![]() |
|
Friday, July 27, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
A great way to referee the Obama-Clinton debate
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been a fussin' and a feudin' since their disagreement at the YouTube debate over whether they would be willing to negotiate with foreign dictators. The Washington Post's campaign blog summarizes the state of play: Sen. Barack Obama accused Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of taking the same closed-door approach as President Bush in handling rogue states.Now campaign reporters love this sort of thing, for obvious reasons. For the rest of us, it's still too damn early. However, this particular tiff provides a great way to divine whether there's a real difference in their foreign policy approaches. Campaign reporters, please steal the following question from this blog and pose it to both the Clinton and Obama camps: Yesterday Cuban leader Raul Castro signaled his willingness to negotiate with the person who succeeds George W. Bush as president. This is the third time Castro has stated this desire since assuming power a year ago. If elected, would your administration be willing to negotiate directly with the communist regime in Havana? Would you be willing to meet with Castro personally? Would you attach any preconditions to such a meeting?posted by Dan on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM Comments: Absolutely. Positively. And no preconditions of any kind except that we will only surrender Florida, and southern Georgia maybe. If Castro insists on taking over Atlanta too, then forget it. Unless it would really, really help world peace, and in any event we draw the line at the Kentucky border, because Democrats are tough on national security and don't you forget it. posted by: Zathras on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]We know exactly why no candidate will pledge that, not even Obama, and that is the cuban-american vote. Its a damn shame too because I always wanted to visit Havana. posted by: David Quartner on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]I find it amusing, in light of this debate, how forthright Europe and the United States now are with wanting to invest in Libya. Its also amusing that for all this talk about Venezuela, trade with Venezuela has increased steadily over the past few years. posted by: David Quartner on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]The Bush administration's practice of simply not talking to people it doesn't like could be described as the grumpy toddler approach to foreign policy. Unfortunately the administration has always assumed 'talk with' is the same as 'make concessions to' and acted accordingly. The difficulty with this approach is that stony silence is an extremely ineffective method of persuasion. 'Would you meet with Castro?' is really the wrong question to ask. After all meeting with a foreign head of state, regardless of any personal feelings about that individual, is an entirely normal thing for the leader of a civilized country to do. A much better question would be, 'If you were to meet with Castro, what would say?' Mr Obama is often a little lite on specifics so he may not have thought this one through. Hopefully he has in mind a carefully considered package of carrots and sticks. In any case, if we were really interested in determining what kind of president Mr Obama might be we should asking real policy questions rather discussing his willingness to shake Mr Castro's hand. posted by: Steve on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]So basically, Hillary didn't answer the question as to how her position is different than the Cheney/Bush regime. posted by: Shawn on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]Z: We could use some better cuban restaurants here in Atlanta. What's a few civil liberties, when a treaty will give us both piece and a decent ropa vieja? posted by: Appalled Moderate on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]What preconditions are Obama willing to meet in order to meet with Iran, North Korea, and Cuba? At least one of Raul's is very easy for Obama--anyone but Bush. posted by: Sam on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]Now Edwards is starting to get in on attacking Clinton too. Obama and Clinton are making gains and Edwards is dropping off. We also have Thompson and Romney attacking Giuliani. It will get more vicious as we get closer to the primaries. -stuart posted by: political forum on 07.27.07 at 08:06 AM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a
Main home page Reviews of DanielDrezner.com: "Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic "Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan "Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh "One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com "Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com "Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni "Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald "Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers Contact me at: ddrezner@gmail.com (But click here to read my e-mail policy) Search the Site TNR's Open University Jacob Levy Glenn Reynolds Andrew Sullivan Mickey Kaus Virginia Postrel The Volokh Conspiracy Josh Marshall Crooked Timber OxBlog Real Clear Politics Kevin Drum Across the Aisle Economist's Free Exchange TNR's The Plank NRO's The Corner TAP's Tapped America Abroad Duck of Minerva Opinio Juris Brad DeLong Jeff Jarvis Mystery Pollster Mark Kleiman Meryl Yourish Megan McArdle Marginal Revolution Michael Munger Chris Lawrence Matthew Yglesias Hit and Run Cold Spring Shops Stephen Green Outside the Beltway Pejman Yousefzadeh Laura McKenna (11D) Elected Swineherd Phil Carter Joe Gandelman Winds of Change Andrew Samwick Greg Mankiw Dani Rodrik Roger L. Simon Tom Maguire Greg Djerejian The American Scene Post Global Democracy Arsenal Recent articles online "Foreign Policy Goes Glam."The National Interest, November/December 2007 "Rise of the Hipster Statesmen." Newsweek International, November 1, 2007 "The New New World Order." Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 "Mind the Gap." The National Interest, January/February 2007 "The Grandest Strategy Of Them All." Washington Post, December 17, 2006 U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006. Complete online article archive Blog Archives June 2008May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Academia Area studies Book club culture economics fence-sitting from Blogger globalization homeland security international relations law Mediasphere My very important posts New Republic outsourcing personal politics Sports The blog paper the blogosphere thesis ideas Trade and Development U.S. foreign policy website maintenance See full archives listing Recent Entries • Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton• It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you • So.... are the Clintons morons? • The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog • Monica Crowley's jet black pot • Al Qaeda is losing • Speaking of karma.... • The blog post that writes itself • What made me laugh today • Where should Hillary go? Site Credits |