Clinton & Obama on International Affairs

21 Nov

Questions:

1. In whom do you have more confidence when it comes to international affairs – Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? (If your answer is “neither”, then add in your comment whom you would trust of all announced candidates, but let me know what your answer is as to these two specifically, as well).

2. Do you agree with Obama that his life experience abroad helps him understand international issues better than, say, a politician whose only jaunts abroad involve tightly-controlled photo-op junkets?

40 Responses to “Clinton & Obama on International Affairs”

  1. Pauldub November 21, 2007 at 10:26 am #

    If his life experience abroad was as an adult, actually dealing with these issues, I would have to give him the nod. Were they?
    Did the junkets include talking with heads of state, speaking about these issues? or just the usual smiley face dinner parties?
    As for the others, the jury is still out on them as well…

  2. iNdAbUFF November 21, 2007 at 10:56 am #

    Honestly…I think it is more of a question as to who is going to be advising these potential presidents on international affairs and issues if they were to be elected…

  3. peter scott November 21, 2007 at 11:20 am #

    hmm…hope I don’t have a double post, last one kinda collapsed on me…

    basically, I think Obama’s international experience is unique to most Americans…having a father from a developing country, and having lived in the largest Muslim country in the world allows Obama to perhaps understand differing perspectives on issues…which is key to solving international issues and mainting global relationships…

    i like richardson’s experience, although I think he’s set up to be a VP…I really hope they use him in an active diplomatic role though

  4. dave in Rocha November 21, 2007 at 12:56 pm #

    1) Barack. I lost trust in Hillary when she voted for the Iraq war.

    2) I agree with that somewhat, but I also have to go with indaBuff here. Any candidate (almost any candidate) can do well in foreign affairs if he/she has the right people around him/her.

  5. Prodigal-Son November 21, 2007 at 1:09 pm #

    1. Neither – I pick Joe Biden on the Dem side, though he doesn’t have much a chance. Hillary is too idealogical and doesn’t play well with others. And Obama is in over his head.

    2. I don’t find Obama’s argument to be particularly persuasive. We’re not electing the President of Doctor’s Without Borders, where having broad exposure to common folk around the world, and their challenges. is important. We’re electing a Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the US. I want them to be experienced dealing with the realities of politics, negotiation, and coalition building. Like it or not, the culture of Chinese politics is more important than the culture of the Chinese people. I argue they are two different things.

  6. dougk November 21, 2007 at 1:26 pm #

    neither…richardson; let’s see, mom from ireland, dad from poland, spent 2 years in viet nam during the 60’s, heck, you’re reading words of the most international affairs qualified unknown presidential candidate; oops, sorry, no photo-ops where i was, damn!

  7. Tatonka November 21, 2007 at 1:48 pm #

    1. Obama
    2. Yes, somewhat, but what indaBuff said.

  8. BobbyCat November 21, 2007 at 2:42 pm #

    This can be answered with a fact. Far and away, the guy with the most international experience is Joe Biden. For 35 (?) years – chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee or ranking member, etc. He has confered with most of the foreign leaders, know the issues, fomulates policy .

    Bill Richardson has spent the most time as a roving ambassador and troubleshooter/negotiator. Knows the issues as well as anyone.

    Chris Dodd has decades of inter’nat experience.

    Hillary has little direct responsibility. She has been there, but hasn’t done that. There is a big diff.

    Obama’s cultural experience give him empathy that the others dont have and cannot gain. No small thing.

    Dennis grew up in the back seat of a station wagon in Clevland. Again – the guy knows empathy, in spades.
    He is in the no-chance club, but ya gotta admire the guy, not in the least because he’s usually right.

    Edwards has the guts to say what everyone knows but won’t say – that the system has been rigged for so long, we have almost forgotten that a genuine and honest democracy could actually solve some of the problems that will probably topple our empire.

  9. Size Nine November 22, 2007 at 8:43 pm #

    I dream of a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket, I don’t care which.

  10. mike hudson November 23, 2007 at 2:21 am #

    i can’t actually “trust” either of them as i don’t know them. and neither does anyone else here. what i can trust is that whether the democrats nominate clinton or obama, and obama’s still a real long longshot at this point regardless of what tim russert says, the party will field a candidate far preferable to anyone that’s running on the other side.

    when it comes to the war in iraq, the coming war in iran, health care, social security, government spending and respect for the bill of rights, the republican party has been consistently wrong for the past eight years at least, and all of their contending candidates are promising is more of the same.

  11. ROB SOSNOWSKI November 24, 2007 at 10:31 am #

    F. THOMPSON IS THE GUY. JUST LOOK AT THE PAST DEM. PRES.TERM AND YOU’LL KNOW WE’LL BE HIT AGAIN.AS FOS OBAMA’S THEORY OF TRAVELING ABROAD WILL HELP IN YOUR DECISIONS, HE IS WRONG. EVERY LIBERAL DECISION HAS BEEN WRONG IN THE PAST BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO MODEL THEIR IDEAS ON EUROPEAN SOCIALIST THEORY WHICH DON’T WORK!

  12. Jim Ostrowski November 24, 2007 at 11:09 am #

    “the republican party has been consistently wrong for the past eight years at least, and all of their contending candidates are promising is more of the same.”

    That’s incorrect. Ron Paul differs on the war, the future wars, domestic spending, civil liberties, and a dozen other issues.

    I know people in NY “never heard of him” but he’s in 4th place in New Hampshire and surging. He is also strong in other early states like Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina.

  13. mike hudson November 24, 2007 at 5:09 pm #

    except for fred thompson, ron paul is the biggest phony in the race. jim, why don’t you explain to the ladies what his position on roe v. wade is? he has been a staunch republican member of congress since the carter administration. in congress over the past seven years, he’s supported bush consistently. he’s running fourth in new hampshire behind romney, guiliani and who? the primary’s in a month, dude, get real. i like kucinich but, i mean….

    as for fred thompson, why don’t we just get andy griffith? he was great in matlock! or that guy jed clampett? oh wait, he’s dead, just like thompson’s candidacy!

  14. Jim Ostrowski November 24, 2007 at 6:19 pm #

    Ron is pro-life: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war. Those positions are well-known. He thinks abortion should be decided at the state level. Those who wish to disenfranchise themselves on all issues but one are free to do so.

    “he’s supported bush consistently.” That’s just absurd. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Nor is he a phony in any sense.

    And he is a contender.

    So, you’re like one for six.

    And your track record for political predictions is what?

  15. Jim Ostrowski November 24, 2007 at 7:06 pm #

    And men and women have the same views on abortion.

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1050a3SocialIssues.pdf

    Another myth bites the dust.

    Now on Ron Paul as party-line Republican–he’s ranked as the second most liberal Republican in the House.

    http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/house/lib.htm

  16. mike hudson November 24, 2007 at 9:40 pm #

    ron paul is a 30-year congressional back bencher with little to show for his decades of “service,” but a few key votes are interesting.

    he voted no on the horse slaughter prohibition bill, helping out his buddies in the texas horses for food industry.

    he voted a big homophobic yes on the adoption restriction amendment.

    he voted against implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

    he voted no on decriminalization of medical marijuana.

    he voted yes on the iraq war policy resolution. but he’s against the war, right?

    voted yes four times for the impeachment of president clinton, a monumental exercise in both stupidity wasting taxpayers’ money.

    he voted to withdraw from the united nations.

    he voted against stem cell research.

    the 10 commandments consititute a major issue for paul. he voted twice to allow for their display in public buildings.

    and did i mention that he seeks to overturn roe v. wade?

    look, tom harkin won the iowa caucus in 1992 & gephardt won it in 88. paul tsongas, estes kefauver, gary hart, ed muskie, pat buchanan, john mccain and henry cabot lodge all won in new hampshite.

    ron paul is running fourth in new hampshire, with just 8 percent of the REPUBLICAN vote, and you think he’s a “contender” to be the next president of the united states?!?!?!?!

    i need some of whatever you’re on, brother.

  17. Jim Ostrowski November 25, 2007 at 2:08 am #

    Nice smokescreen. You didn’t contradict a single point I made.

    You give no citations so I can’t respond as to various votes.

    New Hampshire is the single most important primary. He’s ahead of Huckabee and Thompson, two candidates generally considered to be contenders. He’s virtually tied with McCain in Nevada and South Carolina.

  18. mike hudson November 25, 2007 at 2:12 am #

    mccain, huckabee and thompson are considered contenders alright. on MARS! of course this is all academic since the republicans are going to lose anyway. hope is not a strategy, jim.

  19. Jim Ostrowski November 25, 2007 at 2:16 am #

    People are confused about Ron Paul because they view him through the false prism of the left-right political spectrum.

    Instead of left-right, think of decentralization versus centralization. He favors the decentralization of power in the individual, then the states, with a very limited federal government.

  20. Jim Ostrowski November 25, 2007 at 2:52 am #

    I made the mistake of thinking you and I were on the same planet in terms of how words are defined. So, only Rudy and Romney are contenders. I see.

    Rudy is in third place in Iowa and Romney has 12% nationally after spending $70 million on well over 10,000 TV ads.

  21. Jim Ostrowski November 25, 2007 at 2:55 am #

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?fta=y

    This article by the NEW YORK TIMES defines all five as contenders.

    Not me, the NYT.

  22. mike hudson November 25, 2007 at 3:29 am #

    in that context (article on global warming) i suppose the bills are “contending” for the super bowl but…..

    while romney is at 12 percent nationally (i’m certainly not voting for him!) your pal paul is at 5 percent, and has shown no movement since the first of the month.

    but romney spent a lot and paul didn’t spend anything, you’ll say. so what? it takes a lot of money to run for president. on earth anyway.

    as pointed out earlier, paul tsongas, estes kefauver, gary hart, ed muskie, pat buchanan, john mccain and henry cabot lodge all won in new hampshire and didn’t even become their party’s nominee in the general election. but ron paul, who’s in fourth place there and sixth place in new hampshire, is gonna get the nod?

    don’t be silly.

  23. mike hudson November 25, 2007 at 3:31 am #

    i meant sixth place in iowa (second reference) of course.

  24. hank kaczmarek November 25, 2007 at 10:27 am #

    Mike You’re wasting your time.
    Ron Paul has won every debate, every straw poll, every internet poll, and has raised more money that Romney has spent.
    Don’t believe it? Ask any tinfoil hat wearing, Kool-Aid drinking Ron Paul supporter. In WNY, Ostrowski is, for better or worse, the Court Jester of the Ronulans.

  25. mike hudson November 25, 2007 at 11:48 am #

    this was supposed to be a discussion of hillary and obama, ably hijacked by jimmy one note. did you know that ron paul is the second most liberal republican? wtf does that mean? i dearly love dennis kucinich. he’s from cleveland, i’ve met him a few times, he tells the truth etc. if he makes it as far as the new york primary i’ll vote for him. but i wouldn’t go around telling people he’s gonna be the party’s nominee unless i wanted them to think i was a moron.

    but then, maybe jim o. DOES want us to think he’s a moron so that his secret plan for world dominationation will come as a complete surprise!

  26. Jim Ostrowski November 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm #

    No, Mike, you’re wrong about that too and I saw that coming a mile away. I had no intention to post until you made factually incorrect statements. So, my post was well within the confines of the topic. When you proceeded to make even more errors, I corrected them.

  27. mike hudson November 25, 2007 at 10:52 pm #

    although you wish to be taken seriously, you are not a serious man, jim. all right, i admit it. ron paul is in contention to become the next estes kefauver.

  28. mike hudson November 25, 2007 at 10:57 pm #

    it’s gonna be a very, very long time before america elects another republican from texas, if they ever do. and certainly, having a wannabe cult leader speaking on his behalf in western new york isn’t helping his cause.

  29. BobbyCat November 26, 2007 at 10:25 am #

    I think Ron Paul has zoomed-in popularity for reasons quite apart from the rigid and stale political definitions that usually defines liberals and conservatives – the language of political wonks. Most people dont’ care about that shit.

    Joe Biden defined what most people want. They want to keep their homes off the forclosure block; They want health care for their kids and maybe even for themselves; they want a better tomorrow; they want to keep their jobs and want employment that can buy a home and raise a family; they want the war to end , they want affordable gas and maybe a few extra bucks for a pizza. Affordable tuition? Maybe not. We’ve become a land of low expectations.

    Ron Paul speaks to those people and those issues in language that people can understand.

    He is popular because he is believable. For that reason alone, I like the guy – even thought I don’t agree with some his positions.

    I ‘ll back a guy if I think his heart is in the right place. I dont’ expect to agree with ANY candidate on all his positions.

    And remember, Ron Paul is running against:

    Mitt Romney – a used car salesman, a candidate from central casting who can change his shape to fit any circumstance and a man whose Mormon prophet, Jos. Smith, was a child abuser and a convicted con man.

    Rudy – a powerful Fed prosecutor who put the squeeze on many mobsters to cut plea deals. Not a well loved mayor in NYC.

    Mike Huckabee – A fundamentalist minister. Fine, if you want more of that.

    John McCain – lost the fire in the belly. Gettin old.

    Tom Tancredo – one issue candidate.
    Doesn’t believe in evolution. Wow.

    Duncan Hunter – very hawkish. Want to win the war with lots more troops. Wants a border wall.

    Fred Thompson – better suited as the new sherriff of Mayberry.

    …and Doctor Ron Paul…defending the Constitution and libertarianism. Not my fav candidate but a lot better than most.

  30. mike hudson November 27, 2007 at 2:11 am #

    joe biden? you’re kidding right? his numbers are in kucinichville. same with ron paul. they are not “popular” by any standard, policy wonk’s or joe sixpack’s. the most recent polls show paul at 4.7 percent nationally, in dead last among the gop candidates, and more than 23 points behind guliani. on the democratic side, 4 percent favor biden, and he trails clinton by 40 points. using that logic, the bills played a “great” game against jacksonville sunday.

  31. Jim Ostrowski November 27, 2007 at 9:02 am #

    Nope.

    Starting from zero, Ron’s at 5.3 nationally and those figures are ten days old. Pollster.com.

    Much more importantly, in key early states, he’s surging from zero to eight–New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Those are states where he just recently started running ads.

    He’s struggling in Iowa because he went in there and said no to ethanol. Good for him! But I believe he will do well there anyway. Right now, he’s at 6% in the latest poll. ABC.

    Also, Ron’s supporters, heavy on cell and caller ID, generally don’t pick up when pollsters call, so his support is understated.

    And early polls mean less than they did even in the 1980’s when you could still win when down ten points a few days before the election.

    The web allows information to be transmitted at the speed of light to over half the voters. E.g., videos on Rudy’s sad performance re 9/11. Naturally, Rudy’s is imploding.

  32. mike hudson November 27, 2007 at 7:18 pm #

    jim….i’m serious about this. i will bet you, right now, today $10,000 that ron paul will not be the nominee of the republican party in the coming election cycle. the money will be given to a charity to be named by the winner. i can cover this on a credit card and so can you.

    that’s how sure i am of my position. now show all the nice people how sure (serious) you are.

  33. mike hudson November 27, 2007 at 9:13 pm #

    that’s ten thousand dollars, jim.

  34. Jim Ostrowski November 27, 2007 at 9:31 pm #

    Mike, you don’t get. I’ve already bet. I’ve spent a lot of time, energy, money, and other things on the notion that Ron could win. I hate losing and I’m not doing this for the sake of some alleged movement that might be started after the campaign. I’m doing it to win.

    I think if someone other than Ron Paul wins it will be a total disaster for the country. Our foreign policy and domestic spending is bankrupting the country and we’re slowly turning into a police state.

    “Don’t tase me bro” might soon be the national motto.

  35. mike hudson November 27, 2007 at 10:07 pm #

    you’re a phony jim. and ron paul’s is a phony candidacy. if you actually believe paul will win, which you clearly do not, you would take the bet, be able to donate ten grand to whatever cause you support and be a big hero. it wouldn’t cost you a dime, bro.

    but apparently you’re content to troll sites like this, hijacking discussions about obama and hillary in order to shoot your mouth off about how ron paul can and will win. you’re a phony, lacking the courage of his convictions, unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.

  36. Jim Ostrowski November 27, 2007 at 10:59 pm #

    You brought up the Republican candidates. You’re the troll in every sense of the word.

  37. mike hudson November 28, 2007 at 9:22 am #

    case closed.

  38. Mike Walsh November 29, 2007 at 1:21 am #

    Who is Mike Hudson?

    Why don’t you discuss instead of calling people names….

    I wonder who the real phony is?

  39. les September 9, 2008 at 7:28 pm #

    Hey, please watch and share this interesting video about obama.
    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Political Class Dismissed » Blog Archive » Distant Repay–Nov. 2007 - December 7, 2008

    […] Link Posted in Buffalo | […]

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: