« Banal observation(s) of the day | Main | What's an insurgent? »

July 27, 2007



That's because Obama made a gaffe, a minor one, but a gaffe. Agreeing to meet with each of the rogue's gallery in the first year of his administration with no "preconditions," without defining what he meant by preconditions is too open a promise to make on the spot in a debate. So, much so that he and his camapaign have been slowly walking away from that position from Axelrod's first foray into the spin rooms right after the debate.

Their barrages at Hillary seem to be a combo of ego salving and distraction. Hillary, meanwhile, has been caricaturing and overstating the importance of Obama's slip.

There just isn't much worth defending on either side, so let the meta reign.


Another blogger believes meeting with world dictators with no preconditions is a swell idea but going through diplomatic channels first and setting preconditions is "nuts."

Another prime example of how "progressive" bloggers simply aren't in touch with reality OR will say anything to make the "purity" candidate look good. Bloggers do have that freedom. Unlike established journalists and columnists, they really have nothing invested in their integrity and reputation.

This is how "progressives" always set themselves up for disappointment.

They create their own "truths" in their echo chamber, then when they lose, they're left wondering how? Then they create conspiracy theories to explain it.

Face it: Those paying attention in the real world know Obama is an inexperienced kid.


If anything, it was Clinton snookered into taking Obama off the list of potential VP candidates.

By going hard into negative attack territory, so sweeping and personal, and prompting same from the Obama camp ("Bush-Cheney light"), Hillary has fractured the already deeply-divided Democratic base and reduced her chances of winning the General election.


Obama is not running for nor will he be accepting any offer of VP from Clinton. If Gore enters the race, this is the only possibility that Barack would accept VP. Barack is self made and will not lower himself to associate with Triangulating old school diplomacy and policy. Perhaps when he needs a briefing, President Obama can call Hillary or Condi Rice. In the meantime, he doesn't need Hillary to tell him that you need to put a shoe on before it makes sense to tie it. And he's not going to insult the intelligence of people with common sense to talk down to them in that way.


This is totally beside the point, but since personal attacks were mentioned...
Did anybody notice how much botox Hillary is using? Is that what made the GDP jump? Anyway, saw her last night; she could barely move her mouth. Hmmm. Maybe she needs to use a little bit more.


Nobody in foreign policy circles disputes that the two candidates have very different ideas about diplomacy and foreign policy. Clinton's look much like Bush's, Obama's are more measured. That is totally uncontroversial.

part time hustler

Here's another fascinating angle on all this -- liberal bloggers are responding to the controversy, not by discussing the substantive issue, by complaining about the way the liberal media is covering it! And then commentators like myself respond by talking about the way liberal bloggers talk about the liberal media talking about the controversy. Weird, postmodern stuff.


I noticed the escalating meta myself, but the thing is bloggers like me (and Matt and others) do spend a lot of time writing about what the substance of a future president's foreign policy should be. So there's time for everything in the blogosphere. Less so in dead tree and TV news.

part time hustler

True, absolutely true, Brian.

Luigi Delgado

Even the Pope met with Castro and all hell did not break loose. Catholics thought it was good for the faith!

And the hatred for Chavez is not rational.


We now have Charles Krauthammer defending Hillary's (and Bush's) "kiss my ring or kiss my ass" foreign policy. That's as funny and as effective as Romney and McCain jumping in on her side. Any Dem who has those clowns in her corner ought to change the subject quickly.

We've seen what 7 years of moronic saber rattling and unilateral war has given us. I'm not afraid of tinpot dictators and I'm sick of presidents who make the Assads and Kims of the world out to be boogeymen on a scale of Hitler and Tojo. If Hillary isn't smart enough to figure out how to talk to them without making herself into their sock puppet that's her problem. And it's not a problem I want in my president.


I'm sorry, are you using Mickey Kaus as an example of a liberal?


G Davis

The question reads *would you be willing* not *will you commit to* or *will you promise*...


Meetin with the President of Iran would give aid and comfort to a Holocaust denier. That was very first thought after watching Obama say he would meet with Ahmadinejad. The fact that Obama is a liberal Black American would only increase the propaganda value of the meeting. He didn't seem to understand this. No, telling Ahamadinejad that Israel is America's friend does not help if Obama isn't willing to give Ahmadinejad a lecture on the reality of the Holocaust. What bothers me the most is that it didn't even occur to Obama.


I'm not sure what Barack O'Reagan's diplomacy position will be tomorrow. Perhaps he doesn't, either.

As of today, however, having studied O'Reagan's many, many, statements over the past week, I think I have my head wrapped around his current view of Presidential diplomacy.

O'Reagan thinks that preconditions are OK on the condition that conditional conditions are previously agreed upon. Further, under the Conditional Propaganda Clause, there are conditional exceptions to this rule, but only under certain conditions.

Are we clear now?

The comments to this entry are closed.