Dear Senator Obama:

(crossposted at Daily Kos)

Congratulations on really taking the fight to the "Bush-lites" in our party.  Your comment that you would be willing to meet with the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela in your first year of office without preconditions was a stroke of genius!  That is exactly the kind of new diplomacy we need.

This should really win you some support in the primary battle for the nomination. Unfortunately, at least judging by early polls that were released, that doesn't seem to be the case.  If anything, your main opponent, "Bush-lite," seems to be picking up support.

I spoke with some friends of mine and I think I identified the problem.  They don't really believe you. One said to me, "Hey, that Kim Jong Il is a brutal thug that has terrorized half his population into starvation. I simply can't believe that Obama would be willing to meet with him in his first of office without any preconditions"  Another said to me, "Oh, come on, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fanatical anti-Semite who has threatened to annihilate Israel's six million people and is working overtime to acquire the weaponry that would enable him to do so. I'll never believe that Obama would meet with him without preconditions in his first year in office."  And so on, and so on.

Basically, all my friends thought that you simply blew it during the debate and that instead of admitting your mistake, you decided to go on the offensive to try to use this issue to attack Hillary--but that you have absolutely no intention of putting your willingness into action if you're elected.  No matter how much I told them how different you were -- audacity of hope and all that -- they didn't believe me.

Then, I got a brilliant idea, and I knew I had to contact you right away.  Here is a simple way in one stroke to make people believe you, and seize the initiative in this campaign like never before. The solution is in the form of a question:  Why wait??  If it's worthwhile to meet these five folks in your first year in office without precondition, why not meet them  without precondition in your first year of campaigning. That's right, you heard me: why not meet with the Kim, Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro, and Chavez right now??!!! (Your are a U.S. Senator after all, and a leading candidate for the presidency!) That would send an incredibly powerful signal of your 100% commitment toward a new kind of diplomacy and simply blow the "Cheney-lites" out of the water.

Now, I know what your thinking: Bush and Cheney (the real ones, not the imitators in our party) would never give visas so all these folks could come to the U.S. And, in the midst of a heated campaign calendar, how could you justify the time to travel all over the world for these meetings? Well, I have just the answer: Cuba!  That's right, Cuba is just 90 miles past Florida, and Castro, as the most senior member of this select group, has excellent relations with the other four.  I can almost guarantee he'd be chomping at the bit to invite the whole group for a day of meetings down in Havana (individually or collectively, however you think is best).  Just think, you could fly down in the morning from Illinois, meet with the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela all in one day, and be back in Chicago before nightfall.  Heck, you'd probably have time to stop over for some campaigning in Miami on the way home.

There is so much that such an event could accomplish.  You could lay the groundwork for the real diplomatic breakthroughs that will occur rapidly when you're elected.  You could get some great video shots of you and those five to use in your advertisements (let's show everyone what bold diplomacy looks like).  And the real differences between you and the "Bush-lites" in our party would be clear for all to see!

What do you think, Senator Obama? Is that an audacious idea or not?

If you decide to implement this idea, there is no need to thank me.  Seeing you go through with it would be all the thanks I need.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.
A loyal follower

ps. OK, I may have gotten carried away with myself.  If it's too much trouble to travel to Cuba, can you at least organize phone calls to all of these leaders during the course of the campaign? You could put the video of you talking to them on BarackObama.com  Even that would show us that you are a little bit audacious, and that you mean what you say about a new kind of diplomacy. Thanks for your consideration!



Display:


Re: Dear Senator Obama: (3.00 / 2)

Where are these "early polls" that you're talking about? This story broke yesterday and today. One poll was in the field in Iowa for the 3rd day yesterday, but there isn't any "post fight fallout" poll off of which you could base conclusions like this.

And while you're buying into the Weekly Standard- Washington "wise man" conception of how the Democratic candidates should talk about how they will conduct diplomacy in their future administration, you may want to pause and consider whether the people who are pushing such an angle (and have been implementing such policies from the executive branch for the last several years) really have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:52:06 AM EST

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

The following poll was conducted entirely on July 24, one day after the debate where this issue first came up. It showed more than a 15 point gain by Hillary vis-a-vis Obama from the earlier South Carolina poll by the same company:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_insid eradvantage_sc_dem_p.php
by markjay on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:57:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

tsk tsk..does not prove anything. You know that!

To somewhat prove what you are asserting you would neeed a poll the day before the debate and one the day after!


by lafinur on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right (none / 0)

Yes, you are right. It doesn't prove anything.


by markjay on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

I don't take offense to Obama counterattcking Hillary , all I am saying is if he continues the Bush Cheney Lite theme it will hurt him and I know he won't do it again . It is a false line of attack because he basically agreed that he was gonna follow Hillary's approach , Edwards , Dodd , Biden are they all neo cons. Hillary with a rating of almost 80 - 85 % favourables among dems is almost unprecedent , thats like a republican candidate going after nancy regan as being like Jimmy Carter no offense to Jimmy, in my opinion. While there is a minority that dislike and they tend to be very vocal majority of the dems won't buy it and if he pushes it he is gonna overplay his hand.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:21:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

We have that in the Rasmussen tracking poll.  It is a daily tracking poll.  Those have somewhat wilder movements, but here is yesterday's poll result:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/presidential_tracking_po ll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton inching up to 41% support among Likely Democratic Primary Voters. That's her highest total yet. In the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, the former First Lady holds a commanding 18-point lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Obama's 23% support puts him eight points above former North Carolina Senator John Edwards who is preferred by 15% (see daily history). Delaware Senator Joe Biden attracts 3% of the vote while New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich each earn 2% support.

This data is collected from nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. As a result, just over half of the interviews were completed after Monday night's debate among the Democratic contenders.

Clinton's polling margin to Obama has been at 18% for 2 days now.  It was at 13% the day before, at 11% the day before that.  The upward movement here suggests that there was somewhat of an upward response after the debate and the first couple of days following the debate.  

It is not a confirmation, as daily tracking polls are subject to a bit of a wilder swing pattern, but there seems to be upward momentum over the last 4 days, which points to a strong debate performance and Clinton winning at least Day 1 of the exchange.   We will see how the tracking poll reacted today (they publish the next installment at around noon,) and keep in mind that daily tracking polls are subject to swings on their own as it is.  But I am liking the major uptick I have seen for Clinton in this polling sequence, and I strongly believe most Democrats are with her on this flareup, so I believe polls will reflect just that.

Someone should conduct a scientific poll about just that question.


by georgep on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

yep, my point exactly:

the fight has played out in the news yesterday and today. No poll has come out showing the fallout from that. It would be interesting to see a question put out to primary voters asking who they agree with, but until that happens there won't be any empirical data to judge.

All I know is that I hope Obama stands by his position on this one. I just don't see how a progressive foreign policy includes a continuation of this kind of doctrine. I'm not worried about losing a PR war against Ahmadinejad or al-Assad, I'm more worried about fixing the awful mess we've made in the Middle East. Taking things off the table like Hillary is doing isn't the best way to start doing that.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

Clinton is not taking it "off the table."  That is false framing of this issue.  All she is saying is that she would not meet with leaders of rogue states without certain conditions being met.   It is a shame that some of you are resorting to a false framing of this issue, and sincerely hope it is not an attempt at muddying the issue.

  By putting pre-visit diplomacy first, Clinton is hardly taking anything off the table.


by georgep on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:39:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

Bull shit Diary. It's also cross-posted on DKos. Others share my sentiment.....this is not s serious diary


by rapcetera on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:17:30 AM EST

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

I confess. You're right. It's not a serious diary.  Glad you could see that.  


by markjay on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:22:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Senator Obama: (none / 0)

It is pretty funny!


by lafinur on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

funny? ..... really? (none / 0)

Maybe in a Rush Limbaugh (my audience is really stupid) kind of way.  


by JoeCoaster on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:04:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Silly diary (none / 0)

man o man..Those hillary are going mad tonight.

Here it go.

  Dear Hillary

Congratulation for attacking Obama and calling him "irresponsible and naive"..This despite the facts that everyone in the room knew exactly that no president can just fly off to Iran and meet with their president without low level talk first.

Ive talked to a lot of friends of mine, and they your attacks toward Obama was uncalled for...Not only that, but to protect Bush-cheney cowboy diplomacy is very wrong.
------------

You get the point???...Those HillBill-tocrats are something else


by JaeHood on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:19:49 AM EST

Obama's Trouble With Facts And Details (none / 0)

Clinton well-understood the premise and parameters of the You Tube question, even as they escaped Obama.

Unfortunately for Obama, there were other details that escaped him as well.

In his effort to promote himself as the new Reagan, Obama casts Reagan diplomacy in a factually inaccurate way.

Reagan did not meet with Gorbachev within the first year of his Presidency, individually, and without precondition.  It was not until his second term that he met with Gorbachev, prior to which was vigorous groundwork as well as predonditions.  Ditto for Nixon and Mao.

For Obama to suggest othewise is historically inaccurate and  contrary to the public record.

Further, to promote these factually innacurate statements while simulaneously pronouncing yourself to be the most experienced and knowledgeable in foreign policy of the entire Democratic and Republican Presidential field is just absurd.

Absurd bordering on nutty!


by BigBoyBlue on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:01:09 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.