ABC: Obama Subtly Takes On Clinton

Obama Subtly Takes On Clinton
Barack Obama's Campaign Increasingly Engages Hillary Clinton

By TAHMAN BRADLEY
July 5, 2007

It was only a matter of time before Sen. Barack Obama, who presents himself as an anti-establishment, outsider candidate, would clash with his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is widely viewed as the epitome of the Washington guard.

"Change can't just be a slogan," Obama said, stumping in Iowa, in an apparent swipe at the New York senator's relatively new campaign slogan "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead."


"The only person who would probably be prepared to be our president on Day One would be Bill Clinton -- not Hillary Clinton," Barack Obama said last month. (AP)


"Change has to be something that is demonstrated day to day on an ongoing basis, and I think that my career and my campaign has demonstrated that," Obama later added at a news conference.

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination began in earnest without any major brushes between the leading candidates. But with Labor Day -- traditionally the beginning of the most intense period for a nomination fight -- fast approaching, Obama's campaign seems to be subtly but deliberately trying to step up its public engagement with Clinton.

Seeking to use his limited experience in national politics as an asset, Obama has been arguing that he represents the future of politics and that Clinton is part of the past.

After praising former President Bill Clinton, Obama told The Associated Press, "What we're more interested in is in looking forward, not looking backward. I think the American people feel the same way."

FULL story at link.

She is the inside washington candidate. But, this week she wanted to be the change candidate though everyone knows this is not the case. She is not an outsider.

Right in the bloody heart of the old money establishment, wasn't he?

You are comparing apples and oranges and don't seem to realize it. What change is it that you have in mind? New faces or new policies? If you want to criticize Hillary's policies as being old hat or more of the same, get your links and facts and DO IT.

But saying that you've seen her face before is hardly an adequate or reasonable response.

Unless, of course, you can't win an argument on policy. Can you?

And also since insiders picked the nominee again, it isn't a really good comparison.

Over the past 14 years, Clinton has had much exposure to the different challenges of the National Political and International Political Climate. Eight of these years were spent watching in the White House - the centerpiece of Political Affairs in the Free World - and more than six of them were spent addressing affairs in the Senate.

Knowledge on this level would indicate that Clinton not only knows the challenges that the Country faces, but would also have knowledge on how to get things done. Come 2008, Obama will be able to brag of four years of exposure - which, even if those white house years amount to nothing - will approximately add up to half of Clinton's.

I know some would like to dismiss her as being a crony person, but the prospect of a naive politician worries me even more, because he will likely be crushed by the challenges that will undoubtedly face the next president thanks to Bush.
Sorry, had to correct some numbers I listed... call it friday night exhaustion :)

Enjoy yourself in our crazy, addictive little Village!

:hi:

There is a reason he cannot point to any policy differences with HRC. HRC and BO are like Pepsi and Coke.

~~~

~ ~ ~

:applause:

Swiftboat and bash Hillary. I knew it would happen.

with a gut-wretching vengeance, will come from "the republicans" if/when HRC wins the Democratic Nomination.

Buckle yourself in because if you consider this mild-mannered thread "swiftboating" ... you ain't seen nothing yet. :shrug:

Lift your threshold a bit.

The problem is that we are in an extremely weird situation with teh spouse of a former President running. It is rare (or possibly unheard of) for a canddiate to critisize a former President. However, Hillary is (rightfully) running partially on what she and her husband did in the 1990s. This forces address the Clinton years in less than a worshipful fashion.

Just as it was fair for Dean to question Kerry's record, or Gephardt to question Dean's, it is fair for Edwards and Obama to question Hillary's. This means questioning Bill Clinton's record because that is part of what Hillary is running on.

The closest precedent is when VPs have a challange. In 2000, Bill Bradley criticized what the Clinton/Gore did in the primaries. Gore, distanced himself on some aspects of the Clinton administration. Most people felt that Gore deserved the nomination, but no one I know questioned Bradley's right to challange. A closer parallel was in 1984, when Mondale who had been Carter's VP ran. He was routinely attacked for Carter's policies in the primary. Had Hart not been taken down by the Donna Rice issue, he likely would have won the nomination. Mondale had less reason to connect himself to Carter as Carter did not have Clinton's popularity. It is interesting that if Gore ran now, he would NOT run based on the Clinton years.

but I couldn't find it in the OP? :shrug:

I kind of agree with Obama, really. I don't think any one of the "top three" is all that experienced - being First Lady isn't really experience IMO, although Hillary does have Bill. I don't understand why her "experience" is always being touted - Obama has quite a history himself, although not at a national level.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3349959&page=1

WTF... It's still 8 weeks away...

Jesus H. Christ...

Before you know it it will be 2024...