MyDD's Todd Beeton: Hillary Clinton will regret calling (Obama) "irresponsible and naive"

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/26/15539/9321#commenttop


Lets have this disussion. I agree with Todd Beeton 100 percent and all the way!

That's why the late clarification.

And one might argue that calling Hillary bush/cheney-lite might have escalated this situation.


At any rate, Hillary's answer to the question - the root of all of this, was better than Obama's. That is what is at the core of this whole thing - and Obama's not doing himself any favors here.

I'm am wondering if he is ready for prime-time. Making a mistake is one thing. Sticking to it is another. If any damage is going to be done to one or the other, I expect Obama will suffer the brunt of it.

and seeing as how the Democratic base is largely FOR what Obama is saying...I don't see how this hurts him at all.

Considering the context, that statement sits on the border of the lands of Absurdity, Irony and a place called Iraq.

would do with such a situation after a presidential debate close to the election?


Whether he just misspoke, tripped himself up, or had second thoughts later, he sounded almost juvenile next to Clinton - ON THIS ONE QUESTION and answer.


Yeah, I know where you're going with the "made a mistake and stuck by it." I'm not head over heels for Hillary, but on that question, in that debate, she gave a better answer. She sounded like she knew what she was talking aobut. Obama did not. That simple.

According to you, and the beltway class you apparently put your faith in, it is better to start out hostile, and force other people to bow to you before engaging in dialog. This does not make it the "better" answer, it makes it the conventional answer. I think most people are tired of the posturing and want America to honestly attempt to make peace with these "rogue" nations, if one can be made. At any rate, I don't see the Clinton camp winning with a "we're more belligerent than thou" attitude.

I don't think the next prez just hops on a plane to Tehran and dines with their leader, or has a tea party with Castro at the WH in the first hundred days. That's the way Obama's answer sounded at the debate. I formed an opinion about that as I saw it, and I do think this is all silly. They have basically the same stance. Obama gave a gut response. It was thin and either not well thought out or not well presented.

Do you think the leaders of all those countries should be brought to the WH asap in the next presidency? Right off the bat? Or should intentions and the situation be felt out through multi-level diplomacy first?


This whole thing is silly and we should just move beyond it. Each candidate has stated his/her view, resting here and throwing rocks at each other accomplishes nothing.

You just started a thread asking what the difference was between the two answers. Yet four hours earlier, you stated a very clear opinion on the matter.

Are you as confused on your position as Clinton is on hers?

that ok?

You pleaded oh so innocently for clarification.

"I think, after Obama elaborated after the debate, that they are very much saying the same thing. Tell me where I'm wrong, with quotes from either or both if possible."

And yet hours before you posted this, you were perfectly clear on what Obama was saying.

You couldn't possibly have been stirring up some hildung, could you??

If you've got something to say just come out and say it.

As for me, I stated what I thought before I asked the question. I then asked what others thought, and what justifies that.

"I think, after Obama elaborated after the debate, that they are very much saying the same thing. Tell me where I'm wrong, with quotes from either or both if possible."


Nobody's putting a gun to anybody's head to participate in my threads or read anything I post.


You act like you caught me doing something secretly or something. I've been posting on this board, incoherently at times, for five damn years. You can search my posts (I was nu_duer the first two-three years) and see how they match up to your criteria of worthiness and honesty, tho frankly, I don't give a damn either way.

So which post was correct? The one that said Obama was lacking - or the confused one that said Obama and Hillary's answer was the same.

????

I see it as Obama lacking - backtracking and actually clarifying his position as that mimicking CLinton's - that is what he said - at the debate, he said he'd promise to meet with all of those leaders in his first year - that's what he said. No preconditions. That's what he agreed to. Hillary said a full range of diplomatic avenues would be pursued, but that she would not promise to meet with them in her first year, and she gave very good reasons why she wouldn't.

The next day, Obama clarified his debate answer by saying the "notion" that he'd meet with leaders without preconditions (diplomatic ), what he said the night before, the "notion" that he meant what he said, was "rediculous."

I stated in one thread that his debate answer was lacking, because it was.

I stated in another thread that his ammended, clarified answer was pretty close to that of Hillary's, because, as I saw it, it was. I mean, that was the point of the whole dust-up, right? That's the point of all the Obama vs. Hillary threads tongiht, right? One's answer was better than the other's. It was, it was Hillary's. As well, since Obama revised his answer (the next day), it appears to me that they both now have essentially the same stance. I thought I'd ask DU to see what other DUer's thought.

Neither of those posts/theads conflict with the other. Obama's answer was lacking, and it seems their positions are now the same. Obama is coming off to me as whining.

But I guess its because I'm saying something positive about Hillary, isn't it? That's your sudden problem with me, isn't it? I must be some Hill-bot, sent from the secret Hill-cave by the Hill-army. I can't just genuinely have my opinions, not when they speak kindly of Hillary. That is just not allowed, is it?

Know what, you wanna accuse me of something, do it and get it over with. I'm done justifying myself to you.

And Hillary is still saying she would play the same stonewalling games as Bush. You've got it backwards.

But clearly you were never "confused" at all.

Yes, I think you're playing games, for whatever reason known only to you.

He just said he'd promise, in his first year, to meet with all those listed in the question, without precondition. He said that three days ago. What kind of blind allegiance could allow so many to ignore the actual fact of what was said?


He said he'd do it, period. Hillary said she'd not promise, but would work toward it. The next day, Obama adopted Hillary's stance.

I never said I was confused. You did. You are playing silly word games to boost your candidate. Dealing in half-truths to distract from a big debate goof on his part. Think Hillary was unkind in calling him naive? Imagine the general election debates - think the slimy puke is gonna play nice about someone's lacking response?


Games. yeah, whatever.


is it past your bedtime?

Sorry, I am having trouble keeping my Team Obama spin straight. ;)

The objective front-pagers on MyDD are Todd Beeton and Jonathan Singer. Jerome actually went to Obama HQ blog and found some outlandish comments which he posted on MyDD's front-page. Kinda O'Reilyish to even think of doing something like that in the first place.

The guy has lost his objectivity.

his comments on Obama seriously any more.

When I watched a clip of Hillary Clinton giving her latest response I wanted to wash my hands. She seemed smug and smarmy.

In the clip of Obama that was from a group on the campaign trail he seemed desperate.

Neither will win this round. But if I had to side with one, I would side with Obama. The Clinton campaign turned me off on how they framed this issue. I'm not motivated to change my vote in the primaries.

That was downright childish of him. He will learn before too long what a fighter she is; and she's quick on the draw. I love to see a good fight between politicians.:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

...without dragging in equally tedious bickering from a blog?

She had been trying to hide it and hide behind her husband, but that wasn't going to last long. People then remember him and his problems. So she went ahead and jumped the shark on Obama and he is doing what any decent person would do: defend his integrity. She also miscalculated that he now can finally bring up her vote for the IWR directly and keep using it as part of his campaign.

She took the bait and Obama has the net.

It's time to stop repeating RW spin

He has apologized and is one of the most vocal people trying to get us out of Iraq. It's a shame that people would rather rehash the past instead of standing by him and other Dems that want to end the war. That only lets Bush off the hook when this is HIS war. :shrug:

from now until the election.

There is no evidence that they have been unprepared to date, and that vote, despite considerable publicity across a wide array of media, has not hurt them too much so far, meaning they are managing it well.

Obama could have never openly called her IWR vote naive and gotten away with it...even though it was even worse than naive and irresponsible. She showed her true colors and now is trying to turn it around on Obama. Voters are not that stupid...as she seems to think we are. It is high time SOMEONE called her out. Her holier than thou attitude on this is sickening. I didn't hate Hillary before...she has now given me a reason to.

your opponents POSITION on any subject. Why is that personal?

calling him Naive. That is a personal attack.

:thumbsup:

It was a mistake, but she doesn't intend to apologize. If she only knew then what she knows now.

Republicans are enjoying this very much.