Why I Think Obama is the Best Candidate on Foreign Policy

Barack Obama is better equipped to handle the United States' foreign policy on the world stage than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. As an international human rights lawyer who has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand better than most the security situation facing Americans and the world. Recently, I survived a large-scale attack by the Taliban on a hotel in Kabul, so my sense of urgency about national security and the safety of Americans abroad is based on a very real understanding of the dangers we face. I plan to return to Kabul shortly, and I know I will feel safer and more confident of success in Afghanistan if Barack Obama is in the White House.

In my time abroad, people have expressed to me that they doubt the United States' commitment to its own ideals and even the very existence of true democracy in the U.S. The misguided policies, arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration have alienated our friends and inflamed our enemies. Americans working abroad can no longer rely on the good reputation of their country, and instead we are often called upon to explain or justify its actions. We need a leader who can revive American diplomacy, and with it, the reputation of the U.S. in the world.

I believe that Barack Obama is the candidate who can restore credibility to the United States in the international community. He, more than any other candidate, can prove that the U.S. is capable of making a serious change in its policies and leadership overseas in the wake of the disastrous blunders of the Bush administration. Unlike the presence of another Clinton in the White House, an Obama presidency will lead to a sense among needed allies that there is a new political order in the U.S. An Obama presidency will convince our allies that the American people recognize that new approaches are required to deal with the post 9/11 world, and that unilateralism and political arrogance breed hatred of this country and its citizens.

The claim that Barack Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy is a red herring. Having served for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has more on-the-job foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Ronald Regan did when they took office. And his experience came during the post 9/11 era. The experience Hillary Clinton touts from her White House years is from an outdated period in history, and her vote on the Iraq war demonstrates that her judgment in the current environment is not sound. She was wrong about what may prove to be one of the most key foreign policy decisions of our time, and for years, has been unable or unwilling to recognize her error and move forward. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama was right about the war, but has tried, as he said last night, to work with others to drive George Bush's bus out of the proverbial ditch and turn the focus back to Afghanistan. He had this clarity even when he was a state senator. By Hillary Clinton's own account, George Bush fooled her, but, given the same information, Obama came to a different conclusion and spoke out against the Iraq war at the time and has continued to focus on fighting those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September 11th attacks.

Barack Obama has the ability to deal both with American's allies and its enemies. Right now, in Afghanistan and around the world, the U.S. needs the support of its friends. Not only does Obama have the skills necessary to reach out to those we have alienated, he has expressed a willingness to do so. His comments about Pakistan, a key U.S. ally, in particular demonstrate that he is focused on cultivating relationships with moderate factions within the country without surrendering to any one group or relying on one person. He avoids the alienating strong-arm "you're with us or against us" rhetoric of the Bush administration. Instead, when discussing international security, he immediately looks to international coalitions and partnerships, including NATO, and recognizes the importance of engaging with the international community to achieve American interests. He understands what the war in Iraq has meant for the U.S. on the world stage, and the damaging effect it has had on the centrally important U.S. campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama clearly is aware that the U.S. needs to make smart choices about its policies in the Islamic world in order to ensure our national security and to work with our allies to do so.

Given his early opposition to the Iraq war and focus on the battle against extremism in Afghanistan, his values, good judgment and intelligence are clear. And throughout this primary season, he has demonstrated that he has the ability to convince others and make his visions a reality. Hillary Clinton does not understand that his poetic rhetoric is used in the service of getting people to work together toward real accomplishment. Witness the success of his campaign in organizing victory after victory (while her campaign has been losing more supporters the longer it continues) against one of the most formidable political machines in Democratic Party history.

I believe that Obama's conduct of his campaign reveals the way in which he would conduct foreign (and domestic) policy. He knows how to defuse arguments and focus on shared values while relentlessly pursing his ultimate goal. He knows when to make his point and when to stand above the fray. He is able to disagree in a principled way, and accept and incorporate an argument made by someone else if it is proven to be well-reasoned. The respectful way he treats his political opponents is a model of how he will treat the rest of the world. This is exactly the sort of political skill and diplomacy that America needs to employ when conducting international relations. The world will welcome a more open United States, dedicated to advancing its own interests without riding roughshod over other countries.

Finally, as someone who works to establish respect for human rights and democracy in a post-conflict environment, I think that Obama will be an example for the world of the fruits of a true democratic process -- something in which many people in struggling parts of the world no longer believe. Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, most people's experience with politics is that it is run by dictators, family dynasties or clans. So, in a world where the fate of Pakistan, a nuclear power which created the Taliban, is being fought over by a military dictator and the family of a powerful slain former leader, it frightens me to hear Hillary Clinton say things like "It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush." To much of the world, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be no surprise, but will look like their own national clan-driven politics. An Obama presidency, on the other hand, will be proof to the world that the democratic process can allow leaders who have vision and talent to come to the helm, despite a lack of family connections and in the face of potential racial or ethnic discrimination. It will show the world that the U.S. is truly a great democracy where the people control the government.

I believe that an Obama presidency will bring about a new respect for the U.S. around the world. President Obama will renew a sense of partnership with our allies, admit our mistakes in Iraq, and focus on rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He will bring to American diplomacy a fresh, intelligent perspective on the causes and effects of extremism and a more effective approach to combating terrorism. If Obama is elected, I will be safer, more likely to be shown respect as an American and more likely to succeed in democracy-building in Afghanistan. In my mind, that makes Barack Obama the strongest candidate for president in the realm of international affairs.

Comments

[ResidentChimp]

I would advise against returning to Afghanistan after Obama cuts and runs. Women's lives won't be worth a plug nickel after the Taliban takes over again.

[Fabienne]

The Taliban is making a comeback NOW or have you been in a media blackout?

[wmfor]

Hey, they aren't doing too well on that score right now.

But one good sign: a bumper poppy crop.

[RichLiberal]

Obama's position on Iraq is really getting tiresome. He expects us to believe that somehow if Hillary had changed her vote then maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq today. What total crap and he and the media know it. Bush was heading to Iraq no matter what anyone did, and a lot of people knew it.

However, the Senate cannot base its policies on the assumption that the President is an idiot at best or deliberately using false pretenses to set the US into a war for reasons that have remained secret, officially, but looking at who's pulling in the billions of profits from this war is not too hard to figure out.

So, here comes brave Barack Obama: rather than launch impeachment hearings on Bush, rather than take Bush to task as a war criminal, Obama spends endless hours in the National spotlight blaming Hillary Clinton for Iraq and using that as a scheme to get himself elected to President.

Should Obama happen to become President, with his questionable growing list of American values contemptuous associates and relatives, there are going to be a lot of people who look at his rise to power as being carried out in the most despicable and sleazy of manners.

If there ever was an unprincipled campaign run on sleaze and smears, it is Obama's, no matter how slick and sophisticated he tries to be to disguise the sleaze at the end of the day for Obama to complain about Hillary on Iraq, while cowardly ducking the Kyl-Lieberman vote that he also "blames" her for is totally disingenuous. If he wasn't getting a free ride by the media for stuff that everyone else gets clobbered for, Obama would have long ago been history.

[Beelzebufo]

Barack will be a fine "speaking softly" president as long as he carries a big stick. He'll need to have our finest military leaders travel at his side, albeit quietly.

[Fabienne]

Isn't it time we evolved beyond the use of force to settle everything? Read Paul Kennedy's THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GREAT POWERS if you want to see the results of the inordinate use of force. Our reliance on the military is causing us to slide downhill.

[Heartlight3]

I still am totally amazed at the misinformation that people present as honest-to-god fact in these comments. I implore you to check out the facts before you post such drivel. (Tony Rezko had nothing to do with Obama buying his house. He owned the lot next door.)

The more I see of this campaign the more respect I have for Obama's ability to organize and mobilize people to come together and get things done. His campaign has been phenomenal. He has had none of the financial difficulties, message inconsistencies, and personnel turnover that the other campaigns have had. There have been a few surrogate missteps, but he handles them quietly and they don't happen again. He learns fast. He chooses competent and effective people, and they work harmoniously and with determination to implement his vision and it works.

John McCain has lobbyists running his campaign. Who do you think he's going to choose to help run the government?

[IMustKnow]

Obama has had a relationship with known slumlord, Tony Rezko, and flat out lied about it. Doesn't make any difference about Obama's house, but it sure is a big coincidence Rezko bought the house next to him. Let's just wait to see what happens with Rezko and what he has to say.

The thing that Obama learned the fastest was that playing the race card would really help him.

[raptor]

Actually, it was (and remains) an empty lot. Bought by Mrs. Rezko simultaneously with the Obama purchase, to help the latter. Resold by Mr. Rezko to one of his lawyers to pay legal bills.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Obama wanted to buy the house he currently lives in. The owner of that house also owned the lot next door and was unwilling to sell the house without selling the lot next door at the same time. Obama could not afford both the house and the adjacent lot. So, Obama's long time friend Rezko bought the adjacent lot from the seller at the same time that Obama bought the house. This allowed the seller to get what he wanted and allowed Obama to get the house he wanted. It was a coordinated deal. After the sale, Rezko sold a portion of the lot to Obama so he could increase the size of his own lot.

So, maybe before you chastize others, you should actually check the facts.

Obama has admitted all of this himself and has even said it was a mistake to be so closely involved in dealings with Rezko, a man he has known since before his time in the Ill state senate.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Excellent article and you presented all the reasons why Obama would be the best candidate on foreign policy.


Having lived on 4 continents, Asia, Australia, Europe and the USA, I have seen how the world has changed, specifically in the last two decades. Most US citizens have not traveled outside the USA. Less than 21% of US citizens own passports, and traveling to Jamaica or the Bahamas for a holiday, doesn't help give one an understanding of how inextricably we are connected.


Outside the US, people count on US citizens to make the right decision when choosing our President. The US economy and the effects of Wall street drive international markets and world indices. People outside the US worry about US foreign policy and the possibility of war, both conventional and nuclear. World citizens are well aware that the US has a profound effect on world stability and prosperity.


The Clintons get very good press overseas and most view the Clintons admiringly. However, because Senator Clinton has moved far to the right on so many issues since she took office in 2000, I find it hard to believe examining her record that she would do much to roll back the tragic mistakes and blunders of the Bush administration. Her votes have enabled and facilitated Bush's unnecessary war. By enabling the Iraq war, she has helped facilitate the largest transfer of wealth this country has ever witnessed. Senator Clinton has most of the same corporate backers as Bush and more defense contractor contributions than any other candidate, Republicans included. The massive problems we face like the mortgage crisis, gross national debt, foreign policy of perpetual war, domestic issues such as poverty, wage stagnation, and corporate control of our governmental system, are issues that Senator Clinton has no real intention of changing.


We can see who and what Senator Clinton represents by her backers and votes in the Senate. Clinton can't believe voting for the Iraq war was a mistake, when she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman bill (Iran), and against the bill to ban cluster bombs. She is so close to McCain on foreign policy positions, I find it hard to believe she would go far enough to restore America's good standing in the world. Her words during this campaign have been in direct contrast to the way she has voted. Actions speak louder than words, most certainly in Senator Clinton's case, her words ring hollow.

[LDW]

Barak Obama's voting record is not distinguished except for his propensity to vote Present on any controversial issue.

He avoids making waves like the plague. Even his boast at having always been against the war in Iraq is a lie. He made one speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago when the polls were showing anti-war sentiment running high. Later, when the country seemed to get behind Bush, Obama took the speech off his website and said that his position was not very far apart from Bush’s. Then he voted to keep funding the war. Now that the polls are once again showing anti-war sentiment increasing, that speech is back on his website and he’s claiming that was always his position. This is the behaviour of a weasely schemer, not an honourable man.

[BrooklynLager]

"He made one speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago when the polls were showing anti-war sentiment running high."

In 2002????????

[Fabienne]

Did you never any of the facts regarding the "Present" votes (100 out of over 4,000 votes)? No use attempting to explain to you, since you won't pay attention anyway.

[JackW]

So Hillary listened to the CIA, FBI, Armed Forces, NIA etc and they were all wrong. But, most on these posts suggest she should have known that at that time. As should the following Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the bill: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), BIDEN(DE), Breaux (LA), Cantwell (WA), Carnahan (MO), Carper (DE), Cleland (GA), CLINTON(NY), DASCHLE(SD), DODD(CT), DORGAN(ND), EDWARDS(NC), FEINSTEIN(CA), Harkin (IA), Hollings (SC), Johnson (SD), KERRY(MA), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT),
Lincoln (AR), Miller (GA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Schumer (NY)
Torricelli (NJ). If every Democrat on this list says their vote was a mistake, they should all quit (those still in office anyway) and make the case with their constituents as to why they should be re-elected. You made a vote, live with it, explain why you made it, but don't apologize for basing a decision on what was considered to be fact back then. Even the majority of the country was in support at that time! And how many have voted in favour of the GOP since then to support and finance the war?
I have heard Obama and Clinton both say the U.S. should get out of Iraq, but none of them have said what should be done with the mess the U.S. made of that country. The U.S. made that country what it is today, so the U.S. should fix it and pay for it...before leaving!

[mostlybluedot]

Fully agree. this issue is a farce:Hillary did not vote for war and she did not vote in a vacumm. I suppose we coulda just said something like: "hey there Saddam we're comin' over to check out if you have any WMD, ok babe?" Yeah that would work Or maybe you have to add a little incentive like: "if you don't let us in we will bomb the livin' shit out of you." Which would more likely get his attention? Now it was Bush who misused the authorization. Obama wasn't even in the Senate so we have no real idea how he would have voted given the pressures and "intelligence" that was being thrown about. Nice to be stuck in Podunk battling Alan Keyes, huh? Your words don't count.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Hillary's mistake in this campaign has been in not explaining more fully what her vote was for.
Yes, she voted for the resolution. But, she should have stated something like this in her campaign.

"I voted for the resolution to give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq if it became necessary. The Bush administration assured me at the time that they would exhaust all other avenues available before actually using the military force. And I stated publically at the time that my position was for using those other avenues prior to launching a pre-emptive war. I believe that any president needs to have the threat of the use of military force as one of her options when dealing with rogue leaders such as Saddam Hussein. And that is why I voted for the resolution. My mistake was in not realizing at the time just how much of a complete idiot G W Bush is. Has I been preident at the time and been given the authority, it would have been used properly. The Inspectors would have gone back into Iraq. We would have continued to use diplomacy. Those inspectors would have concluded there were no WMD and there would never have been a reason to invade."

[Fabienne]

And exactly why did she say she continued to support the war, at least well into 2005?

[Demdem1]

I agree that the way Obama handles himself is a really important issue. A president can't become furious over mailings the way Hillary did. Obama says he expected the slings and arrows that come with a bid for the presidency. In other words, he was ready on day one for the campaign. She wasn't.

But what I hadn't really though about was the way this whole process and its result will be viewed from outside of the country. The notion of "change" definitely seems like much more than a slogan to me after reading Miss Gans' article. I think we do have to be concerned about creating political dynasties even here in the U.S. Great piece. Thanks.

[LDW]

Obama didn't have to get furious over mailings, because it's his campaign that's generating the misleading, lying, disgusting material.

If HRC's campaign were doing anything even close in nature to what Obama's camp does without so much as a whisper of censure from his supporters or the MSM, the Obama-ites would be mounting the ramparts.

The only slings and arrows directed at the Obama campaign so far seem to have been spun out of whole cloth by his own operatives - take the LBJ race card nonsense or the Obama in a headscarf photo. The first was a misrepresentation and a lie, and the second was probably circulated by Obama's own camp.

When asked legitimate questions about his non-tenure on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or his non-denunciation of Louis Farrakhan, Obama was peevish and dismissive, and his cult followers thronged to their typewriters to avenge their poor little spoiled boy cuz he mighta’ got a little boo boo. They reminded him en masse that he shouldn’t worry: the MSM would make it all go away. And that’s just what the MSM did. There is very little good journalism happening in any of the MSM these days, and it’s shameful.

[SavonarolaGirolamo]

Another pig-headed exercise in stupidity from you, you pathetic non-entity. Did you dunk your head in the fryer at the Krispy Kreme where you work? Obama is now dealing with the onslaught of attacks coming from both Clinton, McCain and certainly also Rove inter alia. Your characterizations of Obama are rude and wrong and show you as the mental midget you are. Bang your head hard against the underside of that bridge, troll.

[Fabienne]

So Clintons' campaign's mailings in Iowa saying that Obama was anti-choice were right on track?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Obama's mailings about Hillary's position on NAFTA are a complete LIE. And, part ofthe reason that Hillary got so angry about them is because Obama knows they are a lie and was told so before. But, he continued to use them. That mailing contains a quote that is attributed to Hillary. It is absolutely FALSE. The news organization that Obama took it from has retracted it long ago and at the same time called Obama's use of it false and misleading. But, he continues to use it anyway. So, is this part of Obama's "change" of politics? To continue to misquote your opponent after you've been called on it publically?

[factcheck2]

Looks to me like someone's jockeying for a position in an Obama admin. The writer talks about being in Kabul hotel during a Taliban attack, but seems to not be aware that as the chair of the senate committee that oversees the NATO deployment in Afghanistan, Obama hasn't called any hearings on the mission at all. At last night's debate, he claimed he's been too busy campaigning to do so.

While a state legislator, Obama reneged on promises to several social justice-oriented groups to help advance their bills in the state legislature. And today, despite all the lofty rhetoric on Iraq, he pulled his support from the Russ Feingold troop withdrawal bill. (Clinton is a co-sponsor.) Moreover, his rise in politcs is directly traceable to a Chicago power broker and slumlord named Tony Rezko, who goes on trial next month on mulitple felonies. Rezko deprived low-income tenants of heat in several of his housing projects to the point where the city had to sue him. Even after this episode, Obama turned to him in 2005 for help in purchasing a $2 million home.

As for the critique of Hillary Clinton's record, it's again the same one-note rhetoric that Obama brings up at every campaign stop about her voting with the congressional majority to authorize a war in Iraq.(There's no way of no way of knowing how Obama would have voted since he didn't take his senate seat until 2005.) Clinton is the only frontrunner in history who has been outspoken on women's human rights and the need to incorporate them into all U.S. foreign policy decisions.

[kasha]

Great endorsement!

Hillary's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment would seem to indicate that she still does not know what John McBush and the Neocons are capable of 4-1/2 years after they invaded Iraq with her regrettable approval.

[LDW]

In your case Kasha, the Great endorsement would be better phrased as the blind leading the blind.

Nice regurgitation from the Hillary Haters manual - I hadn't realized it was also published in Braille, but maybe it's a talking book?

[SavonarolaGirolamo]

Your mindlessness knows no bounds. You write like a bully but your words are transparent and we see the great void inside your mind. Bang your head harder!

[LeonBNJ]

An important area of foreign policy as to Sen. Obama is his more nuanced views toward Israel. He seems to have suggested not blindly supporting the right wing absolutes in Israel, to encourage Israel to negotiate with reason as to the Palistitians. This could hurt Obama, but it is closer to what policy we should have toward Israel, and for our own good in the Middle East.

[LDW]

His views on Israel are not 'nuanced', except in the Obama Walks on Water Talking Points Manual.

Barak Obama's views on Israel are muddled and incoherent, just like his views on the economy or health care or Social Security.

[Boobaloo]

"By Hillary Clinton's own account, George Bush fooled her, but, given the same information, Obama came to a different conclusion and spoke out against the Iraq war at the time and has continued to focus on fighting those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September 11th attacks"

*Lisa, I could kiss you.This sentence alone says it ALL. ONly point I want to stress is that we can not 'root out terrorists' as you state, we either kill them or conform them and prevent new recruits.

We must change our foreign policy so that we can conform and prevent future recruits.

[sockman]

Ummm you should hold your kiss because this statement is quite idiotic. There is nothing to suggest that US Senator Clinton and state senator Obama were privy to the same intelligence. Lisa is fudging the record when she reaches this conclusion because even though senator Obama was opposed to the war, he was not included in any of the secret briefings that senator Clinton, Kerry, Biden and other Dems were before voting to give Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq. It's simply a lie to say they reached different conclusions based on the same information.

[ATLiberal]

By her own admission, Senator Clinton didn't read the the relevant NIE. OOPS

Bad judgement?? You decide.

[Barackanot]

Your comment about Barack serving two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee may be technically correct but very misleading in that he has never attended a meeting. As far as his opinion about the war, you will never convince me that his judgment was not affected by his Islam ties. Clinton's decision, on the other hand, was based on her passion for the United State of America. Remember, we were still in a state of hyper alert. Looking for Anthrax in every letter. I know where Hillary stands. Obama is a question mark.

[Demdem1]

Umm..."ties to Islam?" That is complete nonsense. He's Christian. People who opposed going into Iraq did so because there was no proof that Iraq has MDs and Iraq was not the country that had attacked us. The Al-Qaida radicals in Afghanistan that Obama wanted to go after had killed thousands of Americans. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but he was not particularly religious. Women in Iraq went to work and walked in the streets. The country that Obama did want to fight was home to the virulent strain of political Islam that gave rise to the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

And questioning someone's patriotism in the U.S. because of his or her religion is inherently un-American.

[Barackanot]

I'm saying that the fact that someone has switched from being an Islamic Muslim to being a Christian does not just erase their past. Even in college Barack said he wanted to emulate Malcolm X and his African, Muslim father. Even today, his grandmother calls him a good Muslim boy. His past still affects his judgment. And as far as his being un-American, I just don't know. That's the point.
He has pledged to be true to his African heritage. What does that mean? He & his wife believe that Blacks have been oppressed by their white "captors" in America. So, you see, I do not feel that he has the same passion for the United States of America as Hillary does. It's that simple.

[LDW]

'Barackanot' is absolutely correct, and considering your lack of research on Barak Obama's useless time served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ms. Gans, and considering that most of your gushing review relies on what you Believe and Feel, it is very unfortunate that you decided to post this drivel.

"Tonight, when confronted with the reality that Obama has not held any hearings vis-a-vis NATO involvement in Afghanistan as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Europe subcommittee chair, Obama's response was that he hadn't done so because he has been running for President since he became chair of the subcommittee.

Turns out that not only has Obama not held a hearing on this topic, but that he has held no hearings at all as chair of this subcommittee.

Now, I understand enough about the Congress to understand that some subcommittees meet very infrequently, but seriously..."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/27/1238/98788

Barak Obama hasn't served a single minute on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in two years. He's got the title to nicely decorate his website and fool the feeble-minded like you, Ms. Gans, but under that pretty exterior of his there's just a whole lot of nothing.

[SavonarolaGirolamo]

You're hilarious but not the way you think you are. Get a life, get a brain, get a clue.

[research]

You are so right!

Obama showed at the Debate that Hillary is TOO MUCH of a fighter to get anything done.

[Fabienne]

THere's some truth to what you say, "research".

[madfeline]

Senator Clinton was hoodwinked by President Bush on the Iraq vote. And after having been through two successful runs for the presidency, Senator Clinton has undeniably mismanaged a campaign blessed with an established brand name, initially huge war chest and party acknowledgment as presumptive nominee. So much for being experienced and prepared on day one as relates to abilities.

[batspaul]

Great post, madfeline. Somehow, people who take at face value Senator Clinton's claims about results and effectiveness are managing to ignore the entire campaign...

[Boadicea]

Thanks for writing this. I'm an Obama supporter too, though not a Democrat (yet), and since I am a fan of Samantha Powers, I am much more comfortable with Obama's foreign policy approach than I am with John McCain's and Hillary's, (and like most people outside of the partisan worlds, I see those two as interchangeable.)

The world has changed, and changed profoundly. I'm confident that a new generation of voters will decide this election, and they will decide it not by fear, but for the sake of our shared future.

[SeanGardner]

Hey Boadicea...

FYI: I'm hearing Obama would probably pick Kathleen Sebelius (a strong it would be a good pick personally. What will be interesting is if her foreigh policy views are in line with Obama's, particularly on the Iraq War. If you hear something on her foreign policy views, you know, from like an article, a book or an interview, please tell me.

[SeanGardner]

"Given his early opposition to the Iraq war and focus on the battle against extremism in Afghanistan, his values, good judgment and intelligence are clear."

This is why he will win the presidency against John McCain.

He was right on the Iraq War - and I mean right on point after point after point.

He is right on the notion of talking to your enmies as well as your friends. Somthing we haven't done under Bush.

He was right on doing missile strikes in Pakistan when actionable intelligence tells us where an Al-Qaeda operatives are. (The U.S. carried out a similar mission recently which killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda leader).

Obama will be a great foreign policy president. Thanks Ms. Lisa Gans for telling us why.