Left and Right

Some excellent media analysis from Brian Beutler. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have an argument. Among pundits, "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." On the other side, you see liberals arguing that Obama's right, right? Or else liberals arguing that Clinton's right? Well, no:

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.

There are a lot of ways in which the progressive punditocracy is more admirable than the conservative one, but this really and truly isn't one. The candidates, as Brian says, are for the first time having an exchange that at least seems to reveal something about their approach to foreign policy and ideas about how the United States of America should relate to other countries. This would be a good time for progressive journalists to try to provide their audience with arguments about who's right, arguments that, if persuasive, could shift the direction of public policy. The amateur-hour political analysis is silly -- as is always the case, Obscure Political Controversy X will prove politically damaging to Candidate A if and only if the press gives Candidate A negative press coverage as a result of OPC-X.

Comments

"On the other side, you see liberals arguing that Obama's right, right? Or else liberals arguing that Clinton's right? Well, no"

Of course not. There is no position for lefties to argue here.

They can't argue that Obama's correct, because the notion of pledging to meet with with Kim Jong-Il with no preconditions in the first year of the administration doesn't make sense.

They can't argue that Clinton's correct because that would be agreeing with the more hawkish position and more hawkish candidate.

And besides, all the lefties with any sense are with Edwards anyway, so why would they want to argue that either Coke or Pepsi is correct?

Posted by Petey | July 27, 2007 9:14 AM

"-that Hillary's correct, and that diplomacy is bad and that nobody will ever support Obama's idea"

That straw man won't distract anyone from remembering that Obama answered the question wrong. The question wasn't whether or not diplomacy was a good thing, or whether he would talk to our adversaries, but whether he would do so with no preconditions in his first year in office. Any idiot knows that ground work and preconditions must be set before a U.S. President meets with foreign leader -- particularly an adversarial one. Lower-level officials must agree on the parameters of the discussion, protocol, etc. ahead of time.

Posted by Fred | July 27, 2007 9:28 AM

Or maybe the lefties aren't interested in debating the nuances of the meaning of "preconditions." You, yourself, said both positions taken at the debate are defensible, just yesterday, which was correct. There is no there there in the "debate," just spin, one upsmanship and name calling.

Posted by AJ | July 27, 2007 9:33 AM

I'm still laughing at all the people who have proclaimed that the Democratic base would NEVER tolerate Obama calling Hillary Bush-lite. I have to wonder how many non-blogger/establishment media Democrat's these people know. I'm going to be here in November of next year, laughing at all the people who are mystified that Hillary got 60% of all Independents and yet still failed to win the Presidency.

This has become too much of a farce for me to take this seriously anymore. Nominate Hillary, personally I hope it finally kills this party. Then maybe we can get a real alternative instead of two pro-business anti-citizen parties.

And Fred, no you think he answered the question wrong. That's the think about a debate, they showcase alternate styles. He didn't get it wrong, he said something you disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, by lumping Chavez in with Castro and Iran Hillary told me everything I need to know about her. She's pro-american business and anti-worker.

Posted by soullite | July 27, 2007 9:36 AM

Fred, the current use of "preconditions" by the current administration is "agreeing with us," so I don't think that Obama's answer, in the modern context, was out of line.

Posted by Tyro | July 27, 2007 9:38 AM

I suppose I have to question Brian's statement (and MY's implicit endorsement of it) that this debate between Obama and Clinton is being carried out in good faith. Do we really think there's any fundamental difference in diplomatic approach between the two -- at least, any that's being illuminated by this debate? I'm extremely skeptical of that. I think this is all being played by the candidates for effect, and thus the liberal commenters that MY derides are, in my view, properly treating this dust-up at the level at which it was intended.

Posted by Glenn | July 27, 2007 9:42 AM

Any idiot knows that ground work and preconditions must be set before a U.S. President meets with foreign leader -- particularly an adversarial one. Lower-level officials must agree on the parameters of the discussion, protocol, etc. ahead of time.

Does it surprise anyone that Fred hews to the stupidly technical? In fact, there's no one on earth that doesn't require a precondition like, "I will leave the meeting alive.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 27, 2007 9:43 AM

They can't argue that Obama's correct, because the notion of pledging to meet with with Kim Jong-Il with no preconditions in the first year of the administration doesn't make sense.

What, you mean because of the carbon footprint of the jets ferrying everyone to and fro, or there an actual fucking point you forgot to put in?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 27, 2007 9:46 AM

I tend to agree with AJ and Glenn. Seems to me Obama jumped at the chance to take a jab at Bush and answered the 'spirit' of the question rather than the question as it was literally posed, with the bit about preconditions. Politicians do this all the time -- reinterpret questions that are put to them -- and it's not really a big deal, unless someone (Hillary in this case) chooses to nitpick the hell out of it.

By the nitpicky standard, sure, Obama was wrong and sounded naive. I sure like the instincts it demonstrated, though, far better than what Hillary's response demonstrated about hers. And Edwards... it's unfortunate he had to go third because he ended up sounding me-tooish. But at the end of the day none of three is really very far apart from the others on this -- inclined to talk but obviously not about the give away the farm up front.

Posted by Ryan | July 27, 2007 9:48 AM

Every comment arguing over the meaning of "preconditions" in this thread bare out the meaninglessness of this tussle. Glenn is right, this debate is as "political" as they come in the crassest sense. And that's fine, we just shouldn't feel obligated to treat it as Lincoln-Douglas.

Posted by AJ | July 27, 2007 9:51 AM

SomeCallMeTim,

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you actually not understand why a President can't meet a foreign adversary without preliminary ground work and preconditions?

Posted by Fred | July 27, 2007 9:55 AM

"(is) there an actual fucking point you forgot to put in?"

No. I believe an extended background of the basic principle is not needed for most intelligent readers.

As stated, there is no real position for lefties to argue here, since Obama is in the right place in the larger scheme of things, but is trying to defend a basically untenable specific position here, while Hillary has a defensible specific position here, but is in the wrong place in the larger scheme of things.

But as always, why bother with Coke vs Pepsi taste tests when freshly squeezed juice is available?

Posted by Petey | July 27, 2007 9:57 AM

Joe Conason has a pretty decent take on this in Salon today, IMO.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/07/27/clinton_obama/

Posted by Glenn | July 27, 2007 10:02 AM

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you actually not understand why a President can't meet a foreign adversary without preliminary ground work and preconditions?

Red, that statement means nothing. You can't meet anyone without preliminary groundwork ("buy a plane ticket") and preconditions ("will not kill each other"). Usually we just assume the conditions are met.

If you're talking about something beyond the trivial, name the preconditions and explain the costs of not meeting them. Note that if you're talking about some bare minimum, President Obama would be forced to require those preconditions by...well, they're the bare minimum, so by necessity, I guess.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 27, 2007 10:03 AM

I believe an extended background of the basic principle is not needed for most intelligent readers.

I will set this on the shelf right next to the claims of magical genius for Isiah Thomas.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 27, 2007 10:05 AM

A.J.,

Is it too much for people to expect that a Harvard-trained lawyer might actually pay attention to the details of what he's being asked? That sort of attention to detail is crucial in diplomacy, so small misunderstandings don't turn into conflicts. Obama could have easily segued into the same anti-Bush, pro-diplomacy talking point after addressing the detail of "preconditions". Instead he was quick on the trigger and sloppy -- just what a diplomat shouldn't be.

Posted by Fred | July 27, 2007 10:05 AM

"I suppose I have to question Brian's statement (and MY's implicit endorsement of it) that this debate between Obama and Clinton is being carried out in good faith. Do we really think there's any fundamental difference in diplomatic approach between the two -- at least, any that's being illuminated by this debate? I'm extremely skeptical of that. I think this is all being played by the candidates for effect, and thus the liberal commenters that MY derides are, in my view, properly treating this dust-up at the level at which it was intended."

And that level is actual is actually pretty interesting.

It's rare that two top candidates would both think it in their interests to engage so vociferously on a topic for such a long period of time. Both see throwing punches here as being in their interests, and understanding why is pretty damn important if you're curious about the dynamics of the race.

This is a moment where horserace analysis is the only rational lens through which to view the action. Not all moments are such, but this one is.

Posted by Petey | July 27, 2007 10:07 AM

Actually, we have silly wonks like Matt pretending there is actually a substantive dispute here instead of realizing the only thing going on here is politics.

Yout blogging on this has been your poorest Matt.

You are dying for an actually substantive issue on foreign policy and have latched on to this.

PAthetic stuff.

Posted by Armando | July 27, 2007 10:08 AM

Instead he was quick on the trigger and sloppy -- just what a diplomat shouldn't be.

To be fair, he's not a diplomat, nor is he running to be one. So I guess we know Fred's not a Harvard trained lawyer.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 27, 2007 10:09 AM

Is it too much for people to expect that a Harvard-trained lawyer might actually pay attention to the details of what he's being asked?

::cough:: 'Fredo' Gonzales [clears throat & tries not to crack up]

Posted by latts | July 27, 2007 10:15 AM

Re Obama

How about Mr. Yglesias commenting on his favorite columnists' latest column in this mornings' Washington Post concerning Mr. Obamas' comments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601863.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by SLC | July 27, 2007 10:17 AM

What Matt's trying to argue, I think, is twofold -

1) Liberal pundits should be using this as a platform to criticize Bush for his ludicrous preconditions to talks that have paralyzed American diplomacy and made the world a worse place, but they haven't because of their fetishization of hawkishness and toughness.

2) That Hillary is playing politics in the particular way that she is further reinforces the sense that she's, well, a moderate neocon. Her rhetoric is the rhetoric of the moderate neocon. Maybe it's affected for political gain, but it's there and it fits a broader pattern. While the substantive answers of Clinton and Obama were not meaningfully different, Clinton's decision to go on the political offensive here further suggests that she really is a moderate neoconservative (like much of the ostensible left in foreign policy discourse).

Since Matt's writing a book that, as best as I can tell, will attempt to stake out an actual center-left position on foreign policy that isn't a form of Fukuyama-ism, he's particularly keyed in to dynamics 1 and 2. That makes sense to me.

Posted by DivGuy | July 27, 2007 10:18 AM

"Liberal pundits should be using this as a platform to criticize Bush for his ludicrous preconditions to talks that have paralyzed American diplomacy and made the world a worse place"

But again, that platform isn't available because the specific ground Obama is attacking from isn't particularly defensible ground.

Imagine a situation where Obama had said, "The Iraq war is bad and 2 plus 2 equals 5," and Hillary had retorted, "No, that's silly." There would be no platform in that debate for liberal pundits to latch onto to criticize Bush for his ludicrous policy toward Iraq. And that's a wildly exaggerated version of the actual situation we've seen this week.

Posted by Petey | July 27, 2007 10:29 AM

"To be fair, he's not a diplomat, nor is he running to be one."

Right. He's just running to be the President of the United States, which entails being the nation's chief diplomat.

Is it safe to assume yet that you are being deliberately obtuse, or should I chalk this one up to ignorance too?

Posted by Fred | July 27, 2007 10:31 AM

I see a split between Democrats who want change in the sense of -- let's get back to responsible, engaging foreign policy and diplomacy a la the Bill Clinton years (and the Governor Richardson approach) -- versus "meta" change that Sen. Obama and some others seem to be advocating re needing a complete overhaul in the way the U.S. (under hopefully a Democatric Administration) should conduct foreign policy. I'm not sure that most people in America are ready for (yet another) 180 degree change in the direction of our foreign policy. We've already gone through traumatic changes under the Bush Administration, and even though a lot of things need to be set straight again, I'm not sure that Americans have the stomach for more catyclasmic political shifts. Are we the kind of country that veers from one end of the political spectrum to the other every four to eight years (as sometimes happens in other countries with democratic elections)? BTW, my prediction is that the Democratic Presidential ticket will be Hillary Clinton for President and Bill Richardson for Vice President.

Posted by Lisa | July 27, 2007 10:40 AM

But again, that platform isn't available because the specific ground Obama is attacking from isn't particularly defensible ground.

1) I think you're taking a wildly literalistic interpretation of Obama's statement.

2) Why are you talking only about the initial statement, and not the ensuing media fooferaw? In said fooferaw, Obama has been quite clear about making this a critique of the Bush administration, about the importance of not stonewalling diplomacy in favor of sword-brandishing, while Hillary has basically composed an extended paean to hawkishness. This is a perfect place for liberal pundits to step in and note the differences, and discuss how superior Obama's articulation of the US's future foreign policy is. There's no reason for people to talk only about the initial debate responses - the story covers all the ensuing debate, in which I think clear distinctions can be drawn between Hillary and Obama, and in which Obama's postion is clearly superior.

Posted by DivGuy | July 27, 2007 10:41 AM

The distinction between some conditions and no conditions is not the important one, though Obama shouldn't have walked into the 'unconditional' trap, and should clarify. The important distinction is between conditions that, while necessary, are attainable, versus conditions that have the sole purpose of ensuring that negotiation never takes place. And Clinton's nit-pickery makes it perfectly appropriate to ask whether her willingness to negotiate with enemies is different from Bush's.

Posted by kth | July 27, 2007 11:13 AM

To be fair, he's not a diplomat, nor is he running to be one.

More to the point, he wasn't *acting* as one when he fielded the question. He was a politician trying to win votes. As such it was a pretty reasonable way to answer the question, except that Hillary decided to play Fred's favorite game, Perfectly Obvious Banalities, and to try to score points off it.

Posted by Ryan | July 27, 2007 11:34 AM

"Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you actually not understand why a President can't meet a foreign adversary without preliminary ground work and preconditions?

Posted by Fred | July 27, 2007 9:55 AM"

You win the total lack of self-awareness award. It's like seeing Rosie O'Donnell criticize fat people. I remember an old Fox Trot comic where the mom yelled at Peter for drinking all of the orange juice and he replied by tipping the carton over, allowing the last two drops to fall out. He said, "see, there's still some left." That's what you're doing here. You're like an overly literal college freshman in an intro philosophy class who thinks he's so clever while to everyone else he's just another, "been there, done that" lacking in self-awareness to the point he doesn't realize everyone else knows he's full of hot air in an empty suit.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 11:37 AM

"Preconditions" in US diplomatic practice too often means that, before negotiations begin, the other party must agree to give the US whatever it wants. Obama might have hinted at a real divergence from the norm.

Posted by RickiinSF | July 27, 2007 11:38 AM

BTW, my prediction is that the Democratic Presidential ticket will be Hillary Clinton for President and Bill Richardson for Vice President.

Nah, Clinton/Obama with Richardson at State.

Not my ideal (and, increasingly, not even my reluctant preference), but my prediction.

Posted by Ryan | July 27, 2007 11:38 AM

What a clown Fred is. Sure, we all expect our presidential candidates to answer every debate question with the same attention to fine detail as if they were conducting foreign diplomacy. "Before I address the larger issue, allow me to focus on the erroneous assumption set forth in the first dependent clause of your question... what do you mean, my time is up?"

Back in the real world, there's simply not much distance at all between Hillary and Obama on this issue, although I understand why partisans want to make a lot of hay out of this non-issue. One strawman I've seen from both Republicans and Democrats is the idea that we're debating the very notion of whether high-level diplomacy should have "preconditions" or not. Talk about oversimplifying.

Hillary virtually defines the concept of mainstream Democrat, and Obama is too new at foreign policy to have any kind of radical redefinition of our foreign policy in mind. Sorry to disappoint the wonks who are constantly hoping for a whole new paradigm to mull over.

Posted by Steve | July 27, 2007 11:47 AM

Obama's right on the issues; Hillary took his comments out of context to attack a straw-man; but what REALLY bothers me is that she failed to appreciate that the question and answer were both in the conditional mood. "I would," is not the same as "I will." Don't sleep on the grammar, lady.

Posted by David B. | July 27, 2007 12:29 PM

Also, no reason to debate the substance, since I don't think there is a substantive disagreement between the two. The only issue is the spin, and Hillary's cyncial willingness to use right-wing talking points against Obama, which I'm not even sure is in her best interest in a democratic primary. What a robust defense of Obama's position is part and parcel of attacking Hillary's bad faith arguments for what they are. "Even Hillary agrees that we need to negotiate," e.g.

Posted by David B. | July 27, 2007 12:34 PM

"Also, no reason to debate the substance, since I don't think there is a substantive disagreement between the two."

Coke vs Pepsi.

Why not try something better?

Posted by Petey | July 27, 2007 12:40 PM

"Why not try something better?"

Crystal-clear Pepsi? Can't you only buy that on eBay?

"The only issue is the spin, and Hillary's cyncial willingness to use right-wing talking points against Obama, which I'm not even sure is in her best interest in a democratic primary. What a robust defense of Obama's position is part and parcel of attacking Hillary's bad faith arguments for what they are. "Even Hillary agrees that we need to negotiate," e.g."

Does she ever play this game by going to the left? It's always triangulation with her the past few years, isn't it? It's knee-jerk at this point.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 12:55 PM

I think it's interesting that in the comments to all of Matt's posts on this subject, people have been very quick to take Clinton's comments out of context, but others (or maybe the same people, for all I know) defend Obama on the grounds that Clinton took his comments out of context. Also, there' are dichotomous assessments of Clinton's comments: some accues her of technical nitpicking. Others, including Matt, seem to think she was advancing a Bush-Cheney(-like) foreign-policy agenda. It's almost like people are suffering from some kind of Clinton syndrome. Don't get me wrong: Clinton is problematic in many ways -- I don't disagree with that. But the vitriol . . . well, it seems out of proportion sometimes, and sometimes it seems based on distortion.

I guess that, in the end, it's hard for me to get all worked up about this sort of spat. If only because I haven't really heard any of the major candidates clearly and unambiguously repudiate or reevaluate the worldview that underlies Bush's foreign policy (if you can call it policy) -- to put it crudely and somewhat disingenuously, the notion that the US can and should use military and economic/political pressure to spread democracy (and ponies) around the world while "protecting" American interests.

Posted by mary | July 27, 2007 1:07 PM

"I think it's interesting that in the comments to all of Matt's posts on this subject, people have been very quick to take Clinton's comments out of context, but others (or maybe the same people, for all I know) defend Obama on the grounds that Clinton took his comments out of context."

She's the one who decided this was a controversy in the first place. Either she wants to play this game or she doesn't want to. You can't yell "no takesies-backsies!"

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 1:10 PM

Petey, you've already pushed Edwards' candidacy twice in this single thread; was it really necessary to go for a third time?

I don't believe many voters will be swayed to Edwards through the sheer force of you beating people over the head with the fact of his existence.

Posted by Steve | July 27, 2007 1:56 PM

This is really a bogus dispute. There is no substantive difference between what Obama and Hillary said.

Hillary has been saying throughout the campaign that she would restart diplomacy and send high level envoys to these countries. Obama will do the same. The difference is in the way they answered the question. Hillary have a more nuanced, sophisticated answer. Obama said yes immediately but obviously he too would do the necessary groundwork before meeting with these leaders.

The whole thing amounts to much ado about nothing.

Posted by DonB | July 27, 2007 2:03 PM

We now have Charles Krauthammer defending Hillary. 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.

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.

Posted by markg8 | July 27, 2007 6:08 PM

"Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday’s Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama. Clinton and Obama continue to dominate the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

However, just 34% of all Americans (and 34% of Democrats) know that Obama made such a commitment. Eleven percent (11%) of all Americans and 14% of Democrats believe the commitment was made by Clinton. Even that level of recognition is probably due more to news coverage of the topic rather than the debate itself. Only 2.6 million Americans watched the debate. Overall, 15% of adults nationally believe the debates are exciting while 58% say they’re boring.

Twenty-four percent (24%) know that Clinton refused to commit to such meetings while 7% believe that Obama was the candidate to do so."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_divided_as_to_whether_new_president_should_meet_with_heads_of_iran_syria_north_korea

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 8:32 PM

BTW, my prediction is that the Democratic Presidential ticket will be Hillary Clinton for President and Bill Richardson for Vice President.

Nah, Clinton/Obama with Richardson at State.
------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. First, I think there is real enmity between the Clinton and Obama camps (and will continue to be so). Second, once (and if) she becomes the Democratic presidential candidate, she won't need to go more liberal for her running mate. Third, with Richardson, she appeals to the minority/Hispanic vote. Fourth, Richardson has a lot of depth in foreign policy matters -- he's been flying all over the world mediating disputes for years. He's a natural for the VP position, since VP's often have to go to funerals, celebrations, etc. in place of the Pres. Fifth, Richardson was a big supporter of Bill Clinton in 1992, and a Cabinet member during the Clinton years. I think they know and trust him. I think Richardson is "running" for President now only so the country can get to know him, not really to win the nomination.

Posted by Lisa | July 27, 2007 9:04 PM

Petey, remember this and all the shit you say when Hillary Clinton loses in 2008 because she didn't get enough of her base to bother to show up and vote for her. Was it really worth acting like George W. Bush to score a few political points? The people who are open to her argument are scum. They are the worst kind of bottom feeders. The fact that conservative are agreeing with you and the others says all it needs to. You don't care if you lay down with this filth, and Hillary Clinton and her supporters hold right wing republican positions and will fight to defend them.

When was the last time Hillary Clinton put this much effort in defending a left-wing position?

Posted by soullite | July 28, 2007 8:02 AM

It isn't a bogus dispute. It doesn't matter if they said the same things. What matters is how Hillary is acting. The pure disgust she has for anyone to her left. The savage, right wing attacks she uses to disparage anyone who even kind of disagrees with her. It reveals her character, and what it reveals should be treated with revulsion. She has repeatedly dipped into the right wing attack well, slandering her opponents with the kind of lines GWB has used against us for a decade. She has done so in defense of a policy GWB has advocated.

Calling her Bush-cheney light may be an epitaph, but it's a hard earned and well deserved one. 20 years, and the clinton's are still trying to sister Souljah the left flank of the party. And some of you wonder why I'll refuse to vote for her.

Posted by soullite | July 28, 2007 8:07 AM

What matters is how Hillary is acting. The pure disgust she has for anyone to her left.

This her primary persona. What the hell is she going to be like when she tacks right for the general?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 28, 2007 9:32 AM