What's really annoying is that what I thought he meant and said in the first gd place. Why has this been such a spun up and nonsense issue? His position has always been, which makes sense, that you don't ask the other side to unconditionally surrender before you even meet with them. That's the purpose of negoitiations and diplomacy to get them to the point where they do what you want. You don't huff and puff and ignore them. That get's you no where. It's not rocket science.

Well, thank God we are nominating someone who will not DO or SAY ANYTHING to get elected!
from Joey Klown to Josh and now this.
Seems like for it before being against it kind of thing.

PA

I agree with you LuxVeritas - Your analogy of picking up the phone and dial the White House is perfect.

Nobody, including you and I, can just pick up the phone and ask for an interview with the president. We have to go thru the chain of command or channels.

Geez! The whole purpose of Obama's statement was to let the world know - America is no longer just a BULLY, TELLING OTHERS WHAT TO DO. We will talk to anyone willing to try and solve problems.

This is news?

Obama hasn't changed his position on this - as the NYT interview points out. He's been making the same case for months now. (Here, for example, is a TPM EC post dated July 27, 2007, on the subject:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/07/obama_escalates_battle_with_hi.php

)

So Eric, your speculation that Obama is only seeking to make this clarification "now" and that that is in response to a new perception that this issue could be a liability for him is patently absurd.

Obama said this in a debate:
" Question: "[W]ould 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: "I would. "

Now he says this:
"I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, "

Without preconditions. Pretty unambiguous. Once again he needs to explain his position. Once again it is obavious that he has no firm positions. just words and more word and more words.

This is not leadership. No one knows where he actually stands on anything. He'll say anything anytime and them later try to explain that he really didn't mean what he said.

Obama will lose the general election.

Clinton remains the best choice for president.

I'm also surprised to see TPM make this mistake. I thought they were the ones who corrected this kind of thing. Maybe we have to wait for Josh to get that done.

I'm glad that Obama has recognized that his position's getting twisted by McCain and misinterpreted by the media could be a liability.

Setting preconditions requiring the country to 'surrender to our demands' before being acknowledged by us -- Obama's not for that.

Proving 'first' that they are 'willing' to try and solve disagreements is a totally different requirement.

Josh Marshall, you really need to improve the quality of the reports posted by Eric. He does a disservice to you and this site.

dijamo, you are a moron. Did I mention Obama's name? Eric is making a point that is not supported by facts as has been pointed out by other posters.

Obama is not clarifying his position since he is still saying what he has been saying all along. The first paragraph of Eric's post is nonsense. This is becoming a pattern for him and I expect better from this site.

"I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it," Obama said. "That's not a change in position, that's simply responding to distortions of my position."

-----------

Excellent response. Obama never said he would meet those leaders unconditionally. He simply said he was WILLINGLY to. Which was in direct contrast to the present Bush admininistration policy!!

Just because folks are willing to do things does not meet they WILL do them if the conditions are more adverse and riskier than they REASONABLE beleive would be worthwhile.

He has the ability to exercise JUDGEMENT and determine when his 'willingness' is in the country's best interest and when it isn't.

It is riDICulous how they attempt to distort and misconstrue any statement.

Why should we beleive that McCain 's Baghdad strolls are in the best interest of the nation?

Seems to me it is a real DUMB and HIGH RISK activity that is POINTLESS for any PRESIDENT or presidential nominee to visit a WAR ZONES.

That to me is the reckless and impetuous act here.
McCain has always engaged in reckless, mindless actions even as a full grown adult he has been nothing but a REBEL!!!

The reason that Obama is clarifying his position is because almost every media pundit, politician and blogger are ignorant of the meaning of a precondition.

He has pointed out before that precondition is a "term-of-art" within the diplomatic community. A preconditions is defined as one of the goals of the negotiation for one side.

An example of a precondition is the Bush Admin's requirement that Iran verifiably suspend their uranium enrichment program. (Hadley restated this just yesterday.)

What would be the purpose of talks with Iran if they suspend enrichment? Since we didn't know they had such a program two years ago, what was the reason at that time of not talking directly with Iran?

Requirement of a precondition is used by the Bush Administration as a way to avoid negotiation.

Lately McCain has been using the word "unconditional". Unconditional means without any conditions. Most anyone armed with a dictionary can clarify this for themselves, so to say that Obama is clarifying this for some deeper reason just a CYA move on behalf of reporters and bloggers.

I posted the same thing here a week ago:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/precedents_1.php

I can't find a link now, but I had also predicted that Obama would make this clarification as soon as everyone was listening. This is his typical MO: he waits until everyone (media types, politicians) is on record either with a distortion of his position, or a misunderstanding.

Just to be clear: he hasn't changed the word he uses, which is precondition. He has never said without conditions, or unconditional. The word precondition has a widely recognized meaning in the context of diplomatic negotiations.

On May 15, 2008, Barack Obama explained this:

"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

The following link has a list of other times Obama has made the same distinction:

http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-on-preconditions-preparation.html

I'm going to vote for Obama no matter what, but what he just said is pure bull. He said he would meet with leaders like Castro and Ahmadinejad without preconditions. It was a mistake when he said it. Hillary jumped on it at the debate, and he defended it. McCain later jumped on it. Now he's dancing around and trying to "clarify," and the clarification is easy to see through. He should have simply said some time ago that he misspoke, and issued a clear statement that he would not meet with hostile world leaders without preconditions. He didn't really misspeak. It was an error in judgment. But he could have at least acknowledged that by saying he misspoke. Instead he's trying to say at this late date that we didn't really understand what he meant. It won't fly.

Another example of how we are making it easy for the Terrorists to claim that we are in Iraq as "Crusaders".

Someone please ask Senator Bush McCain why we are still doing such stupid things as this:

Iraqis claim Marines are pushing Christianity in Fallujah

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38820.html

Excerpt:

FALLUJAH, Iraq — At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.

Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked.

He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."

"They are trying to convert us to Christianity," said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They'd been given the coins, too, he said.