You know what i found ironic after he was in Nh calling Hillary a bush cheney lite , he then went down to South Carolina and said the country needed a uniter in the white house , I just thought that was funny.

With Regards to your comments, hey you can blame the obama camp for spinning it the way they want to , thats what campaigns are all about. Everyone is being disingenous.

did not call out Hillary for twisting Obama's words and calling him "irresponsible" and "naive."  She started the semantics game and in the end now comes off looking as bad as Bush for what she said.

Just another Clinton supporter going crazy....

Im sure Hillary and his supporters are regretting the vicious attack on Obama...Hillary could had let it go and allow the media to do their dirty job on Obama, but noooooooooo!..she had to go on radio to slam Obama...Now, she's given Obama the perfect reason to slam her with her multiple choice and a GOP hawk diplomacy.

Well, that begs the question what preconditions are being proposed, doesn't it?

In Obama's case, apparently, there are none.  In Hillary's there apparently are, we just don't know what they might be and at this point she is not telling us.  I think there is clearly a difference here and while it isn't the polar opposite that has sometimes been assumed it does seem indicative of their respective positions on foreign policy.  It seems to me this debate has brought up a meta-issue in this campaign on the subject of foreign policy and the nature of the US' role in world affairs, specifically in regard to the countries mentioned, and that it is this meta-issue which has attracted the support or opposition of respective camps.

If Hillary had refrained from her 'naive and irresponsible' remark there would probably have been no significant public debate as we are now experiencing.  But since she did, it feels to me that Obama's response citing similarities to the policies of the Bush administration is sensitive to this meta-issue and that the discussion on the subject by the respective campaign and respective supporters on this site is valid and useful.

There are a few Obama supporters here that actually have a head on their shoulders and understand the need to reason using logic. They are few but they do exist. With them we can have a disagreement of opinion and still have the agreement of respect. It's rare though.

I commend you for calling out these shrill Obama cheerleaders. Unfortunately you will be unable to engage them in a logical and truthful discourse, at least where truth requires facts. I sincerely hope I am completely wrong and that maybe this diary will bring about a sensible discourse.

Et tu World Dictator?

I think this diary is out of hand! You really ought to change the title!

Or at least correct the spelling and capitalization mac!:)

those people are out of line and out of control.

I'm an Obama supporter.  I supported Edwards in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  And Gore in 2000.  I really like Edwards and Clinton.  I'll try to be fair and not lie.

IMO...

    Clinton is not against diplomacy.  She, as far as I've read, thinks it is risky to meet/talk with foreign leaders under certain conditions.  She said explicitly that she might use her willingness to meet/talk as an incentive to get another country's leader to meet certain preconditions.  
     This has, for much of Bush's term, been a strategy he has used.  It was done with North Korea and it's been done with Iran and Hamas (I believe).  Clinton does not say she would use this diplomatic tool in the same way Bush does.  I am certain she would be more responsible than Bush.
     Obama disagrees with withholding an initial face-to-face meeting/talk on the basis of preconditions, as a matter of principle.  What he really has a problem with--and what provoked his reaction--was Clinton using their disagreement to label him "naive and irresponsible."  Before her attack, this had not been a source of negatively charged conflict.
     Obama had to respond forcefully.  He is being painted as weak, inexperienced, vague, and of course naive and irresponsible.  If true, those charges are de facto disqualification for being president.  Additionally, Obama's campaign is based on the premise that certain values --  extraordinary commitment to communication instead of violence, violence as a last resort, openness, understanding, respect for others, courage, etc. -- are powerful, effective, and generally safer over the long run.  Calling him naive and irresponsible for espousing these values and applying them in real live is not merely an attack on a single policy; it constitutes an existential threat to the very ideals that animate his life.  If he fails, it casts into doubt his effort to find a better way.  Hence the very strong, uncompromising response.
     Clinton's people probably know this.  They could have debated the policy without playing the "naive and irresponsible" card.  But they play to win and are going for the jugular.  Obama knows this too.  To back off would send the world the message that he's not able to play in the big leagues.  If Clinton can crush him, how could he survive the Republican avalanche we know will come.  
     So how did Obama respond?  He stated his belief that this particular policy itself is problematic; as we have experienced under Bush-Cheney.  There's more though.  Clinton's message is not just that her way is better, or that she is better.  Clinton's message also repeats the Republican line that Obama's policy itself is illegitimate.  Obama's policy is to use communication and open, direct diplomacy first, before closing the door.  His policy is to do things differently than is handed down in the conventional wisdom as written by Bush-Cheney.  Clinton's behavior itself was an inadvertent suppression of very healthy, progressive dissent.
So Obama tossed the grenades back into her lap.
     That's my take on it.  Please let me know what you think, especially if you disagree or if you find anything I've written valuable.  I prefer constructive, thoughtful feedback but if anyone wants to call me names, that's I'll deal with it!

They are mostly just starstruck and waaaaay too intense about it.

I predict that some Obama supporters might need remedial help if and when their guy does down.

This happens sometimes when you fall in love with a dreamer who ends up being just a regular ol' politician, and not a very smart one at that.  

Watching that video of Obama today; available for all to see right here:

http://www.hillaryhub.com

...just made me howl.  Especially the part where he said he wouldn't hide behind rhetoric.  Keep it up Obama!  You're doing just fine.  :)

He must be really pissed about something to compare her statement/criticism to Bush-Cheney.

---------

But you are right that there are going to be a lot of really unhappy, unhealthy people when their candidates fade and drop away.

that it is the Hillary Camp that decided to say that Obama had "committed" or "promised" to meet.

Obama embraced the "spirit" of the question, not promised to do meet all of them.

obama's campaign needs to make it clear that using strong words against them or twisting their logic will not go without comment.

We are "Liar's"? As in, we belong to Liar?

Manay are in panic mode because the window of opportunity to overtake Hillary is closing fast.  If it was reversed, I'm not sure how I would react- I would hope I would be fair about it but these things do tend to make you crazy, especially when you are so enthralled with your candidate.

I do agree with someone I read earlier saying the "Bush/Cheney Lite" comment showed that Obama was willing to sell out the party for his own gain and to compare any Democratic with those two is the height of absurdity and the worst thing that could be said about them.  So he and some of his supporters are not handling the pressure very well at all.

First they were none and now they are everywhere, completely rabid. Since they are all newly registered, and never debate anything except pro-Hillary viewpoints, one has to assume that they are tiked to the campaign.

Many of them use the exact same kind of language. Hmm. The same person behind most aliases? I wouldn't be surprised. One of them has already been banned three times before with different aliases.

won't judge a candidate by their supporters.

nor should you judge anything by the dominant political culture that values "hardball" above discussion.  i'm actually surprised that a hillary supporter would bring this subject up, since she's been groomed for/by the hardball culture and most of her supporters admire her for that.  more so because people here often criticize obama supporters for engaging in hardball rhetoric as if this is contradictory to obama's message of leadership and inclusion.

the problem i have with the thought of lying is that i don't think too many people here are lying.  they may be wrong, but do they know that they are wrong?  hardball politics is visceral in nature and emotions often overrule the head...

if you've been in politics for 20 years, you've obviously learned nothing from that experience...

Your point in this diary is well made - you need only look at a few of the comments here to see it.  From what I can see, there are only a handful of Obama supporters here who continually make the same specious claims and spend all of their time Hillary bashing.  Clearly, they don't understand that this drives people away from their candidate, not toward him.  Certainly, this isn't Obama's fault.  I think he's a good candidate who would be a fine president.  If he wins the nomination, I'll bust my hump getting him elected. I don't believe for an instant that he condones (or is even aware of) this nonsense.

I took a quick look at the front page of this site, and I counted 5 diaries listed that were nothing but hit pieces, full of inflammatory  rhetoric and telling short on facts.  I have resolved not to feed these trolls by commenting on their diaries, and I hope that some of you will join me in starving these trolls.  They aren't interested in having a dialogue, they just want to trash Clinton, and I can no longer be bothered.

I will be happy to engage in a meaningful debate with the majority of Obama supporters here who thoughtful, intelligent and clearly well intentioned, but some of these others aren't worth the time.  Let's not feed these trolls any more.