Meet and Greet

Don't tell Mark Penn or the national press corps, but it seems (via Andrew Sullivan) that the public mostly backs Obama on the question of meetings.

As some people have pointed out, it's a little bit unclear what, exactly, the policy disagreement here amounts to. The political disagreement, though, is pretty clear. Clinton is making the same kind of calculation that led people to think Democrats needed to authorize the war in 2002, or keep quiet about the NSA surveillance program in 2005, or posture as "tough" on Iran in 2006, etc., etc., etc. Those kind of political calculations, however, have implications for governing. First John Edwards by taking on the "war on terror" construct, and now Obama by challenging the Very Serious People on the subject of meetings are starting to edge toward a new Democratic approach -- one that involves actually challenging the post-9/11 miasma into which the national conversation about foreign policy has landed -- while Clinton is still fully inside the defensive crouch.

Comments

Excellent post, young Matt.
The elbow tossed at Mr. Penn at the beginning was Rasheed-esque, by the way.

Posted by charles pierce | July 28, 2007 11:50 AM

Don't tell Sullivan or Yglesias, but Obama seems confused on a definitive position with regards to preconditions.

In an interview with a reporter from the Miami Herald the day before the YouTube-CNN debate, Barack Obama said he'd meet with Chavez, but only "under certain conditions." But the day after that interview he said he'd meet "without preconditions."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25974

Perhaps Obama should make up his mind and get back to us.

Posted by JoeCHI | July 28, 2007 11:56 AM

"Inside the defensive crouch"? Looks to me like she's on the offensive and swinging hard with her right hook. She's doing her best to damage the other Democrats so she'll be the last one standing - and to hell with the prospects for the party in the general election if she loses.

Some senators are actually accomplishing something this summer. Pat Leahy, for one. Clinton is spending her time running down the ideals and goals of the Democratic party, while diverting attention from the slow-motion coup d'etat that we're in the middle of. All for no reason other than personal ambition and the thirst for power.

Posted by Bloix | July 28, 2007 12:00 PM

Barack Obama said he'd meet with Chavez, but only "under certain conditions." But the day after that interview he said he'd meet "without preconditions."

"Certain conditions" and "preconditions" mean different things in diplomacy.

Certain conditions means who, what, when, where, why.

Preconditions means "shut down your nuclear program before we begin diplomatic negotiations" etc.

Posted by Dave White | July 28, 2007 12:16 PM

Exactly. Great post.

"Inside the defensive crouch"? Looks to me like she's on the offensive and swinging hard with her right hook.

hillary's sorta both. That is, she's certainly on the offensive against Obama. However, she's using neocon-style talking points to do it, acting as if the authorization of her position comes from her "hawkishness" and her rightward, neocon lean in foreign politics.

The "defensive crouch" is the position of Democrats who still think that they need to speak in neocon-approved rhetoric. Obama and Edwards are breaking out of that mold.

Posted by DivGuy | July 28, 2007 12:23 PM

So which is it? There's no clear policy difference between them or Obama is challenging the "very serious people" and offering a new approach? It can't be both.

Posted by Ron | July 28, 2007 12:34 PM

What is the essence of Bushism? A lawless America abroad and a lawless executive at home. Interestingly, that was the essence of Clintonism too, albeit carried off without quite the same attitude of belligerence.

Posted by Pithlord | July 28, 2007 12:36 PM

Excuse me? Voting for the war in 2002 was a POLICY AND political dispute.

This is nothing, no matter how hard you try to make it into something Matt.

Posted by Armando | July 28, 2007 12:41 PM

If this was nothing McCain and Romney wouldn't be rushing to agree with Hillary. And it isn't posturing if you believe it.

Posted by Rob | July 28, 2007 12:47 PM

This is a semantical dispute that grew into a fake-substantive dispute because of a covergence in the interests of both campaigns and the media to have a dispute.

Obama says he would meet with leading with no preconditions but under certain conditions and Clinton supports a diplomatic process that could lead to those meetings. Of course, Obama would meet with these leaders only after a diplomatic process--the kind Clinton supports.

This is one of the few issues--unlike, say, climate change plans, health care, nuclear power, trade, and taxes--on which there's agreement among the three candidates.

Posted by david mizner | July 28, 2007 12:53 PM

That would be semantic, not semantical, which I don't beleive is a word.

And just because this been a debate about nothing doesn't mean it hasn't been revealing. Hardball the other night said a lot, with Axelrod not daring to admit that Obama was talking about Hillary and disgusting Howard Wolfson portraying Obama as soft on holocaust deniers. Lameness all around.

Posted by david mizner | July 28, 2007 12:59 PM

So which is it? There's no clear policy difference between them or Obama is challenging the "very serious people" and offering a new approach? It can't be both.

Why not? Even if the specific policies that the candidates' would be willing to elaborate to date are the same--and amorphous--the sets of coalitions to which each is appealing are different. Different coalitions mean different available governing policies.

Does anyone think the Bush Administration couldn't have said exactly what HRC said? Does anyone deny that there at least might be differences in the applications of such policies?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 28, 2007 1:25 PM

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_speaks.html#more

According to the man who asked the question, Hillary distorted the meaning of preconditions and Obama answered right.

Posted by Hilary is a proven liar | July 28, 2007 2:02 PM

Shorter Matt: The public is stupider than the press corps.

Posted by Fred | July 28, 2007 2:32 PM

Tim:

You write "Does anyone think the Bush Administration couldn't have said exactly what HRC said? Does anyone deny that there at least might be differences in the applications of such policies?"

The key part of what you write is "might be differences." Well, duh. There mightbe differences even if they had said the same thngs verbatim.

The point is THIS spat does nothing to demonstrate any differences.

Posted by Armando | July 28, 2007 3:18 PM

"that the public mostly backs Obama on the question of meetings."

Of course they do, but that is not the point.

The Washington Political Elite opposes Obama on this issue. And the Political Elite is a formidable force. Most Americans supported the Clinton health care reform. The Political Elite opposed it. Most Americans opposed the Clinton impeachment. the Political Elite supported it. Americans were split and ambivalent about the Iraq war. The Political Elite supported it.

Hillary understands this which is why she answered the question the way she did.

There is no substative difference between Hillary and Obama on this issue. They will both engage in vigorous diplomacy. And no, Obama will not hold hands with various dictators. The issue is reconciling their positions with the views of the Political Elite.

I think MY is overlooking this issue. You can't ignore the Political Elite. They have the power to drive public opinion. More so than politicians. That is changing with the Internet but it is still a factor. So a politician running for office has to factor this in and cover his/her ass.

The Political Elite in Washington is to the right of most Democrats and most Americans. There IS something progressives can do about it. They can build a counter-Elite. That will take time. In the meantime they have to deal the hand they are dealt.

Posted by DonB | July 28, 2007 3:19 PM

Worth noting that HRC's official HillaryHub site is currently linking to yesterday's Charles Krauthammer column.

Team Hillary really thinks Democrats are idiots. They think no one is paying attention.

Posted by Petey | July 28, 2007 3:37 PM

"Don't tell Mark Penn"

No more triangulation.

Posted by Petey | July 28, 2007 3:38 PM

It's not just foreign policy she's in the crouch on. Her greatest healthcare achievement was standing with Newt Gingrich, supporting electronic medical records.

That's what this election is really a referendum on--will dems abandon the old "crouch and hope" approach to politicking or actually start making the kind of arguments the American people want to hear? Will they start telling their own story, or just keep trying to find little victories in occasionally countering the Republicans' narrative?

Posted by anonymous | July 28, 2007 4:03 PM

Petey:

Did you see Noam Scheiber in the Times?

Posted by Armando | July 28, 2007 4:19 PM

"Did you see Noam Scheiber in the Times?"

I'll note that Scheiber's quote...

Today, the (DLC) has almost no constituency within the Democratic Party.

...won't be correct if Hillary Clinton and Mark Penn succeed in becoming the standard-bearer of the Party.

No more triangulation.

Posted by Petey | July 28, 2007 4:54 PM

"Defensive Crouch" -- Offensive crouch actually.

The youtube below suggests the exchange that prompted Hillary to make her insubstantial and risky attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHY1rtmIovk

Posted by Carrington Ward | July 28, 2007 4:58 PM

"The Political Elite in Washington is to the right of most Democrats and most Americans. There IS something progressives can do about it."

What progressives can do about it is to elect John Edwards as President.

The David Broders of the world are barometers. Like the Supreme Court, they follow the election results. Before 1980, they thought Movement Conservatism was out of the mainstream. But once Reagan won the WH, they immediately shifted to accept Movement Conservatism as legitimate.

Exactly the same would happen for Movement Progressivism once Edwards won the WH. It's perhaps the single most compelling reason for supporting Edwards over Clinton or Obama.

Posted by Petey | July 28, 2007 5:02 PM

Petey,

"The David Broders of the world are barometers. Like the Supreme Court, they follow the election results."

Completely disagree.

David Broders of Washington are immune to election results. They are the permanent govt.

If Edwards (or whomever Dem) got elected they would hound him the minute he did something contrary to their wishes.

Progressives need to build a counter-Elite. Their own David Broders, their own Washington Posts.

BTW, I loved Edwards line about no more triangulation/compromise and the fact that those who have the power are not going to give it up with a fight.

Posted by DonB | July 28, 2007 7:31 PM

"But once Reagan won the WH, they immediately shifted to accept Movement Conservatism as legitimate."

More like Movement Conservatives co-opted the Elite.

Sidney Blumenthal has written a great book about it, Rise of the Counter Establishment. He argues that the Movement Conservatives built institutions which over time took over the ruling Elite of the 60s and 70s.

By the time Reagan was elected movement conservatives had already built a network of think tanks, talk radio, newspapers, legal groups. Over time this network took over Official Washington.

Posted by DonB | July 28, 2007 7:42 PM

Agree with DonB, Broder and his peers will be all over the new Dem Prez, no matter who it is, from day one.

Obviously a bi-partisan 'solution' to Irag being first and foremost (yes, we'll still be there), but slashing Medicare and 'reforming' Social Security will suddenly re-emerge as big issues among the DC elite once the Dems take over.

And in their eyes, if said Dem is...um, 'serious', they better be willing to gut both.

Posted by Andruw | July 28, 2007 7:50 PM

donB, I'd suggest you let the Republican party handle the asskissing-rich-people strategy, and push the Democrats into handling, you know, an actually democratic governing strategy.

Let Obama and Edwards earn the ire of the wealthy elite. That's an argument FOR nominating them, not an argument against it.

Posted by soullite | July 29, 2007 7:35 AM