Where I Stand

Salon.com asked me to join a number of other writers and bloggers to comment on the qualities we liked and didn't in the various candidates and to disclose who we thought looked best from our vantage point before the Iowa Caucuses. I feel badly today because I actually told them I'd do it -- and then kept deleting about a dozen versions of the 250 word mini-essays I had written.

I never filed the response that would have been an attempt to talk about the Hagel-esque "hybrid candidate" rather than any of the candidates we were being forced to choose between. I eventually posted this on my own blog that sort of went that direction.

As I've written many times on this blog and elsewhere, only Senator Chuck Hagel's approach to foreign policy seemed to match my own thinking, and he's not running. Senator Biden came closest to Hagel's approach but never got enough traction in his campaign efforts.

Unlike Bill Bennett, I am not predetermined in any of the candidates' favor and just faking it when I write. I have more criticism and applause in store for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

I add the last two candidates -- because there are things in the portfolios of McCain and Romney that I do like. And after Tuesday, I'll specify more about the qualities and views in the approaches of those still standing.

Overall, I'm tilting Democratic only because I think it's important for the country to have a political shift -- but not because I'm an automatic Democrat. I'm not. In fact, I'm quite disappointed in the complicity of the Democratic Party in many of our problems today and the lack of leadership in setting an exit strategy from today's domestic and international foreign policy and economic quagmires.

But I just want to say for the record that if I post something that disturbs me about Obama's profile, or Hillary Clinton's, I'm not doing so as an agent for either. They both have qualities and positions I can support -- but there is a great deal of uncertainty I have about both.

Fareed Zakaria has a great piece out today on something I've been writing about for ages -- Barack Obama's approach to US-Cuba policy. I agree with Zakaria that Obama was able to get out of the standard grooves on the US-Cuba issue, but he hasn't used the same out of the box approach in his commentary on the Middle East. That has bothered me.

Obama has given speeches that seem to throw every foreign policy challenge from Darfur to engaging bad guys to climate change to dealing with Russia in a roster of equal challenges. I don't see a sense of priority or an understanding of trade-offs consistent with the brilliant framing Obama applied to US-Cuba relations.

Hillary Clinton, too, has been holding on to many incrementalist grooves in foreign policy and national security that are very disconcerting and that, in my view, promise disaster if we continue down our current path. She supports "coercive diplomacy," as she said in the Los Angeles debate the other night. But America's abilities to coerce are evaporating and are not as credible any longer. There must be a new approach -- and we aren't yet hearing it from her.

So, just for the record -- so that all of you can stop guessing -- I'm not comfortable disclosing affinity for any of the candidates yet.

They need to work harder to get my support -- and none has met my standard.

If forced to vote today, I'd write in Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, Lincoln Chafee (on no one's list -- but I like him), or Chris Dodd.

I've got some positive and negative comments coming about some things I have learned about Obama and Clinton. Rather than just chasing the ethereal stuff, I've been doing some research into their foreign policy positions.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[sky2evan]

Excellent, balanced article of your personal position.

However, I do not see how you can support Mr. Hagel or Mr. Biden before Mr. Chafee, since Mr. Chafee was the only Republican Senator to vote against the Iraq war resolution. As a "traditional" Democrat, I would wholeheartedly support Mr. Chafee due to that vote alone.

All other issues simply pale in comparison. And in fact, if a man (or woman) exercises wisdom, courage, and good judgment to publicly oppose a popular war, I believe that such a man or woman can be trusted to exercise wisdom, courage, and good judgment in lesser issues.

Humanity's inability to resolve the basic issue of war of peace, will inevitably have disastrous consequences in our ability to achieve peace in all other areas of human life, including the economy, society, the environment, and religion.

[deminmo]

One thing that this political season cannot be
about is popularity. It has to be about the
policies of the candidates. And yes, that requires some research, which some people are not going to do. There isn't a lot of time, since my state is one of the 22, but I plan to
spend the next 2 days trying to find out all I
can.

[Obamagrl]

Agree with you on the Zakaria article on Clinton, and her fear of moving beyond tactical, incrementalist positions.

See, e.g. the excerpt below from "Running Scared", at headofstat­e.blogspot­.com:

"Fear is playing a role in this year Democratic contest--but not the role that it has played in the recent past.

Clinton has constructed her career as an accommodation between her genuine reformist impulses, and a gradual wearing away of these that is comprised of both the wisdom of experience, and political calculation. Thus far, she has managed to do so while still presenting herself as a reformer, with the main concern being moderating the (largely inaccurate) perception of her as a "radical" by the swift-boating far right.

Given this, I think that Clinton never anticipated a candidate who would grasp the mantle of reform more surely than she would.

As a result, she has no real way to construct a solid position--embrace experience, and you lose the power than change holds this season. Embrace change, and you appear to be an imitator. Do both, and it appears to be a clever attempt to have both--too clearly tactical."

-From Head of State: headofstat­e.blogspot­.com

[Tennessean]

I always look forward to your serious commentary about foreign policy, and I love your blog for information and analysis. I, however, have no problem assessing Barack Obama's inexperienced tilt on most foreign policy issues, although I do agree with him on Cuba, and think Clinton is wrong on it.

But, Barack Obama's comments on Pakistan--i.e., invading Pakistan if we had "intelligence" on Bin Laden's whereabouts and Musharraf wouldn't act on it--were astonishingly stupid. It resulted in flaming riots in the streets in Pakistan.

And, Barack Obama's comments at an AIPAC conference that he would leave military strikes against Iran on the table because "Iran is a danger to us all," are worrisome.

Combined with the fact that Obama hasn't held a single hearing while he was CHAIR of a Senate sub-committee on European foreign affairs, is troubling.

Those are just a few things I've noticed that raise concerns about Obama's readiness for the White House.

Thanks for providing the analysis we all need on this issue at your blog.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

"If forced to vote today, I'd write in Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, Lincoln Chafee (on no one's list -- but I like him), or Chris Dodd."

Thank you for keeping alive their political memory.

[desmirl]

When you say you 'tilt' Democrat in the coming election, you must have forgotten about our never-ending illegal occupation of Iraq that has resulted in almost 4,000 deaths and over 25,000 seriously wounded among our own, probably more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed in their own homes, an out-of-control defecit, balance of trade that is destroying our economy, a government that gives corporations tax breaks when they send good jobs to other countries so they can pay slave wages to their workers... Should I go on with the list of Republican failures and crimes? Oh, my....