TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
21.05.2008
Obama and Those Meetings

Barron flags this ABC piece about the Obama campaign's refinement of its dictator-meeting position:

Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate -- and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle. "Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. ... 'Without precondition' simply means we wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That's really what they're saying, what Barack is saying."

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama's meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

"He said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be," Rice said on CNN. "It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time -- not necessarily Ahmadinejad." ...

"I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything," Obama said [in an interview yesterday]. "They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation."

"I think this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what's important," he said. "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.

I think this is the right approach--people are warming to diplomacy after 8 years of Bush, but they want assurances that their president knows what he's doing in these situations.

That said, an even better approach would be to change the subject and talk about the economy, health care, lobbyists, Iraq--really anything other than Iran and meeting with foreign dictators. I thought Obama got the better of the "appeasement" back and forth on Thursday and Friday. And he needed to clarify his position after McCain's attack earlier this week. But the longer we talk about these meetings, the more Obama fights on McCain's turf, and the less time he spends exploiting McCain's numerous vulnerabilities.

Update: In fairness, Obama does appear to have talked up McCain's lobbyist ties today, though he also weighed in on the foreign leaders debate. Curiously, McCain apparently decided to hit Obama on Iraq when he addressed foreign policy today, which, I think, is a much bigger loser for him than those meetings are for Obama.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:54 PM with 14 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

GSpinks said:

Noam,

This election cycle's foreign policy debate does not provide home field advantage to the Republicans. In fact, Obama more or less has republicans on the ropes when it comes to foreign policy, as if it was something he's thought about for a long time, and knows what is going on.

I think the key issue at this point is:

"They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation."

Correcting the misperceptions strengthens Obama's already strong position in the foreign policy discussion; and the fact that Republicans have no accomplishments over the last 7+ years with which to defend themselves, its really just a matter of how fast and how hard Obama can hit home on all the various talking points.

May 21, 2008 5:50 PM

liberal reformer said:

Obama is clearly walking back on his previous policy but can't say so for fear of incurring a flip-flop charge. And it is the voters who will decide if Obama has McCain on the ropes on security matters.

May 21, 2008 6:10 PM

ChanRobt said:

Obama is so much at sea it's a joke.

Impressive intelligence and rhetorical skills is no excuse for abject ignorance.

May 21, 2008 9:40 PM

ironyroad said:

are

May 22, 2008 1:22 AM

ChanRobt said:

Are ain't no excuse for abject ignorance either.

May 22, 2008 3:35 AM

selish70 said:

There's really no need to worry.  Zbigniew Brzezinski is on the team!  I mean, THE Zbigniew Brzezinski!  Can you believe it?  I'm just amazed that Obama was able to pull him away from whatever it was that he was doing, but I'm not about to complain.

May 22, 2008 8:45 AM

wildboy said:

You mean the abject ignorance of who is in charge of the Iranian nuclear program and foreign policy?  The abject ignorance of the nature of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq?  The abject ignorance of the consequences of maintaining permanent American military bases in Iraq, and the perception this creates among Iraqis and Arabs generally of our goals in the Middle East?  One could go on.

May 22, 2008 9:52 AM

blackton said:

channy, and what of the 150,000 American troops, attempting some kind of detente with Iran over Iraq and saving American lives, nah. Can't possibly think of that. Imagine the hours wasted seated at a conference table, the horrors of that. Oh, and a handshake, must never let that happen, better 1,000 soldiers die than have a picture taken.

If some kind of mini-summit, witht the heads of Turkey, US, Iraq, and Iran could be convened to discuss border security, trade, etc. would that really be such a bad thing? At the very least, while the Iranians were in Iraq the violence they instigate will go down and a few solders lives will be saved at such a small cost. I truly don't get such disregard for soldiers lives so that people can make bs political points.

May 22, 2008 11:02 AM

michael said:

ChanRobt  said:

"Obama is so much at sea it's a joke."

...But he's not the loser.

"Impressive intelligence and rhetorical skills is no excuse for abject ignorance."

I agree and that's why Barack's "impressive intelligence and rhetorical skills" don't demand others to come to his defense with ignorant excuses.  (He also passed arithmetic.)

Question for the day: "Is it possible to find dignity in those who insist on seeking pity & behaving as sore losers?"

May 22, 2008 11:17 AM

nturner said:

These last few days are more evidence that Obambi doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing.  His thought process is so muddled:  Iran and North Korea aren't serious threats...  Wait a minute... no yes they are; they're "grave."   Kennedy met with Khrushchev... wait, that's probably not the best example because Khrushchev came away thinking Kennedy was naive.

Should any of this matter to the cultists?  Of course not.  Their hysterical love is irrational.  I'm just sad that TNR, which I used to love, has sold its soul to the Messiah and lost its head in the process.

May 22, 2008 2:54 PM

GSpinks said:

"Obama is so much at sea it's a joke."

McCain is so much at sea it's a joke.

"Impressive intelligence and rhetorical skills is no excuse for abject ignorance"

Unimpressive intelligence and rhetorical skills is no excuse for panderous double-talk.

"These last few days are more evidence that Obambi doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing."

These last few years are more evidence that McSame doesn't have a fucking clue what "Straight Talk" means.

"His thought process is so muddled:"

His thought process is so muddled:

"Iran and North Korea aren't serious threats...  Wait a minute... no yes they are; they're "grave."   "

The housing crisis is not a problem... Wait a minute... no yes it is; its "serious"

"Kennedy met with Khrushchev... wait, that's probably not the best example because Khrushchev came away thinking Kennedy was naive."

Reagan met with Gorbi... wait, that's probably not the best example because Gorbi had an arsenal of nuclear tipped ICBMs pointed at America's mouth.

"Should any of this matter to the cultists?  Of course not."

Should any of this matter to the republitards? Of course not.

"Their hysterical love is irrational."

Their love of the irrational hyperbole is hysterical.

May 22, 2008 4:45 PM

ChanRobt said:

wildboy, our goals in the Middle East are to keep the sons of bitches down where we have to, and lift them up where we can.

Once we finally develop the alternative energy we ought to have started creating 34 years ago when we got our big Heads Up, we can saw off the Middle East and launch it towards the sun.

In fact, let's do it now and make do with saw grass.

May 22, 2008 8:37 PM

ChanRobt said:

GSpinks, even the NY Times says (today) that JFK's meeting in Vienna in June of 1961 was premature and a disaster.  

That Khruschev came away believing that Jack Kennedy was "Very intelligent.  And weak."  

That Khruschev's impressions of Kennedy gleaned in this meeting led immediately to the Berlin Wall, the Berlin Crisis, and worst, the close run thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I have a lot of affection for the memory of Jack Kennedy.  But "Very intelligent.  And weak."  sounds like a perfect description of Obama.

I will concede that he out maneuvered and out ran Hillary Clinton.  BFD.  She is hard working and smart.  But not very witty, charming, or, frankly, very likeable.  She is, in fact, a really crappy politician.

Obama's beating Hillary only proves he can beat a charmless girl.  Not that he can handle the kinds of tough sons of bitches he will face domestic and foreign, should we have the misfortune of his reaching the White House.

May 22, 2008 8:43 PM

ChanRobt said:

I misquoted the NYTimes on JFK and Khrushchev's observation about him after the Vienna meeting: “too intelligent and too weak.”

Even better.  And an even better description of Obama.

I should also clarify that the NYT is not saying this.  The op-ed contributors, Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins are saying it in their NYT column.

May 22, 2008 9:07 PM