Clinton 2....Obama ....0

[Tellurian]

Hillary won. Beyond the political and entertainment value of the spat between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Clinton is right on the substance and Obama is wrong about the Iraq war.

Leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is increasing the pressure on Barack Obama, calling him "irresponsible and frankly naïve" for a statement he made during the CNN-YouTube debate Monday.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/07/clinton_1_obama_0.html

"Strike Two"(for Obama-lite)

"I would," responded Obama.

His explanation dug him even deeper: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

From the Nation's David Corn to super-blogger Mickey Kaus, a near-audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity. She pounced: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year." And she proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama's comment "was irresponsible and frankly naive."

To be on the same stage as the leader of the world's greatest power is of course a prize. That is why the Chinese deemed it a slap in the face that President Bush last year denied President Hu Jintao the full state-visit treatment. The presence of an American presidnt is a valued good to be rationed -- and granted only in return for important considerations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601863.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

....meanwhile, back at the Obama-lite camp- Axelrod and BO advisers furiously paddling their damaged canoes faster in an attempt to strike the right cord with a message declaring their "self-proclaimed" win. The Obama-lite camp's 1st. response was... "Hillary Clinton was "irresponsible and naive" for having voted for the Iraq war without an exit plan." Not much play there, and irrelevant to the issue...misses the mark by a country mile...2nd. attempt: Obama memo accusing Clinton of flip-flopping for criticizing the Bush administration on its lack of diplomacy and now saying she'd not meet with world leaders....zero points for that blurb.. 2(b)..."Obama himself said the Clinton campaign was concocting a "fabricated controversy."... Ridiculous on it's face...this behavior becoming a hallmark of Obama's thought process. 3rd.. attempt: Obama says, "Hillary is Bush/Cheney Lite"...... Sure they are. Just as Bill and Hillary were globally, the most respected faces of the US during the Clinton Administration."

....What next for Obama? Are wild accusations against Hillary helping to boost his failing poll numbers? Is the Audacity of running a "different campaign" (read: clean no mudslinging) too much for the freshman senator? Is Obama's spoiled, childish behavior the result of the reality of him losing the SC Primary? Or is it the thin skin of a 'newbie' running with the Big Boys and Girls starting to grate heavily on his EGO?... Your thoughts and input welcome.

[Tellurian]

1. Obama-lite all over the map...should he fire his advisers?

I would, if I were him.. They are not helping him atall.
Axelrod and ilk are making Obama's inexperience more obvious than ever...

[ShaneGR]

3. Responding to your own post is kind of so last year.... anyways...

I was a bit putoff by Obama saying he would meet personally with Hugo Chavez. He should have said he'd step up diplomacy, namely sending top level diplomats for talks, but a personal meeting guarantee is a risky thing. There's no proof that Chavez will act any differently toward a liberal US president than a conservative one. It's in his own interests to be anti-US.

Regardless, I don't like either candidate. Edwards has the best chance of winning the general election.

[Tellurian]

8. Another alternative not stated in the OP is not a response...

[geek tragedy]

2. You're citing a rabid Neocon to support your Bush/Cheney-lite candidate.

Good to see that the Hillary fans are dropping the pretense and throwing in with the Charles Krauthammer crowd.

[journalist3072]

5. You do ever have an original thought? Or do you just take your talking points from your candidate

and his camp?

Bush/Cheney light? Didn't work when Obama said it the other day. You may want to disgard that particular talking point.

[geek tragedy]

11. When people cite Cheney clones like Charles Krauthammer

as evidence they're right, they validate the charge of Bush/Cheney lite.

[Tellurian]

18. When you don't like the message, the next move is attack the messenger to distract from the message.

Thanks...you proved my point!

[geek tragedy]

33. Hillary=Krauthammer-lite on foreign policy. eom

[Tellurian]

It's Obama-lite on US History..specifically the history of Past Presidents...

[smoogatz]

80. In this case it's worth considering the source.

Krauthammer is a wingnut jackass of the first order. When was the last time Krauthammer was right about anything? Oh, I remember now--never.

[Tellurian]

92. Ifyou can prove him wrong..be my guest...then you're a hero!

[smoogatz]

106. You're kidding, right?

I'm pretty sure the burden of proof falls on the people who've been wrong about everything to do with Iraq for the last six years, and not on those who argue that changing course is probably a good idea. Krauthammer, being a wingnut jackass, is a rabid supporter of Bush's policy of no direct negotiations with Syria and Iran. How's that working for you so far, Tellurian? Things going pretty well in Iraq, are they? Seriously, if an idiot like Krauthammer thinks Hillary's got a good idea, that shoudl worry you. A lot.

[Tellurian]

136. The fact that Bush doesn't follow through with customary protocols

has nothing to do with Hlllary. Hillary stated historic protocols for rouge nations as part of her correct answer. Obama jumped the shark and said, yes, let's invite them to dinner. Ignoring the first 2 parts of a very specific 5 part question..

It's that simple!

[smoogatz]

137. You're reading the question as though it was about protocol.

Obama gave an answer that was about something else--you know, changing course because the current plan isn't working so well. Hillary's answer seemed more about hedging her bets, and, like Bush, trying to use the prospect of negotiations with the U.S. as an inducement in and of itself. It also accepted the flawed premise of the question regarding Chavez; i.e., that he's an adversary on par with Kim Jong Il, say. But hey, you must be right because Krauthammer said so. And when has he ever been wrong?

[Tellurian]

149. No,thats not true.. the question is quite specific..

Obama'smistake was not following the anachronistic thrust of the question. He veered off into Obamaland with his answer rather than answering the question following it's 5 parts. Hillary addressed the question as it was given. The professor standing at the microphone with Cooper disagreed with Obama's answer on the spot.

[smoogatz]

152. I'm pretty sure

anachronistic doesn't mean what you think it means. And I'm also pretty sure (being one myself) that professors are likely to hold all sorts of opinions that may or may not be true. And what makes you think that the point is to answer the question as asked? The point is to get across your positions on the issues within the general context of the questions, but not necessarily to limit your answer to a literal, point by point response to the question asked and only the question asked.

[Tellurian]

161. Here is an exact quote of the question:

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

****an aside: (the date of the Peace Agreement is in error. The date should be 1978. The question is copied as stated...)

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would."

Now back to the example used in the question posed first to Obama:

There were many envoys sent between Israel and Egypt before Sadat entertained the notion of visiting Israel at the request of Begin. As Israel at the time was considered a rouge state. Based on the history of the example, I maintain Hillary was correct with her answer because Jimmy Carter was instrumental in brokering the Peace Accord at Camp David between Israel and Egypt. Hillary being proficient in US History and Past President's history would have taken into consideration there was much that went on before Sadat met with Begin in Israel (and the eventual agreement brokered by US President Jimmy Carter).

I also maintain, Obama is very light on US History and the accomplishments of past presidents and therefore gave his interpretation of what US diplomacy with rouge states would be like if he were president. Obama's answer is far and away unrelated to the question asked. Obama's response would be correct if the example in the question weren't inclusive of Sadat or within the a one year time frame listed in the question.

My conclusion is that Hillary's answer was the correct answer as well as Obama's missed the mark.

Adding this as a juicy tidbit into the insight of Obama-lite:

The day before the debate Obama said he WAS for preconditions when meeting rouge states.

http://www.miamiherald.com/421/story/182541.html

THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT

Obama goofed by not including caveat
By ANDRES OPPENHEIMER

[e-mail]

One in an occasional series on presidential candidates' views about Latin America.

I was not terribly surprised when Sen. Barack Obama said in the Democratic presidential debate Monday that he would sit down with Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez if elected president. He had told me so a day earlier -- and much more -- although with a very important caveat.

In a wide-ranging interview on foreign affairs, and Latin America in particular, the Democratic presidential hopeful criticized President Bush's foreign policy as excessively ''based on the dislike of Hugo Chávez.'' And he told me that he would not only sit down with the Venezuelan president ''under certain conditions'' but would travel to leftist-ruled Bolivia -- Venezuela's closest ally in South America -- at the start of his presidency.

<snip>

A day later, at the CNN-YouTube Democratic Debate, Obama raised eyebrows nationwide when he responded affirmatively to a question on whether he would be willing to meet -- without preconditions -- in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Asked the same question at the debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton seized the moment to portray Obama as a rookie on foreign affairs, saying that she would not hold such meetings right away because ``I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes.''

So, Obama confirms my initial reaction to him as correct..."Here's unsure of himself and not ready for Prime Time"..

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kid a]

6. yup

[Tellurian]

10. nope...see post #9

[Tom Joad]

7. and you are surprised by this? the hillary crowd loves this shit. they wallow in that neocon sewer.

[Tellurian]

12. Obama calling Hillary-- Bush/Cheney Lite is a sewer tactic Obama embraces...

[geek tragedy]

13. So says the Charles Krauthammer fan. eom

[Tellurian]

15. I'm a fan of the Truth.. Stay off the Hate Hillary sites and it may clear your head..

[geek tragedy]

25. Charles Krauthammer is the truth? Thank you for self-repudiating. eom

[Tellurian]

30. So who is your consensus of opinion from?Obama's Foreign Policy adviser Colin Powell?

[Joe the Revelator]

86. Want to know the difference between Hillary and Powell?

Powell was the first to admit that the war was a mistake.

[Tellurian]

94. Everyone agrees the War was a mistake.. Theres no difference..

[Joe the Revelator]

99. Thats revisionist history at its worst!

There is a huge difference in the fact that Hillary paved the way to war instead of asking questions that democrats wanted answered. You can try to dress that up as much as you want, but the fact remains.

[Tom Joad]

38. I become informed by people who oppose wars of aggression.

[Tellurian]

40. We all here on DU oppose war...so,what your point?

[Tom Joad]

51. That statement is not true. Not all oppose war. Some people, for example

were very supportive of the Israel/US war against Lebanon last summer. And, from what i understand, many, like hillary, were supportive of a strike against Iraq in the beginning.
Gore supported war against Iraq during the Bush1 term. and many other u.s. interventions.
So you could argue that these interventions were all necessary, but they did constitute war, and that means that many here do support war, if they feel it necessary.

I have no doubt that almost no one wants war for the sake of war, but isn't that more or less universal?
Even Bush would have not gone into Iraq if Saddam had done the bidding of the US elite.

Hillary not only stood behind bush at the IWR vote, but never said anything opposing the Iraq invasion until many months after bushie went in. Then she started making noises about it perhaps being "mismanaged". (perhaps you could enlighten me, when did hillary first raise any kind of concern about the war in Iraq?)

[Tellurian]

53. Hillary began raising concerns after Saddam was deposed..

Don't you remember, in May Bush announced "Mission Accomplished"...We all thought our troops were to come home soon. That is when Hillary started to express concern for Bush not ending the war and she has not stop asking for an end to the war as have all of our Democrats in the Senate.

[Tom Joad]

73. But nothing when bush invaded? and she does not support the return of all US troops

and you know that. when she is elected, (and i very much see that nightmare possibly occurring) she promised to keep some troops in iraq thru her term of office.

[Tellurian]

89. Keeping troops there..

is part of the deployment plan..Peace Keepers have to be there protecting our interests when troops are leaving, otherwise they'd never survive long enough to be airlifted home. I believe, Hillary will bring our troops home when she is elected president.Obama on the other hand, after reading his speech from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs...never uses those words but does however praise the work of Rumsfeld, Kissenger and other neo-cons.

April 24, 2007

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam.html

[Tom Joad]

93. I don't think obama will bring all the troops home either.

[Tellurian]

95. Obama never says he'll bring the troops HOME...Hillary does!

[TeamJordan23]

102. Haha, What a lie. He even said it as recently as this week.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/REPOSITORY/707200317

[Tellurian]

125. Not in his official Chicago Global Council speech..

he'll deploy them elsewhere..but not home!

[TeamJordan23]

143. Hillary in 2003: "Stay the Course"

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintIon.htm

[Tellurian]

146. Hillary was there at Thanksgiving. When has Obama visited the troops?

[IndianaGreen]

157. Hillary uses the troops as backdrops, just like Bush and Cheney!

Meanwhile Hillary opposed Kerry's 2006 troop withdrawal proposal. If Hillary cared about the troops, she would have voted to bring them home back then!

The only reason Hillary flip-flopped on the war is because of the polls.

Hillary remains unapologetic and unrepentant about her war vote in 2002.

I am tired of politicians using troops as a cover for their failed imperialist policies!

I am wondering how long before the Hillary Camp stages a Hillary landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier just to show that she can handle a joystick as well as a man.

[Tom Joad]

36. well, i would get rid of the "Lite" part myself.

[Tellurian]

41. Obama is lite on US History..especially Presidential US History..

and the primary reason he makes compound errors!

[Ethelk2044]

90. History speaks for itself. Like Hillary saying no to speaking with enemies

NO Thanks. I do not need another Bush or Chaney. I need someone to uplift our stance in the world again, not bring us down. Also, I do not need a person who was to outsource more jobs by increasing H1B visas. We need to keep jobs in the US for American People. Her husband had done enough damage with NAFTA. All we need is for her to pull us down further

[Joe the Revelator]

85. I'd rather sleep in the sewer then in a bed with the neo-cons. eom

[Ethelk2044]

96. I rather not deal with anyone who voted for the war. Bush is a murder

NO one who voted for to authorize the war will get my vote.

[Tellurian]

9. Amazing isn't it -a Neo-con can't dispute customary US protocols

for meeting with hostile nation leaders? Where the obvious is just too much for even them to dispute!

[Tom Joad]

4. It was not naive for hilllary to trust bush. it was wayyyy beyond that.

I think that IWR vote will go down in US history as the most harmful in the last 40 years.

How do we excuse genocide?

[Tellurian]

14. Ther Rassmussen poll shows 85% of the country was behind Bush and the War at that time..

and so were most of the Senate. So, whats your beef?

[geek tragedy]

21. Hillary said she thought Bush was interested in diplomacy.

Irresponsible and frankly naive.

[Tellurian]

31. Please explain in specific detail...sound bytes don't cut it...

[jefferson_dem]

22. But there's at least one other Senator who openly opposed the war-mongering...

from the start.

You know...judgement matters.

[Tellurian]

37. Was he a Senator at the time?

[jefferson_dem]

42. She was. Remember how she shunned the pleas from Code Pink and took to the floor to defend Chimpy.

Their public positions at the time are clear. You don't need links, do you?

[Tellurian]

44. Are you forgetting the SOTU Address? and Powell's testimony to the UN?

[TeamJordan23]

84. So we are supposed to believe everything out of the chimp's mouth? nm

[Bjorn Against]

164. I certainly don't forget hearing those lies the first time and knowing they were lies

If I knew they were lies then every US Senator should have known as well.

If you are trying to imply that Colin Powell and George Bush are good sources for information then I don't know what to say to you.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

126. And then voted consistently to fund the war for 2 years...

Kucinich is the only true anti-war candidate. Obama's cover on funding was blown in the last vote. The excuse in the past was he was voting to finance the war because he wanted to support the troops. Well, that excuse was obliterated by Obama changing his position on financing the war after intense pressure from the party's base during the lead up to the Capitulation bill.

Obama was correct half a decade ago on Iraq. He deserves credit for it. However, where has his been leadership been on ending the war since then? Where was Obama's leadership and much hyped ability to broker compromises between right-wingers and progressives during the Capitulation bill? I did not see Obama speaking out during the weeks leading up to it and presenting an alternative.

[rhombus]

26. Thanks for confirming: Hillary exemplies "finger in the wind" politician

A true leader is someone who isn't afraid to go against popular opinion. Barack Obama demonstrated that.

And having uber Neocons Krauthammer and Kristol on your side is NOT a badge of honor.

[Tellurian]

32. Rhombus, I've read most of your posts and have yet to see where you've been right!

in your opines..

[Crunchy Frog]

155. So you're saying that it IS a badge of honor

having Krauthammer and Kristol on your side? :shrug:

[Tom Joad]

55. and in return, Hillary gets a finger in the wind from me.

but more seriously, i do think she has strong convictions, but they are very different than what many of us value.

[Tellurian]

60. Hillary is Left of Center.. I don't know where you are..

If you're any more left than that, then I'll have to agree with you there.

[Tom Joad]

70. bush et. al. pushed the "center" wayyyyy to the right.

but i support no wars of aggression, fair trade not "free trade", oppose corporate-giveaways like the telecommunications act signed by billy C, and believe the US should support international human rights and not empire. call that what you want.

[Tellurian]

98. I agree, but the Clintons agree they were't perfect and have learned...

I want what we had during their administartion..and let them repair their mistakes.

[NYCGirl]

29. This says differently:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/unspinning_howard_wolfson.php

I checked the Iraq archives at the Polling Report. Most of the questions asked in late 2002 focused on whether and under what conditions Americans would support going to war. However, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 1,017 adults conducted November 22-24, 2002 (a month after the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq), showed that a majority of Americans believed President Bush had "already decided" to invade Iraq:
Which comes closer to your view about President Bush? Bush has already decided to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to gain international support for that action. OR, Bush has not yet decided whether to invade Iraq and has agreed to UN inspections mainly to determine if an invasion of Iraq were necessary.

58% - Bush has already decided to invade
38% - Bush has not yet decided whether to invade
4% - No opinion

A bit of context on the timing: The U.S. Senate passed the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on October 11, 2002 (with Senator Clinton voting in favor). President Bush signed it into law on October 16. Three weeks later, on November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to "comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to the resolution on November 13, and under its terms, U.N. weapons inspectors were set to return to Iraq on November 27 after a four year absence to conduct onsite inspections in search of weapons of mass destruction.

Gallup fielded its survey on November 22-24, just days before the return of the U.N. inspectors, a time when one might expect optimism regarding the use of diplomacy to resolve the conflict. Yet even then, 58% of Americans believed the President had "already decided to invade Iraq."
*With apologizes to Frank Newport, who has made "unspinning" questionable assertions about public opinion on Sunday morning talk shows a regular staple of his Gallup Guru blog.

-- Mark Blumenthal

[Tom Joad]

100. ONE MILLION DEAD. Genocide is wrong, even when popular.

man, some would be saying
"they had no reason to oppose the chancellor at that time, when he invaded Poland, he had very high popularity ratings" if this were another time in history.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

123. BO general election bumper sticker: "Vote for me you naive and irresponsible fools!"

What Obama fails to realize is what you just pointed out. A plurality of the nation once supported the war and now opposes it (about 1/3 always supported it and a bit less than 1/3 always opposed it). I am sure they do not like be called, by extension, "naive and irresponsible" by a candidate...Another self-inflicted wound regarding BO's electability argument...

[Tom Joad]

144. It is one thing for say, your neighborhood grocer to give that opinion

than it would be for a US Senator. the grocer would most likely say, and rightfully say, that she was sold a bill of goods (by bush, the media, and other political leaders... like Hilary) and she was wrong to support the war.

A US Senator, however, is charged with making a careful decision, to go over all the information at hand, to discern the trustworthiness of sources. If they can't do that, if they are going to lulled into war by someone as idiotic as bush, with such dubious "intelligence", then they should not be in office.

[Tom Joad]

142. Feb 2003. The world witnessed what it has never seen before. Millions and millions marched

against an impending war.
Up to 30 million people marched against the war. In London, in New York, in Missouri, in Antarctica, in Brazil, in Los Angeles, in Tel Aviv and across the Middle East. In Colorado Springs (home of "focus on the family") they saw a protest of 4,000. Upwards to 30,000 in Seattle. i could go on.

Largest ever world protest ever. ever. What a wonderful world.

where, where was hillary? supporting bushboy and dickie cheney, and keeping chummy with R. Murdoch. she keeps her company, i keep mind, i guess.

[CTLawGuy]

158. our beef is that people should do the right thing

not the popular thing, especially when human life is on the line. we needed a debate on the war at least, and we didn't even get that.

[rufus dog]

180. It is called being a leader

Sometimes you have to take unpopular positions. Obama does it again and again, Hillary is like BC using the polls but without the charisma.

[beastieboy]

181. Did you support Kerry in 2004?

[itsrobert]

16. Edwards 2, Clinton 0, Obama 0

The only winner in the girl school bickering between Obama and Clinton is Edwards who remained above the fray!

[DavidDvorkin]

19. That's certainly my hope

The polls will show if this is the breakthrough he needed. I'm hoping that shows up soon.

[itsrobert]

27. Edwards lead in Iowa has expanded

Not bad for a "candidate" that is suppose to be 3rd. ;) You wouldn't know that Edwards leads Iowa with the corporate media backing Clinton and Obama.

[DavidDvorkin]

72. What no one knows

I think is what effect Iowa will have this time. In the past, they used to say that the winner in Iowa got a 14-pt boost for the next primary. But with so many primaries now bunched together, and the bunches to close on the calendar, will that still happen?

On the other hand, and my wild guesses are admittedly based on ignorance, perhaps the effect of Iowa will be magnified. The Iowa winner will still be riding that wave of enthusiasm and euphoria, crashing into the next primaries, rushing over the other candidates, swamping their boats, and FETCHING UP ON THE SHORE OF VICTORY!!!!

Whew. I need a cigarette.

But seriously, I am allowing myself to feel more hopeful about Edwards again, after a bout of pessimism.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

129. I think Iowa will be more important than ever due to front-loading

Look at 2004. Dean was rapidly recovering in NH after Iowa but he simply ran out of time because of the compression of primaries. If he had 2-3 weeks after Iowa he would have likely won NH and perhaps the nomination. The 2008 primaries are even more front-loaded and that only increases the importance of momentum. Iowa will greatly influence Nevada (5 days later), the combination of IA and NV will greatly affect NH (2 days after NV), and the first three states will have a big impact on SC (a week after NH). The early states will decide who will have the momentum entering Super Tuesday, when the nomination will likely be decided.

[Tellurian]

134. Obama's greatest fear is losing SC..

and why this whole thing is blowing up now. Notice how his supporters are in denial of facts because it's important Obama win this little skirmish.

He won't. I can promise you that!

"Here is the desperation in stark dollars and cents. Obama is now airing ads in South Carolina too.

The trend includes more than twice as much spending in Iowa ($1.6 million to Clinton’s $839,000) and nearly three times as much in South Carolina ($350,000 to $120,000) in the first half of this year.

The South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is usually more than half African-American, and Obama advisers predict these voters will back one of their own to give him an essential victory a week before Super Tuesday.

History suggests the hazards of this momentum-based approach. Nearly every Democratic nominating contest for the past 40 years has featured some variation on the same script: reform candidates trying to use grass-roots energy and media momentum to beat rivals with more traditional profiles and, usually, more support from the party establishment."

http://www.hillaryis44.org/

[Tellurian]

24. Actually, Edwards agreed with Hillary's debate response..

Edwards has moved laterally...which is not eligible for points..

[Clark2008]

124. But who also voted for the war and the Patriot Act and the first

bankruptcy bill and No Child Left Behind and who saber-rattles for war with Iran...

etc. etc. etc.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Vote Hillary. Krauthammer likes her! LOL!

And then there's the two-day old blog post by some anon scribe. Ace defense of your gal, there.

[Tellurian]

28. Nevertheless, the construct is on point...

and insight into what Obama-lite will do next?

Hows Colin Powell doing advising Obama anyway. Taking advise from a RW Neo-con trups posting an article anyday of the week!

[jefferson_dem]

39. Well, Powell called the neo-cons "'fucking crazies" while you're using them to defend Hillary.

What does that tell you?

[Tellurian]

43. Laugh! When Powell himself knowingly promoted the War to the UN!

not gonna fly, friend!

[jefferson_dem]

45. So there's no way you would ever support one who "promoted the war"?

Here's a bit of history...

Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con 'crazies' row

Martin Bright
Sunday September 12, 2004
The Observer

A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'fucking crazies' during the build-up to war in Iraq. Powell's extraordinary outburst is alleged to have taken place during a telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The two became close friends during the intense negotiations in the summer of 2002 to build an international coalition for intervention via the United Nations. The 'crazies' are said to be Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1302834,00.html

[Tellurian]

47. Hillary would never seek advise from Powell who outright lied to the UN and our Nation!

But Obama relishes working with the Neo-cons!

Whats to say Obama isn't a Neo-conic Trojan horse for the GOP?

[Jack Rabbit]

20. That's not the score the way I see it

Last week, Senator Obama stressed the importance of diplomacy in dealing even with rogue states and Senator Clinton, channeling Dick Cheney, called the idea naive. Has she learned nothing from the last six years?

Obama 1, Clinton 0.

[Tellurian]

34. Can you provide a link for your story?

[Jack Rabbit]

48. My word, where have you been all week?

I thought you had to be on a desert island not to know about this.

Please click here.

I found this just by going to HuffPo and searching Obama Clinton.

[Tellurian]

50. I guess you don't know how to count.. Last week was pre-debate..

not yesterday! :crazy:

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Like the fellow in post 23, I'm not an Obama supporter

But on this issue, he is right and Senator Clinton is wrong.

BTW, citing Charles Krauthammer to support your argument scores negative points.




Image from NASA

[Tellurian]

59. If you can't objectify your opinion to stand on the Truth

Then continue to spin like the cute red top!

[Jack Rabbit]

61. You got it. That is my advice to you, sir.

[Tellurian]

62. Only I'm not spinning...you are!

If you believe Obama is correct..

[Jack Rabbit]

65. I believe Obama is correct

I believe Obama is correct to pursue a policy based on diplomacy, to discuss matters of difference with all parties, even (and perhaps especially) hostile ones.

I give you the Iraq war and the general state of the Middle East to speak as Truth of pursuing a policy of no diplomacy.

[Tellurian]

74. If only you had your facts straight...

Here is something to review to understand the crux of the matter. It's not the diplomacy issue...it's the conditions..

Here is the "skinny" on what the Obama supporters don't understand. Or choose denial as cover for their hero.

Obama was asked this question at the 2nd. South Carolina debate:

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would."

Heres what I think happened. Obama made the same mistake he made at the 1st. SC Debate. He doesn't listen to or hear the entire question OR he doesn't understand what the correct response should be. In this case, he missed 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition. He only gave #'s (3), (4), and (5) consideration before he answered.

(Hillary's answer to this debate question at the bottom of post)

Obama did the same thing here in the last 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."

Consensus of opinion is Senator Clinton gave the correct answer here:

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.

Hillary's answer to the 2nd SC debate question:

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

[TomClash]

23. This is the lamest political hack post I have ever seen on this Board

I'm pissed at this crap and I'm not even an Obama supporter.

What's next? A lynching? Is Obama supposed to step and fetch it for Ms. Hillary?

Here's a flash - there's nothing wrong with meeting with foreign leaders with whom your government has serious disputes. It's a bold move - Nixon did it and the DC political establishment reveres him as one of the greatest foreign policy Presidents in US history.

The Washington Post and its ossified Council on Foreign Relations icons are a significant part of the problem with US foreign policy.

[Tellurian]

35. Where is your source of information..?

Please post the protocols for dealing with Rouge Nations and their leaders according to US customary standards.

[TomClash]

122. The protocols? Rogue nations?

Please tell the political establishment in this country to try thinking outside the box.

What's the protocol for not talking with Raoul Castro when you have no problem waltzing at the Waldorf with Hu Jintao?

As for rogue nations, the US invasion of Iraq has led to the death of 650,000 civilians, according to the Lancet, the British medical journal. How many people have the Iranians killed, by comparison, under Almadinejad?

[Tom Joad]

140. The U.S. is a rouge nation.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Of Course She Always Wins!

She's on both sides of every issue, e.g.,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

[Tellurian]

49. Sure, an Obama campaign message is unbiased propaganda..

try again Manny...at least this thread topic got you off the couch.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Face The Facts, Jack - Mrs. Clinton Blew Herself Up On This

She's not in the same league has her husband when it comes off to pulling these types of attacks.

(And you got me out of bed, not off the couch.)

[Tellurian]

57. Only to Obama supporters. A tiny niche here compared to nationwide..

I'll post his polling numbers later on. Obama is 20 to 30 points behind Hillary in most states with Edwards ready to overtake Obama at any moment.

[Zueda]

54. Not to change the subject...

But did anybody else get the hebee jebees when Hill was asked about the Bush/Clinton dynasty. Particulary at the way her eyes started shifting as she answered?

[Tellurian]

58. Why would anyone care...People remember Peace and Prosperity with the Clintons..

Unfortunately, Obama-lite does not qualify as presidential timber during war time.

[Zueda]

67. because...

Cheney--->Matalin---> <---Carville<---Clinton. Very tight proxy connections like that is why people should care.

[Tellurian]

69. Doesn't count...sorry. They won't live in the WH...

[Zueda]

76. Oh so many proxies

Here's another. from RW talking points "Clinton fired all his USAs"... Not true. Look this up.... There is one he did not fire. Care to say this persons name and what they do now?

[Zueda]

77. okay heres a hint...

He's is now head of a new dept created after 9/11.

[Zueda]

81. okay, okay. Heres another hint

His name was one of several being bandied about as a replacement for AG when things started not looking so good for Alberto.

[lakeguy]

63. wow, a right wing hack supporting HRC...

what's next, a fund raiser for hillary by murdoch/faux news? oh yeah, that one already happened.

[Tellurian]

68. Anything new from you..Oh! haven't read the thread...what a surprise!

[Tellurian]

64. Hillary draws Overflow crowd in W.VA.. Saturday,July 28, 07'

apparently, they support her stance on the US dealing with rouge states..

http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/8777342.html

[democratsin08]

66. clinton cleaned up

obama needs to get more political savvy

[Alizaryn]

71. I think this statement defines the whole thing for me.

"Obama himself said the Clinton campaign was concocting a "fabricated controversy"

She/they knew damn well what he meant and took a low shot at him and is now attempting to play the innocent victim of the whole thing. She lost and he gained a lot of respect from me.

[Tellurian]

75. Prove it! Lets see what you have as proof, and we'll decide..

[Tellurian]

133. The 'nutshell' argument...

then include the fact Obama was wrong, then we'll agree you're right!

[Alizaryn]

168. Hey ...

Like I said it is how I felt. You don't have to feel that way and you obviously don't. MY OPINION as I watched the debate was that Clinton was making a big deal out of something that was obviously an unclarified statement on Obama's part and running with it. Because of this which I saw as a cheap shot she has forfeited her right to whine about any and all comebacks.

[madrchsod]

78. obama should just quit now

it`s pointless for him to go any further in his quest for the presidency. he`s to young,has terrible advisors,and worse he does`t understand that hillary`s experence in the whitehouse and senate makes his quest pointless.

[Ethelk2044]

101. Damn your post has so much bull shit in it, it got all over my boots

[Scriptor Ignotus]

150. and so should all the other candidates?

Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, etc.

Hell, why even bother with a primary, let's just appoint her now.

[Alizaryn]

174. Seems like the questioner agrees with many of us...

"So we called Stephen Sixta, the 59-year-old California video producer who asked on YouTube about the candidates' willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, N. Korea and Venezuela. He said it's been pretty much "surreal" to spend the last week hearing the question he wrote repeated in some kind of endless loop by everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Rush Limbaugh.

His bottom line: He liked Obama's answer, and he thought Hillary misconstrued what he meant by "preconditions" in acting like Obama had agreed to meet Fidel and Chavez with no diplomatic groundwork whatsoever. He said his question just meant there shouldn't be a requirement of a change in a country's behavior as a condition of talking to them.

"My question had something I wanted my government to achieve. I wanted my country to go out and speak to countries we don't speak to," Sixta said. "When the attacks started on Obama they were attacks on my question and what I wanted. They made me feel bad."

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_speaks.html#more

[smoogatz]

79. The fact that Krauthammer thinks Hillary is right

about negotiating with our adversaries (or anything else, for that matter) should be a matter of great concern to Hillary's supporters. That seems obvious to me.

[Zueda]

91. Well if you take...

the short definition of Neocon and the short definition of DLC. There really is not much difference.

[Tellurian]

103. I have the skinny on what happened...The OP agrees with my facts..

You apparently are allergic to facts..

And these are the facts:

Here is the "skinny" on what the Obama supporters don't understand. Or choose denial as cover for their hero.

Obama was asked this question at the 2nd. South Carolina debate:

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would."

Heres what I think happened. Obama made the same mistake he made at the 1st. SC Debate. He doesn't listen to or hear the entire question OR he doesn't understand what the correct response should be. In this case, he missed 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition. He only gave #'s (3), (4), and (5) consideration before he answered.

Obama did the same thing here in the last debate:

Hillary's response to the 2nd. SC Debate below:

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."

Consensus of opinion is Senator Clinton gave the correct answer here:

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.

Hillary's response to the 2nd SC debate question:


CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE) Edwards agrees:

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.
But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

[smoogatz]

108. You have opinions, not facts.

In your opinion, Iran and Syria would use Obama's meeting(s) with them for "propaganda purposes." Turns out, that's exactly what Bush has been saying all along. Turns out, Charles Krauthammer, among the wingnuttiest of all the wingnut "pundits," agrees with you. If I was you, I might try thinking a little bit about why Bush and Krauthammer agree with you, and what that says about your opinions.

[Tellurian]

112. No,not at all...It's about conditions and protocols..

The ultimate goal is a meeting with a US president. Obama jumped the gun and wasn't listening to the entire question. The question was specific and he missed the first two conditions...

[smoogatz]

119. You think Obama wouldn't follow the standard protocols?

Of course he would. The point is that he's differentiated himself from what Bush did/does/would do; Hillary has basically endorsed Bush's tactics, and that's why Krauthammer thinks she "won." Do you really not get that?

[Alizaryn]

170. Exactly.

[Evergreen Emerald]

83. This whole thing is so demeaning.

I am undecided as of yet, who I am supporting as a candidate, and this tiff is not helping. I find the continued jabs embarrassing and pointless. They need to stop. And they both look petty.

[Tellurian]

105. Kerry stopped and didn't address the swiftys..

we have to think of the greater good.

[Evergreen Emerald]

138. but this is different

This is democrat against democrat when they are both saying essentially the same thing. This is not a swift boat situation. This is a nanny-nanny-boo-boo-I-get-the-last-word situation.

[TeamJordan23]

87. Rasmussen: Majority of Americans agree with Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3408921&mesg_id=3408921

[Tellurian]

107. 37% said they would vote against him.. Not a very good showing

A separate survey found that 29% of voters say they will definitely vote for Obama if he is on the ballot in 2008. Thirty-seven percent (37%) will definitely vote against him.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_gains_ground_over_giuliani_thompson

[Ethelk2044]

128. More will vote against Hillary than Obama. People just do not

like her

[Clintonista2]

109. Umm that link says Majority of DEMOCRATS agree with Obama..

not majority of AMERICANS, as your title claims. Try the truth for once, it feels great!

[Tellurian]

114. Wrong link..

not the one I posted...get a grip!

[Clintonista2]

120. I was responding to TeamJordan23

Not you :hi:

[rucky]

88. I'm not buying the bullshit spin-doctoring from either campaign.

It's an ad-hoc, mutually beneficial Rosie/Donald type WWE RAW rivalry.

[Zueda]

97. Come on Rucky

If you had to. which of these two would you prefer? Which is the lesser of two evils in your eyes?

[Tellurian]

110. They're both Democrats..so whats you're problem?

[Zueda]

115. Umm..my question was aimed at Rucky.

Who obviously does not care a whole lot about either candidate of topic. My are problem is not at issue here.

But if you must ask. My are problem is I feel Clinton is a DINO. Like Lieberman was..only dangerously smarter.

[rucky]

172. Ok, I'll play.

I really think either of them will make a fine President - it's just what they're doing to win that's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

But if I had to pick between the two, it would be Obama (and yes, he gave the better response by a mile)

[Laurab]

104. Charles Krauthammer????

Charles Krauthammer?????

:rofl:

Who's next - Robert Novak??? Charles Krauthammer backing your candidate is the best proof I've seen that Hillary is the repugs candidate of choice, since she will be the best repug get-out-the-vote candidate ever. Do you not know who he is?

She just lost a ton of points with that article, trust me.

[Tellurian]

111. The proof is: Can you prove him wrong, if you're so smart?

[jefferson_dem]

118. This Iraq War Clusterfuck is living proof that both Krauthammer and your Hillary are wrong...

Do you need anything else?

[Tellurian]

127. If you could only prove him wrong...then you would be doing something..

The consensus of opinion is Hillary is correct...Obama is desperate because he fears losing another debate, again!

[Laurab]

130. No, he's quite right - Hillary is the repukes choice

I'm not all that smart, but I'm smart enough to know not to trust a word out of his mouth, or keyboard - he's a joke.

[Tellurian]

132. And Obama chooses Powell,right?

[Kablooie]

113. I still think that Obama is the better choice right now. Mainly BECAUSE of his limited experience.

I believe we need some new thinking injected into our government.

Obama is not an old hand at playing the system so may come up with
new solutions to old problems.

He will certainly make mistakes but I believe he will be a fast learner.

Like Kennedy.

The world has changed dramatically in the last decade and our place in it
needs rethinking. Playing by the old established rules as Clinton would do
could just push us farther into trouble.

Like GM and Ford.

Also, Bush has thrown everything up in the air during his reign so the next
president will have the responsibility to rebuild much of what America is
and it's relationship to the rest of the world. This is the perfect time to
form an America based on the realities of today, not yesterday.

[Tellurian]

117. America doesn't elect inexperienced newbies during Wartime..

[Kablooie]

121. Wartime. We aren't at war. We are sitting in the middle of another countries revolution. Not war.

[Tellurian]

131. Oh,then the Iraq war is not of our making...

what kind of convoluted message are you selling?

We're not fighting terrorism, AlQuida, Bin Laden, ring a bell?

[Kablooie]

160. We created the Iraq war but now it's not ours.

As for Al Quaida, it's not war. It's a police action.

We are, or should be, tracking down criminals, organized crime, that is not war.

'War' is a term used by Bush and Cheney in order to grab wartime powers that they don't legally have a right to.

We are not at war with Iraq.

We are not at war with Al Quaida.

[Laurab]

165. Yes, that's why shrub "won", isn't it?

In '04 - and what a great job he's done. I think all the "top" candidates are equally experienced - or inexperienced, whichever way you like to say it - read Obama's books and see how "inexperienced" he really is. Actually, that's a silly suggestion, you'll do nothing of the kind, I know. Hillary is my senator, and I'm not sure where or why some people think she's so "experienced" - she's an average senator, at best. Edwards - a one term, average at best senator.

Polarizing half the country if she does get elected will not allow her to get a whole lot done IMO, therefore I'd take either of the other top candidates over her - I really think Biden, Dodd, Richardson or Kucinich would do much better, as well.

Here's hoping America has smartened up, and will elect a dem who can bring the country together, as well as get it back on the right track. Hillary is not that candidate, no matter what your right wing pundits tell us.

[Diane R]

116. I've never used the 'ignore' button before, but I'm already tired of these threads.

[Arugula Latte]

135. What utter bullshit.

Business as usual for the Hillary cheerleaders, though.

[Placebo]

139. Obama just ain't ready for the big chair.

And it shows.

He's a fine senator with some great ideas, but Hillary is better prepared to be president and handle the job from Day One.

[TeamJordan23]

141. Yep, its great to see the GOP/Neo-Cons agree with you. nm

[Scriptor Ignotus]

154. Ah the status quo

it doesn't get any worse and it doesn't get any better.

[mdmc]

145. O is niave as Bush is experienced.

:kick:

[Jillian]

147. I beg to differ - They both lost!

They looked like a couple of teenagers . . .
definitely not ready to lead.

[illinoisprogressive]

148. read this. The pundits think this and the people are about 95% behind Obama on it.

I would also read the comments just to make sure you understand the point.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/27/readers_weigh_in_on_clinton_ob.html

[Crunchy Frog]

151. Well, if Charles Krauthammer said it, I guess I HAVE to take it seriesly.

:spray:

[IndianaGreen]

159. I expect George Will to side with Hillary against Obama this Sunday

on ABC's This Week.

Nothing like having the conservative punditry on Hillary's side.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

153. unfortunately for you

this thread and the link within prove you to be COMPLETELY WRONG. It's probably not a coincidence you haven't posted on the thread, because there's no way for you to spin it to your favor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3409678


After a week of escalating post-debate rhetoric from Hillary and Obama over meeting with dictators, Bush-Cheney lite, naivete and irresponsibility, we thought it would be worth finding out what the guy who asked the question that started it all thought.

So we called Stephen Sixta, the 59-year-old California video producer who asked on YouTube about the candidates' willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela. He said it's been pretty much "surreal" to spend the last week hearing the question he wrote repeated in some kind of endless loop by everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Rush Limbaugh.

His bottom line: He liked Obama's answer, and he thought Hillary misconstrued what he meant by "preconditions" in acting like Obama had agreed to meet Fidel and Chavez with no diplomatic groundwork whatsoever. He said Obama just meant there shouldn't be a requirement of a change in a country's behavior as a condition of talking to them.



The distortion of the word "precondition" has been the entire foundation of yours, and others, criticism of Obama. The PERSON WHO ASKED THE QUESTION thought Hillary was twisting the words. To be fair, he thought Obama's counter-response went too far as well. But he AGREED WITH THE CRUX OF OBAMA'S POSITION. I'm not sure how it could be any clearer.

And bemoaning Obama for being childish is revealing, given how juvenile yours and the Clinton's campaign's attacks on him have been. If Obama says nothing to a Clinton jab, he is seen as weak. If he responds, he's accused of politics as usual. Fuck that. I want a candidate who responds to attacks in kind and doesn't back down against powerful establishment figures.

[IndianaGreen]

156. Neocon Krauthammer supports Hillary because she is the neolib version of a neocon

There are no differences in terms of goals and methods between a neocon from PNAC or AEI from a neolib from the DLC's PPI.

Hillary supports the war in Iraq, and the ripping off of Iraq's oil by the transnationals. Hillary's muted criticism of the war in Iraq was never on the basis that it was illegal, immoral, or unethical. It was always on the basis of its management!

Hillary's entire campaign is based on the idea that she will be more efficient than Bush in subverting civil liberties at home, wage imperial wars abroad, and protect the economic interests of the ruling class.

[Tellurian]

162. Your Anti-Hillary statement has nothing to do with this thread..take it elsewhere..

[IndianaGreen]

163. Necons and Neolibs are on opposite sides of the same imperialist coin

which is why Hillary has publicly and loudly sided with the Venezuelan elites.

Remember Hil's "Take that Venezuela!" speech, or does Hillarycamp suffer from political amnesia like Bush-Cheney?

[madrchsod]

171. now,now let`s not mention the neo-liberals

it might confuse people...never trust young republican

[Imagevision]

166. Obama is wrong about the Iraq war?!! duh! what?! 62% of Americans

believe the Clinton campaign did concoct a "fabricated controversy." Hillary Clinton was irresponsible and naive for having voted for the Iraq war without an exit plan. (my 13 year old knows that)

[Tellurian]

175. Obama cares so much...He's never gone to Iraq to visit the troops like everyone else has...

If anything anemic, it's Obama-lites caring about Americans. Too busy raking in the moolah for his happenstance campaign.

[calteacherguy]

167. Nothing but playground politics on all sides. Where's the adults? nt

[madrchsod]

169. beats me...i`m to the point now i could care less about the primary

but i do have fun posting incredibly bull shit posts with out this
just to see people`s reaction....

[Mass]

173. Krauthammer? Good, this is a good sign for Obama.

whenever Krauthammer disagrees with you, you know you are right!

[Agnostic_Jihad]

176. Obama

would make a good Secretary of Planning and Urban Development. He'd be a disaster as President...

[Mass]

177. Why? Because a Hillary supporter says so?

[snowbear]

179. Not just HRC supporters, but RETHUGS, Freepers, and DLC'ers

[AnotherGreenWorld]

178. The Obama campaign is right

It is a fabricated controversy. Hillary's response made it seem as though Obama had just said or implied that he would promise to meet with, inter alia, Chavez, and, of course, he said nothing of the sort. He simply said, he, unlike Bush, would be willing to meet with the US's enemies. After answering the question directly--something Hillary did not do; her answer is consistent with both "I would" and "I wouldn't"--Obama explained why. At no point did he say, "Oh and you know what, I promise I'm gonna do this!" If, after Obama is sworn in, Ahmadinejad says, "When you come to meet me, President Obama, I am going to shit on an American flag and make you eat it! And you have to do it!," Obama can, consistent with this specific answer, say, "well, actually, I said I would be willing to meet with you; I never promised, and I certainly didn't promise to meet with you under any condition. Obviously, a situation might arise that my coming would not be possible. This is such a situation."

Suppose, asked the question, "My grandmother likes to hang out around rivers. I don't know why, she just does. And she hates your guts, Sen. Obama. She will randomly walk up to people and say, 'god dammit, I hate that Barack Obama feller. Did you know he loves terrorism, hates God, deathless Jesus, and those silly angels as well; wants to force our children to become homosexuals, and likes to eat babies in his spare time?' Would you be willing to save my grandmother if she were drowning in a river?," Obama replied that he would then gave some Dworkinian "all lives have equal and inherent worth" response--that regardless of his grandmother's opinions about him, he would still try to save her.

Then Hillary replies, "I won't promise to save your grandmother." Then the next day, after the pundits praise her for her brilliant and god-like verbal adroitness, she says, "Frankly, I thought Obama's comments were irresponsible and naïve. The President of the United States cannot promise to save ordinary citizens if they're drowning in a river. Etc."

That's all well and good, just as her saying that she doesn't want to be used for proganda purposes. But it does not speak to her williness, and that was what the question sought. It wanted to know their willingness to do some action, namely meet with the US's enemies in the case of the real question. It did not seek, or even hint at, wanting a promise. I suspect the questioner was sophisticated enough to know, unlike 18th Centurty British moralists, that even if they did promise, reneging on a promise isn't the end of the world.

[zulchzulu]

182. Citing a PNAC stooge to prove your point is...well...pretty lame

What would make you have to quote a devout neocon to prove your "point"?

I smell desperation.