Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama is considered the best candidate by Foreign Policy Wonks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
obamian Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:14 AM
Original message
Obama is considered the best candidate by Foreign Policy Wonks
Edited on Wed Nov-07-07 04:46 AM by obamian
The only major candidate who has opposed the Iraq War from the start Obama is getting a lot of praise from foreign policy wonks. Despite being new to the national scene, Obama clearly has the best judgment when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama's foreign policy experience includes graduating from Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations. In the U.S. Senate Obama is unique among Senators in that he serves on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible fore U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (i.e., NATO). When comparing Obama's foreign policy experience with other candidates for President you have Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Hillary Clinton who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and John McCain who is the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee yet there is no Senator except for Barack Obama who serves on three of the four committees that deal with foreign policy.

Foreign Relations Committee

Obama service on the Foreign Relations committee has placed him in an unique position in that he is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations and serves on the Subcommittees on African Affairs; East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection. This cross-section of subcommittees places Obama in a unique position of having knowledge about Asian, African and European issues. The only other member of the Foreign Relations committee who is running for President is Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the full Foreign Relations Committee yet unlike Obama he does not serve on any of the other foreign policy committees and his experience is limited to foreign policy issues covered by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Obama has also traveled extensively in his capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa. Obama has also co-sponsored the "Lugar-Obama Act" with Republican Senator Richard Lugar who was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the time. This act was a bi-partisan effort to increase U.S. security in terms of the elimination of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This legislation came out of Obama's trip with Senator Richard Lugar to Russia, the Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

Obama has also sponsored legislation such as the "Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act" which was signed into law by President Bush on December 22, 2006. Obama has co-sponsored immigration related bills related to his service on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. His extensive foreign policy experience exceeds that of every other Presidential candidate including his trips abroad in the performance of his official duties as a member of committees dealing with foreign relation issues.

http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president%3F

New York Times Magazine
The United States has had only one foreign policy and one national-security strategy since the transforming events of 9/11 — and this set of doctrines has been shaped by the very distinctive worldview of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the men and women around them. The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a “post-post-9/11 strategy,” in the words of the Princeton Project on National Security, a study that brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties. Such a strategy, the experts concluded, must, like “a Swiss Army knife,” offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade; must pay close attention to “how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions”; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be “grounded in hope, not fear.” A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing “perception of unfairness” around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but “a world of liberty under law”; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. “There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.” Hillary Clinton’s inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband’s second term in office — the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington’s foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you’re bound to hit Obama supporters. Most of them served in the Clinton administration, too, and thus might be expected to support Hillary Clinton. But many of these younger and generally more liberal figures have decamped to Obama. And they are ardent. As Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council official under President Clinton who now heads up a team advising Obama on nonproliferation issues, puts it, “There’s a feeling that this is a guy who’s going to help us transform the way America deals with the world.” Ex-Clintonites in Obama’s inner circle also include the president’s former lawyer, Greg Craig, and Richard Danzig, his Navy secretary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Belgravia Dispatch

I suppose it's no secret I'm something of a one-issue voter when it comes to Presidential elections. That is, I vote for the candidate I think will pursue the best foreign policy. Taxes go up and down, domestic policy reforms move in various directions with varied policy trends, but my heart and intellect focus on the foreign policy of this country (this of course includes fundamental 'human rights' issues such as detainee rights and torture policy). And so far, especially with Chuck Hagel not running, I think we are seeing the strongest foreign policy enunciated by the Obama campaign.

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2007/11/post_112.html

The Glittering Eye

As I’ve noted before, our sticks are not credible and the carrots we’ve been proffering haven’t been juicy enough. The key problem is that we haven’t wanted to offer anything to the Iranians that they really want. Sen. Obama proposes that we do so by offering security assurance and that would be a breakthrough in U. S.-Iranian relations.

http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=3266

Foreign Policy Watch
The New York Times ran a front-page article today about Obama's plan to aggressively pursue diplomacy with Iran over the nuclear issue. The approach that Obama detailed is quite logical: unconditional negotiations, better carrots, harsher punishment for non-compliance, and a reduced American presence in the Persian Gulf. This is very much the type of common sense approach that we've called for here on this blog;


http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/logic-of-obama-plan.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I hate to disappoint you but...
In 2004 Clark also had the "200 foreign policy experts" backing him. It was a very impressive list from people actively working in the field, in diplomatic positions.

No one cared.

Then again, maybe he was already given credit for that knowledge. Obama has not.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obamian Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I've seen a lot of skeptical comments from people on Obama's foreign policy.
Edited on Wed Nov-07-07 04:24 AM by obamian
It's important to emphasize that the people who spend their lives studying foreign policy are supporting him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I think that is probably...
Folded into the general national experience thing. People give Hillary credit for her time in the white house, like it or not, and the fact that Bill and the whole Clinton gang will be there with her. And then you have true experts like Richardson up there on stage with him.

It's something he is going to have to deal with, especially given the challenges a president in 2008 is going to face. And the fact that he looks younger than he is, generally a good thing, unless you are running for president.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obamian Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Obama comments on this in the NY Mag article
Edited on Wed Nov-07-07 04:35 AM by obamian
When I told Obama that Joseph Nye thought he was soft-power incarnate but nevertheless leaned toward Clinton, he nodded, and then coolly shot back: “It is interesting to me that this conversation does not come up with any of the other candidates. It does not come up with respect to John Edwards. On the Republican side, the degree to which Rudy Giuliani was validated almost as a wartime president was fascinating to me.” And what about Mitt Romney? And Fred Thompson?

“ ‘The Hunt for Red October,’ ” Obama’s communications director, Robert Gibbs, helpfully suggested.

Obama wasn’t done. “Hillary gets a unique pass on this issue,” he went on, “not by virtue of her service in the Senate but by virtue of the idea that through osmosis she gets it from Bill. And they’ve been actively pushing that story.” This was obviously a very sore point.


Obama finally leaned back to nap, and I went across the aisle. I was telling Gibbs my theory that Americans might be looking for a president whose protection they can huddle under when Obama opened an eye. And as he resumed the conversation, the frustration of months of pedaling hard and getting nowhere began to show. He wanted to know what kind of experience Clinton supposedly had that he didn’t, and what kind of crisis she was supposedly better suited to than he, and why “toughness” had become a stand-in for experience, and how Clinton could get credit for it when she failed to stand up to Bush on the Iraq vote. We batted all this around. Finally he said, “Ask Nye why Hillary’s paint-by-the-numbers foreign policy makes her more qualified to handle a crisis when for most of our history our crises have come from using force when we shouldn’t, not by failing to use force.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?pagewanted=5&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. "Security assurance"?
What's that? A promise not to invade? Fine by me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obamian Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Here's the quote the blogger was referring to...
“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?ex=1351656000&en=6e53bced62b78a88&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Oh, dear. He shoulda stuck with "security assurances."
Does he really plan to treat heads of state like five year olds? "Changes in behavior"? I hope that translates differently into Farsi. This is an example of his greenness. He's playing to the American voters, forgetting how far words travel these days. If I were the Bushlike creature who currently heads Iran, my first response would be, "Yeah, when is the United States going to changes ITS behavior? Iran's behavior is just fine, thank you very much."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obamian Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 05:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. That's standard foreign policy terminology.
Edited on Wed Nov-07-07 05:04 AM by obamian
You must also think Joe Biden is green:

"A call for comprehensive talks would present Iranian leaders with a stark choice – reject the overture and risk complete isolation and an angry public, or accept it and start down a path that would require Iran to alter its behavior.

Talking to Tehran would not reward bad behavior or legitimize the regime. Talking is something we have done with virtually every other country on earth, including the Soviet Union during the Cold War and unsavory regimes like the ones in North Korea and Libya."
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=256333

Do you think the majority of the foreign policy establishment is going to support someone who doesn't know what they're talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whirlygigspin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. who knew???
Wow! I guess the President of Canada now likes him too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well, at least he didn't plagiarize any of his speeches from FP experts
Edited on Wed Nov-07-07 05:55 AM by ClarkUSA
Being "clean" and "articulate" helps, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-07-07 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
9. Either these foreign policy wonks are all "naïve" and "irresponsible" or
Clinton and Giuliani don't know what they're talking about when they're attacking Obama's foreign policy chops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC