Albright praises Clinton

Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:58 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats, 2008

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on a conference call with reporters that she thought Hillary Clinton's answer at last night's debate on meeting with dictators "showed she had an understanding of the whole process. It is necessary to have lower-level people make the initial contact to clear the brush away."

During last night's debate, Clinton said she would not meet with dictatorial leaders "without preconditions" in her first year as president. In contrast, Obama answered that he would.

The Obama campaign today sent out a memo, claiming Clinton "reversed herself last night, disagreeing with Senator Obama's assertion that we should use every tool at the president's disposal to address problems before they become threats."

They include as evidence an April quote from Clinton in which she said, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

When asked about this, Albright responded, "She made very clear it was essential to do the pre-diplomatic actions" by sending lower-level envoys first. "She didn't say there would be no engagement. For me, and I've been involved in this, she showed a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of how this process works. She did not change her position."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Clinton never said she was not going to talk to them, she said she needs to make sure everything is carefully planned. The obama campaign failed on this matter, they are now trying to say that what Clinton said was a mistake but it was not, Obama was the one who made the mistake and sounded inexperience.

Aidyn, NY, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:04 PM)

Obama better be careful. When "some people" point out what democrats have said in the past, or how they voted it's considered "a smear" or "an attack" by the MS90%LM

Dave, Tn (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:07 PM)

It's funny how all these people come here and are so adamantly in love with Clinton that they repeat their slogans. I bet these and other blogs are infested with campaign-driven people.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:22 PM)

There are no do-overs in Presidential debates. Sorry, Barack. The post-debate "what I really meant to say was" just doesn't cut it. We want to know what you think, not what your handlers say you think. So far, no retaliation for an atomic attack on American cities and promises to talk to Ahmadinajad, Il, Chavez and Castro in person, no conditions. Oh yes. And sex ed for kindergartners. Yet, the media fawns on.

Joe, DC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:27 PM)

Albright is correct. Hillary's response showed an understanding of the complexities involved in foreign relations. I think sometimes in his eagerness to be seen as receptive, Obama misses some of these nuances. That's a sign of inexperience. I don't think we should make blanket statements that we will or will not meet with certain leaders. The world stage is very fluid, and there are a number of things that go into these sorts of decisions.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:32 PM)

One of the main reasons I would question if I could vote for Obama is the on the job training he would need. Just like Bush he would have to listen to his advisors,, and if did not choose wisely we could have another fiasco

Patrick Peterson (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:35 PM)

Thanks, Dave!

I'm a Democrat but it pisses me off when we use the same ploys that we have conviceted Bush for. Both Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell have called for talks with Iran and Syria. Moreover, the Iraq Study Group concluded talks are imperative, which Biden embraces. Hillary Clinton criticized Bush for not talking to these countries recently during a visit in Iowa, but Democrats and the MSM, particularly MSNBC, all but ignore these inconsistencies.

Dee of VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:40 PM)

What does experience have to do with the willingness to do something. Either you want to do it or you don't. If Hilary is worrying about "propaganda", the essence of American politics as we know it, while answering a question during a debate then she's truly scripted and fraudulent in her pursuit for the Oval Office. Propaganda? No campaign has as many political hacks as Hilary's . NONE. So is she telling me that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was wrong for meeting with Syria's leaders earlier this year? If not she clearly articulated that position in her answer to the question at hand. What a sham.

Kristian O (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:43 PM)

This is what she said in late June at the Center for a New American Security. A new foreign policy organization that Madeleine Albright co-founded.

"The Bush Administration has given Iran six years of the silent treatment."

"In this vacuum, Tehran continues its progress toward developing nuclear weapons and increasing its influence in the region...After initial talks with Iran and Syria on Iraq, the administration says it isn't sure that we need any more discussions with either of them. I think we should keep talking."

Dee of VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:45 PM)

Obama's response to this question just reaffirms his inexperience and naive attitude, not to mention an answer based on rhetoric and not solid understanding. Hilary Clinton really proved to me last night that she is incredibly knowledgeable and the most competent... it was hard not to be impressed. It seemed many of the other candidates were simply pandering to the crowd. Overall, however, the democrats did well.

Toby D (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:58 PM)

Dee and Dave - Clinton did not say that she would not hold talks. She made the appropriate point, that there are several steps that come before the high-level talks with the US president. This is completely on-target, and it is consistent with all previous modern presidents (except this one). The problem with Bush is that he has said for several years that he will not speak with these other countries (neither he, nor lower-level folks), since it would be like "rewarding" their bad behavior. This is idiotic. Please check facts.

jjg, ms (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:03 PM)

It's amazing how twisted people can be! You have Dee ranting on and on about what Hillary said; however, she clearly doesn't understand what she heard. Perhaps it could be that many people in politics hear what they choose to hear! Madeleine Albright said herself that Hillary gave the perfect answer- LOW LEVEL talks to set the groundwork and foundation. Obama showed his weakness and inexperience. You can dislike Hillary all you want, but Obama? He will never win- not now.

Robert- NYC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:04 PM)

Give me a break people. Hillary did NOT say she would not talk to these people. The question was would she in the 1st year of her Presidency. She said she would not talk to them without laying the groundwork first - high level delegations to start of with until she knew what their intentions were. She made a very smart comment in that she would not be used for propaganda. That's smart not inconsistent because she did not say she would NEVER talk to them. THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ON THAT STAGE LAST NIGHT AND HER NAME IS HILLARY CLINTON.

Somers (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:06 PM)

I would not be surprised at how many campaign people are in here LOL. Just have to figure out who is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:11 PM)

In response to Kristian O, experience equals understanding, and understanding foreign policy is key to effective diplomatic relations.

Any normal person would be willing to do something, whether they can do it effectively is the real question.

byt the way, the Nancy Pelosi action some months ago in Syria was long overdue, and I believe it was more of a symbolic move more than anything. There is no black and white in foreign policy (Bush - no talks, Obama - talk to top officials immediately)

Toby D (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:11 PM)

Oh correct me if I'm wrong (I heard it on the networks so consider the source) These talks we're in now with Iran are the first such in 27 years. So that must mean Madeleine Notsobright, or Clinton (the husband) never talked to them. Is that a vacuum I hear, or just some more sucking?

Dave, Tn (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:11 PM)

Excuse me, but our foreign relations have been anything but successful. Forget what you know or think you know about regulatory, diplomatic procedures.

There is a wall surrounding the nations of this world, and that wall needs to be torn down.

I stand by Baracks comments and I think his staff should, too.

With this next presidency, I want change and I want action. What I don't want, is to watch another President and another administration doing the usual and the norm.

Shake off your complacency, please. Do something for the betterment of mankind, instead of hiding behind your borders.

Nathan (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:11 PM)

I think some of you missed the point, I'm not a Hillary or Barack fan just a democrat who wants the best person to win for the sake of our country. There is a difference between the President talking to a hostile world leader and our countries having a dialogue. Hillary was correct in stating that high level talks such as the one involving the US President should only be accomplished after a lot of ground work has been laid. It's not a change in position, only a more detailed explanation

James Vales (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:11 PM)

This is ridiculous. Clinton people are trying to drive some distinction here that isn't. Obama favors meeting with them, Hillary favors meeting with them. Just because Obama didn't "say" he'd send advance people doesn't mean he DOESN'T believe that. Come on. Drop the inexperience crap. Remember, the MOST experienced President and Vice President, Bush and Cheney, did great thing for this country, you know. Please.

Nicholas, New York NY (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:13 PM)

I think I can summarize the discussion so far: Both Clinton and Obama would make excellent presidents, but Clinton should be president first and Obama, say as her VP, afterwards.

Glenn, Ottawa (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:13 PM)

I don't love Hilary, but Obama's not ready for prime time. The second that answer left his lips I was reminded of Gerald Ford losing the election by saying in a debate that Eastern Europe was free, in 1976. Clinton's answer was correct- not just "politically" correct, but ACTUALLY correct. I believe Biden would have been savvy enough to give the same answer as Clinton. Obama may be the right person some day, but not yet.

Dyinglikeflies, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:15 PM)

First of all Hillary Clinton didn't have to answer the question first. Do you think her answer would have been the same had she had been first?? Also, Albright and Wolfson have both come out to "explain" what Hillary Clinton meant??? That's NEVER happened after any of the other debates or forums. Why does the Clinton campaign feel the need to explain what she said??

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:15 PM)

Re: Obama camp trying to up one on Clinton...Politics are like life, there will always be disagreement and dissension (Hillary vs Barack, The Donald vs Rosie etc.) It is not that we disagree that matters, it is the way in which we do it. Slamming political opponents, co-workers, family or friends says more about the person than any possible beliefs or convictions. Advice to Barack: State your case, be civil about it and treat others the way you would want to be treated, then let the cards fall as they may.

Jim M. Coatesville, IN (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:19 PM)

Chuck the fact that you guys caved to the Clinton machine is really not new. MSNBC has been spinning all morning. Only a few brave souls have been willing to come on and call it the way it was. They probably have had their last time on the show. This is why you guys will soon be obsolete. People no longer trust you as honest brokers but no more than pawn of certain campaigns. MSNBC put A. Mitchell on today when she and her husband were at a $2300 per person fund raiser for Clinton. I repeat you carried the Clinton "water" about fund raising until "We the People" proved you wrong and we will again.

I don't have a problem with your having a preference just be honest and state it and don't try to appear as an "honest broker". Its a shame when the most honest coverage that I've seen was Fox's coverage giving it to Obama on Hannity and Colms of all places.

Lyn, Silver Spring, MD (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:24 PM)

Obama should stop concentrating on Clinton. He should sell himself instead of attacking Senator Clinton the best of the candidates so far. Obama must remember that the Clintons know how to win and lead. All Demoncratic candidates' attacks should be directed at Bush and the Republicans. For me, a progressive person, Senator Clinton has the experience, the temprament and leadership credentials to provide America and the world with needed leadership at this critical junction.

Joseph Ohiobo (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:27 PM)

You guys could spin this all you want. The focus group by both Fox News and CNN showed us who America think won the debate. Overall, i think Obama deck Clinton and he appeared more believable than your scripted Clinton.

If democrats elect Clinton, count the election loss. This is a fact not fiction. This same press was glorifying Kerry couple of years ago on his experience, and what happened in the general election showed us that Press always set Democrat up for failure. America people should wake up.

If Clinton is so afraid of attack ads why should we vote someone without conviction. The issue of experience doesn't count on this issue. The experience Clinton keeps touting is political experience. We don't need another politician that is so much concern with legacy and image. We need someone that understand how the average Joe is suffering. No another Clinton, hell no.

Like i have said in some of my previous posting, Clinton's machine will do anything to distort the facts. My question to press is this, if clinton doesn't want to talk in his first year, how can he be taken seriously by these leaders. As a matter of fact, how wouuld she characterize Speaker Pelosi visit to Syria?

Not only is her answer inconsistent with her position but would cost Democrat the general election if she win the nomination.

As an independent i would rather vote for another Republican than Clinton.

Bee (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:30 PM)

Albright herself met with the North Korean dictator. Her criticism of Obama means nothing because she is a former Clinton employee. Obama was RIGHT, Clinton is WRONG, END OF DISCUSSION.

VAmonticello, Hampton, Virginia (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:33 PM)

Bee; You're right, Kerry had the experience so we went with the "other guy". Look where that has gotten us. Being President is a job and you need experience to lead in the right way.
GO HILLARY!

Connie, Tn. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:41 PM)

I believe Hillary has shown once again that she is the ONE for the job. GO HILLARY!

Lucy, Buford, Georgia (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:48 PM)

Sounds to me like a lot of brainwashed individuals. Oh maybe you don't know but Barack Obama has more experience than CLINTON in the Senate. Oh, you must be counting the time she spent as "first lady", that qualifies her how?
I must admit in the beginning i didn't know who i would vote for, Clinton or Obama, but my mind is definitely made up. Obama is someone fresh, he doesn't conforms to the big spenders, please don't be disillusioned into trying to get a "woman" in office, rather yet, focus on getting the right "person" in office.

I agree with one of the other posters, Clinton's responses are a bit scripted she knows what to say to who, she changes her stories and views to fit her audience and no one really calls her on it. She changed her view on pulling troops out of Iraq (within a week's time) and MSNBC pointed it out but then it died down. We need something FRESH.

BE WISE!!! Bush is in office now b/c people were caught up on the experience thing, b/c like Hilary, he had someone in his corner (his father), that told him what to say b/c it sounded good!! Hillary is great but she is not able to think outside the box, she is not innovative and not bringing anything new to the table!!!

Crystal, Washington,D.C. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:49 PM)

Obama is showing his inexperience here. As much as we all want change there is a protocol for how we do things. Albright indicates that Senator Clinton understands this. When a leader breaks the accepted protocol, like Bush did, we end up in a mess like Iraq.

efor elmo (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:49 PM)

Hillary need to spend some time in the kids circus before she is ready for the big top.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:50 PM)

Senator Clinton gave the most intelligent and thought thru answer to the direct talk quetion with people who want to harm us. First diplomates are to clear the path for some type of mutual dialog. Direct talks with your enemies can come when some amicable agreements are met I think as a statesperson and a well educated individual with compasion for humane rights & liberty, qualifyes her to be presigent of the United States Of America.

Solomon Schechter (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:57 PM)

Again, what does experience have to do with the "ability" to talk. They didn't say invade. They said TALK. I'll take intellect over experience anyday. OK Hilary had the experience to "answer a question". Does that mean that automatically mean that she will lead at an optimum level? Please.

Kristian O (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:58 PM)

You guys want experience? How about Ron Paul who is currently serving a 10th term in congress?

He voted against the war from the very beginning.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He advocates a non-interventionist policy that promotes trade with other nations, not war.

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never taken a political junket.

He has decided not to participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

And if all of that is not enough, he has been married to his wife for 50+ years. Now that's committment.

WE NEED MORE LIKE HIM.

I am a democrat voting for Ron Paul.

Jenn, Portland, OR (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:02 PM)

Let me assure all of you, the Military Industrial Complex will make sure they get to pick the next president......just like they have the past 11...

Mike Santa Barbara (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:04 PM)

The Republican candidates this election cycle are far too weak to beat either Hilary or Barack... probably even Edwards. I say the Democrats double up on the next couple presidencies. Hilary this time while she's still young enough with Barack as VP. 4-8 years in the White House will do wonders for his experience. Then, when Hilary is done fixing the country, Obama can lead us to a place we haven't been in a long time.

Sean Wade, Raleigh, NC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:10 PM)

I had a bad meal the other night at a restaurant. When the server asked how everything was, I honestly told her that the fries were cold and the steak was undercooked. She brought the manager to the table, and we got things straightened out. If the manager had had a bad attitude, I'd have taken it up with the general manager or store owner, and if they were standoffish, I would have gone to their corporate structure and elevated a complaint.
The point is: if I jumped on the phone and called up the CEO directly to complain about my steak, I'd be perceived as a moron by everyone involved and nothing would get done. My military experience and all the years and various jobs I have held tell me to start local and attempt to resolve at a low level any problems, then elevate as required.
To simply jump in and say you'd meet directly with a foreign head of state who hasn't gotten so much as a birthday card from an American president in 30+ years is ridiculous. You establish the foothold, ease the rhetoric on both sides through low-level emissaries, and eventually you'll have a breakthrough.
Oh- and before anyone tries to paint me as a campaigner for one candidate or another, forget it. I'm independent and hate the two-party system. I'm an average American worker who just wants a fair system. Ditch the republic we have now and give us a true democracy; there is a difference - look it up.

Bill, ND (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:10 PM)

Who is Albright?

Psst, Ark (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:11 PM)

Obama time and time again shows that he lacks a lot of expierence. He does ok when he attends rallies on his behalf, because he is a talker and not a doer. I do not know who is becking Osamba oops Obama, but the biggest mistake this nation can make is electing another on the job trainee for president.

Arturo Gomez Universal City,Tx 78148 (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:11 PM)

Nicholas - Um, sorry to burst your bubble but if we had gone with the MOST experienced presidential canddiate in 2000, it would not have been Bush.

As for those of you who think this is all much ago about nothing and there is no difference in their answers - there is. In the first year of the presidency indicates that these "hostile" leaders would get an almost immediate audience with the president, which is pretty atypical in diplomatic circles.

And as far as Albright "explaining" what Hillary said, she did no such thing. She was asked what she thought of Hillary's answer; she articulated why she thought it was an excellent response to the question. She was the SoS for many years, so I think she is qualified to offer her opinion on matters of diplomacy.

Hillary NEVER said she would not meet with anyone. She simply would not do so before her administration had established a working relationship with diplomats of that country. I think that's the smart way to progress, and as already mentioned here, the way it is usually done. There needs to be a process involved, and she understands that process.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:14 PM)

NEWSFLASH! Clinton's DAUGHTER praises Clinton. So what? Did anyone really believe Albright WOULDN'T praise his former boss's first lady?

Jim, Washington, D.C. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:14 PM)

What exactly is this experience Hillary has.

Healthcare: FAILED
Ethics & Sincerety: FAILED
Iraq: FAILED

She is experienced at failing indeed

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:24 PM)

hillary that shrew she was already president for 8 yrs what did we get but weekly scandals,impeachment and the setup for 9-11.of course she will get the female vote (no brains but life support for a vagina)

mick (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:24 PM)

It is clear, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the depth, maturity and understanding we need in the next President. Obama is fresh and new, but rather green and is that what we really want? I don't think so. At this point Hillary is the best there is.

Steve Myers, Marshfield, VT (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:26 PM)

Joseph Ohiobo (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:27 PM)

Somebody, needs to stard doing something rather than talking. While we talk, thousand's get killed in Dafur. While we talk, thousand's get killed in Iraq. While we talk the minimum wage goes up to a whoppig 5.75 cents an hour. While we talk, China starts producing more stuff to sell to us. While we talk, millions of American's have no insurance and/or loose their life savings because of an illness. Clinton, Obama, Romney, and the others. talk, talk, talk, and talk. Talk is cheap.

Norb Bauer (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:34 PM)

I was just wondering if any body body else has noticed that Msnbc and abcnews are biased when reporting on the democratic contenders. There are a lot of negative head lines put up each week for Edwards and Obama and none for Hillary. If ever there is something negative about her they report it making it look good. Why is that so. It is not a air practice. I understand she has connections with MSNBC and ABC some house but what favour are you doing to the American people if you are not being fair. It is unbelievable that it is coming from these news outlets

Eman (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:34 PM)

Jenn,

How are you going to vote for Ron Paul? He's not going to be in the Democratic primary or on the GOP ticket in the end?

Joe Scarborough, Gainesville, FL (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:41 PM)

It is just common sense that you talk to the people you don't like. If you meet your enemy and talk to him, you don't loose anything. You go back with a better understanding of him. Besides who made these people evil people? We did. If they stand by our way we crush them in the name of national security while the real reason is oil or the greed for money.

This is a practice that has to end. I wonder how little Cuba or Syria will use a meeting between the heads of states for propaganda.

Common sense is not really common Misses Clinton. You might have the experience because of your husbands accomplishment but you clearly lack common sense.

Eman Houston Texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:43 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=286729