How Hillary Lost Her Last Chance To Win The Primaries and Nomination

It was a classic gaffe that, if caught, would have turned last Tuesday's debate and maybe would have pushed Obama into a downward spiral from which he would never recover.

Obama had already dodged a tough one when Clinton jumped in to answer the question about Putin's successor.

Would Obama have known Medvedev's name? Could he have answered the question as well as Clinton did?

We will never know.

Clinton blew it by being the smartest in the class...by half. She jumped in to answer the jump ball question...and almost pronounced Medvedev's name correctly...but if she had waited...?

The hubris of being the best and the brightest. Such a gaffe by either Clinton or Obama would have ranked up there with the blooper heard round the world: Gerry Ford's blunder in saying that Eastern Europe was not dominated by the Soviet Union. That single moment defined Ford as being a stumbling blunderer. Jimmy Carter said later it was the reason he won the presidency in 1976.

But the real gaffe, which Clinton - and Williams and Russert - missed, was when Obama said,

"If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq...then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

There is certainly no IF ABOUT IT...al Qaeda is in Iraq!

If Hillary had caught that misstatement, and brought it up immediately, it could have turned the whole campaign. Forget the hypothetical.

It would have highlighted - fairly or unfairly - Obama's lack of experience and lack of foreign policy understanding. It would have exposed him as being just words. If you are Hillary, this is what you wait for. This is what her whole campaign has been about...The gods had answered her prayers.

But she missed it.

But did she miss the opportunity -- or was it missed for her? As Rachel Sklar wrote in her brilliant post,

Hillary tried to speak out, but Brian Williams - no media bias there - cut her off for a commercial that didn't have to happen then, as Sklar pointed out. (Transcript)

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but I have -- I just have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Senator, I've got to --

SEN. CLINTON: Now wait a minute, I have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I've got to get us to a break because television doesn't stop.

SEN. CLINTON: -- because the question -- the question was about invading -- invading -- Iraq.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can you hold that thought until we come back from a break?

When they come back from the break, William does not hold the thought, and neither does Hillary, and Williams goes straight to a question for Obama.

Clinton could have brought up the critical misstatement - if she had really seen it - at any time later in the debate........but she never does.

An interesting moment that never was!

In any campaign there are dozens of critical moments, but this one came just before the decisive Texas and Ohio primaries tomorrow, which are going to decide the whole shebang.

When Hillary didn't step in, McCain took up the gauntlet on the gaffe a few days later:

"I have some news...al Qaeda is in Iraq...that's why they call it al Qaeda in Iraq."

Obama countered that al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded...He is absolutely right, but it doesn't answer McCain's question of what to do with al Qaeda in Iraq now.

Maybe if we go away, they will go away.

[e-mail]

Comments

[Lisette]

"There is certainly no IF ABOUT IT...al Qaeda is in Iraq!"

They did not address this because it was one of that idiot Russert stupid ideas to ask hypothetical questions and Obama was answering hypothetically

God I hate when people get this stuff wrong and then go off on a tangent about it.
Like all those people who think Barack doesn't know how to salute the flag, when he taught Constitutional Law. None of you critics have half the intelligence of Obama.

[Christines]

Rezko goes to trial today!

What Did Obama Know? When Did He Know It?
Campaign Says WashPo Misrepresented What Obama Said He Knew About Accused Political Fixer Rezko

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Jan. 10, 2008"

After ABC News cited a December 2006 Washington Post story about Sen. Barack Obama's knowledge of legal problems faced by his friend Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Obama campaign complained that the Post story mischaracterized what Obama had told the Washington Post reporter.

The Post reported that "Obama said that he was unaware of Rezko's brewing troubles in 2005," at the time Obama called Rezko about a real estate deal. Washington Post assistant managing editor Bill Hamilton told ABC News it stood by its reporter's story.

"Our story was accurate and the Obama campaign never raised any questions before," he said.

Obama's knowledge of the extent of the investigation of Rezko, now under federal indictment, is important because it raises questions about his judgment in approaching a man who was under federal investigation.

The Post reported that Obama said he "should have seen some red flags" Here is the full transcript of what Obama said to the Post, as provided by the Obama campaign:

Peter Slevin, Washington Post reporter: You must have been aware he was under investigation, no?

Barack Obama: Well, I'll be honest with you. I've known him for 20 years -- well, let me make sure I'm not exaggerating here, 1991, so, 15 years, I've known him for 15 years. He had never asked me to do anything, had never behaved in any untoward way with me. And, the, you know, I wasn't particularly knowledgeable about these various issues that he was involved with, but as I've said before, there's no doubt that I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him. Again, my focus was just making sure that the purchase itself met ethical guidelines, but there's no doubt that the optics of it I think  partly  well, no, I'll just stick to that, there's no doubt I should have been more attuned to it.

Slevin: Did you know that he was having trouble then, what was in the newspapers?

Obama: Well, the way -- I was aware of what was in the newspapers, but I certainly was not aware of the serious charges that have subsequently been brought. I had no idea that those kinds of issues would be raised.

Obama also told the Washington Post and other reporters that while his contact with Rezko had been entirely legal, he made "a bone-head mistake" to approach Rezko about a personal business deal because it could appear to be improper.

[JB2]

"There is certainly no IF ABOUT IT...al Qaeda is in Iraq!"

I disagree. Your assertion is a neo-con talking point that obscures the reality in Iraq.

There is only the vaguest association between the group founded by Osama Bin Laden in the 90's and the group that arose as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Certainly, there has never been any sort of operational relationship.

It's as if some medium-level rackateers in Phoenix wanted to share some of the glamor associated with the old-school Cosa Nostra and decided to call themselves the "Gambino Crime Family". That wouldn't make them the Gambinos. As Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

[BitJam]

Since you obviously didn't watch the entire Cleveland debate, here is a link to a transcript:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

In it, you will find the actual question that Obama was answering regarding al Qaeda bases in Iraq:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is clear that the hypothetical situation Russert presented was where al Qaeda resurges in Iraq AFTER WE LEFT. It was part of the question. Therefore, I can only conclude that you either didn't listen to the entire debate or you are deliberately twisting and distorting the truth by pretending that the hypothetical POSED IN THE QUESTION somehow reflects poorly on Obama's judgment.

[jeffmorgan]

There is a distinction between what Bush calls "al'Qaeda-in-Iraq" or people "affiliated with" al'Qaeda, and actual al'Qaeda. Also Hillary really can't criticize because she makes the same provisional commitment to target al'Qaeda.

Also you have to distinguish between going on as is so long as there is al'Qaeda, and only maintaining strike capability in the region.

[Lon]

Actually given that al qaeda in Iraq has no natural contituency in Iraq, and that their main source of popular appeal is that they are fighting us, it is not as unreasonable as you suggest that that if we left they might just go away.

Al qaeda in Iraq is a group who fights us in Iraq with some loose seal of approval of the actual al qaeda in Pakistan (and probably sometimes across the border in Afghanistan). This idea that we should stay in Iraq to fight a group that is only there because we are there is silly. Obama's problem from a policy perspective is that he has not gone far enough in getting us out of the quagmire in Iraq. But he is certainly better than Clinton and McCain on this point.

[timm0]

Doubt it very much. The group called "al Qaeda is in Iraq" has been debunked in the past as having only a namesake relationship with bin laden. Namesake is not evidence of an actual connection. If I named my flag football team the Raiders, would that make me Al Davis's protege?

Had Obama been better, he'd have noted that point within his answer - or at least calling into question the unresolved issue of any relationship vs. the probability that the group is just a militia of foreign insurgents who picked a name that they thought would get them more news coverage. It's called "plausible deniability" and Obama could have used that explanation to duck this overblown 'knockout blow' of which you speak.

The portions of debates that I've been able to stomach featured HRC frequently talking over other people. So stop whining for her when she gets interrupted by a moderator. Live by the sword, die by the sword... she can't claim the moral high ground on that.

[doxyluv13]

What's your expertise? You're simply wrong about the al Qaeda question. Al Qaeda in Irag and al Quaeda are separate organizations albeit with some of the same goals. Every serious student of the war knows that, including Barak Obama.

If Hillary had tried to jump on this in the debate, Obama would have simply explained the difference, leaving her looking dumb and desperate like her other attempts to land a knock-out blow in the debates. She was right no to. It also seems she understood the distinction Obama was making better than Blake Fleetwood did.

If you want to know more, check this wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda_in_iraq

[LeeScho]

First, both you and Hillary and John McCain must honestly believe that Barack Obama does not know that Al Qaeda is in Iraq. To believe that, you must also believe that he is an idiot. To believe that he is an idiot leaves you explaining why an idiot has done so well against Hillary and polls so well against John McCain.

Now, can any of you tell the American people and General Petraeus exactly where the Al Qaeda base is in Iraq?

You and John McCain are being disingenuous. Barack was clearly dealing with a hypothetical, speaking about a situation after American military forces have been removed from Iraq. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, but there is no Al Qaeda base in Iraq, no physical, tangible area where they are fixed and located. If such does exist, then the American forces have failed in a vital mission to eradicate it.

This propensity of yours to play fast and loose with the facts and the truth to support your candidate has become more than annoying, it has become shameful.

[grendl]

I agree entirely. This selective parsing is getting a bit annoying.

If Al Qaeda has an actual "base" in Iraq, no one knows where it is, or it would be bombed to smithereens. If he mean base, as in a general base of operations, with no clear cut locations defined by physical borders, he should be allowed to clarify that statement.

Its a non-issue to me. Barack Obama knows full well Al Qaeda is in Iraq stirring up trouble. To insinuate he doesn't is ridiculous, but his enemies will do whatever they can to undermine him at this juncture.

This is part of what he means by the need to change I hope. Picking apart everything a person says, not paying attention to the intent of an answer, but the precise wording. Words matter, but if thats the case, why Mr. Fleetwood don't you try to pinpoint precisely what he meant by "base"?

BTW weren't there like 3 Blake Fleetwoods on the Mayflower?

[Dap]

Yeah, like the Shite Iraqi government will allow Al Qaeda (Sunni) to run amok.

[joja]

Mr. F --

I canNOT believe you interpreted Obama's remarks the way you apparently do(did). He was speculating on a future scenario AFTER we have withdrawn our troops from Iraq, not the present situation as it exists.

If you had been paying closer attention, you would have been able to follow his logic -- which made perfect sense.

Hillary and Ms. Sklar (and yourself) were not, and instead were looking for any opportunity to pounce on his position -- on ANYTHING.

What Sen. Obama was suggesting, was a circumstance where American interests might be threatened by an Al-Queda insurgency -- our embassy, for instance -- and a force might be needed to back up security personnel there.

This is probably what is already in place for similar contingencies around the world, but the Clintonistas out there want to fan the flames of a non-existent fire -- as usual.