Dmitri Who?
So I was listening to the debate tonight as I was working on something else, and I heard Clinton flub Medvedev’s name. Like Philip Klein, I thought it was a blunder on her part. I didn’t pay much attention to this, since I was recovering from my horror after listening to Obama’s answer on Kosovo, which was far worse than what I expected (and I was already expecting something pretty bad). For someone not interested in “rash” or “dumb” wars, he seemed to leave the door open to fighting the Russians over Kosovo much more than he should have (i.e., not at all). This is simply crazy, and it amazes me that he keeps getting away with saying such reckless things.
Back to Clinton. Granted, I pay attention to the scene in Russia more than most, I go to a Russian church and I have taken a little bit of Russian, so maybe I’m bound to know how to pronounce Medvedev’s name, but I don’t think it’s a “gotcha question” for someone aspiring to be the President to know the name of the future President of the only other state with a nuclear arsenal on the scale of Russia’s and to be able to say it without stumbling. In another era, not that long ago, being unable to come up with the name of the Soviet premier would have been viewed as a major lapse; if this blunder had been committed by Bush in 2000 or Obama today, the “inexperience” angle would be played up for all it was worth. Frankly, being unable to name the leaders of other major powers around the world ought to count against a candidate. It’s not as if you’re being asked to name the prime minister of the Netherlands (Balkenende) or the the president of Indonesia (Yudhoyono).
I’m not sure if this is what you’re speaking of, but aren’t his words more ambiguous than that, and open to different interpretations?
“But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.”
But what obligations can there be to a “state” founded on illegality and in defiance of existing international law? To suggest that we have obligations to “ensure that they are not invaded” sounds a lot like saying that he would resist and try to reverse an invasion of Kosovo. That seems pretty dangerous to me.
If diplomatic recognition equals an obligation to provide for a country’s defense, we are in even deeper trouble than I thought.
They both are buying into the Russia panic that some are peddling, and both have the whole history of our relations with Russia since 1989 disastrously wrong.
Let’s offer Moscow Hillary and Barack in exchange for Putin and an outfielder to be named later.
if this blunder had been committed by Bush in 2000 or Obama today, the “inexperience†angle would be played up for all it was worth. Frankly, being unable to name the leaders of other major powers around the world ought to count against a candidate.
This did happen to Bush in 2000.
Pres. Clinton’s response in that article is right.
In another era, not that long ago, being unable to come up with the name of the Soviet premier would have been viewed as a major lapse
True. But some things have changed since then.
This wasn’t a shining moment, by any means, but it’s hard to get too worked up about.
As to Obama on Kosovo, “certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded” doesn’t seem to me to be a threat of military retaliation. I could be misreading the diplo-speak, though.
“certain obligations to ensure that they are not invadedâ€
Sayeth the ‘anti-war’ candidate in the race. I almost threw up when I heard this. The specter of fighting the Russians over a third-rate crap-hole like Pristina makes me ill.
Is there any reason to think that McCain will be any less interventionist than these two? And remember, his anti-Russian vitriol exceeds that of both of the Democrat candidates combined.
Where’s the non-isolationist, non-interventionist in the race? Oh, that’s right – Ron Paul!
“They have eyes, but they do not see; ears, but they do not hear…”
Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.
Obama will intervene for internationalist, “human rights” causes that have little to do with any national interest of the US, such as propping up the unfortunate Ariistide in Haiti or Izetbegovic in Bosnia.
McCain will stick it out in Iraq and watch out for Iran. At least there is a strategic conception, albeit erroneous and dangerous.