Talk to Me

This is interesting. One way of looking at the little Clinton-Obama exchange over talking to "enemy" foreign leaders was that Clinton was simply trying to underscore her experience level by adding a little nuance to the picture. That seems not to be the case, as she and surrogate Madeleine Albright are using the issue to hit pretty hard at Obama.

And, of course, if you construe what Obama said to mean that he intends to jet off to Pyongyang without any advance work having been done, I suppose that really would be "irresponsible and frankly naive," but that hardly seems like a fair assessment. It's strange for the front-runner to go on the attack like that, and especially odd given the political climate for her to be going out of the way to emphasize the idea that she's substantially more hawkish than Obama.

UPDATE: And here's the Obama campaign's anti-Clinton memo.

Comments

Maybe she's worried that Obama may have primary strength because he looks more electable in the general than she does, and so she's making him less so.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 24, 2007 2:30 PM

This is BS, and frankly it makes me really unhappy about Hillary. Obama gave a perfectly reasonable response to a yes-or-no question in a debate, and Hillary then offered an obvious caveat.

Clinton and Albright know full goddamn well that Obama is not going to meet with Kim Jong Il a few weeks after he's inaugurated.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 24, 2007 2:32 PM

The questioner asked if they promised to meet with rogue leaders the first year in office.

Obama said yes. I don't think he meant it. What he meant was he would start diplomatic talks with them. I can't imagine Obama or any other US president meeting with the Korean nutcase.

Hillary answered the question using nuance. She said basically the same thing as Obama but because she used nuance she left her options open. No, she won't promise to meet with the Korean leader personally but she will have lower level talks.

They basically said the same thing. Hillary's answer was more nuanced and showed more sophistication.

Posted by DonB | July 24, 2007 2:35 PM

She's right.

After Shrub, the best course of action will be to follow tried and true protocol, rather than flying by the seat of his/her pants just-a-doin' what seems intuitive.

Posted by Blader | July 24, 2007 2:37 PM

I can't imagine Obama or any other US president meeting with the Korean nutcase.

So, President Clinton's choice between a North Korea visit and continuing to work on Arafat would have branded him an incompetent at best, a traitor at worst, if it had gone the other way? For that matter, Secretary Albright was wasting a lot of tax dollars on a high-profile show visit to the Korean nutcase that could have been handled at a lower level. So I'm just wondering how Senator Clinton derived her much more nuanced, sophisticated view while presumably being counseled by such pie-in-the-sky foreign policy nincompoops as those two.

Posted by mds | July 24, 2007 2:42 PM

I don't get all the fuss over this. What's the big deal about meeting with the evil doers? What are we afraid might happen?

Posted by blah | July 24, 2007 2:47 PM

Whoever the next Democratic President is should certainly meet with all relevant foreign leaders in the first year ("enemies" or not), if for no other reason than to establish that the last 8 years were an abomination and common sense and competence are now back in play.

Posted by Del Capslock | July 24, 2007 2:48 PM

Isn't this the same Madeline Albright who was mocked by David Zucker during the 2006 campaign for naively kissing Kim Jong Il's ass?

I'm sure she was pissed off by that cheap shot. So it should be thrown back in her face when does the exact same thing to Barack Obama.

Posted by Hesiod | July 24, 2007 2:50 PM

Of course, when you get tired of the Coke vs Pepsi comparison, the crucial moment of last night's debate was this.

Posted by Petey | July 24, 2007 2:54 PM

Petey links Trippi's video! The lion shall lay down with the lamb.

I guess these are the signs that the Messiah is coming...

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 24, 2007 3:05 PM

It's not about policies or programs, addressing important issues or even joining in the discussions that lie at the heart of America's current anxieities; it's about "looking presidential."

By continuing to woodshed Obama on this issue the day after the debate, Sen. Clinton is trying to raise her stature. Of all the candidates, she is the one who most needs to reinforce her leadership credentials and raise her "toughness quotient" with potential voters. This issue gives her an opening to do just that on two levels.

Welcome to the Big Leagues, Barack. You cracked the door open and Hillary and Bill knocked it down, smashed you underneath it and carted it off for firewood.

Posted by megisi | July 24, 2007 3:13 PM

"Sending a U.N. force into the maelstrom in Rwanda without a sound plan of operations would be folly ... The resolution adopted last night requires the Secretary-General to report back before the next phase of deployment begins ... these choices are not easy ones. Emotions can produce wonderful speeches and stirring op-ed pieces. But emotions alone cannot produce policies that will achieve what they promise. If we do not keep commitments in line with capabilities, we will only further undermine U.N. credibility and support. The actions authorized last night will help. They may save lives. But ultimately, the future of Rwanda is in Rwandan hands."

Posted by Madeline Albright has blood on her hands | July 24, 2007 3:15 PM

This is not "nuance". It is triangulation. And the Clintons are experts at triangulating.

Here Hillary is only proving her well-worn triangulating hand by trying to show to the doves that she may (under what circumstances no one knows) be willing to favor some sort of diplomacy, and to the hawks that she is one of them too i.e. never going to bow to “propaganda” moves by "the enemy". She is speaking, out of one side of the mouth, to the anti-war base of the party, and out of the other to the hawks in the DLC and the Israel lobby.

Obama, by expressing forcefully his opposition to the Bush track-record of refusing to talk to “the enemy” is taking a principled stand on the power of genuine realist diplomacy. This may not please the hawks, and certainly not the Israel lobby, but can win him respect among the wider public who are hungry for a change from the devastation that seven years of Bush “diplomacy” has wreaked upon the US position in the world.

Posted by Justin X | July 24, 2007 3:17 PM

And, of course, if you construe what Obama said to mean that he intends to jet off to Pyongyang without any advance work having been done, I suppose that really would be "irresponsible and frankly naive," but that hardly seems like a fair assessment.

Well, yeah. The problem here is you're assuming that since it's obvious that Obama really meant X and Clinton attacked Obama, Clinton must disagree with X. That isn't what's happening. Clinton isn't disagreeing with X. She's distorting what Obama said, so that she can say X and pretend Obama didn't.

This sucks, but campaigns are cutthroat affairs.

There are, of course, real differences between the two candidates, and Clinton really is much further to the right than Obama is. But this particular exchange proves nothing.

Posted by JP | July 24, 2007 3:18 PM

I might not meet with any of these bad foreign leaders, but I just might kiss their wives.

Posted by Hilary Clinton | July 24, 2007 3:19 PM

"Petey links Trippi's video! The lion shall lay down with the lamb."

Well, to be honest, while the Hair video was great, I thought Edwards' answer on triangulation was even better...

Posted by Petey | July 24, 2007 3:25 PM

And his answer on healthcare was pretty damn good too.

Posted by Petey | July 24, 2007 3:26 PM

All these countries were mentioned in the article as countries for which high level talks contain some kind of undefined risk for H Clinton: Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

If Hillary was being nuanced, it was pretty blunt and unsophisticated nuance.

There is any big risk at all in meeting with Venezuela and Cuba? That is a joke.

Iran, Syria? We must have comprehensive talks with these two countries 9far more comprehensive than the dog and pony show Cheney/bush is currently running), as well as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, in order to avoid the coming removal of US troops carrying very great risk of disaster. That is a no brainer.

North Korea, there is some point there that high level talks must be handled very carefully.

I would consider the above a nuanced response.

If I could detect a coherent plan or rationale behind Hillary's posturing, it would not be so bad. What it seems like to me is incoherent posturing to seem tough, with little content. In orther words, BS. We have had enough foreign policy posturing and BS. No more bush, we cannot risk it. This kind of nonsense makes me less likely to vote for Hillary, more likely to vote for Obama or Edwards.

Posted by nomoreBush | July 24, 2007 3:29 PM

I think it's amusing how people seem to nurture this naive hope that any next POTUS other than maybe Kucinich, Paul or whoever's the Green candidate is somehow going to depart from the establishment imperialist M.O. Obama, if the minute he's elected says "plan my trip to Damascus," will be railroaded by people who know better. To treat Hillary's fuller allusion to the way things work as evidence of being "presidential" is not only true and obvious, it's a historically consistent, precise characterization of why our foreign policy is permanently on offense, i.e. fucked. The U.S. will not concede any of what has been defined as its "national interests" without a fight; that means giving zero leverage at all to governments who oppose our "national interests." We don't talk to Syria because they support terrorism, yet we funded Saddam for years? Who is kidding whom about giving other countries free propaganda? It's literally sickening.

Posted by Bill | July 24, 2007 3:31 PM

um, how in god's name is this being hawkish? Though I do believe that Obama would do exactly what Hillary said she would do, he didn't say it. She looked great at that moment, and could of quite possibly won me over. Her answer could not be interpreted as Hawkish, just as Obama's could not be interpreted to be dovish.

Posted by jambro | July 24, 2007 3:34 PM

Her answer could not be interpreted as Hawkish, just as Obama's could not be interpreted to be dovish.

Could and will, dude. Dream on...

Posted by Bill | July 24, 2007 3:42 PM

Re "The U.S. will not concede any of what has been defined as its "national interests" "
--------
Actually, neither Bush nor Hillary will precisely define what those "national interests" are and why they are in the interest of the American people.

Because in most cases, the interests are actually just the interests of wealthy campaign donors -- not interests of the American people -- and the politicals need to conceal that they are using our money and our blood for the benefit of private parties.

Plus they can veil their actions behind a bunch of deceitful bullshit -- claim to be promoting "Democracy" in Iraq while working for decades to kill any movements toward democracy in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait,etc.

Posted by Don Williams | July 24, 2007 3:47 PM

The funny thing is Clinton, having the benefit of answering after Obama, is using her caveat as a way of looking tougher and more serious, yet is not actually offering any ways her actual policies would be different. If her strength as a hawk rests on rhetorical games, then that questions her skills as a hawk.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2007 3:51 PM

You're missing the whole point. What Obama said showed that he's simply not ready for prime time, agreeing to meet with all of the world's worst leaders, etc. The guy is clearly in over his head and all the rationalizations in the world aren't going to change that simple fact.

Posted by Garbo | July 24, 2007 3:56 PM

What Obama said showed that he's simply not ready for prime time, agreeing to meet with all of the world's worst leaders, etc. The guy is clearly in over his head and all the rationalizations in the world aren't going to change that simple fact.

Well, that's the allegation, but do you care to explain why?

Posted by blah | July 24, 2007 4:01 PM

This is the stupidest "controversy" ever. I think Clinton scored some minor points on Obama. But nothing that we will mean anything in the long run.

More surprising is Clinton's decision to keep pushing the issue after the debates. I don't find that to be a smart political move. But Edwards sure must be happy about it.

Posted by Brian | July 24, 2007 4:01 PM

How does that show he's "not ready for prime time"? That seems to be a pretty vacuous claim, considering, I don't know, Reagan, meeting with Gorbachev in 1988. Was Reagan not ready for prime time?

I mean, WTF does that even mean?

Posted by Michael | July 24, 2007 4:03 PM

"How does that show he's "not ready for prime time?"

I think Clinton and Obama are entirely ready for prime time.

Edwards is just ready to be a better President and leader of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | July 24, 2007 4:08 PM

It's strange for the front-runner to go on the attack like that,

I think this was actually HRC's only real mistake last night. It came off as defensive, at least to me. I don't think you have to be a high-information voter (ie political junkie) to see through this sort of crap.

Perhaps another small mistake was, after Edwards' polite, obligatory praise of HRC's 'life of service', Hillary's pointedly starting her answer with 'I admire Elizabeth Edwards...". Yes, the original question was about EE, but it was obviously meant to be rude. Churlish. The kind of thing people expect not to like about HRC.

I don't think it's a sexist distinction at all: there is a difference between being tough and being brittle and churlish. This is a weak spot for HRC: you can't prove that you are tough anymore than you can prove that you are cute - you have to just be so, or be percieved that way. Attempting to 'prove' it just raises questions. Edwards is smart to try to provoke her, and I expect to see more of that.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 24, 2007 4:20 PM

Obama offered the correct answer. Clinton offered the correct answer and made it sound more "Presidential". Who's going to get the media's attention? Clinton. And that is more than half the game. Obama was as right as Clinton in his response and intention, Clinton just said it better.

Posted by Fred F. | July 24, 2007 4:29 PM

I for one believe there would be massive differences between that Barik Obiesama and one of these lib Hitler Hillary types (how many are there Linus? at least three dozen: imitators, decoys, clones) based entirely on what they say because in the real world the foreign policies of presidents are based mostly if not entirely on what they say during the campaigns.

Posted by Linus | July 24, 2007 4:34 PM

Clinton offered the correct answer and made it sound more "Presidential".

Either more presidential or more waspish, more 'gotcha'. IOW, defensive. Why in the world would she want to bring up the notion that she might be used as a 'propaganda' tool for dictators? Of course she was implying that Obama might be naive, but I'm not sure that really sticks to him, notwithstanding his relative inexperience. The gambit could play either way for her, but it's a risk I wouldn't have advised.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 24, 2007 4:39 PM

If nothing else, this "debate" demonstrated that the office of President shouldn't be subject to affirmative action tests. What one saw with Obama was an inexperienced, over-his-head rookie making a stunningly dumb commitment to meet with the world's worst thugs and dictators. Sheesh!

Posted by Elizabeth E. | July 24, 2007 5:10 PM

If nothing else, this "debate" demonstrated that the office of President shouldn't be subject to affirmative action tests. What one saw with Obama was an inexperienced, over-his-head rookie making a stunningly dumb commitment to meet with the world's worst thugs and dictators. Sheesh!

Way to work Obama's skin color into it, jerk.

You're so right. Talking to bad people who happen to be the leaders of countries full of not so bad people is bad. Screw them! Thank you for your stunningly experienced, on-top-of-it insights.

Posted by Bill | July 24, 2007 5:42 PM

Dismissing discussions with Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran as simply meeting with the worlds worst thugs, or fearing them clever thugs will get one over on a poor president and score a propaganda victory is stupid. It is simply stupid. We need to talk with Syria and Iran, seriously and comprehensively, to try to save the situation in Iraq.

That such language could be used, that Hillary’s little BS talkingpoint could be even noticed, that Clinton may have thought it was a smart move, shows how simple, childish, and stupid national affairs discussion has become in this country.

I think the propaganda line was particularly disappointing. I suppose next Hillary will say she is afraid of being ‘brainwashed’ if she talks with these leaders. I hope so, since then she will go the way of Romney the elder, which I am beginning to think would be a good thing.

Edwards seems to be taking the Hillary line on this, but there is at least some context and rationale to what he says, it conveys an idea of what he would actually do, and his general approach. It not simply empty posturing. Edwards and Obama did better on this in terms of substance, if Hillary wins some media points, that would be disappointing. I would support Clinton if she were nominated, but I have less real idea about what she would actually do than Obama or Edwards, or Dodd, and the more she says the less I understand, which I find troubling.

Posted by nomoreBush | July 24, 2007 7:03 PM

Dianne Feinstein can talk tough, and convey what she thinks, what she will do and her undestanding of a situation. Clinton should get some lessons from Feinstein on how to look tough. Anyone think Feinstein not tough? I'd prefer Feinstein to Clinton as president,anyway. That would a smart tough president. She is way too corporatist for me, but at least I would know what I am getting.

Posted by nomoreBush | July 24, 2007 7:07 PM

Clinton was simply trying to underscore her experience level by adding a little nuance to the picture.

True dat. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-

Posted by QuentinCompson | July 24, 2007 7:08 PM

Well let me just get this straight now:

All of the HRC fans apparently really are committed to the view that it would be wrong for the US to talk with the Syrians, the Venezuelans and the Iranians because those countries leaders are some of the world's worst leaders?

Thank you very much. I'm liking this more and more.

Not long ago, we Clinton opponents were told we were wrong to suspect Hillary was a tool of right wing Middle East hawks. It was so wrong of us not to recognize that the new somewhat-antiwar Hillary for All Seasons was the really practical one, the one with a clever plan to "begin the process of ending the war."

But since the only comprehensive ways forward in the Middle East seem to involve either (a) a continuation of occupation, war and military pressure, or (b) a multilateral diplomatic offensive which will inevitably involve talks with all of the major regional stakeholders, including Iran and Syria, it appears we really were right to say Hillary was the most right wing of the Democratic candidates.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 7:17 PM

Re "Dianne Feinstein can talk tough, and convey what she thinks, what she will do and her undestanding of a situation. Clinton should get some lessons from Feinstein on how to look tough. Anyone think Feinstein not tough?"
-----------
When Walter Shorenstein was alive , he merely had to say "shit!" for Dianne to squat and start making grunting noises.

On the other hand, it took balls for her to stand up and support Bob Graham's intelligence assessment in 2002 at a time when the Israel Lobby was beating the drums for war on Iraq.

She and Nancy Pelosi deserve a lot of credit for that -- especially in view of the craven behavior shown by many other Democrats. (**cough* Hillary *cough Edwards *cough cough)

Posted by Don Williams | July 24, 2007 9:34 PM

It's not clear to me how much of HRC's hawkishness is real, how much is triangulation, how much is a desire to change her "liberal" (@#$%!!) image, and how much reflects a perceived need to look tougher than all the men. In any case, it continues to worry me, along with her apparent complacency about Bush' executive power grabbing.

Posted by beckya57 | July 24, 2007 10:38 PM

It's not clear to me how much of HRC's hawkishness is real, how much is triangulation, how much is a desire to change her "liberal" (@#$%!!) image, and how much reflects a perceived need to look tougher than all the men.

It really doesn't matter how much is authentic and how much is fake, because she will continue the same pattern after she is President. Even if she's faking it, or just trying to look tough, she'll go right on faking it and looking tough into Syria, Iran and beyond.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 25, 2007 12:10 AM

i think it was because so many commentators singled this out as a moment where hillary demonstrated her experience and expertise over obama, and her campaign is following the echo chamber.

Posted by max | July 25, 2007 2:41 AM

Hillary, having said this, simply proves the point I've been making over and over and over again. She hates people like us. She hates people who want to engage the world as partners, rather than as servants. She hates people who believe war is best used only as a last resort, and only when there's a true consensus about whether it's required. She hates people who think that the Executive branch is supposed to engage in diplomacy, instead of using the world stage to perform political maneuvers. The way she's treating Obama right now is the way she will treat the Democratic party base. She is no better than George W. Bush, trying to mau mau anyone to the left of her, and using diplomacy for political purposes.

Posted by soullite | July 25, 2007 8:04 AM

Beckya, if it's not clear then how can we possibly trust a candidate like that? This is what I hate about Hillary's supporters. Half of them are young women voting for her entirely because she's a woman, and pretending that the positions she's had her entire time in public life are simply lies she created to make herself look more manly. You're deluding yourselves, she really is this hawkish and she really is that right wing. You're just trying to relive the cognitive dissonance of being a liberal who's voting for the right wing democratic candidate by ignoring the fact that she is, indeed, a neoconservative.

Posted by soullite | July 25, 2007 8:18 AM