Wash. Post misleadingly describes Clinton's position on meeting with foreign leaders

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

The Washington Post has recently portrayed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as opposing meetings with leaders of countries hostile to the United States. In fact, Clinton has opposed committing to meeting with such leaders without preconditions and within her first year in office.

On at least four occasions, The Washington Post has characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as broadly opposing meetings with leaders of foreign countries hostile to the United States. In fact, Clinton has opposed committing to meeting with such leaders without preconditions and within her first year in office. Post reporter Anne E. Kornblut has been responsible for at least three of the misleading descriptions of Clinton's position.

As the Post's Dan Balz accurately reported on August 2, Clinton has criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for “saying during a Democratic debate that he would be prepared to meet during his first year as president with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions.” [Emphasis added.]

Indeed, in an August 15 Post article, also by Balz, Obama outlined his differences with Clinton on the subject: " 'Senator Clinton apparently disagrees with me on this issue of preconditions,' he said. 'I think she's wrong on that because if we continue to set preconditions for discussions that are hostile to us, I think that's what loses the PR battle worldwide because it implies the United States is the superior power and other states have to give in to our demands before we even deign to meet with them. And that reinforces the sense of the arrogance of U.S. power around the world, which is a source of great damage -- and makes us less safe.' " In a July 26 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that Obama said in a conference call with reporters, " 'The question was would you meet them without preconditions,' " and, noted that Obama also said, " 'You'll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from' the Bush administration's." Smith added that Obama “speculated that she's trying to 'walk back' her stance.”

Following are examples of the Post misleadingly describing Clinton's position:

  • Alec MacGillis, August 25: “Clinton ... called him [Obama] 'naïve' for saying he would be willing to meet with the leaders of U.S. antagonists such as Iran and Venezuela.”
  • Anne E. Kornblut, August 7: “Clinton called his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile states ”irresponsible and naive" after the Democratic debate in South Carolina two weeks ago."
  • Anne E. Kornblut, August 3: “At a debate last week in South Carolina, Clinton directly criticized Obama for saying he would meet with leaders traditionally hostile to the United States.”
  • Anne E. Kornblut, July 31: “In an especially sharp exchange last week, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said Obama's willingness to meet with foreign leaders of hostile countries such as Iran is 'irresponsible and naive.' ”