Matthew Yglesias (July 24, 2007) - Propaganda Victory (Foreign Policy)

Yeah, how does this whole "propaganda victory" concept work, exactly?

We can't talk to Iran because they are America-hating, Islam-o-Nazi-Stalinist, jihadi-mad-mullah-bad-guys waging the Biggest Most Important War of Civilizations Ever... and if we meet with them, they will jubilantly take pictures of the meeting and gleefully distribute them because they secretly really want to talk to us.

Sometimes I'm not sure conservatives have thought things through.

America survived after Reagan spoke to Gorbachev-- even though far-right wingers like Newt Gingrich compared him to Chamberlain at the time-- and we will survive talking to Iran.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 24, 2007 5:01 PM

Point: Obama.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 24, 2007 5:06 PM

UPDATE: John McCain agrees with Clinton.

If I'm Obama, I run with that and say: "See. More proof that Hillary is out of touch and wants to cointinue the Bush policies that got us into this mess. John McCain agrees with her attack on me. If I ever needed validation that my approach was correct for our national security, that was it."

Posted by Hesiod | July 24, 2007 5:09 PM

Last night Clinton lost the "I won't be dumb enough to be baited by Islamist trash talk like those idiots in the White House" primary. And actually, for all the love he's getting on the blogs today, if you look at his answer after hers, so did Edwards.

Posted by MSB | July 24, 2007 5:10 PM

As is often the case, you're right on policy, wrong on the politics. The question was: would you meet with them without preconditions, and Obama was too eager to say yes, without the politically necessary, albeit somewhat silly, caveats. You could sense Hillary smelling her opportunity to highlight her main line of attack against Obama, that he's a child and she's ready on Day One. (Amazing how a 7-year Senator has managed to portray herself as the old hand.)

In any case, the Obama camp clearly thinks this was a bad moment for him. Axelrod:

"He said that he would be willing to talk. And what
he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and
eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during
the Cold War there were low-level discussions and
mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union
and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of
those leaders."

What he meant was...4 words that should never come out of a spinner's mouth.

Posted by david mizner | July 24, 2007 5:11 PM

I agree with you and this makes me angry.

Posted by Anonymous | July 24, 2007 5:11 PM

The wingnuts think that just showing up for talks is a "reward," for bad behavior.

Even if we never make any concessions or alter our position, it's supposedly a reward for our opponents.

It may be in some very linmited time sensitive circumstances where the two parties are enaged in some kind of military confrontation, and one side needs to buy time.

But, that is not a frequent occurrence. Of course, maybe that's precisely why the wingnuts are so supset with any suggestion we should talk with Iran.

Posted by Hesiod | July 24, 2007 5:13 PM

The wingnuts think that just showing up for talks is a "reward," for bad behavior.

shunning is something most people grow out of in 4th grade. is it any wonder that red states have higher divorce rates ?

Posted by cleek | July 24, 2007 5:18 PM

Two points:

1) Even JFK, who Obama cited as an example of talking to your enemy, said when asked when he was going to meet with Kruschev, that talks were actually detrimental to good relations if there was little chance of success. Which should be obvious to anyone. If all the talks result in is people screaming at each other, it has a) wasted the President's valuable time, and b) made both sides angrier and less willing to compromise. It should also be noted that Kennedy did not meet with Kruschev very much. Once, maybe twice. It's best to let lower level diplomats handle talks with hostile states. The President should only be utilized when it is clear that there is a good chance for a successful outcome.

2) As for propaganda victories, what do you call the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam?

Posted by Adam Herman | July 24, 2007 5:23 PM

This is wankerific by Clinton. Obama's a smart guy; I'm sure he's not nearly so naive about the possible pitfalls as she's making him out to be. The pitfalls are real but should by no means be decisive of US policy regarding talks.

Moreover, I'm sure Clinton herself, once in office, would be open to talking to these leaders. She's running to the right for pretty craven reasons.

Posted by Ryan | July 24, 2007 5:27 PM

The whole thing was a fascinating exchange. Obama was careless in his initial statement, even though the basic point he wanted to make was sound. Hillary pounced on him for it, but then overreached by using the phrase ‘propaganda victory’.

Obama showed his good judgment, but also that he’s still green politically. Hillary showed her political sharpness, but also her penchant for cheap moralism.

It was also interesting that Hillary specifically mentioned Castro in her response… she had Florida on her mind, perhaps?

Posted by RC | July 24, 2007 5:30 PM

"Pretty similar"? I don't know what Matt means by this, but
I don't think I agree. Clinton didn't say that diplomacy would be verboten; she said that she herself would not promise to meet with Leader X in her first year in office without preconditions. Of course she was trying to score points off Obama (that goes without saying), and I guess she succeeded. And I didn't click on the McCain link (can't stand to read about that guy) -- so I don't know what to say about that.

Posted by mary | July 24, 2007 5:39 PM

Mary:

These are Clinton's exact words: "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

Posted by blah | July 24, 2007 5:41 PM

As for propaganda victories, what do you call the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam?

A minor embarassment for the Bush administration for obvious reasons, but not much help for Saddam.

Posted by blah | July 24, 2007 5:43 PM

I didn' watch the debate but read their responses to this question without commentary, and I immediately viewed Hillary's response as right-wing pandering. Do we really need to point out that we would not engage in talks that are merely to be used as a propaganda victory? I think Clinton failed to renounce Bush's diplomatic strategy by adding this caveat. I worry that anyone who seeks to appease the 25 percenters during a July 07 Democratic primary debate just may do so in office as well.

Posted by Tim | July 24, 2007 5:46 PM

What I don't understand is: Why are political campaigns in the United States so fundamentally dishonest? Even politicians that are basically ok, like Al Gore (in 2000 vs. Bradley) and Hillary (currently), lie their asses off when campaigning. Unless of course, Hillary really believes this foolishness, in which case she is on the path to a Bush-level of delusion.

Posted by Baldrick | July 24, 2007 5:50 PM

"Don't negotiate with terrorists." There's some sense to that. You don't want to grant legitimacy to terrorists and more than anything you don't want to do anything that encourages more terrorism.

Somehow that notion has morphed into the idea that we shouldn't negotiate with any state that we don't like. That's just crazy. Except for countries we're at war with, why not sit down and talk? The U.S., considering our economic and military power, has so much leverage going into any negotiation it is silly to think that we are risking our national security by talking to other countries.

The neocon experiment of the last few years has failed miserably. We are the lone superpower but we don't have a monopoly on power. Acting as if we can dictate our terms to the world without having dialogue has damaged our interests. We are in so many ways less powerful today it is remarkable that anyone would want to defend the policy, let alone continue it.

I didn't think the Obama response or Clinton caveat was all that big a deal watching the debate, but it's nice to see at last a bit of controversy in the campaign. Maybe this'll stir the pot and create more discussion about what the president, and the country, ought to be doing.

Posted by JJF | July 24, 2007 5:57 PM

"Propaganda victory" is one of those phrases like "rogue regime" that Bush uses and then the press runs with it acting like it says more than it really does. For instance, the rogue regimes out there in the CW are some combination of North Korea, Iran and maybe Cuba and Venezuela. Regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Burma, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Belarus, Algeria and others share many of the negative characteristics of NK, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela in some ways being freer than some of these countries, yet the non-RR countries fall into certain categories 1) CW-style allies (Saudi Arabia), 2) we don't know how to deal with it problems (Pakistan, Sudan), 3) can't control their own problems (Yemen), and most commonly 4) ignored (all of the others).

"Propaganda victory" serves the same purpose. The problem with Munich wasn't that Chamberlin met with Hitler. The problem was he got a deal that nobody could take seriously, that Britain couldn't enforce, that Germany wouldn't follow and that he proclaimed victory for domestic political purposes. If he met with Hitler and failed to get a good deal, he could have gone "at least I tried" and then worked with France to start bombing Germany. If that happened, he wouldn't have lost to Churchill and we wouldn't have to deal with Munich obsessives today. The trouble with diplomacy isn't that it sometimes fails because every foreign policy tool can fail, including war, but that you limit your available options for no good reason. Just because you have a big (but weakening) hammer doesn't mean you throw away the rest of the toolbox.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 5:59 PM

I have to wonder how much Matt knows about the history of diplomacy. It's always been the case that the level of contact afforded is a sign of respect (or lack thereof). This was common not only in the West, but in the East as well.

One of the most painful adjustments the Ottoman Empire had to make in the early 18th century was to its diplomatic style. Previously, they had never treated ambassadors as equals - after the end of the 1693-1699 war (against the Habsburgs and Venetians), they had to start doing that.

If you think it's "normal" for a head of state to meet with any other head of state - with no pre-conditions - then I'd have to say that your knowledge of history is so weak as to be laughable.

Posted by James Robertson | July 24, 2007 6:15 PM

Yes, I agree with James Robertson. Just because Clinton used the word "propaganda" in her answer doesn't mean she was saying what many commenters seem to want to think she was saying. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, and I think she does try too hard to seem "serious," aka "rightwing." But her comment last night doesn't seem "pretty similar" to the Pelosi/Syria criticism.

Posted by mary | July 24, 2007 6:23 PM

Does anyone actually believe that President Obama would have meetings with world leaders 'without preconditions'? Of course not. This is not going to redound in HRC's favor. Obama made a slip, but HRC did too.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 24, 2007 6:26 PM

James Robertson, what pre-conditions mean in the age of Bush is "you give me everything you want before we meet and I'll let you have a photo-op with me afterwards," instead of logistics. It's saying to Iran "stop supporting Hezbollah" before negotiating starts, which means that Iran has no real reason to play by the US's rules because they won't get anything in return unless they make concessions during an actual negotiation. Imperial China had their elaborate system of diplomacy similar to the Eastern style you described above, but that could only work under certain conditions 1) having technological, economic and military superiority over all potential threats and 2) living in a pre-globalized age of inferior overall technology that made it hard for opposing militaries from halfway around the world to even get to you. Once these features were eroded, the Chinese system failed because it was too impractical. Unless you can maintain a perpetual posture of strength, the style you outlined is self-defeating. And what really is wrong with showing some sign of respect? One of the biggest reason there is so much anti-Americanism in the world is that we don't respect others enough. Meeting with Bashar al-Asad isn't saying "America respects you," but instead saying "America recognizes you are involved in these situations and as such reality dictates that if we want to make our lives easier, we need to work together to deal with these and compromise."

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 6:28 PM

"Except for countries we're at war with, why not sit down and talk?" Except in the rare case in which you completely crush your opponent, most wars are resolved by sitting down and talking to your opponent. We might even want to try that in our current war in Iraq, just as soon as we figure out who the hell he is.

Posted by grumbly | July 24, 2007 6:29 PM

"Yes, I agree with James Robertson. Just because Clinton used the word "propaganda" in her answer doesn't mean she was saying what many commenters seem to want to think she was saying. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, and I think she does try too hard to seem "serious," aka "rightwing." But her comment last night doesn't seem "pretty similar" to the Pelosi/Syria criticism."

She's the one that has been pounding away at Obama afterwards about it. If she doesn't want this to be a big deal, she can choose to shut up about it.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 6:30 PM

This is an excellent moment for Obama to capitalize on a Clinton misstep. Looking too far ahead, she has made a premature play to the right, and has left a gaping hole on both the left and the center, where the vast majority of the Democrats whose votes she is now courting actually sit. Obama should run with it, and play it up, making something like the following points:

1. There is a real underlying difference in approach here, not just a semantic difference or a quibble over fine points.

2. This dispute shows Clinton is still wedded to the demonstrably failed approach of 2002 and the past six years, the idea that isolation, intimidation, blunt force and wishful thinking - tough posturing as opposed to tough thinking and tough decision making - can substitute for constructive engagement with all the players in a vital region. It was the wrong approach when she voted for it in 2002, and it is wrong now.

3. The underlying issue here is not just a question of whether or not to talk with Iran and Syria. The fact is that the Obama campaign stands for a whole new approach to the Middle East, based on aggressive and pro-active diplomacy and hard-headed engagement, an approach in which conversations with Iran and Syria just play one part. Clinton stands for the politics of the past.

4. When Clinton and the Republicans like John McCain express fears about the possibility of propaganda setback flowing from talks with rivals, they show an outrageous lack of confidence in America's diplomats and negotiators. In talks between rivals, both sides are going to attempt to achieve a propaganda victory - that's a given. But there is absolutely no reason to think that America's diplomats and negotiators, some of the best in the world, would lose this game against the diplomats of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why don't Clinton and the Republicans support America's talented foreign service? Why are they personally more afraid of losing through talks, rather than optimistic about the possibilities for enhancing American security through talks? Do they lack confidence?

5. If Hillary Clinton is afraid to face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad across a table, maybe she is not the person we want sitting at the table.

6. The Clinton approach on talks is wait and see, stand back and assess, don't commit, don't engage and "until all the facts are in." Events in the Middle East are moving too rapidly, and are fraught with too much potential peril, to adopt this kind of passive attitude.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 6:42 PM

The fifty-year hissyfit with Cuba has served the US well, didn't it? Unless there was a devilish plan to ensure a supply of vintage cars in the early 21st century. But the US isn't really that well-positioned to carry out the diplomacy of snit elsewhere these days.

One of the most painful adjustments the Ottoman Empire had to make in the early 18th century was to its diplomatic style. Previously, they had never treated ambassadors as equals - after the end of the 1693-1699 war (against the Habsburgs and Venetians), they had to start doing that.

Well, that's an amusing analogy: Brad DeLong enjoys comparing the Bush White House to the Sublime Porte, but you appear to be doing so not in jest.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 24, 2007 6:44 PM

blah beat me to it, but to make the point again: What propoganda victory did Saddam score exactly with the picture of Rummy shaking hands with him?

Adam, I don't think you understand what is meant by "propoganda victory." Clinton used it to suggest that even meeting with certain world leaders could be used as a propoganda victory for those leaders. (Needless to say, with the exception of some rare circumstances, that is some seriously misguided neo-con-like thinking.) Clinton was not saying that it might be a propoganda victory for the opposing party (i.e. Republicans) in America. The Saddam/Rumsfeld example, if anything, is an example of the latter not the former.

Posted by Brian | July 24, 2007 7:11 PM

Team Obama, take some notes on Dan Kervick's post please. Your guy's first response was typically tepid. He needs to tie Hillary to Bush and McCain on this and do it today.

Another line of attack both Edwards and Obama should take starting two months ago--beyond Hillary herself, all the Clintonistas bear a lot of blame for this mess. In 02-03 Dem surrogates in the media advocating for the war, the so-called "liberal hawks," drew heavily on Pres. Clinton's ranks. While Gore was shredding them from the jump, Clinton and his people were 100% behind Bush. Why do we want these pople back in control? How is their judgment any less questionable than Bush's and Cheney's in the wake of the last five years?

Check Bill on Larry King responding to the Plame controversy in August 03 coming to Bush's defense (via Front Page, for chrissakes). This still makes my stomach turn.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9191

Posted by MSB | July 24, 2007 7:17 PM

Clinton's was doing nothing other than to come in slightly to the right of Obama's answer. It's a classic Clinton trianglation.

Obama's answer was one that appeals to foreign policy wonks. Clinton's answer is one that would appeal to xenophobes. My guess is there are more xenophobes than fp wonks, but maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by Jim V. | July 24, 2007 7:26 PM

more of this? oh please, hillary was right and obama was not only naive but wrong. "meet without preconditions in the first year of the presidency" with a rogues gallery of facists, communists and holocaust deniers? how can anybody defend such a foolish position. obama with his unity blather and belief he's going to sit down with castro, ahmedinijad, et all, and have a kumbaya moment without doing the spade work hillary pointed out shows his terrifying inexperience.

Posted by joker | July 24, 2007 7:59 PM

Right. The US' leaders can only meet with tyrants, tortures, princes, and thugs who are *currently* allies.

So, any number of oil potentates and Central Asian boilers of dissdents and Chinese jailers are okay, as long as the thrice-elected Hugo Chavez does not receive anything other than cowardly and hysterical denunciations by big tough hawks.

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2007 8:09 PM

The left tried to propagandize the hell out of that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Didn't do us much good. Didn't do Saddam much good either.

Posted by Jumbo | July 24, 2007 8:38 PM

Meetings between U.S. and Soviet leaders during the Cold War (not necessarily complete):

1) Eisenhower and Bulganin, Geneva, 1955 (Bulganin was the Soviet premier; Khrushchev, the party General Secretary whose total control of the Soviet party was not yet clear, was also present)

2) Eisenhower and Khrushchev, Camp David, 1959

3) Kennedy and Khrushchev, Vienna, 1961

4) Johnson and Kosygin, Glassboro, 1967

5) Nixon and Brezhnev, Moscow, 1972

6) Nixon and Brezhnev, Washington, 1973

7) Nixon and Brezhnev, Moscow, 1974

8) Ford and Brezhnev, Vladivostok, 1974

9) Ford and Brezhnev, Helsinki, 1975

10) Carter and Brezhnev, Vienna, 1979

11) Reagan and Gorbachev, Geneva, 1985

12) Reagan and Gorbachev, Reykjavik, 1986

13) Reagan and Gorbachev, Washington, 1987

14) Reagan and Gorbachev, Moscow, 1988

15) Bush and Gorbachev, Malta, 1989

There's probably a few more that I've missed. At any rate, this is to say nothing of numerous other high level meetings between foreign ministers, or between foreign ministers of one country and leaders of the other (Gromyko visited the U.S. a lot, I seem to remember), the fact that normal diplomatic relations were maintained throughout the Cold War, and that there was a fucking phone in the White House that allowed the president to talk directly to the Soviet leader at any time.

Obama's statement is, perhaps, a bit naive, but I think his instincts are right about this, and that Clinton's instincts are wrong. Of course Obama shouldn't fly to Pyongyang on January 21, 2009 for a photo-op with Kim Jong-Il. But of course there's just about no chance of such a thing happening. Of course the "diplomatic spadework" for a meeting like that would have to be done, or the meeting would be worthless. But the idea that it somehow "gives strength to our enemies" is ridiculous. Such meetings generally give strength to both sides about equally, when successful, and make both sides look about equally bad, when they're not. The whole dispute is basically silly and meaningless.

Posted by John | July 24, 2007 8:39 PM

In his 1961 inaugural, John Kennedy said "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." The Bush administration's postion has, of course, been the exact opposite: never negotiate except out of fear. I think that, while Obama's remarks were sufficiently ambiguous to open him to some (probably undeserved) criticism, he's firmly aligned with Kennedy's principles. And those seem like sound principles to me.

Posted by Fred from Pescadero | July 24, 2007 8:57 PM

The "propaganda victory" theme is partially true, but its our own damn fault.

When you loudly announce to another country in the hearing of the whole world that you're not going to even talk to another country until they mend their horrible ways, and then you backtrack on it, you look kind of stupid. And by extension, your enemies look more reasonable. The solution, of course, is to stop making stupid ultimatums.

Posted by Patrick | July 24, 2007 9:16 PM

Given the Clinton administration's track record in terms of high-profile diplomacy with your basic international rogues-gallery types (Kim Jong-Il and Albright, the Arafat handshake), she may feel a swing to the right is in order as a palate cleanser. But if the idea is that regimes we don't like are emboldened by such diplomacy--well, it's difficult to imagine a set of circumstances under which regimes we don't like are more emboldened than they are right now.

Posted by sean | July 24, 2007 9:28 PM

Wasn't it in 1989 that April something or other an Ambassador or State Dept. big shot of the first Bush met with and had her photo taken with S. Hussein in which some say she signaled that it would be ok for him to invade Kuwait,or she did not so signal but he supposedly interpreted it to be so, and that the photo with them was shown throughout the world with various interpretation of what the two of them meeting and being photographed together meant, depending on where on the political scale one was. Meeting may be productive, and the meeting and photos will produce various interpretations. In the end I believe it better to meet, though Hitler cleaned Chamberlain's clock. Perhaps on a lower level first to see if the higher ups meeting will be productive.

Posted by Jim | July 24, 2007 9:51 PM

Yglesias utterly flubbed this one.

The question was would the newly elected President commit to meet various other countries' leaders in the first year of Presidency.

The truthful answer is No! At best, one could say, I'd like to meet, but cannot commit to it. Anyone who said "Yes" is not being honest.

Head-of-State meetings happen after lower level officials have made some progress with diplomacy. That there would be progress depends on the other side too.

If the question had been - would you commit to send Cabinet officer level emissaries to each of these countries then the answer perhaps could have been an unequivocal yes.

Clinton was being totally honest here. Whether Obama misspoke or was naive, God alone knows.

Posted by Arun | July 24, 2007 10:26 PM

(I should add that I'm not keen on either Clinton or Obama as President.)

Posted by Arun | July 24, 2007 10:29 PM

Arun:

The question was "would you be willing to meet" not "would you commit to meeting".

Posted by blah | July 24, 2007 10:30 PM

Clinton 0 Obama 1

Posted by naijaman | July 24, 2007 10:57 PM

Meeting with leaders of other countries shows that you respect their country and are willing to talk with the current leader. Such a meeting will create some level of a personal relationship between the two leaders. If there is a willingness to listen, rather than judge, and question, rather than preach, then a level of cooperation and possible some common ground can be found. With a desire to build on that, the leader will set the tone for productive discussions between emissaries who will work out details. It all starts from the top. Obama is correct to take the initiative. The more odious the regime, the more important it is to begin the dialogue.

Posted by al white | July 25, 2007 12:51 AM

Those discussing the propaganda value of the Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting should be aware that at the time, Saddam was a freedom fighter for truth and freedom, just like Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden were during the Reagan administration.

This thread's discussion, however, is about the propaganda value of pictures of meetings with current rivals, not about the potential long-term propaganda downside of arming and supporting horrible dictators.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 25, 2007 1:11 AM

I thought the joker liked to burn Batman, not Strawman.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2007 1:30 AM

Matt has no credibility in his Clinton critiques, here is Clinton's quote immediately after "propaganda purposes":

... we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy, and I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.

Notice the words "high-level" and "diplomacy"? What problem do you honestly think Clinton would have with Pelosi's trip?

Posted by tib | July 25, 2007 1:37 AM

Obama needs to take the gloves off with wicked witch Hillary. Since the MSM seems to be completely, sycophantically behind Ms. Clinton, both Obama and Edwards need to be more strident in painting Hillary in the right-wing colours she deserves to be painted in. Hillary has (skillfully) inhabited this ambiguous space regarding foreign policy for too long, and the rug needs to be pulled out from under her. She cynically skates on the basic gentlemanliness of her two principle opponents. I'm sick of it.

I know that something is seriously awry in the universe when I find myself nodding in agreement with uber-right-wing radio tool Sean Hannity (don't ask me why I listen) in the afternoon when he is going off one of his fanatical, paranoiac rants against the Hillster. When both the Left and the Right hate you, you must be one fucked-up bitch. Although I think a certain amount of the current right-wing animus against Hillary is Machiavellian and calculated--the hard right clearly wants her to run. They rightly recognize that she, unlike Edwards or even Obama, would almost certainly lose the general election.

Posted by Warren | July 25, 2007 2:07 AM

How Hillary Clinton learned to be so cautious about providing propaganda, she committed in fact what she hypothetically accuses Obama of agreeing to at some point in the future.

NYT, 10/6/00: "Hillary Rodham Clinton moved to fortify her standing with Jewish voters yesterday, saying that she had made a mistake in attending a ceremony with Suha Arafat on the West Bank, and urging that the administration release classified documents in the case of Jonathan Pollard, the convicted Israeli spy seeking clemency.[...]

Mrs. Clinton's appearance at the Orthodox synagogue on East 68th Street underlined the extent to which her visit to the West Bank last year formed voter attitudes about her that were not, as she observed yesterday, to her benefit. On the trip, Mrs. Clinton was photographed kissing the wife of Yasir Arafat, after Mrs. Arafat, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli government of employing toxic gas against Palestinian women and children. Mrs. Clinton condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by a Jewish Week questioner whether she would have done anything differently with the benefit of hindsight, she responded briskly. "I wouldn't have gone — that's the first thing," she said. Mrs. Clinton said the encounter, which some of her advisers view as the low point of her campaign, led to "a misimpression about my strong feelings and support of Israel."

"I think it was a lesson that I certainly learned, because even though I was there in a capacity that I will no longer have, I want people to know that as a senator from New York, I will look out and defend the interests of New Yorkers," she said.

So Hillary Clinton (age 52 in '99) actually committed the gaffe that she accuses Obama of hypothetically considering - providing a propaganda victory contrary to U.S. interests. Sen. Clinton is wary of being used for propaganda purposes because she already allowed herself to be used for propaganda purposes. Obama was answering a one-minute debate question off the top of his head. Sen. Clinton actually went to that meeting with Suha Arafat and stood there without a clue as to what she was saying in Arabic.

I'm not saying Sen. Clinton agreed with everything said at that meeting with Suha Arafat (she condemned the remarks when shown a translation that afternoon) but she certainly didn't do "the staff work" necessary to eliminate being used for propaganda purposes.

Sen. Clinton's do-overs (Iraq War vote, NAFTA, health care, Suha Arafat propaganda meeting) and hypotheticals (wouldn't have voted for Iraq War if she knew what we know know, wouldn't have gotten into war if she was President in '02, she'll end the war if she's elected in '08, she'll deliver healthcare for all by the end of her second term) leave me longing for a less "seasoned" candidate.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 25, 2007 3:36 AM

Nix the FUB comment in my above post. That was rather over the top, and needlessly sexist. I guess my antipathy toward Hillary has increased as it becomes ever clearer that the establishment press and pundit class have her corner. It just smells to me, but I shouldn't over-state my dislike.

Posted by Warren | July 25, 2007 3:45 AM

One of the most charming things about Hillary and her "fans" is that you can always count on them to be really really really pedantic about ALL THE WRONG THINGS, while giving the impression that they're quite aware of how unserious their arguments are. It's vile because it's dishonest and insulting and a waste of time: NOBODY CARES what the definition of "preconditions" is. The Clinton people merely pretend to care about this crap, and as a campaign tactic that can only be useful if there are enough voters stupid enough not to know they're being insulted.

Pretending to Miss the Point used to be something we had to wait until the general election to see, because it was a technique only Republicans used to use.

Hillary "used to" be a Republican, though. Maybe that's why I can't stand her.

Posted by dcm | July 25, 2007 3:59 AM

This comment section shows how one's support for a candidate colours one's thinking. Clinton's answer was subtle, Obama's simple. Those who comment crouch into defensive and attack modes and create a false state of tension between the two and then hammer away at the person they don't like. Can we get away from the knee jerk response about the inauthencity of HRC and the purity of Obama. They have enough junk from the right. Can we support our candidate without denigrating the others in the primary race?

Posted by Alan | July 25, 2007 6:25 AM

I've not read all the comments yet, so I apologize if someone pointed this out earlier.

FDR not only met with Stalin, he was Stalin's ally. Nixon met with Mao. Hoover met with Hitler, though as an ex-president. I challenge anyone to come up with three bigger mass murderers than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, but U.S. presidents still found it worthwhile to meet with them. And all three dictators scored propeganda points from those meetings.

Every U.S. president except for LBJ met with whoever was the chief honcho of the U.S.S.R. at the time (LBJ met with the #2 guy), and this was widely viewed at the time as a good thing.

Its just sad that there is even a debate on this. Its called diplomacy. You conduct diplomacy with people you don't like. Are we going to invade Syria, Iran, and North Korea to impose leaders of our own choosing on these countries? Wait, I don't really want to know the answer to that question.

Posted by Ed | July 25, 2007 8:07 AM

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

...

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

Posted by Truthseeker | July 25, 2007 8:43 AM

You remember the whole spiel. At the time, I think most liberals -- and, indeed, most Americans -- understood this to be both unfair and also reflective of a pretty weird and wrongheaded underlying worldview. And yet, this is pretty similar to what Hillary Clinton's saying in her criticism of Barack Obama. There's this similar notion that the US can be mortally wounded by perfidious leaders having their photos taken with important American politicians, or that engaging in high-level diplomacy with a country is a reward we offer for good behavior rather than a standard method of relating to the world.

Any objective reader cannot find this conclusion from the debate excerpt posted above.

Posted by Truthseeker | July 25, 2007 8:47 AM

UPDATE: John McCain agrees with Clinton.

Matthew Yglesias forgot to tell you that Edwards also agrees with Clinton.

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

Posted by Truthseeker | July 25, 2007 9:14 AM

The above examination leads one to believe that Matthew Yglesias is different from a Bill O'Reilly only in degree but not in kind.

Posted by Truthseeker | July 25, 2007 9:16 AM

Posted by Ed | July 25, 2007 8:07 AM:"FDR not only met with Stalin, he was Stalin's ally."

Please. Associate. But when did FDR meet with Stalin? He got elected in 1933. I bet it was not until after 1941 - only the threat of a "worse" mass murderer could make FDR talk to a SOB like Stalin. Should he have gone in 1933?

Posted by Ed | July 25, 2007 8:07 AM:"Nixon met with Mao."

Although again not when Nixon first got into politics but when China signaled it was ready for a deal.

Posted by Ed | July 25, 2007 8:07 AM:"Hoover met with Hitler, though as an ex-president."

I defy you to find three people who think that was a good idea.

Posted by Ed | July 25, 2007 8:07 AM:"And all three dictators scored propeganda points from those meetings."

indeed. Not the least because they can show those pictures to their own publics and prove that there will be no help from outside because the Western countries support the dictators.

Posted by Ed | July 25, 2007 8:07 AM:"Its called diplomacy. You conduct diplomacy with people you don't like."

Minions conduct diplomacy with people we don't like. That is what the State Department is for. Perks are for people we can get something from.

Pelosi looked bad. It looked as if she was undermining the President's foreign policy. It looked as if Asad had friends in Congress. It would have dismayed democracy activists and shamed America. Politics ought to stop at the shore line.

Posted by HeiGou | July 25, 2007 11:49 AM

Do we need a bitter dog fight among our own candidates because we hate Hillary? Do we want to make it easy for the Republicans? Matt: it is ok to question Hillary but your gratutious assaults are a turn off. Do we want our primary winner to be mortally wounded by our own excessess: Edwards (rapacious lawyer),Clinton(traingulator, not authentic, woman) and Obama(black, inexperienced)? I have this feeling that our own side is going to do more harm to our candidates than the Republicans. And the MSM jackals are just licking their chops as we do their work for them.

Posted by Alan | July 25, 2007 1:15 PM

Alan: "Can we get away from the knee jerk response about the inauthencity of HRC and the purity of Obama. They have enough junk from the right. Can we support our candidate without denigrating the others in the primary race?"

Something I'm sure Clinton has not missed--the denigration she's getting from Obama supporters for being too "right wing" wouldn't hurt her one bit in the general election. In fact it would only help her, since she'd still get all the progressive/liberal/Democratic votes when running against a Republican.

Posted by cowalker | July 25, 2007 1:32 PM

Alan: “Clinton's answer was subtle, Obama's simple.”

So, there you go, seeking to play holier than thou and to stand above the fray, while seeking to throw stones yourself.

Such hypocrisy!

Posted by Justin X | July 25, 2007 1:41 PM

"Clinton, in the debate, said she would pursue vigorous diplomacy but she wouldn’t make such a promise without knowing the other countries’ intent.

“I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said."
-----------
1) I suppose Hillary made sure that the State Department had done all the necessary groundwork before she stood up with a rather bloody Ariel Sharon at AIPAC's 2005 conference: see
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/August_2005/0508012.html

2) Here's how the National Review described it:

" Another highlight: Hillary Clinton. (Get up off the floor, close your gaping jaw, clean up the coffee you just spit out.) She praised our military. She praised, without qualification, the explosion of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. She reiterated Israel's right to defend itself against terror. The Hillary who hugged Arafat is gone. The new Hillary delivered a Middle East policy speech this morning that (to my ear, at least) could have been from a Republican. "
REF: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_22_corner-archive.asp#064228

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 3:01 PM

1) I suppose Hillary made sure that the State Department had done all the necessary groundwork before she stood up with a rather bloody Ariel Sharon at AIPAC's 2005 conference: see

I'm sure an explanation of the difference between being one of 100 Senators and being the head of state can be explained in simple enough words, the question is will it be understood?

Incidentally, that is precisely why Pelosi's trip to Syria is OK, but we wouldn't want the President doing what Pelosi did.

Posted by Arun | July 25, 2007 4:15 PM

Re "I'm sure an explanation of the difference between being one of 100 Senators and being the head of state can be explained in simple enough words"
----------
A partially valid point, Arun. Except that Hillary has been running for President since at least 2005.

Posted by Don Williams | July 25, 2007 4:43 PM

Clinton's position makes more sense to me, not because highest-level talks are some kind of reward or grace, but because they should seal the deal after lower-level talks go through the minutiae of why our relations with these countries are so bad. In other words, Clinton's approach has more chance of success...even, I think, for one-man regimes such as N. Korea. I don't think either position, Obama's or Clinton's, is disreputable, and I wish they'd debate the issue more pragmatically since it's only about who does the talking rather than what's actually said, but if I had to choose I'd go with Clinton.

Posted by Rich | July 25, 2007 11:40 PM

Propaganda Victory

Comments (63)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories