The One Fundamental Difference Between Clinton and Obama

Despite many similarities between the two democratic presidential candidates on different issues, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pursue two very distinct approaches toward solving U.S. foreign policy issues in the Middle East.

The underlying distinction between Obama and Clinton is vital. Obama recently opposed the idea of a "clash of civilizations" and has expressed his desire to have a better understanding of Islam and Muslims, as well as to engage with the region's nations to resolve U.S. problems.
In response, Clinton proposes a similar path as the Bush administration, suggesting the expansion of U.S. commitment in the region by defending not only Israel, but also all other U.S. allies, to deter Iran.

Since Iranians have not attacked their neighbors for centuries, and Iran's military doctrine is based on defense rather than attack, Clinton's arrogant tone suggests the continuation of Bush administration policies in the region by maintaining Iran's exclusion from a regional security arrangement and fueling the increasingly perilous cold war in the region.

"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel," she said. "We will let the Iranians know, that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

While the international community has adopted a series of sanctions against Iran to show its determination to stop Iran's nuclear program, it is not clear why Sen. Clinton emphasizes a possible unilateral action against Tehran -- the same policy that was employed by the Bush administration to attack Iraq. However, her recent remarks match her war authorization vote in congress in response to concerns about Iraq's WMD capacity and the possibility of using that capacity against Israel, which later on proved to be a myth.

When the two democratic presidential candidates were asked what they would do if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and uses them against Israel, they responded forcefully. But there was a big difference between their two answers. Clinton said, "An attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation by the United States." But Obama said the U.S. would "take appropriate action." This means that while Clinton still believes in the effectiveness of unilateral action, Obama feels hesitant to go down that path.

Obama's response is in line with what he said a few days ago during a unique "Compassion Forum" held at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. "Islam can be a partner with the Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world," he said. He tried to put the problems into larger context that the U.S. is facing in the region. He also addressed the difficulties that have put the religion at the core of various conflicts from Afghanistan to Lebanon, Israel and Palestine.

"And so I am always careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush because the overwhelming majority of the people of the Islamic faith are people of good will who are trying to raise their families and live up to their values and ideals and to try to raise their kids as best they can," he said. "That's something that I think we always have to remember as opposed to assuming a clash of civilizations."

In fact, Obama sees the solution for security concerns in the Middle East as linked to the current cultural struggle between the Western and Islamic worlds. This struggle needs to be redefined in order to start a constructive negotiation and engagement process with moderates and democrats in the Muslim world -- people who have been ignored by the administration's black-and-white approach for years.

The silly season in politics has left no room to explore some of the fundamental differences that have been raised during the past few weeks of the democratic presidential campaign. These fundamentals issues should have a more significant role in shaping voter's opinions than hearing sniper fire, calling people "bitter" and digging deep into candidates' personal lives.

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[olandug]

Role Model for Children - Obama

A few days ago Obama gave the 'finger' to Hillary on national television and smugly laughed about it with his audience. Is this type of malicious immaturity what you want your children to learn: lack of tolerance, vengeance and the bully mentality? After that one event, besides the mindless and uneducated, how could anyone seriously consider this Obama for any office?

Also, Obama's state-senate candidacy was launched at Weather Underground bombers Ayers house in 1995. Ayers who advocates the violent destruction of America may have much more to do with promoting Obama than we know. The organization MoveOn has aggressively intimidated delegates to vote for Obama and to shun Hillary and is likely closely connected with Ayers. Ayers finally got his bomb - Obama.

Obama also rigged his election to become senator by unfairly disqualifying his opponents. He did this by meticulously finding fault with each of the other candidates signed petitions until each of the contenders had to drop out, Obama was the last one standing, there was no election. This was another finger gesture towards the American public by Obama.

If this isn't enough, look at Obama's affiliations:
Wright
Meeks
Ayers
Abongo "Roy" Obama
Rashid Khalidi
Robert Malley
Hamas
McPeaks
Rezko
Auchi

And the list goes on...

This may be the time of the Anti-Christ, but do you want to be on the list of people who voted for him?

[Stillman]

During the Cold War, "massive retaliation" was code language for a civilization destroying nuclear strike. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the official policy name. The "security umbrella" was always called the "nuclear umbrella" in those days. Hillary Clinton is using language that harks back to those bitter and dangerous days, but it shouldn't be surprising to anyone. She always exhibits the "bunker mentality" that is so prevalent on the right. She's one of the most hawkish Democrats I've seen in my life, and I'm almost 60.

[AlanRogers]

Here is a great introductory video for those wishing to understand US-Iranian Relations:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=601

[RS]

Great video, AlanRogers. It's really sad that there are STILL tens of millions of Americans out there today that are just simply TOO DAMN LAZY to do any research on their own in order to find out the REAL reason why today there are STILL some Iranians that ABSOLUTELY HATE OUR GUTS.

[altohone]

The corporate media insists there aren't policy differences between Obama and Clinton.

Didn't you get the memo?
The "subtleties" are not to be discussed as an informed citizen is more difficult to manipulate.

Shame on you for delving beyond the shallow militarism that passes (successfully) as debate in this country.

[whateverWorks]

I suspect most people didn't return after the last adult diaper commercial to hear each of the candidates address substantive issues in the 30 seconds alotted, now that the important issue--whether or not Obama is really bin Laden's love child and would he submit to a DNA test to prove it--had been thoroughly hashed. Hillary proclaimed that troop removals would begin, regardless of any consequences to Iraqis, within two months. But an attack of any magnitude against, say, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, would be met with massive consequences. George Bush's actions in Iraq were uniformly despicable, but my country elected this neocon moron and I bear some responsibility for his actions. How can you be categorical about the massive retaliations for Israel and anyone else under the umbrella and equally categorical that nothing that happens to the Iraq we created matters? Maybe because she knows that except for Israel, no one else is clamoring to shelter under our umbrella, after they have seen what our "support" has meant to Iraq. I don't think Hillary will have to worry about any 3 a.m. panic calls from Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Yemen. In fact, they might call each other at 3 a.m. and the first sentence would be, "The U.S. must never hear of this, but..." There will definitely be an Arab "clique" and the cool kids will probably be asked to join, but guess what, we're not one of the cool kids.

[Siryn]

We need to defuse the argument that the war against terrorism is a war against Islam. Once you change that rhetoric, the extremists lose the steam from their jihad. Bush has never been able to convincingly do that, and even though it is not his fault he hasn't helped the situation. This perception has been around since the 70s, that America hates Islam. Considering the flak that Obama gets from Bigoted America, this perception is grounded full well in reality.

[MPeter]

Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama for President

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

[heal57]

I too believe Obama should and will be elected the President of the United States. Can we even imagine someone with principles and morals leading the USA. My God, it's been almost 50 years!!!! I agree with MPeter that Obama's reforming Social Security and health care have a good chance of succeeding; also his care and plans for our Veterans and the housing/foreclosure fiasco also.
We have a better chance for a strong defense without war with Barack Obama as Commander in Chief..

[ianrthorpe]

You have trouble telling who is a conservastive and who is a neocon.In the UK we have problems deciding whether the labour party is to the right of the Conservatives or way to the right of the Conservatives.

Welcome to the confused club.

http://greenteeth.blog.co.uk/2008/04/16/gordon-fiddles-while-england-crumbles-4052085#comments

[EinChicago]

The biggest fundamental difference is that Clinton can actually win elections. Obama can only win straw poll popularity contests.

[papasalas]

Translaton: Obama's 50 state strategy was superior to Clinton's "let's just work on the blue states".

[swanky]

easy pickin's in a primary season. state's we lose pick the nominee and we'll be back to the same old swingstates in the GE which he cannot win. if hillary is as destestable as you okennedybots claim she is, and if her support has so completely eroded, as you claim it has, then why can't he ever deliver the sound knockout punch when he is given the opportunity? if her negatives are so high, why isn't he cutting a broad swathe of destruction across all of her strongholds, and how come she is still raising millions a month? he claims to be outraising her, but it's curious that we only hear about his fundraising totals after she releases hers? i don't believe that his totals are honest at all. i doubt their authenticity and i doubt their lineage. i don't doubt the lineage of hillary's donors, or the fact that she has on hand what she says she does. only o'kennedy has the motive to lie.

[happytrails]

EVERYTHING about Obama's strategy was better than Billary's, especially the advisors. That Billary's major advisor is connected to a company which is also advising Small Mac and is actively promoting ANOTHER dubious trade agreement, which Hillary "CLAIMS" to be against, speaks volumes about Billary's inability to run even a campaign, let alone the world.
Out with the old!

[PandeiroMan]

The biggest fundamental difference is that Obama has already won the Democratic nomination and will soon be going on to win the presidency and put America back on the track to greatness.

[AuntSally]

Latest Newsweek Poll...

Obama leads Clinton nationally among registered Democrats, 54-35.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Obama obviously is correct and prudent in his thinking. Attacking Iran would be foolhardy at best, either alone or with Israel. Iran has not attacked any of her neighbors in almost 300 years and has not been successfully invaded since the 7th century. Only a Neo-Con from the Bush, McCain-Clinton school would even consider such a preposterous misadventure after the continuing fiasco in Iraq.

[swanky]

Right - and when their maniac President gets a nuke and turns Israel into a crater as he has promised to do, at least we'll have had the opportunity to talk to him first. That idiot - and by the way, if you do any serious reading on the subject, you'll note that the word idiot when employed as a descriptor of Iran's President is not used colloquially but it is used scientifically - is a dangerous moron and he needs to be stopped. But I think you're right, since Iran poses no threat because they haven't invaded anyone in 300 years, that means they are surely to be trusted provided we conveniently forget the fact that their form of government has existed for less than 30 years. This is a new threat, and it is very real. I don't want Wimpy O'disdainful to have the Ayatollah's over for an iced Chai soy latte - I want my President to rattle their f#$% cages. But go ahead, talk to them, see what you can do for them. Watch them talk out of both sides of their mouths. Talking to Iran won't stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. You don't "dialog" with bullies and oppressors.

[altohone]

Those who insist Iranians are suicidal and would invite the obliteration of their country are selling snake oil.

Oh, btw, Ahmedinijad doesn't even have the authority to decide foreign policy... that little fact always manages to be ignored when discussing the "madman".

I understand that being in the tiny minority still supporting Bush can be difficult.
I understand that a steady stream of failures due to policies you've supported can be hard to stomach.

I don't understand why you insist the record of failure is proof the policies should continue though... or that your hard sell will work to convince anybody here.

[calluna]

As much as it will be a welcome change to leave this "clash of civilizations" crap behind, I don't really think the US policy towards the Middle East would change much during an Obama presidency, since our basic goals in the region won't really change. We aren't going to lessen our commitment to Israel. The "clash" and "supporting democracy" tropes of the Bush administration are a distraction from the real goal, which is to maintain enough of a presence to assure the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. Even under the most enlightened environmental policy, we'll be somewhat dependent on oil from that region for many years to come.

[LeftRight]

Hey, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she just hasn't read the NIE, or ANYTHING not put out by bushco(tm) describing Iran in the last 20+ years....

[repuglycon]

Obama has integrity and Hillary does not.

[JamesAndre]

"Umbrella of deterrence?" "Massive retaliation?"

Dumb, dumb, dumb!

Rattling a scabbard with no saber, and proposing a union that will further divide the middle east. Does anyone think we would tolerate attacks against Saudi Arabia or Israel anyway? Remember Desert Storm?

And she had the nerve to criticize Obama over Pakistan. Anyone see the GAO report?

Please do not elect this woman!

[dugan45]

I notice MSM has yet to pick up on her comments. Perhaps ABC Nightly News will make it it's banner story. The only place I have heard mention of it was on Olbermann last night. He did an entire segment on her remarks.

[happytrails]

Do you want this gun-toting, duck-killing, saber-rattling person answering the phone at 3AM?

[AuntSally]

Don't forget "whiskey-drinking, beer-chasing..."

[westwind]

I doubt most people know that "Iranians have not attacked their neighbors for centuries, and Iran's military doctrine is based on defense rather than attack". I know I didn't. I'm sure it's a bit of information this administration wants to keep people from knowing, as they paint Iran as intent on wiping out Israel, controlling the Middle East and starving the West of oil.

[bas1311]

Someone should tell Iran's president this information. He's the one who claims to be intent on attacking Israel and driving them into the sea.

Of course, how couldn't you take a man at his word who proclaimed that there are no homosexuals in his country. He couldn't even say it with a straight face, but he sure as heck felt the need to say it.

Double speak anyone?

[vcsmith]

There is a case of semantics being played here.

You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

[dugan45]

Here is another tidbit. The iranian people love Americans and their democracy, which they want for themselves. Should McCain or Clinton seriously further exacerbate relations with Iran, the iranian people will side with its government--regular citizens suffer the results of bombings and invasion. Too, such a move on an American President's part would produce more suicide bombers, more terrorists, more of a likelhood that conditions in Iraq would become even more insufferable than they already are. Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and other Middle Eastern nations would be forced into choosing sides. The consequences would become irreversable.

[Hullaballoo]

I agree 100%. How can we possibly expect Israel to even bother to begin to negotiate peace w/ Palestine if we assure them that we'll bomb anybody that threatens them? They have the tough guy in their corner, so why should they compromise? Same with Palestine. How can we get them to come to the negotiating table when they see us as a bullying threat who insists on our way or the highway right off the bat?

As far as Iran - we should recognize what Obama says. Iran is a huge country full of normal human beings who just want to go about their lives and raise their families in peace. Making a show of wanting to WORK WITH Iran to bring them around to accepting a freer and more open society as a benefit to them and their people would go a lot further than constantly threatening to blow them all up just because we don't like what their leader says. We can show solidarity with the people of Iran and encourage them to work with us to persuade their leaders to see things our way. The minute you go throwing around the nuclear bomb - defenses are raised, deaf ears are turned. Maybe we should require a few psychology and sociology classes for our leaders, as it seems Obama is the only one who has a grasp of human nature.

[dugan45]

I saw Chrisian Amanpour's interview with Iranians. They pay no mind to any blustering on Ahmadinejad's part, nor on bush's. Perhaps McCain and Hillary should start listening to the people.