3 Prominent Dems Reject Obama's position on meeting with Ahmadinejad

[candice]

Gary Hart, Biden, and Harold Ford.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080519/NATION/410224736/1028/election

May 19: "Three prominent Democrats yesterday rejected Sen. Barack
Obama's position of meeting unconditionally with Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and leaders of other American enemies.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, former Sen. Gary Hart of
Colorado and former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee distanced
themselves from Mr. Obama's position, each saying that preconditions
for any such meeting would be essential."

[GarbagemanLB]

1. It's over. Hillary lost. Admit it so you can begin grieving.

[emilyg]

29. What does your comment have to do

with the op?

[GarbagemanLB]

32. I'm just responding to her attack on the presumptive nominee.

[Evergreen Emerald]

44. what "attack" was that?

Showing the fact that three dems distanced themselves from Obama's statement is not an "attack."

[rocktivity]

2. (Pre-click prediction) The DLC is mixed up in this...

Hooray for me.

:eyes:
rocknation

[SoonerPride]

3. Reagan met with Gorby. Nixon met with Mao. Kennedy met Kruschev,

It's called leadership.

Diplomatic isolationism is pathetic and undervalues american soft power to affect policy around the globe.

[Olney Blue]

4. But negotiations with Iran might just work- Obama should hold firm.

[KoKo]

5. AYYYYYYYYYY....The DLC...starts to go after Obama...

First throw.....How will Obama handle it? I'm a Progessive Lefty...it's important to me. Gary Hart is an "in crowd" as much as many think he's a maverick...

[thunder rising]

6. former Sen. Gary Hart of former Sen. Gary Hart and former Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. ????

Even James Baker agrees with Barack.

[MercutioATC]

7. Show me one "new Dem" on that list.

Yes, I'm sure a bunch of the old-school Dems have a problem with it. Who cares?

The idea here is that we're moving forward (and the scary part is that it's not even anything revolutionary...plenty of Presidents have met with adversaries for open dialog).

Screw the old politics. (well, the old new politics...or the new old politics.........whatever)

[frogcycle]

31. no, screw naive wannabes

who the hell is "we?" You one of Obama's close confidants?


crickets...



I didn't think so.

ok, that said, I expect that he will temper his "unconditional" approach a bit - oh, wait, he already has! and these very "old-school democrats" will probably BE his close confidants.


Now go back to running your lemonade stand.

Arrogance is so unbecoming.

[MercutioATC]

42. Over 7k posts and you haven't learned how to post a coherent statement?

1) "We" are the American populace (at least the Democratic populace). I stated my opinion that "we" were moving forward. Why does this confuse you?

2) "crickets" is commonly used when a question is asked and no response is received. Since I'm posting in a timely manner, I'm not sure what "crickets" is supposed to mean.

3) I fail to see how any reasonable person would consider my statements as "arrogant"...especially to the degree of suggesting that I "go back to my lemonade stand".


We obviously have a difference of opinion, but I'm not sure what it is.

[cali]

33. Gary Hart is a close Obama ally, early endorser and advisor

for that reason alone, I'm calling bullshit on the article.

[Johnny__Motown]

8. So, every prominent Democrat (except 3) agree with Sen. Obama

[berni_mccoy]

9. Quoting the Moony Rag? Sheesh, going to the depths of desperation.

[DJ13]

10. Considering that Obama also said there would be some pre-conditions

....this is nonsense.

[wiggs]

13. That's right. Straw man attack. nt

[PM7nj]

17. Facts! Facts are not allowed here!

This is GDP! What are you doing citing facts!

[tularetom]

11. Well I guess that's pretty much it for Obama

I expect to see the superdelegates switch back to Hillary now that these "prominent Dems" distanced themselves from his position.

And in the moonie paper no less.

:sarcasm:

She isn't going to win. Why keep torturing yourself?

[Honeycombe8]

12. Obama has clarified, saying that of course SOME conditions would have to exist...

before meeting ANY leader of a foreign nation. That goes w/o saying. What those conditions are would depend on the time, the events, the country, the leader, etc.

It's a common sense thing. You don't NEED to say that certain conditions would have to exist in order to meet with another leader. It's a given.

Like if you sell a working car to someone...do you NEED to make it clear that the car will have an engine or tires? Of course not. That's a given.

I heard Biden say on TV a couple of days ago that he agrees w/Obama's position....and he reiterated that of course certain conditions would have to exist, that goes w/o saying. The important part of the statement was that Obama WOULD meet with the leaders that the current administration says it would not meet with.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. The Times got it wrong. Ahmadinejad isn't a leader, he's a figure head, like a first lady.

If they would read the Iranian constitution they would know that the Iranian President has no power to conduct foreign policy. But it's the Mooney Times, after all, they always get stuff wrong.

Sorry about your gal.

Can't win 'em all.

Send her some money if you can.

[lojasmo]

15. Biden's the only 'prominent' democrat on the list. EOM

[anigbrowl]

16. The Washington Times? Eeew.

[RBInMaine]

18. This is a skewed article. All 3 have taken Bush/McCain strongly to task on their approach to

diplomacy. Biden severely thrashed Bush/McCain on the Jewish parliament remarks and McCain's pile-on to them, and Ford also attacked them and their general approach to diplomacy. So first, let's get real here. ALL Dems want a MUCH different approach than what we've been getting from Bush/McCain. There may be a nuance with regard to the extent/level of talks with Iran, but certainly all three renounce the Bush/McCain comments on this and their general "cowboy" approach to diplomacy. Biden and Ford both said clearly that we would have a much better foreign policy under Obama (and Clinton) as compared to Bush/McCain.

[Zomby Woof]

19. Typical of Biden

If there is any Democrat who has long represented the status quo in our foreign policy, it's Plagiarist Joe. Thank jebus he didn't get the nod, or it would be a Tweedledee and Tweedledum choice. Biden is one of the worst sell-outs our party has had in the past 3 decades. He deserves the excrecable Harold Ford and delusional Gary Hartpence.

[Inuca]

26. That's a load of bull, sorry

I did not read the article (there are links i refuse to click on), but I heard and read about Biden strongly coming to Obama's defense and vigorously criticizing Bush and McCain about the whole Iran appeasement thing. ANd I have no idea what you mean by "status quo in our foreign policy", I surely hope you do not mean the current administration's status quo, because Biden surely is not representative of that. He is one of the best out there in terms of foreign policy, and the fact that he has been at it for a long time does not make less true.

As to Hart, he has been of the earliest ,most thoughtful and consistent Obama supporters.

Not much of a fan of Harold Ford, so I will not comment on him.

Overall, a very nasty and substance-devoid message.

[Zomby Woof]

40. I've been following this game over 25 years

And yes, Biden is the status quo. I remember all too sickeningly his defending Bush as recently as 2005 when it came to criticism of his foreign policy objectives. "We have to support the president" and all that claptrap. There were some fierce threads right here on this site. Memories are short, like attention spans.

Hart is even an emptier suit than Obama. I remember his "New Ideas" campaign of 1984. Although Mondale had all the excitement of dishwater, he was beautifully on target with his "Where's the beef?" rejoinder. Hart ran the dumbest Democratic campaign in modern times. Daring the press to follow him around.

It's milquetoast appeaser Democrats like Hart and Biden that kept us out of the White House for 12 years. If they ruin it for Obama, they will keep us out another 12.

[Catherina]

49. I remember him too. I wouldn't trust Biden to watch my dog. n/t

[hokies4ever]

53. The title of the article is misleading

I read the section about Biden's remarks, and he did NOT distance himself from Obama. Briefly, he pretty much said that Obama's short answer to this question many, many months ago was misunderstood as him meeting with certain leaders immediately upon taking the White House, when in fact he would start off with low-level diplomacy first. MSM just trying to cause a rift between Biden and Obama. Harold Ford's answer is predictable. It's his philosophy that southern Democrats need to be slightly more conservative to win Congressional races in the South, so he's just setting himself up as that kind of Democrat for any future Congressional runs for himself.

[RBInMaine]

37. BS ! He was the first to SLAM Bush/McCain on this. He's a good Dem! This is a BS article !!

[Zomby Woof]

43. I don't care about the article

I just see Biden's name, and trust goes out the window. He's worse than Gephardt, if that's possible.

[panader0]

20. "Preconditions"? Like what?

Remember how they argued over the size and shape of the table for the Vietnam talks?? The preconditions are the conditions that already exist. The US is a very powerful country, Iran is not. Would the preconditions include what's on the menu? Where the talks occur? But overall, you talk to EVERYONE. Even James Baker agrees to that. It is Not appeasement just to meeet with an "enemy". These people need not be enemies, it is talking that makes it so.

[mmonk]

21. So? It doesn't weaken his position in the eyes of us

who have seen that threats brought Ahmadinejad to the presidency. It was not talking that brought about the problem.

[gateley]

22. This article is bullshit -- and you know it.

Biden has NOT distanced himself from Obama's remarks, and I can almost guarantee you'll hear him speak out about being misrepresented in this article.

Biden has already addressed this -- this past weekend as a matter of fact when he was asked about it.

Quit posting RW misleading crap.

[Webster Green]

23. Requiring pre-conditions to diplomatic discussions is absurd..

If we can get people to the table to talk about issues, then we should do it. Making demands in advance is just arrogant. Everyone has had enough of arrogant U.S. posturing. (And threats, invasions, occupations, torture, slaughter of civilians etc. etc.)

There's lots of bad guys on the planet. The U.S. is among the worst. :thumbsdown:

[quaker bill]

24. Washington times, best source

for "unbaised" reporting.

There is this stupid notion about that meeting with the President is some sort of privledge that must be earned by good behavior. It seems to have something to do with a curious sense of "royalty" about the position. "Thee may now kiss the ring".

One of the innovations of American democracy was to dispense with all that BS, pomp and circumstance. You meet with the President because you have business to do. We have business to do with Ahmadinejad. We have far more business to do with him than the Prime Minister of Denmark, whom no one would object to the President meeting. A bit of frank discussion seems entirely in order here.

Meetings with Presidents in the past did not require the foriegn leader to pass some test. Kruschev was not on his best behavior when Kennedy met with him, it was in all the news. It is time we got back to traditional diplomacy, which means you actually do meet and state your case.

[stop the bleeding]

25. Oh wow, look what I found, used toilet paper!

:beer:

[Occam Bandage]

27. Harold Ford is a DLC tool. That said, this is going to be one of the rare cases of me

disagreeing with Joe BIden.

[anigbrowl]

30. Read it carefully and realize he is actually referring to a debate last *July*.

This is what passes for journalism at that hopeless rag.

[frogcycle]

34. But Obama agrees with Joe!

the OP is quoting a misrepresentation of old news

[RBInMaine]

39. Ease up. If we're going to win the GE, we need a big tent party. Plenty of room for moderate and

and even socially conservative Dems, without whom we would have never won a congressional majority in '06 nor these last three special House elections. Childers, for example, is socially conservative but pretty damn progressive on the war, education, social security, and the economy.
I myself am very progressive on the economic issues but also own guns, hunt deer, read the bible, and support reasonably restrictions on abortion (though am for ultimately keeping it safe and legal).
I don't like DLC corporate connections, but it is ok to have moderates and even conservatives on some issues in our party. We can't be a NATIONAL party without that.

[Catherina]

50. Totally. n/t

[gateley]

54. This is a TOTAL misrepresentation of what Biden said --

I HEARD him on the shows this weekend and he had nothing but high praise for Obama's foreign policy acumen.

I'm hoping Joe will set the record straight on this, although since it's from the Times, who really cares.

There are other things people can disagree with Biden on :7, but honestly, this does not represent what he said.

[msongs]

28. Ahmadinejad IS NOT the iran head of state. a US president would NOTmeet him ->

in a state to state situation...one of the religion mullahs is actually the head of state. ...job is more like a front figurehead in a dictatorship

Msongs

[anigbrowl]

35. Thank you for noticing that.

The 'Supreme Leader' in Iran is Ayatollah Khameini.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/khameini.bmp

[JimGinPA]

36. What A Crock Of Shit This OP Is - Each Of Them Defended Obama's Stance

Another fucking Hillbot liar citing RW sources.

[TahitiNut]

46. Yup.

Drinking Moon Juice.

[cali]

38. Lying Moonie Times headline and not terribly candid candice

"Mr. Obama later said he would first send lower-level diplomats to prepare high-level talks, but has continued to pledge to hold such unconditional meetings. Mr. Hart yesterday pointed to that distinction in the Democratic presidential candidate's position.


"I don't think Barack Obama or any other president is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state."


Mr. Biden, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and sought the Democratic presidential nod this year, said Mr. Obama gave the "wrong answer" in the debate, but added that the senator from Illinois has "learned a hell of a lot."

No doubt that Obama made a gaffe in that debate by saying no preconditions- one he rectified pretty quickly. And even the Moonie Times article is not how the OP wants you to see it. Biden and particulary Hart, a close advisor and strong advocate for Obama, were defending him- not condemning him.

I call bullshit on the intent of the OP.

[akbacchus_BC]

48. So do I, BS post. Gosh, when will they stop the madness against

Senator Obama. Man, they are scared shitless of him. Go Obama, we support you to the end. Keep up the good work and do not stoop to Senator Clinton's level!

[HousePainter]

41. But what did the National Inquirer say ?

Quoting the Washington Times !!!
Read the article and see the innuendo and misrepresentation in full bloom,

Please, don't insult our intelligence.

[akbacchus_BC]

45. Please remind me who is Harold Ford, oh that guy who lost on

his second term. He can go suck sand as far as am concerned. Diplomacy will always prevail and you can keep typing crap!

[blogslut]

47. Ahhh, the Moonie Times

Not at all a right-wing website. </snark>

Here is exactly what Obama says on the subject of Iran:

Diplomacy:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Funny how the Moonie Times manages to twist Obama's stance into something it's not.

[TexasObserver]

51. You're quoting an editorial comment by a writer for the Washington Times!

The writer, not the Democrats, used the term "distancing."

They didn't distance themselves. They said what Obama has always said.

[barack the house]

52. Conditions but no conditions him going to the UN in NY. It's so petty really .

THe pettiness keeps us less safe in which Obama sees that.