but one has to wonder how the media would treat it if John Edwards — who has been pilloried for his expensive haircuts — had made the same jokes.

No, one doesn't need to wonder at all. It would be featured prominently as a sign of Edwards' superficiality.

I wish that Edwards' campaign would find a way to treat this whole hair issue as the joke that it is. I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton, yet, but the "Pay attention to your hair, because everydoby else weill" on the HillaryHub website was outstanding.

Oh and time for the obamavangelist to start some serious mental gymnastics to fit this in to the narrative they have been working on for days.

Are you this condescending to the people that live and work around you everyday?

Hadenough, why is it hackery? From the first paragraph of Rasmussen:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions (emphasis mine). The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

What is inaccurate about saying a plurality of Americans support Obama's view? If it had been worded a "majority", clearly, that would be inappropriate.

I sure would like a nice serious discussion. That's what I'd like. But here we are.

tpm puts up a fake headline. Two articles below this one is Obama saying "preconditions." Is that OK. You have no problem with tpm putting up fake headlines? Do you mind tpm treating their reads like rubes? Is it more important that we all just get along?

In 2000 and 2004 clowning put bush in the white house. The same clowning is going again. Now it's sounds like get'n along is more important to you than getting it right. Me, I'm gonna call'em on it.

Interesting Rasmussen poll. Also interesting Rasmussen article:

"[The] question came up during last Monday’s Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama. Clinton and Obama continue to dominate the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

However, just 34% of all Americans (and 34% of Democrats) know that Obama made such a commitment. Eleven percent (11%) of all Americans and 14% of Democrats believe the commitment was made by Clinton."

Yeah, I don't think Obama knows he made such a commitment either. Perhaps someone should clue him in. Kinda calls into question Rasmussen's dedication to careful, factual polling. Gee, I wonder if anyone at Rasmussen is rooting for Hill...

I sure would like a nice serious discussion.

Really? Then why obamavangelist?

How can someone have a "nice serious discussion" with the name calling?

If I stated my thoughts on the matter you would just talk about "koolaid" or "Rove dirty tricks" blah blah blah.

I was pondering Obama's "bring on the meetings" approach, comparing it to Hillary's more measured, step-at-a-time approach -- when suddenly on NPR this morning there was an example of an Iraqi (I think) sheik (Al-Adari? I was schlepping groceries at the time) who claimed to have been approached for a meeting by none other than George Bush himself. The sheik apparently made quite a name for himself amongst his followers by claiming to have turned the American president down cold, and used that name-power at cross-purposes to U.S. interests. I think this is the kind of thing Clinton's approach is geared to forestall. And it makes sense.

You have no problem with tpm putting up fake headlines?

What's fake about it? You still haven't explained.

Fair point, well taken. I'm just not a fan of faux charges of sexism simply to fuel opportunistic fundraising.

I'm just not a fan of faux charges of sexism simply to fuel opportunistic fundraising.

But I have to be honest and say that I think it's outstanding that a female candidate for President is finding a way to exploit the sexism that still exists. Washington Post? You think your readers actually give a hoot that Senator Clinton (GASP) showed cleavage? Fine. We'll make money off your vapid coverage. Keep doing it, and we'll keep making money. If sexism didn't exist in the coverage, Senator Clinton wouldn't be able to exploit it.

Clear distinction and helpful post. Even I get it.

Look, by any rational reckoning, Obama just blundered when he said in the debate that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without any preconditions. Had he known the standard strategy for American Presidents -- both Republican and Democratic -- over the last many decades, he'd realize that talking to such leaders had to pursued in a careful, stepwise manner. He didn't, and he indeed made himself look naive, as Hillary suggested.

So he really lost the debating point, which was not necessarily an enormous thing. Had he possessed anything like a measure of humility, he would have found a way to excuse his mispeaking on the point.

But what does the man do instead? He insists on presenting his views as, in fact, substantially different from what Hillary suggested. Thing is, all Hillary ever suggested was that she would adhere to the standard American policies from before Bush.

It does not in any way make me feel good about Obama that he is willing to introduce potentially radical changes in foreign policy simply because he wants to avoid losing a political debating point. It makes him look like someone so desperate to get ahead politically that he will do or say most anything, good governance be damned.

Wow. You try to call out Hillary for a phony reaction to so-called non-existent sexism and, in the next breath, demonstrate your very own sexism with "girly girl" comments. In the real world, men are hairstylists, too.

Well I think it is really interesting the way the Clinton and Obama campaigns keep dancing around the You Tube debate 'preconditions' question and responses.

Regardless of what a poll shows, I don't think very many Democrats think that Obama would meet with dictators without any conditions. Any serious person knows there would be at a minimum, several meta-communication issues that would be hammered out before any face-to-face meeting. And such a meeting would have an agreed to agenda.

We all know that Obama was going to find a way to call Hillary on her AUMF in Iraq vote sooner or later. In fact he has already been doing this. Hillary has obviously exploited Obama's weak response to the You Tube question to goad him into attacking her.

Obama's subsequent clarifications and counterattacks have not reflected well on his ability to think quickly on his feet. It is also obvious that he is not getting the best campaign advice either. Evidence? His Bush-Cheney lite characterization of Hillary. His rambling, unfocused interview recorded on phone in Iowa.

Obama is going to have to do more a lot more than just mention the AUMF vote. He has to demonstrate conclusively that it should preclude her from receiving the nomination. I do not think he can do this. It will be dangerous for him to attempt to do so. The general electorate will not hold this against her.

My guess would be that most people who responded to the poll question on meeting with foreign leaders don't really understand the nuances of the issue. A large number did not even know who had said what on the issue and many were just flat out wrong in their attributions. It is really something far too complex to get a realistic answer to when asking a simplistic question. Different wording would no doubt lead to different results.

Hasn't everyone figured out that hadenough is simply a bomb-thrower on this site, looking to disagree for the sake of disagreement and to say things just to elicit emotional reaction from those who choose to respond to him/her?

Those are the most ridiculous examples I have ever seen. You can't be that far in the tank. And it's really an insult that you would think anyone else is.

Let me show ya:

Preconditions = each President must wear a winter parka, though earmuffs are optional

Under certain conditions = You must cease your nuclear program before we begin diplomatic negotiations.

That makes as much sense or your original example.

""Preconditions" and "under certain conditions" mean totally different things in the context of diplomacy."

OK. Obama's and Kleefeld's problem is neither one, no matter how you parse them, mean without "setting any preconditions." I mean the human meaning of precondition. The one people use. Like something happening first. Do you think Rasmussen informed poeple of which meaning of precondition they meant? The dilpo one obamaists can't seem to pin down the meaning of or the widly excepted dictionary meaning. Yeah prolly.

When Obama said:
"under certain conditions"

No matter how you parse that there are conditions before Obama meets. There are conditions pre Obama meeting. Certianly you can't not meet because of something that happened after meeting[Or can you?]. NO. The "certain conditions" have to be met fisrt. Before the meeting. Even in "diplomatic negotiations" you can't take back a meeting that already happened [Or can you?]. So in even in that context words still mean something.

Then we get the latest news about Obama the day before youtube:
"When I asked him whether he would meet with Chávez, he had said, ``Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends.''"

That was from Eric Kleefeld. Did you know tpm as Eric Kleefeld, Eric Kleefeld and Eric Kleefeld. The three Kleefeld brothers working at tpm. See the healine isn't fake it's just Eric didn't see the article Eric post just the day before Eric wrote the headline saying the exact opposite of the truth.

When you found the clip did you read the article?

The headline is misleading. Obama did not promise to meet anyone. The article clearly states he was willing to talk.

I'm sorry if my explanation wasn't convincing or clear, but I really didn't make this stuff up, it's the language of diplomacy.

It's also the language as understood by the man who posed the question:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_speaks.html

"He said his question just meant there shouldn't be a requirement of a change in a country's behavior as a condition of talking to them."

During her speech yesterday at the National Urban League — a naturally good audience for Barack Obama — Hillary Clinton

Eric why do you insist on repeatedly making this type of racially biased comments?  I mentioned this to you previously with the Muslim Congressman headline. Now, you are being presumptious to believe that an audience at the National Urban League is 'naturally good' for Obama, why is that? 

Are all the other audiences and rallies that Obama holds not 'naturally good'. Are audiences with primarily women 'naturally good' for Hillary?.  You need to stop this racist slanted commentary.  Have you forgotten all the headlines on this site querying "Is Obama Black Enough"?  or how about all the polls which show that Hillary has a much higher percentage of blacks willing to vote for her?  Just what is your problem with being balanced when it comes to race?  You need to resolve it.  You are like Isaiah Washington  and Mel Gibson when it comes to race and the inappropriate comments you make.  Stop it, please.

Pacc, thanks for illustrating my point. Sexism is real and is a serious charge that shouldn't be made lightly. Like Hillary's advisors, you seem too quick to leap with that accusation. My reference to "girlie girl" was poking fun at Hillary's obvious hair obession, not an illogical comment, as you erroneously assumed, on the gender make up of the cosmetology profession. Peace.

I so totally agree. It is Ok to be girly girl when it comes to hair but not boobs? Why?  Men objectify women about hair as well as boobs, the latter much more so than the former but none the less. Hair is objectified as a sex object as well when it comes to women, otherwise there would be no such thing as 'butchhaircut' for women vs. longflowing tresses. Which are so distracting to males that women who want to be taken seriously in business wear their hair short, tightly bunned or shoulder length prim. Long flowing hair is deemed 'unprofessional' even though it is totally feminine.

Hillary can't have it both ways.

I guess if you agree with the Bush-Cheney-Clinton approach of punishing your adversaries by not talking to them, Obama does represent radical and essential change. Unlike Hillary, Obama seems to reject the disasterous status quo, seeing America as strong enough to talk to any world leader without requiring broken arms or humilation as the price of access to discussion.

Jesus, what kind of craziness is this criticism of yours?

Look, is it just too much for you that someone might suggest that Obama, as a black man, might find a black audience particularly sympathetic, or, using your own example, that Hillary might find an audience of women particularly receptive to her?

Are you so bent on enforcing some kind of fanatically rigid set of PC rules that you can't allow people to make the most innocuous and obvious kinds of observations that involve some reference to their identity without punishing them for it?

Really, this is one of the things about the Obama crowd that I just can't stand. The self righteousness is so stultifying and pervasive and oppressive that no one who has any affection for the real world and candid speech can have any desire to see them and theirs in a role of authority.

Look, is it just too much for you that someone might suggest that Obama, as a black man, might find a black audience particularly sympathetic, or, using your own example, that Hillary might find an audience of women particularly receptive to her?

Yes, it is sexist and racist for one. Number two, there have been consistent articles about Obama not being black enough and his race has been touted as an obstacle with blacks.Third, Obama is not polling with high numbers in the black community, Hillary is. So, if anyone was in front of a 'naturally good' audience it was Hillary. Based on this political reality, for someone like Kleefeld to suggest that an audience is 'naturally good' on the basis of race is false, misleading and flat out racist.

Besides, Kleefeld has a track record of biased commentary and headlines when it comes to black male politicians. He needs to be aware of that and address it.

Would it be sexist to observe that the National Junior League might be particlarly attentive to Hillary as the first woman to be a serious contender? The polls suggest she is particularly strong among younger women.

If the polls did not show that Hillary was particularly strong among younger women and the assertion was made that the audience was 'naturally good' for her, then yes. If as well as Hillary not polling well with that demographic Gloria Steinem was on TV saying she was not woman enough the bias would seem even moreso sexist. There would not be any rationale  on the basis of gender, given those circumstances to presume that Hillary speaking to an audience of women would have it naturally good.

Would you say that Lieberman has a 'naturally good' audience when speaking to Jewish Relation Council?

Interesting. People don't understand the difference between talking with enemies and refusing to talk to them? Seems like a pretty clear distinction, even for us simple folks.

This kinda throws a wrench in to the whole thing.

Obama the day before youtube:
"When I asked him whether he would meet with Chávez, he had said, ``Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends.''"

We don't know what the "certain conditions" are Obama wants met before he meets because he doesn't tell us. But your whole comment without a para break in it comes down to what you think Obama will do. Based on a youtube dabate answer where he said just the oppisite of what he said the day before how sure are you know what he'll do?

"he would be willing to meet with them but they should not expect any concessions (or tea) from him as a result--call it an open door policy."

Obama said he would be willing to meet "Under certain conditions." Where you get "but they should not expect any concessions (or tea) from him" from I don't know. I haven't heard him say anything about that. Where do you get that idea from?

And I have read quotes of him saying "Under certain conditions." How is that any different than what the US has done up until bush 2?

"Hillary seems to be saying that talk itself is a concession--a cold shoulder for dictators policy."

Please point to a quote/transcript/video where Hillary says "talk itself is a concession" or something very close to that. I really have no clue where you get that from.

Hillary at youtube:
"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."

From Hillary's answer at youtube I really don't see where you get "talk itself is a concession." In fact it's pretty much just the opposite: I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

Hillary in real time while Pelosi is being attack for going to Syria:
Hillary Clinton Defends Pelosi Over Syria Trip: She Was ‘Doing The Right Thing’

Senator Clinton: No, I think that both her delegation, which was primarily Democrats, and a Republican delegation that was there approximately at the same time are doing the right thing. We have got to engage these countries. Obviously we have serious differences with a country like Syria, but we’re sure not making progress towards our goals in the region by isolating and ignoring them.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/clinton-pelosi-syria

See. There again Hillary says just the opposite of what you think she would do. Can you provide 2 examples that would lead you to believe Hillary thinks "talk itself is a concession"?

You have a long comment without breaks that is talking about what pols would get themselves in to and then you type in this:
"the debacle in Somalia forced Bill Clinton to abandon Africa for years"

Bill Clinton was handed Somalia. He didn't get in to that mess. Now you didn't say he did get in to it. Just at the end of typing about what pols would/or wouldn't get in to you mention Bill Clinton ina reference to a mess he didn't get in to. Curious that. And was Bill being "cautious" when he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan? How about when he bomb Iraq and probably put an end to anything they might have been thinking for good. Was he "cautious" then. As far as dipolmacy good gravy the world was a relatively peaceful place under the big dog. Not not perfect even some really hidous stuff but still pretty damn good.

Also I like the reagan mention. Do you really think that's gonna help Obama? I'm waiting to hear from headless bodies litter across south America to see what they think.

There's a general consensus, I think, about the need in society for more, positive role models to encourage the aspiration of under-represented minorities. Ferroro in her day and now Clinton, Jackson and now Obama, Richardson, Leiberman and even Kennedy, beyond their appeal as candidates, have represented something more to particular sub-groups in society. I don't think its racist or sexist to acknowledge that they have a distinctive status also as role models, particularly in this election. Women, for example, may appreciate and respond to Hillary as a symbol of possibility and progress without choosing to vote for her.

The bruhaha with Hillary and Obama over the meeting foreign leaders question was a manufactured ploy by the Clinton campaign over nothing. Obama gave a sensible answer and Hillary tried to twist it just like the GOP so often does with the DEMs. Frankly, I think it reflects badly on the Clinton campaign. Of course the MSM is trying to make it look like Hillary outsmarted Obama, but the polls show that the American people did not see it that way at all. The MSM is trying to cram Hillary down our throats as the nominee by marginalizing both Obama and Edwards. I hope the voters show them come primary time that we can pick our own candidate despite their shady tactics.

Please don't argue that "Under Certain Conditions" mean "without setting any preconditions."

Your willingness to obfuscate is boundless.

A condition could involve such mundane matters as the weather or scheduling. It could involve serious matters that require the president's immediate attention. It could be most anything.

Preconditions are obviously demands on the other party they may not be willing to meet.

Spin that any way you want but even Edwards showed his bad side in claiming Hillary was right. She was decidedly wrong to object to meeting without preconditions unless you believe Bush diplomacy has been the very best kind.

Best, Terry

There's a general consensus, I think, about the need in society for more, positive role models to encourage the aspiration of under-represented minorities.

We Saami need positive role models before genocide exterminates us. Where will Sandy Claus get his reindeer then I ask you? Billions of children will grow up unloved and unappreciated and then imagine the warfare that will take place.

Fact is that spurious race identification is mostly an evil. Clarence Thomas probably wouldn't be sitting on the Supreme Court except for his "blackness" that allowed one particularly atrocious nomination to be confirmed. There was a boomlet early on for Condoleeza Rice that allowed bigots to say they were just fine with African-Americans.

Contrarily Obama has to contend with racism in the African-American community that would reject him for his purported race.

Maybe he should just be glad he is not a Saami.

I am very uncomfortable with spurious charges that Eric Kleefeld has introduced any kind of racism but I would like to note that we Saamis have been totally ignored.

[For hadenough and his dimwitted ilk, I note a mild bit of snark but I am quite serious about the attacks by an excellent poster generally on Eric being most distasteful.]

Best, Terry

Though I despise conns and neo-cons in general, I do not question the good judgment of anyone who refuses to be interrogated by singing sock puppets in a public restroom. The question is: why are some people so desperate or foolish that they would let the more demented escapees from the insane clown posse grill them?

Have you ever looked at You Tube? For the most part it's a bunch of crap. Why can't we just say that and move on?

By the way, there are exceptions to every rule. When Keith Olbermann or Jack Cafferty are calling Dubya an idiot, a traitor, or a liar, that's worth watching, even on Boob I mean You Tube.

http://www.poetryman6969.com/poetry.html

Hillary's vote reflected the wishes of her constituency

That is good you think?

Widely respected Senator Fulbright used to cast his votes for segregation because he deemed that the price of being in the Senate from Arkansas. It was far too high a price to pay.

When John Edwards cast his vote for the war, he did the wrong thing too but the difference is he has apologized for doing bad. Hillary has not.

I expect leaders to lead and do the right thing whether it is popular or not. You expect them to follow and do bad?

Best, Terry

Hillary's vote reflected the wishes of her constituency

complete and utter BS. the country as a whole was split down the middle. NY is a blue blue blue state and more anti war than the country as a whole.

...I haven't taken a side yet in this particular discussion, but statements like the one above make me think Obama's getting the better end of it: To a person who's following this discussion at a distance (i.e., myself), the "by any rational reckoning" comment sounds like a pro-Hillary partisan spinning madly. I don't get from reading the debate transcript that Obama's response is any sort of commitment to invite Fidel over for tea; for that matter, I have trouble reading anything into Obama's response beyond a condemnation of Dubya's grammar-school level of competence at diplomacy.

I do think that Hillary did some clever spinning in her follow-up, with a quick implication that Obama was rashly promising to meet with dictators and would get suckered in by wily propagandists; as an effort to frame her opponent as an over-eager naif and herself as a seasoned pol, it was a nice little gotcha. Score one point for Hillary. But her campaign staff then made what I'd consider a tactical error: They brought this exchange back up in the post-debate spin, and tried to leverage it for more points... which gave Obama an opportunity to counter-punch.

It's always very risky for the front-runner to attack the #2 candidate, especially when the #2 candidate is running a "clean" campaign: Obama can't initiate a dust-up without losing the high ground, but he is free to respond when attacked. Tactically, the right move for Team Hillary would have been to say as little as possible about Obama's debate performance, stand pat on Hillary's lead in the polls, and force Obama to make an offensive move. Then Hillary could have trotted out the prepared spin about going negative, which only really works when your own hands are clean.

And, I suspect that Obama will get more mileage out of his counter-punch than Hillary got out of hers: Team Hillary threw a lazy softball at Obama, accusing him of being inexperienced -- a we-know-that-already jab which Obama is well-prepared to deflect -- and Obama hit back with a more stinging counterblow: Hillary's policies are "Bush-Cheney lite." If Obama's weak point is that he's inexperienced, there are ways he can defuse that; Hillary's weak spot is that, for all her vaunted experience, she followed Bush's lead into Iraq -- and, from what I've seen, she hasn't found a good way to finesse that.

So, I'd say the Obama camp may have the upper hand here: Obama gets to defend himself against an attack by the front-runner, which cements his hold on the #2 position (the best place to be at this stage of the race), he gets to remind voters that Hillary was one of the ineffective "no daylight between us and the president" congressional Dems, and the worst that can be said about him is that he's inexperienced in the ways of Washington, which his own spin team is merrily shouting from the rooftops. Hillary, by contrast, gets to point out that her opponent is relatively new at this game (which is not exactly a damning charge in the eyes of most voters) and has to defend against the accusation that her hawkish Iraq policy resembles the policies of the current administration.

Then again, it may just be that it annoys me when someone uses "by any rational reckoning" to mean "here's what I think." Call it a pet peeve. :-)

Wow Freespeak, feel better now? Life is a lot more pleasant if you have a sense of humor and climb down off the PC soapbox once in a while.

And why are your lecturing me about Edwards? I didn't even mention that silliness.

Peace

Bush could have never had his war if Hillary and more of her Senate colleagues had done their homework, honored their Constittuionl responsibility, and showed some COURAGE. She wants to be president of the United States and leader of the world. With a historic blunder like the Iraq vote on her record, I don't trust her to be a wise president.

I can't seem to get that link to work, any chance someone has a functional one?

I can't get the link to work properly, but if you Google search Newsday Obama under "Blog Search" it should be the first hit

The hope is that once those people unfamiliar with the diplomatic specificity of the word "preconditions" are made aware of it, they then will then become better informed voters and make their judgments accordingly.

All of the smoke and mirrors put up trying to confuse the (very clear) meaning will only hurt the political process.

"I generally found the statistic most agreeable as when Harold Ford's seat in Congress was won by a Jew despite squeals from the like of Rev. Sharpton. I daresay Ford's old district has better representation today."

I'm afraid Steve Cohen is a poor example if you want to prove any grand racial/ethnic progress. He won the Democratic primary with only a small plurality in a heavily divided field. While he had no trouble winning the general election (Harold Ford Jr.'s brother Jake ran against him as an independent) it was probably more or less on party loyalty and the poor campaign of Jake Ford, a high school dropout with a criminal record.

And coming up on 2008, Cohen will likely face a single black primary challenger, or at most two or maybe three. And despite his down-the-line liberalism and lifelong work on civil rights causes, he'll need to work very hard to win a second term.

This is a good point, and certainly true to a certain extent. But even the Bush administration won't stretch the meaning of "preconditions" so expansively as to include the regular diplomatic groundwork and agenda setting that goes on pre-negotiation; it's always some sort of large policy change the negotiating country must implement internally before negotiations are even planned.

I guess a better way of putting it is that "preconditions" must be met by the country before the negotiation is even planned.

"Under certain conditions..." etc., refers to the nature of the negotiation itself.

The man who posed the quesion could be a wunderful guy. But that really doesn't matter. His question was a mess.

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?"

Firstly Anwar Sadat was traveling anywhere in 1982. Secondly only a handful of people know what "precondition" means. But I blame cnn for picking the quesion.

Next time you run in to clemons would you tell him that when you have to quote krauthammer to make a point you don't have a point.

An what's with clemons? Why does that moron think it his duty to attack dem candidates for pres. If you don't know what I mean ask Richardson.

This was Bush's war, not Hillary's.

Wrong. This is America's war. Americans are dying. Americans are spending billions daily to fund this war. Americans elected to the Senate voted to take this nation to war. Bush needed their authority to do so and Hillary Clinton gave it to Bush.  Hillary also does not regret giving Bush that authority.

Make no mistake this is America's war and Hillary Clinton is responsible for us being there.

And coming up on 2008, Cohen will likely face a single black primary challenger, or at most two or maybe three. And despite his down-the-line liberalism and lifelong work on civil rights causes, he'll need to work very hard to win a second term.

I don't find that surprising.

A candle lighting up the darkness remains a very good thing.

The first mayor of Dublin after the revolution was a Jew. I see it in much the same way without much knowledge. I swear that mayor looked and sounded more like a leprachaun than a Jew. Still I think the Dubliners in a country that takes religion very, very seriously did themselves proud and it seems to me the voters in Ford's former district did as well.

Best, Terry

You are wrong. Bush lied. Americans unfortunately trusted him. Bush would have invaded whether or not there was an AUMF, I'm convinced.

You are confusing the vote with Bush's decision to attack. You can't hang this on Hillary. It is a dishonest attempt just score Obama some brownie points.

Don't equate the two, they are not comparable. Hillary didn't vote ONLY because of her constituency's wishes. She believed at that time it was the responsible thing to do. Bush attacked, not Hillary.

Thank goodness others are starting to speak up about the self-righteousness of the Obama supporters (even Obama himself).

And don't worry, they won't end up in any roles of authority. One benefit of protracted electioneering is that there is plenty of time for the voting public to get to see through the Obama bullshit.

I can appreciate the nostalgia for the Clinton years. But I am not sure I appreciate the value of living in a "relatively peaceful place." Should the occasional genocide be the price of peace? Shall we adopt a calculus of suffering? the Holocaust was one thing, but when Hitler invaded France he really stepped over the line? The world was not so bad from 1993 - 2000, except if you happened to live in Rwanda, East Timor, South Sudan, the Congo, Colombia, Sierre Leone, Liberia, or the Balkans? Should we proceed by writing Rwanda off as a loss against the gains made in European unity and declare ourselves as doing pretty damn well, on the whole?

As to your first point, I tried to draw distinctions between "certain conditions" and "preconditions" in response to your post above. The distinction I see is between the general and the specific. Preconditions are specific, like terms of a contract ("if you shut down this reactor we will talk"), "under certain conditions" is a generic term; not terms of the contract itself, these are the conditions under which the contract is negotiated ("i will not talk to you if you take my embassy staff hostage"). Preconditions seek to change the relative positions of the parties prior to the initiation of any dialogue; under certain conditions seeks to set the baseline for dialogue generally. Certain conditions and preconditions can be equally precise--we shall only speak French during our negotiations, each party shall have jars of jellybeans in arm's reach--but where _conditions_ apply generally to all such negotiations, _preconditions_ are incorporated into the specific terms of that specific agreement.

There really is no sense in beating a dead horse. You make some compelling and valid points. While Obama may have to pay the penalty for the apparent contradictions in his position, he does not deserve the labels of naif or hypocrite that the Hillary campaign has pasted on him. Undoubtedly, you will label me a obamavegalist or whatever for saying so, but I for one believe that Obama is on the right side of this argument.

Read some books on diplomacy.

They cover about a thousand years or so. While I am sure that a few years in the Ill. statehouse give Obama the audicity to hope he can change diplomacy, my guess is that history will prevail.

There is a long list of reasons why you do not generally want your top dog playing cowboy in the early stages of a diplomatic initiative. Not the least of which is you want your negotiator to be able to say:

a) I'm not authorized to commit to that

b) Let me check with the boss and get back to you

c) I don't know if I can sell my boss on that, but if I can, would you consider....?

d) OK. If I can sell my boss are you ready to buy on the spot?

Anyone who has done any selling already knows all this. This is kindergarten stuff for experienced state department diplomats. Successful diplomatic negotiations require more than a nice smile and a slap on the back. They require identifying issues of common national interest. There's plenty of time to bring the bosses into the picture to seal the deal and smile for the media.

clinton didn't agree with obama.

clinton agreed with kennedy.

With that vote Hillary showed the quality of her judgment on an historic scale. She may never face a more significant decison and she voted for the worst foreign policy debacle in American history. With that record, she now wants to be president? To borrow your phrase: "Wishful thinking."

Interesting observation. My instinct is that Obama is far more authentic than Hillary. In 2008, many voters will be looking for change and progress. Hillary is the status quo, and among the Democrats, the closest in positions to Bush-Cheney.

Puissant said: "If Clinton had agreed with Barack like JFK did we would not be having this debate, but she lacked the judgment to do so. Just had to score cheap political points."

Exactly.

Hillary has essentially the same position as Kennedy and Nixon AND Obama. The contrast in method with Kennedy is revealing. Hillary and her campaign attack machine moved into full throttle trying to wound Obama on point of close agreement. Another example of her very poor JUDGMENT. Hillary wants to WIN; she has no interest in leading.

Actually, when it counted most, Clinton agreed with Bush. That's the record she can't overcome.

"Should the occasional genocide be the price of peace? Shall we adopt a calculus of suffering?"

In the real world that's what happens. Bad things happen. All the time. Not only was Bill Clinton not perfect but no one is perfect. Not even Obama. When president Obama is running things bad stuff will happen. Out of his control. In this world it will happen. In a stary eyed dream world we'd all just get along. Out here in the real world things are much different.

More in the mix:
"After Mr. Obama made his remarks, the Clinton campaign circulated a column from The Miami Herald, quoting Mr. Obama only days earlier saying he would set conditions before meeting with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. “Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking,” Mr. Obama told the newspaper. A spokesman for the senator, Robert Gibbs, confirmed the remark, but said there was no conflict, adding, “The meeting would have to be in the national interest.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/politics/29obama.html

Obama:
Day before youtube:
"under certain conditions."

youtube:
"would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration...
Obama: I would."

2 days after youtube:
"And obviously, the diplomatic state work has to be done ahead of time"

Now:
Robert Gibbs, confirmed the remark, but said there was no conflict, adding, “The meeting would have to be in the national interest.”"

Obama's argument at its base seems to be meeting with bad guys is in the national interest. Maybe I misunderstand what he has been saying but I’m just regular folk. All that diplomatease is going right over my head.

Here is my big problem: A knowledgeable person, an expert, somebody that really understands what they are talking about can speak in terms that even the simple folk like me can understand. At least that’s been my experience. And right now I’m lost in what certain and pre mean when they are near condition.

And now we get "in the national interest." I'm sure there are numerous people here that can explain why "in the national interest" is not yet another precondition but I'm wondering why Obama can't make it clear enough so even us simple folk can understand what he is trying to say.

The fact remains that on one of the most important decisions of her Senatorial career she did not read the NIE report, and in the run-up to the vote used the unitary executive as a reason that she was voting for it.

Both of those show gross negligence. We've dealt with 6 years of tremendous incompetence. Forgive me, I don't want to reward anyone who was complicit with it.

Our hero ben [it's all about Edwards hair] smith pundit for the republican funded rag politico gets played:
Edwards: "They want to shut me up"

*UPDATE: The person who posted the video to MyDD, Tracy Joan Russo, is actually an Edwards staffer who does blogger outreach. So the campaign must think this is a winning message. Also: A reader points out that there's a boom microphone in the shot; again, this is a message being delivered, not an inadvertently-captured departure.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Edwards_They_want_to_shut_me_up.html

Who thinks drudge would have topped his page with an article he told smith to write if they knew it was a message Edwards wanted to get out? Anybody?

all it means is 24% is up for grabs.

oh. in a three way race sure.

nevermind. I was thinking in a two way race.

in a two way race there's 24% who are like "i'm not sure. preconditions might be right in some circumstances. they might not be right in others."

obama isn't going to capture any of that 24% if he can't articulate that some preconditions might be beneficial.

and after the last where he's basically said that any preconditions at all are bush light, he's painted himself into a corner with respect to the whole issue.

i hope that explains my comment.

obama has written off that 24%.

I luv you to.

And what in the world does how long somebody has been on the site have to do with anything? Since you have been on this site for 1 year 23 weeks you must be pretty smart so please tell me what in the world how long somebdoy has been on this site has to do with anything?

Ridiculous. But not unexpected.

it's obvious from the 1960 debate transcript provided above who is more like who.

and the hillary folks are pulling their punches.

putting obama's response up there right beside kennedy's would be unfair at this point.

so far, all it takes is putting up kennedy's response to the same question.

everyone can decide for themselves.

i guess it didn't count as much but if that's your take, then you have to also conclude obama agreed with rice.

and perhaps obama also agrees with bush that using the power of the purse hurts the troops.

I want the debate to actually take place. Its not right now. That's the point.

See, this post from you above? That's demagoguery. Hadenough dismissing anyone who disagrees as an "obamaevangelist"? That's demagoguery. And its gone both ways as well. There has been demagoguery by Hillary critics as well. But of course, because you're taking part in the demagoguing, you responded poorly to my post. Well done. Thanks for proving my point

Of course, since we are debating a question one person asked, we could ask him to set the terms of the debate for us.

So we called Stephen Sixta, the 59-year-old California video producer who asked on YouTube about the candidates' willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, N. Korea and Venezuela. He said it's been pretty much "surreal" to spend the last week hearing the question he wrote repeated in some kind of endless loop by everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Rush Limbaugh.

His bottom line: He liked Obama's answer, and he thought Hillary misconstrued what he meant by "preconditions" in acting like Obama had agreed to meet Fidel and Chavez with no diplomatic groundwork whatsoever. He said his question just meant there shouldn't be a requirement of a change in a country's behavior as a condition of talking to them.

link

So lets start there. According to the questioner himself, Hillary mis-construed the question. This should be plainly obvious from a basic reading of the question and Hillary's answer.

She will go from there? Or do you want to explain to the world why the questioner himself doesn't understand his own question?

Hillary has dug a hole and she needs to put the shovel down.

This JFK/Nixon debate is a loser framework for her as it only emphasizes her flaws and lack of leadership when it is called for. 

 It is directed at BabyBoomers and they can see through what Hillary has done. They know how she has flip flopped, They heard her frame the question in absolutist terms of "I will not promise" vs. Barack responding that he was willing with "I would".  The BB are not the generation of Hannity/O'Rielly and Limbaugh...they do not like all this verbal food fighting which essentially believes that the person who shouts the loudest, whines the longest or namecalls the best wins the argument like Wolfson did with Axelrod on Hardball. BB's deplore that barbaric behavior dominating intellectual discourse. As it insults their intelligence. They cannot stand it.

Remember, they  actually watched the Nixon/JFK debates...the difference between the statesmanship of both candidates and Hillary and Bush is totally shocking as it highlights how far this country has sunk down into the muck and mire of crass petty politics. It reminds them of how low this country has sunk due to petty political squabbling and posturing. Worst of all in an ironic twist for Hillary again, it reminds them  Nixon and Watergate. That was the overarching problem for Hillary in selecting this script. Nixon was awful for America he tried to steal the country just like Bush would have been  impeached for Christ sakes, Worst of all Bill was. How shortsighted of Hillary's team to try to use this debate. Like I said she needs to put down the shovel.

The Boomers think Hillary is stooooopid for having kept this fight going when she had no substantive difference with Barack having articulated the same position as him, numerous times prior to this debate. They do not believe she is this irresponsible and has such naked ambition that she wants to win based on slapdowns than earnest discussion of a very serious issue such as FOREIGN POLICY, when we are a nation at war, looking for an exit strategy to save American lives.

Hillary blew this with BB. She is the one who despite all her 'experience' showed she does not have the strength and resolve to handle world affairs.  She wants to 'win' the fight not negotiate when  it comes to diplomacy. She is obstreperous, pugnacious and closed door policy..just like Bush/Cheney.

Baby Boomers are not caught up in her vapid spin of 'no one has called me Dick Cheney or GWBush before...they are incredulous at this bimbo type response. It's insulting.. this is our foreign policy for pete's sake.

Bottomline: JFK did represent the spirit of bold leadership that the caller framed the premise of his question on....Hillary answered she is no JFK and  Obama  stepped up in the spirit of bold leadership, not HER. Hillary is the status quo. She will not provide the leadership we need to end the debacle in the ME just as she did not plan an exit strategy.

She is done, Her goose is cooked.  What's  clear is she does not care about America. She cares about Hillary and winning.  That is not enough ever but especially so now when Americans are dying for her failure to plan.

Hillary needs to pack it up and go home. It's time for her to bake cookies.

And what in the world does how long somebody has been on the site have to do with anything?

Against my judgment I am going to respond to you. The length of time at the site is indicative of the motivation to participate and become a member. I did not sign up to support a candidate. I came here to engage in intellectual discourse to learn others perspectives and be swayed by cogent analysis of issues. Supporting a political candidate was not the driving factor.

I have responded against my better judgment and will cease to engage. Mopper8 has far more patience for the sort of text you post than I do.

Kennedy is dead, he said nothing. Edwards is in the same boat as Hillary and already agreed with her response for the exact same reasons. He too failed to plan an exit strategy prior to casting his vote to take this country to war.

"The length of time at the site is indicative of the motivation to participate and become a member."

Interesting. But since you have decided to only respond to people that agree with you we'll never know what in the world that means.

Just for the heck of it:
What was your "motivation to participate and become a member" 1 year and 23 weeks ago?

What would you say the "motivation to participate and become a member" of someone that signed up 1 year and 22 weeks ago?

What would you say the "motivation to participate and become a member" of someone that signed up 1 day ago?

What makes you think you can read minds and or divine intentions based on what date somebody was "motivation to participate and become a member" of TPM?

Do you know that not all wisdom/useful incite/valid point of view/ etc. comes from somebody that has been a member of TPM as long as you?

Do think it would be useful to you to be involved with a comment section of a site where you agree with everybody and everybody agrees with you?

Do you think anybody that doesn’t agree with you has some motive other than maybe they just don’t agree with you?

Do you think it’s possible somebody can disagree with you without hating you/your cause?

Hillary is afraid to be used for propaganda because she lacks good judgment.

A rather consistent theme running through the Sunday talk shows was that Obama was aiming for the primary vote while Hillary was aiming for the general election voters. Bubblehead - er, David Broder clucked about the terrific damage that the pull to the left was going to do to terrible damage to the chances of the Democrats. Cokie Roberts, of course, supported the Wise One.

Both forgot somehow that the electorate is to the left of most everybody but Mike Gravel - on Iraq.

The theme that Hillary has the experience and judgment in foreign is as much a charade as the cockeyed notion that Giuliani is man for the War on Terror. Both have fully demonstrated their incompetence and lack of knowledge.

Best, Terry

Staff did not have access to this classified report which was only available to Congress folk in a secure room with no paper, pens or other note-taking materials. The majority of those who managed to stroll to the room read only the executive summary and not the full 90-some page report. Hillary didn't bother to take the walk; neither did Edwards.

Both have been asked the question about reading the NIE. Both said "no". Instead, both relied on briefings from the Bush adminsitration--how sad is that? In Hillary's case, it makes the "vast right wing conspiracy" that she brings up a spin phrase instead of one that has any basis in reality.

The guy that wrote the question also said he was specifically looking to create a clash of ideas so that Amercica could see the differences between the candidates when it came to foreign policy. He wanted a debate and he wanted them to have to publically hash it out. He remarked that he worked and worked on the question to be sure to box the response in and he is happy he did.

he asked question about meetings.

now he's saying he asked a question about talks.

BULLLLLPUCKKY!!!!

if i asked you about pizza? and you said "i like anchovies," then i might as well just turn around say "i wanted to create a clash of ideas. anchovies suck..... on burritos."

psyche!

what what what?

you were asked a question about pizza, right?

he can make up a question the way he did, with the intent he did.

my point is this: i don't think he gets to change the question a week later. i think that's complete BS!

Good grief! Hillary can waste our time in the past few days parsing hypothetical diplomatic meetings but couldn't find the time to read a classified 90-some page report in 2002 that contained the case for war from the Bush administration as well as the dissenting opinions to the conclusions drawn? You have to be kidding me.

Let me put this plainly. The document that Hillary did not read was mainly the Bush position for war. BUT, the dissenting opinions for every little piece of "evidence" was also presented. Hillary did not read any of this and none of us--including you--have any idea what information she did use to make her completely wrong-headed decision.

Bush bears primary responsibility; but Congress is the one who votes--as they did in 2002--to put this nation at war. It certainly wasn't misunderstood in Congress; go read Pelosi's statement on the reason she voted "no". Perhaps then you'll have an understanding of how upright folk approach a decision to go to war in Congress. You won't find that looking at how Hillary or Edwards reached their decisions.

Valerie Plame? Novak? Are you responding to the right comment?

Valerie Plame? Novak? Are you responding to the right comment?

I will type as slow as I can.

The report Hillary couldn't be bothered to read was classified.

After Novak published Valerie Plame's work as an undercover CIA spy, defenders claimed it was common knowledge that Valerie Plame was a CIA spy.

Maybe you think the classified NIE report was also common knowledge too.

Clear enough for you?

Best, Terry

Hillary really blew this even Pat Buchannan agrees with Obama!

The day after the debate, Hillary said Obama had exposed himself as "irresponsible and naive."

This gave Barack, who had been busy explaining what he had meant, an opening to declare that what was "irresponsible and naive" was Sen. Clinton's vote to give George Bush a blank check to plunge us into a war in Iraq most Democrats have come to believe was the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history.

Instead of Barack's impetuosity being the issue, Hillary's war vote is now front and center, her greatest vulnerability in seeking the nomination of an antiwar party. Her eagerness to exploit Obama's blunder also suggests a lack of serenity and confidence in her double-digit lead over Obama. 

snip

 But there is a more substantive issue here. That is the gravamen of the original question.
Should not the United States be in constant contact with those we see as enemies, to prevent irreconcilable differences from leading us into war? Here, Obama's instincts are not wrong.

During World War II and the Cold War, FDR and Harry Truman met with Josef Stalin. Ike invited the "Butcher of Budapest" for a 10-day tour of the United States and tete-a-tete at Camp David. JFK met Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna -- after he declared, "We will bury you." Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the tyrant responsible for the deaths of thousands of GIs in Korea and greatest mass murderer of the last century, Mao Zedong.

None of the five with whom Obama said he would meet is in the same league with these monsters of the 20th century.

Kim Jong-il has not launched a war on South Korea or tried to assassinate its prime minister and entire cabinet, as his father, Kim Il-Sung, did. Syria's Bashir al-Assad has yet to fight his first war and has never perpetrated the kind of massacre his father did in Homa. Yet, George H.W. Bush welcomed Hafez al-Assad as a fighting ally in the Gulf War.

Castro is the same evil tyrant he has always been. But Vice President Nixon survived meeting him, and he is surely less dangerous than the young Fidel, who reportedly urged the Soviets to fire their Cuban-based missiles at the United States, rather than pull them out.

Hugo Chavez is an anti-American demagogue, but also the twice-elected president of Venezuela. How does he threaten "The Republic That Never Retreats"? As for Ahmadinejad, he is not the supreme leader of Iran, and his nation has not launched a war since the Revolution of 1979. With no atomic weapons, no ICBMs, no air force to challenge ours, no navy, an economy 2 percent of ours and its oil reserves running out, Iran is scarcely an existential threat to the United States.

All of these rulers wish to be seen as defying the United States, but not one of them -- not North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela or Iran -- can seriously be seeking a major war with the United States that would bring wreckage and ruin to any or all of them.

What we have in common with them is that neither of us wants a hot war. As for a cold war, does any one of these nations represent a long-term strategic or ideological threat to a United States of 300 million, with 30 percent of the world's economy, and the best air force, navy and army on earth, and a nuclear arsenal of thousands of weapons?

If Bush can bring Libya's Muammar Khadafi, who was responsible for Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie massacre of American school kids, in from the cold, why cannot we talk with Hamas and Hezbollah and Assad and Ahmadinejad?

What has any of them done to us compared to what Khadafi did?

Though poorly stated, Barack Obama had a point.

Oddly the "manufactured ploy by the Clinton campaign" was started [?] by the Obama campaign while the debate was still going on [?]. Then continued the next morning by the Obama camp [?]. Then Hillary let it go [?]. Said nothing for a day [?] while Obama continued his attacks[?]. Then the Obama camp runs an ad based on the lies [?] Obama had been attacking [?] Hillary with since before the debate even ended. Oddly huh?

The "different kind of politician" and his "different kind of campaign" is nothing more karl rove jr [?] with the usual slash and burn republican tactics [?].

? = chapter and verse, if you please

What is: a correction?

One example:

January 21, 2007
A Question for Bill Richardson

But his obsessive flirtation with the White House steals oxygen, in my view, from many other excellent Hispanic-Americans who might otherwise move forward if he were not always the front-runner Hispanic who could not go all of the way.
...
I will frame this as a "question" for Bill Richardson.

Have you behaved inappropriately or not in public settings with female members of your government administration, jokingly or not? Have you gestured to female public servants and political appointees -- who work as colleagues with you -- and made lewd gestures, specifically pointing to them and then pointing at your crotch with a room full of media and other politicos there in the room?

I ask this not to demean or undermine Richardson.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001884.php

Never mind that no 'victim' had ever come forward and accused Richardson of ever touching them "inappropriately." There are no first hand accounts ‘Here's what Richardson did to me’ anywhere in clemons ‘reporting.’ Just second, third and fourth hand accounts. Reporters and opponents can mention somebody said something happened to somebody but no actual 'victim' has. You’ll have to dig back and forth though clemons archives and follow all his links to New Mexico newspapers and read the articles. The quotes clemons uses in his posts about touching people "inappropriately” come exclusively from people who say things like ‘somebody told me’ this happened to 'somebody else' they knew. The people that ‘this’ happened to say bullsh* didn’t happen. And according to clemons this has gone on for decades yet only second, third and fourth hand accounts are mentioned by clemons.

To get to the bottom of it you’ll have to do what I did and follow clemons’ links, google up statements and spend a lot of time reading.

clemons starts out telling us he is just concerned about 'other excellent Hispanic-Americans.' How nice of steve. Then he gets to what really bothers him about Richarson. Its was about john bolton:

"I told them that the Bolton battle was about more than just John Bolton and was for many of us a "proxy battle" over the kind of pugnacious, anti-internationalism that had become the dominant personality of the Bush administration's foreign policy."

There is more. It'll take you a lot of time to dig them up. I dont' have the time or I'd post the links. If you really want to know clemons is up to take the time.

One place to look:

Steven Clemons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Clemons

See. It us simple folk that don't understand all those fancy nuances that will vote and e lect a president. And if we hear or read what somebody says and we are always checking for our wallet that ther person prolly ain't get'n e lected.

Is this supposed to be satire? Or funny in some way? You don't normally communicate in this vernacular, hadenough, so who are you parodying now?

Or is that question too much "in the tank" for you to answer?

I think the only way to resolve this is to have an article on the girth of one of the male candidates ding a lings. Maybe it should be Kucinich given the way his wife looks...somethings up.