Ready to Lead on Day One?
UPDATE, 12-1-08:
Obama Names Susan Rice as UN Ambassador; Advocates "Forceful Action" Against Genocide
Read Susan Rice's original piece from December 26, 2007, below:
Senator Clinton today launched her campaign's closing argument based on the theme "Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President." Her message is that only she has the experience and the readiness to lead on Day One. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and Governor Bill Richardson could justifiably take issue with this message.
But, it is not directed not at them. Her target, rather, is Barack Obama whom Bill Clinton deemed a "roll of the dice," his own far lesser foreign policy experience as a presidential candidate notwithstanding.
Is Senator Clinton really better suited than Senator Obama to lead on Day One?
Clinton argues her years as First Lady give her unprecedented insight into foreign policy and governing. But what would she do as president on Day One and thereafter?
So far, Senator Clinton has said she would convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draft a plan to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq within 60 days and send her husband and a suitably senior Republican (TBD after George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell demurred) on a listening tour of the world.
Beyond these statements, we know relatively little about whether, on foreign policy, Senator Clinton in fact has "real solutions" to our "big challenges."
Senator Clinton is right about this: President Bush will leave behind an unprecedented mess. An ill-conceived and disastrous war in Iraq, an emboldened Iran, a reconstituted and more diffuse Al Qaeda 2.0, frayed alliances, damaged international institutions, an over-stressed military, a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, a coddled Pakistani leader on the precipice, accelerating climate change, democracy demagogued, China rising without much attention much less constraint, Russia growing more autocratic and provocative, going on five years of genocide in Darfur, and the moral detritus of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, torture, the abuse of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps.
The next American president will have a serious job to do to clean up this mess.
He or she will need exceptional judgment, vision and energy to do so. He or she will need to be unbound by conventional wisdom and unfettered by the need to defend the successes and to obscure the failures of any previous administration.
He or she will also need concrete, credible and bold policy prescriptions for how to tackle these pressing problems and be open with the American people about those policies while still a candidate, so that the voters can elect a president with a clear mandate to govern.
Senator Obama has been comprehensive and exhaustive over the course of the campaign in laying out his foreign policy. Voters don't have to guess what he will do on these issues. They just need to listen and read.
Barack Obama has outlined his vision of American leadership and his approach to national security policy in major speeches delivered in April, October, and December as well as in his article in Foreign Affairs. He understands that, in the 21st Century, America's security and prosperity is inextricably linked to the security and well-being of people in far-flung parts of the world.
Obama, however, has gone beyond broad vision to share with voters detailed plans:
Having opposed the Iraq war from the start, Obama was the first major candidate to set forth a comprehensive plan to redeploy our forces safely and press Iraqis to achieve the necessary political progress. His Iraq War De-escalation Act introduced in January 2007 was embraced by the Senate Democratic leadership in the Senate and remains the basis for their primary legislative vehicle to end the war.
In September 2007, Obama elaborated his Iraq strategy, making clear that he would plan to withdraw combat forces at the responsible pace of one to two brigades a month, with the aim of having all of our combat brigades out within 16 months. Obama has been very specific about the means to achieve political reconciliation as well as the economic and humanitarian steps he would take to avert a worst-case scenario in Iraq and to build the kind of political consensus that's essential to end the conflict. Obama was also very clear that he would leave no permanent bases in Iraq. To the extent that that there will be a need for a small residual presence for a period of time, it would be focused on protecting our embassy and our civilian operations, and on targeting al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq.
On a range of other pressing national security issues, Obama has been specific about how he would govern on Day One:
From counter terrorism, Iran, the Middle East, revitalizing and modernizing America's Armed Forces, supporting America's veterans, reversing climate change and achieving energy security, and reducing the nuclear threat and the risk of proliferation of WMD to tackling poverty, underdevelopment and supporting democracy, combating HIV/AIDS, Obama has been very direct, detailed and comprehensive about his "real solutions" to "big challenges."
Like all the major candidates, Senator Clinton laid out in broad strokes her foreign policy approach inForeign Affairs. This followed a general speech she delivered in June at the Center for a New American Security.
But with the recent exceptions of energy and climate change and HIV/AIDS, she has revealed little during the campaign about how precisely she would tackle pressing national security challenges.
On counter-terrorism, she has said virtually nothing as a presidential candidate.
On Iraq, until the week before Christmas, Senator Clinton declined to specify a timeline for withdrawal of US forces. Then, finally, she embraced Obama's timeline of one to two combat brigades a month. However, she remains ambiguous about permanent bases, signaling in Foreign Affairs there may be a need for some in Kurdistan. She has said on the one hand that she would not act to stop a potential genocide in Iraq but on the other that she would leave behind a presumably larger residual that would have broad responsibilities, including going after other terrorist organizations elsewhere in the region. It is not clear if she means Hezbollah or Hamas, but Senator Clinton leaves the door open to doing more than going after al Qaeda.
On Iran, we know Senator Clinton supported Kyl-Lieberman and condemns Obama's readiness to conduct direct and unconditional diplomacy with Iran, obviously after due preparation, at the Presidential level. Beyond saying she opposes a "rush to war" (the same language she used on Iraq) and favors robust diplomacy, we don't know what precisely Senator Clinton would do about Iran on Day One or thereafter.
Thus, on many of the major foreign policy issues of the day, Senator Clinton is, in effect, asking us to take on faith that she has the right policy approaches because, as she asserts, she has the experience to lead.
She may be right, but that is what Bill Clinton might more aptly call a "roll of the dice."
Equally important as electing a president with the right policies is choosing one who starting on Day One can unify our divided nation so that we can tackle pressing domestic and global challenges. To be strong, we must be unified. Without unity, our nation must confront challenges and threats with one hand tied behind our back. Unity requires more than a governing mandate but also the vision and the wisdom to heal rather than to polarize. Poll after poll shows Senator Obama is the Democrat best positioned to win a substantial victory over the Republican nominee and to do so with significant support from Independents and Republicans, in part because he carries none of the baggage of our bitterly partisan present and past and has made unity, healing and hope the hallmarks of his leadership.
Finally, when a new president takes office in January 2009, he or she will have a brief window of opportunity to change the current dismal state of America's relations with friends and foes alike. The world will give us a fleeting fresh look. Whether we can capitalize on this opportunity to garner the good will and cooperation of peoples and nations in all corners of the world could determine America's fate as a 21st century world leader. It is an opportunity that we must recognize may not come again.
At a critical moment, when America needs to show new policies and a new face to the world, who better than Barack Obama's?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Our Troops Know Who To Vote For !
Part 1 of The Message:
WELCOME TO IOWA VETERANS FOR BIDEN
When I was mobilized with the Iowa National Guard's 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry
based in Waterloo for Operation Iraqi Freedom in October of 2005, I knew that we were
embarking on a long and difficult mission. After being extended four months, and mobilized
for a total of 22 months, we returned to Iowa in July 2007 to an emotional homecoming.
More than 600 of us were part of the longest serving unit since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
During our 16 months on the ground in Iraq, we witnessed massive waste by government
contractors who abused their no-bid contracts with the Pentagon. While private contractors
bled the U. S. Treasury with little oversight, soldiers and Marines died because they lacked
proper equipment and the newest life saving vehicles. Back home, we were aware that only one
Democratic candidate for President, Senator Joe Biden, kept his promises to us that he would fight
for the funds needed to produce Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles which dramatically
reduce the number of casualties from improvised explosive devices (IED's).
Part 2 Of The Message:
When other presidential candidates were going back on their word to support those of us in harm's way, only Senator Biden
remained steadfast in his support, regardless of any political consequences. While still on the ground
in Iraq, many of us from Iowa resolved that we would go back home and stand up for Senator Biden
" just as he stood up for us on the floor of the United State Senate. We want to help make sure that
our troops still in Iraq will have the best Commander in Chief possible on inauguration day in 2009.
We also support Senator Biden because he is the only candidate with the vision and the courage to come
forward with a comprehensive and realistic plan to exit Iraq without leaving the region behind in mass
disorder. It is clear that we need new leadership and a new approach to allow us to start withdrawing
our troops. I hope that you and thousands of other Iowa veterans will join with me in working to nominate
and elect Senator Joe Biden as our 44th President. No one else possesses his depth of knowledge
and experience in foreign affairs as well as the vision for restoring America's proper place in
the world community. Please join us in a noble cause.
Sincerely,
James D. Mowrer
State Coordinator, Iowa Veterans for Biden.
Hillary's divisive even among Democrats! Just look at the comments from this post and the other posts about this primary. If she gets the nomination, expect a low voter turnout among Democrats. John Kerry was nominated in 2004 because he was the most "electable". Do we really want to make the same mistake again? Unless Clinton supporters are successful intimidating other caucus goers, very few caucusers will select her for 2nd choice.
The thing that bugs me about Clinton is that she comes across more like Pervez Musharraf than Benazir Bhutto. Hillary Clinton is sounding off a lot of the same talking points that Musharraf has used for the last few years in order to maintain power. Clinton wants to protect the people...s
Bhutto, however, risked it all to transform Pakistan from a military dictatorship to a democracy. By doing so, she was the greatest threat to Al-Qaeda, because if she were successful, she would have made Pakistan a much more hostile place for Al-Qaeda to operate (as their military money leeches would be ferreted out and jailed). Musharraf would have maintained the status quo and continued to build his army.
When Al-Qaeda wants to assassinate Musharraf, they do so because they want to deliver the final blow in order to take over Pakistan. When they went after Benazir Bhutto, they did so because they were afraid of her.
To me, any of these other candidates (but most of all Obama) represents change. You can't run a perpetual Washington insider into the presidency and hope to shake things up...we've all seen what changing congress leads to. The most "experienced" congresspeople take over, and the change is incremental and conservative at best. A Washington insider style president only is effective in times of peace and prosperity, because they tend to keep things going. In times like these, you've got to shake up the system. Great post, by the way.
You liked Obama's article in Foreign Affairs? Mitt Romney outlined his foreign policy in the same issue and if those two articles were all I saw, Romney would win hands down.
Obama also wants to keep nuclear power in the mix with safest available measures. Right now there are no safe measures available. Then why did he and John McCain eliminate the provisions preventing federal tax subsidies of nuclear power companies? How did the support for Obama's political career of a major nuclear power company (Exelon) from Illinois influence his decision? Search "Obama" AND "Nuclear Energy" for some interesting articles.
Also, check out the polls on your assertion that Obama would be in the best position to win in the general election. I challenge the accuracy of your belief Obama is best positioned to win against the Republicans: http://www
Historical facts bolster Obama's spot on timing, change and new possibilities message, presidential candidacy and win! This is the rub: Hillary's "35 years years of experience makes me the best president.
When President John F. Kennedy addressed the entire U.S. Congress and proclaimed, It's my vision that we will explore space and put a man on the moon by the end of the decade..." That department did not yet exist and JF Kennedy was no astronaut but his vision, charisma and language (err true leadership)called the mission into being and eventual successful action...
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas jefferson, Ben Franklin had zero experience in building democracies independent of Britain. King George and the Brits had centuries of experience in comparison to the Creators of the USA...And the British generals routinely ridiculed the likes of Washington, Adams, Franklin..
Civil rights leader Martin Luther King carved out and navigated BRAND new human rights terrain and segments of his dream were realized after he died. Once and again, true visionary leadership, authentic passionate callings, ability to galvanize the people and execute big and forward thinking ideas trumps familiar experience everytime.
kathy
zi think Barack's attack against Hillary over her vote for the war is the most ridiculous posture he has taken. I was against the war and so were all of my friends, but what did it mean. His being against the war didn't matter one way or the other. Had in been in the US Senate as oppose to the Il. Senate, then he would have a bases for his argument. He doesn't. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback when you weren't on the field.
Taking over is easy if your not planning to change directions.
There's a Biblical passage that states: "And a Child shall lead them".
That may be fine, for some "Onward Christian Soldiers"-like drill.
But as a mid-Septuagenarian, who is a Veteran of 3 of our nation's major conflicts, I'd feel one hell of a lot more comfortable with someone that has a few more "miles" of practical experience at the helm.
It's not like we don't have some well seasoned, sound and highly experienced alternatives to consider!
The real "hidden agenda" here, I suggest - and stemming from self-StarStruck Oprah to some of you Hillary Haters at the HuffPost - is this penchant your generation has developed for "Form over Substance".
So many of you, in the "Yuppie" & later generations, are so taken with and wrapped up in "Celebrity" idolizing - ala the largest State in the Union, which would be amongst the top 10 economical powers in the world, if an independent country, electing grade "B" (or below) Actors/Tap Dancers as its Governors & Senators, respectively - that you can't see the Forest for the trees. Hence, you rationalize all these little piddly, nit-picking comparisons and rationalizations for a continous stream of bad decisions, choices &/or sitting out elections all together.
You have the worst track record of election attendance of any generations in our history; but if someone exudes any celebrity "star power" or "charisma", you get all "Ga-Ga" & quickly lose control of whatever rational senses you may have ever displayed, if any.
LET'S GET SERIOUS: THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD REQUIRES SOME PRETTY HEAVY LIFTING!
WE'RE JUST NOW ENDING AN 8 YEAR DISASTER by having an "apprentice" at the wheel, AND MAY NOT SURVIVE ANOTHER 4!!
MATURE EXPERIENCE DOES COUNT!!! Even the reactionary business world has come to see it.
Very good analyses here. The "bottom tier" is really the top tier on the Democrat side. I have been supporting Huckabee, a populist, the only acceptable Republican, because he's a populist and has a small chance of winning. It is tragic that Biden and Dodd have no chance, but I did send Biden some money. Dodd is perhaps just as good as Biden. I am leary of Richardson because I too am a New Mexico resident, but he would be better than Clinton or Obama. As for Edwards, maybe he will squeak in.
Ugh.
Too bad Obama didn't show up when it counted.
Another year of this?
Being married to Laura did not make W literate. Why would being married to Bill qualify Hillary to be President?
Just how involved with foreign policy could HRC be when she did not have security clearance?
The Bush Dynasty was disastrous--a Clinton Succession is a bad idea--The United States of America is not an hereditary monarchy. If HRC is elected, we will be getting a "two-fer" and Bill will be the "bonus" and will be the power behind the throne. The CEOs will sleep soundly at night--working poor people, & the less-poor middle class--not so much!
It is a sad thing that liberal Democrats are talking themselves back to their historical stance of losing elections in a a good cause. This idiocy is greatly encouraged by Republicans and right wing nuts, who look forward to watching liberals make fools of themselves losing in good causes.
The Obama nonsense is being encouraged by the right in every way poasible because they know that he cannot be elected; not for a few more elections. For those who are too stupid to know why I will give them a hint: The color of his skin. He has many sterling characteristics that may eventually elevate him to the presidency, but anyone not suffering from self delusion has to know that he won't win a single Southern state and not many, if any other, states in the other areas. Although many will tell polsters and any others in public discourse how they intend to vote for Obama but will not follow through in the voting booth.
It is good to see our nation's well established bigotry breaking down, but we still remain a racially divided nation.
Republicans lie about wanting to run against Hillary. That is the last thing they want. They harbor no doubts about beating Obama,based on just what I have said. I will be glad as hell when this charade is over and Hllary can get down to the business she is so well qualified for and Obama can begin trying to build a decent senatorial resume.
Edwards has made it clear what he will do from day one. Obama has alluded in a general way to what he will do from close to day one.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
