are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip flop?

We all remember the debate, I watched a clip of it recently, in response to a youtube question Obama said he would meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba & Syria in the first year of his admininstration.

Recently, the Obama campaign has begun backing away from such talk, nuancing for the sake of not appearing naive to the Jewish voters about Iran, a nation who he also distained recently as comprising a puny threat.

So, the campaign starts up & the first salvo comes about Nazis marching into Poland and Obama backing away from his previous position.

It looks weak, it is weak, it is an admission that the position taken by Obama in the debate was, well, a foolish one, one that all the Obama supporters seemed to relish and delight in, showing how different Obama would be.

Well, how different is it, flip flopping, I mean? That is what it is, right out of the starting gate, not reassuring is it?

What other positions taken to seem different will fade like a mist on a hot summer morning? I hate to repeat this, I know, its all over, Obama won and all, but to this date, I am still not certain what one or two major issues drive the Senator from Illinois.

My reflections on great Presidents lead me to believe that unless you have some such major goals, issues, principles that you want to protect or pursue, you are just going to muddle...and muddling is not really a good idea, in today's world.

I am waiting, I do not yet think we have seen the rationales we need to see..and these kind of flip flops, so so late in the day, I say, it really is unsettling.



Display:


Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

He asked a question and you answered with one.

Hmm

I think the diarist doesn't want to have buyers remorse. Doesn't want to vote for someone counting on them to follow through on their campaign promises. He or she feels that Sen. Obama has made a statement very early in the primary. A statement that was in the diarist view very important to his supporters. Then, in the diarists view, Sen. Obama "flip flopped" on this campaign promise. Now the diarist is worried about what other campaign promises Sen. Obama will flip flop on. And they are asking about Sen. Obama. So answering by telling of Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain's short comings is no answer at all.

So. What assurances can you give the diarist that Sen. Obama didn't flip flop and won't flip flop?

Well?


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:17:30 AM EST

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

"...Doesn't want to vote for someone counting on them to follow through on their campaign promises..."

This comment should read:

"...Wants to vote for someone who can be counted on to follow through on their campaign promises..."

My apologies. I hope this sentence makes the above sentence clear as to meaning. I figure you're smart enough to know this. Just wanted to extend the courtesy of clarification to you.

Thanks.
12 dogs.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

Wow, your reasoning, your links, and your proof are incredibly persuasive.


by dhonig on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:29:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

No you haven't.

You've been glib.

Now.

Because I'm fair and yes I have been watching these debates and noticed a shift.

And because I read about a fella who ran successfully as a USRep. on the promise that he would stop the war in Iraq. Guess what he said AFTER he got into office. He said that once he got into office that he found out he couldn't stop the war in Iraq. Said that once he got into office he got information that made him change his mind. Now with a US Representative? You can vote them out for not fullfilling a campaign promise in a year. US Reps only run for a 2 year period unlike US Senator. But a US President is in office for 4 very looonngg years. So you do want to know that the guy you vote for won't say, "OOps sorry. You know how I promised to get folks out of Iraq? Well ya know now that I've got the job? I can't. Hence folks who voted for them have "buyer's remorse". You could answer the question in a serious manner and reassure this diarist, and those lurking, that Sen. Obama will fullfill his promise by giving, oh, quotes and examples where he has.

Instead you were glib.

I don't mind glib. Have used it myself when it felt like a series of comments were getting really testy but not here. Seems like a real concern for the diarist. I know it is a concern for me.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

You say you've "noticed a shift."

Care to let the rest of us in on it?  Because so far both you and the diarist have simply claimed that Obama has flip-flopped on this issue, and offered zero evidence.

The burden is on you to provide evidence he has changed his position, not us to provide proof he hasn't.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:59:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (2.00 / 1)

You know BishopRook. I said that it is a concern. Yes in two debates I did see a shift. One from the early debates where Sen. Obama said that he dealt in hypotheticals. You do remember the contrast to President Bush who said he did not deal with hypotheticals.

Really. Then in a later debate he said completely the opposite.

Your comment seems to be trying to do two things. One get out of the responsibility of defending, your candidate of choice, on the issue of concern that he will not follow through with his campaign promises. I'm looking for the candidate to vote for. I don't have to defend him AT ALL. I have to ask you his supporter if he will stay the course of his campaign promise. You can answer or not with fact. I don't have to defend. As a voter I ask questions. Same as above.

If you are taking it personally as an attack on your candidate? Why?

The second thing you're comment seems (please notice I have used the word seems not is. I am giving you the benefit of a doubt here.) To say that both the diarist and I have a common goal. To defeat your candidate. AND get Sen. McCain elected.

Are you kidding. Is this how you treat folks who say, "Hey your for Sen. Obama. I have a concern about what I heard during the debate season. What can you tell me to aleviate these concerns. Besides,"Just cause I say so."

No dice bucko. I'm trying to find a candidate to vote for. That means my questions are NOT attacks they are questions. I do take up for the diarist in that he or she, as the case maybe, is expressing a real concern.

Please. Answer the question or not. But it is NOT my responsibility to defend your candidate.

Got it.

Thank you.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:22:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

"It's a concern..."
"Some people say..."
"It's been suggested that..."

You're pulling FOX News' favorite tactic to throw out unsubstantiated allegations without any evidence to back them up aside from some vague, unsupported, and unprovable "some say..."

You tell me I should "defend my candidate" or assure people he's going to keep his campaign promises.

Fine.  He's going to keep his campaign promises, and neither you nor the diarist has provided any evidence that he won't.

Now, it's been suggested by many that you are concern trolling.  I think you need to immediately disprove these allegations.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Taking the diarists words out of context. (none / 0)

You know, you're taking his words out of context.

You're taking a few snippets and repeating them over and over.

You can't possible disagree with what he says until you crawl inside his brain and see his thoughts.

You are being divisive, and playing the old tired brand of politics.

You should be for hope, and change.

Etc etc and so on.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

YOU are not trying to find a candidate to vote for.  You are trying to undermine a candidate.  Pure and simple.  You believe you have evidence of a flip flop and that seems to trouble you.  Post something about just one McCain flip flop.  

Go ahead.  

I dare you.


by niksder on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

No way, niksder...  It's too hard to narrow Senator McCain's flip-flops down to just one. :(


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama flip flop? (none / 0)

LOL I have to ask because it has happened on other internet sites.

Are Bishop Rook and nikster the same person under different niks?

I was wondering. Not that you agree with each other but well I was just wondering.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

YAY! (none / 0)

I love concern trolls!


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flip Flop (2.00 / 1)

Are you saying that Obama will not win a debate with Grampy McSame? Are you suggesting that Obama's approach to foreign policy is weak because he doesn't agree with Hillary that threatening nuclear annihilation of Iran is the proper starting point? Are you actually suggesting that Flip-Flopping is more of a problem for Obama than McSame?


by xdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:25:41 AM EST

Re: Flip Flop (2.00 / 1)

I'll be interested in seeing the diarist comment. They are the expert to their words.

Personally you comment doesn't have bumpkis to do with the diaries concerns.

Nice try at "blowing smoke" but no cigar.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bumpkis? (none / 0)

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I think the diarist's point was that Obama is a weak flip flopper (sound familiar?), but everyone knows that is a childish pejorative used against anyone whose understanding of the complexities can't fit on a bumper sticker.

The other theme of the diary is that Obama is weak on support of Israel, another political attack strategy that for generations has resulted in Administrations with hyper-militaristic approaches to Middle East policy.

Since McSame's Reverend Hagee sees success in the Middle East as a war of Armageddon / Jesus descending from a cloud - and Hillary has pandered in the tradition with "I will annihilate Iran', - forgive me if I choose to vote for the the guy that has his brain in gear.


by xdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bumpkis? (none / 0)

/ anyone whose understanding of the complexities can't fit on a bumper sticker./

The main reason I was so disgusted when HRC started dumbing down the debate. It always benefits Republicans.


by BlueinColorado on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flip Flop (none / 0)

Kerry made Bush look like a monkey in THREE debates.

Obviously, Joe Sixpack doesn't watch debates or allow them to influence his vote.


by WolfmanJack on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flip Flop (none / 0)

When Obama stands up in Oregon and says Iran and North Korea aren't really that much of a threat, and then the next day in Montana says Iran is a grave threat...I'd say that is an issue.  Rove wrote about it today, and you know they will make an ad about it.  Fact is he made a mistake in that early debate about meetings without preconditions and he has been walking back from it ever since.  Both the first comment and the slow reversal since are a problem.  There was a right answer from the start and he messed up. Expect this to be an issue for the next 6 months, and expect it to hurt his already weak foreign policy credentials.


by nyarch on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flip Flop (none / 0)

I listen to what Obama says about the state of American diplomacy, and hear something completely different than you do. He explains why belligerency has made us less safe and inflexibility has made us less influential.

His success so far gives me hope that enough the American electorate is now ready to abandon bumper sticker and gotcha politics (the old way), and embrace a more nuanced and complex explanation - and reject the parsing which your 'analysis' demonstrates.

GOBAMA


by xdem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:12:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip f (2.00 / 1)

Got evidence? Like, quotes?


by reenactor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:30:00 AM EST

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip f (none / 0)

That would be lovely.

Please show your quotes to back up your opinion.

Sure go ahead. I'd love to see them.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip f (none / 0)

Are you replying to the wrong comment here? I'm not asserting what the diarist is, so why ask me for comments? The diarist made a claim with no proof, and it would be sort of awesome to see some.  I'm genuinely interested.  


by reenactor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no flip flop. (2.00 / 1)

Obama said he would be willing to meet with those world leaders to talk and he still says so.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:34:10 AM EST

Re: There is no flip flop. (2.00 / 1)

He said it early on but then later he changed.

Went from saying he dealt with hypotheticals to saying I don't deal in hypotheticals.

Seriously.

That and his being willing to use the "doctrine of premptive strike" on Pakistan after condeming it's use in Iraq. Doctrine of premptive strike is one of those you either go there all the time or you don't.

There is real concern that he has changed course during the debates inorder to suit the room.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pakistan? Really? (none / 0)

What Obama said regarding Pakistan is that if we had actionable intelligence as to the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden we would act upon it with or without Pakistan's permission. Are you arguing against that doctrine? Really? Are you saying Hillary's position is somehow different than this? Really? Because I doubt it is.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pakistan? Really? (2.00 / 1)

I'm going to say this one more time.

I am looking for a candidate to vote for not to promote.

I don't have to defend a dam thing.

I ask questions. Pray that there will be answers. Evaluate the results and then decide who to vote for.

That is the thing you guys just don't get. How many voters do you think you run off with this attitude. I'm glad that you have your life so writ in stone but guess what. Some of us are still looking. You know those Independents and cross over Republicans I keep hearing about.

I'll as Sen. Clinton's supporters the same thing.  Right now the diary is about Sen. Obama and his actions.

Oh and I am plenty calm.

But the BS is getting to be just rank.

It's not about me it's about Sen. Obama.

Oh and you won't bully me buster. You got the wrong person to do that to. Answer the question or move along before you cost your candidate my vote.

Got it.

I hope so.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pakistan? Really? (2.00 / 1)

Listen, I'm sorry if you feel that we're bullying you because when you and the diarist attack our candidate on a meritless charge and provide no evidence, we refuse to back down, despite your attempting to blackmail us with your (single, solitary) vote.

I hope you will vote for Obama, in the end.  I hope that we can have a fruitful discussion about the issues and that I (or my fellows) can convince you.

But we're not going to waste our effort trying to convert someone who is obviously a lost cause, someone who is so intent on disliking Obama that they will not engage in substantive discussion--and at the moment, that's what you're displaying yourself to be.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pakistan? Really? (none / 0)

Black mail with my single vote? Funny. Is this how you treat voters?

People are going to read what you've written here BishopRook. Go back and read.

I haven't in anyway "...attacked your candidate..." I have said that there are people who have watched the debates, I'm one of them, and have seen a change. Wiseprince questioned it. Remember you actually talked to him about it. I read the interchange.

You said.
"...you and the diarist attack our candidate on a meritless charge and provide no evidence..."

I did no such thing and again as a voter I don't have to bring you so much as a glass of water if I don't want to. I'm not debating you or trying to change your mind. I'm trying to find answers.

I expressed a concern as a voter and you have felt I have attacked your candidate? What I have posted here is along way from an attack on your candidate. That is just not going to hold water.  But I have had days when I was cranky so I won't cast "troll rating" stones either.I should at this point but I won't.

"...But we're not going to waste our effort trying to convert someone who is obviously a lost cause, someone who is so intent on disliking Obama that they will not engage in substantive discussion--and at the moment, that's what you're displaying yourself to be..."

Well now your wrong again BishopRook. I will be glad to discuss Sen. Obama. Already have with other folks on mydd. Maybe I don't feel qualified to discuss on this point and instead of running my mouth I'm asking questions. Would you prefer I ask Sen. Clinton's supporters? I'm sure they'd tell me. But in this case, it's not that I won't discuss Sen. Obama. Nope. It's that I am not going to discuss Sen. Obama with you.  See. I'm not a lost cause after all. I have already discussed with other folks. They were kind. Answered my questions. I learned something.

You might keep reading. Thanks to Wiseprince I did read your views on the issue and even cited such in the comment section of this very thread. Did you know that?

But hey maybe there is hope. Maybe if you knew alittle about me. I've heard that people get along better if they know something about the other person. Did you know for instance that I live in a very Republican area and that finding information on the internet is the best way for me to learn about the Democratic primary? Hmmm. Dude I can find Republicans to yell at me about my even discussing voting for a Democrat pretty easy. Now I have been yelled at by folks who are saying they are the prototypical Democrats. Luckily I have also met kind people, for instance on myDD, who have not jumped to conclusions or jumped down my throat. Again I learned something.

You didn't bother to ask. They did. They bothered to treat me as a thinking individual and not as potential fight. They didn't see my questions as combative but as inquiries. It's called being kind and human. They were. One more time, I learned something.

Remember you don't have clue who you're talking to on this thread and you aren't God. You can be wrong. People come here for a variety of reasons. From a variety of backgrounds. And they make their decisions in a variety of ways. Again. You would have lost your candidate my vote. Sen. Obama has said that he is for healing, change and inclusion. You are his representative and I have seen nothing of that from you. Even when I kept asking you to back it up.

Fine and dandy.

Like you I do have hope.

I'll just be glad for Sen. Obama's sake that not all of his supporters are as angry. Glad that I talked to them first. :(


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pakistan? Really? (none / 0)

"You won't bully me." and "Move along before you cost your candidate my vote."  If your vote is so cheap that it can be bought by a poster on MyDD, there's nothing we can do for you.  Go find your own answers.  Vote for whom you please, but take your vote and your money and support the candidate you'd like.  I'd personally like a president committed to getting us out of Iraq, making health care affordable, improving education.

Let's see, the last people I can remember thought it was the biggest deal in the world were working their asses off to defeat John Kerry and give us four more years of Bush.  Coincidence?


by niksder on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pakistan? Really? (none / 0)

Hello Niksder.

Please refer to the post above to Bishop Rook.

You too seem like one of a kind so I'll just make the post to BishopRook to Niksder too.

Ya'll are working at trying to make me a bad guy here who doesn't like Sen. Obama. If I didn't know better I'd say you are trying to pick a fight or run me off. Why?

Repeat after me. Sen. Obama is running a campaign of inclusion. You can't be serious if you think that Sen. Obama would feel that what I have said on this diary comment was in any way an attack on him or his platform. I like to think he'd tell the two of you to knock it off your scaring away the voters. I like to think he'd hug my neck, answer my questions, and yes think enough of my one puny little vote to care.

Remember. The campaign for all of us.

You see we are the same on one point. When you say,
"...I'd personally like a president committed to getting us out of Iraq, making health care affordable, improving education..."

Why niksder, I would emphatically say, "ME TOO!"

So would alot of voters. But we're grown ups with alot of voting experience. We don't just look at candidates and because you say so say that's enough we will vote for them. Like the diarist, I want to make sure of who I am voting for. Want to make sure they won't change their minds or "flipflop" once they get into office. Politician have done this. Make sense any voter would wonder.

That's what I took this diary to be about. To make sure that the candidate can and will do what they promised during the primary and general election. So that there is no buyers remorse come next February.

Good for you that you are so sure. Not everyone is.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You really need to supply links (2.00 / 1)

because Obama has not backed off on his commitment to talk to both our enemies and friends if it furthers the security of the United States.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:07:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no flip flop. (none / 0)

Evidence?  You've still provided zero.

And as for the "doctrine of preemptive strike"--that's not what he offered in Pakistan.  The doctrine you're speaking of says that countries which are potential threats can be attacked before the threat is imminent.  What he suggested was targeted strikes on terrorist camps and training grounds, which is a far cry from attacking Pakistan.

Unless you think that President Bill Clinton declared war on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998?


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no flip flop. (none / 0)

No I am a voter looking for answers. And you sir are a bully.

You have not answered my questions.

Answer them or move along.

You will loose your candidate my vote.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no flip flop. (none / 0)

A voter who still hasn't decided on their vote would not come on a political blog and post numerous diaries and comments against one candidate and in support of another.

You say that you're just a voter looking for answers, but you are in fact simply attacking Obama with whatever ammunition you can find.  How can we believe a word you say?  That's not an attack, BTW--I'm just an innocent commenter with a question.  You need to answer my question or move along.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:37:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no flip flop. (none / 0)

Yeppers I am indeed a voter looking for answers.

You might want to keep reading the comments BishopRook. There is an actual discussion going on. About this issue raised by the diarist.

I'm going to be there listening. You are welcome too if you like. I'm friendly. :D

Otherwise you're still trying to make me out to be something I'm not. Lots of emotion though. Won't work. I'm an old mom. I learned to say, "no" along time ago. Not to get my "tail feathers ruffled".

ROFLMBO. Trust me BishopRook this isn't going to get your guy my vote. Been there done that. Got the tshirt even. You can try it someone else though.

Just not on me.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Exactly accurate (2.00 / 1)

This question came up in the so called "YouTube" debate. The question was, in essence, would you be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba without preconditions. Obama said quite clearly and simply, "I would". He went on to say the idea that it is a gift to those leaders is ridiculous. He is now say that there will be pre conditions, he will set the stage a head of time and the President of Iran may not be the one he will talk with. One of his surrogates has suggested that he will, "Talk to the right person and the right time" (Which of course is another "Change" and "Hope" type statement without any real thought or explanation...but I guess that is what works these days). His position is actually getting closer and closer to what Hillary answered during the debate (interesting how a few weeks of "Experience" will change your viewpoint. I wonder what he will say in a few months from now)


by Wiseprince on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:11:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Exactly accurate (2.00 / 3)

The "preconditions" referred to in that question aren't anything as inane as the diplomatic mumbo-jumbo that must go on prior to a meeting.  The "preconditions" the question was referring to were things like...  "Iran must stop enriching uranium before we meet with them!" or "Syria must release its political prisoners before we meet with them!" etc.--you know, like the "preconditions" that President Bush has put on all of our meetings with people that he doesn't want to talk to.

The fact is, those preconditions are never going to happen, and they should rightly be the subject of negotiations, not a prerequisite to them.

If you think that when Obama said he would meet without preconditions, he meant he would just get on a plane and show up at Ahmadinejad's house unannounced with a box of chocolates and a briefcase, then you're simply obsessed with clutching on to your conviction that he is inexperienced and naive.  Rationality dictates what he meant.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Exactly accurate (2.00 / 1)

Hillary understood the question and answered it more along the lines of how Barack is answering it these days. She was accused of "Old Politics" as a result of her answer (And no, she did not say that Iran had to stop enriching first). You  can interprete the question anyway you want to now that it fits Barack's needs but the truth of the matter is Barack, at the time, simply didn't understand some of the nuances of diplomacy and Hillary did.

Again, Hillary said something to the effect of, "You cannot have meetings at that level without some ground work being done, lower level meetings first". We are talking the Presidentia level (which is what is meant by would you meet with the President of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea). The question was clear, Obama didn't have the experience to answer it with thegeneral election in mind and Hillary did. Barack is only now thinking about the general election. I fully expect him to backtrack on a lot of other issues prior to the Fall


by Wiseprince on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:24:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Exactly accurate (2.00 / 2)

I'm not suggesting Senator Clinton said they needed to stop enriching.  She took "preconditions" to mean "get your people to talk to my people and we'll have lunch."

Well, that's always going to have to take place before any meeting between heads of state.  It's not something that just "happens."  So if that's what Mr. Sorta meant when he asked the question about "preconditions," it wasn't a very interesting question except to trap candidates in a "gotcha!"

But the questioner was trying to suss out differences in policy between the candidates and our current President.  President Bush has required preconditions like I listed on our enemies before meeting with them that they are incapable of or unwilling to give, and then used that as an excuse not to meet with them.  What we should be doing, instead, is negotiating with those goals as the subject of the negotiations, not as a precondition.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:34:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Exactly accurate (2.00 / 1)

Agree, The Bush administrations preconditions are ridiculous and nonsensical. That being said Barack argued against Hillary's answer which leads me to believe that he understood the question in the same manner as she did and simply disagreed. I thought then and I think now that it showed a lack of understanding of the nuances of international diplomacy. If he is backtracking he obviously learned his lesson (or is simply  pandering and triangulating) but that is the problem. He shouldn't be learning on the job.

It seems as though you are a supporter of Barack which probably colors your interpretation of the question but I think he understood it in the same manner as Hillary and just didn't quite get it (why she would answer in such a way). Now he gets it. Hillary, in the early going, was always thinking about the general election which would have made her tough to beat. The long primary forced her to move to the left and only think about winning the primary which will hurt her if she is the nominee now (Barack is already exposed because he was always thinking about winning the primary and didn't have his eye at all on the general)


by Wiseprince on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What flip flop? (2.00 / 1)

Seriously, when did he "back off" his previous commitment?  Got anything to back that up?


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:57:06 AM EST

Re: What flip flop? (1.00 / 1)

Do you Bishop rook?

That would certainly be welcome. Show the diarist your facts. :)


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (2.00 / 2)

It is the diarist making the accusation, and thus the burden is on the diarist to provide evidence.  It's impossible for me to prove a negative.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (2.00 / 2)

12 dogs,

you seem to be under the impression that reasoned debate only asks for one side to show it's 'facts.'

The diarist has made an unsubstantiated claim: that Obama has changed his position on meeting with certain leaders (Iran, N. Korea, etc.).

Obama hasn't changed that position. In order to engage the diarist, it would be worthwhile to know what 'facts' the diarist has to back up his claims.

Asking for those facts does not require anyone to prove otherwise. That's not how debate works.

Obama has not changed his position: them's the facts.

If you or the diarist can prove otherwise (which you cannot), go ahead and start the discussion. If not, this whole diary is pretty much an exercise in blowin in the wind.


by vadasz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:21:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (1.00 / 1)

There ya go again trying to say I have to give you proof. I'm not debating you dear. I am a voter looking for answers. Maybe you have just illustrated what the heck has been wrong with the primary. That when a voter comes to you with questions they are debating with you. LOL No they aren't. They're trying to get answers. They are trying to get reassurance. But they are not debating with you. That's what makes ya'll look confrontational. That's what runs folks off.

I don't have to prove nuthin. I just have to ask the questions. Ask them in such a way as to see if I believe you and your answers.

I am curious though. Why in hades would you think I was debating the issues with you?

I didn't think that the diarist was either. You are right to ask questions about what I or the diarist might know about the issue in question. Good to know where they're coming from. You wouldn't want to spend your time telling someone who makes wheels how they make wheels. Waste of time. However, that is a whole lot different than thinking the person asking the questions is going to debate the issues with you. They might not just roll over and believe you "just cause you said so" but that is a lot different from the confrontational or the debate. :D


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (2.00 / 3)

why are you questioning the commentors, rather than questioning the diarist of why s/he believes Obama flip-flopped when s/he doesn't provide a single quote. But in the interest in making you a more informed voter, here is Obama from October 2007:

per ny times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/pol itics/02obama.html

Senator Barack Obama says he would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

from may 19,2008

per politicohttp://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 508/Obama_on_Iran_Whats_McCain_afraid_of .html

...and so I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave, but what I've said is that we should not just talk to our friends, we should be willing to engage our enemies as well, that's what diplomacy is all about.

i don't believe that is flip-flopping


by aaaa05 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (none / 0)

Oh links and quotes in an effort to answer my question.

Thank you.

I will read them.

See what they say.

The diarist isn't here at the moment. Ya'll are. Makes sense to ask you guys what you think because you are here. They are not.

Make sense?


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (none / 0)

First of all, cut the 'dear' crap.

Secondly, the diarist wasn't asking questions, the diarist was making claims. Claiming that Obama has changed his position is not a question, it's a statement.

It's a statement the diarist has made with no validity, with, in fact, no grounding in reality.

You also have not asked any questions (not in regards to this diary), but have only made statements about how the original diarist doesn't need to validate his groundless claims.

You're perfectly correct: asking questions is not the same as debate. If the diarist, or you, had asked, could somebody please explain Obama's foreign policy ideas to me in more detail? I'm a bit unclear on point x or idea y; the respondents would have assumed dialogue and engaged in such a manner.

But that's not the case, and you know it.


by vadasz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (none / 0)

Wait a minute all this BS from ya'll because I didn't dot my "i"'s with little smile faces?

Are you two trying to start a fight?

ROFLMBO! I'm not interested.

I asked just fine.

I want to know if Sen. Obama is going to "flipflop" on the issues. To me it looked like he changed. There is a discusion of the very thing in this comment section. Between Wiseprince and BishopRook. Go look.

That is a question in statement form.
No question marks needed. And yet it is a question.

See?

Moderators if you happen by here. I am not trying to cause trouble. If I wanted to be antagonistic and cause trouble? I would do so in a very different way. I'm not interested.

Just wanted you to know. Thanks.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (none / 0)

Okay,

later 'gator.


by vadasz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What flip flop? (none / 0)

do you read much? have access to google?

you must be joshing, uh, i watched the segment, i am sure any enterprising person could find this if they wished, but the eternal laziness of our culture is such you want folks to spoon feed you.

if you are unaware of current events, it is not my problem.


by blackflag on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IHBT. IHL. HAND. (2.00 / 2)

I've decided I'm putting trolls on a strict diet from now on.  They need it, they're starting to get aggressive.  Ciao.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:18 AM EST

Cya. Bishop Rook. (none / 0)


Bishop Rook,  you said.

"I've decided I'm putting trolls on a strict diet from now on. They need it, they're starting to get aggresive. Ciao."

Why because someone didn't agree with you? Because someone didn't put up with your,"because I said so" responses? They are a troll?

I've never troll rated anyone on myDD. I could have. There have been some folks who've been bully and rude. There have been times when I could have just let fly. You are one of them Bishop Rook. But I didn't troll rate you.

Funny isn't it.

I'm not afraid of your view or your right to debate it. I just won't continue to talk to you if I feel that you are bulling me. But I didn't give you troll ratings or call into question wheither or not you believed in your candidate of choice.

Plus up until this point I haven't even see the diarist comment. Sometimes diarist put in their diary entry and come back to see the comments. You had the "trial and the hanging" before the person who wrote this diary has said a peep.

Don't you want to see their response first?

Think about it. Hey sleep on it. Then come back if you like.

Hope you have a good day with family/friends.

All this anger isn't good for you BishopRook. It elevates your cortisol. Elevated cortisol like this isn't good for your health. It can, if you don't build up a tolerance to it, make you sick.

Not worth it.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip f (none / 0)

How about you don't notice the supposed flip flop and then we won't have to list the multitudes of flip flops coming out of the Clinton campaign. (i.e. I was under sniper fire, oh no, maybe I wasn't; I will not participate or campaign in states that violate DNC rules, unless it works to my advantage; I never authorized the war, just going to the UN.)  If you want a real discussion on flip flops do the research, use links and backup, or clearly mark your diary as a "rant".


by temptxan on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip f (1.00 / 3)

You sound a bit defensive in your response. There is no need. No one is attacking you or for that matter debating you. Asking questions folks. Asking questions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Sen. Clinton. As a voter I would like to have examples of these. I have a feeling that doing so is going to piss you off. I am not trying to do that. You are asking for fair evaluation of your candidate. I appreciate that. But I should think that Sen. Clinton's supporters would want that too. So as a voter do you have something more specific to back up your claim.:)


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip f (none / 0)

WTF, why is this HR'd? Am I missing something? Lots of ratings abuse today...


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nuanced (2.00 / 3)

It's not flip-flopping. It's having a nuanced perspective like John Kerry. Only problem is that half of American won't understand the nuances.


by gaf on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:43 AM EST

Re: Nuanced (none / 0)

Sigh. Nuance.

Please don't take this as having a lack of reasoning ability. But what you might call nuance is called by others "wishy washy". Bringing in Sen. Kerry would be like bringing in your aunt into a fight about your mom. Unless there is a specific relationship to the arguement at hand? Why would you want to start.

What would you tell a voter to alleviate their fears that Sen. Obama might be "wishy washy" or "flipflop"? Or back track.

You know except for the discussion between Wiseprince and BishopRook. (Yes BishopRook I did read that section. So you can do more than bully and sling the poop.) I don't see answers. I just see stuff being flung.

As a voter. I beg you. Substance please.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuanced (none / 0)

Heh.  

After reading your comments throughout this thread, you really need to work on your "I'm an undecided voter! Win my vote!!" act.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuanced (none / 0)

Do you know my name?

That's what I'm going to ask you if you are fixing to tell me what I think.

Not an act.

But I'm not going to vote the way someone says I should "just cause they tell me too". That won't get my support or vote. And I'm not here to debate you either. I'm here to find out.

So is that the way you would assure me, the voter, that Sen. Obama would not "flipflop" on the issues either before or after the election in November.

Would you tell me,
"Heh.  After reading your comments throughout this thread, you really need to work on your "I'm an undecided voter! Win my vote!!" act."

Then be surprised when I didn't say, " oh map what ever you say?"

LOL and you wonder why folks have their backs up?


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe we'll see (none / 0)

a commercial of obama windsurfing...

"flip flopping with the wind..."


by nikkid on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST

Re: Maybe we'll see (none / 0)

Hi ya nikkid! Is that what you would tell a voter that was concerned that Sen. Obama was "flipflopping" on the issues? I that what you would tell a voter who wanted to be reassured that once in office, Sen. Obama would indeed honor his campaign promise once in office.

You know the day after your swarn it. You have to do the work.

Yes I would ask if this is what you would tell a voter to reassure them that Sen. Clinton would indeed honor her campaign promise once in office?

Thanks.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip (2.00 / 1)

  1. Obama says he won't demand real-world policy concessions as a requirement to meet with somebody.

  2. McCain/Bush/blackflag/etc. try to convince everybody that "no preconditions" = "unconditional negotiations" = "Obama will give Iran anything they want to make them stop doing whatever it is we don't like about them this week, ANYTHING!!!11 HURF HURF NAZIS"

  3. Obama says that McCain/Bush/blackflag/etc. are making shit up.

  4. McCain/Bush/blackflag/etc. declare Obama a flip-flopper because he disagrees with the fictional positions they tried to attribute to him.

  5. Repeat with the next subject.


by HEAP on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:01 AM EST

Re: are we (2.00 / 1)

it is NOT too late to choose another nominee.  The purpose of the convention is just that- to choose a nominee. Yes, lots of people have voted, but it is just a PRIMARY, or even of lesser importance-a CAUCUS.  

If Democrats were smart about winning elections (which they are not), they would recognize that the party is totally split, and choose a compromise candidate instead.   Maybe we could all agree on Al Gore? But noooo. Everyone is too invested in either Hillary or Obama. The same people who will be crying in November.  Primaries don't mean a damn thing. They are quickly forgotten in the aftermath of the general election.


by WolfmanJack on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST

a compromise candidate instead (none / 0)

 I'm available - well, I'd have to finish up a couple of projects, but I could clear the decks in a week or two. And I'd be open to either Obama or Hillary as my running mate. Or maybe they could be co-veeps. Yeah. That's the ticket!


by xdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST

Re: are we not supposed to notice the Obama flip ? (none / 0)

This is what so many Democrats detect in Obama and it explains why there are still so many adamant Clinton supporters.

Obama is a weak candidate and has shown his weakness time after time.


by wblynch on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.