This Is Getting Good

[red states rule]

The fight between Obama and Hillary is getting good. Now Obama compares the Red Queen to Pres Bush

That should fire things up



Obama likens Hillary to Bush
By Christina Bellantoni
July 27, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama yesterday suggested Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's foreign policy smacks of "Bush-Cheney lite," in a spat dominating the Democratic presidential contest.

The two senators have fired political shots all week since a debate question about meeting with leaders from rogue nations, but the rhetoric sharpened yesterday and other White House hopefuls joined in.

Mrs. Clinton, New York Democrat, dismissed the back-and-forth as "silly," then accused Mr. Obama, Illinois Democrat, of abandoning his "hope" message.

The dust-up began at Monday's debate when Mr. Obama said "I would" meet, without preconditions, the leaders of U.S. enemies and explained his reasoning. Mrs. Clinton responded next, saying, "I will not promise" and noted such visits could be used as propaganda.

She later assumed the mantle of experience and told a newspaper that her rival's willingness to meet with such leaders was "irresponsible" and "naive." He countered by characterizing her October 2002 vote for the Iraq war with the same words.

"If we want fundamental change, then we can't be afraid to talk to our enemies," he said yesterday, keeping the fight alive in a Concord, N.H., campaign speech.

"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 asserted without mentioning Mrs. Clinton. "I don't want a continuation of Bush-Cheney; I don't want Bush-Cheney lite."

Obama adviser David Axelrod did not retract the Bush-Cheney remark when asked about it on CNN. Mr. Obama characterized the Bush administration's foreign policy as "obsessed with talking tough and then not acting very smartly
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...107270099/1001

[red states rule]

and the liberal media does not know which way to go


The Bran-Muffin Candidate
Thursday, Jul. 26, 2007 By JOE KLEIN Enlarge Photo
Illustration by Stephen Kroninger; Clinton Head; Stan Honda / AFP / Getty

Hillary Clinton looked awful. Her eyes were bleary and puffy, as if she had stayed up all night or was in the midst of a fairly dramatic allergic reaction. (Her staff later said it was indeed allergies.) But there she was, on a Sunday morning in Miami, being Hillary!--as her campaign signs say--in what was billed as una charla (a chat) in front of about a thousand Latinos at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group. "Let's just talk like two girlfriends," she instructed her interviewer, a Latina newspaper publisher.

Yeah, right. Actually, I can easily imagine Senator Clinton chatting away with pals about the need for "cross-border cooperation on economic development with Mexico." She's a drop-dead policy wonk. And she's never going to be a warm, cuddly public person. She attacks her job like an assembly-line spot-welding robot, hitting each and every talking point precisely, even when she's rusty with allergies. And that, ultimately, is what she brings to this campaign: reliability, as opposed to experience. She has never been an executive decision maker, but she is solid as granite and righteous as a bran muffin. She isn't going to go all crazy or extreme on us, which is a relief after George W. Bush. She is, for the moment, the default position in the Democratic race.

Her most serious opponent, Senator Barack Obama, spoke to La Raza directly after Clinton, and he gave a gorgeous speech, using as his text a message that Martin Luther King Jr. had sent to Cesar Chavez in the midst of the farmworker activist's famous 1968 hunger strike: "Our separate struggles are really one." I hadn't seen Obama speak in several months, and his delivery had become more passionate, less cerebral. The substance of his message--on issues like immigration reform--was essentially the same as Clinton's. But he was more artful, using King and Chavez to draw together two ethnic groups, blacks and Latinos, that have a testy relationship in urban America. "Not only are our struggles one," he concluded, "but our dreams are too."

for the complete article

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...647468,00.html

[GW in Ohio]

Obama is a lightweight. Hillary will kick his ass back to Illinois.

[red states rule]

Obama is a lightweight. Hillary will kick his ass back to Illinois.

and Rudy will chew her up and spit her out

[GW in Ohio]

and Rudy will chew her up and spit her out

Why don't we dispense with the trash talking for now? When it comes to a Hillary-Rudy matchup, I will say Hillary will kick his ass back to New York and you will say Rudy will have her for breakfast. And both of our brash trash-talking predictions are worth about the same thing.....

Zilch.

[red states rule]

Why don't we dispense with the trash talking for now? When it comes to a Hillary-Rudy matchup, I will say Hillary will kick his ass back to New York and you will say Rudy will have her for breakfast. And both of our brash trash-talking predictions are worth about the same thing.....

Zilch.

Rudy has a long list of acomplishments

While Hillary has none. Beside being married to Bill - what has she accomplished?

[GW in Ohio]

Rudy has a long list of acomplishments

While Hillary has none. Beside being married to Bill - what has she accomplished?

Well, let's see.....

She was twice elected to the United States Senate and has served on the Armed Forces Committee. I guess that gives her some pretty good experience in government, huh?

Look, if you want to talk politics with me, don't deal in bullshit statements like, "Hillary has no accomplishments." You don't like her politics, you don't like her personally, and you don't like her husband....fine. But don't make stuff up.

[red states rule]

Well, let's see.....

She was twice elected to the United States Senate and has served on the Armed Forces Committee. I guess that gives her some pretty good experience in government, huh?

Look, if you want to talk politics with me, don't deal in bullshit statements like, "Hillary has no accomplishments." You don't like her politics, you don't like her personally, and you don't like her husband....fine. But don't make stuff up.

That's is all you have for the Red Queen?

Here is Rudy's

Through robust policing, Giuliani drove overall crime down 56.1 percent, while chopping homicides 66.6 percent, from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001.

Following national trends, abortions on Giuliani’s watch dropped 16.9 percent, while taxpayer-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.

Gotham’s foster-care population fell 38 percent as Giuliani helped loving families adopt 17,804 boys and girls.

By fighting fraud and finding work for legitimate beneficiaries, Giuliani cut welfare rolls 58 percent, starting two years before federal welfare reform. Giuliani renamed welfare offices “Job Centers.”

Giuliani privatized 23,625 previously confiscated, city-owned dwellings, 78 percent of supply, benefiting family and individual homeowners and tenants.

Giuliani dumped Gotham’s 20 percent set-aside and 10 percent overbid bonus for minority and female contractors. “The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination,” he explained. He initiated this on his 24th day in office, far exceeding any colorblindness legislation Congress even debated during the 12-year “Republican Revolution.”

Giuliani’s $10 million Charter School Improvement Fund helped 3,286 pupils in 17 new charter schools, up from $0 and zero campuses in 1997. He ended tenure for school principals, so slackers could be sacked. He also stopped social promotion; students needed to complete grade-level work to matriculate.

Ex-pornography mecca Times Square now welcomes families, tourists and locals for fully clothed musicals like “The Lion King” and “Mary Poppins
http://race42008.com/2007/03/19/meeting-the-real-rudy/

[red states rule]

Jonathan Alter on the Dictator Dust-up: Clinton, Obama Both Right ! Republicans Wrong

By Jason Aslinger | July 27, 2007 - 21:54 ET

We all had the opportunity for some real political fun this week when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama contradicted each other in the CNN/YouTube debate. If you did not already see it, one of the YouTube questioners asked the candidates whether they would be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations, without preconditions, during their first year in office. Obama answered that he would. Clinton answered that she would not.

Those are differeing positions, right? Diametrically opposed, actually? Well, maybe not, or at least not according to Jonathan Alter of Newsweek. In his July 27 article "Talking to Dictators," Alter wrote: "[o]n the substance, their views are almost indistinguishable." Indistinguishable?

Alter's surprising conclusion comes after his own summary of the post-debate fracas between Clinton and Obama:

Over the next three days, hostilities escalated. After first sending out an aide to “clarify” what he meant (a sure sign he thought he had lost the exchange), Obama decided to use the moment to reiterate his position. It’s arrogant, he said, for a U.S. president to view his presence at a meeting as a reward for good behavior, and his refusal to meet as punishment. And no matter what you do, there’s always propaganda from the other side. Hillary, sensing a chance to reinforce the experience gap, called Obama’s position “naive.”

This, in turn, gave Obama an opening to prove that he can counterpunch—something Democrats are desperate for their candidates to do more often. It was especially important for Obama to show he was not “Obambi,” and he seemed to relish the chance. But he may have overreached in referring to Hillary’s approach as “Bush-Cheney lite,” and not just because he delivered it too harshly. In 2000, John McCain ran into trouble in the critical South Carolina primary in part by comparing his opponent, Gov. George W. Bush, to President Bill Clinton, the incumbent and a loathed figure inside the GOP. The move backfired. Republican primary voters didn’t like seeing one of their own compared to the hated incumbent of the other party. Today’s Democratic primary voters no doubt feel the same.

Hillary took quiet but effective umbrage at the “Bush-Cheney lite” line and scored with a passive-aggressive shot at Obama for betraying the “politics of hope.” This was part of her strategy of trying to turn Obama into a hypocrite every time he says something critical.


Alter managed to compliment both candidates following the war of words, calling Clinton "calm and mature," while describing Obama as having "reinforced his image as a sharp break from the status quo, which Democrats want." Alter declared that Clinton probably prevailed in the short term, but that Obama's favorable impression will linger through the campaign.

So what exactly is going on here? The two leading Democratic candidates contradict each other, then trade verbal barbs for three days, but yet they're both sly politicians with "indistinguishable" positions? Is Alter reporting the news, or is he trying to keep the peace among the Democrats? Or, as Mark Finkelstein asked in a prior post, is Alter trying to preserve Obama's potential as a vice presidential candidate, notwithstanding the heated exchange?

After carefully explaining away any discontent within the Democratic party, Alter then turned his attention to Republican candidate Mitt Romney, tagging him as a demagogue for comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain. By Alter's analysis, Clinton and Obama would be fabulous diplomats while Romney (and by extension, all the Republican candidates) would be out-of-touch.

"[Clinton and Obama] both echo the line of John F. Kennedy (actually Ted Sorensen, now an Obama man) that “we must not negotiate out of fear—or fear to negotiate.” Hillary has said repeatedly that she would talk to adversaries, and Obama made it clear that he would do the requisite diplomatic spadework before rushing into meetings. Both would take a page from former secretary of State James Baker and open talks with Syria, Iran and other rogue states.

Not the Republican candidates. They all apparently feel Baker is wrong and Bush is right—no talks. Introducing a note of demagoguery, Romney went so far as to compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who flew to Munich in 1938 to appease Adolf Hitler. No Republicans objected. Their game—which they will play whomever the nominees turn out to be—is to position Republicans as Churchillian (Rudy Giuliani does this explicitly) and Democrats as appeasers. Munich is an old meme in American politics (Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan all used it). But it is especially inappropriate today.

You have to give Alter the "making lemons into lemonade" award on this one. The two leading Democrats argue opposite sides of the same issue, but it's the Republican Party that has it wrong

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jason-a...republicans-wr

[glockmail]

Obama is a lightweight. Hillary will kick his ass back to Illinois.

There's the true Democrat: racist.

[red states rule]

There's the true Democrat: racist.

Why isn't the liberal pulling for the black guy? Once again, the left tosses a black candidate uinder the bus and goes with the rich white gal

[red states rule]

Looks like alot of libs are turning on the black guy


Obama Debate Comments Set Off Firestorm

Jul 24 11:12 PM US/Eastern
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush's diplomacy.
Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama's supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.

It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama's team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator's lack of foreign policy experience.

"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper's Web site on Tuesday.

In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration.

Both parties were weighing the potential political fallout, especially in Florida, an early primary state, a pivotal general election state—and where Cuban President Fidel Castro remains particularly unpopular.

"Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida," said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama's comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

The Republican National Committee on Tuesday circulated stories calling attention to and ridiculing Obama's remarks.

In Monday's debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet—without precondition—in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

"I would," he responded.

Clinton said she would not. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Clinton said she would first use envoys to test the waters.

The day after the debate, the Clinton campaign made former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Clinton supporter, available to reporters to further challenge Obama's response.

"It's a step-by-step process. It's not just some event," Albright said of such head-of-state meetings.

"I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything," Albright said.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying Obama's response to the question had played well with focus groups and that Clinton had changed her position on the subject—a claim her campaign denied.

Anthony Lake, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was national security adviser early in President Clinton's administration, defended Obama's statements.

"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so—just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.

He said Obama was not trying to dictate the "shape of specific negotiations" and those would "depend on how best to conduct them" at the time.

Lake said he recognized Obama's comments had stirred up a political hornet's nest, particularly in Florida. But, he said, it would subside. "In two years, who knows who's going to be ruling Cuba," Lake said.

In February, Clinton had said: "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."

Obama's camp also attempted to shift attention to Clinton's vote authorizing the Iraq war in October 2002 at a time when Obama, then a state lawmaker, had voiced opposition.

Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Democrats and former director of the Cuban National Foundation, said he'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

"Obviously, Hillary's answer was a seasoned answer within the realm of what we're doing. But I don't think Obama was intending to say we want to give legitimacy to dictatorships," said Garcia, who said he was not affiliated with any of the candidates. Obama speaks to the Miami-Dade Democrats at an Aug. 25 dinner.

for the complete article

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[glockmail]

Why isn't the liberal pulling for the black guy? Once again, the left tosses a black candidate uinder the bus and goes with the rich white gal

White Democrats would never vote for a black guy. Sure they'll toss him some campaign cash and tell people that they support him, but you are absolutely right, when push comes to shove he gets tossed under the bus.

[red states rule]

White Democrats would never vote for a black guy. Sure they'll toss him some campaign cash and tell people that they support him, but you are absolutely right, when push comes to shove he gets tossed under the bus.

Many years ago, libs tossed to the rear of the bus

Libs are not treating the blacks much better these days

[Spyder Jerusalem]

and Rudy will chew her up and spit her out

Rudy Giuliani is a washed up, dress-wearin', lying to constituants, fake-ass heroic, walkin' joke.

Even the Republifascists know better than to hitch their wagon to his swaybacked ol' horse.

Its common knowledge that anyone that thinks Rudy is a good choice would eat a dog-turd and call it steak.