Of course it's a flip-flop. Your justifications of Hillary's statements are nothing short of lame.

HRC: "I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions..."

Hillary is saying here that SHE would negotiate with Iran unconditionally - the SAME position SHE CRITICIZED Barack Obama for months ago...

How is this not flip flopping?

seanh,

Did Obama actually call Clinton a "flip-flopper"? Greg only quotes Obama as saying: "I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this."

Which sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

yeah, this is teh key indeed:

While pledging a “very vigorous diplomatic effort” including presidential envoys “to test the waters,” she said she would not “promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.”

the point here is even if you think this distinction is a meaningless one, she is making it, and in that context, there's just no flip flop here. She says her admin would talk to Iran the country with no conditions, but she herself would not promise beforehand to meet personally with those leaders without preconditions.

this one's pretty clear cut.

DTM, I suppose I was extending the Edwards statement onto Obama's to some degree, I suppose, so thanks for pointing that out. Still, Obama's point, while more conservative, isn't terribly effective or constructive.
Obama campaign said:

I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this. But I can tell you this: when I am President of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.

Criticism from either side about these specific policies seems a little absurd, considering how similar their positions are. Does Hillary honestly believe there's some recognizable difference between her policy and the promised Obama/Edwards policies? Do Obama/Edwards honestly believe there's a substantive difference between Hillary's statements and their own?

Obama might have a point that Hillary's position is hazy, considering the careful wording of her statements. At times (usually when Obama is promising unconditional personal meetings with Iran) Clinton's language sounds extremely conservative, refusing to promise high level meetings. Other times, she makes statements like the one currently under scrutiny, that seem to suggest a more open, unconditionally cooperative diplomatic administration.

compare (recent statement):

I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works.

Mrs. Clinton has never publicly promised to talk directly to those leaders.
...
While pledging a “very vigorous diplomatic effort” including presidential envoys “to test the waters,” she said she would not “promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.”

Clinton seems to carefully qualify each and every one of her policies, giving her plenty of wiggle room to shift her position based on the audience, political climate or a particular argument. I guess making mountains out of mole hills is what primary season is all about though. That unsettling versatility and uncertainty in Clinton's statements and policies is precisely what these candidates need to dismantle. On second thought, Obama has the right approach here, but I find it hard to believe that Clinton can be effectively pinned down on her tendency to make extremely political statements, that allow a wide breadth of interpretation and plenty of room for re-adjustment.

I really don't buy the flip-flop at all. "Hedging" might be pushing it as well, but there should be no doubt that plenty of what comes out of Clinton's mouth is carefully calculated. Thanks again, DTM, for pointing out that it's only Edwards making the "flip-flopping" claims specifically.

A couple of pots teaming up to call the kettle black. Here's the sort of hard-hitting truth that I hope the HRC camp should include in their rebuttal of this farcical "Hail Mary" attack:

John Edwards, he was so much for the UAMF bill that he co-sponsored and voted for it, but then the shit hit the fan and for sheer presidential politics expediency and opportunism, he did a 180-degree flip and became the serial legendary apologizer for his vote on the bill. HRC has stood firm by her vote and has asked those who fault her for it not to support her.

Senator Obama, who was purportedly "opposed" to the war, was in no position to vote for or against the AUMF bill, but had said publicly that he was not sure how he might have voted had he been in the Seante at time (really, Senator? Remember that your were "opposed" to the war, so therefore, the AUMF vote should have been an easy one, right?); however, when he got to DC, the Good Senator from Illinois, who claims to have "opposed" the war, did a 180-degree flip and voted, not once or twice, but repeatedly to give George Bush more money (billions of it) to continue his misadventure in Mesopotamia. So, which is it Senator? Were you for or against the war? And, Senator, to criticize anyone for their vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill on Iran is what they call in Hebrew chutzpah...something beyond arrogance. Oh, BTW, you wouldn't happen to have skipped the K-L bill for fear of getting caught voting "nay" on a bill similar to one that you had co-sponsored, would? It does smell like "politics as "usual" to me, Senator Barack New-Kind-of-Politics Obama...sheesh!

the bush administration has had meetings with iranian diplomats. in what qualitative way is hillary's proposal different? is it the content of the meetings?

to sum up:
bushCo - sends envoys to meet with iranians about iraq only. (i know, they're barely going through the mothions)
hilCo - will send envoys to meet with iranians about everyything
obamCo - president will meet with iranians, khameini most likely.

yes?

seanh,

No problem. And I actually do have a substantive concern about her diplomatic policy. Parsing everything as best I can, it seems the most she has committed to is some sort of low-level contact with Iran. Well, the current Administration has had low-level contacts with Iran, so that is not a meaningful change in policy. Thus, I am legitimately concerned she is not in fact committed to a significantly different diplomatic effort.

dcshungu,
We've debated this a thousand times. Obama's opposition to K-L wasn't the designation of the Iranian Quds Force as a terrorist organization (Jim Webb's point of contention), but instead the concession of an aggressive GOP-sponsored bill that moved a step closer to legitimizing an attack on Iran. The bill was a step backwards from the goal of ending the GOP domination of Middle Eastern policy. Obama has publicly spoken out against the amendment, and stated quite clearly he wasn't able to make it to Washington in time to vote Nay.

I'd love to see a link to the bill that Obama cosponsored that was apparently "exactly the same" as K-L. If your point is valid, please track down the bill here:
THOMAS (legislative information from the Library of Congress)

Please provide the link of the bill for all to see. Otherwise, we don't need to keep hearing the same argument over and over.

I means I.

She did not say "my admin."

DTM,
I agree that Clinton has made statements that sound that way (like I mentioned). She's also been making, throughout her campaign, statements like the one in theLate Update: video link Greg posted. That particular quote is almost identical to the current controversial quote under scrutiny, and leaves more than enough wiggle room to interpret her position as identical to Obama's.

Look at bob's post above. Her language is so absurdly calculated, a single word can change its meaning entirely. Certainly, this is politics as usual, and all the candidates engage in it at some point, but it seems to be the default tone for the Clinton campaign.

I agree with DTM. To the best of my knowledge, Obama hasn't accused her of "flip-flopping". He said that its' difficult to know exactly where she stands. I would agree with that.

It was the same issue with her recent comments on torture. Pundits and commenters were scurrying for the next 2 days to try to figure out what she said, what she meant and where exactly she stands. There still seems to be a fair amount of disagreement about it. I would argue that it reamins vague enough that we still don't know exactly where she stands on that issue either.

Finally, being a regular reader, it's obvious to me that Greg is a Hillary supporter. Any time I see his name in the byline of an article about Hillary, I know he will be defending her on some issue. If anyone knows of a critical piece he has written in regard to Hillary Clinton, please direct me to it. As such, while I still enjoy his writing, I consider him a biased source and take whatever he writes with a grain of salt.

Putting on my neutral hat for a minute.

This is a good example of what happens when the candidates' positions on issues are not very different: A molehill becomes a mountain in order to try to emphasize non-existent differences.

I am sure that as POTUS, either Obama, Edwars or Clinton would do better than George Bush in dealing with the rest of the world because they would be open to engaging into bi-, tri-, or multi-lateral dialogs with counties, like Iran, that we consider hostile or rogue; tt won't be the Texas Idiot's approach of "My way or the Highway."

So, what about this controversy between Obama and Clinton? It is "a tempest in a teapot." Obama did say that he would meet with the heads of rogue nations during his first year in office without preconditions. While saying that she would not be adverse to meeting with those leaders, HRC did have the caveat that she would we prefer to have the dialog start at the low level before she, the POTUS, got involved. All it showed was Obama's "greenness" and Clinton's "experience".

Any questions?

I'm not interested in what "Ben Smith" thinks about anything.

I feel like I can make the same post I did yesterday. It's really hard to know where she stands. I don't see how this is not agreeing with Obama when she disagreed in the past. Again, his judgment seems compelling and clear, hers seems confusing, and previously just a bit too much like current policy. This statement on Iran is better. I trust Hillary on domestic issues, but I just don't trust her, or really know where she is on foreign policy.

Dave wrote on October 12, 2007 2:31 PM: I really think it's time for Greg and TPM (and Ben Smith) to actually endorse Senator Clinton, to clear up the constant "you're biased" complaining. They clearly support her candidacy, and that's fine, just come out and be up front about it.

Agreed re coming out. But it's really and mainly Kleefeld who pretends to be in the closed.

Quoting Kleefeld's erstwhile partner Greg Sargent: "Something tells me that Camp Hillary won't be touting this column on her campaign web site. Nor TPM Election Clinton for that matter."

The only surprise here is why TPM Election Clinton insists on pretending Kleefeld is anything but a Clinton Camp Counselor.

seanh,

I agree, and I didn't mean to imply she had ruled out a significant change in diplomatic policy. She just hasn't really committed to one, at least as far as I can tell, which I find troubling.

dcshungu,

Yes, I have a question: do you actually own a "neutral hat"? Because you sure were not wearing it in your last post.

You begin by claiming there is no real distinction between Clinton and the other Democratic candidates on foreign policy issues, which apparently we should believe no matter what she says or does that appears to suggest otherwise. That is a favored Clinton talking point, designed to counter any attempt by the other candidates to point out that she has consistently been the most hawkish candidate on the Democratic side, and has carefully left herself plenty of room to become even more hawkish if she gets the nomination. And then you end by repeating the claim that Obama has somehow demonstrated a relative lack of experience in these discussions, which is another favored Clinton talking point.

So please do not pretend you were trying to be neutral. It insults our intelligence, and does neither you nor the candidate that you support any favors.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later sought to clarify her comments, saying that while she believes in diplomatic engagement with Iran, "she does not agree with Senator Obama ... that the United States president should precommit to meeting directly with Mr. Ahmadinejad."

If I read this correctly, Wolfson is saying that the disagreement is that Clinton doesn't believe that POTUS should "precommit" to meeting with Iran. On its face, her statement last night suggests that she is committing to meeting, without precondition, the leaders of Iran. So where is the disagreement?

Where is a Very Serious Person when you need one?

DTM wrote on October 12, 2007 2:43 PM: dcshungu, Yes, I have a question: do you actually own a "neutral hat"? Because you sure were not wearing it in your last post.

DTM, if it helps and you've followed this site for awhile, there's a good chance "dcshungu" = "colonpowpow".

A couple of points, some already noted.

1. Neither Edwards nor Obama are accusing her of flip-flopping (unless they did so somewhere that wasn't quoted). Flip-flopping implies that she took a position at some point in the past. Instead, they're both noting how the apparent contradication is indicative of the4 way she never taks a clear position on f'ing anything, no matter how important.

2. I however, do note that, if the defense that TPM has launched on her behalf (c'mon guys, do you really think she needs the help?) is true, there is no meaningful distinction between the position she's now staked out and the one Obama laid out. There's certainly not enough daylight between to justify her accusation that his position was "naive." Given that, its hard to avoid one of two conclusions. Either a) her polls and focus groups decided Obama was right and that she needed to coopt his position, or b) the reason she's so tightly scripted is that she can't be trusted not to screw up when she's having an unscripted moment. Both possibilities are unsettling.

3. Defend her defintion all you want. If this story gets traction, none of the people who were swayed by "I voted before the 80 billion before I voted against it" are going to see the difference. Lucky for Hillary, however, the MSM--including that most MSMey of MSM outlets, Politico, appear to be determined that no gaffe by Hillary will get any traction (until after she's nominated, I'm guessing). All things being equal, one would expect this story to get the same play as Edwards' unconscionable decision not to stiff a guy who locked up his business and lost several hours to come down and give him a haircut. All is not equal.

4. From a purely wonky spectator standpoint, no one seems to be noticing the rather interesting dynamic that's been emerging between Edwards and Obama over the last month. Each is clearly going out of his way to not tear down the other. One wonders whether both campaigns want to leave their bridges (mostly) unburnt in case there's an open convention.

seanh said:
"In my humble opinion, slinging mud at our editors here (who presented this article for our discussion) and making broad claims about their bias for particular candidates with very little to no evidence is counterproductive and silly."

I (humbly) disagree. All authors have biases. I think that, in order to keep any particular author's writings in perspective, it's important to look at the body of their work and recognize any presuppositions. When I see Greg's name on an article about Hillary I know he will be supportive of her position just like I know that Andrew Sullivan will be critical. I read them both and then draw my own conclusions.

seanh continues:
"...but I'm really not seeing a flip-flop here. Instead, I see a consistent pattern of careful maneuvering by the Clinton (sic) in order to effectively position herself on two sides of the argument, simultaneously."

I agree 100%. I don't know that I've read a statement recently that I agree with more. (For those paying attention, I've just revealed my bias.)

Of course there's no flip-flop at all. Edwards and Obama are starting to remind of the Bush fact-twisting about WMD and al-Qaeda.

As for Hillary labeling Obama "naive", there is something in what she said. If the U.S. president were to hop on a plane to meet Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or any 2-bit tyrant, it would be nothing more than a photo-op sideshow. Just like Hillary said in the debate, you have to have preliminary diplomatic-level talks to lay groundwork, and if successful, only then would the heads of state get together.

This shift for Hillary is amusing more because of her adamant criticisms of Obama's experience and supposed foreign policy naivety. She used this specific point, about talking to these sorts of officials without preconditions, as her harshest point of contention against her competitor. So it's not incredibly remarkable, policy wise, that's she's changing her mind (it's a good thing she is). But it does seem a bit nasty to me for her to go on the attack, only to later do a 180 on the issue and try to take credit.

Diverik wrote on October 12, 2007 3:08 PM:

seanh continues:
"...but I'm really not seeing a flip-flop here. Instead, I see a consistent pattern of careful maneuvering by the Clinton (sic) in order to effectively position herself on two sides of the argument, simultaneously."

I agree 100%. I don't know that I've read a statement recently that I agree with more. (For those paying attention, I've just revealed my bias.)
I'd like to take this opportunity to say how much I miss the edit button. I'm an edit button poster. My mind is like a laser, zipping around and unable to contain its energies in an initial posting. Everything I've ever written has gone through at least 10,000 drafts.

Boy Greg Sargent and Kleefeld are such unabashed Hillary supporters that it is nauseating the lengths they go to.

Unbelievable.

Let's start with how they created a 'contrived controversy' simply with the headlines. Greg Sargent chose to herald this as a flip-flop with his headline for the story. Thus leading the reader astray from the beginning. Then in the text he rebuts his very own characterization of what Obama says and asserts it is not a flip flop and that Obama is wrong for saying so, although Obama never said any such thing...Sargent did. But the point of the entire story was to paint Obama has wrong.. So Sargent, actually created a debate about something never asserted only so he could say Obama was wrong and Hillary had not flip-flopped. Once again his girl Hill was right and that Obama was wrong as 2 left shoes, according to Sargent.

How much more blatant of a supporter could he be?

What Obama and Edwards both said is that it is difficult to know where Hillary stands on anything. Which is TRUE. Neither of them uttered the phrase flip-flop. Neither of them said Hillary contradicted herself, they said folks can't figure out where she stands and all the posts on this thread prove their point.

What Sargent and Hillary supporters are attempting to do though is mask Hillary's gaffes by shifting the focus to 'contrived' gaffes on the part of her rivals that they generate solely in the media and which the political rivals themselves have not at anytime asserted. All of which is to deflect from the fact that Hillary has no position on anything, doesn't answer questions and attacks the messenger without answering the substance of any issues.

Hillary equivocates about everything to do with policy. Not only did she slam Obama in the debate when he said that he would meet with leaders who were our enemies, but she made certain to continue the attack the next day by bringing out Albright to attack Obama further and elaborate on why that was 'naive and inexperienced'. Hilllary created a firstorm over the remarks. Not Barack. Now, her supporters want to act like she never said what she did, because Barack was right.

We are not stupid. Hillary not only said it but she attacked and attacked Barack relentlessly to the point that Bill Clinton had to come out and acknowledge that there really was not a lot of difference between what she was saying and what Obama said.

Of course, this was all after the majority of the foreign policy experts Clemons, Zakaria, Scrowcroft, Brezinzinski and the rest of the 'insiders' (who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning) came out in support of Barack.

Just as Hillary has co-opted all of Baracks positions, by blurring distinctions between him about the war by saying he votes along with her and by saying she is the candidate for change and now she is saying she will talk to foreign leaders.

Hillary needs to blur the distinctions otherwise she can't win.

Anyone, who reads the news knows Hillary said she would NOT meet with foreign leaders and she basically had the same exact position as the Bush administration and now that she is being called on the carpet for it her supporters are quibbling over the meaning of what "I" is? Give me a break.

Hillary also said, during the debates, that she would not engage in hypotheticals when asked for definitive foreign policy positions, yet in those same debates she engages in hypotheticals every single time she opens her mouth and asserts 'when I am President'

So the bottomline is that Obama and Edwards are right.. no one KNOWS where Hillary stands on the issues because she is an equivocator, a triangulator, a weasel par excellence!!

The press has failed to call her on all of this from the beginning of the primaries it is about time that her political rivals turned up the heat and they need to emphasize this point daily. All they need do is say...just where does Hillary stand on this...I know she said this but she also said this..so I am uncertain where she stands. Hillary beleives that lobbyists are Americans too. But I can tell you where I stand..

Whether it is torture, her vote on AUMF, her vote on Iran, NAFTA or healthcare none of the electorate knows where Hillary stands. NoBODY knows because she won't say. In fact, she has flat out said she does not beleive she should tell the electorate what she would do. She is saying that as a CANDIDATE.

None of which has to do with flip-flopping and everything to do with being deceitful, duplicious and a total lack of judgment which means whatever experience she might have...she can't be relied on as she has no convictions.

The type of experience Hillary has cannot be relied on. She is an experienced politician which means she is corrupt and knows how to not take a position on anything other than what the polls say. She lacks principles and convictions which is why none of us know where she stands on any issue.

So Greg, you're right she is not a flip-flopper...what Hillary is is much worse she is an empty pantsuit at best and Nixon in a pantsuit at worse.