home
Obama Adds Nato and Europe to Campaign Speeches | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Funny how Jeralyn didn't quote this part (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST

Still, Obama couched his challenge to Europe in a promise to do more listening. He addressed a sore point in trans-Atlantic relations by saying that an Obama presidency would pay attention to its European allies.

"It is also important for us to send a signal that we're going to be listening to them when it comes to policies that they find objectionable," he said, "Iraq being at the top of the list."

or what Clinton said yesterday was basically exactly the same thing:


"I will also be a commander in chief who refocuses on winning the war in Afghanistan," she said. "I will do everything in my power to reverse our declining position in Afghanistan," she said, vowing to make it clear to allies in NATO "that this is their war too."


[ Parent ]
I don't understand your point (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by cmugirl on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:28:17 PM EST
There's nothing inherently wrong with his statement.  It's just disingenuous of him to say he's "going to listen" when he's had the opportunity for over a year to do some listening and to actually LEARN something about Europe.

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#10)
by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:30:59 PM EST
I would have liked it if he had done more oversight. And it's a legitimate, but not a make or break issue for me. But Jeralyn was using selective quoting to suggest he's taking up a right-wing position on the issue when he's clearly not (and, in fact, taking the same stand as Clinton).

[ Parent ]
I would have liked it (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST
If he had done any oversight. Seriously, are we paying him to campaign and talk about stuff or to be a Senator and do something? Both Clinton and Obama deserve criticism for lots of talk and no action on the war in Iraq, and Obama deserves criticism for not bothering to do his job on his subcommittee.

[ Parent ]
you don't understnad Andrew (1.00 / 2) (#12)
by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
Clinton good. Obama bad.

Everything else is a deduction from that.

[ Parent ]

I think (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM EST
you may just be so used to seeing the exact opposite everywhere you turn it just seems that way in comparison.


[ Parent ]
I want to see the actual Obama quote... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM EST
...before I draw any conclusions from what Obama said, because IMHO the description of his statement (NATO allies need to do more, especially of the 'dirty work') makes it obvious that he doesn't understand how the world works, and how diplomacy works.

There are key differences between what Clinton said (basically, that when she's president, the US will do all it can to succeed in Afghanistan, but it will also expect the help of its NATO allies), and the description of what Obama said.

And this doesn't cut it:

"It is also important for us to send a signal that we're going to be listening to them when it comes to policies that they find objectionable," he said, "Iraq being at the top of the list."

Its condescending, and putting Iraq at the top of the list is completely tone deaf.   Iraq isn't at the top of Europe's list of problems it has with US policies... Iraq is a US problem, not a European one.  And if there is a non-European issue that Europe has a hard time with, its US policy toward the Palestine/Israel conflict.   And seriously, Obama is going to 'listen' about Iraq, when both Obama and Europe already pretty much agree that US policy sucks.  How very generous of him.

[ Parent ]

Both quotes (none / 0) (#30)
by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:01:19 PM EST
are just brief AP-style summaries of what the candidates said. I think you're reading way more into the meaning than what is possible from these short quotes.

And it's clear that our rift with Europe started because of Iraq. Saying that we want to hear their opinion, especially on an issue we've been shutting them out on, is now considered a bad thing?

[ Parent ]

Here's how AP treats quotes: (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by echinopsia on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM EST
If it's between double quotes, it is exactly, verbatim, what the person said.  There are strict rules about this - to misquote, summarize, or invent anything between double quotes and attribute it as a direct quote is forbidden and potentially actionable.


 Saying that we want to hear their opinion, especially on an issue we've been shutting them out on, is now considered a bad thing?

No, but saying we want to hear their opinion, when one has not made the effort to hear them by holding Senate subcommittee meetings on Europe because one is too busy campaigning for president, is highly hypocritical.

[ Parent ]

top of the list (none / 0) (#33)
by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
Saying that we want to hear their opinion, especially on an issue we've been shutting them out on, is now considered a bad thing?

no, saying its at the top of the list is a bad thing....completely tone deaf, because it says that US priorities will determine the agenda.

[ Parent ]

You know (none / 0) (#35)
by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
there are still quite a few coalition of the willing countries still left in Europe. For starters, our main ally, the UK. So I would assume that they still have things they want to say about Iraq.

[ Parent ]
A European (none / 0) (#56)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
agrees with you.

[ Parent ]

Obama Adds Nato and Europe to Campaign Speeches | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft