"PUBLIC policy position vs. PRIVATE policy position..."

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

When I first saw the repugnants trying to embarrass Secretary Clinton with this issue, I immediately though of what I believed was the best example of this. Probably the best example, from probably the best person to have done this. Maybe I missed a thread, but I haven't seen anyone else post about this.

It was the night of the Correspondents Dinner and Roast in DC. President Obama's public posture, both in words and body language, was one of a President relaxing and enjoying the traditional roasting humor for an entire evening. Not a hint of anything else.

Later we learn that a YUUUGE well-planned policy decision was being carried out as everyone, including the President, was enjoying a traditional light-hearted evening. WOW. Not a hint of a major mission from anyone who knew. Especially not a hint from the President. Yes, that night the President had implemented the removal of bin Laden.

Even later we learned that President Obama had directed his team to re-write or eliminate a bin Laden joke from his remarks. They questioned his decision, but not a peep from the President. “'Here’s the thing,'” (Speechwriter Jon) Favreau remembered Obama saying, “'I would just get rid of bin Laden and go with another bad guy.'” Favreau wondered why they would do that.

Having been a labor contract negotiator most of my professional life, I know there are many times where the position shared in public or shared with the other side is NOT the position a negotiator actually holds. Having worked for several Members of Congress, I know that negotiating a Bill is even more complex and often requires both public and private positions. I can only imagine how much harder it must be for a President and a Secretary of State to balance these positions in negotiations which affect the entire word.

I am both glad and impressed that Secretary Clinton had the chance to explain why having both public and private positions is sometimes necessary for the greater good. Like removing a cancer from the world stage.

[Wounded Bear]

1. It is frankly essential for national security...

Like you said, negotiations at any level can be delicate, and some offhand remark that goes public can destroy negotiations that had been going on for months in an instant.

You'd think that Trump, the self styled "master negotiatior" would know that.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

6. ABSOLUTELY. tRump has not a clue. Thanks for posting. eom

[whistler162]

2. What shocks me about the statement Hillary made

is that no one has had Doris Kearns Goodwin on to take about her book "Team of Rivals" and whether Hillary was right in her commentary.

[shraby]

3. It also shows up on the Democratic side of the aisle concerning abortion. Virtually

all the Democrats in Congress will uphold Roe v Wade without a doubt, but there are some who are in private anti-abortion. They keep their private beliefs and public obligations to the constitution separate.

[Bobcat]

4. Kaine

Anybody who can think understands this dichotomy. I thought Mr. Kaine explained this masterfully in the V-P debate. Public officials take an oath to uphold the law - even when it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

7. Good point. Thanks. eom

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

5. Absolutely. And also with LGBT issues.

I worked on a Congressional race in an R+9 but pro-choice district. The candidate was publicly pro-choice because the majority of ALL women in the district. Many people criticized the candidate for not being openly pro-LGBT. Our candidate won. That was ten years ago, and being publicly in favor of LGBT equality would have killed the candidate in the media. I never thought we would see marriage equality in my lifetime. But here we are ten years later.