Dueling Memos

Marc Ambinder has the dueling memos from the Obama and Clinton campaigns on Iran. The Clinton's effort to deny there's a difference between the two when they did, after all, just take different positions on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment seems weird. Equally weird in its own way, however, is Team Obama's characterization of the difference as "once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view."

This is a presidential primary after all. Chris Dodd's already won my vote for Senate Majority Leader should the position come open. It seems to me that Obama needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy were he too become president and not that he has a better view of how he hypothetically would have handled Senate votes were he to have actually been in DC on the day of the vote. At the end of the day, this exchange helps Obama in my eyes, but it's kind of a glancing blow.

Comments

How is this a "glancing blow"? Do actions in the Senate pertaining to foreign policy not reflect in any way one's views of foreign policy in general - views that would presumably be acted on as president? Your post is utterly bizarre. If Hillary Clinton adopts a hawkish stance towards Iran from the Senate - voting to call their military a terrorist organization, blaming them for the deaths of U.S. troops, etc. - presumably this means that she would also adopt a hawkish stance towards Iran as president. You yourself have gone on at length about this. If Obama takes the opposite stance in the Senate, presumably that means he'll take that stance as president, as well.

So what's your point here? Why are you trying to make it look like there's less of a difference between Obama and Clinton than there actually is? Unless, of course, you're trying to talk yourself into endorsing Clinton, as the last couple posts seem to suggest.

Posted by Christmas | October 26, 2007 2:45 PM

Are you the only other person online who has figured out why Dodd is running for President? He's not. He's running for Majority Leader. Boo!

Posted by Paul | October 26, 2007 3:00 PM

Dodd is certainly not running for Majority Leader, because his constituents would first and foremost be his fellow Senators. Constantly calling your constituents spineless and ineffectual is not a way to win their votes. And by the same token, Matt, you don't get to vote for Dodd as a Senate Majority Leader.

Actually, I can envision a scenario where Matt does get that vote; it closely mirrors the plot of the film Billy Jack Goes To Washington.

Posted by Clark | October 26, 2007 3:10 PM

I can't tell what Dodd is running for. He's never really played the majority leader game (he's not even a deputy whip at the moment). A Cabinet post? Just because he's been in the biz long enough that he figures he should give it a shot?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 26, 2007 3:13 PM

The latest on Iran is that Edwards not only opposed Kyl-Lieberman (and really, with those two names on the bill, do we even need to know what's in it?), he also opposes Bush's unilateral sanctions. Clinton, by contrast, supports Bush's sanctions, as does Obama.

They all use the idiotic no-option-the-table lingo, but when it's come to actual positions on the issues that have arisen--the Webb Amendment, Kyl-Lieberman, and Bush's sanctions) Edwards is 3 for 3. He's managed to get firmly to the left of the other big two on the next war, which won't bring me much comfort should there actually be a new war.

Posted by david mizner | October 26, 2007 3:14 PM

He's never really played the majority leader game (he's not even a deputy whip at the moment).

Dodd was party leader a while back, no?

Posted by right | October 26, 2007 3:58 PM

Dodd ran for majority leader back in '95 but lost to Tom Daschle by one vote.

Posted by Andrew | October 26, 2007 4:10 PM

Agree that Obama should distinguish his position from Clinton - except he can't because he really doesn't have a position distinguished from Clinton.

Other than the fact that he seems to have less AIPAC supporters than Clinton.

The fact that Obama can call Iran "a serious threat" makes his position useless in terms of actually engaging Iran.

When is he going to admit that Iran has a perfect right to a nuclear energy program - with enrichment - and that as long as the IAEA is supervising, there are no grounds for sanctions or any other anti-Iran approach?

If he can't do that, he's indistinguishable from Clinton. It's that simple.

Even an Israeli think tank just put out a report suggesting that Iran is pursuing a policy of "nuclear ambiguity" - like Israel did - and would act "logically" in its possession of nuclear weapons.

And as a counterpoint to that, the Iranians have been saying that nukes wouldn't be any advantage to them in regional diplomacy, as it would sabotage their efforts to engage the region in their favor.

Obama, on the other hand, has said nothing about these nuances. For someone Matt accuses of running a "too nuanced" campaign, it's surprising that Obama can't be more clear about the real Iran situation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 26, 2007 6:02 PM

Matt Yglesias smugly writes:

This is a presidential primary after all. Chris Dodd's already won my vote for Senate Majority Leader should the position come open. It seems to me that Obama needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy were he too become president and not that he has a better view of how he hypothetically would have handled Senate votes were he to have actually been in DC on the day of the vote.

I find that comment smugly . . . well, stupid. Obama, a sitting Senator, "needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy" and his performance as SENATOR is deemed irrelevant to that persuasion by Yglesias. I mean, honestly. Is Yglesias really such a believer in position papers that actual POSITIONS taken in ACTUAL VOTES are deemed irrelevant by him? I'm sorry, that is just irritatingly ignorant it seems to me.

On top of it all, Yglesias seems ignorant of the fact the Clinton campaign was pointing out - that Obama (and yes, my man Dodd too) favored designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in the Fall of 2006, making their criticism of Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman a bit nonsensical. But of course, if your view is that what someone does as Senator is irrelvant to their Presidential campaign, then it maqkes its own twisted sense. But then, you have to ignore Clinton's (and Dodd's) vote in favor of war with Iraq in 2002. But then, Yglesias favored the Iraq War at the time. So his position maybe does make sense for him.

Posted by Armando | October 27, 2007 2:03 PM

Matt Yglesias smugly writes:

This is a presidential primary after all. Chris Dodd's already won my vote for Senate Majority Leader should the position come open. It seems to me that Obama needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy were he too become president and not that he has a better view of how he hypothetically would have handled Senate votes were he to have actually been in DC on the day of the vote.

I find that comment smugly . . . well, stupid. Obama, a sitting Senator, "needs to convince people that he would have a different, better Iran policy" and his performance as SENATOR is deemed irrelevant to that persuasion by Yglesias. I mean, honestly. Is Yglesias really such a believer in position papers that actual POSITIONS taken in ACTUAL VOTES are deemed irrelevant by him? I'm sorry, that is just irritatingly ignorant it seems to me.

On top of it all, Yglesias seems ignorant of the fact the Clinton campaign was pointing out - that Obama (and yes, my man Dodd too) favored designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in the Fall of 2006, making their criticism of Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman a bit nonsensical. But of course, if your view is that what someone does as Senator is irrelvant to their Presidential campaign, then it maqkes its own twisted sense. But then, you have to ignore Clinton's (and Dodd's) vote in favor of war with Iraq in 2002. But then, Yglesias favored the Iraq War at the time. So his position maybe does make sense for him.

Posted by Armando | October 27, 2007 2:03 PM

Heh!

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 27, 2007 2:31 PM

The difference I see between the two is that Clinton is voting in view of the general election, Obama seems to be voting because he believes what he says.

Are there similarities in their stances? Yes...but look at the underlying reasoning that goes into the two when they comment on those stances.

Obama strikes me as a fella that would think through situational decisions, gathering as many differing views/cultural and historic perspectives as he could before making a decision.

HRC strikes me as having an inner circle, not dissimilar to our current admin, that may have differing opinions, but all those opinions come from the same general, broad overview of the world and our nation's place therein.

She's a pol to the core. He isn't...he's not been submerged in the DC sludge long enough. That's why he's so appealing to me at the moment...he's not tainted...yet...if he has to wait 4-8 years for his next chance, it will likely be too late...he'll have gotten the trough eating plague that kills honest folks.

His not being a pol to the core is also why so many folks seem to be impatient with him. He's not going for the jugular as a pol would...he's not caving to handy catch phrase lingo as a pol would...he's simply speaking his mind to the people...hopefully they're listening on the ground as the media finds that terribly boring.

I don't want more of the same. I want new, thoughtful, innovative, honest straight talk. HRC can't give me any of those.

Posted by G Davis | October 28, 2007 2:32 AM

Until the first votes are counted, Obama is too insecure to stake out a clearer, conservative/patriotic non-neocon position on Iran. In his mind- he'll come off as Howard Dean desperate if he does. And, given the perception he's trailing Hillary badly now and so long as the major media follow and disseminate the AIPAC line on the issue- I don't see him taking on that challenge. The only quasi-national figure that seems to be talking sense about "World War 3" is Pat Buchanan, and as the Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite crowd always tells us- Pat's Hitlerian.

Posted by Trevor | October 28, 2007 2:08 PM