MyDD Jerome Armstrong: Obama calling Hillary Bush-Cheney lite seems a "Serious Slip"

[SaveElmer]

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" Democrat. 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.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/26/165049/402#commenttop

[Colobo]

1. Who's this fella?

[sandnsea]

16. Jerome & Markos

blaahgfathers

Worked for Dean in 2003.

[LSparkle]

2. I pray we don't see him backtrack

There ARE differences between Obama and Mrs. Clinton. She wants to gloss over things like their differences on the Iraq war but he's smart to remind people of them.

She IS NOT INEVITABLE!!!!!!

[Colobo]

3. Obama: "I don't want a continuation of Bush-Cheney. I don't want Bush-Cheney lite".

Nothing to backtrack from.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Right. Nowhere in that quote does he characterize Hillary as *-Cheney Lite anyway.

n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Come on. You know what he was insinuating

"My opponent has this policy. My opponent's policy is like person X's. I don't want person X-lite on this issue."

[killbotfactory]

25. Yep.

Clinton and Obama's actual policies on this are the same. Well, they used to be, until Clinton decided it was a good opportunity to attack Obama on his lack of "experience" in foriegn policy.

The original question that started all this was "In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?".

Obama's answer was "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.".

Clinton's answer was "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration."

The original question didn't ask if they would "promise" to meet leaders, that was just something Clinton threw in there to bash Obama, whom she later called niave and irresponsible. She read too much into the question.

I also don't know under what realistic scenario meeting with these leaders would ever harm the prestige of the president or cause anti-American propaganda. It's not like Obama is going to agree to kiss the feet of Castro while he stands on an American flag.

[swag]

4. Distastefully Naderesque of Obama, but I think Jerome is overreacting.

[rinsd]

7. I think you'll see a backtrack but to call this a serious slip up is a stretch (nt)

[rinsd]

5. When your 1st talking point debunks your next talking point, you have a problem.

But Jerome touches on another issue.

Hillary and Obama's foreign policy voting record is nearly identical.

So if Hillary is Bush lite, what does that make Obama?

[Dawgs]

53. His first talking point did not debunk his next.

Where are you getting that from?

First he said she flip-flopped, and then he went after her current position. That makes perfect sense.

She's the one taking a new position, not him.

[rinsd]

79. Except her current position has not changed.

She favors diplomacy and talking to our enemies.

She saw the trap in the question, Obama did not.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. "Obama, whose only serious distinction from Clinton comes from 5 years ago"

That is the elephant in the room whenever HRC and BO are discussed. For all the rhetoric from both sides they are virtually identical on policy (I once posted a thread asking people if there were any differences between their platforms. No bonus points for guessing the number of differences listed). This is why this spat is such a big deal. They have nothing else to argue about (merit pay in education is not that big of an issue and HRC can't argue with BO's health care plan because she has not presented a plan yet)...

[rinsd]

8. I think you just nailed it DMC

"For all the rhetoric from both sides they are virtually identical on policy. This is why this spat is such a big deal. They have nothing else to argue about..."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. I am surprised how few people have noticed this and continue to act as if they have real differences

[sandnsea]

33. Edwards, tied to Hillary's apron strings

the entire time he was in the Senate, and still afraid to take her on directly.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Edwards took HRC and BO (twice) on directly during a debate

So far, neither HRC and BO--who talk tough on the campaign trail--have taken each other on during debates when 3 million people are watching (and a greater number would see or hear of the attack in the news reports about the debate).

It is amusing to see an Obama supporter say Edwards was "tied to HRC's apron strings." Obama has voted with HRC 99% of the time on Iraq. The only difference was when Obama voted with the Republicans on Gen. Pace.

[sandnsea]

50. Ooooh

Edwards said mean things twice. He's really making waves there. :eyes:

Policy is more than votes.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. You said he doesn't take her on. It is BO who has never taken her on directly in a debate

He refused to use her name when attacking her during the recent debate and then just a few ours later began talking tough about HRC...

Can you name one difference between HRC and BO on policy, aside from BO being conservative on "merit pay" for teachers? We can add health care too, since HRC has said her upcoming health plan will be universal, unlike Obama's. So on the two areas where they actually differ Obama is actually more conservative the the DLC icon. :rofl:

[rinsd]

64. Policy is more than votes?

So you're saying Obama's votes don't matter only what he says during a campaign?

:rofl:

"Edwards said mean things twice. He's really making waves there"

Apparently you also missed the recent scuffle over who would be better for women.

Speaking of Edwards being tied to Clinton's apron strings, does Obama still consider Joe Lieberman a mentor?

[sandnsea]

69. When Edwards sent his wife after Hillary??

Is that what you refer to as a scuffle??

Policy is more than votes. For Obama. For Clinton.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. Can you name any differences between HRC and BO on policy?

Aside from the two I pointed out on which Obama is more conservative than the DLCer? Thanks in advance.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. ?

[sandnsea]

81. Uh, the policy we're discussing

On talking to our enemies and really meaning it when we say it. On getting serious about loose nukes, serious enough to be willing to put his name on legislation with Dick Lugar, even though a lot of people might try to smear him for working with Republicans. Being willing to step out on education, and produce legislation that provides new programs for teachers, including a teacher residency program just like doctors - and be willing to have his plan smeared as merit pay by having the audacity to offer high needs teachers more money.

He's got real guts. You ought to learn more about him.

[rinsd]

41. You are seemingly incapable of dealing with reality when it comes to the Clintons.

Edwards has been taking shots at Clinton for most of the campaign.

[sandnsea]

55. Oh yeah, he said sorry and she didn't

I forgot about that. That erases his 6 years in the Senate and his continued denial of the Bush WMD lies. Unless Trippi has finally convinced him to stop saying that too.

[rinsd]

54. That's one reason I have few if any problems with Obama as nominee.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

65. Yet the BO camp continues to portray him as the anti-HRC, the anti-DLC instead of HRC-lite

He is HRC in a different marketing package.

[Dawgs]

57. Absolutely Incorrect.

The argument is over this one issue, which is a current one. Hillary is the one who changed her position. Is that Obama's fault?

[rufus dog]

10. Your gal just got a reversal!

She started it, and got the initial shot in. He just hit her back harder and more effective. Tweety has spokesman for the respective campaign and all your guy can say is "he has the same voting record as she does, and tries to talk over the Obama spokesman. Tweety called your guy out! Not pretty he is acting like a Repub. Big win for Obama in round 2.

[Tom Joad]

11. Serious slip of truth. Thanks obama, refreshing on a summer day.

[rufus dog]

13. also Clinton's guy is an arrogant dick!

Comes off like Ari Fliesher, a complete asshole, trying the BS line that Obama said he wasn't going to play like this, tough shit, she took a shot and got one back right between the eyes! Deal with it or get out of the way! WOO HOO!

[SaveElmer]

Not my favorite guy...

But he was right about Obama...

1. Either he(Obama) meant what he said and he would agree to a meeting with say Fidel Castro in Cuba without precondition during his first year in office...

or

2. He didn't bother to listen to the question, decided everyone would know what he meant, and in fact actually agrees with Hillary's position...

Either way a stupid blunder...


And of course Mr. "Politics of Hope" comparing Hillary to Bush-Cheney just exposes him as a hypocrite...

[Colobo]

20. No blunder- New era in American foreign policy.

[SaveElmer]

26. Sure...hey if Obama wants to run with that fine...

Will make Hillary's job winning the election a whole lot easier...

[sandnsea]

31. Engage Our Enemies

Tough enough and smart enough to deal with anybody.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpJ4

[rufus dog]

36. Clarify

You have posted this twice, at least, where did he say he will meet with Fidel Castro IN CUBA WITHOUT PRECONDITION.

[SaveElmer]

59. From the Monday Debate...

Question: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. ... And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

[Colobo]

18. Howard's a pompous ass.

[sandnsea]

23. Awful thug of a pos

This is the crap that is ruining this country. This is why I hate the Clintons.

[LSparkle]

43. I wrote the same in another thread -- I don't like Wolfson

And the BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between Obama and Clinton is -- WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?????????

Clinton: Wall Street, health insurance companies, pharma. (Where have we HEARD THAT BEFORE????)

Obama: Oprah's Hollywood, 250K SMALL DONORS.

That is a difference he needs to be making plain each and every day. Talk about changing the system -- what if we actually had a candidate win who got his money from THE LITTLE PEOPLE and not from CORPORATIONS and the wealthy?

[snowbear]

14. Is he the same Jerome Armstrong who is PAID to say positive things about certain candidates?

Various other writers have claimed that campaigns have paid Armstrong for positive blog mentions on MyDD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Armstrong

...

[sandnsea]

19. And beat Dems with "Bush lite"

for years - and now wants to deny it?? I can't fucking believe the audacity.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. That isn't his point

He is talking about the politics of this and points out that Obama is further vulnerable on this because he has the same policies as HRC, who he describes as "Bush-Cheney-lite" (albeit he only implied this about HRC only on this issue).

[sandnsea]

46. Jerome lying isn't the point?

Wondering where oh where words like "Bush lite" could have come from, when the Dean people are the ones who smeared Hillary and the party with it for months on end??

And no, Obama clearly doesn't have the same policies as HRC if she is going to maintain the same stubborn diplomacy and he isn't.

[Colobo]

22. LOL!

[rinsd]

45. You do realize those "other" writers are Republicans

And what they were trying to do is destroy Howard Dean's cred with netroots because Jerome ended up working for Dean.

[sandnsea]

15. Are you fucking kidding me??

The fucking inventors of smearing the entire Dem Party with "Bush lite" are now denying they said it?? Nobody in this country has any ethics.

Or is Jerome on the Trippi train again and joining in the Obama bashing because he thinks it will help Edwards?

[zulchzulu]

17. The Clinton Machine started something that will run right over them

The more the Clinton Machine is on the defensive saying that they are not Bush-lite (which they are), the more people will start seeing the light.

They aren't going to pick up Republicans with "tough talk" about "rogue leaders". It's going to be fascinating to watch.

On the Bush-Lite statement and Obama, is there a quote directly from the candidate or is it just inferred?

[jefferson_dem]

Howie Wolfson just ranted about how Obama would actually meet with Hugo Chavez...

WHAT??? THE HORRORS!!! :scared:

I'm no fan of Hugo but the fact that they're rolling out him out in such an "oooga booga" way should be telling to us all.

Dig, Hillary, Dig!

[jefferson_dem]

30. Self delete. Sorry.

Hiccup...

[Skip Intro]

58. I disagree. Obama, who I like, has been the one giving this thing legs.

He should have just come out and clarified his position re: his debate statement and let it be. I've been saying over and over that he will not come out on top of this one. Hillary's answer at the debate was the better answer - that is at the root of this, and the spin from Obama's camp won't change it.


Hillary is sitting pretty on this one. Not plugging any candidate, no fave yet at this point, but the situation, politically, seems pretty clear to me.

[jsamuel]

21. Sounds to me like Obama went a little overboard here.

[sandnsea]

28. Edwards might want to stay away from the feeding frenzy

Lest somebody decides to take a bite out of what's left of him.

[jsamuel]

32. Edwards hasn't done anything with this. What are you talking about?

PS - Since Sunday on Rasmussen
Edwards 12% then 14% then 14% then 15% then 15%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/presidential_tracking_polling_history

[SaveElmer]

34. Actually Edwards said twice he agreed with Hillary...

Once in the debate, and again the next day while campaigning...

[jsamuel]

35. Yeah, but he isn't arguing or calling the others names.

Just saying what he thinks. The whole issue seems kind of stupid because the difference seems to be blown out of proportion by each side. Obama accuses Hillary of being like Bush while Hillary accuses Obama of being weak or inexperienced on foreign policy.

I happen to agree with what Edwards said, but what Edwards said isn't what Obama says Hillary said...

:crazy:

[SaveElmer]

37. Obama is the only one name calling actually...nt

[jsamuel]

40. From what I have seen, that is true.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. After he was asked about the flap by a reporter... nt

[sandnsea]

38. Riiight

Edwards little minions getting in the mix is just coincidental.

[jsamuel]

49. The overlord John Edwards has commanded I get in the mix...

BRAINS... BRAINS!!!!!

From everything I have heard, the Edwards camp has nothing to do with this argument.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. Hey, did you get your weekly check from Edwards yet?

What is the hold up this week? :mad:

[sandnsea]

66. No, looks like Jerome did though

And all the little minions followed suit. Just like with the Ezra Klein piece earlier today.

I guess somebody spiked the punch this week. Everybody decided to turn on the slime machines.

[rinsd]

77. ROFL!

The paranoia meltdown is too much!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. No, it is not a coincidence. This is a political discussion forum

We discuss politics here. Some of us support John Edwards. We engage in discussing politics just like supporters of every candidate at DU. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Edwards has gained 7 points on Obama in less than a week. Maybe that will stop the hubris from...

...Obama supporters like sandnsea who dismiss Edwards as irrelevant in this alleged two-way race. Edwards went from trailing Obama by 15 to 8. To put that gap into context, Obama is 17 points behind HRC...

[aquart]

24. Plenty here think he was right on.

Of course, those are the Democratic equivalent of Bushbots. No criticism of one's idol allowed.

[rhombus]

42. Please. If anyone is anti-Obama, it's Jerome Armstrong

He's lost any sense of objectivity with deliberate attacks on Obama. I sense envy and jeaalousy on his part because of the Obama's campaign's success so far, and the fact that Barack has not scuked up to him or Matt Stoller.

[HeraldSquare212]

44. Works for me

...the label, I mean.

[Kingstree]

47. Now the grave digging starts

into Hillary's past record and her similarities to Bush/Chaney. She realizes now that she fucked up and now wants to play this off as silly. Well Duh! She started it, he's not letting it go and why should he. She has way more to answer for that she chooses to avoid and the media helps her with that but she opened the door. Barack Obama does not back down from a fight and now she will have to defend herself, not an easy task for her, especially when McCain and Romney have publicly supported her position.

[illinoisprogressive]

48. jerome has an interest; Edwards. no, hillary messed up big time

[sandnsea]

61. Is he working with Trippi again?

I wondered about that when I saw the name. I don't know why they think slamming Obama will help them.

[journalist3072]

52. Obama is not ready for prime time

And he's not ready to be POTUS. He clearly showed that the other night w/ his debate answer.

[Colobo]

67. Bull.

[SaveElmer]

72. He will probably get there soon enough...

Though I don't think he will get the nomination (I'm still predicting a Hillary-Obama ticket)...

But he has to fix the amateurish mistakes...this isn't the first

[Colobo]

78. Obama/Clinton 08.

[SaveElmer]

85. Flip that around and I like it...

:-)

[wyldwolf]

63. Jerome Armstrong is a DLC toadie, wanker, concern troll...uh... did I miss anything?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. Close but you missed "Trippi made him do it"

:rofl: :crazy:

[rufus dog]

70. Tucker & the Repub strategist

Are saying Hillary is right! WOO HOO - The Bushbots support her!

[maximusveritas]

71. So it's ok for Hillary to call him names, but not ok for him to respond?

Why the double standard?
Jerome has a long history of writing attack pieces on Obama. I'm not sure why he does it, but maybe he'll come clean one day.

[SaveElmer]

73. WHat name did she call him?

[maximusveritas]

76. "Irresponsible" and "naive"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3409544

And don't tell me she was just talking about his position on this issue, because it's the same thing for Obama.

[SaveElmer]

84. Nice spin...

Try and preempt the argument you know is correct...she clearly called his comments naive...which they were...

Lets see how many Democrats outside the netroots echo chamber feel that a comparison between Hillary Clinton and Bush-Cheney is an apt one...

[sandnsea]

82. Ten more years of junkyard politics

It pays the bills for some folks I guess, even folks in the blogosphere. *sigh*

[zulchzulu]

83. Obama should know by now that he should just await the Coronation

:sarcasm:

The Queen hath bestowed her orders that he hath not discusseth her war voting follies. How dare he offend the Queen, who hath been quaffing for her Coronation.