Obama Casts Race Between Him, McCain

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

DEVLIN BARRETT | April 1, 2008 06:42 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., walks to the stage to speak at a town hall meeting at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Tuesday, April 1, 2008. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — Sen. Barack Obama is talking about the elephant in the room _ Republican rival John McCain _ and all but ignoring the Democrat who stands between him and his party's presidential nomination.

Even though Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was campaigning miles down the Northeast Extension in Philadelphia, Obama criticized the likely Republican nominee's policies on the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, trade and tax cuts. In his town-hall session Tuesday, and in other campaign appearances in recent days, Obama has sought to frame the race as a general election matchup between him and McCain.

Of course, there's the little matter of a Pennsylvania primary on April 22, and Clinton's double-digit lead in recent state polls.

The extended presidential nomination contest has resulted in an odd political triangle, with each candidate taking alternate turns criticizing one or both of their competitors.

"He's on a biography tour right now," Obama said of McCain. "Most of us know his biography, and it's worthy of our admiration. My argument with John McCain is not with his biography, it's with his policies."

Obama argued that McCain would merely be another four years of President Bush on economic and military policies. McCain has criticized Obama as being inexperienced on national security, and the Illinois senator answered back.

"Meanwhile Senator McCain has been saying I don't understand national security, but he's the one who wants to keep tens of thousands of United States troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years," Obama said.

The McCain and Obama camps have been feuding for days over remarks McCain recently made when he said the U.S. could end up having a long-term military presence in Iraq, similar to the more than 50-year presence of U.S. soldiers in Germany and South Korea.

"One hundred years in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 may make sense to George Bush and John McCain but it is the wrong thing to do. It is not right for our national security. It is not right for our economy," Obama said to applause at a town hall.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said that given the long history of peacetime U.S. bases overseas, Obama's remarks show his "complete lack of preparedness to be commander in chief."

"His attempt to paint McCain's position as something else is nothing but the disingenuous, old-style politics that he claims to reject," Bounds said.

Though the primary contest has heightened tensions among Democrats fearful it will hurt their chances of winning the general election in November, Obama told the crowd not to worry.

"I don't buy this whole thing that people are super-divided," he said in response to a question. "We are going to come together and focus on the fact that John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq, I want to end it, John McCain wants to continue George Bush's economic policies."

Later in the day, he traveled to Scranton, where he brought another town hall crowd to its feet in asserting he had the best judgment to guide foreign policy, referencing Clinton's television ad about an emergency early morning phone call.

"When you ask yourself who you want answering that 3 o'clock phone call ... ask yourself: Of the three remaining candidates, who has the judgment to understand what will be a bad decision? Who has the judgment to ask the tough questions? Who's going to keep America on the right track? That's the person you want on that phone call at three in the morning," he said, to rousing applause.

In an interview with Pittsburgh radio station KDKA-AM, Obama was questioned about Clinton's claims that she faced sniper fire on a visit to Bosnia as first lady. She later said she made a mistake.

"I think we all get tired and we all sometimes make mistakes on the campaign trail. I think that the larger issue has been, you know, Senator Clinton's suggestion that she has this vast foreign policy experience that somehow makes her more qualified to be commander in chief than me," he said. "I think that I've had better judgment over the last five years and better equipped to actually deal with the problems that we're actually going to face in the years to come."

For all his complaints about McCain, Obama also talked tough on international trade issues _ a sensitive subject in a state with plenty of blue-collar Democratic votes to be won.

An Iraq war veteran at the town hall asked the senator's opinion of a recent decision by the Pentagon to award a a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to a consortium led by Airbus, located in Europe, over a bid led by U.S.-based Boeing.

Obama said he had concerns about the deal but an investigation was warranted to find out more.

"I don't mind the Pentagon procuring from other countries but when you've got such an enormous contract for such a vital piece of our U.S. military arsenal, it strikes me that we should have identified a U.S. company that could do it," he said, though he added that he might conclude the decision was justified if it turns out Airbus' bid was 10-15 percent better than Boeing's.

McCain has faced questions about the contract because some of his current advisers lobbied last year for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the parent company of plane maker Airbus. EADS and its U.S. partner Northrop Grumman Corp. beat Boeing Co. for the lucrative aerial refueling contract.

McCain has said his inquiries into the contract were designed to ensure evenhanded bidding and denied they were motivated by lobbyists who are close advisers to his presidential campaign.


 
 

Comments
959
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

Building a coalition, McCain has given no hint of his thinking on a running mate, although he frequently speaks warmly of his former rivals for the nomination, particularly former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Tick, tick, tick ... what's it going to be Barack?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:03 AM on 04/02/2008

I think they recycle Romney? that should make Hillary feel at home in the race. Someone she shares values with, and health care plans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 04/02/2008

The ad Republicans will run against Clinton will consist of a compendium on her ever-evolving position on Iraq.

Just her own statements, with a date beneath.

You can do it yourself. Start with her impassioned speech when she voted to invade. Go next to her comments when Saddam was captured. Go next to her stump speeches in Iowa, and her initial position at the debates.

After the loss in Iowa, go next to her revised position, and then to the further revisions.

There's video.

It's devastating, and it's what McCain will do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 AM on 04/02/2008

Kay,
I went through this last night with one of her supporters, who posted quotes from her war vote speech.
They pointed to her references that this authorization should be used to allow the inspectors to resume and disarm Iraq peacefully, that she didn't know at the time that Bush was intending to actually launch a war.
Funny I recall that vote? CNN cut away from normal newcast to cover it live, everyone understood the import of that vote.
But as you may have noticed in the debates, she is a pro at speaking out of both sides of her mouth. she likes to leave herself an out in her answers,nothing you can pin her down to.....always a trap door....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 04/02/2008

This is why it's important to look at her voting record, not her campaign rhetoric. She has no qualms about saying anything if she thinks it will gain traction in the polls.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 AM on 04/02/2008

I'm counting the jobs she's promising.

3 million yesterday, in Pennsylvania alone. I don't know what she promised in Indiana.

Of course, she promised 200k in NY when she was running for Senate, and NY then had a net loss.....

If Bill Clinton did in fact create 22 million over 8 years, and Hillary Clinton continues to promise several million in each state she visits, we're (conservatively) up to 50 million.

Which, of course, is nonsense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 04/02/2008

She'll say anything, and sadly voters who are desparate will be taken in. And wait until the fall, when the Republicans can run the "General of Bosnia" ad.....film of the actual landing, and her voice over. It will be a ridicule fest, and the underlining truth of it will be factual.

Her and Romney share distrubing character traits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 AM on 04/02/2008

Rumor is that today Lee Hamilton will endorse Barack - this is huge for Indiana!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 AM on 04/02/2008

The past Rasmussen poll of which I heard has Clinton ahead by only 5% in PA. No longer double digits.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 AM on 04/02/2008

To be fair, either PPP or SUSA has him down 12% in PA. However this is after he gained 7% from last week. Either one you look at though shows that is is very quickly gaining ground.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 AM on 04/02/2008

Who is really better candidate clearly depends upon who can win 270 out of 538 electoral votes needed in the general election. Let do the math. Since FL & MI are not counted (although Clinton won both states with 44 electoral votes), revised electoral votes needed-to-win in this example would be 247 out of 494 electoral votes in the general election.

Obama won (will win also included) the following states with 241 electoral votes:

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Clinton won (will win also included) the following states with 253 electoral votes:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia.

Senator Hillary Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator John McCain in the general election.

If nominee is other than Senator Clinton, there is no need to wonder why once again democrats have lost 8 out 10 elections in last 40 years. Democrats are guilty of picking wrong horse for the general election race every four years.

Pick Obama and join LOSER'S CLUB with Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Carter (80), Mondale (84), Dukakis (88), Gore (2000) Kerry (04) and Obama (2008).

Pick Clinton and join EXCLUSIVE WINNERS CLUB members with Carter (76), Clinton (92,96) and Clinton (2008, 2012),

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 AM on 04/02/2008

To equate the primaries with the general election is typical Clinton spin.
Obama will run rings around McCain.
McCain hasn't picked a VP yet, Hillary seems to keeping that option open - to campaign for McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 04/02/2008

You think California or New York is going to vote Republican? New Mexico was less then .1% difference between Clinton and Obama...you think New Mexoco will go Repub? Just because Hillary won those states, many very close...you think they are going to go McCain? No...And if Clinton was not working againt a fellow Dem and for the Repub, and if she had not made kissy kissy with Richard Mellon-Scaife, getting support from him. The man who is the father of the Right wing and donated 1.8 million to throw Bill down.

Hillary stood by her man, because she knew that was the way to get where she is at now...but she is meeting up with the man that wanted her husband impeached and imprisoned. Who backed the Slime Boaters againsto Kerry...that wants to see the end of the Democratoc party . But Hillary will meet up with him and his far right paper. Beware of Hillary...she will sell out to anyone that will get her the oval office. She has the morals of a two bit hooker.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 AM on 04/02/2008

YeWe --
One startling sentence in your rather skewed analysis jumps out, "Democrats are guilty of picking wrong horse...".

Guess what? In 2008, Hillary Clinton is the wrong horse. The vision of Hill racing across the tarmac dodging sniper fire (in her dreams) and the spectre of Impeachment and bimbo watches (in reality) will trump any combination of numbers you and the GOP throw out.

No one, unless they are slaves to some misguided loyalty, deserves a another blatant liar in the White House.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 04/02/2008

Please stop suggesting that HRC won Michigan - this is just another Clinton falsehood as Obama was not even on the ballot. The fact that she agreed to the rules regarding Michigan and Florida before the primaries and has since tried to claim them both as victories is about as ludicrous as her dodging sniper fire in Bosnia story.

It"s also disingenuous to believe that the Democratic candidate, whomever it may be, is going to lose states like California and New York in the general election.

HRC has lost the nomination " it"s time to move on and put our efforts behind burying McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:21 AM on 04/02/2008

You must be kidding. Here you are repeating Clinton's fuzzy math. You think that only Clinton can win states for the democrats. That is her and your wishful thinking. If you have to do all this math just to convince yourself that Clinton can win, then why isn't she winning NOW. What does it say about Clinton that she cannot win in her own party, let along against the Republicans. Let me remind you that all these NEW people coming into the Democratic because of Obama - NOT Clinton. Let's be clear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 AM on 04/02/2008

It's clear to anyone who's paying attention that the Repubs would prefer Obama against McCain. All the candidates are flawed; they all have deficits. But Obama's deficits are bigger than the other two. This campaign hasn't even started to get nasty yet. And you can bet that there's dirt on Obama that the Republicans won't trot out until the GE if he's nominated. With Clinton, the dirt's already out in the open, which is why the Repubs don't want to face her in Nov. They, along with the Obama camp, have dished all the dirt there is to find and she's now a known quantity. And too many people are sick of Republicans and want to vote Democratic. Of course, this doesn't apply to hard core Dems, but to other voters, who can get a feel for the gritty reality of Clinton, while Obama still seems too slick

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:37 AM on 04/02/2008

Obama has traits I've noticed that are similar to someone we know well:

Arrogance like George Bush

Swagger like George Bush

Dismissive like George Bush

Evasive like George Bush

Misleading like George Bush

Knows too little like George Bush

Relies on Washington Insiders for support like George Bush

Politician like George Bush

Divider not a Uniter like George Bush

I may not agree with McCain on some issues but he is a real person who doesn't double-speak. If Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for Senator McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 AM on 04/02/2008

What tripe. Not a single fact in your post.
What is really funny, is that I suspect if you could find some objective people, the vast majpority would attribute those traits to Hillary, not Obama - Arrogance? Evasive? Dismissive? Divider? ....

You left out a big one. Hillary continues to defend her vote for the Iraq war. Bush also doesn't admit when he's wrong.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 AM on 04/02/2008

alwayslearning --

Maybe McCain's got to have somebody like Fightin' Joe Lieberman whispering in his ear to make sure he gets his words out in the right order. That is, McCain can no more engage in "straight talk" than Robin Williams on valium; and teleprompters don't insure good presidential policy.

Your other listed attributes in reality describe Billary; guess "you misspoke..."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 AM on 04/02/2008

You would rather have a lying self-serving arrogant, mean woman in the White House. We get it. You are the reason we keep getting these windbags in office. When we get the chance to change politics as usualy, many of you let you brains turn to mush and you start drinking the Kool Aid. Use your brains for a change and stop falling for the crap Hillary is sprewing. BTW - what ever happened to her experience and Ready to be Commander and Chief Day one? They pretty much negated all of that in the White House papers. No Clnton has been reduced to insulting Obama she has no arguments anymore. HE is the one talking issues, she is crying and whinning!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 AM on 04/02/2008

Alwayslearning? Apparently you haven't learned much after the last 20 years of Bush-Clinton Bush. Do you really want another 8 years of Clinton? And if that's the case, will you be ready for Jeb to replace her. Potentially 36 years of the same two families in the White House. That's not a democracy.

Obama or McCain would be a better choice than Clinton. But you may want to take another look at Obama with more objectivity. He hasn't been in Washington long enough to rely on significant insider support. It is his momentum that's gathering support. McCain on the other hand is up to his eyeballs in special interests who would dictate his administrations policy with much more influence than the people who vote for him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 AM on 04/02/2008

It wouldn't hurt Clinton to do the same thing. I know a lot of people see her campaign as very negative, but they're mostly hard core Obama supporters. Those of who aren't Dems or Republicans have the perception that Obama's just as negative. But when he says he's going to focus on McCain, he really does put himself above the fray. If Clinton would do the same, it make her look a lot better. It would also give us a chance to see how both candidates would stack up against McCain in Nov.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:15 AM on 04/02/2008

age of fight of whether age really matter

www.FreshExams.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:15 AM on 04/02/2008

You show that war monger who's boss!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 AM on 04/02/2008

Go Obama!

Attack McCain, that's the way to win.

Hillary, show us how good you are a smearing McCain...

But you actually like McCain better then Obama, don't you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 04/02/2008

Great quote from blogger on DailyKOS

"Blue Texan, who regularly blogs at firedoglake, pointed out:

Someone who favorably compares Iraq -- three religiously and culturally distinct countries crammed into one by British after World War I -- with the ethnically, culturally and largely religiously united societies of Germany and Japan, displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Someone who favorably compares the United States' peaceful occupation of Germany and Japan, neither of which were resulting in American casualties 5 years after our arrival, displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Someone who asserts that occupying Iraq for 100 years is the solution to "radical Islamic extremism" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history."

McCain has already failed the Commander-in-Chief threshold test with his 100 years in Iraq statement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 AM on 04/02/2008

I think this is a great move. Obama shouldn't take the nomination for granted but he also cannot let Mccain go unchallenged and allow Mccain's positive approval ratings keep going up. The traitorous Clintons seem to be campaigning on behalf of Mccain as much as for themselves, so some Democrat needs to step up and keep the republican nominee in check.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 AM on 04/02/2008

What's really interesting is that Obama supporters and Republicans get it while Hillary supporters do not. Obama will be the Democratic nominee barring an unforeseen disaster like Obama is an alien or something. Every right wing attack machine like the WSJ, NYP, Washington Times, NRO, Weekly Standard and Faux News have started an all out assault on Obama. Go to RCP.com and it is quite plane to see. If they know this race is over why doesn't Hillary supporters?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 AM on 04/02/2008

Hill supporters are being manipulated by the Repub media and machine. It's something they need to face. I think many of them here are not truly Deomocrats, BTW. Some of the Clinton-or-die folks show an inability to let go of defending the Clintons for so many years, some are the subject that must not be discussed, and many are "project oxycontin fatboy" plants.

If the shoe were truly on the other foot vis-a-vis hill and barack, I would be supporting hill vs. McBomb right now. But that isn't the way it went. Time to grow as a nation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 AM on 04/02/2008

The right-wing corporate media is pushing Hillary because they feel she is the MOST vulnerable candidate for them to run against.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 AM on 04/02/2008

Your right of course and Hillary should keep on attacking McCain like she did today as well. At this point if she attacks McCain as well she will seem more magnanimous to Democratic voters. I think she has faced the fact that the kitchen sink blew back on her in the long run. Her campaign will continue to go negative behind the scene but that's not winning her any friends or more importantly super delegates. She will probably go negative again against Obama right before the PA primary but who really listens to her at this point?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 AM on 04/02/2008

What are Obama's credentials for Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world?

Community organizer? Glad hand? Hail fellow-well-met?

What a joke! When the f--ckin BOOT FALLS I don't want a Harvard paper editor deciding what's going to happen next!

Obama is NOT ready for the job, except in the photo-ops.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 AM on 04/02/2008

It's not what experience he has, its the experience he doesn't have. He's not trigger happy and so familiar with the whole aura of war that he'll start one on a dime. He's diplomatic and international and charismatic. He'll deter enemies with reason, as most "Harvard paper editors" are extremely argument and logic driven and some of the most formidable scholars in the world. He doesn't have a messy, competitive relationship with a father or husband who was a former president that he'll ruin to world to one-up or impress. And he's not a former prisoner of war who thinks that anybody who wasn't shouldn't complain about a war no matter how many young men and women die or who long it lasts or how much money it costs or how much it sours our reputation.You're right, he doesn't have Bush's or Clinton's or McCain's experience -- thank God!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 AM on 04/02/2008

What were Bill Clinton's? Ronald Reagan's? Jimmy Carter's?

The fact is, the most credentialed person on earth to be Commander in Chief is George W. Bush. I haven't noticed him getting any better over time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 AM on 04/02/2008

What are Hillary's and McBombs credentials? That they have been and are a portion of the government that has brought us to our present morass? How DARE they ask for our vote after they sat there for 7+ years collecting their paychecks and all those perks of being in our employ and allowed the obcenity that is the Bush cabal to loot the treasury, pervert our constitution, ruin our army, destroy our reputation, invade a sovereign country on false premises, spy on us, ignore our infrastructure, auction off our resources, politicize our justice department and generally wreak havok on the futures of every one of us AND the Iraqi people. That they are political carpetbaggers who need to feather their own nests with the left over spoils of Bush's war because they need there own retreats in South America and the obscene wealth it will take to escape like rats from the sinking ship of the country they pilla