Obama vs Clinton: Left vs Right

[illinoisprogressive]

Matthew Yglesias linked to this assessment of the week's fight of Obama vs clinton. The article is right is saying the big loser is the media. they missed the point of a debate of foreign policy and focused on who was right or wrong. It was more conventional policy vs. constructive.
excellent insight:



I think the escalating rhetorical battle the two senators is perhaps the only helpful instance of campaign jousting I've ever seen. At the same time, I only think I'll believe that as long as Barack Obama wins, or at least puts up a good show. Because what we are seeing is, in as close to an unfiltered way as possible, a standoff between a status quo foreign policy and a much more constructive (though I hesitate to say new) direction.

Certainly what you're hearing from Clinton and Obama is a healthier debate than what you're hearing from journalists. Clinton's basic position is that Obama has, by announcing his intent to engage enemy leaders, proven that he's too naive to set the country's foreign policy. Obama, on the other hand, contends that Clinton's foreign policy ideas are too similar to George Bush's for comfort. As far as I'm concerned, I think Obama's argument is basically correct and Hillary's argument is totally nuts, but in any case both arguments are pretty close facsimiles to what the two candidates actually believe about foreign policy.

The press, on the other hand, is doing exactly what you'd expect. Conservatives are saying exactly what you'd expect--that Hillary's correct, and that diplomacy is bad and that nobody will ever support Obama's idea. David Brooks wrote, "He continues to attract huge crowds and huge money, but he also continues to make rookie mistakes, like saying he’d talk with Hugo Chávez." Charles Krauthammer wrote,

For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "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?"

"I would," responded Obama.

Liberals, of course, responded as they always do--by neglecting to evaluate the merits of the two positions and offering instead a maddeningly typical meta-analysis of the argument--one that defaults with 100 percent regularity to the idea that only hawkish ideas seem serious.

http://beutler.typepad.com/home/2007/07/obama-vs-clinto.html

[Honeycombe8]

1. This is a non-issue, IMO, created by media (and Clinton?). I like them BOTH...

and they BOTH will do more diplomatically than Bush.

End of story, for me. None of us can guess at what these candidates will ACTUALLY do, when the time comes. It would depend on a lot of circumstances that we can't foresee, and it would depend on the experts they use to advise them. But they BOTH have a policy and belief of using diplomacy much more than the current administration, so that is the end of that story, for me.

I don't care whether one will meet with a leader in six months, versus the other waiting to meet with a foreign leader in 12 months....nitpicky stuff.

Keep our eyes on the ball is what I say.

[Tellurian]

3. I disagree...Obama dealing with blacklisted countries would be disasterous...

Jong and Castro would view Obama-Lite as dealing with a 'babe in the woods'. No doubt, they are witnessing his less than acceptable (to Americans) performances in the debates and would be thrilled to take advantage of the freshman president who answers presidential questions as "almost" correct. If we think we're in trouble now...Obama-Lite would make our situation worse.

[Dhalgren]

5. Who has "blacklisted" these countries? Are they more "blacklisted"

than the Soviet Union was or Red China was? "Blacklisting" countries is not the way to peace...

[Tellurian]

15. Google is your friend...

[Dhalgren]

16. I found nothing that explained what "blacklisting" was or who does it,

except for Google, who "blacklists" some countries and it seems that the World Bank does this, too - and of course our progressive and enlightened US government (for reasons that do not stand close scrutiny). So you are saying that you approve of this "blacklist" and its purpose? And your candidate does, too? Good to know...

[Tellurian]

17. Don't embarress yourself by putting your words in my mouth..

and a little side note to straighten you out on my thoughts:

Here is the "skinny" on what the Obama supporters don't understand. Or choose denial as cover for their hero.

Obama was asked this question at the 2nd. South Carolina debate:

"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?

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would."

Heres what I think happened. Obama made the same mistake he made at the 1st. SC Debate. He doesn't listen to or hear the entire question OR he doesn't understand what the correct response should be. In this case, he missed 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition. He only gave #'s (3), (4), and (5) consideration before he answered.

Obama did the same thing here in the last debate:

When Brian Williams asked:

"Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

Senator Barack Obama responded:

"Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake."

Consensus of opinion is Senator Clinton gave the correct answer here:

When Brian Williams asked Senator Clinton:

"Senator Clinton, same question." (He also previously asked it of former Senator Edwards, but his response wasn't discussed by the analysts.)

Senator Hillary Clinton's response:

"Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

Technically at this point, another 'inept' response to a presidential question would be Obama's Third Strike against him.

[Dhalgren]

19. Hey I support neither Senator. But, to continue on in the same

failed stance toward the rest of the world that we have for the past thirty years is not what I look forward to in a "Democratic" administration. You guys have fun bashing each other, but don't assume that because someone disagrees with your candidate that they are a supporter of a particular other candidate. And also don't assume that someone who holds a different view of foreign policy is naive or needs to be talked down to. The massive amount of foreign policy failure and disaster over the last thirty years should make anyone, at the very least, be open to change or alternative ideas. Senator Clinton's supporters may be her worst campaign handicap...

[Tellurian]

20. I think your lack of truthiness is obvious!

and theres no reason to continue this conversation.

[Dhalgren]

22. Your insults have become welcomed! And with the last part, you finally got something right!

:hi:

[Tellurian]

27. I knew you'd understand if I spoke to you in your language..

:hi:

[Dhalgren]

36. And you get the last word!

:hi:

[never cry wolf]

37. Funny, I have the opposite reaction to the 1st debate answers

Obama seems to have the much more adult, reasoned un-bushlike approach rather than just retaliate. The first concern HAS to be the emergency response while simultaneously cranking up the intel agencies to first determine if there are any more pending threats and determine who is responsible. Once the latter has been determined a proper course of action can be taken in conjunction with the world community.

That is exactly what bush did NOT do.

[jefferson_dem]

9. "Obama dealing with blacklisted countries would be disasterous..."

Mitt? McCain? Bill Kristol? Is that you?

[Tellurian]

14. No, but you'll get Mitt? McCain? Bill Kristol? If Obama-Lite gets the Nom...

Not a very pleasant thought when the Repukes will make mince meat out of the defenseless Obama-Lite!

[Ethelk2044]

30. We will get them if Hillary hits General

[Honeycombe8]

33. Did you pick up on the word "dealing," too? When the candidates were discussing...

their administrations meeting with foreign leaders for diplomatic reasons. Since when does that become "dealing"?

"Dealing" is NAFTA and other supposed trade agreements with foreign leaders.

[Honeycombe8]

32. "Dealing"? Your bias is showing. He wasn't going to be "dealing." Bush admin. just met...

with Iran. Do you think they are "dealing" with Iran? Of course not.

Clinton said she WOULD meet with ALL foreign leaders, once she was sure she wasn't going to be used by them. And first she'd send her dignitaries.

Obama said he WOULD meet with ALL foreign leaders (the implication being "he" means his administration).

There is little difference there. Nitpicky.

Keep our eyes on the ball is what I say. They are trumping up some huge difference where one doesn't exist, because they HAVE to try to appear different to win the nomination. But I see little difference in their answers. They BOTH would meet with foreign leaders to discuss issues. Not "deal."

BTW...you notice what a losing issue this non-diplomacy tact has been for the Bush administration? Such a losing issue that Bush caved in recently and started authorizing his administration to meet with Iran and other "evildoers" for diplomacy reasons. Again, they are not "dealing."

[sandnsea]

35. Yep, Hillary "stay the course" politics

Just like Bush. Just like Obama said. Enough of this shit. Nothing would be better for Cuba than a sensible person who lifted the embargoes and let the money and ideas flow. I can't believe we've propped Castro up for 50 years by making him a bigger bogeyman than he ever could have done on his own.

[TeamJordan23]

38. I guess disasterous like the thousands of Iraqi children killed in the 90s under Bill's sanctions.

[rodeodance]

7. Bingo, nicely said

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Actually if it was done by better journalists it would be a discussion on policy views.

not a punch out. but, a discussion of old line vs a new constructive view and in actuality, when obama said he'd talk to them, he wasn't saying they'd go out for a night on the town without any prelims.

[Dhalgren]

4. Senator Obama is right on this issue. It is absolutely ridiculous to

say that the US President would not meet with any leader of any country. Senator Obama did not say that he "will" meet with anyone, he was asked "would" he meet with various leaders. He said sure he "would". That is the right answer. Why on earth would anyone support a candidate who said right out of the blocks that there is a whole list of world leaders that he/she "would not meet with"? We need a President who is willing to engage other leaders, whether we like them or not, this isn't junior high school, where if you don't like someone you ignore them in the lunchroom! Jesus, we've had almost seven years of that "isolation" bullshit and how has that work out for every one?

[Justitia]

8. No kidding. I am so tired of the "big swinging dick" approach to foreign policy.

Does anyone, anywhere, seriously think that we never "talked" to our adversaries in any conflict we have ever been in? There have ALWAYS been channels of communication between us and our so-called "enemies". If anyone doubts this, they are seriously ignorant of history.

Why the hell would we act like JUVENILE BULLIES (a la GWBush) by putting forth a completely DISINGENUOUS policy of "I'm not talking to you - so there!"?

Saying you would simply meet with world leaders is a refreshing step in the right fucking direction for once. It's not saying you would hand them the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for crissakes!

I'm sick of being held down by a dick measuring contest in lieu of real foreign policy advances.

[killbotfactory]

40. But ones an anti-semite!!!

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

6. what a surprise! Another blogger "agrees" with Obama...

Another blogger believes meeting with world dictators with no preconditions is a swell idea but going through diplomatic channels first and setting preconditions is "nuts."

Another prime example of how "progressive" bloggers simply aren't in touch with reality OR will say anything to make the "purity" candidate look good. Bloggers do have that freedom. Unlike established journalists and columnists, they really have nothing invested in their integrity and reputation.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Don't worry - plent of bloggers agree with Hillary too...

Been to NRO lately? And you can also find solace in the words of Mitt and McCain.

I guess Hillary has chosen sides... Now she has to live with it.

[pocoloco]

12. Where would one find these

"established journalists and columnists" that have not lost their "integrity and reputation"?

[Donnachaidh]

10. what a crock of shite

this faction crap is going beyond ridiculous. Obama followers have been calling Hillary followers Hillarybots for posting such shite with regularity.

So do we now have the surge of the Obama-bots? I guess it can now be assumed that the *O* group also collects checks weekly due to the amount of posting?

BOTH groups are pathetic. Juvenile. Need to grow up.

:rant:

[Ethelk2044]

13. Do not know where you have been they Have been calling Obama Supporters

bots and everything else for several months.

[ronnykmarshall]

18. I know you are, but what am I?

I'm tellin'!!!

[Tellurian]

21. You're Kool, ronnyk..

:)

[JerseygirlCT]

23. More about the "script" than about the candidates, I think.

I really believe the media has a vested interest in keeping this to their pre-crafted script. And that line goes: Clinton = voice of experience, Obama = exciting new upstart.

Doesn't matter if the truth is far more nuanced. They're not particularly interested in the "truth", just their "truth". It plays so much cleaner.

[beastieboy]

24. Obama is a lightweight. He will fade.

He is going after Hillary to get press. He got it wrong in the debate and he's being a baby about it.

[Justitia]

25. LOL - you're funny. -eom

[beastieboy]

26. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

I'm right. He's a flash in the pan. He was great until he actually had to be real. When he was a blank slate, he was everyones dream candidate.

[Ethelk2044]

29. Give me some of what you are drinking

[beastieboy]

31. It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

[TeamJordan23]

39. I guess you probably thought he was wrong on the IRW in 2002, also right? nm

[OHdem10]

28. This is a profound Issue----

Establishment Position versus Change.

Hilary represents accepted establishment position and she
knows and understands "Special Interest Groups". Example--
when Clinton Advisor Wolfson went on talk shows to defend
her position---First thing out of his mouth---you do not
talk to a Holocaust denier. Left unsaid but clearly there
Fla Cuban Community (Castro). I am not saying she is
Bush Lite and I really do not believe Obama intended to, either.
It is very clear there are Foreign Policy practices that
Hilary will not change. A Weekly Standard Writer--Hayes,
believes we should be attacking Iran and indicated Obama
is too far left.(Hardball).

Obama represents Change and I believe the Majority of
American People. The problem is::When have the American
People been considered in Foreign Policy. Things maybe
changing, however.

At this point I am in neither camp just reporting what I
pick up here and there.

[IndianaJones]

34. Left Behind vs Right on Time. nt