I think Obama just screwed up

[Mxylplyx]

I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

Discuss

 

[Aimster]

Why are they are enemies?

 

[Harabec]

"Preconditions" mean an endless dance of words from the other side of the world and that is it, no real action.

I guess some people have a need to feel they are superior if they can set the "rules" for a meeting, however setting those rules simply shows you have come for nothing - you already know in your mind what you would like the outcome to be.

Makes me wonder how far people would go to deceive even themselves. To be so convinced of an idea, until that idea becomes your reality.
But, meh.

 

[LegendKiller]

non-issue. Too many people are concerned about minute answers. So what if we meet with people? Isn't it good to reach out and extend a friendly hand? Is treating them with smug indifference and cold shoulders the best way to make friends?

 

[PingSpike]

Doesn't matter. The only people that watch youtube don't vote anyway.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
non-issue. Too many people are concerned about minute answers. So what if we meet with people? Isn't it good to reach out and extend a friendly hand? Is treating them with smug indifference and cold shoulders the best way to make friends?

I think you have to make sure you are not walking into a propoganda trap. It's the same as celebrities setting preconditions for interviews so they arent walking into a situation where the interviewer is just trying to make an ass of them. Lets face it, when the U.S. president meets with a world leader, they are the big man/woman in the room, so it's necessary to be careful about what you are walking into.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
non-issue. Too many people are concerned about minute answers. So what if we meet with people? Isn't it good to reach out and extend a friendly hand? Is treating them with smug indifference and cold shoulders the best way to make friends?

I think you have to make sure you are not walking into a propoganda trap. It's the same as celebrities setting preconditions for interviews so they arent walking into a situation where the interviewer is just trying to make an ass of them. Lets face it, when the U.S. president meets with a world leader, they are the big man/woman in the room, so it's necessary to be careful about what you are walking into.

So because somebody forgets a minutia all of the sudden they are now disqualified? That's ridiculous. You don't have to be perfect in everything, nor do you have to be uber-experienced. Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents ever wasn't massively experienced either. People put way too much weight on political double talk and talking points of "experienced" operators who woo you with forked tongues.

 

[PingSpike]

Maybe he was just trying to trick them into a known location so he could blow them up with a cruise missile attack?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Doesn't matter. The only people that watch youtube don't vote anyway.

You are probably right. I imagine these politicians were just told by their political consultants that YouTube is the big thing for young people these days, so thats how to reach them. Perhaps they should take a moment to browse through youtube, read the comments, and see the kind of immature asshats that are really into that site. Hell, I dont know if anybody read Digg yesterday, which is about one step above youtube on the maturity scale, but one of the videos they played at the debate flashed the Goatsee pic up for a second. I'm sure the people these politicians are trying to reach would find that hillarious, but it should be an embarassment to them. Seems acting in a dignified manner is out of style these days.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
non-issue. Too many people are concerned about minute answers. So what if we meet with people? Isn't it good to reach out and extend a friendly hand? Is treating them with smug indifference and cold shoulders the best way to make friends?

I think you have to make sure you are not walking into a propoganda trap. It's the same as celebrities setting preconditions for interviews so they arent walking into a situation where the interviewer is just trying to make an ass of them. Lets face it, when the U.S. president meets with a world leader, they are the big man/woman in the room, so it's necessary to be careful about what you are walking into.

So because somebody forgets a minutia all of the sudden they are now disqualified? That's ridiculous. You don't have to be perfect in everything, nor do you have to be uber-experienced. Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents ever wasn't massively experienced either. People put way too much weight on political double talk and talking points of "experienced" operators who woo you with forked tongues.

I dont think Obama has forgotten anything. He never knew it in the first place. Regarding the comparision to Lincoln, the U.S. presidency is a heck of alot more of a responsibility now than under Lincoln, which I dont necessarily find to be a good thing. Presidents back then could focus almost entirely on leading, since you didnt have the media hovering overhead like vultures waiting for you to make the slightest slip up. Politicians now are too busy managing an image for the benefit of the media to be true leaders. Maybe Obama could make some good of this. He could try to actually lead, and the media would be afraid to go after him because he's black.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Maybe he is under the impression that some of the nations and leaders that we have befriended are more brutal and tyrannical than those that we are snubbing? Why shouldn't we re-evaluate our alliances every so often and make our decisions based on the most up to date information? Why are we still ignoring Cuba? Why are we bending over backwards to the Saudis?

Times change. People should be as flexible as possible to maximize their current and future prospectives. Eliminating the possibility of engaging in diplomacy or feeling forced to engage in diplomacy simply because the last 5 presidents refused to based on the fact that the president before them didn't is stupid and futile.

 

[Narmer]

After seven years of "punishing" our "enemies" by not talking to them has produced phenominal results. I mean, look at the world and how great it is thanks to George Bush's diplomatic skills.

Let's face it, the conventional wisdom has been that when you're on top, the only place to go is down. But, what if we used our power for good instead of greed? What if we decided to help our friends and allies, and nudged our enemies, towards a better world that wasn't zero-sum? America did that after world war II. Did anybody here know that America's GDP was 50% of the entire world at the end of the war? Now it is between 25% and 30% and that is thanks to all the help we've provided to others and the international institutions we've built in the process to make us who we are. Now we have Bush the Ass destroying all that in less than a decade.

It's time to talk folks, and strengthen the institutions our fathers built.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
non-issue. Too many people are concerned about minute answers. So what if we meet with people? Isn't it good to reach out and extend a friendly hand? Is treating them with smug indifference and cold shoulders the best way to make friends?

I think you have to make sure you are not walking into a propoganda trap. It's the same as celebrities setting preconditions for interviews so they arent walking into a situation where the interviewer is just trying to make an ass of them. Lets face it, when the U.S. president meets with a world leader, they are the big man/woman in the room, so it's necessary to be careful about what you are walking into.

So because somebody forgets a minutia all of the sudden they are now disqualified? That's ridiculous. You don't have to be perfect in everything, nor do you have to be uber-experienced. Lincoln, one of the greatest Presidents ever wasn't massively experienced either. People put way too much weight on political double talk and talking points of "experienced" operators who woo you with forked tongues.

I dont think Obama has forgotten anything. He never knew it in the first place. Regarding the comparision to Lincoln, the U.S. presidency is a heck of alot more of a responsibility now than under Lincoln, which I dont necessarily find to be a good thing. Presidents back then could focus almost entirely on leading, since you didnt have the media hovering overhead like vultures waiting for you to make the slightest slip up. Politicians now are too busy managing an image for the benefit of the media to be true leaders. Maybe Obama could make some good of this. He could try to actually lead, and the media would be afraid to go after him because he's black.

Sure, the Presidency is a lot different, but it's still valid. We don't have to have smooth operators running everything. In fact, I'd rather not have somebody who's going to be giving perfect answers, it's a bit more human. Granted, I'm not looking for Bush idiocy. Sure, Obama isn't a Clinton when it comes down to giving the perfectly correct answer, but it doesn't matter to me. He seems like a sincere and very intelligent person. I disagree with a lot of people on him not having strong positions on issues, if you read his books it's pretty obvious that he does.

Interestingly enough, I was within 2' of him yesterday. I was walking home from the Columbus Circle subway station about to cross the street in front of the Time Warner building when a bunch of black cars and SUV's asked people to step back, they took a left down 60th street to the Mandarin Oriental. I just kept walking when a swarm of USSS agents came out of the vehicles. They didn't give me a second look, as I was in cargo shorts and a polo since I was working from home. I was interested in who the VIP was so I watched, Obama came out of the car and was within a few steps of me. I was tempted to call his name and try to get a handshake, but I was a little worried about getting a free beat-down and a full body-cavity search curtousy of the USSS, so I backed off a bit.

He seems like a good guy, somebody I'd trust with my life and liberty. At this point he has my vote. I'd love for him to get the nomination.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Maybe he was just trying to trick them into a known location so he could blow them up with a cruise missile attack?

Hehehehe! A rare pleasure for me to run into this kind of thinking.

==================

Mxylplyx, it strikes me, is a person who has a fear of public humiliation and now is afraid to be genuine. He needs an artificial environment, control, in order to play. He sees things in terms of face, his dignity, his respect. People who have that, self dignity and self respect, solidly within themselves, are willing and able to go into conversation focused not on how they will look but what the force of genuine personal interaction can achieve.

The fact is that man was born good and goodness is man's bottom line. The truth is always pulling for the good and the good is the souls desire. Obama is one in whom hope is still alive. Go Obama!

No evil can befall a good man in this life or the next. A saying

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

I specifically remember this question during the debate, and I felt Obama answered it sincerely...the world community has lost respect for America largely because of Bush's black and white world of "friends and enemies." Sometimes motivating our adversaries or potential enemies to the negotiating table is to acknowledge that America cannot always make demands on the world stage.

Just look at the recent developments between the two Koreas, despite our stance that North Korea is part of an Axis of Evil.

Hillary totally dodged the question, and gave a typical Washington answer...and stating that she would make no promises to engage Syria, NK or Iran until an agenda is set.

Given the damage done by the Bush Administration, any solution to Iraq will require diplomatic engagements with Iran, Syria, Pakistan and probably Russia and China.

Obama's response doesn't demonstrate he is naive...it demonstrates that unlike Hillary and Edwards, he has yet to adopt an overly scripted platform or agenda.

I prefer a candidate who will speak candidly, even if a bit naive, as opposed to the packaged and candy coated responses coming out of the Clinton and Edwards camps.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

I specifically remember this question during the debate, and I felt Obama answered it sincerely...the world community has lost respect for America largely because of Bush's black and white world of "friends and enemies." Sometimes motivating our adversaries or potential enemies to the negotiating table is to acknowledge that America cannot always make demands on the world stage.

Just look at the recent developments between the two Koreas, despite our stance that North Korea is part of an Axis of Evil.

Hillary totally dodged the question, and gave a typical Washington answer...and stating that she would make no promises to engage Syria, NK or Iran until an agenda is set.

Given the damage done by the Bush Administration, any solution to Iraq will require diplomatic engagements with Iran, Syria, Pakistan and probably Russia and China.

Obama's response doesn't demonstrate he is naive...it demonstrates that unlike Hillary and Edwards, he has yet to adopt an overly scripted platform or agenda.

I prefer a candidate who will speak candidly, even if a bit naive, as opposed to the packaged and candy coated responses coming out of the Clinton and Edwards camps.

This is pretty much exactly what I thought as well. Yes it is nice to walk around and say the US is the big man and as such all leaders must bow to our preconditions, but thanks to the Dub and his wonderful diplomatic abilities, you have to wonder if maybe you need to break down barriers rather than stand off to the side and say "there is no point in talking to them".

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

I specifically remember this question during the debate, and I felt Obama answered it sincerely...the world community has lost respect for America largely because of Bush's black and white world of "friends and enemies." Sometimes motivating our adversaries or potential enemies to the negotiating table is to acknowledge that America cannot always make demands on the world stage.

Just look at the recent developments between the two Koreas, despite our stance that North Korea is part of an Axis of Evil.

Hillary totally dodged the question, and gave a typical Washington answer...and stating that she would make no promises to engage Syria, NK or Iran until an agenda is set.

Given the damage done by the Bush Administration, any solution to Iraq will require diplomatic engagements with Iran, Syria, Pakistan and probably Russia and China.

Obama's response doesn't demonstrate he is naive...it demonstrates that unlike Hillary and Edwards, he has yet to adopt an overly scripted platform or agenda.

I prefer a candidate who will speak candidly, even if a bit naive, as opposed to the packaged and candy coated responses coming out of the Clinton and Edwards camps.

Wow, I can't say that I'm not shocked to hear you say those words. I guess most people are tired of the jingo and scripted comments coming out of Washington DC.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

I specifically remember this question during the debate, and I felt Obama answered it sincerely...the world community has lost respect for America largely because of Bush's black and white world of "friends and enemies." Sometimes motivating our adversaries or potential enemies to the negotiating table is to acknowledge that America cannot always make demands on the world stage.

Just look at the recent developments between the two Koreas, despite our stance that North Korea is part of an Axis of Evil.

Hillary totally dodged the question, and gave a typical Washington answer...and stating that she would make no promises to engage Syria, NK or Iran until an agenda is set.

Given the damage done by the Bush Administration, any solution to Iraq will require diplomatic engagements with Iran, Syria, Pakistan and probably Russia and China.

Obama's response doesn't demonstrate he is naive...it demonstrates that unlike Hillary and Edwards, he has yet to adopt an overly scripted platform or agenda.

I prefer a candidate who will speak candidly, even if a bit naive, as opposed to the packaged and candy coated responses coming out of the Clinton and Edwards camps.

Damn Straight :thumbsup:

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Why are they are enemies?

Thank you.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

I specifically remember this question during the debate, and I felt Obama answered it sincerely...the world community has lost respect for America largely because of Bush's black and white world of "friends and enemies." Sometimes motivating our adversaries or potential enemies to the negotiating table is to acknowledge that America cannot always make demands on the world stage.

Just look at the recent developments between the two Koreas, despite our stance that North Korea is part of an Axis of Evil.

Hillary totally dodged the question, and gave a typical Washington answer...and stating that she would make no promises to engage Syria, NK or Iran until an agenda is set.

Given the damage done by the Bush Administration, any solution to Iraq will require diplomatic engagements with Iran, Syria, Pakistan and probably Russia and China.

Obama's response doesn't demonstrate he is naive...it demonstrates that unlike Hillary and Edwards, he has yet to adopt an overly scripted platform or agenda.

I prefer a candidate who will speak candidly, even if a bit naive, as opposed to the packaged and candy coated responses coming out of the Clinton and Edwards camps.

Good response. I'm reconsidering my initial assertion.

 

[StormRider]

I never understood the reasons to require "preconditions" just to talk. To me talking is a first step. Using "preconditions" before talking is an excuse not to talk and just fight instead.

 

[Nebor]

Axis of evil.

'nuff said.

 

[senseamp]

Is this the thread where people who supported us going into Iraq lecture us on "international politics?"

 

[LegendKiller]

Hillary is really beating this one to death. BFD, so he didn't sugar coat a reply.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions.

-snip-

Discuss

Well, that's a "different" approach.

Down through the ages people have felt it was the wrong one, too.

If he is elected, I guess we'll see how that pans out, and if he sticks with it.

Sounds niave and idealistic to me.

Fern