WESTERVILLE, Ohio - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama mocked his rival Hillary Clinton’s “vast foreign policy experience” on Sunday, saying her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq showed a lack of judgment on national security matters.
The Illinois senator’s sharp comments about Clinton marked an escalation of their fight over national security ahead of crucial nominating contests in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday.
“When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation — the decision to invade Iraq — Senator Clinton got it wrong,” Obama said at a campaign rally.
“I don’t know where all this experience got her,” he said.
Just a few hours earlier in the same Ohio city, which is near Columbus, the New York senator invoked an ad she launched on Friday aimed at raising questions about the ability of Obama, a first-term senator, to handle a major foreign policy crisis.
The ad depicts sleeping children as a narrator says: “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.”
At her own Westerville rally, Clinton said she wanted voters to think about the presidential race as “a hiring decision.”
She added, “When those calls come at 3 a.m. it might be a national security crisis, it could be an economic crisis.”
But Obama said Clinton has been portraying herself as someone who “supposedly has all this vast foreign policy experience.”
“We’re still waiting to hear Senator Clinton tell us what precise foreign policy experience” that she would cite “that would make her prepared to answer that phone call at three in the morning,” Obama said.
Clinton has said her years as first lady from 1992 to 2000 gave her a strong understanding of national security and experience dealing with world leaders.
While on the stump on Sunday, both Democrats — who are vying to challenge likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain — touted their endorsements.
Campaigning with Obama was Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who is chairman of the Senate intelligence committee.
Clinton was endorsed and accompanied by middleweight boxing champion Kelly “The Ghost” Pavlik, a native of Youngstown, Ohio.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
- Photo credit: Reuters/Jim Young (Obama speaks at a town hall meeting.)
Trackback
31 comments so far
Yeah, precisely - what experience does Hillary have to support her “claim of experience”?. Shaking hands with people on her travels? meeting heads of states and attending banquets? Granted, she got some pillow talk during the WH days, but she was neither a participant nor a decision maker. Just an onlooker perhaps? Many of us have lived and traveled to many more countries, and worked there too. Would that make us an experienced president?? It may contribute some to our readiness, but certainly NOT qualify us as president. Her misrepresentation is so totally untrue. So how can we even trust such a person? Experience does not trump judgement.
- Posted by mariannaI don’t think Hillary got it wrong. The info at the time was there was WMD. Obama was not in the senete to vote at the time. How do we know how he would have voted given the info of WMD. While as a senitor he hasn’t voted or fought for much of anything. Obama org. supporters are intimidating and threatening black superdelegates to switch their support to Obama.Obamas campain is using dirty tactics. Why isn’t he informing the public of the changes he is really going to make.I have read several articals of Obama being involved with DSA. If the changes he is going to make are socialism then he should inform the people so they came deceid if they want that kind of change. Why isn’t the media keeping the public informed.
- Posted by DoloresSo are choices are corporate welfare or social welfare. Great. I’d still rather have Obama than McCain. I’d actually prefer a real conservative like Ron Paul but I guess I’m just voting against McCain…
- Posted by DarrenThe fusion of the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine of cult leader Obama makes the Democratic nomination process similar to a stuffed ballot box in a banana republic.
Cult leader Obama says he’s the one that had judgement to resist the Iraq war. He wasn’t in the Senate, so it’s bogus for him to assert he resisted the Iraq war. If he were in the Senate, he would have voted like supporters John Kerry and John Rockefellar who for the war.
Hillary Clinton did not vote to go to war; her vote was misused by GWB, and cult leader Obama is lying about her to get votes from gullible minds. Cult leader Obama’s one speech in 2002 against war at an anti-war rally was his politics of the moment; in a later interview in 2004 with the Chicago Tribune he expressed support for the Bush Iraq war and he voted for funding of the war.
In continuing to use Iraq to attack Sen. Clinton, cult leader Obama is unpatriotic because he is attacking the military that is serving in Iraq and putting their lives on the line every day; he is attacking the innocent Americans who have lost their lives there, and he is attacking all of the patriot Americans who served there, many of whom were badly injured.
Obama cannot be commander in chief when he is attacking the military which is serving courageously in Iraq.
With the fusion of the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine, rational Democrats must support Hillary with frequent contributions for her to make a powerful stand against this fusion and fight against the lies about her.
Hillary Clinton is about the future of America; she is the qualified, experienced, visionary leader America needs to make change real and restore America to prosperous times, and she is the trusted commander in chief to restore our good standing in the world.
- Posted by crat3A Constitutional Law Professor, a Community Organizer on the south side of Chicago, a Civil Rights Attorney working on Death Penalty issues, a State Senator for 8 years, author of two best selling books, responsible for the most SWEEPING Ethics reform since Watergate (per the WSJ), and a couple of years as Senator at the federal level…
AND SHE CALLS HIM an EMPTY SUIT?
The GALL!
- Posted by CarlHillary got it wrong, the information they were given was speculative at best. Part of sound judgment is carefully looking at information, there wasn’t overwhelming evidence that Iraq was a threat yet she pushed the U.S. into an unnecessary war.
Obama is not intimidating and threatening black superdelegates, quit spreading inaccurate information. Obama got 80% or more of African-American votes, those voters are putting the pressure on their elected officers to support obama. You do blame them, shouldn’t their elected officers follow the will of their people?
Please go educate yourself before you post again. Obama has his policy on his website, there has been 20 debates about his policy and he mentions them in his speeches. It seems the problem is your ignorance….
- Posted by AfroBabyExactly, Marianna! What experience does Hillary actually have? She is a two time elected Senator based on her husband’s name recognition. She has about as much right to run for President on her experience as Suzy Wetlaufer, the third wife of Jack Welch, has to run for Chairman of GE!
- Posted by MrBillIf Senator Clinton’s argument is right, next president should be Laura Bush. And then Jenna bush as they all have valid experience in the white house dealing with foreign leaders and handling international crisis
- Posted by RoyWHAT experience can a President’s wife really have other than to redecorate the White House? Her ‘friendship’ with Vince Foster was such that when he ’supposedly’ killed himself, she was able to get certain people in the goverment to suspend a blocking rule and was able to strip Foster’s office files immediately. WHAT was she trying to hide? Plus her health care plan fell flat on it’s face just like her NEW one would do if she ever becomes president…GOD forbid !
- Posted by Arnold GreenDelores’ comment is absurd. Hillary absolutely got it wrong on Iraq in 2002. Yes, most intelligence agencies said there were WMD in Iraq. But, WMD was not really the point. Had Iraq had those weapons, what would it mean today? It would mean we would be facing an insurgency with WMD. The notion that destabilizing a ocuntry to disarm them is a false one. Obama recognized this. He foretold in 2002 of the Sunni-Shiite divide in that country and the potential for so many things to go wrong. Hillary Clinton bought into the war mongering, and in fact, took part in it. That is not the person I would want answering that phone at 3:00 am. I want the person who has the clear headedness to see beyond the political rhetoric and understand the situation in threee dimensions, not just the political dimension in which Senator Clinton resides.
- Posted by jonAmerica elected George Bush to the presidency. Mr. Bush’s basic education on foreign policy was done by the former Saudi Ambassador to the US.
In spite of this, Mr Bush has been able to destroy 40 years of decent American diplomacy in the World, destroy America’s image in the World, make it that NOW, TODAY, each word that comes out of US is scrutinized not only for bad grammar but for double talk.
Let’s give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt in terms of experience in… in politics. Where has she been that she can talk of experience in foreign policy?
I suppose that if one does not have experience in any given domain, (and one cannot be okay in all domains), he or she must find people who are good counsel and advisors, in this case, in foreign policy.
Because Mrs. Hillary Clinton has a brush off attitude reminescent of the Bush administration and because of her personality, I wonder whether she can find advisors (and keep them) to counsel her on America’s foreign policy.
So far I would feel more comfortable at 3am in the morning knowing that Barack Obama is in the White House making decisions a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton.
- Posted by JacquesOk, he says his judgement would not let him vote for the war. What about his judgement with Rezko. It does not look like he looked into the people he was dealing with very well.
- Posted by ron payneI find it very sad that Mrs. Clinton, by bitterly attacking front-runner Obama with unsubtantiated accusations, is providing ammunition to the republicans and weakening the chances of the Party to win in November. She is all about herself and HER solutions. He is about team work and consensus with allies. Let us pray that he prevails over her self-centered interests and the lobbyists in Washington. Enough lies!
- Posted by PedroSomebody that is close to Mrs. Clinton should advise her to step down for Barack Obama, I have being following the Campagne of both condidiates and discovered that Obama is a better condidiate than madam clinton. Obama has this charisma and aura to re-unite US with the rest of the World, When i hear clinton hammer on defending America i have this inner feelings that she will definitley set US against the world. What America needs now is somebody that can bring both Internal peace and external, sombody who can bring Americans (White Black Latino Asians etc together to build the Economy. I strongly believe that person is Obama.
Through out his Campagne you see both the young, old and races believing in themselves and America as a nation.
- Posted by Christhe kind of politics Madam Clinton is playing, is Known as do or die affair politics in My Country.For more Clarification on this Do or Die Affair Politics, Please Contact the Immidiate Past President of Nigeria (Chief Olusegun Obasanjo)
Hope America Wont go for that kind of Politics.
- Posted by ChrisProblem is, neither Obama or Hilary have a a high degree of foreign policy experience compared to John McCain. As much as I dislike John’s stance on the Iraq war, There’s no way that either Democratic candidate will do well in debating foreign policy with Senator McCain. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that Hilary can talk the talk since she’s been hanging around the White House for a few years and in the Senate longer than Obama. From the perspective of having good foreign policy judgement, I would trust Hilary over Obama since none of us could argue that she is an intellegent woman with some of the best credentials in politics.
- Posted by JacquesIf it’s all about experience, the best candidate would be… er… W!
- Posted by Chris DicksonHillary’s camp has admitted that they she did not even READ the pertinent documents herself before the senate vote, she just listened to a summary. This is like signing legal papers without reading the fine print. Information reported on NPR at the time made me question whether there were WMDs in Iraq, and I was not a US Senator with access to classified information.
- Posted by JesseWhat did her ‘experience’ do for the country in this case?
The Clintons tout MRS Clinton’s readiness to be commander-in-chied from day one so that Bill Clinton can return to the WH, despite the constitution’s forbidding another term for him. Hillary is a fearmonger and a proven warmonger, voting to place our nation in peril, leading to the deaths of thousands of American lives and to the economic ruin of our country. She voted for the war in Iraq solely so she can run for the most important office in our nation. Think of her using her tears, her sacarstic theatrics, her mean-spirited lies and smears as commander-in-chief and to push through a universal health care plan which she had miserably failed to do in 1992. Think of the Republicans’ ads showing Monica Lewinsky and Bill and cigars and more women coming out now with stories of his sexual assaults, etc, etc. Will the Clinton dynasty be electable? Do we citizens really want them back in the WH for an unconstitutional eight years? Is the Clinton machine going to continue to rule the Democratic Party, ushering in a generation of Republican ascendency and a new independent third party, and instructing the new voters under forty in cynicism and apathy? Turn the page, please, Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Save the nation, save the constitution, and save the party.
- Posted by shirlinThe info at the time was there was WMD??
the “info”or was it the misinfo? or was it the PROPAGANDA that hillary was all too willing to use as a PHONY justification for this newyork senator?
Now with a typical AMORAL career politician now so SHAMELESSLY touts as her vast foreign policy “experience”. This is THE BEST reason to completely reject her and dishonest and cynical business as usual.
- Posted by JohnI keep wondering why Hillary Clinton promised during the last debate that she would try to release her tax returns within the week, and then a day after the debate…her campaign announces that her taxes will not be released until April 15…
- Posted by kathleen t.Very suspicious, very fishy….
Why doesn’t the media create some pressure regarding this?
There is so much written about her lately about appearing on Sat. Night Live, the Jack Nicholson ad…etc ad nauseum
Let’s get real here!
What a crock. Hillary has a boatload of experience in making decisions based on political convenience. Her “red phone” ad should show Mark Penn in the back room conducting a poll at 3am.
- Posted by Linda WoodsWell said, Obama! We have been wondering what vast foreign policy experience the lady really has. I don’t recall anything that might put her over Obama apart from the fact that she is a two -term senate whereas he is a first-term one. But even that experince comes with qualification. It must have been sooooooo easy for her to become a senate, having been a brash first lady for 8 years preceding that, whereas Obama really had to earn that office. Mrs Clinton, there is no achievement in your senate office which you rode into on the back of your ex-president hubby. That was the least he could do after cheating on you for decades. In that respect you are no better than George Bush the junior. Shame on you!
- Posted by OctoberchildWell done! Bravo Obama! I am so sick of litsening to Hillary and her under-educated supporters singing about this non-existent, non-specific EXPERIENCE!! Well, she is an old woman so should have some life experience LIKE WE ALL DO but being the wife of a president does not qualify you as a politician in your own right. So your much touted experience started only when you became a senator with your hubby’s help. You have sunken very low on the 60 Minutes when you tried to instil the fear of Muslims in the minds of ordinary citizens. Hillary, are you sure you belong to the Dems ? Or maybe you got confused at the door and came to the wrong party.
- Posted by JunebugPlease publish my comment. Or is this a pro-Clinton page ?
- Posted by JunebugIt’s always interesting to see how some people misinterpret facts or regurgitate unfounded, campaign rhetoric to prove a point.
Actually, Senator Obama has been invovled in politics, since 1996. He was putting his prospects of a political career on the line by going against the grain and pleading for peace.
And before you go making claims, Dolores, you might want to actually take a look at his long voting record:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category .php?can_id=9490
Just because you say it isn’t so - doesn’t make it true. Yell, scream, blame the media, but facts are stubborn things.
- Posted by wolfReally. How dare Obama try to mock Hillary’s experience on dangerous diplomatic missions with Chelsea, Sinbad, and Sheryl Crow? Bwahahahhahahah.
- Posted by Mich IndieThe info at the time was that there was WMD? Are you still living in oblivion, have you missed the reality boat? Hillary Clinton didn’t even bother to read the NIE at the time (that’s National Intelligence Estimate, you know, informative stuff on things like threats, security, WMDs).
Trying to parlay the argument as to what Obama might have done is ridiculous. Maybe he would’ve could’ve blah, blah blah. Fact of the matter is that she did even when her supporters begged her not to do it. Own up to your mistakes and stop
apologizing for her.
Lincoln Chafee had these fine words on HIllary being duped:
“They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.” - Lincoln Chafee
- Posted by susannaNot all of 35 years of Hillary’s experience is good as it sounds;but what is important is some years of exprience with good judgement; and working with world leaders to gain peace and properity should be our national future goal in mending negative sentiments & hatred towards America. The good old washington folks with ties to the good old business as usual having the special interest groups managing our country domestic and foreign affairs should a thing of the past. Vote for Obama for change as he represents the future and fabic make up of America. We need to have the blue print and paint the future for our younger generation, not the good old establishment. Now our younger folks are coming out in thousands than ever before, and they are our future; and they will be the leaders of this country.
- Posted by Chareundi Van-SiOnly the 1984-type lies and propaganda of the Clintons could claim “momentum” when they have lost their more than 20% lead in Texas in the past few months, and have simply hung on to the lead they already had in Ohio. Again, the Clintons show that they way they “lead” is by tearing down the other candidates. If they are elected, we will have 4 more years of scandals, starting with Bill’s consulting fees, failure to show income tax returns, and the constant lying and double talk. I can’t see why the country would wish to return to this type of polarizing politics, since it leads nothing. Clinton will do more to unite Republications than anything else.
- Posted by EdwardI wonder if 8 years as first lady gives you foreign policy experience maybe I will vote for Barbara Bush or maybe for Bill’s girlfried’s. Is Monica now a foreign policy guru also. THE Clintons are one scandal after another and this country should be tired of it by now.
- Posted by az