Hillary Clinton started running this ad, which suggests that Obama is not up to the job of handling international crises:
I don’t think this is a great ad. I understand the experience argument, and I do think Hillary is more experienced, but it hasn’t worked against Obama up to now, and I don’t see why this ad changes the game.
Obama hit back with this ad, which positions Obama as the candidate with superior judgment, because he opposed the Iraq War from the start:
I am not impressed with this ad either. I am tired of hearing Obama coast on a speech he gave five years ago. First of all, he took that speech off his website in 2003, when the war seemed to be going well. Second, his Senate voting record on all things connected to Iraq is EXACTLY THE SAME AS HILLARY CLINTON’S.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama has not shown superior judgment on Iraq compared to Clinton. He has stood on the sidelines while other senators tried to defund the war. I am not buying his claim to superior judgment on matters of foreign policy.
Probably Obama will get the better of this skirmish, because as usual, the media uncritically pass along his claim to superior judgment. I have never seen a single tv analyst point out that since getting elected to the Senate, Obama has done nothing more to end the war than Clinton has.
UPDATE: Jeralyn at Talk Left put up this excerpt from an interview Obama gave the New Yorker in November 2006:
http://www.newyorker.com/archi…
Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?
You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined-one of the most disciplined people-I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
Obama basically came right out and said that if he’d been in the Senate, he would have done the same thing as Hillary on the AUMF vote.
Continue Reading...