I don't see him eating into support for either Edwards or Clinton on this issue.

Anyone who follows politics closely enough to vote in a primary or caucus already knows that Obama was against the war, and the other candidates who were in the Senate voted for it.

Anyone who was going to make up his or her mind on that issue alone would already be for Obama or Kucinich.

I understand the idea behind the strategy, but I think that it will have diminishing returns as the campaign goes on. A lot of voters themselves supported the war at the beginning and have since changed their minds about it.

How about changing your domain name to obamadd.com or more aptly anybodybuthillary.com The front page posts just look like an extension of his campaign blogs. Why pretend a fake neutrality in the primary? People can see through it.

I keep hearing about how unpopular Obama's anti-war stance was when he took it ... and then hearing the exact opposite: that among the voters that mattered to him, that stance was entirely popular.

Which was it?

....MyDD policy, at least, I haven't seen it.

Eh, it's probably more that Obama uses his language to stab Progressives in the back on a fairly regular basis and never uses language that says he's "one of us." If the guy's message is "you're too extreme" why would I support him?

I think his early opposition to the war is worth repeating, if for no reason than to boost his credibility with those who think he's an empty suit. It is also worth reminding voters that he was advocating for the public to put pressure on Republican senators to vote for withdrawl, and now several of those Republicans have come out against the war.

Yeah his ace in the hole is looking at the past to the vote while his candidacy is about the future,its a tough slog.I agree with the previous poster,I don't think he will attract more voters because people already know.

The one who opposed the war in 2002 or the one who voted for funding all the time until May and voted against Kerry-Feingold in June 2006?

Or which one here:

Interview with David Gregory

Aired July 11, 2007

Gregory: "So Hillary Clinton and your other opponents who voted to authorize this war, were they guilty of bad judgment that cannot be done over?"

Obama: "I absolutely think that they made the wrong call. And I think that that is not so much a concern for the voters right now, what they've done in the past. I do think that it speaks to where they can go in the future."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/07/ sweet_blog_extra_obama_says_me.html

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate

Aired June 3, 2007

BLITZER: Senator Obama, you didn't think the war was the right thing to do, even though you weren't in the U.S. Senate. You didn't have access to any intelligence information at the time. Do you think someone who authorized the use of force to go to war in Iraq should be president of the United States?

OBAMA: I don't think it's a disqualifier. I think that people were making their best judgments at the time.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0 706/03/se.01.html

I don't believe the frontpager is particularly pro-Obama. They just do whatever they believe can advance their own agenda.

When Edwards hits on some ultra-liberal talking points, they prop him up; when Obama talks up anti-war stuff, they come to his rescue.

Anything is about strategy. Liberal blogs are also in crisis mode, they need a good vehicle to advance their agenda.

Edwards supporters, don't be surprised if they abandon Edwards ship in the very near future when Obama swings more to the left and Edwards continues to be mired in low teens. Everybody wants a winner.

every time he mentions he was against the war, people are going to come back with well what have you done since?

Since he's been in the Senate, his record on the war has been certainly less than stellar and hasn't matched his rhetoric before joining the Senate.

Before joining he called for Congress to cut off funding. After joining he promptly voted for voted for funding every single time except this very last, where he voted at this last minute and wouldnt answer any questions at all before the vote. And certainly didn't push others to vote a certain way like Dodd did, as well as Edwards. Hardly real leadership against the war for Obama

He voted against Kerry/Feingold (which would have already ended the war by now...), voted for the Gregg amendment, promising not to cut off funding, was against cutting any funding at all for the surge before it happened. And the one bill he put forward calling for withdrawal was a weak toothless bill that was submitted only after he announced his campaign for president in 2007.

So all in all, its a risky strategy. He's trying to get as much as he can out of that 2002 speech but just about everyone already knows about that. People are going to start asking him a lot of questions about "well what then?" and doesn't seem like he has a very good answer. And there are going to be a lot more tough votes ahead.

He might have had a huge advantage on this issue at one point, but through apparent indecisiveness and lack of leadership, that edge is mostly gone. If he is going to talk about leadership in 2002, its more than fair game to talk about his lack of leadership in 2007.

It's a good thing you don't work for the Obama campaign!! Everything you said is dead on but Obama isn't a confrontational guy, he likes the bipartisanship theme.

Simply because it's at the core of his argument against Hillary's perceived "experience".   Basically his answer is..."judgment" is more important.

I don't think it's overused here...we only get tired of hearing about it because we're all political junkies.

that Obama recently tiptoed into the Senate chamber to vote against funding, finally, with no bold proclamations.  Remember how we were all in suspense as to what he would even do?

Until then, he was against Kerry-Feingold and for Gregg, claiming it was an issue of protecting the troops.  Even Feingold claimed that was a deceit.  The situation in Iraq was not substantially different in 2006 and early 2007 when he was unwilling to shout out.

Edwards has been speaking out since 2005, when he, then Murtha, made the calls that started this ball rolling in earnest.  That call by Edwards, according to Obama himself days later, when he was not acting partisan, was a sign of leadership.

I therefore take the Obama swipe at his opponents with a large grain of salt.

Yesterday, regarding Al Queda's resumption of full strength, Edwards said this:

   "Today's report that Al Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level unseen since just before 9/11 is an unsettling reminder of the failures of President's Bush's 'War on Terror' doctrine. Months ago, John Edwards stepped up as the only major candidate to call the 'War on Terror' doctrine what it is -- a sledgehammer that the Administration uses to beat down their domestic political opponents, a bumper sticker to distract from a host of policies that have compromised our moral leadership of the world, and a military doctrine that has badly backfired against terrorism -- as today's report reveals.

   "The report proves that a real effort to arrest the spread of terrorism is needed to replace the Administration's bumper sticker. John Edwards has proposed a bold new 'smart power' anti-terror strategy that would shut down both the effects of terrorism and its root causes. As president, John Edwards will apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, to take measures to root out terrorist cells, and to strike swiftly and strongly against those who would do us harm. He will also launch a sweeping effort to eliminate the conditions that generate instability, radicalism, and violence toward the U.S. and our allies."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releas es/20070711-al-qaeda-capability/

This is the same Edwards who warned that terrorism would be the major problem of decade three weeks BEFORE 9-11, but could not get his warning disseminated.  See for yourself at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A37644-2004Jul8.html

And today, regarding Bush's idiocy, without a dig at other Democrats, Edwards said the following:

"The president's remarks today defending his Iraq policy without regard to actual facts border on the delusional. The president claimed that the same people attacking U.S. troops today are the ones who perpetrated 9/11. It must be nice to live in a world where your actions have no consequences. There was no group called Al Qaeda in Iraq before the president's disastrous mismanagement of the war gave them a foothold, a fact the president flagrantly ignores. After being discredited again and again, the president is still trying to link Iraq and 9/11 - a rationale for the war that virtually everyone except Dick Cheney has now recognized was false.

"The president needs to stop pretending and start taking responsibility for the results of his failed strategy: There are more terrorists. Al Qaeda is resurgent and restored to full strength. And that's according to the Bush Administration.

"We need a real strategy against terrorism, like the one I have offered. We need to take Al Qaeda in Iraq as seriously as we take terrorism anywhere. As president, I will apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, to take measures to root out terrorist cells, and to strike swiftly and strongly against those who would do us harm. I will also launch a sweeping effort to eliminate the conditions that generate instability, radicalism, and violence toward the U.S. and our allies."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releas es/2007012-bush-iraq/

I'll take the Edwards statement over the Obama statement anyday!

Yes, Edwards was wrong about giving Bush authorization, like many others were, but he had to make that call, which Obama recognized in November, 2006, again, when he was not acting partisan.  Edwards owned up to his mistake.  If Obama thinks that his speech in 2002 makes him better qualified to lead, so be it.  But when I look at all the issues that make up a candidate, I am not so convinced that this one thing cancels out all others.

Indeed, The Politico, today, regarding taxing hedge funds, stated:

   This is an example of the ways, both subtle and obvious, that John Edwards continues to shape the debate in the race, even though he's not in the same financial league as Sens. Clinton and Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

defend his votes for at least two years, saying it was the right thing to do. When the polls had changed on the issue, Edwards safely was able to apologize for his vote.

to criticize Edwards. Edwards has done all he can do to make it clear that he regrets his decision, but voters are still likely to think that he changed his mind to be politically expedient (even though he renounced his vote a few months before it became popular for Democrats to do so).

As far as leadership/politics goes, it seems to me that Edwards' definition of leadership is to choose the right position and then talk about how he is leading on it as frequently as possible. The withdrawal vote is a perfect example - Edwards' repeated criticism of Obama and Clinton is that they didn't talk about their correct vote enough beforehand. His strategy appears very political, and I'm not as convinced as many on this site that it demonstrates strength of character or courage of convictions. It just seems like populism.

I'm not sure if Obama's latest rhetorical flourish will do much to move his stagnant poll numbers for two reasons:

1.  His Senate voting record with regards to Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's.

2.  Clinton leads by wide margins among Democratic primary voters for whom Iraq is their #1 issue.

...is simply an "Obama surrogate" now?

I enjoyed this post. Thank you.

is a great candidate, but this is ridiculous.

He made his somewhat mealy-mouthed and hestitant comments about the war before he had to vote on anything, when it didn't count.

He had the same advantage Governor Dean did.  No consequences to his stance.

... despite the roll-out (successful, it appears) of Hillary v. 2.0: the peacenik...

Since 2003, there are many people, including those in the military, academia, intelligence, politics, and the media whose position has changed and evolved in response to the conditions there.  Doesn't it make sense that Senator Clinton's position would, as well?

Further, despite your accusations, there is no evidence that Senator Clinton has made any attempt at promoting herself as a "peacenik".  Certainly, her response in the first debate to how she, as Commander In Chief, would respond to a hypothetical multi-sided terrorist attack refutes your allegation.

I think as President, Senator Clinton would be prudent enough to respond to changing military conditions as well as be bold enough to act when the security of the nation is threatened.   If the polls are any indication, the plurality of Democratic primary voters concur with me.

Wasnt Edwards one of the sponsors of the War authorization Bill with Joe Lieberman?

Todd, you dont think it resonates because Edwards apologized for the vote? Any monkey can apologize three years after the fact, but if he didnt have the guts/foresight/intelligence to oppose it when it really mattered, when all the chips are on the table, THAT MATTERS. That could be said about Edwards as a whole: its nice of him to run to the left of Obama and Clinton now, but when his voting record shows him to the right of both those candidates, his campaign promises seem hollow. Actions speak louder than words baby.

That's been the biggest mistake of the campaign from all of the people... Not hitting Hillary hard for her authorization vote or her lack of an apology.  Obama, Richardson, even Edwards should have been hitting this issue.  Because they didn't she was able to successfully reframe...  It will be interesting to see if enough pressure is applied whether it will solidfy her support, or cause soft support to leave.  

I agree its stupid to attack Edwards... If you are ahead of someone and NOT the front runner, you don't attack them... attacking them says they are at your same level (and that's not meant as an insult to Edwards at all; he still can rebound and win) and if someone is behind you in most polls you leave them alone so as not to draw attention to them.

Obama is right and I think he should keep pounding on the fact that he is more experience and foresighted than Hillary.

First Hillary authorized the war, now she wants to de-authorize it, in between this monumental lack of judgment by Hillary, thousands of America soldiers have been sacrificed and billions of dollars wasted.

Hillary lacked the requisite judgment to be our commander-in-chief.
I strongly believe that the issue of experience is one of the important issues that must be addressed in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton does not have the experience to lead the United States at a critical time like this. She lacks the experience to make sound judgment that is required of our commander-in-chief. She failed the test with her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Obama's experience on the other hand gave him the foresight for sound judgment. This is the experience that we require from our commander-in-chief; the experience that helps a leader in making the right judgment, like standing up against the Iraqi invasion in 2002, and outlining most of the possible consequences and unfortunately came true.

Obama is the most experienced of the Democratic bunch. He has the experience that leads to sound judgment. I bet Obama would have been able to persuade Congress in 2002 to stop George Bush from invading Iraq had he been in the Senate then.

Hillary is like George Bush, who was a two-term Governor of huge Texas but lack the foresight and wisdom of the possible impact of send our troops to invade Iraq. George Bush became president because of his father and Hillary now wants to be president because of Bill.

Hillary has 15 years in Washington, but just like George Bush, lacked the foresight to make the right judgment when it mattered most. Her and George Bush's type of experience is actually bad for America; it has cost us thousands in lives and billions of dollars.

Who needs scores of years in Washington or Texas experience that could not make the right judgments in the White House for another 8 years? I don't, how about you?

"But I believed then, and I still believe, that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," Obama said.

"The single most important judgment that a president or member of Congress can make is the decision to send our troops into harms way," he said. "There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options. That's why you make good decisions on the front end." (Chicago Tribune - July 10, 2007.)

The only Democrat to support the Iraq War more than Barack Obama is Hillary Clinton.  

Obama can't criticize Edwards when Obama has voted for every FUNDING BILL PUT BEFORE HIM since January 2005, except for the last one that he cowardly voted against after it was passed.  

John Edwards voted to give Bush authority to go, and then voted against funding for it.

Obama continued funding the Bush policy in Iraq even after it was clear that Bush was a disaster and had lied about it.

Obama owns the Iraq War, but not in the way he believes.  He has been funding it since 2004.  John Edwards never voted for any funding for Iraq beyond the initial authorization.  

Voting to authorize the war is stupid and showed lack of experience on the side of Clinton and Edwards.  Voting to provide the soldiers the ammunition, vests, and other equipments to protect themselves from the warring factions in the civil war is an effort supporting the soldiers in the field.

We knew all the while that the war was dumb and that Bush junior only brought those allegations against Saddam because of a lingering hatred for the man after Saddam attempted to assassinate his dad.

Cutting off funding would jeopardize the security and welfare of our beloved soldiers.  Obama's vote to cut-off funding this last time was symbolic, designed to send a message to Bush, which was why he waited until he was sure that the bill would pass before casting his vote.  He is the most ardent supporter of the soldiers both at war-time and in peace-time.  Obama would remain the champion of our soldiers and ex-soldiers.

OE needs to check the record.

Obama and many of us knew that the war was dumb from the beginning and that informed our public opposition to the war.  It was Bush, Hillary, and Edwards that deceived and took Americans to this war, and now Hillary and Edwards have had a change of heart.  Too little too late!!!

Let's all just be quiet until Feingold and Gore make their endorsements, and then we can all board the same wagon.

Kidding?

when you message collapses on itself (turn the page > no do overs).  fortunately for obama, not everyone catches these things, and hillary's refusal to apologize probably helps here.