The Nation: Why Obama Got it Right

In Monday's debate, and with the benefit of having time to think through her response, Hillary Clinton posed as the foreign policy sophisticate to Barack Obama the bold leader who did not hesitate to say that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. My colleague David Corn argues that Obama has committed a major blunder reflecting his lack of foreign policy experience.

(My colleague Ari Berman posted his smart and sharp counter to David's argument on behalf of those like Hillary Clinton who are "steeped in the nuances, language and minefields of foreign policy." But I feel strongly enough to weigh in on this debate.)

Those "nuances and minefields" can also be traps. Witness how far Clinton's nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

David may well be right that Obama's opponents will try to exploit his response. But from a foreign policy point of view was Obama's response so wrong and Clinton's so right? Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea --while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father's. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=217320

nice argument.

didn't she go to Syria?

I think dialogue and diplomacy are a good thing, but they have to be handled correctly so as not to be used a propoganda tool.

But the Question asked was would the candidates meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran etc WITHOUT PRECONDITION in the first year of their Presidency...

Obama bungled it...said he would...

What is the emphasis of that sentence? For Hillary, the "without precondition" may have been the crucial phrase. She is not saying she wouldn't meet with Ahmadinajad, just that she would have some terms or expectations. For Obama, he may not have really considered the preconditions part of the question.

I dunno, I didn't see it.

I'm an Edwards supporter, so I hold nothing against Obama or Hillary either way.

Did not deal with the issue as a monumental political blunder...which it was...

Contains a warmed over liberal criticism of Hillary's IWR vote, out of context and inaccurate in its analysis, And contains a simplistic and mostly inaccurate recounting of Bill Clinton's foreign policy...


Not shocking that most Nation columnists would take this position, what is shocking is that there is one who didn't

Corn is entirely correct in his analysis of this...

Just last April, Clinton said it would be a "terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people." Now she wants it both ways. She would talk? She won't? She's for diplomatic talks, yet isn't?

:crazy:

Add that she voted in 2002 for the authorization of the IWR, yet she seems to want us believe she has some kind of commanding lead on what to do with world leaders. Her husband refused to talk with Chavez and Castro during his tenure and look where they are.

She was duped by Bush. How can we possibly trust her that even if she met with "bad people" that she wouldn't be a new version of Neville Chamberlain? She can't shoot straight and her record proves it.

That is false. Clinton met directly with Chavez and sent diplomats to meet with him and his representatives.

"I sat down just like we are now with president Clinton on at least three occasions. There was no occasion for disrespect on either side." --Chavez contrasting the Bush administration with the Clinton administration

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_15_29/ai_n15979265

---------------------------------

Chavez then recalled how he was able to have a dialogue with President Clinton. “I received various emissaries from President Clinton,” said Chavez, emphasizing that such discussions were conducted quietly, “without convoking a press conference.” Also, the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela at the time, John Maisto, never said anything against Venezuela. “Now , hopefully, the Democratic Party will come out with the best it has, the best of its principles,” he exclaimed.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18042

Good for Bill....

She is always so spot on. This column is just another excellent example.

The moment you have to ask that question, the answer should be obvious.

...Of hope and change. And the message is getting out there. Hillary can try all she wants to bring him down, but it won't happen. His message is too strong.

is that HRC appears to support the Old World Order and Barack Obama will bring a new approach to world affairs with diplomacy and inclusiveness. That may be an oversimplification of an impression I got, but Obama continues to punctuate the not too subtle differences between the candidates.