Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama referring to her as "Bush-Cheney Lite"

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:50:49 PM EST

My guess is that people within the Clinton camp are pulling out the dagger right now after Obama escalated this by referring to Clinton as a "Bush-Cheney lite". We, alot of times, use the "Republican lite" term, but "Bush Cheney lite" is quite an escalation. And coming from Obama, whose only serious distinction from Clinton comes from 5 years ago, it seems another slip. Does Obama have anything else to back up the differentiating claim since he's been a Senator? Since he doesn't, what does that say about him as a Senator?

The 'name-calling' incident being played out comes after a minor goof by Obama in the debate to give an unqualified 'yes' answer to meeting with any international leader; compounded slightly by Axelrod saying afterwards that Obama didn't really mean just yes, but a qualified yes (basically what Clinton and Edwards said in the debate); but the twists and turns are now upping the ante quite a bit. Is referring to a Democrat like Clinton as "Bush-Cheney lite" going to work in his favor?

Clinton's response on CNN:

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."

Straight into Obama's brand with that one. It reminds me a bit of McCain making the mistake of associating Bush with Clinton while in SC during the 2000 Republican primary. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even double-digit support among Democrats for calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite." I expect we'll quickly see backtracking by Obama's campaign, that it's not what he meant.




Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 263 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: (3.00 / 6)

"I think you'd be hard pressed to find even double-digit support among Democrats for calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite." I expect we'll quickly see backtracking by Obama's campaign, that it's not what he meant."

Abso-frikking-lutely.  There is NO support from Democrats at large for this ridiculous slam, the worst slur one can utter against a DEMOCRAT, given how hated Bush and Cheney are.    Serious miscalculation on Obama's part.  He WAY overstepped a line and he is not helping himself at all.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:54:50 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)


by bookgrl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 3)

I guess we'll see.  I thought Jerome was over the top in this post (as per usual) and I'm surprised to see you agree with him to such a degree.  But maybe you're right.

I've always rejected the ridiculous charge that Hillary's administration would be a continuation of Bush's policies; but to be honest, I find it hard to call foul on this one.  From where I sit, the answers Clinton and Obama gave to that debate question simply weren't that far apart; both of them were well within the Democratic mainstream, and Hillary took the first shot when she tried to paint Obama's answer as something crazy and irresponsible.  (Not a move generally associated with a runaway lead, for what it's worth.)

I'll keep an eye on how all this plays out.  My instinct is that Obama, as a solid second place, probably needed to take a gamble at some point.  If you admit that Hillary is squarely within the mainstream, you'll never make up that deficit in the polls.

Full disclosure, I have a preference for Obama over Hillary, as I think you know, but I'm fine with either as the nominee.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 3)

The problem is how the essence of these comments plays out.   In essence, almost no Democrats  believes that Clinton is Bush/Cheney Lite.  Bill Clinton is seen as the antithesis to George Bush (even though he had centrist tendencies,) and going even further, Hillary Clinton has always been regarded by Democrats as the more left-leaning of the two, the further part of the duo away from the GOP.   Her strong anti-Bush rhetoric and many public Cheney jokes make this a non-starter, anyway.   But if you consider history, Democrats are just not going to agree with Obama, and by extension, will regard him as over the top, a "lightweight," and, even worse, it will damage Obama's new politics theme.  

I agree with you that the outcome of the spat remains to be seen, but I have a feeling that the comment will be played in the MSM down to its ridiculous base point, which makes the contrast of the comment to reality appear stark (for most people, not just Democrats but the entire nation, which regards Clinton in many cases as "way too liberal".)


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 1)

I asked my wife if she thought Obama had a sort of point.  She said, "Fuck no!" (My wife is a sweet person.)  You might be right on this one.

This much I know: It's a godsend for Hillary's general election chances any time she gets attacked from the left.  I still don't know why she chose to pick this particular fight at this particular point in time, but it seems to be playing out well for her.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, nobody thinks "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton."

Absolutely nobody thinks they're two sides of the same coin.

Right.


by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

You are confusing "some" in the blogosphere with Democrats at large.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

George is there a reason you felt is necessary to give my comment a "1" I usually save ones for absurd comments and insults - my opinion may be different from yours, but I don't believe I've ever downgraded your false opinions... Hillary and Bill play liberal politics the way Rove plays Conservative politics, I don't like there style - and am entitled to my opinion.
Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I object to the framing "Rovian" and "Bushian."  I don't equate Obama to GOPers, even though he, more than anyone else, has been courting Republicans and we have seen Obama posters proudly claim the Reagan mantle, and proudly point to right-wingers' praise.   When I call Obama "Reagan-Lite" I would say you have a very good reason to downgrade my comment for ridiculous framing that does the right-wing's work for them.


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (1.00 / 1)

But I don't because I agree that Obama has the cross-over appeal of Reagan...and is running a similiar campaign. Hillary is running a Rove like devide and conquer us against them campaign, and that is not the America live in.
Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Misrepresentation (3.00 / 1)

Obama never said that Hillary Clinton is Bush-Cheney Lite. He indicated
that Clinton's diplomatic approach appears to be Bush-Cheney Lite, and he
called on her to explain how it's not. As reported by ABC and NBC:

The Bush administration's policy is to say that he will not talk with these
countries unless they meet various preconditions -- that's their explicit policy,
and that was the question that was posed at the debate. This is the assertion
that she made during the debate and subsequently, was that she would not
meet with various leaders unless certain preconditions were met. Now, if that's
not what she means, then she should say so, but that was the question that
was posed at the debate.

. . . . . . . . . .

I'm not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators...I'm not going to hide
behind a bunch of rhetoric. I don't want a continuation with Bush-Cheney.
I don't want Bush-Cheney light. I want a fundamental change.


by horizonr on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Misrepresentation (none / 0)

Yeah, I expect him to start back-tracking like this. He went too far with "Bush-Cheney".


by souvarine on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Misrepresentation (none / 0)

Those are not "backtracks" -- they are his original quotes.


by horizonr on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Misrepresentation (none / 0)

Thats the same thing. When people on here call Bush Hitler-esque because of his policy they're not saying Bush is the physical embodiement of Hitler they're saying his similarities in his action make him seem Hitler-lite.


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (3.00 / 1)

Obama is talking specifically about diplomatic policy, which, to be sure, is a big enough deal. But he has
not said that Hillary Clinton is, in the totality of her persona and policies, a "lite version" of Bush-Cheney,
in the totality of theirs.

That said, I think Clinton's taste for the imperial presidency, with its premium on secrecy and executive
privilege, puts her approach to the office of the presidency closer to Bush-Cheney than many Democrats
realize.


by horizonr on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I challenge you to provide warrants and evidence for that argument. I challenge you.


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Misrepresentation (none / 0)

And that's just as ridicules.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Over the top post (3.00 / 3)

but NOt an over the top comment? Bush Cheney Lite?

Steve, I know you to be reasonably level headed.

This is your heart talking, not your head.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (none / 0)

Well of course it's way over the top.  I just didn't see it as the sort of thing that would spark mass outrage among Democrats.  Maybe I'm too desensitized by the fact that I hear this sort of unfair criticism of Hillary every day in the blogosphere.  Or maybe it's that the Republicans say things more ridiculous than this every time they open their mouth and THEY never seem to suffer any consequences for it.

But I think I'm gradually coming around to your view on this, as far as the political fallout goes.  I don't think it's my heart talking, because I'm about as neutral as it gets on the subject of who should get the nomination and thus I don't get very emotional; rather, I simply judge things wrong sometimes.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (3.00 / 2)

Oh that is not the point.

The point is so much for the Politics of Hope.

Just another pol no?


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (3.00 / 1)

Well, I would hope he would know how to counterpunch.

If not, he wouldn't be much of a pol.

Hillary's going to be dragging him through the sewers before this is over, so he'd better be ready to fight.


by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hope (3.00 / 1)

i think people are hoping for a change, and continuing certain foreign policy practices just isn't going to cut it.

And anyone who thinks he could start the campaign as far behind as he did in terms of organizational strength and polling numbers and not push back hard when he gets slammed on his key weakness (the "inexperienced" thing) isn't being honest with himself.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (none / 0)

What an obnoxious comment.  Let me see if I can lay this out:

1) Your candidate picks a fight by trying to suggest that Obama is not "hawkish" enough;  

2) When Obama responds reasonably by saying that he "doesn't want Bush-Lite" diplomacy, you misconstrue his comments to mean that he is claiming that HRC is Bush-Lite;

3) You then re-attack the strawman argument that you have created;

This is exactly the style of argument that makes me dislike the Clintons to begin with.  This is truly "Rovian."  You are not scoring any points with this Democrat.


by upper left on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (none / 0)

This is exactly the style of argument that makes me dislike the Clintons to begin with.  This is truly "Rovian."  You are not scoring any points with this Democrat.

Exactly.  There is something very dishonest about the way team Hillary had decided to proceed on this.  She knew what Obama ment in his answer and she knew exactly what he said defending his position on a lack of precondidtions for meetings of the Bush/Cheney type, but she is playing the game of depending upon the media not to call her on what she is doing because they love a fight too much to set things right.

If I was not still an Edwards supporter this would be enough to swing me toward Obama big time.


by Fred in Vermont on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (none / 0)

Politics is what it is.

Obama wanted to pretend it was something else.

I am surprised at your dismay.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Over the top post (none / 0)

I am a Dodd supporter.

There was nothing obnoxious about my comment.

There is something noxious about the attitudes displayed by Obama supporters everywhere.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeesh (3.00 / 3)

i think the top is a distant memory after this post.

Jerome's buying into the inside baseball version of this spat that the Clinton campaign is trying to capitalize on (and that Chris Bowers wrote a pretty good post about on Open Left yesterday). It's a flub, it shows he's not a "very serious person," this is the type of behavior that David Broder et. al. would frown upon, etc.

Let's get back to the question: should our nominee be like Sadat (or Nixon or Carter whoever you want to make the comparison with) and be willing to meet with problem countries like these?
I'd like to see the leaders of these countries meeting with our President, even if it results in a "kitchen debate" moment. And really, was the kitchen debate thing so bad? I mean, come on, "I don't want to be used for propaganda"?

I just don't see how a progressive blogger could side with the Washington establishment conventional wisdom on this one.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeesh (none / 0)

Thats why bloggers dont run the country, engage in negotiations, or write policy.

And no offense to bloggers, but despite being more "well informed" they don't view the nuiance of issues.


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep (3.00 / 1)

all that nuance has gone a long way in accomplishing our foreign policy goals with these countries, huh?

What if the Presidents of the Cold War years had taken the tack that you're proposing? Do you regret the fact that we talked to Soviet Premiers during that era?


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep (none / 0)

Chavez in not leader of the USSR

Going to Iran would not be like opening china.

In fact both are better dealt with on a lower level, with a envoy, or the sec. of state.

comparisons need to make sense before they work. We're not talking about not having diplomacy. But the form it should take. Surprisingly having the president running around going everywhere isn't always the best solution. There actually has to be a need.

What is the reason we should sent the president instead of the sec. of state?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep (none / 0)

There's not a need to deal with these situations? These are the most serious security problems facing our nation today, and I want an Administration that's doing everything they can to diffuse the situation diplomatically before sometime down the road when some idiot neocon comes into office with an idea to start a war.

Completely refusing to meet with leaders of certain countries just isn't something I'm happy to support in a candidate. I'm an Obama supporter, and sometimes I'll admit that I wish my candidate was being a little less cautious, a little more aggressive in making his campaign theme running against Washington, or corporate interests, or whatever. But I have absolutely no ill feelings resulting from this exchange. He's right, and I think in your heart (and hopefully in your head) you too know that is the case.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:04:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep (none / 0)

Are guys even reading my post when I say that diplomacy is good, that I'm all for it. that it needs to be dealt with?

HERE in my post:

In fact both are better dealt with on a lower level, with a envoy, or the sec. of state.

I argue against over using a single specific tool in the international diplomacy tool box in favor for using a better one. Namely the sec. of state. Yet ever comment back is how supposedly I just argued complete shut-out.

Somehow the reasonable alternatives I mention to presidential diplomacy get lots every time.

HELLO WAVES HELLO!!! HAS ANYBODY ACTUALLY READ MY COMMENTS? are people just ignoring them to cut and paste a response to something I should have said? I'm getting so tired.

I say. Gee lets not forget the other ways you can use diplomacy. through ambassadors!

I get this answer: Why don't you see that you should always talk to your enemies?

I say well: in that particular case an envoy would work best.

the answer to that: A president should never shut out certian people from diplomacy

I say: I couldn't agree more, but there are more important people who could do that specific task, like the sec. of state.

The reply: well stopping diplomacy is something Bush does. and we should get past that.

NOBODY ANSWERS TO MY COMMENTS. IS IT ME? Am I that bad I writer? Or is it that only post that contain the sentence Yes the president should do all the diplomacy, all the time register.

I give up, I really do.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep (none / 0)

Find me a person out side of the white house who would call their foreign policy approach nuianced?


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually there are bloggers that (none / 0)

write policy, CHeck out energize America that off shooted from Dkos, they are helping to write environment policy.


by Chaoslillith on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Hillary took the first shot when she tried to paint Obama's answer as something crazy and irresponsible.

I agree.  By distorting what what Obama said Hillary gave him little choice but to respond in some way.  And btw notwithstanding all the MSM stories that flat out say that Obama called Hillary "Bush/Cheney lite" in fact that was a term that he applied to the policy he wanted to make it clear he would not follow by being reluctant to even talk with foriegn leaders we have disagreement with.

By buying into the Media escalation that Obama called her "Bush/Cheney lite" Hillary simply gives more legs to the story.  I thing it was a mistake for her to pick this fight because it kicks open a door that  it would have been hard for Obama to have opened himself this wide.


by Fred in Vermont on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Wait til you see the Howard Wolfson (Clinton) versus David Axelrod (Obama) joint appearnce that just took place on CNN.

Obama is in deep trouble.


by hwc on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod (3.00 / 2)

He is a serious problem for Obama. He is in over his head.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod (3.00 / 1)

I watched it and Wolfson sucked. Again, he did not answer the question , but instead tried to change the subject. Even he can't spin this for his majesty.

Ha Ha Ha Ha


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 0)

Axelrod did absolutely well. The real debate is between the candidates, not their surrogates. Lets have this debate within the Democratic party.


by rosebowl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:This is great (3.00 / 1)

This back and forth plays into Obama's hand. The front runner should never get into these sort of brawls. Always use a surogate.

Obama has nothing to lose, but Clinton does. I believe their internal poll's in IA are telling them this is good politics.


by BDM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It plays into Clinton's hands (3.00 / 1)

because Obama doesn't show at all how he is different and attacking Clinton like this strengthens her and undermines the strongest part of his candidacy - his ideas about "new politics"


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It plays into Clinton's hands (none / 0)

The strongest part of Obama's candidacy is not "new politics."  The reason I support Obama is good progressive values tied to sound judgment and an ability to frame those values in a way that will build a progressive majority.


by upper left on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:02:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sheer arrogance from Clinton folks (3.00 / 1)

yeah, it's not a slur to call Obama "naive" and "irresponsible", coming from someone who didn't bother to even fully read the NIE report and voted to authorize this dumb war that has cost us over 3,000 lives. Talk about the sheer arrogance her remarks about Obama.

Barack is going to stand his ground and not back away from this attack on his integrity. He will not shy away from this fight. Lets have this debate.


by rosebowl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Back track (none / 0)

Would you call this statement irresponsible and naive, George?


by David Kowalski on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama: PUNKED (none / 0)

He looks weak and silly.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: PUNKED (none / 0)

Your usual insightful comment filled with facts and analysis.....not.

Try leaving the name calling on the playground and contribute to the exchange of ideas.


by upper left on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:05:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Hi, guys.  I'm new to posting but have been lurking on the site for sometime.

Can someone give me the background on why Jerome has so much disdain for Obama?

Jerome's a great blogger, but he seems to be way over the top (to the point of being ridiculous) when it comes to Obama.  Just wondering why.


by JR Hawks on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An attempt to answer (none / 0)

Excellent question.

This is speculation on my part:

In general, Jerome seems to be of the school of thought that what ails the Democrats is a lack of sufficient fight and a need for more partisanship.  Therefore, he is contemptuous of Obama's call for less partisanship.  What I see as good framing and an ability to reach out and build the progressive movement, Jerome seems to see as a weak sell-out.

I think Jerome is fundamentally wrong, and I agree that his blindness in this regard is a major blight on his strengths as a blogger. I would love it if Jerome would answer your question.


by upper left on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An attempt to answer (none / 0)

I've answered it many times, and probably will so more in the future. I don't dislike Obama, I just think he misunderstands the playing field for the primary, and who his allies are for the general; he owes his candidacy to the media though, so that's who his message caters toward.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 0)

Poor Hillary is getting ripped to shreds by a freshman.


by Nikki on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:32:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

Bush republicans are the worst of the worst.


by Trey Rentz on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:54:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

wow.. those words were a pretty brutal punch. It's only going to get uglier.


by BarackObamaHomeboy on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wong Jerome (3.00 / 2)

Isn't this exactly the same policy that Bush-Cheney have followed all these years? She is no different than them. We have ignored Iran, North Korea for so many years. What exactly is wrong with face-face meetings if you're confident in your ability to send a clear message to any rogue leader? Unless it's fear. Well, we need bold leadership for a change. And that's why Barack Obama position is consistent with a change agenda.

The Politcs of Hope begins with a Politics of Change. Hillary IS the status quo. Bush-Cheney fake bravado on foreign policy has brought us Iran developing nuclear weapon. Where is the international community backing us? Well, if you treat the world like its your way or the highway, the world would not stand with you. We need a leader who isn't afraid to talk tough face to face with leaders of all persuasions.
The Politics of Hope begins with a Politics of Change. Hillary represents the status quo. Vote Change in 2008.


by rosebowl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:55:34 PM EST

Re: Wong Jerome (3.00 / 1)

No, this is not exactly what Bush has been doing the past 6 years.  He refused to send any envoys and engage in any kind of diplomacy at all with these other countries.  Clinton is saying that you send the envoys out immediately and en masse so that they can start laying the groundwork before you have a meeting at the very highest levels, and she's right.  That's why we have a state department. You don't build a building by starting with the penthouse, you start at the foundation.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (3.00 / 1)

There is absolutely no contradiction in what you're saying and what Obama proposes.

He said Clinton's views mirror those of the Bush admin.-- to meet with enemy leaders only after they met a set of preconditions. Obama said he's willing to meet them w/o preconditions, but not w/o preparation (and again, not just for coffee).

Engaging our adversaries "allows us to send a message to the rest of the world," he said, which "increases our leverage" in trying to deal with other problems. Obama also challenged reporters to question Clinton's campaign about whether they "are walking back" her statements on the issue.


http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/a rchives/2007/07/prefix_this.html

This is what Barack is talking about.


by rosebowl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (none / 0)

He's lying. It's bull. Bush doesn't meet with enemy leaders only after they met a set of preconditions.

He doesn't meet them at all. He only start diplomacy after they qualifiy.

Hillary said perfectly clear that she would engage in high level diplomacy with all of them. But simply start at the right level. We have the office of the sec. of state for a reason you know.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (none / 0)

Hillary said perfectly clear that she would engage in high level diplomacy with all of them. But simply start at the right level. We have the office of the sec. of state for a reason you know.

It is probably true that in fact Hillary and Obama are saying the same thing in different ways.  But the fact remains that by herself going on the attack against Obama as being inexperienced and lacking understanding of international relations she virtualy forced him to defend his position in a way that suggests that she was advocating for something she probably was not.  It gave him the opening he needed to remind people how wrong she had been in supporting the Iraq war even for all her time at the elbow of President Clinton.

I think she made a mistake.  Obama didn't call her Bush Cheney lit he described the policy he intended to change that way.   It was a mistake for the Clinton campaign to respond by accusing Obama of going on the attack after they started this.


by Fred in Vermont on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (3.00 / 0)

Jerome:

Clinton reminds me of Nixon sTATUS QUO THE ESTABLISHMENT
Obama reminds me of JFK A NEW DIRECTION THE POLITICS OF HOPE AND INSPIRATION.


by BDM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (3.00 / 4)

yeah Nixon never went to China, did he?


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

Careful, someone might say you're "wong."


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (none / 0)

Politics of hope reminds me of Bush's slogan before he was election.  Compassionate Conservative.  Also empty rhetoric.


by changehorses08 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:07:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (none / 0)

Let's see!  Senator Clinton votes to authorize the Iraq war and refuses to admit that it was a mistake.  She has presented no specific goals or policies concerning the implementation of health care which looks pretty status quo. She twists Senator Obama's use of the word willing into the words promise and committment concerning speaking to foreigh leaders. She personally attacks Senataor Obama after the debates by calling him irresponsible and naive and now she says the whole thing is silly when he counter punches.  I've loved Hillary for years and still do and I think she wold make a good president.  But it's no wonder that for weeks I have been calling her campaign in private 'Bush Junior".  The rhetoric is sounding awfully Carl Roveish to me.  This weeks exchange has sealed the deal for Obama for me.


by Mahoney on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wong Jerome (none / 0)

Let's see!  Senator Clinton votes to authorize the Iraq war and refuses to admit that it was a mistake.  She has presented no specific goals or policies concerning the implementation of health care which looks pretty status quo. She twists Senator Obama's use of the word willing into the words promise and committment concerning speaking to foreigh leaders.  She personally attacks Senator Obama after the debates by calling him irresponsible and naive and now she says the whole thing is silly when he counter punches.  
I've loved Hillary for years and still do and I think she would make a good president.  But it's no wonder that for weeks I have been calling her campaign in private "Bush Junior".  The rhetoric is counding awfully Carl Roveish to me.  This weeks exchange has sealed the deal for Obama for me.
by Mahoney on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (3.00 / 5)

I think you are wrong on this. I think there is a sizeable amount of anti Clinton voices that feels that's exactly what she is. I also think that you are wrong about the value of differentiation here. If he backpeddles he would be a fool because this works onto the precise problem that a lot of us have with Obama. Namely, his inability to fight. If he backs down now, that perception will solidify. If he doesn't- people may disagree, but most will say at least he's his own man. That's invaluable to both his run for office and for targetting Clinton's gravitas as President. It reminds us that you can be Presidential- and wrong.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:55:44 PM EST

I often agree with you, bruh, (none / 0)

but not here.  I think calling her Bush-Cheney lite was a mistake made of inexperience in national campainging.

This is a little like Gephardt and Dean going after each other.  Meanwhile, John Edwards fights for Democratic values.


by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:58:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A mistake to who? (3.00 / 2)

It's only a "mistake" to those who have no intention of supporting Obama anyway.


by niagra2000 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (none / 0)

Exactly.

Pay close attention to the posters making the comments and assertions. Don't forget the following;

1. Opinions are NOT fact.

2. Just because you say it or in this case, write it, doesn't make it so

3. CONSIDER THE SOURCE! Clinton supporters ( You know. The ones with Canadian IP's ?) are NOT going to concede to reality.

DUH!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (none / 0)

Yes, when anyone says someone has made a huge gaffe what they are really trying to do it turn it into a gaffee--nothing but an attempt at narrative construction, not a description of fact. We know that, they know that. Let's stop playing the game.

BTW, all of us resort to this sometimes, not just Clinton folks.


by niagra2000 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (none / 0)

TRUE

You are right about that. That doesn't mean I shouldn't remind people of it.

This is clearly spin for Hillary. She was wrong. If she wasn't wrong, then why are her surrogates spinning her position right now on Hardball? They are explaining her position different than what she answered , while Obama is sticking to his.

Ha Ha Ha Ha !


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, Harold Wolfson is getting his behind handed to him on Hardball, though more so by Chris Matthews than by David Axelrod. Hillary needs to get rid of Wolfson, he's a sorry advocate.


by niagra2000 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (3.00 / 0)

YES.

...and that's the way we like it.

I hope lovingJ is watching. I can just see another ad.

;p


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (3.00 / 0)

tHE MORE wOLFSON IS OUT THEIR AS A SPOKESPERSON THE BETTER FOR oBAMA


by BDM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A mistake to who? (none / 0)

AMEN!


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Canadian IPs (none / 0)

Care to expound on the Canadian IPs aside?  What exactly are you insinuating?


by Rooktoven on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian IPs (none / 0)

O just that every Clinton supporter is a plant.

It's also wrong. I've got a dutch IP. :)


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

"Sizeable" is relative.  In the blogosphere, perhaps, within the larger Democratic community, no way.  Not even close.  I believe Armstrong putting it at not even at double-digits is exactly right.  But, let it be, for arguments sakes, 25%.   Still, the vast majority of Democrats will look at this remark as way overboard and false, thereby making Obama look bad to them in the process.


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (3.00 / 1)

As i thought about it, I think you maybe right only to the degree of how strong the language is. It may have been better to say that this language that Clinton used after the debate is the same that the GOP uses, and how is that change.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (3.00 / 1)

Yes, I agree.  Even GOP-lite would have been acceptable.  But "Bush-Cheney Lite"?   The MSM is not going to be kind here, and I believe if Democrats are asked, they will overwhelmingly reject this framing.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (1.00 / 1)

No they wont. You can spin this for Hillary all you want to, but the truth is, she is Bush/Cheney Lite. To not meet with certain leaders when we are the Fucking Unafraid UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ! is COWARDICE and very George Bushian. Watch. It will catch on.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Dude

Blue Diamond...when did she say she would not use diplomacy? When...point me to the citation


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

hER POLICIES AND SUPPORT FOR THE WAR DO MAKE HER bUSH LITE.

I would be willing to bet that 50% OF DEMOCRATS DO NOT EVEN KNOW THAT SHE VOTED FOR THE AUF


by BDM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (3.00 / 3)

I disagree with you.

Jerome got it exactly right ON THE POLITCS.

Frankly, there is no substance to this.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right on both (none / 0)

BTD.

The substance is so meager on the underlying issue.

I think it will help Edwards in the long run.

Have you seen JRE's tax plan?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/26/ 123559/471

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-re leases/20070726-economic-plan/

Cap gains up to 28% on top rates.


by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are right on both (3.00 / 4)

I am wondering how Edwards can try to exploit this affirmatively.

I realy can;t think of a way.

I think he should keep hammering the partisan angle and maybe take some time this week to really rip into Republicans.

Higlight the point, the political point, thst Obama gets nasty when he is attacked but NOt when Dems are attacked.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not a bad strategy. (none / 0)

I am sure they will try to use this in their favor.  

He used this line today: "It's time to end the president's war on work."

Going after Bush while Clinton and Obama fight could distinguish him in people's eyes as the champion for all Democrats.  


by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a bad strategy. (3.00 / 2)

exactly. edwards needs to stay out of this either way.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a bad strategy. (none / 0)

Edwards can't play with the big dogs on this one. He should just sit back and watch considering himself lucky that he is NOT on the News right now. He could use the break.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a bad strategy. (none / 0)

ok.


by bruh21 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "big dogs" look like (none / 0)

silly little puppies right now.


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are right on both (none / 0)

Sounds like you did think of a way:

Highlight the point, the political point, that Obama gets nasty when he is attacked but not when Dems are attacked.

Sounds like a winner to me.  And true.


by Rooktoven on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

If he got it right then why did she have to respond and not a surogate.

Being the front runner she should have played it above the fray. Now she is on the ground mud wrestling with Obama,

This is to his advantage as he is the under dog and behind in the race.


by BDM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

The problem many of us have with Obama is he is too anxious to run his mouth before he thinks.


by changehorses08 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:05:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The start of the feud (none / 0)

The feud started with this comment, five minutes earlier... Even though it boosts Edwards and the dwarves, the upside for Hillary to this debate aftwerward is that it has submerged a money quote:

COOPER: Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in Iraq in vain?

OBAMA: Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them. They deposed Saddam Hussein.

They have carried out extraordinarily difficult missions with great courage and great bravery.

But, you know, one thing I have to say about Senator Clinton's comments a couple of moments ago. I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

(APPLAUSE)

And that is something that too many of us failed to do. We failed to do it. And I do think that that is something that both Republicans and Democrats have to take responsibility for.

When I am president of the United States, when I send our troops into battle, I am going to be absolutely sure that it is based on sound intelligence, and I'm going to tell the truth to the American people, as well as the families who are being asked to sacrifice.

Was Obama too negative here? Or simply realistic?


by Carrington Ward on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No backtracking by Obama (3.00 / 1)

she was wrong.  See the following video.

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


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:55:54 PM EST

Re: No backtracking by Obama (none / 0)

I don't think they are convinced. Do another ad on Wolfson/Axelrod on Hardball. Wolfson just gave you some serious ammo. Watch it again. He attacks Obama for being "Liberal" He slipped. Watch it.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No backtracking by Obama (none / 0)

Thank you for that, too good.  

Lovingj, listen to what the man just said!  Hopefully my post will make it more noticable with my little note
LOVINGJ LOOK HERE


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He said that? (none / 0)

I was watching it and I did not recall that part.

I did not like Axelrod's style too much even though Wolfson was making no sense . . . he did seem way more aggressive.  However, Axelrod should have been sticking it to the guy more.  Wolfson kept playing the republican cut off, talk over you, and insult game.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

I have to agree with you here.  Democrats, even left/liberal Demnocrats like me who are very critical of Clinton, do not see her as Bush-Cheney lite.

Hillary Clinton is too moderate for me.  But she would not have invaded Iraq.  She is a Democrat.  

This may be the beginning of the end of the MSM honeymoon with Obama.


by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:56:02 PM EST

Re: Clinton reacting (3.00 / 1)

Well, some feel that way about Hillary.  I've seen it for ages in the comments at Daily Kos.  But it's clearly an extreme minority view - and those who believe otherwise are either mistakenly seeing the netroots as representative, or simply engaging in wishful thinking.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

I agree with you. MANY more see Clinton as Bush/Cheney Lite than those who don't. People are making a huge mistake if they want to start focusing on this description of Hillary because all we have to do is back it up with her ENTIRE Record. It's more than just her voting for the War.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

Clinton wouldn't have invaded Iraq?

What in her 2002-03 voting record would give you that idea?


by JR Hawks on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

The worst thing you can say about Hillary is that she's a centrist.  Bush-lite never.  Mr. Obama that dog won't hunt.


by changehorses08 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:03:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

An invasion was considered around Desert Fox.


by Carrington Ward on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to (2.50 / 4)

I've been around politics long enough to know a campaign in the lead doesn't attack their opponets... Hillary started all this - and frankly it loosing it - but why is she attacking Obama? do their internals show something in Iowa and NH that leads them to concern. Who is she to critique the politics of hope when she called Obama "niave and inexperienced" first! Obama has been saying he can mix it up for month, and now were seeing it - but, only in reaction. hillary's forieng policy is neo-con, and her politics is rovesque - lets move past this crap, turn the page.
Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:56:09 PM EST

She tried to (none / 0)

get some positive press out of her losing debate performance so she ginned up this fight by calling Obama "naive."  Unfortunately, if she would have paid attention to what Obama has done to past attackers then she would have known that attacking him was not smart.  Now she is the one hurting.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to (none / 0)

Clinton is a neocon?  You're saying that she supports and aggressive  foreign policy of US global dominion through whatever means necessary? That she's anti-gay rights, anti-feminist, supports the unitary executive theory and views the Bill of Rights as a suggestion? Please.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to (3.00 / 0)

Why are you bringing the issues of abortion and feminism into this fight? Isnt that what right-wingers do? Pull out the Abortion and gay cards every chance they can? It seems to me you're doing the same on the opposite side.


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where was abortion mentioned? (none / 0)

Just checkin' ...


by Rooktoven on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to (none / 0)

Your knowledge is incorrect. Every winning campaign on the presidential level attacks their opponents. In front or not.

The last real presidential election where there always was a clear front runner was in '96 And in that election Bill managed to include an attack against Dole in almost every add he cut. every mailing he sent out, etc.

It's the major league. Nobody plays nice.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reaction (none / 0)

I actually think this will work in favor of the campaign.  I actually agree with what Obama said in the debate and the rhetoric seems, at least to me, to be a positive in a campiagn where he is hoping to push himsself forward.

And the campaign hasn't backed away.  Axelrod embraced the comment on CNN not half an hour ago.

I hope they don't back away.  I would be very upset.


"I think we can do better. That is what Robert Kennedy always said. I think we can do better too. Won't you join me in the effort?" - Paul Wellstone
by Mike Nellis on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:57:28 PM EST

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

Yeah, and calling Barack Obama "naive" and "irresponsible" is fine by you, right?

Expect the Hillary Clinton campaign to backtrack on her "naive" and "irresponsible" comments. Crickets....


by rosebowl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:58:23 PM EST

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

Find me the quote of her calling him naive and irresponsible. A direct quote.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll do better. (none / 0)

I have the video of her saying it.

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


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll do better. (none / 0)

Um. Thanks for the crap video link. But more to my point:

I thought that it was irresponsible and frankly naive to say that he would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first years.

Where did she call him irresponsible and naive? I know this may be hard for you, so I'll give you another try.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

Find me a quote of Obama calling Hillary Bush-Cheney lite. A direct quote.


by rosebowl on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:07:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

Her comment was about HIS comment not him personally.

And it was naive. I don't believe she used the word 'irresponsible'.

And it was naive.


...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She used both. (none / 0)


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She used both. (3.00 / 1)

Still, she did not call HIM naive and irresponsible, only THE COMMENT.   I can call your comment "ridiculous."  Then I can agree with a comment you make the next hour and call it "spot-on."   The first comment does not mean that I believe that you are a ridiculous person, which is how you are trying to paint the comment, falsely.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just look at the video man. (none / 0)

I got the video in a diary already.  She said both.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

We cannot afford to ignore countries on the basis of preconditions.  We have strengthened Iran and allowed them to capitolize on us politically, because our REFUSAL TO TALK TO THEM gave them PROPAGANDA.

Clinton is dead-wrong.


by Jacor on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

Why should Hillary backtrack?  This was a naive statement on Obama's part.  Today he said " I am not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators.  I'm happy to look them in the eye and say what needs to be said.  I'm happy to tell them what I think."  In that statement he shows the same naivety and arrogance as G W Bush. I wonder if like Bush he thinks he can look into their eyes and see their souls.


by changehorses08 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:12:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

Damn I feel stupid! I thought Obama would be a good VP but with comments like these, I guess he can enjoy the rest of his life in the US Senate talking about his change and fresh and coming toether crap.

This comes right after his comment about being the most qualified candidate on foreign policy. WTF is he talking about? I can't remember Obama helping with any global crisis or even passing meaningful legislation.

How low will Inexperienced Obama go?


by bsavage on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:58:56 PM EST

Check it (3.00 / 2)

Obama has a degree in International Relations and has worked with Richard Lugar, Sam Brownback, Biden, and a bunch of other Senators over the last two years to the following:

1) Give more Aids funding to Africa

  1. Prevent Nukes in C.I.S. from falling into the hands of terrorism
  2. Sending funding to two nations that looking to prosecute former Dictators in the country and who may otherwise have fallen apart.

Its not as much as someone who has been in Congress for decaded but it is something to hand a hat on.


"I think we can do better. That is what Robert Kennedy always said. I think we can do better too. Won't you join me in the effort?" - Paul Wellstone
by Mike Nellis on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check it (none / 0)

I imagine he's worked with a lot of senators. Forgive my ignorance but isn't that what senators do? He's done this important work for a total of 2 years and a couple of months. That sure is something.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 3)

1. "To know me is to love me"

2. "my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than any other candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat."

3. "bla bla bla Clinton bla bla bla Bush/Cheney Lite"

Forget VP for this guy, he would not be able to take the presidency after Day 61.  Too full of himself, too quick with the slurs.      


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

It's more name calling than slurs.  Usually slurs has you generalizing a massive group of people.  Obama is talking about Hillary.  

Secondly, if he hits something that sticks, she's done.  Reagan beat Carter in one debate so bad, because the next day everyone was saying "Oh there you go again Jimmy".  Bush-Cheney Lite doesn't roll off smooth enough.  Should have found something better.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

Bush Lite would have done the trick.


by horizonr on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why would he be VP? (none / 0)

He is running for president and why would he want to play second fiddle to someone who called him irresponsible and naive.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why would he be VP? (none / 0)

Exactly


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

How about Hillary?


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

You presume that Obama would be interested in being Hillary's VP. Apparently he doesn't give a damn. God bless him.


by niagra2000 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama (none / 0)

Obama will NEVER be VP.

Because he can't hold BOTH positions.

;p

President Obama .

People better get used to it.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama (none / 0)

President Obama? Yeah right and I'm going to win the lottery.


by bsavage on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama (none / 0)

if you win the lottery next week... dont say anything!


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aha (3.00 / 1)

Besides she started it...


"I think we can do better. That is what Robert Kennedy always said. I think we can do better too. Won't you join me in the effort?" - Paul Wellstone
by Mike Nellis on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:59:07 PM EST

Back to a sensible view (3.00 / 1)

on this at MYDD.

Thanks Jerome.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:00:49 PM EST

Crash the Gates of the Foreign Policy Elites (3.00 / 1)

The real point is that Clinton is part of the same old failed foreign policy consensus that lead us into the Bush-Cheney Iraq war.  Obama's answer in the You Tube debate about being willing to meet our adversaries shows that he is thinking outside the narrow boundries that have defined foreign policy for the past generation.  Let's crash the gate of the foreign policy "experts", let's try new policies, let's have real change.  Obama never drank the Bush kool-aid on the war, that shows good jusgement and the courage to take on the establishment.


by howardpark on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:02:00 PM EST

That would be a GREAT POINT (3.00 / 2)

The way it was made and WHEN it was made makes it an incredibly ineffective politcal move.

Axelrod is an amateur.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since being in the Senate (3.00 / 1)

he's voted almost exactly the same as Clinton.

Change? Crash the gate? Huh? Where is it? Him just saying he's an agent of change doesn't make him so - right now he is the establishment.


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever happened to the politics of hope? (3.00 / 2)

So Obama defending himself against an attack is somehow contradictory to the politics of hope? HRC would rather obama just let her attack him and not respond in any way shape or form.

Defending yourself against an attack does not mean you're not running a clean campaign. After all, who attacked who first?

And this is a disagreement over POLICY, which i thought politics were supposed to be about...

HRC is so used to dirt and smears, she cant see a clean fight when shes involved in one.


by freaktown on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:03:42 PM EST

Sounds like desperation (3.00 / 1)

Bush Lite?

Very bad political move.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever happened to the politics of hope? (none / 0)

Oh, he can respond.  No problem.  There are "rules of engagements" for this kind of stuff (basically unwritten rules,) but he has to rewrite the rules by using the worst slur one can utter against a Democrat?   Dumb move, IMO.


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever happened to the politics of hope? (3.00 / 1)

So Obama pointing out that HRC position is the same as Bush's is out of line, even tho its true?

WTF?


by freaktown on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever happened to the politics of hope? (3.00 / 1)

It is not true.  Bush refuses diplomacy, period.  Clinton wants to meet after conditions are set.   There is nothing "same" about the two approaches.


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has the same position as she does (3.00 / 1)

on just about everything. Is he Bush-lite too?

The problem is Obama hasn't yet articulated why he is different.


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever happened to the politics of hope? (none / 0)

WTF indeed.

Bush: no diplomacy! not ever!

Clinton: yes to diplomacy, I'll send envoys right away and I'll wait and see if I'll visit personally...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

I just saw Howard Wolfson and David Axelrod throw down on Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN.  They were smacking each other around there pretty good, but I think overall Wolfson did a much better job of defending his candidate than Axelrod.  Wolfson rightly pointed out that Obama's "Bush-Cheney lite" comment was way over the top, not to mention ridiculous. Axelrod was clearly getting annoyed, and he made the mistake of showing it.  

Axelrod continued to mischaracterize Clinton's position on this issue, saying she wanted to continue the same policies of Bush, which we all know isn't true.  Her position about diplomacy with our enemies is very clear, and the Obama team hasn't sent a consistent message on this.  First Obama said he would meet with those dictators without pre-condition, then immediately after the debate Axelrod said the Senator meant that the lower level groundwork would take place first.  Then today he's saying that setting preconditions is exactly what George Bush does, and therefore Hillary Clinton = Bush.  Ridiculous and untrue.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:04:07 PM EST

Re: Clinton reaction (3.00 / 2)

Axelrod is over his head in this campaign.

I think he is absolutely ruining Obama's chances.


by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You said it well a while ago. (none / 0)

John Edwards easily got to Obama's left on the war. That was Obama's big mistake.  He blew the one difference from 2002 that could have defined his campaign.  He below it in 2006 on Kerry-Feingold, in a lot of ways.


by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (3.00 / 4)

did you seriously think obama would meet with any foreign leader with any logistical advance work before hand? Like Ahmadenijad is just gonna show up without an appointment or something...geez. The fact that HRC is spinning this as something of a backtrack is ridic.

The question was whether there should be PRECONDITIONS, ie: iran shutting down their nuke program. Obama says no. HRC says yes.

Like it or not, that is a continuation of the Bush policy. Obama is just pointing that out.


by freaktown on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

oops...should read "without any advance work"


by freaktown on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

How could you be sure the "logistical advance work"  could be done by the one year window in which Obama said he would meet with them? The question is preconditions. There are dumb preconditions, for instance, requiring Iran to do something it probably would never do without direct negotiations and there are wise preconditions such as the preliminary negotiations before meeting the president. That you could conclude that Clinton's answer is anything like Bush, I daresay is "irresponsible and naive." Thankfully for everyone, you're not a 2-year senator running for president.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

Have actually bother to check what hillary actually said.

If you did you might have noticed that she came out pretty strongly for diplomacy, but that she would send envoys first.

All she placed "PRECONDITIONS" on was her visiting personally. That's not a continuation of the Bush doctrine of fucking everybody over who looks at himu funny.

Those "PRECONDITIONS" on was her visiting personally is one of the reasons why we have the office of the sec. of state.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reaction (none / 0)

That's not how it looked on Hard Ball.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

I'm sorry for the following comment if it upsets the Obama crowd. Also I have to say I have NO dog in this race yet. I'm on the sidelines. That said:

If any one thing could disqualify Obama from being President it is this ridiculous inability to understand even the basics of international diplomacy.

Senator Obama betrays his own inability to understand or articulate the difference between a robust dialogue with those we oppose and a personal meeting with the President.

Sorry...he's blown his own credibility.

I admire the quality of the Clinton responses so far. We'll see if they remain considered and non-inflammatory.

Calling Senator Clinton 'Bush-Cheney Lite' betrays his supposed call for unity and conciliation.


...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:05:46 PM EST

So... (3.00 / 1)

it's okay for Senator Clinton to personally call Obama "irresponsible and frankly naive", but he's not allowed to punch back?  I don't see who that's against his overall message.


by rashomon on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (3.00 / 1)

She called THE COMMENT, not the PERSON.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you'll make that kind of nonsense distinction, (3.00 / 1)

he was referring to the POLICY, not the PERSON.


by Ramo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's pretty clear from the quote... (3.00 / 0)

that he's refering to the policy.  Of course, it's perfectly understandable that Hillary is going to twist it into a more "personal" attack.  That's just smart politics.


by rashomon on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:39:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude in International Affairs from Columbia one of the top IA programs in the country.  Your assertion appears to be  nothing but anti-Obama spin.  

He said nothing that was irresponsible. He said nothing naive.  He laid out a principle which is that we should talk to our advisaries.  It is a good principle.


by upper left on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

"jaw jaw is always better than war war:"
it's a principle of diplomacy that has been around since long before Churchill, who stated it.

Your "principles of international diplomacy" seem to be, 'don't offend the Miami Cubans' and 'back Taiwan against China.'  

These, my friend, are not foreign policies, they are a "south Florida Policy" and "China Lobby policy."  

And yes, another principle of international diplomacy: it is not 'propaganda victories will win the war,' but rather, 'talk is cheap.'  

But I'll grant you... Obama slipped up in not stating that he would consult with his secretary and chief of staff first.


by Carrington Ward on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0)

I would like a discussion on this, but nobody responds to my question.  

How is Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Supposed to win a PR war when their standing in the world is lower than ours even with a giant dousche for a president?  (Bush)  After a Democrat is elected, America will skyrocket up as we resolve Iraq, Guantanamo, etc.  

How are we going to lose a PR war to any of these countries?  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:08:28 PM EST

Re: Obama (3.00 / 1)

Iran, Venezuela, etc. have remarkably little to lose on the world stage in terms of PR and strong relations with their allies who've been willing to look the other way concerning the US' stance on their activities. On the Security Council, Iran has a stalwart ally in Russia with which it has tremendous business relations. And Venezuela has been creating a syndicate of Latin American countries opposed to U.S. influence by selling its vast oil reserves at deep discounts. My point is that these countries don't want or need our approval. They could just as well take advantage of our stature around the world (which is politically damaged but economically as strong as ever-- money talks) to give themselves  more legitimacy and a louder voice with which to continue as planned.

A local public radio station in LA had two career diplomats on their morning show to discuss the dangers of any summit much less one that has been unconditionally promised: that in meeting with the the President, these leaders can have an enormous soapbox and microphone for their talking points which may seriously conflict with our own thereby embarrassing us, and that they can therefore undercut our own legitimacy damaging relations at our own accord. (Feel free to have a listen.) But one of the guests, Barbara Bodine, pointed out that both Clinton and Obama are advocating for the same thing. Clinton was just smart enough to put her remarks into a responsible context.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Apparently not, she must have felt pretty bad coming out of the debate.  She had to try and hide it with all this huff and fluff over wording.  That tells you you're doing bad.  

Not to mention the fact that staunch Clinton supporter "DoIT" was on the verge of begging Obama to defend Clinton on Iraq in a recent blog of his just a day after the debate.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Huh? What on earth do you mean by having to try and hide something by huff and fluff? That doesn't even make any sense. Unless of course you're talking about endorsements of her statement from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former UN Ambassador Richard Hollbrook. I'll take their word over David Axelrod any day...


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Wording over one policy, which they both feel similar about, is nothing.  Do you think it's a huge deal?  I don't.  So why did Clinton start with this?  Right after the debate even.  Pundits were saying Obama really stepped up from before, and the study groups were showing good results for him.  Do you think that's why she started all this nonsense?  That's my only guess.  That's what I'm talking about.  You're taking my question in a completely different direction.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Why did Clinton start with what? People up and down this blog have been crying for differentiation, differentiation, differentiation. It's high time for Obama to attack Clinton more often, they say; but Clinton is supposed to sit idly by and not contrast her views with his as more mature and in-line with diplomatic professionals such as the ones stated above? I think she went pretty easy on him, to be honest. I wonder what kind of rueful smile Obama gave as he told QC Times on the one hand that Clinton had manufactured a controversy in order to score political points while on the other in the same interview literally called her irresponsible and naive and pulling out some silly straw-man argument that what he thought he heard she  said was contrary to what she's said before.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cuba PR (none / 0)

Raul Castro is using Obama's remarks for propaganda purposes today, on Revolution Day in Cuba. Cuba is using Obama's statements as a hook to get more coverage of Raul Castro's speech in the international press and to help shore up the Castro regime. Raul, however, set conditions before he would talk with Obama.


by souvarine on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

I agree. Obama had every opportunity to clarify his "I would" statement over this past week. Instead he launches into Clinton with very serious charges, now calling her names. That's taking the low road. If this is the change of politics he wants to bring to our country, I suspect primary voters may as well conclude that he's just another dime-a-dozen politician: one with scant credentials at that.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:08:42 PM EST

Jerome (none / 0)

 this diary is no big deal since Jerome's diaries has a huge anti-Obama tilt to them...Jerome has gone out of his way to make multiple anti-obama comments and i dont even think he's trying to be objective anymore....Not that he should since it's his blog, but i want to let everyone know that Jerome is one of Obama's strongest critics on this blog alongside Areyouready and GeorgeP.


by JaeHood on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:09:01 PM EST

Re: Jerome (3.00 / 0)

Jerome has a right to his opinion, it is clear he simply does not like Obama or want to see him nominated for many reasons. I feel the same way about Hillary.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (3.00 / 0)

I jsut don't see the need however to any subtlety from Jerome, though, simply say that you don't wnat Obama to win and think others would be better, the "advice" he gives him reminds me of when Bush said Lieberman would be his strongest opponent in 2003.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

Well it could be true that. I mean in his re-election bid Lieberman gained more republican votes then the actual republican.

I think that Lieberman could have very well be his strongest opponent.

for the republican nomination...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

Until recently I was one of the few Clinton-supporters to consistently praise Obama as one of our up and coming superstars and called for him to receive strong VP consideration (if he loses the nomination.)   So, you are obviously wrong here (like the candidate you support.)


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

I was one of the strongest backer of Hillary for VP, but now that she has viciously attacked Obama, i no longer think Obama should offer her his VP seat once he wins.

You're laughable...Did Obama ever tell you he was running for VP?...I just dont get those Hillary supporters...Obama clearly stated he wasnt running for VP and in my opinion, he should not take it...I expect Obama to win the nomination anyway, so no big deal here....I


by JaeHood on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

Nice.  I posted that you wrote a ridiculous and false assertion, and this is all you have in response?   Again, your post was false and misleading.  I have given Obama a lot of credit and was actually fond of him.   You claimed otherwise, which makes your post yet another non-sensical effort.


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

viciously attacked Obama?

Good lord if this is viciously already, what will the republicans do to him?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

of course, jerome (none / 0)

you ignore the fact he didn't call her bush-cheney he said her policies seemed like a continuation of bush-cheney, and they do because she demands that we not be used for propoganda, a ludicrous idea.


by dpg220 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:09:50 PM EST

Re: of course, jerome (3.00 / 3)

"he said her policies seemed like a continuation of bush-cheney"

That's what I was thinking about being perplexing, if one believes that, while pointing out that Obama has voted right in line with Clinton.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (none / 0)

Neither of them have had the chance to differentiate themselves as Commander in Chief but nobody gets that opportunity.  Your statement also gives off the idea that Iraq is the only part of the United States foreign policy.  

Speaking of foreign policy, you know, as a whole.  I'll actually talk about where they do differentiate, since I haven't seen a Clinton supporter bring it up.  

1. I don't know about this, since I haven't heard from Clinton on it, but has she said anything about what she'd do specifically about Guantanamo?  Obama has already said he will close Guantanamo and restore Habeus Corpus.  

2. Obama said we aren't safer than we were before 9/11.  Clinton said we are.  Within months, the NIE comes out with a report saying Al-Qaida was back to its strength prior to 9/11.  

Also, what would Bush say?  Would Bush say we are safer or less safe now?  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (3.00 / 2)

I'm referring specifically to their Senate records on the matter, foreign policy, where is the differentiation?


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (3.00 / 1)

Jerome, he is simply caliing her out on being too much of a rightie on foreign policies.  Extreme, yes, but Democrats do want a puncher now don't they?


by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (none / 0)

I thought I saw Iraq in there somewhere.  Nevermind the first comment, either way, you didn't answer my question posed, "Has Hillary specifically said anything about Guantanamo?"  And the differentiation on how they view the security of the world as in the threat of terrorism.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (none / 0)

This argument has nothing to do with voting records it has to do with Hillary slipping in "wiggle room" verbiage in her answer.

Clinton has now enabled her administration to use the Bush/Cheney technique of avoiding people who disagree with you (by make impossible preconditions).

Obama is highlighting the fact that Hillary is giving herself the wiggle room needed to behave this way later.


by JoeCoaster on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (none / 0)


No she hasn't. She said she'd engage in diplomacy and send envoys.

Only if you believe that the president needs to personally visit every country all the time does it come close what you said.

There is a sec. of state for a reason you know. And that is to go to countries so the president doesn't need to. What Clinton is describing is the way we did things before Bush jnr. made his powergrap.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course, jerome (none / 0)

You're talking about two different things, her votes in the Senate and her plans as President should she win.  Obama's  comment about continuing Bush-Cheney obviously refers to the later, but you seem to be trying to conflate the two to create confusion.  Or maybe you're just confused?


by jg40 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please (3.00 / 1)

It's not the voting record they're fighting about.

They're fighting about whether or not to hold direct talks with the leaders of these countries.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:12:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I asked this in the other thread. Any takers? (3.00 / 2)

How does talking with Chavez, Castro, or Ahmedinejad "put at risk" the "power and prestige of the United States President?"  This kind of absurd militant bluster is exactly the way in which Clinton is imitating Bush and Cheney.

BTW, can we have a single grand unified thread for this?  A little continuity in the discussion would be nice.


by Ramo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:11:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton reacting (3.00 / 2)

Hillary: "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."

This is a Republican/Fox News talking point - just as it was when CNN's Anderson Cooper asked it. And Hillary using "the likes of" must have received a huge applause from Big Oil - and perhaps more campaign contributions to Hillary.
Hillary had no problems rushing into meetings with Wal-Mart - a supplier of Communist China products.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:12:56 PM EST

"Jaw Jaw is better than War-War" (3.00 / 1)

I'm fired up about Barack's position on diplomacy.  In accepting that "jaw-jaw is always better than war-war" he broke with an old and crippling Democratic tradition.  Democrats' finickyness about meeting with "bad guys" dates back to Acheson, and left Dems watching slack-jawed when Ike went to Korea, Nixon to China, and Reagan to Reykjavik.  Barack's is a courageous stance, and it wouldn't work at any other time, but it shows vision, leadership, and courage.

The substance aside, I'm dumbfounded that Hillary chose to continue the skirmish personally, instead of through surrogates.  Engaging in direct debate is tantamount to accepting that Obama is a front-runner.  Even worse for Hillary, she's ended up on the same bandwagon with McCain, so that Obama need not even denigrate Democrats to defend his own position. Not smart...  I don't know what this says about the vaunted Clinton organization. I'm wondering whether it's plausible that Obama successfully needled Hillary to the point of stirring her temper. Her behavior seems self-destructive for a front-runner, and I'm wondering she's responding to psychological rather than strategic imperatives.

As they say "never interrupt your enemy while [s]he's making a mistake."    


by Carrington Ward on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:14:34 PM EST

when Jerome calls foul on Obama (3.00 / 0)

he must be doing something really well, the poltiics of hope don't include taking shit from Hillary. The Hillary team want's people to believe all politicains have to be as unlikeable as her to get elected but that at least she's experienced in fighbting in the mud, Obama won't take it if she brings the race down to the gutter her simple unlikeability wiull bring her down.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:14:46 PM EST

Meaning of Preconditions (3.00 / 2)

This is the most heated debate about the meaning of the word "preconditions" I've ever seen.  As well as the only the one, come to think of it.


by MassEyesandEars on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:17:51 PM EST

Re: Meaning of Preconditions (3.00 / 1)

If only it had something to do with Garnier Fructis and L'Oreal Vive shampoos... that would be nice.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I for one... (3.00 / 2)

hope Obama sticks with this line of counterpunching.  I was surprised that Hillary opened the door by personally calling Obama irresponsible and naive...you would think the frontrunner wouldn't need to attack.


by rashomon on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:25:18 PM EST

Re: I for one... (3.00 / 1)

If I were feeling more cynical I'd say that I hope he does too: it's bound to be a disaster of epic proportions for him.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt it. (none / 0)

It's July.  Not to mention that one of the lingering questions about Obama has been his willingness to throw a punch.  Seems like that's been answered.  This is nothing compared with the stuff that gets thrown around come November.


by rashomon on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We will see. (none / 0)

I think calling her Bush-Cheney lite was a mistake on his part.  Republican-lite would have been better.  


by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We will see. (none / 0)

Nah, Bush-Cheney throw diplomatic hissy fits and that's what Hillary was endorsing.


by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't backtrack (3.00 / 1)

I hope Obama doesn't backtrack.

He's right.


by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:16 PM EST

Re: Obama shouldn't backtrack (none / 0)

Well...he sure is not backtracking so far!  In your heart, you know he's right.  Give 'em hell Barack!


by howardpark on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't backtrack (none / 0)

Yeah, shit.

I was actually starting to like Hillary there for awhile.

Must have been some kind of summer flu or something.


by Bush Bites on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"In your heart, you know he's right" (none / 0)

Haha, busting out the Barry Goldwater there howard? I like it


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't backtrack (3.00 / 1)

He spoke the truth, and I would imagine at least 40 percent of Democrats see his point.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What point? (3.00 / 1)

he hasn't differentiated himself from her at all. Voted the same on almost everything.

How can he say she's Bush lite when he hasn't shown he is any different?


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Doesn't look good here at all. (3.00 / 1)

The Politcs of Hope begins with a Politics of Change. Hillary IS the status quo. Bush-Cheney fake bravado on foreign policy has brought us Iran developing nuclear weapon. Where is the international community backing us? Well, if you treat the world like its your way or the highway, the world would not stand with you. We need a leader who isn't afraid to talk tough face to face with leaders of all persuasions.

find it amusing that Clinton is trying to equate any criticism of her as somehow not being, "the politics of hope." One can push-back without abandoning the politics of hope. The politics of hope does NOT mean the absence of principle-- it means directly addressing and dismantling established political regimes that operate with the status quo. If the HRC camp is one of those organizations, then so be it. What I also find amusing is her scrambling efforts to differentiate herself from the current administration's foreign policy approach while still trying to highlight differences between her and Obama. She cannot have it both ways: either she won't meet with the leaders of those countries, or she will. If she won't, then she's with the Bush camp. If she will, then any differences between her and Obama on that point are illusory, and she is being disingenuous on that point. She needs to make up her mind.


Ban Holden Caulfield!!
by ReggieH on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:54:30 PM EST

Reggie? (3.00 / 1)

Long time no see.  I have saw you on the boards in a while.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How's it going, Jonathan? (none / 0)

I've been around.  Mainly on Dkos.  someone on ORR sent out an e-mail talking up your youtube stuff asking the ORRers to subscribe.  I'd already been subscribed of course.  Hey, remember the DraftObama days?  haha.  I guess I'm technically still the ID state director for Draftobama.org  hahaha.  U should check out our www.idahoansforobama.org.  It's pretty damn cool.

Anyway, I don't like Mydd b/c it refreshes anytime I want to open a comment or post a comment or anything.  Just not a very conducive format.  And I REALLY don't care for Jerome.  Know what I mean?


Ban Holden Caulfield!!
by ReggieH on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah. (none / 0)

I do miss the more advanced style of blogging offered by DKos but I was banned.  Personally, I've come to like the environment on MyDD more that was until recently.  It seems like the anti-Obama diaries and posts have gone up twelve fold in recent days.

You should post over here more.  Hey maybe you can promote some of these videos over at Dailykos.  Maybe you can embed them in one of your diaries.

By the way, what is ORR?  I've never heard of it.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:46:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah. (none / 0)

Jerome is anti-Obama.  I don't care for his rhetoric but I feel it necessary to come here sometimes, if only in order to defend Barack or rec up a response diary to one of Jerome's hit-peices.

I wouldn't mind embed some of your videos over on dkos, but I don't know how and it's kind of confusing to me.

I'll tell you what ORR[you probably already know what it is] is if you e-mail me at ReggieHolmquist@mail.boisestate.edu  See, I'd rather not tell all the haters here anything more than they need to know, cuz they'd probably try to sabatoge.  Do e-mail me, tho, I have a couple ideas to share with you.


Ban Holden Caulfield!!
by ReggieH on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

All Obama and Axelrod have to say is...

On the most important vote in her career, she was wrong and she refuses to say she was wrong.


Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush?.... WTF
by rbrianj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:59:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

Axelrod was terrible on Hardball.


Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush?.... WTF
by rbrianj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (3.00 / 1)

you can have all the "experience" you want when people don't believe you or trust you nothing else matters it's hard to beleive dems would want a candidate that is both not trusted and dsliked as much as Hillary.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:03:15 PM EST

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

You could not be more wrong.  Democrats like her more than the other candidates.  With the ridiculous framing Obama overstepped his bounds, big time.   He won't come out good after this, quite the opposite.


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

She is not doing well in the General election match ups compared to Obama ACCORDING TO THE RCP AVERAGES.

CLINTON LEADS gULIANI BY 4/10THS OF A POINT
Obama leads by 3.5 points

Clinton leads Thompson by 5 pts

Obama leads Thompson by 14 pts


by BDM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

I said she is more LIKED by Democrats than Obama.  Do you want me to bring the many polls that state such?  The list is VERY long.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

the list may be long, but she is losing in the only state that matters and soon enough all these main stream media following sheep will realize hillary is a joke.


by scanman1722 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

Which state is that?  Iowa?  To Obama?  PLEASE.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

to EDWARDS.

the 90s ended 7 years ago. get over the third way because it failed and hopefully its never coming back.


by scanman1722 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: polls show Hillary is liked and not rusted (none / 0)

Even if, if she keeps the state as close as she is now, it won't matter.  Florida is not going for either Obama or Edwards, they have high unfavorables here.  New Hampshire looks good for Clinton, so does Nevada and very much South Carolina.   This is Hillary vs. Obama, and Edwards winning Iowa with Clinton placing second won't help Obama one bit make headway in the states he is behind in.  


by georgep on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FINALLY, barack finds his balls (3.00 / 0)

its about time he told the truth about hillary and stopped the love fest. guess he finally realized to beat her you actually have to tell the truth about her and not just give her rhetorical hugs.


by scanman1722 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:16:16 PM EST

People are sick of the group hug (none / 0)

They need to do this stuff AT THE DEBATES though and not in dueling press releases and letting their wonks fight it out.

I think Obama scored points with 60% of Dems who dont want Clinton or a backward slide into the 90's


by Libertarian Green on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

couldnt agree more (none / 0)

i am supporting edwards but obama just gained a lot of respect in my book for his post-debate strategy of going after clinton and, like you said, letting people know that progress, not regress, is needed in US politics. the third way is dead.


by scanman1722 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well this time (none / 0)

it will be pretty hard for Obama to blame it on his staff.

I'll bet their relieved.


by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:19:55 PM EST

Re: Well this time (none / 0)

Indeed!


by bsavage on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 1)

Sen. Clinton said it best: so much for Barack's self-proclaimed "message of hope." All week, Clinton has beaten Obama over and over again with each new iteration of this "diplomacy" story. Every day, Obama gets more shrill. He has turned a one cycle negative news story about him into a four day (and counting) story. Bad strategy. I think most Democrats will be repulsed by this "B/C lite" attack, and rightly so.


by arkansasdemocrat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:35:47 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

"Shrill"?

Isn't that the word Republicans use to describe Hillary?

Better find a better word next time.


by JR Hawks on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

how can anyone believe anything that comes out of any clinton's mouth?  i cannot take 4 more years of dick morris triangulation from them. id take any other dem nom over her.


by jsaveliv on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:51:12 PM EST

I wonder (3.00 / 1)

how this latest controversy will affect independents' views of Obama, especially in New Hampshire. Some independents (I'm not sure how many) probably liked Obama's early rhetoric about the cynicism of Washington and negative backbiting among candidates. The last 2 days the Obama campaign have stepped all over that early rhetoric. I'm not sure how many independents that he'll lose over this, but I think it could be significant. A lot of these independents are squeamish about partisan bickering. They could possibly think that Obama going negative against Clinton makes him look like other politicians. This could very well lead them to tune out of the primary process and in the end they might just not show up to vote in January/February. I guess we'll have to see how the past few days affect Obama's numbers, particularly in New Hampshire in the coming days....

I think the past few days the Obama campaign has changed the narrative of their campaign. I don't think it was a wise choice to make this change 6 months into the campaign. Live and learn I guess...


by ademption on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:15:30 PM EST

The root of the feud: (none / 0)


Journalists seem to have forgotten that the Obama/Clinton tiff began somewhat earlier in the debate --

I long wondered why Hillary Clinton risked 'going negative' in the debate over diplomacy.

This exchange, I think, got under her skin....

COOPER: Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in Iraq in vain?

OBAMA: Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them. They deposed Saddam Hussein.

They have carried out extraordinarily difficult missions with great courage and great bravery.

But, you know, one thing I have to say about Senator Clinton's comments a couple of moments ago. I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

(APPLAUSE)

And that is something that too many of us failed to do. We failed to do it. And I do think that that is something that both Republicans and Democrats have to take responsibility for.

When I am president of the United States, when I send our troops into battle, I am going to be absolutely sure that it is based on sound intelligence, and I'm going to tell the truth to the American people, as well as the families who are being asked to sacrifice.


by Carrington Ward on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

Barck says he'll meet with all America's enemies unconditionally - Chavez, Castro, and Ahjmadinajad.  My question is will Obama meet Osama?  He's an enemy, or is he trying to have it both ways.  I'd just like to know what he would do differently as commander in chief than all the other candidates, and how far he'll go.


by Mgunsta on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:21:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

LOL.  Nice try.

When did Osama become a head of state?

If you're going to be a smart-ass, at least think it out in advance.


by JR Hawks on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

Barck says he'll meet with all America's enemies unconditionally - Chavez, Castro, and Ahjmadinajad.  My question is will Obama meet Osama?  He's an enemy, or is he trying to have it both ways.  I'd just like to know what he would do differently as commander in chief than all the other candidates, and how far he'll go.


by Mgunsta on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:21:34 PM EST

Save the drama for Obama... (3.00 / 1)

...Lost in this ruckus between Hillary & Obama is this gem of a quote from the still wet behind the ears junior Senator from Illinois: Obama said he was proud to have Hodes' endorsement, but conceded he would not have near the number of endorsements that other candidates, like Hillary Clinton will have. "We haven't been in Washington all that long and we haven't traded that many favors," Obama said. [Source: 7/26/2007 Boston Globe article "Obama: I won't get as many endorsements because I haven't traded favors" If that's the case, then Howard Dean must have traded a whole lot of favors including a really big one in order for Al Gore to endorse him for President back in '04. Sometimes the best comment is no comment; and sometimes, some people have to learn it the hard way.
by andrewalker08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:27:07 PM EST

Save the drama for Obama... (none / 0)

...Lost in this ruckus between Hillary & Obama is this gem of a quote from the still wet behind the ears junior Senator from Illinois:

Obama said he was proud to have Hodes' endorsement, but conceded he would not have near the number of endorsements that other candidates, like Hillary Clinton will have.

"We haven't been in Washington all that long and we haven't traded that many favors," Obama said. [Source: 7/26/2007 Boston Globe article "Obama: I won't get as many endorsements because I haven't traded favors"]

If that's the case, then Howard Dean must have traded a whole lot of favors including a really big one in order for Al Gore to endorse him for President back in '04.

Sometimes the best comment is no comment; and sometimes, some people have to learn it the hard way.
by andrewalker08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:28:32 PM EST

Re: Save the drama for Obama... (none / 0)

That was brilliant.  Lets call him shoot-from-the-hip Obama.


by changehorses08 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Post. (none / 0)

I miss Bowers' objectivity.

Anyhow, I saw that clip and really it only took me a second to figure out what Obama meant. Personally I find it more appealing than Clinton's response and it made me like him more.


by MNPundit on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:32:34 PM EST

Obama's Lack Of Details (none / 0)

Obama is in way over his head here, and it shows.


by BigBoyBlue on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:42:09 PM EST

Axelrod (none / 0)

I think Axelrod and Wolfson had a generally good performance on Hardball BUT

One thing stuck out majorly. Why did Axelrod stumble on the war questions?

Matthews asked if Clinton would begin pulling out troops if elected and Wolfson gave a very consise (sp) yes from day one

Axelrod on the other hand stumbled and gave a convoluted answer that didnt address the question.

WHY?

This isn't really a complicated question for any democratic candidate, particularly for Obama. It really made Obama look kind of bad to not be able and give a solid answer on this.


by world dictator on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:57:42 PM EST

Comparisons (none / 0)

Many good points have been raised on both sides of the discussion; whether this latest row helps Clinton or helps Obama.  I feel it necessary to point out that John Edwards cannot be sorry this is erupting.  Further escalation of the Clinton/Obama fued might prove mutually destructive to both campaigns and give the former NC Senator an opening among NH independents in particular.

Also, I take issue with the assertion Jerome made at the very beginning, that John McCain made a mistake in 2000 by comparing then-Governor Bush to Bill Clinton.  His mistake was not pushing that narrative hard enough.  We all remember how the right bashed Clinton on "I didn't inhale", his draft deferment, and his record as a state governor.  Bush was vulnerable on all three as well, and there would have been no perceived hypocrisy for someone who voted to remove President Clinton from office (as McCain did) from pursuing Bush along the same lines.  If McCain had not let initial bad polling force a narrative change, he might have found a secondary reaction akin to 'Hey, maybe he's got a point here.'

All of that, naturally, is Wednesday morning quarterbacking.  As for Obama comparing Hillary Clinton to Bush and Cheney, the comparison to the 2000 SC GOP primary is hardly exact.  We shall see what happens next.


The bad news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority. The good news is that my Representative and two Senators are in the minority.
by CLLGADEM on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 07:58:11 PM EST

Bush Cheney lite? I don't think so (none / 0)

Bush/Cheney lite is the ultimate insult one Democratic candidate can use against another. I cannot even imagine Hillary doing such thing.

But I will say something that I said awhile back and which resulted in a lot of criticism from others ... Barack Obama is not that bright.  He has obviously put his destiny in the hands of his handlers and he is following their advice right now.

I would say Axelrod and Gibbs (ugh) and the rest of Obama's team are highly overpaid.  They have put their candidate into a box and given Hillary all the ammo she needs to knock his politics of hope right out of the water.

http://www.hillaryhub.com

Click above.  This is all Hillary had to do.


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 08:24:23 PM EST

Re: Bush Cheney lite? I don't think so (none / 0)

dinb't worry Hillarfy is so unlikeable and untrustworthy that Obama will win this lottle dust-up Hillary started this whole thing and Obama will end it, polls show most voters don't beleive her and don't like her, I would think she's want to stay away from going negative as according to today's hotline poll she is after all this good press a general election loser, something tells me if Obama doesn't become presidetn becasue of low info dems in 2008 we'll just have to wait till the regret sets in for his victory in 2012.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 10:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Cheney lite? I don't think so (none / 0)

He isn't that bright. That hubristic statement of his about his foreign policy judgement. Forget him.

Taking on the best oiled campaign I've ever seen this early on with his biggest gun is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen a candidate do.


by basement angel on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Bush-Cheney Lite" (none / 0)

The truth hurts Hillary!  Maybe he should have said Bush ultra-lite.


STEVENAK
by stevenak on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:54:39 PM EST

Obama Is More Like Bush (none / 0)

Hillary should not backtrack on her comments that what Obama said was naive.  Just today he said " Im not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators.  I"m happy to look them in the eye and say what needs to be said.  I'm happy to tell them what I think." Seems we have a president now who thinks he can tell the world what to do.  I wonder if Obama thinks he can read their souls too.


by changehorses08 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:21:22 AM EST

Re: Obama Is More Like Bush (none / 0)

That quote was ridiculous.  He's not afraid of losing the PR war?  Sometimes that is the only war that is going on.  It's like going from one extreme to the next.  Bush rolls over everyone and Obama will let everyone roll over us.  Hillary is more in the middle and that is how it should be.  The problem is that the media has given Obama a "pass" for so long and now that they are being more critical of him, he flips out about it.  He can't handle negative comments.  I think he has shown today he will not be able to perform well against the Republican assualt if he is in the General Election.


by reasonwarrior on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Is More Like Bush (none / 0)

I totally agree with you.  I'm afraid this could get very ugly.  I see Obama running as an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination.  I have to wonder where is he getting all this money when his polls numbers are stagnant.


by changehorses08 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Is More Like Bush (none / 0)

After today's speech where Obama signs on to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war and says he would never ask Congress for approval when he wants to attack a nation.  The winner of the Bush clone contest is definitely Obama.


by changehorses08 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 03:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton reacting (none / 0)

The dynamic of the race has now changed and this race desperately needed a major shake up...Who knows what will be the effect of this Hillary vs Obama war, but we know one thing, and it's that many democrats feels very uncomfortable with Hillary...

She's one of the strongest incumbent candidate the democrats have had in years and she only gets about 20% in Iowa???...She's pretty much the establishment candidate with backing from all D.C dems,but she's in a tough battle in Iowa + Obama is closing down on her in NH.

I will diary the hotline poll that was released yesterday showing Hillary with a 9 point lead nationaly.


by JaeHood on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:51:18 AM EST

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (3.00 / 1)

     Hillary Clinton is repeating the propaganda of the the crackpot realists who invaded Iraq and have fueled more chaos and fanaticism in the Middle East with their war against Islam.  You make workable arrangements with your enemies while opposing them.  It takes a long time.  You can't do this without talking to them.  This process doesn't translate well to CNN soundbites.   The policy of the Washington chattering classes is a rerun of Cold War tactics.  The United States stopped talking seriously to Ho Chi Minh in 1946 and John Foster Dulles refused to shake the hand of Chou at Geneva in 1954.  Not talking to "Red" China was counterproductive.  Barack Obama is talking realpolitik, but that interferes with the
cartoon world of Washington.  Bill Clinton isn't a true believer, but he missed an opportunity to normalize relations with Iran because Time Magazine and Rupert Murdoch would have attacked him.  I doubt that Hillary can envision a diplomacy not approved by the ideologues and no-nothings in the corporate media.  She isn't Bush-Cheney lite, but it is fair to say she is Bush I lite.
     
by darrow on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:38:18 AM EST

Re: Clinton reacting to react to Barack Obama refe (none / 0)

You (and all those who support Obama on this issue) could use a friendly little history lesson (or two):

In the Summer of 1961 President Kennedy met in Vienna one-on-one with Khrushchev without preconditions or envoys first... as Obama initially said he would be willing to do. This was a TERRIBLE mistake for Kennedy. He did not yet know how to face Khrushchev. Kennedy was manipulated; he was judged as weak; in his own words Khrushchev "beat the pants off" him. Nothing productive came from the meeting.

Now,TALKING to Khruschev was not the terrible mistake. Talking one-on-one so soon without preconditions or envoys was the mistake. Kennedy was a great leader and statesman who made progress in easing Cold War tensions because of his later, smarter use of diplomacy and willingness to talk to the Soviets. Hillary has said again and again that she believes in vigorous diplomacy of this sort. But Obama's sort of diplomacy is more like Kennedy's 1961 Vienna fiasco than his later, smarter negociations which brought us the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Nixon went to China only after intensive primary channels through Pakistan and Romania. Reagan went to Reykjavik 6 years into his Presidency. The issue here is NOT, as the Obama camp frames it, that if Hillary were President we wouldnt have talked to the Soviets, had rapproachment with China, or gone to Reykjavik. The real difference isn't even about being "Bush-Chenney lite" on foreign policy: both Hillary and Obama would be SO MUCH better than that! Bush sought to DIVIDE our allies in Europe, refused to seek peace talks in Israel until very recently, hasn't taken the advice of the ISG Report to seek a diplomatic solution in Iraq, and has completely ignored the problem of Iran. I strongly believe that both Hillary and Obama would turn a VERY differnt direction from this.

No, the REAL difference here is that Obama would be JFK 1961 in Vienna getting the "pants beat off" of him by Khrushchev, and Hillary would be JFK 1963 negociating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets.


by Hill08 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:47:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lite" (none / 0)

First of all, the screen name says it all.  I am going to enjoy all the whining-ass liberals that demand this post be deleted, and that I be removed from the board.

It is always funny to see how easily you chumps get sidetracked from the issue at hand, and blindly attack anything negative against you.

I would say that Hillary sucks, but we all know she doesn't..........why else would "Cigar" Bill get that fat chick Monica to polish the knob?


by DemocratsSUCK on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:36:15 PM EST

to her as "Bush-Cheney Lite" (none / 0)

Don't work up too much of a lather responding to this!


by DemocratsSUCK on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:38:54 PM EST

Journalists getting it wrong (none / 0)

Journalists seem to have forgotten that the Obama/Clinton tiff began somewhat earlier in the debate --

I long wondered why Hillary Clinton risked 'going negative' in the debate over diplomacy.

This exchange, I think, got under her skin....

COOPER: Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in Iraq in vain?

OBAMA: Our soldiers have done everything that's been asked of them. They deposed Saddam Hussein.

They have carried out extraordinarily difficult missions with great courage and great bravery.

But, you know, one thing I have to say about Senator Clinton's comments a couple of moments ago. I think it's terrific that she's asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous. But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

(APPLAUSE)

And that is something that too many of us failed to do. We failed to do it. And I do think that that is something that both Republicans and Democrats have to take responsibility for.

When I am president of the United States, when I send our troops into battle, I am going to be absolutely sure that it is based on sound intelligence, and I'm going to tell the truth to the American people, as well as the families who are being asked to sacrifice.


by Carrington Ward on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:40:36 PM EST

Obama Flip-Flops (none / 0)

I guess Obama gets a pass on flip-flops right?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/07/before-spat-oba.html

Makes the entire feud look idiotic.


by RJGajadhar on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:20:34 PM EST

HISTORY LESSON (none / 0)

You (and all those who support Obama on this issue) could use a friendly history lesson:

In the Summer of 1961 President Kennedy met in Vienna one-on-one with Khrushchev without preconditions or envoys first, as Obama initially said he would do. This was a TERRIBLE mistake for Kennedy. He did not yet know how to face Khrushchev. Kennedy was manipulated; he was judged as weak; in his own words Khrushchev "beat the pants off" him. Nothing productive came from the meeting.

Using diplomacy was not the terrible mistake. Talking one-on-one so soon without preconditions or envoys was. Kennedy was a great statesman who made progress in easing Cold War tensions because of his later, smarter diplomacy and willingness to talk to the Soviets. Hillary has always said that she believes in vigorous diplomacy of this sort. But Obama's diplomacy is more like JFK's 1961 Vienna fiasco than JFK's smarter diplomacy which brought us the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The issue here is NOT, as the Obama camp frames it, that if Hillary were President we wouldnt have talked to the Soviets or had rapproachment with China.(Nixon went to China only after intensive primary channels and envoys through Pakistan and Romania!) The real difference isn't even about being "Bush-Chenney lite" on foreign policy: both Hillary and Obama would be SO MUCH better than that!

The simple difference is that Obama would be JFK 1961 in Vienna getting the "pants beat off" him by Khrushchev, and Hillary would be JFK 1963 smartly negociating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets.


by Hill08 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:56:23 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: