Friday, July 27, 2007

Clinton-Obama Foreign Policy Feud

On Monday night (July 23, 2007), the Democratic presidential contenders took to the stage in South Carolina to answer questions submitted by "real people" on the CNN "YouTube Debate (follow the link to see the question and each candidate's answer)." For the most part, the submissions to YouTube.com were far more creative and interesting than the boilerplate, rote responses by the Dems.

Things were going along swimmingly until there was a question about meeting with foreign leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

Watch the YouTube.com video below:



As you can see from the video, there was a BIG difference of opinion by the two leading candidates. Since Monday evening, both Clinton and Obama have dug in behind their statements during the debate. A number of newspaper articles have been written about the two contenders taking of the gloves and going toe-to-toe on this one (read articles here, here, and here).

Obama has since referred to The Hillary as "Bush-Cheney Lite." He contends that another Clinton presidency will result in a continuation of a failed foreign policy.

Clinton's camp has referred to Obama as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." She thinks that meeting with foreign leaders requires diplomacy, strategy, and tact that Obama doesn't have.

I happened to catch a segment on CNN's "The Situation Room" where men from each campaign held a mini-debate over which candidate was "right" and which one was "wrong."

plez sez: the question as asked by the YouTube.com submission mentioned meeting with these foreign leaders "without precondition during the first year of your administration." i am not a statesman by any stretch of the imagination, but i would tend to think that ANY meeting with a foreign leader would carry some conditions and diplomatic "mumbo-jumbo."

but i do like the SPIRIT with which Obama answered the question: he states that unless there is a change in approach, we will continue to have the same FAILED foreign policy that led us to war in Iraq! he correctly asserts that Reagan met with Gorbachev during the Cold War with Russia, Nixon went to China, and JFK had discussions with Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. i agree with Obama, i don't see how you can avoid firing missiles at your "enemy" if you've never sat down with them to discuss your differences.

Hillary is leading in the polls, but i'm still feeling the fresh (albeit inexperienced) perspective from Obama.

8 comments:

LLR said...

Well it looks like the gloves are starting to come off. I like it.

Eddie G. Griffin said...

I heard to comment about meeting with leaders of other countries and Hillary Clinton's response. I can understand why the White House brain trust might want to haggle before such meetings are made. Clinton knows also how the behind-the-scene brain trust and political handlers work. The president is just the figure-head. All the thinking and policy-making are done behind the scene.

The Afrospear should position itself to be the new brain trust behind the new president. This is where ALL the decisions are made that affect the nation.

CapCity said...

I love Obama!!! but u know that already. EVERY time I hear that man speak not only ELOQUENTLY but straight NO Chaser!

Did u catch Anderson Cooper's "correction" of Hilary Clinton's Hugo Chavez - where she pronounced it w/ a SILENT "H"? Did she think that was showing to her Hispanic Brethren that she speaks de lingo? LOL! I agree w/ Obama - she is present Admin-LITE. If she's skurred say she's skurred!

Have u seen the uTube of Ben Affleck speaking on Obama? I have a new respect for Ben!

Zackory Kirk said...

Its about time the race heated up and we could all see how Clinton and Obama differ. I am still very much undecided between the two. I will carefully watch the debates henceforth.

plez... said...

i think it is good to see the candidates begin to attempt to distinguish themselves in this race. i am still a bit leery of Hillary Clinton, she comes off as unnatural and seems to rely too much on her years in the White House as the president's wife; earth-to-Hillary, that is NOT a qualification for president. she is smart, well-heeled, well-traveled... but she also is a bit SLICK WILLY-ish, and i'm having some trust issues with her (it appears that everything she says is in an effort to be politically expedient).

Obama on the other hand doesn't appear to be as wordly as Hil and a few times he showed his naivete about matters of foreign policy (the basis of this entire brouhaha with Clinton. but i like it, i like his NEW WAY of looking at things. he takes risks and sticks to his conviction, which may not always be wise politically. my support of Obama hinges on the fact that he will most definitely bring CHANGE to washington, which is something that Clinton cannot guarantee.

Mizrepresent said...

Whomever can get to the truth, change some things, and end this God forsaken war! I'm for!

plez... said...

miz,
with Clinton, you'll get 4 (or 8) years of the same, a sprinkling of well-positioned, convictionless half truths, and a continuation of the war in Iraq... i think you KNOW who you're for! *smile*

CapCity said...

Hilary Clinton is the modern day Lady MacBeth - she's CLEARLY got her OWN agenda & the war is simply another pawn in the game....PuH-LEEZE...how many women do U know would stick with a man who PUBLICLY humiliated their union, if she didn't have her own agenda!??
For those who think they're getting another four years of Bill in da house....don't bet your last dollar...