RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama v Obama?
May 29, 2008 9:06 AM
In 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
May 29, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (108)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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 12:33:45 PM
It's ok, jmc663, we're cool!
We just need to keep each other straight, LOL!
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008 12:26:18 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 12:25:26 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 12:24:43 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 12:21:36 PM
West Texas:
What I meant was 45% DIDNT choose Clinton.
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008 12:21:24 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 12:08:57 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 12:08:05 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 12:02:00 PM
"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 12:01:33 PM
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 11:59:56 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 11:59:14 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 11:57:41 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 11:56:24 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 11:53:49 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 11:50:06 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 11:45:53 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 11:43:03 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 11:42:56 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 11:33:48 AM
Post a comment
