| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The kow-tow club |
| 2007-07-29 |
| The Democratic presidential race has devolved into a no-holds-barred battle between the two front-runners on an utterly bizarre point: Should the next president personally sit down with the world's worst despots? Of course not. That would be absurd. But Sen. Barack Obama last week displayed an astonishing lack of depth - giving Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a chance to show again that she's capable of taking five positions on just about every issue. Too bad for Clinton that she missed a perfectly good opportunity to show her relative experience and intelligence - given that she was correct in her reaction to Obama's verbal miscue. It all happened during Monday night's debate, when the candidates were asked whether, as president, they'd be willing to meet personally - and without preconditions - with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Obama's response: Absolutely. Indeed, he added, "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them." Clinton, ever the instinctive pol, recognized a gopher ball when she saw one - and proceeded to lift it out of the park. Obama's response, she maintained, was "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," said Clinton. "We're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be." She's right, of course: Such impulsive acts can wind up backfiring - emboldening enemies and embarrassing America (as they have in the past). Indeed, Obama's apparent willingness to rush into sitdowns with America-bashing tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Chavez makes us wonder if he knows just what it is a president does for a living. For his part, Obama quickly backtracked: "I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," he said. And then he hurled what for Democrats is the ultimate insult: Clinton's position, he said, is just like President Bush's. Which is nonsense, of course. But here's where it gets complicated. Even while ridiculing Obama's position, Clinton repeatedly has ripped the president for saying "he will not talk with bad people." Indeed, she complained, "you don't make peace with your friends - you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with." She's even admonished Bush for refusing to deal directly with the leaders of Iran. Even though, as president, her own husband never spoke directly with the leaders of any of those five countries either - and for good reason. Clearly, both candidates need to do a little more homework if they have any hope of being taken seriously on the foreign-policy front. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #1 It all happened during Monday night's debate, when the candidates were asked whether, as president, they'd be willing to meet personally - and without preconditions - with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Obama's response: Absolutely. Indeed, he added, "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them." A clear demonstration of exactly why Obama should never set foot in the Oval Office. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-29 15:54 |