Foreign Policy Experience is the most pressing Issue
When it comes to foreign policy experience, Clinton is head and shoulders above the fray.
Barack Obama has taken up the issue of foreign policy touting the fact that he has more Clinton advisor's on his staff than Hillary. But as Hillary pointed out on her latest trip to N.H. "this is not a campaign between a list of advisor's, this is a campaign between real people with experience and qualifications to be President on day one." (Lists provided by both campaigns actually show that Clinton has almost twice as many advisor's on her team).
Obama scored points at the last debate for insinuating that when he became President he would "look forward to" receiving Hillary's advice as well.
But - charm and humor aside - what he's really saying is he can't do the job without the Clinton advisor's. President Clinton's biggest adviser was Hillary. So the American people should be asking Hillary for advice as well. We should simply hire her to do the job, rather than rely on an inexperienced person that needs to have more experienced people make decisions for him.
The next American President will need to have extensive foreign policy experience after the last seven years of semi-isolation and disdain by our allies.
Take a look at an article from CNN.com, June 24, 1999 when Bush and Gore were running against each other (excerpts):
Bush lacks Gore's foreign policy expertise
How much international experience have past presidents had?
June 24, 1999
Vice President Al Gore's experience with world affairs is one of his main selling points as a presidential hopeful, offering a sharp contrast with his likely Republican rival, George W. Bush, who has no such foreign policy resume.
"You deserve a leader who has been tested in it, who knows how to protect America, and secure peace and freedom," he says. Gore's point: That the current GOP front-runner lacks the experience to lead America in a complex and dangerous world."Last week, George W. Bush told "New York Times" columnist Maureen Dowd, "I'm smart enough to know what I don't know."
On the stump, Bush lays out his vision of the world in broad terms.
"The world we live in is still a world of terror and missiles and madmen. And we're challenged by aging weapons and failing intelligence," he said.
hen at an event this week in Richmond, Virginia a reporter from Slovakia asked Bush whether he would make the Central European nation a priority.
Bush's reply?: "The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned firsthand from your foreign minister that came to Texas, and I had a great visit with him. It's an exciting country. It's a country that's flourishing, and it's a country that's doing very well."
Answering a follow-up question, Bush backed off a little: "I think it was the foreign minister, if I'm not mistaken. I need to check my records. A high-ranking official from your country came to visit. I was very impressed."
Bush was right to be hesitant. He didn't meet the foreign minister; he met the prime minister. And it wasn't Slovakia, but Slovenia.
While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume -- CIA director, ambassador to China, architect of the Gulf War victory -- George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice.
We all know what happened with W relying on his advisor's. When you look at past President's, their foreign policy experience does matter. The last thing we want to do is repeat the misguided, mis-advised mistakes of the Bush administration. The article went on to point out that President's with a wide array of foreign policy experience do far better as International Leaders than those with very little foreign policy experience. Case in point was JFK vs. Carter. JFK did have the debacle of Bay of Pigs, but then dealt courageously with the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK had a wealth of foreign experience since his father was the Ambassador to Great Britain. Carter, on the other hand, had no foreign experience at the time and was caught off guard by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the American hostage crisis in Iran.
Joe Biden, who truly has the most depth of foreign policy experience of all the candidates (democrats or republicans alike) stated "There's no time for on-the-job learning, if you don't know as much as your Secretary of State, then you should not be President this time around." Why? Because there is so much at stake in the world right now.
Hillary has said the first thing she will do is reach out to our allies and let them know that the "days of Cowboy diplomacy are over."
One major difference between Hillary Clinton and her two main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards is her knowledge and experience of foreign policy issues and as a well respected leader on the world stage.
Her former speech writer, Lissa Muscatine says "Anyone who doubts Hillary Clinton's impact on the world stage might want to check with the top political leaders in Northern Ireland, who cite her work to end sectarian violence there and help secure a lasting peace." She also said "talk to women - from the Philippines to Latin America to the Middle East - who can vote, own property, or go to school, because Hillary Clinton helped start a global women's movement for women's rights. Or they might travel to Africa and Asia, where Hillary Clinton visited countless remote villages to show how the poorest of the poor could become entrepreneurial and self-sufficient when given access to small loans."
This may sound over dramatized, but the fact is that Hillary Clinton has achieved international fame and the press is all positive (unlike here in the America). Her position on the Armed Services Committee, along with her Senate and First Lady experience have brought her to more than 82 countries world wide. She's been to rural villages in Africa and South America, and has met with world leaders such as Nelson Mandela and King Abdullah. One of her efforts has been the plight of women living under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
After her historic speech at the UN Fourth World Conference in Beijing in 1995, women around the world were elevated. A movement grew that helped women achieve new goals politically, economically and socially in third world countries. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, along with Hillary helped to launch the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative that helped train women as leaders in their societies. As First Lady, Hillary's experience in the international arena is unprecedented. She is the only First Lady to deliver foreign policy addresses at major gatherings of the UN, World Bank, the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum.
Barack Obama's lack of foreign policy experience was clear in the first debate (CNN/YouTube), when a questioner asked the panel "would you be willing to meet with our adversaries, such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez if you were President." Obama stated that he would meet with them, Clinton on the other hand stated she would not meet directly with rogue leaders. Instead she would send envoys to begin a discussion and see if it can lead to head-of-state level meetings.
The Times of London yesterday raised concerns over the lack of foreign policy experience that Obama has.
Obama has traveled only once, overnight to visit Britain, our strongest ally. By claiming he has an "intuitive grasp" of world affairs begins to sound like a repeat of how W. dealt with world affairs. Obama believes that because he spent a portion of his childhood when he was seven to ten years old living in Indonesia that this is enough experience to be The World Leader."Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton, who has seen Mr Obama tighten the Democratic presidential race over recent weeks, say that his relative inexperience contrasts with her extensive overseas travel and personal relationship with many world leaders.
Yesterday they underlined this message by pointing to reports showing that Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman. There was also strikingly robust criticism from an independent Washington think-tank about a 'disconcerting void' over transatlantic relations in Mr Obama’s foreign policy, as well as from a former British Minister for Europe.
Mr Obama’s advisers say that he has an 'intuitive grasp' of world affairs because he spent part of his childhood abroad. 'The benefit of my life of having both lived overseas and traveled overseas is, I have a better sense of how they’re thinking and what their society is really like,'
Denis MacShane, a Minister for Europe in Mr Blair’s Government, said he had been troubled by comments Mr Obama had made on the Middle East peace process and the prospect of military action in Pakistan. He added: 'A lot of people are concerned that international policy is not his strongest suit, just as it was not with George Bush in 2000."
Further concern of Obama's and Edwards inexperience with regards to foreign policy lies in the answer they each gave in an interview with Katie Couric at CBS. Asked by Couric which country they fear the most and why, all the Republican candidates along with Obama and Richardson stated Iran due to their potential nuclear capabilities. Edwards said China due to their views on human rights. But the correct answer (if this was a test) came from Biden and Clinton - both said Pakistan. Why? Because Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the capability to launch them. They currently have an unstable government and a quickly-growing fundamentalist movement.
When you examine Edwards answer, he is naiive to think that China is our most "feared" country. While there are a lot of pieces to the China puzzle that America may not feel comfortable with, they have not been an enemy. Edwards take on China as the most feared country fits in with the reasoning that the Des Moines Register stated as to why they could not endorse Edwards this time around (for President, as they did in 2004):
"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."As for Obama naming Iran as the country he fears most due to a potential nuclear threat, then why did he not show up for the crucial vote designating the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization? He criticized Clinton for her vote, yet if it's his most feared country, he didn't bother to show up and vote one way or the other. Another point made by the Des Moines Register in their analysis of Barack Obama:
"When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead."Basically, he's charming and inspiring, but he doesn't have enough experience to get the job done. Here is what they wrote about Senator Clinton and why they chose to endorse her above all other candidates:
"The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?So do I. Hillary Clinton will be a hard working leader and an inspiration to men and particularly women around the world. She is also the most experienced candidate on the full range of issues from foreign policy to domestic issues. That is why the Des Moines Register endorsed her. Now the American people need to endorse her.
The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.
That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.
That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president.
Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the “Clinton machine” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.
Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton’s life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.
In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has pro actively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.
Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.
The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country"
Comments