Romney: Hillary is right

Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:55 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats, Republicans

From NBC’s Carrie Dann

For the first few days after Monday's debate, Clinton and Obama's GOP counterparts were content to stay on the sidelines and watch their rivals spar over the issue of diplomatic concessions to rogue leaders. But in Iowa this morning, Republican candidate Romney finally weighed in, and he's coming down on Clinton's side.

Speaking at a breakfast in Iowa, Romney ridiculed Obama for having "some special people he wants to visit" during his first term, referring to Obama's willingness to consider meeting with leaders like Venezuela's Chavez and Iran's Ahmedinejad.

"It's absolutely extraordinary that someone could be so out of touch with the nature of our world," Romney said of Obama. Romney scathingly added that Obama's philosophy mirrors that of Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who promoted a policy of "appeasement" towards Nazi Germany in the years before World War II.

Is Romney doing Obama a big favor by sounding a bit like Clinton in his criticism of Obama's position? After all, Obama was eager to paint Clinton as "Bush-Cheney light” when he commented on the controversy this morning. The fact that a top GOP contender is echoing her criticisms could serve the Obama camp well as it tries to draw parallels between Clinton and the Republican status quo.

Asked by reporters after his event if he's uncomfortable finding himself in agreement with Senator Clinton, Romney responded with a laugh.

"Well, if two Democrats are violently disagreeing on something,” he said, “I'm probably going to be on one side. But she happens to be right."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Yes, Hillary is right as her "experience" shows. hillaryclinton.com

PATRIOT (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:05 PM)

So Obama says Hilary is Bush-lite and her supporters disagree, but look who's defending her. Romney, McCain. Not sure I'd want those Republicans defending me if I'm trying not to sound like them.

RAH (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:09 PM)

Romney is an idiot.

He's the one that wants to expand Guantanamo.

Gary, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:11 PM)

Well, this comes as no surprise. I guess Hillary's not the only one concerned about having to run against Obama. Both are now trying to spin his words into something they're not. Anyone who thinks Obama doesn't understand world history or how to deal with other leaders should sit down and read "The Audacity of Hope."

It's certainly not as if we're getting results from the current administration's isolationist policies, which is what I'm sure Mitt would continue since he's not offering up any of his own ideas. His Iowa ads don't even use complete sentences or tie abstract thoughts together well enough for most to understand.

KJ Hart, Cedar Rapids, IA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:14 PM)

Thank God someone sees that Hillary is right about this. Barack needs to read the writing on the wall and accept a V.P. slot now. We would be undefeatable if they ran as a team!

Jon B., Seattle, WA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:14 PM)

The first rule of thumb in this political world is if a member of the GOP is advocating for something they either wrong or it directly benefits them in some way. In this instance Romney is both wrong and would benefit from having Clinton as the nominee in that she is the weakest of the Democratic front runners.

Note: He'll still loose to her in a general election but he's got the best chance against Clinton.

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:16 PM)

Politics as usual. Take the opponent's side who you think you can beat in an election.

Obama also repeatedly referred to negative aspects of Romney during the Debate. It's not really surprising that he would take her side.

But, I don't agree that Obama is "out of touch" with the nature of our world. In fact, I think he's very clear on where we live, what year it is and what he has to do to improve it.

Nathan (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:21 PM)

Watch it comes out Romney actually does business in one of these countries or said we should talk to Castro back in the day. Romney switches positions with such political motivation that it's hard to believe he has a principled bone in his body.

John, New York City (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:21 PM)

John, New York City (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:22 PM)

I happen to be a Romney supporter, but I do take issue with the idea that simply opening up dialogue with a country is the same thing as "appeasing" them. The fact is, it is Bush's "go it alone and don't give a damn what anyone else thinks" policy that has gotten us into a foreign relations nightmare. As a country, we should probably swallow our pride and open up communication with those countries that we don't particularly like if it would benefit us. This is one of the few times I think I will agree with Obama.

Ryan, Logan, Utah (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:25 PM)

Hillary should run as Romney V.P. Obama, you are so right on Hillary.

Subba, Las Vegas, NV (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:26 PM)

Hey guys,
All we have to do is wait for the next day..cos the next day brings Obama's counter attack and lots of blood.
Obama shld and will counterattack bcos practice makes perfection. He will be ready for the GOP in the general election if he keeps this up.

shamus feng (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:27 PM)

did I miss something obama said, I don't remember him saying he was going to "appease" anyone, at least if obama did decide it might be beneficial to have a face to face meeting with someone he wouldn't strap his dog to the top of the car for the length of the journey, but at least with romney a visit with them will be ok tomorrow cause he loves to do the flippity flop thing, next time you catch a fish if it flips and flops about after you land it is surely a romney fish, king of the flip flop

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:29 PM)

Does this hurt hillary? (for those 1% of people who will notice)

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:31 PM)

I must have missed it. Will someone please point me to where Obama or anyone else uttered the words “diplomatic concessions‘‘.

Curt, NJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:34 PM)

Another cheap shot by Romney...I'm growing more uncomfortable with him. If all he can think of are wise-cracks and character degredation I don't think he's worthy of leading our nation. We've had 8 years of that already.

CJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:38 PM)

Mitt plus Rommeny equals Flip-flopper or (M+R=FF)...

This guy is attention seeking Republican….seeking attention by been self appointed mouth speak of Republicans. Well at least now we know that The Clinton’s and Republicans think alike….They are all Bush like, at least when it comes to foreign policy…and they are so experienced and naive on it…look where they get us to…In Iraq, Middle east process, Sudan (Darfur), etc. Surely, Obama is the change we need. Oh did i tell you that president Clinton did meet with Chavez.

Stan (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:38 PM)

Obama is right on the money.....she should have asked the question before we get into iraq" She is trying to befriend the anti-war group in Democratic party. also Obama is very right in using this argument to show her weakness among Democrats...and as stated by someone "Obama is really beating her on the head with this, isnt he? I am actually dissapointed in Clinton's team. They should have warned her before she made that "irresponsible and naive" statement. They didnt see they were pigeonholing themselves in between Obama and Bush and allowing themselves to be nailed as hawkish and neocons (but in a dress).
This lack of foresight in seeing beyond immiediate political gains comes back to the same question of "how the he** did you support invasion of Iraq?"
For all Bush-Cheney tough talk...as soon as they started talking to North Korea..see what happened, they shut down the nukes. We as America have the leverage (if just in the name!) to sit and discuss with anyone from anywhere in the world.
Will Ms Clinton wait till she sees the chinese in Venezuela b4 she talks to Chavez?"
Also, I am liking it when Republicans run head high to defend Clinton. It shows they are all the same

Emmy (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:43 PM)

Romney sides with Hilary over Barack. That says everything you need to know. Dubya lives forever. What A Joke.

Kristian O (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:43 PM)

Hillary/Romney for 2008

Each have more waffles than a house of pancakes.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:46 PM)

Chavez isn't a threat...a sleaze and opportunist, yes. The man wishes he was on our good side, it's just that Bush completely snubs him.

CJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:48 PM)

Mitt needs to stay out of the liberal fight. Plenty of time to go after the democratic nominee.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:50 PM)

I for one, have no interest in the Clinton/McCain/Romney approach.

And Romney is one to talk about appeasement, when it's the guiding factor of his life; wasn't one offensive comparison (the Obama Osama sign) enough for this guy?

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:51 PM)

All y'all live in cloud-cuckoo land. Ahminedijad wants to wipe Israel and the USA off of the map. WHat shall we discuss with him?

The problem with Bush and Cheney is they won't even stand up to the madman, who has US hostages which the MSM won't tell you about.

Bruce, NV (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:53 PM)

Yiannis, I think that would make a great bumper sticker. Rommney we love you. LOL!!

Lyn, MD (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:55 PM)

This is exactly what i have been talking about, there is no diferent between Hillary and Republican. Rommey statement reafirm the how right wing Hillary is.

bee (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:58 PM)

Ahminedijad is a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED figurehead...doesn't run Iran..the Mullahs do. He has NO POWER to 'wipe out' Isreal. As a matter of fact the Iranian public is widely displeased with the man b/c of his poor economic policies. He'll be voted out within time, and even possibly replaced with a pro-western figurehead. Stop subscribing to the Bush view of the world and it isn't as simple as blacka and white

CJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:11 PM)

I have never disliked a politican more than Mitt Romney...He's the most self-righteous, santimonous, arrogant, condasending, hall of fame flip-flopping politican I've ever seen....

It would take a 69 Mets & 80 US Olympic hockey team, in other words, two miracles for him to win....It wouls be a disgrace and an embarassment to this country if he were president....

And please, people say "he looks presidental"...Yeah, so does George Clooney, does that make him a good candiate to?....Actually, I'd vote for Clooney before Romney anyday....I'll take that further, I'd vote for a Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan ticket before I'd vote for Mitt Romney....

Michael - Simi Valley, CA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:21 PM)

It's funny to see where Hillary is now getting accolades. 'Birds of the same feathers flock together' Hillary and Romney have one thing in common, FLIP FLOPPING!

HILLARY/ROMNEY 2008

TheDonald (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:23 PM)

Lol, Yiannis, you stole that from Jib Jab's "This Land" video :P

Ryan, Logan, Utah (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:44 PM)

What many of you call flip flops indicate a lack of understanding of the complexities of these situations. You fall into the Bush/Rove rhetorical trap - "you're for _____or you're against it" (fill in the blank - the war, the patriot act, us, etc.

The Bush/Cheney policy of refusing to talk to anyone with whom we disagree is pigheaded. And it's not strength. Reagan stood up to our enemies, but he also sat down with them.

But the opposite extreme - "I will meet with all the bad guys in the first year" is naive. Sen Clinton correctly points out that you do not give away credibility like that - you do not unilaterally announce that you will (or will not ala Bush) meet with someone. There are channels for developing a meaningful dialogue that need to be explored - that also makes those meetings much more productive.

As a final note, Romney overstates the case to say that Obama's position is appeasement. Chamberlain did more than meet with Hitler, he believed his lies and attempted to appease him by letting his early aggression stand.

Bottom line - negotiate from strength. Neither refusing to talk or a unilateral pledge for high level talks will accomplish that. Love her or hate her, this is an example of how Hillary's years in the White House and the Senate will serve us well should she be elected President.

Kevin Crysler (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:50 PM)

Hillary is a Bush Lite. Go Obama!

Cat St. Cloud, Mn (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:03 PM)

Clinton needs to be sure that she lays all of the political and diplomatic ground work before talking to or accepting this endorsement from Romney. Wouldn't want to give a propaganda victory to an enemy.

Al, KS (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:06 PM)

Kevin, No one disagrees including Obama to the leg work first and she knew it. It was a "cheap shot" just like Rommney saying he wanted to provide condoms or something equally as stupid to 5 year olds. She went out of her way to make the statement on the radio the next day calling him naive. She wants to stop the discussion now on her Iraq naive vote.

lyn (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:17 PM)

Romney...This guy will say anything to get elected. Statesmen think about the next generation. Politicians think about the next election. It’s clear where Romney stands.

FL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:18 PM)

Has anyone seen Gonzales ? Gonzo-Gate it just will not fade away.

g.w. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:44 PM)

For Hillary to receive support from Romney can't be a GOOD thing. It seems to make Obama's point that she is in line with Bush/Cheney's approach to adversaries.

JS (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:01 PM)

Ah, lol, this gets better everyday. Now two Republican candidates - arguably the two closest to George Bush - are siding with Clinton?

McCain seems this campaign cycle to be living the curse of selling his soul to Bush. And Romney was the choice of many inside the Bush inner circle, if not Bush himself, from way back when. I remember reading that the White House or at least individuals within it were urging Bush's "ranger" fundraisers to join up with Romney.

I'm surprised Tony Snow hasn't commented yet about Clinton's qualifications to be president, lol.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:04 PM)

There are nuances to diplomacy, not just loud mouth talk. Obama was very loud and very arrogant when he said that the "notion of not talking with someone is punishment in ridiculous." I have heard many heads of states speak but they never spell this kind of matter so simply (except for Bush and we know how "intelligent" he is). Some may disagree, but it clearly reflected on lack of experience on Obama's part (if you review the tape, it seems that he had an answer ready for this sort of question so he got excited and never thoroughly digested the question - it was about 1st year of presidency). Maybe, or maybe not, do we wish for another simpleton in the WH?

mm,ma (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:08 PM)

Obama has been acting like a fool. He makes a gaffe in the debate promising to meet with five dictators first year in office. He then calls himself the most qualified candidate in foreign affairs in either party because he studied international relations in college. He then calls Hillary Clinton Bush lite. Who in their right minds would believe Hillary Clinton is Bush lite? She has been doing battles with Bush for years. If anything she has been criticized for criticizing Bush too much.

MikeB, Ridgewood, NJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:26 PM)

Hmmm...If Obama had actually answered the real question - promise to meet these dictators within a year without any pre-conditions - he would not have had to make spend the next few daya talking about having coffee/tea meetings.

That is the problem; if he even makes a stupid mistake in understanding what these dictators are talking when/if he meets them as POTUS then he will be asked to explain what exactly he meant to say. Diplomacy/negotations is all about being very clear while being subtle.
These debates show how these candidtes will answer tough questions in front of the world's press...and Hillary won on this issue at the point in time....when asked.

m. p, redwood city, ca (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:34 PM)

Kevin Crysler......you're my hero. I was going to say everything you said, but you beat me to it.

John, Burien Washington (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:38 PM)

Well, Mike, not to be picky, but I don't think Obama promised to meet with anyone. I think the question asked was whether he'd be willing to meet.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:45 PM)

m. p from redwood city,

"These debates show how these candidtes will answer tough questions in front of the world's press...and Hillary won on this issue at the point in time....when asked."

What did Hillary win, exactly?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/25/focus-group-rates-debaters/
If you listen to the pundits, you'll get 'Hillary showed experiene.' But when you see how real voters respond, you get the opposite story. Hillary can convince all the pundits in the world, but if she continues with these types of messages that get her these drops in ratings, she'll be eroding at her own campaign.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 5:55 AM)

I think this is an evidence why Obama calling HRC "bush-cheny-light" is absolutely correct. Look who came to the rescue -- McCain and Romney; the two "bush-cheny-light"

it's hill-arious how another bunch of bush-cheny-lite came to the rescue :)

Mike D, Washington, DC (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 6:02 AM)

What has Obama done? Give a good speech? His inexperience would be the bad for this country.

brent, Idaho Falls (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 10:08 AM)

A lot of people are missing the obvious issue. Romney is right on this one. There is nothing wrong with pointing out how naive Obama's position is on this issue. Let's focus on Obama's simplistic and obviously flawed foreigh policy statement. If you polled the other candidates, you would find that almost all of the serious candidates on both sides see Obama's position as unwise. This is more about Obama.

Bill (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 4:31 PM)

Excuse me, but Hillary's "experience" with health care as first lady is proof that she is incompetent. Obama holds more legislative "experience" that Hillary or Edwards and has had much more success. Obama easily trumps Hillary. Please, if you are going to talk about "experience" look at the statistical facts not the dreamy musings of Hillaphiles. You guys are what make Democrats look bad.

Adam Schfter, Waltham, MA (Sent Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:13 PM)

I have a direct question for MR. Romney, there is no way to pose such a question on his official site. Do you mean to tell me that if the Prophet and the Quarum of the Twelve came down on an issue, it would have no effect on your decisions. They ARE THE LAW in UTAH!

Pamela Williams (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:44 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=292690