Hillary/Obama Name Calling

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
This race looks like it could get good. Basically Obama agreed with the position Hillary had several months ago but she has now changed her position so that it is currently different than Obama's. Let the political B.S. fly.


Hillary On The Clinton/Obama Name Calling: "This Is Getting Silly"

Why can't our presidential candidates stop calling each other names?

Senator Clinton taped an interview with CNN’s John King today (the interview will air later this afternoon on CNN) and she was asked to react to Barack Obama referring to her as “Bush-Cheney Lite.”

Here is what she said:

SEN. CLINTON: “Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?

“I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.”


http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_...intonObama-Name-Calling-This-Is-Getting-Silly
 
I happen to disagree with Hilary's position on this, diplomatically she left the door open. but otherwise , she did sound like Bush/Chenny
 
This is indicative of what's lacking in Hillary and why she scares so many people. Didn't she learn anything from the North Korea saga? She's following Bush's policy of "shoot first ask questions later" which only led to growing conflict with NK. When level-headed people from the other 6 nations stepped in and engaged in discussions, they resolved the problem quickly.

The exact same dynamics exist with Iran and Hillary is reading from the exact same playbook in dealing with Iran as Bush is .. Israel's playbook.

To think that she's going to move further to the right during the general elections is spooky.
 
blackascoal said:
This is indicative of what's lacking in Hillary and why she scares so many people. Didn't she learn anything from the North Korea saga? She's following Bush's policy of "shoot first ask questions later" which only led to growing conflict with NK. When level-headed people from the other 6 nations stepped in and engaged in discussions, they resolved the problem quickly.

The exact same dynamics exist with Iran and Hillary is reading from the exact same playbook in dealing with Iran as Bush is .. Israel's playbook.

To think that she's going to move further to the right during the general elections is spooky.
Click to expand...

Blackie, what we're witnessing is the formation of the corporatist, internationalist monoparty.
 
blackascoal said:
This is indicative of what's lacking in Hillary and why she scares so many people. Didn't she learn anything from the North Korea saga? She's following Bush's policy of "shoot first ask questions later" which only led to growing conflict with NK. When level-headed people from the other 6 nations stepped in and engaged in discussions, they resolved the problem quickly.

The exact same dynamics exist with Iran and Hillary is reading from the exact same playbook in dealing with Iran as Bush is .. Israel's playbook.

To think that she's going to move further to the right during the general elections is spooky.
Click to expand...

I thought her debate answer was ok. She didn't say she wouldn't talk to them, just that you don't start those kind of talks at that high of a level. So, ok, whatever. But what her campaign has done with Obama's answer, has really bothered me. It's bush stuff. Basically saying, he's not strong enough to be President, not tough enough, not bad enough. I've had enough of that.
 
Here's what clinton said, directly from the transcript:

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
Click to expand...


There's nothing unusual or shocking about that. This "controversy" is manufactured. It actually sounds very pragmatic.

As far as the little spat, between the obama and clinton camp: standard electoral politics and positioning. Who cares? Clinton's goal is too make obama look inexperienced and naive. And by contrast, to show herself as pragmatic and deliberative.
 
Cypress said:
Here's what clinton said, directly from the transcript:




There's nothing unusual or shocking about that. This "controversy" is manufactured. It actually sounds very pragmatic.

As far as the little spat, between the obama and clinton camp: standard electoral politics and positioning. Who cares? Clinton's goal is too make obama look inexperienced and naive. And by contrast, to show herself as pragmatic and deliberative.
Click to expand...
Obama's trying to distance himself from Bush while Clinton is trying to distance herself from The Liberals. He's campaigning for the primary while she's got her eyes more on the general.
 
This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. Obama is going to get the best of this exchange. He is effectively making Hillary look like Bush on foreign policy.

The question asked about the willingness to meet with leaders. Obama did not say he WOULD meet with these leaders, but was willing to meet with them, without conditions. He answered the question.

Hillary on the other hand said she couldn't promise to meet with them. Well, are you willing to meet with them or not. Her long diatribe is being turned into the answer of 'No'. Since she did not give a direct answer to the question, even her explanation will not help her, it comes off as a 'No'.
 
DigitalDave said:
This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. Obama is going to get the best of this exchange. He is effectively making Hillary look like Bush on foreign policy.

The question asked about the willingness to meet with leaders. Obama did not say he WOULD meet with these leaders, but was willing to meet with them, without conditions. He answered the question.

Hillary on the other hand said she couldn't promise to meet with them. Well, are you willing to meet with them or not. Her long diatribe is being turned into the answer of 'No'. Since she did not give a direct answer to the question, even her explanation will not help her, it comes off as a 'No'.
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to meet with anybody, were I the President, if correct preconditions existed. The question was "without precondition" and that is a far different ball of wax. I would not meet with certain leaders "without precondition", it would be foolish.
 
"pre-conditions" has an obvious meaning amongst foreign-policy, it's real-world vagueness is, in part, being capitalized on here. Hillary's claiming that a pre-condition for her would be that its not simply a propaganda stunt...that has no connection to the way pre-conditions are understood, to my knowledge, in the foreign policy world.
 
DigitalDave said:
"pre-conditions" has an obvious meaning amongst foreign-policy, it's real-world vagueness is, in part, being capitalized on here. Hillary's claiming that a pre-condition for her would be that its not simply a propaganda stunt...that has no connection to the way pre-conditions are understood, to my knowledge, in the foreign policy world.
Click to expand...
Appearance matters on the world stage, as I stated earlier. Meeting without preconditions can actually cause more problems than it can resolve. It is unwise to set no conditions on meetings with such nations. Nixon did not go to China without conditions. Nor would Reagan go to the USSR without conditions.

It seems naive to suggest that it would be a good idea to meet without conditions just because you want to appear more "diplomatic" than Bush. It doesn't take "no conditions" to look more diplomatic than Bush.
 
Damocles said:
Appearance matters on the world stage, as I stated earlier. Meeting without preconditions can actually cause more problems than it can resolve. It is unwise to set no conditions on meetings with such nations. Nixon did not go to China without conditions. Nor would Reagan go to the USSR without conditions.

It seems naive to suggest that it would be a good idea to meet without conditions just because you want to appear more "diplomatic" than Bush. It doesn't take "no conditions" to look more diplomatic than Bush.
Click to expand...

Again, I think you are thinking of conditions as 'parameters' and not what was intended by the question. He did not say he would go without the proper parameters set up, he said he would consider talks even if Iran doesn't decide to do away with Nuclear technology beforehand. That is how Bush has done things.
 
DigitalDave said:
I thought establishing what 'X' is, is the whole point of diplomacy and talks.
Click to expand...
No preconditions does not examine "x". You examine "x" with lower levels and set conditions. It is how diplomacy works.

His answer suggests to me that he is inexperienced, her answer suggested a pragmatism that I found refreshing.

Believe me, she isn't going to lose this exchange, she appeared more thoughtful and more Presidential, both, than Obama did.
 
DigitalDave said:
Again, I think you are thinking of conditions as 'parameters' and not what was intended by the question. He did not say he would go without the proper parameters set up, he said he would consider talks even if Iran doesn't decide to do away with Nuclear technology beforehand. That is how Bush has done things.
Click to expand...
Direct talks, if you believe that no talks are happening at all with Iran then you haven't been reading the news, or you have only been reading the lefty blogspots.
 
Damocles said:
Direct talks, if you believe that no talks are happening at all with Iran then you haven't been reading the news, or you have only been reading the lefty blogspots.
Click to expand...

No Damo, I know talks are happening, but I am just trying to give an example. Not trying to turn this into a debate on what Bush is or is not doing.
 
DigitalDave said:
No Damo, I know talks are happening, but I am just trying to give an example. Not trying to turn this into a debate on what Bush is or is not doing.
Click to expand...
I too am giving an example. It would be unwise to show legitimacy beyond what we already have. Just as the multi-lateral rather than bi-lateral talks seem to be working with NK, it would be far better to create a condition of far more than one nation meeting.

Setting such conditions are the norm, and meeting without precondition would be unwise.
 
Damocles said:
I too am giving an example. It would be unwise to show legitimacy beyond what we already have. Just as the multi-lateral rather than bi-lateral talks seem to be working with NK, it would be far better to create a condition of far more than one nation meeting.

Setting such conditions are the norm, and meeting without precondition would be unwise.
Click to expand...

So... basically, Hillary is agreeing with the Bush approach? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top