Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog -- The Fix

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

Clinton, Obama Talk Iraq

Asked whether the situation on the ground will impact their previously stated positions to begin removing troops from Iraq as soon as they are elected president, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) said it would not.

"The president sets the mission, the generals and our troops carry out that mission," said Obama, offering a criticism of President Bush's reliance on the advice of Gen. David Petraeus in planning for America' future in Iraq.

Clinton sounded a similar sentiment, insisting that the only way for the Iraqis to stand up in the long term is for America to stand down.

"Only through our commitment to withdraw will the Iraqis begin to do what they have failed to do all of these years," said Clinton. "We don't know what will happen if we withdraw. We know what won't happen if we don't."

While those positions are sure to win Clinton and Obama plaudits within their own party, it's easy to see how Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and the Republican National Committee will play the issue in the fall. You can imagine the RNC press release now: "Democrats Prepared To Reject General's Advice".

Polling consistently shows that a majority of voters no longer believe the war was worth fighting and believe the U.S. should begin to withdraw. But, McCain will focus much of his campaign on the idea that regardless of how this country got to where it is in Iraq, we must stay until the job is done.

It is a stark -- and fundamental -- difference between the two sides. Only seven more months until the general election!

By Chris Cillizza |  April 16, 2008; 9:20 PM ET  | Category:  Eye on 2008
Previous: A Debate Devoid of Issues So Far | Next: Out-Gunned?


Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Charlie and George were awful. They should be banned from ever moderating debates in the future.

Posted by: Lauren | April 17, 2008 10:02 AM

Chris:

You focus on the initial statements and seem to ignore the descriptions. Whereas Mrs. Clinton stated that she would firmly stick to her policy, Mr. Obama stated that while he would set the policy, he would listen to the generals regarding its implementation. This is a fundamental difference that highlights the difference between the candidates. You seemed to skip this analysis and that is disappointing.

Posted by: Michael B McLaughlin | April 16, 2008 11:36 PM

from my viewpoint Barack Obama 'WINS' this final round Hillary looked like she had the wind knocked out of her but, Obama

got hit by her and ABC Barack is on a mission to the nomination HRC is old and tired please no more debates

Posted by: | April 16, 2008 11:11 PM

Neither candidate will reject generals' advice on HOW to conduct the mission.

Neither will allow generals' to dictate WHAT mission to conduct. The Congress decides which wars we fight. The President sets the core direction. Generals carry that direction out.

That's what civilian authority over the military means.

And notice that the generals respect that line. Petreaus only answers questions about how to do what Bush has told him to accomplish. He doesn't answer questions about whether it's the right mission or whether it damages other missions that deserve greater investment.

The administration is playing a shell game, where anyone who asks the President about global security is told to ask the general, and anyone who asks the general is told to ask the president.

Mr Cillizza, you have space and time to point that out. Doing so would provide accurate information to a hungry public. I wish you'd add that much context, rather than help the administration by leaving it out.

Posted by: sporcupine | April 16, 2008 11:01 PM

Very poor choice of questions from ABC. The flow was chaotic and the majority of the moderators were clearly pulling for Clinton. George S should not have even been a moderator- he is Bill Clinton's former communication director for crying out loud! The Clinton's know his style and I believe Hillary had an idea of what some of the questions would be.

Posted by: Babylove1 | April 16, 2008 10:15 PM

yoWzA BAby!!! geez the Obamaniacs are out in full force tonight!!

Looks like their plan is to dominate by sheer repetition. May work, may not. Fact is, Hil just took Obama to school and back.


(fret not, my friends, should Obama take the nomination, I will fully support him. We must take over and start the years-long process of undoing what Yoo, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Dubya have wrought upon our once-proud nation)

Posted by: Disinterested | April 16, 2008 10:09 PM

ABC's Post debate comment was outrageous and biased. What a hit job on Obama. Gibson is so biased that its clear he doesnt even pretend to moderate a fair discussion of the issues. I was repulsed by Charlie Gibson and the idiot commentator who made one comment at the end of the debate.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:58 PM

Why is ABC showing the investment banker Chlesea as her mother finishes speaking? Is the debate a political add for Clinton? I really dont see what Chelsea has to do with anything or how she knows a whit about what matters to young people anywhere? She never has said anything of consequence except that she supports her mom.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:50 PM

What tax bomb? Clinton just said she is going to raise taxes in a whole host of areas while supposedly lowering taxes for the middle class. This is the same concept of "fairness" Are you kidding me? MR you are an idiot.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:49 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Blah, bla blah. blah blah blah. Oh, and blah, blah blab, bbbblah blah blah bla... I'm the best, blah, blah, blippity, blah, blah.

Posted by: Blah | April 16, 2008 9:46 PM

Why is American media so anti-change? Is there any hope that America can ever change without some nit wit expecting that we all stay as stupid as possible or accusing someone of being an elitist because they want to use their head to improve our life. I find the media to be the greatest instrument not for freedom but to oppress us politically.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:46 PM

Chris,

Not directly on topic for this but please post about the tax bomb that Obama just dropped -- I think it's big news. "I don't care how much revenue it raises, tax policy is about fairness!"

Posted by: MR | April 16, 2008 9:45 PM

I wonder how Marine Corps Corporal McCain feels?

Posted by: Veteran | April 16, 2008 9:42 PM

The ABC debate is extremely offensive. Whether the candidates wear flag pins doesnt help me in my life. I also dont believe that whether or not they register guns matters a whit to the common person, not to mention the DC gun law. Also why the attack on removing social security "cap" when nobody wants the system to fail. I came away from the debate believing that Charlie Gibson is so out of touch with America and that he was spending almost all his time on hot button divisive issues that dont benefit the common person. This demans our democracy.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:41 PM

I am surprised that Gibson and Stephy didn't just bring a rope with them tonight. That was the most disgusting display of blatant bias I have ever seen in a supposed neutral debate setting.

Posted by: Wake Forest, NC | April 16, 2008 9:41 PM

Did he just say winfall profit sex?

Posted by: Dwayne | April 16, 2008 9:40 PM

God Chris is slow at updating this thing. This isn't live blogging - this is tape delayed blogging.

Posted by: Ed | April 16, 2008 9:39 PM

No, the Obamas have kids. Michelle is worrying about which prep school to enroll them in. They can barely afford "the right school" to get into Harvard. Only 4 and a half million last year!

Posted by: Private School for Me | April 16, 2008 9:39 PM

I wish they would go back to the shallow, insipid questions about Tuzla and flag pins. Issues make my head hurt! They should ask who will win Dancing with the Stars!

Posted by: The media's idea of a typical voter | April 16, 2008 9:39 PM

Why not ask whether their children being in Iraq would affect their strategy, like McCain and his father before him? Oh, wait. Chelsea's at a hedge fund and the Obamas are Yuppie childless trust fund types. Never mind.

Posted by: I Protested Not Served | April 16, 2008 9:36 PM

Who cares about Rev. Wright? I care a great deal that Hilary Clinton is a liar (Bosnia, Travelgate, Whitewater). Did everyone see how she shook off her lie about Bosnia? She is a disgrace! Either Obama or John McCain gets my vote.

Posted by: St. Louis, MO | April 16, 2008 9:32 PM

Why is Charlie Gibson asking Obama about DC's gun law? Is this some further ploy to associate Obama with DC because he is black? Why didnt he ask Clinton first?

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:30 PM

yo should at least be accurate if you are covering this. you said clinton echoed obamas opening remarks and then you should say that obama echoed clintons remarks about the President setting the mission

Posted by: peterdc | April 16, 2008 9:24 PM

Whats wrong with these reporters asking stupid questions about flag pin patriotism and not even understanding that the President runs the country not the generals. Charlie Gibson is appalling, particularly on issues like taxes. No wonder our country is unable to improve with such conservative press.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 16, 2008 9:22 PM

Here's a good summary of some reasons to consider supporting Barack Obama: http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html

Posted by: Tina | April 16, 2008 9:21 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2008 The Washington Post Company