So wait, would you or wouldn't you meet with leaders from North Korea and Iran? Posted by Moira Whelan

Council for Livable World released the results of their Presidential Questionnaire today (warning: PDF), and it seems to me Clinton has changed her position on meeting with international leaders.

The question stated:
Do you support or oppose direct negotiations with Iran and North Korea that would include incentives for Iran not to build nuclear weapons and North Korea to eliminate verifiably its nuclear weapons program?

Candidates had a choice between "support," "oppose" or leaving it blank, and then had an opportunity to explain more fully. 

Clinton said "support" (as did Biden, Dodd, and Richardson).

Obama didn't check either (neither did Edwards).

All of the candidates expanded on the reasons they checked the boxes they checked, and answered a total of 7 key questions.

A gold star to Chris Dodd: He answered all of the questions with a straight up or down, no nuance, and no qualifications.

Box-checking aside, the answers were not a significant departure from what we've heard. It got my attention, however, because the fact that Obama said he'd meet with leaders of foreign nations in the YouTube debate was greeted with days of attacks from the Clinton camp. It's unusual that you'd do that, and then check "support."

Obama didn't check the box, but called for "aggressive direct" diplomacy and stressed military options wouldn't be taken off the table.  Consistent. Solid.

Clinton had checked "support" so I guess she didn't have to clarify, but she said she'd engage, but didn't specify if that would be bilateral, direct, through 6 party talks or what. In addition, she spent more time talking about how the Bush Administration had failed than any of the other candidates.

So in the end, I guess HRC is still holding her cards tight, and telling voters that the "we will see" approach is the safest way to go diplomatically. Even though he didn't check a box, Obama was more direct...about being direct.

Certainly these questionnaires are not the end-all-be-all. Campaigns have to fill out these questionnaires all the time because usually funding, endorsements, etc are conditional upon the questionnaire. The questions are answered in such a way as to not have them picked apart by people, and essentially make as little news as possible. I’d say we can all agree with Gary Hart’s take away on this:

“If any of these six Democrats get elected, I expect significant improvements in American nuclear weapons policy, the war in Iraq, nuclear non-proliferation, and U.S. leadership on important international issues in general and Iran and North Korea in particular.”

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

I have to say that I am extraordinarily disappointed that Obama could not bring himself to answer "support" to question #7. I can only guess that the words "negotiation" and "incentive" scared him off. He says:

But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy - of the kind the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to engage in.

So as far as I can tell, Obama's position is now that he will engage in "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, with a "strong international coalition" on his side, but not with an eye toward a negotiated settlement of US-Iranian differences, but only to tell Iran what it must do. This is barely discernible from the Bush position. Everything Obama had gained in my eyes a few weeks ago by seemingly staking out a break with current Iran policy he has since lost by whittling the "pro-diplomacy" position down to the same old bullshit.

Frankly it looks to me like Obama and Clinton both tried to anticipate what the other would say here, and were both spooked by their previous experiences with this issue. Obama went right and Clinton left, both guessed wrong, and now Obama has ended up to the right of Clinton. It's comical really. Politics is really such a farce.

It's days like this that make me want to move to Canada, or Sweden ... or Tahiti.

I've had it. I'm going to vote for Kucinich in the New Hampshire primary.

[Chris]

First, I think you're right that nobody reads these things so Clinton can be contradictory (or appear to be contradictory) without raising a ruckus. That said, it may seem strange to go on...

But it's worth reiterating that the fuss over Obama's comments at the youtube debate were less about foreign policy than being appropriately circumspect. No democratic contender at this point is going to rule out meeting with any world leader. But the exact question asked at the debate (as taken from CNN's transcript) was:

"[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?"

Key words include "separately," "first year," "anywhere else," and certainly "without precondition." Answering yes to the question *as asked* was entirely bush-league. Obama's debate performances and other statements (most knowledgeable about foreign affairs? really?) have shown little evidence of the game being raised.

But then again, somebody told me, somewhere, the Obama was against the war in Iraq so, really, all other foreign policy questions are moot.

[Don Bacon]

The above link is "not found".

The primaries are months away--let the dialogue continue.

excerpt from Obama's WaPo interview, Aug 15:

"Senator Clinton apparently disagrees with me on this issue of preconditions," he said. "I think she's wrong on that because if we continue to set preconditions for discussions that are hostile to us, I think that's what loses the PR battle worldwide because it implies the United States is the superior power and other states have to give in to our demands before we even deign to meet with them. And that reinforces the sense of the arrogance of U.S. power around the world, which is a source of great damage -- and makes us less safe."

Sounds good to me.

[Peace]

I wish that Obama would mention that Brzezinski and William Odom support his position on Iran.Maybe this would prevent the mainstream media or DLC Democrats from labeling any type of dialogue with Iran as an extremely left winged position.

[irakghp zgkyworni]

hrbizv fkbqyphnj qnhkcox xsun lcgnedq wvmjsaqb jbdein