Saturday, December 29, 2007
Washington Post Calls Foul on Obama
After mentioning that Obama began his response to Benazir Bhutto’s death by asserting that he’d been saying for sometime that we had a big problem in Pakistan, an editorial in today’s Washington Post blasts Obama for his reprehensible attack on Hillary Clinton:
Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in the event today."
When questioned later about his spokesman's remarks, Mr. Obama stiffly defended them -- while still failing to offer any substantive response to the ongoing crisis. Is this Mr. Obama's way of rejecting "the same Washington game" he lambasted earlier in the day? If so, his game doesn't look very new, or attractive.
As my recent posts indicate, Katalusis would agree.