Hillary's FLIPPITY-FLOPPITY on meeting with foreign leaders.

[jefferson_dem]

APRIL 2007:

(CBS/AP) DECORAH, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Opening talks with other countries doesn't mean the U.S. won't defend its interests whenever necessary, she said, "but what it means is that we should discuss other routes before we decide we're going to pursue military options.

"We cannot provide the leadership we need unless we are willing to try engage the other countries," she said,

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html

***

YESTERDAY:

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

[DURHAM D]

1. Nice false construct. eom

[stray cat]

2. I don't see a contradiction - she wants to meet with leaders intelligently

[asthmaticeog]

3. self delete

On edit: never fucking mind, there's no goddamn use...

[jefferson_dem]

6. self-delete.

Cheers!

[asthmaticeog]

10. I'm disappointed that you're totally mischaracterizing what I posted.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's an easy thing to do, no? Once the original material is gone, you can claim it was ANYTHING! It's deceptive and chickenshit, but again, it's not surprising.

Cheers back at'cha. :toast:

[jefferson_dem]

12. You're right.

I shouldn't have characterized your post (accurately or not) after you had chosen to edit it.

So now my response to your edited response has been edited.

:toast:

[JANdad]

4. Oh jefferson_dem...are you upset Obama made a boo boo

Clinton: No I would not meet with them...(paraphrase)

Obama: Yes (No-paraphrase)

Please, please show me the "Flippity-floppy"

[Dawgs]

29. The flippity-flop is that Obama said the exact same thing as Hillary (in speech), and...

in the debate Hillary spun her answer to make herself look better than Obama.

Obama (last night) said the exact same thing Hillary said in her speech. Instead of agreeing with Obama, she spun her answer to make herself look smarter. It was another Hillary trick, and another reason I will never vote for her.

[SteppingRazor]

5. How in the world is this a flip-flop?

Today, she says she would meet with foreign leaders who are supposed enemies, and yesterday she said that, while she wouldn't promise to meet within a year, she still said that she would, in fact, meet with them, after diplomatic channels had been opened and she had been assured that a meeting wouldn't be used for propaganda purposes.

I saw the debate last night. What you've posted from it has been taken completely out of context. And for the record, I support Obama. I just don't like this deceptive sort of attack.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Do you not consider these two statements contradictory?

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

***

"Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year."

I guess we can lean on the "during my first year" qualifier...to deny any inconsistencies :shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

17. Again, you're taking the latter statement completely out of context

It's not fair. Dirty frickin' pool, dude. Yes, Hillary said she wouldn't promise to meet with these leaders within the first year, but then she went on to say that she would, in fact, meet with them after the proper diplomatic channels had been opened.

Like I said, I'm all for Obama, for the most part. But the reason I'm for him is because he represents for me a new kind of politics, without the scheming, backstabbing and dishonesty. For you to support him while promoting this out-of-context, below-the-belt Hillary "flip-flop" is ... well, a bit hypocritical.

[jefferson_dem]

20. I appreciate your point that context is always important.

And "a new kind of politics" would be refreshing.

However, i disagree with the conclusion that there is not an inherent inconsistency in her two statements / positions in this case, and others for that matter.

[polichick]

7. Actually, it was a great example of how experienced she is...

It may not be smart for the prez to meet with difficult leaders in the first year ~ her answer about starting diplomatic relations and sending envoys was right on target, and showed she's been in the White House before.

(I'm not supporting any candidate at this point, just calling it like I see it.)

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Limbaugh just used this same material in the same way.

He's ridiculing Obama even more, though.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Well, maybe the old, oxycontin-riddled, lying windbag is actually half right...

;)

[durrrty libby]

13. She did fantastic. Be a grown-up and give her props. Why

sink to the level of the other haters

They are hilarious buffoons.

[wyldwolf]

14. nope, sorry. But you guys keep throwing up these fabrications, and we'll keep shooting them down

The question last night was whether the candidates would “meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration."

Clinton said no. Obama said yes.

However, in April, according to the article you quoted, Clinton said, "I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences..."

How would she do that? Again, according to your link: "sending envoys throughout the world. "

[wyldwolf]

15. the big liar last night was Obama

[polichick]

16. Just curious...

What were his lies?

[wyldwolf]

19. ..

1. Sen. Barrack Obama, D-Illinois, took a lot of credit for campaign finance reform tonight.

“I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyist money, and the bundlers, the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that,” Obama said.

Well, that law hasn’t actually gone through. The bill that would force lobbyists to disclose more of their activities, including what’s known as “bundling,” has not become law because it has not passed Congress.

The House and the Senate are trying to hammer out differences between their bills before the August recess.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/23/fact-check-not-so-fast-senator-obama/

2. He does take PAC and lobbyist money.

[SteppingRazor]

24. OK! Now we've got something to work with.

First off, I think it's a bit harsh to say he's "the biggest liar of the night" just because he mentioned a law that he used his own campaign finances to give himself a pat on the back by mentioning the bill he had proposed in the Senate. Yes, he drew an incorrect analogy between the bill and his finances, but I think it's a little harsh to paint him as a big fat liar because of that.

and as for the other part, Obama has returned campaign donations that were connected to federal lobbyists. Here's a story:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660211754,00.html

He's made a pretty big deal out of refusing money donated by federal PACs and lobbies, so I'm not sure about your second point.

Anyway, I think both Hillary and Obama did a pretty bang up job last night. Obama didn't get on Hillary's case as much as the second-place guy in a primary should, but he's got to walk a thin line due to his image as the guy who's supposed to restore decency to the D.C. — if he slings mud, he loses. Hillary, meanwhile, performed really admirably. There were a couple instances — the one mentioned in the OP certainly springs immediately to mind — in which she made Obama look, well, like a one-term senator with little national experience.

[karynnj]

27. It's not a bill he proposed, it is a provision he got passed in the

Ethics bill that was the first piece of legislation this year.

He also was one of a small group of Democrats who voted with the Republicans to stop the Democrats from killing the DeMint amendment. That amendment was a sneaky Republican trick - it considered of the stronger Pelosi rules. They wanted the Democrats to kill it - giving the Republicans a publicity coup. Hillary voted to kill the amendment.

Obama also has some credibility from ethics reform efforts he did in the Illinois Senate.

I don't agree on the foreign policy question - any summit has initial work done for it - NOT saying that that has to be done does not mean that he would go in cold. I have heard both Kerry and Biden, with decades long SFRC experience make statements like Obama's - without speaking of any preliminary work. What I saw was that Hillary used that to avoid making a committment to directly speak to them within a year.

[karynnj]

25. Obama is a Senator - he passed the provision in a bill through the Senate

He does not take PAC money. It is tricky not getting lobbyist money -

[SteppingRazor]

18. Nice. Without anything to back it up, that's as fair as the OP...

which is to say, not fair at all.

[wyldwolf]

21. backed up in post 19

[snowbear]

36. If anyone posted on here that Hillary was a liar, you would blow a fuse.

By the way, are you ALWAYS logged on here?

[Bitwit1234]

22. OH dear I quess Obama didn't too so well. The bashing is starting again.

[flpoljunkie]

23. Obama never "promised" to meet with any particular leaders during his first year, and anyone with

half a brain is well aware that any meetings with the leaders of any of the mentioned countries--Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea--would be preceded by the necessary diplomatic footwork involved in such high level meetings.

Obama was reiterating his openness to talking with our enemies--putting diplomacy first--rather than the cowboy diplomacy of pre-emptive wars followed by endless occupations.

Perhaps Hillary was remembering how she was "used for propaganda purposes"--stung by the pro-Israel factions of both parties for kissing Sue Arafat when she was First Lady.

[napi21]

26. Nice spin jefferson! She said exactly the same thing both times!

Beginning diplomatic talks DOESN'T MEAN "The President PERSONALLY DOES THE TALKING!"

You are reading your own ideas into Hillary's statements!

Maybe we should call you Rush?

[Broke Dad]

28. Okay, so we know where everybody's loyalties lie here . . .

You Hillary people just don't give up and you just don't get it. Spin all you need to . . . if that reassures you.

IMHO the Clinton era is past. If not, the next four or eight years will be only slightly different than the last six or seven years. Mrs. Clinton is not an agent of change. In fact, she is running on her experience. Rose Law Firm partner representing the biggest pigs in Arkansas? NAFTA? GATT? First Lady pissing off an entire Congress? Second biggest recipient of health insurance company contributions? What, if anything in that experience indicates that Hillary Clinton will dramatically change the direction of the country? For God's sake, she cannot even admit that her vote for the Iraq war is a mistake!

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid . . .

[napi21]

30. NopeI don't do kool-aid. Mine's BEER! It's much better and

I'm always happy too!

[killbotfactory]

37. "I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences"

Question: Did Obama or Hillary say this?

[Bassthumb]

31. Hillary bashing is such a creative sport.

See any similarities?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1870876/posts

[durrrty libby]

32. I know it is sad. Sometimes I have to double-check the url to

make sure where I am :hurts: :scared: :thumbsdown:

[damntexdem]

33. Although I thought that Hillary created a false impression in the debate, she did not flip flop.

When Obama and Edwards said they'd talk to varied foreign leaders in their first year, Hillary said she would not promise to do so, that it would depend on prior diplomatic meetings and the conditions of proposed talks: "I would not allow myself to be used for propaganda purposes" and so on. I felt that this was an attempt to make Obama and Edwards look "reckless" for not having stated such conditions, although as a commentator said afterward, of course prior talks would set the stage for any meeting of a president with said leaders. However, if you read the statements posted here, you will note that Hillary stuck to her statement that she would undertake diplomatic talks with the leaders in question, she just posed a (I think unnecessary to state) condition on personal participation in such diplomacy.

[JANdad]

34. are you guys getting talking points

from the Obama campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3398877

[Sparkly]

35. I think this is true hair-splitting. nt

[MaineDem]

38. I think she was consistent

Yes, have diplomatic meetings, even on the head-of-state level, but only after we're sure of their intent. I think that was a very prudent answer.

Obama had some excellent answers but I bet he's wishing he could rethink that one. I liked his statement about how not talking with them is currently thought of as a punishment. This was not his best response.