Public on the Side of Obama on the Foreign Policy Debate

[illinoisprogressive]

Don't tell Mark Penn or the national press corps, but it seems (via Andrew Sullivan) that the public mostly backs Obama on the question of meetings.

As some people have pointed out, it's a little bit unclear what, exactly, the policy disagreement here amounts to. The political disagreement, though, is pretty clear. Clinton is making the same kind of calculation that led people to think Democrats needed to authorize the war in 2002, or keep quiet about the NSA surveillance program in 2005, or posture as "tough" on Iran in 2006, etc., etc., etc. Those kind of political calculations, however, have implications for governing. First John Edwards by taking on the "war on terror" construct, and now Obama by challenging the Very Serious People on the subject of meetings are starting to edge toward a new Democratic approach -- one that involves actually challenging the post-9/11 miasma into which the national conversation about foreign policy has landed -- while Clinton is still fully inside the defensive crouch.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday’s Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama. Clinton and Obama continue to dominate the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_divided_as_to_whether_new_president_should_meet_with_heads_of_iran_syria_north_korea

[EV_Ares]

1. And I am one of those 55% who agree with Obama. In fact I agree

with him on most issues. I certainly would rather have Hillary than any of the other party candidates but she just says and does a lot of things to show that she is part of the same old Washington elite. She is a corporate dem but all in all would be probably so much better than what we have now or the other party could give us.

However, Obama, Edwards for me/

[Alexander]

2. Hillary should get off this losing issue...

And move on to something else, if she wants to win the nomination.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. I agree with both of you. But, you know, she had one of her minions today

out to tell Obama to stop being mean.

[ShortnFiery]

5. That "victim mentality" is not going to be appealing to anyone ...

:wtf: OVER! Why does a woman who has no problem figuratively swaggering, talking tough, and essentially war-mongering for Bush-Co EVER need to send someone to her opponent's camp to ask them to "not be mean?" That makes ZERO sense from the new American Margaret Thatcher. :crazy:

In other words, HRC can't have it both ways. :shrug:

[TeamJordan23]

4. Yah, and she her Wolf go on Hardball and deceive the viewers about the IWR

and public opinion about the war.

[Colobo]

6. If she fires Wolfson, she will win points with America.

[Tom Joad]

8. how can we tell they were deceiving people?

were their mouths moving?

[Tom Joad]

7. 30 million people around the world marched against bush's plan for war in Feb 2003.

we know where Hillary stood.

[WCGreen]

9. But none of those people went to Wellsley....

What would they know of foreign policy...

Just in case someone doesn't get it...

:sarcasm:

[UrbScotty]

10. People side with Obama. Obama sides with people. Coincidence?

Obama cares about our national interests more than others in this race. Plain and simple.