Obama was for pre-conditions before he was against them.

[Herman Munster]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/before-spat-oba.html

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.

[goodhue]

1. no doubt

[Kagemusha]

2. Sir, you do know that a condition and a precondition are not the same thing?

Obama's getting ripped to shreds with a "words mean things" mantra but... um, if the argument is that preconditions means something very specific, the word conditions is nowhere near as specific, is it?

I guess it's a waste of time even saying that though.

[silverweb]

5. Exactly.

Pre-conditions and conditions are not the same thing.

This entire debate boils down to semantics and defining words.

It's legalistic nitpicking to some, but in reality, there are worlds of difference in meaning.

[wyldwolf]

6. oh, sure. A "precondition" is a condition before a condition... ummm

... :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Exactly nt

[acmavm]

3. Yep. Add this to your discussion...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2932644

[sandnsea]

4. Hillary was for "stay the course"

before she was, oh wait, oh yeah, she did change her mind in January, didn't she??

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Yes, and Obama was for funding the war before he was against it

Obama was for coal before he was against it, then he was against it before he was semi-for it and semi-against it at the same time. The point? Politicians change positions. The difference is Obama has been changing positions on this over the past six days as often as people change their socks...

[sandnsea]

13. You, on the other hand,

never change.

:freak:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. You can't criticize some politicians for flip-flopping while giving others a free pass nt

[sandnsea]

15. I can do whatever I want n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Feel free to be a hypocrite then... nt

[sandnsea]

19. Yup

[illinoisprogressive]

7. From Reuters News in answer to that bit of stretching

The Obama campaign rejected the criticism, saying Obama has been consistent throughout.

"He never said he would invite dictators over for a cup of coffee 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," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2619692620070728

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. So now the Obama campaign is saying he has the same position as HRC? To recap...

To recap:

Sunday: Obama is for preconditions
Monday: Obama is ready to meet "without precondition"
Tuesday: Obama is for preconditions while the BO camp says HRC really has the same position as Obama, citing an April speech.
Later in the week: Obama is against preconditions and "not afraid to be used for propaganda purposes." The BO camp says he offers a fresh approach to this problem, in contrast to HRC. The Obama camp now says HRC has the same position as Bush-Cheney on this.
Saturday: Obama is for preconditions. Obama "wouldn't let these dictators use him as a propaganda tool." In effect, Obama's position today is once again back to the position HRC has (the second one Team Obama said she had, not the April one).

:crazy:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. Right because Hillary Limbaugh has NEVER changed a position,

on anything ever. Same babe who moved into the White House with Bill.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Every politician does. The difference is BO's marketing team likes to claim Obama uniquely does not

[BenDavid]

16. Obama...naive and showing his in-

experience.....Mark my word this will be by the middle of this upcoming week the third time that HRC has handed Obama his ass on a plate...But HRC did it with style and grace that left Obama saving face, but we all can be assured that HRC will fight and fight hard when she goes against the repub for the presidency in 08....
HRC will not be like Gore that did not fight....HRC will not be like Kerry that did not fight....You can bet the democratic convention in 08 will be some get down and get funky against the repubs, unlike Kerry in 04 that wanted everyone to play nice if they spoke about bushit....This will not be like that in 08.....
HRC understands that she has to be a bear and not just any old bear. HRC is going to be if not already a DAMN GRIZZLEY....

I do thank you
Ben David

[Alamom]

20. Agreed and the comments after this and similar articles are a sight to behold.

I have to admit, I didn't see so many against Obama or referring to his inexperience prior to this incident.
(same link)

Posted by: ********** | Jul 27, 2007 8:31:12 PM

Green, so very, very green...



Posted by: ********* | Jul 28, 2007 12:44:30 PM

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: ******* | 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: ************** | 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: ************** | 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: *****| Jul 28, 2007

obama is not ready to lead our country.



edsp

[killbotfactory]

18. It's clear from Obama's answer what he meant.

He said he would be willing to meet them without preconditions within the first year of his presidency. He meant no preconditions as in what the Bush administration has been doing everytime they refuse to talk to an enemy nation until they jump through some hurdle he sets (IE: stop nuke program, destroy your non-existent WMDs, kiss Cheney's ass in public) and they come to him in a position of weakness or not at all. Obviously, this is a piss poor way to handle diplomacy.

He didn't promise to meet them under any conditions whatsoever, as it has been implied.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. So in other words, Obama is for conditions--like everyone else? nt