Poll: Is HRC "Bush/Cheney Light"?

I think all of us are probably surprised that the Obama/Hillary counterpunching has turned out to be so extensive.  

Among the latest comments, Obama's jumped out at me:

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.

Poll time!

•  On military interventionism and

  foreign policy in general, yes.

  In domestic policy, hell no.

  by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:17:54 PM PDT

  •  False

    Axlerod himself said there was No difference.

    A distinction made.  But without a difference.

    Your statement means Obama is the same as Bush too.

    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

  •  Damn Straight!

    HRC will insist that when the health insurance company turns down your claim, the customer service representative takes a respectful and compassionate tone, whereas, in BushCheneyWorld, they just tell you to go fuck yourself and laugh.

    And that makes all the difference.

    by greenskeeper on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:20:57 PM PDT

  •  I can't believe Hillary would have invaded Iraq.

    I also don't believe she would have instigated a domestic spying program.  Or politicized the Justice Department.  Or denied global warming.  Or tried to privitize social security.  Or decimated our federal budget. Or ignored Hurrican Katrina victims. Or...

    Is she perhaps too corporate for the majority of us on this site?  I think that's a safe bet.  That's why she's not my first choice for our 2008 nominee.

    But to say she is Bush/Cheney light?  No, I'm sorry. No.

    No way.

    by WisVoter on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:29:42 PM PDT

    •  As I said, in terms of military interventionism

      and foreign policy, she's part of the Very Serious Crowd who thinks we have to bully and intimidate our way to worldwide respect.

      by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:34:12 PM PDT

      •  No she isn't.

        by masslib on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:34:51 PM PDT

        •  She thinks that we put our prestige on the line

          by meeting with icky foreign leaders.

          What the hell kind of crap is that?

          by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:39:03 PM PDT

          •  There's a difference...

            between having POTUS sit down with Kim Jong Il or, (pick your preferred dictator) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,  Saparmurat Niyazov, etc. and using back channels to do that.  POTUS sitting down one-to-one with a leader gives that leader (no matter how crazy they may be) instant credibility and respect, and I think we have to be incremental in the process.  I have no doubt any of the Democratic candidates wouldn't hesitate to use backchannels and multilateral negotiations, which seems to me to be the place to start.

            by profmatt on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:53:16 PM PDT

            •  Of course we shouldn't commit to meeting with

              them.

              But, we should be willing to meet with them without requiring substantive concessions.

              by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:04:05 PM PDT

            •  really ?

              There's a difference between having POTUS sit down with Kim Jong Il or, (pick your preferred dictator) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,

              and Musharraf / King Abdullah / Mubarak ?

              I'd like to know what the difference really is.

              by nataraj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:30:46 PM PDT

              •  one difference is

                we're occupying Iraq and relations with Iran are needed if/when we get out.

                how is hillary going to manage that in the first year, if she isn't even willing to meet with them?

                by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:41:35 PM PDT

                •  Hillary would have less credibility

                  among Arab leaders because of her refusal to apologize for her war vote.

                  by annefrank on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:14:52 PM PDT

                •  Absolutely.

                  The idea that somehow some of these "dictators" are worse than the ones who are guests of honor in Bush's ranch is total rubbish.

                  I can't even figure out how people can claim this with a st. face - atleast the non-neocon ones.

                  by nataraj on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:15:55 PM PDT

      •  That may be true to some extent.

        I still don't think there is any way she would have taken it this far.

        A show of strength? Yes.  An invasion of another country that truly was not threatening us?  No.  I don't believe it.  Not unless they were threatening one of our allies, which was also not the case.

        by WisVoter on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:35:53 PM PDT

    •  When she says...

      No future president should have the powers Bush has claimed for himself, and then actually does something about it, I'll take away my 'yes' vote in the above poll.

      by cometman on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:39:13 PM PDT

    •  Or appointed Roberts/Scalia

      There is a world of difference between them and Ginsburg/Breyer.

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:59:31 PM PDT

      •  Yeah....

        I would take Chief Justice Sunstein and Associate Justice Sotomayor any day.

        by profmatt on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:13:42 PM PDT

      •  As I said, domestically there' s no

        comparison at all.

        Foreign policy wise, she's a lot closer than we should expect out of our nominee.

        by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:18:33 PM PDT

    •  Bravo WisVoter! n/t

      by Terrapin on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:15:24 PM PDT

  •  Obama and Axelrod called the policy, not Clinton

    ... "Bush-Cheney lite."

    The policy is an important but small chunk of her overall platform.  She is not Bush-lite.  According to Obama and Axelrod.

    by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:31:06 PM PDT

    •  Axelrod was on Hardball. His aggressiveness...

      did not match Obama's.  If they're going down this road, they've got to go together.

      by CAL11 voter on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:09:47 PM PDT

      •  Axelrod is a poor proxy. eom

        by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:19:11 PM PDT

        •  I've always thought that the guy in the studio...

          begins with an advantage.  Wolfson was in the studio.

          by CAL11 voter on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:24:54 PM PDT

          •  Wolfson is the best proxy I've seen in recent

            memory.  Smooth but ruthless.

            by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:30:38 PM PDT

            •  I see alot of self-discipline.

              He stayed on message.  He knew the message.  I mean he even threw in strength and experience into the dialogue.

              by CAL11 voter on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:40:42 PM PDT

            •  I have to disagree. Wolfson is like a barking dog

              It is difficult to hear his point because he is so strident. The best way to make a strong argument is calmly and sharply, not in your face, yelling as if you were about to lose it.

              by smartdemmg on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:15:27 PM PDT

            •  Wolfsohn affects me differently

              He is effective in his way, but he comes across to me as slimy and extremely rude.  Axelrod didn't talk over Wolfsohn was responding to a Matthews question, but virtually every time Axelrod opened his mouth, Wolfsohn started talking so that Axelrod couldn't be heard clearly.  It was clearly no accident, and if I were Chris Matthews, I'd make him let Wolfsohn talk or throw him out.

              I think Axelrod is very effective as a communications strategist, but he shouldn't be the public spokesman.  He was WAY to willing to not call Wolfsohn on his BS to be the guy on the front lines.  If I'd been him, I'd have told Wolfsohn that if he started trying to talk over me one more time, I'd start doing the same thing to him -- and then I'd have done it.  In a forum like that, you've absolutely GOT to be sure that either the host is controlling things, or you're controlling them, or it's total chaos so NOBODY can be heard.

              by leevank on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:09:43 PM PDT

        •  he did alright.

          i think the other guy just kept talking over him though. tweety would just go on to another angle instead of fleshing out both positions.

          but he did alright.

          by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:43:03 PM PDT

        •  Axelrod disposition is trusting, believable

          People see him coming into their living room, he makes people feel comfortable.

          by Lady Bird Johnson on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:06:40 PM PDT

•  I'm not liking either candidate on this

  fight and both of their surrogates are really annoying me.

  It looks like a fake fight on both sides to my eye.

  by inclusiveheart on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:20:23 PM PDT

  •  The underlying issue

    is manufactured.  No there, there.

    by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:26:34 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, lets talk about Tangarines.

      by Yoshimi on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:44:35 PM PDT

      •  You obviously wish

        to denigrate the eating locally movement.  The environment matters to me.  

        by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:50:17 PM PDT

  •  Agree totally

    Each day that this goes on both sides are losing credibility with me.

    I hope their surrogates are reading this:
    I'm one of those defending both your camps on this site. Knock this shit off cause I'm about to let you squirm in your own mud. You may get my support in the general...but it will not be nice between now and then. This isn't the 3rd grade...knock it off

    by SallyCat on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:26:54 PM PDT

  •  I agree.

    I think Clinton saying it's 'getting silly' is pretty accurate.

    I am an Obama supporter but I will happily pull the lever for Clinton.

    by ablington on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:27:39 PM PDT

  •  It's not fake.

    Clinton used Obama's answer to demonstrate that he is naive and irresponsible.  He rebuts her criticism by condemning ...

    ... not even her policy (to talk but only if
    preconditions are met) but her rejection of his policy (to talk and use the talk itself instead of refusal to talk) as a means of attaining diplomatic goals.

    He's not demonizing her; but he and Axelrod explicitly state that her policy of setting pre-conditions is also Bush-Cheney's policy (N. Korea, for example).  

    He must respond if he stands for anything because relentless, creative communication (even when war or compromise seems easier) is his platform.  Her critique is not against naivete per se but against his entire, well-considered approach to dealing with others.

    by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:41:49 PM PDT

    •  Neither one is projecting an accurate picture

      of the other.

      Their quotations in this fight make them BOTH look arrogant, petty and snotty.

      Furthermore, a discussion of foreign policy is far more complex than either one is allowing this to be - that is why it is "fake" imo.  Her complaint that he shouldn't make himself vulberable to a propaganda ploy by a foreign leader is valid.  His point that we need to talk to everybody is valid.

      What neither is doing is educating their audience about how those are NOT principles at cross-purposes with one another.  By far, the large majority of really significant diplomacy is done in secret until the very last second when everyone has a photo-op.

      They are both turning me off primarily because they are both coming off as much more interested in themselves than the very serious topic at hand.

      That is how the fight is coming across to me.

      by inclusiveheart on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:58:26 PM PDT

      •  She should have made her point

        without calling him naive and irresponsible.
        She's already going after his "inexperience."
        Taken together, he had to respond forcefully or
        basically abandon his campaign.

        Abandoning his campaign over that, however,
        isn't about his campaign; it's about the credibility
        of his broader approach.  Can a person with his
        ideals and commitment to diplomacy even be elected
        president?  That's what he's fighting for.

        But I value you comment, greatly, as usual and will be thinking about it.

        by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:15:20 PM PDT

        •  without calling him naive and irresponsible

          I agree. She drew "First Blood" in this quarrel. These Clintons have pulled a lot of funky crap on Obama behind the scenes, like making threats to donors if they give to him too. Obama is not required to play nice-a-ity nice with them while being their doormat.

          by William Domingo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:44:49 PM PDT

          •  No he isn't required to play nice, but there

            are a lot of other places to go with this like elevating the dialogue about what foreign policy and diplomacy really is and he could have hurt her whilst doing that.  Instead we get the Bush Cheney slam which I don't think reflects well on him.  Her comments don't reflect well on her either AND both of their surrogates are positively tiresome, petty and tiresome.

            I expect better from both of these candidates and I expect every Democratic candidate running to do their best to elevate the level of discourse - particularly on foreign policy - whether they are going to change the world or follow the status quo.  Our party is the better party because we don't see everything in black and white terms, and we don't lower outselves to Fox News style assaults - which both have done in this fight.

            by inclusiveheart on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:50:40 PM PDT

            •  elevating the dialogue about foreign policy

              I'll tell you how I see it, Hillary has been defending the Bush foreign policy doctrine with various statements for the last six years. She and her fellow DLC buddy Joe Lieberman both. We desperately need a change from the disasterly course Bush has set us on with increasing numbers of enemies around the world. I for one am glad to see someone repudiate that.

              by William Domingo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:04:34 PM PDT

              •  Repudiating it is good.

                Going down to her level is bad.

                The thing that we need most from these leaders is to educate the public - break the BushCult programming that the only way to deal with the rest of the world is to be thuggish and bullying.  This issue is probably the single issue where a strident and offensive fight between the two candidates would most piss me off.  Do it on any other topic and I'd probably not even notice, but too many Americans think that good foreign relations are rooted in military might and nasty sniping - which couldn't be farther from the truth.  Neither is giving me great confidence in their diplomatic skill in this debate - that I am sure is not their end goal.

                by inclusiveheart on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:11:41 PM PDT

                •  Going down to her level is bad

                  Well, I don't see it as being as bad as you do. I'll give you a link to a good article in the New Yorker magazine about these so called "national-security Democrats". Hillary is in there. Biden's in there, I heard he took Hillary's side on this issue, figures. Lieberman's there. And others. They feel Democrats have been tagged as "weak on defense" so they have be pro-war to "make themselves look tough". I'd like to see that whole point of view repudiated.

                  At sixty-two, Biden has a cheerful vanity and an exuberant restlessness that make him seem far younger. Since the election, he has become a leader of a modest-sized faction—"the national-security Democrats," in the words of Richard Holbrooke, an ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton—that includes the most hawkish members in the Democratic Party. Among them are Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards, Senator Evan Bayh, of Indiana, and Governor Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, along with a number of Clinton Administration foreign-policy officials, now in exile at think tanks scattered about Washington.

                  http://www.newyorker.com/...

                  by William Domingo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:45:20 PM PDT

  •  Fake Fight

    That thought had occurred to me as well, especially since the difference between their answers to the question were relatively minor, and I am fairly confident that Obama's answer was intended to be much the same as Clinton's and Edwards'.

    by Jack109 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:01:16 PM PDT

    •  yep.... being blown up out of the media's

      desire to see conflict. Conflict means a better story and more eyeballs. This whole thing is a media creation that Clinton and Obama are going along with to build their own visibility in the press.  The cablenets haven't seen enough division on the Democratic side, so they want to invent their own.  It's meaningless to me.  Obama is smart enough to know that diplomacy is a process and Hillary knows that, too.  

      Let tweety and his ilk blather for now. When it starts to get cast as a media theme, they should put the clamps down and come to a consensus.  Don't let the cablenets define the campaign.

      by dougymi on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:33:21 PM PDT

    •  to squeeze out Edwards

      and possibly the rest?

      right now it is Clinton vs. Obama..  and that seems to be in cement.

      by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:44:39 PM PDT

      •  squeeze out Edwards

        Edwards better start atttacking her, or he will be squeezed out. That's just the way it is. I hope he sees that in time. Unless that is, he's running for V.P. and I don't know it.

        by William Domingo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:48:36 PM PDT

        •  i think he might be

          by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:22:35 PM PDT

•  No, but...

  She's far too comfortable with "muscular liberalism" as a foreign policy, which is neo-conservatism lite.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:21:33 PM PDT

  •  Neo-Conservatism

    Relies only Hard Power.  Brute Force.  Might makes Right.  It fails.  Iraq.

    Muscular Liberalism, if that's what you want to call it relies on Soft Power, Infrastructure Building, and Diplomacy.

    It succeeds.

    Kosovo.

    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:23:37 PM PDT

    •  Muscular liberalism also fails

      Iraq.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:24:55 PM PDT

      •  That's not Muscular Liberalism

        That's Neo-Conservatism.

        Soft Power, and diplomacy have never been untilized in Iraq.

        Infrastructure building has just been an excuse to hand out contracts to cronies.

        So Iraq is not in any way shape or form Muscular Liberalism.

        by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:28:05 PM PDT

        •  Perhaps your definition is different

          Mine comes from the DLC and muddleheads like Thomas Friedman, who enthusiastically supported the war. As did Hillary Rodham Clinton.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:31:21 PM PDT

          •  Friedman maybe

            Not Clinton.

            Nobody's ever backed that up with anything.  It just gets repeated over and over again.

            No "Rah rah rahs" from Clinton ever provided on the Iraq war.  A vote, and a speech she made during that vote where she said it was a conflicted vote for her.  Not an enthusiastic vote for her.  A few statements in support, saying it's good Saddam's gone, stuff like that.  Nothing all gangbusters.  Nothing enthusiastic.  Just as much trepidation and concern as support if you ask me.

            I don't know if the DLC can tell the difference between these two things either.

            by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:36:47 PM PDT

        •  Muscular Liberalism is the handmaiden of

          NeoConservativism.

          by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:43:26 PM PDT

          •  No

            The Polar Opposite.

            by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:47:07 PM PDT

            •  And that is why Hillary is willing to send

              American troops into Darfur.  Bill Clinton was a Muscular Liberal and Hillary is a NeoConservative

              by Yoshimi on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:56:26 PM PDT

            •  The sky is blue.

              by chicago jeff on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:07:58 PM PDT

    •  Kosovo was certainly....

      more 'successful' than our current occupation.  Relatively short and few or no(?) American lives lost.

      But you may want to ask people in some other countries how successful the Kosovo operation was, or if it was 100% necessary.  I was in Greece at the time and they weren't particularly happy about all the refugees that flooded their country.  

      by cometman on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:46:20 PM PDT

      •  But like Iraq

        Kosovo was also completely unnecessary.

        by upstate NY on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:17:40 PM PDT

  •  more the reverse, really

    Neoconservatism is basically a bastardized version of old-fashioned idealist liberalism, in the Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Scoop Jackson, etc. tradition.

    by Delirium on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:36:23 PM PDT

    •  neo-liberalism?

      i have heard this over and over.  

      by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:45:45 PM PDT

  •  She's a New Republic Democrat. eom

    by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:37:15 PM PDT

    •  "A Distinction without a Difference"

       -- David Axelrod.

      Bet you wish they all got on the same page before David made that statement?

      Again, everything you say about Clinton applies to Obama.

      Well.  At least according to Obama's cheif strategist, anyway.

      by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:46:35 PM PDT

      •  Edgar, that has been my point for a while,

        although probably not in the way you mean.  :-)

        Neither are Bush-lite.  Both are too conservative/centrist, in my view.

        by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:59:28 PM PDT

        •  Well

          Edwards' answer to the question that started all this was the same as Clinton's.

          But sure.  If someone wants to say "Clinton is too conservative for me," I might try to convince them otherwise, and provide any data at my disposal to do so.

          But ultimately, that's a valid opinion to have.

          I want someone more liberal/progressiven than Clinton.

          But when that same person chooses to express that opinion like this, "She's the same as Bush," well that's just wrong.

          by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:04:53 PM PDT

•  No offense

  but is this really worthy of a diary?

  by taylormattd on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:21:58 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps You Should Set Up an Autoresponder

    ....there ought to be an exception to the anti-bot rules for that particular question.

    by greenskeeper on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:23:26 PM PDT

  •  possibly not...

    but it really jumped out at me and i was curious what the community thought.

    i have to say i'm quite surprised to find that "Yes" is winning the poll!

    by nbutter on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:21:53 AM PDT

•  Yes, the just discussed this on Hardball

  It was directed at Hillary, confirmed by his spokesman.

  by steelman on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:22:19 PM PDT

•  Well, expect the repubs to win in

  08 because we can't seem to stop trashing ourselves.

  by Owllwoman on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:23:11 PM PDT

  •  Um, no.

    by ablington on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:28:32 PM PDT

  •  the only way they win is by fixing elections

    hello!

    by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:36:09 PM PDT

•  Meh

  I didn't see Hillary directly mentioned in the quote he said, why is it automatically an attack on Hillary? I took it to mean that it would really suck to have another Bush/Cheney style Pres whomever that might be.. I agree with that for sure...

  by ebbinflo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:24:20 PM PDT

•  Please, let the candidates fight it out.

  The major news corps. are trying to bring down the Dems. Stop buying into these stories.

  by Owllwoman on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:24:32 PM PDT

•  Are you serious?

  Let's examine the records of Obama and Clinton while they've been Senators at the same time.  They vote along the same lines 90% of the time.  It's ridiculous to even postulate the idea that Hillary is anything like Bush/Cheney.

  A fundamental change...what does Mr. Obama think that is?  Does he think that he's going to win the Presidency and just walk in and turn American Foreign Policy on it's head?  Would he actually meet face-to-face with a pompous, arrogant, ignorant leader (Chavez) who called Bush the devil on American soil?  Do you know how that scene played out in Venezuela?  Propoganda all the way.  

  I like Obama and I definitely see him as President or Vice President someday.  But he just seems so wordy and a little bit..."I'm smarter than you..."

  He won't win if gets the nomination, period.  He's an amateur.

  And no, I'm not a troll.  I'm expressing my opinion.  Obama is simply NOT ready to be President and it shows more and more everyday.  The idea of him being President is powerful.  The reality will sink in and he'll tank big time if he wins the nomination.

  By the way, I lean towards Edwards and have given money to him.  I've also given money to Hillary Clinton because I think she would be ready from day one.

  by kipzoo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:25:04 PM PDT

  •  To say Chavez is ignorant....

    is to underestimate him.

    Would he (Obama) actually meet face-to-face with a pompous, arrogant, ignorant leader (Chavez) who called Bush the devil on American soil?  Do you know how that scene played out in Venezuela?

    Chavez and many other foreign leaders would be neutralized if we would treat them as the leaders of their respective countries.  We keep referring to Chavez as a "dictator" when, in fact, he was duly elected.  Bush's CIA tried to overthrow him, but he got wind of it and had the good sense to film the overthrow. - Yes, he's got pictures.  Why do we hate him?  HE'S GOT OIL, AND WE WANT IT.

    The heighth of arrogance, pomposity and ignorance rests in our own WH.  We need diplomacy, it has been sorely lacking for the last seven years.

    Chavez of Venezuela and the Chinese are making inroads all over the world by TALKING to people and negotiating deals with them for resources, while we try to bomb the crap out of them.  We are not "beloved".

    by importer on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:40:18 PM PDT

  •  Gee, maybe people like Chavez wouldn't consider

    our president the devil if he stopped with his silent treatment nonsense.

    by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:21:19 PM PDT

    •  or axis of evil crap

      occupying countries who posed no threat and didn't attack us.

      etc.

      by hypersphere01 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:47:06 PM PDT

  •  I want my President to be smarter, I don't want

    another President that everyone thinks they would enjoy having a beer with.  The world is complex, the issues are complex.  I want a smart President!

    I like Obama and I definitely see him as President or Vice President someday.  But he just seems so wordy and a little bit..."I'm smarter than you..."

    by Blogvirgin on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:49:27 PM PDT

•  This is a ridiculous assertion

  I like Barack Obama but he made a dumb mistake on this win. Hillary does tend to be too hawkish for me but I don't believe she would have invaded Iraq if she had been president. She is light-years from Bush and Cheney.

  by berkeleymike on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:25:46 PM PDT

  •  why did she vote for it and support it

    for years until it was so unpopular she had to switch.

    by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:30:28 PM PDT

  •  Her policy of preconditions being met

    before talking to enemy leaders is what was called "bush/cheney-lite".  It was directed at the policy she endorsed when she called Obama's answer 'irresponsible and naive' after the debate, not at her personally.

    by bawbie on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:17:03 PM PDT

    •  Its almost a violation of Godwin's law

      to compare a Democratic candidate to Bush/Cheney.
      I don't think its effective. I haven't been very fond of Hillary, but no one is going to push me away from her by calling her Bush/Cheney light. Think about all that the Republican party stands for in terms of sliming the Clintons. The party of death has slimed her for 15 years, and now the ingenue wants to gain points by calling here Bush/Cheney light? Yuck.

      by BoringDem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:36:05 PM PDT

•  As a supporter of

  neither of them, I think calling her that overstates it.  And I have said she demogogued on 9/11 in the debate.  Clinton is too conservative for me, but so is Obama.

  I think Jerome Armstrong said it well a few minutes ago in a comment on MyDD:

  Re: of course, jerome (3.00 / 1)

  "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

  by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:25:58 PM PDT

  •  Takes A Shill

    ....to tag a shill.

    by greenskeeper on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:27:13 PM PDT

    •  I am not sure

      I understand your comment.  Is it directed at me.  If so, please spell out what you are saying.

      If you are calling me a shill, I expect you to go to Markos and back it up.

      by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:29:54 PM PDT

      •  Not At You

        At Jerome, and at Obama, the first of whom has previously copped a plea in formal proceedings and has the professional experience to recognize a shill when he sees one.

        by greenskeeper on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

        •  Okay, you wanted to make sure.

          I don't agree, but so long as it ain't at me, it's not my problem.  :-)

          by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:51:03 PM PDT

      •  Jerome is a concern troll

        and his site is a shell of its former self.

        I think that is what greenskeeper meant.

        by Yoshimi on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:47:22 PM PDT

  •  Jerome Armstrong has no credibility on Obama n/t

    by chicago minx on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:29:49 PM PDT

    •  Well, I would have said the same thing?

      Maybe I would put it this way:

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

      by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:31:03 PM PDT

      •  Whatever.

        But Armstrong should just recuse himself from any kind of "objective" commentary on Obama, because it's like listening to pointecoupeedemocrat or lorelynn.  There's some agenda there.

        by chicago minx on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:33:46 PM PDT

      •  Clinton's stated approach is much closer

        to Bush's than it isn't.

        She says it's different, but at the end of the day she supports the same approach.

        by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:36:44 PM PDT

        •  Really, I think neither

          Clinton nor Obama are Bush-lite.  

          by TomP on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:49:07 PM PDT

          •  Obama referred to the Bush notion that we

            punish countries by not having high level talks with them.

            Clinton still hasn't disavowed that approach.

            by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

  •  Jerome Armstrong="Anyone But Obama" in the

    primary.

    by Geekesque on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:35:28 PM PDT

•  At this point, I'm for Biden

  I don't like the in-fighting. No one in the Democratic Party should be compared to Bush/Cheney.

  by leftbird on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:26:28 PM PDT

  •  the policy-----policy---policy---policy----

    Obama said her POLICY was Bush/Cheney Lite----not Hill, the person.  
     And her policy----her foreign POLICY approach---does seem exactly like Bush/Cheney----and not even Lite.  Not talking to anyone unless they agree to  
    do what I say and what I want----preconditions.
     Obama believes it's time for a new approach.  So do I.

    by dotster on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 03:55:13 PM PDT

•  sorry

  calling her Bush-Cheney is just completely idiotic.

  In a small sector of the pro-Obama bologosphere, this might be received with cheers. Out there in the real world very very few Democrats would take that claim seriously.

  It was over the top.

  by michael1104 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:28:50 PM PDT

  •  calling Obama naive

    for ending the polciy of pushishment by non-cummunication was way over the top for another democrat, she simply should have said she favored a more cautious approach than Obama, she didn't do that and opened up the can of worms about her mimicing Bush rhetoric on Iraq and diplomacy.

    by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:32:38 PM PDT

    •  naive

      is not a slur.

      Bush-Cheney is.

      There is a huge huge difference between the two statements.

      by michael1104 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:36:10 PM PDT

      •  I'd say calling someone running for president

        "naive and irresponsible" is quite the slur.  She started it.  He's defending himself and his new and different ideas of dealing with the world.  
         And he's taking the opportunity to point to her major flaws, like that ill-advised war authorization vote, Bush's war, in total disregard of the massive amount of information available at the time suggesting that the administration's case was false.

        by dotster on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:17:47 PM PDT

  •  Steve Chapman, liberal columnist for the

    Chicago tribune had a editorial today that basically said that hillary is close to a GOP type candidate on foreign policy,trade and executive power... written before todays flap... so it is not just a few that feel this way.

    by Hawkjt on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:35:51 PM PDT

•  she's better than Bush/Cheney

  so she is Bush/Cheney light espeically on foreign policy, her stance on the war until it turned unpopular was Bush/Cheney regular....on diplomacy she uses right wing frameing in debating other dems, she also said she voted for the Iraq war becausae her state was attacked on 9/11.....on domestric policy she is not Bush/Cheney light, while far from perfect she is enough of a difference to warrant a general election vote.

  by nevadadem on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:29:30 PM PDT

•  That HRC idiot on MSNBC

  That HRC idiot on MSNBC is making Hillary sound like Bush-lite.

  That's not my accusation of HRC, it's my impression from her supporter on Hardball.

  by Opinionated Ed on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:30:37 PM PDT

•  McRomney agrees with Clinton...

  now that's a winning position snark

  by enarjay on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:32:40 PM PDT

•  Oh, come on

  Sen. Clinton is my least favorite of the leading Democrats, and much too hawkish for my taste.  But compared to Bush/Cheney, she's practically a different species.  Her hawkishness is at least tempered by common sense.

  by Joe Buck on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:33:15 PM PDT

  •  McCain and Romney agree with you

    by Yoshimi on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:49:27 PM PDT

•  Her very reason for saying that she authorized

  GW to got to war was that she said he would exhaust every diplomatic resource first.
  Well, of course he didn't even try.
  Now she tries to say we should not talk diplomatically.
  She's got some splainin to do about her war authorization vote. What's it going to be this time?

  by bethincary on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:33:58 PM PDT

  •  Is this pointless?

    I'm beginning to think it is.  Hillary Clinton did not say that we shouldn't talk diplomatically - much the opposite, and I'm sure you know that. Her position has been , and continues to be, that we should pursue diplomacy all over the world, but not beginning at the presidential level.  Perhaps this will help:

    Obama adviser David Axelrod said on Tuesday that Obama would not just meet blindly with such leaders but only after diplomatic spadework had been accomplished.

    Americans "are sick of the Bush diplomacy and aren't interested in continuing it," said Axelrod.

    The Obama campaign was quick to point to an April 23 quote from Clinton in which she said, "I think it's a terrible mistake for our president to say he won't talk to bad people." That, Obama representatives said, showed Clinton had changed her position.

    Clinton advisers noted that the New York senator's full quote included a line that she would first "begin diplomatic discussions with those countries" before such meetings - same as she said in Monday's debate.

    They're both saying exactly the same thing, so all this nonsense about Hillary changed flip-flopped or she's a neocon, or neocon light is just sophomoric.

    by Jack109 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:03:37 PM PDT

    •  sorry, forgot the link

      Clinton, Obama Clash...

      by Jack109 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:07:35 PM PDT

•  Duh, of course not

  She's certainly our most "centrist" (read: right) candidate, but comparisons between her and Bush / Cheney are preposterous.

  See all the legislation Bush has vetoed or is threatening to veto?  Withdrawal from Iraq, Stem-cell research, budgets, etc etc etc?  She would have signed all those.

  Full disclosure: I am an Edwards guy and am not rooting for Hillary to win the nomination, but seriously, she is infinitely better than what we have right now, without a question.

  by Brian A on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:38:02 PM PDT

  •  foreign policy

    I don't think it's a stretch to call Hillary's foreign policy Bush-Cheney lite.  Social policies -no.

    by enarjay on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:42:29 PM PDT

•  The diplomatic policy that she implied:

  That talking with governments is a reward for good behavior and tantamount to an endorsement (which would be used for propaganda purposes), rather than a useful tool in nearly any circumstance to further the global good.  That is a Bush-lite policy.

  by Ramo on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:41:13 PM PDT

•  I voted yes

  I think her foreign policy is very Bush-cheney light.

  People seems to forget that BILL CLINTON WROTE THE "WE HAVE TO GET RID OF SADDAM" foreign policy shit....Maybe someone here knows more about this then me, but i remember reading in article stating that Clinton approaved of the invasion of Iraq.

  by BlueStateLiberal on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:41:47 PM PDT

•  Is there a link for a full quote on this

  I've seen the "Bush-Cheney lite" reference several times, but would like more context. On its face, I may actually have to say this comment is as unnecessary as Clinton's comments have been.

  There is a way to have serious distinction without resorting to condescending commentary such as "naive," "irresponsible," "silly" and "Bush-Cheney-lite."

  by C DuB ois on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:44:37 PM PDT

  •  Indeed Obama himself

    Has said America doesn't like that kind of jargon.

    I wonder why he resorts to it now.