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.

"You'll have to ask Senator Clinton, what differentiates her position from theirs?" Obama challenged reporters in a conference call on Thursday.

Clinton waited a few hours, then fired back. "What ever happened to the politics of hope?" she said in a CNN interview, tweaking the optimistic Obama campaign theme.

Their tussle -- the first real verbal engagement of the Democratic primary between the top two candidates -- began during Monday night's debate in South Carolina.

Asked whether they would agree to meet leaders from hostile countries such as North Korea and Iran in their first year in office, without preconditions, Obama had said he would. Clinton said she would not. Clinton advisers quickly cast Obama's answer as a rookie mistake, and in an interview on Tuesday, Clinton referred to him as "irresponsible and naïve."

Obama, who has promised to run a "different kind of campaign" free of acrimony, did not shy away from quarreling with Clinton over the substantive policy question at hand. "The Bush administration's policy is to say that we will not talk to these countries unless they meet various preconditions. That's their explicit policy," Obama said. But he did qualify his earlier answer about meeting with rogue leaders without preparation.

"Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork. But the question was, would you meet them without preconditions, and part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no," he said.

By late Thursday, officials from the Clinton and Obama campaigns were squabbling on a split-screen on CNN over the matter.

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:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?





Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a untenured tenured perspective

Main home page
Main blog page
About Me
Search My Blog
Favorite Blogs
Book Recommendations
Books of the Month (Summer 2008)






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


Try advanced site search









Favorite Blogs

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 2008
May 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