Obama vs. Clinton, left vs. right

I think the escalating rhetorical battle the two senators is perhaps the only helpful instance of campaign jousting I've ever seen. At the same time, I only think I'll believe that as long as Barack Obama wins, or at least puts up a good show. Because what we are seeing is, in as close to an unfiltered way as possible, a standoff between a status quo foreign policy and a much more constructive (though I hesitate to say new) direction.

Certainly what you're hearing from Clinton and Obama is a healthier debate than what you're hearing from journalists. Clinton's basic position is that Obama has, by announcing his intent to engage enemy leaders, proven that he's too naive to set the country's foreign policy. Obama, on the other hand, contends that Clinton's foreign policy ideas are too similar to George Bush's for comfort. As far as I'm concerned, I think Obama's argument is basically correct and Hillary's argument is totally nuts, but in any case both arguments are pretty close facsimiles to what the two candidates actually believe about foreign policy.

The press, on the other hand, is doing exactly what you'd expect. Conservatives are saying exactly what you'd expect--that Hillary's correct, and that diplomacy is bad and that nobody will ever support Obama's idea. David Brooks wrote, "He continues to attract huge crowds and huge money, but he also continues to make rookie mistakes, like saying he’d talk with Hugo Chávez." Charles Krauthammer wrote,

For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

"I would," responded Obama.

Liberals, of course, responded as they always do--by neglecting to evaluate the merits of the two positions and offering instead a maddeningly typical meta-analysis of the argument--one that defaults with 100 percent regularity to the idea that only hawkish ideas seem serious.

David Corn wrote,

I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly "Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?"

If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot.

And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense.

Mickey Kaus wrote, "Am I crazy or did Barack Obama just get suckered into saying that as President within a year he'd personally meet with Fidel Castro?"

Honestly, there's not another instance I can recall when two political foes hashed out an issue in better faith than did the media. But here we have it. And if this is how the press is going to handle it, it will be up to Obama to either maintain his position steadfastly, or lie down and let Hillary or the Republican nominee walk all over him.

Comments

[AJ]

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.

[Joey]

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.

[apetrelli]

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.

[norm]

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.

[anonymous]

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.
mtb

[Brian]

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.

[Brian]

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.

[markg8]

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.

[tatere]

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

Uh.

[G Davis]

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

[Susan]

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.

[JoeCHI]

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?