Did Hillary ever say "It is naive to talk to our enemies"?

No, she didn't. She said it was naive to promise to meet face-to-face with no pre-conditions in the first year with a random list of world leaders provided by some TV stooge moderating a debate.

But we all know that Senator Obama got a lot of mileage out of claiming in his campaign speeches that "some say it is naive to talk to our enemies. I disagree!"

Aside from the general slipperiness of saying "some say" rather than spelling out who you're talking about, how is that any different from saying, "Obama says the Republicans had all the good ideas"?

It's the same thing. It is a tactic... Someone says something, and you characterize it... subtly twisting it--adding an adjective, or dropping a qualifier--into something else that supports the narrative you are trying to get across. (Hillary is bush-lite... Obama is soft on Republicans...) And when somebody says, "your opponent never actually said that," you say, "well, he said something LIKE that..."

It is POLITICS. This is a standard tactic in every contested campaign I have ever seen, primary or general election.

So everybody, please stop crying about this stuff like you've never seen it before.

ever said we would "negotiate" with our enemies. He said "meet with" or talk to". That's not negotiating, which implies some sort of weakness or appeasement.

She called him naive in reference to his ideas on how to negotiate with enemies. The details are slightly different, but the essence of her point still remains.

Obama saying that Republicans were the party of ideas is much different than saying that Republicans had good ideas. One adds a value to his comment while the other leaves it neutral.

It's not the same thing.

Both are paraphrasing a quote.

"Party of Ideas" is a compliment. It is a stock phrase the Republicans used to describe their party during the Gingrich era. If you can see it any other way you are ODing on kool-aid.

Saying that Hillary was referring to the entire concept of diplomacy as naive is a vast distortion on a matter of importance. But you don't see any change in meaning... incredible!

I was bending over backward, being diplomatic presenting the two as equivalent, when Obama's statement is clearly more false. I thought giving Obama the benefit of the doubt was gracious.

But you are unable to even see what is in front of your nose.

I'd admit that, even to get back at somebody I disagree with.

She said Barack Obama's ideas on negotiating with his enemies is naive. The Clinton quote is semantics. The essence of what she is saying still remains.

Let me give an example of Obama's statement on ideas in another context. I'm a professional fundraiser for a non-profit. If I came up with an idea of how to more directly get our donors in touch with our programs and someone said "That is an idea.", that gives me no information at all to figure out what this person is thinking. Is it good? Is it bad? Do you need me to explain again? If that person said what you say Obama said "that is a good idea" then I'd know exactly what that person meant. Having an idea doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Coming up with ideas and being creative only works if the idea is good.

If anyone here is hopeless it's you.

"She said Barack Obama's ideas on negotiating with his enemies is naive."

That's a flat lie, unless you are saying that the phrase "Barack Obama's ideas on negotiating with his enemies" means "promising to meet in the first year, face-to-face, with a list of foreign leaders provided by a debate moderator."

The scary thing is that you offer a flat lie, but seem to believe it is true. That's scary. You seem to think that truth is a personal concept... that whatever feels true to you has a higher truth than what people actually say.

I have great contempt for liars, and even more for solipsists, so you're on ignore.

I said that "Barack Obama's ideas on negotiating with his enemies is naive" is different than all diplomacy. Diplomacy can also include state dinners at the white house. Lunch with Nicolas Sarkozy. Golf with Gordon Brown. Diplomacy includes more than negotiating with enemies.

If I'm on ignore than just hit ignore. Don't disregard what I have to say and then pitch in the last little word. You're like a little boy on the playground. You don't get your way so you take your ball and leave. Come back and speak to me like an adult when you're ready to grow up.

some purer than thou Obamamistas over the head with with it.


Just kidding about the head bashing. ;)

I happen to agree!

and apparently I'm on ignore now after two posts that disagreed with him.

Can you visualize that?

LOL!

Is she going to get anywhere with Middle Eastern leaders who view women as second class citizens?

Is she the best choice the repair the broken ties between the US and Middle East?

I like the idea of sending a black man named Barack Obama in there.

The idea that we should pick a President based on the prejudices of people in the middle east is grotesque, but since you raise the question...

Do you have any idea what middle eastern Arabs think of black people? In general terms, Arabs are the most anti black-African group in the world. The Muslim world continued slavery of black Africans for a century after it was eliminated everywhere else in the world. And then there's Darfur, if one prefers a more recent example. (And even reports of Iraqi insurgents speciffically targeting black American soldiers.)

The world isn't white versus black. All sorts of peoples and cultures have all sorts of prejudices. Non-Europeans don't all get along.

But I still think that it would help us on the middle eastern front. As far as we can move away from the George Bush legacy is better in my view, surely you and I (someone who you are now ignoring) can agree on that.