I’m not quite conceding defeat in taking Obama’s side in the talking-with-baddies kerfuffle. But as both Jim Braude and Seth Gitell argued Wednesday night on NECN (against my position), now I do think Hillary basically comes out ahead in the short-term news cycle. She took initiative in branding Obama as a naive newbie, and it would seem that most mature, sensible chin-strokers in the press seem to agree.
Long-term … they’re still wrong. That’s because Iraq is going to remain the great black hole of foreign policy discussion. All discussion of wisdom and judgment in dealing with America’s adversaries is going to get sucked into its gravitational field.
And the fact remains that for all of Hillary’s considerable smarts and experience (yes, I do count her being First Lady as experience), she made a catastrophic error in 2002 by voting for the war; and by her own choice she still bears that shame by not admitting error. Hillary posits her supposed mastery of the minuets of diplomacy as indicative of her supposed foreign policy savvy; but that’s simply dwarfed by her monstrous mistake. She’s unwilling to commit the “power and prestige” of the Presidency in meeting with dictators — but no face can be saved by persisting in error. That stubbornness is indeed “Bush-lite”, as Obama says; or as Matt Yglesias puts it, “[putting] the Bush Doctrine under more competent management rather than actually abandon[ing] it.”
By comparison, do look at this video of Obama from 2002, which I’m reposting from the other night. He projects forth into the future: What about sectarian strife in the wake of deposing Saddam? Do we have a plan for that? Compared to the utter failure of our political and press establishment to ask these questions in the rush to war, Obama seems positively clairvoyant.
Hillary wants people to assess the candidates based on judgment and savvy; that’s a can of worms that she may well wish she hadn’t opened.
Never though I’d be defending Hillary, but if you do as you say and look at Hillary’s actions you will see that she has been putting legislation on the table and working to end the war. That’s not exactly the Bush doctrine. What Hillary has done is push to the forefront Obama’s foreign policy inexperience. Did Obama and his staff think that wasn’t coming? I think we can all agree that foreign policy will again be a key consideration to voters in the upcoming presidential election. It was up to Obama to respond in a way that would give voters comfort in him begin commander in chief. Did he do that? No. I saw it as an opportunity for Obama to take that issue head on. He didn’t an instead called Hillary Clinton of all people Bush-Cheney Lite. It makes people like me who are undecided to say whoa, wait a minute, are you serious? He needed to tell us why he would be the best leader and he didn’t do it. That in my opinion will have long term implications. Obviously it’s early and it’s not too late for him to make his case. But he failed miserably in his first test.
I just scrapped my own comment because you have said it better.
<
p>
In other words, I don’t think it is all about the 2002 vote, which is not how it is now represented by the progressives.
<
p>
This little dust up has been 50 points from Obama for me.
<
p>
I do note, though, that he seems to be a talented politician. It is still August of ’07 after all.
Obama’s response (as played on Braude) sounds to me like a borderline desperate attempt to change the subject from what he said about his foreign policy strategy going forward to what happened five years ago. (“You want to talk about naive? LOOK OVER THERE!!”) No, Clinton shouldn’t have voted for the AUMF. But this obsession with whether or not she should apologize for the vote strikes me as non-constructive. What, exactly, would it change if she did?
<
p>
Obama, it seems to me, has realized that he erred in the debate, and he’s engaged in a rather klutzy damage control operation. Calling Clinton schoolyard names like “Bush-Cheney Lite” is (in Clinton’s words, HT Jon) kind of silly, and not in keeping with the kind of campaign he says he wants to run.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong — I don’t mean to minimize the importance of Iraq. Obviously it is the foreign policy issue for the foreseeable future. But there is considerable force to the notion that, whatever should have been done five years ago, we are where we are now, and what matters is how we proceed. Much as we might like to, we can’t change the past.
Say it!
<
p>
How do you embed those things, anyway?
I’m sorry, but that lets Hillary off way, way too easily. It’s up to her to recognize the massive screwup on her part, and she has not done so. Again, this is about judgment, and she’s given me no reason to trust hers, except that she’s trying to pick up the pieces after the fact, and now that the polls tell her she has to.
<
p>
No points for judgment, none for courage. Sorry.
How ’bout that she gave a far better answer to the debate question than Obama did?
<
p>
đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Absolutely the opposite: the OBama campaign was baffled why the Clinton campaign tried to attack them on this when it’s clear he was the one who was right.
<
p>
He gave his response that he would change the policy of not talking to “enemies” as a kind of punishment. This was widely well-received, probably the big response of the debate next to Richardson’s NCLB response. Then, Clinton made some obvious clarifications in a very paranoid sounding way, and that was it. Afterwards, the media started to try and spin it into a disagreement, but then the next morning the Clinton camp attacks Obama and changes her position from cautious to hawkish. It was bizarre, and I don’t know what they were thinking.
that the Obama campaign was “baffled” is, IMHO, the problem.
<
p>
I know you’re for Barack. That’s fine. I’m still undecided, and I’m trying to call this objectively. Obama, with his silly “Bush-Cheney Lite” business, has done plenty to keep this story going — much to his detriment, I think.
And I know I am biased in reading this, and my sig is there to be perfectly clear about this.
<
p>
It probably was a bad move in someways to respond to the attack. It wasn’t very original, I remember Dean making a similar remark about Kerry, but he was forced to respond and it was somewhat accurate (as far as foreign policy visions).
<
p>
It probably has hurt both of them, but Hillary much more, at least in the short run.
Do you have any evidence of that? As Charley says in the main post, every press report I’ve seen of this flap is lauding Hillary and raising questions about Barack. Just today, David Brooks (for what that’s worth) piles on. And no, he’s probably not voting in the Democratic primary.
<
p>
<
p>
Hillary’s strategy from day one has been to project that she’s the inevitable nominee. This incident and the media’s coverage of it has helped her do that, at least in the short run. And in the medium-to-long run, the primaries are over so it doesn’t matter.
I keep wanting to like Hillary. And have liked her. But every so often she seems to something ridiculous like this which will in the long run continue to keep hurting her among primary voters.
<
p>
Of course the media’s coverage has helped her: they started this “controversy” and she ratcheted it up, and the MSM wants Hillary to be the nominee.
This is not going to help Hillary in the primary at all. She was finally starting to move on and not be seen as so hawkish, but by starting this ridiculousness Tuesday morning she’s brought more and more attention to her hawkish views. Meanwhile, Obama waws endorse that Tuesday by a NJ congressman who attributed the turning point in his decision as this exact statement during the debate. (Also, picking up Congressman Hodes endorsement in the NH-2 is big one too)
<
p>
Also, take a look at what candidates came out defending them: I read one article with McCain defending Hillary and another with Richardson defending Obama, and I sure know which of those two I trust more on foreign policy. (Can’t find links right now but I’ll try to later).
You’d trust the Clinton/McCain view of audacious American superiority over the Obama/Richardson view of humility and real diplomacy that actually accomplishes? I can’t fathom that. Whatsoever.
Could you provide a link to Clinton’s favoring a foreign policy of “audacious American superiority”? I’d like to parse it for myself.
You think being reluctant as President to have summit meetings– as distinguished from, you know, changing the Bush policy and having diplomatic contact– without preconditions is “audacious American superiority”? What does that even mean, anyway? My guy= humble, everyone else = audiaciously superior.
<
p>
A Presidential visit isn’t diplomacy, it is the product of diplomacy.
<
p>
Obama’s folks pushing this in this manner eally suggests that they haven’t got a clue about foreign policy. And I, for one, have alreadyhad six and a half years too much of Presidents who are clueless about foreign policy. No need for more, thanks!
<
p>
I suppose that reflexively adopting the polar opposite of whatever Bush says or does is emotionally appealing to the True Believers. I don’t want any more policy set in this manner; I would like someone who knows what they are doing. The big criticism of HRC is that she is calculating. Well that is exactly what we need.
a President who thinks he or she is more important than or superior to the leader of any other country. I don’t want a President who sees our country as above the rest of the world.
Richardson: from http://blog.washingt…
<
p>
That everyone deserved a right to talk to world leaders, if it would resolve a crisis. That doesn’t sound like an All-Access pass to the White House to me. Richardson will talk to any world leader if it would help. Like Hillary. Unlike Bush who won’t talk to certain leaders if it would help, and unlike Obama who will talk to leaders even if it won’t help.
Richardson is touting the fact that he’s the only one in the field with that level of experience — as he absolutely should. I see nothing in that statement that suggests he was saying that either Clinton or Obama was “right” — he’d be nuts to inject himself into that one.
thinks it would be a good idea to meet with those leaders, putting Kim Jong Il at the top of the list. He’s not going to take one side or the other, but clearly says on the substance that it’s a good idea. Like Obama, and unlike Clinton.
I think to assume that it wouldn’t help us to meet directly those leaders is ridiculous. Of course it is: Obama knows this and said this on Monday. And Richardson clearly agrees, unlike Hillary.
have played the role of diplomat that negotiated with a rogue nation prior to meeting with the president? Kind of what Hillary said. No?
Exactly what Barack, and Hillary, and John Edwards said on Monday night. No one disagrees on that. What’s ridiculous is what Hillary said Tuesday morning that it wouldn’t be helpful to meet with those leaders in the first year.
The question was if the candidate would meet without preconditions. Obama said yes. Richardson’s played the role of diplomat in the Washington Post interview, not as President. You seem to like to link Obama and Richardson together, they are not together.
<
p>
Richardson stated that he wasn’t getting involved at the beginning of the article. What he did discuss is some of his credentials and background, he was selling himself as a candidate because of his background and dealing with these kind of nations. That’s not backing Obama or anyone else.
<
p>
He was backing himself, which if you are running for president, probably not a bad idea.
I agree with both Clinton’s comments and Richardson’s here, actually. I don’t know if anyone in the field is flatly against meeting with rouge dictators to resolve a crisis.
<
p>
And notice that Richardson has met with the likes of Castro and Chavez before. As Ambassador to the United Nations. It sounds absolutely right that he would also send his Ambassador to the UN to meet with these people well in advance of any Presidential meeting.
Heh. Typos are funny.
Especially when they still (unintentionally) get at a certain truth…
Of course it does. Whoever said anything about not having ambassadors meet beforehand? But why is Clinton right in saying that meeting with these leaders wouldn’t be useful? What is everyone seeing that makes what she said okay?
Well, the questioner, for starters.
<
p>
<
p>
“Without precondition.” Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.
I understood that as not having the meeting as just a formality or photo-op, not having all the decisions made beforehand, but having the meeting actually be “hard-nosed negotiations” as Bill Richardson. I’m glad to be comfirmed somewhat and clarified a bit by Charlie’s post on the the original questioner.
I’ve heard a number of Hillary critics call her a “hawk”, but I’m not sure that this is accurate. Given her stated views on foreign policy, she seems much more a pragmatic policy realist like Bill.
<
p>
In any case, the suggestion that her foreign policy is “Bush-Cheney lite” is clearly off-base. The Bush foreign policy (especially in the first term) was decidedly non-realist, and instead had a strong idealistic (though, of course, neo-con idealistic) component.
<
p>
It’s certainly fair criticism to criticize Hillary for the 2002 vote, but I’m not seeing how either that vote or her stated foreign policy platform makes her a the sort of ideological “hawk” in the same league as Bush, et al.
A “pragmatic policy realist” would not have voted — and refused to apologize for — invading Iraq. Hillary was completely in line with reputed dry-eyed realists, who in fact had absolutely drunk Dick Cheney’s Kool-Aid.
<
p>
Back in 2002, “moderate” on Iraq was actually completely insane. Let’s be clear about that.
early endorsement for Obama? It’s clear you favor him. I don’t personally care for Obama. I’m not going to route for any Democrat in the primary who smears another progressive Democrat as “bush cheney lite”. Further, I won’t support a Democrat who has decided to invoke Reagan on the campaign trail. Obama doesn’t use the word Democrat or Democratic Party on his website or in his speechs. He’s very similar to Hillary on the issues, so what huge change is he offering? I don’t see it. I think it’s cosmetic more than anything else.
I favor Obama? Really?
<
p>
How about next time you address the actual argument I make, rather than positing some nefarious motivation.
<
p>
I will say this: I am not leaning Hillary.
…is not merely a shift to Democratic policies; it’s a change in the way we do things. It’s not about battling with and defeating Republicans, it’s aboutactually engaging them in a way that allows us to find some common ground and move forward as a nation. Obama is entirely correct in pointing out that Hillary Clinton would not be anything more than a Democratic George Bush. Sure, we’d get some great policies, but the bitter partisan fights and divisions won’t just go away because a Democrat becomes President. The longer we stay on this course of divisive politics, the longer it is going to be before any real progress is made as a nation.
<
p>
I really have to disagree; you’re making Obama sound like Joe Lieberman here. Common ground with a Republican party that studies how to “cage” minorities in Florida and prevent them from voting? Who uses our legal apparatus as an extension of the party? We’re going to find common ground dominated by extremists, the types that force out moderates such as Jim Jeffords, Jim Webb, and half of the Kansas state government?
<
p>
I personally believe that you are in error when you characterize Obama’s campaign themes and rationale, but if he is building his campaign around “trying to compromise” and “ending partisanship” relative to this crowd of extremists who see themselves about the rule of law, he shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Democrats in Washington and Boston have repeatedly had compromise slapped back in their face and taken as a sign of weakness. While Obama is running on hope and optimism, I think it’s grounded optimism, including an awareness of the the likeliness we’ll compromise with the current GOP leadership.
canard. I don’t buy it. They said that about Bill and he had approval rating in the mid to high 60’s through the last 6 years of his presidency. The thing is, the two parties have different philosophies, they don’t even agree on which issues of the day or most important. I think the Party standard bearer should be defining the Party, not downplaying it and invoking Ronald Reagan.
<
p>
Let’s just agree to disagree.
I hope all of you on this blog enjoy defending Obama (who is really wet behind the ears). Get with the program. Do you actually want to win the election in ’08? She is a person who appeals to the most voters, and her positions reflect that fact. We don’t need another loser like Kerry.
She is a person who appeals to the most voters
<
p>
Yes, as evidenced by her high negatives in the polls…
…the first time was in 1993-94 when she totally mishandled discussions over a federal health care system, and then in 2002 with her vote in favor of the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. How many more strikes does she get, before she’s out?
<
p>
The idea that she should brand Obama “as a naive newbie” is preposterous. She has shown that she is a naive oldbie, as her own actions have shown. The only reason that she might be the candidate is because of her association with another incompetent Democrat, Billary.
<
p>
BTW, this silliness of her “apologizing” for her 2002 vote in favor the the AUMF is preposterous. She shouldn’t apologize. She should publicly acknowledge her error and explain how and why that error came to pass. There is a rather significant difference between the two, which somehow has become conflated in the popular lexicon in the US. But, she won’t do either.
… Heck, I’d take whatever she’s got. Any kind of recognition of how utterly upside-down that whole process was, would be very, very welcome.
Given what it takes psychologically and strategically to win a presidential race, I cannot tell whether Hillary Clinton would, could, or even should apologize for voting for the AUMF. It would certainly make voting for her easier if she did.
<
p>
If Gore were President, an AUMF would have been a useful diplomatic tool just as Bush promised it would only be used as a useful diplomatic tool. But Bush was lying. He intended to go to war anyway. Some of us knew that. Senator Clinton should have.
<
p>
The real test, though, in 2007 is Iran. The Cheney shadow Presidency and shadow State Department are pushing hard for a war with Iran. If we wish to evaluate Democratic candidates on foreign policy, the place to look is what they say about Iran. Will they stop a precipitous war? Or will they egg it on?
<
p>
To me, that’s a lot more important than saying you’re sorry.