Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (529)	12/24/2006 10:54:52 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 149317

Foreign policy experience may be key in 2008 race Byron Williams Article Last Updated: 12/24/2006 06:28:38 AM PST AS we titillate ourselves with the possibility of a Barack Obama presidential campaign, the one lingering question will be his foreign policy experience. After almost a generation of being a secondary consideration (remember, "It's the economy, stupid!"), foreign policy has returned as a political priority for those applying for the temporary job known as commander in-chief. And for all of his unquestioned talents, Obama seems light on the international relations scale. It won't help Obama's case that President Bush's lack of foreign policy experience prior to assuming the office, coupled with his post 9/11 foreign policy decisions, could keep us in Iraq for another decade. In spite of a more visible opposition to Vietnam than what we see toward Iraq, when Nixon took office in 1968, it took until 1975 that completely withdraw U.S. troops. Strange as it may seem, the importance placed on Obama's foreign policy experience, or lack thereof, may depend on how the president fares in the next 24 months. In the unlikely scenario that Iraq becomes stabilized (whatever that means), the importance of one's foreign policy credentials may not be as important as they appear at present. Therefore, advantage Obama. If, however, things remain the same or worse in Iraq, the American people may not want to gamble again on a foreign policy novice, no matter how charismatic, lucid and compassionate he may be. It becomes equally incumbent that we ask ourselves: what is foreign policy experience? I find it hardly just to hold someone to a standard that is unidentifiable even to the inquirer. If it is a matter of who has held the most impressive foreign policy positions, then we might conclude that of the prospective presidential candidates, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Biden, D-Del., along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson lead the list. This would not only leave out Obama, but also Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In addition to her six years in the senate, Sen. Clinton would undoubtedly include her eight years in the White House as first lady. While Giuliani would obviously promote 9/11, he will likely remind voters that being mayor of New York called for him to work with the United Nations, Wall Street, as well as host foreign dignitaries. Impressive? Yes! But does that constitute foreign policy experience? Since 1976, we have only elected one person; Bush 41 that possessed a background in foreign affairs that surpasses the periphery. Assuming that one has a clear definition of foreign policy experience, they must further ask: how critical is it? Though the president came into office with scant foreign policy credentials, he certainly assembled a team that was one of the most impressive in terms of the experience they brought. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell all held cabinet and senior level positions with previous administrations. What's the result of that experience conglomeration? Iraq is in danger of being the worst foreign policy decision in the brief history of this country. I don't necessarily need the next president to be a career diplomat, but I do want her or him to be self-effacing and intellectually curious, with the courage to admit when mistakes have been made — three things that have been sorely lacking from this administration. Moreover, I want the next president to possess a world view that is congruent with the current global climate. Having lived in another part of the world may provide Obama with an understanding as to how America is portrayed outside of its borders — this may prove to be increasingly crucial in the years to come. We need a world view that sees our energy policy as inextricably linked to our foreign policy so that, as columnist Tom Friedman has argued, we can stop funding both sides of the war on terror. Above all, we need someone with a Socratic approach to foreign policy, which is to understand that the reason they are wise is because they know that they are not. Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (529)	12/24/2006 1:18:55 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

Balz has it right. When it comes to Democratic presidential politics, the world belongs to Clinton and Obama. Both will run; Clinton will prevail. I wouldn't be so sure. I believe Clinton would be an unpopular candidate in the general election. "Although Clinton commands considerable support among likely Democratic primary voters, she struggles in general election match-ups, according to the poll. If the contest were held today, both Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani would prevail over Clinton. Obama, in contrast, would eke out a slight win over both Republican candidates. Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards is neck-and-neck with the Republicans." concordmonitor.com

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (529)	12/24/2006 4:47:07 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Balz is wrong. Warner didn't bow out because of Hillary or Obama. Nothing to do with them. He might have beaten both of them. Also, Hillary and Obama may not run. Obama especially has strong reasons not to run. Bayh didn't interest anyone. Gore indeed could probably win. Balz doesn't mention Kerry who is almost definitely running and has a large war chest which makes it unnecessary for him to start fundraising early. Balz also doesnt mention Edwards, nor the fact that traditionall, black and female candidates have always been blasted out of contention, though some like Jesse Jackson have put a scare into others. Keep your eyes on Kerry and Edwards as well as Gore. It remains highly likely Dems will still nominate a white male. Obama has just finished being hyped to the moon. Now starting to be under scrutiny one can see large holes in his resume. He is also black with an African muslim father and a name that sounds like our Top Ten Most Wanted list. I think the GOP knows how to smear Obama and Hillary. But if you think they can smear Kerry again you're being naive. For one thing McCain has already called the smearvets dishonest and dishonorable. Plus the Washington Times cleared Kerry of all smearvet charges after the election.