July 30, 2007
Hillary Goofed in Dem Debate (Dick Morris)
The polling is in and Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations. According to a Rasmussen poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55 percent to 22. Without a poll to pre-test her comments, Hillary instinctively took the “insider” position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong. Democrats want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without preconditions.
At the South Carolina Democratic presidential debate, Hillary and Obama clashed over Obama’s statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue states like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran if he were president. Hillary said that she would not do so and would not allow herself to be used for “propaganda purposes.”
All week, Hillary pounded out her message, enlisting former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and possible future Secretary of State Dick Holbrooke to speak up on behalf of her position. She blasted Obama as “naïve,” one of her few direct attacks on her opponent. For his part, Obama ridiculed her position as “Bush Cheney lite,” a comment that got under Hillary’s skin.
The exchange had little real significance during the two-hour debate, but Hillary’s obsession with the issue all week has given it real importance. She made a big mistake in the debate and amplified it all week.
Why? Perhaps Hillary is not using polling the way Bill always did — to pre- and post-test all important issues. If she had, she would not have locked into the minority position among Democratic primary voters and would not have stayed with that view all week.
Maybe her campaign staff was caught flat-footed for once.
The fact is that this week’s debate was the first time the two Democrats have clashed seriously since the contest began early this year. This round definitely goes to Obama.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 15 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I'm not sure what Barack O'Reagan's diplomacy position will be tomorrow. Perhaps he doesn't, either.
As of today, however, having studied O'Reagan's many, many, statements over the past week, I think I have my head wrapped around his current view of Presidential diplomacy.
O'Reagan thinks that preconditions are OK on the condition that conditional conditions are previously agreed upon. Further, under the Conditional Propaganda Clause, there are conditional exceptions to this rule, but only under certain conditions.
Are we clear now?
Comment by JoeCHI — July 30, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Since most democrats are liberal there doesn't appear to be much substance to these findings, i.e., cats like cat food, so a poll of cats would not prove otherwise. Hillary did do poorly at the YouTube libfest, only because she couldn't state one reason why she should be president. I've got a hunch she won't.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 30, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Correct Mr. Morris, it seems to have been a mistake on her part, although it also might have been just a calculated move as she may be looking ahead to the general election.
It seems though that most people, particularly the Democrats, are in a mood for our next President to hit the ground running to correct the years of Mr. Bush's f***ing things up. Part of that would mean that the new President needs to move quickly to meet with as many foreign leaders as possible to let them know that there's a new sheriff in town.
Comment by Derek D. — July 30, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Next there will be a poll as to whether "the neocons" or "the rich" should be tarred, feathered, and deported. The Democratic base will answer "yeah, sure" and Barack will voice that finding with all the audacity his hope has inspired.
Derek will support it, because it's St. Obama whose words are golden, and all will be well with the world.
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Poor, miserably bitter Igor… If Sen. Clinton's answer was wrong, just think of how poorly SuperFred would have answered it…
Comment by Derek D. — July 30, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Derek, bitter? Not at all. I'm perfectly happy these days, even the NYT is admitting I've been right on Iraq all along. What's there to be bitter about?
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
While he did not explicitly verbalize this, I assumed all along that Obama **meant** to say that he would condition meetings leaders of rogue nations on benchmarks with respect to human rights, peace and security. I suspect most **reasonable** thinking people, along with most undecided Democrats, would come to a similar conclusion. After all, honestly, does anyone **really** think Obama (or any other Democrat) would pick-up the phone and cold call North Korea’s president? Or, take unsolicited telemarketing calls from leaders from Venezuela, Iran, or Syria?
So, I'm still scratching my head as to why Team Clinton went out of their way to hammer Obama as they did, with that phone call to the Iowa press and by trudging out Albright like they did. Score one for Obama for effectively shifting the debate about **his** "naivete" and "irresponsibility" onto Clinton for voting for the Iraq war.
But, having said that, I think it still remains to be seen how long Obama can surf the wave he’s caught. Team Clinton should stick to their main message sans any predicates — i.e. she's a leader with depth and experience. Period. No need to tag on districting predicates such as, compared to her, Obama is relatively inexperienced. She should have left that dirty-work to the press, pundits, and people's imagination.
tony_daysog
http://www.moderatedemocrats.wordpress.com
Comment by tony_daysog@moderatedemocrats.com — July 30, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Obama would not cold call North Korea's president because he has no idea what to say to him. What's he going to do offer him some DVDs of that guy's favorite movies or some blondes for his enjoyment?
Obama has no strategic vision in foreign policy. His "idea" of "let's talk, let's chat" with the world's worst isn't going to get him very far.
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 1:13 am
Lol, when exactly have you or the neocons been right about anything, Igor? You have a perfect record of being completely wrong on everything, so please, if you have an example of a neocon being right, do tell. You certainly seem pretty bitter towards Sen. Obama; is it diplomacy in general that gets your knickers in a twist, or the fact that Mr. Bush has so thoroughly bungled it?
Comment by Derek D. — July 31, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Derek, the term "neocon" doesn't mean anything other than in the Iraq context, and Iraq isn't over. So I don't know what perfect record to defend.
And I keep repeating: diplomacy only works if you back it up with a stick or carrot. One way to explain it is like this: imagine you'd like to have a million dollars, but that's your entire plan. If you tell me "I'll go to some random rich guy and ask him for it, maybe he'll just give it to me", and I'll respond "No, that's not worth your time, people don't behave like that". Now if you have a serious business plan, or some collateral, or for that matter, on a negative side, are holding his family hostage, I'd say you have a chance. That's all. Just talking to people like the Iranians who are killing our soldiers and have a deadly ideology without any idea why they will want to be nice doesn't make sense to me. Talking to Russia about cutting nukes when you know they can't afford any more nukes makes sense, because both countries can save money without too many negatives.
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
So Hillary goofed.Really.The most recent poll show her pulling away from Obama.
Looks like you goofed Dick not Hillary. Too bad your hatred of Hillary blinds you.
Sincerely Andrew ODonnell
Comment by andy odonnell — August 2, 2007 @ 10:40 am
So Hillary goofed.Really.The most recent poll show her pulling away from OBama.
Looks like you goofed Dick not Hillary. Too bad your hatred of Hillary blinds you.
Sincerely Andrew O'Donnell
Comment by andy odonnell — August 2, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Don't worry about Hillary. President Clinton stepped up and explained about how there are many ways to execute diplomacy. Then Barack's communications guy presented an "interpretation" of what Obama meant in his "tough on Pakistan" speech.
If elected, I wonder who is going to speak on behalf of Hillary and Barack?
Hmmmm.
Comment by Cheryl O — August 4, 2007 @ 9:49 am
the only one to answer from the heart is dennis the rest are phony. dennis don't run from fox news like the rest of those liars.
Comment by joe keeney — August 8, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Speaking of Pakistan and Baracks comments of criticism for Masharif, looks like Masharif is emptying Al Qaida from his jails. Nice diplomacy, Obama.
See? It's not so easy to be president.
Think about your comment about speaking to all enemy leaders in the first year.
Enough said!
Comment by Cheryl O — August 22, 2007 @ 3:10 pm