Americans Want To Talk, Even With Enemies

I certainly would not use polls as evidence of the validity of a complex issue, but there was a certain satisfaction in reading this one. Over the weekend I wrote a post summarizing the many ways in which Obama won the nomination by outsmarting Clinton. One factor I mentioned, but only briefly so as to devote the bulk of the post to more recent matters, was their different positions on negotiating with enemies. Very early in the campaign, well before health care mandates and even before the nonsense on Ronald Reagan, Clinton attacked Obama for his position on meeting with enemies. (We’ll ignore the fact that Obama was taking a position which Clinton had previously held until she mistakingly thought it would be politically expedient to hold a position more in line with the views of George Bush).

Not only was Obama right in his arguments, but he also took the politically more astute position. Gallup found that 67% of Americans “believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States.” This includes 79% of Democrats, 70% of independents, and 48% of Republicans.

It didn’t work for Clinton to accuse Obama of being “naive,” and I doubt it will work for McCain to continue to claim Obama has “reckless judgment.” The fiasco in Iraq demonstrates that the Bush/Clinton/McCain doctrine simply does not work.


  1. 1
    Wayne says:

    So because 67% of Americans believe that having the President personally meet with our enemies (what Obama stated) it is the correct thing to do?  In California, 61% voted against gay marriage, the California Supreme Court said it was un-constitutional,  Proposition 187 was approved by a majority of voters, it was found un-constitutional.  Saying that a poll can be found that shows the public agrees with something doesn’t make it right. 

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:


    Read the actual post. I specifically say that the findings of the poll do not necessarily have any bearing on the validity of the issue.

    I am writing purely of the politics of the situation in follow up of an earlier post, showing that despite Clinton’s attacks it was Obama who took the smarter position politically.

    In this case it is also the correct position, but that is a matter beyond the scope of this post.

Leave a comment