Defending Obama’s Comment
July 25, 2007 by Marc Lamont Hill

By signaling in Monday’s debate a willingness to meet with leaders of Iran, Cuba and Syria, Obama was expressing confidence in the power of diplomacy,
Obama Got It Right
By Katrina Vanden Heuvel
In Monday’s debate, and with the benefit of having time to think through her response, Hillary Clinton posed as the foreign policy sophisticate to Barack Obama the bold leader who did not hesitate to say that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. My colleague David Corn argues that Obama has committed a major blunder reflecting his lack of foreign policy experience.
(My colleague Ari Berman posted his smart and sharp counter to David’s argument on behalf of those like Hillary Clinton who are “steeped in the nuances, language and minefields of foreign policy.” But I feel strongly enough to weigh in on this debate.)
Those “nuances and minefields” can also be traps. Witness how far Clinton’s nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
David may well be right that Obama’s opponents will try to exploit his response. But from a foreign policy point of view was Obama’s response so wrong and Clinton’s so right? Her husband’s administration generally followed Hillary’s approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea –while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father’s. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably.
- Categories: MLH
- |
Advertisement
Leave a Reply

- Advertise with us
- Advertise with us
Advertisements
Recent Comments
- WPD on Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement More Racist Than The Tea Party? said "Dr" Hill is pathetic.

- Esty on Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement More Racist Than The Tea Party? said Occupy Wall St. is just straight stupid. I work on ...

- F Mize on OPEN POST said Marc, I saw your interview on O'reilly tonight and ...

- View More Comments

