USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[melliedee]

But is she going back on her previous stance?

"That is a change from what she said in April, the Obama campaign insisted in a memo it circulated to reporters entitled, "Obama wins debate and commander-in-chief test."
The memo included a comment from Clinton in April when she said, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."
"She reversed herself last night, disagreeing with Senator Obama's assertion that we should use every tool at the president's disposal to address problems before they become threats," the Obama memo said.
The Clinton campaign begged to differ, organizing a conference call for reporters with Madeleine Albright, who was secretary of state for President Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband.
"I would never have gotten out of the debate last night that there was any change in position," Albright said."

Clinton, Obama exchange dueling post-debate memos - Yahoo! News

[kirbyfan]

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

But is she going back on her previous stance?

No.

[roni]

Have the Republicans decided who they plan to turn to in order to try to stop the liberal philanderer, Rudy?

[melliedee]

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

At the debate, Clinton had said "we are not going to have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and the presidents of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."

Should we set up another 50 year embargo with these folks and see what happens?

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

At the debate, Clinton had said "we are not going to have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and the presidents of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."

Should we set up another 50 year embargo with these folks and see what happens?

That is silly. Bill Richardson was the diplomat who dealt the most with North Korea during the Clinton administration. A guy named, I think, Crocker is now.

Active diplomacy instead of pre-emptive wars is what you'll see under any new president, Democratic or Republican. None of them, including the rookie from Illinois will go meet with any of these guys until there is some substantive result of diplomatic work.

[melliedee]

[quote=roni;851058]That is silly. Bill Richardson was the diplomat who dealt the most with North Korea during the Clinton administration. A guy named, I think, Crocker is now.

Active diplomacy instead of pre-emptive wars is what you'll see under any new president, Democratic or Republican.None of them, including the rookie from Illinois will go meet with any of these guys until there is some substantive result of diplomatic work.[/quote]

I don't think that is what he was saying?

In a separate interview with the newspaper, Obama said: "What she's somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," he said.

[roni]

[quote=melliedee;851060]

Originally Posted by roni

That is silly. Bill Richardson was the diplomat who dealt the most with North Korea during the Clinton administration. A guy named, I think, Crocker is now.

Active diplomacy instead of pre-emptive wars is what you'll see under any new president, Democratic or Republican.None of them, including the rookie from Illinois will go meet with any of these guys until there is some substantive result of diplomatic work.[/quote]

I don't think that is what he was saying?

In a separate interview with the newspaper, Obama said: "What she's somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," he said.

He is getting a bit testy. I think he is bothered by those polls and is trying to get some traction by attacking Hillary - and implying she is Bush-Cheney lite probably hurt him more than it helped him.

[roni]

Clyburn (Congressman from South Carolina) says African-Americans could comprise more than 50 percent of voters in January's primary. A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll of South Carolina Democratic voters showed Clinton with a 14-point lead over Obama, with Edwards in third place. Among African-Americans, Clinton led Obama by 16 points and was considered to have better experience and a better chance of beating the Republican presidential nominee.

All of article here

[melliedee]

[quote=roni;851061]

Originally Posted by melliedee

He is getting a bit testy. I think he is bothered by those polls and is trying to get some traction by attacking Hillary - and implying she is Bush-Cheney lite probably hurt him more than it helped him.

Well, they better knock it off it they're going to be running mates!

One more, to clarify that I think he is really trying to distance his stance from the current administration and run on a platform of change. I also think the informality of the youtube set up allowed for more off the cuff responses?


"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so -- just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.

In a memo from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the campaign contended that Obama's comments played well with focus groups that watched the debate and "showed his willingness to lead and ask tough questions on matters of war."

Obama "offered a dramatic change from the Bush administration's eight-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available -- including diplomacy," said the memo.

Clinton, Obama camps clash over debate remarks -- baltimoresun.com

[roni]

[quote=melliedee;851064]

Originally Posted by roni

Well, they better knock it off it they're going to be running mates!

One more, to clarify that I think he is really trying to distance his stance from the current administration and run on a platform of change. I also think the informality of the youtube set up allowed for more off the cuff responses?


"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so -- just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.

In a memo from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the campaign contended that Obama's comments played well with focus groups that watched the debate and "showed his willingness to lead and ask tough questions on matters of war."

Obama "offered a dramatic change from the Bush administration's eight-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available -- including diplomacy," said the memo.

Clinton, Obama camps clash over debate remarks -- baltimoresun.com

They may be running mates .

To be fair, in both of those cases Nixon and Reagan's diplomats did a ton of work before the Presidents did their thing. The administration's diplomatic teams did the negotiating, the Presidents directed that negotiating in broad terms, and the Presidents then put their stamp of approval on the results.

But as long as Obama's comments play well with focus groups, I mean that is real leadership, right?

[PlayadelSoul]

Infighting alert!!!!

Obama screwed up. I thought, for sure, that he would come back the next morning and clarify his remarks. The fact that he is standing by them, scares the hell out of me. First, it plays right into the hands of those that question his "experience." Second, its just plain naive, if not stupid. Although it pains me, I have to agree with roni. Maybe the plan is to make Hillary seem more mainstream.

This issue goes directly to the split in the Democratic Party. The far left "idealists" see nothing wrong with sitting down for tea with the leader of a country that has threatened the US and her allies. The more moderate Democrats understand how naive this is and know exactly how this shows the weakness Democrats have on national security issues.

In any event, its fun to watch. Almost as fun as it will be watching all of the candidates kowtow to the Kos conventioneers. Going to have a field day with those film clips come election time.

[melliedee]

Well, I've been called worse names than an idealist.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Infighting alert!!!!

Obama screwed up. I thought, for sure, that he would come back the next morning and clarify his remarks. The fact that he is standing by them, scares the hell out of me. First, it plays right into the hands of those that question his "experience." Second, its just plain naive, if not stupid. Although it pains me, I have to agree with roni. Maybe the plan is to make Hillary seem more mainstream.

This issue goes directly to the split in the Democratic Party. The far left "idealists" see nothing wrong with sitting down for tea with the leader of a country that has threatened the US and her allies. The more moderate Democrats understand how naive this is and know exactly how this shows the weakness Democrats have on national security issues.

In any event, its fun to watch. Almost as fun as it will be watching all of the candidates kowtow to the Kos conventioneers. Going to have a field day with those film clips come election time.

I am delighted when I get to agree with you, seldom as that is, and Hillary is way mainstream and has been for decades. I would suggest that politically, those much to the right of her aren't very mainstream.

[Jacko]

No party is more energized than the Democrats in opposition to GW and the neo -conservatives...I have never seen it so in my lifetime...and trust me, I am real old! Mark (so to speak) my word...the conservatives are toast in the next election no matter who the Democrats run....