Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton Attacks Obama in Email. Obama hits her Back.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:17 PM
Original message
Clinton Attacks Obama in Email. Obama hits her Back.
While Hillary Clinton is celebrating her 60th birthday tonight, another milestone is taking place off stage: Her campaign is publicly turning its guns on Barack Obama.

The campaign sent out an e-mail tonight, using some of the strongest language it has used in public against Mr. Obama, who has been raising a ruckus over her vote to designate Irans Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton, the e-mail said.

Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006, it adds. Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.

The language is more biting than Mrs. Clintons description in July of Mr. Obama as irresponsible and frankly nave for saying he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations during his first year in office.

As such, the e-mail marks a significant shift in tactics for Mrs. Clinton, who generally refrains from criticizing her opponents and prefers the appearance of staying above the fray. It suggests that the mounting criticism of her Iran vote has been getting under her skin and that even as she is basking in the glow of her birthday celebration, she will fight back.

The Obama campaign returned fire tonight: All of the political explanations and contortions in the world arent going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view, said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/clinton-e...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. its just despicable that the pro war people mask this
Either you're pro war or not. Hillary has made that increasingly clear
WAR without end, Amen, AAAAAAAAAMen

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. maybe obama can hit her front tomorrow :-) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democratsin08 Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. more hate filled negativity from obama
this is why he is sinking in the polls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. The pundits are ga-ga over this being Hillary's Achilles heel.
All over TV today. I guess that mailing started their tongues wagging.

The question is will Obama FULLY exploit it?

I sure hope he hits her upside the head with it. When she voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman - and no I don't give a rat's ass why Obama didn't vote but I sure as hell am THRILLED he didn't vote yes - I knew unequivocally that sister's lips are attached to the GOP/MIC war scheme machine. No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hell with all the bashing of her it's about damn time she fired back
kick ass Hillary don't take no sass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hillary is war hawk. Say yes to four more years of war vote for Hillary!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superkia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
32. This is why I dont understand her supporters, a vote for Clinton...
IS a vote for war. Our children will continue to suffer under her rule. I only hope America wales up and sees that the MSM does not see what is best for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here's the text of the email....ouch!
To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

RE: Obama vs. Obama: The Real Differences on Iran

Who said this?

Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region. Later in the same speech, he said: Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.

George Bush? Nope.

The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again.

Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry.

That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Irans ambitions. But that was then.

This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois Dick Durbin voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and 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.

Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war.

But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldnt he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton. A Washington Post editorial summed it up best: Now, trailing in the polls and sensing a political opportunity, Mr. Obama is trying to portray Ms. Clinton as a reckless saber-rattler. That is irresponsible and given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted probably naive, as well.

Thats not the kind of and strength and leadership Americans are looking for in their next President.

Hillary has been clear and consistent in saying that diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Irans efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. Thats why she took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and its why shes co-sponsored Senator Webbs legislation to make that the law of the land.

Thats the kind of strength and experience that will lead to the changes Americans want in our nations foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Like shootin fish in a barrel...
This issue is a loser for Obama...

Democrats as a whole have already made the judgment that Hillary is far more credible on foreign policy than Obama (DU excepted of course...as it is on most things)...in any dispute such as this Hillary automatically has the upper hand...Obama's attacks look like exactly what they are...another campaign tactic. And when his record on the issue is so poor, and the flip-flops so obvious, he loses all credibility...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. He knows it, now thanks to Hillary, everyone knows it..!!
(what an imbecilic ass this joker of a candidate is!)

If you see her before I do...tell her.. Thanks for kicking his *ass* for US!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's a shame Hillary feels the need to attack Obama. She said on The View that she doesn't
do that. She claimed she stays positive. I guess the threat of Obama pointing out her naivete' and triangulation got under her skin. Any time he points something out Hillary's camp claim he's "abandoned the politics of hope." That's getting old. He has every right to campaign against her. He's not abandoning the politics of hope. He still represents hope and change but if he's not the nominee he won't be able to use his politics of hope in the general election to help change America. Gobama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Agreed that the politics of hope line is getting a little stale.
I think "not ready for primetime" will be the new one :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Bring it on!
Maybe his new term for her could be "The Triangulator" or "Hillary the Hawk." :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I think the term you are looking for is...
"Madam President"

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Nah...unless
you're talking about president of the PTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Obama is being a hypocrite...
Edited on Thu Oct-25-07 11:03 PM by SaveElmer
Hillary is perfectly free to point that out...and correct to do so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. How? He never said he wouldn't point out differences.
SHE'S the hypocrite and flip-flopper. She criticizes him about positions she herself took at one time and/or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Uh...no...
Obama critices Hillary for a measure he cosponsored last March...criticizes her for suggesting a military presence might be left in Iraq to combat Iranian sponsored terrorism, a position he took earlier this year...

He cannot even keep his own position straight...

And then after showing no leadership on the issue...none...not a peep on the floor, not a peep in committee, no objection to it whatsoever, no attempt to kill or modify it, and of course not even bothering to vote on it...all of a sudden it is the most important issue on the planet to him...

Yeah real credible...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
39. Media - and Hillary/Obama - not discussing real fact that Iran Guard own/run 1/3rd of economy
Indeed the new international airport is owned by the Guard so landing fees would be doing business with the Guard.

It will be interesting to see if our sanctions extend to ending all flights to the US by airlines that land in Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. The War Industry are big donors to Hillary so, she would vote for endless war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. At least she votes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
41. That's like saying "hey, he drives!" when he keeps crashing the car into a wall
Is a bad vote better than not voting?

:rofl:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Obama is getting about 1/2 the money Hillary does that mean he sits on the sidelines for key votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Well consider everyone's check books canceled!
Obama will be lucky to have enough $$$ to pay his staff for the last quarter.

He'll be considering public finance with the other dumbo he's in collusion with..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toughboy Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. More Obama deflect attention tactics
He's really in high pander mode. Trash the LGBT community and get some white guy to make it okay. Switch to the other issue that he knows might get a little traction: Attack Hillary Clinton. Why didn't he go after Lieberman, for example? We all know why. This "progressive" word when paired with the name Obama kind of rings hollow to me. I, of course, only think that because I support another candidate. Isn't there a time when a candidate is going down that they should just shut up and try and get a breathe of air?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
23. Something must be going on in their in-house polling internals.
Here's what I mean. If Hillary's support were actually anywhere near as solid and her nomination as anywhere near as locked up as the national (and many state) polls imply, she wouldn't take the risk of hitting back at Obama over this right now. If he were actually fading into insignificance, as her fans and staffers insist, her campaign could safely resort to their by-now predictable dismissal of Obama's accusations as demonstrating that his claim of a "different kind of politics" is disingenuous. That's what they always do. So why are the fighting back now? The Clinton team doesn't act on the reactions or activist voters, they respond to hard data ... period. There may be nothing to my speculation that their polling is showing them something they're VERY worried about. But they're sure acting like they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. An email to reporters reflects a very worried Hillary campaign ?
What do the now daily attacks on Clinton by Obama and Edwards mean, that they are in full panic mode?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "There may be nothing to my speculation"...
you are correct..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
42. It indicates that she will respond to attacks.
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 01:00 AM by wlucinda
Which is excellent. I wish they all had her skill in this regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. Hillary vs. Obama! Let's get it ON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. If what she says is true
Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006, it adds. Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.

Is this distorted or pretty much the truth? Is Obama being a hypocrite, or is this a smear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I think she's referring to this:

S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, March.

(8) 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).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Well, that says he voted for it. Not that he co-sponsored it
maybe I'll try thomas.gov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I think incap was mistaken.
I don't think the bill ever came to the floor to be voted on. (I've got to check that myself)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Here ya go...S.970 has 68 cosponsors
Including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

COSPONSORS(68), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 6/6/2007
Sen Allard, Wayne - 4/24/2007
Sen Bayh, Evan - 3/22/2007
Sen Bennett, Robert F. - 4/18/2007
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 5/24/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod - 4/26/2007
Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/22/2007
Sen Bunning, Jim - 4/25/2007
Sen Burr, Richard - 5/10/2007
Sen Cantwell, Maria - 4/18/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. - 4/12/2007
Sen Carper, Thomas R. - 9/6/2007
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. - 5/8/2007
Sen Chambliss, Saxby - 6/27/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 4/26/2007
Sen Coleman, Norm - 3/22/2007
Sen Collins, Susan M. - 4/17/2007
Sen Conrad, Kent - 4/11/2007
Sen Corker, Bob - 6/4/2007
Sen Cornyn, John - 5/7/2007
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 4/10/2007
Sen Crapo, Mike - 4/11/2007
Sen DeMint, Jim - 6/18/2007
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 3/28/2007
Sen Dole, Elizabeth - 4/11/2007
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 5/22/2007
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/22/2007
Sen Ensign, John - 5/7/2007
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 5/1/2007
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey - 6/4/2007
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 5/23/2007
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 4/20/2007
Sen Isakson, Johnny - 5/10/2007
Sen Johnson, Tim - 6/11/2007
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 8/3/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. - 5/15/2007
Sen Klobuchar, Amy - 4/17/2007
Sen Kohl, Herb - 5/24/2007
Sen Kyl, Jon - 3/22/2007
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 4/18/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 3/22/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 3/22/2007
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. - 7/11/2007
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/23/2007
Sen Martinez, Mel - 6/26/2007
Sen McCain, John - 4/24/2007
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 6/20/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert - 3/22/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 3/22/2007
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 6/13/2007
Sen Murray, Patty - 6/28/2007
Sen Nelson, Bill - 6/4/2007
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin - 5/15/2007
Sen Obama, Barack - 4/24/2007
Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 7/12/2007
Sen Roberts, Pat - 4/11/2007
Sen Salazar, Ken - 4/25/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 6/27/2007
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 4/17/2007
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - 5/22/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 5/24/2007
Sen Stevens, Ted - 5/22/2007
Sen Sununu, John E. - 5/23/2007
Sen Tester, Jon - 5/7/2007
Sen Thune, John - 3/22/2007
Sen Vitter, David - 4/10/2007
Sen Voinovich, George V. - 6/26/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon - 8/2/2007

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970:@@...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Boy - was I glad NOT to see Biden on that list! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
34. so, she's criticizing him for things that she's voted for?
Clinton also co-sponsored that Nov. 2006 bill in question

She also said she would me with leaders with no conditions, a few months after she knocked obama for it

they are distorting his positions so they appear as something undesirable, forgetting to mention that those positions are actually senator clinton's...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. No they are pointing out Obama saying those positions are undesirable when he in fact has them (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. She's going after him for hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. That's what she says. I find her argument weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. I don't know if it's a weak argument or not,
Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 12:40 AM by seasonedblue
I have to compare Clinton's and Obama's record on this more carefully to decide that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-26-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
40. Gittin' screechy! I love it!
If the war-mongering Goldwater Girl wants to get in a tussle, well, she better put more padding on her pant suit. Game on...

We know how you voted, Hillary. It's on the record. All the smoke and mirrors and faux-pain feelin' ain't gonna help ya know.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 26th 2014, 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC