Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama vs. Hillary: YouTube questioner sez…

By

Stephen Sixta, the fellow whose YouTube question in Monday’s debate precipitated this week’s Axis-of-Evil donnybrook, says Obama’s answer was good; and that Hillary misconstrued the question.

His bottom line: He liked Obama’s answer, and he thought Hillary misconstrued what he meant by “preconditions” in acting like Obama had agreed to meet Fidel and Chavez with no diplomatic groundwork whatsoever. He said his question just meant there shouldn’t be a requirement of a change in a country’s behavior as a condition of talking to them.

“My question had something I wanted my government to achieve. I wanted my country to go out and speak to countries we don’t speak to,” Sixta said. “When the attacks started on Obama they were attacks on my question and what I wanted. They made me feel bad.”

(thanks to turneresq.)

And to be fair, he also thought Obama’s “Bush-Cheney Lite” line was a little harsh. He’s plainly more gracious than I am.

Anyway, I’m glad Obama took his question the way Sixta intended it, and answered it directly.

PS: I still found Hillary’s response to be gobbledygook: “I don’t want to make a bad situation worse”; “feel the way”; “the way forward” — what the hell does any of that actually mean? If anyone can tell me, break out the tea leaves and animal entrails and drop me a line.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

      • It would actually be important if they were running for Grammarian-in-Chief.

        <

        p>
        Or if Presidential Summits were the defining aspect of US diplomacy.  I keep seeing Obama supporters miscontruing  the desire, or lack thereof, to hold a Preidential Summit with the desire to have diplomacy.

        <

        p>
        The debates around health care, global warming and even Richardson’s withdrawal plan from Iraq have been much more substantive, if less cover in the blogs and media.

      • What did he mean, exactly? Hillary construed his question extremely narrowly and, I think, pedantically. And she used that opportunity to give an answer that was both vague and pretentious.

        <

        p>
        As I’ve indicated, I’m interested in picking apart exactly what she meant by some of those vague-but-smart-sounding phrases — in part because I suspect maybe I’m just being stupid. I’d really like to know!

        <

        p>
        But right now we just have to guess. I could make up any number of wild-ass guesses as to what she meant, that could be every bit as unflattering to her as she imagines Obama’s answer was to him. Hey, let’s have some fun:

        <

        p>

        • “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes”: Hey, what are you afraid of — a little bad press? Are you afraid you’d be duped? If you don’t trust your own judgment, why should we?
        • “I don’t want to make a bad situation worse”: What, is she afraid of falling on her face? (Picture the oppo press release now: “CLINTON FEARS SHE WOULD MAKE SITUATION WORSE”.)

          • “Feel the way”? Is she saying she has no plan, no strategy to deal with dictators?

        <

        p>
        This is all garbage, of course. But it’s the kind of nit-picking that she’s engaged in. Too bad.

        • I mean, I suppose it’s possible to twist anybody’s words to mean something totally opposite of what they said.  But frankly I found both Obama and Hillary was rather clear on what she would and would not do, and why.  The question was very narrow — “will you meet with these five tyrants within a year without preconditions?”  Now we found out that when Sixta said “without preconditions” he meant “with preconditions”.  But that’s not what he said.

  3. …which means, the person asking the question does not get to define what the right answer is.

    <

    p>
    PS Ok the YouTube debate format was cool at the time, but if we’re going to have to hear about it every time a questioner “feels bad” about what someone said about their question, I’m all for ditching it and going back to the adult professional moderators.

  4. QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

    In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

    <

    p>
    How was this misconstrued again?

    • Not sure what gulf we have with Venezuela, consider the amount of oil we buy from them.  And who do you meet with in Cuba?  Fidel’s barely conscious body?

  5. I still found Hillary’s response to be gobbledygook…

    <

    p>
    …is the main reason that I do not trust her, one bit.  She is unwilling to acknowledge error in voting for the AUMF and to explain the reason for her error.  It strikes me that acknowledgement and explanation is a sign of growth in someone–including a politician–not a sign of weakness.

    <

    p>
    BTW, I didn’t watch Obama’s response, but it is idiotic for military combatants not to talk to each other.  War is politics carried out by other means, as Clausewitz famously noted.

    <

    p>
    Note to sabutai: In Cuba, you meet initially with Rafael.  Shortly, you’re going to get a second generation of “revolutionaries” that aren’t going to be as “revolutionary” as Fidel and Rafael.  It happened in Libya.  It is unlikely, though, that the holders on of the previous Cuban dictator (Fujista? sp?) will get their property back, which is really what they wanted the American government to do all the time.

Archives