by lovingj, Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:52:02 PM EDT
Video: Hillary Clinton's Hypocrisy On Diplomacy Hillary Clinton has attacked the wrong candidate. This video highlights her constant flipping on national security issues now that she realizes that on foreign policy . . . she clearly got this one wrong. She is turning out to be more like Bush every day.
| Cool Obama Videos
|
Tags: Barack Obama, CNN, Debate, diplomacy, Hillary Clinton, Youtube (all tags)
Actually I don't see anything inconsistent in her position with what is in your youtube video, you are reaching a bit here. Obama has actually had 5 positions on this issue in the last 3 days.
You should explain that, for all I know you're throwing numbers around and just poking and prodding with a stick.
I do not want to go into too much about these thing because it is basically a wash between both candidates . They actually have the same position on the issue. Clinton so an opening took it and hit obama with it and she probably took it too far by commenting on it and Obama also saw that as an opening and he also took it.The 1st two days after the debate Clinton won but Obama has controlled the debate today , but he himself might have overstepped by calling Clinton Bush Cheney light. So its all a wash to me , Clinton hit hard and Obama hit hard as well.
With Regards to the initial questions and the positions Obama has taken, at the debate he said he will be willing to meet without precondition,I remember after the debate Axelrod try to say Obama didn't mean what he said at the debate,then Obama himself said on NBC news he didn't mean that , remember he said he didin't mean he was going to have a cup of cofee with these dictators , then he said he would lay the groundwork in the same interview , now It seems it is back to we will meet at anytime and Hillary won't. So he is grasping around it seems.
What are you talking about?
The poster said Obama had 5 stance changes. Then explains how they came to that conclusion, and I see one stance clarification, and I wholeheartedly agree that this is going to be a wash.
What is your deal?
LOVINGJ. I think BlueDiamond said you should look up Wolfson and Axelrod. Hopefully you'll see that post or this one. Wolfson criticized Obama for being "liberal".
Make another video with these silver bullets!
and I do not remember that part. I came away thinking that while Axelrod was right that Wolfson looked way more aggressive.
you should post that on DKOS so everyone could see Hillary's 2 faces...She's clearly playing 2 side...She's trying to be anti-war liberal but at the same time trying to be conservative hawkish on foreign policy...She cant have it both way.
You should send this video to the Obama camp and maybe they could send it to the media and hope this plays on MSM.
The voters has got to see Hillary's multiple choices..We can not let her get away with this
help. I do not have a Daily Kos account so someone else will have to post it.
And if anybody else blog on other accounts they should post it there as well like democratic underground wherever.
The media is never going to do the work for you. We have to do the work ourselves.
You will get more viewers if they do not have to leave the page. Click on the video and there is embed code. Just paste this code into your diary.
Here it is for you:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AyqAR4lJCmw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AyqAR4lJCmw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
jeez..This post really deserve to be seen by as many folks as possible...This video really kills Hillary creds...I would like to think that the Obama camp has all this work done on their side...They have to look for all the quotes of the past that she made advocating direct talk with no precondition...Now she's trying to sound tough.
That's how you make news. Every one of you who believe Obama was right on this issue then send an email to Huffingtonpost asking them to put this on one of their video posts.
Look the media obviously is not going to do the Obama campaign any favors and nor is any of the major blogs. We have got to take it upon ourselves to make noise about his candidacy.
Obama is dealing with a great deal more barriers than your average candidate and it is going to take the united effort of his supporters to help his candidacy overcome them. We are standing on the precipice of a historic election.
type of thing. This is how it started folks. Hit diaries with namecalling and videos that purported to accurately represent things in context, but were far from it.
This is propaganda, pure and simple.
Jerome Armstrong said:
We, alot of times, use the "Republican lite" term, but "Bush Cheney lite" is quite an escalation. And coming from Obama, whose only serious distinction from Clinton comes from 5 years ago, it seems another slip. Does Obama have anything else to back up the differentiating claim since he's been a Senator? Since he doesn't, what does that say about him as a Senator?
There is NO difference. These two are peas in a pod. This is just a game, but Obama's escalation went too far and may, in the end, cost him. He purports to represent the new way, but this shows nothing really new, but actually something distasteful in his rhetoric about another Democrat with the same voting record.
Jealousy is a bitch, ain't it? You and your ilk orchestrated to ban him from Daily Kos to silence him from exposing your candidate's phoniness, but you can't ban him from the Internet.
Not the same position. In the video, Hillary is talking about preconditions for diplomatic talks. Bush policy, plain and simple. It's an important difference in policy between the two candidates, one of whom may be our next president. Let's take this seriuosly, shall we?
are propaganda and very slanted for a particular purpose. Based on prior practice, this is not a source to be trusted. And I am far from a Clinton supporter.
Rely on this at your own risk.
and have found, based on dkos experience, that you, in fact are a very talented Edwardsian propagandist who slants his arguments for a very particular purpose. In this specific situation, I assume that you are slanting your argument against Barack b/c Edwards agreed with Hillary in the debates. Doesn't look good for Edwards, and as we both know, most Edwards supporters have not been hesitant to back away from that statement. Noone has really brought it up as an argument against Edwards and you'd like to keep it that way, but your are posting these thoughts and trying to discredit lovingj[who BTW, was most certainly NOT a troll. I remember exactly what happened: He pissed off Edwards supporters and the decided to auto=ban him. He might have been a bit over-zealous, but noone auto-bans over-zealous Edwards supporters such as annefrank. You guys saw him as a threat, and thus disposed of him early on, plain and simple]. It works both ways for you folks b/c you still want to eliminate Barack as the "anti-Hillary" choice so that Edwards can be teh "anti-Hillary" choice. Anyway, take my advice: These sorts of adhom attacks do much to discredit you, so stick to the issues.
You conceded so in your comment. His hit diaries against Edwards were infamous. And this latest video has many of the same characteristics that were used at DKos. It's too bad these old diaries are no longer visible. They were something. Then I heard that he tried to sneak back on to Dkos.
I support Edwards. You are damn right. I would like for you to provide me with some proof that I am a propagandist, however. That would be interesting to see. Would you provide an illustration where I provided information totally out of context or inaccurately?
in any of this video. Where do you see that?
The titling and splicing is an attempt at propaganda, but a very poor one. The juxtaposition of Bush saying "I'm not willing to sit down bilaterally with the Iranians" immediately followed by Clinton saying "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort" with Iran and others undermines the whole point of the video.
In the two following clips, an interview with Olberman and her speech at the CFR, she repeats almost exactly what she said in South Carolina. So the content of the video reinforces Clinton's point, careful, diplomatic talks.
That's what the CNN/YouTube question was about. It asked if they'd be willing to engage in diplomatic talks with enemies of the U.S. without preconditions.
Hillary's response: "No, I won't"
Have you watched the YouTube video? Or this one, for that matter?
Clinton says "I will not promise to meet with these leaders during my first year, I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort."
Notice no mention of preconditions?
As a said, if you bother to view the video, it makes Clinton's case.
Question: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. 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?"
Hillary's response: "I will not"
Wow, you have no integrity whatsoever. Do you think anyone honestly buys that kind of misrepresentation? Lovingj would have to engage in some really dishonest editing to cut off Clinton's sentence like that.
But even within your twisted representation there is no mention of preconditions for diplomatic talks, only for personal talks.
The fact is that what Clinton said in South Carolina was entirely clear and consistent with every other statement she made in that video. You've got nothing.
Hillary was being dishonest by implying that Obama ruled out groundwork, however, the questioner did not ask about all the steps leading up to the meeting . . . he asked would you meet in a year's time implying would you what was necessary to make that meeting happen and Obama said yes. Hillary said no. Plain and simple.
However, in that video I embedded Hillary clearly says to Olbermann that she would immediately begin the diplomatic track work with Iran and Syria while contradicting herself at the debate by saying she would not meet with Iran or Syria at all in the first whole year of her administration. That is one whole year she will continue to ignore a country that is clearly affecting our national interests.
Huh? In the debate she said, in response to the question would she meet within a year: "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort."
That is exactly the same as saying to Olbermann that she would immediately begin the diplomatic track work with Iran. She refused to promise a personal meeting, but she certainly promised diplomatic talks.
this type of thinking from Bush sending Condoleeza Rice to do his bidding? Bush is notorious for sending envoys and laying out conditions for talks.
Furthermore you assume the meaning of Clinton's words yet you automatically, like Clinton, assumed that Obama would do no diplomatic groundwork. Not to mention she said at the Council of foreign affairs that we should engage in direct talks with North Korea. Again, how can you rule out that she did not mean face to face.
That sounds like bad diplomacy to me because she already rules face to face talks out of the question in her first year and she also noted that she would not talk to Iran because they are a "holocaust denier." That sounds like diplomacy that is going no place fast. She is not for a change in foreign policy.
I assume that Obama would do diplomatic groundwork, and I think that Clinton and Obama have different approaches to summit meetings. Obama believes that he can personally persuade leaders in countries like North Korea to agree with him, Clinton would use the presidency more strategically.
On your other points, you are misunderstanding what Clinton meant by direct talks. The explanation is in the Bush clip you inserted into her SC debate answer. Bush ruled out bilateral talks with Iran, he would only send representatives to regional talks. He has a similar approach to North Korea, where he will only allow us to participate in regional talks. He only sends Rice to these regional talks, and she studiously (sometimes comically) avoids ever being in country to country meetings without third parties.
Bilateral talks, country to country talks, are often referred to as direct talks. They are face to face talks, but among diplomatic representatives, not leaders. Talks between leaders are usually called summits. If Clinton had meant face to face talks among leaders in her CFR speech she would have used the word "summits" instead of "direct talks".
As for meeting with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president and holocaust denier, I doubt Clinton would meet with him personally unless he repudiated some of what he has said. But Iranian politics are complicated enough that if she were to meet an Iranian leader it could be one of the clerics who control Ahmadinejad.
wow, some Clinton supporters are going mad crazy today...This guy, a clinton supporter, just started a diary and he wrote a bunch of crazy stuff....I feel sorry for them because they are going crazy right now...They did not expect barack to hit them hard.
Now, Hillary has to explain to the people why we should continue the Cowboy diplomacy that says we can only talk to people that bowdown to us....Iran and Syria will never bowdown to us because they are a proud country.
Both sides are unfairly characterizing their opponents to some extent. Hillary was saying she couldn't PROMISE to meet within a time frame because some (minimal) standards would have to be met (a sincere expression of good faith coming from the foreign leader, or something like that); Meanwhile obviously Barack wasn't saying he would just show up at any meeting no questions asked, but that he would make an effort to have face to face meetings, and that a year was a reasonable time frame to expect those to occur.
Hillary was being nitpicky about the question in order to score political points as the experienced one. Obama's was responding to the general thrust of the question, and now accuses Hillary of flipflopping, even though I'm sure he recognizes the point she was making.
In terms of pure political points I think Hillary came out slightly ahead, but only because Obama overstated his point in comparing her to Bush/Cheney.
But what I REALLY want to say is what's up with that video?? I understand these things ARE propaganda, but could we make an effort to not be so BLATANT about it. It just offends my tastes, haha. The onscreen text says things like "Obama rightly responds...," and then plays sappy hero music during his answer. Obviously the way the piece is edited is meant to put Obama in the best light, and in terms of which clips are chosen and how they are arranged I think that's fine... but there's no need for the blatant manipulation. If anything it's just going to turn people off.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
43 Comments