As Jonathan wrote, the New York Times caused a stir over the weekend with its report that the Obama administration agreed to one-on-one talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The story has been interpreted (and reinterpreted) with respect to its utility to the president before tonight’s foreign policy debate depending on the perceived nature of the leaks. So when the story first broke, it was assumed the Obama administration thought this would be politically beneficial on the eve of the debate. When the vigorous denials came—convincing enough to get the Times to change its story without alerting its readers—the public seemed to reconsider.
It is now, therefore, seen as a negative story for the administration—unhelpful, as Obama officials might say. But why? What is it about face-to-face negotiations with the Iranians that the White House might consider damaging? Certainly, as Jonathan suggested, the story has echoes of President Obama’s hot-mic moment with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in which Obama promised the Russians more “flexibility” if he is reelected. Did he make such promises to the Iranians, but try harder to keep them under wraps? That is one possibility. Another is that the president may not want such a stark reminder of one of the most famous moments of the 2007 Democratic primary debates, when Obama said he would grant the enemies of America their own presidential-level summits. Obama said:
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, 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.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
“It is a disgrace,” Obama said, that we were not having face-to-face meetings with Iran, Syria, and the rest. Of course, it was not a disgrace, and negotiations at a more appropriate level were going on long before Obama entered the scene. But it’s also a reminder of the stark difference between Obama and Mitt Romney—and not just on policy. The 2007 version of Obama was just ramping up the personality cult, the creepy and worshipful following he acquired that culminated in the ridiculous spectacle of accepting his nomination amid Greek columns while claiming that the people’s reward for nominating him would begin with him turning back the ocean tides. Last night, Dan McLaughlin tweeted:
Obama’s election represented the apex of presidential personality cults. Romney’s would be its nadir.
Obama believed he could charm the Iranian mullahs the way he charmed American editorial boards. Obama’s defenders say he’s come a long way since his election. And maybe so. But he’s struggling to come up with a reason for voters to support him a second time. He’s mostly running from his (unpopular) “accomplishments” in his first term, and hasn’t laid out much of a plan for a second besides raising taxes. The last thing the president needs is a reminder of his past naïveté in world politics coupled with any hint that he’s right back where he started: an off-putting and by now discredited belief in the power of his personality and the force of his presence.
So perhaps the White House doesn’t believe that face-to-face negotiations with Iran’s leaders is a bad idea in and of itself. But the walk-back shows that the president’s team either thinks their plan is too unpopular to go public with (if, indeed, it is their plan), or that they don’t believe the public would trust Obama to carry out those negotiations. Neither is a sign of confidence.
nI sometimes wonder if Obama is a moron. It takes more than just fancy talking, actions mean something and the president is light on actions.
"Obama’s election represented the apex of presidential personality cults. Romney’s would be its nadir." n nIs it just me, or do others find the Preezy of the United Steezy totally lacking in character? That such a man could found a personality cult really is a demonstration of his sociopathic personality traits. n nDoctor is in, 5 Cents, please. n n
Well, Big Brother did not have much of a personality either. Neither did the dictator whose nose got held for ransom in Sleeper. (Sorry, I forget the name.) And I'll bet Pres. Kim of North Korea is not exactly the personality kid, either. You don't need to have a personality to have a personality cult, just as you don't have to be grand to have delusions of Grandeur.
I do make a distinction between character (ethical and wise principles, acted on and forming a basis for how one lives) and personality (outward behavioral veneer of a person). n nObama has a personality. It is character he lacks.
MM, I don't disagree with you at all here. However, I think there's more to the story. The most disconcerting aspect of all this is that America bought into this personality cult and elected Obama to the WH. It was a grossly irresponsible act on the part of the American electorate to elect a full blown narcissist who had achieved virtually nothing of substance in life aside from his own promotion and whose primary known connections (Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, etc…) were such loathsome people. What's that say about us?? There are people like you and me who saw Obama for what he was and were pleading with others to recognize the same thing, but we were overwhelmed by the cult hero perception of Obama. I just hope the mentality can be reversed, but I'm skeptical (whether or not Romney wins the election).
It certainly seemed a case of mass hysteria or hypnosis, but more likely a combination of skillful media manipulation, white guilt, and yes, a less discerning electorate more heavily weighted with low information and minority voters. n nBush fatigue played a role, but that was a subset of the media manipulation. n nA perfect storm, in other words, hopefully unlikely to ever be repeated again.
And styrofoam. Lots of styrofoam.
I think that O floated what he thought would be a harmless trial idea through his usual leaky back-channels, but this one floated like a lead balloon and crashed through the ballroom ceiling. Goon48 may be asking the right question: "I sometimes wonder if Obama is a moron."
Vote for the Mormon, not the guy who dropped the second m.
Pr. O found himself squeezed between Iran who will not give upon the nuke unless a gun is against her head and the Americans who were promised by the Pr. that he will not allow nukes in Iran.