- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Before Spat, Obama Backed Conditions for Talks
Email
ShareJuly 27, 2007 8:04 PM
ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: It turns out that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was for pre-conditions before he was against them.
In a pre-debate interview with a columnist for the Miami Herald, Obama said that he would meet with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez but he stipulated that he would only do so "under certain conditions."
"Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking," Obama told the Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer. "Sometimes it’s more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends."
But once he reached the Democratic presidential debate, his position seemed to change.
Asked if he would be willing to meet separately "without precondition" during the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama said, "I would."
In the days since the debate, Obama has argued that Clinton’s foreign policy approach smacks of "Bush-Cheney lite" even though the position he is attacking Clinton for holding, seems to be one that he himself held in his pre-debate interview with the Miami Herald.
Read the Miami Herald column by Andres Oppenheimer here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/421/v-print/story/182541.html
UPDATE:
On a Saturday conference call with reporters arranged by the Clinton campaign, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack pointed to Obama's pre-debate interview with the Miami Herald in an effort to paint Obama's subsequent criticism of Clinton as inconsistent.
"It appears that the day before the Charleston debate, Sen. Obama is reported to have suggested that he would be glad to meet with a Hugo Chavez of Venezuela but only with certain preconditions being met, which is precisely what Sen. Clinton said during the debate," said Vilsack.
The Obama campaign pushed back against Vilsack, who is supporting Clinton, by pointing to a Jan. 23, 2007, Clinton interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
In her MSNBC interview, Clinton was asked if she would "reach out immediately" to the Syrians and the Iranians, "even with the tensions between this country and Iran." Clinton replied: "absolutely." Before ending her answer, she adds that what she "immediately" favors is opening a "diplomatic track".
The Clinton camp believes that when the New York senator commits to a "diplomatic track," or to "diplomatic negotiations," it is not the same thing as Obama agreeing to a presidential meeting.
Even though he was asked in the debate if he would meet with various rogue leaders "without preconditions," the Obama camp maintains that the Illinois Democrat would expect certain basic conditions to be met.
"He never said he would invite dictators over for a cup of coffee," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, "and he said he wouldn't let these dictators use him as a propaganda tool. What he did say was that he would be willing to meet with them."
July 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (17)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The democrats being disingenuous, being vague about what they actually believe. Telling each audience what they think it wants to hear. Playing word games and getting tripped up by trying to be too clever by half. I don't believe it. It's too far out of character. Of course it all depends on what the meaning of the word IS is.
Posted by: L. L. Brown | Jul 27, 2007 8:31:12 PM
Green, so very, very green...
Posted by: DeDe J | Jul 27, 2007 9:24:57 PM
Why is it you see this so often with Democrats? They'll say something awful or idiotic like Obama did, then turn around the next day and say "Oh, well you just misunderstood what I clearly said the other day, what I really meant was....(fill in blank with tortured spin)"
Whether its Obama, or Elizabeth Edwards and her tangerines, or Kerry with his botched joke, Dick Durbin calling the troops nazis and Gitmo a gulag, it keeps happening over and over again. They'll never stick by their initial statement that probably closely revals their true thoughts, which of course are appalling to the general public.
Posted by: Moonbat_One | Jul 27, 2007 11:31:34 PM
This is a NON-Story. The question in the debate was would he meet under no pre-conditions. His statement to the reporter was that he would meet under certain conditions. He did NOT say he would NOT meet with no pre-conditions. Another desperate attempt by the Hillary crowd.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 27, 2007 11:34:41 PM
Of course - "Obama has argued that Clinton’s foreign policy approach smacks of "Bush-Cheney lite" - The Clintons are Pole Watchers, and the one thing that poles well with Republicans is Bush's Foreign Policy practices. She would like to go into the election in 08' with some Republicans on her side in the electorate.
Mrs. Clinton will do whatever the poles tell her to do. It's all about her pole numbers in the end. Just like former Pres. Clinton.
That's the way I see it.
Posted by: Zakk | Jul 27, 2007 11:42:33 PM
I'm with you, Zack.
"The Clintons are Pole Watchers..."
"Mrs. Clinton will do whatever the poles tell her to do."
Scheming poles! I have my eye on them... and their pierogi, too!
Posted by: Me | Jul 28, 2007 2:26:15 AM
Under certain conditions and preconditions (as defined in the question) really aren't the same. Way to make a controversy out of a non-issue. This is why people distrust the media. Don't you realize this kind of crap is why people hate politics?
Posted by: Have you no shame? | Jul 28, 2007 5:16:46 AM
You completely misstate what he meant.
"Without precondition" means that they won't demand that the other side make a substantial concession, e.g. shutting down a nuclear reactor, before they'll consider direct negotiations.
Under certain conditions can mean just about anything from diplomatic advance work to the current state of relations between the countries.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | Jul 28, 2007 10:30:24 AM
Its because democrats have the ability to REPENT. We can change our minds. BIGOTS CAN'T.
Posted by: cliff jones | Jul 28, 2007 12:44:30 PM
Word games. Word games...
The second paragraph said, "he would only do so 'under certain conditions.'"
If he WOULD ONLY talk to them under certain conditions, why would he agree to talk without any "preconditions"??
Yes. Preconditions can mean a lot of different things. It's Obama's fault for not being clear at the debate.
He's clearly a rookie.
If he makes this kind of mistake during his talks, just imagine...
The guy can't think on his feet.
Posted by: Tyler Ann | Jul 28, 2007 3:17:40 PM
Obama repeatedly proves he is not ready for the national stage. He made a BIG political mistake in the debate the other day. Rather than understand that and shut up, he went on a pretty crazy 4 day tantrum. Imagine if he were President and acted out this way? Oh, wait. We don't need to imagine. We already have this sort of a bone head in the office. His name is George W. Bush. We don't need another.
Posted by: Los Angeles Democrat | Jul 28, 2007 3:38:18 PM
That's so true. The reason why this "NON-ISSUE" a story is also because Obama keeps it going...
Posted by: Tyler Ann | Jul 28, 2007 3:47:47 PM
Yes, he is VERY inexperienced...which is why he will not be elected president in 2008. Clinton is the only one with experience enough to end the war, bring the troops home safely, and reverse the quagmire America is in because of the bad international relations.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 28, 2007 6:43:14 PM
obama is not ready to lead our country.
Posted by: walker | Jul 28, 2007 8:13:15 PM
Clinton is not ready to be the president of the United States. She does not have the courage or the strength.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 28, 2007 8:40:55 PM
NO TO A OBAMA. NO TO A REAGAN LITE OBAMA. NO TO A FLIP FLOP OBAMA. NO TO A WHINY OBAMA. JUST PLAIN NO OBAMA.
Posted by: Linda walker | Jul 29, 2007 5:14:43 AM
It is amazing how so many people talk about Hillary's experience, but none ever can say what that experience is. Serving as first lady is not presidential experience. Moreover, the same inexperience arguments were made about JFK, George W. Bush, and Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton. Now, I wonder did Hillary ever say that Bill was inexperienced or green or naive. The question is rhetorical.
Posted by: Antonio | Jul 29, 2007 12:03:24 PM
Post a comment
