Steve Clemons: Hillary Clinton Needs to be "Nixon-Lite" not "Bush-Lite"

[rhombus]

"With all due respect to the frontrunner in the Democratic primary race, Hillary Clinton is wrong on this issue.

America has overdosed on the kind of pugnacious leadership that rejects talking to rivals and, yes, even enemies. Both Clinton and her debate rival Barack Obama know that any serious benchmark of American status, prestige, and moral credibility in the world has fallen precipitously under this administration and needs to be addressed.

Talking to rivals is not acquiescing to them, or appeasing them. Talking to our rivals is in America's own self interest. I'm not talking about a global feel good session -- but rather getting our own portfolio of interests back in some kind of reasonable shape. To do that, we need to be 'engaged' with those trying to take advantage of our eroding and eroded global position.

Let's hope that we may be able to nudge Senator Clinton and her foreign policy team away from a policy that seems laced with elements of a John Bolton-style, Jesse Helmsian pugnacious nationalism and towards a more Nixon-lite approach -- which in my book would demonstrate real 21st century style leadership.

Nixon went to China and negotiated arms deals with the Soviets. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Gorbachev ended the Cold War.

Will it be Hillary that changes the world and goes to Cuba? to Iran? to Syria?

Or will it be Obama?"

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002243.php


Which do you prefer? Nixon-Lite or Bush-Lite?

[IndianaGreen]

1. I prefer neither Bush-Lite nor Nixon-Lite

I wish we would just give up on the idea of empire, a very un-American concept to our Founding Fathers, and become responsible members of the family of nations.

[AnnieBW]

2. I'd prefer FDR-lite

If whoever is the Dem nominee - and I personally don't think that it's down to a two-person race - needs to be their own person. If they have to imitate someone, imitate FDR, whose programs saved this country from the Depression.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. That's the best answer.

I want to get away from Republicans, "lite" or not.

[madison]

4. Is there ANY possibility that, just this once ...

Is there ANY possibility that, just this once, the Democrats could REFRAIN from killing off our own candidates and focus, instead, on the Republican candidates.

I don't like ANY name-calling.

It was offensive when someone put up an add linking Obama and Osama -- I assume it was a right-winger doing that, and it was DISGUSTING.

BUT could we, maybe, on the DU board, NOT call our candidates names in an effort to insult them?

Just this one election?

So we can win this time?

[sandnsea]

6. Uhm, I really think the Clintons are AWFUL

I really think ANY Dem candidate would be better than them. The time to air those differences is NOW.

[sandnsea]

5. Okay, *I* won't even put that on the Clinton campaign

I think that is permanently the single dumbest thing ever said.

[Totally Committed]

7. You know, I read something like this, and I wonder if he just fell and his his head.... hard.

Nixon-lite? I don't think so. She's already Goldwater-lite.

So, how about FDR-lite? She could do a hell of a lot worse (and, already is...) ETA: How about Bobby Kennedy-lite? We need an honest-to-gawd populist with a decidedly Liberal bent, but strong on foreign policy. Either of those two role-models qualify.

TC