Hillary's late hit

[Ethelk2044]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/27/ED4VR86AE2.DTL

WHEN, in the South Carolina debate, Barack Obama said he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran and North Korea in his first year as president, he stepped into a cow pie.

Hillary pounced, declaring that in a Clinton White House, there would be no promised first-year meetings with any dictator or enemy of the United States.

The morning headline in Miami roared that Obama was open to meeting Fidel. In the Jewish community, word was surely being moved that Obama had opened the door to a face-to-face meeting with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust skeptic who has predicted the Israeli state is not long for the Middle East - and should be transplanted to Europe.

Pundits watching that Citadel debate scored Hillary the winner, contrasting her presidential sobriety with Obama's puppy enthusiasm for talking to tyrants.

Why, then, with press and politicians declaring her the winner, did Hillary Clinton have to step in and clock Obama after she won the fight?

The day after the debate, Hillary said Obama had exposed himself as "irresponsible and naive."

This gave Barack, who had been busy explaining what he had meant, an opening to declare that what was "irresponsible and naive" was Sen. Clinton's vote to give President Bush a blank check to plunge us into a war in Iraq most Democrats have come to believe was the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history.

Instead of Barack's impetuosity being the issue, Hillary's war vote is now front and center, her greatest vulnerability in seeking the nomination of an anti-war party. Her eagerness to exploit Obama's blunder also suggests a lack of confidence in her double-digit lead over Obama.

In the next debate, Hillary is certain to be put on the defensive about her war vote, and Obama has been liberated, by her throwing the first punch, to hit back hard - on his strongest issue, the war.

A surprising mistake by Sen. Clinton, who has run something close to a flawless campaign. But there is a more substantive issue here. That is the gravamen of the original question.

Should not the United States be in constant contact with those we see as enemies, to prevent irreconcilable differences from leading us into war? Here, Obama's instincts are not wrong.

During World War II and the Cold War, FDR and Harry Truman met with Josef Stalin. Ike invited the "Butcher of Budapest" for a 10-day tour of the United States and tete-À-tete at Camp David. JFK met Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna - after he declared, "We will bury you." Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the tyrant responsible for the deaths of thousands of GIs in Korea and greatest mass murderer of the last century, Mao Zedong.

None of the five with whom Obama said he would meet is in the same league with these monsters of the 20th century.

Kim Jong-il has not launched a war on South Korea or tried to assassinate its prime minister and entire cabinet, as his father, Kim Il-Sung, did. Syria's Bashir al-Assad has yet to fight his first war and has never perpetrated the kind of massacre his father did in Homa. Yet, George H.W. Bush welcomed Hafez al-Assad as a fighting ally in the Persian Gulf War.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Hillary's view is old line and Obama's is constructive

[wtmusic]

3. agree -- posturing is useless

Hillary is trying to appear tough and looking like a buffoon.

[NYVet]

5. I have to Agree with Hillary on this one

North Korea has lied to us many times and when we go back to them to get them time and time again to promise to behave and live up to previous promises, we end up looking like idiots.

[wtmusic]

6. The difference is this, and it's not trivial:

Bush has never met with Kim Jong-il personally (they have typically sent John Bolton or some other State Dept. lackey). Two leaders in the same room together, especially sharing a meal, is a wonderful recipe for cooperation.

Showing that fundamental respect is the very first step in successful diplomacy, and we'll never get it out of Junior.

onedit: welcome to DU!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[GeorgeGist]

34. Aloha

[Colobo]

21. Viva Obama- Peace Through Diplomacy.

[acmavm]

2. I do not underdstand people who are against talks, even if its

with a regime or government that we don't 'approve' of. Especially since no one approves of our own government anymore.

[ellacott]

4. I agree also

This is a phoney issue and it appears to be manufactured to show Hillary as tough and to try and knock off her closest competitor.

We definately need to meet. As you said, our government is considered to be a rogue nation to many countries around the world.

[JNelson6563]

7. Yeah, Clinton Camp has stepped in it

This clip says it all:

This gave Barack, who had been busy explaining what he had meant, an opening to declare that what was "irresponsible and naive" was Sen. Clinton's vote to give President Bush a blank check to plunge us into a war in Iraq most Democrats have come to believe was the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history.

Instead of Barack's impetuosity being the issue, Hillary's war vote is now front and center, her greatest vulnerability in seeking the nomination of an anti-war party. Her eagerness to exploit Obama's blunder also suggests a lack of confidence in her double-digit lead over Obama.

In the next debate, Hillary is certain to be put on the defensive about her war vote, and Obama has been liberated, by her throwing the first punch, to hit back hard - on his strongest issue, the war.

Rather lacking their usual foresight. Things are getting more interesting.

:toast:

Julie

[madmom]

10. Every time a candidate has to come back and say "what I meant was..."

I'm reminded of bushco and all there lies and "feelers" to see what would stick. I'm sure I'm not the only one, a president must be decisive, not what I meant was!!!!!(aka bush)

[JNelson6563]

13. You are right but that's no longer the focus

As the article stated, now, instead of Sen. Obama having to explain himself (ie "be on the defensive"), thanks to the criticism from Sen. Clinton, the focus is put back squarely on her IWR vote. This puts her right where she doesn't want to be; on the defensive.

Not a particularly insightful move and that in itself says a lot in my view. The article also correctly states this Clinton statement that handed Camp Obama this opportunity on the proverbial silver platter reveals a sense of insecurity on Clinton's part. This wasn't a well-thought out strategic reaction and that's what they usually produce. Not so this time and that leaves a scent of emotion based thinking as opposed to strategic or calculated thinking.

Should be interesting to see what comes of this.

Julie

[madmom]

19. whether or not it is the focus now matters not to me, it will always

be there, can't unring a bell. I will be leery of what he says from now on.

[Laurab]

25. Actually it's not the same as bushco at all - the debate

allowed little time for ANY of the candidates to explain what they meant, and sometimes the soundbyte 30 second answers are just not enough. I haven't noticed Obama doing the finger in the wind thing in his campaign, unlike some of the candidates, and I really think any comparison to * is way off the mark.

[madmom]

28. whether it's off the mark or not when I hear any one say "what I meant

was" I automatically think of bushco.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Wow--GREAT historical perspective--Obama wasn't wrong. Good read!

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

9. Good article, Obama wins politics and substance

This part

Hillary's war vote is now front and center, her greatest vulnerability in seeking the nomination of an anti-war party. Her eagerness to exploit Obama's blunder also suggests a lack of confidence in her double-digit lead over Obama. In the next debate, Hillary is certain to be put on the defensive about her war vote, and Obama has been liberated, by her throwing the first punch, to hit back hard - on his strongest issue, the war.

and this part

During World War II and the Cold War, FDR and Harry Truman met with Josef Stalin. Ike invited the "Butcher of Budapest" for a 10-day tour of the United States and tete-À-tete at Camp David. JFK met Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna - after he declared, "We will bury you." Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the tyrant responsible for the deaths of thousands of GIs in Korea and greatest mass murderer of the last century, Mao Zedong.

None of the five with whom Obama said he would meet is in the same league with these monsters of the 20th century.

Essentially Obama is going to win the politics and substance of this issue.

[hedgehog]

11. I finally was able to put a name to the attitude Hilary is projecting -

She is the epitome of the hard-nosed, clear headed, non-emotional Cold Warrior who stands ready to fight the enemy on whatever ground they meet. That's fine, but isn't the Cold War over?

[chieftain]

12. Excellent analysis. Throwing punches at Obama seems

to be a dangerous political tactic. The more I see of him the more I like him.

[beastieboy]

14. Oh yeah? Try this on for size.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/strike_two_for_obama.html

Strike Two for Obama
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- 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.

His explanation dug him even deeper: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

From The Nation's David Corn to super-blogger Mickey Kaus, a near audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity. She pounced: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year." And she then proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama's comment "was irresponsible and frankly naive."

To be on the same stage as the leader of the world's greatest power is of course a prize. That is why the Chinese deemed it a slap in the face that President Bush last year denied President Hu Jintao the full state-visit treatment. The presence of an American president is a valued good to be rationed -- and granted only in return for important considerations.

[MH1]

17. Charles KRAUTHAMMER????

:rofl:

Oh, and um, welcome to Du. :hi:

[glitch]

24. Can I join in?

:rofl: :rofl:

[zulchzulu]

27. Krauthammer is a PNAC signatory...if you even know the hell that is...

He is the enemy in my view.

[Tom Joad]

15. Olmert meets with Abbas, who also is a holocaust skeptic

and Israeli leaders stand with Rev Hagee, a man who believes that the holocaust was god's punishment.

Clinton cheered tyrant cheney/bush into war, parroting their line about Iraq when voting in favor of giving them power to go to war, that has killed ONE MILLION PEOPLE.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

16. strong analysis

one of the better summaries I've read.

[PATRICK]

18. Setting this powerful

issue aside for a moment what we see is merely two candidates wrestling with desperate political necessities. When they make a move out of this, a political destiny is set in motion and if that is based on fear instead of calm strength, they will cause themselves the harm they dreaded would undo their candidacy. Obama did manage to create a bad perception among a lot of listeners. Hillary was desperate for the final breakout to get beyond her lukewarm lead and sink he closest rival in the bargain. She HAS to do something about her major holding point sometime. It is conceivable that she can coast in the groove all the way to the White House, but very very unlikely once the race tightens around her.

The major underlying flaw I see here is a betrayal of a lack of confidence in each their campaign, not uncommon to any mere mortal purporting to lead this country. While doing what they had to do and using their heads- generally, but without enough meditation- the sum total of everything detracts from the confidence(self or voter) issue. This is the kind of heat that was never forced upon moronic Bushco in the early years. But the last laugh on this particular point belongs to the one who finds the heat.

Getting back to the issue question though, Obama has done some damage to himself among particular voters. In the main though he may have gotten back to his strength and scored points because Hillary unwisely added more rounds to the fight.

What is equally entertaining is for the electorate to fly from the big issue like good thoughtful Democrats to the raw political staging and back and forth, confusing the two. You wonder who is getting dizzy from all the traded blows.

And it is only July! Apparently this will not be a coronation or a hugfest. Ah politics, Dem style.

[Forkboy]

20. I was speaking with two buddys last night about this.

First,I have to say that none of like us like either Obama or Hillary.But we talked about this and both of them think Obama is the one who is right on this,and one of my friends said that was buzz around his office yesterday as well.

Thought you guys might like to hear that. :)

[autorank]

22. I think Obama's statesmanship reflected well on him. Iraq changes

everything but the permanent parlaiment doesn't get it...there are many, many people out there, from
NASCAR fans to leftists who think it's time for something different, like talking instead of a bunch
of bull shit.

As for 'naive' - that's a cheap shot. 'Naive' is voting Bush's Iraq Resolution up, which Hillary did
and Obama didn't.

This is an interesting article - but lets see if Obama goes back at her from the Iraq angle.

Could be a knock down, mandatory 8 count.

This ups Obama's credibility signficantly with the public. That's why the media script readers
are fabricating a different story.

The people have had it.

[TeamJordan23]

23. We need a new approach to foreign policy. Obama is the best to bring in change. nm

[zulchzulu]

26. Exactly as I had said... her IWR vote is now front and center and a full issue

She jumped the shark and now Obama can bring up her vote again and again and again...

The commercial:

FDR and Harry Truman met with Josef Stalin
Ike invited Kruschev, the "Butcher of Budapest"
JFK met Nikita Khrushchev
Richard Nixon met Mao Zedong
Reagan met Gorbachev
BIll Clinton met with Hugo Chavez

Were they all wrong?

Um...Team Clinton...ya got an answer?

:rofl:

[Ethelk2044]

31. Good Point

[DutchLiberal]

29. Why is Hugo in the same row as Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il?

He doesn't belong in a row of dictators. And why are none of the Democratic candidates pointing that out?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. People know HRC voted for the IWR, just like they knew Kerry did and Dean opposed it... nt

[jefferson_dem]

32. True...but a much larger % of the public is opposed to the war now compared to 2004. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Valid point but remember the IWR was a bigger deal in the 2003-2004 primary campaign than it is now

Remember Dean ticking off the list of his rivals who voted for the IWR (and also include Clark on the list)? Look at what happened... The other thing Obama seems to forget is that 70% of the public supported the IWR. About 1/3 always opposed the war, 1/3 still support the war. It is that middle third that supported the IWR but is not against the war that is key. Calling HRC "naive and irresponsible" for voting for the IWR, and by extension calling anyone who supported the IWR "naive and irresponsible", is not exactly going to win over the middle third who once favored the war and now oppose it.

The IWR can help Obama. Without the IWR I doubt he would be in second in the polls right now, although I think he would be close to Edwards since much of his appeal has nothing to do with the IWR. However, one thing Team Obama at DU (and perhaps the Obama campaign too) does not recognize is the IWR card has its limits. The IWR can help Obama win votes but it is not going to hand him the nomination on a silver platter. I think Obama needs to find a real issue to distinguish himself from HRC if he is to take the next step and overtake her. He has appealing "new kind of politics" and "unity" themes but those are vague abstractions. He needs a concrete issue to separate himself from HRC.