Clinton/Obama feud - what's your take?

Damocles said:
I think we should meet with them, but with regular conditions on the meeting.

Also, you should note that meetings with Iranian leaders are happening, pretty much as we type.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever, the point of my argument is that Obama wins this battle, not because I am with him on this issue, but because the Democrats are.
 
Cypress said:
I have no idea what is meant by "preconditions", and I doubt the poll question defined the term either.
Click to expand...

It's kind of assumed when they speak of Anwar Sadat. Nobody really knows what he did except foreign policy gurus, and he didn't just decide to up and go to Isreal 'without conditions' either, if you are considering conditions as broad as Damo is putting them.

Anwar put himself on the hotseat in the Arab world though because he decided to discuss peace with Isreal and consider them a legitmate country. Got himself a noble peace prize in '78, and was assassinated in '81. Something that made me laugh was the question said he met with them in '82, but he was dead then. He met with them in '77.

Also, Bush won't have a high-level meeting with Iran until they renounce their nuclear ambitions and stop supporting terrorism. Low-level meetings are happening but that is what is assumed by most people as the 'pre-conditions'.
 
DigitalDave said:
It's kind of assumed when they speak of Anwar Sadat. Nobody really knows what he did except foreign policy gurus, and he didn't just decide to up and go to Isreal 'without conditions' either, if you are considering conditions as broad as Damo is putting them.

Anwar put himself on the hotseat in the Arab world though because he decided to discuss peace with Isreal and consider them a legitmate country. Got himself a noble peace prize in '78, and was assassinated in '81. Something that made me laugh was the question said he met with them in '82, but he was dead then. He met with them in '77.

Also, Bush won't have a high-level meeting with Iran until they renounce their nuclear ambitions and stop supporting terrorism. Low-level meetings are happening but that is what is assumed by most people as the 'pre-conditions'.
Click to expand...
They are the meetings to set the conditions where the higher levels will meet. Dimplomacy grows, good diplomacy has strong roots in these lower level meetings.

Anyway, both of them said they would meet with them, only one said, with knowledge, that it takes more than "no preconditions". Knee-jerk answers to prove how "not Bush" you are only land you in criticism and point out gaps in experience.
 
DigitalDave said:
It's kind of assumed when they speak of Anwar Sadat. Nobody really knows what he did except foreign policy gurus, and he didn't just decide to up and go to Isreal 'without conditions' either, if you are considering conditions as broad as Damo is putting them.

Anwar put himself on the hotseat in the Arab world though because he decided to discuss peace with Isreal and consider them a legitmate country. Got himself a noble peace prize in '78, and was assassinated in '81. Something that made me laugh was the question said he met with them in '82, but he was dead then. He met with them in '77.

Also, Bush won't have a high-level meeting with Iran until they renounce their nuclear ambitions and stop supporting terrorism. Low-level meetings are happening but that is what is assumed by most people as the 'pre-conditions'.
Click to expand...


That's why I think this is a manufactured "controversy". I quite sure neither clinton nor obama, are just going to hop on an airplane and go shake hands with the iranian president. Both, are going to probably have high level diplomats do the grunt work first. Similar to how Clinton had Richard Holbrooke and Wes Clark work with Milosevic first, before Clinton met him in Dayton.
 
Cypress said:
That's why I think this is a manufactured "controversy". I quite sure neither clinton nor obama, are just going to hop on an airplane and go shake hands with the iranian president. Both, are going to probably have high level diplomats do the grunt work first. Similar to how Clinton had Richard Holbrooke and Wes Clark work with Milosevic first, before Clinton met him in Dayton.
Click to expand...
So far I have spoken nothing about the "controversy" I have simply given my opinion on the subject, that I preferred one of the answers over the other.
 
Damocles said:
I prefer a more thoughtful approach to foreign policy. It isn't like I'm here cheering Bush on for his great handling of our foreign policy or something. However, Hillary's response was far more pragmatic. Opening dialogue does not take irresponsible reactionary FP based on "See I'm not Bush" mentality.

In Hillary's response it was far clearer she had more of a clear knowledge how it must work. In his it was clear he was desperate to be the "anti-Bush", so much so his answer was not well-thought out and showed his green gills.
Click to expand...

I agree that Hillary's answer was more well-thought out, but that comes with the benefit of not answering first. I also don't believe that Obama's intent was to say "I'm not Bush" either. Just having an intelligent answer says that you're not Bush.

He's not desperate to prove that he isn't Bush, Clinton is. His position on the biggest issue of this election and perhaps this generation demonstrates that he isn't Bush. The anti-Hillary fervor among democrats is rooted her War Queen status and persona. I can't imagine that this spat with Obama bodes well for her among democrats.

In the end I believe there will be a Clinton/Obama ticket, although many, including myself, would much rather see a Obama/Clinton ticket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top