The Gospel According to SHAE

Foreign Policy Perspective: Hillary vs Obama

ShaeSmith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:28:04 EST

Challenge this guys . . .

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN Behind Obama and Clinton Who's whispering in their ears says a lot By Stephen Zunes

From Information Clearing House
08/02/08 - Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.

The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they’ll be likely to face as president?

Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor and her likely choice for Secretary of State is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

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.

Contrasting Issues
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 Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”

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
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.

Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.

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 During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.

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

Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.

By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”

Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.

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.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.

National Security
Not every one of Clinton’s foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.

Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress soft power” issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states. As a result, Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.

And new approaches are definitely needed.

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

Obama as an Agent of Change

ShaeSmith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:21:12 EST

Evidence that Obama can be an AGENT of CHANGE put simply:

Look across the scope of EVERY presidential candidate - Republican and Democrat. Forgetting press and the pundits.... which campaign has been the most different. It goes without saying that if one candidate can run a different campaign - MAYBE JUST MAYBE they can create a different America.

Obama has not made ONE attack ad
Any negative statements have been REACTIONARY to statements made by other candidates.
His message has been consistent since "Day One" and resisted the urge to be dominated by polls and media messages.
Obama has gotten people engaged
Obama has gotten people to CHANGE political parties. When was the last Republican who defected to Democrat based on Clinton's impact?
Look at the way Obama has been able to EXACT change within the Clinton campaign alone

Hillary CAMPAIGN vs Hillary WHITE HOUSE - Compare & Contrast The Two

ShaeSmith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:18:17 EST

As CLINTON touts her experience “On Day One” she relentlessly declares that she will be more effective than Obama.

With “Day One” in the back of your mind contrast the Hillary Campaign vs. Hillary White House.

Points to ponder as we compare and contrast the CHANGE Obama has already been able to exact in the CLINTON campaign:

Hillary Campaign: With all her touting of experience preparing her for Commander In Chief - she under-estimated Obama as a formidable challenger.
Hillary White House: Will she under-estimate foreign leaders who pose a real - yet veiled - threat?
************************
Hillary Campaign: When things don’t go her way, she dismisses and ignores and moves on – resisting addressing her shortcomings with anything other than “spin”
Hillary White House: What if her 60-day troop pull-out plan in Iraq proves ineffective? Will she deny, dismiss and deflect when the American people call for answers and understanding?
************************
Hillary Campaign: Her winning campaign strategy has included aggressively deploying her husband and daughter Chelsea (who until now remained OUT of politics & public eye)
Hillary White House: Is she really ready – by her own strengths – on Day One?
************************
Hillary Campaign: The “inexperienced” Obama exacts a ground strategy that out maneuvers her in the battle for delegates – she has not been able to successfully reinvigorate her campaign. And to make matters worse, key strategists in her campaign resign.
Hillary White House: What if her programs and policies are ineffective? Will she doggedly stick to her plan and delay employing a winning strategy? Will that tactic lead to the resignations of her White House cabinet members?

As Arsenio Hall used to say, “Things that make you go, Hmmm….?”

Obama seems to be showing real leadership in shaking up the CLINTON machine – impressive from a newbie with “no record” of success.

VENTING - The Case AGAINST Hillary

ShaeSmith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:16:05 EST

I think its so telling that Hillary wants us to BELIEVE she is "Ready On Day One" and YET she cannot even manage her CAMPAIGN without her husband Bill Clinton and now her daughter's HELP. If you look at Obama's Campaign vs. Hillary's Campaign side-by-side.... and inject their position to the WHITE HOUSE. The case gets stronger and STRONGER for OBAMA. Hillary cannot do it on her own. She cannot even manage a campaign with out using her sweet daughter. Tsk Tsk Tsk Hillary.

The ARM TWISTING has already begun with the super delegates - its their only life-line. Hillary reminds me of the character "Mommy Dearest" - beloved in public but vile and vindictive behind closed doors. Remember the "No Wire Hangers" Scene.... BEWARE Super Delegates the CLINTONS are coming.

I don't think it is wise to minimize the voters in the states Hillary is losing. Its a GROSS mistake to dismiss an entire state of voters. After all there are SEVERAL thousands voted FOR her. I thought her EXPERIENCE would outshine Obama in her handling of her campaign. It seems she has no real strategy other than to attack and since that hasn't worked. Seems she's resorted to Chelsea, Bill and now dismissing the voters in the states she lost.

As a voter who looked forward to comparing and contrasting her campaign against Obama and making an informed judgement in the voting booth. I MUST say Obama's campaign is coming across as having MORE INTEGRITY even when he is losing. He has never attacked you or dismissed the voters who didn't support him.

I am disappointed that Hillary's campaign is having such a hard time matching Obama campaign's attempt to compete ABOVE board. It seems she cannot compete on this level. Its very telling.... How dare she dismiss states as "black". If they had voted for her as she expected them to she would not be saying this.

So disappointed in her lack of integrity.

Uhhh…what is Clinton doing “concentrating” on states based solely on delegate numbers - how well did this strategy worked for Rudy Guilani???? It’s a recipe for disaster – Rudy’ Guliani’s strategy and Fred Thompson’s cavalier attitude paved the way for the McCain resurrection. And Clinton seems to employing a little of both of these failing strategies in the contest against Obama.

Dismissing states is NOT the way to go. It didn’t work for Rudy why does she think it will work for her. In her latest statements she is seen on the stump dismissing the states she does not win. It’s worthy to note how her rapport with African Americans is altered by the voting trends. Instead of trying to regain their trust - she dismisses states with African American voters who have leaned toward Obama dismissing his wins in South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia because of the African American vote. Has Hillary forgotten African American’s used to be a BIG part of her base? African Americans have traditionally supported her and MANY still do. She should not forget African Americans are very loyal with long memories that will surface in November if she wins the nomination.

To generalize a state based on African American population bolsters the evidence that she a divisive AND polarizing candidate.

As CLINTON touts her experience “On Day One” she relentlessly declares that she will be more effective than Obama.

With “Day One” in the back of your mind contrast the Hillary Campaign vs. Hillary White House.

Points to ponder as we compare and contrast the CHANGE Obama has already been able to exact in the CLINTON campaign:

Hillary Campaign: With all her touting of experience preparing her for Commander In Chief - she under-estimated Obama as a formidable challenger.
Hillary White House: Will she under-estimate foreign leaders who pose a real - yet veiled - threat?
************************
Hillary Campaign: When things don’t go her way, she dismisses and ignores and moves on – resisting addressing her shortcomings with anything other than “spin”
Hillary White House: What if her 60-day troop pull-out plan in Iraq proves ineffective? Will she deny, dismiss and deflect when the American people call for answers and understanding?
************************
Hillary Campaign: Her winning campaign strategy has included aggressively deploying her husband and daughter Chelsea (who until now remained OUT of politics & public eye)
Hillary White House: Is she really ready – by her own strengths – on Day One?
************************
Hillary Campaign: The “inexperienced” Obama exacts a ground strategy that out maneuvers her in the battle for delegates – she has not been able to successfully reinvigorate her campaign. And to make matters worse, key strategists in her campaign resign.
Hillary White House: What if her programs and policies are ineffective? Will she doggedly stick to her plan and delay employing a winning strategy? Will that tactic lead to the resignations of her White House cabinet members?

As Arsenio Hall used to say, “Things that make you go, Hmmm….?”

Obama seems to be showing real leadership in shaking up the CLINTON machine – impressive from a newbie with “no record” of success.

Michigan is NOT a Clear Win for CLINTON

ShaeSmith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:07:03 EST

There is something MISSING from the pundit’s discussion regarding seating the Michigan delegates.

Regardless of the absence of campaign presence or the preexisting party agreement – neither Edwards nor Obama names appeared on the ballot. How can this be fairly declared as a “Victory” for Hillary??? Obama and Edwards were represented together on the ballot as “UNCOMMITTED”. Many POTENTIAL voters knew this and surely this influenced the turnout. So, how can Hillary seat them???

Further this "disinfranchise" argument is BUNK..... Hillary signed the agreement like everyone else. If she was so "outraged" why did this only become an debateable situation when "she" won!!!! Any ATTEMPT to seat them or change the rules for caucuses would be seen as SNEAKY by the despreately losing Clinton.

DELEGATE COUNT - Updated

ShaeSmith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:55:14 EST

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL DELEGATE COUNT

http://2008democraticelection.blogspot.com/2008/02/delegate-count-latest-results.html

HEALTHCARE - BEWARE Hillary Supporters

ShaeSmith — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:47 EST

OBAMA NAILS IT ON HEALTHCARE!!!! Here is the reality....

If Hillary becomes president - I will be breaking the law. if I don't pay for healthcare I will be fined. FINED! If I can't afford the healthcare premiums how the hell can I be expected to pay a fine???!! And in Massachusetts the first to adopt the "universal healthcare" plan - citizens pay fines if they don't have it $219/year first year and then the fine rises to $1000 the next year you don't have it.

....DID YOU HEAR THAT HILLARY SUPPORTERS!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, but her answer to that is subsidies. Yeah right... the subsidies will be based on income rates. So if you are middle class barely able to pay your mortgage - YOU WILL NOT QUALIFY FOR HILLARY'S subsidies. So get ready to pay the fines....

Go Hillary???!!!!! Yeah Right!

My Message To HILLARY...

ShaeSmith — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:56:18 EST

WANT TO SEE HILLARY COMPETE WITH DIGNITY......
This should be a dignified and civil competition between candidates. Get in this FIGHT Hillary - with dignity.

ITS NOT GOOD THAT OBAMA IS TAKING THE HIGH ROAD and the Clinton campaign is REACTIONARY.

GET BILL CLINTON AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE AND CAMERAS - he represents the old regime. Further you are running on your capability and we need to see YOU. Not him. If you are a capable woman touting your experience WHY are you leaning on him so heavily????? Is it BILLary or Hillary?

GIVE VOTERS SOMETHING TO VOTE "FOR" NOT AGAINST - we are not voting on you by default just cause you point out his flaws. YOU ARE FLAWED TOO. We are left comparing your flaws to his and you WONT WIN THAT BATTLE. (Who is advising you?)

STOP TOUTING YOUR RESUME - clearly by Obama's numbers people don't care. Match his OPTIMISM with your experience. And truthfully, your stint as first Lady does not count in the eyes of voters. (look at the Baracks numbers for evidence of this)

ACCEPT AND ACKNOWLEDGE BARACK'S ACCOMPLISHMENT - this shows you taking the high road. Acknowledge what he says match it and offer what YOU will do. Not what he doesn't have. ATTACKING WONT WORK... don't you see you are proving him right. That you use the typical political playbook. Attack Attack Attack. Even in your attack he remains dignified.

LISTEN TO THE VOTERS.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdaROq57qsg AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53g0Nq5C5bc - your strategy cannot seem calculating and divisive - you are proving Obama's point with those tatics.

Your current strategy is BOLSTERING the Obama movement - you and Bill prove his points every time you open your mouths.

and finally.... how many Republicians have crossed over or caucused for you??????? (crickets chirping) Didn't think so!!!

BILLARY vs Obama

ShaeSmith — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:32:45 EST

If we are to believe that a woman can be "Commander in Chief" WHY can't she run her campaign without her husband. In South Carolina after her defeat, it was Bill Clinton FIRST in front of the cameras. "On Day One" who will REALLY be running the White House?

Rage Against The CLINTON Machine

ShaeSmith — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:11:44 EST

The Clinton TITANTIC is sinking - grab a deck chair Hillary . . . .

RE: Obama credentials for Change
I don't understand how the question of Obama's capacity to effect REAL change is in question in light of what he is doing within the election process itself. With only the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses look at the change he is doing. In addition he is effecting change within the Clinton dynasty.

Seems to me he is creating his record for change right now on his way to the Oval Office.

… I think Hillary should give him credit for the CHANGE he is doing in HER OWN campaign and the 2008 Election overall

RE: Hillary's ability for Change
I want to believe she can make changes - but the time for "change" is not during your campaign - it makes her seem undone by Obama's impact. Is there a way for Obama to have his own impact and for her to carve her own WITHOUT demolishing his accomplishments?

I need a reason to vote FOR Hillary - not AGAINST her opponents. There is something to be said for being gracious to acknowledge that he is leading change by bringing new voters to Iowa... and without diminishing that.... highlight what Hillary WILL DO for America.

RE: Hillary's Image:
From those that know her Hillary is a "nice" "warm" woman - its not coming across to the public. I would like to support the first woman President (I am an African American woman).
Its clear the Clinton's have an attitude of "entitlement" - it would help if she spoke about America and its people instead of her consistent "I should be president message". Where are the American people in her message??? This position is making Obama more authentic. When she was moved to tears her emotion revealed how "personal" this is for HER - not America. She's not attempting to match is optimism. When moved to tears she said "I" have so many opportunities for this country - Obama says "we"

RE: Hillary as an Agent of Change
"Change" your message Hillary. Please. She can't fight Obama saying you've been in Washington for 35 YEARS. Who is advising you thats the way to go in the midst of Obama's constant rising poll numbers?!

Put simply its true that Obama's movement is largely based on a "feeling" he is creating. But on the contrary you are touting 35 years of change that people cannot see or feel from you. BILL's accomplishments ARE NOT HERS!!!!! If she is so "experienced" how is it that Obama is having a bigger impact? Wouldn't her experience be able to generate this? She is not focusing on her own campaign but centrally on combating his movement. There is no real substance behind her message other than the typical political campaign rhetoric. Her "experience" should have told her that the people would want to be inspired....