Hillary Challenges Both McCain and Obama on Iraq

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 3:12 PM on March 17, 2008.

I did a radio show yesterday, and the host asked me, “If you were Hillary Clinton’s top campaign strategist, what would you tell her to do right now?” I said, “Go after McCain with a vengeance.”

Throwing the kitchen sink at Obama helped deliver wins in Ohio and Texas, but the campaign has not fundamentally changed this month — Obama continues to pad his delegate lead and pick up more superdelegates. Clinton, I argued, can change the dynamics by dropping the attacks against Obama (which too often spur a backlash anyway) and targeting McCain exclusively. It would help her present a different kind of case to superdelegates: “Forget the math and the numbers, and look at how well I can take on the Republican nominee.”

Today, at a speech at my alma mater, Clinton did one of the two — she went after both McCain and Obama. (I can’t find the whole speech online, but the campaign posted an outline of the Clinton plan for Iraq today, and put a brief excerpt of the address on YouTube.)

From the start of this presidential campaign, the consensus among most Democrats is that the war in Iraq was an issue that was problematic for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. She voted to authorize the war, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois spoke out against it from the start, and Democratic primary voters overwhelming oppose it. The war was an issue that Mrs. Clinton, presumably, would need to finesse.

But Senator Clinton moved today to try to turn that assumption on its head. She delivered a speech in Washington dedicated completely to the war in Iraq, saying she would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, should she win. And she attacked both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee.

In attacking Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton noted that he had at one point said he would be comfortable with the United States having a presence in Iraq for 100 years. With Mr. Obama, she noted that Samantha Powers, a former senior foreign policy adviser, had been quoted as telling a British newspaper that Mr. Obama’s schedule for withdrawal outlined on the campaign trail would not be what he would necessarily follow in the White House.

“One choice in this election is Senator McCain, who is willing to keep this war going for 100 years,” Mrs. Clinton said. “You can count on him to do that. Another choice is Senator Obama, who has promised to bring combat troops out in 16 months. But according to his foreign policy adviser, you can’t count on him to do that.”

Now, it’s likely that the Clinton speech will get lost today in a very busy news cycle, but the criticism of McCain on Iraq is certainly welcome and a positive development.

Frankly, outside of the debates, I have a hard time thinking of recent high-profile examples of Clinton taking on McCain directly. Much to my disappointment, I can actually think of more recent examples of her praising McCain, and suggesting he was better prepared for the presidency than her Democratic rival.

But today, Clinton was more focused on the GOP nominee, which I hope we’ll see more of.

Mrs. Clinton used her speech, delivered at George Washington University, to argue that the so-called surge in Iraq had not worked, pointing to the fact that the same number of troops will be on the ground in Iraq once it ends as was there before the troop increase. And she signaled way she might use the issue against Mr. McCain - who was in Baghdad this weekend - should she win the nomination, linking Mr. McCain to Mr. Bush and the conflict that both men championed.

“Despite the evidence, President Bush is determined to continue his failed policy in Iraq until he leaves office,” she said. “And Senator McCain will gladly accept the torch and stay the course - keeping troops in Iraq for 100 more years if necessary. They both want to keep us tied to another country’s civil war - a war we cannot win. And that, in a nutshell, is the Bush-McCain Iraq policy: Don’t learn from your mistakes, repeat them.”

Good. Keep talking about “the Bush-McCain Iraq policy.”

As for Obama, Clinton’s criticisms seemed to have focused on two points:

1. Samantha Power, who already stepped down from the Obama campaign, told a BBC interview recently that Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan is a “best-case scenario.” This, Clinton argued today, means that Obama can’t be relied upon to get the troops out.

2. Obama may have opposed the war from the start, but he didn’t vote to cut off funding until he became a presidential candidate.

On the first, Clinton’s right, Power did say that about Obama’s withdrawal plan. (Power also noted, accurately, “You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009.”) The flip-side of this is that a Clinton advisor said something very similar about Clinton’s own withdrawal plan.

On the second, it’s a little awkward for Clinton to argue, “Don’t vote for Obama; he voted the same way I did on Iraq funding.” For that matter, all of this simply reminds Democratic audiences that Obama got the big question about Iraq right, and Clinton didn’t. (Obama responded today, “Because of that vote, we have fought a war that has cost us thousands of lives and will cost us a trillion dollars. Because of that vote, our troops have fought tour after tour after tour of duty, and their families have sacrificed so much at home. Because of that vote, we are less safe and less respected at home. It’s not just a speech - it’s a war that should’ve never been authorized, and should’ve never been waged.”)

Nevertheless, Clinton went after McCain forcefully. Note to both campaigns: more of this, please.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Tagged as: iraq, democrats, clinton, obama, mccain

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.