Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Obama on Iran: “Evolving” or Not?

After Obama’s speech at AIPAC this morning, ABC News noted what appeared to be new language on the subject of meetings with Iran:

“But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if – it can advance the interests of the United States.” [E.A.]

ABC describes Obama’s position as “evolving” ever since his original statement in the YouTube debate that he’d be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela “without preconditions. “But now,” ABC writes, “Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.”

Isn’t this sort of circular? Would a U.S. president ever meet with another leader if he didn’t think it advances the interest of the United States? You could argue he’s wrong, but it’s not like Obama has any other reason to sit down with Ahmadinejad.

This is all part of a larger debate about whether or not Obama is walking back his original stance. ABC has argued that Obama’s stance has grown “nuanced” and pointed to surrogates parsing words like “preconditions” ("I would not say that we would meet unconditionally,” said Tom Daschle) and “leader” (not necessarily Ahmadinejad, said adviser Susan Rice).

But the Obama campaign insists that his stance has been consistent all along. According to them, it turns on one word: “willing.” The campaign points out that the YouTube questioner asked Obama whether or not he would be “willing” to meet with those leaders—a distinction from saying he would meet with them. He said, “I would.” Of course, that could mean either “I would meet with them” or “I would be willing to meet with them.” The Obama camp says it’s the latter. Back in November, the senator told Tim Russert, “I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to.”

This is pretty high-level (or maybe it’s low-level) parsing. But picking apart words seems to be the main method of campaign warfare right now. See the McCain camp bickering over tenses when it comes to “pre-surge levels,” or Obama stressing the difference between “preconditions” and “preparation.” But when nitpicking is the norm, the campaigns are forced to nitpick back. Who knew the job of communications director also included etymologist, lexicographer, and semanticist?

Tough-Girl Stance

It's no coincidence that the two most-repeated Clinton quotes of the past day are:

1) "Who do you think has what it takes?"

2) "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. ... In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

The first quote comes from her closing argument ad, "Kitchen." The second she uttered during an interview yesterday with ABC News.

To be fair, the second bit is ripped from context. It’s meant to be a conditional—if Iran attacked Israel, then the U.S. would attack Iran. But Clinton uses much stronger language than ever before. And as Jake Tapper points out, she contradicts her own previous statement in an October debate that "I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals." When pushed on whether there are any conditions under which she would attack Iran, Clinton refused to answer. Now that caution is gone.

What accounts for the shift in rhetoric? It’s all part of her closing argument: Barack Obama is a wimp. That was the implication of the "Kitchen" ad—do you really want Obama dealing with Osama?—and it’s also the subtext of her Iran remarks. The reason she chose Iran, presumably, is that Iran is one foreign-policy issue on which you can’t look too hawkish. As Ben Smith puts it, she’s "almost daring Obama to criticize her as going overboard." Obama is already controversial among some Jewish leaders for what they see as a less-than-perfect stance on Israel (although many think he’s just fine) as well as his connections with Rev. Wright and pseudo-endorsement by Louis Farrakhan. This, like the Olympics boycott, is one issue on which Obama is not likely to challenge her aggressively.

It will be interesting to watch this debate play out in the general. John McCain would normally be delighted to hear that Clinton is willing to use nuclear deterrence to prevent an attack by Iran (and, yes, she's talking about nukes), except now that means he won't be able to paint her (or Obama) as a softie. So in a sense, Clinton might actually be doing Obama a favor here by pushing the Democratic debate rightward. If Obama can match her hawkishness on Iran—and right now, he really has no choice—he has a better shot at diffusing accusations of wimpery from McCain.

Friendly Fire

After listening to a two-hour Democratic debate on NPR, I'm left wondering why they all can't be this good. You probably won't hear much news come out of this debate—there were few accusations, no gotcha questions, and hardly any petty attacks. But that doesn't mean the debate wasn't worthwhile. It was probably the most insightful one yet. 

The debate felt like a flashback to more innocent times—an age free of counterattack Websites, split-screen Web videos, and kindergarten essays. That's because NPR decided to talk about three nuanced issues rather than a broad hodgepodge: Iran, China, and immigration. I had nearly forgotten, but the Democrats actually have similar positions on these and most other issues. The candidates' cooperative tone was in stark contrast with the accusations that have dominated the campaign trail in the last few weeks.

NPR's debate was structured to delve deeper into the issues than any other debate. The three moderators—Robert Siegel, Michele Norris, and Steve Inskeep—pressured the Democrats to reveal the nuances of their philosophy on the three issues. There were no lightning rounds, no grandiose introductions, and no questionable questioners. Instead, the candidates sounded like politicians who were truly grappling with the issues at hand. Would they extend a diplomatic hand to Iran at the risk of being used for propaganda? Limit trade with China even if it meant higher prices? Should the average citizen report illegal-immigrant neighbors to authorities, or is that the role of the immigrants' employers? 

This three-issue approach can be applied to the other debates, seeing as there are so many of them. The Democrats have already staged five televised debates, all of which were partly organized by the DNC. So, why doesn't the DNC (and the RNC across the aisle) help organize the debates to emphasize policy discussions rather than snipe fests? The general election debates already work this way: Each debate covers a broad topic (e.g., foreign policy and domestic policy) assigned by a bipartisan commission. It seems this would help voters better understand who to vote for and help the candidates better understand their opponents' messages.

I could tell you who I thought performed best out of the seven candidates at the NPR debate, but it just doesn't seem appropriate. This was about the issues, not about who made the strongest sound bites. Don't worry, though, there are more debates to come. Let's talk about theatrics then.

This American Debate

Another Democratic debate is taking place in Iowa right now, but this one is camera-free. National Public Radio is broadcasting the debate, moderated by Michele Norris, Steve Inskeep, and Robert Siegel. 

Politicos expected the debate to be relatively low-key, thanks to the predominantly liberal NPR audience, but the candidates are already making distinctions. NPR was wise to make Iran one of the three debate topics, given yesterday's release of the National Intelligence Estimate.

Clinton's Revolutionary Guard vote sank into the background after the media got caught up with horse-race politics, but the NIE has pushed it into the spotlight once again. As Clinton notes, the vote wasn't about what Iran was doing inside its own borders, but rather how it helped Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist forces in Iraq. But no matter how much justification she gives, the candidates can always use a variation of John Edwards' counter: "Among the Democratic candidates there's only one who voted for the resolution; and that's exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted."

Earlier, Clinton said critique of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment has gone "too far."

Listen to the debate here.
 

Winners and Losers of the National Intelligence Estimate

The National Intelligence Estimate reported yesterday that Iran isn't pursuing the nukes the Bush administration once thought they were. Predictably, the candidates quickly blasted out statements celebrating the news. But politically, not all of the candidates should be ecstatic.

LOSERS

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's foreign-policy platform is based on "staying on offense" against terrorists, a category into which he often lumps Iran's government and military. Giuliani has a stable of neocon foreign-policy advisers, including Norman Podhoretz, who tried to convince President Bush to bomb Iran. As Fred Kaplan noted yesterday, staying on offense against Iran might not be such a great idea if they don't have any bombs.

John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" isn't going to shoot up the Billboard charts anytime soon.

Hillary Clinton: That vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't looking too good anymore. Having a nuclear bomb has little to do with whether they're terrorists (Iran's assistance to anti-American forces in Iraq is the United States' main grievance), but now Clinton's opponents can say that she was being overly hawkish on Iran despite a lack of evidence. (Cough—Iraq authorization vote—cough.)

Doomsday paranoiacs: Are we still on the precipice of World War III? Not so much.

WINNERS
CNN: Suddenly, the network doesn't look so bad for not taking a single question on Iran in the CNN/YouTube debate last week. Oh, right, they didn't take any questions on global warming, health care, or Iraq, either.

Joe Biden: Before the NIE came out, he had been calling for Bush's impeachment if America bombed Iran. Now that stance seems even sounder.                 

All of us: Let's take a moment to realize that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons. This means we can all sleep a little easier at night, breathe a little more freely during the day, and only freak out about the half-dozen other states that have a nuclear bomb.