Sioux City Journal

Hillary's right

Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007

In what arguably is the most high-profile dustup between national Democratic presidential frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so far, Clinton is the clear winner.

Her answer to a question during a Democratic candidate debate Monday night about whether she would agree to meet herself within her first year in the White House with the leaders of such American adversaries as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela was absolutely the correct one. No, she would not.

Obama, on the other hand, said he would.

Diplomacy is a sensitive, high-stakes endeavor to which a slow, careful approach often is most prudent and effective, particularly when it involves nations with which the U.S. does not enjoy friendly relations.

Rewarding the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez with the commitment of a face-to-face meeting with America's president before their intentions have been determined through lower-level diplomatic channels is a dangerous invitation to being used for propaganda purposes and making a difficult situation even worse.

Opening the lines of communication between the U.S. and its adversaries is not a bad strategy in and of itself. Before the American president sits down across the table from, say, Kim Jong-il, however, much preparation work must take place behind the scenes.

Story Comments

Larry j wrote on Aug 5, 2007 9:37 AM:

" John Edwards is the Man we need in the White house!! "

CMH wrote on Aug 5, 2007 7:00 AM:

" At this stage of the game it doesn't really matter what they say, as most of it is just posturing and talk. How many times have we heard candidates say one thing during campaigns, and then don't follow through or do the opposite. What I know right now is this: When Hillary is on TV, I can't turn the channel fast enough - she is nausiating to me. When Obama is on TV, I want to listen to what he has to say. "

Lily wrote on Aug 1, 2007 12:01 PM:

" It's true, there really isn't much difference between the views of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They'd both talk, very much unlike the Bush Administration. It's just that Obama failed to say the precautions he'd take and Hillary, being extremely cunning on these situations, pounced on that, emphasizing her experience. I've no doubt that Obama would take precautions, as well, but he just didn't say it there, and allowed Hillary to get the better of him. That alone, diplomacy aside, already shows just who is the stronger candidate, who is faster and who is smarter. Also, Estella, I would like the correct your assumptions about Senator Clinton and her relations across the aisle. She has alreayd worked with many GOP senators in her first term. In fact, she is good friends with Senator Lindsey Graham, and has worked with countless others, including Bill Frist and Sam Brownback. In addition, I think the next you intent to write a scathing condemnation of someone without a single example in sight, it should at least be gramatically correct and have the proper spelling and puctuation that I'm sure even a high school freshman like myself am capable of. "

jm wrote on Aug 1, 2007 10:58 AM:

" I think it's important to be accurate in telling of the events. Senator Obama was the first one who was asked the question, and technically it was would you be "willing" to meet without preconditions... His answer as I interpreted was that the "preconditons" didn't imply skipping over the protocol of diplomacy at all, but rather he was actually answering that he wasn't going to jam U.S. policy down other country's throats and decided we wouldn't even talk to them unless they first complied. Hillary cleverly drew a distinction between herself and Obama by mentioning the propoganda thing, but she'd said essentially the same thing in previous interviews, where she didn't talk about groundwork diplomacy being first laid (but obviously would do it). Obama later clarified his position, but as usual, the truth gets obscured after many tellings and now it all has a different spin.... "

Alex wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:29 PM:

" ok. first of all, the GOP is already working with her. That is the reason why I support Hillary Clinton. After all the things that the Republicans said about her(calling her a murderess, lady macbeth, questioning her sexuality, etc.) she came into the Senate and sought consensus. If you look at her Senate record you will see bills that she cosponsered with Bill Frist, Trent Lott, Sam Brownback, Pete Sanatorum and the list goes on. Few remember that it was Robert Byrd that brought about the defeat of Hillary's health care proposal, yet he now calls her a "protege" of his. Rupert Murdoch, the man that once openly hated her, now throws fundraisers for her. The man responsible for the "Harry and Louise" ads, is now her healthcare marketing advisor. The fact is Hillary has a long history of turning enemies into friends. She is exactly the person we need to lead this country out of the partisan wars of the past. "