Obama Foreign Policy Forum

There's a live webcast happening right now featuring Barack Obama and several of his key advisors on national security and foreign policy issues. I'm going to start watching imminently.

UPDATE: I think he's basically making the right points. It's not good enough to just have "experience" -- Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had tons of experience -- you want people with experience making good judgments, and Hillary Clinton doesn't have that record on Iraq, and her team is weighted toward people who made the same judgment that she did on Iraq.

Comments

"It's not good enough to just have "experience" -- Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had tons of experience -- you want people with experience making good judgments..."

You've phrased this as a "necessary, but insufficient" argument, but Obama's really arguing something different: that foreign policy experience is unnecessary if, like him, you were against the Iraq War beforehand. By that logic, most of the commentators on DailyKos are as qualified to be president as Barack Obama.

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 11:39 AM

Given present issues in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan fp experience will be an asset. Having made a wrong vote on Iraq is not a disqualifier. The assumption is that one never learns from one's mistake. No matter how much one dislikes HRC she has had exposure to fp issues even as a First Lady only (ask those who attended the Beijing Women's Conf at which HRC led the US delegation). Barack has none. But that does not mean he in unqualified. Surely he will have people to advise him.

The pertinent question is : is America ready to elect a Black President. But, given our disposition, we run away from that question. So it is easier to focus on Hillary's shortcomings. Barack, of course, has none.

Posted by Alan | November 27, 2007 11:52 AM

Well Fred, most commenters on DKos have as much foreign policy experience as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, and better judgement.

Posted by AJ | November 27, 2007 11:55 AM

I hope he really hammers this point home. The two things Hillary is best known for as a politician are her health care plan in the 90s and her vote on the Iraq War. Both huge failures.

I don't think Barack is saying that a lack of experience is a good thing, just saying that Hillary's experience isn't necessarily a good thing.

And with all due respect, I don't think being the spouse of the President really counts as much "experience". Laura Bush has met with heads of state, but that does not count as "experience" that qualifies her to be President.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | November 27, 2007 11:55 AM

Just an interesting note about the disproportionate power of IA and NH in the primaries: On the list of panelists, Adm. John Hutson (USN Ret.) is listed as having the following qualifications:

• Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center
• former U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General
• nationally-known expert on detention and interrogation

But, listed before all of these, comes:

• Bow, NH resident

Nice.

Posted by Daniel Munz | November 27, 2007 11:58 AM

This line of criticism of Hillary is trivial.

Hillary, as President, would never go to war unilaterally. She would never take our nation to war without first building the political consensus needed for such an action.

I trust her judgement on this because she has proven time and again that she trusts the system, ie. the American system. So do I.

The problem is not with Hillary. The problem is with Republicans. Hillary knows, far better than Obama, who are real enemies are. She knows not to trust them even though she must still work with them in order to move the liberal agenda forward.

Until we can drive the conservatives out of office I want someone more like Hillary at the head of our party and of the government than someone like Obama.

Obama much as I like him remains unblooded and inexperienced when it comes to dealing with conservatives. And so far it looks like he is willing to wave the white flag and surrender instead of standing up to them on issues like Social Security.

Posted by ken | November 27, 2007 12:09 PM

But what about judgment NOW?

Hillary and Obama have almost identical positions on Iraq and Iran. But people tend to impart their own despised and preferred policies on to those candidates, respectively.

Maybe I'm not following the minutiae closely enough, but what are the major points of divergence on Iraq and Iran going forward?

Posted by Eric Martin | November 27, 2007 12:09 PM

Ken,

Could you point me to one piece of significant legislation Hillary has worked on in the Senate that demonstrates her ability to work with her enemies and move the liberal agenda forward?

Posted by ProfD | November 27, 2007 12:27 PM

On both: HRC believes that the US should structure it's forces in Iraq to counter Iranian influence; that we should not talk to Iran until the agree to certain preconditions (namely caving to most of our demands on nuclear issues, etc.).

As for those arguing that HRC will learn from her mistakes, what evidence do you have to support that she's learned anything from her past mistakes? She blames Bush for her vote on Iraq, but she's the one who didn't read the NIE. As a matter of fact, she doesn't believe that she did anything wrong, so there's nothing to learn except not to trust President Bush. And yet, she trusted him on KLA.

Posted by Keith | November 27, 2007 12:30 PM

HRC believes that the US should structure it's forces in Iraq to counter Iranian influence; that we should not talk to Iran until the agree to certain preconditions (namely caving to most of our demands on nuclear issues, etc.)

And Obama, who also favors a residual force, does not enumerate this mission - but it is implicit regardless. You don't necessarily "structure" forces to achieve this, you achieve this by their presence in country.

Also: At the last debate, didn't Hillary say she would meet with Iran without requiring them to suspend U-enrichment? Maybe I remember it incorrectly.

Posted by Eric Martin | November 27, 2007 12:38 PM

"I think he's basically making the right points. It's not good enough to just have "experience" -- Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had tons of experience -- you want people with experience making good judgments"

He is making the wrong point, It's not good enough to just have advisers with experience -- Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, POwell, Condi had tons of experience and they all did a good jobs earlier for another Presidents, you need a President with experience, only then advisers with experience can make a difference.

Posted by tt | November 27, 2007 12:43 PM

"Hillary knows, far better than Obama, who are real enemies are. She knows not to trust them even though she must still work with them in order to move the liberal agenda forward."

Ugh. That's the problem with Hillary. The "enemies" are Republicans. She'll be too defensive and reactionary to them. The enemies are those that want to do harm to us. Barack understands we need to move past the battles of the 60s, heck we need to move past the tired battles of the 90s, and move forward with a new vision.

He is the only candidate that can actually unite us, rather than leaving us in this horrible divided state.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | November 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Obama forgot the other half of the panel. I wonder how well he and his panel of experts would look if they were forced into a debate with those who disagree and can point out the flaws in their proposals.

Posted by TLB | November 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Eric Martin:

Actually he went to criticize her PRECISELY on this point, so I'm not sure your attributing an implicit argument carries water here. And the preconditions argument was the central point of her "naive" and "irresponsible" comments earlier this year, but you are correct she did say in NH that she would met without preconditions, only to back off it when she was called on the flip-flop.

TT: Then neither Obama or Clinton, from a foreign policy basis, should be president. I think you make an argument for Joe Biden. The reality is you need experience advisers and a president that makes effective decisions when presented with all of the relevant information. It worked for Bill Clinton (who had no foreign policy experience) and it will probably work well for HRC, Obama or Edwards. The counter example is George W. Bush.

Posted by Keith | November 27, 2007 1:11 PM

Sorry, that should be "Actually he criticized her..."

Posted by Keith | November 27, 2007 1:14 PM

To me Obama has hit a stroke of brilliance by turning this into an issue of judgment. Because really, when we talk of experience, what we re interested is judgment.

However, to me the most compelling point that makes me favor Obama is this. The vote on the Iraq war is in the past, but it's indicative. Not of experience, or judgment, but of something else. The dirty little secret is that many Democrats voted for the war, not out of conviction, but out of political expedience. If Hillary voted out of convenience, then her hawkish outlook is problematic when one thinks what happens in Iran.

If it was out of expedience, then the problem is that the country cannot let Republicans outmaneuver Democrats and set the battlegrounds where political battles are fought. Republicans won the vote because for many years they were able to set the narrative both vis a vis Iraq and for foreign policy in general. Bill Clinton who was skillful in following political winds, but not setting them shares responsibility for that. After Sept. 11 Republicans managed to transform the competing choices as being "strong" against being "weak". In practical terms, this meant that one favored war, one didn't. It also meant that the war vote was lost before the debate had started.

HRC, a politician who I find extremely tough and extremely competent, has shown no desire to fight with Republicans in order to alter the political battleground. If anything, her political liabilities, namely that she's a woman, force her into a strategy of overcompensation in which she has to emphasize how strong she is. That to me, is a big problem.

On the contrary, Obama has shown time and time again that he's ready to challenge the Republicans on the foreign policy assumptions they have sold as conventional wisdom. If anything, the current crisis provides an ideal window for that.

America should have no problem to go to war because her interests or the security of her people are at stake. But America should never go to war because a President might fear that his or her opponents will brand him as weak.

This is what's at stake in the nomination battle between HRC and Obama.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 27, 2007 1:27 PM

Senator James Webb predicted our Iraqi adventure would turn out badly as well. Ahead of time.

Yes, many posters at Daily Kos were against the war before the war. But that is merely a necessary qualification. Not a sufficient one. By itself.

Obama has shown good judgment in many other arenas as well.

Posted by Bill White | November 27, 2007 1:27 PM

Judgement IS way more important than experience.

And I don't buy the argument that Obama and Hillary have the same positions on Iraq NOW, so its all a wash. Lets not forget Hillary's history of caving into hawkish pressure (Iraq, Iran). The ability to stand up to this pressure will be essential when we want to start pulling troops out of Iraq. The hawks will start screaming bloody murder. The MSM will start questioning a democratic president's toughness. Do you really think Hillary will stand up to this? Has she ever in the past?

Obama has shown he will buck the conventional wisdom when necessary. He has also shown the rhetorical ability to redefine "toughness" so that we get out of the hawkish framing of the word. Hillary will never do this in my opinion.

Posted by Nathan | November 27, 2007 1:29 PM

"...Barack understands we need to move past the battles of the 60s, heck we need to move past the tired battles of the 90s, and move forward with a new vision.... "-Posted by Jayhawk Max

I agree. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't. Until they do, moving forward with a new vision just exposes your back. We need to crouch where we are and look over our shoulder.

Posted by Njorl | November 27, 2007 1:56 PM

This is in reponse to a post from KEN that was done earlier today:

1) HRC experience in foreign policy, in my opinion, is as 'limited' as you state Obama's is - and for that matter a Barbara or Laura Bush. HRC cannot hide behind Bill's 8 years and put claim to know how to deal with foreign policy matters.
2) As an Independent I can attest to the fact that HRC "IS" a divider, not an uniter. I have close Republican friends that intend to NOT cast a vote in the 08 Presidential election to send a message to their party. Although they WILL vote if HRC is on the Democrat's side of the ballot! This is exactly why the Republican candidates are 'pitching' HRC as the candidate they will be running against - they know that they NEED HRC on the ballot if they are to win the White House in 08.
3) This country has gone so far wrong under the Bush Administration it will take someone as President that will bring us together, not divide. No more partisan fighting - lead and unite us at home and in the world. Obama is that person, be he white, black, brown, yellow or green - if he is the candidate - HE WINS the White House.
4) The world needs to see this country not as 'dynasty' builders. Our democracy is not run by a Bush or Clinton kingdom - it's time to move on.

FIRED UP and READY TO GO in Tennessee!

Posted by Mary from TN | November 27, 2007 2:35 PM

If the argument is that Hillary won't get Republican votes I understand. What makes one think Obama is going to do any better. He will have the usual Democratic disadvantages in the eyes of Republicans plus his color. I note that every commenter stepped aside from this issue It will matter when the debate heads South.

I prefer to rely on voters who look at their needs and decide which candidate best caters to that. Not all voters are cerebral.

The problem with Obama supporters is twofold: they take the Republican talking point that everyone hates Hillary as a given and then proceed to gloss over Obama's handicaps.

As for experience: you can discount it all you want, but Hillary has been engaged in fp issues. She is no Laura Bush or Barbara for that matter. Those looking for simple yes or no answers can always quarrel with triangulation. The chaps at the centre are the ones to aim for and they need to be persuaded. At each end are the blind being led by the blind.

Posted by Alan | November 27, 2007 2:46 PM

Alan, I am one those 'chaps' at the center. I also am from TN which is probably the #1 state in the south that you refer to - i.e., Harold Ford, Jr. in '06. It's not a hate Hillary thing - she just is to dividing in my opinion, be she man or woman - white or black. HRC's #1 issue that she continually campaigns is: she knows how to fight back the Republican machine. What she does not understand is that we 'chaps' at the center are so tired of our politician's being ready to fight. We 'chaps', and I am speaking for more than just myself, will look for someone who is ready on day ONE to lead, heal, and take the gloves off.

Many of the 'chaps' at the center remember casting our votes for others (Dems or Repubs) that did not match the "experience" factor that Obama has today and were not sorry for our vote. Being black is no more of an issue than being a woman for a large percentage of the 'chaps' at the center - we are Americans.

Posted by Mary from TN | November 27, 2007 3:48 PM

Alan,

It is not that Obama supporters gloss over his handicaps; rather they welcome any one to be stupid enough to bring it up. Racism clearly exists in this country, but it is closeted. Republicans will bring race into the debate at their own peril. If they are stupid enough to do this independents and moderates, too ashamed to remain associated with Republicans at this point, will vote Dem.

Posted by dbrunner | November 27, 2007 4:07 PM

Eric,

Consistently Matthew also points to the choice of advisors as an indicator of decision making NOW.

Posted by theCoach | November 27, 2007 4:10 PM

HRC's experience led her to vote to allow bush to invade iraq without bothering to read the classified NIE that caused Senator Bob Graham to change his vote to a resounding no.

She knew she had to show her strength if she wanted to run in 08 so she put her personal career goals above the lives of the 4000 dead american soldiers and 50,000 wounded.

The Clintons are political animals that will put their own careers ahead of the country.. not the experience I want in the white house.

Posted by james | November 27, 2007 4:32 PM

I agree. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't. Until they do, moving forward with a new vision just exposes your back. We need to crouch where we are and look over our shoulder.

The idea that rather than moving forward and claiming the political initiative, Democrats should lay back so that Republicans have the opportunity to define our next political landscape is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard in a long time. And, sadly, it seems to be the defining principle of the Clinton candidacy. We let the Republicans define the political landscape last time, and that hasn't worked out so well. For once I'd like to see some leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle, because I think we've taken rank ideological cowardice about as far as it can take us (and it wasn't very far).

Posted by J.B. | November 27, 2007 4:33 PM

This whole "experience" bullshit is brain dead.

Nobody yet has defined "experience". Experience at WHAT?

Deciding to go to war? Which President in past memory has NOT decided to go to war or some smaller version of war? On what basis was the decision made? What part of his previous "experience" made the difference?

Foreign policy? Which foreign policy? With what foreign nature? What overall foreign policy? What part of the President's previous "experience" made the difference?

Working with opponents? Which President in recent memory "worked with opponents" and exactly how was this done? And after establishing that, what evidence can be produced that any of the existing candidates will or will not be able to do the same?

If you can't answer those questions, you're talking out your ass.

"Experience" is a code word for "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, I'm just trying to make a point for the candidate I prefer for other reasons."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 27, 2007 5:41 PM

Mary and dbrunner: Hi appreciate your very welcome comments. I served abroad and saw HRC in action. Very competent visitor, cerebral (believe it or not) and accommodating. She really was an effective American rep conveying the President's views. Obama is capable and he has the help to do as good a job. No choice here. My point: both candidates will do well. So let us not diss one or the other on some silly altar of triangulation and hope.

Posted by Alan | November 27, 2007 5:53 PM

Mary: I note your ironic emphasis on chaps. Great. But you miss an essential point. You may be color blind. But there are too many men and women (let me get this politically correct) in White America whose attitude towards Black is reprehensible. You may not be one. But you are in no postion to defend those who are. Ask Harold since you are from Tenn.

Posted by Alan | November 27, 2007 6:01 PM

Alan, good point about Harold. He actually had a rather good support in 06 - even with the well publicized smear ad from the RNC on his being a black man.

I am certain HRC was a very capable embassador and conveyed Bill's views - but how does that relate to having foreign policy experience? A rolodex full names is good, conveying hubby's views is good for the country, but times and people have changed throughout the world since 2000. What will you do today, HRC, that's the open question that needs to be answered.

Also remember Alan, there are large groups within the White and Black America (I really dislike that distinction - we are ONE America) that will never vote for a woman - no matter what her capabilities are. HRC or Obama will have to face that in a primary/general election. The Repubs will bring up Obama's name, Romney has already done that in his sly way of referring to Barack as Osama. All that being said, Obama will have the best chance of getting the Independent voter because of his clarity on the important issues facing this country. AND he has not waffled by telling us what he thinks we want to hear, but what we must hear....this is important to an Independent.

Posted by Mary from TN | November 27, 2007 6:36 PM

Here is my problem with HRC boiled down to the essentials:
After 8 years as first lady, she swooped into NY, a state she had no connection with, and won a Senate seat. She spent her time in the Senate trying to show how tough she was by warmongering on Iraq and chumming up to conservatives. She did this for purely political reasons, and shares ultimate responsibility for 4,000 American and 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Not only that, she has refused to admit she was wrong to this day, blaming George Bush. Many senators, such as Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, or Speaker of the House Pelosi were not fooled. Neither was Obama, who predicted the outcome before the war started.

Now, Hillary is out trumpeting her experience. If she is talking about her experience in elected office, I'd think she'd rather sweep that under the rug. But no, she wants to claim credit for all the success in the first Clinton administration, as if she had an official position in the cabinet. If she is claiming this as the crux of her experience, then release the papers!

Now HRC supporters will accuse me of parroting Republican talking points. That insults the intelligence of Clinton's critics on the left. As a progressive, I find Clinton's experience to be exactly the wrong type experience we need right now. All politicians are opportunists to an extent, but to cheer-lead for a war, and refuse to admit your mistake in doing so, all for political reasons puts HRC above the rest of the Democratic candidates.

Will HRC be a better president than the Republicans running? I think that's a safe bet. But for once, I want to vote FOR someone, rather than against the Republican nominee.

For me, it's not a question of policy. The policies of HRC and Obama are very similar. It's a question of judgment and character. This is what is needed to turn the country around. Obama's past judgment on Iraq, and his ideas to change US conventional foreign policy are clearly leaps in the right direction. Clinton's past judgment and stubborn hawkishness and fear of being weak won't get us anywhere.

Posted by Dave | November 27, 2007 10:34 PM

Hi Mary: thanks for taking the time. Wish our political discourse would stress people talking to one another and seeking support by dealing with sunstantive issues. I read Dave's post and think he has made his position clear. I agree that voting for a woman or a Black is still a problem. Sad, isn't it. We have had some very good examples of voting for governors which I hope, over time, will move over to the national office. Until then we press on doing our little bit to persuade neighbours, friends and relartves. Boy have I had some doozies at our dinner table!

Posted by Alan | November 28, 2007 8:03 AM

Alan,

Recent polls not withstanding, the odds still firmly are with either a woman or a black taking the oath of office in January 2009. They're both very capable general election candidates who should be favored to win in November. While I do not personally support Hillary's candidacy in the primaries for reasons above, I do think a woman in office would be a great step forward. Obama's election even more so.

The Republican playbook seems to be immigration and terrorism. That didn't work in 06. I don't think it will work next year.

Posted by Dave | November 28, 2007 10:53 AM

I come back to this blog because of the great discussion (I guess I really mean 'civil') that is written. Thanks everyone. This is my country and for my grandchildren's future I want to make certain that we have the "best" person in the WH this time. I believe we can only do that if we take the next year and gather as much fact, not political rhetoric, before we go into a voting booth.

After the past 71/2 years I almost feel that there's a need to have a candidate pass an IQ test, a grammatical test of the English language, a world history test, and documentation of service, be it military of civil, to our country before they make it on a primary ballot - forget the political experience, I want someone that can think, plan, and execute.

At this moment Barack and Michelle Obama have my vote and support - they meet my criteria for an occupant in MY White House.

Posted by Mary from TN | November 28, 2007 4:56 PM

To: Dave and Mary:

Great to hear from you both. God Bless. I hope that you have your wish. In the end we all want a Democrat who is best for the US. I have learned much from our exchange and civil discourse. Take care

Posted by Alan | November 28, 2007 7:53 PM

Mary,

I find it interesting that you find IQ tests meaningful. Clearly, they are culturally biased against blacks, since there is a 15 point difference between the average black score and the average white score.

Posted by Harry | November 28, 2007 11:35 PM

Harry,

Just for your edification, I'm sure Barack will be more than happy to SUBTRACT 15 points from his IQ score just to make it fair for the rest of the candidates. Lawrence Tribe would score this no contest, but then again, you probably don't even know Professor Tribe.

Now if we were to ask you to spot 15 points, it would be mighty embarrassing starting from negative numbers, eh?

Posted by Norm | November 29, 2007 3:21 AM

Prodaiy ICQ za 12$ za vse.Ïðîäàþ ICQ 12$ çà âñå.
274-693
324-994
564-567
605-800
695-769
985-425
132-335
478-575
Sviaz so mnoi ICQ 458411483. Ñâÿçü ñî ìíîé ICQ 458411483

Posted by ICQManS | November 29, 2007 10:27 AM