Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 28, 2007; Page A03

COLUMBIA, S.C., April 27 -- The first Democratic presidential debate did little to change the shape of the 2008 race, but it provided a post-debate flash point Friday between the campaigns of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over the issue of fighting terrorism.

At issue is whether Obama mishandled a question about how he would respond if two American cities were attacked by terrorists: Did he fail to demonstrate the toughness and resolve that voters want in a president or was his answer a careful and comprehensive checklist for any potential president dealing with an international crisis?

The Clinton campaign seized on what happened, claiming, without mentioning Obama, that "Hillary was the candidate who demonstrated that she would know how to respond if the country was attacked." An Obama spokesman dismissed the Clinton camp's press release as "a sign of nervousness."==

==But in issuing their press release with the headline "Campaign Memo: Commander in Chief," the Clinton camp conflated her full answer on Thursday without indicating that it had been shortened, making her sound even tougher than when she delivered it.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?nav=rss_email/components

HRC supporters complain about criticism by obscure posters on message boards or blogs yet they are conspicuously silent on the HRC campaign's attacks against Senator Obama. I suppose it is okay to attack a fellow Democrat so long as that attack will receive national coverage and it is not directed against HRC...

It is troubling to see HRC (DLC-NY) promoting the Republican/DLC frame that progressives are "soft" on defense. Earlier this year she suggested some Democratic candidates for president would weak on terrorism (who do you think she was alluding to?).

[saltpoint]

1. Don Rumsfield drew on "toughness and resolve" and didn't fare very well

with either.

I'm just one voter, but I'm not exactly into "toughness and resolve" in an era when our own military commanders say that the Middle East conundrum is not solvable by military means. We could have used some "toughness and resolve" in New Orleans after Katrina, but both were in short supply.

I'm interested in a candidate who vehemently insists on negotiation first -- omething the current president can't seem to manage, or is too stubborn to attempt. Either way, he's failed at it.

A political campaign for president like Obama's seems to me to attract followers and supporters in and of itself as opposed to how it contrasts with Senator Clinton's. The media likes to create tension and ratings with these head-to-head rivalries, but I think many voters weigh candidacies on their distinct, individual merits.

[bigdarryl]

2. very true all this tough talk on attacking countries is ridiculous

now if we are attacked thats one thing but this is crazy.

[saltpoint]

3. Yep. It's time to do some serious rehauling of our foreign policy.

Needless to say, the current one isn't going all that well.

[Bucky]

4. Here's how he should have answered that question

Words are cheap, as tough talking Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and whatever other neocons left standing demonstrated. The only way for Obama to show he can seriously defend us is to actually break out the numchuks whenever a report asks him about terrorism. Bash some skulls, bloody a few noses, then, as Brian Williams or Barbra Walters is whimpering in the corner and picking their teeth up off the floor, he can go, "There, bitch, that's how I'd defend America."

As a bonus, Fox would stop calling him for interviews.

[lyonn]

5. Just watched Obama again on re-run and I agree with his answer

Hillary's was mediocre. Obama didn't sound weak.?

Sure wish Biden had more air time! Hillary, Obama and Edwards got the bulk of the questions.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. Obama sounded like he always does. The pundits just cannot figure out that is the way

he always talks. They want to up their establishment candidate and dismiss the others

[DemDogs]

17. How he always talks is that he talks around things

Now, if that is your preference, then he is definitely your guy. I like direct myself. There was an article in the NYT a while back about when he was in law school. He was asked to speak at a meeting where there was a debate about whether the law school was active enough in recruiting African-American faculty. The thing that struck me was that both sides thought he had agreed with them. That kind of double-speak is very scary to me.

[flpoljunkie]

10. You're right. Nothing wrong. As Tweety noted, who you gonna "retaliate" against? Transcript below.

Bush has made us vulnerable to terrorist attacks because he has not fully funded our "first responders" in our most vulnerable cities. Brian Williams asked Obama how he "would change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result" of a terrorist attack. Frankly, I am not sure what Williams is asking here. Is he saying we need "more pre-emptive wars" to avoid future terrorist attacks? Is he suggesting we nuke the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan if we are again attacked? Al Qaeda has morphed into a hydra--with unknown numbers of wannabe cells scattered throughout the world--thanks to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as has already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/politics/27debate_...

[lyonn]

21. Thanks, my memory is short. When he spoke it all made sense.

You don't automatically go to your weapons systems. (Just being a smart a**!) Is this what the Dems need to be promoting? Don't think so. This was the bushie mentality.

I am leaning strongly towards Biden, but, Obama was impressive on this issue. He believes in thinking before acting, and, taking care of the problem at hand, the effects of an attack, but mostly to be ahead of the game. He made it clear that we needed to be more diligent in getting our country prepared for any disaster.

Obama stikes me as a sincere person.

[DemDogs]

11. Based on what you wrote, I watched again. You're wrong.

He sounded confused and weak. That and listing only 2 countries who are friends (and then some rambling answer on China), plus his ridiculous answer on personal steps he takes to conserve. Rewatching BHO doesn't do him any favors. And that is without considering his skirting the truth on his Chicago links and bundled money from lobbyists.

[Telly Savalas]

6. This is just silly.

If there were another 9/11 style terrorist attack on the U.S., does anybody really think there would be significant differences between the ways Clinton, Edwards, or Obama would respond if they were in the White House?

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hillary said that she would retaliate. Retaliate against whom?

Many Americans supported an attack on Iraq solely out of revenge for 9-11, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Our blood lust for revenge resulted in a million dead Iraqi civilians, 3 million displaced or exiled, over 3,300 dead Americans, and tens of thousands wounded and emotionally scarred veterans. That's what retaliation got us.

Hillary said she would attack countries that harbor terrorists. Really? Isn't that what Israel did when she bombed Beirut in retaliation for the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers? How many innocent people were killed or wounded?

Events since 9-11 have show that national retaliation results in terrorism on a larger scale than the original terrorist act.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. I never saw what was wrong with the answer except for the pundits to use

the pundits wanted to use it as a way to keep the straw horse going of lack of substance. Despite the fact that Obama has given several policy speeches since December, they never talk about those in order to keep their lies going.
And to promote Hillary.
And Hillary wants to use it to stop the freefall of her campaign. So, she resorts to the sooooooo 90s, soooo over smearing tactics that we are very tired of.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. Hillary seemed more like a capable senator than president on the debates

[BeyondGeography]

13. Hillary gets points for being more economical, otherwise, they basically said the same thing

She said, "retaliate."

Obama said, "B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network."

In other words, retaliate.

[wyldwolf]

14. but because Hillary saud it, it is BAAAD, and negates the fact Obama said it.

[BeyondGeography]

15. I'm not in that camp, wolf

Make sure your tote board reflects that fact. ;)

[dave_p]

19. The same, but different

I appreciate where you're coming from, and of course fundamentally they expressed the same aspiration: We'd do what we thought appropriate to eliminate that threat to our people.

That's where the distinction kicks in. No amount of kneejerk he-man BS eliminates the threat if it doesn't mobilize collective resources and pinpoint where the threat's coming from.

That's where I heard Obama reaching to: This takes brains, not just brawn. He's the only front-runner who's grasped that.

[polichick]

16. One thing is for sure:

None of the Dem candidates would respond to an attack by reading a children's book upside down! :)

[dave_p]

18. Looks familiar

... just like the way GOP-Lite Dem's turned their fire on Dean last time and cur the ground from under any coherent critique of the war-frenzy. Will they never learn?

Obama gave a Democrat response, i.e. a policy position that wasn't just a let-out for the corrupt neocons and their Oval Office sock-puppet.

he's not even my preferred candidate, but he showed courage and integrity lacking in the "kill first - don't ask questions" White House echo-chamber.

I hope this man never fears speaking truth and expressing his humanity. there's no lack of fight in that - it takes a lot of fight. Feeding the GOP's perversion of public discourse doesn't.

[Zodiak]

20. I reject any Democrat who campaigns on fear

This silly comparison of answers on this question shows me that certain candidates cannot resist tapping into fear to generate votes. Disgusting.

Only neocons campaign with fear....I expect better from Democrats.