CNN: Obama- Clinton doesn't know where she stands.

[Colobo]

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama attacked New York Sen. Hillary Clinton on Friday for saying earlier in the week that she would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."

"A couple of months ago, Sen. Clinton called me naive and irresponsible for taking this position," said Obama. " said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn't like."

Obama was referring to Clinton's criticism of him after he said in a July debate that he would meet with controversial world leaders without preconditions.

"Just yesterday, though," Obama continued, "she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this."

That wasn't the only shot Obama took at Clinton in a speech marking the fifth anniversary of congressional authorization of the war in Iraq. (Related: Obama: It's time to show where I differ from Clinton)

He also went after Clinton for being the only Democratic candidate for president currently supporting an amendment that contains strong language against Iran.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, according to Obama, provides another blank check to the current administration. The Illinois senator claims it could give President Bush an excuse to keep troops in Iraq "as long as they can point to a threat from Iran."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/12/obama-clinton-doesnt-know-where-she-stands/

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Wow, that's a stretch.

"A couple of months ago, Sen. Clinton called me naive and irresponsible for taking this position,"

Uh, not so much. The position in question was whether to promise to meet personally with a list of leaders during the first year of his presidency.

Not defending the "naive and irresponsible" characterization, but Obama should have acknowledged at the time that his answer was silly in a literal sense, but that we was talking about something broader.

[rinsd]

2. That;s the best he has? Some weak variation of the Edwards attack

Wolfson on the parry....

Responding to the criticisms, top Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said, "When Sen. Clinton used the term "no conditions," she was referring to meetings between the United States government and Iran, not personal meetings with the President. She was striking a contrast with President Bush who has refused to allow the U.S. government to talk to Iran about its nuclear weapons program. Senator Clinton has repeatedly said throughout this campaign that she would re-engage the world diplomatically and end the cowboy approach to diplomacy that has been used by the Bush administration."

[Ethelk2044]

6. Hillary loves to Flip and Flop.

[paulk]

11. you know the Dean campaign pinned that "flip flop"

thing on Kerry

and the Republicans went on to use it.

HRC could very likely be our nominee - maybe you should think about that before handing the Republicans ammo to use against her.

[Egnever]

15. Yes its Deans fault Kerry lost!

:wtf:

[calteacherguy]

3. I think this is distortion. Either that or a misunderstanding.

Obama was talking about going personally to the leaders. When a President says "I will" they aren't necessarily talking about themselves personally. This appears to me as an attempt to make an issue out of no issue.

I thought the whole supposed "diplomacy controversy" was overblown back then, and now it's just getting silly.

[aquart]

4. All he's got.

They just don't differ that much.

[Ethelk2044]

7. The hell they don't.

Hillary is known for pandering. She is polarizing and you can NEVER get a straight answer. When she does answer, it depends on the way the wind is blowing that day.

[msongs]

10. want to back that up with facts? nt

[superkia]

8. If I were him, I would ask her what her agenda was when she said....

this. Notice how Kucinich was pointing out that there was no evidence for a war, Obama should just question her on what her agenda was when she voted yes. Probably the same agenda Bush had. I think when sane people realize that she made a deadly decision like she did with no evidence, they wont want her controlling their children's future, I know I don't. People seem to forget the facts.

Clinton in 2002 sounding like Mr. Bush.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President(That would be Evil Bush), or any future President, TO BE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY in the United Nations OR IN WAR. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

Dennis Kucinich in 2002.

The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE CONGRESS WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT IRAQ IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES AND THAT IT IS CONTINUING TO POSSESS AND DEVELOP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in reprisal for 9-11. Imagine, if you will, as Cleveland columnist Dick Feagler wrote last week, if after this country was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor in 1941, if instead of retaliating by bombing Japan, we would have retaliated by bombing Peru. Iraq is not connected by any credible evidence to 9-11, nor is it connected by any credible evidence to the activities of al Qaeda on 9-11.
The resolution says, and I quote, continuing in this comparison point by point, the resolution
Alert | Add to my Journal

[killbotfactory]

14. Obama said he would be willing to meet with our adversaries

He also condemned Bush's use of preconditions to thwart diplomacy. The message he was sending was clear. Apparently, she agrees with this, so why did Clinton call him naive?

[bigdarryl]

5. how is that an attack when it is a fact she backed the Kyle-Lieberman amendment

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[illinoisprogressive]

13. Sand, He did not vote because it suddenly came to the floor after he left Washington

it was tabled and he was told it was not going to come up for a long time. he left and the next day Reid suddenly put it on the floor and there was no time to get back.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Oft told story, but doesn't pass the truth test.

Because the story ignores the fact that so many others weren't "surprised" when the bill "suddenly" came up for a vote, and they voted on it.
Perhaps with some experience Obama will be less apt to be "surprised" by "sudden" votes?

[illinoisprogressive]

12. I think she lost the ability to have any stand on any issue decades ago

[Forkboy]

16. I have to look at which day of the week it is to know where Hillary stands on any given issue.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. So, he's been told it is time to go negative? I think it's early for that.

But he'll do what the pros tell him to.