Posts with the tag diplomacy

President Obama: A Truly Strong Leader

Kathleen in Washington — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:24:49 EST

One year ago today our country elected a good, brave and gifted man, Barack Obama, to take on the tremendous burdens of the Presidency. I think this is a good insight from Joseph Nye, Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University:“Look what he inherited -- a global economic crisis, two difficult wars, erosion of the non-proliferation regime by North Korea and Iran, deterioration of the Middle East peace process, and the rising strength of China just for starters. Obama's dilemma was how to manage this sad inheritance while creating his own vision of how Americans should deal with the world.

He did that with his theme of ‘a new era of engagement with the world.’ Through a series of symbolic gestures and speeches (Prague, Cairo, Accra, the United Nations and others), Obama worked wonders in restoring American soft or attractive power in his first year of office. As a recent Pew poll reported, ‘in many countries opinions of the United States are now as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office.’

Skeptics regard soft power as over-rated, but it is a mistake to discount the role that transformative leaders can play in changing the context of difficult issues. Power involves setting agendas and creating others' preferences as well as pushing and shoving. Soft power alone rarely solves hard problems. That is why the administration speaks of "smart power" that successfully combines hard and soft power resources in different contexts. But soft power can create an enabling rather than a disabling environment for policy. Diplomats report that Obama's success in brokering agreements at NATO and G-20 summits was assisted by his popularity.

When Obama came into office, his economic advisers told him there was one chance in three that we were on the brink of another depression. We have successfully avoided that, and Obama was able to help organize a surprising degree of international cooperation on economic issues. Unlike FDR, who torpedoed an international economic conference in 1933, and failed to halt the spread of ‘beggar they neighbor’ policies that made the depression worse, Obama's soft power helped to promote international cooperation when it was vital. And there was a certain audacity of hope in that pursuit.”You can read the whole article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/obamas-timidity-is-a-fore_b_344064.html

I prefer our President's "soft power" to the noise and destruction of the previous eight years.

Stephen Views the News June 7, 2009

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:57:17 EDT

Stephen Views the News June 7, 2009

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

Diplomacy, Hegemony and Terrorism

During President Barack Obama’s historic 55 minute speech in Cairo he received a standing ovation one dozen times. It seems to me impossible for one to shoot a rifle while forcibly bringing one’s hands together in applause. Unlike the trigger-happy Neocon derriere’s who had beat the drum for invading Iraq and, most recently, called for the U.S. to bomb North Korea and Iran (hello Bill Kristol and Brit Hume of FOX News) intelligent diplomacy gives America at least a chance to bring about a better situation while reducing the threat to American military personnel and civilians. If a time would come when military action is required it is also more likely that having first taken the diplomatic route America would garner meaningful international support – not what George W. Bush had in Iraq. For the sophomoric Neocon tough guys such as Cheney and Kristol who always want to go to war as long as they can continue to avoid serving in the military themselves, I suggest masturbation. It will relieve the pressure generated by overactive male hormones. Like most men walking around with a missile silo between their legs being macho leads to more harm than good.

And let us not forget that the United States was responsible for the overthrow of the elected government in Iran in the 1950’s that inserted the Shah of Iran into power – a puppet of American foreign “policy.” He ruled with a despotic heavy hand that was supported by a secretive and brutal police force. Two decades later the Iranian people rebelled and the result was the U.S. Iranian embassy hostage situation. And who can forget the unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq. America’s hands in the Middle East are far from clean (and covered in oil) yet few in America readily accept this reality and its effect on current political relations. It is refreshing and encouraging to have an adult in the White House.

Some voices in America, especially the conservative choir, bemoan Obama’s approach to a new diplomacy that they conclude is an apology. Perhaps standing up and taking responsibility for previous action is an anathema to conservatives since it was their approach that contributed to so much damage in the world. In a cowardly fashion they try to rewrite history rather than acknowledge their culpability. This past week, across the cable news networks, we saw Dick Cheney and daughter Liz making appearances and lying through their gritted teeth about Bush’s justification to invade Iraq and the illegal and immoral use of torture. I have never been waterboarded but I can relate to being tortured while watching these apologists for failed policy try to re-make their brand. Adding to my extreme discomfort is the general failure of interviewers to confront the Cheney family and like-minded phonies with the hard facts of recent history. The media proved to be complete failures in the lead up to the Iraq invasion and they continue to demonstrate their inadequacy today.

There are forces in America that want to demonize all Muslims because of the actions of murderers who call themselves Muslims. There are 1.5 billion people in the world who embrace the Muslim religion. Yes, there are some who claim to be Muslims and who have bastardized the teaching of Muhammad for their own political agenda. This does not justify the condemnation of the entire Muslim world. This past week we saw the murder of George Tiller, a doctor in Kansas who performed legal abortions, being justified in Christian religious terms. At Tiller’s funeral on Saturday anti-abortionists demonstrated with signs saying, “God Sent the Killer.” These are the actions of terrorists and murderers who call themselves Christians. What would Jesus say? Probably, “Oy vey.” It is this short-circuiting of a connection to the Almighty that demeans all that is holy. The bombers of abortion clinics and shooters of physicians are the immoral equivalent of the al Qaeda terrorists who struck the World Trade Center. The long history of man on planet Earth is wrought with acts of inhumanity premised on religious canards. It is a lesson that man is apparently not fated to learn.

* “Four things support the world: the learning of the wise, the justice of the great, the prayers of the good, and the valor of the brave.”

Muhammad (570 – 632), Prophet of Islam

Belief In The Effectiveness Of Military Action Is A "Lethal Fantasy"

Hope4Unity — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:22:00 EST

Beyond the Hall of Mirrors

Reflections on War, Terror and Human Interaction

by Dennis Rivers, MA

July 2005 Issue of the Journal of Cooperative Communication Skills

One of the great paradoxes of political life and human behavior, is that we imagine that we can bend other people to our will by force of arms. At the same time, we hold that no one will ever bend us to their will by force of arms. This implies some sort of belief that we are strong-willed while "they" are weak-willed. And of course, "they" think the same of us, thinking that they will be able to coerce us, but will never allow themselves to be coerced. This is a lethal fantasy, on all sides, in which grownup folks engage in childlike wishful thinking. It doesn't occur to people that the folks on the other side may be just like themselves. We are all strong-willed, we all resist coercion in whatever way we can. Unless someone becomes more conscious, every proud swagger from one side will elicit an even prouder swagger from the other side. Unless someone becomes more conscious, every taunt and humiliation from one side, will elicit an even bloodier taunt and humiliation from the other. "Bring 'em on, we're plenty tough," sneered President Bush to the insurgents. The Iraqi insurgents taunted back with videos of executions. We responded by torturing captured insurgents, setting off global shock waves. And so it goes, up to the most recent bombings. While this contest of coercion goes on, people are dying with no end in sight. Truly, if ever there were a situation that called for "thinking outside the box," we are in it now.

One possible answer, perhaps the greatest possible answer, to this downward spiral, would be a new turning toward the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The fact that the Golden Rule has been around for several thousand years, and appears in all the great religions, does not mean that we have fully understood it or mastered the art of living by it. One fruitful way, in my view, of starting over with the Golden Rule would be to explore it more deeply as an effort to steer spirals of human interaction toward life-sustaining outcomes and away from mutual destruction. If we don't want people to try to coerce us, we can begin by lowering our reliance on coercion in all our relationships, both personal and international. If we want people to listen to our concerns, we can begin by listening to their concerns. If we don't want people to point guns or missiles at us, we can stop pointing our guns and missiles at them. Imagining that we can point our guns and missiles at countries around the world, and that they will not be motivated to point guns and missiles back at us, is, whatever else you may think of it, extremely unrealistic. If all behavior is instruction, we can take the initiative and model more of the positive behavior we want to evoke. This won't be easy, but our current slide toward perpetual war and national bankruptcy through military spending is not going to be easy, either. As a Borscht-circuit comedian in the 1950's might have put it: "A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, pretty soon you're talking big money!"

Gandhi must have been thinking about the Golden Rule when he said "be the change you want to see."

http://www.newconversations.net/library/mirrors.htm

Diplomacy through Rick Warren...?

sabina2001 — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:48:13 EST

Obama is a smart man.

Obama is a proponent of diplomacy over warfare.

Rick Warren is not someone I think should have any influence in this country, and his theology is most definitely at war with progressive, liberal views and morals. But liberal progressives have difficulty not viewing evangelicals as their enemy as well. (I say this from experience as a progressive myeslf.)

Solution? Let's leverage Rick Warren's sermon for our own ends. (By "our", I mean Obama's base.) Let's start a dialogue with him and the Evangelical, Christianity-first, right-wing communities in this country on our turf. The inaugruation is our achievement, but it's also our opportunity to set this country on a new path of inclusion.

So start offering constructive criticism for how Obama can leverage Warren's acceptance of his invitation. Tell him what Warren should say; tell him what Warren canNOT say. (With all due respect.)

Because, let's get real, there's no way Obama can disinvite Rick Warren and not declare war on -- or have war declared on his administration by -- Warren's audience.

Click the title or the "click here" to read my suggestions...

Nobel Prize winner Mr. Martti Ahtisaari

Mike Hulden — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:23:13 EST

Former Finnish president of Finland and Nobel Price winner

Mr. Martti Ahtisaari : "I hope that the new president of the

United States, who will be sworn in next month, will give

high priority to the Middle East conflict during his first year

in office."

A Letter to President-Elect Obama from Dr. Kamran Mofid, Founder of Globalisation For The Common Good Initiative (UK)

Hope4Unity — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:15:19 EST

You Have Sown the Seeds: Now is the Time to Prepare for a Rich Harvest

Dear Mr. Obama,

Congratulations on your election as the next president of the United Sates of America. Millions of Americans and indeed many more millions around the world are eagerly looking to you and your administration to address many pressing crises facing your country and the world over. These include climate change and ecology, banking, credit and subprime mortgage lending, soaring cost of energy and food, hunger and infectious disease, international relations and cooperation, peace and justice, terrorism and war, armaments and unprecedented violence, crime and insecurity. Other major problems include the fear of getting sick, old, homeless and jobless.

It is precisely in times like these – unstable and confusing though they may be – that people everywhere need to keep their eyes on the better side of human nature, the side of love and compassion, rather than hatred and injustice; the side of the common good, rather than selfishness, individualism and greed.

With your election a seed of hope has been sown. Now it’s the time to ensure this seed will grow into a most wonderful and rich harvest by insisting that the abundance that comes from God and earth and human effort must be shared, lest its concentration in the hands of the few become a blood-clot endangering our lives- as indeed has happened.

We must remember that the day before your inauguration on Tuesday 20th of January is Martin Luther King’s Birthday. Exactly one year before he died, speaking at Riverside Church in New York, Dr. King called on Americans to cure themselves of the destructive “triplets”, as he called them, of racism, militarism, and materialism in America. The world is united in hoping that a rich harvest of your presidency will be the destruction of the “triplets”.

To do this, your government needs- as I am sure, it will- to adopt a new strategy of generosity toward all the people of America, as well as to all other people and nations around the world, by replacing the strategy of domination that has so long been the policy paradigm. Your administration needs to transform all institutions including the U.S. government to act not merely for economic benefits and the highest return to the shareholders, but also to encourage people’s natural inclination toward love, generosity, compassion, imagination, and wonder at the beauty of the planet Earth and the universe in which we live, by encouraging us all to know and serve the common good.

Those who may not have your best interest at heart may say this is too idealistic. But today, idealism is the new realism. So-called realism, through the strategy of domination, has only led to endless wars, needless suffering, and exploitation, seriously compromising the moral and spiritual standing of the U.S., both at home and abroad.

The world is waiting to see the seed of hope sprouting, growing into a tree of love, embracing all God’s people. To take us to the Promised Land and heal our broken world -- as you have reminded us throughout the campaign period --we need to change, a change we can all believe in, and here I offer Globalisation for the Common Good, to be a path that we should travel along to create a world that is free, just, and prosperous for all.

Tracking Legislation. Effecting Change.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:02:28 EST

Commit yourself to identifying and tracking legislation, practices, and policies that are helping to end the war in Iraq or are furthering it, and commit yourself to writing letters to the editor and to your lawmakers that carefully and tactfully detail why this war must end.

President Obama's Arts, as published in The Huffington Post

Lucia - Team Coordinator for OBAMAWOOD — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:41:57 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/president-obamas-arts_b_136616.html

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ARTS

by Lucia Brawley

At 10 years old, Mordecai Santiago was already the toughest kid at the 52nd Street Project, the renowned Hell's Kitchen not-for-profit where I volunteered as an academic tutor and arts educator. Though diminutive in stature and "held back" in school, Mordecai wielded an authority beyond his years with children and adults alike. Officials at his over-crowded elementary school had diagnosed Mordecai with A.D.D. and wanted to put him on Ritalin. He shared a small, low-income-housing apartment with four other siblings and two parents. They had no computer.

But Mordecai was a natural on the piano. He loved to play Beethoven's Fur Elise by ear on the only piano in the after-school clubhouse. Since he'd never had a proper lesson, his fingering was incorrect, but he hit every note flawlessly. The only way I could get him to finish his homework, was by promising him "piano time" at the end of every tutoring session. He often would rather play his own haunting compositions than go home.

His unadulterated love of music inspired me to ask fellow Harvard alums to donate piano lessons to kids at the program. Offers flowed in by email in overwhelming numbers. However, the administrators of the program, already under-staffed, under-resourced and over-worked, regretfully explained that they could not accept.

In Mordecai, a tough, brilliant, little kid in baggy jeans and a puffy North Face jacket, I saw up-close the precarious fate of millions of American children who might evolve into great artists or great criminals, at the flip of a coin. Without proper funding for programs like the 52nd Street Project, the latter possibility becomes an inevitability for too many kids.

In order to stay true to the campaign's message of hope, progress and action, I would like to see an Obama administration accomplish a broad array of arts policy goals. Arts education must find its way back to American public schools, not only as a proven measure to bring up students' math and science scores, but to allow students a means of self-expression that will save their futures - as well as saving the system the cost of trying and incarcerating many of them. Even if they never go into the arts, a youth's acquired creative problem solving abilities will serve her in any field.

Imagine art and performance exchanges between students from different areas and strata of American society, in order to create dialogue that bridges psychological gaps between demographic groups and regions.

More than an educational tool, the arts offer unique diplomatic opportunities. In the Kennedy tradition, there should be exchanges between students and adult artists from our country and other countries around the globe, perhaps in partnership with the U.N.

Controversially, during the Cold War, the CIA infiltrated Eastern European theater groups, in order to inspire revolt within oppressive regimes and prevent democratic regimes from turning Communist, as illustrated in The Cultural Cold War:The CIA and the World off Arts and Letters, by Frances Stonor Saunders. Whether one agrees with such secretive programs or not, do they not reflect the diplomatic potential of the arts, as an alternative to overt military policing?

Acting in Hungary, a country famed for its great composers, I saw young students well versed in classical music. How wonderful it would be to see original U.S. musical forms as part of every American child's curriculum: jazz, folk music, rock'n'roll, and hip-hop. What could be more patriotic than embracing our nation's cultural contributions to the world? And why not include world music and dance as an integral part of the American-immigrant and global stories?

With an eye toward valuing the contributions of artists, as all other developed nations do, I would like to see artist-tailored unemployment and healthcare insurance for those who can prove a history of work in their chosen field. And, to offer alternatives to a justice system that now reinforces the dehumanization inherent in an excessively stratified society, I would like to see more programs like Rhodessa Jones' "Medea Project," that helps rehabilitate inmates in the Bay Area correctional system, by allowing them to enact their own stories, thereby exorcising the causes of their anger and accepting responsibility for their actions.

Visual art projects helped children overcome the trauma of having witnessed 9/11. Imagine the benefits of music and art therapy for every soldier returning from Iraq who suffers from PTSD.

The arts humanize society, not merely in a spiritual and emotional sense. We have tangible historical evidence of how the arts have directly contributed to the fortification of a troubled America. F.D.R.'s New Deal - especially relevant now, as we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression - included the Federal Writers Project, Federal Theater Project, Federal Art Project and Federal Music Project, each of which employed artists in ways that served and uplifted society and the economy as a whole. In their 1995 essay, "New Deal Cultural Programs: Experiments in Cultural Democracy," Don Adams and Arlene Goldbard state that, rather than homogenize distinct regions with a big government agenda, these projects set forward in vivid relief the unique beauties of each region, inspired progress within the labor movement, and led to commercially viable enterprises.

Today, Barack Obama often speaks of a deficit, not merely economic, but of empathy. He reminds us that, "I am my brother's keeper." Obama's campaign has inspired an unprecedented amount of creativity through songs, artwork, dance and dramatic arts, and captured the imaginations of people worldwide. If a President Obama chooses to utilize his historic grassroots organization beyond the campaign, in order to successfully put forth initiatives that stand up to corporate special interests, he must remember that the arts will be the primary mouthpiece for galvanizing the people's partnership.

Barack Obama

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/president-obamas-arts_b_136616.html mixx.com

Swing the pendulum. Make history. Vote.

Douglas from South Gate, CA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:38:12 EST

This is indeed a historic election, and for reasons more significant than its being the longest and costliest in U.S. history. Underlying it all is the almost palpable sense that after decades of abuse, we -- the people of the United States -- are reasserting our fundamental right to power. The pendulum, which swung to the Right -- and shifted the balance of wealth and power to the top -- with the election of Ronald Reagan, has begun to swing in a more liberating direction.

- Democrats try diplomacy before war - Repubs shoot first and ask questions later

Obama Twin — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:25:43 EST

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkinaugural.htm

The sound recording of JFK's inaugural address.

Approximately 9 minutes into the speech he said: "So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

As an earlier literary figure pointed out, brute power is not a virtue, and compassion is not a weakness.

JFK managed to save the world through intelligent and courageous diplomacy. He did not resort to power as a first measure, and he succeeded without the tragedy or loss of life that a war-prone President would doubtless instigate.

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama

Lynne from Miami, FL — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:54:57 EDT

A while back I received an anonymous email from a McCain supporter, in which he questioned why anyone would vote for Obama. This was my reply.
...................................................

Hi XXX,

My name is Lynne, and I can tell you why I'm voting for Barack Obama. Enumerating each of the many reasons is the difficult part.

First and foremost, I am voting for Barack Obama because I have children and grandchildren, and I love my planet dearly. We are members of the global community, and my intention is to protect my family, my brethren throughout the world, all inhabitants of our magnificent earth, and this majesty with which we've been blessed.

I am ready for a president who is smarter than me. I am ready for a leader who not only respects the constitution, but understands it, cherishes it, models his behavior on its very tenets, and can recite every passage, as he has many times in his twelve years of teaching constitutional law.

I am adamant about electing a calm, level headed, deep thinking, individual who is a master of negotiation and has the sensibility to win over enemies with his gift of diplomacy.

I need a leader who is committed to alternative energies and regards the planet, as well as the facts when he makes policy. I will choose a candidate who will bring balance to the Supreme Court, rather than secure it as a bastion of right wing extremists for generations to come. I trust a man who refuses lobbyist influence as opposed to one whose campaign and prospective cabinet wreaks of Washington's most high profile lobbyists, yet who claims to be a maverick and reformer.

My candidate will do everything possible to protect the social security in which I've invested my whole adult life, and will not ask me to risk the loss of everything with privatization. My president will not ask my loved ones to dodge bullets and bombs in preemptive wars, and will not invade Iran as a first option rather than the last. If and when war becomes the only choice, his advisors will not be paid lobbyists for the government we choose to protect (i.e. Georgia).

Afghanistan - a vision for exiting the war

Charles from Royal Oak, MI — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:05:04 EDT

The war in Afghanistan ignores one important fact -- al Qaeda, our original enemy is not in Afghanistan and hasn't been there for quite a while. Most everyone assumes that al Qaeda is in Pakistan.

While the Taliban were our "enemy", they were only so because they gave sanctuary to al Qaeda. The question is "can there be a diplomatic agreement with the Taliban that gives us what we want, an assurance that al Qaeda will not be given sanctuary in Afghanistan?

The author of the following article notes that the Saudis are hosting negotiations between the Karzai government and the Taliban. The author sees real hope in these negotiations. Hope that the United States would have an opportunity to exit from Afghanistan and leave behind as stable a situation as we could reasonably expect.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind10202008.html

Barack Obama, "A Transformational Figure"

Cris — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:06:11 EDT

Obama is quoted saying, "If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress." As I've observed him over the past couple years, I've been impressed by his walk, his progress. He's remained steady and calm no matter what challenges have presented themselves. Not only has Barack matured during his campaign to exude even greater poise and diplomacy, but he's proven himself to be unflappable under fire by his opponents. I think Colin Powell's well-balanced perception of Obama, given during his interview with Meet the Press, stated eloquently what people all over the world are observing about Barack's walk, his talk and his confidence in running mate for VP, Joe Biden:

"...he (Obama) displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge, and an approach to looking at problems like this, picking a Vice President that I think is ready to be President on Day One. And also in – not just in jumping in and changing every day – but showing intellectual vigor, I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well."

Powell concludes that segment of his interview by saying:

"I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the ... onto the world stage and on the American stage...."

I choose to put my trust in the leadership of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I trust they will both prove to be trustworthy servants and continue to walk their talk all the way to the White House and for the length of their term(s) in office.

May God give them discernment and wisdom to administer sound advice and judgement in all matters, keep them from harm and from doing harm as they serve the American people and negotiate with world leaders to work toward protecting our freedom, ensuring peace, improving humanitarian and environmental health, and spearheading economic, education and political reforms.

Powell endorsement, and the responsibilities of dissenters

Dr. Jeffrey Kargel — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:22:12 EDT

The eloquent endorsement on NBC's Meet the Press by General Colin Powell of Barack Obama for President is a strong statement of the problems besetting the McCain-Palin team, the Republican record of the last 8 years and their agenda for the next 4. I would have a higher regard for General Powell, as I once had, if he had explained better something about his failure, during the 2001-2005 Bush term, to push the Powell Doctrine harder than he did. Furthermore, General Powell could add a bullet to his Doctrine that inteligence in matters of war and peace is so critical that it must be vetted by engineers, scientists, military experts, intelligence experts, the Congress, the media, and the public, with critical assessments solicited and weighed. This doesn't mean that power to wage war is put into hands other than the President and Congress, or that all national technical means and human intelligence sources must be exposed-- obviously not. But enough information must be put out to the public, and enough discussion and scrutiny encouraged-- publicly and certainly behind closed doors within the Administration and Congress-- that an informed and smart decision to wage war (or not) is made. It may be inconvenient, it may slow things down a bit, but it can save us from thousands of lives and a trillion dollars thrown away needlessly, all the economic fallout from that waste, all the military weakness that failed wars cause, and all the deterioration of respect and honor that unjustified wars cost. Colin Powell would do the next President a great service by pointing out that sometimes more vetting of intelligence is better than ramrodded hasty decision making based on how we assume the world is. There is some evidence that General Powell was a dissenter in some respects regarding the war planning. Informed, expert dissenters carry special responsibilities which I am not sure General Powell carried out. If he can clarify this, he might regain the highest respect as a military and diplomatic leader that he once had in this country and around the world.

Foreign Policy - Advantage McCain?

Prof R — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:44:36 EDT

Last night I gathered with some friends over dinner and the debate. As the candidates spoke about the economic crisis, I felt bad for Senator McCain - he looked out of his element, and frankly like he was about to cry. If I had played the role he has played in deregulating the banking industry and stock market, I'd probably cry, too. But that wasn't the focus of the debate. When the foreign policy debate was done, I shocked my fellow Democrats by doffing my cap to the old hawk.
McCain changed visibly as the debate intensified. What I saw was a man who has been on the most important foreign policy committees since the Spanish-American war. The depth and breadth of his knowledge and experience are stunning, and for the most part he presented that knowledge with remarkable clarity and force. A one-term Senator, even one with Obama's foreign policy experience, just can't compete with that.
But it didn't make me waver in my vote one iota. Why not? The easy answer is, of course, judgement. Obama drove that home again and again last night. But it goes beyond that, to what the commander-in-chief's role really is, especially in the nation's darkest hours.
McCain's depth and breadth of knowledge is easily matched by other Senators and lifelong government folks - including, by the way, Joe Biden. You need that knowledge in your advisors - the NSA, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. So Obama will have that in the VP slot, and can stock the other posts with equally knowledgeable folks. But knowledge isn't enough. Not many people knew more about the international arena than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Look how well that turned out.
Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, entered office with not a ton more than the knowledge that Communism is Bad and Democracy and Capitalism are Good. Even Democrats have to admit that in the foreign policy arena, Reagan was pretty successful.
Now, it's dangerous to compare a relatively inexperienced politician with Ronald Reagan, but let's also recall that upon taking office, Reagan actually had less foreign policy experience than Obama. What Reagan did have was an ability to inspire hope and confidence in a large segment of the American public and amongst our allies during fairly difficult and scary times. Sound familiar?
Unless you flat out hate him, you can't look at Obama's travels through the middle east, Africa, and Europe and be unimpressed. Foreign leaders, particularly in Europe where our allies are alienated but much needed, love him and seem very willing to work with him. Like Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan, he had hundreds of thousands of Europeans cheering and waving American flags - and pro-American populations elect pro-American governments. After Bush invaded Iraq and gave Europe the finger, those Europeans elected people who were unwilling to work with America on a whole host of issues, particularly in the foreign policy arena. Support for America became a political liability across the pond.
People and leaders in Africa, of course, adore him. Why does that matter? Because those impoverished African nations are prime breeding grounds for anti-Americanism and terrorist recruitment.
None of our presidential candidates are really able to scare those terrorist groups in the Middle East the way Reagan scared the Soviets. People who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and give their lives to wipe out innocent men, women, and children, are not cowed by angry posturing and ramped up defense spending in the US. If anything, they seem to get a sick jolt from it. "Bring it on", said Bush. And bring it on they did. The leaders of some of those middle eastern countries that may be willing to work rationally with us seem more willing to deal with those who don't posture angrily. And frankly, though probably not very importantly, that middle name of Obama's just might be a bit of an advantage in bending their ears.
But beyond that, Obama does what Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan did best. He inspires. Now that Reagan is dead and gone, conservatives easily dismiss hope and inspiration as misplaced sentimentalism, even as they used to praise Reagan as "the great communicator" and wax poetic about his visions of a shining city on a hill. In sharp contrast, John McCain scares the bejeebers out of people, here at home and abroad. His hawkishness is resented in nearly every corner of the globe. He is seen in foreign policy terms as the second coming of Bush, albeit a smart version of Bush. Even if McCain's military strategy is superior to Obama's (which I don't believe it is - and apparently more retired generals agree with him than McCain - if that counts for anything), what is needed most desperately right now is successful diplomacy. If Iraq has taught us anything, and I hope it has, it's that we have come to understand that we don't have the manpower or money to go it alone again.
And finally, there is the Palin factor. Not to be crass, but McCain is 3 years from the average life expectancy, and his body has been brutalized by five years of torture, 20 years of smoking, various surgeries, and nearly every type of skin cancer known to science. The odds of her taking office are higher than most VPs in history. After watching the 3 interviews the Alaska governor has been allowed by her campaign, it is clear why they are so desperate to keep her from anyone who would ask tough questions. The lack of understanding, clear vision and flexibility of thought shown in the Couric interview alone terrifies me. And that was Katie Couric - not exactly like staring down Putin, whose head, she seems to think, might come flying over Alaska.

EIGHT POINTS TO WIN – FUNDAMENTALLY, TELL THE TRUTH!

Ken Stark — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:43:17 EDT

(Capitalizations are to make finding the points easier, not to “yell.”)

How to respond to the outrageous distortions and lies of the McCain campaign? How to counter the Palin impact? As one who makes a living advising others, I find that TELLING THE TRUTH works best. So here is the truth as I see it:

ONE: Obama’s policies on the economy, taxes, health care, climate change and other ISSUES OF REAL IMPORT to most Americans are much closer to what the people want than McCain’s. Then – FOLLOW UP WITH SURROGATES around the country making the detailed policy case, especially the Clintons with their considerable economic bonafides.

TWO: Because the extremist Right Wing that owns the Republican party is so out-of-step with the majority of Americans… because people do not want a president McCain tossing more bones while lavishing the wealthiest… because people want REAL FAIRNESS in our system, REAL OPPORTUNITIES to pursue the American dream of success-through-hard-work, not more backroom deals and privilege for the well-heeled and well-connected… because of all that, the REPUBLICANS CAN OFFER ONLY LIES, DISTORTIONS AND DISHONORABLE INNUENDOES. Tell the truth – while John McCain may have once been honorable and driven the Straight Talk Express, his campaign behavior and that of his surrogates is of liars and scoundrels.

Talk with your heart...not with your head!

Conrad from Chicago, IL — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:53:54 EDT

Barack; you're doing the same thing Kerry did...nothing!!! I've been a lifelong Democrat but the last 3 presidential elections and this current presidential campaign have left me very angry..no very Goddammed angry. How do you expect to convince the country that you can be a forceful leader, a forceful protecter, a forceful president when you let mccain/palin slap you in the face time after time with your continued whimpy, passionless responses? I want a president who, though is capable of restraint, but will not let his restraint allow himself to become a whipping boy. Look, I too am an intellectual. I have 3 undergraduate degrees and one masters but I will not let someone slander me interminably without picking up the gauntlet and slapping the SOB hard across the face. Yes, you do not want to alienate voters who you fear would cringe at such a response but let me tell you they will not. I live in Chicago, which as you know is a town of Democrats but everyone I talk to is, like me, very angry to see their Presidential aspirant being interminably slapped around and want you to start slapping back and slapping back hard. There is so much "truthful" information out there to slap back with its ridiculous to continue with intellectual retorts. Also, stop holding the independent political groups that want to start slapping back and punching when you're punched. I find it outrageous that you have reined them in. Let them do what they will. If I had a 527 under my rein I would not listen to you if you tried to stop me...you couldn't HELL NO! When someone I respect and care about is attacked the SOB that's attacking will regret the day he merely fantasized about his first attack. How can you expect the American people vote you to become president if they can't see you have the balls to attack back when attacked by people for whom diplomacy is a whimpy option. I saw your speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and you inspired me and millions of others because you had the guts, no more than guts, the balls to say what had to be said and I keep waiting for you to show the same courage and passion you showed then. Hell, the whole country is waiting for you to show that same passion and courage!!! Stop letting your head dictate your responses...start using your heart. Come on guy, you've got the balls...start using them, again.
Conrad

This Job at This Time in Our History

WendyG — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:16:34 EDT

Barack Obama, along with Joe Biden, is more than the right person for the job, but potentially the only person who could possibly do this job at this time in our history. A John McCain administration is the most dangerous team we Americans could entrust with this job at this time in our history.

The urgency of integrity and diplomatic abilities cannot be stressed enough in this election. We tend to think of diplomacy only in terms of foreign policy, but it's so critical that Americans understand the absolute imperative of diplomatic skills right now -- the ability to "bring people together" and overcome fear and naysaying in order to break down the barriers and roadblocks between us and real solutions for healthcare, our economy, Iraq and beyond.

The issue of diplomacy -- both domestically and around the globe -- is arguably more important now than ever given the muddled mess that is the Bush administration legacy. It will take a talent reminiscent of our most successful presidents in history to navigate this country through our challenges of profoundly neglected infrastructure, eroded economics, and the tangled politics of rebuilding our educational system - and so much more.

So why Obama? Diplomacy. Agility. Insight. Campaign paid for by ordinary Americans. Vision. Even-tempered.

Why not McCain? Obstinate. Baggage. Shortsighted. Funded by--and beholden to--lobbyists and special interest groups. The past. Temper.

Barack Obama's natural ability to be diplomatic, thoughtful and strategic make him ready to tackle our profoundly complicated problems.

John McCain does not have the skill and foresight to negotiate and strategize with the exceptional timing and forward thinking that we require.

Something I wish Barack would talk about more...

Barb — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:00:31 EDT

Only once in the entire campaign have I heard Barack say something about how changing our foreign policy and taking a more diplomatic approach could make us safer. He argues all the time that we should exhaust all options before using force, but he doesn't elaborate much.

Think about it. Bill O'Reilly (who I like to lovingly refer to as 'that douchebag on FOX') was pressuring Barack about foreign policy and when Barack said he would like to try diplomacy before acting militarily, douchebag said that this administration was already exercising diplomacy. Now, while I'm childish enough to call O'Reilly a douchebag, I'm grown up enough to give credit where credit is due. I'm sure that the Bush administration is putting forth a diplomatic effort with countries like Iran, but look at the other side for a moment. How could a country poised for invasion, that's already attacked and occupied one nation, offer genuine diplomacy? There's got to be a lot of suspicion and fear on the part of any country that's at the table with this administration.

Having a fresh administration that can offer genuine diplomatic discussions, that does not have a lingering reputation for militarism, won't make us weaker or more vulnerable, it will make us more viable and give us more diplomatic ground to stand on.

And while I'm aware that there are violent terrorist groups in the world that believe that killing infadels is their personal mission from God, I don't live every day in fear, and I certainly don't buy into the BS fear tactics that the McCain camp is selling.

I know most people on this site are probably pro-Obama anyway, but for anyone who's not, or for anyone who wants some ammunition for their political arguments, think about this: Al Queda attacked us to strike fear into our hearts - that's what terrorism is. The biggest issue on the Republican ticket right now is national security - which means they're banking on the fact that you are scared sh*tless at the thought of the US being attacked again. If you're planning to vote for McCain and your main concern is security, then guess what? THE TERRORISTS WIN. How's that for some irony.

I have faith in Barack Obama's ability to take a diplomatic approach with countries that threaten us, and I also believe in his ability to recognize when that approach is no longer enough. More importantly, I have faith in Barack Obama to ignite a passion in the common people of this nation, to stand up and join him in demanding improvement in all areas of our govenment, to bring our country back into good standing with the people who live in it as well as those who do not.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2008!

Change Anyone?

deliziosa: 8 is Enough — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:00:45 EDT

I think it's apalling how the McCain campaign has decided to try to "steal" the change idea. It shows that indeed they really don't understand this at all. When we're yelling "Change", when Obama talks about change, it's not just something cute to say. I can speak for myself, when I'm talking about the changes I want to see, I'm talking about wanting my country and, probably for the first time in my life, BELIEVING my country can change for the better.

I'd like to ask John McCain what changes he's offering, besides, as Biden put it, the billions of dollars worth of change he's offering to put into the pockets of the oil companies. And if there were to be real changes in Washington under a McCain presidency, who would they be catering to? Based on his vice presidential selection, I'd guess the far right, ultraconservatives. I don't want those kinds of changes in my or my son's lifetime.

John Kerry

4u2love — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:43:29 EDT

The Boston Globe went to bat today for John Kerry as Obama's Secretary of State.

Here's one for the Onion

Aaron Baker — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:49:38 EDT

I have to give the web newspaper "the onion," some credit for this idea:

"You have to remember he was a POW," The white house spokesman said from Air Force One, circling over the remains of Washington D.C. "He heard that the Russians were coming (to the conference) and he panicked. He authorized a nuclear attack, and wouldn't listen when we tried to reason with him. He has always been a strong man."

"Everyone has a senior moment," the reporter for the now defunt New York Times agreed. He was in talks with newspapers in Harrisburg PA and Burlington IA, now some of the largest cities left in the US after the Russian counterattack.

"He is a strong president, a man of action," said a badly burned man who was 40 miles from Atlanta when the nuke hit. "He didn't pussyfoot around with Diplomacy like that egghead Obama would have."

Perhaps McCain's own words say it best, "Um, I'm not sure why this happened, but I know it was God's will."

Obama vs McCain on Foreign Policy

dugan45 — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:41:24 EDT

What follows in Extended Text Post is a copy of an email I sent out to left-, moderate-, and right-leaning friends on how the situation in Georgia indicates who would be the stronger president, McCain or Obama. Anyone who wants to copy it and make it go viral, please do.

Clothes Make the Commander-In-Chief

Michael P. — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:08:13 EDT

“Speak softly but carry a big stick”. That was Teddy Roosevelt’s message, one the United States has discarded. The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a case in point. We were so eager to stick it to Russia by promising not just our personal protection but NATO alliance protection to former soviet states yearning to try democracy, that we forgot who we were dealing with. Our mouths are now bigger than our guns. Russia is no paper tiger.

Speaking softly means not angering anyone unnecessarily. My grandmother taught me the mantra “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me”. Elephant poop. Show me a war that did not begin with escalating bravado and I’ll eat my hat. Psychological intimidation and affronts to manhood (mine are bigger than yours, she’d rather have me than you, what are you going to do about it, do you think you’re man enough), presumed or otherwise, are the root of all wars, whether it be across the residential fence or the international border. After leaving VietNam I vowed never to carry a gun again, because wielding one gave me a false sense of security, not to mention I would surely find situations justifiable for one’s use. Forty years later I’m still alive, not in jail, and so is everyone else I come in contact with, friend, foe or former lover. That does not mean I won’t fight if I am attacked. It does mean that diplomacy based on historically good relations with my neighbors is my first line of defense.

Still, I fully respect the fact a world that begets armies and navies and weapons of mass destruction is way more complicated than the simple life I choose for myself. And don’t think for a moment that WoMDs were invented by Saddam Hussein. Dreams of creating and unleashing ultimate killing machines are as old as dreams of building better mousetraps, actually, one in the same. So we have them, and the haves attempt to stop their proliferation among have-nots deemed run by unreasonable regimes.

But I digress from the original intent of this Blog. Commander-in-chief may in fact be the most important responsibility of any president, and the founding fathers did something very interesting at its inception. Have you ever seen our Commander-In-Chief in full uniform? Of course you have. It’s a well-tailored business suit. He doesn't dress like Noriega, or Qhadaffy or Castro or Saddam Hussein. That’s because OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS A CIVILIAN, WHOSE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROTECT THE CITIZENRY, the economy, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, NOT TO WAGE WAR. And that’s the major problem with John McCain as commander-in-chief. As long as he talks of national security with that navy cap perched upon his head and wearing modified navy fatigues, he’s not commander-in-chief, but a soldier first, who should be taking orders, not giving them.

Russia versus Georgia; the reality of Obama’s Candidacy

ODEH ODEH — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:31:37 EDT

For several months Sen. Obama has maintained that in order to obtain peace, rather than exploit unilateralism and militarism, it is wise to pursue aggressive, tough and thorough diplomacy as the first line of actions, and for those several months running into today, many have sorted to disregard his call on the basis that it is a weak approach to the United States of America image as a world power player.

The fact that the United States of America could only bark and will not be able to unilaterally bite Russia for that country’s offense against it’s former state and now a sovereign state of Georgia should be a wake up call as to the limitation of militarism and unilateralism that McCain and Bush have favored in contrast to the position that Obama has always orchestrated and propagated in his foreign affairs articulations.

Sen. Obama evidently is more attune to the reality of the diplomatic necessity of the international community than either Sen. McCain or President George Bush, as a sequel to his disapproval on the war in Iraq and its $600 billion burden on the American people and the country. Unfortunately the incumbent has not even made any provision to pay for this colossal war debt on the country and yet McCain is asking for the continuation of the war in Iraq.

Civilian Deaths and Refugees in Afghanistan

Charles from Royal Oak, MI — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:58:49 EDT

Senator Obama has called for a surge in Afghanistan. He hasn't said how long it would last. He hasn't clearly defined the goal of that surge. He said that it had to do with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. In my opinion, we need entirely different responses to each. We need a primarily diplomatic approach with the Taliban, who did not attack us. We need a international police response to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Notice that neither is a military approach.

And in the meantime everyone should remember how hard it is to avoid civilian casualties in any military effort in Afghanistan. Further, refugees are another unintended and rarely discussed aspect of this conflict . . . much like in Iraq. See the article below for more information on this aspect.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/03/10774/

SUPPORT OBAMA VIA IRAN LEGISLATION

Fred from Arlington, VA — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:57:21 EDT

Now is the time to support Sen. Barack Obama's emphasis on a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue, without having to resort to preemptive military attacks by the US and/or Israel.

Please consider working for the enactment of S.759 introduced by US Senator James Webb (D-VA), and cosponsored by US Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), US Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), which would require prior congressional authorization of any US preemptive military attack on Iran. Please also consider supporting H.R.3119, which is the House version of the Senator Webb bill. H.R.3119 was introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) and has 37 cosponsors, including US Rep. James Moran (D-VA8).

Please consider working against the enactment of H.Con.Res.362, which includes language that implies congressional authorization for the President to institute a blockade of ships, planes, and other transport into and out of Iran, and a prohibition on Iranian diplomatic travel except for those involved in negotiations.I also recommend opposition to the counterpart S.Res.580, which while not as inflammatory as H.Con.Res.362 is still counterproductive to a peaceful resolution of the Iran issue.

IN SUM: YES on S.759, HR.3119; NO on S.Res.580, H.Con.Res.362

See extended post for more info.

the geneva pseudo-talks

Ann — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:15:02 EDT

I found this article discussing the talks one of the more informative out of the several I read. (It's worth noting that the author has written a lot on Iran policies, specifically nuclear, one of which is titled "Keeping Iran's Nuclear Potential Latent" <-- like the sound of that!). Specifically, the author notes that a failure diagnosis is probably premature. Excerpts:

This has been smart new diplomacy that has already made small progress and, in all likelihood, can yield a mutually acceptable agreement if the trend continues.

But, assuming that the Bush administration can withstand the torpedo effect of such internal and external heat on its new Iran approach, then the chances are that this approach will yield tangible results, particularly if the White House heeds the recommendation of Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and formally submits a proposal to Iran regarding the opening of a US diplomatic Interest Section in Tehran.

The author also noted that Jalili evading the topic of freeze-for-freeze was indicative of a desire for future cooperation.

"Negotiations can advance as long as the threat environment does not dominate it."
- Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei

Reinforces my belief that if we level additional threats at Iran, we will ensure that they pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Separately, Bush 41 advisor Brent Scowcroft offered this:

"To me, whether or not Iran itself has [nuclear weapons] is a less important question than what it will do to proliferation around the world," the former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush said at a Tuesday event in Washington D.C., adding: "I think we're standing on the brink of another forward surge in nuclear proliferation. ... Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or after they get to weapons.' That's not the point. The point is how can we dissuade Tehran from its current course of action."

Another article, regarding diplomacy with Iran but more focused on internals, provides this:

Sick added, "Dissident elements are not a threat to Iran. It is not an effective strategy to try and overthrow the regime. It would require massive resources and a long, long time. This is a 2,500-year-old entity. Most tribes identify themselves as Iranian first; they are looking for more respect, not to overthrow the government."

This last article I found most useful. The content of the reporting helped me better understand elements not often covered in other articles. At the same time, it shows different ways we could put the squeeze on Iran a little more to help them realize that it is in their interest to cooperate with the world community. I hope we don't have to do that. I hope they don't stall further or reject the Geneva proposal thing. I hope they don't leave us with no other choice but to further squeeze and isolate them.

And last but not least:

And at current oil prices, an attack would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The government would be able to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program without major budgetary consequences.

Bush policies bite us in the a$$ again! >:[

Obama Diplomacy

Shane from Brooklyn, NY — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:36:00 EDT

On his first international trip as a presidential hopeful, he has already managed to insult half of the people that he will need to bring peace to the middle east with his statement about the contstruction worker in Jerusalem, "a reminder of what Israelis have courageously lived with on a daily basis for far too long. I will always support Israel in confronting terrorism and pursuing everlasting peace and security."

Maybe he should do some research into why someone would be willing to die to bring attention to an area. His inexperience shows when he speaks without thinking. If he had paid attention to what is going on in the world, he would know that the Palestinians have been starved, tortured and dehumanized at the hands of the Israelis. They separate families as well as people from their crops and source of survival.

I am not saying that violence is the answer, but you can condemn an act without belittling the people and he needs to learn how to do that or his inexperience will make him a worse president than we already have.

Iran: diplomacy without diplomats?

Taube — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:22:08 EDT

Iran did not send real diplomats to meet with the high ranking career diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the U.S. at the official meeting on Iran's nuclear programs in Geneva on July 19, 2008. Iran used this meeting to ask for everything to benefit Iran with nothing in return. The Russian deputy foreign minister found Iran's two-page proposal so laughable he actually laughed.

How do you use serious diplomacy with a country who doesn't believe in serious diplomacy?

Iran Offers No Ground in Nuclear Talks
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/world/22iran.html?ref=todayspaper
By ELAINE SCIOLINO Published: July 22, 2008 New York Times PARIS —
"The Iranians called their proposal a “None paper.”
Indeed, for officials of the six countries sitting on the other side of the table, the paper addressed none of their ideas for resolving the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.
Instead, the informal two-page document that Iran distributed at nuclear talks in Geneva on Saturday ignored the main six-power demand on curbing Iran’s enrichment of uranium and called for concessions from the other side.
The title of the English-language text had two mistakes. “The Modality for Comrehensive Negotiations (None paper),” it read, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times. (Diplomatic jargon for an unofficial negotiating document is “nonpaper.”)
For the six powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — the paper’s substance was just as disappointing as its style. Sergei Kisliak, the Russian deputy foreign minister, could not suppress a laugh when he read it, according to one participant. ..."

The Case for Dialogue - an Op-Ed

nancy andersen — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:13:17 EDT

Diplomacy is defined by the major lexicons as "the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations", "the art or science of conducting such negotiations" and most pertinently as "the skill in managing negotiations, handling people so that there is little or no ill will".

Why is it that we find the component of dialogue so sorely lacking in the United States' diplomatic approach to relations with other sovereign nations, both great and small?
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has stated on many occasions his willingness to engage with leaders of nations and even political factions not currently considered our allies, mentioning specifically in one of the primary season's CNN debates that he would be willing to meet immediately with Cuba ’s new leader, Raul Castro.

This stance was sharply criticized by President George Bush who said "Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him."

Wake up Mister President! We’re not talking about photo-ops here. It’s about taking the nation beyond the childish and elitist name-calling such as labeling the countries we have justifiably serious concerns with as the Axis of Evil. It’s about opening up the possibility of potential progress in solving the world’s violent conflicts using a discussion table and a microphone rather than a battleship and an F111 fighter jet.

In 1999 I had the great good fortune to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma ’s great freedom fighter and one of our era’s great pillars of democratic and diplomatic thinking. In our interview, I asked her about her thoughts on the non-violent approach and she replied “We are convinced that the non-violent approach is the best. … When a man doesn’t have a gun in his hand, he tries harder to use his or her mind, a sense of compassion and intelligence to work out a solution.”
It is precisely this kind of diplomacy and dialogue that I am advocating and that Sen. Obama’s vision shows a glimmer of possibility to realize.
There are countless examples around the world of efforts to achieve peace through dialogue. Several organizations organize summer camps for Israeli and Palestinian children in the hopes that recognizing each other’s humanity at an early age will lead these individuals to seek peaceful measures of reconciliation as adults.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, himself a victim of unspeakable violence and brutality has for decades promoted his philosophy that “What is required is a well thought-out, long-term strategy to promote globally a political culture of non-violence and dialogue.”

The successful end to South African apartheid would not have been possible without Nelson Mandela’s dynamic vision of peaceful dialogue.

To be sure, success is not a guaranteed outcome. It’s a difficult process that requires a high level of dedication. It involves the fine arts of being able to listen well and to comprehend a sometimes very foreign point of view.

But it is an essential tool for gaining understanding of other cultures, backgrounds, opinions. We must come to an awareness of our own biases and be willing to examine these biases from many different angles.

Dialogue is not a “winner take all' proposition. It’s not about finding a "right" solution or possibly not a definitive solution at all. It is though, an avenue for each of us individually, and collectively as a nation among nations, to better understand one another and our belief systems, and hopefully grow more self-aware and tolerant in the process.

The vast majority of the American population has never experienced a culture significantly different from their own. We are so steeped in the post WWII ethos of being the “good guys” that there is barely an inkling that we need to listen as well as proclaim. This narrow world view of our moral superiority leads to a dangerous level of arrogance and force that we see playing out most blatantly in our mis-adventure in Iraq and the Middle East in general.

We need a return to sanity by dealing with our friends and foes alike in diplomatic discussion and dialogue. I praise Senator Obama for having the courage to promote the intention to deal with those world leaders generally labeled out ‘enemies, with a higher level of tolerance and diplomacy, however unpopular that view may be.

Auma Obama, the Senator Obama’s older half-sister focused in on the point of his potential when she said recently in an interview that “He can be trusted to be in dialogue with the world.”

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:26:59 EDT

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/maliki-endorses-obama-tim_b_113845.html

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

Iran? No! Pakistan? Yes! Forgotten Conflict Soon To Expand and Escalate Dangerously!

Jim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:45:07 EDT

I was going to post a followup to a recent post I had done referencing some disturbing news, but suspected, out of Afganistan. That post, a few days ago, followed the extremely sad news about the loss of the nine soldiers, fifteen injured, in a battle at a small fire base they held by Afgan insurgents. This U.S. Abandons Site of Afghan Attack is a recent report on that and as the title says the American forces abandoned the base. It was than apparently retaken by the Afgan Insurgents as well as the little town near it, and control of the territory well around the town and base.

Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History.

John Cavanaugh — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:47:47 EDT

SENATOR JOHN McCain has apparently decided to focus not on the sagging economy under the disastrous Bush economic and fiscal policies, which McCain would continue, but on Senator Barack Obama's willingness to communicate with hostile foreign leaders, such as those in Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, authors Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkin attempted to support McCain's thesis by defaming a dead president. They stretched a common misperception about the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit meeting in Vienna to absurd length, claiming that President Kennedy was "weak," "pummeled," and "no match as a sparring partner," which led to US foreign policy setbacks.

Having studied the transcript of those talks, and having been briefed by the president on our return flight from Vienna, I accept Sergei Khrushchev's account that his father was impressed with Kennedy as a worthy and forcefully articulate opponent.

In the months that followed, Khrushchev never sent troops to Laos - having agreed with Kennedy to its neutralization - and never sent troops into West Berlin. Instead he built a wall that confessed to all the Soviet empire's inability to induce its most talented citizens to stay home instead of fleeing to the West.

Partly as the result of back-channel correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev that commenced later that year, those crises faded. When Khrushchev tested Kennedy's resolve by secretly rushing nuclear missiles to Cuba the following year, it was the Soviets who retreated in the face of that resolve.

True, Kennedy did tell New York Times correspondent James Reston in Vienna that his final session with Khrushchev on Berlin had been "rough," thereby hoping to prepare the American people for the new troop mobilizations and funding that his policy of vigilant deterrence would require. But the United States sustained no Cold War setbacks during Kennedy's presidency; and his commencement address on peace at American University in June 1963 demonstrated that he had experienced no reason to doubt or withdraw his inaugural admonition that we "should never fear to negotiate."

In fact, Kennedy's messages to Khrushchev and Robert Kennedy's talks with Soviet Ambassador Anatoliy Dobrynin enabled the Kennedys to induce Soviet agreement on the removal of their nuclear missiles from Cuba without the Americans firing a shot, much less precipitating the global nuclear holocaust then widely feared.

Communications between adversaries are a proud American tradition. Ronald Reagan, in meeting with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, paved the way for mutual nuclear arms reductions and limitations. The desirability of meetings between adversaries won President Jimmy Carter a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin together at Camp David; won President Teddy Roosevelt a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing Russia and Japan together over Manchuria and Korea in 1905; won Ralph Bunche, a distinguished American United Nations official, a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the Arabs and Israelis together for their first armistice in 1949; and almost won President Bill Clinton a Nobel Peace Price for his effort to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together at Camp David in 2000.

True, President Bush, an advocate of seemingly endless war and not likely to win any peace prizes, did recently denounce communications and negotiations between adversaries as "appeasement"; but most Americans agree with Winston Churchill, no appeaser, that "it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war."

Direct meetings and communications enable a US president to utilize his skills, knowledge, charm, determination, empathy, and national values, extending the olive branch as well as the arrows depicted on the presidential seal.

There is a great deal about which the United States and Iran might talk - including trade, investment, tourism, and nuclear weapon nonproliferation. But none of those benefits will be achieved if the Bush policy of noncommunication is continued, and the United States, under McCain, returns to the pre-Kennedy days when the United States lacked the confidence to communicate with Mao Tse-tung or even shake hands with Ho Chi Minh, policies that garnered our country nothing but their hatred.

Ted Sorensen, former special counsel to President John F. Kennedy

Afghanistan

Chris Bevan — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:06:45 EDT

Thank God. Thank God someone is saying the same thing I've been saying since 2002.

Yeah...I know, I'm an obnoxious, out-spoken, egotistical, know-it-all 22 year old homo, but you know what, even I could figure out that it was a bad idea to launch a war in Iraq before we finished the one in Afghanistan!

II'll be totally honest, I bought the whole "Saddam has WMD's and he's gonna shoot 'em at us if we don't go and stop them!" argument me that the President, Vice President Cheney and Secy. Rumsfeld fed to the general public in order to make the case of pre-emptive war on Iraq. I thought, "Wow, the evidence is there. The CIA says they have it, the Pentagon says they have it, even Colin Powell...he wouldn't make it up. We gotta do something."

BUT! BUT! BUT!! At 17 years old I said, without a single day of military training (less we forget...gays are bad for the military!) that you shouldn't start a second war...when you haven't finished the first war!!

Now, Senator Obama is making the argument I've made for 7 years. The real front line of the War on Terror, the real threat to American security both at home and abroad, the real danger to our allies can be found in Afghanistan....the nation in which the roots of the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were seeded.

With the Senator's trip to the region this month he is going to redirect the attention back to this crucial location. Yeah...it seems as though conditions in Iraq are improving...FOR NOW. But, because of our attention to Iraq so soon after the invasion of Afghanistan, we lost the opportunity to truly oust the Taliban and its Al-Queda supporters from that nation and prevent them from receiving solace in Pakistan. We could have had Osama bin Laden by now if we had focused on him instead of the President "...not really giving him much thought."

The Senator's decision to visit Afghanistan is the proper move at the proper time and I applaud his efforts toward redirecting American's foreign policy attention back where it belongs...Afghanistan.

"We must END the war in Iraq...but we must WIN the war in Afghanistan." - Senator Barak Obama July 15th, 2008

Rush to WAR again?

marsha — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:56:41 EDT

Is Barack doomed to be a war president?
Bad enough he will be going in with the problem of Iraq and Afghanistan hanging over his head like a chandelier after an earthquake... but now Iran too.
Remember Diplomacy????
Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Madeleine Albright, and Warren Christopher have all called for diplomacy.

Barack will use diplomacy.
I want diplomacy. I have taught my children. If you have to fight, it is because you don't have the intelligence to resolve the problem without violence. Civilized people work out their differences. Are we so intellectually stunted that we cannot work around our opposition and thereby avoid the bankruptcy of our country, the death of our young men and decline of our civilization?

More than 200 congressional representatives support a blockade of Iran.
Forgive me... but isn't that how we got Pearl Harbor?

I may be wrong but I thought a blockade by anyone other than the full UN was an act of war..
So.... check with your legislators... are they helping Barack?
Are they helping us??? Are they helping you???? OR are they helping the defense industry?
Barack will need us to keep our representative in line... otherwise he will be playing catch-up his entire presidency.

Peace to you all,
marsha

McCain & Diplomacy

Oregon Artists 4 Obama '08 — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:55:55 EDT

Just read this on Jonathan Martin's "Politico" blog ... Some of the comments are pretty interesting as well. http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Thad_Cochran_not_helping_the_cause.html ...................................................
Cochran said he observed McCain engage in a physical confrontation with a Sandinista while participating in a diplomatic mission led by Sen. Bob Dole and others in the fall of 1987. Cochran, McCain — who had won election to the Senate the year before after serving in the House — and other members of a bipartisan committee of lawmakers called the Central American Negotiations Observer Group met with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, head of the left wing political party known as "Sandinistas," about tensions in the region. The atmosphere was tense, as the U.S. was pressing the countries involved "pretty hard."

Who I am...

Amy — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:02:36 EDT

First things first in this Blog, I ought to introduce myself. I'm Amelia Horswill and I'm addicted to foreign policy... wait... no wrong start. Ahem...

Many People's Futures Depend on it

Julie from Skokie, IL — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:14:18 EDT

In light of the recent reports that the Israelis and Hamas negotiated a truce (imagine that, negotiating a truce with "terrorists"), I am copying the link to a video I made and put on Youtube when the IDF launched their last huge offensive against the citizens of Gaza.

If Obama gets elected, I hope I never have to make another of these videos again.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM55sFQzCcQ

For our own country, I hope I never have to create another video like this.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM55sFQzCcQ

dealing with AIPAC...is this the type of change we can believe in?

Jeffrey from Trinity, TX — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:17:48 EDT

I was responding to Senator's Obama's campaign email. I received a reply instructing me to share my views here...so here it is:

Mr. Carson:
I have supported Hillary Clinton's campaign this year, and I discovered Sen. Obama's message of "change we can believe in" getting through to me. I was extremely dismayed when Sen. Obama addressed AIPAC, announcing his plans to stay the course on an Israeli/Palestinian policy that does NOT work! If this is the type of "change" I can expect from an Obama Presidency, then where is that hopeful message of (implied unconditional) dialogue and diplomacy with leaders of nations who are not friendly with the USA?
Is not AIPAC a bunch of highly influential lobbyists? What about Obama's pledge to not allow Washington Lobby groups to dictate Government policy? Or am I just hearing what I want to hear?...maybe even Senator Obama is complicit in this D.C. Big Business game afterall...
I probably will still vote democrat in November, but if victory is all that matters, then this is smelling like 2000/2004 all over again.
Will Obama support Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against president Bush? I suspect you and his campaign will advise him to sit on the sidelines on this one, because "winning" in November is all that matters.
Just imagine all of us skeptical Americans, disgusted with the last 8 years of big business-law breaking-Constitution trampling arrogance, actually seeing that "change we can believe in" during this Presidential campaign?
Nominee McCain will stumble on his own, as he is proving nearly daily. Please don't run your campaign just to beat the Republicans...
Sincerely, Jeffrey Linden

American security policy toward Europe

ESLaPorte — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:10:51 EDT

The Cold War is over…and we must adjust to this reality. This includes America's policy towards Europe. At the time NATO's treaty was created, Americans and Europeans shared the same interests and threats, mainly from the Soviet Union and security dilemma related to Germany.

Yes -now that the Cold War is long over, it is time for Europe and the European Union to be independent from American control and influence. Europeans and Americans have different views on how to meet challenges such as from terrorism and achieving peace. To Europeans, there is no such thing as a "war on terrorism," as terrorism is a tactic and not an army or nation. It also appears that "what Europe needs" in terms of its own security and defense needs is often defined in and dictated from Washington. Europe and European nations should be allowed to determine what their nations' defense and security needs are that are NOT dictated from Washington.

America should stop demanding that Europeans "spend more on defense" and drop the demand that Europe "not duplicate what is in NATO." America should support and not hinder the drive for an independent-from-NATO European security and defense organization, Eurocorps. The European Union and European nations will, naturally, do what is best for their national security first, and Europe second.

IS THE WORLD READY FOR A LISTENER?

Frake — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:38:31 EDT

When you’re a person trying to understand life, and by nature a deep thinker, then to be open is imperative. It is all about absorbing, listening, questioning, thinking and then, thinking again. Varied and passionate input is a good thing --- and that, in and of itself, is no small thing for many to grasp comfortably. Varied can be scary. Passionate can be scary. But in gaining input to understand life, the ability to truly listen, is a must have.

New York Times Condemns Bush Diplomacy

Carole@www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:40:20 EDT

"Mr. Bush’s approach is increasingly undermining American interests and causing Washington to be sidelined."

That's what the New York Times said today in an editorial about Bush aiding, and not helping, efforts to make peace in the Middle East.

The editorial applauds efforts by Israel itself to talk with neighbors some might perceive to be Israel's enemies, while Bush appears to be unsuccessful in diplomatic efforts. It goes on to say,

"If Mr. Bush cannot use his remaining months in office to do the same, he can at least get out of the way."
(New York Times editorial here).

That's a pretty serious charge against a sitting President. Does it presage a continuation of Bush diplomatic efforts under McCain?

Carole

Obama makes case for diplomacy, loud and clear

Chinni — Tue, 20 May 2008 03:05:50 EDT

I was exhilarated watching Obama respond emphatically to Bush & McCain's attacks on diplomacy beginning Fri May 16 - This piece seemed to represent the issue well.

Obama makes case for diplomacy, loud and clear

By Peter S. Canellos

Boston Globe May 20, 2008

..Whether Obama is right or not, such demonstrations of backbone serve to validate many of the key assumptions of his campaign: that by strongly advocating for Democratic positions, a candidate can win a more meaningful mandate for change; that Clinton has compromised her principles to inoculate herself against Republican attacks; and especially that Obama alone can transcend the thrust-and-parry approach to politicking that has dominated recent presidential campaigns.
The irony, of course, is that these attacks, whether from Clinton, Bush, or McCain, aren't really cheap: They're legitimate differences of opinion with Obama's own stated policies.
But Obama's ability to deflect his opponents' best shots - not by disputing them, or firing back with a charge of his own, but by standing up firmly for his position - will be the most important measure of his future success...

Bush the Lesser's Unjustified Criticism

Citizen — Mon, 19 May 2008 02:00:55 EDT

Bush the Lesser's criticism of Obama's suggestion that our leaders must have discussions with the leaders of all nations merely emphasizes the President's parochial and distorted view of history. Surely Bush the Lesser would encourage discussion with our traditional allies like the ones we had during World War II; allies like Iran, Iraq, USSR, China, and Cuba.

Perhaps Bush the Lesser was refering to our traditional enemies, the ones the United States has declared war against; Mexico (remember the Alamo Mr. Bush?), Spain (remember Teddy and the Rough Riders?), Canada and the United Kingdom (during the War of 1812, the US invaded Canada several times and the Brits captured Detriot and burned Washington). It isn't really clear about Germany. Afterall, Germany assisted the US in the war against the Confederate States of America, but Germany was a bit of a nuisance in 1917 and 1942 before joining NATO.

The lesson of history that Bush the Lesser and McCan't have forgotten, or never learned, is that today's enemy may our ally tomorrow. Our nation fought two bloody wars against the British and the Brits supported the Confederacy before they ever sided with us in a war. There are reasons it's called diplomacy and those reasons are why Bush the Lesser doesn't want to use it; diplomacy requires tact, skill, and intelligence.

Was This Week's Exchange a Dress Rehearsal or a Trial Balloon?

Ken — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:42:38 EDT

Darned if Hillary didn't sound downright Vice Presidential this week when she covered Barack's back during his response to Bush's inappropriate comments in Israel and his dynamic exchange with McCain afterwards. For the first time, it looked like a ticket. Will this go on? Did we just witness a little trial balloon to test the ordering or a real dress rehearsal for the fall?

Another opportunity to know looms ahead!

Willingness to Talk is Tradional Diplomacy

smffy — Sat, 17 May 2008 08:31:14 EDT

American as the "apple pie" president, Ronald Raegan, Nixon before him, and JFK, Barack Obama has declared he will talk without precondition to our enemies. He will set benchmarks and timetables for them to meet and use "carrots and sticks" to motivate them. I am stunned there should be any sort of objection to what has been an American tradition.

Of course, if rogue countries will not make changes to allow them into the world community, there will be sanctions and they will be thrust into deep isolation. The McCain rock throwing fest has had little affect on Obama supporters.

Many of us remember detante, the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and establishment of relations with China. It is not just fear mongering when McCain and Bush attack the very ideas that ended the cold war, establish cultural and trade relations with China, and that Bush even used to negotiate with the North Koreans. Will the irrational tirades ever stop?

Protecting Israel

smffy — Fri, 16 May 2008 23:52:04 EDT

Much has been made of Obama's willingness to "talk to terrorists," appeasement, "Nazis."and niavete. Israel and the United States face the incredibly difficult task of protecting our allies and ending the conflict in the Middle East.

Republicans have distorted and egsaturated Obama's position. He is willing to talk, And talk should come before military action. How do you talk to someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse?" It may only prove to be more difficult than talking to Republican name calling.

Verbal wars are part and parcel of politics - nationaly and inter-nationaly. This campaign will be good experience for Barack. His ability to reconcile the bipartisan politics of the Bush administration and his capability in foreign policy go hand in hand. As McCain himself said, "We are not two different countries." Indeed.

However, the distortions perpetrated by the Bush and John McCain (along with Mitt Romeny and others) do not serve this country well. The countries of the Middle East, Isreal included, will welcome a departure from cowboy diplomacy. War has torn this region apart for too long. And as the people of all countries suffer, the name calling and refusal to come to the point of the issues reflect poorly on the United States as a country. Bush's choice to speak out on the campaign while in Isrel reflects poorly on him and all Republicans.

Israel can and will trust Barack Obama to protect them and secure progress in the Middle East.

Hypocrisy on Hamas

Chinni — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:17:55 EDT

After ousting the democratically elected Hamas government from power using economic strangulation, avoiding even diplomatically engaging them is the great policy position we have taken.

Even though this piece from Washington Post doesn't address that fundamental issue, it points out the hollowness in McCain's convictions/ assertions regarding the issue.

Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It

By James P. Rubin
Friday, May 16, 200

..Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government, sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them; one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."..

No Knock on the Door Yet

ZapDuff — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:49:02 EDT

Thanks to all who wrote notes of support for my earlier message with the email I shipped to the White House. It appears no one is coming to arrest me, maybe I am on the Bush Twit Filter and no one read my outrage filled message. However, guess I should have expected this.... looks like MSM is not challenging Bush's politicizing comments before the Israeli Knesset - instead claiming this points to a weakness in the Obama foreign policy agenda?!?!?!

Diplomacy BEFORE deployments

Emily — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:40:56 EDT

What if we had a President who recognized that the world is full of PEOPLE? Everyone in this world believes that they are doing the right thing. We may vehemently disagree with the way or specifics of their actions--they may disagree with ours. I believe the only way to change minds is to broaden them. Maybe we could learn something too.

I believe in diplomacy before deployments.

I choose Barack Obama because his eloquence will be used to illustrate the dignity and range of beliefs of Americans in a respectful, yet assertive, manner that will change how Americans are perceived around the world and give American citizens increased confidence in the military actions taken in their names worldwide.

Kids For Peace

Hope4Unity — Mon, 05 May 2008 05:49:59 EDT

If children could vote for peace then they would vote for Barack Obama!

A Song from "Kids For Peace"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgVTgW5F1kI

Listener-in-Chief Obama

Madama Ambi — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:41:44 EDT

What does a mother of two very young children know about world peace & diplomacy? This mother, Jess, offers some indispensable lessons in the power of listening. The United States needs to realize it no longer holds sway over world opinion; it's time to stop operating from fear & show the world that while we may not give in, we are engaged in a process of listening. Jess trusts Obama to do this.
Click here to listen to this episode of Interview4Obama...22 min.

Say no to a new Cold War!

Janeann from Virginia Beach, VA — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:22:58 EDT

As I watched the debate the other day, I heard only one new statement! Barack reaffirmed our historical commitment to safeguard Israel, but the new statement was HIllary's nuclear security umbrella for the Middle East. Since it is unlikely that we would extend that umbrella to non-allies, if we have a nuclear presence in the Middle East, it seems likely that the Russians and Chinese would have to get into the game as well and we would be plunged back into a costly Cold War once again. Putin has been working on new weapons, China too, the arms race would begin anew!

Vote Barack for diplomacy before guns or nuclear proliferation!

Chief Allen, Chairman of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe for OBAMA'08

Hope4Unity — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:45:27 EDT

Here is video of Chief Allen, Chairman of the Coeur d'Alene talking about why he supports Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT3XnINF_8g

Nation to Nation

"OUR TIME IS NOW"

OBAMA'08

Invitation to World War III: HRC's "Umbrella of Deterrence"

Hope4Unity — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:54:03 EDT

It has already been established that the 4/16/08 "debate" between the Democratic Presidential Candidates, the media mess of ABC, was long on "gotcha" politics and short on substance.

More frightening than the absence of journalistic integrity by the moderators were the Bush/McCain-sounding statements of Senator Clinton on the topic of Iran.

George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if U.S. policy should be to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States. Senator Clinton's response sounded as if she's proposing the same policy toward Iran that was employed by the Bush administration to attack Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs

Her remarks on the "Umbrella of Deterrence" are strikingly similar to her vote to authorize war in Iraq due to concerns about "weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw70_uJ7y_s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3jppzkF0QM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dFmTAPmrbo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWb2wBnTOlU

Continued:

Hillary The Delusional

COL Mo — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:23:32 EDT

I recently read an article on "perfectionists" in the current issue of Psychology Today. According to that source, perfectionists, who must always be right and first, are made not born. Often it begins in childhood, inculcated by parents with high expectations for whom second best is not good enough. Perfectionist seek love and approval from high achievement. Eventually, they find themselves in competitions with everyone about every thing. To succeed in that environment they begin to "juice" or over sell their own accomplishments. Later comes fantasies of achievement and experiences they never had. For some, they come believe in their fantasies and tell their stories, as if they were real.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with fantasies that help children grow and develop their imaginations. Neither is there anything wrong with adults fantasies like - "what good would I do if I won $150 Million in the lottery. Trouble comes when you live in the fantasy world - then you are delusional. Hillary Clinton has told us about her delusion about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, of the principal role she played bringing peace to Northern Ireland, and (I suspect) about her days hunting as first lady and shooting a duck. She needs to lie to try to make a connection with people whowere never part of her background and for 61 years, her actions have shown little concern for.

The media have done a good job debunking the landing under fire myth. (As retired Secret Service let me asure you we would never allow the first family -- or any other protectee -- to land under such rsisks). It has not however widely reported the truth about her role in the Irish Peace process, which I refer to as Hillary as cheerleader. For an excellent recent article in the Belfast Telegraph, use this link: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/columnists/lindy-mcdowell/article3509263.ece

To me there is a real question of mental stability on Hillary's part. I don't believe we can tolerate a delusional President in a dangerous world. If elected she'll be known as Hillary I - The delusional.

Compassion

Hope4Unity — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:29:40 EDT

The "Compassion Forum" with the Democratic Presidential Candidates was clearly Senator Obama's night. The topic of "compassion" led me to repost this link.

Please take a few moments to watch:

http://wmsikhsoc.blogspot.com/2008/01/weekly-video-bhai-sahib-mohinder-singh.html

The Politics of Distraction: NOT This Time!

Hope4Unity — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:57:00 EDT

Politics-as-usual will not work this time. WE THE PEOPLE are ready for OBAMAMERICA!

The Kitchen-Sink tactics of the 2008 Presidential Campaign can no longer distract America voters. Are we bitter? YES! Does Senator Obama listen and understand our collective misery? YES!

All the pathetic efforts to undermine Senator Obama's campaign have only fueled the fire of urgency for Change -- the America Public has seen what a real leader looks like -- OBAMA '08, it will happen!

The Bitter Harvest was planted and fertilized by a government that is not By The People and For The People. America does NOT need more political games.

Dr. Kamran Mofid, VIDEO: "Be Global Citizens..."

Hope4Unity — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:43:45 EDT

Kamran Mofid, PhD (ECON) Founder, Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative has been featured on this blog several times recently.

His work, along with numerous international colleagues, is extremely important, in harmony with "The Audacity of Hope," and an inspiration to those who understand that "we are the ones we've been waiting for."

Dr. Kamran Mofid recently delivered a keynote address entitled, "Be Global Citizens: Promote the Common Good Regionally and Globally" at Australian Catholic University, Sydney. The video, courtesy of the univesity, is now available for online viewing at:

http://www.globalisationforthecommongood.info/2008/04/10/dr-mofid-speaks/#more-110

Dr. Mofid's keynote address was in preparation for The Seventh Annual Globalisation for The Common Good: An Inter-faith Perspective in Melbourne, Australia, June 30 - July, 4, 2008.

The Vision Project

Hope4Unity — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:58:54 EDT

The Vision Project is a gathering of the visions of people from many walks of life, nations and races, some well-known and some not.

The visions are shared along with links to visionary web sites.

"Something Wonderful Is Trying to Happen"

http://www.thevisionproject.org/

IMPUNITY -- Human Rights Abuses -- Casting the First Stone

Hope4Unity — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:12:18 EDT

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Impunity is the exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss. Human rights abuses, frequently committed with impunity, happen in every corner of the world.

The stories of atrocities may come and go from our daily awareness while genocide, torture, "disappearances," rape, poverty, enslavement, starvation, "displacement," and poisoning of the environment continues, spiraling out of control to the point that there seems no end to the insanity.

A review of Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/ and Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/ illustrate the scope of human rights abuses.

Where do we begin? How do we decide where to focus our attention? What actions can we take?

Globalisation for the Common Good Annual International Conference: Loyola University, Chicago, 2009

Hope4Unity — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:51:17 EDT

The 8th Globalisation for the Common Good Annual International Conference will take place in June 2009 and will be supported by and hosted at Loyola Univeristy, Chicago, IL.

http://www.globalisationforthecommongood.info/

The 7th Annual International Conference for 2008 will be held in Melbourne, Australia:

"From the Middle East to Asia Pacific: Arc of Conflict or Dialogue of Cultures and Religions?"

Trinity College, University of Melbourne, Australia -- June 30 - July 4, 2008 http://www.gcgmelbourne2008.info

Past conferences: Oxford, 2002; St. Petersburg, 2003; Dubai, 2004; Kenya, 2005; Hawaii, 2006, and Istanbul, 2007.

Please visit the GCG web site for updates and other excellent information. I hope President Obama will be able to attend this unique and extremely important conference.

Now is the time for a "surge in diplomacy" and for working together to "bend the arc toward justice" ...for the common good.

sad day, 5th anniversary of our invasion of Iraq

Kasha B. — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:07:44 EDT

greetings friends, and fellow believers, hope you are out in your community reading the names of the deceased--murdered--by Bush, for oil, for vengeance, for...

that is what we shall be doing, my husband, friends and co-horts in Vets For Peace and Iraq vets against the war. gave blood (platelets) today in the names of the fallen soldiers thanks goddess, new times are a coming, hoping bush does not leave more of a mess for our next president. if it is obama at least he may be able to tone the action down, and handle the crisis with diplomacy, if its any one else am fearful bush and his enablers and even our democratic party weakness---letting bush have his way so often, will just be overwhelming even for someone with the backbone of this good man.. use your strengths for awesome, or at least great kasha

We need a leader who believes in diplomacy

Eilleen — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:31:49 EDT

Wait a minute! What is it that I am not getting here? Don’t we, Americans, want a distinct candidate to run for office as the President of the United States who will lead us to fight for a good government? Someone who will be our leader who will not shame us to the world like we are shamed right now? I want a different kind of leader – someone who is cultivated. I want a leader who is enlightened and humane, who will not just go off bombing other countries and killing and torturing people when it is very clear that there other alternatives to foreign policy, like diplomacy and peaceful negotiations. Don’t we want an open government where the people have the power instead of bureaucracy? As a foreign immigrant who became a United States citizen, you people should know what you authentically have that I don’t. I have served in the United States Navy to serve our country. Now, it is your turn to serve your country and fight for your freedom.Let us all put a leader in Washington who makes sense! I want a leader who is consistent and one who will not give me mixed messages. Are we for bombing or are we for peace? Are we going to be logical and rational about important issues and still have compassion in our hearts? Senator Barack Obama will make us proud one day to say “YES, I AM AN AMERICAN!”

International economics, a proposal.

Grito — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:06:45 EDT

I am writing this message because of the serious financial problems my state, our country and foreign countries are encountering. Albert Einstein is quoted as having said "You can't solve the problems of the future with the technology that created them." I believe that the present circumstances require new and long term solutions and that the methods to those solutions are being used to a limited extent now,in part,in private industry and in state government.
My proposal is to(1) use currently available technology to create a basis for(2) allowing the state and federal work forces to reduce costs, increase productivity and promote tremendous economic benefits for all the citizens of our United States and, eventually, the world.

(1)More specifically, by funding the creation of a paper less system via the synergistic use of computers(most state and federal employees now have a computer),digital recorders,intelligent pens, digital video machines and their peripheral equipment(including cell phones-all available at reasonable prices)with the goal of replacing the use and cost of paper,writing instruments,files,documents,ordering and billing procedures,physical storage before use and the disposal, the faxing of and the transportation, mailing and the large storage costs(some documents have to be stored for 25 years or more)associated with the physical constraints of our present paper based system. Instead, all these functions could be accomplished by instant computer communication and server storage, all instantly available by remote access. A by product of this environmentally friendly system, would be an example of how to reduce our reliance on the source of paper; trees and dramatically reduce pollution and mitigate the threat posed by global warming. Once in place this system would permit the state and federal work forces to:

(2)Work at remote locations. Essentially, the workforce would not be limited to working from strictly from the office. The web of instantaneous computer communication would be viable from any point of Internet access. The net result would be that a worker could work at home two or three days a week and only come in to their office when required. The New Jersey State E.P.A. now uses this method. Thus, there is the potential of eliminating the cost of fifty percent of the office space that the state now pays for in buildings because alternating days at the office with days working at home for all employees would reduce the need for office space by fifty percent. This is the critically essential facet of my proposal that should save hundreds of millions of dollars, or much more, on a state level, and trillions of dollars on a national level, especially when combined with the savings to be realized during phase one as noted above.
The proper implementation of this two phase plan would eliminate the need to raise revenues through other avenues and would ultimately eliminate fiscal budget deficits.
Additionally, it would reduce travel to and from work sites, road congestion,road repair,vehicle depreciation(both state and private vehicles), gasoline consumption, insurance costs, reduce child care costs(work at home)environmental pollution would be reduced and worker productivity would be increased substantially(proven in private industry use).
These are some of the benefits but there are many more benefits inherent to this system because it can be applied to any level of government, including municipal and federal government. I would expect that the use of this plan on a national level has the potential of trillions of dollars in savings. Consequently, this system could be exported to other country's, with American guidance and expertise, that would engender good moral and political dividends.
In conclusion, the question is not whether or not to use this system because its' use is inevitable. The question is when and whom will implement it. It is my hope that Senator Obama will see the value of my suggestion for the citizens of our great nation and the world and seriously consider its merit.

We are all a part of one human family... Senator Obama sees that we are all in this together

Eilleen — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:36:07 EDT

From the group profile's blog of the supporters called the "Citizens of the World for Barack Obama:"

Finally we have a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States who understands that we are all part of one human family. Clearly, Barack Obama sees that we are all in this together. Quoting Barack Obama, "Part of what we've lost is a sense of empathy towards each other.” We have lost a sense that we must stand in others’ shoes, that we must see through their eyes. We need dialogue. But the desire for world dominion and conquest of resources has been allowed to push diplomacy and the desire for peace aside. Immature "leaders" listen to money instead of listening to the citizens of the world. That has to end, or civilization will end. We are our sister's keeper. We are our brother's keeper. And we long for peace. We cannot afford to have Bush-lite. The Us vs. Them worldview of Barack’s primary opponent is passé; it is old-school. Its time is done. Like no other candidate, Barack Obama will bring the people of the world together. Barack Obama will do the most for peace. Please assist Barack Obama’s campaign for the Presidency in any way that you can. www.BarackObama.com

I love this blog! It shows our spirit as we support each other, and as we support Senator Barack Obama in his fight for bringing the people of the world together. But he cannot do it alone. We are all in this together. Marinell "Hussein" Bautista

THE NEED FOR OBAMA PRESIDENCY: Re:Belarus expels US ambassador

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:55:58 EST

Of course it is a disgrace and unbecoming of nations to have the audacity to send the American foreign envoys home too frequently nowadays. The action of countries simply explained the already held view that America is fast losing it appeal and influence world wide.

In a time like this, we ought to turn to the person who is best positioned to bring about a diplomatic and the best likely option to achieve the America goal without resorting to war or sanctions. The world is beginning to think that, wherever the USA is denied of access to black gold ‘oil’ or other resources of national interest, it always use democracy as an excuse to slap sanction on those countries.

Whether this statement is true or not, it is important for Americans to become weary of the too many confrontational stands the country is presently engaged in. From Africa to Europe and Asia to South America, the foreign policy news has not been very encouraging at all. There is the urgent necessity to change the mindset of the policies of the country in a way that it hope will better positioned it to be more influential without having to resort to sanctions or other forms of punitive actions immediately.

Obama hold the keys to the new America we passionately sort after. The world will respect him and give him the benefit of doubt, because he represents a new face, new ideology and new action, never seen before in the history of the country. He has fortunately for America basically touched all these continents one way or the other. This is the time for America to quickly make peace with the world, without sacrificing its sovereignty, but at the same time recognizing other countries integrity and by so doing negotiate with them on a level that is not suggestive of their being treated as inferiors.

We have a long way to go, if we are serious about making the world to gravitate around us, rather than otherwise. The Americans living outside this country, who experience the pains of being an American in a foreign countries have endorsed and voted for Obama. This vote is very crucial and not delusional as the Clintons want Americans to believe.

Again, we see how the press trivializes this very important Democratic Party members vote oversea. If it were to have been Clinton that was endorsed, the news will still be making waves on the internet, and media houses in the USA.

Obama is a gift from God, like any one of us; however, he is blessed with the leadership qualities the American people and any other nations we asked for. It is our responsibility to actualize our dream, not even Obama can compel us to vote for him. Our conscience should be our guide and our desire should be our weapon.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

Back to Story - HelpBelarus expels US ambassador

By YURAS KARMANAU, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 22 minutes ago

The Belarusian Foreign Ministry on Friday demanded that the U.S. ambassador leave the country and recalled its ambassador to the U.S. over Washington's economic sanctions against the ex-Soviet nation.

What We Need is Diplomacy, Not Invasion, Not War

Eilleen — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:34:45 EST

Senator Barack Obama is empowering and dynamic! His leadership is definitely going to bring CHANGE to America! He is evidently the man who will guide us in the right direction and help us make the most wanted change in our government. The Republican's best bet, Senator McCain, has been directly criticizing Senator Obama. But amidst all this negative criticisms against Senator Obama, he still clearly addresses without being sidetracked the important issues in this election - our ECONOMY!

Senator Obama is reaching out to all people, which shows that he is focused and tough on the real issues! It shows that he is very enthusiastic about our dream, the American Dream of a better government, the dream of a better life! He believes in DIPLOMACY, and he has proven himself over and over again. We know his record of courage and true leadership when he voted against the War in Iraq. The rest of our politicians sat there in silence and simply went along with the "mob mentality" in Congress. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq... please don't let anybody forget that truth. He believes in DIPLOMACY! I, the once dispassionate and disinterested voter, believe in him because I AM FOR DIPLOMACY.

Why We Support Senator Barack Obama

Cyrus Bardouille — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:50:15 EST

1. A change is needed to give people a "Square Deal" once again like former President Theodore Roosevelt!

2. Senator Barack Obama is best capable of fighting terrorism.

In a time when we need leaders of strength, character, and who are capable of governing the world as a team, for the benefit of the human race and the Earth, Senator Barack Obama is the best choice to represent the USA as President. His world view and experiences allow him to bring the best out in others rather than to act against others in fear. Unlike some examples of leadership here and around the world, he puts the welfare of humans and the earth, first and above, making a meaningless profit for some corporation.

Terrorism as we define it to be:

Terrorism is the willful participation in segregation by creating fear and subjugating humans, through violent acts or unethical treatment, sometimes through the use of governments, due to one's color, ethnic group, religion, sex, eating habits, etc.

Terrorism is also the subjugation of humans through unethical economic practices on countries or peoples of countries or the natural environment to promote the profit of specific entities/corporations using the vehicles of governments and or the military.

These acts are forms of terrorism, often backed by some highly misinterpreted "Holy" readings and misguided close-minded education.

This is most unproductive to the unity needed on this planet and in heaven, as you understand. Senator Barack Obama clearly shows he understands the Teacher as portrayed in the New Testament, "Holy Bible", and he walks the talk!

CBard

Random Rant- the world is watching

Lindsey Allen — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:54:54 EST

Here's a quick overview of where i am at.

I'm 22 years old and am not a first time voter. I was able to vote in the last general election and being fiscally conservative...I was a Republican.

4 years can change a person and even though i am still fiscally conservative, money isn't my only concern, there are much more pressing issues like the environment and ending this insipid war in Iraq and restoring American diplomacy in the world. Not to mention making college affordable and fixing the decrepit education system as a whole. On a side note, i propose colleges make it customary that every student should study abroad for a year of their college career. We will increase foreign relations and our country as a whole would have a better view and understanding of the rest of the world.

But enough of that. Anyways, Washington has drowned any hopes of being fiscally responsible and now i figure i would rather pay for healthcare than a pointless war.

And this is why Obama is important to me. Everything he represents resonates with me, except healthcare. With healthcare i am indifferent, but everything else i feel is important to our country and he can lead us in a positive direction! Bonus* he is inspiring!

The rest of the world is watching us! Obama is already raising respect for us around world just through this campaign! If the rest of the world can see the significance of this, then why do some Americans seem so oblivious?

CNN Needs a 2nd Cup of Coffee This A.M.

James D — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:35:43 EST

In an early morning post on cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/dems.view.abroad/index.html) titled "World watching to see which candidate will face foreign hurdles" the author says:

"The next U.S. president will face a world fraught with far more foreign policy challenges than President Bush did when he took office."

Imagine that. What they leave out is the fact that the current Administration created the "foreign policy challenges" in the first place.

It is clear to any thinking invidivdual that "bluster and threaten" diplomacy simply doesn't work. It's time to wake up and realize that the world is a much smaller place than it was 50 years ago, that it's time to take a more mature posture in foreign relations.

Wake up, America!

New Serbian Crisis

Michael Kotyk — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:28:27 EST

A new crisis in the Balkans has arose due to the recent declaration of independence from Serbia by it's former province, Kosovo. As a former participant in that conflict, as part of NATO, Kosovo and Serbian relations will, no doubt, be a hard test for the next Presidential administration.

What Makes a Good Commander in Chief?

MandyW — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:40:18 EST

In explaining why they believe they are best qualified to be Commander in Chief, both John McCain and Hillary Clinton emphasize toughness and ability to fight and take a punch.

While those are obviously important qualities for the troops doing the fighting, history suggests that other qualities are even more important for leadership. Perhaps the best example is how Dwight D Eisenhower succeeded in WWII as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. From his Wikipedia biography:

"In this and the previous high commands he held, Eisenhower showed his great talents for leadership and diplomacy. Although he had never seen action himself, he won the respect of front-line commanders. He dealt skillfully with difficult subordinates such as Omar Bradley and Patton, and allies such as Winston Churchill, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and General Charles de Gaulle. He had fundamental disagreements with Churchill and Montgomery over questions of strategy, but these rarely upset his relationships with them. He negotiated with Soviet Marshal Zhukov, and such was the confidence that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in him, he sometimes worked directly with Stalin, much to the chagrin of the British High Command who disliked being bypassed."

Obama's demonstrated skills in getting people to work together -- to "disagree without being disagreeable" -- suggest that he is best qualified to mobilize the United States of America to deal effectively with the many challenges we now face.

Obama’s Middle East: Good for the Jews?, My February Column in the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle

Doni from West Orange, NJ — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:20:52 EST

Read my February 2008 column in the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, "Obama's Middle East: Good for the Jews?"

Barack Obama: The Best Candidate for U.S Foreign Policy

Barbara C. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:29:16 EST

Most people would probably agree that any President of the United States needs skills in foreign diplomacy. The urgency of this necessity today cannot be overstated. Our relations with the world have been damaged by the current administration. We can no longer take the “bully” approach that the present administration has often exerted when it didn’t get its way. This is precisely one of the reasons that we have lost respect in the eyes of many from other countries. The “bully” approach doesn’t work: it alienates us from nations that once were our allies, creates new enemies, strengthens existing anti-American sentiments and creates fear and intimidation which can lend itself to more conflicts, including war. We clearly need a leader with the strength to negotiate, lead, inspire and work effectively with the diversity of today’s governments and their leaders. We need a leader who can bring back respect to our country, while pursuing the resolution of conflicts, and promoting peace through cooperative and collaborative efforts. We need a leader who can communicate effectively with cultures different from our own. I believe that the best leader for our country is Barack Obama.

I’ve heard some people claim that Barack Obama’s has less foreign policy experience than his opponents. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. In my opinion, Barack Obama is the only candidate with the experience that counts when it’s needed the most: in times of disagreements, conflicts and misunderstandings.

So what are the characteristics and qualities that Barack Obama has to lead us in foreign affairs? First of all, he has a willingness to sit down and listen with those who are on opposing sides. This is a giant first step in opening a door that has been too often closed by the current administration. He will not try to “bully” the parties into accepting the notion of “our way or the highway” notion of politics. This will help restore respect for our country by starting a dialogue, which is a necessary first step.

Secondly, he has the experience in effectively bringing together diverse points of view for a common cause, His leadership as one of the sponsors of a bipartisan bill in the Illinois State Senate on the Gift Ban Act (a major ethics bill) is no small accomplishment! In addition, his campaign clearly shows that he is able to deliver a message of hope for people from diverse walks of life: young and old, rich and poor, across all the major political parties, racial and ethnic lines, urban and rural, and the working class and the elite.

Third, he has the cultural competencies needed to diplomatically lead our country and the world. As an international educator for over 25 years, I know that a significant experience living, studying or working abroad can open our minds and hearts to others so very different than ourselves. It can introduce us to new views, behaviors and attitudes while developing skills that can effectively communicate with these differences. Strong, significant experiences abroad develop strong cultural competencies in a person that allows one to communicate effectively across cultures. This paves the way for diplomatic leadership. The same can be true for people growing up in bicultural and biracial families. Barack Obama has all of these life experiences.

It is precisely the area of significant cross-cultural experience where I believe that Barack Obama stands out from the other Presidential candidates. Barack’s foreign experiences and with diverse cultures here in the U.S. was gained as he was growing up and over significant periods of time. This is different than someone who has visited a lot of foreign countries, perhaps in the political or touristic context. While exposure to other countries and cultures can be instrumental in helping us to truly see another person’s point of view, the context and the length of time in a foreign country help determine one’s ability to learn the skills to effectively deal with the situations that arise due to differences. Living in a foreign country exposes a person to the everyday life of that place, even if one lives in homes with other Americans or with other foreigners. It forces us to be exposed to other points of views and to learn valuable cross-cultural skills that can improve our perceptions about what is really happening, improve communication and overall understanding. Barack’s experience in this area truly shines above all the rest.

His father was from Kenya, married to a white woman from Kansas. Barack grew up in Hawaii, and spent several years in Indonesia. While there, he attended school, where significant social skills are developed. In addition, he is bicultural, biracial and his stepfather was Indonesian as well. All of these life experiences truly make him stand out from the usual political candidates we are used to seeing and are one of the main reasons I believe he is the best candidate for the U.S. Presidency. He has demonstrated skills in cross-cultural competencies, which give me hope for real change.

Finally, Barack Obama supports causes that are in sound agreement with international diplomacy and understanding. He was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, at a time when it was not so politically popular to do so. Currently, he is one of several co-sponsors of the bipartisan Senator Paul Simon Bill Foundation (S. 991) in the Senate. The bill seeks to establish a foundation in the late Senator Simon’s name to promote study abroad programs for U.S. students.

As an international educator, it is well known in the field the importance that both bringing foreign students and scholars to the U.S. and sending U.S. students abroad play in our U.S. foreign policy. Many of the foreign students and scholars develop positive images of the U.S. and go home to be leaders in their fields, if not their countries. U.S. students learn valuable cross-cultural skills and knowledge from their study abroad experiences which make them valuable and competitive leaders. We need more international educational exchange for the future of our planet, and the younger, the better.

As one of the co-sponsors of this bill, Barack understands the importance that international educational exchange plays in our planet’s future. I am proud to see his name attached to that bill, and know deep in my heart that he truly understands the importance of international education as part of a sound, foreign affairs policy.

We need more leaders like Barack Obama: leaders who can lead diplomatically, intelligently and respectfully in all kinds of conditions. Won’t you join me in supporting him on February 5th?

The Formation of Stereotypes Through Perception

Ms CYPRAH — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:26:06 EST

Personal perception controls everything we do and defining perception seems easy on the surface. We perceive the world through our physical senses and therefore create a reality where we can function. This reality has certain basic rules upon which society is agreed, like up is up, down is down and humans walk upright on two legs! As everyone depends on their five senses (taste, sight, sound, touch and smell) to guide their emotions and physical needs, they create a world which is familiar and has rules each person can rely upon to actually work. Our ability to perceive is thus like a sixth sense which unifies all the others.

Exploring Bill Richardson’s ‘New Realism’

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:40:48 EST

In the January/February 2008 edition of the Foreign Affairs Journal, Democratic presidential candidate (at the time) Bill Richardson wrote an impressive essay titled, A New Realism: A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. The summary for this essay is as follows:

The United States needs a foreign policy that is based on reality and is loyal to American values. The next U.S. president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. Getting out of Iraq and restoring our reputation are necessary first steps toward a new strategy of U.S. global engagement and leadership.

You can also read essays from other presidential candidates on the Foreign Affair’s Campaign 2008 site. As a note, I have written my commentary on Barack Obama’s essay awhile back.

The fierce urgency of now

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:24:08 EST

I've had a chance to sleep on the many events of yesterday. I watched Barack's speech in Des Moines. It was absolutely tremendous. It accurately assessed the need for wisdom and good judgment and an end to the partisan bickering that has destroyed the fabric of this country. I read the blogs and heard CNN talking about who would "benefit politically from Bhutto's assassination." I was so angered and sickened, I wanted to throw up. A woman is assassinated, and the first thing some reporter asks is, "Do you think this will change the Iowa caucuses?"

Then, I read the transcript and watched the video of Barack Obama's exchange with Wolf Blitzer, where Blitzer falsely accused the Obama campaign of blaming Hillary Clinton for the problems in Pakistan. Obama not only responded to the false charges, but he called all of us to pay attention and connect the dots between the "dumb war" in Iraq and the limitations we're experiencing in our foreign policy and domestic agenda.

What Obama has argued, correctly, is that we can't wait.

We can't wait for healthcare reform. We can't wait to invest in education. We can't wait to pay off our debts. We can't wait to improve our relations with neighbors around the world. We can't wait to get out of Iraq. We can't wait to fight global terrorism, and we can't wait to battle the politics of fear and spin-doctoring.

So today, I wake up resolute. I'm telling everyone I know that the time is now for Barack Obama. I'm working like everything depends on me, and praying like everything depends on God. And I am hopeful. I'm hopeful that decency will prevail. I am hopeful that the good guys will win. I'm hopeful that love will win over hate. And my hope will not disappoint me.

If you haven't seen Obama's speech, here are some links:

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE

and Text only:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/12/27/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_38.php

Wishing you and your family a life-changing 2008,

Ben Vos, Nashville, TN

Policy 02:Diplomacy

Roberto David de Steele y Vivas — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:07:41 EST

Dogma kills

Restore USIA

Need global information sharing

Incentivize 44 dictators out of business

Getting Things Done

MrJWenn — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:18:35 EST

One quality that I believe that only Obama has is the ability to get others to work with him. He reaches out to everyone without compromising his position. Just recently I saw a short clip of him talking about the issu and he stated it very simply. Getting things done is a numbers game. It's addition. Dems can win more seats in Congress (I really hope that will happen) and one can reach across the isle and find some common ground with others that might not be lock step with you. Barack sticks to his core values. We've got to have that, but he can use his expertise in finding common ground in all areas of the presidency. We need that especially in our foreign policy. Talking to others and using diplomacy while sticking to your core beliefs seems to me as the only way in this world to get things done. We don't need another person to will cross their arms and not talk to others, nor do we need someone with so much "experience" that she will galvanize folks across the country to fight against her with everything they've got. We've had that with our current leader. A real divider who, though being reelected, has a real hard time getting anything done because everyone has dug in their feet both nationally and internationally. I think its time for a new strategy and Barack Obama brings it to the most powerful job in the free world.

Kosovo: What Happens Now?

Matthew Negrete — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:51:36 EST

The United Nations deadline to figure out the future of Kosovo has come to an end on December 10. The European Union has failed to produce an agreement. So, the question now is, what happens next? As a note, you may want to read Dr. Mark Elrod’s Countdown on Kosovo.

My suggestions for a Plan to End the War in Iraq

Emma — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:07:13 EST

As promised here are my own personal suggestions on how the war should be managed in Iraq. In my previous post I outlined my critique of Obama’s official Plan to end the war, as I thought it was naïve and misguided. Instead I have put down some thoughts on what may be a more rational approach. I hope it will at least spark a much needed debate.

Hillary Dealt the Losing Hand in Vegas, the Democrats Debate

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:58:20 EST

On Thursday, November 15, the seven Democratic presidential candidates debated the issues in Las Vegas, Nevada at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV). This debate was broadcasted on Cable News Network (CNN) with moderator Wolf Blitzer. As the title partially suggests, this debate further spiraled in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The candidates at this intense debate were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel was not invited due to the CNN criteria-failure of raising $1,000,000, in which, his campaign has reported $240,000, thus far. In this post, I will highlight the foreign policy issues, as well as, the building rivalry between Senators Clinton and Obama, and why I did not like the quality of the debate.

Obama’s plan for Iraq; a foreigner’s point of view

Emma — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:47:34 EST

I have studied Obama’s plan to end the war in Iraq and although I have not wavered in my conclusion that Barack Obama is the only candidate that stands a chance at having any success in finding a peaceful resolution to this disaster, I must say I felt the plan was somewhat naïve.

To clarify my point I thought I’d add my comments below the different steps in Obama’s plan (copied from the pdf file here).

The Dilemma: Justice vs. National Sentiment

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:50:35 EST

Recently, I have come across an interesting story by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), EU positive on Balkan entry bids. The European Union is seeking to expand its membership to include western Balkan countries, which are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia. The main focal point will be the dilemma question that comes with membership. I will also focus on some of the recent and historic events in these countries as it relates to their entry bids. As a note, you may also be interested in reading my two posts related to the Balkans, The Kosovo Question and The Future of Kosovo.

Obama and Iran - Is it too late for Diplomacy?

Mark Wiznitzer — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:18:04 EDT

Barack Obama's proposed diplomatic approach to Iran was headline news in the NY Times and MSNBC news programming today. It is marked particularly by a proposed pledge to abandon a policy of regime change in exchange for Iranian cooperation in Iraq and on nuclear proliferation.

The ideology-driven Bush Administration squandered its early opportunities and openings for diplomacy with Teheran. Its subsequent strategic blunders in Iraq and the broader Middle East have greatly reduced Iran's incentives for accommodation with the U.S.

It is impossible to gauge the eventual reaction from the Iranian political leadership to Obama's openings. But confrontation is not inevitable and there is far less to lose through diplomacy than can be gained through belligerence by either the US or Iran.

It may not be a question of "is it too late?" for diplomacy, but rather whether it is too early.

The Democrats Truly Square Off in the MSNBC-Pennsylvania Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:56:24 EDT

On October 30, 2007, seven of the eight Democratic presidential contenders faced off at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. The seven candidates that participated were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel did not meet the three criteria to participate, which was based on not campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, polled below 5 percent, and did not raise $1,000,000 for his campaign. Senator Gravel wrote his rebuttal at the Huffington Post, titled Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates.

This debate brought forth the first beginnings of the candidates taking their gloves off and making distinctions from Hillary Clinton. The debate covered several issues from Iran, Social Security, to UFO (unidentified flying object) sightings. This was probably the best debate since the discussion hosted by CNN and YouTube. With 63 days to the Iowa caucus, this intensity came at the right time. If you did not watch the debate, MSNBC has the transcript on-line.

The United Nations: Past, Present...and Future?

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:25:27 EDT

This past October 24 was the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations. This supranational organization has faced many different situations under a number of secretary-generals. Where is the U.N. heading and how is its effectiveness? Before I can answer this question, I will briefly discuss two supranational predecessors. As a note, you may also want to read Emma's blog post, Why Obama should celebrate U.N. Day.

Why Obama is Correct to Openly Confront Musharaff and Pakistan

Scott A. Giordano — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:57:48 EDT

Newsweek reports on Islamic militants operating freely in Pakistan, calling it the most dangerous nation in the world.

Not so fast, Earl.

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:33:13 EDT

In his column at the Huffington Post dated October 25, Earl O. Hutchinson dramatically asserts that:

"While Obama will publicly say and do the right thing in condemning homophobia through the front door, the temptation to cash in on it through the back door is evidently just too irresistible. It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin."

Yet he goes on to say:

"When this writer called Obama out on his scheduled October 28 South Carolina gospel tour appearance with the Grammy winning, anti-gay morals crusader, Obama snapped back with a public statement hotly insisting that he's a staunch opponent of homophobia and that he vehemently disagreed with McClurkin's views."

It would be crass, calculating, even cunning politics if Barack Obama set the plan in motion with his solution already in mind. Ironically, the point made by Mr. Hutchinson better supports the contrary view that instead Barack Obama saw a rhetoric-laden situation with well-entrenched, passionate people casting aspersions across a sharp divide, then swiftly, creatively applied his diplomacy to craft a solution consistent with his vision of a United States of America.

Next time somebody asks if this Senator has enough experience (to insinuate to the contrary,) recall this thoughtful, timely solution to what many were calling a crisis. The scale is admittedly different, and so, too, in some ways are the stakes, from much of what our President deals with, yet the solution flows logically from the most able candidate for this office we have in the race. The outcome is wonderful, compelling evidence of the awareness, sensitivity, talent, and vision this man brings to his endeavors.

Barack H. Obama is going to make changes despite the naysayers; the only remaining question is which elected office he will be doing it from in 2008. The evidence continues to mount that the Senator deserves and would put to excellent use the platform of the White House.

Yes, you can see a strikingly similar response this morning at the Huffington Post. ;)

A Mindset for War or Peace? You choose...

Becky from Cary, IL — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:51:01 EDT

Read and think about how important it is to the future of the entire world to get Barack elected to the presidency. Then act!

When President Bush started talking about "All" the future wars in this 21st century I became sick to my stomach. I knew we were in really big trouble. We should run like hell from any politician with the mindset that war is a tool instead of a tragic failure.

Barack is the candidate who best and intuitively understands... "Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted"... Read how.... "When U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting."

Think about how we need to support a candidate to whom this way of thinking and operating would be anathema. Then act to change the world...

Quotes from:

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know - John H. Richardson, Esquire www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107

Are U.S. Ties with Turkey Deteriorating?

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:56:34 EDT

This past week, the ties between the United States and Turkey have been strained. The escalation of events began with the passing of a non-binding resolution (known as House Resolution 106), through the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The question was whether events that took place during the First World War with Turkish pursuit of Armenians were considered genocide. The Foreign Affairs Committee has voted that genocide took place.

Barack Obama sees it: We are all part of one human family

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:36:22 EDT

Finally we have a candidate for the office of the President of the United States who understands that we are all part of one human family. Clearly, Barack Obama sees that we are all in this together. Quoting Barack Obama, "Part of what we've lost is a sense of empathy towards each other." We have lost a sense that we must stand in others' shoes, that we must see through their eyes.

We need dialogue. But the desire for world dominion and conquest of resources has been allowed to push diplomacy and the desire for peace aside. Immature "leaders" listen to money instead of to the citizens of the world. That has to end, or civilization will end.

We are our brother's keeper. We are our sister's keeper. And we long for peace. We cannot afford to have Bush-lite. The Us vs. Them worldview of Barack's primary opponent is passe; it is old-school. Its time is done.

Barack Obama will bring people throughout the world together. Barack Obama is the candidate who will do the most for peace. Please assist Barack Obama's campaign for the Presidency in any way that you can. www.BarackObama.com

Please join Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama by clicking on the "Join Group" tab to the left under Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/CitizensOfTheWorldForBarackObama

Barack Obama sees it: We are all part of one human family

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:30:56 EDT

Please join Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama by clicking on the "Join Group" tab to the left under Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/CitizensOfTheWorldForBarackObama

Barack Obama sees it: We are all part of one human family

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:25:51 EDT

Please join Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama by clicking on the "Join Group" tab to the left under Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/CitizensOfTheWorldForBarackObama

Barack Obama sees it: We are all part of one human family

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:19:16 EDT

Please join Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama by clicking on the "Join Group" tab to the left under Citizens Of The World For Barack Obama here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/CitizensOfTheWorldForBarackObama

Please watch this: Ted Sorenson introduces Barack Obama

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:08:12 EDT

Ted Sorenson introduces Barack Obama

Video:
Ted Sorenson, advisor to John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy introduced Senator Barack Obama to a crowd in Des Moines, IA
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900881681/bclid900480414/bctid1213922374

Please watch this: Ted Sorenson introduces Barack Obama

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:57:25 EDT

It was Barack's answer to Stephen Sixta's question that...

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:37:29 EDT

It was Barack's answer to Stephen Sixta's question in the YouTube Debate that mainstreammedia and MSM's overseers used as their "turning point" with the public. Please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHY1rtmIovk (It is the first question at the start of the video)

Are we, Barack Obama's supporters, going to continue to allow this?

If we allow this, well .....