This debate has been interesting to observe, credit
CNN, but major credit to the
Politico. I'm hearing something for the first time in my lifetime, a thoughtful discussion on foreign policy by two Democrat Presidential candidates that lasts longer than 10 minutes on a TV station other than CSPAN.
....
In my opinion, Obama just kicked Hillary Clinton's ass on foreign policy on national TV. Obama might be the first Democrat presidential candidate who can articulate a clear foreign policy vision in my lifetime, the contrast between Obama and Clinton was stark on the topic. Hillary was almost completely guided by the talking points of the Center for American Progress, but Obama was specific in vision and articulate in presentation, and didn't rely on any of the typical rhetoric.
I'm not saying I buy in, but I am saying I was caught off guard by Obama's clarity. From my point of view, it has been very rare to observe a Democrat that can project strength in foreign policy in an articulate way. Traditionally clarity in politics from Democrats comes on domestic policy, at least in presidential contests. Clearly Obama is ready to pull out of Iraq, I think most Americans are and that was the ultimate goal of the surge, to set up that capability for our Iraq policy, but instead of shaping a perception of retreat he discusses transition strategies while also quickly shifting focus to Afghanistan. Clinton didn't bring up Afghanistan until after Obama did, which I think is a major distinction. Public visible statesmanship on foreign policy was one aspect of leadership Bill Clinton always fell short, his skills in statesmanship were always in domestic leadership, and his wife is similar in that regard. He charmed other countries, particularly allies, but he never could influence and Kosovo is a visible example.
What is interesting is Obama sounds like a Hawk on Afghanistan. I think that is an interesting dynamic because if Bush is able to close out a force reduction strategy in Iraq, the implication going into the general election is that Obama will deal with Afghanistan. Should he win the Democrat Primary, that would be a fascinating dynamic, observing two presidential candidates in John McCain and Barack Obama debate the Long War. That's a debate I'd watch.
Clinton sounds simpleton when talking about foreign policy, in fact other than a very sharp wit, something every wife inherits with the words "I do", I'm yet to observe one instance of her implied intelligence or wisdom on any policy issue.
Clinton is all talking points on the war and foreign policy, she offers no substance and no vision on the subject. She lacks the depth to educate which implies either a lack of interest, or a lack of understanding. Sad she is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She goes back and forth, playing to the base on how the war is terrible, then citing Operation Desert Fox as her reasoning for authorizing Iraq. She wants it both ways.
I still think Clinton would be more impressive staying where she sounds smartest, in the center and behind her voted positions, but like Mitt Romney she doesn't have an identity so she comes off as speaking at the political party base, rather than with the political party base. Both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have records that say one thing while the mouth is saying something else. That doesn't fly in Presidential elections, I don't think either can or will win a general election if they win their respective nomination.
It is interesting that both Obama and McCain are exactly who they say they are. Everyone knows McCain is in the middle, and that is where McCain has stayed, being true to himself. Obama is very similar in that regard, Obama is on TV even now in the midst of a very competitive election exactly who he says he is in both of his books, and as reflected by his voting record. Say what you want about the policies of either man, but it is quite refreshing to observe American politics where there are viable candidates in both parties who appear to be exactly who they say they are, as opposed to what we have seen in the past where a front runner establishes themselves, says they are everything to everyone, then does their own thing. In that regard, being true to oneself, both Obama and McCain are like Reagan who was also every bit who he said he was. Such statements are blasphemy to partisans, who get caught up on policy positions.
I have read the political analysis that says the Republicans are divided, or that the Democrats are divided. I'd argue there are two factors being ignored to explain why. GenerationX never fit very well into either party in lockstep like the Boomers who came before, and when large section of the base of the Democrat party shifted to the fringes of the left, it dragged the center further to the left and has resulted in a bigger tent Republican party that includes many with liberal views who reject the progressive movement, and prefer being simply 'moderate' and or independent.
One last thought. I hope during the general election someone in the media realizes there is a war taking place and sponsors a general election debate at the Naval War College or maybe even Ft. Leavenworth. The foreign policy discussion was clearly the highlight of the debate. I think the biggest divide right now between Republicans and Democrats is foreign policy. A general election debate on the subjects, which include everything from globalization, global trade, Asia policy, Middle East policy, military policy, and homeland defense would be a good thing for the country, and a good thing for both political parties, moving into the 21st century after Bush.
Apparently, in Australia you can help the PLAN build warships.
