Plus, it gave Obama a chance for a free rebuttal on the judgment line, which is a debate that helps him.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

 It's up to each individual to decide for himself or herself what type,  if any, of negative campaigning they condone. Sadly, despite your exalted position, you don't get to decide how other people are required to think and behave.  

Lieberman's protege chatting amiably with Lieberman's buddy.

All Holy Joe, all the time.  Just what the doctor ordered. (/sarcasm)

According toYahoo news

"Obama, on a roll after winning the last 11 nominating contests in the race to be the Democratic Party candidate in November's presidential elections, hit back, accused Clinton of using fear to whip up votes.

"We've seen these ads before. They're usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare our votes," the 46-year-old senator told a rally in Texas."

And then his campaign ran the very same kind of ad.

Personally, I didn't think either one of the ads were fear-mongering. They both simply played up their campaign's talking points on national security.

And Sen Clinton is suppose to be OLD DEM and is pointing to the future.

Excerpted from Pat Lang's Drinking the Koolaid, 2004

First, there was the consistent refusal to provide witnesses and information to the U.S. Senate, especially regarding the projected costs of the war and the lack of opportunities to question key players such as General Jay Garner, who was appointed by the Defense Department to be the first head of the U.S. provisional authority in Iraq. There was also the subtle hiding of the objections of the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) in the NIE of October 2002. One congressional source explained that the classified NIE was made available in its entirety to only a select few members of Congress. There were verbal briefings and an elaborate process to access the document in a secure location. But it was never clear that the 27-page unclassified version that was available to every office was missing any crucial information.

There were also false statements to Congress about providing the U.N. inspectors all the intelligence that might have helped them locate the Iraqi WMD and programs. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has accused the administration, and especially CIA Director Tenet, of withholding information because "the truth" -- that the United States had withheld the locations of 21 high- and middle-priority sites -- might have slowed down the drive for war. The truth might have convinced Congress to take action to delay military action until the inspections were completed.

Yes, it was a mistake to give this president authorization but this level of deception and lies by the WH was unprecendented in recent US history. Pat Lang supports HRC, so does Wes Clark. Clark's testimony and debate against Perle in 2002 was cited by Kennedy, Wellstone, Levin and others as a reason for their nay vote. So does Joe Wilson.

The threat of force is still diplomacy.

Mar. 7, 2003 - ElBaradei's statement to the UN Security Council. This is where the mission was accomplished - with the threat of force and UN Resolutions. A madman and his henchmen took us to war, not Hillary Clinton.

In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons -- the most lethal weapons of mass destruction -- inspections in Iraq are moving forward. One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Third, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourth, ... there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. . . . I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that contributes to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern.

Cheney went on MTP w/Russert to dispute this on Mar. 16 and on Mar. 19, the bombs fell.

You are right about the fumble - immediately after 9/11, HRC was there at Ground Zero in NYC, quietly assisting the devastation and helping the people of NYC, w/o the gaggle of press that accompanied Giuliani.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp

As for foreign affairs, ask Europe's newest country, Kosovo what they think of Hillary
Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9905/14/kosovo.refugees/

What do the Irish say about her?

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=18626

Apparently Sen. Obama's much toted prescience did not serve him well when his own constituents were freezing during a brutal Chicago winter - tenants of slumlord Tony Rezko.
Judgement? Prescience? That sword cuts both ways.

Or what of Obama's lauding of Bush's appt. of Rumsfeld?