Keep on digging. Only the most rabid Obama supporters will cheerlead this 'Bush lite' rhetoric is some sort of 'bold' and 'winning' strategy in democratic primaries.

I am waiting for next couple of polls to verify his 'winning' strategy.

In my view, perhaps Clinton won a battle but in advertantly stumbled over a landmine.  This may have ironically gotten the Obama camp off its ass and onto - I think - the ONLY strategy they can use to topple HRC.

I have never seen a presidential candidate be as much of a juggernaut than Hillary Rodham Clinton.  She's a super candidate.  And Obama can only beat her with the meme that was just outlined by Beeton.

Since Edwards is my choice, I'd like for him to take the knives out a little more.  But it's hard to do with HRC.  The backfire possibility is massive.

I thought this posted but I guess it didn't.

"I'm not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators,"

I haven't been critical of Obama on this issue, just his supporters. However this comment does make him look naieve.

While you have said unfavorable things about all the candidates, this particular post has proved me wrong about assuming you lacked objectivity.  You and Jonathan Singer, both, while clearly not endorsing any candidate at least do not incessantly bash one either.

Obama is wrong on both the substance as well as the politics here.

from Hillary Clinton on foreign policy?

They voted the same on the war since Obama made it to the Senate.  Most votes were bad.  Against Kerry-Feingold.  For the Gregg Resolution.  For funding the war each time until May 2007, when pressure from Edwards and Dodd forced a correct vote.

I do not think Clinton is Bush-lite and I very critical of her stands in issues.  No more than Obama is Bush-lite, anyway.  Neither is.

I support John Edwards.  I suppose I should enjoy this, but I do not think the rhetoric is that useful.

I can see it being effective. I can't say I like Obama for it as it's an exceedingly dishonest label. But we're talking about high-stake politics and it's a dangerous attack for Hillary.

It's her first real test in the campaign and I'm wondering how she'll counter it. It might tell us a lot about both campaings.

Obama doesn't relentlessly go on the attack (not his style, would dilute some of his appeal), but he can counter-punch like mad.

HRC should have left well enough alone, and let the pundits do the dirty work for her (they were doing it in spades, too).  Instead, she gave Obama the opening that he needed.

Game on, kids.

Most Democrats see Clinton as the counteropposite of Bush/Cheney.  She takes it to them like no other candidate has, after all.  To call her "Bush/Cheney Lite" is bound to backfire badly on Obama, as already has his claim that he is the best "foreign policy" candidate running.   I believe his negatives amongst Democrats are going to go up over this.  

  If Clinton was viewed differently by a vast majority of Democrats than she is, that would be one thing, but with most of them giving her very high marks for going after Bush and Cheney as much as she has, labelling her "Bush/Cheney Lite" is bound to be ridiculed and seen as wildly inaccurate.

It was about time.  Clinton's is bush-lite! That's why she believes in the "Strong Executive," just like Cheney, Rove, Yoo and the rest of them; that's why she came here to Princeton U. (in 2003) talking about wanting to bomb Iran.  

She's Bush-lite, and that's why she was in favor of Bush's war against the people of Iraq despite the fact the bitch didnt even read the basic intelligence that showed the war was a sham.  clinton's is bushlite, and that's why she wants cut back the 1st amemdment, and why she's getting all that $$$ from Pharmaceutical companies and the arm merchants and AIPAC.

It's time for the rest of the democratic candidates to start calling it like it is with hillary.

CNN is reporting...

SEN. CLINTON: "Well, this is getting kind of silly. I've been called a lot of things in my life but I've never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. We have to ask what's ever happened to the politics of hope?

"I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we've got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don't want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad."

If Clinton is Bush-Cheney lite and Obama is Clinton-lite, does that mean Obama is Bush-Cheney lite-lite?

Scholars?  

Hillary has stirred up the hornets' nest with her attacks on Obama calling him "naive". If anything comes out of this, I see Obama getting bolder to take on the Hillary campaign, and this is exactly what we've all been itching to see.

have come together against Obama.  Amazing.

Targeted from above and below.  Tougher being in the middle than the frontrunner I guess.  Well soon enough he'll have Hillary's spot and then Hillary can with the middle man fight.

If this is the new politics of Barack Obama then he might as well apologize to all of his supporters and close up shop. This is a cry of desperation. To think that anyone in their right mind thinks that Hillary is ANYTHING like Bush or Cheney is utter foolishness. If there is one thing that Hillary is not, it is a Neocon. If there is one thing that Hillary is, it is someone that has stood up to the Neocons for decades. And she hasn't been nice about it.

I fear that after this nomination process is over we might have a mental health crisis in this country, with a great need for reprogrammers to help these unfortunate Obama supporters face reality.

You gotta be kidding Todd.

HRC started something with Obama that she didn't need to start. She attacked him for no reason. I mean, she made her point in the debate and it was well received by the talking heads on tv. So why she would attack Obama is a little strange.

But Obama's response is right on perfect. Attack her judgment on authorizing a war, use her "experience" against her. After all, you can't be a change candidate afte 20 years in DC can you?

And Obama is right. HRC would require pre-conditions to meet with leaders of "rogue" nations. This is the same policy as Bush-Cheney. Now, you can arguewhether its right or wrong, but you can't say that Obama's position is the same as Bush-Cheney's. HRC said herself she wouldn't meet with anyone without preconditions. So how is that different from Bush's policy? It's not.

This is a change election and you cant get change by continuing the failed policies of BUSH-CHeney (seems a little obvious, no?)

Again, OBAMA=CHANGE.
HRC=THIRD BUSH TERM (in regards to diplomacy @ least)

Obama is right on this point. And I am glad to see him stand up. More of this will take him further than trying to do the language of we are all the same.

Todd Beeton,

You are being ridiculous. Hillary isn't afraid of Obama and damn sure isn't regretting her comment. Only punks regret prior comments and Hillary is no punk.  See the issue here is that the MSM and YOU are framing the question asked at the debate as a diplomacy issue. It ISN'T. This is a competency issue. Obama did not listen to the question.

Hillary and Obama were asked this question:

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS, during the FIRST YEAR of your administration, in WASHINGTON OF ANYWHERE ELSE, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

So you mean to tell me Todd that Obama's answer was responsible.  Give me a FREAKIN' BREAK. If you are saying that, than that is pure BULLSHIT!!!

Its pretty simple, from what I can see.

Obama has flatly rejected Neo-Conservative foreign policy.

HRC has implicitly endorsed it.

her hypocrisy on diplomacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJC mw

"I'm not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators" --Obama

Great, another "bring it on" bravado prez, that's all we need! If Obama wants to go on coffee klatsches with Ahmedinijad and co, he can do it right now. Yes, lets see the famous charisma diplomacy in action. Off to Syria, off to Iran, off to Venezuela. What are you waiting for Mr. Obama?

I'm just glad that Obama is finally calling her out on her shit....This idea that all democrats cant go at each others is plain ridiculous...This is a debate and candidates has to differentiate themselves from their rival...There is a reason why Clinton is leading by double digit...She never got challenged...Now, she'll have to fight back and get dirty to win.

Obama just sounds like he's flustered and backpedaling. I think he's lost this one in a big way, and it possibly will cost him the election.

Clinton and Obama are both essentially offering the same plan: to lay down diplomatic groundwork, then perhaps meet up with foreign leaders. Where Clinton wins is in the politics. Obama showed himself too eager to be not-Bush, while coming across as someone too easily attacked from the right. Clinton, on the other hand, came across as tough but sensible, winning supporters on the right, while reassuring Democrats that the era of cowboy diplomacy is over. It was a brilliant move on her part, and the longer Obama keeps this alive, the worse it gets from him. Best for him to drop it and learn from his mistake.

Let's turn the page with Barack.  Certainly the last thirty years of crappy foreign policy needs to be changed.  Hillary's siding with Bush when she says that we need to continue with the policy of preconditions before talks.  We don't need to be afraid of talking to other countries and we don't need to rule by fear AnyMore!

It was Hillary's mistake to call Barack "naive".  The only one who is naive is Hillary, b/c of her 2002 vote to allow us to invade Iraq w/o an exit strategy.  What experience does she have, anyway?  She just rides her Hubby's coattails into the whitehouse and expects everyone to roll out the red carpet and cower before her?  No.  It's time for a fresh face and a fresh approach.  The last 30 years of status quo haven't worked.

When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

You sound like a high-scholer.

Tell me 10 things HRC has done while in the senate that proves to you she's a strong leader.

I've said it many times. If her last name wasnt clinton, hillary'd just another white female with a law degree from Yale.  And we have thousands of those running around.

He's exactly RIGHT, he's just engaging in "politics as usual."

It's funny how Obama is trying to run the exact same kind of campaign that Edwards ran in 2004.  Remember when Edwards ran the "POSITIVE CAMPAIGN", as opposed to the "POSITIONS CAMPAIGN" that he's running this time?

Now, Obama's trying to run the positive campaign, and just calling it, "a new kind of politics...refusing to engage in politics as usual."  

Same thing, as I would expect from David Axelrod who was with Edwards in 2004.

Obama went back to the politics as usual, I see.

Hillary, you really are like Bush, aren't you?  You think you're above being questioned or challenged on your positions?  

What does hope have to do with questions about your policy positions?  We're not asking you about hope, we're asking you about your foreign policy positions.  You've had so many in the last few weeks and months it's difficult to determine where you stand.  

The same holds true for your numerous positions on the Iraq war:  1) You aggressively voted for and supported the Iraq invasion, 2) Then you voted against the Iraq invasion, 3) You voted to fund the Iraq Invasion, 4) Then you voted against funding the Iraq war.  

How is anybody supposed to know where you stand when you have so many positions?

Hillary, you didn't sound presidential at the debate going through your laundry list of you have to do this, and then you do that, and then you do this - and you work your way up to that.

You sound more like a state department official charged with background research.  

Please note that Hillary had to go find a man (Holbrooke) to continue the fight she started, but didn't have the judgment, the wits, or the know-how to finish.

Lesson to Hillary: You can't go around "decking" people and think you won't get decked back.

Advice to Hillary:  The next time you decide to "deck" one of your opponents, find someone who has the "good judgment" you lack to tell you if you can finish the fight you started.  

Instead of bringing out Madeleine Albright to help fight your fight, find someone who wasn't photographed sipping champagne with one of the dictators (Kim Jong Il) you say you wouldn't have a meeting with.

Instead of looking strong and tough you look weak and pathetic like Bush.  It's never good to lose the fight you started.

Remember Bush was going to `smokem' out of their caves?  Bin Laden is probably smoking Cuban cigars in his cave as he continues to plan "dry-runs" for their next attack over here - instead of over there.

Hillary, you want to carry the Bush TOUGH TALK mantel but we're not going to allow a continuation of the Bush presidency.

I'd go more with "Bush-Cheney, The Sequel", or "Business as Usual".

but I don't think we should give them relevancy by having them meet face-to-face with the president of the US.

That is the crux of all of this. These Obama types either do not understand the importance of this or they don't care.

Since Hilary doesn't plan to meet with Iran and Syria in her first year, then no diplomatic solutions will be made in order to start bringing the troops home.  It seems then, that she has no plans to try to end this Iraq occupation any time soon.  Makes you wonder what she means by if Bush doesn't end this war she will.  Truly she doesn't mean any time soon.

Hey all, it really is "Bush Lite", not light.  Remember that 2004 bumper sticker: "No one died when Clinton lied"?  Well, it turns out that was not.  Consider Hillary's lies in 2003, instead of Bill's in the 90's.