I'll start:

Obama Seeks to Clarify His Disputed Comments on Diplomacy

Quote :

"'I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it,' he said. 'That's not a change in position, that's simply responding to distortions of my position.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/politics/29obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations 'Without Precondition':

Quote :

"Question: '[W]ould 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?' Obama: 'I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous.'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

6/2/2008 1:32:13 AM

I thought this was gonna be about shoes with his face on them.

6/2/2008 1:33:08 AM

Um. . .yeah.

<--- To Chit Chat. Thanks.

6/2/2008 1:36:05 AM

*snore*

6/2/2008 2:00:15 AM

haha isnt there like 5 other threads on this?

6/2/2008 2:08:13 AM

^^ And that trinket does nothing to actually address Obama's flip-flop(s)--as usual.

^ A gaffe is not the same thing as a flip-flop, you fucking retard.

gaffe:

Quote :

"A clumsy social error; a faux pas"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaffe

flip-flop:

Quote :

"Informal. a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flip-flop

Search for a thread specifically dedicated to Obama's numerous and growing flip-flops and tell me what you find.

6/2/2008 2:36:12 AM

whats the definition of sudden?

6/2/2008 3:11:16 AM

^

Quote :

". . .or unexpected. . . ."

Seriously, stop being a fucking retard.

6/2/2008 3:24:03 AM

lol thats unexpected to u?

6/2/2008 3:28:27 AM

^ Sweet Jesus, you're the fucking dumbest rock in the bucket. When Obama says something, it's expected that he means it--otherwise it's just bullshit.

Get it?

PS: STFU.

6/2/2008 3:37:46 AM

so its unexpected to clarify and sudden is like 7 months...got it

6/2/2008 4:58:38 AM

Define "clarify."

6/2/2008 6:05:59 AM

On a related note, Obama loves touting the Vienna Summit as an example of where a willingness to nagotiate with our enemies lead to a major cold war success. Some people, think Obama needs to get a history lesson.

In a NYT Op-Ed, Nathan Trall and Jesse Wilkins argue that Kennedy mishandling of the Vienna Summit was a major setback of the cold war and actually became a contributing factor to creating the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Quote :

"Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.” But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age. ... A little more than two months [after the Vienna Sumit], Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Weekly Standard agrees, but I guess it's not too suprising that they would relish the chance to pwnt Obama on any subject.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/149gqohu.asp

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 7:12 AM. Reason : Success, Failure. What's the diff?]

6/2/2008 6:55:46 AM

I'm glad it's opinions like dnl's that are the core of Obama's followers. It makes me

6/2/2008 8:04:32 AM

^ DNL is NOT the core of 'Bama's supporters.

6/2/2008 2:01:34 PM

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 2:02:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

6/2/2008 2:13:54 PM

Without DNL, Obama's chance of winning the general election drops to zero.

6/2/2008 2:16:28 PM

Good Lord, hooksaw needs to get a fucking life

for real

Go squirrel hunting for dinner or something

6/2/2008 2:19:17 PM

^see if i responded "go eat a watermelon" that would equal suspend for me.

oh well.

6/2/2008 2:27:11 PM

^^ There's nothing lamer than a user here telling another user here to "get a fucking life." In any event, who the fuck says, "Get a life" anymore? [OLD]

Obama Said That He Would Not Necessarily Meet With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, After Long Saying He Would Meet With Ahmadinejad:

Quote :

"Obama Said He Would Not Necessarily Meet With Ahmadinejad. 'Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.'"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2635794020080527

Quote :

"'There's No Reason Why We Would Necessarily Meet With Ahmadinejad Before We Know That He Was Actually In Power. He's Not The Most Powerful Person In Iran,' Obama Told Reporters While Campaigning In New Mexico.' (Caren Bohan, 'Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting,' Reuters, 5/26/08)"

But At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Ahmadinejad.

Quote :

"Question: 'Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ...' Obama: 'Uh huh.' Question: 'Would you still meet with him today?' Obama: 'Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with - that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on th e failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.' (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2yJqWguCU

Obama's Evolving Take On Meeting With Iran

Quote :

"ABC News: '[A]s Recently As September, He Reiterated His Promise To Meet With Ahmadinejad Himself.'"

Quote :

"Still, as recently as September, he reiterated his promise to meet with Ahmadinejad himself. Asked about that commitment in the midst of a firestorm over Columbia University's decision to invite the Iranian president to speak, Obama indicated that he stood by it.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=1

6/2/2008 4:46:43 PM

I'm not seeing the flop.

6/2/2008 4:49:31 PM

^ Um. . .yeah--that's kinda the problem. Life in the tank for Obama is not very illuminating.

6/2/2008 4:59:13 PM

just shows you how shitty the republican brand is right now...or how good of a hypnotist that obama is...not sure which...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

look at this shit! are democrats just WANTING to ruin this country for us???

6/2/2008 5:01:01 PM

^ There's no question that the Republican brand has been damaged over the last few years. I hope it doesn't take a Democrat landslide victory in '08 for some of them to realize it.

If you look deeper into those types of polls, you'll see that people do want our leaders to try talking before military action--who doesn't? Talk doesn't always work, though--if it did, all of our problems would have been solved long ago.

6/2/2008 5:16:40 PM

wouldn't Obama Crocs be more timely?

6/2/2008 5:18:47 PM

You know what does always work?

Bluster.


And about the flip-flop over Iran. Where's the flop? He's said that he's willing to talk to Iran, but that this doesn't necessarily mean he will talk to Iran.

I don't see it.

Maybe if I were to really, really want to believe it, though.

6/2/2008 5:20:44 PM

when you've served 7 minutes in the senate total it's kind of hard to find good flip flops to be honest

i guess thats why he's the liberal pick.

6/2/2008 10:01:09 PM

Boone,

You are confused. He did not simply say he was "willing" to meet, he said he WOULD meet. That's exactly what Hookshaw's quotes say.

But if you're going to just make up shit....why don't you vote for Hillary.

6/2/2008 11:11:11 PM

Obama sure as hell flip-flopped on Wright and Pfleger and Trinity United, now didn't he?

6/2/2008 11:25:56 PM

no. Obama just appreciates and understands the nuances of his own words. Nothing else to see here, folks... Besides, Obama is always talking about change...

6/4/2008 5:36:38 PM

Does anybody here actually believe that in the context of the two discussions, that "meeting without preconditions" is equivalent to "unconditional" meeting in the other discussion?

There is a difference between the kind of preconditions that have kept the current administration from meeting with Iran, Palestine, etc etc. And a totally unconditional meeting.

I know that's hard to understand, but try here folks.

6/4/2008 5:39:16 PM

Today:

"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

May 19th:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

6/4/2008 6:39:46 PM

you will probably be shocked but after saying those sentences in my head a few times i dont consider that a flip flop

6/4/2008 6:42:41 PM

6/4/2008 6:44:16 PM

Quote :

""Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.""

so thats how uneducated his mass is? he has to actually explain that?

lol

6/4/2008 7:00:11 PM

Pay attention T-Dub. I am about to make a profound political statement that will enlighten you and trump all other remarks.
























Obama Sux!





Where is ActionPants to disagree with me???

6/6/2008 8:49:08 AM

im going to kill u

6/6/2008 9:27:18 AM

Press Angry About Secret Meeting Between Obama and Clinton

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dTSuCY_cDGI

Obama pisses off the press--GG. It's amateur hour already.

The Obama Learning Curve

Quote :

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden took to the airwaves this week to 'help' the rookie Barack Obama out of a foreign-policy jam. Oh sure, admitted Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee had given the 'wrong' answer when he said he'd meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue states. But on the upside, the guy 'has learned a hell of a lot.' Somewhere Mr. Obama was muttering an expletive. But give Mr. Biden marks for honesty. As Mr. Obama finishes a week of brutal questioning over his foreign-policy judgments, it's become clear he has learned a lot – and is learning still. Right now, for instance, he's learning how tough it can be to pivot to a general-election stance on the crucial issue of foreign policy. He's also learning Democrats won't be able to sail through a national-security debate by simply painting John McCain as the second coming of George Bush. Remember how Mr. Obama got here. In a July debate, the Illinois senator was asked if he'd meet, 'without preconditions,' the 'leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.' It was an unexpected question, and Mr. Obama rolled with his gut: 'I would,' he said, riffing that the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with terror-sponsoring states was 'ridiculous.' Hillary Clinton, who still had the aura of inevitability, and who was already thinking ahead to a general election, wouldn't bite. At that point, any initial misgivings the Obama campaign had about the boss's answer disappeared. Mr. Obama hadn't got much traction differentiating himself from Mrs. Clinton over Iraq, but this was a chance to get to her left, to cast her to liberal primary voters as a warmonger. Which he did, often, committing himself ever more to a policy of unfettered engagement. Today's Obama, all-but-nominee, is pitching to a broad American audience less keen to legitimize Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who provides weapons that kill American soldiers. The senator clumsily invited this debate when he took great umbrage to President Bush's recent criticism of appeasers (which, in a wonderfully revealing moment, Democrats instantly assumed meant them). Mr. Obama has since been scrambling to neutralize his former statement. A week ago, in Oregon, he adopted the 'no-big-deal' approach, telling listeners Iran was just a 'tiny' country that, unlike the Soviet Union, did not 'pose a serious threat to us.' But this suggested he'd missed that whole asymmetrical warfare debate – not to mention 9/11 – so by the next day, he'd switched to the 'blame-Republicans' line. Iran was in fact 'the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation' – but all because of President Bush's Iraq war. This, however, revived questions of why he'd meet with said greatest-threat leader, so his advisers jumped in, this time to float the 'misunderstood' balloon. Obama senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, channeling Bill Clinton, said it all depended on what the definition of a 'leader' is. 'Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be.' (Turns out, Mr. Obama has said he will meet with . . . Mr. Ahmadinejad.) Former Sen. Tom Daschle, channeling Ms. Rice, explained it also depended on what the definition of a precondition is: 'It's important to emphasize again when we talk about preconditions, we're just saying everything needs to be on the table. I would not say that we would meet unconditionally.' This is called being against preconditions before you were for them. And so it goes, as Mr. Obama shifts and shambles, all the while telling audiences that when voting for president they should look beyond 'experience' to 'judgment.' In this case, whatever his particular judgment on Iran is on any particular day. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats entered this race confident national security wouldn't be the drag on the party it has in the past. With an unpopular war and a rival who supports that war, they planned to wrap Mr. McCain around the unpopular Mr. Bush and be done with it. Mr. Obama is still manfully marching down this road, today spending as much time warning about a 'third Bush term' as he does reassuring voters about a first Obama one. Then again, 9/11 and five years of Iraq debate have educated voters. Mr. McCain is certainly betting they can separate the war from the urgent threat of an Iranian dictator who could possess nukes, and whose legitimization would encourage other rogues in their belligerence. This is a debate the Arizonan has been preparing for all his life and, note, Iranian diplomacy is simply the topic du jour. Mr. McCain has every intention of running his opponent through the complete foreign-policy gamut. Explain again in what circumstances you'd use nuclear weapons? What was that about invading Pakistan? How does a policy of engaging the world include Mr. Ahmadinejad, but not our ally Colombia and its trade pact? It explains too the strong desire among the McCain camp to get Mr. Obama on stage for debates soon. There's a feeling Mr. Obama is still climbing the foreign-policy learning curve. And they see mileage in his issuing a few more gut reactions."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121149958822915813.html?mod=todays_columnists



[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 12:53:56 AM

stretching with that one imo

6/9/2008 1:01:21 AM

^
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM

6/9/2008 1:24:36 AM

i was just told that the media hates the bush administration cause its always trying hide info and also that if obama makes the press hate him its cause hes so good

6/9/2008 1:26:47 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080610/cm_rcp/obama_having_a_tough_time_on_i

They just keep coming.

Quote :

"Obama Backs Off Another Campaign Pledge Jack Kelly Tue Jun 10, 8:22 AM ET The half life of a Barack Obama campaign pledge is getting shorter. ADVERTISEMENT Last Wednesday, Sen. Obama spoke before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Though the group is predominantly Democratic, Sen. Obama wanted to reassure it, because many AIPAC members know he has chosen as his foreign policy advisers and spiritual mentors people who have said unkind things about Israel and Jews. For instance, Robert Malley resigned from the campaign last month after it was disclosed he'd been negotiating with the Palestinian terror group Hamas. Daniel Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Egypt and Israel, blames the Israelis for "the radicalization of those Palestinians to violence." Former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak and former Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had blamed U.S. Jews for blocking Mideast peace. And then there's the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Reassure them he did. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Sen. Obama told AIPAC. The next day, after receiving criticism from, among others, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Sen. Obama's campaign issued a "clarification." Obama "did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain 'undivided,'" an aide told the Jerusalem Post. This was a good backtrack. The United States and most other nations do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital (the embassies are in Tel Aviv) precisely because the final status of Jerusalem is the subject of negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians in pursuit of a final peace settlement. But the "clarification" illustrated two of Sen. Obama's tendencies which happen often enough to be described as characteristic. The first is ignorance of an important foreign policy issue. The second is reluctance to admit error when a mistake has been made. The issue of greatest concern to the members of AIPAC is what to do about Iran, since Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has pledged to wipe Israel off the map. In language that could have been used by Sen. John McCain, Sen. Obama told AIPAC's members he shared their concern: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region,' he said. "It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raises the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. It's president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." But just 17 days before, Sen. Obama told an audience in Oregon that Iran (and Cuba and Venezuela) "don't pose a serious threat to the U.S." Sen. Obama told AIPAC the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps should be designated a terrorist organization. On Sep. 26 of last year, the Senate passed, 76-22, a resolution sponsored by Arizona Sen. John Kyl and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman urging that the State Department take this step. Sen. Obama wasn't present for the vote, but issued a statement at the time saying that if he had been, he'd have voted against it. He called it then "saber rattling," and "a blank check for war." Sen. Obama told AIPAC that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." In remarks a few months earlier to Caucus4Priorities, a left wing pacifist group, Sen Obama had said: "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems." In the YouTube Democratic presidential debate last year, Sen. Obama famously pledged to meet, without preconditions, Iranian President Ahmadinejad and other U.S. enemies. That pledge underwent significant modification in his AIPAC address. Sen. Obama told AIPAC he'd be willing to sit down with the Iranians, but only after careful preparation, and only if the national interest would be served by it. In short, Sen. Obama at AIPAC was significantly more hawkish than he was earlier on the campaign trail. Has he changed his world view? Or is he just changing his spots in pursuit of votes? "

6/10/2008 12:08:41 PM

I find it hilarious that the only political race in the country that seems to matter to people with regards to the "flip flopping" issue is the presidential race. All of you people complaining about flip flopping seem to be perfectly content with every other politician flip flopping. I guess that's to be expected in the American Idol generation. Fucking ignorant faggots.

6/11/2008 12:29:19 AM

nobody died when clinton lied, or flip flopped

6/11/2008 1:30:49 AM

millions of sperm died

6/11/2008 1:42:59 AM

^^^ The presidential race is the Super Bowl of politics. Don't you realize that?

And Obama's big problem is he is not a known quantity among American voters. All these controversies and contradictions are hurting him in the minds of many--during a time when he really should be running away with the election.

If Obama doesn't begin to seriously frame up who he is for the American people, they're going to do it for him. And with all the things that have come out and may still come out, I don't think Obama wants that negative narrative attached to him.

6/11/2008 3:10:44 AM

6/11/2008 6:17:22 AM

^ You should be embarrassed of that video you keep posting.

1) McCain's position on Iraq was not a flip-flop. If one goes back and listens to the interviews in context, you will see that the discussions were centered around the initial invasion, not the occupation. And indeed the initial invasion quick victory for the U.S. If you want to see actual flip flopping on Iraq, ask Obama in 2004 to explain the positions of Obama in 2008 why we should stay in Iraq (he used to say his position was not very far from President Bush's). Or hell, ask the Obama of 2006 to explain to the Obama of 2008 why inflexible time-tables are a bad idea (he used to think they were).

2) The confederate flag was a cowardly flip-flop and he fessed up to it. I think that took guts. We'll see if Obama ever fesses up to lying about working on important bills that he wasn't involved in to b00st his legislative record.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html?hpid=topnews

3) Let's not talk about flip-flopping on one's support of extreme religious leaders. Did McCain flip-flop on Jerry Falwell for political reasons? Sure. Is it really a policy issue I (or anyone else) should care about? No.
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/obamawrightxx

4) His position on Gay Marriage was perfectly clear. They can have private ceremonies, and if you want to call them "marriages" that's fine, but they should not be awarded the same standing as "legal" (heterosexual) marriages. It's not a position I agree with, but it's not a flip flop either.

You are really stretching with this video.

6/11/2008 9:24:10 AM

i support the thing where like they can get the same benefits and all that but they have to call it like "faggot marriage" or something

6/11/2008 9:26:24 AM