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 Iran’s 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. Clinton’s description in July of Mr. Obama as “irresponsible and frankly naïve” 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 aren’t 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-mail-hits-obama-on-iran/#comment-313570

Either you're pro war or not. Hillary has made that increasingly clear
WAR without end, Amen, AAAAAAAAAMen

this is why he is sinking in the polls

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.

kick ass Hillary don't take no sass.

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.

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 Iran’s 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, shouldn’t 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.”

That’s 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 Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That’s 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 it’s why she’s co-sponsored Senator Webb’s legislation to make that the law of the land.

That’s the kind of strength and experience that will lead to the changes Americans want in our nation’s foreign policy.

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...

(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!

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!

I think "not ready for primetime" will be the new one :evilgrin:

Maybe his new term for her could be "The Triangulator" or "Hillary the Hawk." :D

"Madam President"

:evilgrin:

you're talking about president of the PTA.

Hillary is perfectly free to point that out...and correct to do so

SHE'S the hypocrite and flip-flopper. She criticizes him about positions she herself took at one time and/or another.

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...

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.

Is a bad vote better than not voting?

:rofl:

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..

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?

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.

What do the now daily attacks on Clinton by Obama and Edwards mean, that they are in full panic mode?

:shrug:

you are correct..

Which is excellent. I wish they all had her skill in this regard.

“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?

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.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3631598&mesg_id=3631713

maybe I'll try thomas.gov

I don't think the bill ever came to the floor to be voted on. (I've got to check that myself)

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:@@@P

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...

I have to compare Clinton's and Obama's record on this more carefully to decide that.

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.