Political Punch

"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

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

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?

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

bho appears to have an "ad lib" candidacy. problem is he cannot remember what he "libbed."

I "hope" they don't know the truth because then I will have to "change " my story again.

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.

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'.

Obama doesn't have a position and has no knowledge of foreign policy and just says what the Obamakins want to hear.

Has Obama lied again after his uncle's liberation of the Jewish people?

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.

"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.

Has Obama had a single policy stand on anything that hasn't changed his mind on?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's ok, jmc663, we're cool!

We just need to keep each other straight, LOL!

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

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".

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).

West Texas:

What I meant was 45% DIDNT choose Clinton.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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!

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...

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.

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!)

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..

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.

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

Hip Hop...I agree

geevil...then not only you ,but the rest of the country will suffer if McCain gets in...

You never answered my questions

geevil...then not only you ,but the rest of the country will supper if McCain gets in...

You never answered my questions

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.

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.

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.

JMC663...you are so right!!!

Bye Bye Sue. You will not be missed.

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.

"willingness"

is the key

not absolute...but "willingness"

he is not changing his statement.

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.

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.

hoosiersue,

You are NO Dem and that is sooo obvious in all your posts, so stop, you are not fooling anyone.

Bye Bye Hoosier Sue. Indiana is a red state so we do not need you. Buh Bye.

Obama lies again. How surprising!

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.

newera,

Who are you talking about? geevil or Obama?

newthought

You might want to consider talking about real issues instead of engaging in character assignations. Just a thought.

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.

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.

Cindy...I see great minds think on the same line...GOOD RESPONSE

Islandgirl...as mad as I am win HRC I will still vote for her. We need the Dems in power....Please re-consider.

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!"

jmc663...It doesn't matter what he is. I'd like an answer, unless he/she is afraid?

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.

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.

Ok,Hillary supporters. Here is your choice to Obama. A man who cannot even pronouce, Ahamadinejad.

Yeeezzzzzz, get real!

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.

-----

Yesterday, Obama stated he would start with low level talks, as Jake made clear in this piece:
"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."
----

As you can see, he doesn't *clearly* believe in presidential-level talks. You are agreeing with something he is walking back from.

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.

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".

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.

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.