« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Blasts Obama for 'Bush-Cheney Lite' Comment

Share

July 26, 2007 4:36 PM

ABC News' Jennifer Parker reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. blasted her '08 Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Thursday for characterizing her foreign policy stance as "Bush-Cheney lite."

Clinton was responding to comments Obama made Thursday morning during a campaign event in Concord, New Hampshire, where he attempted to further draw a line between his position on dealing with rogue nations, and Clinton's position -- though he never mentioned her name specifically.

"It is no longer sufficient for us trot out the old formulas, the old tired phrases," Obama said. "I'm 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," he said.

"I'm not going go to avoid them, I'm not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric. We don't need another Bush-Cheney lite," Obama said.

Clinton fired back at Obama during a television interview Thursday.

"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," she told CNN Thursday. 

"You have to ask: what's ever happened to 'the politics of hope'?" Clinton said during the interview, referring to a frequent Obama campaign message.

"We have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries," Clinton told CNN. "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."

The comments escalated a continuing war of words between the two leading Democratic candidates that began following Monday night's Democratic debate.

During the debate, the candidates were asked whether, as president, they would be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea -- leaders the Bush administration has refused to meet with.

Obama quickly said yes. However Clinton said no, arguing that after lower-level diplomacy is conducted, it would be appropriate for the president to meet with them.

July 26, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (60)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hillary is Bush Lite. Go Obama!

Posted by: Cat | Jul 26, 2007 5:18:19 PM

Silly rabit, the politics of hope disapeared when Hillary started calling names. I love the fact that he is telling the truth. Is Hill the only one that can say anything, the arrogance of her campaign and her supporters is amazing!

Posted by: Kwame | Jul 26, 2007 5:19:32 PM

I agree, Kwame, she's floating around the country as if she were attending a coronation! This isn't a monarchy.

Posted by: Cat | Jul 26, 2007 5:22:06 PM

DaveM............I take your suggestion to mean if you are young there is no way possible to be a good president. I wonder if that sense of logic could be applied to the last two presidents. Obama is not demonstrating naivete by saying he would meet with leaders of countries we disagree with. He showed that he understands how smaller countries need to be engaged, the same way we engage larger countries. It seems to me we as american's need to stop thinking in elitist terms when we veiw the world. There is a definite need for the Western world to re-think engagement strategies when dealing with smaller countries. The first thing we need to do is strike the word third world from our vocabulary. Stop dealing with the so called exiled elite from those countries.Approach and deal with them based on their culture and not ours. Senator Obama's comment was an honest response to a good question. I am sure that he has a basic understanding of the ground work necessary to conduct diplomatic discussions between leaders. This is just a cheap shot at a good man.
Elitist need to grow up. Remember those we do not talk to and how they behave.

Posted by: murl41 | Jul 26, 2007 5:26:54 PM

I actually agree with Obama's position. It is time to meet these leaders face to face so that a dialog can begin about moving passed what we disagree about and work to see what we do agree on.

Posted by: ShannonG | Jul 26, 2007 5:26:56 PM

Hillary Clinton is double-talking once again. Out of her own mouth came the words that she woulndn't meet for diplomatic reasons. She's couching her language just like her ole man Bill does. Enough of that dishonest and calculated rhetoric of the Clintons. Barack is the only candidate speaking honestly and correctly. Enough of this inexperienced nonsense: Barack has more experience as an elected official than Hillary, Edwards Guiliani, or Romney. Check your facts before declaring him inexperienced.

Posted by: PJ | Jul 26, 2007 5:29:19 PM

She won't win this one. Obama called her out for what she is. Time to pull back the curtain.

Posted by: Lyn | Jul 26, 2007 5:43:02 PM

What's really pathetic about Obama's foolish remark promising to talk with all those enemy leaders is that he said it because ***the remark had tested will with a focus group***. Now, really, how much more pathetic can a candidate get than that? His campaign itself said they did this. They said this the day after he made the remark in the debate.

He'd do something so naive and foolish and destructive to the well-being of the nation as to just go and meet blindly with these enemy leaders because it tested well with a focus group???!!!

Please, somebody get a long hook and pull this pathetic, pandering clown off of the stage.

Posted by: Jake Long | Jul 26, 2007 5:46:54 PM

Jake, don't be so naive. I know change is tough but it is inevitable.The world is moving towards working globally and with diplomacy. No need to be bitter. Just relax and sip some 'Bush' lite while the rest of us work on fixing this mess that was created by the same 'old-way' of thinking that Sen. Clinton and the current administration demonstrate.

Posted by: ShannonG | Jul 26, 2007 5:58:13 PM

Jake, he said he is WILLING to meet with them-not that he would do it without proper presonditions. Did you watch the debate or just start defending Hillary blindly? It only hurts your argument when you don't know what was asked and what was answered. DOWN WITH BUSH LITE! GO OBAMA!

Posted by: Cat | Jul 26, 2007 6:03:23 PM

honestly, before she made that remark I was leaning towards Clinton. But when she spouted the same party line that has led us into this mess, I was like, NO WAY. Obama isn't naive, he is a diplomat.And that's what we need. Enough sabre rattling and selling wars door to door. Remember the old saying? keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Let's talk to our enemies.

Posted by: rapidcycler | Jul 26, 2007 6:15:08 PM

I wonder if I am the only one not directly associated with a campaign to post a comment here?

Posted by: Ultra | Jul 26, 2007 6:27:00 PM

Cat - I watched the debate and was disappointed Obama fired off an answer to please the crowd with out sufficent thought. The question was 'with out pre-condition'.

Obama didn't say 'willing', he said 'would'.

“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.”

Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | Jul 26, 2007 6:38:41 PM

We no longer have the luxury of looking for or going with "the politics of hope", Hill. We've been bled dry in the last 6 years and set back on existing issues as well as several new ones by 20 years. Who ever takes over after Bush's term has got to hit the ground running with some decisively forward moving policies immediately.
The problem is, any candidate from either of the two parties that comprise the uni-party probably won't be able to deliver.

Posted by: Kid Charlemagne | Jul 26, 2007 6:40:43 PM

There are people in the world that you cannot reason with. I hope our next president has the wisdom to tell the difference. Obama has proved he does not and I am not even an Hillary fan.

Posted by: Alex | Jul 26, 2007 6:48:17 PM

if anyone is a lite weight it is obama ~ she said naive ~ he is naive ~ he started with the name calling ~ and he will do more ~ mr goody two faced shoes ~ how's that for a sound byte

Posted by: brightquiet | Jul 26, 2007 6:56:07 PM

And the news media just loves the fact that most people put more value in following the name calling than they do the real issues. Because the issues would be a far harder and less $ensational thing to cover.

Posted by: Kid Charlemagne | Jul 26, 2007 7:02:52 PM

name calling or ad hominem is a clear indication of character and character is an indication of ability especially when faced with really serious problems ~ which is what is happening and it could get worse ~ obama doe not have a clue ~ he is just a 'rock star' at this point ~ he might ripen he might not ~ but the presidency isn't a finishing school ~ it is not day care for rookies

Posted by: brightquiet | Jul 26, 2007 7:10:35 PM

On this Obama is right on. Hillary is status quo in a time when we need change!

Posted by: EJ | Jul 26, 2007 7:21:11 PM

Hillary seems to me to be a viable candidate, HOWEVER I tend to agree with Obama as far as meeting with leaders face to face. Cut all the high & mighty formalities and MEET with these leaders. cut to the chase and STOP waisting time, Money, and LIVES!

Posted by: SameAsTheOldBoss | Jul 26, 2007 7:30:20 PM

Post a comment