Wasn’t that whole exchange in the debate a niggle about the difference between preconditions and preparation? I don’t see that Obama’s changed his position – sounds to me like he simply clarified it.
McCain explained more of his economic policy proposals today.
What the fuck are you talking about? Show me where I took that line of “attack”?
That is precisely what I’m trying to say, but magellan01 thinks his quotes demonstrate… something, as I saw before even if Obama was before referring only to the president then his reasons for dealing with bad leaders still make more sense than the sorry reasons for not negotiating that the republicans continue to mention. The reasons become really pathetic when I see that in practice Republicans do not even follow their lines of reasoning very well.
https://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/president_bush_8.php
Bush has consistently cut military benefits.
I was thinking the same thing. “Without preconditions” simply means that he’s not requiring the other leader to give ground in negotiations before they meet, as a precondition for meeting.
That’s got nothing to do with whether there’s advance preparations for a meeting between heads of state, which I assume would be the norm, preconditions or no.
I don’t think Obama ever meant himself in person when he was talking about talking to other nations; he was talking about about talking, if you know what I mean.
WRT the debates, both candidates did better than I’d expected. McCain was more on point than I’d expected, less folksy and anecdotal, so I was pleased with him in that respect. On the down side, he played fast and loose with a few facts, and as has been noted, refused to grant Obama the respect of being a worthy opponent. Would that be the way he interacted with foriegn leaders? McCain tends to demonize the enemy in his own mind. That can be very dangerous.
Obama was less abstract, less um-ing and uh-ing than I’d expected, so I was pleased with him in that respect. But I was disappointed that he let several opportunities slip by, such as McCain’s claim to have opposed the White House on several things, when McCain reversed his opinion on those very issues (including torture) in order to win the Republican nomination. He didn’t ask McCain to define terms for victory in Iraq, which both the New York Times and I would be interested in hearing. He didn’t mention that Iraq has basically said “Hit the road, Jack” or that very few political goals of the Surge have been met.
To me, it came across as McCain edging out Obama slightly, but only slightly. But the poll of independents the MSNBC cited last night came up with the opposite, presumably because Obama clearly established his understanding of foreign affairs, about which I had had no prior doubt. For me, this was more a matter of McCain establishing his *bona fides *than Obama establishing his own, and McCain did that. I still believe that McCain’s temperment and policies would make him a bad president, but at least he is not as painfully ignorant as the current president was and largely remains, and as his own VP pick is.
Check post 617. Obama himself makes a distinction between preconditions and preparations. and contrary to the false accusation hurled my way, I’ve not attacked him on this. Read my posts on in this thread. I was actually giving him the benefit of the doubt, that maybe he misspoke, given the confusion between the two words. But the quote I found and cited on #617 actually changes my opinion. He admits that he would meet without preconditions. So if he has changed his mind, he should state so. If not, it is fair to hold him to that position, as Hillary did.
Then he needs to learn how to answer a direct question. Check the cite I provided concerning the YouTube video above.
What else do you call it when a candidate is For something, then Against it, but then For it again?
If I try to look at McCain’s record over the past 20 years I have no fucking idea what his current positions are. I can only assume that his most recent positions are the most current, but with McCain, who the hell knows? What is his position on torture these days? What’s his position on financial deregulation? His opinions seem to change a lot with time (and with the recent poll numbers).
Whatever positions McCain held 20 years ago, they were enough to get him elected 20 years ago. But if I’m gonna vote for anybody, I want to know what they support NOW, now what they used to think in that other election.
Do you argue that I should reward him in the current election for political views he no longer holds?
By the way, when McCain stumbled a bit on Ahmadinejad, did anyone else think Raxacoricofallapatorius?
I agree that Obama is not being 100% clear on this. I just watched your YouTube link, and while it seems clear to me that he is saying “we will talk to whoever” referring to the US as a whole, I can easily see how you can get the impression that he is saying that he as the President would personally meet with the personal leaders Castro and Chavez, etc. I’m guessing that that idea is so far from his mind that it has never occurred to him that people have interpretted him that way.
ETA: I also think he just doesn’t consider a meeting between the actual heads of state that important; it’s just a photo op. The real work gets done in the diplomatic sessions.
ETAA: What the heck is Raxacoricofallapatorius?
What are you talking about? McCain has been fairly consistent since 2006.
At least we are getting to the truly crucial issue here: did Obama change his position on meeting foreign leaders without preconditions? Its hard to imagine a more significant issue, a more existential crisis in judgement. We can bat aside quibbles about McCain changing his position on war, peace, taxes, torture, and slobberng the scaly knob of the Trog Right. These are minor concerns, not worthy of our attention in comparison to this issue of staggering importance: Did Obama shift his position on preconditions for meeting with hostile foreign leaders?
Frankly, if he fails on this issue, I will be compelled to vote for the candidate who is resolutely and unflinchingly wrong about pretty much everything.
I got that part. The part I’m missing is when he said he would require preconditions. By your cite @617, he said “without preconditions, but with preparation” when debating Hillary in February, which was my understanding of what he’d said then.
And per the transcript, he seemed to be saying the same thing last night:
So when did he change from his old stance, that he was going to meet foreign leaders without preconditions but with advance preparations, to his new one that he was going to meet foreign leaders without preconditions but with advance preparations?
Was there a time in between when he took a different position? I’m seriously missing something here.
That was my feeling as well. I really liked his moderating style, and I kept hoping the candidates would listen to him and engage each other, rather than taking turns giving speeches. Excellent job by Lehrer.
I saw that, and it doesn’t help me understand. I don’t think that quote clarifies things very well.
Clinton talks about requiring change in Cuba before agreeing to a sitdown. Obama’s response is “Senator Clinton is right” but he finishes with “there has to be preparation.”
“Senator Clinton is right” could mean that Obama agrees on preconditions, but continuing with “there has to be preparation” puts another (reasonable) interpretation on what he actually meant.
Larry Bird was a hell of a basketball player, but I wouldn’t want him starting for my team in the NBA Finals this season.
Huh. RTFirefly just provided the additional information that makes me think maybe Obama hasn’t changed his position. It seems plausible that Obama is saying, “We should be willing to have low-level meetings with any nation’s leader, with the intent of setting the stage for high-level meetings.” If that’s what he’s saying, that seems a defensible position, and consistent with both statements. Does anyone disagree?
Daniel
I have not yet looked at our cites, but I am not surprised at what you say. Bush is a moron. He tasks the miltitary to do an enormous job and cuts their beneits. Makes sense to me without checking becuase I seriously do not have any faith in Bush or the pubbies. They’re way too willing to let the little guy fall while they prosper. The entire Walter Reed fiasco was a shame on our nation. Walter Reed Army Hospital should be setting a high standard for our wounded. Our soldiers deserve the best…and I’ll say it again…the best care possible when they come back even in peacetime. Wounded from war? Theres no question in my mind. They deserve the best medical care we can give. So no I’m not shocked if Bush and his cronies don’t provide it. After all lining the pockets of his friends seems to be more important than taking care of the men and women that serve the country…with the thought that the nation will take care of them if they get hurt.
Its disgusting. I’m afraid to read your link now. I will. I’m sorry for the tirade I just went on.