I keep forgetting to link to my Atlantic article on Barack Obama's foreign policy vision and how one upside of the endless campaign is that it's helped him develop his voice on these issues.
« Jim Geraghty's Revenge Song | Main | Why Negotiate? »
Obama's Foreign Policy
21 May 2008 04:20 pm
Comments (37)
The logic doesn't stand. You claim in the article that Obama's foreign policy stance was an "accident," but then you claim that the Obama campaign refused to backtrack on the comments. If his comments were in fact accidental, then his campaign would have either sugar-coated or withdrawn the remark. Thus, it was purposeful, not accidental. No editors over there at the Atlantic?
The logic doesn't stand. You claim in the article that Obama's foreign policy stance was an "accident," but then you claim that the Obama campaign refused to backtrack on the comments. If his comments were in fact accidental, then his campaign would have either sugar-coated or withdrawn the remark. Thus, it was purposeful, not accidental. No editors over there at the Atlantic?
Do you think Barack Hussein Obama will go after that fella Osama? Guess what, he don' wanna.
When your party's nominee will go after "predatory lenders" more than a country's true enemies, you know he represents "San Francisco" values, not American ones.
BA
Actually, he's been learning a LOT from from his more experienced baggage-laden primary opponent.
The longer she fights him, the more he will learn.
Our candidates are, in fact, much SMARTER than we are.
No wonder they are both a whole lot richer.
I'm with no-face here. Look at all those foreign policy advisors -- don't you think that they were full of Yglesian excitement at the idea of publicly pushing a coherent and well-developed alternative to neoconservatism? Seems that with people like that behind Obama, the role of accidents isn't as significant as you make it out to be.
Do you think Barack Hussein Obama will go after that fella Osama? Guess what, he don' wanna.
When your party's nominee will go after "predatory lenders" more than a country's true enemies, you know he represents "San Francisco" values, not American ones.
BA
There's no possible way Obama can win after being subjected to the scathing criticisms of right wing thinkers such as BigA. I mean, using Obama's middle name? Rhyming Obama and Osama? Then writing in a vaguely afro-centric "speaking" style? We Democrats are toast!
Good column, Matt.
I think that aside from the misguided emotions of some self-righteous partisans on both sides, the long campaign has helped Obama substantially in preparing him for the general election.
That said, I do hope Clinton drops out soon if only so you and Markos can get the portions of your brains back that you've devoted to endless whining about her still being in the race.
Do you think Barack Hussein Obama will go after that fella Osama? Guess what, he don' wanna.
When your party's nominee will go after "predatory lenders" more than a country's true enemies, you know he represents "San Francisco" values, not American ones.
PL
I think Obama has been hampered since last summer when he made that foolish promise during the CNN/Youtube debate to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions. That commitment was serious overkill and has only given McCain and the Republicans an opportunity to portray has as naive and inexperienced on what should be a great issue (diplomacy) on which to contrast Obama with the Bush years.
Had he not made that mistake he'd be in a much better position now. At least he wouldn't be digging himself into a ditch on it.
When he saw his foreign policy described on the front cover as "accidental," I certainly did not expect to read an article that was positive about said policy.
BigA/PL said... Do you think Barack Hussein Obama will go after that fella Osama? Guess what, he don' wanna.
This statement is based on ... what exactly???? Sounds like you've been eating troll chow.
When your party's nominee will go after "predatory lenders" more than a country's true enemies, you know he represents "San Francisco" values, not American ones.
You do know that 50 state attorney generals (that's all of them, in case the math is challenging to you) petitioned Bush's OCC to not block their ability to go after predatory lenders, at which point they were told "tough s***". So I guess 50 states have "San Francisco" values and George Bush as "American" ones. Uuuuuuuh ... yeah.
And you do know that the federal gov't is diverse enough to go after predatory lenders AND terrorists at the same time, right?
And you do understand that the predatory lenders helped cause the mortgage crisis, which in turn crunched our dollar, which in turn jacked up oil prices, which in turn puts more money in the pockets of such wonderful friends as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, right?
LDC:
Let's not get into a debate about whether predatory lenders are a threat to the vulnerable and have been destructive to the financial system. I think the consensus is, certainly among Democrats, they are a problem and it's not likely to be a hot-button election issue anyway. Foreign policy, and specifically Obama's approach to diplomacy with certain states of concern, is going to be.
Maybe it would be more productive to discuss how the eventual nominee should go about finessing his statement on unconditional meetings.
I think Obama has been hampered since last summer when he made that foolish promise during the CNN/Youtube debate to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions.
I disagree. I think Obama is using the position rather effectively to paint McCain as somebody who flat out refuses to negotiate and will follow Bush's failed policies. McCain calls Obama naive and in return Obama calls McCain 4 more years of Bush. Since Bush's stance has a track record (which is really, really bad and highly unpopular), Obama has the bigger hammer. Add the 100 years comment, and the label "McSame" is starting to stick.
I think McCain is in a trap. He needs to somehow express the nuanced position that he is somehow standing between Obama's and Bush's positions, and nuance is not McCain's strong suit. As of now, he's doing a really bad job of it and he really is sounding like another 4 years of Bush. If he wants to win this argument, or even just stand his ground, McCain has to break out somehow, and quickly.
Maybe it would be more productive to discuss how the eventual nominee should go about finessing his statement on unconditional meetings
No finessing necessary. Obama is right on the merits and the politics. He is also excellent at giving a full throated defense of his policies then turning the tables to criticize the Republican position. Fainting concern trolls such as yourself should keep quiet and let the American politicians and voters sort this out. Or was Canada recently granted electoral college votes I was unaware of?
LFC:
Well actually Bush hasn't refused to negotiate, as many have pointed out vis-a-vis Libya and North Korea. I highly doubt McCain would refuse to negotiate with hostile government either. I agree that Obama has an excellent opportunity to draw a legitimate contrast on foreign policy by promising to reach out to America's allies and begin restoring its reputation in the world, and even in being more open to its adversaries.
That still needs to be within the context of a responsible and realistic foreign policy, however, and unconditional meetings between the POTUS and some of these leaders of regimes is not responsible nor realistic. It's naive and dangerous on substance, and it's not politically smart to give the Republicans that kind of opportunity. The fact the Republicans are even able to engage on the diplomacy issue after 7 years of George Bush is shocking, but it's Obama's fault they are able to make their case because of his ill-thought promise.
Maybe it would be more productive to discuss how the eventual nominee should go about finessing his statement on unconditional meetings.
I agree with drjimcooper. Obama is correct, McCain is wrong. "Somehow", McCain has grossly exaggerated Obama's position from meeting and talking to mean full blown summits with worldwide media coverage. That falls into the "nice try" category, but it's obvious bulls*** and people recognize that.
What McCain hasn't done is to lay out how HIS negotiations would occur, or even IF they would occur. That makes him 4 more years of GW, and that's a corner he doesn't want to be painted into. Due to Iraq, Obama's sitting in the better position on this one. McCain has to figure out how to be different from Obama while he distances himself from Bush's disastrous policies. Instead he appears to be embracing Bush's policies.
If McCain waits too long to make it to the middle, the opportunity will be gone. Look at the "100 years" comment. He defended it and defended it. Then he suddenly said most soldiers would be out by 2013, and it made him look weak, floundering, and decidedly unserious. He held onto a losing position for way too long.
Do you think that the McCain/Bush misstatements and exaggerations of Obama's Foreign Policy is helping focus media attention?
Being attacked by a staggeringly unpopular president and a tired old man who can't tell al Qaeda from Iran certainly can't hurt.
.
Do you think Barack Hussein Obama will go after that fella Osama? Guess what, he don' wanna.
Right. John McCain has declared Pakistan a safe haven for terrorists and doesn't want Obama going after bin Laden there. Now guess who doan wanna.
.
I highly doubt McCain would refuse to negotiate with hostile government either.
If that's true, and it just might be, then McCain has to get out in front of this issue and make it clear what the difference is between his approach and Obama's. Exaggerating Obama's position won't help. Supporting Bush's "axis of evil" type of approach will downright hurt.
One problem is that there really might be little difference in how they two would initially approach a situation like this, though I really do have very little faith in McCain's skill or patience as a negotiator and hence his ability to follow through.
Once again LFC and drjimcooper portray the sort of naiveté in foreign policy that too often has hampered liberals and Democrats in presidential politics for decades.
You don't discuss publicly, in specific detail, how you are going to conduct your diplomacy: what conditions you will demand, who the meetings will be with, when they will take place, and even if they will. That's the whole point. That's naive. You do that and you've already given away the store, so to speak.
This is one of those areas where it's good to be vague. And Obama certainly know how to use vague and aspirational rhetoric, so this shouldn't be a big problem for him. Obama should be promising openness and a change in direction in US foreign policy that includes a willingness to "engage" with America's adversaries, as well as consult more closely with the allies. People get that and know what that means, particularly after two terms of Bush's foreign policy. No specifics necessary. No boxing himself in on timetables or unconditional meetings. That's foolish and won't win him any additional votes anyways.
Once again LFC and drjimcooper portray the sort of naiveté in foreign policy that too often has hampered liberals and Democrats in presidential politics for decades.
You don't discuss publicly, in specific detail, how you are going to conduct your diplomacy: what conditions you will demand, who the meetings will be with, when they will take place, and even if they will. That's the whole point. That's naive. You do that and you've already given away the store, so to speak.
This is one of those areas where it's good to be vague. And Obama certainly know how to use vague and aspirational rhetoric, so this shouldn't be a big problem for him. Obama should be promising openness and a change in direction in US foreign policy that includes a willingness to "engage" with America's adversaries, as well as consult more closely with the allies. People get that and know what that means, particularly after two terms of Bush's foreign policy. No specifics necessary. No boxing himself in on timetables or unconditional meetings. That's foolish and won't win him any additional votes anyways.
Where the hell did you come up with the notion that saying "I would meet without pre-conditions" is the same as...
discuss publicly, in specific detail, how you are going to conduct your diplomacy: what conditions you will demand, who the meetings will be with, when they will take place, and even if they will. That's the whole point.
You've just taken a very basic statement by Obama that had virtually no details and managed to weave your own increibly detailed fantasy narrative around it. That's just ... strange.
LFC:
In the CNN/youtube debate Obama promised to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba within a year of becoming president and without pre-conditions. That means unconditional talks between himself (not with functionaries) and the leaders (not the functionaries) of Iran, North Korea and Cuba, on a specified timetable. That's much too specific for a realistic foreign policy.
Hey Tim K. Why don't you mind your own business and write to your local Canadian government officials about pre-conditions and unconditions and post conditions. We can handle our business here just fine.
drjimcooper:
Why don't you go post on another blog if you'd prefer not to read my comments? There are hundreds to choose from.
Anybody - McCain or Obama or Clinton - who tries to "go after" Osama in Pakistan is going to lose.
Except me, of course. Billion dollars in advance, Obama in ninety days - if he's still alive or his corpse can be found.
But that's the problem with the foreign policy of all the candidates - they're clueless or malicious or both.
Another example of the type of Israel bashing advisers surrounding Barack Hussein Osama. Mr. Khalidi, his asshole buddy, is opposed to a two state solution and demands that the Government of Israel go out of business.
Obama cribbed "sore" metaphor from his Palestinian buddy Rashid Khalidi
By Israel Insider staff May 20, 2008
Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story
When he termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a "constant sore" last week, Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be echoing the comments days before of his friend Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian professor who actively advocates the elimination of Israel. In an interview with the Atlantic published earlier this month, Obama was asked whether he thinks Israel is a "drag on America's reputation overseas." Obama replied: "No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy."
Obama's description of Israel as an infectious sore drew criticism, but no one could explain where this unusual phrasing may have originated. Until now.
World Net Daily yesterday uncovered the fact that Obama's remarks came just five days after The Nation magazine published an opinion piece by Khalidi, titled "Palestine: Liberation Deferred," in which the Palestinian activist opened by calling the "Palestinian question" a "running sore." In the first paragraph of his op-ed, he wrote: "The 'Palestine Question' has been with us for sixty years. During this time it has become a running sore, its solution appearing ever more distant."
Khalidi's solution is the dissolution of Israel. He laments the Palestinian Authority's stated acceptance of a Palestinian state "only" in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem. He argues Israel should be dissolved and replaced with a binational system of government. Khalidi has previously called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state. He has supported Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression."
Khalidi's ties to Obama were first exposed by WND in February. "According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004."
"Sources at the University told WND that Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and that the two families dined together a number of times. The sources said the Obama's even babysat the Khalidi children. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi, who spoke to WND in February." WND broke the story an Arab group run by Khalidi's wife, Mona, received crucial funding from the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit, while Obama served on the board of the Fund. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website, and was compensated $6,000 per year for his services in 1999 and 2000. Obama served alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
Obama's campaign did not immediately reply to telephone and e-mail inquiries from WND asking if his interview with the Atlantic borrowed any phraseology from Khalidi. But the re-appearance of the "sore" in Obama's mouth days after it issued from his Palestinian friend suggests that the anti-Israel contagion, like herpes, persists and spreads in ways that the Presidential candidate apparently cannot successfully suppress however much it might be in his interest to do so.
hey don't blast TimK for having a view just cos he's canadian.
This election interests people from all over the world.
I'm not saying you should agree with TimK but argue on the basis of points rather than territoriality.
I for one am based in the UK and have become quite am election geek, partly because i have been saddened and scared by the last 8 years of US foreign policy, and partly because i'm excited about the wind of change and hope that seems to blow with Obama's candidacy.
I think if America manages to overcome prejudices and embrace the first really hopeful candidate it's seen for years, then America could truly become great again in a lot of people's minds around the world.
At the moment, and i don't mean this badly, but across most of the world we just see a government that uses bullyboy tactics and bribes to get what it wants, rather than respectful negotiations and diplomacy.
Obviously a strong hand is needed in balance with a listening ear, but the current 'diplomacy' on Iran is the least diplomatic thing i've ever seen and it is a an ironic shame that most Iranians, contrary to popular belief, really want to become friends with the West again, but things like the Axis of Evil speech and most rhetoric since then has only served to reverse the change that was happening there at the end of the last decade by killing the enthusiasm of the reformers and granting the hardliners the capacity to block pro-Western agendas.
Obama's willingness to engage that country and others will create allies, will give back the US moral highground and respect around the world, and will reduce tensions...which on a practical level will also make gasoline prices lower, stimulate economies, and bring more food on the table for Americans, and also around the world, improving life for Israelis, British, Europeans, Iranians, and many others.
The world is in crisis, and the most important seat right now is that one in the White House.
Everyone's allowed to have a viewpoint on that, although you guys have got the vote, which is a very special privilege.
I wish you all well x
ps this is a one-off visit to this blog, so if i don't reply to any repliers please don't take it badly...or well!! :o)
SLC,
Getting your news from WND now? What's the matter, Fox News just too highbrow?
Re William Burns
Not worse then getting it from counterpunch like Mr. burns does.
I'm a bit confused by the article. I could have sworn that Obama did clarify his position the other day by saying that there would be some preconditions.
Did I miss something?
Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon Enjoys Huge Early Lead in Missouri's Race for Governor:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=56747b35-b96a-4d18-98cd-ade699e03dc6
Look at the Crosstabs. Then donate what you can to help him keep the lead through the summer & fall. This campaign will be one of the most expensive, tough, and important races in the country.
http://www.nixonforgovernor.com/
Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon Enjoys Huge Early Lead in Missouri's Race for Governor:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=56747b35-b96a-4d18-98cd-ade699e03dc6
Look at the Crosstabs. Then donate what you can to help him keep the lead through the summer & fall. This campaign will be one of the most expensive, tough, and important races in the country.
http://www.nixonforgovernor.com/
OH NOES!!!
Matt forgot to pat himself on the back???
STOP TEH PRESSEZZZ!!!!11111
Comments closed June 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Do you think that the McCain/Bush misstatements and exaggerations of Obama's Foreign Policy is helping focus media attention?
It seems that if they had left it somewhat murky until the Fall it would have remained assumed that McCain had the experience advantage.
Posted by tomj | May 21, 2008 4:41 PM