Obama v Obama?
EmailIn today’s New York Times, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, seeks to clarify his views on meeting with hostile foreign dictators.
“I didn’t say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it,” Obama said. “That’s not a change in position, that’s simply responding to distortions of my position.”
Okay, let’s go to the videotape. You can watch the question and answer HERE and read the transcript HERE.
At last Summer’s Youtube/CNN debate here’s exactly what Obama said.
He was asked the following: "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?"
Okay, so let’s review:
* A willingness.
* For meetings.
* Anywhere.
* Without preconditions.
* During the first 12 months of the Obama administration.
* With the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
* And the goal: bridging the gap that divides the countries.
And Obama’s answer?
"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."
**
One point of confusion seems to come from this: Obama is distinguishing between holding these meetings without "preconditions" — as Obama said he would be willing to do during that debate, meaning that the U.S. would not require Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program before agreeing to a meeting — and holding them "unconditionally," meaning there without any "preparations," which he now says he would not do.
Obama spoke more about this in our interview with him last week.
Can voters be forgiven for not fully understanding Obama’s views on this all?
Yesterday, Obama told reporters, "I want to initiate direct talks, starting at a low level, with Iran, exploring the possibilities of seeing a change in behavior in Iran. And hopefully over time, changing the nature of the relationship."
But the dispute isn’t over low-level talks, it’s over presidential-level meetings.
The initial Youtube question was about whether Obama would meet with the "leaders" of those hostile countries, not specifically Ahmadinejad.
And Obama yesterday told reporters "there is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power. He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”
But in a press conference last September, during the controversy over Ahmadinejad being invited to speak at Columbia University, Obama gave the distinct impression that he would specifically meet with Ahmadinejad, in this exchange:
QUESTION: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad, would you still meet with him today?”
OBAMA: “Nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with – that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”
– jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Maybe we should compare this the Hillary saying,” Yes, Barack can beat McCain” in the debate and Now saying,” I am the only candidate who can beat McCain.!”
Posted by: newera | May 29, 2008, 9:21 am 9:21 am
geevil…I suppose you will vote for McCain in Nov if Obama is the candidate?
Posted by: newera | May 29, 2008, 9:22 am 9:22 am
This is just a joke, right, this man is just a joke and we are going to find the hidden camera. Boy are we going to laugh when we find out this is all a joke. hahahahahaha
Posted by: Afraidveryafraid | May 29, 2008, 9:26 am 9:26 am
He is an idiot!! He just keeps spinning and spinning lies until he thinks he has finally gotten it to where he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. He doesn’t have a clue and has no business being where he is today. He cant’ even get his lies straight. What makes him think he can be the leader of the of the Free World!! I sure don’t think he can & he will not get my vote! Pathetic
Posted by: rockthebleachers | May 29, 2008, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Get ready for
SWIFT BOAT II
DUKAKIS II
Posted by: Tony | May 29, 2008, 9:31 am 9:31 am
Jake, I like the way you say Obama now says he wouldn’t meet without preparations, as if he hadn’t been saying that previously. He’s been saying that for months!
I don’t see the problem here, apart from the inability of many to distinguish between preconditions and conditions.
Posted by: Aengil | May 29, 2008, 9:34 am 9:34 am
afraidveryafraid………..your right this has got to be a joke. Who in their right mind would think this guy can be President of the United States? He has no idea what he said to who or even where he is when he is there.
Posted by: Barb | May 29, 2008, 9:34 am 9:34 am
mmmmmmmmmmmm! is all I can say, mmmmmmmmm!
Posted by: CTJD | May 29, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
It gets worse. This Saturday the rules committee has to decide if they want to join the hypocrisy.
Rule 20c.1.b.
Look it up.
Posted by: len | May 29, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
It really doesn’t matter what Barry says; the Republicans are going to distroy him with Tony Rezko and his Arab friends, Reverend Wright, and his wife finally being proud of being and American.
Posted by: The Malibu Kid | May 29, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
This is great journalism. Going to the tape. Giving us long, specific quotes to chew over in their correct context. Keep doing this and I’ll be coming here all the time.
Posted by: Dave Mastio | May 29, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
unconditionally = without preconditions
Posted by: whatever | May 29, 2008, 9:36 am 9:36 am
Is this the beginning of the over-use of the term “flip-flop” during a campaign? No doubt, that’s what he is doing, but can we use a different phrase this time? I am sick of that tired old term, and even more disgusted with the actual act itself. Change is not gonna come like this folks. He is just like the ones he says he wants to change in Washington. I fail to see what is so special about this guy besides his speech writers.
Posted by: Dee | May 29, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
yes he did…. just another lie from BHO
HILLARY SUPPORTERS UNITE, Make sure Barrack and the Democratic Leaders know we wont support him… He and his supporters think we will come around and throw away our passion for Hillary. Stick with her, let’s take this to the GE!
Posted by: Chipo | May 29, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
I guess it comes down to the difference between “would meet” and “would be willing to meet”. Was Obama promising to meet with those leaders in the first year, or was he leaving the option open for meeting within the first year?
Posted by: Sean Braisted | May 29, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
oh and hillary isnt a flip flopper
lol,
cmon, obama is still by far the better candidate…. id love to see hillary steal the nomination from obama, and watch as her favor-ability jumped to an all time new high, and her polls plummet like a rock…
talk about unelectable
indeed i did have sexual relations with that women woot womens rights!!! keep fighting for women everywhere
Posted by: bhrandon | May 29, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Has anybody quizzed Obama to see if he knows what kind of talks are going on with Iran now?
Posted by: MayBee | May 29, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Another application of the meaning of “is”. Obama is another example of lying pond scum. What a joke of a man. May the Lord help this nation should this sham of a man gets elected.
Posted by: Frustrated Voter | May 29, 2008, 9:44 am 9:44 am
Taking Jake’s example: the U.S. wanting Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
My understanding is that Obama would not say to Iran, “I will not meet with you until you suspend your uranium enrichment program.”
He would say to Iran “I will meet with you to discuss you suspending your uranium enrichment program.”
Seems clear enough to me.
Obama clearly believes that it’s more effective to use a presidential-level meeting to achieve goals – as in the example of Anwar Sadat’s trip to Israel resulting in a long-lasting peace agreement – than it is to try to use the promise of a presidential-level meeting as a bargaining chip. I agree with him personally.
Posted by: Aengil | May 29, 2008, 9:45 am 9:45 am
The examples of JFK and Reagan makes Obama’s stance very clear. His opponents (and some in the media) just like to play around with the word ‘unconditional’ – which only means not requiring these countries meet our demands as a prerequisite to a meeting (that’s what the meetings are for).
Obama would meet with these leaders, like JFK and Reagan, for the direct purpose of resolving continuing problems with these nations and making America’s stance very clear.
Posted by: Colin | May 29, 2008, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Colin – “UNCONDITIONAL” – look it up, nobody is playing with words…it is clear
Posted by: Chipo | May 29, 2008, 9:47 am 9:47 am
JFK almost started WWIII with the strategy that Obama espouses.
Green. The man is green.
Ok Democrats. This is where we have to decide if party loyalty is more important than the good of the country and world.
Posted by: len | May 29, 2008, 9:51 am 9:51 am
Well, president of Iran, Mr. Ahamadinejad has endoresed Obama!
If Iran endorses Obama, then the rest of America should!
Posted by: Tim | May 29, 2008, 9:52 am 9:52 am
‘whatever’, unconditionally means without ANY conditions, not just ‘without preconditions’. Meeting someone without preconditions does NOT mean meeting someone without ANY conditions.
To return to Jake’s example, the US might refuse to meet Iran unless they suspend their uranium enriching program. That would be a precondition. It has to have already been done before any meeting takes place.
Or, the US might agree to meet Iran if Iran is willing to discuss suspending their uranium enriching program. That would be a condition. The meeting will take place provided that is part of it.
The second scenario there is without preconditions, but it is not unconditional. See the difference?
Posted by: Aengil | May 29, 2008, 9:54 am 9:54 am
Colin
I am from India and let me teach you American History.
JFK met Khrushchev without precondition and you know what we got, Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was a disaster in “Bay of Pigs” and Vietnam, Etc.
Posted by: Tony | May 29, 2008, 9:56 am 9:56 am
Obama Fighting Against His Own Useless WORDS.
Always has to quote JFK to get himself out of troubles ————— > HIS OWN WORDS GET HIM INTO.
Posted by: carpenter.nyc | May 29, 2008, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Aengil – you are the problem with politics in America today. He said what he said and he meant what he said and now he is changing what he said because he realized how dumb it was. At least he can learn… question is do we need a “President in training” at this time or do we need someone who can lead from day one.
Posted by: Chipo | May 29, 2008, 10:00 am 10:00 am
I guess McCain and his team went through Obama’s past comments before he accuse Obama of more or less a traitor. Obama and his team did not do their homework. So will America be safer under a leader who’s more meticulous about details than the other?
Mmmmmmmm…I wonder.
Posted by: scorpionet | May 29, 2008, 10:04 am 10:04 am
No one will ever understand this man because he changes his remarks and stands with the wind.
“UNSUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTS over time have shown they are not as straightforward, tend to be complicated to understand, lack order and artistic or visual concepts”.
Posted by: Anne | May 29, 2008, 10:05 am 10:05 am
If WBush had used the cowboy diplomacy during the past 8 years, McCain will be using the boots diplomacy because he only knows war since his captivity in Vietnam. Hill the Bosnian General is not ready on day way to do anything useful for America. Please, look at the management of her campaign it tells a lot about her ability to manage a country. Is she really ready as she claims on day one? Give me a break. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | May 29, 2008, 10:09 am 10:09 am
Aengil:Obama clearly believes that it’s more effective to use a presidential-level meeting to achieve goals…. than it is to try to use the promise of a presidential-level meeting as a bargaining chip. I agree with him personally.
Posted by: MayBee | May 29, 2008, 10:17 am 10:17 am
Ok,Hillary supporters. Here is your choice to Obama. A man who cannot even pronouce, Ahamadinejad.
Yeeezzzzzz, get real!
Posted by: truthtell | May 29, 2008, 10:20 am 10:20 am
I think he should just stick to this point: “we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate”.
I can in no way imagine John McCain or Hillary Clinton negotiating with our enemies as Reagan, Nixon & JFK did. We’ve already seen what 8 years of isolation will give us. I’m so sick of the fear tactics of the last 8 years and both Clinton & McCain have used these same tactics to score points in this campaign.
Posted by: Cindy | May 29, 2008, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Obama clearly doesn’t know what he believes. His puppeteers pull his strings to try to keep his shifting positions seem coherent. Fortunately, for intelligent people, it is what it is — superficial and intolerable.
The man has no character whatsoever.
Posted by: Soetoro No! | May 29, 2008, 10:35 am 10:35 am
jmc663…It doesn’t matter what he is. I’d like an answer, unless he/she is afraid?
Posted by: newera | May 29, 2008, 10:39 am 10:39 am
I would rather have leaders who are willing to talk rather than ignore a problem until we have to bomb them.
While I don’t think answer is as clear as I would like, I don’t see a great change in the positions. Obama certainly did not mean that he would without notice and preparation, take the next Airforce One flight to Iran. Hope in a couple of cabs with his secret service agents and knock on somebodies door to say “Hey!”
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | May 29, 2008, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Islandgirl…as mad as I am win HRC I will still vote for her. We need the Dems in power….Please re-consider.
Posted by: cindyct | May 29, 2008, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Cindy…I see great minds think on the same line…GOOD RESPONSE
Posted by: cindyct | May 29, 2008, 10:42 am 10:42 am
I do not think Obama owes anyone an explanation here. If he gives one, it’s only in trying to finetune his views. You cannot take an impromptu given in answer to an ill-frameed debate question and call it his gospel. It’s a pity that he should need to come back and exlain to bone-head observers like the author of this ridiculous column how he would not meet, if he thought it would be counterproductive.
Posted by: TK | May 29, 2008, 10:44 am 10:44 am
cindyct
To late to reconsider. The deal is done and the liberal insiders have decided. Your vote really never mattered anyway. Now, it’s time to get over it and go to plan B.
Posted by: S | May 29, 2008, 10:45 am 10:45 am
newthought
You might want to consider talking about real issues instead of engaging in character assignations. Just a thought.
Posted by: T | May 29, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am
newera,
Who are you talking about? geevil or Obama?
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am
With each day, Obama proves again and again how woefully ill-prepared he is to lead this nation. I oppose him with an intensity that I have solely reserved for Republicans in the past. And he’s pulling the entire Democratic party down with him – I’m looking at all of them with new eyes and wondering what the attraction ever was. He was right about one thing – he’s a uniter. He’s uniting me and millions of others with the Republican party.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 29, 2008, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Obama lies again. How surprising!
Posted by: Soetoro No! | May 29, 2008, 10:49 am 10:49 am
Bye Bye Hoosier Sue. Indiana is a red state so we do not need you. Buh Bye.
Posted by: Hip Hop Anonymous | May 29, 2008, 10:50 am 10:50 am
hoosiersue,
You are NO Dem and that is sooo obvious in all your posts, so stop, you are not fooling anyone.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 10:50 am 10:50 am
Can you imagine the press this would get if were something either Clinton or McCain had made these statements and then tried to deny ever saying them? It would be front page news. I am truly amazed at the number of people who allow the media to determine their choice for President. This election is a disgrace and so are the media pundits pushing one candidate as the beat all to end all.
Posted by: mhhunt | May 29, 2008, 10:51 am 10:51 am
I am a registered Democrat who will vote for a Democrat in the fall. Specifically, Obama. Any truthful Democrat would.
Anyone find the irony in Hillary’s latest campaign ad pledging to bring fiscal discipline, yet she has run her campaign into debt? Proves she would be a failure of a President.
Posted by: Hip Hop Anonymous | May 29, 2008, 10:55 am 10:55 am
“willingness”
is the key
not absolute…but “willingness”
he is not changing his statement.
Posted by: dl | May 29, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am
Re: Indiana being a red state
I thought part of the Obama magic was the ability to turn red states blue… or sweep us all up into one big happy purple nation… good luck with that Obamabots. The entire country will be red come November should the Dems be stupid enough to push Obama forward as the nominee.
Of course, should they be smart enough to nominate Hillary, I’ll gladly vote for her in November.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 29, 2008, 10:58 am 10:58 am
Bye Bye Sue. You will not be missed.
Posted by: Hip Hop Anonymous | May 29, 2008, 11:02 am 11:02 am
JMC663…you are so right!!!
Posted by: cindyct | May 29, 2008, 11:03 am 11:03 am
Chipo: “Aengil – you are the problem with politics in America today.”
Because I comprehend English? Let me make this simple: what he is saying now DOESN’T contradict what he said before. It might contradict with what you THINK he said before though – but that would be a problem at your end, not his.
You’re taking your own dumb misinterpretation of what he originally said, insisting it’s true, and using it as an attack.
I’m not the problem with politics in America today, but you know what? You’re a damn good example of what is.
Posted by: Aengil | May 29, 2008, 11:03 am 11:03 am
geevil and Hoosier sue
it’s great that the too of you want to switch from a candidate like Clinton and her platform to McCain
but the same things were threatened by people with Bill Clinton in 92
(look it up), that people would defect because they hated Bill Clinton…and in similar numbers…
most dems supporting Hillary are actually fighting for the issues and the Americans who are effected by the war the economy, healthcare, the housing crisis, decisions by the supreme court…
they will not vote for McCain because they are stomping their feet that the person they wanted and had allied themselves with had lost the nomination…and history has proven that over and over and over.
so go ahead if you are of the very few (and if you got out of the house you would find their are very few) that will end up voting that way…
because most voters are over 18 and need help with the issues and want to save the country… not continue on the road we are on.
Posted by: dl | May 29, 2008, 11:04 am 11:04 am
Geevil claims McCain is the best available candidate over Obama. You are no Democrat then. So keep supporting the failed policies of George Bush. You deserve it.
Posted by: Hip Hop Anonymous | May 29, 2008, 11:04 am 11:04 am
geevil…then not only you ,but the rest of the country will supper if McCain gets in…
You never answered my questions
Posted by: cindyct | May 29, 2008, 11:05 am 11:05 am
geevil…then not only you ,but the rest of the country will suffer if McCain gets in…
You never answered my questions
Posted by: cindyct | May 29, 2008, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Hip Hop…I agree
Posted by: newera | May 29, 2008, 11:08 am 11:08 am
jmc663
Did the “Messiah Obama” appoint you God to judge any Democrat who won’t vote for Obama in November as a “Republican” or bad Democrat? Add me to your list. I’m a Black Democrat who will be voting for McCain also if Hillary is not the Dem candidate. I’m not going to entrust our great country into the hands of this “hurry-come-up” who doesn’t even know how many states we have in this union. His wife is a real piece of work also, and I certainly wouldn’t be proud to see her as our First Lady.
Hillary or McCain in 2008!!! NOBAMA
Posted by: Get Real | May 29, 2008, 11:09 am 11:09 am
one more time…the question was …was he “willing” to meet with them…
and if you can’t separate willing from the idea that he will always… then you shouldn’t be voting…
this is the problem… these stupid tactics of changing the meaning of the english language.
WILLINGNESS… willing does not mean “absolutely will do”
He has not changed his statement AT ALL.
why can’t people see the words in front of their face.
Posted by: dl | May 29, 2008, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Dem…he is wearing it because ,in April, a disabled veteran gave him one and asked that he wear it. He did this out of respect. That is something Hillary knows nothing about..
Posted by: newera | May 29, 2008, 11:10 am 11:10 am
get Real…so you will entrust our country to HRC, who wishes assasination on someone; or Mccain who wants to continue this war for another 10 years( I will NEVER surrender!)
Posted by: newthought | May 29, 2008, 11:13 am 11:13 am
That is something Hillary knows nothing about..
Posted by: newera | May 29, 2008 11:10:31 AM
******
Please don’t slam HRC like that. While she is not MY candidate, she still deserves respect and so do her supporters.
****I’ll get off my soapbox now, LOL!
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Get Real,
You are silly. Just plain silly. Obama slipped up when he said that. Guess what? He’s human, not a robot. HRC didn’t mean to imply anything when she made her RFK statement, to read something into that remark is silly too.
Vote McCain if you want, but I just think it is an incredibly disrespectful thing to do to a woman you apparently support.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 11:19 am 11:19 am
Fairly amazing. The Obama people say you can’t be a Democrat unless you promise to support *any* Democrat who is nominated. They apparently have a wish to purify the party by shrinking it down to the size of the Libertarians.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 29, 2008, 11:24 am 11:24 am
geevil,
Talking you your enemies is not appeasement, it’s smart foreign policy.
Bush’s policy of shoot first and ask questions NEVER has gotten us a pocket full of trouble in the world and McCain thinks that a great way to continue.
The Repub have done nothing but lie to us for the last 8 years and WE are the one’s DYING for it.
The FDA lets these friggin’ drug compaanies to put out medications that have not been fully tested and THEN we Americans start dropping dead, they take them off the market. WTH!
The GOA manipulates the numbers they put out on the economy so that we don’t get scared and keep spending.
And WHY!! Can anyone tell me WHY our economy depends on US spending OUR money. What is up with that?
Remeber when the US made things? I miss those days.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am
I am a 60 year old woman and I cheered when Hillary announced she was running. I was SO proud to see a woman finally run…but as the campaign moved forward I began to really doubt Hillarys motives. I was VERY sad. I know I am not voting for McCain definately and probabaly will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. We as females have waited so long for this, but I guess it is the right time but wrong person
Posted by: grandma | May 29, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am
It is clear that BO doesn’t have any position that he won’t regret. He is busy ducking, backpeddling and asking for forgiveness soon from MI and FL. He is not getting any of them right.
He has antagonised two very important states for life. He is so short-sighted that he is willing to get the nomination at all cost even the loss of general election. Both Al Gore, John Kerry has been underestimating the republicans and pay their dues. BO is not of president quality.
Posted by: John_Lai | May 29, 2008, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Fairly amazing. The Obama people say you can’t be a Democrat unless you promise to support *any* Democrat who is nominated. They apparently have a wish to purify the party by shrinking it down to the size of the Libertarians.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 29, 2008 11:24:00 AM
********
Sorry if it came out that way. It’s just that I still like HRC and want to see her in a Dem Cabinet position, like Secretary of State. I think she would be amazing, but she wont get that chance under John McCain.
I just want her supporters to keep her in the game, that’s all.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 11:33 am 11:33 am
John lai wrote:
He is busy ducking, backpeddling and asking for forgiveness soon from MI and FL.
*******
I’m from MI and trust me, he has nothing to sorry for. Our “Primary” was a farce and political ploy and everyone knew it.
No one in MI wants those votes to count for anything.
45% of Michiganders saw through it.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 11:42 am 11:42 am
It’s sad how some people choose to take a story and instead of comment on that, just go off on whatever they feel! This article is about how Obama has flip-flopped on his words and stances and how it just shows how he has no clue what to do when it comes to dealing with other countries! He is no better than the Washington politics he bashes and is one of the weakest candidates in election history. This election really has become a joke and no longer about the issues, which if people actually paid attention to them and the articles like these, people would see that this is not the right person.
Posted by: A | May 29, 2008, 11:43 am 11:43 am
a
he didn’t flip flop
“willingness” does not mean “absolutely will do”
to say it is …well is dumb.
he has been completely consistent on this…there is no daylight between these AT ALL.
but maybe you all didn’t actually read the statements.
Posted by: dl | May 29, 2008, 11:45 am 11:45 am
Obama owes no one an explanation here. If he gives one, it’s only in trying to fine-tune his views. You cannot take an impromptu given in answer to an ill-framed debate question and call it his absolute gospel. It’s a pity that he should need to come back and explain to bone-head observers, like the author of this ridiculous column, contrary to how that living cadaver and his desperate republican spin machine are trying tirelessly to characterize his position, how he would not meet, if he thought it would be counterproductive. It was a laugh to see McCain borrowing from JFK and trying to make him his foreign policy rock, but he forgets about JFK’s stand on this issue. (If you read something earlier that looked like this post, that was the impromptu, this here is a finer version…TK vs. TK?)
Posted by: TK | May 29, 2008, 11:50 am 11:50 am
Actually, I wouldn’t be so sure that McCain won’t offer a cabinet position to Clinton. For one thing, they’re friends who respect each other and have worked amiably together in the Senate. Secondly, it would be a nice “thank you” to her supporters who helped put him over the top to win the election in November.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 29, 2008, 11:53 am 11:53 am
west texas
“every single voter knew to vote for uncommitted meant to vote for Edwards of Obama”?
okay that is just simply bad to say something like that… because of an in house grass roots campaign? c’mon …most people just didn’t vote.
Many people were hoodwinked by the whole process.
so stop with the “every single voter knew” stuff..
that is not how an election is run…
Posted by: dl | May 29, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am
KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS HILLARY
It’s the pledged delegates that determine the winner in this election
No, I meant
It’s the Super delegates that chose our nominee
Well, you know I’ve ALWAYS said
It’s the popular vote that really matters
Oh, I meant to say it’s
It’s …uh…how about electability? Have I tried that one yet?
What, I’m still losing?
Well you know Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. Little help here.
What a loser!
Posted by: Quuen of changing stories | May 29, 2008, 11:57 am 11:57 am
West Texas,
Obama never put his name ON the ballot in the first place. The Secretary of States Office did that. He did take his name off, you are right.
Had Obama had the chance to campaign here he would have closed that margin significantly. He is very popular here.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 11:59 am 11:59 am
Obama was unknown in January when MI & FL voted. Clinton was virtually known by 100% of the people. With no campaigning being done, the elections were completely unfiar.
Posted by: MI & FL UNFAIR | May 29, 2008, 11:59 am 11:59 am
“I intend to campaign hard through February. As you know, it the DELEGATES who determine our nominee. I believe I will have the majority of pledged delegate by the end of the races in February”
-Hillary Clinton Dec ’07
“You don’t hear us whining about the press”
- Bill Clinton in PA ‘08
Posted by: Queen of changing stories | May 29, 2008, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
Secondly, it would be a nice “thank you” to her supporters who helped put him over the top to win the election in November.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 29, 2008 11:53:49 AM
*******
Thirdly, the GOP would shoot him on the White House lawn.
In case you haven’t noticed, the GOP HATES the Clinton’s and will do anything to CRUSH them.
Aint gonna happen.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
your posting buddy jmc663 posted this, dl:
“I’m from MI and trust me, he has nothing to sorry for. Our “Primary” was a farce and political ploy and everyone knew it.
No one in MI wants those votes to count for anything.”
45% of Michiganders saw through it.
what I wrote re Obama removing his name and the fact that Michiganers knew it came from Des Moines Register in October of 2007.
You explain it if you want to speak for
jmc663, what 45%? Who is lying your buddy or the Michigan results?(previous post below)
Contrary to jmc663′s statement 59.9% voted for candidates! approx.360,00 voters wanted their vote to count for candidates.
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
bad logic,
I see you’ve earned your name legitimately. Maybe I should have used the word “agreement” vs. belief. One cannot/should not be a member of a congregation whose basic teachings doesn’t synch with your beliefs. Wright’s philosophy has been consistent throughout the 20 years Obama was a member of Trinity. That would make Obama an “Idiot” in your terms if he sat there knowing that the basic premise of the church was against his beliefs.
Posted by: Get Real | May 29, 2008, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
West Texas:
What I meant was 45% DIDNT choose Clinton.
Sorry, didn’t mean to confuse.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Why was this post removed? Because it refutes the lies by the media and Obama supporters regarding “Hillary’s was the only name on the ballot?
Here are theMichigan Ballot Results
Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,309 55.2%
Uncommitted 238,168 40.1%
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,715 3.7%
Christopher J. Dodd 3,845 0.6%
Mike Gravel 2,361 0.4%
Delegates stripped by party.
Here is what happened in Michigan as reported in the Des Moines Register in October of 2007.
Obama’s internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line “Uncommitted” and to have that publicized.
John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the “uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that “uncommitted” received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
West Texas,
The DNC will give HRC 69 – Obama 59 delegates and seat half our delegation.
This is not going to help HRC. They will not give HRC ALL the delegates, like she wants.
BTW HRC wants to throw out the 238,000 people who voted “uncommited”.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
Kind of like the day Obama said “Iran is a tiny country that poses no threat”.
And the next day “Iran is a grave threat”.
Or when Obama said he would meet with Chavez, the next day he said we should isolate Chavez.
The DNC must literally cringe when Obama is off script. He almost daily shows what a weak candidate he is.
Hillary/McCain08
Posted by: cindy in nc | May 29, 2008, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
It’s ok, jmc663, we’re cool!
We just need to keep each other straight, LOL!
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
Now you are back-pedaling a bit jjc.
“Uncommitted” was not a candidate. And Obama did not choose to be one either, in the Mi. primary.
Who was uncommitted, Obama or Edwards?
How does uncommitted deserve any delegates, from a pragmatic, rational standpoint?
Normally when one forfeits a contest of any sort, they do not win anything.
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
Senator Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and does not think through his policies and agenda. He flip-flops and distorts. He is not presidential material and should go back to his corrupt Chicago political machine. The citizens there are still waiting for him to fulfill his promises made 12 years ago. All talk and no action is his resume. He is an inept politician.
Posted by: Mary | May 29, 2008, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
West Texas,
The MI DNC mailed out a Voter’s Guide to the 2008 Primary to all registered voters. They specifically stated to vote “Uncommited” for Biden, Edwards, Obama and Richardson. None of their names were on the ballot.
While it is impossible to tell the voters intent and who they were voting for, Biden and Richarson were not polling high here. Most likely the votes were between Edwards and Obama.
None of these guys forfeited MI, they can to an agreement last year to pull their names off the ballot to show support for the DNC sanctions. Clinton originally agreed, then changed her mind and allowed her name to remain. Dodd and that little guy who looks like an elf never pledged either way.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
Any fool can see that “preconditions” are not “preparations.” Any person can also see that preparations are needed for any level of diplomacy. Obama is no fool. This is a deliberate revision of his original statement, which was made in a cavalier, off-the-cuff manner. Now he is paying for his arrogance, and attempting to revise with more condescension to the public.
This is lawyerly, not-too-clever, obfuscation. See through it.
Posted by: Wade | May 29, 2008, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
Please present proof that HRC ever agredd to take her name off MI ballot, jjc.
She never even considered such and nowhere is it written that she did.
Please stick to facts.
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
West Texas,
The agreement was that the candidate would not:
“campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008.” The pledge excepts New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, states which were placed ahead of all others by the Democratic National Committee.”
“participate” the candidates took off their names to follow the RULES. But HRC used that as a legal loophole and let her name stay.
There was quite a dust up about it. While “legal”, it was sleazy. She played dirty politics, while the others were following the intent of the agreement.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
Now that he is the self-annointed heir apparent, he is changing his position. It’s as simple as that. He is conning the American people by pretending to be something he isn’t. His house of cards will come down before the general election.
Posted by: Susan | May 29, 2008, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
The next most important thing that needs to happen is if Hillary does not run as an independant is for Hillary supporters to vote for McCain. McCain may be a republican but he is a moderate republican and has shown that he has ethics. He will also make sure that our men and women in uniform are supported and will never let them down. We cannot have the liberal Obama who will make a mess of our country like GWB.
Posted by: Voter | May 29, 2008, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Has Obama had a single policy stand on anything that hasn’t changed his mind on?
Posted by: Just Curious | May 29, 2008, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
“he is changing his position”
No he isn’t. If you think that, you evidently don’t understand what his position actually was, and still is.
Posted by: Aengil | May 29, 2008, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
What I took out of those statements was this, He would be willing once he has the facts, to sit down without “demands” to try and find a peaceful solution, which actually makes sense, if you go into a situation as a “moderator” which is what he is suggesting, you cant go in saying I will moderate for you IF you do this and this and this, that takes you from the position of moderator to a dictator, we cannot dictate to these countries if we expect them to sit down and find a peaceful resolution.
Posted by: Common Sense | May 29, 2008, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
Has Obama lied again after his uncle’s liberation of the Jewish people?
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 29, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Obama doesn’t have a position and has no knowledge of foreign policy and just says what the Obamakins want to hear.
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 29, 2008, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
Through out Obama’s campaign he has many times reputed what he has said. He would state one thing and the statement caught by his campaign to be false, he states then that’s not what I meant. Can you just image , President of the United States repeating continuously , ‘that’s not what I meant’.
Posted by: jp,michigan | May 29, 2008, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
The problem with Obama is that he cannot admit to a mistake here. His inexperience in foreign policy led him to rashly promise to meet with raging dictators without preconditions.
Preconditions are conditions that must be satisfied before the meeting takes place. Obama is saying no preconditions are necessary. Those dictators get to meet with Obama without having to agree to any preconditions.
Prepare as much as you want, but the dictators worldwide now know that they does not have to agree to anything before getting a meeting with President Obama.
Posted by: Evie | May 29, 2008, 8:23 pm 8:23 pm
I “hope” they don’t know the truth because then I will have to “change ” my story again.
Posted by: unstoppable 08 | May 29, 2008, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
bho appears to have an “ad lib” candidacy. problem is he cannot remember what he “libbed.”
Posted by: pp | May 29, 2008, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
This guy will say anything to get out of what he ACTUALLY said in the beginning. He is a typical pol and the media should be catching on to that by now instead of thinking he is superman
Posted by: harley | May 30, 2008, 5:09 am 5:09 am
Evie, no, no, no.
“Preconditions are conditions that must be satisfied before the meeting takes place. Obama is saying no preconditions are necessary. Those dictators get to meet with Obama without having to agree to any preconditions.”
You’ve got that bit pretty much right.
“Prepare as much as you want, but the dictators worldwide now know that they does not have to agree to anything before getting a meeting with President Obama.”
And you’ve got that just plain wrong. They don’t have to meet any preconditions. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to agree to anything! Preconditions are not everything! They will certainly have to agree to certain conditions, and certain general conditions would have to be in place before a meeting took place.
Am I really the only person who understands the difference between preconditions and conditions?
Posted by: Aengil | May 30, 2008, 5:10 am 5:10 am
Actually I think this little bit of “foreign policy” was born in a debate where Obama actually had to answer the first question. Then he decided that he could sell the American people anything so he began to use it on his webpage as a great new idea in how to solve problesm with hostile nations.
Finally someone must have told Obama that if he meets without “preconditions” he has no negotiating power and he has given away the promise of a meeting with the prsident as leverage. That’s why he is trying to have it both ways.
In this campaign he has been able to get everything both ways. It’s OK to belong to a Black racist church but no one should use the word “White” in almost any context…
McCain would be a better president. Obama will change America…and some of us love this country in a way that is not “hyperbole” We would like to change America for the Bette…not something that the Obama campaign is capable of…this guy is a “star” not a change agent. I prefer Democracy to Marxism and
would like to see a candidate win instead of watch a movement sweep in with no plan and no real policies.
Obama is a “fly by night” kind of guy.Bush always flew at night….John McCain reminds me less of Bush than Obama does.
e
Posted by: Jackie | May 30, 2008, 6:06 am 6:06 am
“What I took out of those statements was this, He would be willing once he has the facts, to sit down without “demands” to try and find a peaceful solution, which actually makes sense, if you go into a situation as a “moderator” which is what he is suggesting, you cant go in saying I will moderate for you IF you do this and this and this, that takes you from the position of moderator to a dictator, we cannot dictate to these countries if we expect them to sit down and find a peaceful resolution.”
Huh?? Do you even know the defination of moderator? How the hell can we be moderators when the disputes are between us and other countries? LOL
Posted by: Joe | May 30, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am