The first headline seems misleading to me. As far as I can tell from the article, Obama doesn't say he would meet with Chavez 'under certain conditions.'
Instead he says: "Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends." In certain circumstances, in a certain environment, etc.
This seems like a wildly different point than Bush demanding that, for example, Iran give up its nuclear program before talks begin --- having 'preconditions' for talks.
I don't see the contradiction here.

Edwards Alleges Corporate Conspiracy To Silence Him

I'd say so. And add that Allbritton's Politico is part of it.

how come we have no problem with medieval theocracies who have weekly beheadings, but let an elected president dare to nationalize resources, and all of a sudden they're stalin. (see mossadegh, chavez)

what. a. load. of. crap.

Okay, Rudi's leading with his chin. A guy who married his cousin and "didn't know it"? who went to court to evict his wife and kids from government property so he could move his girlfriend in? a guy whose kids don't talk to him? Bernie Kerik? "thank god george bush is our president"? turned down the 9/11 commission 'cause he would have had to take a few months off from 50,000 motivational speeches (President Tony Robbins? I don't think so)?

Come on, start hitting back. This is practically an engraved invitation for Mr Mary Matalin to go on TV and earn some self-respect back.

Obama was very clear in the debate. Parcing every word and comparing every syllable to prior statements is ridiculous. The constant effort of the MSM and bloggers to land the headline grabbing knock-out punch on candidates does nothing to inform voters or strengthen democracy. It makes the candidates so cautious, they rarely say anything of substance.

ctfu

I agree, psericks. But the bigger issue here is that Obama's interview showed him as thoughtful and informed about international affairs. Obviously his debate statement wasn't a promise to go meet with anybody no matter what -- obviously it would be under certain conditions -- being invited, for example. His answer showed flexibility while Hillary painted herself into a corner.

Obama is not my choice for the nomination, but stuff like this, trying to make a gotcha out of absolutely nothing, only serves the MSM and the GOP in turning serious issues into childish games.

And why in hell would a president promise not to meet with Chavez under any conditions, for gods' sake? Did it slip by me that we've declared war because he recognized Bush for what he is?

I agree. I think it is intentionally misleading.

what part of "under conditions" does one not understand? this is a MAJOR flip-flop on an issue that he is hammering Clinton on! Talk about "being positive".. that is all b.s. on his behalf!

It's been explained many times now what "preconditions" meant in context. You choose to just keep telling the big lie anyway. Give it a rest awready.

you are really trying to sell this obamavangelist line aren't you?

Obama was making a generalization.
"I always believe in talking" is what one calls a general statement, not specific. If anything he artfully dodged the question by not specifically addressing Chavez in the quote.

He almost convinced me he was reagan with that folksy adage

I still dont think you understand the word "precondition" in modern usage.

I thought psericks explained it pretty well earlier.

...This seems like a wildly different point than Bush demanding that, for example, Iran give up its nuclear program before talks begin --- having 'preconditions' for talks.

I think I'm getting it.

You saying that the day before youtube when Obama was asked if he would meet chavez and he said "Under certain conditions" what he really meant was he was willing to meet with chavez "without precondition" as he said he would the next day at youtube?

That's what you mean right? That's what you are saying mitt... ooops I'm mean Obama meant. I think I get it.

Both Clinton and Obama would do very much the same thing: meet with these people after the appropriate diplomatic arrangements were made. Neither would require that the other side surrender a position as a precondition for talking.

As the question was asked, it was almost a trap question for the Democrats: If they said yes, the Pubs would say that the Democrats had volunteered for a photo-op at any time the head of North Korea decided to pick up the phone.

Clinton finessed it by saying that the situation would have to be right, enough diplomacy engaged in that it had a chance of being productive. Obama attempted to finesse it by claiming to follow in the footsteps of Reagan but then blew it by agreeing that he would meet with out preconditions without further clarifying his stance as he had done before the debate --- Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking. Sometimes it's more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends -- and after the debate.

He showed his inexperience in putting himself in a position of falling into the trap and appearing to be at the beck and call of these leades -- which he did not intend.

Obama is now digging deeper into a hole by trying to portray Hillary as someone who would not attempt to engage our enemies in productive discourse which she is clearly willing to do. Hillary is also over stating by making Obama appear as though he would talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime without making sure that there was good reason to do so. Obama simply made a minor debating flub and should have simply made his own position clear and shut up.

Fight over real differences.

Romney has taken to unscrewing one leg of a "conservative three-legged stool" – representing "strong military, strong economy and strong families" [...]

But he has no objections to conservatives removing *two* legs from the "national three-legged stool" -- the legislative branch, the judicial branchg and the executive branch. Indeed, he fully expects it to stand, without a wobble, on the single (executive) leg. Go figure his logic...

Far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have a leg to stand on (but, of course, with those shoulders... he might not need legs).

Diplomatic-speak can be confusing so I don't blame you for being confused by the hairs being split here. The question from the debate: "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?" Obama's answer was that he would (be willing). In the Oppenheimer article, he said When I asked him whether he _would_ (actually, in fact) meet with Chávez, he had said, "Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking." The willingness to talk is unconditional, the actual meeting and doing so is cabined by an agreement on the perceived expectations. By way of analogy it's a bit like expressing a willingness to talk to be called at home on business matters, but not a commitment to take such a call at 3 in the morning. It sounds like Obama is in fact getting some pretty good FP advice. It might be that people are not reading the nuance quite closely enough, but that is the tricky thing about diplomacy.

Smith is not all that bad. Time spent dragging bloggers through the mud is time wasted. I say that as someone who spent time dragging Smith through the mud when I took issue with the topic or substance of his posts. Not to mention that maybe 1% of America pays attention to any of this anyway. TPM, while I respect them, has clout primarily because they have operated as a pseudo-DNC research service. Even TPM falls down a bit when it comes to reporting a truly nuanced story. I for one am still looking for a politicial news site that really is willing to give a full airing of the relevant facts, until then Colbert and Stewart will have to suffice. BTW, sorry but the "Drudgico" quip is kind of lame.

No, Obama did not say yes period. Here is the question, along with the answer.

"I watched a guy ask a clear question -- no conditions, meet with our 5 big "enemies" in your first year."

No you didn't. You heard him ask if they would be willing to meet without precondition. Let's be accurate here. I think we all understand what kind of precondition the questioner was referring to. He was referring to a Bush-style precondition. A "bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West" precondition. A precondition set up as a way to sabotage any possible discussions. A precondition that is designed to create a casus belli, rather than a successful dialog.

We know what Bush has done over the past six years. He has refused to talk to our "enemies" unless they first humble and humiliate themselves before him. And he has done so because he has no intention of talking to them in the first place. What he wants is not to talk, but to inflame the situation and to create an excuse to attack. He wants to be able to say "I tried to reason" when in fact he only tried to provoke. He did it to Saddam Hussein when he made his absurd demand that Iraq "prove" a negative--that they had no weapons of mass destruction. He's doing it to Iran now. Because he intends to attack Iran before he leaves office, and because he has no intention of allowing the situation to cool down by way of any successful talks. With Bush, there is always a dagger hidden within the olive branch.

Don't you think the questioner asked the question in reference to what's been going on over the past six years? And doesn't it appear that Barack clearly understood the question?

What does that mean? Who's "us"? We all think alike now? I didn't get the memo...

Mitt Romney clearly understands his audience. The same clueless pinheads who sat and smiled and banged their flip-flops together during the last election season are gonna love Romney's stool. They'll eat it up.

Hillary is mastering the "Straw Man" argument so characteristic of George W. Bush. Twist something into an absurd statement and then knock it down (e.g., No one has ever called me Bush or Cheney before). This approach combined with her stubborn-arrogant-calculated refusal to admit that her Iraq vote was a mistake, reminds me too much of George Bush. We need change in the character and conduct of the presidency as much as we need policy change. In so many many ways, Hillary is the status quo.

Joe Biden has spent 35 years in the U.S. Senate, and over that time the Senate has devolved into partisan gridlock and become a theater for shouting matches, grandstanding and inaction on every major challenge and need facing the nation. He may well be a "Good Senator", just as Colin Powell was a "Good Soldier" meaning he bought into the corrupt culture and did not rock the institutional boat. Biden, Clinton, Dodd give strong testimony to the reasons "experienced" Senators have never been received well as presidential prospects. One can only hope that Obama's brief tenure is sufficient to give him practical working knowledge of the Washington culture useful for a president, without corrupting him forever.

"Hillary said she would not commit to talks with Chavez, et al within her first year. Don't you think that's a rather serious problem for her?"

No.

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

I'd agree with what Obama as said over various occassions.

Obama day before youtube:
"under certain conditions."

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

Neither Obama or Hillary could know if "certain conditions" or the "diplomatic state work" would be done in the first year.

So Obama would not commit to talks with chavez during his first year. If you "think that's a rather serious problem for her" then don't you think that's a rather serious problem for him?

The question was:
"would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration"

"OBAMA: I would"

Obama didn't promise to meet with chavez. The quesion was "would you be willing" and the answer was "I would." The naunces of that have been explained to me over and over again. It turns out that means what obamavangilsts want it to mean at the moment. Kinda like gop speak. But most seem to agree no commitment or promise was made. A meeting "separately, without precondition, during the first year" with Obama and chavez was not cast in stone.

Being asked if you "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration" and saying "I would" is not a commitment. No promise was made. At least so I have been told over and over again. And I'd agree. Obama didn't say 'I will' he said "I would." Obama did not promise or commit to meet chavez "separately, without precondition, during the first year of your [his] administration."

So Obama would not commit to talks with chavez during his first year. Don't you think that's a rather serious problem for him?

"Diplomatic-speak can be confusing so I don't blame you for being confused by the hairs being split here."

Agreed. Mostly. I don't blame you for being confused. And the hair splitting is not just here, Obama is hair splitting. By hair splitting I mean lying.

Obama 2 days after youtube:
"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic state work has to be done ahead of time.

The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous."

What serious person has the notion Obama was "inviting them over for tea next week"? Who has said that? Who does Obama think is that kooky? In the full quote he is attacking Hillary. So I'd guess he is trying to tar Hillary with his kooky arguement.

"It sounds like Obama is in fact getting some pretty good FP advice."

He could be. I can't tell because of all the kooky arguments and republican style divide and conquer and slash and burn politicking Obama is doing. And the whole reagan thing is very distrubing. Who is giving that advise about approvingly mentioning reagan and FP? I wonder what the headless bodies that littered south America during reagans reign think of reagans FP?

Hint for the obamavangelized: Making up fake arguments and painting them on a dem candidate are repub style divide and conquer and slash and burn politicking.

How can you possibly assume that "precondition" meant "a minimum set of ground rules"? What would be the point in asking an inane question like that? Obviously there's going to be a minimum set of ground rules in any negotiation. Oh, I get it--you and Hillary think Obama was talking about headin' down Venezuela way with a piece of straw in his mouth and his pants down around his ankles, right? Gimme a break. We know what a precondition is. It's an outrageous demand that Bush makes prior to talking with someone so he won't have to talk to them.

"Now why would she answer in that way"

Why not?

Hillary:
"I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year"

What's wrong with that? You might not like that answer, fine.

What does that have to do with Obama? Are you saying Obama promised to "meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your [his] administration" and Hillary called him on it? Is that what you are saying. I didn't think that’s what Obama meant and I don’t think that’s what Hillary meant. For me Obama's answer didn't come to my mind when Hillary answered. But then I don't see everything through Obama glasses.

"The questioner didn't ask ANYONE to "promise" or commit to anything"

The questioner:
"QUESTION: 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"

The questioner asked each candidate if they would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year." Sounds to me like the questioner wants to know if the candidates commit/promise to do something. This part here "would you be willing to meet separately." If the candidate said yes, no, I would, I promise or even I will not promise they have committed themselves. At least to an answer if not the substance of their answer. Now maybe you think the questioner wanted to hear high minded bullroar rather than what the candidates would actually do. I’d disagree.

“EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.”

Was Edwards attacking Obama? If so why didn’t Edwards say ‘I think Obama is wrong’? If Hillary was attacking Obama why didn’t she say ‘Obama is wrong’?

Obamavangelists would do themselves a big favor if they would realize it’s not all about Obama. It’s not about trashing everything but your guy. The republican style slash and burn tactics will not win the 08 election for Obama.

Lookingforhome, Obama did not just answer one question right. He emphasized the Iraq issue in the runup to his campaign and during it, while all that time, the polling was in favor of the war. He spoke at the October 2002 rally; he then answered the questions you're referencing; then he pressed the other Dems in the Illinois primary to take a stand one way or the other in early 2003; then after that he spoke at one more rally in Chicago just about a week before the invasion, saying there was only one way to stop it and that was if there was mass protest, which of course there wasn't, at least not in the US. So don't try to cast his position as a random brain fart -- that would be a better description of Hillary's actual vote.

down-rated for calling tpm a "pseudo-DNC research service". please.

The issue of gridlock and bickerng is one that extends far beyond the Senate or one Senator.

It's not like there haven't been ethical issues raised about Obama.

The system is broken. No one person can fix it.

Oh please, is that really the main point of my post?

Um, no.

The point is that the system is corrupting and virtually no one is immune.

Can someone objective, without a dog in the Hillary v. Obama hunt, explain whether the term "precondition" is a diplomatic term of art?

It may be. . What I do know is that the term 'precondition' is a code phrase to the pro-Israel group much like the term 'statesrights' is to Dixie dems. If you recall Israel was the example given as part of the initial framing of the  question?

Thus, the reason HRC said no, she would not meet....she was letting the pro-Israel constituency know that she would do nothing in the ME without them first laying out the terms for her administration to engage. Then she shrewdly switched to Latin American leaders to name them as folks she would not meant with to pander to the FL cuban voters. While Obama did not specify any countries he gave a global answer, despite his generic global response he was accused of saying he would meet with Chavez and Castro, having never uttered their names....only Hillary had.

Hillary then brought out Albright the following day for good measure to ensure that the pro-Israel lobby knew she was 'sophisticated' and understood the term 'pre-conditions' as it relates to Israel....not diplomacy in general.

Pre-conditions for the Bush foreign policy are John Bolton's idea.:

The fact is, for years the administration ran roughshod over the meaning of diplomacy and turned it into a political sound byte rather than a serious effort to secure our own interests. So committing to diplomacy is not enough, defining its contents and fleshing out its meaning are what counts.

To that end, Senator Obama tries to counter the Bush administration's brand of thin-diplomacy (sometimes unilateralism cloaked in the garb of diplomacy) by evincing a willingness to meet leaders of all stripes, even the ones we don't like, in order achieve strategic ends.

(Since several TWN comments have challenged Steve on his read of this, if we're going to have a close textual reading of the debate transcript, its important to note the question asked about a "willingness" to meet with leaders that somehow metamorphosed into a "promise" to meet with them--the reframing in absolutist terms allows the respondent to describe what they wouldn't do and evade articulation of a positive foreign policy vision).

Ironically, while Sen. Clinton didn't want to be used as propaganda for dictators, she finds herself--much to her chagrin--to be the heroine of neo-con extraordinaire Charles Krauthammer's column this morning. With the Krauthammers of the country praising Sen. Clinton for her tough-sounding rhetoric, it probably doesn't do much for her defense against the Bush/Cheney-lite charge.

snip

but she should have said that it would be a high priority for her to meet them, to communicate America's views and positions, to see where opportunities might be exploited, and when a tougher edged policy was called for.

This whole debate would be different if she had said that meeting with the world's thugs is important and should be made the kind of priority that it is not in this administration. Shunning and isolating our enemies is in character for the Jesse Helms/Richard Cheney wing of Republican national security circles. It should not be a dominant feature of Hillary Clinton's profile.

So, yes -- Obama is right that Hillary Clinton articulated a Bush-lite strategy.

Let's hope that we may be able to nudge Senator Clinton and her foreign policy team away from a policy that seems laced with elements of a John Bolton-style, Jesse Helmsian pugnacious nationalism and towards a more Nixon-lite approach -- which in my book would demonstrate real 21st century style leadership.

The point is that the system is corrupting and virtually no one is immune.

When you are in a hole, it is generally best to stop digging.

Accusations of corruption are ubiquitous but corruption is not.

I think few here are unfamiliar with the charges against Obama.

How one views matters often depends on one's partisanship.

Given what we know, I don't view Obama as corrupt. Do you?

Best, Terry

What I understood her to be saying is that she would meet with these people if enough diplomatic work had been done to make it seful.

Then why does she insist on preconditions?

Best, Terry

You singled out Obama, I didn't.

My example wasn't faulty at all. It spoke to a larger problem that I have outlined in subsequent posts on this thread.

Did I say [Obama] was corrupt? Nope.

Thank you for that much.

The implication seemed obvious to me and I suspect others. I accept that Obama was selected perhaps as an example because he was relatively clean.

Given what we know, do you think that you and I have the same influence on Obama as David Geffen? I don't.

Of course one voice in millions unknown to Obama have no influence whatever. As a combined force, we have power that a David Geffen could never hope for.

It is my contention that rewarding virtue has considerably more value than crying out that all are corrupt and there is nothing to be done about it. I am not particularly enamored of the proposition that the corruption of the Clintons counts for nothing because they skated and because all others are corrupt too.

Many here must remember when the contest between LBJ and Goldwater was widely characterized as a choice between a crook and a fool. I think such an offering is not overly appetizing.

Best, Terry

To reiterate, another poster was the one who brought up his name.

My point is simply that I don't believe that Obama is any different than most other politicians in that he is just as susceptible to being unduly influenced by big money contributors because of the way the exigencies of the current campaign finance system.

As to your point about the influence of "a combined force," I think those are lofty words, but in practical terms it doesn't negate the influence of the rich and the powerful, so the potential for corruption still remains.

To reiterate, another poster was the one who brought up his name.

How many times do I have to make excuses for you? :-)

Your point is made.

As to your point about the influence of "a combined force," I think those are lofty words

And I think they are simple fact.

It is becoming rather clear that voters as a whole have taken a leftward turn that your "rich and powerful" are trying to keep up with. The MSM is like a fat man trying to run the Boston Marathon and in danger of a heart attack. (That used to happen BTW - the Boston Marathon I mean.)

Nobody has complained more about our plutocracy than I.

I am rather astonished at Obama's Amway-style campaign and fundraising. Whatever it's worth, it's raising hell with the establishment. I think it interesting that one or more of the usual suspects on the Sunday talk shows did mention Hillary having her claws out for Obama because the establishment was being rattled. Even some of those hard-of-hearing folk sometimes get something through their thick headbones.

The flood of money to Democrats vis a vis the Republicans will only pay dividends if it doesn't result in a heavily Republican Lite Democratic Party.

You're not all bad despite what everybody says about you. LOL!

Best, Terry

That is incontrovertible proof that I was NOT the first person to inject Obama into the discussion.

I never claimed you were the first to inject Obama into the conversation. You were however the first to narrow the conversation down to Obama by focusing on a flimsy charge. The original post mentioned Biden, Clinton, Dodd, & Obama. You latched on to one part of that post, I attacked your reasoning for narrowing down to that one person.

I didn't miss the context, you made a claim (corruption is rampant) and had a warrant (even Obama has ethics issues) I attacked the warrant for your claim. Since you only had one flimsy warrant, it was pretty easy to do.

You are again incorrect.

The person who first injected Obama into the conversation made the point that he might be different than the other candidates on the issue of the susceptibility to corrupting influences.

One can only hope that Obama's brief tenure is sufficient to give him practical working knowledge of the Washington culture useful for a president, without corrupting him forever.

So I didn't focus on a flimsy charge. I merely cited it as a proxy to stand for the proposition that no one is immune to the dangers that the current system imposes.

Consequently, the validity of the charge (note that I did not take a position on it) is irrelevant to the point, which remains entirely valid.

On preconditions:

The lesson to be learned here is that if you give a simple response to an ambiguous question, you open yourself up to a variety of interpretations.

Hillary took the opportunity to reinforce a perception making the rounds that Obama is inexperienced.

Later according to the NYT:

Hillary calls Obama "...irresponsible and frankly naïve ..."

"Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of Mr. Obama yesterday came in response to a reporter’s question about an Obama campaign memorandum that was released earlier in the day. The memorandum, from Mr. Obama’s communications staff, accused her of flip-flopping on whether she would talk directly with leaders of those countries as well as of Cuba, Syria and Venezuela."

She quickly rolls out Albright, Wolfson to help.

Obama later escalates by calling her policies "Bush-Cheney lite".

She responds later on CNN:
"This is getting kind of silly," Clinton said.

"I've been called a lot of things in my life, but I've never been called George Bush, or Dick Cheney certainly. You know, you have to ask, what's ever happened to the politics of hope?"

This gives her the opportunity to demonstrate that Obama is just another politician, not some elevated, above the fray, new kind of leader for the new century or what ever.

So now a lot of Obama supporters are out on the blogs are trying some desperate displacement tactics by trying to bring up the AUMF in Iraq, who read the NIE, trying to blame Hillary for starting the war, and so on.

This is part of the conversation that Hillary knows is necessary, and she is prepared for it. Obama supporters believe that Hillary should have puss'd out and apologized for her vote like Edwards did. She won't, because she's honest and strong enough not to.

Both candidates seem quite satisfied with where they are positioned after this dust-up.

Hillary and her supporters can claim Hillary is steady, calm, and pays attention to all of the details that a President needs to pay attention to.

Obama and his supporters can claim that none of the details matter when it leads to decisions showing poor judgment.

Seems to me that the lines are more clearly drawn now and that no one is being desperate.

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.