Obama hits at rival’s foreign policy

Obama hits at rival’s foreign policy
By Edward Luce in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: July 27 2007 00:14 | Last updated: July 27 2007 00:14


Barack Obama on Thursday dismissed Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy approach as “Bush-Cheney lite” in the clearest indication yet that the proverbial gloves are coming off in the 2008 Democratic presidential race.

Mr Obama’s remarks – the most direct criticism he has made so far of the Democratic frontrunner in the seven-month campaign – stemmed from a clash between the two senators during the fourth presidential debate in South Carolina on Monday night.

In an exchange that Mrs Clinton was widely seen to have won, the former first lady poured cold water on Mr Obama’s promise during the debate to hold talks with the world’s least savoury dictators within his first year in the White House.

“I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are,” said Mrs Clinton. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”

In an interview with an Iowa newspaper the following day Mrs Clinton dismissed Mr Obama’s point of view as “irresponsible and naive”. Shortly afterwards Mr Obama used precisely the same language to describe Mrs Clinton’s Senate vote authorising the Iraq war in 2002. Although not a member of the Senate in 2002, Mr Obama publicly opposed the war.

Then on Thursday Mr Obama told a crowd in New Hampshire: “I am not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators...I’m not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric. I don’t want a continuation with Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney lite. I want a fundamental change.”

The candidates have clashed before – most notably in February when the Clinton campaign accused Mr Obama of practising “slash and burn” politics after the Hollywood mogul and Democratic fundraiser David Geffen switched his loyalty to Mr Obama and tore into the Clintons in an interview with the New York Times.

But until now Mr Obama, whose campaign is partly based on the need to change the tone of politics in Washington, has been careful to avoid getting directly involved in disputes with other candidates, particularly with Mrs Clinton.

Staff on the Clinton campaign attribute Mr Obama’s increasingly direct attacks to the fact that he continues to lag stubbornly behind Mrs Clinton in the polls in spite of having raised more than his rivals in the first two quarters. Polls put Mr Obama between 12 and 18 points behind Mrs Clinton although well ahead of John Edwards in third place.

Advisers to the Obama campaign say he is simply drawing attention to what they say are very real differences between the foreign policy approaches of the two candidates.

Members of Mrs Clinton’s staff say they will continue to draw attention to what they see as Mr Obama’s relative inexperience.