It's Hard To Be A Rogue Leader

« The Week That Was: O Really? | Main | Vilsack Brackets Obama For Clinton (UPDATED) »

It's Hard To Be A Rogue Leader

27 Jul 2007 08:46 pm

It must be confusing to be a rogue leader right now. Witness:

Right before the Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama told the Miami Herald that under "certain conditions" he would meet with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

"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."

At the debate, Obama answered "yes" when asked if he would meet with rogue leaders "without preconditions." Strategist David Axelrod later clarified that Obama simply meant that he would be willing to meet with them face-to-face without any pre-arranged concessions from those leaders.

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.

Comments (46)

I wish Obama would make up his mind and get back with us.

Posted by JoeCHI | July 27, 2007 9:16 PM

I never thought that Obama won this debate. This confirms it.

Posted by JoeCHI | July 27, 2007 9:17 PM

Certain conditions is not preconditions.

Preconditions in the question meant "do X, or we will not talk to you."

Certain conditions means "diplomatic spadework".

Hillary twisted preconditions to mean "diplomatic spadework".

You can try to say Obama is flip-flopping, but it is more likely Hillary twisted his words because she is a moderate neocon robot.

Posted by Hillary's Ass is Huge | July 28, 2007 5:18 AM

Do you really think Hillary is no different than Obama? That is a joke. Hillary is a realist akin to Henry Kissinger. Whatever she says that appeals to liberals is a lie. Obama is a genuine liberal. She obviously found this rare interview and sent it out to the blogs. You guys are such Hillary whores. It is disgusting. You'll bend over and take it in the ass from Hillary just because her last name is Clinton.

Posted by Henrietta Polenta | July 28, 2007 5:22 AM

Marc, your conclusion is faulty.

HAIH makes a good point...if you read the question asked at the debate, compare all of Obama's responses before and after, you'd have to work long and hard to find much variance...expounding, maybe, but inconsistencies?

So who plays better in this dust up? Hillary who is making obvious contradictions (your quote of her to Olbermann) and her insistence Obama is naive in his willingness to entertain talks? Hillary voting for war authority and her insistence now that she didn't think he'd use it? Please...

Posted by G Davis | July 28, 2007 5:43 AM

It's good to see that Hillary's statements or soundbites in the debates are finally being tested, because until now her answers have not either in the debates or interviews she has done.

The media is shilling for Hill and that's fine but Democrats need to understand that if she gets the nomination then the real testing begins. Will she cope, who knows? She has the machine as they say but they weren't much use for Kerry...

Posted by Mary | July 28, 2007 6:02 AM

Maybe in my comment above, I should've added that I agree with G Davis' conclusions.

Posted by Mary | July 28, 2007 6:19 AM

I like that obama would be "willing" to talk to other leaders. I think it shows true strength and an open mindedness that is much needed in today's changing world. Not for one moment do I think he would do this irresponsibly!

Obama understands that there has to be some footwork laid in almost all circumstances(he knows the way it is supposed to work as he stated in the miami article; however, the questions intent was...
in the "SPIRIT" of "BOLD" leadership would you be "WILLING" ...Just like...."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?

Yes. a resounding, YES! I think his answer speaks volumes of who this man is and the possibility he sees for the future. A catalyst for change. I support him even more now because he is standing up and fighting for what he believes. I support him 100%.

BTW, the "I would not promise" part was Hillary's spin.

Posted by 100 PCT | July 28, 2007 12:32 PM

I think this blog entry is leaning toward the true answer. There really isn't much difference between their actual diplomatic approaches.

The story this week wasn't one of policy substance, but campaign responses.

Clinton thought she had an opening to attack. She (or her campaign - who knows how much a part of that decision she really played) attacked with the irresponsible and naive comment.

Obama (or his campaign) responded with the quick line about how it was irresponsible and naive to vote to authorize the invasion.

It probably would have ended there, but Obama kept it going with the Bush-Lite comment.

I think this stung the Clinton camp. Politically, its an effective comment, because many of the folks who are paying attention now have noticed some similarities between Clinton and Bush. Sure, far more differences... but still some similarities.

Clinton's only response was to play the victim, and start e-mailing supporters multiple times asking for money to respond to all these attacks - Obama, the Post's fashion reporter, the Pentagon... etc.

It was a week not about policy, but rather a test of which campaign can stand up to which, and Obama seems to have won it.

Posted by PLM | July 28, 2007 1:19 PM

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_speaks.html#more

The guy who asked the question agrees that Hillary distorted the meaning of preconditions.

Posted by Hillary is a proven liar | July 28, 2007 2:00 PM

A few days ago, the Cinton campaign called Obama 'Naive', accusing him of agreeing to meet with rogue leaders without relevant spadework.

Then they bring up an article where he actually indicated he would use spadework: "Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking,"

Someone in the Clinton campaign needs their heard examined or their panic will give them a heart attack!

They started this whole row. They just didn't think Obama will fight back. They thought his politics of hope meant cowardice. BIG MISTAKE!!!

Posted by Michael, Des Moines, Iowa | July 28, 2007 3:16 PM

Hugo Chavez is a "rogue leader" and an "enemy"? The mind boggles. Last time I looked, he hadn't stopped selling the US gas, and had not declared war against it either. About the only thing he's done wrong (if declaring economic sovereignty is "wrong") is refuse to kowtow to Big Oil, and to demand a fair price for a resource which is, after all, expensive to extract.

Since when is an oil company or two to be confused with the United States or its government? And why does the State Dept. think itself justified to blatantly interfere with the internal politics of foreign countries just so a profiteer can go on profiteering there? Perhaps one of you erudite Atlantic types could explain that bit of blatant corporate kleptocracy in such a way as to make it palatable to those who see an emperor's nudity for what it is.

Posted by Shirley Yerjokin | July 28, 2007 10:40 PM

What do you all think about the Clinton-Obama row over meeting with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea?

Personally, though Clinton seemed more measured, her answer delivers us more of the same. I really liked Obama's fresh approach.

This is an important issue that is key to reversing the damage that Bush/Cheney has done to American image in the world. Vote on your preferenc on http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=249

Make your voice heard. It's important.

Posted by Frankie | July 29, 2007 11:58 AM

You are thinking too much and tying yourself up in knots.

In fact at the debate they said essentially the same thing. Then Hillary decided to make political hay by accentuating the difference to emphasize Obama's "inexperience." Then Obama replied in kind about "Cheney-Bush lite."

Look, even agreeing on a place to meet can be considered a "pre-condition."

Posted by DMS | July 30, 2007 9:23 AM

Cool guestbook, interesting information... Keep it UP. excellent site i really like your stuff.

Posted by imitrex | September 29, 2007 11:22 PM

Cool guestbook, interesting information... Keep it UP. excellent site i really like your stuff.

Posted by hoodia patch | October 1, 2007 4:05 PM

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by Doe | November 10, 2007 3:52 AM

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Posted by Doe | November 10, 2007 3:57 AM

Hi, my name is disman-kl, i like your site and i ll be back ;)

Posted by Ivan | November 28, 2007 7:21 AM

best place order cheap morgage online

Posted by morgage | December 12, 2007 10:32 PM

unclericalness estatesman inhumanly introversion brokenheartedness pantagruelistic jerkwater jessakeed
http://www.vghf.com/inductees/the_lennon_sisters.html >Vocal Group Hall of Fame: Lennon Sisters
http://pyunit.sourceforge.net/

Posted by Nora Good | December 19, 2007 5:52 PM

my best mp3 comedy music download library ;)

Posted by comedy | January 23, 2008 1:15 AM

my best mp3 goa music download library ;)

Posted by goa | January 23, 2008 2:21 PM

show pharmacy - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field

Posted by drugs | March 31, 2008 12:53 AM

sorry if i mistake this field

Posted by drugs | March 31, 2008 11:08 AM

rx drugs - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field

Posted by rxviagra | April 5, 2008 12:12 PM

teeny