...well, you know the rest.
Obama Says Clinton Is ‘Bush-Cheney Lite’
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and MICHAEL FALCONE
Published: July 27, 2007
Senator Barack Obama continued to press his case against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday, calling her “Bush-Cheney lite,” which prompted her to fire back — on camera — that the escalating dispute with Mr. Obama was “getting kind of silly.”
“I’ve been called a lot of things in my life,” Mrs. Clinton said on CNN, “but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney, certainly.”
She then took a swipe at Mr. Obama’s campaign theme, which promises a different kind of politics. “Whatever has happened to the politics of hope?” she asked.
The back-and-forth was the first time the two leading Democratic presidential candidates have criticized each other publicly, and they have been stretching the exercise out all week. It stemmed from their answers at a debate Monday involving the circumstances under which each as president might meet with leaders of Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but it has broadened into a debate over whether the nation needs experience or a fresh approach on the world stage.
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said he would meet with such leaders, casting himself as open to trying new things; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, cautioned that she would be careful of being used for propagandistic purposes. Their answers go to the heart of what each stands for as a candidate.
Pundits generally perceived Mrs. Clinton as winning the debate point for highlighting her experience and at the same time suggesting that Mr. Obama was inexperienced. She kept the issue alive the next day by telling The Quad-City Times in Iowa that Mr. Obama’s answer was “irresponsible and frankly naïve.”
Mr. Obama, who has been behind Mrs. Clinton in the polls, responded that she was the one who was irresponsible and naïve because she had voted to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq. He repeated the accusation on NBC News on Wednesday, giving the networks fresh images of him as he tapped into reservations about Mrs. Clinton as an establishment figure.
“I don’t want Bush-Cheney lite,” he told reporters yesterday. “I want a fundamental change.”
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Obama v. Clinton
The New York Times piece was written and edited to be favorable to Hillary Clinton. It is also devoid of substance. Clinton asserts that Obama's position is "irresponsible and frankly naive." The writers, however, do not provide any information demonstrating that Clinton's policy of not meeting with certain foreign leaders unless cerrtain conditions laid out by the United States are first met is useful or constructive.
Scratching the Surface
Hillary is much worse than that. And when she wins the election, we'll all get to see for ourselves.
You Are Mistaken, T3
Senator Clinton is far, far, far worse than she appears to be. I could provide a long list of my objections and disagreements with her but I am going to let her support for the American War in Iraq - the murdering and killing of more than 675,000 Iraqis - be my response. If she is the Democratic nominee then I intend to vote for the actual declared Republican in the race, not the one masquerading as a Democrat.
What The Neo-Conservative Andrew Sullivan Wrote Today About...
...the dustup between Obama and Clinton
And the ramifications of Iraq may well be wider than we currently realize. The questions raised by the mess in Mesopotamia are deeper than many in Washington are prepared to admit. Beltway boundaries can enforce a rote reflexiveness, a cramped conventionality on certain subjects. So few in the Beltway support total evacuation from Iraq. But many, many Americans do. And it is a predictable Beltway meme that Clinton did better than Obama this week because she showed "experience" and he showed "naivete". But I wonder if that's the case. I wonder if the country hasn't shifted sufficiently to make total disengagement from Iraq thinkable and Clinton seem a captive of past presumptions about American power and how it should be wielded. Iraq has made the case for a "humble nation" more eloquently than Bush in 2000 ever could.
Something is stirring out there - as the Obama and Paul candidacies show. The polls show record levels of discontent. The logic for permanent engagement in the Middle East is far less cogent than it was only a year ago. And the capacity of Americans to throw their own elites overboard will be tested in the next two years.
I don't think Sen. Clinton
I don't think Sen. Clinton is Bush-Lite, I think she's McCain-Left. It is significant that I highlighted one of Chris Dodd's campaign positions before any of hers.
did you see any of the
did you see any of the debate in the house about the amendment to the agriculture bill this morning? It cut in on washington journal around 8:00am CST - i found it fascinating to watch the disagreement within party lines about ending the embargo on Cuba.
it will be very interesting to see how the drama in the political theatre unfolds around these long-standing vested interests - whether or not we're actually witnessing intractable faultines existing among the powers that be (TPTB) breaking through the surface of popular political discourse - and furthermore - whether Obama and Clinton are respectively flakking for different camps within the ranks of TPTB.
Luv that term
"flakking"...that's flakking awesome!!
Are Flakkees a Step Above Flunkies?
?
McCain Left
Yes, you're right, but the Bush-Lite metaphor is a lot easier for folks to grasp and hold onto than McCain-Left. The latter would have to be explained because the masses of people would not intutively understand it. McCain-Left is like a joke that has to be explained.
I loved the Bush-Cheney Lite comment..it's about time
Cause I don't think he's wrong. She tried to hit him, and he hit back. Good for him.