I believe every single one of our candidates has enough foreign policy

[cali]

experience to assume the presidency competently. I believe Obama's perspective garnered from growing up, in part, in Indonesia is valuable. I believe that Clinton's years as first lady and advisor to Bill Clinton are valuable. I believe John Edwards years in the Senate count as experience. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson clearly have the experience and knowledge needed. Except for Dennis and perhaps Richardson, they've all made what I consider grievous errors, but I don't believe any of them will lead us into another war- and that includes Clinton.

They all have better judgement than the repukes, and better foreign policy experience than the top repuke candidates.

I wish they'd stop sniping at each other about this issue, and I wish that DUers would stop the gratuitous attacks. I fully realize that neither is going to happen, but it would be far better for the field, and for dems in general if they put a swift end to it.

[whirlygigspin]

1. that is a nice sentiment...but it's not true

just ask the President of Canada.

[cali]

2. What are you talking about? Do you mean Canada's PM?

And what isn't true? Or can't you actually explain yourself?

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Here's another thought about our candidates "sniping at each other"

about relative foreign policy experience: GWB had next-to-no such credentials. That was a major point of attack from our candidates in 2000, and again in 2004. And here we are.

I suspect that the eventual Democratic candidate will move on ahead of the pack and away from this stuff soon; that will be another sign of foresight.

[rucky]

4. Biden and Richardson stand out in this area.

Head and shoulders above the rest. It doesn't disqualify anybody else, since it's not the only criteria for picking a president. I respect Hillary for giving Joe credit where credit is due

"Joe is Right": http://blog.joebiden.com/?p=1379

- if only the frontrunners (the LEAST experienced overall in the field) would see how silly they are for talking about which one of them is the least least-experienced.

[cali]

5. yep. Biden , Richardson and Dodd have far more foreign policy

expierience than the top three. And the bickering among the top three is just silly.

[Larry Ogg]

6. There is great diversity in opinion as to what our foreign policy should be

The results of what our conservative bipartisan foreign policy is, came home to roost on 911 and continues to haunt the world and threatens global extinction. So what do you mean by stating “I believe every single one of our candidates has enough foreign policy experience to assume the presidency competently". The leading democratic candidates will continue, in one form or another the same policy, with maybe a slight change in outward appearance. Dennis Kucinich on the other hand might scrap much of which we have grown accustom to and create a new foreign policy based on fair trade instead of ‘give us what we want or else’ free trade. Dennis Kucinich wants a strength through peace foreign policy something that the leading democratic candidates don’t want to talk about. So experience in a failed foreign policy means very little if one fails to recognize it as such and plans to continue down the same destructive path. Therefore the premise of your OP is subjectively ludicrous as it puts you literally on both sides of right and wrong.

Do think our foreign policy should change or do you think it should stay the same?

Dennis Kucinich is the alternative to the “Experience” of failure…