Who thought the Democratic presidential contest would include a spat on whether or not to invite Kim Jong Il to the White House? After Senator Barack Obama promised to meet directly with the anti-American leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba during his first year as president (should he be elected) without setting any preconditions, Senator Hillary Clinton and her surrogates blasted him for being naive in the ways of foreign policy. As I noted in postings below, I, too, thought his answer lacked the necessary sophistication. An Obama adviser told me, "Of course, it was a mistake, but Hillary has overreacted." Indeed he forces of Hillary have tried to exploit that misstep, and a catfight has ensued.

In this battle between Clinton and Obama, both sides are right. Look at how ABC News depicted the slam-fest:

In interviews with Iowa's Quad City Times Tuesday, both candidates took shots at one another. "I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive to say that he [Sen. Obama] would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro and others within the first year," Clinton said. "Sen. Obama gave an answer which I think he's regretting today."

Countered Obama: "If anything is irresponsible and naive, it was authorizing George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq -- apparently without knowing how they were going to get out."

Which of these arguments is misguided? Neither. Obama should not have committed to such meetings, and Clinton was wrong to have voted for legislation that allowed Bush to invade Iraq. Certainly, a debate slip-up is not as consequential as okaying a disastrous war. What's unfortunate for Obama (politically) is that he's going on the offensive against Clinton regarding her war vote in order to defend himself for committing an error during the debate. If he's serious about critiquing Clinton's judgment (as evidenced by her war vote), then he should have argued this case earlier. His next best option is to argue it more extensively and vigorously in the months ahead.

I'm not saying this would be a winning formula for Obama. John Kerry also voted for the Iraq war legislation, and though most Democrats in 2004 favored Howard Dean's anti-war stance, the Democrats elected Kerry their nominee and supported him in the general election. But Obama needs to show he's different from Clinton in significant ways. If he believes the war vote is a key distinction (he opposed the Iraq war but was not yet in the Senate), he should focus on that and not on who's coming to dinner at the White House.

I KNEW HENRY KISSINGER, AND SHE'S NO.... Meanwhile, back at my homebase of The Nation, John Nichols used the Clinton-Obama tussle to attack Clinton for being...a clone of Henry Kissinger. I'm no Clinton fan. But Nichols was engaging in historical revisionism regarding an event only three days old. He wrote:

In Monday's night's YouTube debate, candidates were asked it they would be willing to meet "with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela during their first term," Obama immediately responded that, yes, he would be willing to do so. He explained that "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Clinton is playing politics this week. But in a broader sense she is aligning herself with a secretive and anti-democratic approach to global affairs that steers the United States out of the global community while telling the American people that foreign policy is the domain only of shadowy Kissingers.

All Clinton said at the debate--and afterward--is that diplomacy would have to precede any presidential meetings with the thuggish leaders of these states and that she would not commit to such top-level talks without this preliminary work. How does that translate into being "shadowy," "secretive," or "anti-democratic"? I'm all for kicking her for the Iraq war vote. But let's have a fair--and accurate--fight

Posted by David Corn at July 26, 2007 10:50 AM