The headline says one thing: “Obama debate comments set off firestorm.” That was after Obama said that he’d actually talk to the baddies of North Korea, Syria, et al. “without precondition”. Shocking!
But come on: It was Hillary’s opportunistic and ham-handed response that started the “firestorm.” She plainly sees advantage in positioning herself as the big bad hawk, though I don’t know why. Even Madeleine Albright’s remarks are not very helpful: “I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything.” Well, what do we have now? In the wake of the Bush administration’s catastrophically childish refusal to even engage in diplomacy with, well, anyone, I have to imagine Democratic primary voters will be less receptive to that kind of chest-beating than they have been in ages.
And that’s why Obama said what he said.
Hillary is making Obama’s job very simple: She’s acting like Bush. (And I fear no GOP fear-itself-mongering vs. Obama.) Any campaign, Republican or Democrat, which doesn’t understand the necessity and opportunity of putting a ton of daylight between itself and Bush, is kidding itself.
In the ’80s or ’90s, it would have been different. But in how this little scuffle positions the candidates going forward, I’m calling this round for Obama.
You’re probably right about Hillary’s motives, Charley. She continues to be a disappointment to those of us who want Democrats to boldly speak the language of social democracy and rational public policy. The public is much more ready for a bold agenda than the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media would have you believe. Nowadays Hillary sounds much like the college Republican of her younger days, rarely speaking language that energizes the progressive base. She probably feels that progressives will be in her camp on Election Day anyway, so she sees little need to please them now. But somehow I doubt that she will do much for us after she gets elected either. I hope you are correct when you predict that Hillary’s opportunistic posturing will work against her. I’m not so sure, but maybe you are right.
Couldn’t agree with you more. It’s completely opportunistic.
<
p>
As if Obama was not going to do the groundwork.
<
p>
When I was watching the debate, I thought they gave essentially the same answer. Hillary just stated a few things that were implicit in Obama’s answer. Then the debate’s over and all of a sudden the pundits are latching onto that question as some sort of schism?
<
p>
I thought it was typical manufactured controversy from the MSM (which it is) that people would see through (which they didn’t). I only today realized that Hillary’s actually taking advantage of it, and it was calculated.
I had the exact same thought watching the debate, and was also vastly confused by the post debate spin from the pundits. But Hillary’s campaign dragging it on was very stupid as it actually made go back and lok at what she said, and it is more radical than it seemed at the time. I have no clue why she’s pushing this.
Hillary said she wouldn’t promise to talk to these leaders without knowing the agenda and circumstances of the meeting. That makes you a hawk now?
<
p>
Statement diplomacy — I’ll talk to you, I won’t talk to you — is Bush’s style. Hillary came out for just the opposite. Obama had a good explanation for his answer, and Clinton did for hers. The only losers on this issue are people who can only understand foreign policy in ten words or less (I’m not saying that’s you Charley, but the traditional media). It is another opportunity for the desperate also-rans to try to slow her down though, so I imagine we’ll hear about it a fair bit.
I’m a sucker for sound bites as much as anyone. Anyway, it’s not Hillary’s response in the debate that I have issue with, as the after-debate opportunism, which plainly means to portray Obama as a potential tool of dictators. I think that’s dumb, and overreaches.
But re-reading it, the idea that Obama is going to meet with those 5 dictators in his first year, while also shoehorning in semi-mandatory meetings with the heads of government of the UK, Canada, Japan, and Mexico is a little naive. Unless he wants the majority of his meetings in the first year to be with tyrants, he’s looking at 11 summit meetings, which is a lot for 1 presidential year. Frankly, I don’t want him having that meetings until he gets some foreign policy experience under his belt — sending a babe-in-the-woods like him against Kim Jong Il right at the start would not end well for the US.
We could have Vice-President Richardson meet with Kim Jong Il etc first?
Richardson keeps working the debate as you say he did the last one, and he won’t be anybody’s vp.
<
p>
Mind you, as a humble governor Richardson is still the first American official the North Koreans meet while in the US. After talking to him, THEN they go to the White House.
I can’t see how anyone could see this in favor of Obama. I agree that Clinton saw an opportunity, but it was because Obama said something completely idiotic. How can you not respond.
<
p>
Then the follow up by Obama was weak…she sounds like Bush (see, I’m not an absolutely effing idiot afterall).
<
p>
I’m not in the Hillary or Obama camp, still undecided. The response does nothing to say she’s a hawk, it’s basically underscoring that she’s got a clue. Obama on the other had, epic screw up. We have troops dying out there and this crap ain’t gonna fly.
When did Obama say that Hillary sounds like Bush? I thought that was Charley…
Hillary is “acting like Bush”? Could you back up this statement? I don’t think your original post does so.
<
p>
Clinton and Obama are tussling for the nomination, and are far and away the frontrunners at this point. Is it really that surprising that they are attacking each other? Obama’s attack is fair, since he needs to make up ground, and Hillary’s barb gets at Obama’s alleged inexperience, which is clearly his biggest perceived weakness. I’m glad that they are finally going after each other, since whoever emerges will benefit from the campaign experience against the Republican nominee.
<
p>
So how is “Hillary being stupid” again?
I’m undecided at this point about who I will vote for in the primary, and I have made some very negative remarks about Clinton in the past. But what is neccesary to keep in mind is that the primary is partly there as a trial for everyone to see if the candidate has what it takes to win the General.
<
p>
As of now, Obama’s response, and even more so the response of his people sound to me like…whining.
<
p>
“She said a mean thing, Make her stop”
<
p>
If Obama and his people can’t fight back at Hillary’s stab without complaining about thigns like “after-debate opportunism”, then frankly they are demonstrating the lack of the killer instinct.
<
p>
And say whatever you want, but no matter who our nominee is, the GOP and their many many allies in the media will twist and turn every statement our candidate makes, trying hard to keep them on the defensive. Our candidate needs to be able to turn those attacks back succesfully.
<
p>
Compare how Obama is handling this to how Clinton treated the recent attacks on her, like Romney calling her a Marxist, or how Clinton responded to the Pentagon. She didn’t whine, she didn’t call foul. She just turned around and put her attackers on the defensive.
<
p>
Beyond that though, anyone reading the transcript last night would see that Clinton was pointing out that Obama’s answer was clumsy. It was, and if it wasn’t exactly what he meant, that’s too bad. But being able to think on your feet is a requirement of our nominee. Obama’s answer to the question was sloppy and that makes me have doubts about his abilities.
<
p>
Obama seems a bit green, or maybe he’s just not cut out for this. He might make an excellent VP choice though.
<
p>
Keep in mind, half his team just finished up Deval Patrick’s campaign, whose low point was the “why are you guys being so mean to me?” question we asked Tom and Chris in a parimary debate.
It’s kind of hard to do damage control if all you have to grasp on to is “She’s acting like Bush.” Of course, her position is not like Bush’s position… and if “acting like Bush” means winning campaigns then let’s all hope it continues.
<
p>
Funny you should choose to describe Hillary’s answer as “chest-beating” when really, Obama’s answer — he pledged to personally meet with at least 4 dictators in his first year — was just liberal chest beating!
<
p>
Similarity Alert:
<
p>
Question: “How do you feel about the issue of the day?”
Obama: “Whatever my consultants tell me to”
<
p>
Question: “How do you feel about the issue of the day?”
Kerry: “Whatever my consultants tell me to”
<
p>
I’m gunna go with Madeleine Albright on this one and call it for Hillary. Tell your guy to stop pandering… that’s really what kills the party.
I found her whole statement during the debate to be quite impertinent. Of course Obama would send people ahead of him. The fact that the media has latched onto Hillary’s statement just goes to show what camp they are, in general, in.
Nor was it his intent. He’s basically had a major league screw up. That’s why I don’t understand this post. Plus did you read this in the article:
<
p>
“The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying Obama’s response to the question had played well with focus groups….”
<
p>
It played well in the focus groups? Do these people know what they are doing. They get grilled a little and they start running around going crazy. Not the response you would like in a candidate. He needs to turn this around and show people he knows what he is doing.
Who are you to say what his intent was?
<
p>
You seriously think Obama, as President, would meet with any country – friend or foe – without at least some contact before the arrangment, to set the terms of the discussion? At the very least, such discussions would have to be planned – demanding some sort of diplomatic envoys to do that kind of planning. What, do you expect Obama to call up Fidel and ask what would be a good time for him?
works you understand almost everything about media spin.
<
p>
As far as their handling of issue itself — I think they are just splitting hairs in order to engage in a disagreement.
she knows you can’t just go and “talk” to North Korea, there’s a whole bunch of diplomacy decorum tea and dinner stuff that has to happen first, involving shoes and other complicated stuff that Obama has no idea about. After the man tells you its OK to talk, then you talk about something. But first you have to do the whole tea and dinner ritual thing and you better know how to do it or its nuclear war.
is that, as others have noted, he looks a tad naive — and his inexperience is his biggest Achilles heel. If Bill Richardson had said what Obama said, it would have been accepted without question — because he’s already met with those guys (or guys like them). But Clinton is right — there is a danger of meetings for the sake of meetings doing the U.S. more harm than good in the great scheme of things. So, IMHO, the exchange favors her slightly, especially with Albright backing her up.
<
p>
No knockout punch, but slight advantage to Clinton — as with every other debate so far. Those of you who don’t like her: wake up — she’s going to be really hard to beat.
see my favorite local columnist Wayne Woodlief’s interesting take on the debate.
In every other debate, I have to agree that Hillary clearly came out on top. But in this one, she made herself look like a fool on exactly this point: Barack was exactly on target that we have to actually talk to our enemies, as well as our fading allies, show some humility and re-build our global stature. First watching it, Hillary’s response seemed to just re-iterate the point, but add the implied steps that a lot of advanced diplomacy would be needed before the meetings. Then the media afterwards tried to spin it into a much stronger division, and then Hillary stepped it up by attacking Obama directly and highlighted how arrogant her original response was, leading people to look back at and realize how “Bush-like” her response really was: she was being paranoid about being propaganda and still seemed to assume the idea that not talking to people was punishing them.
I’d really like to know that. Please explain, because I guess I’m terribly naive, too.
and that leads to skinny-dipping and spontaneous unprotected sex, and then children, and then your whole life is ruined. So avoid talking to just anyone. Hillary knows that we should save ourselves for France or at least Spain or Italy, all of whom we are already pinned, and with whom we will have a much more poignant and meaningful love life.
Both candidate, as far as I can tell, are open to the possibility of meeting with foreign leaders that Bush has refused to sit at the table with. I don’t suppose Obama actually expects to pencil them all in on day one. I also don’t think Hillary needed to go into all the advance-work detail. (“Well, I would, but first my secret service advance team would have to go and check out the site of the meeting, and then my transportation coordinator would arrange travel. Someone would have to cater, so that would need to be taken care of…”)
<
p>
Fact of the matter is that, among the lead Democratic candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson) there is not a whole lot of policy difference. There are details here and there, sure, and there are certainly differences in background and experience and what each brings to the table, not to mention style.
<
p>
So when an apparent rift comes up, the MSM jumps on it like it’s Laurel and EBIII in a no-holds-barred cage match and the campaigns are thrilled for the opportunity to better distinguish themselves.
<
p>
In this case there’s nothing to see here. Move along, folks.
I watched the exchange between Obama and HRC, at least as it was rebroadcast on the morning news. I thought Obama came off as a rank amateur, who would do “X” for no reason other than that Bush did “not X”. Meeting with guys like Kim, Imanuttajob and Castro with absolutely no preconditions is just as thickheaded as absolutely refusing diplomatic contact: they will play him like a violin for propaganda purposes.
<
p>
When I read about the exchange, I thought that Obama must have been misrepresented, but apparently not. This is the sort of “change” that voters want?
<
p>
No, at least not this voter. The change I want is to have someone who knows what the fuck he/she is doing and doesn’t make policy just to spite political opponents.
<
p>
Although I have not watched any of the debates in their entirety, the bits that I have have moved me pretty firmly into the HRC camp.
… it’s not what was actually said in debates. I think the substantive difference between HRC, Obama and Edwards is minimal. It’s the Clinton campaign trying to put pry open what little daylight exists between herself and Obama, which I think doesn’t put her in a good light.
<
p>
Points for aggressiveness on her campaign’s part, I suppose.
I am unsure why people are calling it a rookie mistake on Obamas part he simply said he would try to meet with the leaders and talk to them, something Bush wouldnt do. And then Hillary snips in like a Herminone-eque know it all saying she would only do it on preconditions so its not used for propaganda something thats so obvious any serious presidential candidate would consider it an assumption not needed to point out. That kind of whiney, nitpicky answer, especially coming from a women, makes Hillary look bad. Dont forget Shannon O Brien in 2002, she blew a lead because she came across in the debates as a whiney know it all and that turned off a lot of male independents who shifted to Romney. Ditto for Hillary.
But on the diplomacy issue, I see some rather significant daylight between the two. Highlighting this shouldn’t cause points to be deducted for sportsmanship.
<
p>
It is becomeing increasingly clear that Obama has a certain “it” but has no idea what to do with “it” other than reverse Bush’s policies. HRC doesn’t have the same “it” but simply exudes comptence.
<
p>
I don’t much care if we transform politics in thos country with hope and whatever else Obama wants to do. I just want someone who won’t fuck everything up.
exactly how a President Obama meeting with those dictators will f(*^ everything up. I really don’t get it. Educate me.
And must wield the symbolism of his office in a competent and responsible manner.
<
p>
If you waltz into a meeting with these guys without pre-conditions, you are begging to be sandbagged.
<
p>
Photo op: Preseident Obama arriving in Pyongyang/Havana/Tehran/whatever to demonstrate the change in American policy that hope can bring, or whatever. President Obama goes behind closed doors for sincere one on one meetings to demonstrate his hope, and then emerges to speak sweet and soothing nothings such as “progess being made” or “a beginning to our dialog” or whatever nonsense gets spoken after such an event.
<
p>
Then, Mr. Dictator announces that he will accept President Obama’s generous offer of X (inviting Iran to extend its sphere of influence in Southern Iraq in return for Iran giving up/slowing its nuclear weapons program, say, or extraditing women back to Iran for the crime of leaving Iran).
<
p>
President Obama says, “Um, I didn’t say that”
<
p>
Mr. Dictator: The lying treacherous Satan is at it again! Angry hordes are thus once again whipped up worldwide, and throw bricks at American embassies, and find random hapless Americans here and there to kidnap and/or decapitate.
<
p>
If the President of the United States does as Obama suggests, he will be played and will wind up looking like a naive fool, to wit:
<
p>
but not on point. They can do all that stuff anyway — in fact, they are doing so. Not talking to them could be a propaganda victory for them as well — more so, I’d argue, based on recent history.
<
p>
What, they could lie about what happened behind closed doors? They can do that anyway — preconditions or no.
<
p>
I’d like to point out that we’ve never talked to Castro in 48 years, and he’s still there. Cuba: 48 years of propaganda victories. Who cares?
But only onnce did the POTUS look like a bumbling, powerless boob.
<
p>
Why do we ant a POTUS who will be a bumbling, powerless, boob?
As the Youtube questioner pointed out, it was Anwar Sadat naively agreeing to work with Israel, a discussion shepherded by a terribly, terribly naive Jimmy Carter.
<
p>
That’s how this stuff gets done — not with the posturing and trying desperately to save face, or keep face, or avoid unflattering photo-ops, or whatever. Courageous and effective diplomacy is bigger than that.
The point is that Presidential summits are not diplomacy. Rather, Presidential diplomacy happens AFTER the diplomacy happens. Clinton showed that she understands this; Obama made it sound like all would be OK if the POTUS would just hang out in Tehran for a few days.
<
p>
Bush’s failure isn’t that he won’t have a summit with Imanuttajob. Its that he won’t allow some Junior Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for Middle Eastern nuclear weapons have any contact with some similar person from the Iranian government.
<
p>
I’m surprised that this is remotely controversial. Obama’s answer was to me an admission that he doen’t get the job he is applying for.
Yeah, Hill and Bill have their stash too, but they’d never share it.
“it was Anwar Sadat naively agreeing to work with Israel, a discussion shepherded by a terribly, terribly naive Jimmy Carter.” Sadat managed the low-level negotiations with Begin’s people, and arranged for his visit to Israel before President Ford knew it was happening.
<
p>
The US was brought on board as a guarantor when the negotiations reached a point that one was needed.
But your’s read more like HRC fan fiction than truth…
<
p>
And this is coming from someone who isn’t going to vote for Obama.
You people must realize that you are not “mainstream” voters. Hilary is going after people like me, the majority.
I respect your views, but you are all in your own little clique, your own little world-view. Clicking onto this site reminds me of the “Letters” section of the Globe.
As a registered Democrat who has voted for Reagan (not the Bushes) in the past, I am leaning towards Hillary. I like her serious approach to foreign affairs. I also like women with balls.
We’re not the average voter.
<
p>
You like women with scrotums…
<
p>
Therefore, Hillary is great?
<
p>
Umm… care to actually, oh, I don’t know… reason out an argument?
<
p>
There’s a reason why I’m not the average voter, nor most people on this website. It’s called we pay attention, make deductions and don’t watch the latest gossip on Lindsey Lohan.
I must say that I was very amused by the post-debate analysis of the “differences” between the Obama and Clinton responses. The talking heads/pundits were spinning as fast as possible, when the results of the CNN focus groups began to roll in.
<
p>
What was most interesting is that the “PUBLIC” (undecided voters in NH and Nevada)were able to do what the media was unable to comprehend… apply the variable of commonsense to a 30 second response. They knew exactly what Obama meant (80+ approval rating of the response)when he stated his beliefs and rationale for meeting with these leaders. They did not need each and every variable (security measures, propaganda potential, location decisions, etc…) be spelled out in a 30 second response. Intent was CLEAR and obvious to the average citizen/voter.
<
p>
I believe that Hillary is making a big mistake by attempting to capitalize on what the average person realizes is just opportunistic spinning and splitting of hairs. (Reminds me of another hair splitting Clinton moment: It depends on what the definition of “is”, is.) Instead of appearing like the strong presumptive nominee, trying to twist the obvious, makes her look desperate.
Why do I get the feeling that this will be the reponse by any candidate, on either side, that gets schooled by HRC in one of these situations?
<
p>
Next: Hey that Clinton aide had a blue suit. Reminds me of another Clinton aide who had a blue dress.
<
p>
I don’t see how thisn is hairsplitting. Obama would either personally visit all of our enemies without pre-conditions, or he won’t. He said he would; I’m supposed to mean that when he said he would, he meant that he would not? And it is Clinton who is hairsplitting?
Obama camp, or what? He is trying really hard to blur the distinction between Bush and Hillary, and frankly I find it distasteful. I don’t particularly care for Obama. He seems to be running the Deval Patrick campaign, which is odd, because Deval was running, in part, against the legislature. Obama is somehow an outsider who is going to shake things up even though he is a Cook county machine politician, and a sitting US Senator? I don’t think so…
<
p>
This guy is no Deval Patrick. He’s got too much of an ego. And, his whole campaign seems to be premised on “I’m not Hillary, who by the way, is just like Bush, while I’m more like Reagan.” No thanks.
Of course he’s running the Deval campaign. The people running Obama’s campaign are in many cases the people who ran Deval’s (minus the very important John Walsh). Deval’s campaign was a dry run of Obama 2008.
main attraction: Deval Patrick. Obama is no Deval Patrick.
Now that Patrick is starting to get shit for all his recent corporation-friendly decisions, disappointing the Diane Wilkerson’s of Beacon Hill, is Obama going to keep to Patrick’s blueprint? He’s a successful lawyer too, but Obama hasn’t been a rich corporate lawyer, has he? I think he’s stayed closer to his community-organizing roots than Patrick, who never really had any roots. Obama is taking some of the same themes, but is he cut from the same cloth?
Even Madeleine Albright’s remarks are not very helpful: “I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything.”
<
p>
you are misinterpreting Albright’s remarks. What she is telling you–and what you apparently do not want to hear–is that the US, if it wants a Loesung (a solution to a problem) it has to first do backroom diplomacy (“spadework”) with the parties with which it wants a Loesung, before it brings the issue into the public sphere. That has been the central problem with the Bush malAdministration’s “bull in the china shop” analog to international relations: (we’ll beat you into submission, but, after we’re exhausted, we’ll leave you to do what you want).
<
p>
After Ms. Albright’s backroom diplomacy has played out, wherein all parties’ interests have been reconciled, the lead diplomats will be able to make their (mostly irrelevant) statements before the cameras. Ein grosses Theater, aber vielleicht ein Fortschritt. (Big theater, but perhaps a bit of an advance.)
<
p>
On the subject matter of the post, I have always considered sHillary a snake-oil salesperson, like her husband. (Apparently, people in the US need to have Southern roots to know what that refers to.) I don’t trust her at all. I don’t trust any of the Dem candidates much, for that matter, although I would trust Richardson more than most, despite his infirmities.
<
p>
Republicans? Forget it.