« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Draws Contrast with Clinton on Iraq

Share

October 02, 2007 1:58 PM

ABC News' David Wright Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., drew a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., over the Iraq war during a speech Tuesday in Chicago. Looking back at the stand he took five years ago today opposing the war, Obama attacked Clinton's evolving position on the war without mentioning her by name. 

"Some seek to rewrite history," he told the audience at DePaul University, "and we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

Looking back five years, the candidates had starkly different positions on the war.  Looking forward, however, their strategies are quite similar.  Both would downsize combat troops quickly, but would leave a large contingent of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely for counterterrorism operations.

Obama used the DePaul speech to sketch a larger vision of foreign policy.  He vowed to set as a goal the elimination of nuclear weapons, and promised to depoliticize intelligence gathering and promote more transparency in policy decisions.

But his policy speech was upstaged by the fact that Clinton, for the first time, out raised him in quarterly fundraising. 

Is the Obama camp concerned it's a sign their candidate is flagging?

"I don't see it that way at all," Obama's senior political adviser David Axelrod told ABC News.  "The fact is we have raised more than any other candidate in this race and we have more small contributors than all the other candidates combined."

He says he's confident Obama will have the money he needs to get his message to the voters.

October 2, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (15)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Only Mike Gravel has the right idea. Make the American People the 4th branch of government, we'll decide about war funding !!

Posted by: kenny | Oct 2, 2007 3:02:49 PM

He says he is going to attempt to get of nuclear weapons?? Picture it on CNN and FOX "THE WAR ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!" the headlines for the past 8 years and the next 4 if Ron Paul doesnt get in should read "THE WAR ON PERSONAL LIBERTIES!!"

Do us all a favor and vote for Ron Paul! Check his voting record! He doesnt lie! RON PAUL FOR PRES!!!

Posted by: Jeremy | Oct 2, 2007 3:35:14 PM

I am sick of Obama keep repeating the same thing that he was against the war. Millions of people were against war but it does not make all of them president. Please make an adult argument not a teenager argument!

Posted by: Sick of Obama's naiveness | Oct 2, 2007 3:52:06 PM

Sick...what is Hillary's arguement 'she was smart enough to get us into a war...or she was just scared not to go against popular opinion"?

Posted by: Grace | Oct 2, 2007 4:27:56 PM

I think its a rather relevant point for Obama to point out his opposition to Invade Iraq compared to some of the other candidates. Who would you trust, someone with 10 years of good judgments or someone with 10 more years of bad judgments? If you pick the one with 10 years then, what good is experience? Keep in mind President Bush had an approval rating of 65% in October of 2002 so voting for the war popular even in the general population. So its not that he opposed it makes a difference, its when he did it that makes all the difference in the world.

Posted by: James | Oct 2, 2007 4:32:12 PM

Frankly, I would rather have a President that has the stones to get us out of Iraq in a responsible manner and I really believe that would be Hillary Clinton.

It's got nothing to do with any 2002 speeches from an Illinois legislator.

By the way, he should stop telling people to 'turn the page' while yanking them back t0 2002. That's just silly but if he has nothing else ...

Posted by: Ralph | Oct 2, 2007 6:44:50 PM

The only person with the experience of a President is someone who has ever been President. So, Hillary and the other presidential candidates should stop their claims of having exprience to be president. A next presidient should be able to talk with our enemies to help solve our problems. Remember, late Anwar Sadat of Egypt made peace with Israel by the Camp David Accord. Mr Sadat had shown a lot of strength and courage.

Posted by: Nii Tetteh Addy | Oct 2, 2007 7:25:47 PM

You all that are making claims agains Obama are blind to the fact that Hillay is playing the field with the lobbyists and she wants to make health insurance universal by making it mandatory for ppl to have like car insurance...that will only give the health insurance companies 10-fold the money...along with hillary getting her cut....Obama is the only one for the ppl and with the ppl and he is the only one with something to really prove...how can he go wrong?...he has alot of weight on his shoulders thats going to make him keep to his word while hillary is just pracing and dancing arouns with everyones emotions and her smiles and getting all the women to back her...lol...she is a mirage and a fake...and an obvious lobbyist...she would never say that she refuses to take lobbyist money.....SHE MAKES ME SO SICK!!!

Posted by: INTELLIGENCE | Oct 2, 2007 8:35:26 PM

Obama was not given the same information as those who voted for the war ... if he had, he may have voted for it or not ... he is trying to compare apples to oranges ... and I don't buy it.

Posted by: Hank | Oct 2, 2007 8:46:10 PM

Hank.......try the oranges the apples have got us into a 100 year war.

Posted by: murl41 | Oct 2, 2007 9:34:24 PM

Hillary is the most corrupt and hypocritical canidate that the Democrats have, but yet everyone still loves her. What gives? What could possibly be so appealing about someone that will lie, cheat, and steal her way to office? Wake up! At least nominate someone like Obama who has a fighting chance in the election. Hillary is going to get torn apart by the Republicans due to the fact that she is a hypocrite and reeks of corruption. They are going to errode her support from the unions by pointing out that she has for a long time been in cohoots with Wal-Mart (serving on their board). They are going to point out her corruption by bringing up Whitewater, Travelgate, and her cattle futures and probaly sue to force her to hand over her records as First Lady which are tucked away at Bill's presidential library, which they somehow can't get to until after the election. They are going attack her on her vote for Iraq and her husbands soft record on terrorism. Then they are going to hammer home just how expensive universal health care is going to cost. After completely dismantling her machine they will link her with every other Democratic canidate. If Hillary gets the nomination I predict not only a loss for her but also big losses in both the house and the senate. If the repubs run Guilliani she won't win her own state of NY and that will destroy any of her chances to win the electorial college. And as far as the so called "Clinton Machine" is concerned, Bill never won the popular vote in either of his elections. The only reason he won was because of the third party canidate Ross Perot took so many votes from the republican base that neither Bush Sr. or Dole could win. The machine is beatable and I would whole heartedly suggest that the Democrats get themselves a real canidate like Obama or even Edwards, so this nation might actually have a real conversation on where we are going rather than where we all know we've been.

Posted by: Geez | Oct 2, 2007 10:47:36 PM

congress/senate and a,erican poele was avictim of bush a war monger pres. if there is a mistake vbe, bush said sure there is a wmd- no diplomacy hes a bully pres.

Posted by: mclain | Oct 3, 2007 12:54:46 AM

Folks, you need to stop with all of the ridiculous uninformed posts. Spend ten minutes and read the entire text of Mr. Obama's speech from yesterday. If you come away criticizing his comments, you have no vision about what this man is attempting to accomplish and what he is capable of accomplishing. There is not another candidate so tuned in to the vision of what America can be. I was a staunch young Republican when JFK ran for president. I went against my conservative midwest political doctrine and cast my vote for Kennedy. Turned out to be one of the best presidents in history. We were short changed by his assination. Let's not short change ourselves now, if we do, it will be another assination, only this time, of the American people. Let's not miss this opportunity Mr. Obama is offering us to turn the page from failed policies and go forward with new opportunity.

Posted by: GC | Oct 3, 2007 1:26:36 PM

OOP's, sorry about assassinating the word assassination. I was rushed.

Posted by: GC | Oct 3, 2007 2:12:57 PM

Mclain, you're right.
However this time it's the opposite. It's Ron Paul who is the only won that remains uncorrupted. A republican that any one can love.
We are all sick of Republicans and their closed-mindedness, but Ron Paul has a history of voting against ANYTHING that violates our rights as citizens. Unfortunately, he's the only one that reads everything and scans for such things.

I was Democrat, but R.P. has opened my eyes to the fact that politicians can be good and honest and for the people, just like the government was intended when the country began. By, Of, and For THE PEOPLE!

Although, as of the past few decades they've been about corporate greed, media lust, and absolute control of any and all freedoms we once possessed. Let's take back our freedom!

GOGGLE RON PAUL!

Sincerely,
The New American

Posted by: The New American | Feb 2, 2008 9:03:17 PM

Post a comment