July 30, 2007	Monday	Rajab 14, 1428

WASHINGTON: A fierce and increasingly personal row is raging between rival White House hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, opening a testy new phase in the battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Months of polite sparring between the two Democratic hot-shots has dissolved into a bitter public spat over whether the United States should talk to its sworn enemies.

The row, which boiled all last week and erupted again on Saturday, drew new battle lines in the Democratic field, opened a debate on future US foreign policy, and shed light on the characters of the two top Democrats.

Clinton branded Obama “irresponsible” and “naive” after he said at a campaign debate he would be willing to meet leaders of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria as president.

In response, Obama mocked Clinton as “Bush-Cheney Lite” claiming she shared the views of the current White House, which sees talks with US enemies as a reward for bad behaviour.This is a row both sides seem to want.

“It plays to both of their strengths,” said Cary Covington, professor of political science at the University of Iowa.

Obama took the chance to tack to Clinton's left on national security — a good spot from which to woo dovish Democrats.

He also benefited by standing up to Clinton, who argues she is the only candidate tough enough to take on the Republican attack machine.

“You do not let any attack go unanswered. If you answer the charge, that in itself is a sign of weakness, that is why this is going to get venomous,” Covington said.

Clinton pounced on Obama's debate comment because it mirrored an implied theme of her campaign, that despite his charisma, the 45-year-old first-term senator is simply too green to be commander in chief.

The row's swift escalation was a foretaste of fierce combat before the first nominating contests early next year.

While Obama trails Clinton by double digits in most national polls, he is outraising her in the crucial money race, and so poised to dog her every move until the Iowa caucuses open the party's nomination voting in January.

Obama used the row to argue he stands for hope, a fresh approach and change, and that Clinton is a relic the past.

As a memo from his campaign put it: the “tough but smart approach to America's diplomacy is exactly the kind of change and new thinking that excites voters about an Obama presidency.” Obama also turned the spat into another discussion over Clinton's 2002 Senate vote to authorise the war in Iraq, saying it was that which was “irresponsible and naive.” As front-runner, Clinton may pay a price by granting her challenger a straight-up fight.

Though the row gave Clinton a chance to showcase her experience and a hawkish tone that may help her draw centrist and conservative Republican voters in a national election, it could harm her among fiercely anti-war Democrats.

But she clearly enjoyed taking a jab at the “new kind of politics” theme Obama has been using as a driver of his campaign.

“What's ever happened to the politics of hope?” she said dryly on CNN on Thursday.

And on Saturday, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, part of Clinton's campaign team in the crucial midwestern state, decried Obama's attacks.

“These comments are so wrong, one could say that they are certainly audacious, but honestly they are not particularly hopeful. And I am disappointed in the senator,” Vilsack told reporters in a conference call.

The spat dated from a question in a CNN/YouTube debate on Monday about talking to the US foes.

Obama answered “I would. The reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.” Clinton declined to promise to meet with such leaders during the first year of her administration, saying such talks needed careful preparation to avoid a propaganda disaster. —AFP