Clinton vs. Obama, Clinton and Obama

I agree with Brian that it would be nice if political journalists would actually evaluate the substantive merits of the Clinton/Obama spat rather than engaging in endless meta-analysis of its positional impact on the horserace, but I fear that he's wrong to think this actually represents "a standoff between a status quo foreign policy and a much more constructive (though I hesitate to say new) direction."

So far as I can tell, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't disagree at all. Barack Obama would, if made president, deploy various ambassadors and envoys to lay the diplomatic groundwork that could result in Obama meeting with leaders of countries that America doesn't necessarily consider allies. Hillary Clinton, too, would deploy envoys and various high-level administration officials to lay the diplomatic groundwork that could result in Clinton meeting with the leaders of countries that America doesn't necessarily consider allies.

So why the argument? Well, you need, first, to remember the question that was asked:

"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?"

"I would," responded Obama.

As far as I can tell, the actual dispute here stems from a central ambiguity, followed by some opportunism. I heard that question and assumed it was asking whether, in contrast to the Bush administration, you would open negotiations, and possibly have meetings, with the heads of countries like Iran. I'm pretty sure that's how Obama understood it. But Hillary heard that, saw an opening, and pounced. And Obama, being a smart politician, didn't back down, and has instead used the spat to tie her rhetoric to Bush's rhetoric, with which it shares some similarities.

But Obama's current position -- "the notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous" -- is, I think, no different at all from Hillary's stated policy that "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are...I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be." She's emphasizing her caution, he's emphasizing his break with the Bush administration. But the two don't substantively differ.

So while I too would like a media that focused on the actual substance behind their positions, I think that such a media would have rapidly tossed this story aside. At the end of the day, this is really about Clinton and Obama demonstrating their central appeals: Change for Obama, and competence for Clinton. Both think they can win this spat. Maybe they're both right. But I don't think, on this point, either is indicating a radically different policy. Their main disagreement is on which of them should be President.