The recent developments in the Obama/Clinton feud involving Stephen Sixta's thoughts on how they each answered the question seems to have put the matter to rest. Obviously, Barack interpreted the question correctly, answered it correctly, and according to rasmussen polls, most everyone agrees with him[aside from everyone's favorite opinion shapers: the pundits]. However, there are still issues that concern me.
One thing that bothered me was Clinton, recently asking "whatever happened to the 'politics of hope?'" Most recently, she had Tom Vilsack sound off for her:
"One could say they[Obama's "attacks" on Hillary] are certainly audacious, but honestly they are not particularly hopeful. . .It's not the Iowa way."
But wait. Didn't Clinton start this by calling Barack "naive" and "irresponsible"? Why is she making the argument that Barack is not allowed to hit back when attacked?
More after the jump
Clinton seems to be trying to box Obama in by suggesting that, since he's promised a new kind of politics, he is a hypocrite anytime he attacks or counterattacks.
In a Friday interview with NPR, Barack confronted that notion head on:
"The notion that we can't have a substantive argument, or that I can't challenge some of their conventional wisdom without somehow sacrificing the broader themes of our campaign - which is to bring people together and change the tone of politics - I think makes no sense,"
He didn't stop there though, he also attacked the pundits and expounded upon the change theme:
"It’s fascinating to me to hear pundits who are commenting on this issue suggesting somehow that straying from conventional wisdom is an indication of inexperience. It actually, I think, is a desire to replace the sort of convential wisdom and experience that has gotten us into, probably the biggest foreign policy mess in several generations and start doing things differently."
Here's what I think:
- Hillary lost points by trying to paint Barack as a hypocrite for challenging her. What does she think the 'politics of hope' means, anyway? That she gets to call Barack "naive" and "irresponsible" and then call him a hypocrite if he counterattacks? No. She started it, and if she can't take it, she shouldn't dish it out. The main thing that bugs me about it is the way she seems to be resisting Barack's attempts to elevate the discussion. First, she calls him "naive" and "irresponsible." Then, she tries to distort the discourse by making it sound like he's talking about calling up Castro and Chavez and inviting them over to tea. Later on, she disingenuously implies that Barack called her "Bush-Cheney Lite" when he was talking strictly about policy. Seems like she's just too scared to clarify her position or talk policy at all for that matter. This just highlights the ambiguity of her campaign. And finally, after all this intellectual dishonesty, she attempts to paint him as a hypocrite.
- I liked Barack's point on how the pundits suggest that straying from 'conventonal wisdom' is somehow an indication of inexperience. Seems to me like some of these fellows have been inside the beltway a bit too long.
Anyway, everyone should go check out the NPR story. There is a text version, which is great, but there's some stuff that isn't written down that you can only get if you click on the "listen" button. I got home around midnight after working all Saturday and saw that all the buzz was about Stephen Sixta[which was great and interesting, btw], and thought that Obama's artful response to Hillary's charges of hypocricy wasn't getting enough play.
Update
a poster has pointed out another response from the Obama campaign that was issued on Saturday:
Obama memo, sent by spokesman Bill Burton..
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.
Important background you should know about Clinton’s position:
- Clinton Defended Talking to "Bad People": In a radio interview, Clinton praised Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria saying, "I think that both her delegation, which was primarily Democrats, and a Republican delegation that was there approximately at the same time are doing the right thing. We have got to engage these countries." Clinton added, "I don't agree with the President's view that we don't talk to bad people, because clearly that's not a smart way to figure out how you can bring leverage on them and that's what I'm interested in." Interview with WSYR, 4/9/07;
- Clinton says she would "absolutely" immediately engage Syrians and Iranians: http://www.youtube.com/... OLBERMANN: Would you reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians, even with the tensions between this country and Iran? SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I don't see it as a sign of weakness. I see it as a sign of strength. You know, our president will not talk to people he considers bad. Well, there are a lot of bad actors in the world, and you don't make peace with your friends. You've got to deal with your enemies, your opponents, people whose interests diverge from yours. Right now we're flying blind when it comes to Iran. We don't have good intelligence about Iran, about what their real motivations are, who's calling the shots; the same with Syria. And I would immediately open a diplomatic track. And I don't think we would lose. In fact, I think we would gain insight. I mean, if we have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, let's get more information before we do that. Let's figure out, you know, what levers of power in their society we might be able to pull and push. [MSNBC, 1/23/07]