Clinton v. Obama: Lets get ready to rumble

Cross posted fromTKB

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to full contact politics. In this corner, we have Hillary “I’m not sorry for my vote” Clinton. Clinton (N.Y.) voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war and refuses to say she is sorry for that vote. She is the wife of Bubba and now wants a phased redeployment to bring back our troops from Iraq.

In the other corner, we have Barack “The Kid” Obama. Senator Obama (Ill.), then a state senator, publicly opposed the war. He’s a fresh new face, a media darling, and has been described as “The most liberal member of Congress running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.”

So get your talking points ready, and come out swinging!

Clinton, Obama Camps Spar on War

A brewing argument over Iraq between the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama broke into public view here Monday night when Clinton’s chief strategist challenged Obama’s credentials as a consistent opponent of the war.

Mark Penn and Obama strategist David Axelrod engaged in a pointed and occasionally heated exchange during a public forum at Harvard University over the issue that has become the central point of dispute between the two leading candidates for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Clinton (N.Y.) voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war, while Obama (Ill.), then a state senator, publicly opposed the war. The exchange marked the most substantive clash to date between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and reflected frustration among Clinton advisers over the Illinois senator’s use of the issue to distinguish his candidacy.

Penn, responding to a question about Clinton’s vote for the resolution, used the opportunity to attack Obama, arguing that he had said in 2004 that he was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the Senate.

“Obama said he didn’t know exactly how he would have voted in Congress because he didn’t have the full intelligence,” Penn said.


Axelrod continued to question Penn’s recounting of events and his decision to attack Obama. “I did not comment on Senator Clinton’s decision in 2002,” he said. “You found it necessary to draw Senator Obama into this discussion. Are we going to spend 10 months savaging each other, or are we going to try to lift this country up?”

Penn shot back: “Are we going to look at everybody’s record, everybody’s votes, tell everyone out there the truth about who supported what, who voted for what, or are we going to selectively tell people?”


Related in the news:

Political video smackdown
‘Hillary 1984’: Unauthorized Internet ad for Obama converts Apple Computer’s ’84 Super Bowl spot into a generational howl against Clinton’s presidential bid

It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate — one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.

Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic “1984” ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet.

(To see the video, go to:

And Obama’s campaign says it had absolutely nothing to do with the video that attacks one of his principal Democratic rivals, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, the ad’s creator is a mystery, at least for now.

RELATED POST: Two Birds with One Stone: Orwellian Swift-Boating!

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Clinton v. Obama: Lets get ready to rumble

  1. Donnie,

    You and I must be thinking alike….what is it they say about ‘great minds’? I don’t think this one is from the Obama camp, although that is always possible.


  2. Robert,

    Who knows? I couldn’t help but add that. I look that the contending forces and can’t help but wanna run away. 😆 This is just the start of the insanity. We have a long way to go. GOD help us!

  3. vwcat says:

    The Clinton camp must be very nervous due to the ad and the polls showing her shrinking lead. That would explain the snippy Penn and trying to spin Obama’s remark. If you look at what Obama’s remark, he does say he still would not have authorized the war.
    This is the latest in clinton’s camp trying to get at Obama as he chews away her lead.
    Love to see the Clintonistas sweat!

  4. Posted this in Robert’s thread too:

    I read elsewhere last night that the ad is a Superbowl “Apple” ad that someone messed with and stuck Hillary in. I hope this doesn’t prove to be from Obama. Too early for this stuff.

    Oh boy do we have a long way to go if this is what we are in for!

  5. BlueWashington says:

    Okay, I do like the ad – just cause I’m no Hillary fan – very clever.

  6. Pamela,

    If you get a chance, put a link here from there if it has something to do with this. Might as well get it in one lump. Do that Editor’s note thingy! 😉

  7. Amy says:

    This Hillary 1984 video is getting way overhyped. There are important issues out there more important than
    clever little internet ad campaigns with no real message, especially one that isn’t even original.

  8. Darrell Prows says:

    There is no smoking gun but I believe that the Whitehouse run of Junior began in a 1980 deal that merged the owners of Reagan and Senior. The decision for them to share the Republican ticket came pretty early on in the selection process, and resulted in a coherent approach to trying to control the country that would not have been available if a lot of time and money had been spent savaging each other. The succession decided upon was Ronnie, daddy, Georgie, Jeb, ad nauseum. The Reagan progeny were disinherited because they just didn’t fit the game plan even as well as the Bush kids.

    With candidates who really aren’t completely owned by anyone, the Democrats don’t really have the same potential for deal cutting that the Republicans do. That’s too bad. Rather than watching Hillary and Obama slug it out, I would far prefer to see a power sharing arrangement negotiated.

    Not that either one of them has shown me yet that they deserve the job. From all appearances, 2008 is shaping up as another in a long chain of “best of bad choices” elections. But have no doubt. Either of those two is head and shoulder above whoever is going to be running from the other side and this should be an election that is the Democrat’s to loose. Now if they can just find some way to avoid doing so.

  9. Ginny Cotts says:


    I got the impression from recent analysis that Jeb was supposed to have been the 2000 candidate. Except he lost the Florida Governors race in ’94 and W won Texas. Jeb won in ’98 but George was in a better position because he was reelected and had served one term.

    This came out from a speech of Poppy’s when he became very emotional about his son’s and the insider assessment was that he had wanted Jeb to be president and because of George’s miserable failure, it won’t be an option.

    Not that they won’t try it in ’12.

  10. Darrell Prows says:


    Failure is relative. I mean Bush is only a failure if you think that the intention was to give the country a good President.

    The “kitchen cabinet” of Reagan was So. Cal. military industrial complex, and was since they bought him off of Death Valley Days to front for them in politics. That of Bush was Texas oil, and they had him training for the presidency as far back as when they gave him the U.N. Ambassador and CIA Director jobs. I speculated on this in an unpublished manuscript I wrote in 1983 and have seen nothing since then to challenge this version of how we got to where we are.

    And where we are is 6+ years into an administration where big oil, and the bomb boys have seen their fortunes soar to heights last attained in 80-92. If one believes that making money is the true goal of this small group of king makers, then GW has been a wildly successful president.

    You may well be right about the actual original design of things, but you’re wrong if you think that Jeb has been damaged in any way that a little time and a lot of money can’t repair. And I wouldn’t bet against them.

  11. Ginny Cotts says:


    Some of that came out during “the worst president ever” discussions. I remembered that ‘plan’ when I read your comment – but the last sentence was my own take on not putting anything past this group.

    As far as the Reagan and Poppy careers, I think there has been plenty published that support your point – if not all the details.

    W has absolutely carried out the millitary-industrial- financial-intelligence complex work to promote their power and wealth by expanding our empire – he just did so badly that too many people have caught on and the possiblility that we might bring an end to the big plans is scaring them. Not to mention Poppy worrying that the ‘favorite son’ might have lost his chance due to W’s poor decisions. I don’t know if that supposition was accurate. The speech he broke down at and other things that have been talked about as going on behind the scenes struck me as believable – Poppy may have been mediocre but he was good at maintaining an image of capability by not doing much in any of his jobs. No risk, no failure.

  12. Darrell writes: “Failure is relative. I mean Bush is only a failure if you think that the intention was to give the country a good President.”

    LOL. That may be the funniest thing I’ve read this week.

    The fact remains, as Ginny said, that it wasn’t supposed to be Jr. to run in ’00, it was to be Jebby. But thanks to the citizens of Florida (again), they rejected him the first time in ’94, giving a leg up to the doltish older brother, and the rest, as they say, is ignominious history.