please he doesn't have any point , this is not an adult conversation , most people know when they are being fooled and this is one of them , when axe was given a chance to clarify on hardball did he ? Hell no he didn't. He actually said something like unless She changes her policy which of course is another fradulent statement.

You'd have to be brain dead not to know who he was talking about.  There have been Obama supporters all over the blogs congratulating Barack on his comments and giving encouragement.  Now you want us to believe he wasn't even talking about Hillary?

For the record, I think both of them (Clinton and Obama) were out of line with their comments.  But let's not play this particular game.   It doesn't even approach credibility.

For the record, I have publicly stated on our blog that I am leaning to Edwards but that I would support Al Gore.

It's a losing argument when he factually did not call her Bush/Cheney lite and that the overwheming focus of the remarks made at that rally concerned "fundamental change" and variations on that theme?

It is a patent falsehood to state that he called her Bush/Cheney lite.

Her name is never mentioned; this is an example of how the right usually plays the game - taking a comment out of context.

Do yourself a favor and listen to the audio clip or watch the 5 minute video. We are working to get the whole clip of his remarks up as well.

I honestly felt that the bulk of his remarks that morning were directed to Edwards contention of "HOW" fundamental change was going to be achieved.

Go and watch Hardball of 2 days ago.

You can't all of a sudden snap your fingers and all of a sudden change history especially when it is well documented.

If it's not Clinton, who is Bush-Cheney lite then?
Edwards? Richardson? Dodd?...

To not directly mention his opponent's name will not let him get away with it. People are not naive.

But at the same time, Obama is for certain conditions before he meets, correct?  Conditions that are not preconditions?  Confusing.

You know its becoming frustrating to explain it to you , didn't you claim you had press credentials , maybe you haven't been following this thing close enough for the past 4 or 5 days or something else must be working here . There were several journalist that covered the event from cnn , msnbc , time , new york times , washington post etc and they could discern who he was talking about I guess maybe they were all somewhere else and you are the only one getting it right , which I doubt , However I will rather believe my own ears than trust your own. Anyway you can go and listen to hardball for starters and listen to his campaign manager.

funny how it backs me up somewhat:

Dems' fighting words: A piquant Sen. Barack Obama stoked the flames of his ongoing spat with Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday, calling her foreign policy "Bush-Cheney lite." The two first clashed during the CNN/YouTube debate Monday when Obama said it was "ridiculous" not to have diplomatic relations with such fun-loving internationalists as Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez.

I never said he didn't infer that. The title on my own blog's diary which I wrote on 7/26 when I returned south to MA is entitled "Obama references youtube debate flap with Hillary Clinton at rally with strong statement"

I deliberately wrote "references ..debate flap with Hillary Clinton with strong statement"

Because I could not write Onbama calls Hillary Clinton Bush/Cheney lite.

Because he didn't.

And Hillary Clinton doesn't play word games?!! Give me a f***ing break!!!

yeah and hillary didn't call him iresponsible and naive but she called his position that

If you're following this discussion thread, the point is that obviously Obama is referencing Clinton but that he is referring to her policy position and not her whole self.  Axelrod says so: "That is exactly the policy that we have seen for the last six years."  And when Axelrod gets another chance at the end of your quote, he says exactly the same thing.  He criticizes the policy.

If you take the diarist at his word, he is not an Obama supporter.  His interest, it seems, is in trying to get people to focus on the truth of exactly what was said, and what was not said.

So...attacking him as part of some pack of people, etc...is not really fair to him.  

(As to the merits of his observations, see my above comment.)

candidate.

Obama's statement from the Concrd rally was discussing how the United States government should conduct talks with foreign leaders:

We can't be afraid to talk to our enemies. I'm not afraid of losing a PR war with Dictators.I'm happy to look them in eye and say what needs to be said. I'm happy to tell them what I think. I'm not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric.I don't want a continuation of Bush/Cheney. I don't want Bush/Cheney lite.

I want a fundamental change."

If you don't see the fundamental difference there is nothing I can write that will convince you. What he said was not personal about her.

He was rejecting the way in which Bush conducts foreign policy and going so far as to say in effect  that if, and a case could be made here, that his statement enveloped  anyone of the Democratic candidates' policies if it resembled Bush's too closely that he would reject it-  and drawing a distinction that he wants a "fundamental change".

The fact that she claimed that mantle of being "Bush Cheney lite" and hasn't addressed the underlying point about her policy is her problem.