Edwards agrees with Hillary on question of Presidential meeting with dictators...

[SaveElmer]

Rival John Edwards, who campaigned in South Carolina on Tuesday, echoed Clinton's comments in the debate.

"I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez," Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. "I think there's a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070724/democrats-debate/

[Mojorabbit]

1. Oh for crap's sake

Same boss as the old boss.

[LBJDemocrat]

5. Hate to break it to you

But if a candidate advocates meeting with Fidel Castro, he loses Florida. No question about it.

Regardless, turning a communist nation into a similarly brutal authoritarian capitalist nation (e.g. China) where slave labor can be exploited isn't a great idea in my book.

[rinsd]

2. *chuckle* Edwards is looking to close ground with Obama.

[aquart]

3. And...?

I don't watch the debates so I don't know what's being discussed. Why am I supposed to have a problem with this statement?

[quinnox]

4. I agree with him (and Hillary)

I'm not going to get into name calling but I am in agreement that Hillary gave the right answer and John Edwards was correct in agreeing with her. Obama's answer wasn't nuanced enough, and therefore he can take some heat on it in all fairness.

[polichick]

7. I agree with HRC and JE on this one too...

But it wouldn't be such a big deal if Obama folks would just let is slide.

[Adelante]

8. I agree also

The hook in the question was "without preconditions" and Obama missed it. No president, including Obama, if he were to become president, would ever agree to any such thing, particularly with anti-American leaders. I think the Obama team is wrong to press on this one, they should let it go.

[rinsd]

9. Its a tiny gaffe that will be forgotten by next week.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. The problem is it reinforces Obama's biggest weakness

Namely, the experience question. No one is really going to remember what he specifically said but this will have to cost Obama some points among some voters as this increases the number who will classify him as too inexperienced for the job. That said, I think Obama is getting a raw deal on this. He has exactly the same position as HRC, JE, and everyone else on this. Axlerod noted this. Of course, the Clinton campaign smells blood and is going to milk this as much as it can.

HRC has a similar problem. The Obama camp's (lame) attack on her reinforces HRC's biggest weakness.

[laugle]

25. It was a huge blunder and clearly indicates

his lack of foreign policy experience.

[SaveElmer]

11. As a matter of policy I agree...and in the context of the Democratic contest...

It will pass pretty quickly...

But if he had made this blunder in a debate with the Republican candidate it would have been very bad...on par with Ford's gaffe in the debate with Jimmy Carter...

[polichick]

6. Funny how they all scramble for press...

...the day after a debate!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. This was what JE said in the debate, not a press release from the campaign or a new statement

I think the Edwards campaign is content with watching the Clinton-Obama fight over this from the sidelines. ;)

[polichick]

12. Smart man to stay out of it...

But he basically told reporters he agrees with HRC.

[SaveElmer]

13. No he repeated it today...

While campaigning in SC

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Oh ok. Thanks for the correction. nt

[SaveElmer]

21. Its a political gaffe...

As opposed to thinking Obama would actually do what he says...

Just as Ford's blunder in 1976 was...

Obama makes this comment in a debate with the Republican he would get roasted alive...

He has to tighten up his performance...so far not ready for prime time

[BeyondGeography]

14. Without PreconditionsGate

Long story short, Hilly is on the record as favoring talks with everyone, too. This clearly isn't turning out to be the "winner" you guys thought it was this morning.

As for Edwards' agreement, he knows this is the only way he'll get press today.

[SaveElmer]

17. In the context of the Democratic Primary...it will pass soon...

Though not evident on DU, most Democratic voters are predisposed to excusing gaffes by Democratic candidates...so this is a tempest in a teapot most likely

Had Obama done this in a debate with the Republican candidate it would have been another 1976...

[BeyondGeography]

20. This reminds me of the first-reponse flap in SC

Obama gave an incomplete and rambling answer, Hillary filled in all the blanks and Team Clinton spun it all as a major victory. She got a little goose in the polls out of it and some good media coverage. Lesson: Leave the door open for that girl and she'll fly right through it (and I mean that as a compliment).

This time, it looks as if the Obama camp got ahead of the story and shopped her October and April comments around, which, if you delete the "without preconditions" piece, put her position on talking to bad people pretty close to what Obama was suggesting last night. I'd say they overplayed their hand, but I also agree with you that this too shall pass.

[SaveElmer]

22. If he is the nominee...

He cannot pull this in a general election debate...

It would be very bad...

[BeyondGeography]

23. We agree...then again, a Democrat could shoot a person on-stage

and still be successfully labelled as weak on national security compared with his or her Republican opponent. That's a big reason why I favored Clark last time around.

[iamjoy]

15. See, Here's How Its Done

1) To save face, our President does not meet with these leaders.

2) He (or maybe even a she) sends some one not officially connected with the administration, but known in diplomatic circles (or known in the international community). This unofficial envoy discusses "hypotheticals" with the foreign leader. They come to something that WOULD be acceptable to both sides, but alas, "I have no real power to do anything. Well, it was nice meeting with you, I'm glad we talked."

3) The unofficial envoy goes home and reports the findings

4) If satisfied, the president reaches out to the foreign leader. If not, the president can always claim the person was not acting on presidential authority.

OTOH - Did Edwards say he was taking a visit to these dictators off of the table, or just that he wouldn't commit to doing it? There's a big difference. As for his "propaganda" concern - what exactly is it:
a) Saying he would visit Chavez would be used as a propaganda tool by the right (Edwards is a commie)
b) Visiting Chavez would be used as a propaganda tool by the Venezuelan government

See, it isn't really clear. The article seems to imply Edwards doesn't want to use diplomacy, when that may not be the case at all.

[CTyankee]

18. Your analysis is right on. Of course, diplomacy is done that way

and always has. No leader just starts calling in all the guys and chewing the fat...

What a ridiculously simplistic question! This kind of reductio ad absurdum is well, just that. Aaargh...

[laugle]

24. That's why Edward's may very well be the VP! nt

[geek tragedy]

26. The DLC Duo strike again! eom

[Imagevision]

27. The "people meter" machines went down for Hillary and up for Obama though...

on the meeting with other leaders question.