Amanda Carpenter has a good post this morning about how Hillary Clinton didn't read the 2002 pre-war intelligence report.
This issue is near and dear to me because in 2004 I managed a Congressional race in North Dakota. As you will read, we made the point that we believed our opponent, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, had not read the report:
"In his opening statement, he asked Pomeroy if he read the intelligence briefings before voting to approve the invasion of Iraq. Sand repeated that question through most of the 90-minute debate."
Of course, Pomeroy never did answer that question, and the press let him get away with it. It didn't stick at all.
To me, the fact that Members of Congress did not bother to read the intelligence reports -- before voting for war -- was a big issue. But since Pomeroy voted for the war, the only way it would have been "newsworthy" is if we had opposed the war.
Of course, running for president is a lot different than running for congress in North Dakota. And the fact that, as a state senator, Obama opposed the war means that there is a clear contrast between the two. Obama can always say: "Not only did she vote for the war -- but she didn't even read the reports before casting her vote."
I wonder if it will stick ...