Obama Strikes Back

In an apparent outbreak of good news for John Edwards, the Obama-Clinton spat seems to be escalating today rather than declining, with the Senator saying "First of all, what is irresponsible and naïve is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out. And I think Senator Clinton still hasn't fully answered that issue. The general principle is one that, I think, Senator Clinton is wrong on. And that is, if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that."

One thing I'd note here is that the thing Clinton actually said during the debate struck me as fairly reasonable. Then again, so did what Obama said. Her campaign's behavior since then -- trying to make big political hay out of Obama's alleged weakness, seeming to reverse her previous position on the direct talks issue, etc. -- has been pretty problematic. And it's worth saying that she actually did this before, attacking Obama after an earlier debate for having said that he would respond to a terrorist attack by first organizing emergency relief, and then second assessing intelligence to see who was responsible. According to Clinton's campaign, the "correct" answer was to immediately call for war (against whom?)

What this says about Clinton's actual foreign policy beliefs, I couldn't it. It does, however, obviously reflect a certain set of beliefs about politics -- specifically that more militarism is always better -- which happen to be the exact same set of beliefs that helped drive so many Democratic elected officials to duck and cover during the initial drive for war. To get the foreign policy right, you need on some level to have someone willing to challenge the hawkish political box. Clinton isn't just failing to do that, she's going way out of her way to re-enforce it.

Comments

Well said. Many people have said that what Clinton has done here in these two examples shows that she is a better politician and so deserves the nomination. However, this is one aspect of the current political scene which the Democratic candidate should lead on, rather than just wallowing in. Witless, automatic militarism and aggression in all forms is a cancer on American foreign policy, and Obama is showing some guts in backing away from that, if only a little bit.

Posted by Athlon | July 25, 2007 5:50 PM

It does, however, obviously reflect a certain set of beliefs about politics -- specifically that more militarism is always better

If you have to go prospecting for votes--and any President will have to do so--you prospect where you know. And the DLC knows Southern conservatives.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 25, 2007 5:57 PM

She may yet regret this fight that she unilaterally started - Obama is clearly confident he has the judgment necessary to have a successful foreign policy, so if she thought initimidation might make him back off, she's wrong. I'm thrilled he sees this as an opportunity she gave him.

Posted by cms | July 25, 2007 6:00 PM

Matt's already given Obama $500, per the FEC filings. It seems a bit disingenuous to be defending him without acknowledging that one is a supporter.

That said, I agree with what he writes here.

Posted by lampwick | July 25, 2007 6:05 PM

Yes, never openly support somebody without revealing your support of them!

Posted by sniflheim | July 25, 2007 6:14 PM

You say it's good news for Edwards, then you proceed to explain how Obama is taking advantage. I see this as helping Obama long term, as it's the first chance he's had to expressly tie Clinton to Bush, which ought to be poison in this primary. But short term, he's looked pretty amateurish, up until this statement, which finally came around to addressing the underlying point directly--"boo! hand them a propaganda vicotry!" is the Bush/Cheney mantra on the evils of diplomacy. So in that sense it should help Edwards since both are hurt by this. But instead he's just not relevant in this central conversation. If he had given a better answer at the debates and not sided with Hillary (more or less) and if he hadn't given a dumb quote yesterday essentially siding with Hillary again, he would have been poised to jump in on the left flank and criticize Hillary more effectively from the left. Instead, he's just not a party to this fascinating exchange between the two front runners on an exceedingly important issue.

My read is that, despite the harm this has done to each of them, Obama and Clinton won't pay a big price because they are finally actually engaging in real debate and exchnage of views instead of trying to be politicans and stay above the fray. People are hungry for answers and want to see them mix it up, so they aren't turned off by the negativity. This would be hurting each of them more if it were the normal, stupid scandal stuff like Indian companies in mutual funds. Although, based on that Rasmussen poll, and given the Castro context of this exchange, Obama may have bought himself a Florida problem, which could be huge (although I also seem to remember that all the Florida Cubans were registered GOP).

Posted by MSB | July 25, 2007 6:14 PM

Um, lampwick, isn't Matt already acknowledging he's a supporter by, you know, supporting his arguments? It's not like he's working for Barack; that would be different. He's not getting paid by them. He's paying them.

Posted by Media Glutton | July 25, 2007 6:17 PM

"To get the foreign policy right, you need on some level to have someone willing to challenge the hawkish political box."

No, to get the foreign policy right, you need to have someone willing to think critically and decide what is the best course of action to advance U.S. interests. Being reflexively against the use of military force is no more intelligent than being reflexively in favor of it.

Posted by Fred | July 25, 2007 6:25 PM

I think Matt's claiming that we have a bias towards military action. As we're, by far, the biggest guy on the block, that doesn't seem so crazy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 25, 2007 6:27 PM

Obama should hit back even harder, and whenever foreign or defense policy is brought up, he should link Hillary to Bush/Cheney. He should repeatedly hammer the "judgment" factor. Her best judgment got us into Iraq. Her best judgment gave Bush a blank check to wage open-ended war.

He warned against the Iraq invasion before it started.

Whose judgment do you trust, Mr. and Mrs. primary voter?

Posted by lina | July 25, 2007 6:27 PM

It seems to me that maybe Clinton is no as crafty a boxer as many have given her credit for. I think the examples that Matt points out reflect her tendency to punch too aggressively, leaving her exposed to the counterpunch. I would have thought that Clinton, being ahead in the polls, would have taken a conservative boxing style.

Posted by blah | July 25, 2007 6:46 PM

Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi were against the war in Iraq in 2002. So were most left-wing Democrats. Obama gets way too much credit for this: he was against the war because he is a left-wing Democrat, and being anti-war is the default position of left-wing Democrats.

Posted by Juan | July 25, 2007 6:48 PM

Hillary bought votes in South Florida with that critique of Obama. That was shrewd. If Democrats can shave off some of the Cuban vote they just might win Florida and can stop worrying about Ohio...

Posted by Kevin | July 25, 2007 6:52 PM

Juan, that's almost a damning critique of Obama. If only being a "left-wing Democrat" weren't synonymous with having better judgment, you'd have a point.

Posted by Zephyrus | July 25, 2007 6:54 PM

Look, Edwards is not going to be the nominee. Even if he outright wins Iowa, everyone will ignore it. Both Clinton and Obama know that, which is why they are starting to fight a bit more openly.

Posted by Pithlord | July 25, 2007 6:57 PM

My impression is that Hillary's team wants to slay the Obama Dragon before any primaries show that she's not the runaway favorite that the DC-types want her to be, and are pimping for. Of course, if she is nominated, then they'll say she is out of touch with both the Dem. base and the bi-partisan middle.

I do think Obama is in danger of being "Deaned" and made 'not serious', irresponsibly wild left, and not experienced enough to know he's the wrong choice.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | July 25, 2007 7:04 PM

Hey Juan-- don't even try that bullshit here. How do you know Obama's motivations in 2002? How do you defend the Iraq war now? Ron Paul and Walter Jones are not left wingers, neither is Pat Buchanan by any stretch. The war was a travesty from inception; some people, like myself, were smart enough to see that. Patting myself on the back is no consolation as Iraqis continue to die.

Posted by Gregorio | July 25, 2007 7:05 PM

I think Matt hit the nail on the head with this one. No one in the Clinton campaign cares in the slightest whether or not it's more or less beneficial to any justifiable interests of the American people or the people of the world to meet directly with foreign leaders. It only has to do with a manipulation of image so as to project that classic reflex hawkishness which is believed to be the Only Wise Way to do things.

That said, let's be honest.

Once any of these 3 ended up in office and any of them suggested meeting directly with some leader hated by the mainstream, the right wing and media nut machine would stir up their typical panicked reactions about 'weakness' and 'propaganda victory' etc etc blah blah blah.

And once that happened, so far I don't think any of the 3 would stand up and follow through with their pledge, they would give in to the right wing noise machine, and they would hem and haw and find excuses and say that their statement had been misinterpreted, etc., etc.

Posted by El Cid | July 25, 2007 7:09 PM

'I think Obama is making a mistake of striking back in the same news cycle context. It looks defensive.

The silver lining is he finally has givewn up the above politics schtick. He has no chance if he does not.

And Obama should criticize a few Republicans now.

so far he has only cross words for Hillary.

Posted by Armando | July 25, 2007 7:24 PM

'I think Obama is making a mistake of striking back in the same news cycle context. It looks defensive.

The silver lining is he finally has givewn up the above politics schtick. He has no chance if he does not.

And Obama should criticize a few Republicans now.

so far he has only cross words for Hillary.

Posted by Armando | July 25, 2007 7:25 PM

"seeming to reverse her previous position on the direct talks issue, etc."

Actually this is not true.

The question asked was; will you promise to meet with these dictators your first year in office.

She had always said we should talk to our enemies, meaning high level diplomacy. She has never said as president she would meet with their presidents face to face, and certainly not her first year in office.

Posted by DonB | July 25, 2007 7:40 PM

I'm too lazy to look for the YouTube video, but in late 2002 Charlie Rose interviewed Obama. Obama said one of the reasons who wasn't for the war was that he couldn't see how we could prevent Iraq from splitting up between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds if we were suddenly in charge. You see Juan, Obama based his decision not to be for the war based on knowing about the society and internal dynamics of Iraq, not based on being a "left-wing Democrat."

"If you have to go prospecting for votes--and any President will have to do so--you prospect where you know. And the DLC knows Southern conservatives."

Who do southern conservatives hate more than Clinton? Michael Moore? She is not going to get them to vote for her outside of Arkansas. Florida maybe, but Florida isn't really politically or culturally the South like Georgie, the Carolinas or Mississippi are. If we want to win in the South, Edwards makes the most sense. Obama would come in second here among the big three because he would stand a good chance of having the large amount of black voters coming out for him. Bill Clinton is used in anti-Democratic ads in states like North Carolina.

If we want to swing a section towards us, we need to focus on the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain region. We can easily make Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and others blue or a lot more blue-ish-purple than they are now. I'm not sure going after Southern voters is the way to do that. In the South, we might be able to get Virginia blue or more blue-ish, but that's because more non-Southerners are moving into NOVA, not because Southern values are becoming more liberal. Florida can possibly be ours, but Florida has a much stronger Jewish and Cuban influence than the rest of the South. That just leaves Louisiana as a possible pickup based on such a strategy because of Katrina, but even then Louisiana's Catholicism makes it an outlier.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2007 7:40 PM

"And Obama should criticize a few Republicans now."

He can't.

His whole schtick is that both parties are to blame for the countries problems and he is the candidate that will end partisanship.

Posted by DonB | July 25, 2007 7:44 PM

"Once any of these 3 ended up in office and any of them suggested meeting directly with some leader hated by the mainstream, the right wing and media nut machine would stir up their typical panicked reactions about 'weakness' and 'propaganda victory' etc etc blah blah blah."

I wonder to what extent Republican politicians are crazy and to what extent they are just afraid of the Republican noise machine. If we had a sensible media, the deal with Libya would be touted as Bush's greatest accomplishment in office (wow, counting to one is hard!). Instead, we get a media obsessed with looking tough and penis size.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2007 7:45 PM

Actually Armando, Barack used the original debate question to criticize Bush.
Hillary has turn this into an attack on Obama.

Posted by Bryan | July 25, 2007 7:49 PM

"Obama may have bought himself a Florida problem, which could be huge (although I also seem to remember that all the Florida Cubans were registered GOP)."

Not really. Bill Clinton won over 40% of Cuban vote in 1996 and it helped him win the state of Florida.

Posted by DonB | July 25, 2007 7:53 PM

The question asked was; will you promise to meet with these dictators your first year in office.

Actually, the question was whether he would be "willing to meet" with certain evil doers.

Posted by blah | July 25, 2007 7:54 PM

Juan said:

"Obama gets way too much credit for this: he was against the war because he is a left-wing Democrat, and being anti-war is the default position of left-wing Democrats."

Seeing how Juan worded this comment, I'm not sure that a reasonable response to him is going to have any traction.....but, what the heck.

Juan, take a look at what Obama said when he explained, back in 2002, why he opposed going to war in Iraq.

He made it clear that he did not oppose all wars just "dumb wars."

But even more importantly, he went into detail as to WHY he believed going to war with Iraq was a mistake; reasons that today seem almost prophetic and in hindsight reflect very good judgement on his part.

He stated:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president."

(http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm)

Again, he said this in 2002, while many other prominant Democrats where voting to give the President authority to go to war.

So please, if you, or anyone else, wants to criticize Obama for opposing this war, then do so (or attempt to do so) by rebuting his actual argument for opposing the war. I think you'll find this approach much more challenging than simpy calling him names.

Please also note that I think that Obama's original rational for opposing going to war succeeds in meeting Fred's criteria as well. (Fred had stated: ".....to get the foreign policy right, you need to have someone willing to think critically and decide what is the best course of action to advance U.S. interests.")

I believe that this is exactly what Obama did.

Posted by Emes | July 25, 2007 8:03 PM

This "hawk" vs. "dove" dichotomy is pretty useless.

For starters, there should be some debate over whether one should be a "hawk," or rather an "osprey," a "falcon," or even an "eagle."

One of the fundamental points that Iraq has raised is that the high tech, smart bomb, shock and awe military doesn't work. That guerrilla warfare is potent. And this calls for different tactics, different strategies, different equipment, different personnel, and different training.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 25, 2007 8:09 PM

Reality Man,

Sorry dude, I see that you made the same argument (albeit much more concisely) that I did regarding Juan not taking the time to look at Obama's actual argument for opposing the war back in 2002.

You posted while I was writing mine, and I therefore didn't see it.

Didn't mean to steal your thunder.

Emes

Posted by Emes | July 25, 2007 8:11 PM

Bill Clinton won over 40% of Cuban vote in 1996 and it helped him win the state of Florida.

Actually, Bill Clinton won about 30% of Florida's Cuban vote in 1996. Bush won 80% of the Florida Cuban vote in 2000.

So you're talking about roughly 20-30% of the Cuban vote in Florida that will vote for a Dem. Given that some of those are certainly Independents, I would guess that the actual percentage of Cubans in Florida that are registered Dem is closer to 10-15%. Not exactly a dynamic force in a Democratic primary.

Posted by Brian | July 25, 2007 8:11 PM

Hilary is making a political calculation, combining several elements.

I'm sure that she realizes that the Republican Party has a vanishingly small chance of electing a Republican successor to Bush.

She's been positioning herself throughout her Senate career as the "safe" candidate for the plutocracy to back. Barack and John Edwards have foolishly ceded this role.

The 2008 election has potential as a revolutionary moment, so the plutocracy will be very interested in electing a Democrat, who either 1.) won't try anything radical, like health care reform or dismantling the global military power of the U.S.; and 2.) can easily be ruined, by the manipulation of events and propaganda. Clinton has made herself the favored candidate of the plutocracy.

The tricky part for Clinton is the relationship she has with her base of politically passive, working class and/or black Democrats. This is a group, which historically resents rich and righteous liberals, and is easily propagandized, because they are politically ill-informed and unsophisticated. These are the people, who see idealized liberal foreign policy, with its hints of pacifism, as naive and dangerous, and tend to respond well to the bellicose simplicities of Bush authoritarianism. The previous generation of this group wanted no part of McCarthy or McGovern. "Naive" is a key word, I am sure, from focus groups. Kerry was seen as naive, and it was a huge weakness.

I don't think either Obama or Edwards has a clear strategy for taking away this base of Clinton support.

Although Obama clearly understands that Clinton's vulnerability is her association by common attitude with Bush's policy. But, peeling away the politically aware liberals is the easy part. The hard part is finding a way to separate Clinton from her working class support on foreign policy issues. She's adopting the common attitude with Bush -- acting tough, etc. -- precisely because it plays so well with the Lieberman Democratic voter; and countering the association with Bush, which hurts her so much with more politically aware liberals, by emphatically blaming Bush for policy errors.

The dynamic may change as Bush's unpopularity is prolonged. Charges of stupid or corrupt against Bush, could be made to echo against Clinton. Stupid like Bush, if made to stick even for a moment, would be utterly devastating to Hillary, and a hint of corruption could be just as bad for any of the candidates.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | July 25, 2007 8:16 PM

DonB,

Florida has closed primaries, so if a significant portion of the 40% of the Cuban vote that voted for Clinton in 96 is registered GOP then the support of those voters does nothing for Hillary in Florida come February. However, Hillary parroting Bush's talking points on foreign policy will probably do a lot to help everyone other than Hillary in Florida and every place else in February and every other month.

Posted by MSB | July 25, 2007 8:17 PM

Well, according to a poll conducted this year, the political breakdown of Florida's Cuban-Americans is:

Republican 66%
Democrat 18%
Independent 15%

http://www.fiu.edu/~ipor/cuba8/pollresults.html

Posted by Brian | July 25, 2007 8:18 PM

Bruce Wilder,

I'll try to set aside the veneer of contempt I sense coming from you toward the working-class wing of the Dem base, but I am concerned that by even wading in that far I may be wasting my time. Is it your contention that working-class Dem voters (or Indy and GOPers, for that matter) will vote primarily based on this particular view of foreign policy that you ascribe to them? Is it you contention that the positions and rhetoric that Edwards and Obama have staked out on poverty issues, race (moreso in Obama's case), trade (moreso in Edwards case), unions, and for chrissakes health care (probably Hillary greatest weakness, as yet unexploited by either of them)? I mean, I'm not a Poly Sci, phd. Most of my knowledge of this group of voters comes either from my friends in union and/or community activist jobs and my own political activities, which are normally in the context of specific political campaigns. But if there's anything these folks want foreign policy wise, it's to get out of Iraq (also a Hillary loser) and thereafter most of their issues are domestic ones where Edwards and Obama have the upper hand. If Hillary still leads among these voters, I see it as purely a function of her name rec advantage. I find it extremely hard to believe that this group of voters is so enamoured with Bush-style militarism that they're willing to overlook every other major issue.

Posted by MSB | July 25, 2007 8:31 PM

This is because she has, time and time again, proven herself incapable of changing the conversation.

In 5-10 years, She'd make an amazing Senate majority leader. She is amazing when it comes to splitting the difference in competing policies, she's incredibly hard working & she gets the details well enough to know which specifics to compromise on and which to hold the line on.

But, I'm sorry, she's not a leader. She's a woman who can get a microphone any time she wants one...and we've heard nothing of significance from her over the past 6 years. She is fundamentally a deal-maker. This is the quality you want in a Senate leader, but it's deadly for a presidency.

Posted by anonymous | July 25, 2007 8:33 PM

Actually, Bill Clinton won about 30% of Florida's Cuban vote in 1996. Bush won 80% of the Florida Cuban vote in 2000.
Have any FL Cubans written off voting for HRC because of Elian Gonzales?

Posted by Newsie8200 | July 25, 2007 8:33 PM

"Reality Man,

Sorry dude, I see that you made the same argument (albeit much more concisely) that I did regarding Juan not taking the time to look at Obama's actual argument for opposing the war back in 2002.

You posted while I was writing mine, and I therefore didn't see it.

Didn't mean to steal your thunder.

Emes"

No problem. Having more than one person making the same point from different angles always helps. This isn't about my ego here or anything, but the issues.

"In 5-10 years, She'd make an amazing Senate majority leader. She is amazing when it comes to splitting the difference in competing policies, she's incredibly hard working & she gets the details well enough to know which specifics to compromise on and which to hold the line on."

I have to agree with you here. The Senate is where she belongs and could probably lead it well. If she had run in 2004, I would have voted for her in the primary. We have a better field now though. In 2005 I would have been ok with the idea of a Clinton presidency. Watching her during this campaign though, I've just grown more and more worried about her political instincts. She makes these weird triangulation moves, but since so many independents and Reagan Democrats see her as a transparently and purely political being, her moves to the right don't really seem to endear her as the Lieberman-like Democrat that Republicans love. What momentum among moderates and moderate conservatives did she get from her flag-burning stance? None really. So what was the point? If she really believed that, for instance, then she just believes some rather silly conservative things.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2007 8:50 PM

I'm not sure why Clinton wants to burnish her hawkish tendencies (maybe it's a reaction to the "is a woman ready to be president?" questions), but it's apparent that's what she's doing.

That's my biggest concern about her. For some reason she seems the need to prove that she's tough enough for the job. If she wins, I think that same tendency will make it nearly impossible for her to do the hard work of getting us out of Iraq. Getting out is the right thing, but it's a very risky move politically for whoever will be president, and HRC seems reluctant to take those kinds of risks. In fact, she's moving the other way.

She needs to answer a lot more questions about her intentions. We need specifics.

Posted by JJF | July 25, 2007 9:01 PM

Finally a critique of Clinton that is worthy of Matt's usual standards.

Obama has enormous confidence in his ability to persuade people of all stripes ("to know me is to love me"). His response to the question of personally meeting with leaders of adversarial countries is an expression of his confidence in his personal ability to persuade those leaders to his point of view. Clinton is aware of Obama's confidence in himself and responded to the same question in a way that showed that confidence to be naive. Her campaign's behavior since then has goaded Obama into outright arrogance ("my judgment in foreign policy is ... better than anyone else in this race, Republican or Democrat."), always a risk for very confident people.

Each response from Clinton surrogates has reinforced Clinton's point in the debates: active and vigorous diplomacy with adversaries and strategic use of the presidency. Militarism has not entered into the dispute, except as a red hearing Matt introduces to reinforce his bias against Clinton.

Posted by tib | July 25, 2007 9:18 PM

Hillary is bad news for the Democratic party. Attacks like this simply alienate the base, and the non-base has pretty much made up their mind about her already.

Say what you will about Dean, but it was Dean, not Kerry, who energized a new corps of activists, who gave him some of his best talking points about the war. No question, she runs a tight disciplined campaign. But it has been scripted since 1998. Her answer on the liberal question ("I'm not a liberal but a Progressive") was good but so text-book and over-processed that I am embarrassed that I liked when I first heard it. She deserves high marks for her debate performance, but like the run-up to the war, her message is built to deflate criticism rather than build consensus. Even her impromptu moments come off as suspiciously tinny (though she still, I presume, does not make cookies).

No doubt she has already written her inaugural address but after that on Jan 21 she will no longer have a script to read. And she will be forced by allies and enemies alike into difficult political dilemmas like the ones she faced in the past--universal health care v1.0, the vote on the war--arguably she has learned from those experiences and is better for it, but in those moments her decisions, her shortcomings, her judgment, had high costs for the rest of us. She may have done the best she could, the best she knew how, but that won't bring 3000+ soldiers and however many Iraqis back from the dead.

A reformer who tried to change the system from within, she has become part of the system. It's sad. Like McCain she will go down as one of those great tragic figures in American politics--the capstone on Saul Alinsky's "charming" legacy and the death of the liberal tradition in America.

What I cannot abide however is her going after people who did not make her mistakes. What I cannot forgive her for is the ad hominem--is it really naive, was that even what Obama was saying? Does she believe that or is it just politics? She lost my vote a long time ago. She lost it again with this latest stupid spat.

Posted by JC | July 25, 2007 9:38 PM

I do think that Clinton drinks her own kool-aid. One of her inner-circle advisors in Madeline Albright who shares a lot of these reflexively hawkish views.

Posted by Tyro | July 25, 2007 10:13 PM

This isn't good news for Edwards. Once again, he's not even part of the conversation. That said, I disagree with the commenter who said he's out of it: if he wins Iowa, he can pull it out.

I'd love to see more of this from Obama. The more directly he runs against Washington, the better he's going to do. He needs to drop the lame "inventing a new kind of politics" theme and boil it down to an anti-Washington, Dean-style campaign (with more gravitas and less palpable anger).

Posted by Golden Bear | July 25, 2007 10:48 PM

"However, Hillary parroting Bush's talking points on foreign policy"

But she is not doing that.

She is constantly on the attack against Bush on both domestic and foreign policy.

I don't think Obama's argument of Hillary=Bush will work.

Nobody will buy it except the Medea Benjamin types.

Posted by DonB | July 25, 2007 10:53 PM

Hillary = Bush: No, that won't work.

"Hillary represents more of the same old Washington foreign policy thinking that's put us on the wrong track." That might work.

Posted by Golden Bear | July 25, 2007 11:01 PM

I honestly don't think that Hillary Clinton is going to win the next election. Her "negatives" are too high.

So who might win? I don't think the next president is in the race yet. One thing is for sure, the next president will NOT come from the standing Congress, who has a lower approval rating that the worst president in American History. Now that's saying something...

We are so screwed, in more than political ways.

Brother,can you spare a dime? That's what we've been reduced to.

How did this happen?

Posted by James Hogan | July 25, 2007 11:06 PM

No, to get the foreign policy right, you need to have someone willing to think critically and decide what is the best course of action to advance U.S. interests. Being reflexively against the use of military force is no more intelligent than being reflexively in favor of it.

You can't have a moral foreign policy if you also want to advance America's interests. It's amoral, for example, to support dictatorship abroad even if it would benefit America.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 25, 2007 11:22 PM

Mr. Concern Troll Hogan can go take a flying leap. I'd much rather have a primary that has many engaged Democrats than have "Not Sure Yet" leading like the Republicans. Our choice is difficult, of course, but it's difficult because we have an embarrassment of riches in our candidates.

I'd vote for most of them. Hillary makes me very uncomfortable, first of all because I don't believe this nation should be led by 2 families for over 20 years and second of all because she voted for the Iraq war. It may not be a deal-breaker for anyone else, but anyone who voted for this idiotic war is unfit to lead. I was a college student at the time, and I had the privilege of writing and protesting against this idiotic war. While I appreciate John Edwards admitting his mistake, I can't support someone with such fundamentally flawed judgment.

The problem for me is that no matter what, Bush and Rove were going to paint Democrats as weak. That was what they planned the whole thing around. The vote, from a political sense, was deadly either way. That vote was about principle, and it was about smart foreign policy. Every Democrat who voted for the authorization to use military force abdicated all of their responsibilities as a Democrat and as a representative of the people.

I didn't oppose war in Afghanistan. I was too young to have an opinion on the first Gulf War. I am generally opposed to war as an instrument of foreign policy, because the risks are so great. In 2002, I wrote an op-ed for my college newspaper that warned Iraq would turn into a quagmire of sectarian strife and that the WMD were most likely not there. I did that based on Internet research and my own personal views. I can produce the newspaper printed in 2002 (already showing its age). If I got it right in 2002, why couldn't Hillary? John Edwards? Most of the Democrats in Congress?

Really, if someone who wasn't even old enough (at the time) to run for the House of Representatives can get it right while juggling a full load of classes, editing a newspaper, and working 25 hours a week in the college bookstore--why the hell couldn't our elected officials?

I support Obama because despite the war drums beating on MSNBC, CNN and Fox, he chose to say we shouldn't invade Iraq. His positions since then have only cemented my support. Hillary trying to play the "we shouldn't talk to them because they're bad" nonsense doesn't move me. That's the kind of crap people pulled in kindergarten. It's time we demanded more of politicians than stupid soundbites that even children can see through.

Posted by James Hare | July 25, 2007 11:59 PM

In an apparent outbreak of good news for John Edwards, the Obama-Clinton spat seems to be escalating

I don't see how Edwards benefits at all here. The two major candidates are having a dispute about the best foreign policy strategy. Edwards isn't even in the discussion.

I understand the conventional view is that when two candidates have a spat the 3rd candidate prospers. But that only applies when they're slinging mud. It actually matters how diplomacy is conducted. You either give Obama credit for being willing to engage our adversaries, or you agree with Hillary that it's just a sign of weakness.

This is the sort of debate we want to have when choosing a candidate and it either pushes you into the Clinton camp or the Obama one.

Edwards gets no love from this one.

Posted by Jinchi | July 26, 2007 12:10 AM

"Mr. Concern Troll Hogan can go take a flying leap. I'd much rather have a primary that has many engaged Democrats than have "Not Sure Yet" leading like the Republicans. Our choice is difficult, of course, but it's difficult because we have an embarrassment of riches in our candidates."

I am not trolling, Mr. Hare. I am simply reflecting the results of a wide variety of public opinion polls. Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Period. And for many of the reasons you cite. Read your own post. Do you disagree with yourself?

Posted by James Hogan | July 26, 2007 12:32 AM

Being reflexively against the use of military force is no more intelligent than being reflexively in favor of it.

None of the major presidential candidates and few American politicians are "reflexively" against the use of military force.

Our problem is just the opposite.

Posted by Jinchi | July 26, 2007 12:44 AM

"You can't have a moral foreign policy if you also want to advance America's interests. It's amoral, for example, to support dictatorship abroad even if it would benefit America."

An American president's first responsibility is to his (or her) nation's interests. Whatever America does will be considered immoral by some. You raise a perfect example: we get criticized for supporting dictators -- and also for deposing them. Can't win that morality contest, so why play?

Posted by Fred | July 26, 2007 1:03 AM

A commenter over at talking points memo summed this up nicely I think, after a post pointed out that Hillary's "used for propaganda purposes" line was lifted word-for-word from a Sean Hannity critique of Pelosi going to Syria. Literally, he used that exact phrase.

"The most generous view of Hillary's conduct from the moment she gave her answer in the debate through today is that she is being extremely disingenuous. If Hillary is really for vigorous diplomacy with countries like Syria and Iran, as you say, why did she pick such a massive fight with Obama over a trivial difference? If Hillary still thinks that Pelosi's trip to Syria was a good idea, again why bash Obama? The only distinction she could be drawing is the distinction between going yourself, as President, to a meeting with a fellow like Assad, and dispatching someone lower with less prestige -- presumably on the theory that it's OK for a lowly Speaker of the House to risk being "used for propaganda purposes," but not OK for someone has mighty as the President.

There are, therefore, two possibilities. The first is that Hillary, knowing the distinction between herself and Obama is minor, is exaggerating the distinction to bolster her image as tough enough and hardnosed enough to be commander in chief. That's why I say you've proven the best that can be said of her is she is disingenous.

The second is that the distinction between the PRESIDENT taking a risk to cool down global tensions by meeting with our enemies and a plebe like the Spekaer doing so really and truly is important to Hillary. But if that's the case, then the various commenters above are right to fear that we will get another imperial -- and imperious -- Presidency if she wins. Barf. For America to regain a decent level of respect throughout the world, we desperately need someone 180 degrees opposite from Bush and Cheney. Someone who does not think the President can't take risks but that only lower underlings can do so. If Hillary's not being disingenous here, we'd be getting some one maybe 5 degrees different from Bush/Cheney, when we need 180 degrees."

RaymondA

Posted by Michael | July 26, 2007 1:15 AM

Scandal and arguments between candidates often consumes the media and campaign spotlights. There are critical topics of greater importance that I would like to see our candidate address each other and to the public, especially with the issue of global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.” And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Posted by Mstessyrue | July 26, 2007 1:38 AM

"She is constantly on the attack against Bush on both domestic and foreign policy."

If this was true, the base would love her. Instead, she gives crap answers about why she voted for the war, she waffles on being against torture, she supports banning flag burning, she's a concern troll on violent video games, etc. She's Triangulation v2.0. I want to like her as our nominee. I really do. But the more I hear her speak and listen to her give evidence of her instincts, the more I wonder why I defended her against Republicans for so long. Do we really want to nominate the former president of the Wellesley College Republicans?

Posted by Reality Man | July 26, 2007 2:17 AM

Hillary's supporters generally fall into two camps, as far as I can tell. There are VERY conservative Democrats who understand completely what she is, and like to pretend she isn't what she is because they know it would generally sink her nomination. These are the people who generally argue that income inequality isn't a problem, that corporate regulation is evil, and that war with iran is probably necessary; yet at the same time, they claim that Hillary's plan in the middle east is no different than the other candidates.

Then there are young women who want a woman to be president because they believe somehow, magically, that will make the world a better place. Implicit in this view is the assumption that a woman would NEVER start a war of aggression, that she would never ignore the plight of poorer women, and that all of her state positions amount to nothing more than posing for masculine credit. It's kind of hard to ignore that these women seem to assume that women are morally superior to men, and that they only take bad positions because men force them to.

So, to put it bluntly, her supporters have mostly decided that either they like her positions, or they don't really care about them so long as she's female. A real bunch of winners and forward thinkers they are.

Posted by soullite | July 26, 2007 7:48 AM

Why did she take the risk of going negative?

It is to be expected that there'd be a lot of sniping from surrogates and netroots, but why did she risk front-runner status and a direct Obama counterpunch? It's puzzling, I believe; she has a lot to lose, and not all that much to gain by engaging Obama directly.

But engage him she did. Was it because she was angered by his earlier comment -- "[the time to ask about our exit strategy was five years ago]." If her response was off the cuff and made in anger, this is, to say the least, a concern...

Not to be too snarky, but it suggests why it would be a bad idea for her to meet with foreign leaders in the first year of her term.

In response to another comment: Obama's an Owl, neither a hawk nor a dove.

Posted by Carrington Ward | July 26, 2007 7:50 AM

An American president's first responsibility is to his (or her) nation's interests. Whatever America does will be considered immoral by some. You raise a perfect example: we get criticized for supporting dictators -- and also for deposing them. Can't win that morality contest, so why play?

That's way of missing the point, or perhaps you really are amoral. I should perhaps say that I don't live in the U.S., so I would be a target of any arbitrary dictates.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | July 26, 2007 9:52 AM

An American president's first responsibility is to his (or her) nation's interests

Actually, an American president's first responsibility is to the Constitution. I've always felt that attempts to claim that there is some inherent "Anglo-American alliance" between the pro-iraq-war US, UK, and Australia was just an attempt at creating a sort of nationalism that would transcend America's constitutional and ideological founding principles in favor of "more power for the Anglo-American faction in the world."

Also, soullite: Certainly, a part of Clinton's support is grounded in familiarity -- "hey, we know her and we liked Bill" -- as well as the spite vote-- "this will piss off conservatives!"

Posted by Tyro | July 26, 2007 10:10 AM

I'm tempted to respond to Fred's false dichotomy, but I'll instead recommend that anyone who hasn't read or reread Halberstam's _The Best and the Brightest_ recently go do so, as it just resonates too well with our current situation. The part that's relevant here is his criticism of the Kennedy administration for thinking it could co-opt the Manichean militarism of post-WWII conservatives, shielding themselves from McCarthyism by espousing some of its key principles without succumbing to the folly of its foreign policy prescriptions. Halbestam argues that those principles and prescriptions needed to be challenged head on, that the truly tough, courageous thing to do would have been to question whether talking tough all the time was wise, rather than just talking tough.

I know this is the point where someone says something like, "This way leads to McGovern," but surely those aren't our only choices -- McCarthy or McGovern. I suspect that Fred thinks that what it boils down to, but surely that's evidence against this thesis, not for it.

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | July 26, 2007 12:01 PM

An American president's first responsibility is to his (or her) nation's interests. Whatever America does will be considered immoral by some. You raise a perfect example: we get criticized for supporting dictators -- and also for deposing them. Can't win that morality contest, so why play?

Because we, umm, pride ourselves on being leaders of the free world, paragons of virtue and the, umm, last defense against "the murderers and the terrorists" and the teeming enemies of liberty who have no morals and principles to speak of and, speaking honestly, resemble Tolkien's Middle Earth and for whom due process and habeas corpus and even Guantanamo's spacious cells are too good for. But never mind the rhetoric, let's pursue all our interests brazenly. Just watch out if your a middle-or-lower class male from 18-35. Or 18-45 once we lose a few more in Iran.

Oh Fred, I know how "you people" think and it scares the shit out of me. War without end, Amen.

Posted by Gregorio | July 26, 2007 1:15 PM

Wow-- I left out Orcs and made a gradeschoolish your/you're error. I fear I have contracted acute Yglesiasia of the brain.

Posted by Gregorio | July 26, 2007 1:18 PM

An American president's first responsibility is to his (or her) nation's interests.

Most of US foreign policy in the 3rd world has been directly counter to any sane construction of the US national interest and definitely against my own interests.

But then, I'm not part of the wise, serious establishment that thought it was necessary to let Ronald Reagan hire murderers, terrorists, drug-dealers, and genocidalists to slaughter civilians throughout Central America, Southern Africa, and Afghanistan.

Posted by El Cid | July 26, 2007 9:28 PM

Brandon Claycomb, very insightful. Halberstam captured the issue very nicely.

The irony is that the Republicans have also been the first to negotiate with the untouchable enemy -- Eisenhower goes to Korea, Nixon to China, Reagan to Reykjavik.

Democrats, meanwhile, tied themselves into an unrealistic bundle, lost nine of the last fourteen presidential elections, and wandered into Vietnam to boot.

Posted by Carrington Ward | July 27, 2007 12:49 PM