Joe Conason: Ginning up a fight between Clinton and Obama

[babylonsister]

Ginning up a fight between Clinton and Obama

There's little difference between their stances on foreign policy -- just telling differences in style.

By Joe Conason


July 27, 2007 | As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in the wake of their disagreement about diplomacy during Monday's debate, continue to spar over the issue of foreign affairs, their frenzied efforts to score debating points have obscured the important truths that each candidate touched upon. In keeping with the stupid gamesmanship of primary politics, encouraged by the peanut gallery of the Washington press corps, they must magnify small differences and parse snipped phrases. And along with their flacks and surrogates, they must pretend that these sophomoric maneuvers have actual meaning for the making of American policy. Meanwhile, everyone involved is trying desperately to prove what tough weenies they are.

To explore the real issues raised by their recent fusillades, let's sweep aside the cheap rhetoric. Sen. Obama isn't "naive" or "irresponsible," and Sen. Clinton isn't "Bush-Cheney lite."

Like all of the other Democrats running for president, both senators believe that the international standing of the United States -- plunged to its historic low by the Bush administration -- can be restored only by repairing our alliances abroad and abandoning the current preference for force over diplomacy.

On his campaign Web site, Obama provides a full complement of specific, sophisticated foreign policy plans designed to make the world more secure, and more decent as well. His basic premise is that "America must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission ... America must lead the world, by deed and example ... America cannot meet the threats of the century alone and ... the world cannot meet them without America."

As for Clinton, her Web site's foreign policy page emphasizes not only her formidable qualifications but also her departure from the destructive policies of the Bush administration: "We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism. And to keep our country safe, we need to start engaging our enemies again. During the Cold War, with missiles pointed at us, we never stopped talking to the Soviet Union. That didn't mean we agreed with them or approved of them. But it did mean we came to understand them -- and that was crucial to confronting the threats they posed." It also meant, of course, that our leaders met frequently with Soviet (and later Chinese) leaders, reached important agreements with them, and encouraged connections with their people through trading, cultural, academic and athletic exchanges.

So where do Clinton and Obama truly differ on foreign policy? In reality, the contrast is far from stark and more a question of character than ideology or philosophy. Obama is bold, intuitive and independent; Clinton is mature, careful and grounded. To succeed in renewing America's engagement with the world, the next president will require all of those characteristics.


more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/07/27/clinton_obama/

[Usrename]

1. So where do Clinton and Obama truly differ on foreign policy?

Uhhhmmmm, Hillary has a bigger dick?

[Colobo]

2. Hahahahahahaha!!!

[madrchsod]

3. this obama-clinton "she said-he said" is ridiculous

six more months of this bullshit? no thanks

[Paranoid Pessimist]

4. There Will Be TONS of Stories About Their "Fight"

That's the only way the media can cover campaigns -- especially ones like this one that started at least a year too early, and which features candidates who don't hardly disagree and who are good at masking the specifics of their positions in tricky language. If there wasn't a "fight" between them, there would be no news. They would make policy statement sound bytes and the "audience" (can't really call them an "electorate") will get more bored than they already are.

There will be, as always, a focus on trivialities of appearance -- Hillary's cleavage, Edwards' hair, etc. -- and this will be treated as important news. Pundits will make serious pronouncements on what it means, what effect it may or may not have on the upcoming election. Serious issues like war and health care will neither be passionately discussed nor debated.

Even though there are occasional movies about candidates who "shake things up" by speaking "unvarnished truth" (Warren Beatty in "Bulworth" comes to mind), it never happens that way. Ross Perot, screwy little crackpot that he was, tried it and, despite his wealth, got frozen out of the real debate (probably a good thing but who knows).

Fake fights gives opposing pundits materials for saying their sayings, people who like the candidates will be outraged, people who hate the candidates will say that it serves them right and that way worse stuff should ought to be said. And the Establishment will win the election.

[sandnsea]

5. Uh Joe, HILLARY said there was

So maybe you better tell HER to shut her yap.

[emilyg]

6. Brilliant

:sarcasm:

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

7. There is only one who embodies all 6 qualities of our next President - Wesley Clark

"...Obama is bold, intuitive and independent; Clinton is mature, careful and grounded. To succeed in renewing America's engagement with the world, the next president will require all of those characteristics."

I agree with Conasan, fully. The absence of some of these qualities handicap the current crop of candidate, DEMS and GOPs. Conasan not only identified what America's needs and seeks for its next President, but the qualities that define real leadership -- all of which is embodied in a supreme allied commander former 4-Star General Wesley Clark!

Prevent the next Neocon War:

[IndianaGreen]

9. Unfortunately, Clark is not running.

and neither is Gore. :-(

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

11. Correction: Clark said, "I haven't said, I won't run"

Imo, no present DEM candidate can win the GE's.

The DEMs MUST recognize and elect a genuine leader who not only can embodies all the Parties "personal values and convictions",.. but who projects all the qualities of America's image, here and abroad...



- Wesley Clark at HASC Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Panel on Policy on Iraq War (July 12, 2007)

[IndianaGreen]

8. Hillary is as grounded as a lightning rod

She sure took a shock when the Iraq war she so happily voted for did not follow the script, so now she has to recast herself as something she never was.

[sandnsea]

10. Nov 2003, "stay the course"

Worse than the vote is when she blathered on about staying the course during a trip to Iraq - when the rest of the party was trying to convince the country we needed to change course. No wonder everybody was so confused about what the Democratic Party stood for in 2004.