Originally published on the CGS blog on August 1, 2007.
Like my colleague Scott Paul, I too have been away from the hot air and humidity of the nation’s capital. While Scott was in the picturesque state of Maine, I traveled to Michigan for some much needed time with old friends and family.
Also like Scott, to me the most compelling political news over recent days has been the debate between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in regards to their foreign policy views and ways they would carry out diplomacy from inside the Oval Office. I agree with Scott, when he wrote :
What matters most to me in this skirmish is that both candidates are prepared to go to the negotiating table at some level without arrogantly suggesting that others need to ante up first, as the current administration does.
Both candidates have an opportunity to make that point in ways that reinforce their respective identities. Whether it’s Clinton’s experienced leadership or Obama’s future-oriented optimism is of secondary importance to me for the time being. What matters is that we start talking.
Talking with not only our friends and allies, but also with leaders of nations we disagree with, is also a tune that Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsen wrote about yesterday.
While Clinton won the initial round by looking more executive and experienced than her rival in the TV debate, Obama may have scored the most points with Democratic activists on the ground during the rest of the week. He got a robust response from audiences in Iowa on Friday and Saturday when he referenced the dispute and took swipes at Clinton.
Most people don’t understand diplomatic niceties, but they do understand that the United States has got to start talking with people if it hopes to settle disputes.
Clinton’s decision to keep up the attack is counterproductive. She’s the national front-runner in the race. Why should she elevate Obama by engaging him like that? Why give him openings to hit her back?
The two engage in this stuff at their mutual peril because Edwards – or even Richardson or Biden – could wind up the winner of this whole flap.
While Yepsen points out that an Obama-Clinton argument could be of benefit to other Democratic candidates, John Edwards seems to be promoting a cease fire in the war of words among his rivals. In The Boston Globe, Edwards says :
“The last thing we need is two presidential candidates fighting with each other, instead of fighting for the change we need in America,” Edwards said. “And, man, do we need change in the worst possible way.”
While I agree with Edwards that we ?need change? in our foreign policy, I think the American public is well served by an open, honest and vigorous debate during the presidential election cycle. So, I look forward to all candidates?in both of the major political parties ? to actually take a lead from Senators Obama and Clinton and let the American people know how you would implement a foreign policy once elected. We?re smart enough and tough enough to understand that ideas are what elections are about, so let’s here them, big and bold. We can digest more that an eight-second sound bite.
