Obama Leaves Out Caveat… Now His Defense is Offensive
by Pamela LeaveyI hate to belabour the Obama-Clinton fued over foreign policy any further, but I just ran across an interesting piece related to the kerfluffle, that I think is important enough to continue the conversation here.
Obama has gone to great lengths to distinguish himself as having a position different from Hillary Clinton’s “foreign policy approach,” but in fact, it turns out that Obama held the same position in a “pre-debate interview with the Miami Herald.”
In a pre-debate interview with a columnist for the Miami Herald, Obama said that he would meet with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez but he stipulated that he would only do so “under certain conditions.”
“Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking,” Obama told the Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer. “Sometimes it’s more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends.”
But once he reached the Democratic presidential debate, his position seemed to change.
Asked if he would be willing to meet separately “without precondition” during the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama said, “I would.”
So, what’s it all about Barack? Obviously you left out the “caveat” in your response in the YouTube debate, and now backed into a corner, your defense is offensive.
The whole “Bush-Cheney Lite” comparison is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton voting record with the ADA for the past two years (‘06 — ‘05), is the same as Obama’s. Neither even register in the Moderate or Centrist category, yet, Obama found it neccessary to get in a huff and make that wild assertion.
Today, Obama claimed at the National Urban League Convention that his “presidency would unleash a ‘transformation.’”
Well, I think Obama needs to be clear with voters that his position was in fact the same as Hillary Clinton’s and step up to the plate and apologize for his comments about her. They were offensive. Offensive to the political debate that should be about truth and honesty, offensive to the political debate that should be taken to a step above the name-calling used so prevently by the other party. The transformation can only come if we don’t stoop to their level of political debate.
UPDATE: From Marc Ambinder on Atlantic Online:
It’s not clear the circumstances Obama was thinking about when he was being interviewed by the Herald writer are akin to diplomatic “preconditions” — perhaps he simply meant he would not immediately invite Chavez to the White House… but use of the word “conditions” does sound like Hillary Clinton’s. Mr. Obama has tried to force some daylight into the two approaches: hers is allegedly “Bush-Lite” — but he will now be challenged to describe how his conditions differ from hers. (One clue as to how he might respond: Obama said on a Thursday conference call with reporters that Clinton is “somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon. From what I heard the point was… well, I wouldn’t do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points. I think that is absolutely wrong.”)
And a further apparent complication, particularly if you’re getting your news from soundbites. Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton was asked by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermnann whether she’d “reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians.” Yes, she said, and “I don’t see that as a sign of weakness, I see it as a sign of strength. … I would immediately open a Democratic track.”
Conclusion: Clinton will open a diplomatic track immediately; Obama would meet, quickly, directly with the principals themselves, provided he was satisfied he was not a propaganda tool.
I think we’re all arguing apples and oranges here and in my opinion, the spat got out of hand when Obama leveled the “Bush Cheney Lite” comment. I would feel the same way if the table was turned.
RELATED POSTS:
Filed under: Bush Admin, Democrats, Election '08, Foreign Policy, In The News, Politics, Republicans | Get Permalink or trackback |
If he did apologize, he would show his very high superiority on Hillary (he is already very superior by understanding why his position is better than hers).
I am still waiting for Hillary to apologize to a certain senator for stabbing him in the back when he was not even running against her.
The naive comment by Hillary was totally unwarranted. They have a serious policy disagreement, whatever the columnist may have understood, and it would be worth debating: are we going to continue with the “neocon” frame (all that is not with us is against us” who is directly responsible for the election of the Iranian president and of Hamas, or are we change the frame, discuss with people which may not agree 100 % with us because their interests may be slightly different, before we antagonize so much that they look like ennemies?
Vote records are often misleading. Some of Kerry’s votes may make think he is a neo-con (votes on Cuba for example). We need to understand the underlying philosophy if we want to know what a person would do if they could define the policy. The underlying tone of the two candidates and the two campaigns allow us to understand the difference very well.
Mass, the “Bush-Cheney lite” comment was completely insulting and comming from Obama, derogotory. The fact that Obama changed his position in a matter of on day all for the means of political gain shows he is no different than any other politician, you can’t argue with that.
Clinton made the first, move, which was valid, then Obama made the second, which too was valid, but then he pushed it into something that was offensive, now he is pushed into a corner.
Mass
The point is, as the ABC News blog pointed out, Obama’s position and Hillary’s position are very similar.
Marc Ambinder noted in the Atlantic that Hillary has already come out with a position on this months ago on Olbermann, that looks Obama’s position look weak:
The ADA ranks Hillary and Obama with a 95% liberal voting record. JK has 100%. They rank liberal voting positions, it’s not a voting record that is neccessarily misleading considering their criteria.
I get that Kerry supporters are still pissed about Hillary’s statement after the bothched joke, so am I. But that doesn’t discount that Obama’s comments were rude.
And honestly, I look at the fact that JK rose above what Hillary said and defended her last week when the GOP went after her. Obama calling her Bush Cheney lite is far worse in my opinion that her saying he is naive.
I still don’t see the difference between the two positions as significant, nor even the difference between what Obama said the day before and what he said the night of the debate.
Under certain conditions – like not being used for political gain and having the meetings set up with negotiations by the diplomats of both countries – Obama would meet with the ‘enemies’.
He would not set pre-conditions such as ‘you have to shut down your nuclear program before I will talk with you’.
Many of us have been concerned about Obama’s inexperience and I won’t let it go. I would like to give him a chance to learn what everyone – including Kerry and Bill Clinton – have had to learn in a national campaign.
And I stand by my numerical rating I posted earlier. Compared to the other Dem candidates, Hillary’s negatives are way too low. There has been a lot of frustration from the grassroots about the ’spineless’ Congress not doing what they were elected to do. I think they are working pretty hard at it – we have had more stuff coming out than anyone can keep up with and the polls have gone from 10% of Americans wanting Bush Impeached last fall to 45%.
We could elect a Democrat to the WH who would do so little, or would mismanage, misdirect what we do so poorly, the country will not get turned around in the time and direction it needs. There’s a tipping point when nothing will get us back to a reasonable future.
Hillary Clinton does not give me any confidence that she will keep us from getting to the tipping point.
I think this issue has been overblown and overanalyzed. People need to realize that Hillary will have to take the heat like any other candidate. And believe me, she can defend herself.
I see her attempt to belittle Obama’s response – to upstage him on national TV by showing she knows the process and she’s ready to work from day one – provided a necessary comeback from Obama. Not to mention she called him naive and irresponsible in an interview. Come on, do we really think that any candidate on that stage would jump on a plane on day one and meet with a so-called rogue leader. No, I did’nt think so. We can talk until we are blue about which is worse: Some one belittling your intelligence (Clinton-to-Obama) or someone saying you want to take a path to foreign policy that appears too hot-headed (Obama-to-Clinton). Arguably, the former could be considered just as offensive as the latter.
Whether some like it or not, many in the party feel that Hillary has taken more of the conservative view regarding Iraq (& other issues). It has not been until her announcement of running for President (& much outrage from liberal audiences) that she has been forced to address her Iraq vote and come back home to the party in a more explicit way. Unlike Edwards & Kerry, she did not address Iraq for the longest! Even after we and the world knew, what we knew, was not what we thought we knew then! In other words…THE WHOLE DAMN THING WAS WRONG!
Yes, Obama does have to gain experience in the rigors of campaigning. And yes, he has votes that some may find questionable. But I think what some find appealing about him is the perception that he is willing to work with others and willing to change. This lies in contrast to Hillary’s response and overall theme “leave it to me…I’ve done this before”. You have to admit this does sound similar in tone to what the country has dealt with from the current administration (this is not saying that she would in any way be as horrible as the current administration, but that the tone she sets is more authoritative, as if she is from high looking low).
It just frustrates me to hear many of us forget the road we have traveled with Hillary as a Senator. Those long hard fights (critical ones) where Hillary was often no where to be found. I would even give Obama some wiggle room because he was new to the Senate. But Hillary…supposedly the pro…went ‘Right’ on us at times when ‘Right’ was definitely Wrong. We have to remember that. Yes, she would make history as the first female president. Yes, she should be respected. Yes, she has high name recognition and fame worldwide. But deep inside we must realize there is a real possibililty that in the role of Prez she may take that hard right turn again and leave us in the wilderness for a while. Yes, she knows how to come home and she will…I think they call it triangulation. Most leaders who want to bring people together will have to do it once in a while. But at this time in the nation, are we willing to wait around for change on certain critical issues. We have to admit that her idea of change may not be quite in line with what the majority of the party regards as needed change. I would argue that Obama, Edwards and even some of the other Dem candidates may have an idea of change that is more aligned with what the party needs for the future.
As a supporter of Bill Clinton, I in no way am rushing to tear down Hillary. However, I hope our party doesn’t place popularity over purpose. Many say Obama is popular. Think again, who is really popular. I argue it is Hillary. Being the perceived leader for so long in polling, the news, etc. does have an affect on people. With so much time remaining, I hope we let the candidates do what they have to do…and
may the best person win.
In the end, we have no guarantees, no crystal ball on any of these candidates. We all have to make inferences based on evidence. I feel that we know Hillary enough to know what we will get. For many that brings Comfort and for others that creates a craving for Change.
I have been wanting to say this for a while…so I couldn’t express it any shorter.
The bottom line is that Hillary created the Iraq War strategy for the Dem Party. John Edwards said he took the advise of Clinton people when he made his vote. Long after the vote, Hillary continued with “stay the course” to have “success in Iraq”. You want to know why people kept saying “stay the course” was Kerry’s position? They were linking him to HER.
Now she comes off with this stonewalling diplomacy based on the “prestige” of the US Presidency. That’s been the problem the last 6 years, a President who thinks we can continue using the bluster of the US to get our way.
Hillary didn’t even support the ACLU backed racial profiling amendment to protect Arab-Americans from terrorist “tips”. She can’t because she bases every single decision on whether she will look “tough”. That’s why she’s wrong for the country.
I can’t believe you don’t see this. And I really can’t believe you’re quoting ABC, after all the crap they’ve done as well.
Sandy
I think Obama and Hillary have very similar positions and the whole damn mess has been way overblown.
My objection is the Bush Cheney lite comment. I’m sorry I think he could have framed it a lot different. I didn’t think it was right that the Deanics used a similar phrase with JK, I would object to Hillary saying the same about Obama.
FYI, the Olberman interview was from January in response to the SOTU. She took the same position that many Dems did about talking to foriegn leaders, including JK.
DAS
“I feel that we know Hillary enough to know what we will get. For many that brings Comfort and for others that creates a craving for Change.”
Well said… All of it.
At this point, I’m trying to keep an open mind and honestly I think comfort and change are both things to crave. I’d still rather see JK and or Gore jump in and I’ll no doubt hold out until the bitter end and make a choice come primary day.
That all said, my commenting here on any candidate is focused on what’s in the news and not personal preference.
WAITASECOND. If Hillary and Obama’s positions are the same, then Hillary was an opportunistic LIAR when she tried to exploit his phrasing at the debate. So why are you turning on Obama? That’s just irrational. You should be criticizing Hillary for her dishonest tactics.
Obviously, this video was unearthed and released by the Clinton people, who found it in desperation. You’re just falling into their trap by reporting on it as if it proves Obama is a flip-flopper.
Not to mention Hillary actually IS BUSH-CHENEY LITE.
Obama is not the first to say it. Progressive bloggers have been saying that for ages. Please don’t suddenly pretend that Hillary is a liberal. She is not. She is a realist, akin to Henry Kissinger, and that is exactly how she will frame herself in the general election if she wins the nomination: I’m like Bush, but better. That’s exactly why Charles Krauthammer and Rich Lowry and Byron York and Andrew Sullivan and Ann Althouse — hardcore conservatives all — are praising her. Pretending that she is Jimmy Carter in a skirt is just poppycock, and you know it.
And “preconditions” is not “certain conditions”. Certain conditions means “diplomatic spadework”. In the context of the question at the debate, “preconditions” meant “do X, or we will not talk to you, e.g., get rid of your nukes, North Korea.” Every single discussion of preconditions on cable news has construed it that way, including debates between Howard Wolfson (Hillary’s chief media guy) and David Axelrod (Obama’s chief media guy).
But what Hillary twisted “preconditions” to mean at the debate was “diplomatic spadework”. That’s not proof of Obama’s “inexperience” — it’s proof of Hillary’s craftiness. Her own media guy — check the Situation Room and Hardball trasncripts, if not the video — debated preconditions as if it meant “do X, or we won’t talk to you”. Not what Hillary spun Obama’s answer into at the debate. There’s your inconsistency.
Not to mention Wolfson was so desperate to attack Obama that he insinuated that Obama’s people were violating the Logan Act. Hillary makes me sick. You should be ashamed to support her and stick up her her dirty tactics.
If Hillary wins the nomination, I am not voting in this election. Or I am voting for Nader.
I think there are some interesting points here that actually indicate Obama may have struck a chord with a lot of Dems in that remark. He may have spit out what a lot of us suspect. Thanks to DAS, Sandy and Stalwart Dem for excellent comments.
There is no squirming away from the reality that too many Dems (nowhere near the # or % of GOP) are beholden to corporate interests, and will have nothing to do with taking down the military-industrial-financial-intel-media-congressional monster that is perpetuating war for reasons that are always disguised to Americans.
Nor will some really work at the transformational change that Obama is saying we need and he plans to do. It’s that kind of change that Hillary has never done in an effective way.
Hillary is convinced she can do a better job than anyone else (and she failed to defend Kerry properly when she had the chance). Her blindness to her own limits is as bad as W.
I don’t want any Dems, anywhere near DC, that reek of the same basic problems as Bush/Dick, no matter the scale. We don’t have time for that.
Stalwart Democrat
Writing about this does not mean I am “supporting” Hillary. I have no horse in this race and plan to keep it that way for some time.
There were plenty of other liberal and progressive bloggers who view this situation in a similar light. Clearly the opinion of Hillary in the progressive/liberal blogosphere has changed over the past months. See Taylor Marsh on this latest news on this kerfuffle (who also has no horse in this race): http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25974
I don’t think anyone would stand for Obama or Edwards or any other Dem candidate being labeled “Bush Cheney Lite” by Hillary. It’s a double standard to say it’s okay to call Hillary “Bush Cheney Lite.”
No doubt there will be many dirty tricks in this election season and I will call them as I see them, for every candidate including Hillary Clinton.
I just don’t see what’s so “offensive” about the Bush-Cheney Lite tag (and yes, I remember the Dean tag of Kerry as the same, and I also remember laughing about it, along with half the country and the entire Republican party). Let’s put it this way, if that’s the worse Senator Clinton is called between now and the end of the nominating process, she should consider herself lucky.
I’m the President. It’s the first day. I call Kim Il Jong and invite him to spend a night at Camp David. If he shows, I look him straight in the eye and tell him that I will not rest until his people (along with all humans) have basic human freedoms, and the right to vote for their leadership.
I challenge anyone to tell me how that could possibly turn out bad.
“Bush-Cheney Lite”. Maybe it’s just me but those are not fighting words, they’re killing words (and I’m a confirmed pacifist). Ms. Clinton is going to get hit with a shitstorm of foul and abusive language, but, in my value system, she will be hit with nothing worse than that.
Todd
I remember defending JK on the Dean meme and it sucjed hearing it over and over again when JK was working to make a difference in our country. I guess for me, I am trying to be open minded that each of the Dems feel they can make a difference.
I think Bush and Cheny is Obama-lite
Senator Hillary Clinton is most assuredly not Bush/Cheney lite. Senator Obama went too far.
How does Obama get so much money from the fat cats when he has not gone up in the polls? Now, these people don’t throw their money away. His job is to split the Dems in order to give the Presidency to a Republican. If he doesn’t get the nomination watch him run as an Independent.
As a Senator Mr. Obama has done nothing, introduced no new bills and when asked by reporters about serious scandals going on now in Springfield, he said I am too busy with other things to think about that. Dick Durbin, also a Senator from Illinois, the Majority Whip seems to have enough time to care about whats going on in his home state.
Obamas best friend in the Senate is Joe Lieberman. Doesn’t that say it all?
I hear so much about Obama being young and he should be given time to learn. There is no time to learn as President. We have enormous problems to solve. We need someone who can hit the ground running. Hillary comes with Madeline Albright as Secy of State, Robert Rubin, as Treasurer, James Lee Witt, as FEMA Director and let us not forget the BIG DOG Bill Clinton.
For 6-1/2 years I have read Bush apologists try to explain away what has been the worst administration ever. We cannot afford another “my way of the highway” arrogant fool. We need a change in direction alright. A change to something that worked.
It should not be audacious to hope for a better country, one that spends its money taking care of its people and one thats respected in the world. After all we had that until 2001 when Bill Clinton left office.
Hey, people… I wonder who would all those who hate Clinton are going to vote for if she wins the nomination…
Just to clear a point about Hillary attacking O’Reagan… SHE DID NOT. What Hill did was defend herself from the “flip-flop” accusations from Axelrod and the other guys working for O’Reagan. She was pointing out that Barack wanted to meet without demanding something in return in defense of our national interests (preconditions), and such an approach to FP is totally naive and irresponsible. Here is the report from the Quad-City Times.
Clinton, Obama trade barbs in Quad-City Times interviews
By Ed Tibbetts | Tuesday, July 24, 2007
…
Obama’s campaign, early in the day, circulated a memo saying that Clinton’s YouTube position is actually a reversal from what she said in April, when, according to the Associated Press, she said it would be a “terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people.”
In the interview with the Times today, Clinton rejected the idea she reversed herself and added she wouldn’t foreclose talks with those leaders. But she wouldn’t promise it within a certain time frame, either, and she added that Obama is regretting his answer today.
[...] r visiting!Just to set the record straight here after conflicting opinions by our writers, self included on the Clinton – Obama kerfluffle earlier this week, none of the writers here on The Dem [...]