A controversy over statements made in the youtube debate is stirring. For indicating that he would reverse Bush policy and meet with world leaders of possibly or perceived hostile nations, Barack Obama has taken heat from the Clinton campaign for being "naive". In this diary I will look at the transcript of what was said, identify the arguments that have been made, and analyze the motivating ideas behind the response of Clinton. I will argue that the most charitable interpretation of Clinton is that she is being grossly uncharitable to Obama. The uncharitable interpretation is that she fears the world stage and using right-wing anti-diplomacy rhetoric.
QUESTION: 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?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
COOPER: I just want to check in with Stephen if he believes he got an answer to his question.
QUESTION: I seem to have a microphone in my hand. Well, I'd be interested in knowing what Hillary has to say to that question.
COOPER: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, 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.
The question: The question asks "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else. . . ?" The question does not ask for a promise. It asks if the candidate is willing. The question contains some strong language such as "without precondition", but we can assume that Obama would, it goes without saying, have preconditions such as "will not wear a clown suit". That is, only some kinds of preconditions are actually salient here. The sort of precondition the question rules out is "will reach an agreement on X". It goes without saying that the president will not wear a clown suit. However, there is some ambiguity. Does "without precondition" mean without any advance diplomatic contact whatsoever to set an agenda? Or does the diplomatic process go without saying?
Obama's response: From the reasons he gives it is clear that Obama took things like advance diplomacy as going without saying. His reasons for saying that he would meet with leaders of hostile countries were: (1) A strongly stated rejection of the Bush idea that not talking is a punishment, and (2) the model of JFK and even a right winger like Reagan talking to hostile countries. So those are the models that Obama had in mind. Did Gorbachev ever have Reagan in a clown suit? No. Did JFK and Reagan have advance diplomacy? Of course they did. Obama's answer was meant to indicate that he would clearly reject the Bush policy of not talking to possibly or perceived hostile nations.
Hillary's reply: Although she was not asked whether she would promise and Obama did not indicate that he would promise, Hillary saw an opportunity and went for it. When I saw her response during the debate I thought: "Oooooh. She's good." She certainly won the moment, but the question now is whether her response stands up to scrutiny. I think it does not.
First, you have to interpret Obama very uncharitably to take him to be saying that he would jettison the very diplomatic models he cited in support of his position. Obama can rightly claim that he took some things as going without saying. Roger Lamb made the comment that this is a bit like saying you might like to sky dive and the next guy calling you dumb for not insisting on having a parachute. If you agree to sky dive, it goes without saying that you'll use a parachute. Obama can reasonably be interpreted as thinking advance diplomacy goes without saying. Although she won the moment in the debate; on inspection her criticism looks a little petty.
Second, I think it's a legitimate question to ask just how Hillary thinks she might be used by foreign leaders for propaganda. That is, there is a hint of fear of the world stage in her answer. It, in fact, goes without saying that some of these leaders would try to propagandize a meeting with the president. If the mere possibility of world leaders making propaganda means not meeting with them, then it isn't quite clear how Clinton would be departing from the Bush policy in any significant way.
In fact, there is an affinity between the debate tactic that Hillary used on Obama and one that Bush used on Kerry. When Kerry said that he would return to bilateral talks with North Korea, Bush saw an opportunity and slammed Kerry saying "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is" in an attempt to make Kerry look naive. The difference here, however, is that Bush's underlying rationale - that bilateral talks would undermine the six party framework - at least made some sense, although afterwards many foreign policy experts said it was false. By contrast, Clinton's fear of being used for propaganda doesn't really make that much sense at all.
Furthermore, as Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, Clinton is coming very close to the kind of rhetoric we heard from the right when Speaker Pelosi visited Syria. Fear of propaganda is an anti-diplomacy frame used by the right. "If we go over there and talk to them they'll just spin it on their state run television and radio": Does that kind of thing sound familiar? It's the kind of petty argument against diplomacy that I hear from a lot of folks on the right. It's not surprising then that Clinton has received support from Sen McCain for her attempt to attack Obama. I wonder how many other Republican candidates agree with Clinton on diplomacy.
Obama's response was a strong repudiation of the Bush approach to diplomacy. At best, Clinton's rejoinder was a cheap shot built on an uncharitable interpretation of Obama's statement and on misstating the question. At worst, Clinton can be seen as expressing fear of the world stage and even reinforcing right wing rhetoric. For those that think Obama is an inexperienced campaigner, his standing up to Clinton's bullying is evidence otherwise.