Amateur Hour with Barack Obama!
9:38 AM, May 12, 2008 • By DEAN BARNETT
Much was said over the weekend regarding Barack Obama's abandonment of his previous promise to talk to our most bitter enemies, just like Roosevelt did with Hitler and the Japanese. In case you haven't heard of this little situation, it's quite something. During the YouTube debate last July, Obama boasted that he would meet "separately and without precondition" with the leaders of the world's worst nations like the crazy guy in Iran who wants to annihilate Israel and Venezuela's crackpot strongman.
The transcript of the debate makes Obama'a diplomatic plans rather unambiguous:
Clambering as ever to claim the moral vanity high ground, the Obama campaign even memorialized this ill-advised pledge on his website. Then on Saturday, the campaign withdrew its aggressive Kumbaya foreign policy via its house media organ, the New York Times. Credulous Times reporter Larry Rohter bought the Obama campaign's spin that the McCain campaign had distorted Obama's ambitious summiting plans and instead "reported" that Obama "does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president." I eagerly await the Times' parsing of this issue and its angry insistence that "during the first year" does not necessarily mean "immediate" and how "leaders" doesn't necessarily mean the guy in charge.
Additionally, the Times' reportage over the weekend differed markedly from a write-up the Times did of a November interview with the longtime community organizer:
Clearly, Obama has had a change of heart regarding whether or not to have a love-in with Ahmadenijad. The real interesting question is what brought this change of heart about. There are three possible scenarios:
1) Obama always thought that meeting with the world's tin pot despots was a goofy idea, but made such a pledge nonetheless in a craven effort to appeal to the far left of the Democratic party which thinks a hope-based foreign policy is preferable to one based on iron and steel.
2) Obama still believes that a goodwill tour of chatting up the world's worst people is a swell idea, but has abandoned it in a craven effort to appeal to the vast middle of the American body politic which thinks the idea is screwy.
3) Obama originally thought the Kumbaya foreign policy was a good idea, but having considered the matter more fully has since realized that it's rash and naÃ¯ve and thus has abandoned it.
As to which scenario is the correct one, your guess is as good as mine. Me, I personally go with door number three. I think he really believed what he said at the YouTube debate at the time, and has since come to appreciate the comprehensive idiocy of the idea.
It's important to note that while this interpretation may seem the most Obama friendly, it actually casts him in the most negative light of the three possibilities. The first two options simply show Obama as a politician eager to appeal to certain factions that will facilitate victory. While this kind of pandering and flip-flopping is ignoble, let's face it - it's what politicians do. I know Barack Obama is supposed to be a completely different kind of politician, the honorable likes of which we have not seen since Abraham Lincoln entered Ford's Theatre, but voters who have yet to swoon at the Obama altar have more reasonable expectations.