Who's Got the Foreign Policy Experience We Need?
It's getting wild out there.
Bill Clinton told voters in Muscatine, Iowa, yesterday that he had "opposed Iraq from the beginning." Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton claimed she was the "face" of US foreign policy throughout the 1990s. Then, Hillary Clinton said Barack Obama would be the least experienced president we've had since World War II.
Huh?
With respect to the first two statements, the historical record speaks for itself. The latter charge does not hold up to scrutiny. When it comes to foreign policy, several post-war presidents, who were governors not Senators, had less experience upon taking office than will Barack Obama. They include the one who must have misspoken yesterday, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and, of course, George W. Bush.
Precisely what foreign policy experience would Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama bring to the Presidency?
The osomotic insights Senator Clinton gained from her time in the White House and her travels abroad can only be beneficial, but they are far from sufficient to qualify one for the Presidency, as surely Betty Ford, Rosalyn Carter, Barbara Bush, and perhaps even Laura Bush would concede. More important is the expertise Clinton has gained in her own right, as a Senator, especially through her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Still, that experience did not lead her to the same judgment as Senators Byrd, Kennedy, Levin (then Chairman of the Armed Services committee, or Bob Graham (then Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) to oppose the Iraq war -- the greatest strategic blunder in a generation - or to vote this Fall against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which greased the skids for war with Iran.
Similarly, Barack Obama's service in the Senate, and notably his three years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including as Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee, afford him deep insight into national security issues. Working with Sen. Richard Lugar, Obama passed new measures to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. Having opposed the Iraq war from the start, Obama was the first major candidate to propose a responsible and 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 Democratic leadership in the Senate and remains their primary legislative vehicle for ending the war. Obama was also the first Senator to introduce legislation to address the risks posed by over-reliance on unaccountable military contractors, like Blackwater.
Obama has stood up against the march to war with Iran. Instead, he is committed to direct diplomacy, without preconditions, and to increasing pressure on Iran, including through his legislation that would allow states to divest their holdings in companies that do business with Iran. Obama has also led Senate efforts to improve U.S. preparedness for an avian flu pandemic, to halt the genocide in Darfur, increase resources to roll-back HIV/AIDS and to bring stability and peace to war-torn Congo.
But for both Clinton and Obama, it's not only service in the U.S. Senate that matters. It is their other professional and life experience as well.
Senator Clinton spent her formative years in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, Illinois, and went on to Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Senator Obama, born of a Kenyan father and Kansan mother, spent his childhood in Jakarta and Hawaii before graduating from Columbia with a degree in International Relations and Harvard Law School, where he was President of the Law Review.
Prior to becoming First Lady, Senator Clinton was a tireless and passionate advocate for children and an accomplished lawyer in public service and private practice. Senator Obama worked as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. After law school, he shunned a lucrative legal career to practice at a small civil rights law firm and teach constitutional law. He served eight years in the Illinois State Senate where he consistently built bipartisan coalitions to tackle divisive issues such as tax policy and police interrogation techniques.
While their academic and professional paths are not dissimilar, Obama's youth in Indonesia, which Senator Clinton derides, is something very different from Park Ridge.
Those years in Jakarta gave Obama a rare appreciation of the complex and painful post- colonial challenges of South East Asia's giant and the world's largest Muslim country. It afforded him crucial insight into the ways that others see America - ways that too often differ from how we see ourselves. It enabled him to witness first-hand the effects of poverty, political repression, corruption and civil strife - among the most pressing issues of our day. In later years, Obama came to know his Kenyan family, including his grandmother who still lives in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria. These are no ordinary life experiences for an American president, few of whom have ever lived in the developing world.
Unlike any other candidate for President, Obama is a man of the world and the man for our times. He uniquely embodies the multiple strands of America's heritage. He exemplifies our nation's ability to overcome its tortured history of racial polarization and discrimination. His very election would speak volumes to the world about America's ability to change and grow and learn from past mistakes. At a time when the world is wondering if America even gets that it makes mistakes, Barack Obama personifies the promise of what America can still be.
And belief in that promise is precisely what we need to re-enlist international support to confront unprecedented global security challenges, ranging from terrorism to climate change, pandemic disease to nuclear proliferation. We need a leader who recognizes that we cannot go "back to the future" but we must build a new future born of ambitious vision and of hope not fear.
We need a unifier who will win with a mandate for meaningful change. At this pivotal moment in our history, we need a President with unique life experience, judgment and sensitivity to the rest of the world's aspirations and frustrations. Now is the time for that President who can renew trust in America's ability to lead not only for ourselves but also for the common good.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Obama's life experiences far out weigh any of that claimed by Hillary because he lived among the people and he did not just fly into countries to be shown the best parts of country and projects funded by $ and promptly fly out.
If all spouses were to claim their partner's professional experience as their own then I would definitely be a brain surgeon through marriage.
The reason this blog is so long is that there is so little to say. Clinton and Obama are cat-fighting about foreign relations because they are both completely inadequate in this area of presidential responsibility.
Clinton has said that Bill will be available to represent her administration. Is that a good idea? Are we electing Bill?
Obama has a foreign policy expertise because he emigrated to the States as a child? Are you joking?
Look at Biden:
- Salt II negotiation
- Serb-Croatia conflict intervention (which saved hundreds of thousands of lives -- many of them Muslim)
- UN policy on Darfur (his Bill, not Obama's). Biden was on this before Obama was in the Senate.
- Clear policy on Iran
- Clear policy on Pakistan's martial law
- Plan for Iraq.
This is the high-light list.
Talking about the importance of foreign policy in this election without even mentioning Joe Biden or Richardson is just more of the crappy journalism that we get from the major media.
Ok... First of all, Obama didn't even vote on the whole Iran claiming them a terrorist group... If it was soooo important to him then he would have shown up fo the vote. Obama has been running for President ever since he made the speech at the Democratic Convention
Secondly, Biden has the plan for Iraq. If Obama had the plan then it would be called the OBAMA GELB PLAN - not the BIDEN GELB PLAN. Nice try.
And most of all third, I am sick and tired of hearing that just because Hillary Clinton was first lady and in the White House, that gives her enough experience
How can anyone think that Obama has the best foreign policy experience when the other candidates include the current head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Joe Biden) and a former Ambassador to the United Nations?
It's not foreign policy experience, our foreign policy is horrid.
Obama has lived overseas, understood a different culture, and knows that the US white viewpoint isn't the only way to look at the world.
If there's anyone out there that can look at a problem with several different viewpoints and come out with a real common sense solution, it's Barack.
Bill lived in another English speaking country and that helped, but in the end most of his initiatives failed. Hillary would be a disaster looking for a place to happen.
To rebuild our foreign reputation, reach out to diverse cultures, and solve problems, my money is on Barack.
Otherwise, go with Ron Paul and just give up trying to tell the world how to live.
Gimme Kucinich or Paul...the heck with the rest
of these people...b
balanced budget...f
public accountability.
Want Foreign policy experience??? Check out BIDEN!!!
http://dee
Susan Rice writes: "The osomotic insights Senator Clinton gained from her time in the White House and her travels abroad....
From the Wikepedia article on osmosis:
"Osmosis can also be seen very effectively when potato slices are added to a high concentration of salt solution. The water from inside the potato moves to the salt solution, causing the potato to shrink and to lose its 'turgor pressure'. The more concentrated the salt solution, the bigger the difference in size and weight of the potato slice."
I see... Hillary is the salt water and Bill is the potato. She claims to have sucked most of the water out of him. The result is that the potato (Bill) has lost its turgor pressure and shrunk in size. Bill's loss is Hillary's gain!
It is beginning to make sense to me. This is the logic. Bill Clinton was President. Hillary was his wife during his Presidency. Hillary runs for the Presidency. She says that her time as the President's wife counts as "sort-of-p
Here's the problem. The law of osmosis demands that all of Hillary's gained experience can only explained by a concordant reduction of Bill's experience. Because this is an impossibility the only conclusion to be reached is that Hillary, while first lady, gained absolutely no experience that would qualify her to become President.
If Bill were to say that Hillary indeed assumed some of his presidential power (an unconstitutional action) then, perhaps, Hillary would be correct to claim her time in the White House as real preparatory experience for her imagined presidency.
One qualification: The writer of this posting received a grade of "D" in his undergraduate logic course. Feel free to criticize his logic.
What a rude awakening you are in for. The world is not wrapped up in
America's self-congratulatory racial dramas. India working on becoming the next superpower, China is investing in Africa, Russia is wrapping the world in gas pipelines, and you want the world to stop and applaud because Barak is president? Okay here's a round of applause. Now about your falling dollar....
This article is so flawed I don't think it's good enough for the huffingtonpost.
This is a mainstream media article where the author acts (and maybe believes?) as if the differences between the two leading candidates is big enough to be relevant. Such narrow minded thinking.
How about the candidate who REALLY opposed the war in Iraq and voted against funding it every SINGLE time?
Susan, I saw you on the Foreign Policy forum yesterday.
Having Obama's brain trust up there was quite impressive and when obama joined you, he shows he is able to keep up with the formidable talent of the others on the panel.
You were really good yesterday and so was Sen. Obama.
It was so informative I do hope people get a chance to see it.
How about attention to the REAL Foreign policy that is by dfault, OURS? We are in a DEPRESSION, "it's the economy,st
Anyone who thinks that Obama's two years in the Senate is in any way equal to Hillary's 8 years in the WH, and 7 in the Senate, is basically retarded.
Look, Obama is a nice guy, and a decent American. He will make a fine president in 8-10 years...bu
1: Joe Biden
2:Hillary Clinton.
Sadly, my man Joe Biden probably won't win, so Hillary is the next best choice. Democrats need to decide if they want to win or keep losing, personally, I would kind of like to actually win for a change.
Who has the foreign policy experience we need?
There is only one answer based on resume...B
Second would probably be Biden, but he DID vote to give GWB war powers and that hurts him in many people's eyes.
McCain??? thanks for the laugh
Biden.
Loading comments…
Posted November 28, 2007 | 04:02 PM (EST)