Obama And Edwards Slap Hillary For Diplomatic About-Face

hillobamed.jpgWhen Barack Obama said he would meet with leaders of countries that do not see eye-to-eye with the US during a Democratic presidential debate in July, he was sharply rebuked by Hillary Clinton as “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Thursday, however, Clinton said that she would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works,” she said.

Obama responded on Friday, “So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this–when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.”

Chris Kofinis, communications director of the Edwards campaign added, “You can’t have it both ways–on this or any other issue. Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans.”

For her part, Clinton said her comments Thursday were consistent with past statements. The difference between her stance and that of Obama, she insisted, was that she would open negotiations through the use of aides, rather than meeting such leaders face-to-face.

Democrats must give up the belief that they “can’t win elections unless they talk, act, and vote like Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and national security,” remarked Obama.

Yet for some reason, Democrats have fallen in love with the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. A presidency that looks very much like a probable continuation of current foreign policy coupled with a smoke-and-mirrors domestic agenda.



  1. I think Hillary has convinced people she IS the candidate and people are jumping on the bandwagon. I suspect the wheels will fall off the wagon before it’s over.


  2. Manfred says:

    I hope so, Lemming. This pre-election anointment by the party powers which is being perpetuated by the media is a load of crap.
    Already, there are rumblings of a shake-up in Iowa. Of course, the Clinton people say that a loss there doesn’t matter in the big picture, and that Hillary isn’t understood well by the ‘yokels.’ I’m sure they understand her just fine, they just aren’t interested in “same shit, different party.”

  3. Adrian says:

    I really enjoy reading your blog, it always has great insight. But I am very frustrated with the media’s lack of questions to the presidential candidates about global warming.

    The Daily Green just put an article out talking about how the presidential candidates are not being asked where they stand on the issue of the climate change – this is surprising to me considering its such a MAJOR concern to people. I just saw a poll on http://www.EarthLab.com that says people care a lot what their next leader thinks about global warming (after you take it they show you the results). Does anyone know of another poll or other results about this subject?

    If not, go to http://www.earthlab.com/life.aspx and take their poll to see which way the results go. This is a pretty legit website; they are endorsed by Al Gore and the alliance for climate protection and they have a carbon footprint calculator. No matter which political party you vote for this is an important issue for our environment, our economy and for homeland security.

  4. Manfred says:

    Most of the top candidate’s positions can be found on the same EarthLab site you mentioned, with the exception of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.
    Huckabee’s position is a virtual imitation of other Republican proposals, i.e. expansion of energy sources such as biodiesel, clean coal, and nuclear power, coupled with tax credits for big businesses which don’t defy the mandates. He believes in getting off of our addiction to oil–a position shared by every other candidate. He is a little more emphatic about it than some others.
    Dr. Paul has a belief that large special interests have been given too much latitude in this area by the government, and that those who actually depend on or own the land are getting the shaft. He thinks that the little guy should have the right to fight back through lawsuits and injunctions. He is also opposed to tax credits for those who are wealthy enough to play that game.
    FYI: There is no such thing as “clean coal,” only somewhat less dirty coal.

Switch to mobile version