Sen. Obama Speech in Seattle, WA, Contains Misleading Attacks on Hillary

[rodeodance]

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

Sen. Obama Speech in Seattle, WA, Contains Misleading Attacks on Hillary

Send to a Friend »

Sen. Obama distorted Hillary’s record in a speech in Seattle, WA today. The first distortion was on diplomacy. Sen. Obama said:

"Early in this campaign, I got in an argument with Sen. Clinton because I said I would meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies. Not just with leaders we like, but leaders we detested and despised. And I was told, 'oh no, you can't do that.' And I said, 'watch me.' Because I remember what John F. Kennedy said. He said, 'you should never negotiate out of fear, but you should never fear to negotiate.'"

This is a distortion. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe. Read more here.

Next, Sen. Obama makes false claims when comparing himself and Hillary to Sen. McCain.

"If I'm having a debate with John McCain, he won't be able to say, 'well you supported the war, too,' because I didn't. He won't be able to say, 'you gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran,' because I haven't."

Let’s address Sen. Obama’s allegations one at a time.............

[DesEtoiles]

1. Well, I certainly believe Hillarys website.

[Egnever]

2. Me too!

[ArkySue]

3. I happened to watch the debate

where they discussed the diplomacy issue, and I remember what was said. Hillary's website is correct.

[rodeodance]

8. Yes, Obama got loose with the facts today. and the damage his done !

[niceypoo]

9. Of course Hillary's website is correct

You cant expect Obama's supporters to accept anything short of coronation

[avrdream]

13. Yep, I saw that debate too and it is correct.

Short memories around here and lies by the Messiah.

[dkf]

18. Oh boy.

She says she won't meet with the leaders of all these countries unless they do this and that and won't use her for propaganda, blah blah blah.

Obama wants to talk to all these guys period.

Remember how Hillary called Obama "naive"? Obviously she sees a difference in their positions.

[NJSecularist]

6. I'm sure they are not biased in the slightest

:sarcasm:

[newmajority]

4. If you want to talk misleading

You should see the joke of an ad that's running on TV for Hillary every 5 minutes here. Basically implying that she's the Blessed Holy Redeemer of Health Care. With absolutely no mention of corporations garnishing your paychecks, of course.

[rodeodance]

10. thanks glad to hear her health care AD is running.

[denem]

5. Seattle - 750,000 in Washington State will be uninsured

under Obama. Thats what Hillary said at her rally. 50 million uninsured in the US - thats what Hillary said. Less people will be insured under Obama's plan than at present. That's not a distortion, it's an obvious lie.

[rodeodance]

7. You going to prove its a "lie"--or just spout off without any evidence??

[denem]

15. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4496204

[amborin]

11. happened to watch that debate

and Hillary's statements are accurate

by the way....is this what Obama meant when he said he would not allow his campaign to go "negative"?

must be like when he says he takes no money from lobbyists, and criticizes those who do, then continues to take big bucks from lobbyists himself

see a pattern here anyone?

[rodeodance]

19. YES. Obama has gone very negitive

[cali]

12. Whine , whine, whine, and

whine some more. Just don't expect anyone to give a damn.

[thunder rising]

14. You are parsing the phrasing a little too closely. She did indeed say she would never negotiate

with rogue leaders without preconditions. And, criticized Obama as naive for making the statement.
(If not her exact words, it was certainly the message given the context of the statement)

Whose distorting history?

I know this particular issue, since I've been defending Barack with the following logic:
Given a hostage situation, the police negotiator makes contact and with no preconditions starts a conversation with the hostage holder. The negotiator knows that very few of the demands will be met, but the goal is to get the hostages released. So, they talk and talk and buy time until they convince the hostage holder to give up.

Barack is a leader, statesman and negotiator and is exactly what we need now. No more saber rattling and threatening the world.

The world is alliance-ing away from us. One little deal at a time we are being cut out of the circle. And, it's because the world is afraid of us. And, that must change.

[Levgreee]

16. Hillary says that she might not talk to them within the first year

a year is a long time, to consider not talking. A lot can happen in a year. That can be accurately construed as "not talking with the enemies".

Now, Obama could have been clearer that Clinton just said, "I won't commit to talking to them in the first year", but you can't elaborate on every detail in a compressed speech, and of course, simplifying (and in effect, distorting somewhat) points can be more effective.

[anamandujano]

17. Just watch if she mentions his name and corrects one of his slurs.

The cries of racism will ring out again.

Those liars have effectively shut up any comparisons she could make. In her town hall she didn't mention his name. Toward the end she said something about "her opponent" but it was something nice, if I remember correctly.

When will he change his dirty tactics.

[dkf]

20. You have created a straw man argument. *Thank you Howard Dean for explaining Straw Man arguments*

Obama never claimed that Hillary would only meet with friends.

He claimed that he said he would meet with friends AND enemies and that Hillary attacked him for it. That is a completely true statement.

Here is a description of the Straw Man technique from Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.<1> A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man