Clintonian Kerrbamism
Obama: Kerryite Clinton adopts Obamism! She was against talking to dictators before she was for it. Clintonian Clintonist: It depends what the meaning of “I” is.
In fact the United States has been having talks with Iran for some time, directly in Baghdad on Iraq and through intermediaries re nukes. It hasn’t done any good. Iran is a terrorism-supporting nation that wants to dominate the region, wants nuclear weapons, and has actively involved in the murder of American soldiers for several decades. Iran is led by a mob of religious zealots who oppress their own people and are eager to oppress others.
Open-ended talks of the sort Clinton wants presume an honest negotiating partner and would require a significantly greater show of good faith than Iran has managed in the past 28 years.
Dictator summits of the sort Obama is envisioning would require the president of the United States to be insane.
Obama’s gotcha, a little lame, but it’s fun to watch them attack each other, anyway.
Slate: No Kerryite flip-flop, Obama, Clintonian “I” = “We.” Dickerson correctly states more important question is not interpretation of personal pronouns, however:
… which of the two candidates has a better grasp of the threats that face the country and how to deal with them. Finding the right answer to that question may be the most important thing in the election.
Dickerson doesn’t address this question, so I will. Neither! One wants to give away the farm, the other wants to sell it.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:34 am on Saturday, October 13, 2007
5 Responses to “Clintonian Kerrbamism”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:18 am
“One wants to give away the farm, the other wants to sell it.”
Just a guess here, but Obama is for the freebie, and The Glacier is the one lusting for cold, hard cash.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I trust Hillary Clinton to do and say whatever is politically expedient for her and no one else. Which means I can’t trust her (or any Democrat) at all.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
So everything is up for negotiation. She is truly a woman of plastic principles.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Well, in fact the United States has been having talks with Iran for some time, directly in Baghdad on Iraq and through intermediaries re nukes.
That’s true. Ambassador Ryan Crocker (not anyone’s fool) has been the point man on all that.
I’d still stick to my original contention that “the Iranians” are more excited over the idea of being talked with (the alleged prestige) than they are in amending any of their hardcore positions, nuclear agenda or planned role for Iran in the middle east.
So the fact that presidential candidates yammer about…would I would or would I wouldn’t (talk with Iran) …is depressing in and of itself.
Besides, the reasonable folks in Iran aren’t really available for formal conversations with “the west”.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
If Hillary had the patriotism to want to achieve a favorable outcome in talks with the Pharaohs of Tehran she’d take a hard line. She would make it plain that if the Pharaohs did not negotiate a favorable agreement with Bush they’d face something far worse in her. “That George Bush is a wuss. If the Iranians have not given up their nuke program, stopped supporting terrorists, ceased to mess up Iraq, and stopped killing our soldiers there by the day I take the oath of office as President, the bombs will be falling on them the next day.”
But I am being a dreamer. Hillary’s ruthlessness is strictly applied to her domestic political enemies, not to the enemies of the United States. If she becomes President we can only hope that she begins to interpret the latter as the former. It might happen. Once she is in the White House her self-centered egomania might cause her to interpret the USA as part of herself, and thus to turn her venom against those who threaten it, since she will then see that as a threat against herself too.