know how they got there.

-Cattlegate, Hillary Clinton''''s mysterious ability to turn a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit on cattle futures, a feat experts say was virtually impossible in normal trading.

-Castle Grande, a real-estate scheme that federal regulators say was a sham. A federal inspector general''''s report found Hillary Clinton drew up the legal papers that were used to improperly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Seth Ward, father-in-law of her ex-law partner Webster Hubbell.
Obama 08
Reply to this comment
by amy_2-2009 March 8, 2008 7:12 AM PST
with the recent succeeding gaffes that the OBAMA camp has been committing, I think that the "magic" which is the only thing working in his campaign may soon wane out.

Obama''s awestruck admirers will soon realize that magic, charisma and oratorical skills are NOT the best credentials to qualify a person to the toughest job in the world.

It has been confusing for me why he got this much adulation. He must have dome something VERY HEROIC in the past, but to my dismay there is none (Is being very good community organizer a remarkable accomplishment? If so then a lot of people are qualified to be Prez of the USA))

So Obama supporters stop this illusion of seeing Obama as the saviour of the world. Get real people!!!
Reply to this comment
by amy_2-2009 March 8, 2008 7:30 AM PST
America has a lot of SERIOUS problems : the war, crumbling economy and its shattered image in the world.

Are the American people naive enough to put these problems on the shoulder of Obama (an untested neophyte politician who doesn''t even have in his resume a REMARKABLE accomplishment that would prepare him for the toughest job in the world?)

For all his faults, it cannot be denied that during President Clinton''s time America''s image abroad was good and the economy was robust (those were the good old times and seems like only a fantasy now). This was a REAL accomplishment and don''t you think Hillary had a hand in President Clinton''s very good handling of the reins of the government?

In this DIRE times, I wouldn;t mind of a co-presidency of these two brightest minds to make decisions for America.

On the other hand, IF ONLY it is NORMAL times, then I would vote for Obama just to have a breath of fresh air (but it is not so I would not gamble for a neophyte)
Reply to this comment
by truth_speake March 8, 2008 8:36 AM PST
clinton experience is nothing but speeches about solutions.
I thought about her good before I see her real colors now. she is a shrewd politician and will do anything to get into whitehouse again because she got the taste of whitehouse before.
clinton and camp is allowed to label all LIES and deceits possible without any cross-questioning from the media.
media seems to have gone feminist in this campaign by being soft of a woman candidate.
Reply to this comment
by elevando March 8, 2008 2:23 PM PST
Ummm, hey tom and mark, we had a black president on 24, so your arguments don''t hold any water. I''ll tell you what does, Obama running with Oprah as his VP. How do you like those apples?
Reply to this comment
by xonroad March 8, 2008 4:38 PM PST
It''s 3am a phone rings in the White House, do you know where your spouse is?

Tax returns.

Obama or McCain: both honorable candidates who will lead with integrity. Both are better than the other alternative that will say/do anything for her power quest.
Reply to this comment
by politicod March 8, 2008 8:24 PM PST
All campaigns have good and not so good weeks, and how they come out of those stretches tells us a lot about them. Sen. McCain was almost bankrupt this summer and faced a very weak Republican field. Sen. Clinton had to lend her campaign $5mill. and devised a "kitchen sink" strategy" which may not make her the nominee but looks like it is helping Sen. McCain. It is still too early to see if Senator Obama can regroup from a very bad week, strengthen his message and still remain the candidate of the "new politics." It is seven weeks until Pa. The economy is in terrible shape. The national security "3 a.m." argument may not work so well after the next employment figures come out. A lot can happen. Political junkies, enjoy it.
Reply to this comment
by ccjenkins3 March 8, 2008 10:55 PM PST
Maria,
Please tell me when did Obama first vote "NO" on the war? The war on Iraq was declared in March 2003, and Obama was not a U.S. Senator until January 2005. So again, when did he first vote "NO" on the war?
Reply to this comment
by hhkeller March 8, 2008 11:23 PM PST
Obama is committed to ending the war as fast as he is uncommitted to ending the war. It really depends on the venue he''s speaking to. He is the expert in double speak. The one vote he had to send the clear statement to GW and the Iraqis, Obama decided to vote for continued war funding without strings.

His one vote gets my no vote. Not because he was totally wrong but but because he''s a lier to the people. Stop the double speak Obama!
Reply to this comment
by poeticjust5 March 9, 2008 12:40 AM PST
C''mon American people! Do you really want to vote for someone who is willing to throw her party under the bus if she''s not nominated for the presidency??? That unbelievable selfishness and arrogance is exactly what has been holding America back for all of these years. I just cannot stomach any more Clintonian dramas. Let''s move on and start a new chapter. Besides, in reality Obama has more experience in office than HRC does.
Reply to this comment
by fjstratford March 9, 2008 6:28 AM PDT
Poor Samantha. Fired by Obama for speaking the truthy -that Obama has no plans of following up on his promises about Iraq.

Just like his NAFTA promises.

Beware of Obama. He is a habitual liar.
Reply to this comment
by Ehis Agbon March 9, 2008 7:38 AM PDT
My problem with American Style campaign is the emphasis on what your opponent cant do, demonising of political opponents even in the same political party. Clinton and Obama should know that the world is watching and learning.
Reply to this comment
by pesojoe March 9, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
Clinton has nothing on Obama when it comes to Chicago style wallow in the mud politics. Another free ride for obama,no coverage of a trial in Chicago of a certain close friend and smelly contributer of Obamas. Lots of fishy aroma here but cbs would choose other things to cover that Obama feels better about. Please continue to not do your job, if you do your job Obama might not like you!
Reply to this comment
by szelag19 March 10, 2008 1:27 PM PDT
Here the media goes again..Bash Hillary...rah rah Osama.you''re pathetic..Are you trying to out bash NBC and ABC..I''d like to find out why the press does this and has been doing it since the beginning of this election..Is the media supposed to be neutral? I thought so..You gotta wonder what''s in it for them..They''re not shoving Osama down America''s throat for nothing..VOTE HILLARY !!
Reply to this comment
by elsylee28 March 10, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE

%u201CThe Hussein Dynamic%u201D at http://savagepolitics.com.

Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!
Reply to this comment
by elsylee28 March 10, 2008 1:54 PM PDT
BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE

%u201CThe Hussein Dynamic%u201D at http://savagepolitics.com.

Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!
Reply to this comment
See all 38 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented