Principle & Foreign Policy - the Taliban, Clinton & Obama at the G20

Here is what Mrs. Clinton had to say to the Taliban in Afghanistan:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090331/ts_nm/us_afghan_conference

And here is what they had to say in return:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSISL477487

It's scary to be agreeing with the Taliban on anything, but the offer was lunacy. But here again we see a liberal mindset at work; I truly believe Mrs. Clinton was surprised at the rebuff of her diplomatic efforts. As I have stated before, there is Good and Evil in this world, and you cannot negotiate with Evil. It may tolerate you for a time, to further it's own ends - but at some point it will devour you. Afghanistan has been unruly since Alexander tried to subdue it in 330 BC. He succeeded, after a fashion; he spent 3 years fighting a 3 month campaign, and "married" a warlord's daughter to finally save face and escape with his dignity.

Here is what President Obama had to say at the G20 meetings, when asked about whether or not the worldwide economic crisis is America's fault (the article covers several issues, my concern here is towards the end):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/barack-obama-g20-global-recession

America has long been blamed for just about everything that is wrong with the world. It is sad to have a President that is agreeing with those people. When you combine these comments with our foreign policy as detailed above (coupled with the speech to Iran earlier), how strong do we look? How decisive do we look in the war on terror (excuse me, overseas contingency operations)? In your opinion, do we look justly humble, or just weak?

I would agree with his comments that our economic and political models are sound, but in just 70 days after President Obama has taken office, they have begun to radically change. If the model is sound, why so much drastic change?