Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Sweet blog special: Obama keeping heat on Clinton, accuses her again of being naive. This after she called him naive on foreign policy experience. Escalation.


WASHINGTON--It's Wednesday, and White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is continuing to keep pressure up on chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) over the issue that is central to both of their presidential campaigns: who has the best judgement.

NBC staked out Obama on Capitol Hill on Wednesday where he continued to talk tough. Obama also continued to have to explain what he really intended to say in the debate.

These quotes from NBC: "I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue."

Click below for excerpt from NBC's report. ....

Obama gave Clinton an opening in the Monday debate when he said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations with no preconditions. On Tuesday, during two separate interviews with the Quad City (Iowa) Times she called him "irresponsible" and "frankly naive." Obama shot back that she was "naive" to vote to authorize the Iraq war without realizing that President Bush intended to invade and with no exit plan.

Clinton still has more to answer for, Obama said. And this small detail. On Tuesday, Obama told the Iowa paper it was not as if he was going to sit down and have coffee with these rogue leaders. On Wednesdayhe told NBC he was not going to be inviting then for tea.

These quotes from NBC: "I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue."

for the full NBC report click to
First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Exclusive: Obama hits Clinton -- harder Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 4:27 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: Democrats, 2008

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
Sen. Obama has ESCALATED his criticism of Hillary Clinton -- taking it to political defcon three -- in an exclusive on-camera interview with NBC News.

It is a lot tougher than what he said in the debate -- or in the Iowa newspaper interview yesterday.

During a stakeout outside his senate office, Obama said in part:

"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.

"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.

"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic state work has to be done ahead of time.

"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous. "

for entire First Read report, and update from Clinton


Desperation and damage control.

Obama is right in Fighting fire with fire. The Clinton machine have meet their match in Chicago Politics.

I believe it was naive that obama promised to meet with dangerous foreign leaders without preconditions. If he is elected president he will be used as a propaganda tool for these enemy leaders. Hillary know what she is doing on the world stage- she has been there, done that. She stands firmly on her 2 feet and stands up to foreign leaders in a way that is not detrimental to the US- "vigorous diplomatic envoys".

"Obama gave Clinton an opening in the Monday debate when he said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations with no preconditions."

Lynn, did you even watch the debate? Obama didn't say, "with no preconditions." He said that the notion that not talking with our enemies is punishment - the Bush foreign policy doctrine - is ridiculous, and that we need to make a diplomatic effort.

All Clinton did was add a caveat that Obama couldn't within his short speaking time, and then she claimed to have a more nuanced and mature understanding of foreign policy. By that measure, all she has to do in a debate is speak after Obama and finesse his point, and by default she wins as "more nuanced and mature."

The fact that Corporate Media is covering this non-story at all shows that they are trying to hand-pick Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

Obama is not the best candidate, and his pompous attitude is off-putting. Could the media allow some of the other candidates air time, with out bringing up hair cuts? I could be persuaded to support another candidate just not this guy.

Congratulations Mr. Obama on your victory. We understand exactly what you mean't. Why not explore new avenues of communication? I suspect that many staunch Republicans like myself will be fully supporting your campaign.

True, Obama did not in fact say "with no preconditions". However, in answer to the question, "would you meet...WITHOUT PRECONDITION", he immediately, confidently and without qualification responded, "I would".

Barack is dead on in nailing Hillary on her so called experience and maturity when she was the one who naively voted to authorize the war! Hillary went along with the crowd because she didn't want to be pegged as unpatriotic against a popular (at the time) president. That doesn't show me the level of responsibility we need in the White House. Then the Clinton hit machine in an effort of pure desperation sent out Madaline Albright to cosign for her while talking up how she went to North Korea to establish precursors for communication between North Korea and President Clinton. However she never mentions the fact that due to all of her "rigorous diplomatic" efforts Clinton never got around to having the meeting before he left office. Seems like to get things done you have to change the methods that have been used before. Remembering that someone much smarter than me said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results!

For the moment, let's leave aside the issue of whether a President should squander the "Coin of the Realm" meeting with Enemies of the State individually and without pre-condition (I disagree with Obama here, FYI). Still, this issue speaks to a larger concern I have with candidate Obama: his tendency to be inattentive to the details.

In every debate, Obama has proven himself to be unable to grasp the parameters and specifics of a question. As a consequence, his answers are often ill-suited and open to exploitation.

With an eye to the general election, why should the Democrats elect someone whose rookie carelessness makes him vulnerable to ruinous accusations and characterizations?

For example, the day after the YouTube debate, the Miami Herald had a headline that read:

Obama, Edwards say they would meet with Castro, Chavez.

( 947.html)

It doesn't take much imagination to envision these same headlines featured ad nauseam within the deluge of GOP campaign ads hitting the Florida airwaves morphing Democratic Presidential nominee Obama with Castro and Ahmadinejad. Tell me again the upside for the Democrats in needlessly angering the Cubans and the Jews?

Why should the Democrats elect a candidate who would so recklessly hand Florida's electoral votes to the GOP, and on a silver-platter, nonetheless?

The GOP will eat Obama alive on this one.

Eat. Obama. Alive.

Romney and McCain are already nailing Obama on this – a sign of what he would be put through during the election – i.e. weak on defense and experience. Meeting with world leaders without preconditions IS naïve. And is it just me or does Obama suffer a stature gap against Hillary every time they appear in a debate together?

Obama may make a good candidate and president one day – but for now, no.

Go Hillary!

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets


Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch