Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening for Gore

Clinton just released a memo called Seasons of the Campaign:

...Senator Obama said yesterday his campaign will be entering a time of "sharp contrast" in an article headlined "Obama: Bye-Bye Mr. Nice Guy?"

Apparently Senator Obama's fall in the polls has led him to abandon his pledge to change our politics and bring people together.

This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton's vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn't involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill's language. (See: Huffington Post) He didn't speak out against it before it was voted on - he didn't even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn't speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.

If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn't he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?

So perhaps something else is at work: politics.

As Senator Obama's closest ally in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, 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."

As Senator Obama abandons the politics of hope in favor of attack politics, Senator Clinton remains focused on her vision for America...

I have to agree, that Obama has next to nothing in the way of credibility on attacking Clinton over her Iran vote (fwiw, a terrible vote).

But I also think that Clinton opening up such a strong attack on Obama, when he appears to be weakening, is a bit dangerous. Did anyone notice that Gore didn't rule out running for President in his press conference today?

There is an opening for Gore. The scenario is that he skips Iowa and goes straight to New Hampshire. Gore's got to file by November 2nd (iirc) to be on the ballot in NH. Gore campaigns nationally to huge crowds and raises untold millions, while he awaits in New Hampshire for the Iowa winner to emerge and battle.

Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

83 Comments

Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

Thank You for taking the side of truth! As for VP Gore, he would be welcome, but he won't run again, he is loving the attention for his good deeds!

by American1989 2007-10-12 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

The only thing Hillary is doing is creating more HATRED against her.  She is following in Deans footsteps exactly, her sarcastic attitude and arrogance is turning voters off in Iowa.  She will fail miserably once the voting starts.

by allmiview 2007-10-12 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

I disagree -- Hillary is going to answer any attack.  Obama has no crediblity because he never voted for the Iran bill. Same way he talks about being against the war in Iraq but wasn't in the Senate to vote for it.  Obama didn't mention the Iran bill at the Debate and claims he didn't know when the bill would be coming up for a vote.  Does he have a staff?  Isn't that their job and isn't he on the Foreign Relations Committee? Obama has realized he has been out classed and out matched.  So he is getting nasty.  He has turned off alot of Democrats who thought he was something different.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

Gore's got to file by November 2nd

New goalpost location!

Really, I wish he'd just announce a run/no-run, unequivocally.

by dblhelix 2007-10-12 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

Gore did announce that he would not run for the Presidency this year but the media needs a new angle on the 08 election.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 03:57PM | 0 recs
This is going for the jugular?

What's she supposed to do, lie down and take Obama completely fudging her vote, and his lack of a vote, nearly two weeks after the fact?

Gore isn't running, doesn't want to run, won't run.  He's trying to pressure these candidates to take a tougher stand on the environment.  It's perfect.  He's not running, though.  

by bookgrl 2007-10-12 11:14AM | 0 recs
Who's fudging her vote?

If she is focusing on the technical language, and ignoring that this is a rhetorial platform for Bush to use to justify an attack on Iran ... is it because she has forgotten what happens when you give Bush a rhetorical platform, or is it simply an effort to confuse the issue?

by BruceMcF 2007-10-12 02:33PM | 0 recs
Untold Millions?

Jerome:

Here's the grim reality for Al Gore. Clinton and Obama should each have in excess of $30 million cash on hand with the New Hampshire primary less than 12 weeks from today. Gore not only has $0 cash on hand, he doesn't have any fundraisers scheduled, nor a campaign organization to schedule any or mount a field operation in the 30 states that will vote by February 5th.

by hwc 2007-10-12 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

True, but it's not as if he needs money to build name recognition, reputation, or to drum up votes.

Clinton & Obama might each have 30 million dollars but Gore probably has millions of votes in the bag.  

by LionelEHutz 2007-10-12 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

Did Hillary need millions to build Name Rec?  She is as well known as Gore is but still has a tremendous money lead over him.  Obama needed the money, Hillary didn't but obviously is going to raise it... Jerome seems to imply that Gore can raise 50-70 mill  at the snap of a finger... maybe I am reading too much into what he is saying, but I'm curious the justification that leads to the statement that Gore cna quickly raise untold millions, when Hillary and Obama have ,I believe, outraised his 2000 totals already.  I'm just curious the proof offered that Gore could raise enough to compete quickly... Now that being said, if Hillary wins Iowa, then Gore gets my support as her winning Iowa will probably end the Obama or Edwards campaigns unless the margin is razor thin.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-12 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

I agree he is at a disadvantage, but i think he'd sink Obama and Edwards in fundraising in no time for 4th quater (even though its not a great quarter to fundraise in).

He would def get more than Edwards' 7 million in online funds alone i think.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

But where is the proof he will.  Its easy to make that statement, but there is no evidence shown proving it.

by yitbos96bb 2007-10-12 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

A while back, deep pockets in Silicon Valley were claiming to hold back for Gore. Don't know if that's changed.

by dblhelix 2007-10-12 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

I don't know how much money Gore has made since 2000, but he could probably give himself a big chunk of cash.

(I want it to happen, but I don't think it will).

by BlueinColorado 2007-10-12 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Untold Millions?

HWC -- exactly. Gore doesn't have the fundraising in place. The days of a dark horse candidate getting the nomination at the convention are over.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

I really wish that Gore would run.  He would absolutely crush the GOP candidate and I think that voter turnout would be so high across the country that the GOP would be relegated to having 39 or 40 in the US Senate.  The down ticket effect he'd have would be substantial too.  

by LionelEHutz 2007-10-12 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular

You're right it was a terrible vote, but Obama has no credibility on the issue.  We was absent in both the deabte leading up to the vote, the vote and the debate that night.  Edwards has a real opportunity here as he was the first one to point out the error, and hit her effectively over in the MSNBC debate.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-10-12 11:17AM | 0 recs
Yup

I don't love agreeing with the Clinton campaign, but facts is facts. Once Obama missed the vote and kept mum, he lost the capacity to turn this into an issue, and someone ought to tell him to stop trying to. And now we  have a claim from him that he spoke out "at the time," which a lie at worst, spin at best. He's looking pretty ridiculous.

As for Gore, I'm surpised that so many fans want him to run. Understanding though it is, the desire for him to be pres, people seem to think that he'll enter the campaign and remain a towering moral leader, above the fray. But it doesn't work that way: within a few weeks he'll be forced to talk about his pro-life votes and his championing of NAFTA and why he "lost" in 2000. All the while doing something he doesn't like and is bad at: politics. About the only thing he can do at this point to tarnish his shine is to run for president.

He might be able to win, I doubt it but maybe, but even by winning, he'd lose.

But it would be damn exciting.

by david mizner 2007-10-12 11:37AM | 0 recs
It's more than skipping a vote
He is a cosponsor of S. 970 which explicitly names the IRG as a terrorist organization in order to tighten sanctions. And for what it's worth, there are 68 other Senators as sponsor or cosponsor of that bill, so the vast majority of Dems and GOPers in the Senate are already signed onto the call for State to declare the IRG a terrorist organization.
by lestatdelc 2007-10-12 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup

I hate to disagree but I don't think Gore would lose should he choose to enter the race. He isn't bad at politics. If he was he wouldn't have been a Representative, Senator and Vice President. And he is much more authentic now. He speaks with conviction and authority. He is larger than life and he does have the moral authority to lead our party and our country.

Nothing would please me more than to see Gore go for it. I voted for him once and we elected him once. But this next time our votes will count and he will be our President that actually lives at the White House.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-12 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup

david -- exactly.  The earth tones and boring Al would be back in a couple of weeks.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

I love Al Gore. At this point, I hope he doesn't run because I've committed to Clinton.

However, if he jumps in, I'd hate to see him lose the nomination. Don't know what I'd do.

by Coral 2007-10-12 11:17AM | 0 recs
I tend to agree with

their critcism about each other: Clinton voted wrong and Obama should have voted.

As of this date, Gore is not running.  I do not think Al Gore is running, but time will tell.  

The one you don't have often looks prettier than the one you have, until you have him/her.  Then you see warts.  Regardless of that, there is a great candidate in this race now: John Edwards.

I prefer John Edwards.

by TomP 2007-10-12 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re:

The memo makes some very strong points, is spot on.  Obama's credibility is gone with this "caper, which wasn't."   I think that any notion that Obama may be on the VP short list for Clinton is probably gone with this latest flareup.

by georgep 2007-10-12 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re:

Oh, I don't think Obama is precluded from using this vote at all.  Is it less than perfectly consistent, since he didn't vote himself?  Sure.  But as you Hillary supporters are fond of noting, this is politics folks.  She made a bit of an error here and he's using her mistake.  You can bet she'd do the same if she was in his exact situation, irrespective of whether she had missed the vote herself.  And the overwhelming number of low information voters, who by the way Hillary's support is based upon, aren't ever going to realize Obama's less than perfect grounding for using the vote.  

by HSTruman 2007-10-12 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re:

I agree. Obama might not be the perfect messenger here but his message is right. John Edwards could make the same points and NO ONE could say anything about his credibility. Of course the Clinton folks would say he has no credibility because he isn't in the Senate. But that is the kind of shit Clinton folks do. They are the ones with no credibility.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-12 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re:

except he cosponsored legislation that the exact same thing

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re:

sep -- interesting isn't it that Obama didn't vote against the Iran resolution because he co-sponsored a bill to attack Iran.  I guess he thought he could have it both ways and no one would notice what a fraud he is. Or perhaps he didn't remember co-sponsoring that bill -- it was way back on April 24, 2007.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re:

except he cosponsored legislation that said the exact same thing

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re:

Who co-sponsored? Obama, yeah I know that. My point was that Edwards has creds here and didn't co-sponsor anything about Iran. The message is still valid regardless of who says it, even me!

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-12 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re:

Your name Hillary Lieberman tells me exactly where your coming from but even you must agree Obama can't get bent out of shape by an Iran Non-Binding Resolution when he co-sponsored a Bill to attack Iran just this last April.  I guess it must have been too hard for Obama to decide which way to vote so he didn't vote at all and hoped we wouldn't notice he was trying to play both ends against the middle.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re:

HST -- Obama knew about Hillary's vote the night of the last debate 2 weeks ago but said nothing.  If he was that bent out of shape why not say something?  Obama has shown he is an empty suit, it obviously didn't bother him enough until he saw his poll numbers.  This is an act of desperation and is fooling nobody.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re:

Empty suit?  Why, b/c you like a different candidate better or b/c it's possible he and Edwards might use this vote against her effectively?

Look, objectively I don't think her vote is that big of a deal as a stand alone issue.  But it does allow both Obama and Edwards to frame a larger discussion about (1) her hawkishness generally; (2) her judgment relative to issues of war and peace; and (3) about her motivations for both this vote and Iraq.  I understand why you'd rather not have that conversation, but I think she made a mistake with her vote (strategically if not substantively) and she's going to have to deal with it.  

Oh, and for the record I disagree with Senator Clinton on some issues but -- unlike you -- don't think she's a bad Senator or a terrible presidential candidate.  In point of fact, I think she'd make a fine president and will support her without reservation if she gets the nomination.  I wish more people took a similar approach during the primary season.  The other Democrats are not the enemy.

by HSTruman 2007-10-15 06:39AM | 0 recs
D-UH!

Of course she won't choose Obama as her running mate. She'll pick a generic, milquetoast white male and have her husband do his "Black Bill" impersonation and go hold hands in black churches to convince them to vote for Hillary.

He has to after Hillary's ill advised "blaccent" at the black church in Selma.

by Nedsdag 2007-10-12 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: D-UH!

D-UH -- I think Hillary will pick a strong Vice President like Wesley Clark, somebody with a Military background.  The reason Bill Clinton can hold hands in black churches is because African Americans believe in him and trust him.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 05:22PM | 0 recs
Ray Krok

There's an old Ray Krok quote. Krok, the man who bought the McDonald's chain from the McDonald brothers and turned it into the ubiquitious entity it is today, was notoriously competative, and ruthless in business. When asked by a reporter what Krok would do if he noticed a competator drowning, he quickly retorted 'stick a hose in his mouth'.

This is what is happening. Obama is gambling to try and use the vote to check Clinton's growing lead, and to re-energize his own faltering campaign. Clinton's camp recognizes this, and is seeking to break the back of his nomination run as quickly as possible.

People tend to forget, politics is a bloodsport. There is no place for mistakes or for mercy on a campaign trail.  

by dexf 2007-10-12 11:20AM | 0 recs
Edwards made Clinton look foolish...

while Obama gives her fodder to make himself look silly.

This is another example of how Obama has prevented a real one on one contest to occur, Clinton-Edwards, that would have been much harder for Clinton to run away.

by citizen53 2007-10-12 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards made Clinton look foolish...

It's never possible for Edwards to make anyone look foolish.  Here is a guy who talk about Washington corruption when his own fundraiser (Geoffrey Feiger) was indicted for illegal campaign donations.

Here is a guy who voted for the Iraq War resolution and think that by just saying sorry, that it would absolve him from any fault.

Edwards campaigns against lobbyist, yet his Hedgefund invests in the misery of Katrina victims.

You don't think these things make Edwards look foolish?

by FilbertSF 2007-10-12 11:36AM | 0 recs
I watched the debate and disagree...

100%.  All you offer is hyperbole.

by citizen53 2007-10-12 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I watched the debate and disagree...

You disagree on the facts?

So Geoffrey Feiger wasn't Edwards' fundraiser and he wasn't indicted?

His Hedgefund didn't profit off of Katrina foreclosures?

Edwards DIDN'T vote for the Iraq War resolution?

by FilbertSF 2007-10-12 11:57AM | 0 recs
It's clear from your comments...

that you only want to throw mud.  I think that's sad.

Edwards at the debate pointed to a true distinction between himself and Clinton on the issue of Iran.

That is what I thought this diary was about, Iran.

It's not like I am the only one who noticed how effective he was.  Obama has been ineffective and I was drawing a comparison.

I put on my rain gear.  You may resume the mudslinging.

by citizen53 2007-10-12 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: It's clear from your comments...

Talking about mudslinging... Edwareds campaign has been the only Democrat so far to throw mud -- at Clinton and Obama.

Perhaps your rain coat will come to your aid when you're standing by Mr and Mrs Edwards as they personally assault the opponents.

by FilbertSF 2007-10-12 12:09PM | 0 recs
Whatever...

The tone of your comments indicate an animus that leaves me shaking my head.

Have a nice day.

by citizen53 2007-10-12 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever...

What is making you shake is finally acknowledging the hypocrisy of your candidate.

by FilbertSF 2007-10-12 12:50PM | 0 recs
Right...

Thanks for the great debate.

by citizen53 2007-10-12 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I watched the debate and disagree...

I think he probably disagrees with ridiculous claims like "if one of your fundraisers gets indicted, you can never talk about corruption."

by Steve M 2007-10-12 12:09PM | 0 recs
So HRC...

...is personally responsible for Norman Hsu?

...and you've been through the Clintons' investment portfolio with a fine tooth comb?

...and, of course, since HRC not only voted for the war in Iraq but for giving Bush a blank check w/r/t Iran, you're not voting for her either?

by BlueinColorado 2007-10-12 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: So HRC...

you're with regard to Iran comment is way off base and pure spin.

dizzy yet?

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 12:33PM | 0 recs
Sure...

...cuz if there's one thing we've learned in the last six years, it's that Bush and Cheney are utterly trustworthy and would never use the Kyl-Lieberman vote to justify a 'pre-emptive' strike on Iran. They're completely reasonable and respectful of the Constitution, to say nothing of reality.

That was a fine vote.

by BlueinColorado 2007-10-12 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure...

yawn -

You cant use a non-binding resolution thats just a sense of the senate as an AUMF -

Can you explain how a non-binding resolution, different than Obama's proposal which he co-sponsored that WAS binding, grants authorization for the use of force?

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure...

yawn -

well, hard to argue with such a sophisticated, well thought out argument.

You cant use a non-binding resolution thats just a sense of the senate as an AUMF -

so we're back to trusting in Bush's and Cheney's deep respect for the law and the Constitution. Brilliant.

Can you explain how a non-binding resolution, different than Obama's proposal which he co-sponsored that WAS binding, grants authorization for the use of force?

Why would I want to defend something stupid Obama did? But I will say the refusal of HRC and her supporters to simply admit she did something stupid when she did something stupid does not bode well for her presidency.

by BlueinColorado 2007-10-13 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I watched the debate and disagree...

Yes, Edwards voted for the AUMF Iraq resolution. But when he realized his mistake he voted against funding the war. Then he said he made a mistake, apologized for his vote, took responsibility for his vote and has been trying intensely trying to end the war since then. This is to be contrasted with Clinton that also voted for the war but only voted against funding it since she decided to run for President. And has not accepted responsibility for HER vote. And Obama that claimed to be against the war but voted to fund it until he announced for the Presidency.

Leaders lead. They don't just frickin talk about it when it is politically expedient. Edwards is a leader. Clinton and Obama are opportunists.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-12 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards made Clinton look foolish...

John Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution with Joe Lieberman.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 05:27PM | 0 recs
good memo

I think the same could be said about Obama's Move-on vote as well. If he wanted to take such a strong stand against even voting on that measure, then he should have never voted on the Boxer bill and spoken out against the partisanship of the vote before both the Boxer AND Cornyn vote were taken. Same thing could also be said about his sorry performance during the Petraus hearing. I guess actively performing his job in the Senate wouldn't fit his Washington insider image though....

by ademption 2007-10-12 11:36AM | 0 recs
replace insider with outsider

should read ...fit his Washington outsider image though....

by ademption 2007-10-12 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular

The Clinton camp waited an entire week to issue this press release.  Now it will get weekend coverage.  Good for them, as they are pointing out deliberate distortion by Obama of the meaning of the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, and deliberate distortion of Hillary's stance on Iran.  I expect all of our Dem candidates to speak the truth.

And yeah, where the hell was Obama when this all important amendment was being voted on?  I'm afraid the only traction he's going to get from this one will be in backfire mode.

I seriously question Obama's intelligence.  He may not be ready for the Presidency, but I at least thought he was intelligent.

by Regan 2007-10-12 11:43AM | 0 recs
I disagree with Obama on a few things,

as I do with Clinton, but I disagree with you on this statement: "I seriously question Obama's intelligence."

Obama may choose wrong positions sometimes, but he is quite intelligent, as is Clinton and Edwards.

by TomP 2007-10-12 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with Obama on a few things,

i dont think he is stupid, but he is seriously lacking in judgment by letting Axelrod run his campaign.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular

Obama's problem is that he takes money from Right Wing fat cats and has to pretend to be a Democrat.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular

Your comment here doesn't even make sense let alone add anything to the conversation.  You might as well start posting that Obama smells bad and is ugly.  That would be more sophisticated.  

by HSTruman 2007-10-15 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: opening for Gore

I hate to agree with the WaPo types, but I think that Gore isn't running UNLESS Hillary stops looking inevitable.

He's not going to rule himself out because it keeps him and his issues relevant and because if something disrupts Clinton's march to the nomination, he'd be able to "save the party".

At this point, he can only get the nomination by having the party beg him to take it; both Obama and Clinton have way too much money for Al to take them on.

by howie14 2007-10-12 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: opening for Gore

For all the shouting for Gore to get in the race, I just don't see him attracting sufficient Democratic constituencies? African-Americans would stick with Obama or Clinton (unless Obama joined up with Gore as VP perhaps but that might not even work). Clinton with her healthcare and economic plans is fast cementing herself as the candidate of middle-class and working people. How does Gore excite these groups of voters to come to his side. With global warming issues over pocketbook issues? At best, Gore's constituency lies in certain educated liberals elites who feel they can AFFORD to have Gore and global warming as the issue that overrides all others. The problem with Gore is that he looks down on the whole ghastly electioneering process with that aristocratic aqualine nose of his. He just won't get down and dirty in the mud and America just does not do coronations without seeing what your packing first. The noble Nobel me thinks Gore much prefers.

by superetendar 2007-10-12 12:36PM | 0 recs
Bobby Kennedy

Bobby Kennedy didnt announce until after the NH primary was over (after issuing a Sherman statement several weeks before.)  

And Kerry was at 6% nationally and lending himself his wife's money in a few weeks before NH.  

Just saying.

by Winston Smith 2007-10-12 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Bobby Kennedy

Bobby Kennedy's election was 40 years ago in a very different political climate and with very different realities. Just because he did it then does not mean it could happen now.  In fact, I would argue that it's nearly impossible these days.  The landscape has changed too much - organization and money are huge factors, and there's no way to build an effective ground team to rival Clinton, Obama or Edwards now.

Also, Kerry was certainly in single digits, but it was also a much tighter race than it is now, with around 20-25% still undecided at that time.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-12 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Bobby Kennedy

Kerry took out a morgage on his half of the houses they owned, He risked his own money, not his wife's.

Seeing that they both have children from an earlier marriage that matters. It was a significant risk he took as that loan was covered with almost all of own his assets. No doubt his children agreed with it. But it would've had actual consequences if he had failed. It was very different from what Forbes did and Romney is doing now.

Bobby Kennedy ran when the delegates were awarded differently. He only had to run in a few key states in order to build up a bargaining chip for the convention. And even after his California win it would've been hard going for him to become the actual nominee.  Nowadays it's impossible to duplicate him.

by Ernst 2007-10-15 05:45AM | 0 recs
A greater Obama hypocrisy however is that

Obama co-sponsored the following BINDING bill:

The  "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

Why did Senator Obama co-sponsor an actual bill (not a non-binding resolution) designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization" (the " "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007") if he did not think that the Revolutionary Guard were engaged in "terrorist" activity; and further, where were the Revolutionary Guards engaging in the "terrorist" activity Obama wished to stop?

Wouldn't Obama's binding bill give Bush a greater rationalization to attack Iran as Obama claims the non-binding resolution provides?

Is that why Obama was AWOL? Because he did not want to vote against a resolution whose main provision he has previously co-sponsored?

by Hurdy Gurdy 2007-10-12 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A greater Obama hypocrisy however is that

hurdy -- Brilliant analysis.  I have not heard that anywhere else.  Amazing

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 05:36PM | 0 recs
The real development

here is Hillary hit back.  Anytime a challenger can get the front runner to engage, they generally benefit.

The real issue here is will Hillary and Barak do what Gephardt and Dean to each other in Iowa?

If so, Edwards and Richardson are the biggest beneficiaries.

by fladem 2007-10-12 12:27PM | 0 recs
Not if she's stepping on his neck.

by bookgrl 2007-10-12 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Not if she's stepping on his neck.

She must feel comfortable enough with her lead to really clamp down

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-12 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Not if she's stepping on his neck.

Remember, we're talking about Hillary here.  It's not like her to let an attack like that go and not respond.  That's one of the reasons I like her.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-12 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Not if she's stepping on his neck.

I don't think the reason that Hillary is attacking Obama is because she has a comfortable lead.  She has watched him try to straddle the fence while he takes right wing money and appears as the Keynote Speaker for the Hamilton Group, co-sponsors a bill which calls for a war in Iran and then pretends to be an anti-war Democrat.  Its time he was outed for all this duplicity.  

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The real development

The result of a week long attack upon Clinton on the Iran issue and Clinton's shooting back:

Obama Intrade Chart

A sharp plunge to the downside.

Edwards doesn't appear to benefit from it, see chart below.

Edwards Intrade Chart

A sharp plunge to the downside as well.

Why?

Perhaps voters can see through the hypocricy of Edwards and Obama's attacks -- Kyl-Lieberman did not provide any authority for military action against Iran.  It gave authority only for diplomatic pressures and economic sanction.  Voters may prefer Clinton's approach -- exert diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions against Iran now to prevent the need for war in the future.

Clinton's chart -- making new high, closing at 69.3 at the end of the week!  :)

by Hurdy Gurdy 2007-10-12 12:54PM | 0 recs
Gore is the only...

chance we have of avoiding a Clinton win.  I like Richardson and I like Edwards, but i don't see myself voting for a hawk like Hillary.  I would rather vote for Ron Paul.  At least we can trust him to do what he says.  But thats besides the point and is sure to piss some people off.  Lets see Gore enter and take all the momentum!

by DocD 2007-10-12 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore is the only...

If I live to be 300, I doubt I'll ever understand what people (especially Dems) see in Ron Paul. I just don't get it.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-12 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore is the only...

Denny I hear you.  I guess when you see him standing next to all the war loving Chickenhawks he appears moderate.  But on everything else he would take us back to the stone age.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 10:47PM | 0 recs
RE: opening for Gore

GALLUP: Despite Nobel Prize, No 'Groundswell' for Gore for President

NEW YORK The Gallup Poll organization released a report today revealing that despite Al Gore's latest honor -- the Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming battle -- its polls have detected no "groundswell" for a Gore race for the White House in 2008.

It said that its surveys, in fact, have found only a "slightly more positive than negative" rating for the former vice president.

"There has not been a large groundswell of support for him to run for president to this point, and if he were to enter the Democratic primaries, he would place no better than third nationally in the polls," the report declared. In fact, the most recent 2008 Democratic presidential nomination trial heat showed Gore at just 10%, his worst showing this year.

The latest survey of all adults found 50% with a favorable view and 42% unfavorable. Democrats have a more positive view "but his pre-Nobel favorable rating was no better than that of Sen. Barack Obama or former Sen. John Edwards, and lower than Democrats' ratings of Sen. Hillary Clinton."

by Hurdy Gurdy 2007-10-12 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: RE: opening for Gore

Hurdy -- thats very interesting.  I think its enough for Gore to win an Oscar, Emmy and Nobel Peace Prize as the man who would have been President and know that the guy who took his job away is the worst president in the history of this country.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 05:32PM | 0 recs
Revenge is Sweet

Al Gore gets the Nobel Peace Prize and Bush is the worst President in History.  Karma -- yesssssssssss

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 04:04PM | 0 recs
Obama Are You Really A Democrat

Obama now says he wants to expand NAFTA--that should go over really well with Democrats.

by changehorses08 2007-10-12 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Are You Really A Democrat

Help me out, I thought the guy's name who pushed NAFTA through Congress -- primarily with Republican support -- was Clinton.  Is he any relation to this current Senator Clinton?  

by HSTruman 2007-10-15 06:43AM | 0 recs
Yeah, whatever
by horizonr 2007-10-12 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton campaign goes for the jugular, opening

Enough with the Gore stuff, it's just distracting.

by MNPundit 2007-10-13 07:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads