This spat between the Clinton and Obama campaigns over comments in the debate strikes me as a little silly. Here's a transcript of the relevant exchange (edited slightly for length):
QUESTION: [W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?This brief skirmish has continued, with the Clinton campaign using surrogates (most notably former Secretary of State Albright) to paint Obama as naive, and Obama smacking back with charges of hypocrisy, as Clinton has repeatedly assailed the Bush administration for refusing direct talks with a variety of nations.
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
[Reagan, Cold War, etc. ...]
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
COOPER: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
Fundamentally, this is an example of establishment thinking versus normal thinking. Establishment thinking says, you don't meet with or talk to Crazy Bad Guys like Castro/Kim Jong Il/Chavez without doing tons of prep work, making sure it's on a track, there are specific goals and benchmarks met, etc. etc. Which is actually essentially true. But in answering the question "would you negotiate with these guys" the normal thinking goes, not negotiating with them is idiotic, so of course I would!
I don't think Obama was saying, "I'll sit down with Castro on day three of my presidency," I think he was saying that negotiations with bad leaders are *theoretically possible* in an Obama administration, whereas they're not even a consideration for the current one. Clinton, in a pretty savvy move, intentionally misinterpreted (I'm guessing) his answer to take a jab and imply inexperience and naivete. Which has worked to some extent, at least among the political insider class and the press. And she thought fast enough to specifically disdain Castro and Chavez, which probably helps her in Florida.
In the end, I don't think voters really care, and his answer probably helps in the primary whereas hers may benefit her in the general. His sentiment is absolutely right, but he can't afford to be careless; Clinton is too good to pass up an opening like that. Despite the generally congenial tone the Democratic debates have taken thus far, they are, after all, debates, not joint press conferences.
Still, on actual substance, it's not anything worth criticizing Obama for, and it's pretty disingenuous to hammer him on it.
Main & gay blog