heh, good point. it's just interesting in the context of his battle with hillary, I'd say...

I think Obama ends with a good point. There are tons of people in Washington who don't know a thing about foreign policy. Just being in the Capitol is no answer.

That said, Richardson knows a lot more about foreign diplomacy than Obama does. Which is why Richardson should be a diplomat, rather than president.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Obama explains how he came to his judgment on the Iraq War

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but wouldn't the president to be a gifted diplomat? Aren't they the ones that have to persuade heads of state for other nations?

If I did agree with your statement, I would do so humbly.

However, that doesn't address what Obama is saying. Which is that his "experiences" make him qualified for the post of President. Considering one of the 4-5 biggest responsibilities of the President is to establish foreign policy and relations, I would think he'd need more practical experience to be more qualified than, say, a former First Lady, multi-term Senator, or even a Governor.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

This is an interesting move for Obama. He's starting to try and distinguish himself in a more substantive way than "hope". He has to do this sort of thing, but if he starts getting into more and more squabbles with other candidates he runs the risk of losing his anti-cynicism persona. He's staked a lot in that narrative which I've always thought was a bit dangerous.

Since Rasmussen has Clinton gaining ground on Obama (despite being the most anti-Clinton of polls), he's going to have to be more agressive. One of my big criticisms of Obama is that I don't know how he'll handle difficult political battles since he's had his presidential campaign handed to him in the form of two campaign scandals. Not that he's not gifted, but he was able orchestrate his current narrative because he didn't have to ever fight back. Things would be quite different if he had a long drawn out fight with Ryan back in '04.

I believe living overseas within another culture, as Obama apparently did, does offer an unmatchable opportunity for gaining a deeper understanding of how other peoples see the world. Of course opportunity is one thing, taking up the opportunity is another. Obama's record suggests that he did gain a more incisive view of international issues than most of his competition.

I'm not an Obama supporter at this point, but I do believe he could bring some fresh air into the stale Beltway echo chamber regarding international issues. I just wish he was showing the same potential regarding some domestic concerns.

I absolutely agree that living overseas or within another culture can provide the opportunity for deeper understanding and appreciation for how other people see the world. This is one aspect of living overseas as a kid that I always take to heart (I'm often accused of being an Asiaphile).

However, my point is that it's rather audacious for Obama to claim he has the BEST grasp of foreign policy of any other candidate simply because he lived overseas. Let's not forget that Clinton was a First Lady for 8 years, and accompanied Bill on official visits quite frequently. Richardson also has quite a bit of foreign relation experience.

If one is going to set the bar as "best", then one better provide some darn compelling arguments for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Obiously, a President needs to be able to represent the country well. There are a whole host of other diplomatic skills though, that the diplomats handle. That's Richardson's forte.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Actually, the quote didn't say that his "experience" makes him the most qualified. Indeed, he seems to be rejecting the notion that foreign policy credentials ought to be based on some threshold you meet to become "qualified."

He said his judgment is better than anyone else's in the field. He explained what he thinks uniquely effects his judgment (how and where he grew up), but he's not selling those experiences. He's selling the way they informed his world-view.

Look at the first and last sentence again. He's not saying he has the most or the best experience; he's saying "experience" shouldn't even be the metric we're talking about here. And he's right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al had decades of experience in Wash. and in foreign policy, and it didn't a damn thing for their judgment. Which ended up being far more disastrous than Bush's lack of experience.

What differentiated Colin Powell and Cheney and Rumsfeld on their debates over Iraq? Experience? No.

You are correct, in that Obama did not say his "experiences" made him the most qualified. Rather, it was his judgement in foreign policy. However, if you read the second paragraph, he gives his justifications for his supposed best judgements based on... wait for it... his experiences of living overseas.

What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.

In this case, it seems to me that his judgements are the end product of his experiences. It's life experiences that shape our judgements and values. What I'm saying is that I don't believe his life experiences necessarily lead him to have the best judgements of foreign policy.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

There's nothing cynical about pointing out your strengths or even others weaknesses.

It seems unfair to criticize Obama b/c he had some good luck during his Senate race. You are going to see how he does in a difficult political battle right now as he runs against Sen. Clinton.

I agree with your first paragraph, in that one doesn't need to be ensconced in the DC crowd to get foreign relations experience.

Heads of multinational corporation and state Governors are just two examples of non-DC folks who could have serious experience, and in my opinion better value judgements, in dealing with foreign governments. Usually, those types approach foreign policy in a more even-handed tone, since they usually want something from the reciprocating government. This, in my opinion, is much preferrable to the zero-sum game DC seems to push.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

In this case, it seems to me that his judgements are the end product of his experiences. It's life experiences that shape our judgements and values. What I'm saying is that I don't believe his life experiences necessarily lead him to have the best judgements of foreign policy.

That's fine, but that's the debate he wants to have. He would much rather talk about who's displayed better judgment than who has accumulated more experience. Dig? You might not be convinced, but the whole point is to re-frame it in a way beneficial to him.

If we're talking about who's displayed the best judgment, whether or not you're convinced the answer is "Obama," its still a much more advantageous terms of debate for him than talking about who has the most experience on the matter. And its probably a more substantial way of debating it anyway. I really don't care if someone has been working on foreign policy in Washington for 50 years, if he thinks Saddam's WMDs are hidden in Syria, I think his judgment sucks. Talking about "experience" without connecting it to judgment is like awarding the valedictorian based on attendance record.

Its a re-framing issue.

Fair enough, I imagine this probably wasn't meant to be public anyway, but rather testing stuff out.

I'd like to know what's up with user Plowboy downgrading all of my comments with "0"s and not giving any explanations.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Well, I think the fact that Bush never left the US before becoming prez, and the mindset that accompanies that, has a LOT to do with the disaster we're facing now. Pretty much all the current foreign policy gurus are living in the unbreakable bubble that has gotten us where we are today. A president who can see beyond that bubble, and introduce our myopic population to a slightly more international perspective would be a huge step forward all by itself.

As far as "audacious", you don't get to be a political power in America without it. Why pick on Obama for that? It's no more audacious than Hillary claiming that being a president's wife makes her the best qualified, and let's face it -- her mediocre record in the Senate alone would not have gotten her anywhere near credibility as a contender.

I didn't criticize Obama for having good luck. I was trying to point out that one of the reasons I have a hard time getting ga-ga over Obama is because I don't know how he will handle some of the pressure. He's clearly gifted, as I stated explicitly, and I'd have no trouble voting for him over any GOP candidate--or volunteering for him should he win the nomination. He just hasn't shown me anything to get excited about yet.

My comment about "cynicism" is based, as I've mentioned before, on the 2006 CA Gubernatorial race. Steve Westly essentially ran the same campaign as Obama, even running around waving a "no-negative" pledge everywhere. But when things became tough and Westly had to begin contrasting himself with Angelides, he lost his "nice-guy" persona rapidly. I think that's a stupid campaign strategy and reflective of not having run in a difficult race. It limits the efficacy of being aggresive, even though, as you say, pointing out strengths and weaknesses isn't necessarily cyncial.

I'm not really concerned about approval or not. I'm more concerned about my comments being rated as a Troll and having them auto-removed.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Where is Hillary's video on how she came to her judgment on the Iraq War?  Since we know how she voted.  Let's hear her reasoning.

 OOPs, that's right she gave that long winded completely contadictory speech on the Senate floor with all those disclaimers about what her vote did NOT mean before she cast her vote with conviction that supported all those disclaimers.

wow, talk about not knowing now what she knew then... her crystal ball defense

Sen Clinton showed poor judgement or a lack of political courage in her vote for the authorization of force.

Yeah, and this foreign policy dustup is a smokescreen to distract attention from this one immutable fact. Try as they might, the Clinton campaign can't obscure the fact that she and Obama were on opposite sides at the start of the invasion. No amount of verbiage about "experience" will change that.

Isn't Plowboy doing that with a lot of the comments?

Come out, come out, wherever you are...Plowboy. Don't just rate. Comment!

my point is that it's rather audacious for Obama to claim he has the BEST grasp of foreign policy of any other candidate simply because he lived overseas.

Audacious in what sense. You are uncoupling what Obama said, he did not simply focus on living overseas, he also spoke of his critical thinking skills as a lawyer and how he was unpersuaded by the case being made of war, along with the input from those he knew in washington who dealth with foreign policy.  Why are you keying in on his having lived overseas?  He said a lot more than that. It was not one single point but the combination of things that informed his decision making process.

Is there a candidate on the Democratic side who you believe has a better grasp of foreign policy than Obama? Who would that be?

Do you believe that being on the national scene in Washington imbues you with a better grasp of foreign policy?

Let's not forget that Clinton was a First Lady for 8 years, and accompanied Bill on official visits quite frequently.

Do you actually think that being a spouse of a President and traveling on official visits overseas somehow makes you knowledgeable on foreign policy? If so, why?  Hillary seems to have allowed herself to be used as propaganda on numerous occasions with the wife of the Russia as well as the wife of Arafat. She was clueless as to how her actions impacted foreign policy.  More importantly, those foreign travel experiences did not inform her reasoning when it came time to decide to vote for war. That is the salient point here.  Just traveling overseas does not create good judgment.

 then one better provide some darn compelling arguments for it.

Eric, with all due respect, perhaps you are missing the point here? Good judgment does not require compelling arguments or compelling anything. It is simply  matter of being consistently correct over time when difficult decisions have to be made.  So, if you want compelling evidence,look to Obama's actions, his track record in the Senate at both the state and national level and where he stands on the issues for why he is right to make this argument.

You are uncoupling what Obama said, he did not simply focus on living overseas, he also spoke of his critical thinking skills as a lawyer and how he was unpersuaded by the case being made of war, along with the input from those he knew in washington who dealth with foreign policy. Why are you keying in on his having lived overseas? He said a lot more than that. It was not one single point but the combination of things that informed his decision making process.

I'm focusing just on what Obama said in his statement. There was nothing about him being a lawyer, nor being unpersuaded by the case being made for war, nor about his policy advisors. Please read exactly what he said:

"What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders."

Is there a candidate on the Democratic side who you believe has a better grasp of foreign policy than Obama? Who would that be?

This is irrelevant to Obama's argument.

Do you believe that being on the national scene in Washington imbues you with a better grasp of foreign policy?

I do not, as I've mentioned in other comments.

Do you actually think that being a spouse of a President and traveling on official visits overseas somehow makes you knowledgeable on foreign policy? If so, why? Hillary seems to have allowed herself to be used as propaganda on numerous occasions with the wife of the Russia as well as the wife of Arafat. She was clueless as to how her actions impacted foreign policy. More importantly, those foreign travel experiences did not inform her reasoning when it came time to decide to vote for war.

I was using Clinton as a counter-argument that there are other options for gaining foreign policy values and judgements. There are certainly arguments to be made against Clinton. I did not say in my example of Clinton that she was better or not.

That is the salient point here. Just traveling overseas does not create good judgment.

Um... exactly. This is my point. And, it's the only justification that Obama gives in this statement.

Good judgment does not require compelling arguments or compelling anything. It is simply matter of being consistently correct over time when difficult decisions have to be made.

You are correct. Good judgement does not require compelling arguments. However, proving that you HAVE good judgement DOES require compelling arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

So sick and tired of paranoid screwballs like you claiming racism hiding under every bush.

Both Washington and Obama keep flapping their lips in the effort to try to finally get it right when, instead, they should let it go. The unintended consequence is that they keep matters that reflect poorly on them alive into the next news cycles. The analogy is appropriate and accurately makes the point about what I means when I say Obama is a lightweight politician. He makes repeated errors of political judgment and it shows in the polls.

Exactly. In reading Obama's statement, it seems he's stating that his mechanism for developing judgements in foreign policy is better than any other candidate; therefore, his actual judgements should be better.

However, he hasn't 1, proven his mechanism to be better, nor 2, proven that his actual judgements are better.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

The analogy only makes sense insofar as you think its bad for his campaign to keep this in the news. Obviously, they disagree. Plenty on the left, including Matt Yglesias and Brad DeLong, seem to agree with Obama, not Hillary.

Did you click on the link mopper8 gave or just go by the text provided at the top of the thread. Sounds like WRB was talking about the link. Obama elaborates more on the link.

Eric, proving you posess good judgment is about what the person has done, I disagree about needing compelling arguments

I really enjoy your insightulness CT...you slice through all the fog and smoke the Hillary machine is sending out on the floor and into the public to disguise her awful record as a 2nd term Senator and political vapidity. Hillary is is not a global thinker nor a great strategist.

She doesn't want folks to stop and think about the fact that she is the 'experienced' candidate that took us to war, supports Bushes policies and continues to oppose withdrawal dates. Having decline to sign on to those bills in the Senate.

Subterfuge, counterpounches and distortion hold sway in Clinton campaign.

Then Greg mis-represents this post by saying that the full transcript (of what Obama said) was after the jump.

If there was more, then I feel that Greg should have provided it, or the link.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Let's ask Hillary, too, if her so called judgment is really hers or her advisors. Or maybe it is Bill's idea, like the war vote?

:-)

Some of the attacks on Obama's statements by blind partisans of the Republican Lite are offensive.

Obama indeed has very unusual qualifications considering he spent part of his childhood in schools in Indonesia. It should be obvious he has some experience with Muslims that no other candidate has much in the vein of Richardson's status as a Hispanic.

If Obama claimed to have indepth knowledge of being a woman there would be reason to attack him. Besides Hillary, only Giuliani has some experience in that regard.

Best, Terry

If there was more, then I feel that Greg should have provided it, or the link.

Oh probably but I am not getting the gist of your criticism.

If I wanted to know about a country where you lived and worked, especially if you were fluent in the language or languages of the country, short of asking a native I would defer to you over any whirlwind visitor.

I might or might not find you perceptive and informative, I might distrust your judgment but I would surely recognize you knew more than I about many matters that at best I had only studied from a distance.

Obama's credentials are quite valid IMO.

His judgment is open to question as one wishes.

Best, Terry

No misrepresentation on Greg's part. The thread as many do has lots of information that is discussed and the link is part of this one, when it comes to Obama and his judgment.

Poetry, the thing on votes matching is just a not relevant. It has been shot down by comparing the 127 votes of those Congress people who voted against the AUMF to Hillary's record. Seems they too voted with Hillary. The conclusion is that Hillary knows how to clean up her mess after she makes it. Like Barack said, she is planning now to get out of Iraq when the best time to plan for that was when she cast the vote for war.

All those other 127 voters are voting that way because those are the best options now...at last Hillary has seen the light too. She is following the pack. Hillary does not lead on these type issues.

It should be pointed out that the sum total of Obama's experience living overseas came in one short stretch between the ages of 6 and 10.

Where is Hillary's video on how she came to her judgment on the Iraq War? Since we know how she voted. Let's hear her reasoning.

THE REAL REASON SHE WON'T APOLOGIZE.
Hillary's War
by Michael Crowley

Read that piece by Mike Crowley in TNR (sub. req.) and call me in the morning.

Its good to have an exchange that clarifies the choice between Obama and Clinton.

Hillary Clinton cannot answer a question unless her pollsters give her survey and focus group findings. Obama is honest, direct, smart and sees the world with a fresh set of eyes and ideas.

Billary, Inc. is owned by multi-national corporations (who also own Bush, Inc.) and they will tell her who, when and where to meet with foreign leaders. Obama has major grassroots support and has refused support from corporate lobbyists.

Hillary claims Obama is naive, and she is experienced. Yet, Hillary's "experience in foreign affairs" led her to vote for the war in Iraq(as encouraged by Madaleine Albright, who is now her advisor and public cheerleader). Obama as a legislator in Illinois courageously spoke out against war, predicting the very quagmire we're in. From my perspective, Hillary's judgment, "experience," and brand of follow-the-pollsters leadership are not qualification for a president.

Do you have a link that doesn't require a subscription?

I do not believe it is a waste of time for Sen Obama to differientiate himself from Sen Clinton. He is right to point out that it is judgement rather than experience that is important.

Both experience and judgment are important. However, experience informs judgment and NOT the other way around. More existentially: L'experience precede le jugement! ( Experience precedes judgment!)

Cepeche?

But the Osama Hillary spat is a waste of time.

Buying into the Osama/Obama meme is really lame.

"Direct negotiations with countries like Iran and Syria are not a sign of weakness, they are a sign of ledership...The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side as some have called that idealistic, but I call it dangerously unrealistic."

Hillary Clinton, October 31, 2006, Council of Foreign Relations in NYC

Yes we shoot our own, and msm encourages it for the 'drama.'

In my opinion Senator Biden has more fp experience than other candidates, and a non-candidate, General Wesley Clark, has more than most people in the country.

Unfortunately General Clark is reluctant to become a candidate because of the way candidates are treated by msm.

Does that mean I'm just as qualified, as Obama, then?

Well, Obama's first degree was in International Relations from Columbia. Then he worked for Business International Corporation a publishing and advisory firm dedicated to assisting American companies in operating abroad. In 1986, Business International was acquired by The Economist Group in London, and eventually merged with The Economist Intelligence Unit. How about you?

Then he went to Harvard Law. Were you the Editor of the Harvard Law Review or something similar? Do you have multiple degrees from top universities such as Columbia and Harvard in related fields such as Law and International Relations? Have you long been a community organizer including Baptist community work? Have you lived overseas, and particularly in a Muslim nation? Are you a Senator? Are you known for bringing people of different politics together to find common ground and pass legislation, and have a long track record of doing so? Are you able to telephone the nation's and the world's top leaders and consult with them? Do millions of people know and admire you?

No? Then that's your answer. Me neither by the way. Which is why I'm voting for Obama rather than running against him.

And in regards to Hillary, yes she has the intellect, yes she is educated and connected, but she'd also part of an institutional momentum that got it wrong. She's still a good candidate and would do better in future, but Obama is my 1st choice as he's imo the wisest candidate running.

I'm not sure how that is anything but a non sequitur comparing Bush to Obama.

Obama gave reasons and qualifications for confidence, some things Bush never had.

Obama's first degree, before attending Harvard Law, was a BA from Columbia in International Relations. Obviously his career and accomplishments since have given him tremendous access to FP knowledge, and without the burden of Washington party politics, which are all about patronage.

Then those premises become moot when debating his argument. As I mentioned in another comment, there was no mention of his collegiate experience, his work experience, nor his legislative experience in shaping his judgments.

The only premise he gives is his living overseas, and family living overseas.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

It is worth noting that, in all likelihood, Obama was preaching to the converted, or at least thought he was, and the only reason we know about this quote is because someone leaked it to Drudge. That being said, it certainly seems like an argument he's been waiting to roll out, and I imagine when he makes the argument publicly, it will be more fleshed out.

Then tell Obama to include those references when he states that his foreign policy judgments are better than any other candidate in the race.

In his statement, he only mentions ONE main premise for us to believe his foreign policy judgments are better than any other candidate in the running: that he lived overseas.

That's all I'm arguing about - that his only premise for argument is simply not a solid one.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

If those with the most experience have displayed that their experience has not resulted in the ability to display good judgment, but those with less have displayed good judgment, Of how much value is their precedent experience? How should our experience, viewing the results of their judgment, inform our choices as voters?

Come on, Puissant, give me reasons why you're rating this and other comments if mine as 1.

Do you know about argumentative analysis? Do you understand that Obama's premises and argument/conclusion fail against academic metrics in judging merit in an argument?

His premise is weak, with no back up proof showing WHY living overseas gives him superior judgment.

He provides no additional premises, other than his family living overseas.

Therefore his argument/conclusion is weak.

Yes, he has legislative experience in FP. Yes, he has post-collegiate work experience in FP. Yes, he has academic experience in FP.

If he had brought those up, then I wouldn't be criticizing him.

But, he didn't bring any of those up. We're left to defend his argument based on one weak premise; which I will not do.

To paraphrase George Bush... "We have great slide-shows, so our judgment to invade Iraq is better than any other person."

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.