Once More 'Round The Bend

Okay, so, Barack Obama said Hillary Clinton's criticisms of him sounding like the sort of thing Bush or Cheney would say. According to Marc Ambinder, in a not-yet-aired interview with CNN, Clinton responds "“Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly. We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?"

Here we have Clinton riding what's surely her greatest asset. Everybody knows that the right has a unique loathing for Hillary Clinton so it just seems incredibly implausible that she could have any sympathy for the Bush/Cheney view of the world. Nevertheless, Clinton must know that a lot of people think that the more hawkish faction of the Democratic Party are, in fact, proposing to put put the Bush Doctrine under more competent management rather than actually abandon it. She follows up with, "I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad."

Obviously "rushing" into meetings is a bad thing, but this idea that the "power and prestige" of the president would be "put at risk" by meeting with the leader of a foreign country with which the US government has various issues worth discussing really does sound like what Bush thinks about these things. I should also note that by most accounts the Clinton campaign is deliberately seeking to woo the vile Cuban exile lobby with this Castro business which most people I know in DC seems to think is very clever of her.

Comments

We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?"

Because you're not hopeful if you don't allow yourself to be viciously misrepresented.

Posted by goethean | July 26, 2007 4:34 PM

Jesus, could this get any more tedious? Clinton is going to annoy everyone as much as Kerry did.

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 4:36 PM

Politics of hope: I hope you'll shut the fuck up about this non-issue soon.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 4:50 PM

Whatever happened to the Politics of Hope...

Wolfson tried to do the same thing on CNN just now. This is their overall strategy - attack Obama at will, and then call him a hypocrite when he counter-attacks. We'll see how that plays out over time... sarcasm does not typically go over that well, plus it makes her sound cynical about Hope.

Posted by cms | July 26, 2007 4:55 PM

Clinton may be annoying, but Obama's comments demonstrated a naivete that borders on idiocy.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 4:55 PM

Clinton may be annoying, but Obama's comments demonstrated a naivete that borders on idiocy.

How exactly? I'd say your comment is the only one bordering on idiocy. Or are you a true believer in the "nah, nah, I won't talk to you . . . take that!" school of foreign policy? It sure has seemed to work wonders.

Posted by Brian | July 26, 2007 4:58 PM

If Clinton keeps acting like a know-it-all blowhard, she will be as loathed as Kerry was. It may be enough to win the primary, but . . . it's hard to change voter's personal impressions.

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 5:02 PM

It's the same tone of voice she used long ago when she was telling folks she wasn't some kind of Tammy Wynnette "Stand By Your Man" kind of woman.

Posted by Garuda | July 26, 2007 5:11 PM

Eh, this if fine. Either Obama has wartime consigliere or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he wasn't going to survive anyway. It's not like there aren't plenty of things to attack HRC about, including glowing press reviews of her reaching across the aisle. Nor is it impossible to tie Lieberman around HRC's neck.

Does this help Edwards, or does a narrative of HRC and Obama trading blows diminish Edwards by making him seem unworthy of attention.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 5:15 PM

Does this help Edwards, or does a narrative of HRC and Obama trading blows diminish Edwards by making him seem unworthy of attention.

Edwards spent the fiercest day of the battle riding a bike with Lance Armstrong and complaining about a butt cramp, so I have to go with the latter.

Posted by Dave | July 26, 2007 5:51 PM

This post reveals the dangers of a wonk trying to analyze politics. There is NOTHING of substance about this dustup.

this is all about politics, and what is revealed is that Obama and his tema are amateurs and not ready for prime time.

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | July 26, 2007 5:52 PM

This post reveals the dangers of a wonk trying to analyze politics. There is NOTHING of substance about this dustup.

this is all about politics, and what is revealed is that Obama and his tema are amateurs and not ready for prime time.

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | July 26, 2007 5:52 PM

Does the Clinton campaign really think they are going to get S. Fla. cuban-american republicans to vote for them? Talk about naive.

Posted by lina | July 26, 2007 5:58 PM

Yeah, Big Tent Democrat is right. This isn't about foreign policy. This is about the Clinton campaign toying with Obama to see how formidable a candidate he'll be when the primary campaign begins in earnest. The answer: not so formidable.

Posted by Ron | July 26, 2007 6:01 PM

Lets remember that the question, in question, was would they meet with those leaders in the first year of their Presidency, not would they meet with them ever. Obama said he would, Clinton said probably not in the first year but didn't rule out meeting altogether.

This is a huge kerfuffle over nothing.

Posted by tom.a | July 26, 2007 6:01 PM

Clinton may be annoying, but Obama's comments demonstrated a naivete that borders on idiocy

Hi! Lowry glad you have the time to come and comment on this blog.

The idea that Obama meant that day one he would invite the leaders of Syria, Iran etc. to the white house is the actual idiocy. Even a casual observer understood that he would meet with these leaders after initial lower level discussions. Isn't that the norm.

Posted by Nara | July 26, 2007 6:01 PM

Yeah, Kerry had all of the professionals on his side and was ready for prime time.

I don't want Kerry II: Clinton Bugaloo.

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 6:04 PM

"Does this help Edwards, or does a narrative of HRC and Obama trading blows diminish Edwards by making him seem unworthy of attention."

Despite sucking up all the oxygen in the short-term, it's a big strategic positive. Clinton and Obama are effectively irritating each other's wounds.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 6:05 PM

Obviously, this back and forth between Obama and Clinton is nothing more than pure politics; and this, whether people like it or not, is how the game is played.

And btw, the media LOVES this kind of stuff; because if the mainstream media has proven anything (particularly over the past 6 years) it's that the picking of a President or a Party's nominee is just one big game. It's all about who delivered the better jab, whose is up and who is down, who do people want to have a beer with, etc. (This is EXTREMELY unfortunate, but for now, it is the truth.)

However, having said that, I do think that there is one area in which Obama can go after Clinton on a matter of actual substance/policy differences, and where he therefore may (potentially) be able to gain more traction.

The Clinton camp gave Obama this opening by referring to him as "irresponsible and naive."

What Obama should do now (and he did mention this briefly in an interview yesterday) is state OVER and OVER that Clinton was “naïve” to think that it was the right thing to do to give this President the authority to conduct an unnecessary war that would 1) distract us from the real “war on terror” (against Al Qaeda) and 2) prove difficult to get out of once we went in.

Of course, if Clinton had apologized for her vote, as Edwards did, this would not be an issue. However, she has NOT apologized for it which means that she is (by default) admitting to one of two things:

1. Her intentions were correct (which is why she will not apologize) HOWEVER she simply exercised poor judgment, seeing as how the war (she voted for) has been such a disaster for our country and Iraq.

or

2. She understood exactly what Obama understood in 2002 (about the dangers of going to war with Iraq at that time) however believed it was politically infeasible for her not to vote the way she did.

I don't really see how she can respond to this question. (Again, that question is: Sen. Clinton, why was it not naïve or irresponsible for you to vote the way you did on going to war with Iraq, when the reasons for not going to war where understood clearly by others, i.e. Obama and Al Gore, just to name two.)

Obama should be asking this every. single. day.

The bottom line is this: the decision of whether or not to vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq was the biggest one of her (and everyone else's) legislative careers. And she voted wrong.

Until she explains 1) why all of the experience she accumulated as a result of being the wife and close advisor to a multi-term Governor and two-term President did not help her to make the right decision in 2002 and 2) why her decision to vote for the war does not reflect naivety on her part - I think Obama has a very effective and meaningful issue on which he should continue to hammer home.

Posted by Emes | July 26, 2007 6:06 PM

Matt,

Maybe what you call the "vile Cuban exile lobby" is hundred of thousands of people who left the island escaping paradise, became Americans, and now vote.

I understand Cuba is not really important to the US. And that you have the option of not hating Castro. But we Cuban Americans don't. Smart politicians acknowledge that; young and naive ones don't.

Posted by Eduardo Ramos | July 26, 2007 6:10 PM

The cable news media and the blogosphere seem reeeaaaally invested in these soundbite and press release fights. I actually think Kerry was pretty good at that stuff in 2004. He never "backed down" from anything. But in doing so he became incoherent.

I just watched Howard Wolfson on Hardball, sounding very tough and soundbite-y and then arguing that Hillary's war vote in 2002 wasn't naive because "I guess that would make 80% of Americans" naive. Can a Democrat who's really really good at campaign ephemera win with that kind of a core argument?

Posted by Dave | July 26, 2007 6:10 PM

"Can a Democrat who's really really good at campaign ephemera win with that kind of a core argument?"

No.

But I never thought sane, rational people would reelect GW Bush.

Clinton gave Obama this opening, and he has taken advantage of it. Good on him.

I can't believe the Democratic Party would be so stupid to nominate the one candidate that could energize the demoralized Republicans. She's simply not worth it.

Posted by lina | July 26, 2007 6:16 PM

Eduardo,

You may not have the option of not hating Castro, sure, but that does not excuse tipping the 2000 election to Bush by taking the position that hatred of Castro is more important than every single other issue in America. And while the vile anti-Castro faction hasn't gotten anything for their money concerning the Old Man, it has achieved two purposes: (i) further entrenched poverty on the island (not that it bothered Batista or his supporters), and (ii) severe human rights abuses throughout Latin America in the name of anticommunism.

It's also pretty silly to pander to the exiles in a Democratic primary, and it's the worst foreign policy instinct of Hillary and the rest of the DLC to cede the high-ground to the most militaristic groups the least interested in diplomacy. (Same goes for you-know-who.)

Full marks to Dodd for calling for an end to the travel ban.

Posted by David B. | July 26, 2007 6:33 PM

How exactly? I'd say your comment is the only one bordering on idiocy. Or are you a true believer in the "nah, nah, I won't talk to you . . . take that!" school of foreign policy? It sure has seemed to work wonders.

You mean, except for your comment, of course.

I am a true believer in that an effective president has his or her cabinet secretaries and/or aides establish parameters before they risk allowing the prestige of the most powerful office in the world be used by foreign leaders who may seek talks without being willing to engage in serious negotiations.

No wait, this post blow the doors off the moronic meter:

Hi! Lowry glad you have the time to come and comment on this blog.

The idea that Obama meant that day one he would invite the leaders of Syria, Iran etc. to the white house is the actual idiocy. Even a casual observer understood that he would meet with these leaders after initial lower level discussions. Isn't that the norm.

Your ability to read minds is as impressive as your inability to brook any dissenting view.

Bye, Cheney.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 6:34 PM

That should read:

I am a true believer in the idea that an effective president...

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 6:36 PM

Woohooo! Matt now has people claiming he is a self-hating Cuban!

Posted by Rob | July 26, 2007 6:41 PM

Clinton may be annoying, but Obama's comments demonstrated a naivete that borders on idiocy.

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Naive, limpw-risted liberal Winston Churchill, remarks at a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 26, 2007 6:41 PM

they risk allowing the prestige of the most powerful office in the world be used by foreign leaders who may seek talks without being willing to engage in serious negotiations.

What exactly is the risk? That the other countries will make fun of us if our prestige goes down? That we won't get to sit at the good table?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 6:45 PM

See SCMT, thats Bush's genius! He's made the US such a periah no one wants to use meeting with him as a photo op!

Posted by Rob | July 26, 2007 6:46 PM

Rob,

If you are making reference to my post, you are wrong. Matt is born here and has no personal experience with Fidelito. That's all I meant.

David B,

I'm a registered Democrat who worked his ass very hard trying to elect Kerry in 2004. That's because I understand what is at stake in our presidential elections, etc, etc. Some other Cubans in 2000 thought that Bush was better for X or Y and that is their prerogative. They have their own minds, you know. In 2004, 51% of Americans chose Bush AFTER 4 years of his vile government. That doesn't make them vile.

And one more thing, Dave. What's up with Batista's ghost? C'mon dude, Fidelito has been in power for 48.5 years and in 1959 Batista had less than 10% of popular support. In reality most Miami Cubans are just like me: people that grew up with Castro and never had anything.

Posted by Eduardo Ramos | July 26, 2007 7:02 PM

What exactly is the risk? That the other countries will make fun of us if our prestige goes down? That we won't get to sit at the good table?

Prestige is similar to political capital in that it is in finite supply and that it only has an effect when it is used judiciously.

The risk is twofold: 1) squandering it could cause a U.S. president to have a diminished power of persuasion in future negotiations; and 2) expending it on a foreign leader who lacks any serious intent to negotiate in good faith could make that leader appear stronger to forces that are inimical to U.S. national interests.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 7:05 PM

Obama should definitely say it was naive to trust Bush in the first place--Hillary has had numerous moments of poor judgment over the years.

And WTF is Hillary talking about? Obama has been talking about avoiding the "politics of personal destruction", which to me means not bringing irrelevant personal stuff (e.g. Bill Clinton's extracurriculars) into important campaigns. That does not mean not responding to an attack by a rival on a policy concern. Then again, the media aren't likely to make this distinction.

Posted by Lev | July 26, 2007 7:06 PM

Rich:

How does meeting with nasty foreign leaders squander U.S. prestige? What's the causal mechanism? Whose opinion of the U.S. will change for the worse?

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 7:11 PM

Ah, David B., forgot this pearl:

(i) further entrenched poverty on the island

This is really funny. I mean, Dave, poverty is a guaranteed VILE outcome when you have a Communist regime. If you can remember that there was a guy named Batista ruling Cuba half a century ago you should know that, too!

Posted by Eduardo Ramos | July 26, 2007 7:12 PM

Dave, poverty is a guaranteed VILE outcome when you have a Communist regime.

China seems to have done pretty well on that front lately.

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 7:15 PM

blah,

China is a case study in how poverty is a guaranteed VILE outcome when you have a Communist regime. Have you heard about something called Cultural Revolution? It is precisely when they started to make capitalist reforms that their economy started to grow. Communism is defined by the no existence of private property.

What they have now is a vile government with a half capitalist economy. (The half that is making the country grow.)

Posted by Eduardo Ramos | July 26, 2007 7:20 PM

1) squandering it could cause a U.S. president to have a diminished power of persuasion in future negotiations; and 2) expending it on a foreign leader who lacks any serious intent to negotiate in good faith could make that leader appear stronger to forces that are inimical to U.S. national interests.

Explain the mechanisms here. Do you really think other countries do things that we want them to do because the popular kid talked to them? We're still going to be the economic and military giant we are at this point, so that's not at work. If the leader appears stronger, who cares? He's not--we don't magically grow their technical capabilities by talking to them. Are other countries going to suddenly think, "Wow, the US President met with him. We should totally follow that guy"? Can we please stop pretending that people in the rest of the world are total morons?

Or do you have some sort LNS-world theory of geopolitical strategy?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 7:20 PM

How does meeting with nasty foreign leaders squander U.S. prestige? What's the causal mechanism? Whose opinion of the U.S. will change for the worse?

Meeting with foreign leaders who lack any serious intent to negotiate in good faith can be almost as deleterious to U.S. prestige as failing to meet with almost any foreign leader, or to blithely ignore their agendas, as the current "president" is now doing.

As I argued above, the mechanism is similar to the way in which political capital can be best utilized.

A president is at his or her most effective when he or she utilizes all the power and trappings of the office in the most judicious way possible, so that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is sanctioned, while carefully calibrating each.

Why is "all or nothing" the most useful way to conceptualize this debate? Why is it the Bush/Cheney way or the anti-Bush/Cheney way?

I'm merely arguing for prudence, yet some here would prefer to pretend otherwise.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 7:31 PM

As I argued above, the mechanism is similar to the way in which political capital can be best utilized.

In the US, the President's political capital springs from (a) his popularity with voters (who will elect other politicians), (b) his position as the head of a major party, and (c) his ability to give people stuff. Neither of the first two matter much in meetings with foreign opposing powers. And the third is unimpaired by the meeting.

I think you're putting way to much emphasis on pomp. Bush still has "the trappings of his office"; how do you rate his political capital? Yes, it would be neat to bowl in the White House; no, no foreign leader is going to give up anything worthwhile for that opportunity.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 7:38 PM

Rich:

You are repeating yourself, but not actually answering the questions I posed. How does meeting with a nasty foreign leader reduce American prestige? Try to be as concrete as possible. Maybe give some supporting examples.

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 7:40 PM

Explain the mechanisms here. Do you really think other countries do things that we want them to do because the popular kid talked to them? We're still going to be the economic and military giant we are at this point, so that's not at work. If the leader appears stronger, who cares? He's not--we don't magically grow their technical capabilities by talking to them. Are other countries going to suddenly think, "Wow, the US President met with him. We should totally follow that guy"? Can we please stop pretending that people in the rest of the world are total morons?

The issue is not about cool kids, it's about the exercise of a finite resource, prestige and the power of persuasion.

Who cares if a leader appears stronger?

Why do we want to make our job harder? Why do want we want to needlessly increase the ability of Chavez or Ahmadinejad to affect other countries that may be vulnerable to their influence?

It's kind of naive to call people morons. The issue is far to complicated to be so easily dismissed in such a simplistic way.

What is wrong with laying the groundwork for such meetings on the cabinet or staff level to assess whether a rogue leaders have any other interest in meeting than to consolidate their domestic power base?

And please don't repeat the false Bush/Cheney comparisons.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 7:44 PM

You are repeating yourself, but not actually answering the questions I posed. How does meeting with a nasty foreign leader reduce American prestige? Try to be as concrete as possible. Maybe give some supporting examples.

How can I not repeat myself when more than one person asks the same question?

I have answered your question.

Now answer mine.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 7:46 PM

I think you're putting way to much emphasis on pomp. Bush still has "the trappings of his office"; how do you rate his political capital? Yes, it would be neat to bowl in the White House; no, no foreign leader is going to give up anything worthwhile for that opportunity.

No president can be effective when every plan they adopt is an abysmal failure. That explains the diminution in Bush's ability to accomplish anything through any and all available means.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 7:50 PM

I have answered your question.

Where?

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 7:58 PM

A couple of things:

1. I can't stand Chavez being lumped in with Castro and Ahmadenijad. Castro has never been elected, and Ahmadenijad has little real power. Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela.

Further, despite what you might here, pre-Chavez governments in Venezuela were awful and were basically ignoring the poor while siphoning off oil profits. This was a fine state of affairs for America, but it should not surprise us that Venezuelans wanted a change. (The same thing later happened in Bolivia with Morales.)

The thing is, I see no reason we can't deal with Chavez, unless you interpret the goal of our foreign policy to be to make sure that American businesses are never cut out of profits in favor of indigenous poor people.

2. To Eduardo: look, Fidel is terrible. And the Cuban-American community in Miami is not monolithic. But some of their loudest voices belong to upper class white families who came over in 1959-60 and who were the beneficiaries of the Batista regime and think that Castro's great sin was nationalizing their property (something that was entirely justified given the unfair allocation of property that existed at that point). Later generations of Cuban-Americans, thankfully, are not so fixated on these things, and many of them actually favor better relations with Castro. Unfortunately, they are drowned out in the Miami media.

I have no problem with supporting democracy and human rights in Cuba, and in treating Castro the same way we treat any other government guilty of serious human rights violations, such as China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, etc. But our policy right now is that we won't talk to Cuba unless it restores the inequitable property situation that existed in 1959, and we won't talk to Cuba if a Castro heads the government even if that Castro wins a free election. Further, we won't even allow Americans to visit the island or American businesses to sell their goods and services there. That is stupid, repressive, and hasn't done a thing to further human rights in Cuba.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 26, 2007 8:00 PM

Where?

You may not like the answer, but at least I offered one.

You, otoh, have not.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 8:06 PM

Rich:

You keep repeating over and over that meeting nasty foreign leaders will reduce American prestige. You have never explained how that happens.

Posted by blah | July 26, 2007 8:09 PM

blah,

That's your opinion.

That you haven't answered my question is fact.

btw, I love your repetitive invocation of the word nasty. Nice touch.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 8:12 PM

Oh sweet jeebus.

1. My claim is that "prestige" is not even a macguffin. If it exists, it's meaningless in a meeting between the remaining superpower and some jumped up country like Iran. If it ever came into play, it would come into play in a situation like the Cold War: two equal powers dividing the world between them. That's not the case today. It just isn't. Iran doesn't even own it's own backyard. The country sits next to Russia and China, for gawd's sake. Same with the rest. It--"prestige" just isn't an issue here.

I have no idea what role "prestige" is supposed to play. You keep asserting, in response, that it must be husbanded, but you can't explain the mechanism by which it helps the other side.

2. What is wrong with laying the groundwork for such meetings on the cabinet or staff level to assess whether a rogue leaders have any other interest in meeting than to consolidate their domestic power base?

I take this to mean, "What's wrong with HRC's response?" Nothing. There's nothing right with it, either. I assume that it's the Bush Administration's policy as well. How could it not be? "If a country show us (by unspecified means) that it is serious about negotiation (about unspecified things), then we'll meet." Great. That's a bit like saying, "If it's a good thing to do, I'll do it." I'm almost certain the Bush Administration would be willing to sign on to something that anodyne.

Obama is making a positive claim: "I'll do this." I can't see the harm (see above), and, if there's any benefit at all--and who knows--it at least makes clear that there is a break with the previous Administration's policies. There is a new sheriff in town. Good. The rest of the world thinks (not entirely without reason) that we're either crazy or drunk with power (or possibly "prestige"). Wouldn't hurt to show that we're not crazy--see the new policy--the last Administration was.

I think the worst you can say about Obama's plan is that he might piss away a day or two. I can live with that. I don't think he has a ranch, so maybe he can make up some time in that area.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 8:34 PM

If you think prestige is meaningless then you fail to understand the potency of perceptions. Like or it, perceptions are sometimes more important than reality. For example, Bill Clinton told a sex life. Yet because the MSM harped on it as it were, you know, tantamount a lie that got the US entangled in an unnecessary and unwinnable war, it limited, to some degree, his ability to act as president.

Equating Clinton's proposal with Bush's current policy is laughable. It's not quite O'Reillyesque in comparing Kos to a Nazi, but it does require a leap of logic that is unsupported by the facts.

Obama is making an offer without getting anything in return. If you know anything about negotiations, that is a really ill-conceived way to proceed. If you are making an overture, you should first get something tangible in return.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 8:50 PM

Re "This is really funny. I mean, Dave, poverty is a guaranteed VILE outcome when you have a Communist regime"
----------
1) Actually , poverty is a guaranteed vile outcome when you have a nuclear armed superpower enforcing a blockade against a poor island nation for 50 years just because a bunch of longterm wealthy expatriates get to nurse an ancient grudge by paying out some campaign donations.

Said ancient expatriates justifying the massive screwing of the common people of Cuba by waving the flag and declaiming their strong patriotic feelings for Cuba.

2) The result for the American people? Our nuclear armed rival --USSR -- got a huge offshore base for 50 years. Astride the sea lane carrying oil tankers from the Middle East into our major refining area. Plus those nuclear missiles never left Cuba -- they simply moved onto Soviet submarines parked in Cuban harbors -- close enough to the US mainland to snuff Washington DC with only a few minutes warning.

And now China is moving in.

3 Nice to know that when a charitable America gives political asylum, the receiving assholes appreciate it and give their loyalty in return.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 8:57 PM

Equating Clinton's proposal with Bush's current policy is laughable.

What's her policy, then? What are the conditions that must be met that the Bush Administration wouldn't accept? If she's elucidated them, point to them. I genuinely am not aware of them. If she hasn't, she's said, "I'll meet them when appropriate." Great. If you have a cite in which the Bush Administration says it won't meet with a foreign leader, even when appropriate, point to it. Again, I'm genuinely unaware that the Bush Administration ever took that position.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 8:59 PM

Dilan,

I started to reply to your thoughtful post but I am really tired and it gets difficult for me to write in English when I am so tired. I'll try tomorrow to find your e-mail in your blog and send a couple of paragraphs your way.

Posted by Eduardo Ramos | July 26, 2007 9:04 PM

RE "If you think prestige is meaningless then you fail to understand the potency of perceptions. Like or it, perceptions are sometimes more important than reality. "
---------
If you want to be President of the United States, you should not give a hairy rat's ass about pandering to the "perceptions" of idiots.

That's what sunk John Kerry.

Carefully Decide what's best for the people of this country, clearly define and defend your chosen course of action, and tell critics who toss out vague bullshit about "perceptions" to kiss your ass.

We are the nuclear armed superpower. We don't have to wave the Big Stick --everyone knows we have it. What we need to do is talk softly to everyone --so the other nations of the world don't covertly combine against us for fear of their lives.

Posted by Don Williams | July 26, 2007 9:07 PM

What's her policy, then? What are the conditions that must be met that the Bush Administration wouldn't accept? If she's elucidated them, point to them. I genuinely am not aware of them. If she hasn't, she's said, "I'll meet them when appropriate." Great. If you have a cite in which the Bush Administration says it won't meet with a foreign leader, even when appropriate, point to it. Again, I'm genuinely unaware that the Bush Administration ever took that position.

I have no idea; I'm not a Clinton supporter at this point (I support Edwards, although I would like to see Gore enter the race).

The important point is that she has left open the possibility of seeking reasonable conditions without ruling out meeting any given foreign leader, which distinguishes her from Bush/Cheney, who won't meet with anyone.

That's something that Obama has now decided, before that fact, that he won't even seek.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 9:12 PM

If you want to be President of the United States, you should not give a hairy rat's ass about pandering to the "perceptions" of idiots.

That's ridiculous.

Try to make a distinction between the political image of a candidate who is seeking a political office and maximizing power once that candidate is in office.

It's really sui generis.

Posted by Rich | July 26, 2007 9:15 PM

Don:

About 3)
The American people are a charitable bunch, no doubts about it. YOU are an uncharitable asshole...

About the rest: You seem to imply that the Cuban exiles are responsible for the Russian (and possible Chinese) nuclear weapons in Cuba. Well, I rectify my previous affirmation, you are an moronic uncharitable asshole.

Posted by Eduardo | July 26, 2007 9:16 PM

t she has left open the possibility of seeking reasonable conditions without ruling out meeting any given foreign leader

I'd be astonished if the Bush Administration wasn't happy to commit to exactly those words. Hell, I think they'd be willing to go farther: I think they would actively commit to meeting any given foreign leader if "reasonable conditions" were met.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 26, 2007 9:39 PM

Not defending Castro -- questioning the notion of single-issue, interest group politics, especially as concerns foreign policy, and especially where said policy has not been effective at achieving its own objectives and has is town collateral costs. You gotta admit, Orlando Bosch got up to some f'd up activities. Perestroika and Glasnost brought down the USSR. Castro has opened the island to tourists from Europe (unfortunately creating situations of sexual slavery in the process). Trade with Cuba and more importantly exchange of people would destroy his government, or at least ensure that it does not survive him.

Posted by David B. | July 26, 2007 10:03 PM

"The important point is that she has left open the possibility of seeking reasonable conditions without ruling out meeting any given foreign leader, which distinguishes her from Bush/Cheney, who won't meet with anyone.

That's something that Obama has now decided, before that fact, that he won't even seek."

How do you know that Hilary's idea of a reasonable precondition isn't the same as Bush/Cheney's? Bush/Cheney have argued repeatedly that diplomatic negotiation with Iran or North Korea or Venuezuela is an example of "rewarding bad behavior", and that is reasonable for them to demand "good behavior" (i.e. giving in to immediate American demands without negotiation) as a precondition for engaging in diplomacy. Nothing that Hilary Clinton has said indicates that she won't take the same approach, and stall her way out of engaging in diplomacy like the Bush/Cheney administration throughout her entire term or two in office, and not just her 1st year in office. Unlike Obama, she was an actual supporter of Bush/Cheney's ill-conceived invasion and occupation of Iraq. Her criticism of the Iraq war has been that Bush/Cheney have poorly executed an otherwise sound strategy, while Obama's criticism has been that it was a poor strategy no matter how well it was executed.

Moreover, nothing that Obama has said indicates that he will engage in Jimmy Carter-style unilateral concessions (giving in to other countries demands without negotiation). All he said that is his administration (not him personally) will meet (i.e. engage in diplomacy) with the leaders of Iran or Syria over the role they must play in stabilizing Iraq and the wider Middle East region, just as Reagan and JFK engaged in diplomacy with the Soviet Union over the role the Soviets had to play in reducing the threat of nuclear war and in ending the Cold War. Reagan and JFK did not rely on diplomacy only, but they certainly used it vigorously as one of the US's tools in dealing with the Soviets, even though the USSR was an Evil Empire. Reagan and JFK never laid down preconditions in Bush/Cheney style before negotiating; they simply stuck to their guns when negotiating with the Soviets. What proof do you have that Obama won't follow a similar MO to Reagan and JFK when engaging in diplomacy with Iran and Syria? Obama after all has argued that he will have to INCREASE defense spending when he takes office in order to rebuild the military capability that Bush\Cheney have ruined with their Iraq occupation. Unlike Jimmy Carter, he is not averse to using military power, and unlike Bush/Cheney he is not afraid of using diplomacy.

Posted by eltoro | July 26, 2007 11:17 PM

The important point is that she has left open the possibility of seeking reasonable conditions without ruling out meeting any given foreign leader, which distinguishes her from Bush/Cheney, who won't meet with anyone.

That's something that Obama has now decided, before that fact, that he won't even seek.

Bush and Cheney will meet with people, they just like to do it at the moment when we are weakest and have the least possible amount of leverage (see the round of talks happening with Iran this very week). The view you espouse is the hallmark of a worn-out school of thought in U.S. foreign policy. The best short hand term I can stick on it right now is "American Exceptionalism." It's the same mode of thinking that results in rejection Kyoto, or ICC, or non-proliferation, or any number of other global efforts to resolve transnational problems because America insists it won't come to the table until its has assurances it will walk away a winner. In order to bargain with us, you must first bargain with us, and by bargain with us, I mean concede to our initial set of demands. It fits Bush like a glove because it is inane and needlessly hostile and macho. And probably most Americans are secretly happy he takes this approach (I certainly am) because we understand he and his administration are a bunch of bumbling idiots and this he gives himself fewer opportunities to fuck stuff up. See also Matt's post today about the India nukes treaty.

The problem with this way of doing things is that nothing gets done, so the only possible outcomes are negative, and lately we've been learning just how negative they can be. Cuba, discussed elsewhere in this thread, is a fine example, where this policy of isolation was implemented and none of the changes we hoped to bring about took place. Iran is an even more dramatic example, where our refusal to press our advantage allowed Iran the opportunity to enhance their bargaining position by profiting from the chaos in Iraq and consequent spike in oil prices and proceed with their nuclear development. North Korea also fits the mold--Bush's isolationist policy allowed time for further development of nukes and a somewhat successful test. So while I persist in my belief that the alternative--Bush at the bargaining table--would come out worse, come 1/20/09 I expect this mode of thinking to end.

Furthermore, a less combative posture is the only logical conclusion to draw from the weakening of American power. Between the economic rise of the E.U. and China, we simply don't have the leverage we used to. "Bad actors" simply aren't harmed as badly when we shun them because there are now other buyers in the market. They understand this, and if we persist in failing to understand it, we will continue to lose ground to all of these other players.

We all know all this, so the insistence on the "don't negotiate with terrorists" view in D.C. sounds incomprehensibly dumb, coming from Hillary, or Wolfson, or Albright (especially Albright), or Holbrooke or anyone else. Whether she prefeaces this view by saying "I will negotiate" or not, the fact that she will adopt the posture and the rhetoric of the anti-negotiation, war-mongering American Exceptionalists is enough evidence for me to dismiss her as incapable of bringing about the very drastic change I want to see. I bristle at this language precisely because I was awake for the last six years and realize how badly we have fared by going this route. The fact that allegedly "smart" people in D.C. still think this way does not persuade me at all, nor that I used to give more credence to the views in days gone by. Based on recent events, I would have to be brain dead to not want a drastic departure from this view of foreign policy. At a minimum, to be taken seriously after this litany of failures, one must provide some pretty compelling counter examples demonstrating a downside somewhere remotely near the ballpark of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, because we are probably about 80% along the to that outcome as things stand (100% in NK's case, obviously). Despite being challeneged on this point several times, all of Clinton's defenders in this exchange have failed to do so, thus they are on the losing end of this argument.

Furthermore, from a "politics" perspective how could the politics of Hillary's approach possibly be any more stupid? I mean, she's literally repeating the exact phrasing deployed against her LAST WEEK by the DOD in a matter that is still freaking ongoing!!! The precise phrasing that she found so heinous and objectionable, that prompted Sec. Gates to write her a letter of apology this very day.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290064,00.html

And in the follow up where her rhetoric escalated, she's also parroting the exact argument deployed against Pelosi just months before and contradicting much of the substance of her own remarks at the time. All of this to appeal to the Cuban exiles who can't vote in the Dem primary? Or the huge Lieberdem constituency that she's going to ride to the nomination? Politically it's incoherent. That's not to say that Obama has played his hand perfectly--more that Hillary has looked so bad that he couldn't help but benefit from the comparison.

Posted by MSB | July 26, 2007 11:20 PM

Rich,

As for your "prestige" argument (that Obama's meeting with Iran and Syria without precondition will squander US influence over global affairs, while allowing Iran and Syria to increase theirs at our expense), you are forgetting that diplomacy is not a one-way street, and it won't be only our prestige at stake when we engage in diplomacy with Iran and Syria. If Iran and Syria do not negotiate in good faith with the US when presented with the golden opportunity to do so, their prestige will be affected negatively in the eyes of the world, just as our prestige has dwindled because of Bush/Cheney's refusal to negotiate in good faith. Remember, Bush/cheney's refusals to negotiate have been used for propaganda purposes by the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venuzuela, and Hilary Clinton's equivocations and stalling over "reasonable preconditions" will be used in the same way. On the other hand, Obama's diplomatic initiative will confer advantages to the US. The US will be able to argue persuasively that it is not pursuing global domination, and that the Axis of Evil has no excuse for negotiating in bad faith. In other hands, we will be able to use their meeting with us for own propaganda purposes, especially if they show themselves as they really are.

Posted by eltoro | July 26, 2007 11:38 PM

Our meetings with Mao increased his prestige so much, a few years late his wife was sentenced to death and his hand-picked successor was push aside in favor of someone Mao had purged twice (Deng). Nixon's prestige really helped Mao, didn't it? Reagan's meeting with Gorbachev helped his prestige so much that he was held hostage in his own office by alcoholics.

Whatever you think of Castro (my Republican dad who thinks practically every Democrat is a socialist once said I'm a little too anti-Castro, for what it's worth), he practically screams "I love the embargo!" Every time there has been real chatter about lifting the embargo, Castro does something to piss us off like shooting down exiles' planes. That gets the exile community and the Republicans into a huff and once again the embargo stays in place. Without the embargo, he can keep his iron fist on his populace because they are pretty much reliant on the government for food and money (think of how the 1990's sanctions increased Saddam's power over his own people). Trade with the US would bring creative destruction and entrepreneurial empowerment. It would create potential challengers to his rule with deeper pockets. He would have to start co-opting capitalists like the Chinese Communist Party (which is pretty much now a capitalist or more likely a corporatist entity). In addition, if we held Eastern Europe to the same standard our laws would hold a potential post-communist Cuba, we would never have normalized relations with them. Did Eastern Europe start dividing everything up among the exiles to return to the pre-war status quo? Of course not. That would have been expensive and stupid, yet we expect Cuba to do the same thing for people who haven't even lived there for 40+ years. Castro doesn't want to be a Gorbachev or a Deng. He's closer to the guys who had the fail coup against Gorbachev. The Cuban exile lobby have been his unwitting best friends. You don't have to be on the left to be a useful idiot.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 2:08 AM

Rich, you really haven't given anywhere a near-decent causal argument here. It reminds me of a comic I once saw about how intelligent design explains dairy products "cow + magic = CHEESE!" There is too much of a "magic happens" effect in the middle of your analysis for A to logically B to logically cause C. You are making some logical jumps, but refuse to go back and look over them.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 2:12 AM

Sorry about three posts in a row, but for me this also underscores the fact that Clinton's strengths are not so much knowing about issues, making the right decision, etc. but her strength are playing this half-retarded side games to drag people down with her. Her best chance ever at a major legislative accomplishment ended in failure and got her branded a Marxist even though most Americans want healthcare. She's been a decent senator, but on the most important vote of her time there, she fucked up.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 2:36 AM

I actually think Obama has played the back-and-forth well, particularly the 'Bush and Cheney Lite' rejoinder. It's an attempt to use her triangulation against her: he's basically arguing that a foreign policy that retains any element of the Bushian politics of snit and sulk, no matter how dilute, is a non-starter. Not after several years of pissing away international credibility and respect.

Yes, it's pure politics. But it's tweaking at Hillary's albatross: the Iraq vote. She was an enabler, and she's sufficiently unapologetic to make her judgement suspect.

Equating Clinton's proposal with Bush's current policy is laughable.

When you lie down with dogs, you don't wake up as a dog. You do, however, wake up smelling of dog. And with fleas.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 27, 2007 4:48 AM

From E.J. Dionne's column:

He [Obama] also pulled back ever so slightly, insisting that "the notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous."

So Obama now largely agrees with the point I was making that some of you found so unreasonable.

Sweet.

It's apparent that in practical terms there is very little difference between Hillary's and Obama's approach. It really comes down to what their respective aides reported from their initial contacts.

Oh wait, if we accept the quasi-O'Reillyesque analogies that have been made on this thread, that also makes Obama's approach somewhat similar to Bush's approach in that the initial envoys would likely set some ground rules for further talks...

The bottom line is this "dispute" between Hillary and Obama is more about politics than it is about policy.

Posted by Rich | July 27, 2007 6:08 AM

Personally, if Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton that's it for me. I've made it clear how I feel, and all people on the internet seem to think Hillary deserves a vote simply for being either 1.) female; or 2.) a Democrat. What's hillarious is that people think I'm the only person who won't vote for her. I'm just one of the few who doesn't care what random internet people say about them. The rest got scared off by yells of "PURITY TROLL!" and accusations of betrayal. What's I've seen in this election cycle is exactly what I expected to see if Hillary Clinton ever became a serious candidate, I've seen the Democratic party turn on it's base and try to shout them down at every possible moment. At this point, whether the speak for them in an official capacity or not, Kos, Atrios, Digby, and Matt here are every bit part of the party now and not one bit part of the base.

Posted by soullite | July 27, 2007 8:50 AM

The New York Times has an article today about this being a critical point is US-Cuban relations. Fidel appears to be dying and Raul Castro shows signs of wanting to modernize Cuba's economy. It notes two overtures Raul has made to the US government in the past year.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/americas/27cuba.html?_r=1&oref=login

It would be a shame if nuclear-armed China --a rising power -- got a major base 80 miles off our shores just because Hillary wants to whore for votes in Miami. Plus Putin shows signs of rearming.

Posted by Don Williams | July 27, 2007 9:23 AM

Besides, I seem to recall that it was the votes of those Cuban expatriates in Miami that made George Bush President for the last 8 years.

Anyone remember the huge uproar/riots in Little Havana when Bill Clinton's administration simply returned 6 year old Elián González affair to his father after his mother died? Bush won Florida in 2000 by what -- 537 votes?

So now would be a very good time for the Democratic Party to give those Cuban expatriates a nice,strong baseball bat in the teeth.

Posted by Don Williams | July 27, 2007 9:25 AM

Fuck the cuban ex-pats. Most of them were from families that treated Cuba as their own personal fiefdoms in the 30's and 50's. They are the ones who made Castro who he is, and they got what they deserved. It's just a shame the rest of the country had to suffer for their sins.

Posted by soullite | July 27, 2007 9:39 AM

Thanks soullite for your purity, and Nader will thank you for your vote.

And America will thank you for the next Giuliani/Thompson/Romney pre-emptive war and the end of Roe v. Wade.

But you'll feel very superior, so it's worth it.

Posted by Andruw | July 27, 2007 9:49 AM

For those who don't remember the Elian Gonzalez circus in mid-2000, it's covered here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elian_Gonzalez

Posted by Don Williams | July 27, 2007 9:52 AM

For all the people who hate Hillary Clinton right now, the extraordinary long leadup to the primaries and elections will only help her, as she "reintroduces" herself to the American people and they get to know her as a politician in her own right (and not just the First Lady of a philandering Democratic President). I think she will convert many people who have a visceral dislike for her, as she did in New York.

Posted by Lisa | July 27, 2007 11:04 AM

She has to convince me that she won't continue the war without end in Iraq to get my vote. This will be difficult, since she apparently wants to continue it. Fortunately, I think this will sink her in the Democratic primaries. Therefore, I hope I won't have to worry about it. Partisans of Clinton should, however, take seriously the number of people on the left that simply loathe her. It will be a real consequence, and someone else might actually try appealing to them. This would fix the problem. I expect, however, to be kicked in the teeth instead, and will respond appropriately.

Posted by Marc | July 27, 2007 12:36 PM

soullite:

"They are the ones who made Castro who he is, and they got what they deserved. It's just a shame the rest of the country had to suffer for their sins."

What a dimwit. And oh yeah, fuck you!

Posted by Eduardo | July 27, 2007 5:04 PM

Don Williams:

Let me see if I can explain this to you. I'll try my best: Political parties don't kick constituencies on the teeth or anywhere else but the other way around.

Fucking idiot.

Posted by Eduardo | July 27, 2007 5:10 PM

Obama wants fundamental change in the way we present ourselves to the world.

Hillary is a thoroughly entrenched DC politico and appears to be advocating a return to the way things were before GWB.

I, personally, believe we as a nation need to think completely outside every box and I welcome new, innovative ideas to problem management, including diplomacy. The way things were is largely what got us where we are today with most of the world either outright loathing us or shaking their heads at *how stupid can 50 million Americans be*...Mr. Clinton did nothing to recognize, prepare for or tend to the then growing problem of radical Islamic fundamentalists...what makes anyone think Mrs. Clinton will bring a radically new approach?

Obama strikes me as the sort of fella that would survey the situation, think outside the conventional boxes and try to forge alliances to work through unconventional solutions.

Why not get meeting with the world's *bad guys* off the plate altogether by embarking on a moonshot type initiative to alternative fuel sources? The Middle East becomes as irrelevant as Darfur if we don't need their oil....

New ideas not the same old tired *it's how it's done, we can't possibly do it otherwise*...

Posted by G Davis | July 28, 2007 5:19 AM