As a closet Kucinich supporter, I am more than amused by the spat between Obama and The Hill (Hillary). Obama has stated, what is more than obvious for some than others, that The Hill is merely a Bush-lite. The Hill's answer indicated that she is more of a student of the John Molloy's "Dress For Success" school than a student of logic. Rather than showing how her policies are significantly different than Bush's, she put on her best corporate executive face and called Obama's claim "silly" and his approach to suspect world leaders "naive." So, while trying to show that she is not Bush-lite, The Hill has only demonstrated that she is not Miller Lite; she might have great taste but she is more full of it than less filling.

Her response should not surprise us. Today's political maxim is a variation of a Martin Luther King Jr theme that asks: do not be prejudiced against me because of my policies but rather judge me by the content of my image. This maxim is not only practiced religiously by most candidates, it is spoon fed to us by the media and is tolerated by those who consider themselves as being too busy to care.

At issue in the argument between the two is Obama's proposed approach to leaders like Castro and Chavez, an approach that seems to borrow a page from Jesse Jackson's playbook. It is Jackson who says: "listening is unconditional" while "agreeing is conditional." At this point, we might want to admit that there is a grain of truth in The Hill's criticism of Obama. When has an empire ever listened? The rule of thumb for any empire is that it does things because it can.

As for Obama, we should question whether his reference to "Bush-lite" was lifted from someone else. For example, in his book "The Sorrows Of Empire," historian and former CIA consultant, Chalmers Johnson, said that while both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton wanted to extend their American empires, Clinton better "camouflaged" his intentions while Bush relies on a "might makes right" approach. In addition, their empires are different in emphasis. While Clinton's empire was primarily economic, Bush's is militaristic (pg 255-257).

But Bill is not the only person who could legitimately be deemed as being a Bush-lite, Noam Chomsky made the same reference when speaking about Kerry in 2004 (See Noam Chomsky's "Interventions," pg 75). If being a Bush-lite is becoming a trend in Democratic candidates, why shouldn't The Hill embrace the claim rather than run from it? Why not strive for consistency? Why not let the voters see that our leadership prefers American dominance? Once The Hill embraces this description, she can go on and show the public how she plans to implement policies that better further American dominance because they are more subtle than Bush's. Again, according Chalmers Johnson, isn't this what her husband did? And isn't anything he did something she can do better?

In addition, embracing the Bush-lite label might make it even more difficult for Obama to overtake her in the run for the Democratic nomination. Again, 2 of the last 3 Democratic Presidential nominees have been described as being similar to Bush who himself was not only nominated but "elected" twice. Apparently, America wants regularity. Also, in an age where economic and militaristic WMDs are proliferating, why would we prefer a candidate who would prefers listening to shooting? Isn't listening a sign of weakness while shooting first a sign of strength?

If The Hill wants her presidency to be anything like her husband's, she should wear the Bush-lite label rather than run from it. She should wrap it around her as she would a comforter in the middle of winter. But not only that, she should complain that Obama is not a Bush-lite. Of course, neither is he a Dennis Kucinich.