While delivering a speech on national security, US Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton decided to attack rival US Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama on something other than health care. This time, Hillary Clinton would attack Barack Obama when it comes to issues in regards to the military.
“There’s a big difference between giving speeches on national security and giving orders as commander-in-chief,” Clinton said starting her attack on Obama. She continued with saying: “There’s a big difference between delivering a speech at an anti-war rally as a state senator and picking up that phone in the White House at 3 a.m. in the morning to deal with an international crisis. Senator Obama talks about these issues but when it came time to act he was missing in action.”
This sharp offensive against Barack Obama is prelude to the March 4 contests. Texas and Ohio are considered “must win” states for Hillary Clinton. So far, Clinton’s lead has shrunk in both states. Obama has split two of Clinton’s important voting blocs: women and Latinos.
So far, Clinton has been using experience as a means to attack Obama’s inexperience.
“There’s a difference between making a speech when you have no responsibility and having to step up and take charge and take responsibility for her actions,” Clinton said. This was in regards to her vote to authorize US President Bush to invade Iraq and Obama’s anti-war speech when elected as US Senator.
She said that Obama was not a candidate of action.
In that attack, Clinton said: “He was missing in action when he failed to show up for a vote dealing with Iran. He was missing in action when he failed to hold a single substantive hearing on a committee he chaired that had responsibility for Europe and NATO and NATO’s policy in Afghanistan.”
She continued with saying: “It is one thing to talk about change it is another thing to make change happen.”
When asked about why she picked Waco, a campaign aid said that Texas is a major pro-military state. The aid said: “Texas is a big military state, and national security is a major issue in this area… National security is always an issue in presidential campaigns; Democrats need a candidate who will engage forcefully, not whine about it.”