Axelrod clarifies Obama's remark on meeting with foreign leaders

[draft_mario_cuomo]

The spin from the HRC camp that Obama took a "naive and irresponsible" position is lame. It was understood that he would lay the groundwork for any meeting. Axelrod and Obama himself have essentially said this after the debate. On the other hand, the spin from some of Obama's netroots supporters that Obama is taking a "courageous" and unique stand is also incorrect. He has exactly the same position on this that HRC, Edwards, and presumably every other Democratic candidate have.

There is one illuminating thing about the furor over this. Obama and Clinton are so identical on the issues that this perceived minor difference produces heated discussion from their supporters and prompts a major media war between the two candidates. Notice there is no heated dispute between the duo on the major issues.

==After the debate, David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, elaborated on Mr. Obama’s statement, telling the National Review that Mr. Obama would initiate talks “just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union,” but that he was “not promising summits” with the leaders of those rogue nations.==

Obama himself

==The newspaper subsequently snagged an interview with Mr. Obama.
“What she’s somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about,” Mr. Obama said. “I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said. He added: “From what I heard, the point was, well, I wouldn’t do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points,” he said. “I think that is absolutely wrong.”==

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/clinton-obama-commander-duel/

[countmyvote4real]

1. I get that's why either have yet to convince me.

I fear that they are both likely to respond to their special interest supporters. I don't think either is their own best black or women on the campaign trail. That goes vice versa. I f eel that each will take money from anybody and give back in kind.

Who wouldn't feel somehow beholding?

[WCGreen]

2. I do believe you are correct in that assumption...

You say Tomaito...

I say Tomato...

It's silly, really...

The only thing I can tell that separates the two candidates is that Barrack didn't have to vote on the War and Hillary did...

[nickgutierrez]

3. Obama would have voted against the war.

Forgive me for linking to his official website, but here's a quote from October of 2002:

"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[MADem]

4. That's what he says, certainly. No way to prove it, he wasn't there.

I wonder if he would have, in context, with all that pressure. We will never know.

That said, he's best if he puts this "Meet with the Batshit Crazy Dictators within One Year of Taking Office" business behind him. I'm sure he regrets his flat "yes" response and the question was a bit of a tricky one. Clinton was sharp enough not to get caught up in it, but then, she's got a shitload of campaign experience under her belt, not just with her campaigns, but those of her husband, going back decades. Obama won't make that kind of mistake again, I'm sure--he'll take the two seconds after the question is asked to look down the long road before answering one of those 'gotchas' next time.

[nickgutierrez]

5. The whole issue sounds nit-picky to me.

And I doubt that even primary voters are going to worry too much about it. The point is simple enough to figure out - Obama would have a better foreign policy than *.

I know, I know, my pet rock would have a better foreign policy than *, and I don't even have a pet rock. But that's what he was trying to say, and I thought at the time that Hillary actually sounded a little bit silly when she called him on it in the debate.

Just to get all the full disclosure stuff out of the way - I'm slightly for Obama at this point in time.

[MADem]

6. I'm an undecided Gore supporter myself.

I won't slit my throat no matter which candidate wins, and I'll work for the winner in the general, too.

[Tellurian]

8. I agree- It was a loaded question...

Hillary gave the right answer. She cut to the chase and easily and concisely laid out a plan.

Obama has a bad habit of trivializing important issues. Calling Chavez, Castro, Jong as a bunch of guys you wouldn't invite over for a cup of coffee. duh... An eighth grade civics class could tell you the same thing.. I want my president to know who they're dealing before they meet with them and their motivation for wanting a relationship with the US. Our president always needs to be in command of the facts and a plan in place before such a meeting takes place not only because of all the damage done to our foreign relations by the present administration, but it's always been the way business is conducted first hand since the beginning of time and the rules for success haven't changed in a Global Economy.

I agree 100% with Hillary's assessment..and believe that is why she is the most qualified to get on with business from day one in the White House.

The argument Obama is using against Hillary (she voted for the war) is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is the second time Obama has given an eighth grade answer to a "loaded" question. Actually, if we're keeping score on Obama's "almost" presidential like responses..

His response to meeting with US blacklisted dictators was his second (mediocre) response due to his lack of experience.

Obama came across the same way in the last SC debate:

When Brian Williams asked:

"Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

Senator Barack Obama responded:

"Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake."

When Brian Williams asked Senator Clinton:

"Senator Clinton, same question." (He also previously asked it of former Senator Edwards, but his response wasn't discussed by the analysts.)

Senator Hillary Clinton's response:

"Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

Technically at this point, another 'inept' response to a presidential question would be Obama's Third Strike against him. And why he is becoming the "almost" presidential contender because he almost got the answer right, but not quite.

When you think about it, Obama hasn't made his case at all defending his debate response.. Obama misses the mark every time!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Since he has been in the senate he has voted with HRC on Iraq over 99% of the time

The lone difference was when Obama voted with the Republicans on Gen. Pace. This needs to be taken into account when assessing what he would have done in 2002 if he did not represent a very liberal district in Illinois and instead was in the U.S. senate.

[WCGreen]

7. That's the thing about campaigns...

You can make stuff up that the other guys can't....

[flpoljunkie]

9. CNN: In focus group, the dial-a-meter shot up for Obama's answer and plunged for Hillary's on this.

This was reported several times yesterday on CNN.

[ieoeja]

13. Reykjavik, Beijing and Berlin

Americans like strong presidents. American presidents going toe-to-toe with our foreign adversaries in Reykjavik, Beijing and Berlin was hailed as a sign of their strength. The GOP may try to spin it otherwise, but the only reply we need is, "Reykjavik, Beijing and Berlin".

In fact, if the GOP really is stupid enough to try using this, it should completely cancel the GOP's perceived advantage on national security.

[dollie300]

10. All Dems, including HRC's group, are naive to allow the MEDIA

and the Bushbots to frame the debate issues and responses in ways to divide and alinate Dems. It has worked for so long, I don't think most Dems realize what happens to them. If the candidate can't see this and understand it, none of them should take the reigns of government because it will be too easy to use them against themselves.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Yep, especially on national security where we get skewered anyway in the GE

Welcome to DU.

[Tellurian]

12. Hillary broke out on her own..

The media advised Obama to attack..

and welcome!

[ShortnFiery]

14. Do you ever get dizzy? That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

Spin! Spin! Spin into absurdity?!?

[Tellurian]

16. Yep, just wait and see..

your frivilous clap-trap will make a stone cold meal of eating crow..

I can wait! :rofl: