Foreign policy vacuum
My question on is how, when America is at war on several fronts, when Pakistan is on the brink, when Kenya is teetering, when the Middle East is, well, the Middle East; how in this case can America seriously contemplate electing one of two men who have zero foreign policy experience?
Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps character trumps all and these are unquestionably two charming able politicians who could rise to the top of any Western political pile. Senator Obama is well advised and former Governor Huckabee could no doubt be schooled. But even so鈥
And a thought about Hillary's predicament: is it relevant that Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress or to the Governor's mansion? Only Mississippi has the same record.
Hillary Clinton can come back if anyone can but she must win in New Hampshire. I guess her best way of doing that is getting her supporters to canvas for John McCain, the flinty Republican senator who must use the support of independent voters to win in New Hampshire. If he takes the independents they will not be there to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic contest. Longshot? It may well be ....
And Mitt Romney the other loser in Iowa: he is embarassed and disabled by his second position. He is in trouble, not yet out but very down.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Why don't you just keep your opinions to yourself? I guess it's just too much for you "pundits" to accept how wrong your predictions have turned. Who told you Hillary and her Republican counterparts (mcain, Guiliani, et al) were that popular?
Their supposed popularity is merely an illusion projection by people like you.
i am glad that justin has finally has his comeuppance. like most, i have watched his commentary over the last days and he has been a pro-clinton as it gets. and yet in his concession blog we still get the same tired old argument about lack of experience. it sounds like paxo at the last election lambasting gorgeous george for beating a black woman into second place in bethnal green. clinton fought a rubbish campaign. she looked like a stuffed waxwork harking on about how life was great twenty years ago. a t-shirt i saw at a meeting yesterday summed it up. it said: "i miss bill". obama's achivements must not be understated. engaging people in political life who would not ordinarily be there is a truly democratic achievement. come on justin! you've still got time to barack'n'roll!
On the contrary, it's the other way round; experience has triumphed over character.
What the Iowa caucus shows is that even Democrats strongly sympathetic to her politics now have sufficient experience of the Clinton MO to see through the gloss that her redoubtable campaign team have created around her strangely unattractive personality.
...and all this time, I thought the world wanted America to mind its own business instead of meddling in internal affairs abroad?
I think Iowans voted for Huckabee and Obama because of their domestic platforms--I feel I speak for many an American who are concerned about what foreign policy
"how in this case can America seriously contemplate electing one of two men who have zero foreign policy experience?"
Sorry, Justin....you cannot be serious. USA and foreign policy have never (in recent history at least)been words that sit well together. Not in any credible and cohesive sense. And maybe this result shows why - the "ordinary American" has other things on their mind. Let that be a lesson for USA politicians...(then the rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief.)
Your question of Obama and his foreign policy experience is really without much base. The senator has worked actively on the foreign relations committee and has years of experience in academia with the University of Chicago. Real fp knowledge is displayed by Obama, perhaps with the most well rounded, realist approach that has been formed by a candidate running for president.
At least as far as Kenya's concerned, I wouldn't write off Obama. He's part Kenyan himself! He's already visited the place and is probably more familiar with it than any of the other candidates.
...and all this time, I thought the rest of the world wanted America to mind its own business instead of meddling in internal affairs abroad? What exactly should the United States do, which it cannot seem to do for its own citizens on even smaller scales? The government couldn't even take care of New Orleans, even on a State level muchless National level, and we're supposed to keep cleaning up after the rest of the world? With what? Monetary aid that goes to corrupt governments? We'll just have to borrow more from China I suppose.
I think Iowans voted for Huckabee and Obama because of their domestic platforms--I feel I speak for many an American who are more concerned with what's beginning to happen/has already began happening here within our own country rather than trying to take care of everyone. Our troops are exhausted and our funds are exhausting and our respect abroad is quite embarrassing.
Two points, neither of which I can be bothered to put eloquently at this time of the morning:
1) President GWB had no foreign policy experience.
2) Can people please stop saying that the choice between Barack and Hilary is that he is change and she is experience? This over-simplification by the media really annoys me and I don't think it captures what is truly happening at all.
Did George W. Bush have foreign policy experience? Whether he did or didn't, his 8 years in office has been a disaster to US relations across the globe. Only recently has Rice tried to do something positive and that is only because W wants to have a legacy to fill his Presidential library with.
To build and sustain relationships with individuals and countries one must open dialogue and communicate, Obama is the hands-down leader on that front and rightly so - Iowa spoke loudly, clearly tonight for all to witness. Obama will be an excellent President for the citizens of these United States, and a great ambassador of peace in the world.
It's ironic that Kenya is one of the countries Justin lists as being a potential challenge for the new President, a country that Obama hardly has no experience of.
As a whole-hearted, naive believer in Obama's stated approach to foreign policy (talking to people, even one's enemies) I can't see what the problem is.
Sure he might make a few howlers along the way, like lobbing a couple of tomahawks at a factory in Sudan to put the skids on al-Qaeda, or referring to North Korea as part of the axis of evil, but which recent US president is completely innocent in this regard?
Perhaps having a vision of how one wants to conduct foreign policy is more important than having years of experience.
Steady on Mr Webb. You are ALWAYS telling Americans what they should be doing and sneering at everything they do. I really don't remember you complaining about Tony Blair or Bill Clinton's lack of foreign policy experience. Did you? I don't think you did. The fact is that you wanted them to select Hilary and now you've got the grumps. This democracy thing, eh? Why can't the 麻豆官网首页入口 just rule the world instead?
Hilary gained no more experience of foreign policy faffing around as Bill's wife than I have of playing first oboe by watching my wife do it. She has no experience but then that wouldn't bother you as she's he candidate the Beeb is backing.
Bah! Come home and send a lad with a laptop to report some basic facts and get on with summat useful. Please.
Obama has more overseas experience than any previous candidate. He has actually lived overseas and not a Western adult living in a "Green Zone" but as a young boy in his formative years seeing the world with fresh eyes.
That kind of experience has lead to this kind of judgement about war and peace.
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda."
Justin writes "how in this case can America seriously contemplate electing one of two men who have zero foreign policy experience?" For a start, America has not been asked - Iowa is not a cross section of the country. A cartoon in Thursday's Los Angeles Times made an interesting point of how many people were unable to participate because of the late hour, shift workers, baby sitters, firemen, police officers and so on. It is only since Jimmy Carter's campaign that Iowa has taken on any significance and, as with the saying two swallows don't make a summer, one result doesn't make an election victory. Frankly, I don't see that Mrs Clinton "must" win in New Hampshire, but despite his very deep pockets, I would agree that Mitt Romney is in trouble. He may have the ability to keep on going, but if it becomes Baptists against Mormons, as it may have been on Thursday, one knows who is going to prevail. And it won't be the Angel Maroni.
If by "experience" you mean time spent in high-level policy sessions, far removed from the situations and people whose fate they are deciding, Obama does lack some. If by "experience" you mean actual, face-to-face contact with real people, representing profound cultural diversity, in the everyday contexts in which the impacts of policy are felt most profoundly... Obama has more and better "experience" than any major candidate put forth in recent memory. Here's one American with absolute faith that Obama would excel beyond the wildest dreams of someone whose first real job was governor of Texas.
Wrong on two counts:
1. Iowans consistently named the Iraq War as their major concern in entry polls conducted before the caucuses and
2. time in office is no substitute for good judgment.
Senator Obama opposed the war as unjust and pragmatically wrong. The so-called experience of the other candidates led them to support it.
American Foriegn policy could change remarkably if the next U.S. President is a Black Muslim Democrat.
He was ridiculed for suggesting this, but I think that Obama's experiences of living and having family in other parts of the world does give him a different perspective - less provincial than the typical American politician (and typical American citizen). And what's the "foreign policy" experience of the typical candidate anyway? Flying into the country on a conressional junket for a few days, and having meetings arranged by the Embassy, might not really be that enlightening. Or staying home and reading briefs from the administration or from their favorite lobbyists...
Justin,on the foreign policy problem that you seem to have,I should say is neither here nor there.Most Americans,if they would be honest with themselves would like to mind their own domestic business of governance.Again,the bureaucratic nature of democracy dictates that the president can sought for experts on any policy and so shall it be with any of the men you are so concerned about.
All this shows is that Americans are just like everyone else (something as an Englishman married to an American I have significant evidence for). Yes, the world is in a mess, yes I'd like the US President to be experienced and capable of doing something about it. And yes, just like ordinary Americans, when I vote I vote for the person I distrust least and see as most likely to benefit me at home. No-one considers their global responsibilities when choosing their rulers.
Hillary has extensive foreign policy experience... in foreign policy failures, that is (does supporting the War in Iraq count as experience?) And her husband's foreign policies - military actions in the Balkans and Africa - were ambivalent at best.
I agree with the previous post - Barak Obama posesses an academic understanding of foreign policy none of the other candidates can lay calim to. He just doesn't delve into too many details for an Iowa audience...
Enormous self-control was needed to keep me from cheering with delight and relief after reading your thoughts on the outcome in Iowa. I would like to share the opinion I鈥檝e been ranting to friends and family.
At this moment the world is watching to see how the average American feels about the problems the United States of America is facing and who we feel can 鈥榝ix鈥 the nation on all fronts and also be a capable player in world affairs.
We have declared George W. Bush the one to blame for our current predicaments, and I cite his dismal approval rating as proof. Who Americans think will be the solution is now up for grabs, and I am hoping we will not repeat past mistakes. Set aside the embarrassing fiasco of popular vote, Electoral College and questionable judiciary decisions in 2000; Bush Jr.鈥檚 funny/fun/most-desired-beer-buddy persona won against Al Gore鈥檚 stuffy/arrogant/all-business persona. We have not been slapped in the face, but rather beaten down by the consequences that resulted when we chose a President based on his outward personality rather than his experience, plans, and overall ability to lead a country.
Eight years later we are facing the same dilemma: charismatic and less established vs. stuffy and experienced. Most likely in a few short months the world will learn that we, the citizens of the United States of America, have the ability to learn from our mistakes or our current President is indeed a true representative of us all.
Ironic, I'd like to see the British public support a black candidate with Muslim roots... yet you say Americans are not outward-looking enough?
He was ridiculed for suggesting this, but I think that Obama's experiences of living and having family in other parts of the world does give him a different perspective - less provincial than the typical American politician (and typical American citizen). And what's the "foreign policy" experience of the typical candidate anyway? Flying into the country on a conressional junket for a few days, and having meetings arranged by the Embassy, might not really be that enlightening. Or staying home and reading briefs from the administration or from their favorite lobbyists...
And Nick, Obama is not a Muslim. (Just for the record, I AM a Muslim.)
Obama 'winning' Iowa is the best thing that could happen for Clinton. All the Democratic voters will get such a fright at the thought of a black person being president that they will flock to vote for Hilary instead! Or am I just deeply cynical??
Nick, he is not Muslim, even though his middle name is indeed Hussein. Please check your facts.
Perhaps the biggest Republican winner last night was Rudy Giuliani? With Mitt Romney being defeated so roundly in spite of spending vastly more than Huckabee, Fred Thompson appearing listless, perhaps Giuliani can focus on defeating the resurgent McCain? Or can we believe that Huckabee will retain this momentum and the Christian Right throw their financial weight behind him? Or can Romney make a significant come-back?
Your question shows naivity:
"who have zero foreign policy experience?"
Unlike the British, the americans do not have a world wide empire; a lot of the previous colonies have massive british populations: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even SA; the british thinking, identity, and economy follows the physical presence - I am worldwide, therefore I think worldwide.
Americans dont take geography at school, and most can not point to any place in a world map. The previous nation xenophobia of outsiders - British or German, etc - has been transfered to American xenophobia of outsiders.
Remember the saxons calling the native celtic " buitelanders "? Now you and the rest of the world, are the outsiders.
And character does trump, except if your name is Carter - Cyprus, Angola, Mozambique, his list of tragedies goes on and on...
ahh. don't you just love the 麻豆官网首页入口's analysis of an American caucus? pure gold. not too much insight, but it is such sheer joy to see a foreign correspondent miss the mark so eloquently.
"...can America seriously contemplate electing one of two men who have zero foreign policy experience?"
Mmmm...let's see, Bill Clinton's fp experience before being elected President was being Governor of Arkansas a fact not lost on Huckabee supporters.
Playing the sex card for Hillary is a nice try at a fig leaf for her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iowa has never had a black congressman or governor either, yet that didn't stop them voting overwhelmingly for Obama who is black.
The big news from Iowa is the turnout was 2 1/2 times the last vote, Hillary had her entire national campaign in Iowa, including Bill, Chelsea, her mom, and yet, the Democrats themselves voted against Hillary by 70%.
Iowa is not NH, a bedrock leftwing state, to be sure. But, the left love the underdog and they love blacks in particular. Blacks in turn historicly vote Democrat. Now, for the first time, a black Democrat, one of their own, looks to have a real chance to win the nomination- and winning back the White House is the only thing the left care about. For the Democrats, this campaign will become a single issue one, electability.
You know sometimes Iowan vote for a president who might do something for them and not give a thought to what people outside of this country wants.
You could make the argument that Huckabee has no Foreign policy experience he seems to be days behind recent happenings overseas.
Obama on the other hand is well versed in Foreign Policy and is backed up by prominent members of the Iraq Study group in his assessments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really if it comes down to Obama versus Huckabee expect a very simple election. If the best the GOP has to lob at Obama is the false claim that he's a Muslim and talking about the fact he's a Black American. It's gonna be a blue blue November.
It's ironic that Kenya is one of the countries Justin lists as being a potential challenge for the new President, a country that Obama hardly has no experience of.
As a whole-hearted, naive believer in Obama's stated approach to foreign policy (talking to people, even one's enemies) I can't see what the problem is.
Sure he might make a few howlers along the way, like lobbing a couple of tomahawks at a factory in Sudan to put the skids on al-Qaeda, or referring to North Korea as part of the axis of evil, but which recent US president is completely innocent in this regard?
Perhaps having a vision of how one wants to conduct foreign policy is more important than having years of experience.
No Ruth, you're not being cynical, although I imagine you'd like to think you are. Like most self-declared cynics, you're being naive. Or do you think people would vote for a female President with no second thoughts? Don't get me wrong, I wish they would, but Americans feel that their President needs to be 'tough', and the stereotype is that black men are 'tough' where white women aren't.
"Hillary Clinton's best way of doing that is getting her supporters to canvas for John McCain, the flinty Republican senator who must use the support of independent voters to win in New Hampshire. If he takes the independents they will not be there to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic contest."
I know you're being facetious but ...
If McCain takes the independents, Democrats lose the Presidency in 2008.
Artemisia
Ile de France
The naivete of Justin Webb, and many other British commentators and announcers on 麻豆官网首页入口, both seemingly intentional and unintentional (i.e., the announcers who find it so hard to read the news without displaying their obvious distaste for Hillary's loss, and their inability to understand why Barack Obama has an appeal to Americans) is both amusing and, honestly, relatively pitiful. Having gone to Trinity College, Oxford 鈥 as an American studying English Literature in England 鈥 and having also worked on both Al Gore's campaign in Pennsylvania, and the campaign of Bill Clinton, I believe my credentials will just barely peak above the average 麻豆官网首页入口 commentator's vast condescension toward America. So, I would argue that my credentials are relatively solid to make a statement about the matter.
Justin Webb's piece is staggeringly innocent and blind (but typical) to why Barack Obama is vastly more presidential and more viable a candidate against the Republicans than Hillary Clinton. For a man who has spent so much time in this country reporting (very well) on politics, one would hope that Mr. Webb would somehow have been able to see this a little more clearly.
Of course Hillary has more experience. But why have most of Bill Clinton's most brilliant and best foreign policy (and other) advisors ended up siding, and many working directly with, Barack Obama? If Hillary's vaunted experience is so great, how could this have happened?
Forgive me for my irritation with British nostalgia for the Clinton administration. I have nostalgia for Bill Clinton occasionally too. But I am currently living in the present. And it is a much different place. There are many reasons why Hillary would not make a good president, and why Americans see that quite clearly. Quite frankly, it is not what I expect from relatively sophisticated and subtle British minds. When I speak to friends at Oxford, they talk about the Clinton years as if they were filmed in gauzy colors by Richard Attenborough... with a halo around the White House. And this is coming from an ardent, hard-fighting Clinton supporter for many years.
Please do yourselves and the world a favor by trying to remove the blinders for a moment from your eyes. The USA cannot afford to lose this coming election to a Republican. It would be an unmitigated disaster, given what's happened under G. W. Bush, and the possibility that his policies, or anything about the wreck he has left could be carried forward. What the British (and many Europeans) don't seem to understand is that:
A) Barack Obama can win, Hillary cannot. Hillary is hated so much by the far right, the medium right and even by moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats, that she cannot conceivably win the presidency. The night Hillary wins the Democratic nomination will be the first night of the next Republican presidency. That is a certain fact that no one on your side of the pond seems to be able to understand. The U.S. voters in the middle, not the right or the left, will decide the next American election. And if you were to look closely at polls of Hillary's popularity with that not-too-liberal, not-too-conservative humble middle, you would see how certain a Hillary Clinton loss is for 2008. Which brings us back to Obama: many liberal, moderate, and even conservative-leaning Republicans in Iowa did not even vote Republican yesterday! That is almost unheard of in that normally conservative state. So why did they abandon their party? Quite simple: They hate what their party and our madman president has done to their country. They want to get the country back. They went in droves to the Democratic caucuses to vote for Barack Obama. And all of this signals a huge change in this country. In addition:
B) What Europeans are seemingly unaware of is how Hillary's time in Congress has seriously eroded her reputation. She supported Bush in the war, then she didn't, then she sort of did again. She has gone with what would have in the past been against her conscience... merely because, as we all know, she wants to be president. back and forth she has danced, attempting to stay likable to all Americans. It really soured me forever to a woman I once admired. Many Americans -- including many, many liberals -- cannot forgive Hillary Clinton for her two-faced, power-brokering, ethics-shredding manner of politics.
C) How can a democratic nation of 300 million people, the most powerful country in the world, allow the travesty of selecting a Bush, then a Clinton, then another Bush, and then another Clinton for a grand total of 30 years? Is there any other worthy candidates??? PLEASE.
D) Barack Obama is an inspiring and tremendously smart man, who has showed his political skill (and experience) and his support of all the right causes; as well as building one of the greatest, smartest political teams ever seen. That is a huge element in being a great president. Hillary is a politician. She is not a president. This country desperately wants to win back its belief in the future, but Hillary is all about the past... about back room politics, swaying her opinions and ethics with the wind depending on how she can gain more power, and most importantly, an absolutely certain loss to the Republicans.
E) Barack Obama he is powerfully bright leader of great personal magnetism. He attracts and inspires many liberals, moderate liberals, as well as moderate Reublicans. He is about the future of this country in every way.
And that -- my often America-clueless British friends -- is what is truly going on here. And that is why our next president will be a man whose campaign I plan to work hard for in 2008... Barack Obama.
j.g. #4, I had to laugh out loud at your post. **What** do 'years of experience in academia with the University of Chicago' have to do with foreign policy experience? A few merry conferences in Paris and the Bahamas perhaps? Even his expertise as a professor - U.S. Constitutional law - hardly gives him experience even with archives or research overseas. I say this as an academic. Can't imagine anyone more myopic, insular, allergic to broader views of the world, than faculty at a highly competitive, backstabbing, infighting major university such as U. Chicago. Just my two cents from academia. Wouldn't advise Barack to put this on his c.v. under 'foreign policy experience'! Bravo on the brilliant win in Iowa, regardless.
It's a testimony to just how liberal the 麻豆官网首页入口 (and its readership) are but all the above comments only concern the democrats and no comments about Huckabee's amazing victory.
As a brit, living in Europe and the US Justin Webb is so embarrassing. His lack of knowledge of america or its culture is shocking.
Seen from outside the US, a lack of foreign policy experience but a will to listen and think things through is a whole lot better, for the US and for the world, than a disastrous experience in foreign policy conducted by an autistic executive - the present case. And in the end, no foreign policy is probably better than bad foreign policy. Live and let live.
Do not write off Hillary.
I agree with Justin we cannot seriously have an American President just three years from Illinois state government before Hillary or a fundamentalist evangelical running the most powerful country in the world!
So America could elect someone with no foreign policy experience?
Interesting...
A President, perhaps, who would focus on domestic policy and not be inclined, at least for the first couple of years, to meddle in world affairs unless for a good purpose?
A President who would act with discernment and caution and not be tempted to invade 'Iraqistan' or any other country they'd barely heard of, simply because they could?
A President who would be able to accept that the rest of the world is not simply those bits of the world that America does not yet own or control?
...Just what part of that is worrying?
That must be one of the most superficial definitions of 'character' I have ever come across. I think you meant 'image'.
I remember George Bush Snr lamenting "my dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than Bill Clinton". This didn't stop the Arkansas lawyer getting elected and it shouldn't stop Obama or Huckabee, nor anyone else.
Justin Webb has a tendency to view the US uniquely from his own perspective, I detect a bias. Most people in America are struggling to pay the bills, to cope with their kids. Besides, foreign policy can be handled by the Secretary of State...
So America could elect someone with no foreign policy experience?
Interesting...
A President, perhaps, who would focus on domestic policy and not be inclined, at least for the first couple of years, to meddle in world affairs unless for a good purpose?
A President who would act with discernment and caution and not be tempted to invade 'Iraqistan' or any other country they'd barely heard of, simply because they could?
A President who would be able to accept that the rest of the world is not simply those bits of the world that America does not yet own or control?
...Just what part of that is worrying?
It's not like Clinton's foreign policy credentials are that solid - this is someone who can't tell the difference between a parliamentary and presidential election in Pakistan...
What exactly is this experience that everyone seems to assume that Hillary Clinton has? Sure, she was MARRIED to a president, but isn't that like assuming that Cherie Blair is well-suited to be Prime Minister, just because she's been around the action for a while?
I was very interested to note that John Edwards pushed Hillary into third place for the Democrats. I'm one of those few who doesn't believe that Clinton will last the race, and perhaps we have an early showing in Iowa that there are people other than Obama for her to worry about.
And what international experience did Gov. Clinton of Arkansas posess the first time he was elected? And the outside world wasn't in a much better health then... The Iowa result may suggest an inward-looking America once again. But still to early to call.
Justin,
This has to be the most ill informed post I think I've read from you. I won't repeat what everyone here has already said. Please think before you post next time.
Or perhaps Comment No.10 from Mr Backhouse is closer to the mark than we think....Hmmm Interesting.
Given the success of recent US foreign policy, it may be that prior experience of same is a disadvantage rather than an advantage. A US president who hauled all the troops back and concentrated more on improving conditions for his own people (including spending the tax dollars on them) instead of trying to improve those of other countries may well turn out to be more popular both home and abroad.
The answer seems quite simple to me: Iowans don't care so much about Foreign Policy. Internal Affairs and Economy have much more importance for part of the Americans.
Hi Justin
If you have a moment, can you have a word with Jim Naughtie who seems to have flown in to grab the glory at the last moment (US listeners are spared his self-important and breathless prose, which we get on the Today programme on Radio 4).
He can't seem to mention Huckabee without calling him the "creationist Huckabee".
Don't get me wrong - I think creationists are mediaeval flat-earthers. However, his incessant jibes act as a dog-whistle to the anti-right (natural constituency of the 麻豆官网首页入口) and are frankly, biased.
Which the 麻豆官网首页入口 is not allowed to be.
Please have a word....
James
Bush 41 (former head of CIA; ran as vice-president) was the exception that proved the rule. Most successful Presidential candidates don't have any foreign policy experience (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Dubya).
"...getting her supporters to canvas for...the...Republican...If he takes the independents they will not be there to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic contest."
I thought it was the voters *registered* for each party who voted in each party's primary.
How messed up is a system where the *opposition* can decide which of your party's candidates eventually stands for election as President?
Where are these claims that Obama is Muslim still coming from? I'm an English athiest, and even I know that Obama is a Christian.
With regards to foreign policy experience, neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush had any upon taking office. The results were mixed to say the least. Experience is not in short supply, character is.
Obama will make a great president in 2016 or some time around then. For the moment, he has the word "rookie" scribbled all over him. The empty rhetoric he comes out with would not work in the UK, Australia or any other western country. I'm surprised (or perhaps not surprised) that Americans are actually swallowing it.
What this points out is the poor, biased coverage of the American press who I think are much too powerful in America... in fact the press in the US now tries to come up with sound bites, like they are running for the best press coverage ...Several candidates who were not top tier in terms of fund raising and polling numbers were not even covered ... one in particular talked to foreign affairs, Sen. Biden, and was pretty much ignored by the press coverage...the story was what the press determined to be the story and with all there analysis and polling foreign policy turned out to be a second tier issue ... this is still fall out from the "lemming" mentality that did not question Iraq policy but rather drove Bush's poll numbers down... then when his policies started working presented a mixed, liberal bias... Americans don't really live in a world the press portrays ... they (TV and journalists) don't give real news anymore ... they rarely provide solid analysis ... but pretend to know what they are doing!
I use the 麻豆官网首页入口 for my major source of US news for the reasons mentioned above !!!
For American democracy it's a shame and even more than that scary !!!
Why is it the mainstream media seem to be deliberately blocking Dr Ron Paul? I'll tell you why, it's because they are told to. I've just watched a recent interview of him by Larry King...it was never aired. You can watch it on www.dailypaul.com
Clinton has experience? What experience? The only real responsibility she had in the White House was Health Care reform. She messed it up, big time. The biggest decision she made in the Senate was the vote on Iraq. Again, totally wrong judgement. Clinton will be a huge mistake for not just America, but for the whole world.
Thanks to Iowans for showing great wisdom!
Can anyone explain to me why it is that national opinion polls show Hilary RC as being well over 20% ahead of her nearest Democrat rival, but there's talk of this first salvo in the race possibly derailing her whole campaign. Are national polls in the US really that volatile or is it just the media trying to fill column inches with talk of a big contest when it's really a one horse race for the Democrat nomination?
I'd like to answer Justin's question with a 麻豆官网首页入口 article which is archived here - entitled - Americas Bush no whizz on foreign quiz. Remember? This is when the front-running Republican candidate, George W Bush, was asked four questions about foreign leaders and he failed miserably. About the, "Who is in charge of Pakistan" question, Bush said the recently elected General was in charge. Not only could he not get his name, he went on to endorse the coup d'etat saying it will bring stability to the region. Well look at it now!
How can they elect men with no foreign policy experience?
Easily - because the ones currently in power, who do have foreign policy experience, are making such a dreadful job of it that they reckon a clean slate might be a better option.
As a Canadian outsider looking in at the American election process, I have found myself drawn towards Mr. Obama as others apparently have as well. He seems genuinely concerned with the well being of his fellow citizens, listening to him speak on CNN about his vision for healthcare for all Americans emphasized for me that concern. When he said "why shouldn't the people who pay my salary with their taxes get the same kind of health care that I do", it resonated with me. I think that it is time for my neighbors to the south to have a President who cares about his fellow citizens. I wish him luck and if I could vote in this election, he would have mine.
Is there any significance in the geographical spread of the vote?
Obama got the largest share of the votes in the urban, democratic counties, while Edwards seemed to do best in rural counties. Clinton's counties are on the edge of the state (western - border counties to the south of Sioux City and in the north) - these are the Republican strongholds.
Not that his religion is relevant but Barack Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.
Iowa is just the beginning of the process.
In the end Ron Paul will win the presidency, that is what really matters.
Nick Wilson wrote:
"American Foriegn policy could change remarkably if the next U.S. President is a Black Muslim Democrat. "
The guy's name is Obama not Osama - he's not Muslim! He was Baptised in the Trinity United Church of Christ, which leads me to suspect he may just possibly in fact be a Christian.
On the subject of religion though, personally I'm less concerned with the democratic winners and losers as I am with the Republican winner in this primary. Does the most powerful country in the world need another Evangelical Christian leader, who refuses to believe science fact if it doesn't tie in with biblical scripture? Even if the US does, the rest of the world needs another creationist who denies global warming in charge of the US as much as it needs another strain of ebola!
Whereas Bill in '92 had the vast FP experience expected of a governor in a state with about seven voters.
There has to be an organisational revamp in Hilary's strategy. She has guts and brains and will not be unduly disspirited. Obama has won here and momentum will help him in New Hampshire and other primaries. However he has a long way to go. Hilary is a shrewd tactician, has certainly more experience as a Senator and will overcome this initial set-back. With help from Bill she will reenergise her supporters and get her election strategy on course again.Edwards will play an important role up to a point but will not be a leading contender and his efforts will peter off. As to the other Democratic contenders they do not stand a ghost of a chance. On the Republican side one has to keep a wary eye on Rudy Guliani
As President, one can hire the experience. However the leadership has to come from you.
Other presidents without significant foreign policy experience prior to taking office include Truman, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush. Others e.g. Kennedy, Johnson, Ford had no exec experience but drew from their years in the leigislature. The only post-war presidents missing from the list are Eisenhower (who was an exception to many rules) and GHW Bush (who many believe lost the 1992 election because of his focus on foreign policy rather than domestic issues).
To Ruth, Americans under the age of 50 do not care that Obama is black. I was at a caucus last night and I have never seen so many young people participate. Since most commenting on this board do not know what a caucus is, it is not meant to be representative of the state or nation as a whole. It is meant to represent the democratic or Republica parties. The fact Obama pulled so many young Iowans into the Democratic caucus last night was incredible. After last night, I predict, the United States will have a President whose father was Kenyan and mother was from Kansas.
I for one am looking forward to it.
The rocky road to the White House is all about money, political stamina, guts and now we see youth! Reaching the pinnacle of political power requires fearless perseverance. However wisdom, political experience, empathy should surely be important considerations. Hilary may not be young but she most certainly has talent, guts, political acumen, empathy and wisdom: extremely necessary qualities for a capable President. And that is where she is head and shoulders above Obama and Edwards.
My money would still be on Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination. I think she is a machine politician who will do the necessary work to turn things around in forthcoming primaries. History would tell us that John Edwards is the better choice for the Democrats, as he has the southern schmaltz that the party has needed to succeed since the Kennedy era. Hillary - despite her marriage to Bill and time in Arkansas - was born in Illinois and represents New York.
My money is on Clinton v McCain. Or perhaps even Clinton v a late running Bloomberg. It will end up very close once again.
Ruth -- I think you're mistaken. A large base of the democratic party is minorities and women. I don't think race is an issue at all for the typical democrat.
Nick -- It's true that Obama is not Muslim, but he did attend a muslim school in Indonesia if I'm not mistaken.
That being said, I'm amazed at the level of intelligence demonstrated in most of these comments; for once it greatly exceeds that of the article being commented on. I greatly agree with the comments challenging the notion that voting for Obama is a foreign policy blunder.
My money would still be on Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination. I think she is a machine politician who will do the necessary work to turn things around in forthcoming primaries. History would tell us that John Edwards is the better choice for the Democrats, as he has the southern schmaltz that the party has needed to succeed since the Kennedy era. Hillary - despite her marriage to Bill and time in Arkansas - was born in Illinois and represents New York.
My money is on Clinton v McCain. Or perhaps even Clinton v a late running Bloomberg. It will end up very close once again.
Justin
You have really lost it.
Ruth - yes you are deeply cynical. God help us if we still have people like you with the same thoughts.
Justin,
A question about Iowa and women. Has Iowa elected a black, for that matter? I doubt it.
Obama, like Tiger Woods or Ms Rice, is one of the blacks who transcends race to appeal to all colors (I'm white by the way), just as Kennedy transcended religion.
From what I can see Obama is the favorite Democrat among the Republicans which tells you something.
I think that Obama's major problem is the Israeli lobby. I was horrified talking to a group of Jews recently (my wife is Jewish, before I am accused of antisemitism) who were universally hostile to Obama because of his Muslim background. I think that the Israeli lobby will move heaven and earth to stop Obama.
So what it comes down is this: to win Obama will have to overcome the Israeli lobby and Romney will have to overcome the Evangelical lobby.
All candidates have little if any foreign policy experience. Why should they have any, when they have been 鈥渄omestic鈥 politicians? Unless of course their mandate has stretched beyond the shores of the US and no one knows about it! All presidents are 鈥榓dvised鈥 these days, what matters is making the correct choices what it matters, based upon information presented. Given their own previous track record, what choices have they made and how well were they executed鈥.and that will tell you who is the 鈥渂etter鈥 person鈥.foreign policy or not.
As a Canadian outsider looking in at the American election process, I have found myself drawn towards Mr. Obama as others apparently have as well. He seems genuinely concerned with the well being of his fellow citizens, listening to him speak on CNN about his vision for healthcare for all Americans emphasized for me that concern. When he said "why shouldn't the people who pay my salary with their taxes get the same kind of health care that I do", it resonated with me. I think that it is time for my neighbors to the south to have a President who cares about his fellow citizens. I wish him luck and if I could vote in this election, he would have mine.
The naivete of Justin Webb, and many other British commentators and announcers on 麻豆官网首页入口, both seemingly intentional and unintentional (i.e., the announcers who find it so hard to read the news without displaying their obvious distaste for Hillary's loss, and their inability to understand why Barack Obama has an appeal to Americans) is both amusing and, honestly, relatively pitiful. Having gone to Trinity College, Oxford 鈥 as an American studying English Literature in England 鈥 and having also worked on both Al Gore's campaign in Pennsylvania, and the campaign of Bill Clinton, I believe my credentials will just barely peak above the average 麻豆官网首页入口 commentator's vast condescension toward America. So, I would argue that my credentials are relatively solid to make a statement about the matter.
Justin Webb's piece is staggeringly innocent and blind (but typical) to why Barack Obama is vastly more presidential and more viable a candidate against the Republicans than Hillary Clinton. For a man who has spent so much time in this country reporting (very well) on politics, one would hope that Mr. Webb would somehow have been able to see this a little more clearly.
Of course Hillary has more experience. But why have most of Bill Clinton's most brilliant and best foreign policy (and other) advisors ended up siding, and many working directly with, Barack Obama? If Hillary's vaunted experience is so great, how could this have happened?
Forgive me for my irritation with British nostalgia for the Clinton administration. I have nostalgia for Bill Clinton occasionally too. But I am currently living in the present. And it is a much different place. There are many reasons why Hillary would not make a good president, and why Americans see that quite clearly. Quite frankly, it is not what I expect from relatively sophisticated and subtle British minds. When I speak to friends at Oxford, they talk about the Clinton years as if they were filmed in gauzy colors by Richard Attenborough... with a halo around the White House. And this is coming from an ardent, hard-fighting Clinton supporter for many years.
Please do yourselves and the world a favor by trying to remove the blinders for a moment from your eyes. The USA cannot afford to lose this coming election to a Republican. It would be an unmitigated disaster, given what's happened under G. W. Bush, and the possibility that his policies, or anything about the wreck he has left could be carried forward. What the British (and many Europeans) don't seem to understand is that:
A) Barack Obama can win, Hillary cannot. Hillary is hated so much by the far right, the medium right and even by moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats, that she cannot conceivably win the presidency. The night Hillary wins the Democratic nomination will be the first night of the next Republican presidency. That is a certain fact that no one on your side of the pond seems to be able to understand. The U.S. voters in the middle, not the right or the left, will decide the next American election. And if you were to look closely at polls of Hillary's popularity with that not-too-liberal, not-too-conservative humble middle, you would see how certain a Hillary Clinton loss is for 2008. Which brings us back to Obama: many liberal, moderate, and even conservative-leaning Republicans in Iowa did not even vote Republican yesterday! That is almost unheard of in that normally conservative state. So why did they abandon their party? Quite simple: They hate what their party and our madman president has done to their country. They want to get the country back. They went in droves to the Democratic caucuses to vote for Barack Obama. And all of this signals a huge change in this country. In addition:
B) What Europeans are seemingly unaware of is how Hillary's time in Congress has seriously eroded her reputation. She supported Bush in the war, then she didn't, then she sort of did again. She has gone with what would have in the past been against her conscience... merely because, as we all know, she wants to be president. back and forth she has danced, attempting to stay likable to all Americans. It really soured me forever to a woman I once admired. Many Americans -- including many, many liberals -- cannot forgive Hillary Clinton for her two-faced, power-brokering, ethics-shredding manner of politics.
C) How can a democratic nation of 300 million people, the most powerful country in the world, allow the travesty of selecting a Bush, then a Clinton, then another Bush, and then another Clinton for a grand total of 30 years? Is there any other worthy candidates??? PLEASE.
D) Barack Obama is an inspiring and tremendously smart man, who has showed his political skill (and experience) and his support of all the right causes; as well as building one of the greatest, smartest political teams ever seen. That is a huge element in being a great president. Hillary is a politician. She is not a president. This country desperately wants to win back its belief in the future, but Hillary is all about the past... about back room politics, swaying her opinions and ethics with the wind depending on how she can gain more power, and most importantly, an absolutely certain loss to the Republicans.
E) Barack Obama he is powerfully bright leader of great personal magnetism. He attracts and inspires many liberals, moderate liberals, as well as moderate Reublicans. He is about the future of this country in every way.
And that -- my often America-clueless British friends -- is what is truly going on here. And that is why our next president will be a man whose campaign I plan to work hard for in 2008... Barack Obama.
All candidates have little if any foreign policy experience. Why should they have any, when they have been 鈥渄omestic鈥 politicians? Unless of course their mandate has stretched beyond the shores of the US and no one knows about it! All presidents are 鈥榓dvised鈥 these days, what matters is making the correct choices what it matters, based upon information presented. Given their own previous track record, what choices have they made and how well were they executed鈥.and that will tell you who is the 鈥渂etter鈥 person鈥.foreign policy or not.
1. Obama is not Muslim. Not that it matters to me but it is not factual.
2. As Tip O'Neill famously said, "All Politics Is Local". Iowan's, like most people, are more concerned about local issues affecting them than what is happening in Kenya.
3. This was ONLY IOWA not the rest of the country. New Hampshire and other states are up soon and Obama and the Huckster may very well fall flat on their face.
4. I think Obama won so well because people do not want Hillary Clinton.
When was the last US President elected because he had better than zero foreigh policy experience? Not George W Bush, not Bill Clinton, maybe George senior?, not Ronald Reagan, not Jimmy Carter, not Gerald Ford who was not elected President, so doesn't count. The US was at war in Vietnam when Nixon became President and opened China up in the early '70s. Was that why he was elected? Lyndon Johnson was not elected President so he doesn't count either and before him was John F Kennedy. This takes us back to 1961.
I would be surprised if, in spite of the bleak review of our precarious world in Justin Webb's first paragraph, that foreign policy or foreign affairs will, ultimately, be a vote-decider for the American people any more than it is for UK voters. It may swing some people one way or another but will it determine who ultimately wins the White House? Sadly, for us, I don't think so.
Maybe we should have elected Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or someone else with lots of "experience" in Washington and the foreign policy establishment?
Is that what you are suggesting?
We need a break from the same old folks with the same old thinking. We need change, someone NEW.
Obama and Huckabee won their party caucus because of their ability to present their ideas coherently, with apparent honesty. The lack of foreign policy experience, which applies equally to both of the winners, who have traveled extensively, was not a deciding factor.
The race for their parties nomination will ultimately come down to the Iowa caucus winners and John McCain. The other front running candidates are either too angry, incapable of speaking without a teleprompter, or political animals who switch positions with the movement of the tides.
These intangibles are more important to many Americans than FP experience or specific "candidate promises".
Oh, and we Americans would be most pleased to let someone else solve the problems caused by terrorism, tyrants, civil wars, and middle eastern/east Asian conflicts.
Justin, please tell me you're joking! The fact that neither one of the Iowa winners have foreign relations experience doesn't matter. It's not like we can do any worse than we already have. The successful president is the one that chooses the best advisors. But then, Bush didn't know that and look what happened.
I don't think it's because Iowans have never elected a woman to Congress that they chose Obama. It's probably because Iowans recognize that their country is in trouble, and that Obama is the only reliable candidate who hasn't flip-flopped and U-turned on major issues regarding foreign policy. Molly Ivins, the left-wing journalist, wrote just before her death that Clinton will say anything, do anything it takes to get votes --- that's "experience". From her article, "Why Hillary Won't Save Us":
"Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone . . . Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her."
It would be nice to believe that experience equals capability, but I only think of duplicity and machination when I see that word used to describe politicians. Could it be that "experience" is working against Clinton, rather than for her?
I'm very excited about last night's results, and very disappointed with Mr. Webb's sour grapes. You're right on Huckabee: he's an idiot, like Bush; just look at his recent foreign policy gaffs and ignorance regarding current events. (Also his far-right Christian fundamentalism scares the crap outta me; one taliban in the world is enough, thank you.) But concerning Obama, I'll take sound judgment, intelligence, and uniting hope over Hillary's non-experience, her pandering and fence-riding, her divisiveness, dishonesty, her appeal to fear (sound familiar?) and the "politics as usual." How can she keep playing the foreign policy experience card (her only card) when she thought Musharraf was running for President against Bhutto?? Google it. Go Obama! He represents hope for America and the world.
Since we persist in electing people who have no foreign policy experience (and in Obama's case, almost no relevant experience of any kind), I believe that we should require every president to take a course in diplomatic history. I would use Thomas Bailey's book, The Art of Diplomacy, as the text. If a president doesn't know the difference between de facto and de jure recognition, then he/she would be required to take this course. I am quite relieved that Clinton didn't come in first.
I predict a mini-terrorist event in America shortly after the NH primaries. Why? It's the only way the neocons can hold onto power and get the contest back to Giuliani-Clinton as they always wanted it to be.
Something they either engineer (disgusting, eh?), or "let happen".
Watch out.
Iowa is one of the most inland of the US States. They share no international borders, and as a voting block are much more profoundly influenced by domestic issues, especially those relating to the midwestern agricultural economy.
While, of course, war weariness and the economic implications of this prolonged war have factored into their decision making process, I'm sure that the issues of the weakened dollar and deterioration of our domestic infrastructure were also quite pressing to the way Iowans conduct their daily lives.
As those who follow such news will be aware, the US Midwest spent much of December gripped in a deadly cold snap, which left over a hundred thousand households without electricity. In so far as Obama has advertised himself as a reformer on domestic affairs, I'm sure it's no coincidence that people who have spent their holidays in freezing temperatures, in the dark, would be especially concerned about the domestic issues of prosperity and infrastructure.
As an American living in California who will vote in the CA primary, I can answer that the reason Obama and Huckabee won the primaries in Iowa was for one reason: Change. Yes they might not be the most qualified candidate in regards to Foreign Policy as say Joe Biden,Governor Richardson or Senator McCain but the primaries are a chance to allow those candidates who ordinarily in bigger states such as CA or NY would not have a chance because of financial reasons allowed to shine. Had Obama and Huckabee not won the Iowa Caucus for each of their respective parties they certainly would not stand a chance whatsoever of winning the nomination for their parties. As a result they are now on the media spotlight and stand a realistic chance of possibly winning the nomination. Obama and to an extent Huckabee are almost the antithesis of most candidates running. With the Democrats in Congress there has not been the change most Americans had hoped. Remember experience means nothing if you do not have the track record to back it up. In regards to Foreign Policy Obama was the only candidate that made sense about how to deal with the situation in Pakistan. He did not sound like a war hawk but reasonable and people attacked him on it. Obama gives people hope that real change is possible. Huckabee won because he is an evangelical period. The evangelical vote is huge in this country and they think he will seriously change Washington to fit their beliefs. Also the republicans primary concerns are the economy and illegal immigration rather than foreign policy (even though foreign policy is in this case directly related to the economy).
Neither Obama or Huckabee will be President. Iowa is a small state with a population of elderly white farmers. They do not represent Americans.
Obama got less than 1,000 votes! (Ron Paul got over 11x that number of votes).
Iowans always vote religion. That is why they wanted to elect Pat Robertson. It didnt happen.
Iowans say the Iraq "war" is their number one concern yet they exclude absentee ballots for soldiers serving in Iraq--go figure.
Is foreign policy experience a good thing? What lessons can be learned from international 'diplomacy'? Saber rattling and war mongering? Backstabbing?
I rate the foriegn policy attitude of Obama higher than the other candidates - well except for Ron Paul (Obama still has a heavy interventionist attitude). Experience comes second to attitude. I don't want a president who will get us involved in foriegn entanglements. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul.
As a US native, born, raised and living in Washington, DC, what strikes me most is how irrelevant the executive position really is when it comes to foreign policy. Historically speaking, US voters have never had a say in their country's foreign policy. As much as left-leaning voters would like to believe that Democrats will offer them a more prudent and less aggressive foreign policy than Republicans, this is a simplistic view and historically incorrect. While yes, Obama is one of the most attractive figures concerning social issues, there are so many other forces beyond who is elected president that ultimately contribute to foreign policy. After all presidents don't want to alienate themselves from the rest of the government and certainly like the idea of getting reelected.
Any your beloved Hillary does have foriegn policy experience?
Can you please stop treating yours, and most of the 麻豆官网首页入口, coverage as some sort of "Hillary Clinton Show"?
Viewing all of this from CA, as a lifelong Democrat, I can say that although Edwards was my man, I think Obama is more electable.
Additionally I will echo what others have said here that foreign policy experience comes in a tad behind domestic policy knowledge and experience and that intelligent ideas about both, in my view, trumps "experience".
We can say that now George W. Bush has FP experience, but how intelligent have his decisions become as a result?
Relative to the Israeli/Jewish objection to Obama's "Muslim" background...Please!
The guy went to a Muslim school for one or two years as a child and has been a Christian, involved in his Christian church with his Christian pastor as a dear friend for years and years. It is only the likes of the Fox News Channel that stoops to mentioning his middle name "Hussein" in order to scare the ignorant among us. I believe the U.S. Jewish population is far more intelligent than that.
Reply to PaddyMurphy above:
Firstly, to your comment about Obama, Tiger Woods and Condi Rice... well where do I start... Tiger Woods is not actually black, he has a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother and a half-black, quarter Indian, quarter white father - or as he put it, "Cablinasian". Condi Rice might have a solely black heritage, I'm not sure, I don't know enough about her to say... and Obama, of course, had a white mother... I really do find the whole "Obama the first black president" crap being bandied about by the media, even shockingly the 麻豆官网首页入口 news website, disgusting... it's no different to the segregationist past of America when somebody who was only an 1/8th black was considered racially black. Imagine if we were saying Obama was a white man - it would be completely absurd!!
As to your comments about not being antisemitic because you have a Jewish wife, I find it a bit fishy... much the same as somebody say I'm not homophobic because I have gay friends but here's what I think about those gays...
In my view, charming down home appearances of candidates; should not be the main factors in selecting a President; under the [dismal] prevailing circumstances of USA foreign policies. Therefore, I'm totally amazed that two unknown [hopelessly inexperienced] men got AWAY with a relatively easy win!
In the long run, Senator Hillary Clinton, despite the unjustified results of Iowa's [vapid] choices. Should/and will be nominated as the next President. Based simply, on her active input and years of valuable all round experience both here at home and abroad!
Best regards.
The people of America are looking for change, sometimes it is better to have someone that is not tarnished by the old style of foreign policy experience. The state of the world suggests that the foreign policies employed are not working and requires fundamental overall and fresh blood and new ideas. Foreign policy experience is more political than substance. George Bush have made significant stride in foreign policy experience since 911. I believe Obama have the aptitude to make positive contribution in the interest of the USA when he becomes president
Obama has Brezinski as his foreign policy guru who would probably be his secretary of state.Z.B. book Second Chance gives an insight into Obamas forign policy a pragmatism which would refocus Mid-east policy and restore US credibility .Obama has a singular difference from Bush ,his intelligence.Huckabee provincialism will ultimately disable his candidacy.Character does count and the US may at last be emerging from the moral morass of the Bush and Clinton clans.
I do not fear this "vacuum" in foreign policy. The foreign policy of the Bush Administration has been disastrous throughout, let's face it, mainly because it was driven by the Neo Cons. So disastrous that whatever follows could hardly be worse. Obama promises a more enlightened approach in foreign affairs, and that alone is ground for optimism.
We always encounter the "experience issue" when new leaders emerge. Looking back at the last incumbents of the Oval Office: Bush jnr was inexperienced in foreign affairs, ignorant and ill-informed, encumbered with baggage, and - most significantly - easily lead; Clinton: inexperienced; Reagan: inexperienced. You have probably got to go back to Nixon to encounter an incoming President who could be described as "experienced in foreign affairs".
On our side, the one Prime Minister who was experienced above all others in foreign affairs - Eden - led us straight into the biggest foreign affairs fiasco in modern times (before Blair's Iraq, that is.)
You ask the question, "Does it matter?". My reply, "No, it is the calibre of the candidate that matters." I allow myself, at this time, a little optimism: any one of the front runners in this election is likely to be an improvement on the incumbent. Bring it on.
I think you might be missing what the Obama campaign is all about. He may not have the Washington experience in working foreign relations, but to an overwhelming number of the American public, that is exactly what we want. Look where George Bush's foreign relations got us. Most of the world hates us because of the way our government totally misrepresents the American people. Obama is a man that listens - even in his campaign appearences you always see him genuinely listening to what people have to say. I know I feel a lot better about that than a president who walks into a room and says "america is here" and then bully's everyone around. In the case of Obama, his inexperience in some ways is exactly the experience we want. He is not above the people, but with the people.
Obama is not "black". He is not a Muslim. As for the "American Jewish Block", even the Israelis say they are out of synch with Israeli policy and direction. Now for the lack of international experience in the candidates: how would 99% of Americans judge that? The ordinary American can't name the capital of his own state, much less locate Montana on a map. While the Brits were all over the globe the Americans were and are pulling the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans closer to ensure their isolation from the rest of the world. This in part is the reason for their fury that aliens are coming into our country across the Rio Grande and their horror that they are bringing a foreign language with them. Mr. Webb is looking at Americans through his own self-reflecting spectacles.
Provincal Iowan checking in. Nothing I love better than reading that the Hawkeye State is filled with racist, sexist hillbillies. Really? Our Lt. Governor is Patty Judge. Before becoming Lt. Gov. she served two terms as Iowa Secretary of Agriculture. Preston Daniels, a black man (GASP!), served several terms as mayor of Des Moines, our largest city.
We haven't sent a woman or minority to Washington ... yet. We are mostly white, but that does not mean we are mostly racist. Many of the people in charge are men, but that does not mean that only men can be in charge.
Obama didn't win here because he overcame race. He won here because he's from the Midwest. Midwesterners trust each other more than they do carpetbaggers (Clinton) and ambulance chasing attorneys (Edwards).
With all due respect, the current foreign policy situation (crisis) is due in large part to the actions or in-actions of McCain, Clinton, Biden and other Washington insiders. It appears that Iowans, didn't ignore the foreign policy issues, rather they voted for real change. Afterall, they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Americans have never really looked to foreign policy when casting votes for President. It is usually "pocketbook issues", like the economy, health care, and education.
All those who question Obama's supposed lack of foreign policy knowledge, all I can say is look at all the experience and knowledge Rumsfeld and Cheney had. Didn't seem to do us much good.
Simply put, charming down home appearances of candidates; is not enough of a factor in selecting future Presidents. But indeed, good judgement, fairness & wisdom which comes from solid EXPERIENCE. Particularly, in light of the prevailing circumstances of USA foreign policies and national discontent of its citizens. I'm totally amazed that two unknown [hopelessly inexperienced] MEN got away with relative ease of undeserved acceptance.
In the long run, despite the vapid results of Iowa's caucus. New York's much admired Senator Hillary Clinton, deserves to be nominated as President. Based on the former First Lady's decades of active political nput; is certainly essential both here at home and overseas!
Best regards.
Thanks for the correction. I think I misread something in a profile somewhere. My point is I think Obama could be immensely positive in world politics. It's an interesting predicament because Americans have a stronger choice of candidates this time - Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Huckabee each have a good range of skills. No pressure then..?
Justin Webb is a great correspondent and blogger, and I mean no criticism of him. However, we will spend the best part of the next two years reading about this election, and I shall only be able to cope if everyone who writes about it spells the verb to canvass correctly. Both UK and US English dictionaries confirm that "canvass" is the only correct spelling. Thanks 麻豆官网首页入口!
Given Huckabee's sudden claim to fame, he is going to have to think longer and harder about where he stands on pertinent issues, especially those he鈥檚 been able to dodge or only superficially cover. A down-to-earth personality, wittiness and appeal to Evangelicals will only take you so far. Very soon, the American public will realize that compared to his rivals, he doesn't have much else going for him.
While I'm an Obama fan (and especially not a Hillary fan), I know that any of the top 3 Democrats would walk all over someone like Huckabee in the forthcoming Presidential debates. With that in mind, I'm all for Hucks ..... especially come debate time!
The fact the Obama does not have political foreign policy expierinace does not negate the fact that he has world expieriance and perspective that far outweigh in my mind any political expieriance. Having a vested personal interest in other parts of the world beyond Texas, means a more pragmatic and personal approach to foreign issues. After the 8 year debacle that is the republican agenda overseas, us as Americans and the world in general would be in much better shape if for once we got someone that understands that real human beings live and breath outside of our borders. Thats all I want for Christmas.
From an American: Character really is more important in a candidate. It is a person's character which will influence how he will respond to situations, what he will do with the diplomatic, military, and intelligence reports he receives as President. I want a President whose personal views of honor and decency will enable him to rebuild and uphold our country's honor. We do not need a self-serving, power-grabbing President using his position for his own gain.
Frankly, most Republicans around the country are squarely against Mike Huckabee. He has been compared to a Frankenstein monster, built by taking the worst attributes of each party extreme and casting off the good. I doubt he will fair well past Iowa, where he pandered to evangelicals. As for Obama, I think he has a shot, but if nominated would lose to any one of Romney, Guiliani or McCain. Americans get much more serious minded in the general election. I don't think Obama would come off as strong enough versus one of the above Republicans.
I just wonder why when someone has two parents, one black and the other white like Obama they still refer to him as black. His mother is white if I am not mistaken. This guy has such great qualities that Race will not be an issue as his momentum continues.
In answer to your question about why Obama and Huckabee won in Iowa despite their lack of experience in foreign affairs is because of CHANGE. Obama and to a certain extent Huckabee represent change. People not just in Iowa but all over the U.S. want to see real change. Yes Senator Biden, McCain and Governor Richardson have the experience but their platforms do not focus on change the way that Obama and Huckabee do. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure while Obama campaigns on change but also uniting the u.s. something that appeals greatly to regular people. Ron Paul also represents change and despite not making it in the top 3 in Iowa he still had a significant turnout thus showing that what people, real people want is change because as we know experience does not mean anything if you do not have the track record to back it up.
The fact that, for both parties, character "wins the day" is reflective of how sick Americans are of the Bush Administration, and the lack of honesty and character that the administration has shown.
Also, the pre-packaged political "slicksters" (e.g. Romney, Clinton) are also slipping. You can laugh off Iowa as a bunch of small-minded farmers, but they've spent a lot of time with these candidates, so I take this result to heart.
Re- the experience topic, as one who leads Democrat, and feeling like Obama has the charm, charisma and power to be a leader on the world stage, the VP choice could make all the difference!!! What would truly be a POWERFUL ticket would be Obama paired with Joe Biden. Senator Biden is one of the most knowledgable and respected foreign policy experts in the US Senate, and if Obama's the leader that I think he is, he'll recognize the importance to round out a ticket with someone that can help carry him in an area where he's a bit inexperienced.
DM- Lafayette, CA USA
I too am afraid the the Israeli lobby and others will find Obama a threat or at least find comfort in a candidate that is less confrontational. I don't think Iowa was about race, gender or specific experience. Americans are seeking national leadership. Leadership that is able to put together a team with the needed experience.
You keep surprising me Justin. It's funny I thought you had good insight into American politics in general but your consistent dismissal of Barack Obama proves it otherwise. You have consistently dismissed him and now you've actually said how America can contemplate voting for a man with zero-policy experience baffles you. Why? Did Bush? Does Hillary have that foreign policy experience? Does being the wife of an ex-president make one qualified for the presidency? What part of Obama鈥檚 education and experience do you find lacking? Harvard, Senator for eight years in the state legislature and now Senator in congress鈥hat part of his resume do you find lacking?
Do you still want to back McCain? I mean your predictions have a way of making you sound like a fool!
There鈥檚 still time Justin; we still have a long way to go. You could still change your mind about Barack Obama.
Hmmm...(scratching chin) Lots to talk about here...
"how in this case can America seriously contemplate electing one of two men who have zero foreign policy experience?"
-You forget, Mr. Webb, that mine is a nation that does not necessarily vote for a man based on experience alone. Take a look at FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan. The first had no active military experience and found himself at the helm of WWII and the second was by definition an academic/intellectual who managed to somehow squeeze in a League of Nations and the 14 Points during his term...meanwhile he was not then and is not remembered now as much of a rover. Reagan's diplomatic credentials during the 1980 campaign probably would not have passed muster if voters' focus was solely the Cold War alone: state governors typically are held responsible for what goes on in their backyard, not Moscow's.
How can we consider diplomatic inexperience an option?-Because experience doesn't always translate into wisdom, sir. How can we risk electing another Bush, falling for a coy smile AGAIN?-I don't want to call it because of how early it is, but I am dead sure the populace is very weary of the past 8 years: there are a lot of mothers in Iowa mourning their sons, missing husbands. A coy smile won't be enough. Exit polls show Iraq as a top issue in Iowa-this will not change in New Hampshire. Polls also show young voters(under 30 like me) are also coming out in bigger than expected numbers-they aren't happy with Hilary OR Giuliani. Huckabee is not as polarizing as the other two biggies; religious votes are split.
So what does this mean?-Change is a more powerful message than business as usual for a lot of folks. People are VERY interested in the issues-and want a candidate interested in their opinions.
As for Hilary, she'll look foolish if she doesn't get NH, yes, but the question is what her next move is. She only has a month to Super Tuesday. She can't get too aggressive in her ads: it will turn folks off. She could go after the gray haired vote, but she seems to only appeal to that now. McCain is trying to get his message out earlier in NH than the others to compensate for the fact that he is so much older than they are and hopes to beat the candidates to the punch.
Fasten your seatbelts. It is about to get nasty.
Surely these caucuses must eventually go the way of the dinosaur! They are irrelevent, and an obscene waste of time and money. How can the political leanings of a handful of people in Iowa and New Hampshire possibly be any kind of forecast of who will be the eventual inhabitant of the White House come January, 2009?
Like the I.R.S. the whole system of electing our leaders needs a drastic overhaul. Think what good could be done with all that campaign money!
Justin, give it a rest. The very last thing America needs is another arrogant British journalist looking down his nose and telling us what we should or should not be doing. Have you forgotten the Guardian's ill-conceived letter campaign to influence the 2004 election?
Obama has more experience than you are willing to give him credit for. So the problem lies with YOU, not him.
As for Huckabee, his voters come from a right wing fundamentalist Christian base. They do not represent the general American public.
Who does Justin Webb wants as president then?
It is rather unfair to single out Obama and Huckabee for having "zero foreign policy experience" when none of the candidates, except Bill Richardson, have held diplomatic posts, if that is what Mr Webb is pointing at.
And I doubt that her numerous state visits as a "first lady", which for first ladies tend to be largely ceremonial and inconclusive affairs (mostly photo ops with orphans, cultural organisations, the host first-lady, and the like), count for as much as the substantial "foreign policy experience" that Mr Webb is implicitly attributing to Hillary Clinton.
It is also rather disproportionate --and revealing of Mr Webb's alarming biases-- to put in equal grounds Obama's lack of a diplomatic career, with Huckabee's blatant incompetence and ignorance in world affairs, as demonstrated with his numerous gaffes, which rather remind of Bush's own.
I do perceive also a lack of coverage overall of Obama of late. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but where are the famed 麻豆官网首页入口 in-depth analyses and interviews on who is now one of the democratic frontrunners?? Too much attention to Hillary, Edwards and even Huckabee of late, but what is up with Obama?? Hello Mr Webb? Hello 麻豆官网首页入口??
I think it鈥檚 very important to point out, as others have before me, that there is documented evidence that Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq from the start. For someone who allegedly has 鈥渘o foreign policy experience,鈥 that was a wise decision on his part. So, I honestly don鈥檛 know why there was so much negativity in this 麻豆官网首页入口 article. Obama is focused on bringing an end to the war in Iraq, helping America recover from the current administration, and reintroducing diplomacy to American foreign policy. Honestly, what more could we ask for? Also, many (if not the majority) of the presidential candidates with the most foreign policy experience are also proponents of building a wall separating the U.S., Mexico, and possibly Canada, something many Americans are against (including myself). That's probably one of the reasons why those with the most experience are not doing very well.
While I do understand Justin鈥檚 point, I think that Americans are doing the best they can with the options they鈥檝e been given. Last I heard, people wanted America to mind its own business and stay focused on their own domestic affairs. I hope the rest of the world will give America a chance to get its act together. Some of us are just as dissatisfied with our country as you are. We may not do everything correctly, no one does. But trust me, we鈥檙e trying.
On a side note, Obama is not a Muslim. According to an article in Time magazine, Obama has chosen Christianity even though his mother from Kansas has no religion and his father from Kenya is an atheist.
The answer is very simple. There are only two major candidates with anything resembling significant foreign policy experience: Sens. Clinton and McCain. However in both cases, that experience has been bad. Both voted in favor the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq. McCain continues to be a stronger support of unending occupation of that country than even Pres. Bush himself. So maybe voters in Iowa have decided that a candidate with good character but little experience is less risky than than a candidate whose most recent foreign policy experience was in being complicit with the worst US foreign policy debacle in over a generation.
I couldn't agree more with Justin Webb. People are so swept away with Obama that they ignore his lack of experience at not only foreign affairs but also at governing. His political experience is as light as John Kerry's military experience -- and we all know how that ended up.
As an Iowan and as an American,foreign policy is highly important to me. I caucused for Obama. I'm tired of everyone saying that Hillary has the experience. Being First Lady and married to Bill Clinton does not count. Obama has life experience, such as living outside of the United States for an extended length of time, that would benefit him well as President. This helps him to see from different perspectives and to see all the world as our neighbours. I support his ideas of sitting down and conversing with everyone--even our enemies. It's high time that the U.S. quit being the bully that we've become and start working cooperatively with others. It sounds like a better way to generate peace in the world--especially opposed to George W. Bush's war machine.
I found this article about Obama's religion and upbringing.
And I have to wonder, why aren't we having just as fervent discussions about the religious views of Huckabee and Romney? That Huckabee's religious views that inform his opinions of evolution and stem cell research are cause for an open dialogue, too?
I understand that Justin's original post was about Obama, Huckabee, and foreign policy, but I am reminded of an article by James Wood about Tolstoy. He writes that "Tolstoy sees reality as a system of constant adjustments, a long tricky convoy of surprises, as realities jostle together and the vital, solipsistic ego is affronted by the otherness of the world." Our realities are not just created from one issue. We should, instead, pause to consider what adjustments education, foreign policy, the economy, health care, science, et al make to our realities.
Lacking foreign policy experience (though Senator Obama has experienced other cultures first hand and in depth, e.g. when he lived overseas, and he's a very well educated person, etc) has never really been an issue among the American electorate. Most Americans have a profound and utter lack of knowledge about the world, their place in it and they prefer to assume that Disney's Epcot is sufficient education in world affairs/other cultures. John Wayne still rides in the hearts of many Americans {and that's not necessarily a bad thing incidentally}. Americans may know the tune from the 1965 New York World's Fair - 'It's A Small World,' but, they've yet to grasp the meaning.
Had Americans known the first thing about the divisions within the Iraqi peoples [the absence of WMDs notwithstanding] they would have known that they - the Iraqi's, would not welcome us 'with open arms.' The only outstretched arms that have greeted us have been firearms and IEDs {Improvised Explosive Devices}. Being forced to hide behind / living in a 'green zone' is hardly demonstrative of any level of success in Iraq. The ignorance and arrogance of the presumption that the imposition of a socio-political system for which there was/remains no cultural and/or historical basis for [aka: democracy]is entirely demonstrative of American's fundamental global ignorance, and of a venture doomed to complete failure. Most European nations learned these colonial lessons of failure decades ago, whether in Africa, Indo-China, on the Sub-continent, or elsewhere. Americans haven't even the most basic comprehension of global realities - such as trans-national corporation's quest to reduce overheads and increase profit margins regardless of the domestic consequences to the United States. Trans-national corporations effect currency hedges to buffer themselves against a falling US Dollar. Today even Super Models and the monument-keepers in India prefer Euro's or Rupees, respectively.
Americans supported a Democratic president who signed into law NAFTA {the North American Free Trade Agreement} - one of the major accelerators of the exporting of American jobs out of the country [such as to Mexico], and re-elected that same Arkansan president [Bill Clinton]. Indeed, America has not been well served by the globalization of the world economy recently. Having squandered the lead of being the sole surviving industrial power after World War II, America allowed its education system to produce the highest level of iliteracy among any of the major developed nations.
When it comes to international economics, it is not a 'level playing field' and someone always pays for wealth transfers. In the present scenario it's American people that are paying for globalization. It's basic wealth transfer, or, as I refer to it: Global Economic Osmosis {the acts of the transfer of wealth from areas of greater concentrations to those of lesser concentrations}. Shipping American jobs overseas [those related to automobile and parts manufacturing, electronics manufacturing and their assembly, textile production, shoe production, steel production, ship building, software development and data-entry, customer service call centers {or, 'centres' - if you prefer}, etc] were and are - obviously, NOT in the best interests of those Americans not living off of trans-national corporate stock dividends. The false premise of being able to buy imported goods at a lower cost is doubly delusional. You're not buying many goods when you're out of work without a paycheck and your purchasing power is reduced - regardless, by a devalued domestic currency when that currency value {due to the balance of trade deficit, etc} tanks. 'Cheap' imported Chinese goods {with high levels of lead content, posions in the food products, etc} aren't exactly reasonable trade-off{s} for the imbalance that has ensued. The Wal-Martization of America is - overtly, not desireable for Americans. A minimal short term gain on some product retail price savings does not bode well for the degrading of America to a second class nation. Granting China membership in the WTO {World Trade Organization} and/or giving them MFT {Most Favored Nation}status - in view of their disregard for basic western concepts of individual liberites, etc, are overtly contrary to the best interests and historical ideals of the American people. Sadly, Americans were and remain ill-equiped to conside the near and/or long term consequeces of our proactively facilitating our wealth 'Osmosis' drain. Of course, Europe is putting their own collective economic necks on the chop'g block by their dependence on Putin's Russian energy supplies {as he sells state of the art missile defense systems and nuclear power capabilities to Iran}; as well as dumbing-down the market-value of their own labor {labour if you prefer} by ever expanding the EU eastwards.
Never the less, the present occupant of the Oval Office decided to adopt a think-tank stratagy of 'preemptive' war - a first in American history. If anything, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, shoot your friend in the face - Cheney {aka: Halliburton's conduit to no-bid contracts} and the cadre surrounding the present occupant demonstrate that a President need not 'know' much - of anything, to be re-elected. The current occupant's ignorance of domestic and foreign matters are overt and profound. Let's face it, he's a bumbling idiot.
Thus, the relevance of Iowa's caucuses is an...oxymoron. One cannot envision a more...isolated and/or atypical state population demographic than that which Iowa presents. Though Iowa has 1,912,197 registered voters {of a gross population of 2,982,085}, only 239,000 registered Democrats actually voted yesterday. With Senator Obama having received 38% of the actual Democratic Party votes cast, all of the ensuing discourse and speculation is about a candidate who received but 90,820 votes. Bear in mind that this represents about 5% of the registered voters in Iowa and - with 300,000,000+ Americans...; well, it's a statistical non-event. As for Mr. Huckabee, the less time spent on his overtly non-viable candidacy the better. Sure, Iowa's Bible-belt territory and this candidate played to their predispositions. Yet, this Baptist, Born-again preacher and former Arkansas Governor [yes, another one] will surely be cast aside when the those states who've entered the 21st c. begin to cast their primary votes.
If there's one thing that Iowans could have done that would have been of benefit to America would have been to collectively peg their agricultural prices for export to the OPEC price of oil. If the OPEC cartel wants to put America and Americans under their restraint of trade collective thumb, the least we Americans should do is to reciprocate. Corn, soybeans, grains, etc, for export to OPEC nations should be priced according to OPEC's oil prices. If OPEC nations want to charge Americans $100 for a barrel of oil, OK, we should charge them $300 for a bushel of grain. After all, fair is fair. If they can manipulate their commodity prices - so could / should we! If they don't like our prices let them eat their domestic product. Oh yes, that's sand and oil. Perhaps that's a part of the answer, to let the Gulf states get a taste of their own medicine. Now, that would be an exercise in 'foreign policy' I'm sure most Americans would get behind.
Chicago, USA.
Perhaps the reason that America is contemplating two foreign policy "novices" against the sage "experts" of the establishment is that that the "experts" have left us with a world when, "America is at war on several fronts, when Pakistan is on the brink, when Kenya is teetering, when the Middle East is, well, the Middle East." Just a thought...
Please resist writing off Justin Webb as 'another arrogant British journalist', I think he presents Americans in a refreshingly positive light which is quite rare in the cynical UK press. Besides, being a British person I am not surprised he may want to back someone with foreign policy experience, although I don't presume to know who he is backing. It is of course most important for foreign nations (I am a British person) that the new president be a touch more eloquent and capable in dealing with foreign issues than the current president. I understand the frustration in feeling as though you have to clean up the worlds messes, but the fact is the US is the most powerful nation in the world which is something we have to deal with and a responsibility that Americans need to understand. I would desperately love to vote in this election, as I know whoever wins the race is likely to become buddies with our PM and would be in a position to influence him (cue embarrassing memories of the Tony Blair 'US poodle' comments). However, influence does not have to be a bad thing when it comes from the right person.
Regarding Obama, there is a great deal to be said for a man who has first hand experience of the outside world even without practical experience in foreign policy, with the amount of unpredictable and unstable situations cropping up in countries around world at the moment, what is more important than experience in my opinion, is understanding.
Obama 'winning' Iowa is the best thing that could happen for Clinton. All the Democratic voters will get such a fright at the thought of a black person being president that they will flock to vote for Hilary instead! Or am I just deeply cynical??
Naah, just very very wrong. The "is America ready for a black president?" debate has been had so many times it's barely worth bothering with. But I'll rise to the bait anyway.
The bottom line is, quite simply, that anyone who's going to be put off voting for Obama isn't voting Democrat anyway.
His popularity is far higher amongst whites than blacks who still, to some extent, consider Bill Clinton to have been the first black president. The reason Oprah was brought in was precisely to get the message through to the black audiences that were/are leaning towards Hillary.
And Justin although I don't agree with you I do think it's a subject worth raising. But really, is there a single example in the past 50 years of an experienced candidate proving to be a successful foreign policy president?
There is no previous experience that can properly prepare an individual for the trials and tribulations they might be faced with on the job. As mentioned above I think Obama's family background and experiences growing up are as relevant as anything Hillary has to offer.
I agree with many of the highly intelligent comments that have been posted. But most of all, I would add that intelligence and good judgement are the paramount characteristics necessary in any leader. Nobody can be an expert on everything that a president is required handle -- this is why one has expert advisors. And whoever commented that expecting domestic politicians to have extensive foreign policy experience is absurd made a very valid point. My concern about Mr. Obama is not his lack of foreign policy experience, but his lack of ANY experience in government. However, given the general shape of our government these days, this may actually be a blessing (enter the "Washington outsider!").
As an undecided Democrat, I have some serious concerns about Ms. Clinton. Most of all, I am concerned by what one poster aptly termed her "strangely unattractive" personality. There seems little of compromise in her -- it's her way or the highway. And, for whatever reason, there's nobody that Republicans love to hate more than her. No other Democratic candidate could energize the somewhat demoralized Republican party to stand strong behind whichever of their candidates emerges from the primaries like she could. She has considerably less appeal with swing and independant voters than Mr. Obama. This does not necessarily mean that he would do the best job as president, but I think he may have the best shot at actually getting the job. Although if the Republicans actually nominate that bumbler Huckabee, it's a cake walk for any opponent, and a pure invitation for Bloomberg to join the race as a serious third-party candidate.
And lastly, a brief comment on race and sex. I am a woman, but I do not feel compelled to vote for a woman on that basis alone. That kind of thinking is outdated. I'll vote for whoever I think will have a better chance of getting elected and do a better job (not necessarily in that order), whether they are male, female, black, brown, yellow, red, or green.
In US politics there are normally three kinds of people seeking to be President. Normally in the last 100 years or so, the most successful nominees have been Governors - GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt. A few, Nixon, Johnson, Truman had been senators but got to be serious contenders because they had been Vice Presidents. Only once in the last 50 years has a sitting senator won the White House (JFK).
Governors of course usually have no foreign policy experience. Being Governor of NY or Georgia doesn't require such skills on the job. Senators have no experience in "governing" ("legislating" yes, but not "governing") but often have a little more foreign policy experience if they've been on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. It's very rare to have experience in governing and foreign policy - only former Vice Presidents have that. (There's another category I forgot about. "Former Governor who's been UN Ambassador" - ie Richardson).
My point is that the nature of the US political system means that serious contenders are unlikely to have all the "experience" some would say is necessary for the job (unless we limit it to only former VPs...).
Three Democrats seeking the Democratic nomination are on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Biden, Dodd and Obama. Biden and Dodd are now out. So that leaves two with any FP experience. Obama and Richardson. Not a difficult choice on my part - Obama is the one who showed the necessary intelligence by being Iraq war from the beginning.
Oh, and Andrea, your cheap shot against decorated Vietnam War combat veteran John Kerry was an extremely low blow. Let's just hope you're misinformed.
Btw, Obama is a Christian and a member of the Church of Christ.
From an American: Character really should matter more than actual foreign policy experience. It is a person's character that determines how he will respond to a situation, what he will do with the diplomatic, military, and intelligence reports he receives once he becomes President. I want a President whose personal values of honor and decency will enable him to wisely rebuild and uphold our country's honor. We do not need a sef-serving, power-grabbing President who uses the position for his own gain. I am voting for Huckabee, because his actions as governor of Arkansas have proven to me that he looks at each case with the good of the people as a whole in mind, rather than his own political advancement. Our laws provide for commutations and pardons for the protection and well-being of the people. I would also prefer to have a temporary tax raise than for the government to run up a deficit, which will have to be addressed some day. I do not agree with the status quo in politics; we have had too many polititions, and not enough true statesmen.
Neither one of these men will be President. Iowa is a caucus, an old-fashioned form of selection that excludes many people (including soldiers serving abroad.)
Iowa is the first test, but that is where their influence ends.
I think that this is a strange criticism (regarding foreign policy inexperience) to make of Obama in particular. He was one of the only candidates to oppose the Iraq War from the outset and predicted correctly the kind of backlash we saw as a result. This was with no foreign policy experience so it seems to me that the US needs a few more presidents with no foreign policy experience...
There is already a vacuum in US foreign policy. The situation in the Middle East indicates how vast the vacuum is. It needs filling by new thinking, new imagination. Maybe America is looking to re-position itself in the world. The polls will tell. Don't under-estimate the restlessness & dissatisfaction of the US public and body politic.
American's may say they are interested in foreign policy, but they are largely so ignorant that any politician can impress them.
Obama, tho lacking experience, could not do worse than Bush, and he did oppose the war so he scores points with Democrats.
Clinton, Richardson, and Biden have plenty of experience and Edwards is adequate.
Republicans largely avoid foreign policy beacuase of their schizophrenia regarding the current disaster-in-office; to them immigration is a foreign policy issue. Only McCain has any experience and I hope he garners the nomination. Huckabee is basically faith-based (irrational) and Romney cannot be trusted. You have a beter chance of winning at 3-card-monty than defining Romney's position on an issue.
In the final analysis Americans will elect a person they deserve. The big question is will they a worthy leader capable of helping them fullfil their promise as a nation or another bafoon causing them to endure the ridicule of the world community?
Re #62 (Laura) "According to an article in Time magazine, Obama has chosen Christianity even though his mother from Kansas has no religion and his father from Kenya is an atheist."
Well, if he wanted a successful political career in the USA, I'd say that was a fairly easy choice: according to a USA Today/Gallup poll last February, only 45% of Americans would be willing to vote for a (well-qualified) atheist for President - less than would vote for a woman, Muslim, African-American, Jew, Mormon, three-times-married person, 72 year old, or homosexual.
Obama and Huckabee are so popular precisely because they are so inexperienced. Americans would like to forget about the mess that Bush has made in the world, and Obama and Huckabee have made wild promises to return America to some primordial, parochial grace. I can only hope that American voters see through their veil of tears.
If I may be permitted a comment: The level of ignorance displayed on these 麻豆官网首页入口 threads, both by the original correspondent/blogger and by respondents on both sides of the Atlantic, staggers the imagination. I won't bother to attempt to correct the many bizarre misrepresentations perpetuated here regarding the U.S. Constitution and the American electoral system; there are numerous books dealing with the subject, if anyone would like to make the effort to read one or two of them. Likewise, I'll leave the commentary on Senator Obama to others. However, the repeated references to former governor Huckabee as "a right-wing evangelical" ought not to go uncorrected. "Evangelical" he may be, but "right-wing"? Yes, I know about his positions on abortion and his ideas about evolution--the latter subject entirely irrelevant to the presidency--but his positions on taxation, the economy, immigration, welfare, the judiciary and penal systems, government interference in health care, and numerous other policy areas can only be characterized as liberal and well to the left of the positions on these subjects held by all of his Republican rivals, including (dare I say) Dr. Ron Paul. In short, as Huckabee's positions clearly demonstrate, "evangelical"--a term denoting a particular religious doctrinal slant--does not necessarily equate with political conservatism.
Exactly what foreign policy experience does Hillary have anyway? It's like arguing that Sir Denis Thatcher should have been Prime Minister because of all the experience he got attending the spouse programme at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
And as for the suggestion that Iowa rejected Hillary because they had never elected a woman to Congress or the Governorship - how many blacks have they elected?
I am 21 one years old and for the first time in 8 years I am excited for our country again. The dissapointment in my country during the last 8 years can't be described in words. I want a change and perhaps Obama is young but he is NOT stupid. We need a president to first lead our country-fixour economy that Bush has destroyed and unite our people that have been torn apart. This conservative vs. liberal concept has only been supported by Bush and his administration. Tell me, what kind of president, let alone person, wants to divide a country? I believe in Obama and I believe he will surround himself by the best administration so whatever lack in foreign policy experience he has will be made up in those that surround him.
It feels great to be smiling again when talking politics...
Alexandra
Obama will be just fine. This is why; As far as I know, you have to be friendly before anyone takes you seriously. Remember GW Bush's hard stance on Middle East? No results. Its only recently that he has sent Rice in a more friendly tone, that the countries in the Middle East at least, are listening.
Further more, Obama has been in these countries. He is part Kenyan,and so understands Africa, well, and also, lived in Asia, and Hawaii.He is going to be a world leader,trust me. I love Hillary too, but its like choosing between two good leaders. Which one of them is better? You choose. But me, its Obama I'll vote for, in PA.
I agree on the questions of foreign policy experience. My conclusion is that this election will end up being about electing a white house, not a president. Whichever Pres/VP team fits better together will win. I happen to like Obama, but think he needs someone with immense experience to support his lofty goals into fruition. The candidate with more experience than any other is quiet Bill Richardson. He would make an excellent VP for Obama. I have always voted Republican, but I would change that for an Obama/Richardson ticket.
Barack Obama has the personal history that equips him to understand many of the great foreign policy issues of our time. It's hard to see him standing by as Bill Clinton did while a massacre took place in Rwanda. Neither Clinton nor George W. Bush came to the White House with foreign policy experience.
I hope people can see through Clinton's goal. Think about this, Big George and Bill are friends now and have been for some time. There is no way a women can become president in The United States. I think Big George and Bill got together and came up with a plan to keep the republicans in office and the only way they could do that was to put a women against a man, I hope people can see through this. Today she was on TV tearing up, come on people wake up I live in America, this is a game for these people. The republicans are in a win win situation. America will not vote a black man into this position nor will they vote a women into this position. WAKE UP
Post #106 was one of the most insightful things I've read about the entire Iowa vote.
Let me try to understand this. Obama is a "lightweight" owing to lack of foreign-policy experience and therefore unqualified to be president. So...can someone remind me of Tony Blair's vast foreign-policy experience where before moving into 10 Downing Street? Is this an issue that dominated any electoral campaigns? Or is this business of foreign-policy experience irrelevant for British prime ministers?
If this were the General Election and Americans were choosing between Obama and Hillary Clinton I suppose most of these posts would make more sense. Has America forgot that whoever they select must still win the General?? I just don't believe that Obama will be able to beat McCain, Guiliani, Romney or even Huckabee (who, quite hilariously, I've heard referred to as *uckabee! ha.).
Don't be ridiculous, Americans never "seriously contemplate" anything. Neither do most of the candidates - or those among them who are eventually annoited... err, "elected" - for that matter. If they did then the Middle East wouldnt be, well, the Middle East. Nearly a century of venal Anglo-American bungling has made the Middle East, well, the Middle East - and that looks set to continue. Obama has already paid obeisance to AIPAC in a keynote speech to their convention last March and elsewhere. In fact, the rise in his campaign fortunes can roughly be traced to that point. So Obama has already been "schooled". As for Huckabee, at the risk of generalizing, as an evangelical, he can no doubt be expected to toe the bipartisan party line on the M.E. and elsewhere in pursuing unchallenged American hegemony. There may be quibbling over the means but the ends of American foreign policy, whether or not they're seriously contemplated, are never seriously questioned. At least not by "serious" candidates that want to rise to the "top of the pile" (what a redolent metaphor, sometimes used to refer to what a dog leaves behind on the sidewalk). And that's very bad news indeed for our many ("we don't do body counts"(!)) victims - and victims-to-be - around the world. You're absolutely right, that's something we should seriously contemplate - more seriously than we've ever contemplated anything before.
Your correct, the US is facing considerable foreigh policy challenges. Obama has the Ill State Legislature and 2 years i the senate experience. No administrative, nor foreigh policy experience. He also wants to "buy the world a Coke", he thinks he can sit down with some of the worst peope and make them see it the "nice way". even though history has taught us that our enemies use agreements and treaties either to buy time or to put us off guard. Reagan new that and looked into Gorbachev's eyes and siad; "Let me tell you why we don't trust you".
This is experience we need. Hillary, like her husband will continue to say whatever th crowd wants to hear at that time. She also knows she can't pull out the troops from Iraq right away. She actually knows that the "Bush Doctrine" of establishing a democracy right next door to Iran adn Syria is probably the only way to lessen terroists threats, Democracies usually don't forster terrorism. Most of the democratic candidates, excuse me for saying this, but seek the "Europazation of America', which in my opinion is a bad thing. Great Britian our best ally, notwithstanding, European churchs are empty, their health plans are bankrupt, social unions call the shots, pension systems make no sense, and the continued bleeding of business to support the unfunded public policy serves no one.
It's really quite simple. In the case of American politics, having no foreign policy experience is a virtue. No? What has such "experience" gotten the world in the past?