Clinton: Obama "Irresponsible" And "Naive"

Democratic Rivals Clash Over Obama Saying He'd Be Willing To Meet With Heads Of Rogue Nations

(AP)  Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday called rival Barack Obama's debate claim that he'd be willing to meet with leaders of rogue nations "irresponsible and frankly naive."

The New York senator, in an interview with Iowa's Quad-City Times, made her first direct criticism of her chief rival after the two campaigns engaged in a back-and-forth about Obama's remarks in Monday night's debate.

In the debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

"I would," he responded.

Clinton said she would not.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted video of her answer online, trying to show she has a different understanding of foreign policy than her chief rival.

Asked about the exchange, she told the newspaper that Obama is regretting his answer a day later.

"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton said. The interview was posted on the newspaper's Web site.

In a separate interview with the newspaper, Obama said: "What she's somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon."

The rival campaigns clashed over the meaning of Obama's answer. Clinton supporters characterized it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator's lack of foreign-policy savvy, while Obama's team claimed his response displayed judgment and a repudiation of President Bush's diplomacy.

"I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign.

Obama's team summoned Anthony Lake, who was national security adviser in President Clinton's first term and now serves as a foreign policy adviser to Obama.

"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.

In a memo from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the campaign contended that Obama's comments played well with focus groups that watched the debate and "showed his willingness to lead and ask tough questions on matters of war."

Obama "offered a dramatic change from the Bush administration's eight-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available — including diplomacy," said the memo.

Obama adviser David Axelrod said on Tuesday that Obama would not just meet blindly with such leaders but only after diplomatic spadework had been accomplished.

Americans "are sick of the Bush diplomacy and aren't interested in continuing it," said Axelrod.

The Obama campaign was quick to point to an April 23 quote from Clinton in which she said, "I think it's a terrible mistake for our president to say he won't talk to bad people." That, Obama representatives said, showed Clinton had changed her position.

Clinton advisers noted that the New York senator's full quote included a line that she would first "begin diplomatic discussions with those countries" before such meetings — same as she said in Monday's debate.

"I never would have gotten out of the debate last night that there was any change in position," Albright said.

She emphasized that Obama had said he would meet with such leaders in his first year without preconditions.

"If you look back at real breakthroughs and diplomatic history, what you basically find is that in order to understand where the situation is, to clear the underbrush away, it is necessary to have lower level people make the initial contact," Albright said.

In a memo, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Obama "has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office. Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment."

Obama representatives also sought to emphasize anew Clinton's initial support for the war, echoing comments by the candidate himself who asserted in the debate: "The time to ask how we're going to get out of Iraq was before we got in."

Rival John Edwards, who campaigned in South Carolina on Tuesday, echoed Clinton's comments in the debate.

"I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez," Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. "I think there's a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool."

[gunownerdan]

Hitlery Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are both very "Irresponsible" And "Naive".
That's why people who care support Dr. Ron Paul!
ronpaul2008.com

[realpatriot1]

S_Temper,

As a North Carolinian I take issue with calling our jurors uneducated. It's our judges and prosecutors who are uneducated.

[closethippy1]

Little by little the USA Sen. Joe McCarthy helped build in the 50's by making Americans fear the enemy within is dissapearing.
You can only cry wolf so many times before people realize you're fooling with them. And thanks to Bush and his ilk Americans now have a better sense of who our real enemies are and who aren't. And why, and how.
There's less fear and more wisdom and that's why Obama resonates with so many people. He knows the old order is coming to an end so he's preparing the ground for the new order by running for president. It really doesn't matter if he doesn't win this time. But in the future, after another Democratic or Republican candidate keep on going with the old regime with the same old tired arguments and the same hypocrisy that has fueled our foreign policies, voters will have a better understanding of why Obama speaks the way he does.
He along with a new generation of Americans are creating a new language, a new way of thinking that will set the USA straight by using our power wisely.
Thank you Obama for having the balls to speak against the old regimes, Democrat and Republican, and forging forward with a new vision we sorely need after more than half a century of irrational confrontations and bogus wars.

[standlee5]

Edwards is the only logical pick.We could break the chain of corporate govt. control by nominating him.

[standlee5]

I wonder if Obama will pick Oprah for his running mate?

[erasmus6]

Obama comes across as being very immature.

He was on Oprah before he decided to run and Oprah asked him if he would tell her first if he did decide to run.I wonder if he did.

[victoriarum]

To be an effective leader, and willing to discuss issues with neighboring countries that barriers have been built by reasoning which happened years ago, is an effective approach of wanting to solve differences, and this is what the world needs today.

We don%u2019t need someone who slurs hate or malice comments and statements, to believe this would be the effective approach to solve problems and differences.

In fact, with the discombobulated group we presently have and the multiplicity of questions that continues to filter the media.

Additionally, when you slander another person character says a whole lot of that persons personal agenda.

It%u2019s time for ethics to be placed back into the thinking of everyone on all levels, and its starts with our own mythology by the way we carry ourselves, to the language we speak.

Being lazy with statements as such, shows the intent of what the future holds.

Pray for Peace, and God Bless You.

[tibu987]

I do not think that Obama is wrong in that he would talk with unfriendly foreign governments.
Better talk than kill.
"Talk softly and carry a big stick".
We, the U.S. always have alternatives available, talk, i.e., diplomacy, is always the preferred way. We can always kill or be killed later.
Look where no talking has gotten us with the evil Bush cabal.
Hillary has, perhaps, less qualifications than Obama. Being the wife of a president does not impart automatic intelligence. Nepotism, 99 out of 100 times, is the wrong path to take.

[gunownerdan]

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton,
Democrat, republican, democrat, republican,
America has become a duopoly controlled by greed and big money and most citizens are too stupid to even care.

[davidchery]

So, politicians argue about hypothetical situations and neither one is president. This is a non-story. Great! They need to argue, they don't need to agree on everything. Oh, and by the way, they're both better than the guy that's in the white house now. The fact is whichever one wins will talk to whatever world leaders their advisors tell them to. And another thing: Why do people continue to believe that Iraq and al-qaeda are linked? Is this denial, stupidity? Please read some books. It's two separate wars. What happened to you're with us or against us? Why have we not gone into Pakistan already to get bin laden? War is death. Mow it down or don't go. The jihad is on, The nation of islam is watching this. What are we to do? We need a leader! Grow corn, stop buying crude oil from the mid-east, shut down the borders and stop all the jibber-jabber!

[pepperp1]

Hopefully the Unity party will take the power and good from the GOP and the Neo Cons will stay put in the corrupt GOP they have molded since arriving at the dance.....

[pepperp1]

Unlike the wonderful Repug field right, where you have a man running the front runner by the way who had his 3rd wife evicted from the family home he shared with his 2nd wife and children, a Dukakis want to be dressed up in flack jacket in the infamous Baghdad walk of progress proof who failed to mention the Blackhawk%u2019s and army brigade of camera, the not quite Christian enough political panderer who has never had a position that he did not flip on, or the candidate with the Repug operative wife who could be his daughter betrayed his Clients in Congress by leaking to Nixon of all people confidential information during the run Watergate hearings and who lobbied for Choice before he lobbied against it, the rest are just rabid haters of some group or another.
No thanks the GOP party of Tax and Steal, that increased government spending with bridges to no where by 40 percent, increased the deficit by 600 percent, doubled the trade deficit through trade authority, doubled in two years the amount of American debt funded by foreign capital pushing the deficit 9 trillion dollars because they believe they do not count, failed to keep us safe, ran and commanded a failed war where tens of thousands have been slaughtered, and generally governed on a lie faux platform of compassionate religious conservatism when they ruled as royalist, like GBIIs pa pa a neo conservatives and choose to begin a preemptive war based on manufactured lies.

[realpatriot1]

Gunshack1,

I lost track of the question and I morphed into Tom Brokaw for a moment.

Yes, I think so. Not the hard right GOP diehards. I think the younger generations have largely moved beyond the pettiness. I think middle America can look beyond the superficial and dig deeper for leadership. The country is certainly desparate for someone who can lead us down the right path, and I don't think what gender or race or religion they are or region they're from will ultimately count for much.

We'll see.

[dzfromsc]

She would say something like that.
But, "without precondition" does not mean "without preparation."
Do you think these "rogue countries" would hear Clinton and think twice about thier plans? Probably not.
But if they heard Obama, they might want to meet him and perhaps a change in course might occur. At least he is willing to try.
As for Edwards, he shouldn't be getting mixed up with the likes of Clinton.

[pepperp1]

Kiss Ohio goodbye, most of the GOP crooks are in prision or removed from the elections process.

[perception5]

Well in all of American history this country has only elected a "Senator" as President twice.

In 2008 that number won't move to "three".

Eliminate all the Senators running and you will have your next president in the remaining balance of candidates.

[a-ji]

Barak O: yada yada yada!
Hillary C: yada yada yada!

Both are too good to be true. God Save America (Please! Please dear Lord!)

[pepperp1]

My issue with Obama, unfortunately he reminds me of Bush just being honest here, more charming and taller, but eager for the surface sound bite and grin instead of smirk without the substance below the crowd pleasure. But Ill stay open as my perception may be incorrect, we will see.....

[gunshack1]

Realpatriot, that was a very good analysis and I have no doubt the Repubs will be cast out of office. However, my question was not if a democrat would be elected. It was much more basic. Is this country ready to elect a woman or a black person for president?

[gunownerdan]

Yes, Hitlery Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are both very irresponsible and naive.
That's why so many people support Dr. Ron Paul!!!
ronpaul2008.com