The Democratic Presidential Debate on February 21 finally clarified the essential difference between Senators Clinton and Obama. First, they are similar on matters of policy - domestic and foreign. The differences between them, as in mandatory health insurance, are minimal. Even regarding Iraq, despite Obama having been against the invasion from the start, their approaches to troop withdrawal are virtually indistinguishable.
So what is this essential difference? It is one between a person who would once have been called a "cold-war liberal" and someone who mostly grew up post cold-war era. It is the difference between a baby boomer who had to "duck-and-cover" in anticipation of a Soviet nuclear attack and a post-boomer who grew up away from an America that had entered into treaties and had clearly become the preeminent world power.
While cold-war liberals were great on domestic policy - pro union, pro education, pro government protection of individual rights and freedoms - they were intimidated by McCarthy-ism: they had to prove that they were as militantly anti-communist as the next guy. They shared fears of Russian expansion (after all it was liberal Democrats who got us into the disastrous Vietnam war). Senator Clinton is either deeply scarred by that experience or she has to prove that she is as tough the modern-day anti-terrorist Republicans.
From her votes on Iraq and then on Iran - essentially giving Bush free rein to wage war yet a second time - Clinton seems to have embraced entirely the Republican saber-rattling posture. This makes her more like Senator McCain than like Senator Obama when it comes to using diplomacy. Her response to the opening question about whether she would talk to Raul Castro made it clear: she wants our adversaries to prove to us that they want to change before talking to them. This is cold-war liberalism morphed into modern day neo-con thinking replete with tough talk preceding genuine dialogue.
Senator Obama is not similarly crippled. He believes that we can talk to people with whom we disagree and that we can change our own diplomatic approach without insisting that our adversaries change first. Obama attracts young people who don't relate to all the posturing and tough talk. Even though they all felt the tragedy of 9/11, they think knee-jerk bombing of Iraq isn't the answer. Others who are older are attracted to Obama because they are sick not only of living in fear but also of living inside a unilateral and ultimately a superior approach to other nations. They think that talking allows space for thinking - on both sides. This is something that is refreshingly appealing about Mr. Obama.
Finally, this fundamental difference about whether people have to prove themselves before we listen to them has serious consequences for domestic policy as well. Although both Clinton and Obama are deeply concerned about the health and wellbeing of all Americans, one of them will be more open to listening to their needs than the other. There is no question that either Democrat would be better that George W Bush OR John McCain, not just domestically but about troop withdrawal from Iraq. But I think that the "change" Obama wants is a fundamental change in attitude, an openness that transcends specific policies and squabbles about rhetoric.
Debate excerpts about whether or not they would meet with Raul Castro get to the heart of the matter:
CLINTON:I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening because I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction.
Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.
But we've had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement, where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest and, in this case, in the interest of the Cuban people.
OBAMA: I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.
But I do think that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.
CLINTON: But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting without preconditions with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations, and it should be part of a process. But I don't think it should be offered in the beginning because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.
OBAMA: Because the problem isn't -- is if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time, and I think that it's important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step. That's the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States.
The candidates would approach the prelude to negotiations differently. Clinton seems prepared to set benchmarks. That is, steps leaders of a country must take to essentially be “rewarded” (the carrot) with diplomatic initiatives linked to their good behavior. Obama wouldn’t necessarily recognize that ripe moment and would set only a few preconditions, such as human rights, opening the press and releasing [political] prisoners, perhaps unilaterally making his move.
It appears there are gradations in “preventive/preemptive” behaviors. A kind of “soft” preemption is the closest point on the scale: our overture requires very little positive signal from the target.
“Hard” preemption is the furthest point on the scale, namely, an invasion or other slightly less “invasive” act.
The middle grades are varying degrees of meeting some level of expectations on our part. While Obama is near a soft preemption, Clinton is closer to a harder preemption.
The candidates clearly differ on how far, or even whether, adversaries must open their systems to be rewarded with negotiations. The current administration has slid down the continuum for the most part, deciding perhaps that a middle preemption, with our troops hamstrung in Iraq, is the safest course.
Annemarie Victoria now for Barack
Let's say a middle-aged man dropped his suitcase while running across an intersection. And out popped sex magazines and paraphernalia of every description.
How many Americans would be shocked to discover that the man was Bill Clinton?
I am tired of the tawdry, the soap opera and the personal issues that are part of the Hillary and "Bill in a China Shop" show.
Remember when certain sexual acts were not acceptable subjects when talking to strangers?
Remember when alone actually meant alone?
The trashing of the English language, the increasing coarseness of public discourse are all part of the Billary legacy.
When I see Barack and Michelle together, the love and respect is palpable.
When I see Hillary and "Bill in the China Shop" together I really do not know what I am seeing - what is palpable is the feeling of revulsion.
Please God or whoever is out there, deliver us from the Clintons, once and for all!
ClintonSpeak seems all Clinton's supporters are capable of; she lies, they repeat it. Obama says wisely: the time to think of how we will get is before we go in. There were no WMD; that was a Bush/Cheney ruse to rouse support for their illegal invasion (violated UN Charter, making us guilty of 'war of aggression') of Iraq. Obama has a brain he uses to think. He does not react and act like an hysterical or deranged mad person: Shame on you!? She has been sending out mailers too. Difference? Hers have lies in them. Hope Obama brings a NH one along to hold up at the Ohio debate. She has also plagiarized, among others, Saturday Night Live, her husband and Obama's words.
The MSM has given Obama a pass on almost everything. Foreign policy is no exception.
Obama's 2 big criticisms of Hillary are the Iraq vote and the Kyl/Lieberman Iran vote.
Where was Obama on the Iraq vote? In Chicago, he was not a Senator yet. So, he can conveniently criticize from the sidelines.
Iran vote? Again he criticizes Hillary. Where was he? Too busy setting up his campaign in NH for Kyl/Lieberman: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/11/3/15518/8255
The above cnn story says he has explaining to do.
This story says he actually supported his buddy Lieberman designating Iran terrorist:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/the-obama-disse.html
Obama's as phony as a 3 dollar bill (they used to say that about Nixon, now we have another).
Obama ducks votes to avoid a record to criticize. He ducked votes on partial birth abortion with the chicken yellow present button in Illinois legislature. (see user comments to that abc blog).
Hillary voted against pba and took the heat.
Bottom line: this Huffpo article is phony and is based on false pretenses. Obama doesn't have a new way of thinking, he just has a new way to slip accountability.
Hillary's got guts. Obama ducks.
Hope and change: quack quack!
Instead of giving crackpots like Ahmedinejad photo-ops with our Commander in Chief, I would hope that the leader of our country would respond with something substantive that can unify the world against the threats posed by a nuclear Iran.
How about if Obama demands that Ahmedinejad apologizes for constantly threatening Israel with destruction? How about if he demand an apology on behalf of the tens of millions of people that died in World War 2 to stop Hitler and the Holocaust that Jr denies. How about if he demand an apology for Iran forcing non-Muslims to be second class citizens in their own country? How about if he demand an apology for Iran chanting 'Death to America' in their legislature?
We don't need Obama to go abroad and chastise his own country while whitewashing the real and substantive security and human rights abuses being perpetrated by our self-avowed enemies.
Sure, it may be popular to hate America around the world, but we don't need Obama and/or his wife hating on us whenever he goes abroad, just to try to 'change the tone'.
Hillary == Bush-lite.
This is a brilliant diagnosis!!!
thank you.
AMERICA WILL SHINE as soon as the ATTITUDE here changes.
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT : attitude is a SMALL thing that makes a BIG DIFFERENCE
All the letters in Barak Obama's first and last names are contained in the name "Abraham Lincoln." (And the "c" in "Lincoln" is sounded as a "k".)
An anagram of "Barak Hussein Obama" is:
"Is Abraham -- bank on use."
In essence, there is an unspoken message to Obama's mindset and diplomacy: "We may disagree, and we may agree to disagree, but you will not tell me how to behave. I am the master of my own life, not you."
Obam's way of thinking is far superior to Hillary's childish unspoken Bush-like message: "I'm gonna take my ball back and not play with you because I don't like you. Oh, and by the way, I may bomb you into submission just because."
As the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gassett said:
"What counts is not what you do, but what you think and feel as you go about doing. That is what propels you to do more."