Just as many of us were getting weary of the debates and believed that very little new information would surface, the YouTube/CNN debate yielded some real and important distinctions. The exchange between Obama and Clinton about their willingness to meet with hostile world leaders goes beyond politics and into real substance. 
As much as Clinton would like to dismiss Obama as being “naïve and irresponsible” for saying that he would meet with some of our enemies, the issue can’t be dismissed with simple sound bites. We now know the Clinton game plan: in order to undermine Obama, anything he says will be portrayed by Clinton as inexperienced. She wants him out before he can spend that money and give her a run in the primaries.
In the debate, a question was asked if Obama would be willing to meet without any conditions with the heads of state of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria. Obama, with great strength answered “yes” and went on to describe how previous presidents had met with hostile heads of states including Reagan, who met with Soviet leaders.
Clinton quickly said she would not engage in such talks noting that she didn’t “want to be used for propaganda purposes.” Over the last few days, she continued to attack Obama for his willingness to engage in talks.
Isn’t this how we got into the mess we are in today? By our unwillingness to engage in real dialogue with those who we have real differences? Can we really do any more harm to our current situation by talking one-on-one with other heads of state?
Clinton’s fear of being used for “propaganda” if she participated in such talks brings into question her capacity to conduct foreign policy. If she feels that she can’t hold her own in such dialogues and posture herself as President of the United States from a position of strength, then maybe she isn’t the right one to conduct diplomacy.
Unfortunately, this episode aggravates concerns about her position(s) on the Iraq War. When it comes to foreign affairs, she plays like a Washington insider. Meanwhile, it is clear that we need a new approach to deal with the problems facing us. In the debate, she also stated that she agreed with Joe Biden that we can’t get out of Iraq in six months. That means, in a best case scenario, our troops won’t be out of Iraq until the end of 2009 if Clinton is elected president.
How many will die between now and the end of 2009? Will staying the course that long increase the chance that Pakistan’s shaky government will collapse with its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists?
In response to Clinton’s attacks, Obama responded that what was “irresponsible and naïve was (Clinton) voting to authorize the Iraq War.”
No truer words could be say about Clinton. And now, as she has grown comfortable with her lead in the polls, she’s heading back to the center/right on foreign policy. This debate should remind us all that she was wrong about invading Iraq, she was wrong for supporting the war for almost four years, and she is definitely wrong for her unwillingness to sit down and conduct dialogue with hostile world leaders.
Subscribe
Comments