Clinton Blocks Obama At Nearly Every Turn

washingtonpost.com: Obama Has Been Unable To Seize The Initiative In The Democratic Race

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Dan Balz for washingtonpost.com's blog The Trail.

---

This was the day Barack Obama intended to seize the initiative in the Democratic presidential race with an address highlighting the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing the Iraq war. But before he could take the stage in Chicago, Hillary Clinton sought to steal the spotlight by announcing her big third-quarter fundraising report.

The juxtaposition of the two events captured the dynamic of the Democratic race through the first nine months of the year, as the Clinton machine continues to grind down the opposition and Obama continues to look for openings to get around her.

Clinton's advisers have said for months that many of her donors would wait until it really counted to contribute. They said that when Obama raised more money for the primaries than Clinton in both the first and second quarters of the year. In the third quarter, the most difficult of the year in which to raise money, Obama once again set a very high bar -- raising at least $20 million, $19 million of that for the primaries.

Clinton has managed to block Obama at almost every turn. His effort this week to resurrect his early opposition to the war comes as Clinton appears to have neutralized Iraq as a significant obstacle to her nomination.

At the beginning of the year, Iraq appeared to be a potentially serious impediment because of her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to take the country to war. Obama's opposition to the war and John Edwards's decision to renounce his own vote for the 2002 resolution proved attractive counterpoints for antiwar Democrats.

Clinton also began the year reluctant to embrace a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Other candidates offered explicit plans. That, too, appeared to provide an opening to pull Clinton down over the early months of the campaign.

But every poll available suggests that Clinton has taken her 2002 vote off the table. Opponents of the war are more likely to favor Clinton as the Democratic nomination than any other candidate. Those looking for a way out of Iraq see her as more capable of providing an exit strategy than any of her opponents.

Obama had a moment last week in which to reframe the issue when NBC's Tim Russert threw out the opening question in the New Hampshire debate. Would he, Russert asked Obama, pledge to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of his first term as president? It was clear already that Clinton was likely to say no, given what she has said in previous interviews about the likelihood of a residual U.S. force staying in Iraq for some years to come.

Had Obama said he would get the troops out by January 2013, the Democratic race would have had a clear contrast between the two leading candidates: Clinton, who voted for the war and would keep troops in past January 2013 versus Obama, who opposed the war and would bring the troops home by that date.

Instead, Obama said he would not make that pledge. Whether that reflected a longstanding policy position or Obama's innate caution isn't clear. The effect was to muddy once again the differences between Obama and Clinton on future steps in Iraq and make Obama's effort to highlight his early opposition all the more difficult.

Obama's focus on his 2002 vote has another purpose, which is to ease fears among Democratic voters that he lacks the experience to be president. His Iowa campaign swing this week is called the "Experience and Judgment" tour, designed to make the perfectly sound argument that time spent in Washington or on the national stage does not equate to good judgment. Plenty of people who have been around Washington for decades got it wrong on Iraq, he argues, including Clinton.

Clinton is winning the "experience" primary in the Democratic campaign, by a considerable margin over Obama and the others in the race. Obama's goal cannot be to best Clinton on that attribute, but to make himself more than acceptable on the question of whether people would trust him to be the commander-in-chief.

Obama's ultimate weapon is that he represents a break from the past, that he can accomplish things Clinton cannot because he is from a different generation and is not encumbered with or scarred by the battles she and Bill Clinton have been through the past 15 years. That has been reduced in shorthand to the word "change" but it is more layered than that word implies.

But that argument is more difficult to make, takes more time and effort to do it and is complicated by the reality that Obama risks a backlash if he tries to make it by attacking the front-runner.

Obama's advisers argue that Clinton has a lower ceiling in terms of her support because of the baggage she carries. His ceiling, they argue, is considerably higher, whether in Iowa or New Hampshire or nationally. There may be truth in that argument but it is up to Obama and his advisers to find a way to prove it. Clinton's third quarter fundraising numbers offered a reminder that she will not be complacent in the face of whatever he tries.

[rhs648]

bizzzz - Your points are well taken. However, there is nothing stupid about George Bush. He could have treated the presidency as a popularity contest and not deal with unpopular things such as fighting terrorism. Perhaps Bush should tell funny jokes, pat everyone on the back, promise things that can''t be delivered, etc. That would certainly make him a more popular president.

[bizzzz-2009]

IT IS A FACT THAT Al QAEDA''S GOLDEN YEARS WERE DURING THE 1990''s. IT WERE THE YEARS IN WHICH AL QAEDA GREW, EXPANDED, AND DEVELOPED THE VAST TERROR CAMP NETWORK WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR THE PAST 6 YEARS.
WE HAVE BILL CLINTON TO THANK FOR THIS. BUSH, ALTHOUGH NOT THE SMARTEST GUY, HAS BEEN DEALING WITH CLINTON''S YEARS OF TOTAL DISREGARD. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT CLINTON AVOIDED SPEAKING WITH HIS INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR BECAUSE HE DIDN''T LIKE GETTING BAD NEWS.
IF HILLARY IS ELECTED, YOU WILL SURELY GET THE SAME IGNORANCE.
You honestly feel Democrats would fight the war on terror better? What facts can you state that would convince me?
If I recall correctly, Clinton ignored the first Twin Tower bombing in 93, he ignored the two embassy bombings in Africa, he ignored the Cole bombing in Yemen. He degraded and defunded the intelligence agencies for years, to the point that they were left impotent.
If the Democrats had their way, every terrorist in Gitmo would have a lawyer, paid for by the American taxpayer.

[rhs648]

As Presidents go Bush has not been that bad, most all of the hate Bush loonacy goes back to the 2000 election loss of AL Gore which Bush won fairly, even the New York Times admits to the vote count being in Bush'''' favor in Florida.

Posted by jowand

This is something the Bush haters and the Bush bashers will never accept. It appears that an election is fair only if your candidate wins. If Hillary is nominated by the Democrats, the conservatives and middle America will be rejuvenated. The mood of at least half of American voters will shift to the Republicans. Oh well, another divisive election.

[hideronpaul]

*** STOP THE WAR & END CORPORATE CORRUPTION ***

Who Is Paying For Your Vote To Keep Control Of You And To Keep This War Going? Remember The Bankers Hold The Stock In Companies That Are Getting Billions In War Contracts!

Obama''s Contributers: Bankers / Special interest!
http://tinyurl.com/2nd4f8

Hillary Clinton''s Contributers Lawyers / RealEstate:
http://tinyurl.com/2ontpq

Rudy GIULIANI Contributors: Bankers / Hedge Funds!
http://tinyurl.com/2m2c4n

Ron Pauls Money Is From the People! We have someone who is NOT Paid Off By Special Interest or Bankers Money!!!
http://tinyurl.com/2q8vr3

If you ever want this War to End Vote Ron Paul 2008, No One Else Is Going To End It!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

Ron Paul Will:

** Stop Iraq War Immediately
** Eliminate IRS
** Eliminate Federal Reserve
** Eliminate Government Wasteful Spending
** Restore America''s Work Force & Values
** Restore America''s Freedom!

RON PAUL RAISES $5.1 MILLION 3RD Q!

It''s Not About Democrat Or Republican. It Is About
the People And Ron Paul Is America''s Last Hope!

********* VOTE RON PAUL 2008! *********

[srtuttle]

If you are an American and Muslim and love this country, protect your individual liberties as promised by our constitution! Vote RON PAUL!!

[lars008-2009]

THOMAS JEFFERSON KICKED FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAMIST ARSES 200 YEARS AGO,,,

IT WAS THE CORRECT THING TO DO THEN,,, AND IT IS THE CORRECT THING TO DO NOW,,,

America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

But with regard to non-Muslims who are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule, then Muslims are commanded to kill them, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
%u201CFight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you%u201D [al-Tawbah 9:123]
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=11406&ln=eng&txt=kill

The atheist who does good deeds is worse than the one who kills his mother and takes care of dogs
What is the reason for people not believing in God being punished? I read that good deeds of such people will not be accepted. So if someone does all he can do to help people and be useful to the society, he will be punished nevertheless if he did not believe in God. But what exactly is the reason of punishing a good man for his atheism?
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=10300&ln=eng&txt=kill

[nolalou]

bizzzz ,

Let''s see if I get your point, we should choose our president based on who best gets Hugo Chavez and Ahmedinijad to shake in their boots in fear? In that case, I guess we''re doomed unless we can find another hitler! Once more , proof that there is no shortage of IDOITS who are allowed to vote!

[bizzzz-2009]

Liberals/Democrats are always quick to voice their concern of how our country is being perceived by other nations. They say the US should be more conscience of other countries feelings, and utilize the United Nations as a primary source to shape US foreign policy. SPEAKING OF OTHER COUNTRIES FEELINGS:

IF HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED PRESIDENT- Putin, Ahmedinijad, Hu Jinto, Kim Jong Il, Assad, Hugo Chavez, Castro and the rest of the thugs leaders in this world will see her election as a huge sign of weakness. Keep in mind, this is only a partial list of despot leaders that make it on the news regularly. There are countless other countries (Somolia, Myanmar, Darfur) that have equally ruthless leaders; most of us don%u2019t even know their names.

DO YOU REALLY THINK HILLARY HAS WHAT IT TAKES TO STAND UP TO THESE PEOPLE? OUR SECURITY IS AT STAKE. THESE MEN WANT TO TAKE US DOWN. IF WE ELECT HER, WE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR OUR DEMISE. WE WI LL BE FORCED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS THAT COULD DAMAGE ALL OF OUR LIVES.

If Hillary is elected and I turn on the TV to watch her being inaugurated to the sounds of "Don''t stop thinking about tomorrow..." by Fleetwood Mac or "These are the days..." by 10,000 Maniacs, I''m going to puke, then I''m going proceed to my bomb shelter.
Putin, Ahmedinijad, Hu Jinto, Kim Jong Il, Assad, Hugo Chavez, Castro and the rest of them will be licking their lips and calling each other to say "My friend, America is finally done..."

[jowand]

The one thing that went against George Bush Was no executive experience to prove he was good at it.----2 he did not have a good v.p. ----3 he did not souround himself with a good cabinet ie: Donald Rumsfeld, CONDI. You can BET your bottom dollar this will not happen with the democrats. If you have all that the pres. is A PR MAN ANYWAY, YES HE/SHE MAKES THE DECISIONS BUT AS I SAY GOOD PEOPLE, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE YOU CAN DO IT. That is where Bush lost out BAD ADVICE.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by starleo146 at 11:31 AM : Oct 03, 2007

As Presidents go Bush has not been that bad, most all of the hate Bush loonacy goes back to the 2000 election loss of AL Gore which Bush won fairly, even the New York Times admits to the vote count being in Bush'' favor in Florida.

[johnny343sc]

Obama bin Laden (aka the Manchurian Candidate) sucks... too much of an idealist. "Let''s get rid of ALL nukes..." he sez...

"Sure, if you get rid of all of YOUR nukes first!" says the world.

Aw... can''t we all just get along???

Nope. Guess not.

Wake up, America!

;)

[jowand]

For ICEMAN

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm

[starleo146]

Posted by shanev137 at 11:16 AM : Oct 03, 2007


I hope she sues you for slander, PROVE WHAT YOU SAID.

[starleo146]

Having said that, Hillary is unqualified to be president, she has no executive experience of any kind, limited political experience (one term as a junior senator from NY) and is prone to corruption.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 09:20 AM : Oct 03, 2007


The one thing that went against George Bush Was no executive experience to prove he was good at it.----2 he did not have a good v.p. ----3 he did not souround himself with a good cabinet ie: Donald Rumsfeld, CONDI. You can BET your bottom dollar this will not happen with the democrats. If you have all that the pres. is A PR MAN ANYWAY, YES HE/SHE MAKES THE DECISIONS BUT AS I SAY GOOD PEOPLE, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE YOU CAN DO IT. That is where Bush lost out BAD ADVICE.

[shanev137]

The best prostitute usually raises the most money.

[dutchfarmer]

One socialist skunk stops another socialist skunk. This is nature, not news.

[drinuk]

pwrslm

Love it! "Cronies In Bed With Thieves" Doesn''t that apply to 99% of all the Muppets in Washington ?

Time the people took our Government back from these bloody awful Corporate Crooks.

[ljb6599]

Anyone whom chooses to vote for Hillary is just voting for politics as usual.She brings nothing new to the table, other than bring Bill back into the White House along with all of his baggage.Personally I am tired of two families basically running this country for the last 20 years. This country is ready for change. We need a new direction,ideas and leadership. Go Barak!!

[nexgen99]

It''''s time for Israel to stand on it''''s own two feet, we have been propping up this country for forty years with financial and military support. Enough is enough, time to stand or fall however the cards play out. If Israel was meant to be it will survive if not it will fall. We don''t need someone in the white house who will continue this nonsense. We are a country where 80% of the population is Christian and like John Mcain said, I would prefer a Christian leader.

[marcodele]

Bloomberg isn''t running.

The Demo ticket will be Clinton/Obama. They are still treating each other gingerly - nothing like the acrimony between Reagan and Bush Sr. during the primaries, and they ended up on the same ticket.
And nothing would propel Obama''s career like going into the VP spot. Otherwise, he''ll just be another U.S. senator and when he runs again there will be more of a record to judge him by. Right now he''s the new guy with a clean slate. It would be better for him to be VP than to actually start acruing a record of actions for which he would be held accountable.

[hungry1968]

I would not vote for Bloomberg for any reason. America does not need to become a pawn of Israel.

Posted by nexgen99 at 10:13 AM : Oct 03, 2007



You base your reasons to vote for someone based on their religion? I would say you''re part of the problem.

And if you haven''t noticed, we''ve been a pawn of Israel since 1948. What could change?
Are we going to give them billions of dollars in "international aid"? We already do.
Are we going to provide them arms and ammo to kill more Palestinians? We already do that too.