Clinton/Obama feud - what's your take?

Topspin said:
becauser your a loser, she didn't say that you assumed.
Just as the dems are commying it up for the leftards they will hawk it up a little for the moderate and conservative dems as to not look week.
Neither is likely to start any war.
Click to expand...


I assumed it?

"The antagonism between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has erupted into open conflict after the former First Lady accused her Democratic rival of being "irresponsible and frankly naive" in agreeing to meet the "world's worst dictators"."
 
She's playing off his inexperience and he's calling her mini Bush/cheney that to me is assinine and way worse.
If she gets a black eye, he gets a broken jaw which will not heal.
 
I still contend she blew it. She had a comfortable lead, and could have kept herself above the fray & looking Presidential.

She looks petty, and has positioned herself - at least in the perception -on the wrong side of an issue that most Dems can't stand about the Bush admin...
 
dems who are against Hillary are as bad as the cons. I have yet to see a national poll she doesn't have a ten point lead in.
 
Yes, oncelor has it right on. People see headlines and not the detail inside the article. They see this as Hillary is attacking Obama for wanting to create dialogue and negotiations. Also, it looks as if Hillary doesn't want to create talks. Of course, thats not what she said, but it's the impression most people will get. She looks like she is taking the Bush foreign policy stance.

For those that actually pay attention to the details. Clinton is saying her experience tells her that she can't just go and meet with foreign dictators without prerequisites. She's accusing Obama of saying that he would just meet with whomever, whenever. Of course, thats not what he said either. Obama will start drumming the Hillary is bad on foreign policy line now because she voted to authorize giving Bush the power to attack Iraq. Also, he can start calling her a flip-flopper, even though the fine details don't really say that. It will work if he decides to go that route.
 
Topspin said:
dems who are against Hillary are as bad as the cons. I have yet to see a national poll she doesn't have a ten point lead in.
Click to expand...

top, its obvious you just jump on the bandwagon and ride it until the next bandwagon starts to pull ahead. Same way you play the stock market! It's a simple concept that is easy to play. There are also way too many like you that don't care much about the policy they hold, but are all about the name recognition, and it does nothing but ruin this country.
 
Man, I just ain't seeing the "drama" here.


1) Obama said he'd rush in to meet with Kim Jong Il, and that "ImADinnerJacket" (whatever his name is) Iranian dude.

2) Clinton said she's lay the diplomatic groundwork for at least a year before meeting them.

3) clinton called obama naive

4) obama called clinton bush-lite.


I just don't see the drama here. Neither one's suggested policy is that outrageous, and the petty little insults are standard campaign fare.
 
Cypress said:
Man, I just ain't seeing the "drama" here.


1) Obama said he'd rush in to meet with Kim Jong Il, and that "ImADinnerJacket" (whatever his name is) Iranian dude.

2) Clinton said she's lay the diplomatic groundwork for at least a year before meeting them.

3) clinton called obama naive

4) obama called clinton bush-lite.


I just don't see the drama here. Neither one's suggested policy is that outrageous, and the petty little insults are standard campaign fare.
Click to expand...

The drama cypress, is because Hillary is holding a comfortable lead and just may have caused a little bit of a stink for that lead to start fading.

The drama is just beginning...
 
Onceler said:
When I first saw the exchange in the debate, I thought both gave pretty good answers. I liked how Obama jumped on it, and his logic about opening up dialogue with leaders we don't like was solid. Hillary's answer was more measured & cautious, but she didn't exactly rule out dialogue with anyone.

I'd be curious to hear other opinions on this. I basically agree with Obama, though I get Hillary's point about not rushing into a meeting with anyone as President - the envoys & other arms of the admin should lay the groundwork & ensure that any meeting that might ultimately occur would not be mis-used.

I HATE this admin's stance about diplomacy & who we should & shouldn't be speaking with. Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire, but still met with them, with great results. I don't think anything can be gained by shutting dialogue down; it strikes me as childish...the way a pre-teen would handle diplomacy.
Click to expand...
I think that Hillary's answer was better and more realistic. No conditions on any dialogue? That sounded like a noob answer, appearance matters on the world stage.
 
Damocles said:
I think that Hillary's answer was better and more realistic. No conditions on any dialogue? That sounded like a noob answer, appearance matters on the world stage.
Click to expand...

I agree that her answer was better & more thought out, but it's kind of a stretch to think that a President Obama wouldn't basically do the same thing, and would forego basic diplomatic procedures to jump right into a meeting with some of the leaders they were talking about, as Clinton's camp is quick to portray.
 
Onceler said:
I agree that her answer was better & more thought out, but it's kind of a stretch to think that a President Obama wouldn't basically do the same thing, and would forego basic diplomatic procedures to jump right into a meeting with some of the leaders they were talking about, as Clinton's camp is quick to portray.
Click to expand...
His answer specifically stated, "No preconditions", and that is worrying to me. It seems that the answer was not well thought out, and likely he'd want it back. Promising to meet with any leader without preconditions could cause other diplomatic problems.
 
Damocles said:
His answer specifically stated, "No preconditions", and that is worrying to me. It seems that the answer was not well thought out, and likely he'd want it back. Promising to meet with any leader without preconditions could cause other diplomatic problems.
Click to expand...


I take it for what it is. He was the 1st to answer, and clearly wanted to take as opposing a stance to what Bush is doing as he could. If he put out a policy paper or platform that reiterated that or emphasized it, I would hold him much more accountable & be much more alarmed.
 
Here was the question:

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?
Click to expand...

Obama answered the question correctly, he stated that he was willing to go without precondition. That does not mean he would not be pragmatic and set up parameters. The question is about the willingness to go.

Hillary just through in she would not 'promise' to go. But basically, she's spinning Obama's words, but Obama's going to get the best of her. She opened herself up.
 
digital your a pussy, I like the 8yrs of Clintonomics and want 8 more. I have been for Hillary since she announced despite looking like my ex's older sister I stomach the bad looks.
 
I've been pro Hillary longer than digitaldork has been posting here.

1. We need a female president - all woman will benefit in the long run

2. who doubts woman will produce less wars.

3. Can you say Clintonomics- She may be better and smarter than Bill on the economy. She's got Myrell Lynch's CEO backing her.
 
Topspin said:
I've been pro Hillary longer than digitaldork has been posting here.

1. We need a female president - all woman will benefit in the long run

2. who doubts woman will produce less wars.

3. Can you say Clintonomics- She may be better and smarter than Bill on the economy. She's got Myrell Lynch's CEO backing her.
Click to expand...

I mean that it's magnanimous of you to "stomach" her looks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top