HRC did NOT say she wouldn't talk to leaders of enemy nations

[dollie300]

she said she would NOT MAKE THE PROMISE to talk to them.

[derby378]

1. In any case, if either Clinton or Obama became President...

...I wouldn't want either of them indulging Li'l Kim up in North Korea. Talks with Cuba and Venezuela could be helpful, though.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Seriously? You think Bush's silent treatment worked out well in North Korea?

Even Bush recognized his error and adopted Bill Clinton's old strategy.

[derby378]

20. I think my message talked about "indulging" Li'l Kim

I'm not necessarily talking about the silent treatment - but I don't think we should bend over backwards to appease Kim Jong Il, either. He's a madman and a murderer, and we shouldn't forget that.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Ok, sorry. I guess I have no idea what you're talking about.

I certainly can't argue against a position I don't comprehend.

[bahrbearian]

27. But we indulge all kinds of mad men and Murderers

I even believe that HRC speaks to the Chimp

[Buzz Clik]

2. bleh. More year-before-the-election-year machinations.

If Hillary doesn't quit her shameless appeasement of the right wing, the Republicans very well may draft her as their nominee.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. AND She Said That It Was "Irresponible And Naive" To Meet Without Preconditions

At least that's what she said recently. At other times, she said that you must meet with leaders of countries that oppose us:

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

One thing about Mrs. Clinton - you can always count on her to be on all sides of every issue at the same time.

[mod mom]

5. "you can always count on her to be on all sides of every issue at the same time

exactly.

[tridim]

9. You know that's a clever phrase, but it's not at all true..

She's not on "all sides" of this issue, because she's never said that she wouldn't meet with them at all. That's the other side. Her answers to the question have varied a bit, but they've always been on the side of logic.

BTW, I don't support Clinton.

[mod mom]

28. Clinton on the issues:

She is on record as voting for such things as the IWR and the Patriot Act, yet now she is opposed to them.

She is saying outsourcing is bad but is a Free Trader-a policy that causes outsourcing.

She is sounding like a populist lately:



June 20, 2007

Hillary the Populist?

Pop quiz: Of the leading Democratic presidential contenders, who's the most populist?

Judging from the speeches they delivered at this week's Take Back America conference--an annual gathering of thousands of progressive activists--it's not Senator Barack Obama, the former community organizer who called for hope-driven political transformation. Nor is it former Senator John Edwards, the onetime corporation-suing trial attorney who pointed out his recent antipoverty work. It's Senator Hillary Clinton.

Her speech was loaded with us-versus-them, I'm-on-your-side, anti-corporate references.

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/06/hillary_the_pop.php

Yet she is in a leadership role at the DLC-an organization that is the antithesis of populism.

[tridim]

29. Fine, but we're not talking about those other issues in this thread. nt

[mod mom]

31. The quote & comment

is a response to a comment in post # 4.

peace. :hi:

[Ethelk2044]

44. She is also for increasing th H1B Visas to allow workers to come into the US

That way companies can hire employees at a cheaper rate than they would have to hire someone from the US.

[mod mom]

30. SF Chronicle: Catering to All is a Losing Strategy

Catering to all is a losing strategy
Ruben Navarrette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune
Wednesday, November 30, 2005


DEMOCRATS, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they're being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush's troubles in Iraq.
-snip

Now Democrats are getting ready to make similar mistakes in their attempts to politicize the Iraq war. The Clintons are setting the tone. While Sen. Hillary Clinton, D- N.Y., stakes out a "hawkish" pro-war position, former President Bill Clinton bad-mouths the administration's war effort. On the difficult question of whether we should stay the course in Iraq or pull out, Democrats have a ready answer: "Yes."

By working both sides of the street -- playing to both the anti-war base of the Democratic Party and those swing voters who still feel uneasy about the prospect of an immediate withdrawal -- Democrats run the risk of pleasing no one. They also stand a good chance of coming across as cravenly opportunistic, willing to say anything at anytime completely unencumbered by something as inconvenient as a set of core principles. None of this is likely to help Democrats as they inch toward the 2008 presidential election. At this point, their strategy for retaking the White House is simple: Hope that voters are, by then, so discontented with President Bush that they decide they don't want any more Republican administrations for a while and vote Democratic by default.

That's lazy politics. You bank on the opposition party messing up things so badly that you don't have to lift a finger to win. Trouble is, that strategy rarely works. If you don't have a countermeasure, a different view or an alternative policy, if all you do is criticize the other side while sending mixed messages as to what you really support, then you have nothing. And, in politics, those who offer nothing tend to lose out to those who offer something.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/30/EDGTSFVEO41.DTL

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/30/EDGTSFVEO41.DTL

[earthlover]

45. Well, bush never said he would not meet either...just gave preconditions....like hillary I guess

[marmar]

10. True. That's my problem with her......

She's everything to everyone all the time. I don't feel like I can trust her.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. one thing about HRC is people will deliberately misconstrue what she says

[MADem]

6. In the FIRST YEAR of her presidency.

The question had a lot of conditions in it...

[earthlover]

7. Obama's answer was good enough for the guy who asked it....

I guess Hillary Followers know more than he did what he was asking.

Obama is now benefiting from a HUGE political gamble gone wrong by Hillary, her attacking him. Now he can fight back and point out her IWR vote, and other naive things she has done.

I can't remember a bigger unforced error on the part of a front runner.

I hope Hillary, in the event she recovers and gets the nomination, doesn't make such huge blunders in the general election. We can't afford to nominate a candidate who shoots himself/herself in the foot like that.

It sure as heck blows the "inevitability theme" out of the water when she has to lash out at a challenger!

[Hamlette]

8. glad to hear you say this, the pundits are saying Hillary won and I thought they were nuts

You would think the pundits might give their opinion "Hillary was right" but no, they say "Hillary won". The pundits don't decide who won, we do.

And they have been wrong so much of the time lately we don't even listen anymore.

[MADem]

12. Hey, all I pointed out is what the question actually ASKED, and I get

accused of being a Hillary Follower for my trouble.

I am still undecided, and I thought Hillary bested Obama on that specific question. I pay close attention, too.

[Hamlette]

35. I'm so sorry, I directed my response to someone else, sorry for the confusion

I'm still undecided too but I think Obama got the point. Maybe its because I lean to him (I'm still mad at Hillary for her flag burning statute nonsense.)

[MADem]

11. I guess where you stand affects where you sit.

I'm still undecided unless Gore gets in.

Let me repeat that, in case it gets overlooked--I am still UNDECIDED, unless Gore gets in.

I really don't understand your "remarks" there. All I pointed out is that the guy's YOUTUBE question mentioned THE FIRST YEAR of the candidate's presidency. Go back and listen. I'm CORRECT in that assertion--I watched the fucking debates TWICE. His question was quite detailled and precise.

But hey, whatever. It's impossible to have a civil discussion around here, without someone getting all snide and tossing out "Hillary Followers" or some other (what you apparently perceive as an) "insult" -- rather than discuss what was actually said, and how it was perceived, in -- Heavens ta Betsy --an ADULT manner.

I thought Clinton beat Obama on that question. Decisively. Hands down. No doubt. She sounded like she'd thought it through, he sounded impulsive and unschooled in international politics.

Now, we know that he isn't impulsive OR unschooled, but that's how he came off to me--on THAT particular question. Not as a candidate, overall.

YMMV, and likely does, seeing as you are apparently a partisan at this stage.

[earthlover]

37. I was referring to Hillary's post-debate attack, not the debate itself

During the debate, she did well. It is beyond comprehension why she, after doing well in the debate and with many pundits already criticizing Obama, felt the need to pile on. THIS was a HUGE mistake.

If she HADN'T done that, Obama would still be reeling from the issue. As it is now, not only is he not reeling, he is able to counter-punch Hillary. Keep in mind that before her attack she was the front runner. It was a classic mistake.

[MADem]

54. Well, that whole bit of stuff was a reporter drumming up "controversy"

Psst, didja hear what so and so said about YOU?

Say, did you hear what such-n-such said?

Makes for a blip of drama going into August. Not much, but a small blip.

I think Obama's better off letting it drop. No matter how much "winning" some think he's doing, he's still being COMPARED. And he won't break out until he actually does that--breaks out, and isn't Obama the Young Senator as COMPARED TO Clinton or Edwards or anyone else.

As I said, where you stand depends on where you sit. I'm sitting in the center of the firing squad, and I don't see that whole back-n-forth as really helping Obama, save to perhaps 'cement' him as the second place runner at this singular point in time in the minds of the public. That beats third, but it isn't where he wants to be, I would wager. And of course, that could change in the blink of an eye. It's not static, but if he keeps tilting at Clinton, it could become a theme.

His advisors need to take a new tack, IMO. I think he'd do well to start attacking REPUBLICANS. It would put him out in front in that regard. Whichever candidate really seizes the news cycle with a rip-roaring Bush Bash, something that resonates, could get a real nice bump out of it. We're ready for something like that. Enough with the brutal fighting over relatively small differences, at least for awhile...

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

13. Was the question about promising to meet anyone?

Or refusing to talk? I didn't see it. Would like to know since my only media is online and KO.

[mudesi]

15. That's splitting hairs, don't you think?

I have to say I'm in complete agreement with Obama on this one, and I'm not even all that sure about his position on the issue. But every leader, no matter who that leader is, should have open communication with any other leader. To not talk at all means to murder more innocent people.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. and the question was Are You Willing. Not promise as Hillary twisted it as

[mmonk]

24. Was that the question?

Also, what was her temperament? Was she just saying her reply as if asking the questioner if they were asking her to promise? Guess I won't know for sure. I know you are an Obama supporter. Not questioning your integrity, just noting that you support him and want to push him out front of her with some distance.

[journalist3072]

17. Exactly! I'm so sick of the anti-Hillary contigent saying that she said she would not talk to them

She said she wouldn't make a promise to do so, without first knowing the intent and the way forward, b/c she wouldn't want the President of the United States to be used for propoganda.

It's really sad how people will overlook what she said, just to spin things for their candidate.

[durrrty libby]

19. That is what you call d e s p e r a t i o n

Bo is not doing well in the polls

When he comes out third in Iowa...he is done

[earthlover]

39. WOW! Be still my beating heart! A two line post from Hillary's heart throb!

[durrrty libby]

48. And the enjoyable one line irony of a BO Sniffer. So precious

[earthlover]

49. 1st I am not an Obama supporter. 2nd if you look at my posts, most are longer than 1 line...

Can U say the same, heart throb?

[durrrty libby]

51. "if you look at my posts, most are longer than 1 line"

impressive

[earthlover]

52. Impressive? Naw. What WOULD be impressive would be for Hillary to...

...tell us how her position on talking with enemies differs from the tired Bush-Cheney policies that have not worked....

Hillary was asked. Her silence is deafening....

[cynatnite]

36. Some do feel a need to twist facts to fit their perceptions...

otherwise the truth makes 'em cry.

[YankmeCrankme]

18. The problem is the preconditions

The preconditions are what we want them to change. In essence, we won't meet with them unless they change the behavior we want them to change, how effective is that? Saying that you would require preconditions to meet effectively tells me you don't want to negotiate with the other leader/government. For example, we want to ban Iran's uranium enrichment, but before we meet to discuss it they must stop uranium enrichment and give up any right to do so in the future. The precondition becomes the ultimate objective of the negotiation before you even negotiate.

Same old same old.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. what she said was that she would resume diplomatic relations without meeting them at a presidential

level.

what she said made perfect sense.

[dollie300]

26. Thank you! n/t

[earthlover]

40. Sounds plausible, except communication is the key to avoiding war.

And war means deaths, mutilations, orphans, and squalor.

I guess speaking our mind to our enemies is something to be scared of for sure...SARC

Obama would like to ask how this policy of Hillary's on talking with enemies differs from Bush-Cheney's. Apparently Hillary hasn't been able to respond. Can any of her Followers fill the rest of us in?

[On the Road]

23. In Practice, Insisting on Preconditions

in tantamount to NOT meeting. That is what he have repeatedly seen in practice.

As Winston Churchill said: "I do not maintain diplomatic relations to confer a compliment. I do it to secure a convenience."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. she didnt say that. she said she would start meetings at a lower level than the president

[earthlover]

41. And what kind of idiot would NOT think President Obama would set up meetings through envoys!?

Come on. I am not even an Obama supporter. But it is clear what he meant. Clear to anyone with ears and an open mind. He wants to open the channels of direct communication that have been blocked by Bush-Cheney preconditions. Hillary chimed in to basically say "not so fast".

That was during the debate. AFTER the debate, Hillary started a broo-ha-ha by calling Obama naive. Which was a classic mistake on the part of a front runner. A huge one.

She was asked by Obama how she is different from Bush-Cheney on this issue. She still hasn't answered. What's up with that?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. actually i am a supporter of both/none of them, and i think hillary said what she meant clearly

i was not sure what obama said but he later changed it to be exactly hillary's position.

[earthlover]

53. Obama changed? OK...provide quote please...

Obama asked Hillary to show how she is different on this issue from Bush-Cheney....the silence is getting more and more deafening.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. watch mtp from this sunday. i am sure its online.

obama said he promises he would meet the leaders in his first year. later he changes to say, ofcourse he meant that it was not him personally but his administration who would meet with them, which is exaclty hillary's position.

i think this is another much ado over nothing situation

[On the Road]

55. 'Preconditions" is a Clear Term

It has been US policy for many years. Obama is saying he would change that. Clinton is saying she would not.

Whether you agree or disagree, Obama interpreted the question properly and I believe so did Clinton.

I don't know whether it's politically wise or not. But there's way too much groupthink about keeping these long-term hostilities by imposing preconditions to talk. That's what it does, and everyone knows it. And for one, I am glad Obama said he would go in a new direction.

[moondust]

25. I think SHE made a mistake.

Obama was speaking to the larger issue of talking to unfriendly nations which is the actual issue of the day because Bush stupidly refuses to do so. Clinton jumped on the incidental details of "promising in the first year" which to me was irrelevant in the greater context. Republicans play that kind of "gotcha" politics a lot and I hate it.

[mdmc]

33. she should have said, "I would ask my husband what to do"

oh,snap!

[BlooInBloo]

47. What is 'how to immediately never be elected', Alex?

[mdmc]

58. his coattails is her ticket

She is running on her white house experience,,,

[Cha]

38. So? she's still a

disingenous viperknife thrower..see if it sticks kinda thing.

Good for Obama catching it with his teeth and Boomerang!

[earthlover]

42. Good point....

I am not an Obama fan or a Hillary fan.

This last week HAS been very interesting. Hillary did well in the debate. Just when I was thinking she might actually be unstoppable....she, after the debate, attacks Obama.

To me, this is incredibly stupid. What WAS she thinking? She is the front runner. Obama can't very well attack her without sounding desperate. All that changed when she attacked him first. And, again, what was she thinking? The issue she attacked him on was petty and worst of all for her, tied her position to that of Bush-Cheney on preconditions for talks. So it was a chip shot for Obama to fight back on the IWR, comparing her to Bush-Cheney, and I am afraid he will be able to make additional comparisons. This was so totally dumb on her part...especially when the press was already giving Obama a hard time on the issue and all she had to do was keep her mouth shut....it makes me seriously wonder how smart a campaigner she really is. We can't afford to nominate a candidate who would make a mistake/bone-head blunder as dumb as what Hillary did after the debate last week.

I keep hoping Gore or Clark will save us from this inanity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. or shes an intelligent politician. whichever.

:eyes:

[LostInAnomie]

43. If the distinction between positions is so small...

... then she probably shouldn't have made such a big deal about it. But, then that wouldn't have given her the opportunity to call Obama "irresponsible and naive".

I guess you win some and you lose some. In this case she lost, because now the impression everyone has is that she will continue the Bush policy.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Just like she didn't vote for war, she only voted to authorize it? lol!