Can anyone tell me the difference between Obama's and Hillary's stance on meeting with adversaries?

[Skip Intro]

I think, after Obama elaborated after the debate, that they are very much saying the same thing. Tell me where I'm wrong, with quotes from either or both if possible.

[SaveElmer]

1. His defenders don't know what position to take...

Half of them are defending his statement in the debate saying they see nothing with the PResident traveling to Havana with no precondition...

And half saying it was obvious he agreed with Hillary and his comments are being twisted...


In either case Obama bungled it...

Either he believes what he said in the debate (which I don't think btw), or he gave a very poor explanation of his position...

Something that would have killed him in a general election

[Tellurian]

40. Exactly Right!

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:

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.


For and in depth explanation of why Obama-Lite's answer is incorrect as well as an insight into how Obama-Lite would react to criticism, grab a coffee and go here: http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=176#comments

[lojasmo]

55. He would meet. She would not.

I'm not going to provide quotes, as they are both on public record. Essentially, Clinton is taking the same tack the Bush administration has (and to a lesser extent, Clinton before him)

[guidod]

62. Wells aid, and I agree...

[Placebo]

67. Bingo.

[Lucinda]

2. I think he probably (under advisement) would do exactly what

Clinton said her postiton would be in the actual circumstances...but he wanted to appear magnanamous and open, and stress that he wouldnt "not" talk to people, so he said what he said. And it appeared naive. And now they are scrambling a bit.

Thats my take anyway...

[jenmito]

5. I disagree...

Today his spokesman said he WOULD speak to these dictators, and they may not like what he has to say, but it's better to talk to them than NOT talk to them unless certain circumstances are met.1

[Lucinda]

9. Regardless what they say

I believe that he wouldnt go into direct talks with them in his first year....perhaps he'll get the chance to prove me wrong...

[Cosmocat]

53. Frankly, Hill is beating him up ...

on a non issue ...

I think Obama answered the question that was asked of him, then Hill attacked him for answering a slightly different question, and the MSM, under orders to support Hill against democratic candidates, has played into it ...

[mikelgb]

3. Hillary would wait longer

[jenmito]

4. I don't have a link, but today Hillary's spokesman, Wolfson(?) said

paraphrasing, "Hillary won't promise to meet with a Holocaust Denier." She's now sounding more like this admin. by using those lines to say maybe people she doesn't agree with don't deserve to be met with. Just my impression. And I noticed all the RWers agreed with Hillary on this. I don't think that's a good thing.

[jefferson_dem]

15. And Wolfson also rolled out the Hugo ooga booga man...

I'm sure that's sitting really well in freeperville right now.

[jenmito]

20. Yup. The guy who wrote the nice book about Cheney was all for Hillary.

I forget his name,Steven Hayes?, but he's wayyy convservative. I bet Lieberman loves her position, too. There should be a commercial made with Wolfson saying these things then showing the RW praise.

[jefferson_dem]

16. Self delete. Sorry.

Hiccup.

[TeamJordan23]

21. Great, HRC's camp sounds exactly like Bush/Cheney. nm

[jenmito]

28. Exactly. Obama's right when he said that. n/t

[Clintonista2]

61. Your logic is SO flawed

"And I noticed all the RWers agreed with Hillary on this. I don't think that's a good thing."

I've noticed all the RWers hate Hillary, therefore you must be a RWer if you hate Hillary.

[Mass]

6. I did not hear what he said after the debate, but I did not like what Hillary said,

She would consider foreign leaders like Castro and Chavez as hostile to the US when it is the US that have been hostile to them from the beginning.

It is time to elect a president that understands that other countries' leaders have to defend their country's interests and not the US, and that this does not necessarily make them ennemy of the US, that sometimes sitting at a table and speak may help find compromises that will help both countries, and that sometimes, this means talking at the highest level.

Bashing Castro and Chavez as she did is just propaganda for her electoral interests or pure hegemonial policy, one or the other. None of these attitudes is something I expect to lead a different foreign policy.

[dugggy]

36. Are you saying Castro has elevated Cuba to the top tier

of countries in the America's? Cuba is one of the poorest
countries with millions of Cubans have either fled or are
trying to flee in small boats. WOW! Castro really looked
after the interest of Cubans.

As for the other dictator, Chavez, give him time. Just
examine Venezuela in 10 to 15 years. Chavez can run but
he can't hide.

[Mass]

66. Except the US and Canada, certainly.

And the worse is that, whatever difficulties Cuba has, the US are partly responsible by refusing to dialogue and trade with Cuba.

As for people fleeing the country, are we refusing to speak with Mexican leaders? South American leaders? Please!!

The rest of the world is speaking to Cuba and Venezuela. Does it mean we need to ignore the rest of the world as well. The policy as defined by Hillary is business as usual. No thank you. I would prefer somebody who do not think the US is alone of the planet.

[journalist3072]

7. Yes, I will tell you. And I will do so completely from a policy perspective

Sen. Obama basically said the other night that he would meet with the leaders of certain rogue nations (i.e. North Korean) without any pre-conditions.

When the question came to Sen. Clinton, she said she would not promise to meet with certain regimes within the first year of her administration, without first knowning the purpose and the way forward. She expressed that she would not want the POTUS to be used for propaganda purposes, and so before conducting such a high-level meeting, she would likely send an envoy first, in order to test the waters.

[Skip Intro]

8. That is what was said at the debates. Yes, that's what I heard. But after Obama's clarification,

is there still a difference between them?


I agree that there must be something to be said for getting the answer right the first time. I just keep imagining the general election debates...and I'm really starting to lean toward Hillary...

[Ethelk2044]

10. The Problem she personally attacked him. She should not have done that.

She called him Naive and expected him to take it. He started pointing out her faults now she can not take it. You want to say something about a person's policy fine. You do not personally attack someone the way she did.

[Lucinda]

11. She felt it WAS naive and that

seems like a perfectly appropriate thing for any of the candidates to point out about another

[journalist3072]

13. Exactly! It was not a personal attack.

She was simply pointing out his foreign policy inexperience, a perfectly legitimate point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Fuck "foreign policy experience".

It's called treating people as people. He has been a real elected official for far longer than she. He knows that the way to get people to talk is to talk to them. Not demean them. Not set preconditions. Just sit down and talk. It is unconscionable that she should call ANY of the candidates 'naive'. They are all smart, experienced, highly competent persons - how could it be seen as anything but a personal attack?

[Ethelk2044]

27. No. Attack his policy not personal. That is why she is paying the price with

the media. You never have to lower yourself to personal attacks the way she did. That is really childish.

[journalist3072]

12. Yes, I believe there is a difference

I don't want to come across as attacking Sen. Obama, but I honestly believe, from a policy perspective, that his answer showed how inexperienced he is in matters of foreign policy.

I believe that Hillary's point about sending an envoy first, before conducting such a high-level meeting, was very wise.

But yes, I believe there is a difference.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Let me put it in simple words for you.

He said he'd talk.
She said she would not talk.

See any difference in the positions?

[Skip Intro]

19. PLEASE - show me where she said she would not talk. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. She was waffling about it - first said that she wouldn't promise to

engage them without knowing the conditions, afraid they'd use it for propaganda purposes, but then, finally she answered directly "so you're saying you'd not talk to them?" and she said "not in the first year, no."

Doesn't get much plainer than that.

Poor woman was terrified about how to answer a question without a poll to consult.

[Skip Intro]

29. Here's the transcript - what you quote is not there. Its just not. She didn't say she wouldn't meet

with them period, she just refused to meet with every one of them during her first year. That is the correct response, imho. She souds like she knows what she's talking about, and she did not say what you said she said. She did not refuse to meet with them. Read the transcript:


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?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: 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.

(APPLAUSE)

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.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.

QUESTION: I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.

COOPER: Senator Clinton?

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.

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. That's really weird - I distinctly remember what I quoted, virtually

word for word - must have been from the nightmare I had that night...

Nevertheless:
------
CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. ... I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse.
------

I had about a two page post here, but I've been to sick and tired to be really coherent, so instead I simply ask

What the hell is she afraid of? If she was in that position (which I sincerely doubt can happen) she'd be the fucking president of the united states - how could Kim possibly use her for propaganda purposes?

[Skip Intro]

37. Sorry, hope you're feeling better soon.

I don't know, I've kinda worn my mind out on this one tonight. I think maybe watching the debate again would be a good idea for all concerned.

I'm still undecided.


bleh, I can't talk about it anymore tonight.


Get well.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

30. ????

You need to go back an watch the debate again. Your description is not at all how it happened.

She said right off " No, I would not PROMISE to meet with leaders from rogue countries in my first year" I would send envoys and test the waters before a meeting at that high a level took place.

She actually never said she would not meet with anyone the first years. She said she would not PROMISE to meet anyone within the first year. There is a BIG difference. It really wasn't that hard to understand the first time. Did you guys actually watch the debate?????

[Lucinda]

38. Yup...I see a lot of people hearing what they want to hear and twisting

words all over the boards...and its unfortunate. I'd really like to be able to assess the candidates, with the help of DU, but all the infighting makes it tough.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Hillary doesn't know what her position is, other than that of criticizer-in-chief.

She criticizes BushCo in April for not using enough diplomacy.

She criticizes Obama this week for urging more diplomacy.

Either she believes what she said in April or she believes what she said this week ... or she simply takes whatever position will serve her political interests of the moment. In light of the "bush lite" charge, which obviously stings, I suspect she'll meander back leftward.

[Boojatta]

17. Maybe...

1. Hillary is willing to talk by telephone, but not be in the same room as the people she will be talking with.

2. Hillary has a pre-condition: the meeting must not be under water. Obama says there will be no pre-conditions, so obviously he is willing to bring his own scuba-diving equipment.

[Zenlitened]

23. A. Hillary was mean to me at recess, and 2. Obama wouldn't let me sit with him at lunch.

Democrats are such meanies!!! :cry: :cry: :cry:

[polichick]

25. I think she just saw it as an opportunity to show experience...

In fact, I doubt they would proceed very differently ~ although Obama might be more likely to reach out to Palestinians, which I see as a good thing. imo Carter has it right about that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. What experience?

A 1.3 term senator. Sorry, but First Lady does not count.

Of the three 'front runners' the most experienced is Obama - they're roughly equal in the senate but he had several years in state government before moving to the senate.

Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich all have considerably more experience than any of the top three. Gravel had as much experience as them 30 years ago.

(Hell. I'm tired. I'm missing someone. And can't for the life of me come up with who. I'd better go to bed.)

[polichick]

39. I guess she was trying to show that she'd be in the WH...

...and knows how things work. I'm not saying she has more experience, but that seemed to be her tactic.

imo Richardson has more experience than the top three put together.

[polichick]

42. oops, I meant "to show that she'd BEEN in the WH" nt

[Middle finga]

26. Who started this "I don't talk to my adversaries" bullshit

didn't we talk to the Soviets throughout the cold war. How are you going to be the leader of the Free World and not engage nations that disagree with you, that's strictly a Bush policy and the reason he adopted that policy is because he want war. Let me get this straight, you won't talk to Chavez but we will continue doing business with him, if you have that much pride, cut off all business ties including oil imports.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Here's a video compilation of the issue - - - >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x43667

[killbotfactory]

32. Here is a brief rundown.

They were all asked if they were "willing" to meet with dictators and evilboogeymanheadsofstatedejour within the first year of the presidency without preconditions. I took preconditions to mean things like Bush does to other nations, "stop doing that thing we don't like and i'll meet you" type of thing, which is an arrogant position to take when it comes to diplomacy.

Obama replied with basically an unequivocal yes, and that not meeting with your enemies is foolish.

Clinton said she would not "promise" to meet with our enemies within a year, and there would have to be preconditions. Changing the question, since being "willing" to meet with someone is not the same as "promising" to meet them, and changing her previous position slightly (she previously did not mention anything about preconditions, but that she would meet with our enemies). Then she used the opening she created to attack Obama's experience ("don't want to be used for propaganda" etc). Later calling his position "naive and irresponsible".

I don't know why Clinton considers being willing to meet with an enemy leader within a year a bad thing, but it sure as hell doesn't mean Obama is going to promise to meet with an enemy leader under any circumstances whatsoever, like she implied.

Now Obama is hitting back, calling the Iraq war "naive and irresponsible" and reaffirming his original stance.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

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

[wyldwolf]

41. It's becoming the norm with Obama to make a foreign policy gaffe in a debate...

... then either backtrack or justify it - sometimes to ridiculous ends like we see now. I find it interesting that for the last several months, supporters of Obama have bragged about his appeal to Republicans yet every GOPer I know says 1., his stated stance on this issue is dangerous and, 2., him saying Hillary's foreign policy is like that of Bush is absurd.

[Tellurian]

43. I agree, Obama's stance is dangerous..

I can just see Jong and Castro licking their chops with the thoughts of taking the 'babe in the woods' to school.

[polichick]

45. You don't really think Obama meant that...

...he'd personally invite them over to watch a game or something, do you? I don't see him as a babe in the woods, but I do think he'd be more open to communicating with certain leaders.

[Tellurian]

46. Well, yeah, I do..

Calling Castro, Jong, etc...(I quote his words as) "folks" in the debate asking whether Obama would be willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Obama-lite doesn't seem to have a clue with whom he's dealing with. After every debate we're covering for Obama-lite's mistakes.

Here are the two examples of his inexperience when answering presidential related questions:

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:

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.

[polichick]

49. I don't see Obama as inept at all...

He just talks in plain language instead of weighing everything he says a dozen different ways. Any of our candidates would bring a wonderful change to the White House.

[Tellurian]

50. I know...we're all just "folks" to him..

I can't take him seriously. he missed a very important vote on National Security today..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3407663

[beastieboy]

51. It's clear that Hillary is right on this one.

The more this stays out there the worse he looks. 1. So much for the politics of hope. 2. He either agrees with Clinton and is fighting out of spite, or he disagrees and is wrong.

[OHdem10]

54. What you are saying---There is to be no change in

Foreign Policy. No Hope for Change.

The Establishment as always wins. What is new??

The Neocons and Conservatives rule and any of our candidates
had better toe the establishment line. I of course stated
this months ago as I lost enthusiasm for this election.

[beastieboy]

56. No, it needs to change, but you still need to be smart about it.

Diplomacy is more than just throwing the door open to anyone.

[jenmito]

57. If Hillary won't commit to meeting with them,

isn't that the same attitude as Bush? Why does her spokesman keep saying, since yesterday, that you don't commit to meeting with a Holocaust denier? Obama WILL because as he said, meeting with them doesn't mean agreeing with them. What's the problem with "throwing the door open" to meetings?

[beastieboy]

60. Obama has flipflopped on the spin about this whole topic

On debate night, his staff was saying that Hillary was trying to make it seem like their policies were different.

But after the debate, speaking to reporters in the spin room, Axelrod claimed Obama didn’t mean any such meetings would actually take place.

“He said that he would be willing to talk,” Axelrod explained. “And what he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders.”

Axelrod said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took sharp issue with Obama on the question, was “trying to make a distinction without a difference.” If Axelrod seemed a bit sensitive about the issue, it was because Clinton, when she was asked about meeting Ahmadinejad, et al, showed a much firmer grasp of what a president should and should not do when dealing with rogue states.

Now he is acting as though there is a policy difference. Which is it? My theory is he knows he needs to make a move in the polls and attacking Hillary is the only way.

[jenmito]

65. No he didn't. HE'S still saying the same thing...

Axelrod messed up IMO...and now is back to stating what Obama originally said and is still saying.

[Mass]

68. Actually, he should have stood his ground in both cases and explain why he is right.

In each of his debates, Hillary shows how hawkish she is. She would not speak to elected leaders, would not withdraw the troops quickly, and still does not understand why her vote was wrong.

I was still not decided, but she made the decision for me:

for a different foreign policy
Yes to Obama

[OHdem10]

44. No matter how you slice or dice it

Hilary represents the Established Foreign Policy.
Starting with Senior or Daddy Bush, America is a premier
World Power. The rest of the world looks to America to
solve problems, fight their wars(sarcasm) ie, Kosovo,etc. As the only
Super Power, we do not talk to Bad Guys. If we talk to
them, sit down with them it is belief of the Elites and
Establishment that we are saying they(bad guys) are our
moral equivalents. If we sit with them, we are giving them
respect. In this model, A President can never talk to
the leaders like Ahmadinojad, Chaves, Castro.
Furthermore,We have special interests groups examples; Fla Cuban
Lobby and Jewish Groups who command loyalty to their interests.

This is part of the Basis for Hilary's stand.


Obama and a lot of American people desire change. Some of
us see the Quagmire in Iraq the direct result of this
Emperiral attitude. Even the Baker Commission proposed
we be engaging Syria and Iran. So far the Establishment
holds. If I understand Obamas position--he is for much
more dialogue, inclusion .

Bush (Establishment) will say he will engage with Iran if
they do this that and the other thing. Iran feels stronly
they are a soverein nation and their biggest desire is
respect. Bush cannot talk. Iran will talk only if no
pre-conditions. WE GET NOWHERE. Just keep a boogey man
out there.

I think it takes real courage to talk. You can be firm
but help them to realize how much more they have to gain
by conforming and coming into the world community as opposed
to being considered a roque nation.
They NEED ASSURANCE that we are not going to pull a regime
change on their country. Bush designated them as part of
the Axis of Evil. It is not unreasonable for them to believe
they are the next target of war by the US. Unless, of course
we do plan war with them?????

All these years the Establishment Position holds. This is
how I see a difference in OBAMA and HRC Position on FP.

[OHdem10]

47. Lest, I be misunderstood---

Kosavo was a good war. America did a good thing
stopping the genocide. I have never really
fully understood why it was left up to us .
Countries surround Kosavo, yet the US had
to stop the Genocide.

Each country in the Middle East has armies.
Yet it was the US who had to go in and rescue
Kuwait from Sadam Hussein.

[Tellurian]

48. Nice try at Triangulation

The facts of the matter are on tape and in transcripts... For your personal perview..

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:

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.

[jenmito]

52. In WOLFSON'S words, Hillary WOULDN'T commit to meeting with those leaders

Howard Wolfson said, "...This is the kind of answer that voters are looking for in a president, somebody who understands that we need to break from Bush-style cowboy diplomacy, but that you don‘t commit ahead of time to meeting with Castro and Chavez and the president of Iran, who is a Holocaust denier. That is not the right way to keep America safe. It is not the right way to practice smart diplomacy."

In the same discussion he said, "I didn‘t say don‘t meet with him. I said don‘t commit to meet with them."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19997331/


It looks like Clinton leans more towards Bush's way of doing things. Otherwise, why keep pointing out that Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier? Obama knows Ahmadinejad's position and HIS point is you don't NOT commit to meeting with your enemies. I think he's right. You SHOULD deal (and commit to deal with) your enemies.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the neocons and RWers all agree with Hilary?

[Major Hogwash]

58. "Bomb 'em first" Hillary vs "let's talk" Obama.

In a nutshell.

A better question to ask would be "what is the difference between what Hillary has said about meeting with adversaries and what George 'the fucking MORAN' Bush has said?"

[jenmito]

59. Exactly...

And Chris Matthews DID ask what the difference is and Wolfson claimed the difference is Hillary wouldn't COMMIT to meeting with these leaders but would have "vigorous diplomacy." Big deal. Bush is now claiming pretty much to do the same thing.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. I agree with you. nt

[sampsonblk]

64. Yep, almost identical

Any difference is so slight that its not worth discussing.

But this is a campaign. they will both milk it until they feel the value is lost. Poor Edwards.