The Tunes, They Are A'Changin'
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Flip-Flopping | Obamafiles — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think that this speaks for itself:
"There is no reason why we would necessarily meet with [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power," Mr. Obama told reporters. "He is not the most powerful person in Iran."
Last week, Mr. Obama offered a similarly nuanced explanation about meeting with President Raúl Castro of Cuba, saying he would do so only "at a time and place of my choosing."
The caveats belie the simple answer Mr. Obama gave during a debate last summer, when the issue was first raised in a major public forum. Without hesitation or qualification, Mr. Obama said he would hold direct talks with America's enemies, drawing strong and immediate criticism from his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"Would 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?" asked Stephen Sixta, a video producer who submitted the question for the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate.
Mr. Obama, the first candidate to respond, answered, "I would."
Several aides immediately thought it was a mistake and sought to dial back his answer. But on a conference call the morning after the debate, Mr. Obama told his advisers that he had meant what he said and thought the answer crystallized how he differed from his rivals.
"I think that it is an example of how stunted our foreign policy debates have become over the last eight years that this is an issue that political opponents try to seize on," Mr. Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. "It is actually a pretty conventional view of how diplomacy should work traditionally that has fallen into disrepute in Republican circles and in Washington."
Even after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called his position naïve, Mr. Obama refused to shy away from it, at times speaking explicitly in terms of a potential meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
And now, of course, he's backing away from it. That's the New Tone for you. The utter and complete shift in positioning--without anything dramatic having occurred to cause it save the fact that Obama is now realizing that his earlier stance doesn't play well before a general election crowd--should have the mainstream media all over him in the most critical fashion.
At least, if there is such a thing as "critical inquiry" these days.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Obama May Visit Iraq, On One Condition — Comments (58) »
The Tunes, They Are A'Changin' 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But we need to be concerned that despite McCain's best efforts, this guy might just be our next president. On that score, I'll sleep better if I see during the campaign that he's started to walk back from some of his idiotic foreign policy positions.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
The candidates were asked a Yes or No question. It's laudable that they actually all answered decisively. 'No' was obviously the correct Political answer and Hillary, of course, being the shrewd politician that she is, got it right. It is not because Obama flunked Politics 101 that he answered 'Yes'. You're failing to appreciate the significance of answering 'Yes'. For the discerning, he demonstrated that he is confident in his own convictions and does not need to always spew the Political answer. Despite what the pundits may say, 'Yes' will ultimately be interpreted by a majority of Americans as: 'I have a brain and I will not play irresponsible games of intransigence for the sake of my own ego, and I will use all of my intelligence to vigorously seek diplomatic solutions to our problems'.
Remember, it was a Yes or No question. He's only backing away if you chose to interpret his 'Yes' as pegging him on the extreme end of a spectrum of ideas. If you interpret 'Yes' as leaning more toward Yes than No, then there's no utter and complete shift, short of him suddenly declaring 'No'.
We can parse and analyze it, but I believe he gave the correct answer because that is the answer a majority of Americans want to hear at this moment in history.