Candidates' foreign policy views take on added significance after Bhutto's death

[Evergreen Emerald]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071228/NEWS09/712280373/-1/caucus


Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's assassination Thursday sparked efforts by some presidential campaigns in Iowa to distinguish themselves on foreign policy and national security.


Brookings Institution foreign policy scholar Michael O'Hanlon said Clinton and Biden emerge from the issue as stronger than their rivals.

"Clinton and Biden have the most to offer here," said O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert. "By contrast, Obama's somewhat vaguer emphasis on change and on personal presidential diplomacy aren't very applicable in Pakistan."

Clinton has proposed sending a special U.S. envoy to Pakistan to work specifically on helping the nation stabilize, in light of the recent constitutional crisis involving Musharraf. Biden has urged making financial aid to Pakistan conditional on Musharraf making democratic reforms.

The assassination is not expected to have a sweeping effect on the 2008 races, but it could reinforce leanings or tip undecided voters swayed by foreign policy experience, said James Lindsay, a leading scholar on the politics of foreign policy at University of Texas at Austin.

[Sparkly]

1. As long as we're going down that road, why no comparisons between Dem and GOP?

If the MSM has done that, I've missed it. Plenty of discussion of primaries, but not whether voter preference is altered party to party.

It also strikes me as dumb that Tweety et al want to cast this as a matter of who's "tough on terror," as usual. When will they get that it's about smart and effective, not tough and violent? This should be another example of how dangerous neo-con recklessness is for the middle east, and what a terrible situation their ineptitude has enabled. And Democrats should draw that distinction.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. You are right, I had not thought of that

There has been no discussions comparing democrats to republicans regarding foreign policy. That will come in the general, however.

[ccpup]

4. I found that fascinating as well.

It's almost as if what the repugs offered in response to the incredibly unfortunate and barbaric assassination of Benzir Bhutto wasn't really worth making any comparison to. I almost feel as if it's common knowledge -- with the talking heads as well as the American People -- that a Democrat in the WH is some sort of inevitability in 2008 and now it's just a matter of choosing from a generous handful of really good Candidates.

[opihimoimoi]

2. Hillary's indirect foreign policy experiences are better than No Experiences, she gains

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. the experts are not affiliated with any campaign

and still give Clinton points for her experience.

[Windy]

6. When it mattered, that is when she was in the senate,

she failed miserably.

IWR and Kyl/Lieberman, not to mention voting against a measure to limit the use of cluster bombs.

Her judgment is consistently poor....and it matters!

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. You are wrong

IWR: everyone voted for it in the race but Obama who later admitted that he does not know how he would have voted. Clinton stated at the time that she is against war, and it is a last resort. You are buying into the right-wing talking points when you argue that the vote was a "vote for war."

The Cluster bombs: they did vote to ban them...the vote you are talking about was poorly written and they all supported another. You don't even have your facts straight.

Kyl-Leiberman: I know you know this, and still just twist and distort. Obama, Edwards, Biden all said the very same things about the terrorist groups who were from Iran killing our troops. Obama did not even vote, so he could later claim anything he wanted. If this were actually a vote for war--Obama should have been shouting from the roottops--instead did not even bother to show up.

[opihimoimoi]

8. Good response......

:toast:

[Windy]

9. As for Kyl/Lieberman, the earlier measure did not authorize the use of force

military force from Iraq to deal with Iran. That is the go ahead for war that many including Jim Webb realized and spoke out against.

As for your claimed later bill banning cluster bombs that your candidate allegedly signed on to, give me a link.

With regard to the Iraq war, Obama made a speech at the time that the resolution was passed condeming it. His statement with regard to "now knowing how he would have voted if in the senate" was made in a speech at the democratic national convention where Kerry was nominated. A historic speech, and insupport of a candidate who voted for the resolution. (kerry)

Not to mention that all the other candidates who voted for the IWR stated publically and categorically that they made a mistake in voting for the resolution. Hillary TO THIS DAY Will Not Make That Statement.

She is consistent in making policy mistakes and exercising poor judgment!