Vilsack Brackets Obama For Clinton (UPDATED)

Gov. Tom Vilsack, acting as a surrogate for Sen. Hillary Clinton, blasted Sen. Barack Obama this morning for deliberately attempting to "mask" the similarities between his position on meetings with foreign leaders and hers,

Earlier in the day, Obama told Democrats in Des Moines that it was "time to turn the page on the Bush-Cheney diplomatic strategy that has isolated America from our allies and reduced our moral standing in the international community." On Thursday, he called Sen. Clinton's position "Bush-Cheney Lite."

Vilsack, on a conference call with national political reporters, called Obama's comments "certainly audacious but not particularly hopeful." "It's not the Iowa way," he said, and it "flies in the face of the promise Sen. Obama gave to all of us at the beginning of this campaign to avoid negative politics."

Vilsack, citing Obama's pre-debate interview with Miami Herald where he suggested he'd meet with Hugo Chavez "under certain conditions," said that Obama "agrees" with Clinton's. view but is trying to "confuse" the issue by stepping up his rhetoric.

Also Saturday, Obama's campaign mailed a letter from ex-Iowa Min. Leader Richard Myers, a Korean War veteran, who wrote that “Senator Obama offers a dramatic change from the Bush administration’s seven-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available – including diplomacy. In short, his view of American diplomacy reflects our values.”

The letter was mailed to "thousands of undecided Iowans" who have told the Obama campaign that foreign policy was their top voting issue.

Update: Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, e-mails a response to Vilsack:

The politics of hope requires us to shake up the establishment status quo that has to change. Obama has been crystal clear in saying that he be the most aggressive in fundamentally changing our nation’s foreign policy.

This is a substantive debate during which she called Obama irresponsible and naive. Obama has been entirely consistent -- he never said he would invite dictators over for a cup of coffee and he said he wouldn’t let these dictators use him as a propaganda tool. What he did say was that he would be willing to meet with them.

Comments

No. It was she who initially tried to draw the line! In her effort to differentiate herself from him.

In addition, I like that Obama drew the distinction that he 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 diplomatic spadework in almost all circumstances (Obama knows the way that 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.... via CNN/Youtube "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. She started it!

Posted by 100 PCT | July 28, 2007 2:22 PM

I don't understand why someone who's supposed to "Experienced to lead from day one" has shown the worst cowardice in politics by bringing out a host of surrogates out of panic to defend her on something SHE STARTED.

I suppose they thought naive was another word for Hope. Clean campaign and cowardice do not belong in the same place. How would Obama be able to defend America if he couldn't defend himself from a Clinton machine attack.
Nobody. Yes, nobody can attack Obama and not feel the pain. Whether you're McCain, Romney, Gravel or Clinton.
THE GOP HAS BEEN WARNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Michael, Des Moines, Iowa | July 28, 2007 2:50 PM

What the hell are you talking about? Get your head out the gutter and see that Obama is no different than any two-faced politician. I don't care if you support him, but seriously.

Posted by Rick | July 28, 2007 2:51 PM

I can't believe Clinton wants to keep this going. Really odd. And every media piece will try to put this squabble into perspective by noting she opened fire with the "naive and irresponsible" line, which is just going to continue impressing this perception of her as toggling between attack dog and victim.

Posted by PLM | July 28, 2007 2:52 PM

"Gov. Tom Vilsack, acting as a surrogate for Sen. Hillary Clinton"

It was a few weeks ago we read that Gov. Vilsack who attempted to contest for the presidency, dropped out but ended up with alot of campaign debt. Hillary footed his bill in exchange for his support. I do not expect that Vilsack will start paying Hillary this soon. The biggest mistake Americans will ever make is to subject this GREAT NATION to 20 years of Bushs and another 16 years of Clintons. It will be like enternity.

America can still recover from anybody outside these two family mornachies. I mean anybody including you reading this but not the Clintons again.

Posted by Amos | July 28, 2007 2:53 PM

Michael, Clinton's attack was fair and valid, so was Obama's attack on Clinton's Iraq war vote. He crossed the line by calling her "Bush-Cheney lite" and flip-flopping on the issue for political gain. Obviously you're going to argue with that, but I don't care. At least Clinton took the high road, by taking the unpopular position, and calling Obama's attacks "silly." I like Obama, but come on, get some objective opinion here.

Posted by Rick | July 28, 2007 2:55 PM

Exactly Amos. It also will highlight the appearance of paid-for support. And the media will keep repeating the Bush-Lite comment, which does have some "stick" to it.

Now there's a video of the questioner from the debate floating around the internet, in which that questioner is saying Clinton distorted the meaning of "preconditions."

This thing will continue to blow back on her as long as she keeps it going.

Posted by PLM | July 28, 2007 2:59 PM

Rick, just to clarify, Obama did not call Sen. Clinton "Bush-Cheney Lite," that is the way he described her take on diplomacy based on the answer she gave. To be fair, I would also point out that Hillary didn't call Obama irresponsible or naive, only his response to the question. However, for Clinton to come back and ask what "happened to the politics of hope?" is a completely disingenuous course for her to take, and I agree with everyone who's saying the longer she keeps this going, the more it's going to hurt her.

Especially when MSNBC realizes they have video of her responding the very way Obama did to Keith Olbermann not too long ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlerockforobama%2Ecom%2F

Posted by Omaya | July 28, 2007 3:40 PM

Hey Rick, if someone calls you naive and irresponsible, you better have a sharp response. Obama is absolutely correct. The days of Bush-Cheney lite foreign policy is over. We need to turn the page. We don't need weasely measures like Hillary is proposing. We want fundamental changes.

Posted by wheelbarrow | July 28, 2007 4:04 PM

Rick,

What I love about Senator Obama being in this race is that it exposes the bigots in the Democratic Party. Please understand the vast majority of African Americans, like me, are only within this Party because it's a marriage of convenience, lesser of two evils. But we have no dillusions. We know it's nothing more than a plantation party. I notice a common theme emerging from crtics like you: Senator Obama "crossed the line." Say what you really mean: the uppity Negroe needs to stay in his place. He's not her Senate aide. He's her PEER. He has every right to defend himself from her unprovoked attacks and expose her centrists positions that aren't much different then the current administration's. He's telling that John Edwards has been "politely" calling her everything from a a triangulator to a liar, even his wife has been attacking Hillary Clinton, but she's says NOTHING in responde. However, she jumps on the first chance to go after Senator Obama calling him names that she would never call her 98 other white peers in the Senate.

Posted by Dawn | July 28, 2007 4:06 PM

Omaya,

Let's pray that the mainstream media and some even on this site that have been pushing Hillary Clinto's campaign, we'll be honest and unbiased enough to play that video. She didn't quality her answer by saying she would send others to do the spade work. He asked would "YOU," and she responded "ABSOLUTELY." BTW, Tim Russerts is going to devote tomorrow's 'Meet the Press' primarily to this matter. He said he is convinced that Senator Clinton's campaign studied that specific question and planned that answer to move her position to the right of Obama on foreign policy to appeal to Republican Independents.

Posted by Dawn | July 28, 2007 4:14 PM

Obama said he would meet with Chavez only on "certain conditions" then he said he would without "preconditions."

Now Vilsak says there's no difference, I guess it depends on which Obama position we're talking about. But the real question is, does anyone care at this point?

Posted by Joel | July 28, 2007 4:17 PM

Obviously you're going to argue with that, but I don't care.

Well if you don't care to hear the other side of arguments it is no wonder you support a candidate that wants to continue the same sort of cowboyish "I don't like you so I'm not going to talk to you" foreign policy of Bush/Cheney.

Posted by Brian | July 28, 2007 4:35 PM

Omaya - he didn't call her Bush-Lite? Well, he should have because she is, and I've been saying that for weeks.

In fact I've been saying that ever since I started gravitating toward Obama, and posting my leanings, only to have Clinton supporters tell me I must hate women. It was reminiscent of Bush supporters telling me I wasn't patriotic.

From that point on, I started noticing more and more similarities. Believe in nothing, except campaign expediency. Willing to go dirty early. Lack of willingness to engage in true exchanges of ideas. A certain arrogance.

Of course there are differences, too. I certainly think she's more mentally engaged than he is. She was ambitious from the start, while he kind of stumbled into his ambitions. But the similarities are interesting.

Posted by Paul | July 28, 2007 4:44 PM

I think your plain meaning reading defeats the point and simply buys into Hillary's spin.

Preconditions is a diplomatic term of art. The man who asked the question has even said that is what he meant. Preconditions does not mean diplomatic spadework. It means substantive concessions.

It is not a contradiction to say you will meet after diplomatic spadework but without demanding substantive concessions.

Posted by Vilsack = bribed hack | July 28, 2007 5:04 PM

Rick,
i noticed you were trying to say something, but the words just would not come out. Next time you talk to Vilsack or any of these guys please tell them to have some political guts to stand for someting; a few months ago he could not save his campaign now he is try to speak for somebody else's please what a loser!!!!

Posted by frantz | July 28, 2007 5:47 PM

-Preconditions does not mean diplomatic spadework. It means substantive concessions.

And what is Diplomacy but substantive concessions on both sides, my friend?

I do agree with Brian.

How can there be agreements leading to understanding of different positions without first being supportive of dialogue?

The 'I'm not talking to you' paradigm solves nothing, and only worsens the problem.

Sharon did this with the PA, only because it was headed by his archfoe Arafat, and he created the basis for the current negative developments between Israel and Palestine. Now, after a series of big messes, going on to break up Lebanon again, and the coming of Hamastan, the Israeli leadership is finally talking again to the PA, now headed by Abu Mazen. It's a good thing, though it could have been done ten years ago.

The U.S. has done this with Cuba, only to disempower the cuban people more against its leaders, isolate it from more progressive ideas, and to create economic suffering, whereas full diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations would have made it harder for Fidel to isolate and manipulate the cuban people, whom would have perhaps gone to demand a more balanced, representative, and democratic form of government.

One must break away from the extremes in order to achieve understanding of the common points.

Peace can never be brought without making a concerted and conscious effort to walk ahead towards meeting with the other side, whether you like it or not.

Only extreme arrogance prevents extremists from seeking the middle of the road.

Posted by Eldan | July 28, 2007 5:51 PM

I, for one, support Obama.

Hillary appeals to me as a highly intelligent woman, and a slightly compassive person. A good leader, definitely, someone who can be trusted with bringing about a better government for this country, certainly much better than what we currently have.

Sadly, I do also believe that is just not enough for the United States now.

We need to go further than just a bit better.

And Obama certainly goes further.

Hillary has a lot of brain, a lot of can-do power, and she is a strong leader.

But she does not have Obama's vision.

And though she's got a big brain, and nice answers to everything, she does not have Obama's heart, either.

She comes through a desire to shine first, and then to serve.

But in Obama I see the contrary, a desire to SERVE first, and shine later.

Obama simply goes deeper.

People, we need a vision, a new dream.

We need a leader who can bring not just brains, but a lot of courage, a lot of heart into our government.

And Obama strikes to me as someone who can and will grow into such a leader, when given the chance.

Hillary is groomed to succeed, and that is what I don't like about her, to be honest. This whole thing seems like a conquest, a medal, a trophy to her.

And while this race is also a conquest, a medal, and a trophy to Obama, I do feel he does it more by heart than by ego.

And that is the kind of devotion we need.

A warrior who can feel the jungle in his veins.

Not Posh Spice from the Golden Castle.

Posted by Eldan | July 28, 2007 6:11 PM

And what is Diplomacy but substantive concessions on both sides, my friend?

My friends are smarter than this.

A PRE-condition is a substantive concession made prior to a diplomatic meeting. In other words, "You will abandon your nukes before we talk." That is distinct from going to the meeting and saying at the meeting, "We want you to abandon your nukes."

But demanding substantive concessions prior to meetings is one thing; doing diplomatic spadework prior to meetings is another. Vilsack is conflating the two, which only shows how naive and inexperienced he is on foreign policy matters.

Posted by Precondition = substantive concession prior to a meeting, not diplomatic spadework prior to a meetin | July 28, 2007 6:15 PM

Considering all the problems in this country, ie
the war in Iraq, the Cost of the war, Iran's nuclear ambition, the Attorney General's questionable answers to Congress, healthcare, lack of good paying jobs, exporting goods not jobs, increasing the Gross National Product, higher education, violent crime, immigration, lack of money for replacing infrastructure, housing, the cost of gasoline, medicare costs, lower taxes. There are enough issues to talk about, why can't we talk about solutions to the problems. He said, she said who cares.

Posted by PMiller | July 28, 2007 6:21 PM

Whoa!! It astounds me that there is so much hate and "Venom" surounding the Clintons...Make no mistake, Hillary is more than qualified to hold the office of President, she is the best choice period. What have you folks been smokin' anyway? I know, Iknow!! who is this person actually supporting Sen. Clinton? Well, Ok, I am a 60yr old male white collar worker, Viet Nam Vet. Married, voted for Nixon in '68 and '72, Carter in '76, Reagan in '80 and '84, "Sr" in '88, Clinton in '92 and '96, Gore in '2000, and Kerry in '04. As you can see, I vote "the person, not the ticket" and this time it's clinton. I know all the stories, have heard all the rumors and facts, and know all about the 'Evil Clinton Years", get real people, the 'sky is not falling" ...Thanks for allowing me a few moments to 'ramble", this is a first for me!!Stay well all......Jack C.

Posted by Jack Colp | July 28, 2007 6:37 PM

Is it too early to decide who will lead us into the future? Shouldn't our attention be on what can we accomplish this year? Why is this upcoming election important to us today, when our children need our attention? They are the real future. I'm just tired of thinking about it this year, going back to my classes to teach this year will be a welcome respite from politics.

Posted by Kim | July 28, 2007 6:53 PM

Kim, that strikes me as a completely disingenuous comment. You don't want to focus on the presidential campaign and instead want to focus on what we can accomplish this year?

Then what brought you onto a message board that primarily focuses on election issues? Its easy enough to stay away from, if this isn't your interest.

Sorry, but it sounds like you and PMiller (had to double take on that one, because my last name is Miller, lol) are simply trying to change the subject... maybe because you're Clinton supporters and you think she's getting her butt kicked here? Just a guess.

Posted by Paul | July 28, 2007 7:27 PM

Jake...I like your comment. Just multiply the feelings you see here 200% and you understand why she won't win, shouldn't win. People have very strong opinions about her and those that don't like her are unlikely to change. IF she were to win expect a repeat of the last 10+ years of party fighting. The country will not move forward

Posted by Doris | July 28, 2007 7:55 PM

I think it's safe to say that the REAL presidential campaign has started. I had wondered when Obama and Clinton were going to exchange criticisms. I'm glad it's not getting TOO dirty just yet...

Now that Clinton and Obama have shown a distinct difference of foreign policy views, I personally suspect that this will hurt Clinton more in the long run. Yea, Obama didn't quite show that "no negative" stance as well this time, but he's got a right to complain too, you know? I just don't buy the "pundit" crap anymore - I trust the comments more than the articles themselves, and it seems there are more "pro-Obama" comments than "pro-Clinton" comments.

But, I also must admit that I am a fan of Obama. I agree that it is time we change our foreign policy stance, and that means we start to diffuse the tensions between our nations, and I think most people agree more than they disagree.

But, in the end the only thing that really counts are the votes. Whoever wins the Democratic Primary wins the presidency as far as I can tell.

P.S. - Why is it that Clinton just "Bush-bashes", and didn't actually ANSWER all of the CNN/YouTube questions the way Obama did - did anyone else notice that?

Posted by Dr. Greg | July 28, 2007 10:57 PM

The naivety in Obama's position is two-fold:

a) He fails to fully grasp that the President's job is CEO of a large Executive Branch that includes incredibly skilled diplomats with vastly more negotiating experience than they teach in the Illinois state legislature. Presidents who "cowboy up" and bypass the professionals do so at great peril.

b) He fails to grasp that successful diplomacy seldom results from a leader with a nice smile charming another leader into doing something. Rather, successful negotiations result from painstakingly reaching a point where both parties fundamental national interests are addressed in some positive way, often through a bartering of concessions that might not even dawn on the two executives.

The cowboy-up short circuiting of the professional diplomatic corps concerns me greatly. It is the cowboy approach of Bush/Cheney that has gotten us into this mess.

Posted by hwc | July 29, 2007 1:20 AM

HWC - you are a hoot. Sort of the "I'm rubber, you're glue..." approach? To counter the Bush-Lite thing, now you're trying to say Obama is like Bush? Lol.

By the way, you really can't defend either of those points, can you? Where did Obama say he intends to bypass the experienced civil servants? And where did he say he expects a simple presidential visit to bring instant success?

What strikes me as Bush-Lite this morning is making false strawman arguments against your opponent - and false strawmen is all your two points are.

Posted by Paul | July 29, 2007 8:10 AM

Ok you guys, Mrs. Clinton is not a leader, she just plays the part on tv, Obama does not have enough sand in his pockets to be the leader of this country. he is still at the kiddie table. You want to vote for a freshman congressman for president go right ahead, or a Mrs Clinton, Check there voting record or lack of one in Obama's case, Make an informed vote. I will leave you with one thing to ponder. How can you give yourself a raise, when your job aproval rating is a 32%.

Posted by RaferJanders | July 29, 2007 1:18 PM