HRC Putting BHO on the Defensive

The worst, and arguably laziest, tactic in a debate is the resort to the moderator having each candidate ask a question of another candidate. The candidates must love it, for it allows them to pose as an interrogator while actually making a campaign statement, repeating one or more of their favorite talking points.

Still, the Williams/Russert duo chose to inject this this scheme into the Democratic presidential debate held January 15, 2008 in Las Vegas, and Senator Clinton was ready. She asked Senator Obama, in part, the following about President Bush's Iraq policy:


....he has continued to say he can enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government, without bringing it for approval to the United States Congress, that would continue America’s presence in Iraq, long after President Bush leaves office....So I’ve introduced legislation that clearly requires President Bush to come to the United States Congress. It is not enough, as he claims, to go to the Iraqi parliament, but to come to the United States Congress to get anything that he’s trying to do, including permanent bases, numbers of troops, all the other commitments he’s talking about as he’s traveling in that region.

And I want to ask Senator Obama if you will co-sponsor my legislation to try to rein in President Bush so that he doesn’t commit this country to his policy in Iraq, which both of us are committed to end.

Somehow, Hillary Clinton managed to frame a statement/question which 1)demonstrated her opposition to Bush's Iraq policy (specifically, continued occupation, but the reference also signaled her opposition to the war in general); 2)established herself as a leader, perhaps a president, in taking the initiative in foreign policy; 3)put Barack Obama on the defensive, wherein he could have chosen to demur (and thus raise questions about his commitment to changing the Bush policy) or concur, in which he case he has raised his main opponent virtually to the level of Commander-in-Chief.

Unavoidably, Obama chose the second option, lamely stating "well, I think we can work on this, Hillary," before touching on "the voices of the American people," Afghanistan, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fortunately for his candidacy, the media have not focused on this exchange and foreign policy has not dominated pre-Nevada campaigning. However, the Illinois Senator, who consistently touts his opposition (as a state senator) to the Iraqi war resolution, could have turned Clinton's statement/question around to his own advantage by commenting something on the order of....

I'm glad to see, Senator, that after your Iraq vote, then your Iran vote only a few months ago enabling Mr. Bush to rationalize military action, that you recognize this President has abused his authority. It's time for the United States Congress, the people's representatives, to prevent the Executive branch from unilaterally taking us to war without sufficient cause.


It would have been a little off-topic, but that's standard in a debate, and would have clouded Clinton's initiative while reminding voters of one of Obama's strengths, his early opposition (in contrast to his opponents) to a Republican war which has become very unpopular.