October 2nd, 2007
07:06 PM ET
7 years ago

Obama: Clinton blurring distinctions between us

Watch CNN's Candy Crowley interview Barack Obama Tuesday.

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) - White House hopeful Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday his early opposition to the Iraq war proves he has the judgment to lead the country out of the conflict, and said the reason polls show voters think rival Hillary Clinton would better handle the issue is because the New York Democrat has successfully blurred the distinctions between the two candidates.

"Everybody had difficult choices to make and these were difficult choices, I made the right choice, and I think that's relevant not to the past, but to the future," Obama said in an interview with CNN's Candy Crowley of his decision as an Illinois state senator to come out against the war in 2002.

Back then, five months before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Obama said publicly that Saddam Hussein “poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors,” that he could be contained, and that “even a successful war against Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Obama added that such a war would “strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.”

Full story

Related: Obama raises at least $20 million in third quarter

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Filed under: Candidate Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • Iowa • Iraq • South Carolina
soundoff (81 Responses)
  1. Anonymous

    The right choice.....you were not even in the senate!!!! Seriously stop playing this card!

    October 3, 2007 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  2. high school student with more knowledge than my elders,miami, fl

    hey loyd the boy days are over , now i see why its so hard for u to believe in obama your first name should be jim last name crow , thats substance right there

    October 3, 2007 11:06 am at 11:06 am |
  3. Meks, Florida

    BUNCH OF LIES!!!

    Sen Clinon has never for one day blurred the line between her and Sen. Obama. She has made it clear she voted for the and regrets the vote with what Mr president is doing in Iraq today. How is that blurring the line. She also pointed out she wants to end combat operation and focus on anti-terrorism. Sen. Obama was against the war but he was not in the senate so he did not have to bear the burden of voting. It is easy to criticize when you are outside than when you are inside. As long as he was not in a position to vote in the Fall of 2002, it does no make any difference whatsoever he was against the war. Please be reminded that in 2004 shortly before or the day after the DNC 2004 nomination, Sen. Obama was asked about the Iraq war and he answered that if he were to be in the senate in 2002 it is entirely possible he would have voted for the war. If you doubt this look at the question the CNN interviewer asked him. It was amazing he came out the most ludicrous answer i have ever heard in recent times. He prepared his own speech, so he made the decision to make that statement. Do you guys and ladies here think Sen. Obama wanted to run for presidency? 100% sure he did not. He was drafted by David Gaffen, the idle billionaire in Los Angeles and his cohorts, who have an axe to grind with former Pres. Clinton. Don't be fooled, Obama is ambitious but he knows some people want to use him to score political point that is why he is being careful. Some of you may not have realized that with all the shenanigans of Bill in 90's he is still the single most popular democrats among our base. But all this storis are not even relevant to the major issue – Who can deliver the White house to us? The question you need to ask yourselves is which states will any of the democratic presidential candidate deliver that John Kerry and Al Gore could not? That is when you realize that neither Edwards nor Obama will EVER win the general election in 2008. Florida was one state holding us from winning White house in 2000 and 2004. Neither Obama nor Edwards will EVER deliver this state. Unfortunately, like her or hate her, Mrs. Clinton is the only democratic candidate that will deliver that state. I will also admit that her husband's immense popularity here rubs on her, which is the reason she can beat any of the republican candidate here in Florida. Let us not screw up this time. If you think elections are won by talk, then think again. Elections are won on electoral votes, please be careful when you decide on who our candidate will be, else we will lose the general election again. The south historically vote republican but Arkansas will be within arms reach if we nominate Mrs. clinton, in addition to Florida. Please forget the pundits, columnists who many times are paid to write hit piece against candidates. To counter the traction appeal, Obama appeals to the highly educated, upwardly mobile, upper-class section of the demography but Mrs. Clinton appeals to far greater extent to the poor section of the demography. Ask yourselves again, which is these two demography is more populous and which actually queue for long hours to vote. Please be wise. Don't let us blow it this time. If the republicans think Mrs. Clinton is the easiest to beat, they will not be drumming. They will not be trying to influence us not to nominate her as evident in their campaign, which is just a clever way of raising doubts in our mind. Before i rest my case, please understand elections are won be electoral votes. Think about the states we need to win that John Kerry and AL Gore did not win, and who can win it. It is not about talk because talk is cheap, it is about being realistic.

    October 3, 2007 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  4. megan, Atlanta GA

    IF (big IF) she is nominated, she won't win the general because I like many other Democrats I know won't vote for her. Florida is a Republican stronghold that won't break Democratic regardless of who the candidate is. Hillary is fooling herself if she thinks she can take the White House. How long before the GOP brings up her philandering husband's antics, or the financial scandals; not to mention the whole terrorism issue. She is a weak candidate whose phony laugh can't mask the fact that she has no real plan for change. Funny how she floated the $5000 per baby bond issue in front of a black audience. Was she thinking, 'oh they have alot of children, they'll fall for this'. Won't work Hill, won't work.

    October 3, 2007 03:54 pm at 3:54 pm |
  5. James

    Yea you people!!! cant you see that he could not vote for the war nor oppose it,the vote was 2002 and whatever hes trying to pull over your eyes open them ,obama is bs,he knows nothing about the war not a thing. quit lying about that vote . quit using it for your speeches as the attack on hillary,she voted for it was her descision and with the stuff that was laid out for them you would have voted yes,you did not see any of that intelligence...bush lied to all get that thru your heads.. he has said at least 400 times i did not vote for the war.as hillary did ya need to find something else, he said he would never attack a democrat..said it at the begining now your losing.tells me want kind of president you would become,a lying one.Hillary has my vote,just because of this.

    October 6, 2007 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm |
  6. Mike

    My thoughts for obama one who grew up out of the country,I just think we need a President who was raised and born –lived here all there life.

    October 6, 2007 11:30 pm at 11:30 pm |
1 2 3 4