McClellan, McCain...

Just a few thoughts, not as developed as I would like...

First, McCain. I've been saving up a thought from a few days ago when McCain was criticizing Obama on foreign policy. Two salient critiques: (1) it demonstrates unfitness for the presidency that Obama would meet with leaders of adversary countries without preconditions; and (2) he hasn't been to Iraq as often as McCain.

Obama in July was in a debate and he was asked whether in his first term as president, he would meet without preconditions with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Obama, apparently not wanting to overlawyer the question, said "yes" when he probably should have said, "Will I? Well, anything can happen, so I can't commit to that, but it would be fair to say that as a matter of policy I would be inclined to talk with our adversaries, and under appropriate circumstances, I would go and meet leader-to-leader with those states you mentioned." None of it is literal anyway. "Preconditions" is a term of art. "I will meet but only if I can being a Secret Service detail" is not considered a "precondition" though literally it is one.

Getting to the point, Obama took a little crit. On the margins, that's justified. But in essence, what he articulated as policy is pretty standard. The countervailing view, that meeting with, say, an Assad, gives the guy prestige and makes him a winner just by the fact that he got to talk to you, is really silly. It's considered a credible view, but it makes sense only in exceptional cases. If a person runs a country, has for more than a week, the world recognizes their government, and they haven't just done something so egregious that the world is withdrawing its ambassadors in protest, you talk. Talking may eventually be something you want, and if you set the rules in advance that talking is a victory for them, then it will be. I don't understand this fearful, counterproductive foreign policy view that wants to define every eventuality as a failure except for the unobtainable ideal of having all your wishes come true without effort or compromise. Why is there prestige for them in just talking to us? I'd say, "hey, I've met with thousands of people, and nearly every minor head of state, what's so special?" You can meet with someone and dis them. Or you can not meet with them, and talk about them constantly, which lends a lot of backhanded prestige.

Again, trying to focus here on what I wanted to say, Obama's perspective is pretty mainstream. He's got good advisors. He's given some high-profile foreign policy addresses. He basically gets how this stuff works in the mainstream DOS framework. You can disagree marginally, or disagree fundamentally. But one thing it's not, is embarassingly naive. So for McCain to assert that this was a failed test, and a disqualifying one, is either extremely disingenuous from someone promising straight talk, or way out of touch, from someone who never showed much originality or nuance on foreign policy. It shows a lack of preparation or honesty on his part. Plus, the don't-talk unless they pay a toll first doctrine is so third-term-Bush, it's an instant club for Obama to hit him with (which is why he had to come back later and nuance it).

Speaking of clubs for Obama, number (2) on this topic is Obama's untraveledness. Again, the reply is, you John went to a marketplace with a kevlar vest and 100 troops and helicopter gunships to protect you, and you couldn't tell that it wasn't really safer than main street USA, so either you're not making the most of those trips to learn something, or you need to spend more time at home, so you understand the comparisons you're making.

Second, McClellan. I'll try to get this out quick and not get distracted. The responses to this: (1) Ari Fleischer makes the rounds with some talking points, which boil down to: "Garsh, it's like it's not the same guy; I don't know what happened to him; he was always happy to spout our lies, er, um, information, before; he must just be spiteful now." (2) A dozen media bozos say what amounts to, "I find it hard to remember my own performance more than one or two days back, but as I recall, I was pretty comfortable with my performance then, so it must be that I did nothing wrong, you know, we asked questions, we did our homework, we had the issues pretty much mastered that came to us from the White House and the mainstream of the pro-war Democrats. No one really saw an issue then, at least no one that I paid attention to." So the Bush team goes ad hominem and avoids the substance. The media puts its hands over its eyes and repeats circular rationalizations. Neither seems very persuasive.