After a week of escalating post-debate rhetoric from Hillary and Obama over meeting with dictators, Bush-Cheney lite, naivete and irresponsibility, we thought it would be worth finding out what the guy who asked the question that started it all thought.
So we called Stephen Sixta, the 59-year-old California video producer who asked on YouTube about the candidates' willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, N. Korea and Venezuela. He said it's been pretty much "surreal" to spend the last week hearing the question he wrote repeated in some kind of endless loop by everyone from Wolf Blitzer to Rush Limbaugh.
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."
More from Stephen after the jump.
John Riley
Sixta basically seemed to buy Obama's claim that the two candidates' different responses showed that Clinton was more a candidate of the status quo. "There's a more traditional approach that she has and the U.S. has traditionally used... and he was willing to ratchet it up a bit and put his personal charisma on the line."
In the aftermath of the debate, as both candidates tried to exploit their differences, Sixta said he felt both went too far -- Obama is not "irresponsible," and Hillary is not Bush-Cheney lite. “It’s a little severe on both sides," Sixta said. "In a way both of them are wrong. Maybe part of what they say is accurate, but they seem to be stretching it.”
He also said he has tried to steer away from the news as the rhetoric heated up, apparently because he feels a little guilty about what may be the outcome -- that Obama may be damaged for taking Sixta's position.
"My heart is that I would like people to think the position Obama took is the best position -- doing the talking and connecting with these folks is the better way to go," Sixta said. "Obama stated a position I prefer and he's losing ground because of it. I don’t know that, but people are saying that he’s been hurt.”
Comments (6)
I do not think he is hurt, the fact is that the unpolish truth especially when it comes from one`s heart is something that people do not always agree about, but as time goes by they realize that there was some common sense in what was said,hance,they make a U turn ans support the position that they once critize, that being said, those people who think that Obama hurt himself are the very people who are to soon serve as his defense pilor.
I simply don't agree that Obama has been hurt by this. In fact, it shows to me why he is not as afraid of 'propaganda' as Hillary seems to be.
Clinton tried to manipulate his answer to the question, and then ratcheted up the 'propaganda' the next day by calling his stance 'naive and irresponsible'. He refused to allow her to do it. This is exactly why he has the leadership qualities to deal with our 'enemies'. He'd face them head on, stand his ground and not allow anyone to manipulate him for their own political agenda.
Hillary tried to spin the question and slam Obama. Then she kept trying to shift the meaning of "precondition" from what Obama took the question to mean and what the question asker now has confirmed he meant. Obama made it clear that his answer was a rebuke of the Bush policy of demanding concessions before talking. Hillary kept shifting meanings. The "Bush Lite" comment was harsh, but in my opinion Obama had to do something to pin Hillary down on whether she agreed with Obama or with Bush. How she can think it's "naive and irresponsible" for Obama to oppose a Bush policy but not for her and Edwards to have enabled the war is just beyond me!
No. It was she who initially tried to draw the line! In her effort to differentiate herself from him.
In addition, I like that Obama drew the distinction that he would be "willing" to talk to other leaders. I think it shows true strength and an open mindedness that is much needed in today's changing world. Not for one moment do I think he would do this irresponsibly!
Obama understands that there has to be some diplomatic spadework in almost all circumstances (Obama knows the way that it is supposed to work as he stated in the miami article; however, the questions intent was...
in the "SPIRIT" of "BOLD" leadership would you be "WILLING" ...Just like.... via "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?
Yes. a resounding, YES! I think his answer speaks volumes of who this man is and the possibility he sees for the future. A catalyst for change. I support him even more now because he is standing up and fighting for what he believes. I support him 100%.
BTW, the "I would not promise" part was Hillary's spin. She started it!
Clinton sends a wrong message!
It seems the problem with Hillary is she looking foreign policy only in American perspective and not from the shoes of other nations. Other nations of the world feel like America is bulling them and thinks all others should follow and listen to them.
The recent Senator Obama response to this shows that he has more experience and understands how other nations feel and how important it is to portray a different picture of America. Below are his responses.
Obama said, “The debate is not just about life experience, although obviously that informs my perspective. But it also has to do with perspectives about how the United States should project its interests and ideals around the world.
“And what’s been interesting about this debate over diplomacy is, I really think that it is a debate over the same conventional thinking that led people to authorize the war in Iraq without asking questions versus a, an approach to foreign policy that asks questions and is informed by a knowledge and perspective of cultures like those in Iraq and is not trapped by a lot of received wisdom. And that I think is what is going on here. We had a foreign policy over the last several years that is obsessed with talking tough and then not acting very smartly,"
“And part of what I believe we have to have if we are going to be successful in going after terrorists and mobilizing the international community around critical issues like Darfur and stabilizing Iraq is a willingness to not just talk tough, but be tough enough and smart enough to talk to leaders around the word, to engage our enemies, to speak truthfully, to uphold our values. And that I think is going to be part of the central debate in this campaign.”
You see these comment are of a person who is seasoned with practical experience. My Question is why should Hillary not willing to project upfront willingness to meet with these presidents or any otherworld leader? Don’t she know here reaction sends a negative arrogant message? This kind of response solidifies the other nations resentments against America? Why is should she thinking that they will take advantage of their meeting for their propaganda?
The Question at hand was not about committing but rather willingness to meet! Therefore Barack Obamas answer show to Americans and mostly to internationals that America is willing to work with them and maybe solve the issues and differences that presently exist. What a great portrait of the American virtues! Telling the world America is a friend and not your enemy. I also believe this is the right heart and boldness of a true leader.
Thanks.
Be sure to watch video to understand more of Hillary’s flip flopping stands on this issue. Check this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw
Also check this video response from Obama
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1125978997
The oh so mature and experienced, stately Hillary Clinton tried to ridicule Obama. I guess she doesn't feel so inevitable after all, trying to knock down someone so far behind her in the polls.
Obviously Obama has his finger on the pulse of this issue and parsing the language to fit Hillary's preconcieved, and manufactured attack on him for being a 'noob' backfired. I think she'll be a bit more cautious with him next time around.