On Diplomacy, Obama's Spokesman Links Clinton With Giuliani

Bill Burton, Barack Obama's spokesperson, e-mails a response to Rudy Giuliani's assertion that Barack Obama, who regularly cites the willingness of Ronald Reagan to negotiate with the Soviet Union, is, himself, not Ronald Reagan.

E-mails Burton: "While Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton do not think we should engage in the type of strong diplomacy practiced by Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, Obama does. And given the hefty fee that Hugo Chavez's oil company paid Rudy Giuliani's firm, he apparently thinks we shouldn't talk to Chavez, but it's fine to take his money."

To remind you of the quibble: Clinton, as in the Clinton Administration, would negotiate with rogue leaders without preconditions. But she herself would let the diplomatic process trickle up from low-level meetings. Obama would emphasize face-to-face diplomacy among principles from day one -- including his own personage. Reagan and Gorbachev, Nixon and Mao, that type of thing.

What Kennedy actually said -- as a candidate -- was that the U.S. should engage with Russia but not at the highest levels until the process ran its course; he was cautious not to endorse face-to-face bilateral meetings between leaders.

That said, it was Kennedy's refusal to sanction the war that his Joint Chiefs insisted, and also the back-channel negotiations between Robert F. Kennedy and Anatoly Dobrynin (the Turkey-Cuba missile removal) that helped stave off a military confrontation during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. In a sense, through that channel, JFK and Khrushchev communicated directly. (They had met once before, in 1961. It did not go well.)

So both Clinton and Obama can draw lessons from history. And the difference between them is more of style and posture than content -- although, in diplomacy, style and posture can be as important as words on paper.

Back to politics: is linking Hillary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani like linking her to Bush-Cheney? Is that a credible charge to make in a Democratic primary?

Comments

If nothing else, it forces Clinton and Giuliani to discuss how they're different.

Though Hillary's short answer could be "I'm not batsh!t insane, it would be nice to see her tack towards the base in a primary.

Posted by Geek, Esq. | October 16, 2007 6:29 PM

Marc:

It's always nice when MSM and bloggers swallow a candidate's spin hook, line and sinker.

Clinton, as in the Clinton Administration, would negotiate with rogue leaders without preconditions.

Cause I swear she said as "here's what I would do as president. I would negotiate with Iran, without precondition..."

And just for the record, going forward, can you post a sheet explaining when "I" means "I" and when "I" means "my administration"? Thanks!

Posted by Keith | October 16, 2007 6:50 PM

In January 2006, Hillary said "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to Iran that they'll not be permitted to aquire nuclear weapons."

In April 2006, she said she would "certainly take nuclear weapons off the table..."

Then she attacked Obama last August saying "I don't believe any President should make blanket statements with regards to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

These aren't exact quotes, but I think you get the picture. Flip flop anyone?

psst...dems...we could actually win this time if you'd do your homework on these things this time BEFORE the primary. Wake up.

Posted by Merri | October 16, 2007 7:19 PM

I am pretty sure Obama will school Clinton in the school of foreign policy. He is more pragmatic than Clinton-Guliani lyte or Bush -Chenney lyte.

The combination that i just mentioned are bad for America. It is time we get practical with our foreign policy.

Direct diplomacy always work better than Gun.

Posted by Benga | October 16, 2007 7:43 PM

Yes, this is a smart counterpunch...because he gets to make a substantive point about meeting with both friends and enemies which is popular among Democrats tired of the status quo. Who is using the dustup from the YouTube debate on the stump? It is Obama, not HIllary. Furthermore, Hillary has evolved/flip-flopped on the issue of preconditions, coming closer to Obama's position. If you want proof that Obama is smart to bring up this point, just look at Hillary playing follow the leader yet again.

Posted by RKA | October 16, 2007 8:21 PM

Yes, it's a generational trying to act tough charge. Hillary and Rudy have more in common than one might think. They are both ruthless.

Posted by sonya | October 16, 2007 8:26 PM

Hillary flip flopped period. Go watch it on Youtube for yourself. Barack know history. Hillary rewrites it.

Posted by jdr | October 16, 2007 10:53 PM