In the past couple of weeks, anyone watching the news now knows exactly what Hillary Clinton (and some of her fellow candidates) thinks of her main rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama. According to her, the man from Illinois is “irresponsible and frankly naïve.”
The incident that prompted Clinton to go negative this early into the campaign was the recent YouTube/CNN debate where Obama stated that he was willing to meet with America’s enemies in the first year of his Presidency. His other competitors piled on after he said that he was willing to order troops into the mountains of Pakistan to fight the real war against Al Qaeda.
What is shocking about Clinton’s criticism of Obama is that she used to agree with him. In February Clinton said, “You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness.” Now however, Clinton wants to ridicule Obama for following exactly that policy. Who knew that Clinton had taken on Mitt Romney as a campaign advisor?
As Obama pointed out after the debate, he “didn’t say these guys were going to come for a cup of coffee some afternoon.” But he is right about the need for meetings with these leaders. In the past six years, the Bush administration’s approach of not talking with foreign leaders has done nothing to help the war on terror, or bolster America’s image in the world. This sort of policy is how middle schoolers deal with each other, not how the world’s last remaining superpower, and its greatest democracy should conduct foreign affairs.
America should never fear to negotiate with its adversaries. And at some point, regardless of whether we want to or not, we will have to negotiate with our enemies. This is especially true in Iraq, where we will have to engage with Iran and Syria, so we can leave at least a somewhat stable country behind. And as Hillary Clinton observed before she changed her position, negotiating with our enemies is not a sign of weakness. Ronald Reagan knew this when he talked with the Soviet Union at the same time he called it an evil empire. Richard Nixon knew it when he went to China.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
Obama is clearly naive about foreign policy matters. He wants to flee from Iraq, where terrorists are, but invade Pakistan, which is an ally. He doesn't know whether nukes are on the table or off. He thinks our military in Afghanistan is just blowing up civilians for sport, yet views this as the "real right."
Maybe the Democrats, if they want to be credible in 2008, should collectively take a deep breath, and seriously reconsider possibly nominating someone whose only real political experience comes from a little over two years as the Junior Senator from Illinois.
2 - RJ
"real right" = "real fight"
3 - REMF
"He wants to flee from Iraq..."
- "Tailgunner" RJ
Not true. Obama has repeatedly stated, "We need to be as carefull getting out of Iraq, as we were careless getting into it."
(MCH)
4 - Dave Nalle
To be fair, RJ, Obama did serve three terms in the Illinois State Senate and has travelled to various parts of the world, even living in Indonesia, and has held other jobs. He's better qualified than a number of presidents, including Woodrow Wilson.
What scares me is that he's 2 years younger than I am.
Dave
5 - STM
He's not going to be President. Age and experience notwithstanding, the big problem in conservative America is: he's black.
Same goes for Hillary - which means, unless the Democrats come up with a viable third major option (or even just a viable option, full stop), there will a republican in the white house again.
6 - Dave Nalle
What? Hillary is Black???
Stan, you misjudge the GOP. We freed the slaves, we passed the civil rights acts and we love our black brothers and sisters.
The keynote speaker at the Texas straw poll convention this fall is Michael Steele, a black yankee. If he's welcome in Texas, that says a lot about the GOP's acceptance of blacks.
J. C. Watts remains one of the most popular GOP speakers and leaders. If he ran for the GOP presidential nomination he'd be in the top 3 in the current field.
I've always believed that the GOP's best route to the white house is with a black candidate.
Dave
7 - Clavos
"The keynote speaker at the Texas straw poll convention this fall is Michael Steele, a black yankee. If he's welcome in Texas, that says a lot about the GOP's acceptance of blacks."
I think it says more about the Texas GOP's acceptance of a Yankee.
Shame on y'all!!
8 - Dr Dreadful
Ah, the lost art of diplomacy.
For God's sake, RJ, talking to your enemy is not the same as kissing his ass. Something Obama, rare among Yankee politicos, seems to understand very well.
As most great leaders through history have understood, talking to your enemy helps you understand him. What he wants. What his grievances are against you and why. What makes him tick.
So negotiate with him by all means. Make a peace if you can. But learn. It's easier to find out about your enemy if you're not expending all your energy and resources fighting him. Prepare.
Then, the instant he breaks the truce or tries to attack you, use what you have learned about him, and crush him.
9 - Dave Nalle
NIxon loved to talk to his enemies. He mostly lied, but he had a hell of a time, at least until they started lying right back to them.
Dave
10 - STM
Dave: "NIxon loved to talk to his enemies. He mostly lied."
Lol. Classic. On the other hand, Nixon did talk where he really needed to talk - China being the obvious one. He actually did a of good not just for the US, but for the world. He also took the US out of the Vietnam War, which was a pretty ballsy thing to do in terms of the way it was done.
Pity about the small matter of ... "deepthroat".
11 - Brad Schader
Obama, to me, has one major problem- he has been running for President since before he even made the Senate. He has yet to be a Sentator simply because he has been campaigning for President since before he was in the Senate. He may bash Hillary for voting for the war, but the truth is that he was not in Congress when the vote was made and therefore we will never know how he would have voted AT THAT TIME. Hindsight is 20/20.
I do not support Hillary, but she is correct about Obama- he is naive when it comes to politics. Maybe after a term or two he won't be, but right now he is.
12 - moonraven
I think Hillary is too green.
Her condemnation of other candidates' saying they would meet with Chavez is downright silly--especially when one considers that she is talking about the guy who:
1. Provides heating oil so that US citizens do not freeze to death because their own government has decided they are as dispoable as kleenex;
2. Controls what OPEC countries charge for barrels of petroleum;
3. Ditto for the largest petroleum reserves on the planet;
4. Ditto for one of the major natural gas reserves;
5. Is one of the most influential people on the planet.
The question here is not whether Hillary and Co. shold deign to engage Chavez, but whether Chavez should deign to tallk with ANY of them.
He doesn't have to. He can sell all the petroleum PDVSA can produce to China, India and a long lilne of other countries and cut off the supply to the US in a heartbeat.
Foolish, self-destructive gringo lemmings....
Time to flush the toilet.
13 - Nancy
Hillary is fast losing credibility with me; the more I see of her, the less I like her & the less inclined I am to vote for her among the Dems. However, thus far, I'd still have to take Lady McBeth over any of the GOP candidates.
14 - Dr Dreadful
MR, while I am concerned at some of President Chavez's power consolidation manoeuvres, I have to agree with you in general terms.
Like it or not, Chavez is Venezuela's legitimately elected leader. The fact that this was in large measure due to an election boycott is the opposition's own silly fault and they're now stuck with him.
While we're on the subject, it's worth remembering that America's other great demon, Ahmadinejad, was also legitimately elected. Notwithstanding that his win, as I remember, was unexpected and surprised even a lot of Iranian observers.
The same goes for Hamas in Palestine.
One of the ironies of Western (and I'm not excluding my own country from this) foreign policy is that we tend to be all gung-ho for encouraging democracy in "developing" nations - until those nations elect someone we don't like.
I well remember the free election in Algeria of, oh, about 15 years ago, which returned an Islamic fundamentalist party to power. America and Britain, which had promoted and supported the vote in the first place, promptly encouraged the Algerian president to seize direct power and nullify the election result. Consequence: civil war.
And still it goes on. Isn't it about time we started dealing with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be?
15 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D. you present a number of fine examples of why democracy is overrated.
Dave
16 - moonraven
Our resident [Edited], Dave Nalle, waxes lyrical again about the beauty of living in a totalitarian state.
Unfortunately, some of us remember that the US was SUPPOSED to be a representative democracy--not a shooting gallery.
Doc, US foreign policy has always been about installing and propping up dictators in other countries in order to grab their resources.
Now domestic policy has become its echo.
Don't make too much noise opening that cat food can.
17 - Brad Schader
US foreign policy has always been about installing and propping up dictators in other countries in order to grab their resources.
Not so much thier resources as much as an excuse to keep the Military Industrial Complex running. Do you think it is by accident that every world leader we support we end up having to goto war with?
US policy is simply this: Installing the Dictators of Today to Ensure an Enemy for Tomorrow.
18 - moonraven
Doc,
Just a clarification on facts: the venezuelan opposition has never boycotted a presidential election. The one they boycotted was for governors and congresspeople in 2004.
Of course they are reaping the results of their actions now, as the National Assembly prepares to vote on the constitutional reforms previous to submitting them to a popular referendum, but that is because they have believed that all the money the US has given them would result in Chavez being magically removed from the presidency.
Chavez was elected president in 1998, 2000 and 2006--in all three of those elections there were opposing candidates (the oppostion even united behind Manuel Rosales in 2006 but Chavez won 63 percent to 37).
19 - moonraven
Brad,
Actually, the military industrial complex runs BECAUSE of those purloined resources.
The US did not install Saddam Hussein, but he was their poster child in the 1980s.
But they did, in fact, install the Shah, as well as Augusto Pinochet, General Mobuto after the CIA took out Lamumba in the newly-independent Congo, Violeta Chamorro, several Guatemalan serial killers, the Somozas, Batista, etc.
I do not remember that they waged war against any of those folks.
Your axiom sounds good, but does not hold up under the light of history.
20 - Brad Schader
Mr,
They simply did not choose to make those people villians. We have always waged war on former allies. It is what we do. It is not just us, we follow the pattern. We did not create it, but we are very good at it.
Of course this is all opinion.
21 - Nancy
What other former allies have we waged war on besides those in the middle east - Vietnam? Korea? Japan/Germany (round II)/Italy? And before that, we warred against Germany (round I), Spain, and England. Actually, none of these were allies. It seems to me the business of setting up these banana or sand dune republics - arming & training people barely out of the middle ages with no inherited western tradition of 'fair play' or 'rules of war', then being surprised when they turn against us - is something that has developed over the past 50 years or so. And despite 50+ years of spectacular failure & betrayal, our fearless leaders, military & otherwise, haven't learned a goddamned thing from it. On the contrary, they never forget their mistakes & so keep repeating them over & over & over & over ....
Like this business of the military "losing" a quarter of a million (!!!) weapons + ammo. Oh - NICE play, Shakespeare. What military genius managed THAT one?! So why isn't their head on a pike somewhere, mm? Is this another legacy of that arrogant, ignorant, consummate congenital fool, Rummy? Or just another typical foulup by a military complex so swamped with assets & access to money they have a bad habit of just leaving all their stuff around, and at the least, not bothering to account for it. After all, they can always buy more; the US taxpayer cash cow is neverending for them, isn't it?
Where I work now, everything you get has to be signed for & accounted for. If it isn't - guess what? YOU pay for it. And if enough of it is missing or mislaid or unaccounted for - the head of dept. is held accountable, and heads roll - even management. Which is as it should be.
22 - moonraven
I believe someone said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over with the expectation of different results.
Fits like white on rice for stupidity, too.
23 - Brad Schader
Look beyond the 20th century. Vietnam and Korea were actually just part of the Cold War with the Soviet Union (communists) and they were an ally. Korea we are technically still at war with as well (a cease fire is not a peace agreement.) Iraq/ Iran were allies. Japan was not. They do not fit the mold.
But this really has nothing to do with Obama not being qualified to be President.
24 - moonraven
Wrong again, Brad.
It has everything to do with his not being qualified: He would just perpetuate the war-mongering bully on the corner posture and actions the US has been known for since its inception.
For a really excellent piece on the Iran Contra Gang's anti-Chavez desperation, see the Common Dreams sitre today--which also boasts a piece on Rove's legacy by a REAL journalist and great human being, Bill Moyer.
25 - Brad Schader
Not "Wrong again" considering this is an exchange of opinions. Please be care on that high-horse. The view is great, but the fall really hurts.