I'll send her some old rubles I have laying around.

Right, by noting that she said invading was a bad idea beforehand. Or that she said the invasion had set a bad precedent afterwards.

Good way to raise money, but I also think that they are under pressure to raise more money online, so they can compete with Obama's 280K donors. This and maybe, they might be concerned that they won't be able to raise tons of money or Obama might beat them AGAIN!

you're right, the vote to authorize was done in good faith. that bush would do the right thing.

"Now who's being naive, Kay?"

Greg,

Did you mean for your headline to say "Hillary Raising Bucks Off Of Obama's "Bush-Cheney Lite" Attack"

or

"Hillary TRYING to Raise Money Off Obama's "Bush-Cheney Lite Attack?"

Big difference.

With regard to the prospect that real dollars will result, just how senstive are the corporate-lobby bundlers to this Obama-Hillary scuffle?

benjoya, I laughed out loud. Thanks.

I believe it was 1% or less of Obama donors who bought campaign materials without giving an additional donation.

It's naive to think politicians vote on opposition-written bills in the expectation of good faith. It was obvious at the time that the bill had been written to hurt the Democrats whatever they did, not to allow them to push for their favored policy goals.

I think Clinton was in the difficult position of having to vote on a bill not congruent with her views while not being able (from a political standpoint) to say, "While my record on Kosovo and Rwanda and congressional deference to legitimate foreign policy goals of the president require me to vote for this bill, which gives the president the authority to take military action as a last resort in enforcing UN resolutions and protecting American lives, Bush is obviously an irresponsible, incompetent liar so I won't". So she voted for the measure while noting that the evidence didn't support the idea of invading. I thought Bush was an irresponsible, incompetent liar, but I was surprised how thoroughly justified the invasion and post-invasion proved my antiwar position to be. If Saddam had had a few measly CW or BW stocks, and Rumsfeld hadn't been such a disaster, the Democrats would probably have been in a much weaker position in '04 if they had (irrelevantly) voted against the AUMF.

So she voted the wrong way on the AUMF (for some defensible reasons) - she has consistently held the conventional, sensible liberal interventionist position and certainly wouldn't have taken us into this disaster in Iraq.

I think Clinton was in the difficult position

You're right and difficult positions and situations require good judgment. Clinton didn't have it THEN and she doesn't have it NOW.

Look at what she is doing creating a frigging 24/7 media brawl with an underdog because she was put in the difficult position of having to defend her flawed judgment not to plan THEN to get us out of Iraq. So NOW she attacks Obama. Just like she sent Americans to die when she had to vote. Hillary lacks the judgment required to be President. Her actions are what is politically expedient and that means Americans are dying and she is squabbling in the press with a 15 point underdog.

Talk about judgment matters...

Mitt Romney defending Hillary and saying she's right on foreign policy is affirmation of BushCheney-lite. Romney wants to double the size of AbuGhraib and Guantanmo Bay.

"Update: I should add that I don't have any particular indication that the Hillary camp is worried about how this is playing out."

Maybe ben [It's all abouts Edwards hair] smith pundit for a repub funded rag could help you out?

What a non republican funded pundit is saying:

"He's run an impressive campaign in many ways, especially in fundraising. He's a natural on the stump. But this week we have seen something else revealed in Obama's styling. He can fight dirty. That's good. But the different kind of politics Obama once offered, which was his major appeal, has imploded. That' bad. That he's willing to call his chief rival "Bush-Cheney lite" says something else entirely. That protecting the Democratic brand for all of our candidates is not important to Mr. Obama. It's anything but a new kind of politics. If Obama weren't who he is and I wasn't giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd call it swiftboating."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25967

Update: I should add that I don't have any particular indication that Obama is worried about his major appeal imploding and no particular indication he cares he is trashing the dem brand.

I didn't know that about Romney wanting to double the size of those torture sites.

The BushCheney-lite phrase has grown legs, hasn't it? I just watched the video of Hillary being interviewed on that subject. She appeared in person (!) to handle it, and then she delivered her practiced lines in a slower than usual determined-to-be-dismissively-casual manner. Watching the video left me thinking that her campaign immediately recognized how damaging that phrase could become. Unless the Hillary camp can counter it, that simple phrase becomes an effective crystallization for people who may have been feeling unsure about her without being able to articulate their uncertainty.

I wonder if she regrets calling Obama naive, which framing he countered with this one.

Try to concentrate. What party does Obama say he belongs to? When a dem acts like a republican just as Obama is doing that ruins the dem brand. When a dem acts like a republican while attacking another dem that ruins the brand. When people can't add 2 + 2 republicans get elected. Try to concentrate.

No doubt they hope to push down Obama on the somewhat effective "inexperience" charge and to force him to blunt his "new politics" platform. If they can do that, of course they want to pick a fight with a clear underdog. If she can clear the primary early, it puts her in a better position to win the presidency.

Sorry to pipe up, as this was to WRB....but 

This sounds like a good strategy if you are the underdog not if you are the frontrunner with a 15 point lead in the polls. Hillary has effectively elevated Obama to her frontrunner status by continuing this squabble.

This tactic is solidfying Obama as the candidate of change.

The strategy might have worked if Obama did not have the money to get his message out there right with hers. My thoughts are this is a serious miscalculation on the part of the Clinton campaign. Serious misjudgment.

The Presidency was hers to lose and she has.

If it's any comfort, lots of us feel that way about Obama - careless, entitled and ego driven - it'll be fun to watch him lose as he inevitiably will.

In addition to them, Edwards, Biden & Dodd agree with her position on diplomacy.

I think about only Bush & Obama don't agree.

Last week, one of the leading Republican candidates equated Hillary with Karl Marx. Yesterday, one of the leading Democratic candidates called her "Bush-Cheney lite." Can you imagine?? Hillary like George Bush??!! Or Dick Cheney!!... Why is Hillary the target of attacks like this? Because, like you, her opponents know Hillary is the candidate with the strength and experience to make change happen.

 This sounds like one major whine!  Are there really folks out there after watching Hillary perform in 3 debates that think she is the 'victim' or unjustly demeaned person she was while in the WH?  What type of campaign manager uses the phrase BushCheney lite to solidfy it in folks minds?  This is terrible solicitation.

Obama's an incredibly sharp guy with a deep understanding of policy and great oratorical skills. It's ludicrous to call him "unimpressive".

No, what the article you did not link to said was that Obama was willing to talk and that he always is willing to talk. Quote:

."Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends."

Actually it is Hillary that agreed with Barack before she was against Obama  at the CNN debates  where she esposed a BushCheney Lite foreign policy position.  Don't believe me though.  Just watch and listen.

Politco,, that Hillary is BushCheneyLite on foreign policy is going to stick. she will rue the day she attacked Obama on this. It is the age of YouTube.

 Let's watch and listen to Hillary's opposing statements since she gave that Senate floor speech, instead. 

Let's also watch how Hillary was for what Barack said at the debate before she was against Obama during the debate. Listen and watch.

She is espousing BushCheney foreign policy at the debate.

In the first video, there are no opposing statements,

Is this code for you did not listen at all.

There are no Hillary flip-flops in the second video

You don't listen or are you deaf.?

You Tube is great, but your 'you tube' argumentation style is silly, completely invalid, and completely unpersuasive, and frankly lazy.

No more lazy than you telling folks to read Hillary's statement from the Senate floor, which was completly invalid, totally unpersusasive and ridiculously outdated.

And "She is espousing BushCheney foreign policy at the debate" is the same crap that Obama is telling you to say

Obama cannot tell me what to say. I was asserting this long before Obama said it about Hillary. Hillary supported Bush's foreign policy, she advocating staying the course, she voted for the war and she claims that America is safer. Hillary has walked in lockstep with Bush and she has told us all that she does not regret giving authority to the President to wage war endlessly.

I suggest you do your homework. Perhaps your computer is very old and you do not have an audio link, because it is real clear Hillary has made numerous opposing statements on the war and that she even switched sides in the CNN debate just to oppose Obama.

BushCheneyLite is sticking because she is engaging in the outdated policies of this adminstration and it is time for change.

Another thing you don't do is read well. Obama did not call Hillary BushCheneyLite he called her approach to foreign policy ...BushCheneyLite.

This is my final post to you becasue you attack the messenger rather than the issue. I find that type of  argumentative style boring and juvenile.

 No, Bush sent Americans to die.

Bush could not do anything without the AUMF. Hillary cast her vote for the war and that authorized Bush to send Americans to die. She nor Edwards even bothered to do their jobs.

 Hillary kicked Obama's ass one more time. How many times has he apologized to her now

The voters in NH did not see it that way.

Watch their response here on CNN>

You are right. I am attacking you, the messenger. Why? Because you shove a couple of videos at me, wave your hands, and say that Hillary contradicts herself. Where's the beef? Point out something factual. Make a specific assertion.

Everything she said in her Senate speech was reasonable at the time, given what was known or presented. There was no deception on her part. She didn't criticize the war after it began because that would gone over like a lead balloon with a lot of people - including the troops.

I believe Clinton, with Obama's help, has done more in this exchange to cement her position as the status quo Democratic candidate. By making Obama her target rather than focusing on the illogical and catastrophic Bush-Cheney foreign policy, she has planted in many peoples minds that among the Democrats she is the closest to the current administration. Whether you call it Bush-Cheney Lite or Bush-Cheney-Clinton, Hillary has a new vulnerability to address: not just the war vote, but future foreign policy.

Fair point, too.

Maybe the follow-up headline can be

"Hillary's Tactic Successful, Produces $100 Windfall"

I think Bush-Cheney Lite has really taken hold, and will soon morph into Bush-Cheney-Clinton when her Iraq vote, status quo diplomacy plans, and her obligations to oil/military-industrial/health care-pharmesutical special interests are all added up. Among the Democrats, Hillary represents the least prospect for CHANGE.

You say that "everything" Hillary said in her Senate speech was reasonable. Precisely, and she said EVERYTHING! That speech is a monument to EQUIVOCATION, Hillary the triangulator at her best. What she said is words, her action was to vote Bush the authority to initiate an elective war that has become the worst American policy blunder in history. Her vote is a good measure of Hillary's capacity for good judgment as a Leader, not a sheep.

"Do please watch that spelling or people will think you're an idiot."

Your knowledge of spelling and your deep and insightful comments add so much to the discussion. And thanks for taking the the time out of your busy day to insult me.

And when I want your help I'll be sure to ask.

Thanks again.

Have a nice day :>

rilkefan, you are simultaneously deluding yourself -- by saying Hillary did not really support the war -- and then contradicting yourself, when you suggest that maybe her vote had merit after all, because the vote would have looked good and tough and smart had the war gone a little better and turned up some WMD.

when there's a big vote, like to authorize a war, the worst thing, in my mind, is to position yourself so that you can try to say you were right no matter what when the outcome becomes clear a year or two later. that's the opposite of leadership, which is supposed to be Hillary's strong suit.

i'm no purist but please save political positioning votes for smaller issues like highway bills not war votes.

Then they throw some video links into their post that are clearly biased and provide no background or context

Politico, I am not sure why your shorts are all in a knot, about the links. Did you click on them? The link went directly to Hillary's speech on the Senate floor that you were saying should be read. There was a clear contrast of statements as to what she said in 2002 and subsequently said in 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007.  The poster was addressing your assertions about the Senate floor speech. My thoughts are that was in context and the background you provided and could not be biased as you had already suggested reading that speech.

Your point is irrellevant. Plouffe released the number of donors who MERELY bought a bumpersticker, etc. It was ~2,800. So even if your point is 100% conceded, Obama comes in at over 250K donors. Still kicking their ass everywhere.

ETA: DonnaG beat me to the point. But yeah, there it is.