'Rock Star" Obama in harmony with US Allies

[illinoisprogressive]

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The first major dustup between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- whether the next president should unconditionally meet with leaders hostile to the U.S. -- is still simmering after two weeks.

How the issue will play in the American presidential election remains uncertain. How the rest of the world is reacting is not. Obama wins.

It isn't so much the particulars of this rather contrived controversy: The lawmaker from Illinois, responding to a question at a televised debate, said that as president he would meet, without preconditions, with the bad guys -- the Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, Cubans or Venezuelans.

Clinton disagreed and, flexing her experience muscles, said afterward that Obama's response was ``irresponsible and frankly naive.''

Those words sound as if they could have come from President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney -- an unpopular view in much of the world.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.5OI1geizwA

[durrrty libby]

1. Pakistan does not think he is a Rock Star. They think he is a Rock Head.

Last Updated: Monday, 6 August 2007, 15:08 GMT 16:08 UK

Pakistan 'is no militant haven'

Pakistan has again denied that al-Qaeda or the Taleban have safe havens in its territory, and has warned that the issue threatens relations with the US.

The allegation has become an issue between candidates in the race to become the next US president.


"Last week presidential candidate Barack Obama said he was prepared to use military force if necessary against a re-grouped al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Pakistani officials say that such comments caused great resentment.
'Terrorist elements'

"There is no al-Qaeda or Taleban safe haven in Pakistan," foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a weekly briefing.

She said that Pakistan was strongly opposed to a bill signed by President Bush on Friday that requires the US president to confirm that Pakistan is making progress in combating al-Qaeda before aid is forthcoming.


Ms Aslam said that such conditions were "in no way conducive to the promotion of a healthy relationship" between Pakistan and the United States."


http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.b...

Here's the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Ethelk2044]

3. Obama was correct on this issue. If Osama is in Pakistan he needs to be dealt with

The families of 911 victims have been waiting for someone to be held accountable for their deaths.

[Skip Intro]

2. And the next day he said it would be "rediculous" to meet without precondition

I guess if you take several stances on the same issue, you can get everybody to agree with you.

[Ethelk2044]

4. and Hillary supporters would like to let Osama go Free

No Thanks

[durrrty libby]

6. He is naive, inexperienced and wants to look like a tough guy

That makes him dangerous. The country will say ...No Thanks, We Don't Want BO

[phaseolus]

15. In 2000 ...

...the naive, inexperienced, wannabe tough guy almost won the U.S. presidential election fair and square. He got plenty of votes, even though the slim majority voted for the highly experienced, reasonable guy.

So inexperience isn't necessarily going to be a deal breaker in '08.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

8. Oh my. I guess I'm either with Obama or I'm with the terrorists, eh? You should be ashamed.

But you're not, I'm sure. It seems to be a hallmark of the Obama smear team to accuse anyone critical of his magesty, King O, of being terrorist sympathizers.

And your guy calls Hillary bush-cheney lite?

You know, its not my fault your hero changes his position day to day.




Wait, let me scratch that...:rofl:

[Alamom]

10. Do you have a source for that statement? or do you just assume it's true

because some people don't believe bombing the hell otta one of our allies is a good idea and believe a more mature approach would be more productive.

Not to mention telling the enemy what you intend to do two years before you can do squat. :eyes:

Read the article.

Axelrod smooths it over once again......

[Skip Intro]

Don't question the O, or the terrists will win!

I really, really am blown away by the slime being tossed around here.


Hillary supporters want Obama to go free.


wtf?

[Skip Intro]

12. double post

[Skip Intro]

13. Hey Ethelk2044, you gonna back up that assertion or what? n/t

[Ethelk2044]

19. The media and Hillary has proved my point. Obama was right.

Hillary said she just would not announce it. Biden came out again today and said IF the President did not attack knowing that Osama was in Pakistan, It would be illegal. Any Question Skip

[Skip Intro]

20. Yeah, question. Do you stand by your words that Hill supporters want Osama to go free?

Thanks, Eth.

[TwilightZone]

18. What are you talking about?

Are you on the right website?

[Alamom]

5. "two leading Dem pres.contenders,Clinton & Obama have `rock star appeal' around the globe."

Interesting article.
(same link)



'Rock Star Appeal'

Some foreign policy experts, such as Dick Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, say global hostility is directed more at Bush's policies than at Americans and can be rectified by the next president. Holbrooke argues that the two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton -- who he's advising -- and Obama have ``rock star appeal'' around the globe.


Almost every political figure outside the Bush administration -- and certainly including Hillary Clinton -- says we should be talking to the Iranians and Syrians about the Iraq quagmire. North Korea, as Clinton has noted, developed nuclear weapons on Bush's watch, so as erratic as Kim Jong-il may be, it's hard to argue that talking to him is irresponsible. Fidel Castro is in his last throes. So the whole debate is over meeting with nutty Hugo Chavez?

Initially, this fight was incorrectly seen as ideological, says David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist. A week later, Obama suggested he'd be prepared to bomb al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.


edpn

[Withywindle]

11. Doesn't surprise me at all.

Bill Clinton is still widely beloved abroad, I'm sure that affection spills over to Hillary as well - and why shouldn't it, she'd be a huge improvement!

Obama is very charismatic and open-minded and has an international background - definitely not a xenophobe like *, whose offensive, arrogant willful ignorance about other cultures has been pissing off billions of people for years.

Both of them are highly intelligent people who aren't afraid to ask questions, read books and newspapers, and THINK. That has broad appeal everywhere in the world that doesn't have a cult of redneck anti-intellectualism.

[jmp]

9. 7 years ago ...

"Today, Turks have an unfavorable view of the U.S. by a margin of 83 percent to 9 percent. Seven years ago, a majority in that country had a favorable opinion."

Most of our "allies" aren't allies so much as protectorates. I would vote for anyone that committed to disentangling the US from all these one sided alliances. Dissolve NATO and bring our troops home. Japan and S.Korea are also plenty capable of protecting themselves.

We could slash our regular defense budget in half if we quit playing the role of playground monitor.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I enjoyed the ride.

Nobody knows who "won" or benefited from the spat. Anybody that comments is expressing an opinion because it is subjective.

The sparring was actually kinda cool IMO.

[Honeycombe8]

16. I did not hear him say he'd meet w/leaders "unconditionally."

Did he say that? Where is everyone getting that? I swear...I watched the debate. I heard his answer to that question. I didn't hear him promise to meet with those leaders with no preconditions, etc. Are people assuming that's what he meant?

I assumed he meant what all leaders mean when they answer questions, which is that..this is what I'll do, depending on events and circumstances at the time. For example, if Chavez were to hit us with a nuke, I ASSUME that Obama wouldn't still meet with him unconditionally. Of course he wouldn't.

Or did I miss that in his answer?

[killbotfactory]

17. You didn't miss anything

That's pretty much exactly what he said and meant. You'd think with only a minute to answer a question like that, the media and other politicians would cut him a little slack, and not read so much into his answer.

For anyone still confused, thanks to the fabulously accurate media reporting of the event:
1. Yes, he would be willing to meet with hostile foreign leaders within the first year of his presidency.
2. No, he would not make them jump through hoops (IE: preconditions) and prostrate themselves before us in order to get a meeting, as the Bush administration has done, which basically ensures diplomacy will fail.
3. No, that does not mean he is promising to meet them under any circumstance, or that they will become best friends forever when they do meet.