Hillary Clinton vs. Obama: It's about nuance

[LBJDemocrat]

I've seen the argument that Hillary once said the opposite of what she said at the last debate (about conducting diplomacy with hostile regimes). I've also seen the argument that Obama meant the same thing as Clinton because his campaign staff backpedaled after the debate.

While all of this may be true, it would be foolish to think that Obama and Clinton are on the same page when it comes to foreign policy.

First of all, the question asked of Obama was whether he "would be willing" to conduct diplomacy. Obama is a lawyer, from Harvard no less; so I'm sure he clearly intended his response to indicate that he would leave the door open for diplomacy. He did not promise to meet with hostile leaders.

So then, now you may start thinking that his view is the same as Clinton's because they essentially have the same plan for foreign policy. But that's wrong, because diplomacy depends on nuance; and it's perfectly clear that Clinton took on a tone that could only be described as more forceful.

The bottom line is that there is a difference in tone between a potential Clinton administration and a potential Obama administration.

The question is: On the question of language, nuance, and tone, which candidate do you prefer?

[Mass]

1. Definitively Obama...

[disndat]

2. Obama would

bring the troops home. H.C. says she is for ending the war but keeping the troops in Iraq.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. They have the same plan for Iraq. Both will keep troops there for the same purposes

The difference is one calls it a "residual force" while the other says he will keep a "limited number" of troops there. For what? The same purposes as HRC.

From an article in Foreign Affairs written by Obama himself:

==We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.==

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

That is identical to H. Clinton's position. HRC is just more up front about it (i.e. telling CNN about this while Obama reserves the inconvenient details to an elite foreign policy magazine read by a small number of "elite" foreign policy buffs who likely already know his actual position on Iraq).

[Clintonista2]

20. Wrong

HRC has already stated she would bring home all troops by 2009.

[rucky]

3. If you have to explain yourself afterwards...

you answered wrong.

[maximusveritas]

6. You think Kucinich would have answered differently?

I'm fairly sure he would have given the same one, a definite "Yes"

[rucky]

12. and that would've been the end of it.

Obama answered the question. Everything that followed is a tempest in a teapot.

[maximusveritas]

13. He had to respond once attacked

Just as Kucinich had to respond once he found out Clinton and Edwards were conspiring against him.
I don't like that Obama and Clinton are going at it, but if we learned anything from 2004, it's that you need to fight back when unfairly attacked.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Yep. It's sorta like telling a joke.

You get one shot, and you need to have the proper delivery.

On the nuance issue, it looks like they both pretty much failed, but it's probably going to hurt her more than him. Then again, who knows? If they're smart about it, they should have their people talk with each other and agree to mutually drop it right now.

Continued nonsense along these lines make her look like a posturing tough-guy who nit-picks words and is a bit fast-and-loose with intent. From him, it reminds us that he's a tad sloppy in the wording in the first place and almost as inflammatory with his characterization of her.

It seems that he's got the tactical advantage here for the moment, but it also comes off as defensive and a bit obsessive.

More than anything else, it's bullshit about bullshit. Does she really think she's going to convince people that he's going to lay down and lick the hands of our "enemies"? Does he really think he's going to convince others that she'll refuse to ever talk with adversaries? If she's playing games by twisting his words, isn't he by tarring her as some kind of spawn of Bush and Cheney?

Listen to the tenor of the postings on the many threads about this on this board: we're BORED. It's petty. Even the outrage is flaccid. The more they wrestle over this bone the more they wear out their welcome.

She can't concede anything ever, and he can't stop pushing until he has a total turnaround and can nyah-nyah-nyah all day.

This one hasn't just jumped the shark, it's sodomized it.

[killbotfactory]

17. People knew what he meant immediately

I guess Clinton didn't.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. great breaking down of the argument, LBJ. very good.

[sandnsea]

5. Relying on "power" and "prestige"

doesn't sound very nuanced to me. Hillary let her warhawk show, no mistake about it. She then let out the thuggery machine, on which they rely.

Ten more years of this? Almost 2 with Bush, and 8 more with Hillary. Is this what we really want?

[Colobo]

7. Obama > Clinton

[bahrbearian]

8. Tell me again why Dean can't Run?

[rucky]

16. Some plain talk would be refreshing.

Too many candidates with too many "handlers".

Politics-wise, Biden nearly fits the bill, if it's populism we're going for as the Dean-like trait we're missing this cycle. Policy-wise, though, most of the candidates (Biden included) are all over the place. Kucinich is the 'da man in that arena.

[Jillian]

9. Biden!

sorry - I couldn't resist.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. It is. They are like Pepsi and Coke. Same concept, different marketing nt

[LBJDemocrat]

15. Exactly nt

[calteacherguy]

19. Eh...somewhat imperfect analogy.

Coke and Pepsi are not the same thing, and neither are Clinton's and Obama's brand of diplomacy.

Similar perhaps...but not the same. And that could make all the difference in the world.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. I am talking about their platforms

Even those BO supporters who angrily slam HRC as a "Republican-lite corporate whore" cannot name any differences between the two in their platforms. I have identified two differences--and in each case Obama is actually more conservative than the DLCer. :rofl:

The difference between BO and HRC is in marketing, not in substance. Wall Street and the rest of corporate America know this which is why they are heavily supporting both.

[calteacherguy]

18. Yours is the best thread yet on this topic, and the most insightful. I prefer Obama's nuance.

It's the best and strongest antidote we have to the last eight years of the neocon regime.

[Agnostic_Jihad]

21. Hillary was right

in scoring points by pointing out Obama's inexperience as exemplified by his answer. He jumped at the opportunity to meet with brutal dictators when offered the chance by the questioner, so it shows his intincts aren't honed. Hillary's answer had more nuance, as you say, it was the better answer and she's exploited that fact. Good for her.

I'm not sure I'd feel totally comfortable with Obama making foreign policy decisions

[ripple]

23. Nice analysis

Clinton implied something that Obama didn't state.

I definitely prefer the nuanced approach over poll-tested soundbites. :)