Who Sounds Like Rudy?

Does this candidate sound like Rudy?

There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat. It has armed terrorists beyond its borders, maintains an illicit nuclear program, and its leaders have issued belligerent threats that are a concern to us all. . . . We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders.

This guy?

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

And so on. It so happens that I agree with a lot of what I am quoting from Obama. I strongly disagree with any calls for resolutions of any type from the Senate on Iran. Kyl-Lieberman was a horrible mistake.

But when Obama said Hillary was like Rudy on Iran, that was a lie. It would be a lie to say Obama is like Rudy. Here's my new request from our Presidential canidates - I am setting the bar low - no more bald faced lying. Be more nuanced in your misstatements.

< Rudy and Kerik: The Red Flags Rudy Didn't See | Martial Law Imposed in Pakistan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama claims to be more open to diplomacy (none / 0) (#1)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    than either Rudy or Hillary, so I'd say that in certain ways Hillary is more like Rudy than Obama. Of course, that's just the sound bite take on their differences and similarities. Beneath the PR surface, I'm sure that Hillary is or would be more open to diplomacy than Rudy is or would be, and thus is or would be a lot more like Obama. But since elections are often won or lost based on these sound bite policy statements, one cannot ignore these superficial similarities and differences.

    And I'd say that in being willing to be more publically open and honest than Hillary about what we're going to need to do to deal with Iran and Pakistan--i.e. overwhelmingly favor non-military solutions, but not take military ones off the table as a last resort, which is what Obama has been stressing--as opposed to Hillary, who stupidly called Obama naive for saying that he'd be open to high-level diplomatic solutions, and thus aligning herself more closely to Rudy's "shoot first and don't bother to ask questions" foreign "policy", Obama was differentiating himself from these two in a meaningful and important way.

    I've no doubt that Hillary's actual foreign policy would be a lot more nuanced and smart than Rudy's, and that she'd absolutely favor diplomacy over militarism, and thus closer to Obama's. But her unwillingness to be clear about this publically is yet further evidence of her dishonesty, centrist pandering, and lack of courage. Why can't she just come out and say what she really believes and intends to do (assuming that there is a meaningful difference between what she says and believes) and stand behind it, rather than saying what she thinks people want to hear? It is THIS dishonesty and cowardice that make so many people not like or respect her, whatever her actual policy positions might be.

    Enough triangulation. Stop pandering to the moronic neocon "red meat" crowd. It's shameful and dishonest, and for the most part it's not going to work anyway--these people are going to overwhelmingly vote for Rudy anyway, or whoever the Pub candidate is. At least Obama's more willing to say what he believes, and less interested in pandering to the neocon crowd--on this issue at least. And in this superficial but still important sense, Hillary IS more like Rudy. And it's the superficialities that most people focus on (or else Bush would never have stood a chance in '00, and no one would have cared about Gore's "sighs").

    This is simply not true (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    "At least Obama's more willing to say what he believes, and less interested in pandering to the neocon crowd--on this issue at least."

    Unless you believe he is interested in attacking Iran, I have no idea what you are talking about.


    Unfair and simply dishonest oversimplification (none / 0) (#12)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    I did not say that he's "interested in attacking Iran", but rather that he's not taking that option off the table--like nearly every other Dem. You cannot possibly claim that these are the same thing.

    What he said was that while he's not willing to take military options off the table, he strongly favors non-military ones, and is willing to talk to leaders of "rogue" nations instead of either attacking them, ignoring them, or otherwise punishing them. Hillary responded to that by calling him "irresponsible and frankly naive" (I misquoted her as saying "unserious and naive", but these are essentially the same thing). Which is exactly what Rudy has been saying.

    What exactly do you not understand or agree with about that?


    You are descirbing Obama's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    statement that Hillary is like Rudy no?

    Of course thorugh my illustration of what Obama did, by doing it to him, you make my point.

    Now, on the no discussion prior to meeeting with leaders nonsense, of course Hillary played a political game on Obama. IT was a gutter attsack by Hillary on Obama.

    THAt does not make Obama's attack now, much worse by the way, NOT gutter politics.

    Or do you say that there was a substantive difference on the "talks" issue? Because Obama supporters and Obama himself denied vehemently that that ceated any difference.

    What is clear is that you missed my point -
    saying Hillary is like Rudy was utter BS.

    But in Obama Love Universe, he is perfect and does no wrong.

    Continue living in that strange uiverse if you like.


    I'll grant you that point (none / 0) (#21)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    I.e. that Obama's comparing Hillary to Rudy was below the belt and unnecessary, at least as framed this way. He needed to differentiate himself from her on this matter, but should have done so more "diplomatically", if you will.

    However, my point is and always has been that on the substance of what he said, he is clearly correct. Hillary IS sounding more like Rudy (even if it's not what she actually believes, which I believe it is not). At least you don't deny that.

    I also wouldn't compare her attacks on him with his attacks on her. She called him "irresponsible and naive" for publically proclaiming a policy approach that she probably agrees with in private. She clearly did this to make him look too dovish, and herself tougher and more serious on national security. That was wrong of her, we both agree (especially since, as I believe, she probably agrees with him in private).

    Whereas Obama was far more honest (even if less than tactful) in comparing her PUBLIC statements on this to be similar to Rudy's, which they ARE. Perhaps he should have used different words, but how is what he said dishonest? She HAS made irresponsible Rudy-like comments. When has he?

    The difference I see between each of their put-downs of the other is that while Hillary's put-down of Obama was dishonest, and clearly calculated to make him look bad based on what was likely a hypocritical premise on her part, Obama's put-down of her was honest, even if inartful.

    I.e. Hillary almost certainly agrees with Obama more than she does with Rudy on the need for diplomacy with these countries, and yet feels the need to not only make it look like she doesn't agree with him, to make herself look tougher, but to put him down and make him look weaker, on something that she probably does agree with him. This is dishonest and shameful, and for Obama to just let this lie without responding to it would have been insane.

    Hillary's smear of Obama was both dishonest and mean. His smear of Hillary was at most mean, but it was not dishonest. THAT is the difference that I've been trying to point out.

    And can we please stop the ad hom crap? You're doing it AGAIN, BTD.


    You grant me THE POINT (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:52:07 PM EST
    My only point.

    And no, do not call what I demonstrated here ad hom.

    You simply did not understand the post.


    But "THE POINT" (none / 0) (#32)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    is hardly the only point, or the most important one here.

    Yes, I grant that Obama "smeared" Hillary here. But one, that's what ALL politicians do (at least those who win). And two, it was a far more honest and I think responsible "smear" than was Hillary's smear of him. Someone has to call her out on her BS and hawkishness (whether it's just a PR ploy or for real), because it's irresponsible, stupid and dishonest.

    I'm not saying that Obama's massively better than her, but in more than a few ways, he clearly is better than her--and not just rhetorically--as I've pointed out numerous times here. He has certainly been a disappointment, but not nearly as much as she's been. And in politics, the lesser of two evils, while a tired old cliche that many progressives pooh-pooh, is still often the effective bottom-line choice.

    And since we're asking for quotes, as I've been unable to find it, do you have a link to where he actually compared her to Rudy? I'm not denying that he did, but I'd like to read the actual words and get a sense of the context.

    As for ad hom, well, I think that most people would consider saying that someone is a delusional cult follower just because they happen to disagree with you qualifies as ad hom--especially when they back up their argument.


    Wait a sec (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    You did NOT actually read what was said? And you have been here vehemently defending Obama?

    But you are not an Obama cultist?


    On e last point. This post is about Obama calling Hillary  like Rudy.

    That is whaty it is about. It is not about the relative merits.

    You defended Obama's dishonest smear. But you are not a cult member nosiree.


    Ummm (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    Could anyone not say about Obama exactly what you said about Hillary on this issue?

    You have no actual basis for differentiating them on this.

    And it was Obama who compared Hillary to Rudy. IT was BS from the Obama campaign, gutter politics.

    Certainly one thing is for sure - the Era of New Politics is over.

    This was a response to Kovie (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:25:23 AM EST
    I was obviously referring (none / 0) (#7)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:38:59 AM EST
    to Obama's statement that he'd be willing to talk to folks like Ahmajinejad, which Hillary responded to by calling him "unserious and naive", and thus sounding just like Rudy, who recently joked about how both of them would be willing to let him spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom (but who had made similar statements in the past). I've no doubt that Hillary would be willing to talk to Ahmajinejad (but more likely through intermediaries), which puts her a lot closer in reality to Obama than to Rudy. But he PUBLIC statements are a lot more like Rudy's than Obama's.

    What differentiates all three is not their willingness to use the military--they have all said that they'd keep this option on the table--but rather, one, the emphasis that they'd put on using this option, and two, the emphasis that they'd put in diplomatic and other non-military options, at least in their public pronouncements. Policy-wise, Hillary might be a lot close to Obama, but PR-wise, she's sounding more like Rudy in some ways, e.g. pooh-poohing diplomatic options.

    Obama is certainly like Rudy in some ways, but in ways that just about ALL Dems (with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel) are like Rudy--and even then only superficially, as I doubt that any of them would adopt a neocon foreign and military policy of preventive war. But in other ways, he is not like Rudy, whereas Hillary is--e.g. being willing to persue a diplomatic course, or at least being willing to say so publically, even though it might displease the Ignatius crowd.


    Yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    I notice that you do not reference anything Obama said here that goes against what you want to believe.

    How about referencing the quotes in THIS post? I know why you do not. There is nothing you can say about them that does not demolish your comment.


    And what exactly DOES go against (none / 0) (#13)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    what I want to believe that was in THIS post, that I intentionally left out? I acknowledged that Obama is willing to consider miliary options against these countries. I never denied or ignored that. But I put this in the larger context (which YOU conveniently ignored in THIS post) in which, while not taking military options off the table, he still favors non-military ones, to an extent that both Hillary and Rudy have publically disparaged.

    You selectively left out important qualifying details that would have demolished YOUR argument. That might work in the controlled conditions of a courtroom in which procedural tricks can be used to win a case, but not out here, where they can't. You need to address this wider context to make your point.

    I'm quite sure that if I were to carefully constrain the context, I could find comments that you have made that make you sound just like Bush or Cheney. Does it mean that you agree with them on other matters, or on anything substantially? Of course not.

    Rudy's willing to bomb Iran. Hillary's willing to bomb Iran. Obama's willing to bomb Iran. No argument there. But whereas Rudy's said that he's not willing to talk to Iran, which Hillary appears to agree with, Obama has said that he IS willing to talk to it. And withing this broader and more realistic (not to mention honest) context, Obama is NOT like Rudy in the way that Hillary is (at least publically).


    I did what Obama did (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    Did you even READ my post?

    You cite NOTHING to  support your notion of contextual differences between Hillary and Obama. They say the same thing.

    It was OBAMA who said Hillary is like Rudy.

    THAT is my objection.

    Can you not even understand my basic point here?

    Nothing you state in any way demolishes my argument - to wit it was gutter politics, outrageous and false, for Obama to say Hillary is like Rudy on Iran.

    You have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that even points to any differences between Obama and the K-L Amendment for that matter.


    I'll never forget this one difference. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    Obama was in NH during the K-L vote.  

    He was "duped" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    by Harry Reid don't you know?

    Playing the "victim" card  . . . AGAIN.


    Exactly. You go on along to NH, (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    Obama; I promise you we won't be doing anything in the Senate while you're gone.  Take all your staff with you; you can trust me on this.

    I get your point (none / 0) (#23)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    And have been trying to show how it's an incomplete point. Yes, Obama did smear Hillary, by comparing her to Rudy, just as Hillary smeared Obama, by calling him irresponsible and naive.

    The difference, though, is that Hillary smeared Obama by lying--i.e. putting down a foreign policy approach that she almost certainly agrees with fundamentally, i.e. diplomacy over militarism--in order to look tough and make Obama look weak. Whereas Obama smeared Hillary by saying that in her apparent PUBLIC dismissal of diplomacy, she's more like Rudy, which is true.

    Whatever their respective actual foreign policies might be (which I'm sure are far more nuanced and rational, at least in Obama and Hillary's case), both Hillary and Rudy have come out publically against diplomacy more so than has Obama. Are you denying that? And Hillary voted for K-L, which I personally believe Obama wouldn't have if he had bothered to vote on it (which I agree he should have), and which was clearly a vote against diplomacy, and towards militarism.

    They both smeared each other, but in substantively different ways. Both were below the belt, but Hillary's smear was dishonest. Obama's was not.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    Obama is lying. If Hillary is like Rusy, then so is he.

    You have decided to live on some alternate reality where Hillary is "like" Rudy, but Obama is not.

    No doubt you think Obama has been leading on the issues on the Senate too.

    Ridiculous Obama supporters.


    I have more than made my point (none / 0) (#27)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    with quotes, no less, elsewhere here. Hillary and Rudy both called Obama naive for favoring or even being open to diplomacy. Hillary voted for K-L, which Rudy supported, and Obama did ot. Hillary voted for the '02 AUMF, which Rudy supported, and Obama did not. And yet she is not more like Rudy on such matters? Huh? This makes no sense.

    And yet you weakly offer that because Obama is not willing to take military options off the table, he is therefore just as much like Rudy as Hillary is. Oh please yourself. That is so dishonest. NO DEM has taken these options off the table (not even Kucinich or Gravel, under certain circumstances), nor would they, for obvious reasons. 100% pacifism is NO Dem's policy. So this, in and of itself, does not make Obama like Rudy the way that Hillary's like him.

    Furthermore, if you look at the specifics of what they've each said (and voted for), Obama's willingness to employ military options against Iran is far more constrained and thoughtful than Hillary's or Rudy's. He'd use it as a last resort. Rudy appears ready to use it as a first resort (or at least says so to appeal to the neocon crowd and his good buddy NPod). Hillary's kind of straddling the fence here (as always--illegal alien licenses, hello?), not calling for an attack on Iran, but voting for a resolution that clearly makes one easier. Clearly, even on this, Hillary is closer to Rudy. I can't believe you're actually arguing otherwise. On what basis?!?

    Let me make this very simple for you. Think Venn Diagrams. There is overlap all around. No one is completely an island, or doesn't overlap with Rudy to at least some extent, even on forieign policy. But no one comes close to Hillary in terms of how much overlap there is, especially on foreign policy. He overlap is markedly larger than anyone else's, and certainly than Obama's.

    And THAT is how Hillary is more like Rudy than Obama is.


    You have ignored MY QUOTES (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    If Hillary is like Rudy, then so is Obama.

    It ill behooves either of them to make that comparisn.

    One did. Obama.

    And you excuse it.

    Sorry, that is cult like behavior from you.


    Shorter Obama: (none / 0) (#4)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    If you don't agree with Rudy, then stop sounding like Rudy, and have the courage of your supposed convictions and say what you really believe.

    I.e. if you believe in diplomacy, then say so, and stop calling it "unserious and naive" just to sound like more of a he-woman to please the Ignatius crowd.

    Shorter Me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    Since Obama "sounds like Rudy" on this, can you explain to me how you can justify your comments in the face of what I am quoting? WTF is your basis for arguing Obama is talkiing differently on this?

    He sounds just like <s>Rudy</s> Hillary.

    IS there some alternate reality for Obama supporters that the rest of us do not know about? Where you can just ignore the facts staring you in the face?


    I explained this quite clearly (none / 0) (#11)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    And it's staring you in the face. He agrees with Rudy--as do nearly all Dems--that one cannot categorically rule out military options (although I'm sure that he'd employ them according to vastly different and more thoughtful and responsible criteria than would Rudy, if it came down to it).

    He DOES NOT agree with Rudy, though, in the latter's dismissive attitude towards diplomacy, which Hillary at least publically appears to partially agree with (even though privately, I'm sure that she's a lot closer to Obama on this).

    The actual policy differences between Obama and Hillary on how to deal with these countries in terms of military vs. non-military options are probably much smaller than the ones between Hillary and Rudy on these matters. But in their public pronouncements on them, Hillary is clearly more like Rudy than Obama.

    How else am I supposed to interpret her put-down of Obama as "unserious and naive" when he had the nerve to say that he'd be willing to talk to the leaders of these countries? Whatever she actually believes and intends to do, Hillary is sounding more like Rudy than Obama on these matters.


    What's staring me in the face? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    Do you have a quote, a fact, a statement, ANYTHING, to buttress your bald faced unsupported assertion? Anyhting that could possibly justify the gutter politics you are defending?

    No, it is only that alternate "Obama Is Perfect" Universe some of you reside in.


    "Obama is perfect" Universe (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    Not a strong way to end this debate.  That's a strawman universe.  There may be strident defenders of Obama, whom you strongly disagree with to the point of believing them deluded, but I see no evidence of a cult.  Why not simply say you see no difference in the difference Kovie is trying to present and be done with it?

    Colbert '08.  Before it's too late.


    I have demonstrated repeatedly (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    there is a Cult.

    Even Kos recognizes there is a Cult.

    Of course, when you are in a Cult, you do not think it is a Cult.


    So Kos is now the measure of all things? (none / 0) (#42)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    THAT is not a cultlike cultlike comment in itself?

    And you have demonstrated nothing of the sort.

    An IIRC, you were banging Obama's drum as strongly as anyone not too long ago. Now it's Dodd's. What's the difference? They are ALL flawed candidates, and if you think that I'm a cultlike devotee of one of them because I happen to mostly support him on one matter, well, I am left speechless at the inanity of that.

    Your need to be "right" in every debate is simply astounding.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    Actually I think it is clear that I am one of the few honest brokers around quite frankly.

    You certainly are not.


    You have not specifically addressed (none / 0) (#47)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:31:37 PM EST
    any of my specific points, continuing to make vague and general statements, and yet you call that honest.

    Right. Ad hom, whether you call it that or not.


    Herer is an issue for you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    It turns out Obama LIED about not knowing the Kyl Lieberman vote was coming the following day.

    Is that a character issue in your mind?

    Does that make Obama more like Rudy?


    If he lied (none / 0) (#75)
    by kovie on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    then that is certainly a character issue for me. I never claimed that he was perfect or anything like it. But Hillary's claim to have based her '02 AUMF vote on the best intelligence available at the time is to me a far worse lie, because either she read the '02 NIE and completely missed or lied about the parts that disputed that Iraq had WMD, or else did not read it, but implicitely lied about having read it. And all indications are that she did not read it.

    But if Obama intentionally ducked voting on K-L, shame on him. I do not overlook or excuse anyone's screwups, stupidity, poor judgement or deception. BS is BS is BS.

    But in a "lesser of two evils" scenario--and it's invariably thus in electoral politics--I take Obama over Hillary in terms of honesty and judgement. Not absolutely, but relatively. But I also take either over Rudy. That choice is about as close to absolute as I can imagine.

    Put it this way. In my mind, Hillary is not Rudy, but more like him than Obama is. That's my problem with her. It's one thing to lie, but another thing to exercise massively poor judgement, as she has on many occasions and continues to do. She does not appear to have the black heart that Rudy clearly does. But she does sometimes show the dangerously stupid judgement that he consistently shows. That is what bothers me about her. Obama's no angel, but she is less so on the issues that matter to me.

    It's all a matter of degrees to me. No absolutes here. At least not on our side of the aisle. very different story on the other side, of course.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#29)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    There are ways to disagree with someone without resorting to self-defeating ad hom attacks. It just weakens, or at least distracts from, the actual debate being had. And fwiw, I am no Dem's devoted follower. They ALL disappoint me in some way, even Obama and Dodd. But I will support and vote for whoever wins, even Hillary. The "worst" Dem will be infinitely better than the "best" Pub.

    Although Colbert did sound intriguing...


    A debate is had (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    when an argument is addressed.

    It is my post that should be the subject of this.

    You, in cultlike fashion, have taken to ignoring the evidence provided here and chosen to try and go off on a tangent.

    That is the tell tale sign of an Obama Cult member in my experience.


    Limiting the terms of debate (none / 0) (#39)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    to the initial very (misleadingly) constrained topic and not permitting its expansion to matters that directly pertain to it and which clearly weaken it is what is cultlike.

    I.e. we can only talk about what I want to talk about, in the way that I want to talk about it, and anyone who tries to veer off this agenda is breaking my clubhouse rules.

    Yeah, right, whatever. Just a cult by another name.

    It was no tangent, but rather quite germane.


    Oh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    So now I am the misleading one.

    Nice to see you not go ad hom.

    You are a piece of work my friend.

    I think it is a primary fever thing.

    I am sure you'll be back to normal after the primaries.


    I still have no idea what (none / 0) (#50)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    you're talking about, since you do not back up anything that you say. Lots of declarative sentences, almost no backup.

    Sorry, self-evident doesn't cut it for me.

    But whatever, this is so boring, redundant and pointless.


    You have been ignorant of hte entire issue (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    You admitted it already.

    This is unreal (none / 0) (#25)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    Hillary called Obama "irresponsible and frankly naive" for saying that he'd be willing to talk to the leaders of countries like Iran.

    Rudy called him "naïve" and "sad" for saying this.

    Obama compared Hillary to Rudy for essentially saying the same thing (I wasn't able to find an actual quote, but since you claim that he's said this in your post and I don't deny that he said this, it's not really necessary for me to find such a quote for this purpose).

    I.e. both favor "getting tough" with Iran instead of diplomacy. He doesn't reject the "getting tough" part, just the part about rejecting diplomacy. Hillary further reinforced this point by voting for K-L, which Obama did not, and said that he would have voted against it had he voted (which I agreed that he should have).

    Perhaps he shouldn't have put it this way, but what exactly is he saying here that is dishonest? Hillary IS sounding like more Rudy on Iran, than she is like the other Dems, none of whom voted for K-L, and few of whom have appeared to reject diplomacy so publically as have Hillary and Rudy.

    I don't know to what extent she really believes this (I suspect that she doesn't) or is as much of a hawk as Rudy seems to be (I suspect that she's not, also). But in terms of her public statements and votes, she is clearly more aligned with Rudy than with most if not all of the othr Dems. And Obama shouldn't point this out, while she runs away with the nomination?

    There may be smarter, and surely more polite ways for Obama to go after Clinton. But that doesn't make what he said fundamentally untrue. So long as Hillary continues to sound more like Rudy on foreign policy, and vote the way that she surely would, she deserves to be pounded on it. So I just don't get your point at all.

    Her smear was dishonest. His was not.

    And I have no idea where you get the idea that I live in some 'alternate "Obama Is Perfect" Universe', just because I'm with him on THIS issue. I got smeared in much the same dishonest way on MyDD earlier this year for actually defending Hillary against Stoller and Bower's dishonest attack on her for supporting leaving residual troops in Iraq for the well-known 3 reasons, when in fact every single Dem senator supported the same position (including Feingold and Webb).

    I lean much more towards Obama than Clinton (although I'll support and for whichever Dem wins), but I'm neither one's unconditional supporter. Please stop lying about ME that way, or else come up with the quotes to back that one up.

    This is so tired and typical.


    Yes very tired and typical (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    You simply choose to read and quote whatever you please.

    For example, it was OBAMA who  said Hillary was Rudy.

    When Hillary criticized Obama on the talks stuff, I criticzed her.

    You now pretend Obama's attack is honest and A-ok.

    I am sorry, when it looks like a cult, talks like a cuilt ands comments like a cult, it is a cult.


    How was Obama's attack dishonest? (none / 0) (#37)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    She IS like Rudy on these matters. I even provided quotes to back this up. Rudy is against diplomacy, and so is Hillary. They both SAID so. Rudy is for attacking Iran, and Hillary voted for a resolution that all but authorizes an attack on Iran. So what are you not understanding or disagreeing with in his comparison of Hillary to Rudy on this matter? How is she much different from Rudy on it?

    And how is Obama not? The fact that he's not taking military strikes off the table does not make him like Rudy in the way that Hillary is like Rudy, as I've explained multiple times here (i.e. only as a last resort, and not before diplomacy is first attempted), and yet which you keep on ignoring. Do you not read MY comments?

    So who's being "cultlike" here?

    I am sorry, when it looks like ad hom, talks like a ad hom and comments like ad hom, it is ad hom.


    Nuts (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    Hillary may be more conservative than I like esp mid east politics, but she is nothing lilke Rudy. You are not seeing the forest thru the trees.

    See my quotes elsewhere here (none / 0) (#44)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    They both dismissed Obama's willingness to engage in high-level diplomacy as naive and irresponsible. So on at least this matter, they are both exactly alike. How can you or anyone actually claim otherwise? Please explain to me what nuance I'm missing here, or why this comparison is "nuts".

    Seriously, no one has shown me how she differs with Rudy on this one matter. And a rather important matter at that, whatever their private policy stances on this are (and which I concede are likely quite different). What politicians say in public makes a huge difference, even if they think something else in private.

    If she wants to avoid being compared to Rudy in the future, then I suggest that she stop sounding like him in the future.


    You have not shown anyone (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    How Obama differs from Rudy.

    That you defend the Rudy-Hillary comparison is telling.

    Most think of Rudy as a very dangerous man. Tyhe most dangerous person in this race.

    But you have nothing to say about how Obama "echoes" Rudy on Iraq.

    Frankly, I think you have made a fool of yourself in this thread.


    You have a penchant for making simple (none / 0) (#49)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    declarative sentences that are not backed up by anything substantive, and yet I'm the dishonest cultlike fool.

    And who was talking about Iraq? This was about Iran. So much for your objection to my taking things on a tangent.

    I've no doubt that there are all sorts of quite legitimate criticisms one can make about Obama--even comparisons to Rudy. But on this matter, Hillary is clearly more like Rudy than Obama or any other Dem.

    And it is telling that you never cited or linked to the actual Obama quote in which he made this comparison, and yet accuse me of not backing up my claims.

    And to the extent that I was referring to a different quote or comparison than the one you were referring to, well, considering that you gave me nothing specific to go on, how can I be blamed?

    I was referring to how she was like Rudy on disparaging diplomacy, about which you offered no countering evidence. If that's not what you meant, then you weren't clear at all about it.

    Plus, I've clearly shown how Obama differs from Rudy: Obama favors diplomacy, Rudy does not. Are you willfully misreading me?

    At MOST, we've both been fools here. But not that you'd ever admit it.


    Read my post (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    It has quotes from Obama and everything.

    Stop being silly.


    And these quotes (none / 0) (#58)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    back up Obama's comparison of Hillary to Rudy on their both disparaging diplomacy, at least publically, because they both DID do this.

    You deny this?

    Now, Obama may well warrant comparisons to Rudy on other matters, in ways that might reflect poorly on him. And to the extent that such comparisons are valid, he is clearly disengenuous and should stop attacking other Dems for it.

    But that doesn't change the fact that on THIS particular matter, Hillary IS like Rudy, and although Obama might not be most qualified to point it out, to the extent that he's got a lot to answer for himself, it DID need pointing out by SOMEONE.

    If your point was that Obama was being hypocritical about Hillary, I will concede that point (at least in part, because I don't believe that he's as bad as her on foreign policy). But your point was that he was lying, which he was not. Lying, perhaps, in the sense that he might not be any better than her (although I don't buy that myself), but not lying in the sense that she clearly IS like Rudy on this matter. Subjectively, perhaps he was disengenuous. But objectively, I contend that his comparison was legitimate on this one matter.

    And if you disagree, how is it not legitimate?


    Here is when you proved yourself a Cult member (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    The quotes in thisd post are from OBAMA!!!! No quote from Hilary. No quote from Rudy.

    They could NOT POSSIBLY PROVE anything about Hillary. They simply can not.

    Buty you claim they do. You claim they prove N OTHING about the speaker Obama.

    QED. You are a Cultist.

    I am done with you until after the primaries.


    GBCK? (none / 0) (#61)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    Figures. And typical.

    This is reference to what? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:36:47 AM EST
    IF your point is Daly Kos community stinks right now, agreed.

    You quotes "proved" (none / 0) (#62)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    that on at least one important policy matter, Obama appears to agree with Rudy. Which, I suppose, he does. But in a very qualified and misleading way. Rudy approves of attacking Iran as a first option. Obama approves of it as a last option. You kind of forgot to mention that. Whereas both Rudy and Hillary disparaged Obama's preference for high-level diplomacy with Iran--and which is why, as you well know, I provided quotes to back this up.

    Hillary is clearly not Rudy, and I never said that she was. But on this matter, she is clearly more like Rudy than Obama is. I.e. disparaging of diplomacy, and more open to military attacks. You have in no way demonstrated otherwise.

    The similarities between Hillary and Rudy on this matter are far more worrisome, I believe, than the similarities between Obama and Rudy. At least in terms of public statements and past actions. Who knows what they'd each do in reality.


    Neither would be like Rudy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    What part of this do you not understand?

    The ISSUE of MY post is that Obama's comparison of Hillary to Rudy is gutter politics and indefensible.

    Of course, Obama CULT MEMBERS defend it.

    Ergo, you are like an Obama CULT MEMBER.


    Can you please make up your mind? (none / 0) (#71)
    by kovie on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    Some lines of yours from your most recent responses:

    Neither would be like Rudy

    You are like Rudy.

    Ergo, you are like an Obama CULT MEMBER.

    Huh? Obama is not like Rudy. I am like Rudy. Therefore I am an Obama cultist. Once again, huh? This makes no sense whatsoever. How can I be both an Obama cultist and like Rudy, when Obama is not like Rudy?

    Do you ever bother to step back and look at the inanity of some of what you write? Or are you simply not capable of being wrong, ever, in your mind?

    Or at least admitting it.

    Seems to me that you are the cultist--a BTD cultist. I.e. you are never, ever wrong. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a cultist of some sort.

    Cheap and lazy way to deal with a contrary position. Ad hom is ad hom.

    And so is "gotcha" discourse.

    Now please let's end this rediculous back and forth. It's pointless, illogical and rediculous, and neither one of us is getting anything out of it.

    And if you want a more interesting "defense" of Obama by a newly self-inducted member of the Obama "cult", go and read Sullivan's feature on him in the latest Atlantic. You will no doubt disagree with much if not all of it, but there's a lot more there to go after than what's I've offered here.


    OK (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    There are a lot of similarities. They are both white. They are both politicians. They and both lawyers. They are both running for president. They both speak english, and at least several thousand other similarities. In fact if you really want to get technical they have way more similarities than differences, as do all the candidates and people in the world.

    I can play this game too.  


    See my Venn Diagram comment (none / 0) (#55)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    The similarities are not incidental and trivial. And I never said that she was exactly like Rudy in all ways. Just very much like Rudy in this way--i.e. disparaging diplomacy, whether because she actually believes this (which I don't think she does), or to score cheap points against Obama (which I think she did). And no one has as yet shown me to be wrong on this similarity. Whether she actually agrees with him or not in private, she is much like Rudy in this respect, which is an important one, as opposed to skin color or profession, which is not.

    And Obama simply pointed this out, which might have been "mean", but was not dishonest.

    This is not a game.


    But you did not show it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    You made a declarative sentence saying it.

    I COULD argue that Obama is disdainful of diplomacy because he continues to hold out military action as an option. A lot of people do.

    Where is your money quote that Hillary is disdainful of diplomacy?

    Frankly, it is an idiotic comment from you.

    Yes, idiotic.


    This is simply unreal (none / 0) (#60)
    by kovie on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    Obama said that he'd be willing to consider having high-level talks with the leader of Iran and other "rogue" nations. Hillary called this naive and irresponsible. So did Rudy, in so many words. I cited both quotes. How this does not show disdain for diplomacy (at least publically, for political effect to appeal to the red meat crowd) escapes me. To claim otherwise or deny this makes no sense at all.

    And refusing to take military options off the table does not show a disdain for diplomacy, in and of itself. No responsible diplomat goes into negotiation saying at the outset "No matter what you do, we will NEVER attack you". The implied threat of military action under SOME circumstances is always there, and no responsible diplomat or politician explicitely excludes it at the outset.

    But irresponsible politicians do say "There's no point in talking to you, because we've decided that there's no point in talking to you".

    The difference here is not between willingness to use military vs. non-military options. They are ALL willing to use the former, under certain circumstances. But some are either not willing to try the latter, or very reluctant to do so. And some are much more ready to use the former, under nearly any circumstances.

    I won't say--and haven't said--that Hillary is as bad as Rudy on being willing to resort to militarism, because that would be a lie. But in terms or her being more willing to (or appearing to be willing to, based on past remarks and actions) resort to militarism, as opposed to diplomacy, compared to Obama and other Dems (also based on past remarks and actions), I'd say that she's more like Rudy. Not exactly like Rudy. But more like him.

    Frankly, though, I don't know what to think of her. She says some things that lean towards Rudy, then takes them back when accused of sounding too much like him. I have no idea what she actually believes. But in terms of what she'd said that she believes, she's clearly said some very troubling Rudy-like things. Which I cited, and which are undeniable.


    What is unreal (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    is your defense of Obama's gutter politics.

    You are like Rudy.

    Why you persist in demonstrating your cult membership is not clear. We know already.


    Simply Pointed It Out? (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    That is dishonest. If you could see you would understand that this sort of thing hurts Obama. Techincalities aside, Rudy is seen as the Devil by most democrats. Obama's "simple" comparison has no substance other than to demonize Clinton by association.

    Dont worry guys (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    If Edwards, Gore, Obama, Kucinich, Noam Chomsky et al dont the nomination, a good 90% of us will drink a couple of bottles of Maalox, plug our noses and vote for Miss AIPAC 2007.

    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    I know YOU care.

    you are, are you? (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    (although I'm sure that he'd employ them according to vastly different and more thoughtful and responsible criteria than would Rudy, if it came down to it).

    what circus do you read minds for? while i'd like to think what you say is true, i'm certainly not sure of it.

    oh really?

    Hillary and Edwards are warmongers.  They kissed Bush's ass on Iraq.

    based on what? if you have some evidence supporting this assertion, do please share it with the rest of the class. otherwise, it's just another lie.

    speaking of which...............

    no more bald faced lying. Be more nuanced in your misstatements.

    yeah, that is pretty low, barely off the ground. applying that to the republican candidates, and most of the MSM, will reduce them to grunts and single-syllable words.


    Clinton and Edwards (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    They both voted to give Bush the "authority" to attack Iraq.  When every informed and honest person in the country knew it would be a disaster.  Their dismal and inexcusable failures indeed enabled and further empowered Bush.  

    So is Edwards like Rudy? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:04:45 PM EST
    Obama and Rudy had no opportunity (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    to vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq.  Hence, Obama is most like Rudy, no?  

    Not To Mention (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    That they are both men. Clinches it for me.

    There you go acknowledging that (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    gender card again!

    Heh (none / 0) (#67)
    by libertarian soldier on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:54:19 AM EST

    Apparently everyone but (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    Her Nibs and (supposedly) Dodd are "like Rudy".

    If Jefferson came back from the grave, he'd somehow be like Rudy.


    I work for no circus (none / 0) (#74)
    by kovie on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:59:38 AM EST
    But I did note that Obama was against the war before it started, and has been against it since. There is obviously no way to tell how either he or Rudy would actually act as president, but based on their words and actions to date--Obama's being more measured and thoughtful, Rudy's being more knee-jerk and reactive--I have much more faith that Obama would be less likely to engage in pointless and counterproductive military actions than Rudy.

    Show me a Diallo, Louima or Dorismond incident in Obama's past--or a BAM or Kerik one for that matter--or the sort of "leadership" that made 9/11 far worse than it could have been (e.g. ER HQ in WTC7, FDNY radios, air quality lies), or a speech or remark by Rudy that in any way rises to the level of Obama's '02 anti-war speech or others thereafter, and then we'll talk about how there's no basis for expecting Obama to be any more "thoughtful and responsible" than Rudy.

    Obama is not perfect, and leaves much to be desired (says the devoted cultist), but Rudy he is not. Nor is Hillary. But she has veered too much towards the Rudy end of the warmongerer and panderer spectrum for my own comfort, and needs to draw back significantly if she wants my or many other Dems' support. She will have it if she's the nominee even if she doesn't do this, but it will be qualified and unenthusiastic. If she wants to be assured of victory, she needs to stop this neocon enabling nonsense.


    Like Rudy? (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    Wow, these Obama supporters are absolutely stark staring insane!  You naoled it with the "Obama is perfect" universe.  They'll defend anything no matter how despicable.

    Remember, wear your tin foil Obama hats when the saucers come or they might not pick you up   :-)

    Even if its 25 percent (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jgarza on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:25:20 AM EST
    Remembr that come the general, Ms debate dominatrix cant win the general missing 25 percent of her base.  so maybe you all of the clinton submissives should try not to insult what could be part of her possible general election coalition to much.

    Just last night (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jgarza on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:21:27 AM EST
    you claimed Obama was being awful for comparing Hillary to Rudy.  Now you do the same to him.  Your posts are intellectually bankrupt, you just spew things out with no basis in reality.

    I can't respond to this (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:24:25 AM EST
    without trying very hard to avoid a personal insult. You are standing on the point, and completely unable to see it.