Poll: Which of the top-tier candidates will provide the best Mid-East foreign policy?

Question: Which of the candidates will provide the best Mid-East foreign policy?

I don't have any clear definition of 'best,' but I'm thinking about someone who will look at the Israel-Palestine problem and try solving it in a fair and balanced way. But I am seeking someone to TRY and solve and not just ignore it like the Bush Admin.

Also, someone who will work with the region to improve our relationships with the countries there, and deter deep-rooted hatred of the USA in places like Saudi Arabia. I know its a very complex issue, but just use your best judgment and you can explain your reason for your vote.


I'm sorry, but I am limiting it to the top tier candidates. I am including an Other where you can post your candidate, but I am interested in the top tier candidates. Thanks.

that should be in the poll.

other assumes one of the others would be fair. NONE is pretty much to the point.

But whatever...! :hi:

Richardson knows how to negotiate, he done plenty of it, so he gets my vote in this particular poll.

Of course, the reality is that you can have the most obtuse President in the world, but if you have a really good Secretary of State, you can have some fantastic foreign policy going on.

Pretty much all of the candidates have the good sense to pick someone with talent. We're luckier than the Republicans on that score--they only know how to pick incompetent cronies.

Hell, if any of them HIRED Richardson to be the SECSTATE, we'd likely be better off. Of course, he's wanting the VP slot....but he might settle...who knows?

You've got to see the Cabinet picks in order to answer this question definitively. Speculation is fun, though, but that's all it is...

but don't write off Gen Wesley Clark. As former NATO commander
I'd say he knows a bit about dealing with other countries.

I just picked the best looking one from the list!!!

there will be no truly "balanced" Mid-East foreign policy from any American government.

TC

and how is it compared to donations by other lobbies, say, the one from Saudi Arabia, or China, or others?

linking to some sites, which are deemed to be "anti-semitic". I don't know if there is a list of what those sites are, or who decides on their "anti-semiticy", so I won't post any of the articles here. I will say I don't believe it is "anti-semitic" to question this lobby, it's tactics, or the money it provides to electeds, but in the current adversarial climate on these boards, I don't want to risk being the author of a flame war over it.

I will say I found all the information I needed on Google and Ask.com, so you may find what you need to know there. Take some time and read a bit of what's there.

TC

but with who's in this poll, I have to say Richardson.

Why would you include him, but none of the other candidates with no chance whatsoever?

As for the three, they will all pursue a policy that will ensure a continuation and further escalation of the fake WOT.

that nearly matched Edwards.

This is where Biden shines.

I would vote for Edwards, though. He is slightly better because he recognizes the need for us to extend opportunity and hope to other countries. For instance, he would lead a global effort to make primary school educations available to tens of millions of children who lack access to any education right now. This would cost only $3 billion a year, increase goodwill for the US, and help lift other peoples forward.

Aside from that, though, they are identical on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel-Palestine. That said, they are all far superior to any of the Republican candidates in the ME and foreign affairs in general.

is top tier???

Yuch!

and, to get to the question of the OP, all of the top-tier candidates more or less equally shitty on foreign policy.

He did once have dinner with the late Edward W. Said:



I know this is grasping at straws.

But I'm inclined to believe that some of his earlier political history indicates at least something resembling a sophisticated understanding of the Middle East as opposed to the utterly unsophisticated, naive and simplistic "good vs. evil" view of the region that dominates the entire top-tier of both major political parties.


.

He was brought up Muslim. It could tone down the rage over there, mend some fences.

"Is America ready to elect a President whose connections with Islam were the subject of rumor and innuendo?

Barack Obama has arguably the most diverse religious background of any candidate, ever. He was raised in Indonesia by a Christian mother and Muslim stepfather, and attended a Catholic school, but while growing up, also studied Islam. That background sparked rumors that he had studied in a radical madrasa, or Koranic school – rumors later disproved . Obama is now a practicing Christian.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times interviewed a person who grew up with Obama. In the LA Times article he said, "We prayed in the mosque, but not seriously," noting that Obama also prayed with his Catholic schoolmates. In a later Chicago Tribune article, however, the source said he was not certain whether they prayed together"

link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/11/couricandco/entry2673784.shtml

"From the AP's first February 11 article:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think voters have a litmus test on religion, whether evangelical Christianity or his childhood years in the Muslim faith.

"If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I'm a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Ultimately what I think voters will be looking for is not so much a litmus test on faith as an assurance that a candidate has a value system and that is appreciative of the role that religious faith can play in helping shape people's lives," he said."

link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130001

.

would matter much in the Middle East since Obama is now Christian and pro-Israel.

It does suck that most of the Dem candidates have to pander to the the pro-Israel crowd. But Obama does recognize that our foreign policy there is one-sided. He even got in trouble by saying that the Palestinian people are suffering.

I know he is no Kuchinich, who I agree has gets no $$ from AIPAC or other Israeli special interest groups.

==He is not embraced by AIPAC as strongly as some of the other candidates.==

That is because he has no real record. He has only been in national office for two years. The other candidates have sufficiently long records that AIPAC can look at to assess where they "truly" stand.

==But Obama does recognize that our foreign policy there is one-sided. He even got in trouble by saying that the Palestinian people are suffering.==

You need to put that in context as well. First, Obama has never said our policy on Israel-Palestine is one-sided. The only major national Democrat still in politics who has ever said anything like that is Dean in 2003. It is true that BO has said the Palestinians are suffering, but both pro-Israel people who are unsure of Obama on Israel and pro-Palestinian people who are promoting Obama leave out the next sentence. He--as Obama himself pointed out in the first debate--blames the Palestinian's situation totally on the Palestinians' leadership. In other words, Obama blames the Palestinians alone for the their situation. That is diametrically different than the impression given by some people on both sides of the issue.

Obama has the same position HRC, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have on Israel-Palestine. Ditto Iran (although Edwards at least criticized Holy Joe's call for bombing Iran. I do not think HRC and Obama, who was mentored by Holy Joe, commented on HoJoe's remarks). On Iraq Obama is actually on the hawkish end of the Democratic candidates' spectrum with his carbon copy of HRC's Iraq policy. They have not spoken much about Saudi Arabia but presumably they all have the same position on it as well. Kucinich is the only candidate who deviates on Iraq (is the only candidate to consistently oppose the war from the beginning to today. He has never voted to finance the war.), Iran, and Israel-Palestine (remember him calling the Israeli barrier a wall while Kerry and JE called it a fence?) and Gravel has been vocal on Iran. I have yet to see Gravel comment on Israel-Palestine.

I would like to note that this is my opinion of where the field stands on these issues. I know Israel-Palestine is a highly emotional issue and I am not advocating for either side in this post. I am just pointing out that those who hope Obama will somehow be more favorable to the Palestinian perspective are investing false hope in him.

All the others will continue to enable Israel's crimes, resulting in the status quo we have had to endure since 1967. There won't be peace for as long as Israel occupies any of the land taken in 1967, including East Jerusalem.

but DK has not yet arrived to top tier

as far as I can tell. I agree with you about Israel and would like to see a U.S. president who'd stand up and say what Israel has done wrong, just as he, or she, would say what any other nation has done wrong. Kucinich is the only candidate who would.

but then again on any number of other issues such as domestic issues like health care and developing an adequate social safety net, Kucinich is the candidate of reason and the candidate of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Americans.

I would be very nice to see him move into the top-tier, but that would require focusing the public-discussion on actual real issues where Mr. Kuninich positions represent mainstream Democrats and its the other guys who are way out of step. And the corporate media will try very hard to keep the focus off of real issues.

But every now and then lightning does strike and real change does occur.

they would elect him president. I wish he'd run as an independent or third party candidate. I used to be a Yellow Dog Dem but the "top tier" does not please me at all.

We need more than two big parties and I suspect that a lot of people are as fed up with both parties as I am. I like this description of how the two party system continues moving us more to the right:

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/stopme/chapter02.html

The last time a new party emerged was about 150 years ago when the country was on the brink of the civil war.

There is simply no possibility whatsoever that America will adopt proportional representation or some other mechanism to open the way for a third party system. It's not going to happen baring unforeseen cataclysmic events which none of us would want.

The issue in my opinion is not whether its two-parties or five-parties, but to re-politicize politics and take it a way from the dreadful mass marketing enterprise it has become and force politics to concentrate on issues; real issues.

If political campaigns became genuinely issue oriented, progressivism would win because the majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats agree with the progressive policies of someone like Congressman Kucinich. The trick is to make politics and campaigns to focus on issues instead of a bunch of Madison Avenue hoopla.

when we just have two parties and everything is controlled by corporate donors and Madison Avenue hoopla. The parties seem to be getting more and more inflexible/hidebound/rigid/unresponsive.

Candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are literally pushed offstage by the people who have pledged to protect corporate interests. The media have already decided who the "top tier" candidates are and are paying little attention to anyone else, except Fred Thompson, who may enter the race.

How do you think, given the marginalization of Kucinich, that we can get issue-oriented campaigns?

I'm not being sarcastic at all, I'm asking how you think we could do this. There are lots of ways of getting a progressive message out but I fear most people get their information from television, which is stacked against progressives, unless they watch LINK. If we can't get on tv, I'm not sure all the flyers, billboards, and grassroots work can prevail.

If we could get a return to issues, maybe the two-party system could be reformed. But I think we have to ban corporate donations and make the campaigns shorter and more intensive. People might pay serious attention for 3-4 weeks of campaigning before a nationwide primary at the beginning of the second week of October, followed by the campaign between the party nominees between then and Election Day.

I think the overly long campaigns bore most voters. Why have primaries on different days? Why have conventions? 1960 was the last time the nominee wasn't decided on before the convention. Think of all the time and money that would be saved. Of course, potential candidates would be positioning themselves long before the primary campaign season, appearing on television, writing (or more often, having a ghostwriter write) books, making the lecture circuit. But suppose they were forbidden by law from declaring their candidacy until, say, the day after Labor Day. Then they could accept donations from voters (not corporations) to run their campaigns and start campaigning a week later.

I'd also make it illegal for anyone to do polls until the primary campaign season actually began. Even on DU. Especially on DU! :hippie: