Obama Says He'll Throwback to Bush 41, Reagan . .

[CatnHat]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/29/837657.aspx

OBAMA SAYS HE'LL THROWBACK TO BUSH 41, REAGAN

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, PA -- Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday. A voter at the town hall in Greenburg had asked Obama to respond to charges that his foreign policy was naïve.

"It is George Bush who has been naïve and it's people like John McCain and unfortunately some democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naïve ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation in the world," Obama said.

Drawing on the example of the first Gulf War, Obama said that the first President Bush had "conducted a Gulf War with allies that ended up costing twenty billion dollars and left us stronger because they were realistic."

"Remember, people were saying why didn't you go into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein? The realists understood that that would be a nightmare. And it wasn't worth our national interests," Obama added.

He described this President Bush's world view on foreign policy as a big stick approach.

"Certainly George Bush's foreign policy has been dominated by the idea that because we are so militarily powerful we can dictate events around the world," he said. "If people don't like it doesn't matter because we are the biggest, toughest thing on the block. Now that is naïve." . . .

_______________________________________
My question remains---Who is Obama?????
What party does he really represent??????

[alarimer]

1. Fuck that shit

No Democrat worth his salt would do that. Reagan and Bush were evil assholes. We need to completely discredit all of them. Obama is NO Democrat if he does this. Just another reason for me not to vote for him. I am totally sitting this election out. He sucks. Thay all suck actually.

[DerekJ]

3. Calm down.

He is speaking about certain foreign policy traits. Stop this bi-partisan nonsense. Every the worst administrations have some good in it.

Bush Jr. was really good to Africa. Should we stop aid to Africa just because we don't want to be likened to him?

[lazer47]

9. You keep saying we,, How did you as a Canadian wind up with

a dog in this hunt???

[Skittles]

13. I think it's OK for Canada to be part of the collective "we"

Canada surely does have a vested interest in what happens to America - yes

[DerekJ]

15. WTF !!!

Are you telling me to shut up because I am not American?!!!

:rofl:

Why?!! Am I showing you to be an idiot, so you are trying to tell me " you have no business here".

You do need to calm down. I am getting a feeling you are about to get a nervous breakdown.

I have a thread on why I support this election from personal reasons. I support it also for economical reasons.

If you were level headed, sane, and sensible person, I would have told you why. Buy you come across as an insufferable fool.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Algorem]

68. sober up,ey?

[quickesst]

30. Experts .....

in Obama supporters ability to speak out of both sides of their mouths. Laud and excuse Obama for likening himself to the likes of Reagan, and Bush Sr. Bush Sr. did the right thing in attacking Iraq? Obama praises this, while we know for fact that the war was another setup, like junior's war was a setup. Incubators with babies dumped out being stolen? Faux satellite images of "the amassing Iraqi army on the border of Saudi Arabia? Give me a huge fucking break. Demonize HRC for reaching across the aisle, knowing full well that one of Obamas main issues he is running on is his promise to "reach across the aisle"? Obama supporters mantra should be, "We'll use it, spin it, turn it inside out. It's winning that counts." Thanks.
quickesst

[alarimer]

46. Bush Jr was NOT good for Africa

His stupid abstinence-only stand and reinstatement of the global gag rule on abortion is killing more people than ever. By disallowing the distribution of condoms, HIV rates have spread. Not to mention not intervening in Darfur. Bush is a disaster on ever continent.

[merh]

56. Bill did that and Hillary has waxed poetic about Reagan

... in a book by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw called “Boom! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Recollections on the ‘60s and Today”, Brokaw quotes Clinton as saying that, “She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan,” (Page 404). “He was, she says, 'a child of the Depression, so he understood it . When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully".

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/01/hillarys-lies-a.html

[Penndems]

88. Senator Obama has done a little poetic waxing on Reagan of his own:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w

. . . and former Senator Edwards called him on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NF237S5i2I

[merh]

93. So what

Like I said, so have bill and hillary. Do folks not realize that it is just silly to complain about something Obama does is hillary and bill do the same thing?

[Penndems]

94. Unlike former Presidents Clinton and Reagan, Senator Obama is a first-term Senator from Ilinois

Being President of the United States is an experience only those who have occupied the Oval Office can understand, appreciate - and commiserate with. They leave their stamp on that office, for better or for worse. I can understand why former President and Senator Clinton made their comments.

With the possible exception of The Village Idiot, every man who ran for the Presidency and won had an idea - a vision as to how to reshape it, and bring this country into a greater, more tolerant, more enriched, and a wiser place. Without benefit of experience, no candidate can possibly understand the enormous pressures, the sense of loneliness and isolation, the tremendous sense of responsibility, the historical miasma the job of President entails.

That is, until they're sworn in and walk into that inner sanctum.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. Bullshit... sorry. Every candidate, including Reagan is product of a calibrated MACHINE

They do not get elected because they are "the best and the brightest".

The machine behind Reagan's ascenscion was pure evil in an almost
unimaginable way, viewed from the perspective of our forefathers.
Bush inherited the Reagan mantle, no one else can or should claim it.

For Obama and Clinton to praise Reagan by way of trashing Bush Jr.
is almost unimaginably despicable Overton-style propaganda.

[Penndems]

99. "They do not get elected because they are "the best and the brightest"."

No, they don't - and then again, maybe they do. Regardless, they get elected because the majority of voters in this country put them there.

And by a "calibrated machine", I'm assuming you mean Reagan's campaign staffs.

"The machine behind Reagan's ascenscion (sic)was pure evil in an almost unimaginable way, viewed from the perspective of our forefathers. Bush inherited the Reagan mantle, no one else can or should claim it."

O.K., yeah, so what's your point? He inherited Reagan's mantle, blew it and lasted one term.


Obama and Clinton to praise Reagan by way of trashing Bush Jr. is almost unimaginably despicable Overton-style propaganda.

So Senators Obama and Clinton should NOT trash Junior? Every negative situation we're experiencing in America right now he brought on through arrogance and ineptitude - and Bush has no one to blame but himself (and Uncle Dick).

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. Reagan was in many ways worse than Bush I or II. He succeeded where they failed

In transforming America from a social democracy into a neoconservative,
blighted, post-industrial, post-internal oil-peak wasteland dominated
by a right wing fascist propaganda machine.

The sooner you wise up to the difference between America 1945-1980 and America post-Reagan the better.

Try comparing Reagan's policies to all previous REPUBLICAN presidents
post-FDR, for start. Reagan represenbted a return to the racist,
corporatist, politics of white resentment and state-business union
popularized by McKinley and Coolidge.

Reagan was the Thatcher of the US. Your kids will idolize him in school
and call his policies the new liberalism, like Obama and Clinton and their
allies in Eastern Europe (where Reaganism is touted as the "liberal"
faction that won the cold war and conservatism is gangsterism) are doing.
Now that's success.

[merh]

97. And this has to do with what?

Nice speech, but it doesn't mean much to me.

Hillary does not "know" she wasn't the president, she did not have the national security clearance to "know". There was no vulcan mind melt and you can't get experience through intimate relations or kissing. Stop with the "explanations" that are nothing more than your trying to smear Obama. They are not honest and they aren't realistic and they are definitely not based in fact.

Here ya go, here is what Bill Clinton said in 1991, before he was president and occupied the oval office.

It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.

Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.

Clinton was careful to add that the Reagan military program included "a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure," but the signal had been sent: Clinton was willing to move beyond "the brain-dead politics in both parties," as he so often put it.

His apostasy was widely noticed. The Memphis Commercial Appeal praised Clinton a few days later for daring to "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan." Clinton's "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia . . .," the paper wrote, "is one reason he's a candidate to watch."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402801.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

So take your explanations and misguided and hateful slams and go find something positive to focus on. The slams and the degrading of Obama for the same things Bill and Hill have done is just pathetic.

[Penndems]

101. I WORKED in the Clinton White House, and I KNOW damn well what it was like

Of course what I said "doesn't mean much to you". You've deified Senator Obama to the point that, by God, any criticism against him is considered blasphemy.

I went through this with the Far Right denouncing any condemnation from Democrats at "unpatriotic". I'm sure as shit not gonna put up with it from the Left!

[merh]

104. LOL, where the hell did I say anyone was unpatriotic?

Emotion much? Seriously, if you worked in the WH I hope you were less emotional and irrational then than you are right now.

I have merely said it is pathetic that folks for Hillary will condemn Obama for actions and/or statements that both she and Bill have made. If you are going to throw the rocks be sure that they can't be thrown right back at you, like the "reagan" statements.

My challenging you and the others for faulting Obama for the same damn things Hillary and Bill have said and done is just that, challenging you. If you can't handle the debate rationally then push yourself away from the keyboard and take a walk. Nowhere in my posts have I called anyone unpatriotic, your theatrics are not necessary and are rather childish.

Now deep breath and stop with the attacks, find the positive and stop with the bullshit slams. They just keep making you look bad as they uncover the sides of the Clintons that most folks forgot about or didn't realize existed. They were not perfect while in the White House, she was not in his head, by his side at all times and she didn't have national security clearance. His experiences are not her's.

.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

70. yea what kind of Democrat is he anyway?

hey, have fun not voting for our nominee this November, hypocrite.

[stillcool]

77. Good for you.

Condemnation prior to Investigation is no way to choose a President.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday. A voter at the town hall in Greenburg had asked Obama to respond to charges that his foreign policy was naïve

"Remember, people were saying why didn't you go into Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein? The realists understood that that would be a nightmare. And it wasn't worth our national interests," Obama added.

"Certainly George Bush's foreign policy has been dominated by the idea that because we are so militarily powerful we can dictate events around the world," he said. "If people don't like it doesn't matter because we are the biggest, toughest thing on the block. Now that is naïve." . . .

Senator Obama often quotes JFK in his Foreign Policy speeches and states that he shares his philosophy. He credits Bush Sr. for not attempting to overthrow Hussein. He prefers a Foreign policy of negotiating rather than acting unilaterally..as regards to Reagan. Unfortunately you would actually have to read or listen to his views on Foreign Policy. That is not likely to happen, is it?

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. What positive accomplishments do you credit Reagan for?

Beginning the movement to dismantle welfare and the Great Society?

Escalating the arms race to bring us out of recession by exporting
all our manufacturing jobs overseas?

Torturing foreigners to protect US investments in cheap labor overseas markets from the Soviets?

Inventing modern homelessness?

Funding the first Afghan War by creating the mujahedeen, a previously unknown phenomenon, in order to isolate Iran and the Soviets by funding, training and arming groups like Al Qaeda?

Stealing tens of billions of dollars in royalties from Native American tribal coffers?

Saying we'll all be dead from Armageddon before we have to worry about environmentalism?

Importing drugs into the inner city using CIA front companies like the one Bush Sr. landed his son in Honduras, exporting "hothouse vegetables" into Miami using small planes captained by Gary Powers?

[stillcool]

111. Accomplishments? I thought we..

were talking about foreign policy philosophy and unilateral war?

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html
The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition

**Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
**Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
**Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
**Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

[DerekJ]

2. From HillaryClinton.com

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

Posted at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5312133&mesg_id=5312167

Read that thread before you continue, before you prove yourself to be a fool.

Do we really have to repeat threads, or are you guys out of attacks.

[CatnHat]

4. It's from Obama's

mouth.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/29/837657.aspx

Obama states:

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday. A voter at the town hall in Greenburg had asked Obama to respond to charges that his foreign policy was naïve.

[DerekJ]

8. Sorry I don't get it. So just because Obama because it was verbal, not written, it exonerates her

from saying the same thing.
WHAT KIND of Bull Shit is that?
Your Queen is saying the same bloody thing.
So STFU and read my post above.

[stillcool]

80. What is it that you have a problem with?

Obama has stated many times that George Jr. should have followed George Sr. and not attempted to over-throw Saddam Hussein. That containment was working. The Reagan Administration also had the ability to negotiate, and John F. Kennedy believed that we should talk to our enemies as well as our friends. Now, if you would like to read about Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers, and their philosophies...here's a little teeny bit...
about "Policy"?

Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[CatnHat]

14. A bi-partisan cabinet is one thing. .

but following the 'tradition' of Bush Sr, and Ronald Reagan's foreign policy is quite another. Obama really has a 'thing' with Reagan politics; this guy is clearly out for those elusive "independent" voters again. This time he might not be so lucky.

[DerekJ]

17. Who spoke about a bi-partisan cabinet?!!

Obama said, and I quote:

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan,"

He said his foreign policy resembles a mix of three presidents known to have great foreign policy traits.

What’s wrong with that?!!

Obama has praised GWB for what he has done in Africa, and rightfully so. He was pretty much a fool on everything else, but when it came to Africa, he got that one right.

[OzarkDem]

52. and a complete rejection of Clinton's foreign policy

one of the most successful Democratic presidents in the area of foreign policy, who brought more peace and prosperity than any Dem president in recent history.

Obama wants to travel down the same road as Bush II and do everything the opposite of Clinton. That has been such a successful strategy...:sarcasm:

I'm not one to call names in these situations, but Obama is coming off as an ignorant fool.

[stillcool]

81. bullshit..

about "Policy"?

Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[blm]

90. BULLSHIT - Clinton CONTINUED Bush1's policies AND protected his illegal operations

and Obama hasn't even a CLUE how illegal alot of that crap was because Clinton spent the 90s PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS from the truth about just how illegal those operations were - and instead Clinton let Poppy and Reagan get REHABILITATED in every way possible so a Bush2 COULD get into the WH again.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. Here we have a Canadian telling Dems how GHB and Reagan were among our best forein policy presidents

And DUers, many of them too young to remember the Cold War, eat it up!!!!

:cry: :cry: :cry: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Submariner]

5. Obama represents a change to the 'machine' politics of Bush/Clinton

As a progressive democrat he represents us, and not the aforementioned machines. His statement is meant to draw a distinction between the non-diplomacy approach of Dubya, and a return to a more diplomacy first approach practiced by prior presidents.

Do not read into it what is not there. He is not Bush I or Reagan. As bad as they were, they at least did not invade a country that was no threat to us under false pretenses. I was 16 when JFK was murdered, so I felt the hope of everybody drain out of them. We see Obama as another chance for that character in our lifetime, thus we reject the big machine politics so apparent since the Reagan/Bush I era.

[Political Heretic]

6. He is not a "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination

He is a center-left moderate democrat, and still the right choice for this country in 2008.

[DerekJ]

11. Yah, he is not a progressive.

Hell no real progressive can be elected in the U.S. now.

[Political Heretic]

18. Indeed. But I don't support O as some "lesser" choice. I think he is the exact right choice.

What we need in 2008 is not a true progressive. The political culture of American will not sustain a Kucinich or a Nader. And I say that as a person who's values would be characterized as "radical" or "lefist" - not liberal, not Democratic.

The reason I believe Obama is the exact right choice for President in 2008 is because while my "ends" may be radical, my "means" are pragmatic. I am a practical idealist. I am in touch with the realities of America today. All substantive change is incremental - even if it sometimes contains very dramatic chapters.

What we need now is a leader who can help reframe political discussion in America, and who can inject the inspiration and passion into the American public that has been tragically missing for so long. Barack Obama is the George Lakoff candidate. His message of unity is not about moving the center-left to the right. His message is about moving the entire scope of political debate two steps to the left. Or think of it another way, he is bring the "left" into the mainstream not by changing core values, but by teaching America new frames for traditional liberal ideas.

It is a good thing that Obama isn't wrapped up in partisan rhetoric, its a good thing that he celebrates cross-over conservatives and speaks to them in an open way. I know its discomforting for some of ye olde party guard, but its what we need. He is deftly teaching an American public that ideas that have been so successfully framed as "evil libruhl" by the Republican Party in the past are in fact not "conservative" or "liberal" ideas - they are simply American ideas reflecting of real American values. In this way Obama is giving Americans permission to accept the reasonability, validity and necessity of democratic ideas in government again. He is, as I said, re-framing the scope of political discourse in America.

It takes a phenomenally gifted speaker at visionary to do this. What an Obama President can do, is continue to reform the american political climate making it more fertile ground for the next stage of liberal or even progressive politician to become viable. He can use his charisma, inspiration and vision to build the Democratic Party to compete in the 21st century, with the help of another visionary - Howard Dean. Together they can help put democrats into positions of party power and political office that share that same ability to effectively frame the issues in a George Lakoffian style. And this will all lay the foundation for a real shot and electing a genuine, full-fledged liberal President in 2016.

It may not all work according to plan. But its a good plan, and its the reason I support Obama.

[DerekJ]

27. Great post, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Great post, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

[alarimer]

47. No fucking way am I voting for him.

I HATE him more than any of the others but they can all go to hell as far as I am concerned. I am NOT voting this fall because they all suck.

Visionary my ass. More like corporate whore and DINO.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. NOT Voting = 1/2 of a vote for McStain. Thanks for your help.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. What you are describing is a "transition candidate"

The country has been shoved so far to the right that in order to have a more sustainable, long-term left or center environment, the change has to come in increments. A full blown shove to the left would probably result in a single-term President, a la Carter, resulting in a march back to the right again. It will take time to reprogram the nation from the brainwashing of the Gingrich and Limbaugh crowd.

[uponit7771]

73. This should be a top post. I understand him wanting to change the diction of issues but that

...diction has gotten people elected so I think he has an uphill battle.

The audacity of hope is what drives him.

We have a lot of work to do

[Leopolds Ghost]

110. Perhaps. Or we can say "screw progressivism" which has always been weak sister of state conservatism

And return to the TRUE POPULIST tradition which traditionally informed
American politics.

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. And that is due to the racial, political, media and economic groundwork laid by Reagan nt

[CatnHat]

10. Absurb

Why didn't Obama compare his policies with any recent democrats? Makes one wonder about him and exactly what he stands for.

[DerekJ]

12. Did you f!@#$ read the statement on HillaryClinto.con or you are ignoring it on purpose?!!

Let me know so I can reply accordingly

[MadBadger]

16. What's wrong with comparing your policies to Kennedy?

[susankh4]

21. Bay of Pigs

Look it up!

[MadBadger]

23. You know even the greatest presidents have screwed up once in awhile

Bill Clinton had DOMA, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and NAFTA, FDR tried to illegally pack the court to his liking.

[susankh4]

25. Yes.

And that is why I never really talk about JFK's lack of experience. He was a Dem prez. And I don't bash them.

But, since the question was asked.... I thought it was a good idea to point out that he did have some problems. Most of us wrote it off as inexperience, tho. And still consider him a good president for his time.

There is no problem with Obama hailing JFK.

Bush and Ray-gun...... that is just too much for me. Sorry.

[OzarkDem]

67. Agree, adopting the twisted foreign policy of Bush and Reagan

is beyond the pale.

Its difficult to find anything in their foreign policy records worth adopting.

[UALRBSofL]

72. Listening to Bill Clinton at the convention

He relates in '92 he won the democratic nomination but he and Gore were 3rd in the polls behind Perrot and Bush but in the end they won. So he says not to depend on polls. Also, we are seeing Obama endorse the Republican Candidates, several times he endorsed Reagan/Bush41. So, BigDog says we don't need another trickle down economics. I was rolling in the floor. :rofl:

[MNDemNY]

62. Vietnam..there is some info out there on this as well.

[CatnHat]

22. Why throw

Reagan and Bush Sr. in the mix?? Why does Obama have a Reagan fixation?

[Tellurian]

35. Obama is looking for Repuke Votes..

He threw his grandmother under the bus and eventually Wright under the bus... No surprise he won't throw the whole country under the same bus as well.

[OzarkDem]

58. Why doesn't he praise Clinton's foreign policy achievements?

Instead he attacks them to diminish Hillary's positive experience.

Bill Clinton is a far better role model for foreign policy than Ronald Reagan or Bush I, better even than Kennedy (Clinton was in office longer and dealt with a hostile GOP Congress).

[susankh4]

20. Me too....

I am really confused about why I would want to elect him. Bush Senior? Really?? Desert Storm????? I was appalled by that war. Just as I was by Bush Jr's.

And Ray-gun, if you do not remember.... was for building battle stations in outer space!!!





:wtf:

[MonkeyFunk]

36. Because the only "recent" Democrat

is Bill Clinton, and Obama can't say much of anything good about the Clinton presidency without reflecting well on Hillary. That's the political truth - it sort of limits Obama in the primary season.

[merh]

76. How was Clinton's foreign policy different than Reagan's or Bush I?

I've asked this of others and had no response.

Didn't Clinton just continue the foreign policy of Bush I in Iraq?

Didn't he continue the illegal no fly zones?

Didn't he create the Iraq Liberation Act and wasn't that act used to bolster Bush II's invasion into Iraq?

Seriously you folks need to realize that this can of worm is not favorable to Bill Clinton and by extension, is not favorable to Hillary.

[papau]

28. we reject the big machine politics"?? LOL - Obama is a product of the Chicago Machine

[OzarkDem]

40. "Progressive" means following Bush and Reagan?

Put whatever label on it you wish but its still failed Republican garbage policy, proven wrong many times over.

[QC]

48. In the eyes of Obama's minions, progressive is whatever he says it is. n/t

[OzarkDem]

59. Machine of Bush/Clinton?

Get real. That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time, second only to the blarney about Obama being a progressive.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. "not Bush I or Reagan. they did not invade a country that was no threat to us under false pretenses"

Oh, my.

:argh:

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. And not a single reply suggesting any obvious proof that DUers are historically informed on this:

They have internalized their parents' generation propaganda about yet another
American criminal in the tradition of Andrew Jackson.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. Let Me Repeat: El Salvador. Honduras. Guatemala. Nicaragua. Grenada. Panama. Lebanon. Somalia.

Persian Gulf War, as it was called (1980-1990 between Iraq and Iran).

Oh, you forgot about that one?

Afghanistan I.

Gulf War II (1991).

Lebanon (a dismal failure that, along with Clinton/Bush's mishandling of
Somalia, set us up for future terrorist attack -- by organizations which
had the full initial backing of Reagan's large clandestine ops budget
designed to create and train "friendly Muslim" terrorist cells modeled
after the British "divide and rule" military strategy. Criminals like
Oliver North, John Poindexter, George Bush I & II, and John Negroponte
had their hands in running these day-to-day operations. Reagan was a
Warren Harding style mouthpiece, a CEO President whose job was to mau mau
a gullible public with plausibly deniable affability.

[Skittles]

7. election strategy

Obama is smart enough to know no matter what his experience, next to McCain in foreign matters the corporate media will easily paint him as a lightweight - and as much as I detest the first bush he surely was right to not go into Baghdad, wasn't he? And Reagan has been successfully painted as some kind of foreign policy king. Still, I'm surprised to see Obama talking like this before the nomination is sewn up - it's probably because of how long this Primary stuff is going on.

[UALRBSofL]

32. Skittles I just came up with a brainstorm

I think it's time for the BigDog to ratchet up his stump speech in Pa, In, NC because these are the areas of the Reagan/Democrats. And, as you know, Bill has been compared to Reagan many times over the years by the public and I believe it's time BigDog redirect some of that Reaganesque charisma to Hillary and start comparing Hillary to Reagan. When Bill talks, people listen.

[sendero]

34. Exactly...

... people around here are just not realistic. We might not think much of Reagan and Bush I, but the rest of the country does.

Were their foreign policies great? No, but they were infinitely better than what we have now, and Obama needs some kind of yardstick to compare himself to.

Works for me.

[Skittles]

87. I don't care much for Democrats having to suck up to repukes

repukes disgust me beyond belief - but I do understand election strategy, no matter how distasteful it can be

[susankh4]

19. This tendency to hark back to Reagan

is a really disturbing pattern for a Democrat.

What gives?

I hated the Ray-gun years.

[merh]

61. Hillary has said basically the same thing

You folks need to stop with this crap, you live in a very glass house

... in a book by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw called “Boom! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Recollections on the ‘60s and Today”, Brokaw quotes Clinton as saying that, “She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan,” (Page 404). “He was, she says, 'a child of the Depression, so he understood it . When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully".

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/01/hillarys-lies-a.html

[Hippo_Tron]

75. It's called playing to the center

Most voters don't remember Iran-Contra and all of the screwing around in Latin America that we did under Raygun.

But making the point that George Bush's father formed an actual coalition before going into Iraq is a good argument to make the unilateral crowd look stupid.

[Leopolds Ghost]

109. The centrist coalition reagan formed was a coalition of racist, white Archie Bunkerites centered on:

1. Unions are obsolete

2. Japanese investment in US manufacturing is killing our nation,
so we must export all our factories overseas

3. Black people took my job, so we must export all our factories overseas

4. The old neighborhood is fucked since blacks and Central American
refugees moved in, so we must bulldoze it and export all our investment
to the anti-Union, anti-urban, pro-GOP Sunbelt

5. Defense industry jobs are the only acceptable stimulus and caused the
Soviet Union to end the Cold War

6. We must punish the former Soviet Union for making us look bad in
Vietnam

7. Commies, gays, blacks and anyone who isn't a Horatio Alger flag-waving
jingo-capitalist or an evangelical KKK member is evil.

8. I loved FDR back when the government did things for REAL Americans.
The government and civil society is now run by _____ and can no
longer be trusted or relied upon. Only wealth can gain me power
and a voice in a growing, free society

9. We must never again allow the _____ to block our access to cheap oil

That is the platform of the Reagan Democrats.

[Hippo_Tron]

112. Very true

[blm]

91. What gives...Most Americans don't know HOW illegal alot of it was because Clinton closed the books

throughout the 90s on so many of BushInc's illegal operations and the outstanding matters that needed further scrutiny.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Hitler Was A Vegetarian

Ergo, all vegetarians are genocidal nuts.

QED

[UALRBSofL]

29. Obama Panders To Reagan/Clinton Democrats

Obviously my header explains it all. Hillary supporters you know we can't have him thieving them away from us. We are gonna have to put a stop to that. As Lou Dobbs said it best, "Obama if your gonna pander to Latinos and Reagan Democrats at least do it with class." :)

[asteroid2003QQ47]

31. My foreign policy will return to ...

the traditional realistic ways of Ronald Reagan.

Translation: Obama will consult an astrologer before killing brown skin sub-humans en masse.

That certainly makes ME feel a LOT better!

[UALRBSofL]

33. Uppsss you didn't post that

OMG, not sure if that's good or bad.

[alarimer]

49. Anybody remember Iran-Contra?

Undermining duly elected governments was what Reagan did. If Reagan didn't know about that, Bush certainly did.

Invading Panama, Grenada? Is that what Obama wants to emulate?

He sucks.

[OzarkDem]

53. Obama supporters think it was a good idea

either that or they'll start blaming it on Bill Clinton.

[blm]

89. Bill Clinton was FOR IranContra policy - and certainly did more than his share of covering up

for it, too.

Obama hasn't said he'll engage in the ILLEGAL OPERATIONS Of BushInc - and I'm sure he'll learn more about that as he starts reading what is actually IN those books that Clinton kept closed for Poppy Bush throughout the 90s.

[mmonk]

37. Your title is misleading.

[OzarkDem]

38. Obama needs to run on the GOP ticket

Sorry, but those were failed administrations that caused a great deal of damage to our country and the world. Clinton was able to come in and turn it around. Why would Obama want to return us to the same failed policies.

There is no way I would support him knowing he espouses such ridiculous beliefs.

Its time for Obama supporters to wake up and take a good long look at who they're backing. Democratic voters are being sold a bogus bill of goods.

[Vinca]

39. Love the way the OP omits John F. Kennedy from the title of the post.

"My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday.

[UALRBSofL]

41. It's tragic how most americans compare Clinton42 to Reagan

But noooo Obama can't give credit to BigDog. You know how it is, Obama out for himself.

[Vinca]

43. Does this mean we should be comparing Hillary to Reagan

since she claimed much of Bill's presidency?

[QC]

42. He never misses a chance to praise Republicans...

or trash Democrats.

He should be running on the GOP ticket.

[stillcool]

78. Want to read something?

about "Policy"?

Behind Obama and Clinton
Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008

Editor: John Feffer

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.


While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
----------------

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
--------------------------------

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
---------------------

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
--------------
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[Algorem]

44. he's gotta be practicing for april fools' day,right?

[gulliver]

45. Obama endorses Bush I on war. Bush I endorses McCain... n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

50. This is a major issue with me as to why I have a problem with Obama....

his constant channeling of Repuke Presidents above good Democratic ones.


sorry but his loving on Rethugs is getting to be a tad overwhelming.

[OzarkDem]

54. I hope Hillary brings this up in her campaign

and I also hope she starts talking about Obama's problems with health care reform.

[Danger Mouse]

55. she wouldn't dare speak poorly of big dog's good buddy bush 41

and she's smart enough to know that speaking badly of reagan would kill her chances with moderates.

[Forkboy]

82. I hope she does too, as it'll make her look even more stupid than she already does.

[stillcool]

85. Hillary can't go near JFK..

Reagan or Bush I's foreign policy. The Clinton's are firmly entrenched in Bush Jr.'s 'scorched earth' policy.

[unblock]

57. obama rightly gives credit where credit is due. that's what uniting the country is all about.

it's too much of a strech to say that poppy was a foreign policy genius compared to shrub. that doesn't mean he was "good" overall, but there were certainly sophisticated and resposible aspects of it, unlike in shrub's case.

getting practically the entire world on board for the war, and getting others to pay for nearly all of it, really was an expert move and deserving of praise.

that whole april glaspie thing was horrendous, whether it was incompetence or a deliberate trap. nor did i care for the rhetoric in trivializing hitler to try to make saddam out to be as evil as possible, as if he was anything approaching a genocidal world-conquerer.

having said that, obama is absolutely right to pay easy tribute to the few things the repukes did well. it helps -- indeed, it's NECESSARY -- to avoid being pinned as an incorrigible partisan liberal.

that doesn't make obama a republican. unless, of course, you're a "you're either with us or against us" kind of partisan democrat....

[OzarkDem]

60. Up is down

wrong is right, black is white..

Sorry, I'm not that gullible.

Reagan was a bad president

Bush I was a bad president

Bush II is a bad president

Bill Clinton was a good president

Trying to spin it otherwise only takes us farther down the road to disaster.

[GoldieAZ49]

64. It is ok if Obama emulates Republicans

It isn't like he is going against any long held beliefs of his own.

Those pesky democratic principles are what have been dividing this country...don't you enjoy Unity?

Gee, you may not be keen on the changes I think you need a large drink of Obama Juice directly from the HopePope. :beer:

Feel better?

Didn't think so.

[anigbrowl]

84. Well, who do you suggest he namecheck on the Democratic side?

LBJ, who committed the US to Viet Nam? Jimmy Carter, who lacked a clear foriegn policy direction? Maneuvering the USSR into Afghanitan was sort of clever, but arguably not that productive in the long term. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not bad but not all that great either. He had the advantage of a peace dividend without having had to lay any of the groundwork, and many of his military decisions were hesitant and half-formed.

On the other hand, he did a lot of positive things involving free trade (eg cementing US relations with China), as well as hard work in Northern Ireland and with Israel/Palestine.

[unblock]

66. so you ARE a "you're either with us or against us" democrat

interesting that you criticise obama for praising one of the few things a recent republican did well and yet, you borrow a reprehensible framing from shrub.

poppy was indeed a terrible president, but the one thing that obama praised him for (the coalition buiding and financing of the first gulf war) was one of the few things poppy did well.

i would love it if obama (or hillary, for that matter) emulated that aspect of poppy's foreign policy, while hopefully chosing better wars to be engaged in in the first place.

[totodeinhere]

63. In fact, I personally opposed the first gulf war.

But many Democrats including Gore did support it at the time. Kerry opposed it though if I remember correctly.

It was not so cut and dried at the time as some people seem to want to characterize it now. And you are right, Bush Sr. conducted that war much more intelligently than Shrub is doing now. I think you can praise Bush Sr's pragmatism as Obama did and not necessarily be in favor of the premise for that war. I would have favored more peaceful efforts first. And just like Zbigniew Brzezinksi said, I think there was a good chance that we could have forced Saddam out of there without going to war.

But to take the simplistic approach that just because Obama made some realistic comments about foreign policy practiced by previous Republican administrations, that somehow that makes him a traitor to the Democrats is just silly.

[cooolandrew]

65. I think it's wiser he starts being less opposed to the current administration. Just do mccain.

I think given all we have seen his best target for opponent is mccain. Barack is using his head very wisely.

[OzarkDem]

69. He's not using his head at all

but his quote is very revealing of what he really believes vis a vis foreign policy and its not the direction we need to go.

[That Guy 888]

71. It seems like Senator Clinton's supporters are running out of kitchen sinks

This post and the responses of Senator Clinton's supporters show the increased desperation of a campaign circling the drain. Insults without information and cheap attacks that only work if you ignore the substance for the surface.

At least with the ignore function I won't have to see Senator Clinton's more deluded supporters until after the primaries.

[OzarkDem]

74. Looks like Obama's "sinking" with this statement

Apparently he needs to be more careful before his supporters find out whose policies he really supports.

Those of us in the health care reform arena sussed him out a long time ago as a DINO.

[Forkboy]

83. You're in health care reform?

No wonder we're so fucked.

[anonymous171]

79. I guess you forgot to mention JOHN FUCKING KENNEDY in your OP.

[stillcool]

86. doesn't count...

neither does Senator Obama's stated philosophy on Foreign Policy, Neither does the philosophy of his advisers. Now they excerpt without the excerpt?

[Leopolds Ghost]

108. JFK was a center-right Democrat.

Reagan idolized him by means of trying to explain that anyone to the left of JFK was a wild-eyed hippie. Classic Overton window manipulation of (DU) perceptions.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. Some people cannot handle someone who breaks the mold

judging by the crowds for Obama and the national polls people aren't so stupid as they look and understand this thing called change!