Decision ‘08

Diplomacy Or Propaganda Tool?

We’ve debated in the comments section of this very blog the issue: is President Bush’s refusal to embrace the Iraq Study Group’s proposal to allow Iran and Syria a voice in the future of Iraq, for example, stubborn unilateralism, or a canny avoidance of giving the fox a season pass to the hen house?

Now Barack Obama has stumbled upon that same debate, in, appropriately enough, a debate:

Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy.

Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama’s supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.

It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama’s team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator’s lack of foreign policy experience.

Thus says the AP, which has to at least put up the pretense of objectivity. But what about an unrepentant lefty such as David Corn of The Nation?

I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly “Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?”

If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot.

And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense.

We’ll let Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard have the last word:

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, the presidency is not in the bag. Even winning the Democratic presidential nomination is considerably less than a sure thing. But of the 18 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Clinton is the most likely to be the next president. And she did nothing last night in the bizarre presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, to alter that.

Clinton managed to maintain at least the outward appearance of seriousness in a debate that included a taped question from someone dressed as a snowman, another from a sanctimonious Planned Parenthood official who asked if the candidates had talked to their kids about sex, and an especially silly one about whether the candidates would be willing to be paid the minimum wage as president. Most of them lied and said yes.

This was the first of six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. Based on this one, there’s a long and tedious season of yakking ahead in the presidential race. With You Tube providing the questions and the candidates offering special one-minute commercials, the idea was to make last night’s debate livelier and more fun. Often, though, it was merely unserious, excessively cute, and frivolous.

There was a key moment, however, and once again it pitted Clinton, the New York senator, against Barack Obama, her counterpart from Illinois. The question was whether they’d promise to meet in the first year of their presidency with the leaders of such enemy nations as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

“I would,” Obama said, foolishly showing his inexperience, and perhaps his naivete as well, in foreign affairs. After all, he said, President Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and still talked to Soviet leaders. “I think it’s a disgrace we haven’t talked” to leaders of the five anti-American countries, Obama said.

Clinton benefited from getting to answer after Obama, and she made the most of it. She said, firmly and coolly, that she wouldn’t promise to meet with them. Clinton said the new president had to be careful not to be exploited by hostile leaders for propaganda purposes and not to do anything “that would make the situation worse.” Before any meeting, she’d have to know “what the way forward would be.”

The verdict on whose answer was better, Obama’s or Clinton’s, came from John Edwards, the next candidate to speak. He echoed Clinton.

Anytime you veer to the left of John Edwards, it’s a given that you’ve gone off course. Advantage: Hillary…

16 Responses to “Diplomacy Or Propaganda Tool?”

1 Fargus Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I think Obama’s gaffe was in not being specific enough. In large part, the context shows that he’s really saying the same thing as Hillary did. His “I,” it seems clear to me, means “my administration.” She was saying that she’d send high-level envoys to talks with those nations. I think this isn’t nearly the flap it’s being made out to be.
2 Mark Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Well, that’s being very charitable. I think the problem most people had was not the level of the envoys, but the lack of conditions. Talk for talk’s sake is no good, in my view, though I realize others disagree.

As an example, I can think of absolutely nothing of interest that could be accomplished by talking to Hugo Chavez. He is a particularly swinish example of the type of person who practically revels in his anti-Americanism. So be it…revel away…but we needn’t give the little dictator any more regard than he is worth (that is to say, none)…
3 too many steves Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Fargus is right, Obama’s mistake isn’t as big as it is being made out to be. It does show a lack of experience and possibly a weakness in that he is willing to talk before he completely thinks through his answer, but that is a minor issue too. Personally, I find his candor refreshing.

As for meeting/talking with all these “despotic regimes”, put me in the camp recommending that we keep our enemies close - the better to keep an eye on their activities.
4 mikebdot Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 8:40 am
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2007/07/maintaining_the_conservative_f.php

Personally, I think the public is sick of saber-rattling, hence their extreme displeasure with Mr. Bush.

Meanwhile, didn’t we just cave in and go back to the Clinton position in N. Korea? Hmmm. A lot of good that silent treatment did over there. The strategy isn’t too different than the “rose garden” strategy and we know how much that has been ridiculed over the past 25 years. You think history is going to treat Bush any kinder? That’s right, I just compared Bush to Carter…

And wasn’t it Bush himself that said his job was to catapult the propaganda? Sometimes they just say it to your face, which is cool.
5 mikebdot Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 8:46 am
And, for the record, tell Fred Barnes that the question did not contain the word “promise”. It was:

“In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

What is the issue in answering yes that you are willing? I honestly cannot fathom why you wouldn’t want to engage an “enemy” in such discussions as Obama answered.
6 Fargus Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Mark, I don’t think it’s “very charitable” at all. As mikebdot’s link shows, I’m not at all the only one to come up with that interpretation upon first hearing Obama’s statement at the debate. As I said, in their statements, the only real difference is that Clinton was more specific about what she’d do while Obama emphasized how he’d be different from Bush’s approach to diplomacy.

The only real difference comes in Hillary’s attacking Obama, filling in the spaces between what he did say, and inserting what it’s convenient to her for him to have meant.
7 Bob from Ohio Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I = my administration? “I” is usually used as a plural pronoun though my dictonary stupidly defines it as “Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer”. Guesss “I” should get a new dictionary. “I” meaning Mark, Fred Barnes and me of course.
8 Fargus Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Vapid as usual, Bob. Parse away without any context. Looks like it’s fun for you.
9 Bob from Ohio Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Dull? Me? Surely you jest.

You made a silly statement. So, expect to be mocked.

The question talked about Anwar Sadat making a personal visit, not sending an official. Obama
answered it in a personal way. The only reasonable interpretation is that he personally would meet with them, not “his administration”.

He made a gaffe, its not the end of the world. It may even be a better answer in a Democrat primary than Hillary’s.
10 peter Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
This whole thing wouldn’t have gotten any attention at all if it didn’t fall on a slow news day. It will be forgotten before the next time Lindsay Lohan gets arrested for something.
11 TWL Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Peter,

No doubt. I was waiting for the Democrats to start turning on each other, especially with one (Senator Clinton) leading in the polls and winning the debates, but this is just such a dumb issue. It was a silly question, and Senator Obama fielded it poorly . . . .and that’s it.

I find it especially weird because the initial attacks came from the Clinton camp. She’s in the lead, she just won a debate . . . what’s the upside to acting like a dick?
12 peter Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I would guess that the upside is appearing tough — remember, this is a few days after her dust-up with the Pentagon guy — she probably figured she was on a roll and might as well keep it going.

While it’s easy to dismiss the whole thing as posturing (and what is electoral politics if not posturing?), I think that Hillary has to walk a tightrope with no margin for error because she is a woman. Trying to maintain the right tone as someone who is tough-minded and hard-nosed without being a shrew is a tough putt.

As one example: Robert Gates and John Boehner have recently been weepy in public and lived to talk about it. (I guess we’ve come a long way since the days of Ed Muskie). Imagine the reaction if Hillary shed a few tears.
13 too many steves Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The best time to kick someone is when they’re down. Obama made a mistake, Hillary is taking advantage of the opportunity he gave her by piling on a bit. There is almost no downside to her doing so. People complain all the time about negative campaigning and the attacking of one’s opponents, but it works, consistently.
14 Gulf Coast Bandit Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Peter: Boehner went weepy in public? Now this I’ve gotta see. I never heard about that… nor Gates for that matter. Let me know if you’ve a YouTube or something.
15 peter Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Boehner YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhglL8_EnSc
16 TWL Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Going negative works because it should. Politicians don’t like it because they don’t like having their mistakes pointed out. But that doesn’t mean that negative campiagns are always and everywhere a good idea. In this case Senator Clinton looks petty at best . . . and I don’t see the upside. What is the left-leaning blogosphere saying? At this point in the campaign they’re the only ones paying attention - and my guess is, this is going better for Senator Obama.