Who do you think will come up on top of the Clinton-Obama foreign policy clash?

This is making headlines and will probably give the race some shape- Clinton and Obama in their first major policy disagreement, and going at each other hard. Beautiful, isn't it?

Now- Who will benefit from this spat the most? Who will get stronger after this battle of words and ideas?

In February, Clinton had said: "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_diplomacy

Last night, she did NOT outright refuse to meet with rogue leaders. She said, however, that she would want to make sure that she would not be used for propoganda purposes. She says she wouldn't meet with them without knowing the way forward, etc.

She did not expressly she would not meet with them, under any conditions.

It is NOT a flip-flop.

APRIL: "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

***

LAST NIGHT: "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year."

Last night she said she would not PROMISE to do so. She did not outright rule it out. Again, she said she would want to ensure that the POTUS is not being used for propoganda.

It is not a flip-flop. A flip-flop would be if she outright ruled it out.

But that's a bit heavy on the "word parsing" if you ask me.

Perhaps if she didn't come right out of the box and condemn Obama for "naivety" on the matter when she stook *basically* the same position, we wouldn't be seeing such a strong and vocal backlash.

You seem to have triangulation figured out.

It make Hillary to look like a flip flopper, or worse, like a conniving liar!

No matter what Hillary says, she is still a neoliberal imperialist at her core.

She said so last night, didn't you hear her? :sarcasm:

I don't even see it as a policy disagreement.

Both would make diplomatic efforts toward the leaders mentioned. Can anybody really believe Obama would go running off to meet with any of them without prior high-level meetings? I think the only difference is that she mentioned that as a reason she couldn't promise a direct meeting within the first year of being president.

I just don't see the big deal here. :shrug:

They've both made points.

calling Obama's answer irresponsible and naive.

naive, but I think in the end Obama looks inexperienced compared to Hillary on this particular question.

I think this could potentially be severely damaging to Obama - had he made that statement in a debate with gouliani, much much more would have been made out of it, it could have proven to be an election-losing moment. I'm looking into a crystal ball here, but I can only imagine what a douchebag like gouliani and a rove machine would have done with that opening.

I think it will blow over for now, but I think, to answer your question, Hillary obviosuly comes out on top of this dust up. Obviously, to me, anyway.

I'd be happy to have either as president, however.

IMO, this firestorm has been created for and by the Beltway
Crowd. The "Nattering Nabobs" must find something of controversy
in each and every incident, happening, occurrence. Otherwise
they will not have done their job.

Anyone who has watched the "after the event coverage" knows
the gentleman who developed the video(I am not a Techy)
and thus submitted the questioned answered the hulla-baloo
this way. He stated Obama answered the question appropriately
and to his satisfaction. "Hilary gave the Washington explanation".
Common Sense tells me they were both right. Bafrak spoke to the
American People and Hilary satisfied the Pundits by giving them
story to hook their claws into. Puny Story but a story i guess.

I do not mean to be ugly or to flame--BUT, all day, I could not
help but think---Had this been Kerry or Gore, these same pundits
would have been all over either of these like a cheap suit.
They would have been accused of being too "senatorial". Somehow
they would have concocted Gore as trying to be too smart or too
perfect. You know the kid who tries to apple polish the teacher
by showing off.

As I said, the Gaggle of Geese have to make up controversy if there
is none. One day hopefully, they will realize this has brought
repect for the craft into the Dumpster.

This country has been shunned by previous Dem and Republican Admins. Why do we continue to have an embargo that keeps this country poor and powerless. It is time for change.

So far he's been quiet about this one, but none of the others have his experience.

what the media want you to believe there are eight candidates, not three.

All the yammering about Hillary's greater relative "experience" in foreign policy compared to Obama, is laughable-- and frankly sounds desperate on the part of some of the pundits who get paid to talk her up.

Hillary's major foreign policy "experience" credential consists of consistently supporting, aiding and promoting the disastrous Iraq War, which Barack Obama opposed from the outset when he was in the Illinois Statehouse. Following on the heels of the Korean War from late 1950 (when the Chinese entered and decisively pushed us and the Brits back from the Yalu, defeating the British and American-led fighting force that had advanced past the 38th parallel against the North Koreans) and of course Vietnam, Iraq is the third time since WWII that we've been defeated in a major war, and the repercussions for us and our major allies (especially Britain) are already shaping up to be awful.

Thanks in no small part to Hillary's Iraq War support from the start, the USA is trillions of dollars deeper in the hole due to the direct war costs and veterans' costs subsequently. We've permanently lost our stature and our prestige-- not just as a moral leader either, but as a strategic and political one as well. Being defeated and humiliated like this by a bunch of hardened Iraqi guerrilla fighters, quite unlike the North Vietnamese (who had a tough, seasoned, Russian- and Chinese-supported standing army), is catastrophic to our world image and our practical ability to accomplish things on the ground. Plus we've now created the world's most sustainable and dangerous terrorist havens in Baghdad and Anbar, which had been suppressed before March of 2003.

IOW, on the one truly "make-or-break" foreign policy issue of this decade, Hillary Clinton royally screwed up, and she's continued to compound that screw up from the IWR through the present day.

Will they be less of an enemy a year later?

Hillary has a hard lesson to learn if she thinks we can afford to wait a year to find peace. These aren't the Bill years.

I thought she said she was ready to hit the ground running. :eyes: