Was Obama naive, will Clinton be Bush-Cheney lite?

[Hollow Shells]

This item is part of a long political piece I did for the weekend print edition. In the blog I will be using only some parts of it, but if you want to read it all (2277 words), you're most welcomed.

It began with a small mistake by the person asking the question: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since." The five-year gap in the description of what happened back then took place at this summer's most intriguing political debate. The struggle between the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has been underway for several weeks, but it started with a debate held by CNN and YouTube, in which the candidates were asked to connect Sadat's visit to Israel with the political reality in America today. "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?" they were asked.

Without hesitating, Obama said yes. Clinton, who responded after him, said no. Not in the first year, and not without an initial assessment, she said. Since then, the debate has turned into a real battle. Obama argued that the New York candidate was nothing but "Bush-Cheney lite" not exactly a compliment in the eyes of most Democratic voters. Such an argument is "silly," responded Clinton, labeling Obama's position as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive."

Obama and Clinton are more involved with political maneuvering than actually examining American foreign policy in depth. Obama, who is relatively inexperienced in the field and is presenting himself as an agent of change, is hitting his more veteran opponent in a sensitive spot. The Clintons of 1992 were a kind of novelty, but the Clintons of 2007 are the establishment that Obama seeks to shake up. But while Obama represents the promise of change, he also lacks experience. Clinton is leading over Obama in the polls, and a Gallup poll asking Clinton supporters why they prefer her over Obama provided the reasons: 33 percent said she is more experienced, while only 21 percent said they "like Clinton's views on issues/agenda."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=895046&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

More at link.

[Colobo]

1. Good article!

[msongs]

2. most likely neither claim is true nt

[youngdem]

3. She won't be fiercely independent, that's for sure.

She's a triangulator, just like her husband.

I loved Bill, but Bill she ain't.

She's what we are gonna end up with though, for better or worse.

Just don't expect anything other than the DLC, repuke lite stuff, with a few pleasant surprises thrown in, and more than a few head banging frustrations as she capitulates to policies that erode what is left of the middle class.

[alteredstate]

4. When I clicked on your link

I received five pop-ups.

[Hollow Shells]

6. Yea, that web page sucked as far as pop-ups go.

I thought that the article was interesting, so I posted it anyway.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Interesting article

I take from it that the Israeli point of view is that the nomination will go either to Clinton or Obama. Is this the case? Or are only the front runners in the polls being reported upon?