Obama's change...

[Chilly]

is apparently acting just like any other politician, and changing his tune in front of one of the most power lobbying groups in the US.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4999088&page=1

 

I love this quote:

 

"It's not a precondition to say he'll only do it to advance our interests," said Obama foreign policy advisor Dennis McDonough.

[Chef Jim]

I listened to parts of that speech this morning and I didn't know who he was talking to. I looked at my wife and said "he must be talking to a group of Jews." Amazing.....

[Kelly the Dog]

is apparently acting just like any other politician, and changing his tune in front of one of the most power lobbying groups in the US.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4999088&page=1

 

I love this quote:

There are two different concepts that people have been throwing around about the "pre-conditions" of talks and they are muddling the argument, and fueling criticism, some of which may be earned and some of which isn't. There are two different things going on and they are somewhat independent of each other.

 

Obama's and McCain's stances on definition #1 of "pre-conditions" stands in direct contrast, and hasn't changed at all, or even evolved. People are accusing Obama of changing his stance on this definition when he hasn't. McCain says, for example, in order for us to even sit down with these azzholes they "have to do A or B". Obama is saying, "No, we have to talk to our enemies, too, and even if they don't do A or B first, I will hold serious talks with them." That, again, is definition #1, and that hasn't changed one bit. They are on polar sides of this issue.

 

The second definition of "pre-conditions" is a lot more informal. McCain's stance is pretty much the same as before, because if the Iranians, say, do not do A or B like in the above example, there is no reason to even discuss talking about talking to them. But what Obama was saying today, and clarifying, was that he is not going to just chat with these guys if they call up and say "Hey, let's go grab a beer." There has to be a reason to talk. And some kind of reason that makes him believe they are serious about it, and that is in our national interests to talk. Those are the "pre-conditions" he is talking about today. For the last couple months whenever he mentions sitting down and talking with the enemy he always says "under certain conditions" and that is what he is talking about, the definition #2. He just got a little stronger in his terms today. Read: Politicking.

[Chilly]

lol @ above post

[Kelly the Dog]

lol @ above post

Seems pretty clear to me.

"All I want to say is -- let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening," joked Obama, appearing upbeat and energetic after securing the nomination in a battle with fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.

 

McCain has been assailing Obama in recent weeks on his previous statements suggesting a willingness to talk directly to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

 

Obama has since said he would not guarantee a meeting with the Iranian president. He went a step further in the AIPAC speech by laying down conditions for what he said would "tough and principled diplomacy" with Tehran.

 

"There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress," Obama said.

 

"I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking," he said.

 

"But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States."

 

Obama said the danger from Iran in the Middle East was "grave."

 

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything," he said to a standing ovation.

 

The McCain campaign has taken aim at Obama for what it says is a pattern of "flip-flops" in his positions on Iran.

[Wacka]

I say shoot first, ask questions later.

[Chilly]

I was laughing at you trying to claim that there were two definitions to the word "precondition", and that somehow this was all "A OK" from the Obama camp.

 

I'm sure Obama's seen the poll numbers that 43% believe he isn't tough enough on foreign policy issues. He also saw an opportunity to pander to AIPAC, just like McCain did earlier this week. So, he ramps up the tough-guy rhetoric and puts a precondition on meeting with them in such a way that he can try and stretch a claim that it isn't a precondition. Any politician would do it.

 

Really, its okay to admit that he, like McCain, is a hypocrite, and their messages of change while pandering to special interests is a bunch of fluff.

[Kelly the Dog]

I was laughing at you trying to claim that there were two definitions to the word "precondition", and that somehow this was all "A OK" from the Obama camp.

 

I'm sure Obama's seen the poll numbers that 43% believe he isn't tough enough on foreign policy issues. He also saw an opportunity to pander to AIPAC, just like McCain did earlier this week. So, he ramps up the tough-guy rhetoric and puts a precondition on meeting with them in such a way that he can try and stretch a claim that it isn't a precondition. Any politician would do it.

 

Really, its okay to admit that he, like McCain, is a hypocrite, and their messages of change while pandering to special interests is a bunch of fluff.

What is the major change? There isn't one. He still will talk to Iran and other rogue nations without the pre-conditions that McCain insists on. That hasn't changed one bit, and that is the argument. To me, it's disingenuous for McCain, or even you, to think that what Obama was saying before would mean he would be happy to talk to the President of Iran, just chat, say "Sure, call me up any time". Again, he has been saying "with conditions" for months. I have seen him talk about it dozens of times and he always says with certain conditions. Sure it was a response to the criticism but simply because they were accusing him of being totally naive. The guy is a smart guy. I understand the opposition going after him for it, that's just politics.

[Fastback]

Change you can believe in! As in change of position depending on who he's talking to...

[Chilly]

What is the major change? There isn't one. He still will talk to Iran and other rogue nations without the pre-conditions that McCain insists on. That hasn't changed one bit, and that is the argument. To me, it's disingenuous for McCain, or even you, to think that what Obama was saying before would mean he would be happy to talk to the President of Iran, just chat, say "Sure, call me up any time". Again, he has been saying "with conditions" for months. I have seen him talk about it dozens of times and he always says with certain conditions. Sure it was a response to the criticism but simply because they were accusing him of being totally naive. The guy is a smart guy. I understand the opposition going after him for it, that's just politics.

 

There isn't one? Note your qualifying statement about McCain, which wasn't in Barack's original statement:

 

without the pre-conditions that McCain insists on

 

What he said was "without pre-conditions". There was NOTHING about mcCain.

 

Here is the definition of "pre-condition" from Marrian-Webster:

 

: something that is necessary to an end or to the carrying out of a function

 

That is *EXACTLY* what he just imposed.

 

Please don't mistake me for a McCain supporter. I'm not. What I am is someone who dislikes candidates who attempt to appeal to candidates by claiming they aren't politicians. By claiming they aren't going to go of special interests. It doesn't work that way. Both McCain and Obama do it, but Obama is much more successful at it.

 

Obama isn't for "change" in the political process, Obama is for the Democratic policies.

 

For example, he promised AIPAC today 20 billion in aid. This is completely appealing to special interests.

 

Even better though, let me show you the most hypocritical, bull sh-- Obama quote ever made, straight from Barack Obama's website itself

 

"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately."

 

The farm bill is NOTHING but special interests winning over the American people.

 

Anyone who says such a quote should be automatically disqualified from the race.

[Kelly the Dog]

There isn't one? Note your qualifying statement about McCain, which wasn't in Barack's original statement:

 

 

 

What he said was "without pre-conditions". There was NOTHING about mcCain.

 

Here is the definition of "pre-condition" from Marrian-Webster:

 

 

 

That is *EXACTLY* what he just imposed.

 

Please don't mistake me for a McCain supporter. I'm not. What I am is someone who dislikes candidates who attempt to appeal to candidates by claiming they aren't politicians. By claiming they aren't going to go of special interests. It doesn't work that way. Both McCain and Obama do it, but Obama is much more successful at it.

 

Obama isn't for "change" in the political process, Obama is for the Democratic policies.

 

For example, he promised AIPAC today 20 billion in aid. This is completely appealing to special interests.

 

Even better though, let me show you the most hypocritical, bull sh-- Obama quote ever made, straight from Barack Obama's website itself

 

"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately."

 

The farm bill is NOTHING but special interests winning over the American people.

 

Anyone who says such a quote should be automatically disqualified from the race.

Doesn't seem to me like you're living in the real world taking things so literally. Like I said, there is no fundamental difference in his stance. If you truly believed that what he said and what he meant was "no-pre-conditions" by the dictionary definition, you're insane. I suppose you believe he would meet with enemy leaders if they called up and said, "Hey, Barack, come on over and talk to us so we can spit in your face" and he would just go there because there wasn't any "pre-conditions" in the fact he said he would talk to them. Again, if you're going to go by the literal translation that means that is what you truly believe he meant, and that just isn't thinking, or living in the real world. His stance hasn't fundamentally changed.

 

Also, when someone says I am the candidate of change that doesn't mean you divorce yourself completely of your job. He's a politician. He wants to change the way Washington works. He means the blatant mean-spirited partisanship, and all the same stuff most everyone else doesn't like about politics and politicians. he doesn't mean he's not going to be one, and say stuff like a politician, never meet with lobbyists, never criticize the other side, never be hypocritical, never compromise, never change his opinion when it would be politically beneficial to him. That's not living in the real world.

 

I think he promised Israel, not AIPAC, 30 billion in military aid over ten years, didn't he? That's pandering to lobbyists?

 

You're right about the farm bill, if that's what it is. (I don't know anything about it, I will take your word on it). If what you said is true, then it's total bullschit, and he should be taken to task for it. Poiting out that kind of hypocrisy is what we should be doing here. It's uncalled for, and a big mistake.

 

He's far from perfect, far from being totally honest, far from being devoid of partisanship, and far from everything else that a politician does. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to change the way Washington works by most of the time staying above the fray a lot of times, and inclusive and a uniter. It's just stupid, IMO, to make it and take it so literal.

[SD Jarhead]

There isn't one? Note your qualifying statement about McCain, which wasn't in Barack's original statement:

 

 

 

What he said was "without pre-conditions". There was NOTHING about mcCain.

 

Here is the definition of "pre-condition" from Marrian-Webster:

 

 

 

That is *EXACTLY* what he just imposed.

 

Please don't mistake me for a McCain supporter. I'm not. What I am is someone who dislikes candidates who attempt to appeal to candidates by claiming they aren't politicians. By claiming they aren't going to go of special interests. It doesn't work that way. Both McCain and Obama do it, but Obama is much more successful at it.

 

Obama isn't for "change" in the political process, Obama is for the Democratic policies.

 

For example, he promised AIPAC today 20 billion in aid. This is completely appealing to special interests.

 

Even better though, let me show you the most hypocritical, bull sh-- Obama quote ever made, straight from Barack Obama's website itself

 

"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately."

 

The farm bill is NOTHING but special interests winning over the American people.

 

Anyone who says such a quote should be automatically disqualified from the race.

 

It's useless...he is the Messiah. You should've seen Katy Couric slobbing his knob on the 'news' tonight. I'm sure there's some footage somewhere with her wiping a white sticky substance off of her face.

[Adam]

Is it true that shortly after taking office that Bush met with the Taliban? I was into things more important than politics at that time, so I have no idea if this is true or not.....it was brought up in a discussion today, and I had no response...lol

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Even better though, let me show you the most hypocritical, bull sh-- Obama quote ever made, straight from Barack Obama's website itself

 

"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately."

What he was calling the special interests in 2007 were subsidies for (and in some cases, monopolies of) huge agribusinesses, which were supported by the WH.

 

Unfortunately what happened between November 21, 2007 and now was that major concessions had to occur in order to get a veto-proof majority. You can point fingers at the 81-to-15 Senate vote and the 318-to-106 House vote, it ain't just Obama.

 

6 months later, the final bill looks very different, and although he got a lot of what he was fighting for like alternative energy and nutrition programs for kids, he is clear about his disappointment.

 

"This bill is far from perfect. I believe in tighter payment limits and a ban on packer ownership of livestock. As president, I will continue to fight for the interests of America's family farmers and ranchers and ensure that assistance is geared towards those producers who truly need them, instead of large agribusinesses. But with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good."

 

I'm probably way too naive, but a president who wanted changes in special interests, assuming he had support in the congress, could force law makers to stop bundling special interests inside other bills, and create more visibility to the pork. As an example, he could say "I don't like this farm bill because of xyz, but send me back a separate bill on the children's nutrition programs and I'll sign it."

[Chilly]

What he was calling the special interests in 2007 were subsidies for (and in some cases, monopolies of) huge agribusinesses, which were supported by the WH.

 

Good God, your version of history is completely backwards from what reality is.

 

Which were in the version of the bill that he was urging Democrats and Republicans to come together to pass (and were in every subsequent bill).

 

By the way, the WH did NOT support such subsidies. In fact, Bush threatened a veto unless they lowered the cap, and they didn't so Bush vetoed it.

 

This is one of the few areas that Bush was actually correct on.

 

Unfortunately what happened between November 21, 2007 and now was that major concessions had to occur in order to get a veto-proof majority. You can point fingers at the 81-to-15 Senate vote and the 318-to-106 House vote, it ain't just Obama.

 

Obama's message is to change, to not be the typical politician. Your defense is: "It aint just Obama, all politicians are doing it." Right.

 

6 months later, the final bill looks very different, and although he got a lot of what he was fighting for like alternative energy and nutrition programs for kids, he is clear about his disappointment.

 

Cept that the final bill wasn't very different. The food subsidies were still in place, just like they had been since the Nixon administrator !@#$ed them up in the first place. America's entire nutritional system is being driven by the cheap cost of corn, making everyone unhealthy, especially poor people.

 

The food bill did *not* change substantively, and he starts out his speech saying:

 

"I applaud the Senate's passage today of the Farm Bill, which will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability."

 

Right. That quote indicates he was disappointed with the farm bill.

 

"This bill is far from perfect. I believe in tighter payment limits and a ban on packer ownership of livestock. As president, I will continue to fight for the interests of America's family farmers and ranchers and ensure that assistance is geared towards those producers who truly need them, instead of large agribusinesses. But with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good."

 

As President, he will fight for it. As Senator, he will vote against it due to partisan politics. Finally, he will focus his campaign against partisan politics.

 

Sounds coherent, doesn't it?

 

I'm probably way too naive, but a president who wanted changes in special interests, assuming he had support in the congress, could force law makers to stop bundling special interests inside other bills, and create more visibility to the pork. As an example, he could say "I don't like this farm bill because of xyz, but send me back a separate bill on the children's nutrition programs and I'll sign it."

 

First off, you have yet to prove that he went against special interests in the farm bill.

 

Secondly, how do you think he would encourage a district-based system to vote against itself?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Is it true that shortly after taking office that Bush met with the Taliban? I was into things more important than politics at that time, so I have no idea if this is true or not.....it was brought up in a discussion today, and I had no response...lol

There's a lot of speculation about Bush (and mostly Cheney's) support for the Central Asia Gas pipeline (CentGas) between Turkmenistan and Pakistan (via western Afghanistan). Not Bush himself, but supposedly Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was negotiating with the Taliban to get CentGas completed prior to 9/11.

 

Cheney's energy policy task force's (almost totally composed of big oil) recommendation was that CentGas and central asian oil was critical and all of a sudden the State Dept are negotiating with the Taliban for the first time since 1994. So that was the connection between the WH and the Taliban. The problem was Bin Laden was being hosted there, and the FBI (supposedly) was prevented from getting at him because the pipeline was more important.

 

Cheney's Halliburton Corp. was angling for the pipeline construction contract and Unocal was the main US oil co involved. Also Enron conducted the feasibility study for the CentGas deal. People have also accused the US of supporting Karzai as PM for Afghanistan because he was the main adviser to Unocal on the project.

 

So there's all kinds of theories about shoulda/coulda/woulda had Bin Laden, sleeping with the enemy, Enron, fat contracts, all that.

[SD Jarhead]

There's a lot of speculation about Bush (and mostly Cheney's) support for the Central Asia Gas pipeline (CentGas) between Turkmenistan and Pakistan (via western Afghanistan). Not Bush himself, but supposedly Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was negotiating with the Taliban to get CentGas completed prior to 9/11.

 

Cheney's energy policy task force's (almost totally composed of big oil) recommendation was that CentGas and central asian oil was critical and all of a sudden the State Dept are negotiating with the Taliban for the first time since 1994. So that was the connection between the WH and the Taliban. The problem was Bin Laden was being hosted there, and the FBI (supposedly) was prevented from getting at him because the pipeline was more important.

 

Cheney's Halliburton Corp. was angling for the pipeline construction contract and Unocal was the main US oil co involved. Also Enron conducted the feasibility study for the CentGas deal. People have also accused the US of supporting Karzai as PM for Afghanistan because he was the main adviser to Unocal on the project.

 

So there's all kinds of theories about shoulda/coulda/woulda had Bin Laden, sleeping with the enemy, Enron, fat contracts, all that.

 

So I'm clear, all of this happened before the US Government blew up the Twin Towers right?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Good God, your version of history is completely backwards from what reality is.

 

Which were in the version of the bill that he was urging Democrats and Republicans to come together to pass (and were in every subsequent bill).

 

By the way, the WH did NOT support such subsidies. In fact, Bush threatened a veto unless they lowered the cap, and they didn't so Bush vetoed it.

 

This is one of the few areas that Bush was actually correct on.

ok, my bad. I originally put in a lot of words Bush threatening to veto it because of the price supports and that he refused ANY tax increases. Since the Greenspan book came out slamming him for signing every spending bill that he was presented with, he has found his veto voice and so on.

 

I struck all that out because it wasn't relevant and without paying attention, I said the WH supported the subsidies for the agribusinesses, when I meant to say they only supported the bill if there were no tax increases. Sloppiness on my part and I was wrong in that statement.

 

Obama's message is to change, to not be the typical politician. Your defense is: "It aint just Obama, all politicians are doing it." Right.

My point is that this bill had strong bipartisan support in the congress, so to use against him as an example that he's some kind of hypocrite is just wrong. And that he was campaigning almost the entire time it was being debated on the floor and re crafted to pass. If he's elected, and turns out to be the same as others before him, then he deserves all the abuse.

 

Cept that the final bill wasn't very different. The food subsidies were still in place, just like they had been since the Nixon administrator !@#$ed them up in the first place. America's entire nutritional system is being driven by the cheap cost of corn, making everyone unhealthy, especially poor people.

different than he wanted it to be

 

The food bill did *not* change substantively, and he starts out his speech saying:

 

"I applaud the Senate's passage today of the Farm Bill, which will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability."

 

Right. That quote indicates he was disappointed with the farm bill.

nice twist...

He got the nutrition program for kids, support for family farms hurt by natural disasters, investment in new alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, protections for afro-americans that had been discriminated by the USDA, and a host of other changes he was fighting for. So he's happy the bill passed with bipartisan support!

 

He's unhappy that the cap is still too high, there's earmarks for things like freaking racehorses, not enough changes in the direct payment system, and subsidies that still make no sense. And as president, he'll work hard to improve it. Is that really so hard to understand?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

So I'm clear, all of this happened before the US Government blew up the Twin Towers right?

ya, way before

[Chilly]

My point is that this bill had strong bipartisan support in the congress, so to use against him as an example that he's some kind of hypocrite is just wrong. And that he was campaigning almost the entire time it was being debated on the floor and re crafted to pass. If he's elected, and turns out to be the same as others before him, then he deserves all the abuse.

 

Do you even get what you are saying? "Obama can't be a hypocrite because other people supported the bill too".

 

Obama flat out said that passing the food bill was standing up to special interests. That is one of the biggest loads of bull sh-- I've ever heard from a politician, especially one who is campaigning AGAINST special interests.

 

 

different than he wanted it to be

 

Yet he still supported it, urged it to be passed, with the same typical provisions for special interests. In fact, he even voted for it. Yeah, thats not hypocritical at all.

 

 

nice twist...

He got the nutrition program for kids, support for family farms hurt by natural disasters, investment in new alternative fuels like cellulosic ethanol, protections for afro-americans that had been discriminated by the USDA, and a host of other changes he was fighting for. So he's happy the bill passed with bipartisan support!

 

Great, so he added in even more spending to an already extremely bloated bill, and wasn't successful in getting anything cut. Here's another quote Barack Obama likes to utter a lot:

 

"Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington"

 

He's unhappy that the cap is still too high, there's earmarks for things like freaking racehorses, not enough changes in the direct payment system, and subsidies that still make no sense. And as president, he'll work hard to improve it. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

He voted for and supported the passage of a bill that goes against his campaign message. That makes him a hypocrite. Is that really so hard to understand?