Yesterday, Geekesque had a diary that observed Hillary and Barack Obama were mixing it up over one of the most talked about points in the debate, the subject of presidential visits to some of America’s more nettlesome antagonists. I am a Hillary guy, and I’ll confess that right up front. My own take on it is that Hillary’s position was quite reasonable and would represent the only action that a sitting President could undertake, given all the constraints on the person and the office of the President. During the heat and pressure of the debate, I think Obama saw an opportunity to strike a position that was different than the one George W. Bush has taken, and he jumped eagerly at the chance. I also think he had the misfortune to go first, and it was a touch clumsy, and Hillary, with a few moments of reflection and a lot of experience with how presidential life actually works, was able to describe what she knew would have to happen before such high level meetings occurred. John Edwards, of course, immediately saw the wisdom in what Hillary had said and ascribed to her position, "Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right."
All of that is well and good; we all speak rashly from time-to-time and don’t say everything we might say with a little reflection, so I think it probably would have been just as well for Obama to change the subject and move on, but there seems to be some lingering sensitivity with regard to the event. It is the post-debate discussion that troubles me more. TPM reports that Obama is continuing to dwell on related matters:
"Look, one thing I'm very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than anyone else in this race, Republican or Democrat.
"And I don't base that simply on the fact that I was right on the war in Iraq. But if you look at how I approached the problem. What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.
"The notion that somehow from Washington you get this vast foreign policy experience is illusory."
I like Barack Obama, and I hope to support his presidential aspirations in future years. But all told, I have a lived overseas for an estimable period of time, and though I think I have insight into the lives of people around the world, I can’t say that experience has fostered in me any understanding of the complex and subtle dances that constitute professional international diplomacy.
If I were Obama, I might just say, "Of course, Hillary was right," and move on. He strikes me as a tad touchy the past couple of days, and he needs to find his stride again.