Obama, Clinton Tussle Over Talks With Assad and Other Despots

Ron Kampeas
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

WASHINGTON

In one of the roughest exchanges yet in the Democratic primary race, the campaigns of U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tussled last week over when presidents should meet with the leaders of rogue states, including Iran and Syria.

The difference of opinion between the two leading Democrats stemmed from the CNN-YouTube debate July 23 when a questioner, citing the success of the 1977 visit to Israel by the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, asked if any of the candidates would meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Sen. Barack Obama

Obama (D-Ill.) said yes, and Clinton (D-N.Y.) disagreed, setting the stage for the next day's flurry of press releases and calls to reporters by proxies.

The Obama-Clinton contretemps comes as the pro-Israel lobby has made isolating Iran its signature issue and after Republicans attacked U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in April for meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. It also has unfolded at a time when the former first lady leads comfortably in polls, but lags in fundraising overall.

She leads among Jewish donors -- among the most generous givers to Democrats -- though insiders report that Obama has made considerable strides.

During the debate, Obama was firm in saying that he would talk with the heads of America's international foes.

"And the reason is this," he said. "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."

Sen. Hilary Clinton

The questioner, identified as "Stephen," was in the audience at the Citadel, a military college in South Carolina; he said that he wanted Clinton's views, too.

"I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year," she said. "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort."

John Edwards, the former U.S. senator from North Carolina, agreed with Clinton. "I think actually Senator Clinton's right. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community."

Clinton's sharp divergence from Obama's position was the first between the Democratic front-runners in what until now has been a mild debate season. Her staff seized upon it the next day, inviting reporters to chat with Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of state, who has endorsed Clinton.

"She gave a very sophisticated answer, which showed her understanding of the whole process," replied Albright. "It is necessary to have lower-level people make the initial contact."

That call prompted a broadside from the Obama campaign.

Obama "showed his willingness to lead and ask tough questions on matters of war, and he offered a dramatic change from the Bush administration's eight-year refusal to protect our security interests by using every tool of American power available -- including diplomacy," wrote the campaign via a statement.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, however, did nothing to dispel questions that have arisen as a result of her support for the war in Iraq," a dig at Clinton's 2002 vote. Clinton has since said that she would not have supported the war had she known then what she knows now.

"When pressed," continued Obama's campaign, "she gave no explanation for not demanding an exit strategy before we invaded a country riven by deep ethnic rivalries that portended civil war and a long, uncertain occupation."

Clinton's campaign enlisted her top Jewish backers in Congress in the fight.

"There's a clear difference," stated Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the House's foreign-operations appropriations subcommittee. "Sen. Obama committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without preconditions in the first year of office. It is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of the presidency without preparation."