Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Democrats, Help Me Out
I want to vote for a Democrat in November. I really do. However, I need to feel like said Democrat is an improvement on something. With that said, I have been listening to depressing foreign policy stuff all day, and right now am really longing for the good ol' days of Biden. Knowing that my biggest concern is foreign policy (but I will pay attention to other stuff), someone, please convince me that Clinton is at least a tiny bit better than McCain, because at the moment, I don't trust our foreign policy in either of their hands (I did trust Clinton until her brilliant nuclear umbrella idea). So, people know that I'm not uncivil. Please convince me.
Advertisement
Comments (34)
I don't get it, are you convinced about Obama foreign policy and just looking for more facts on Clinton's? Or are you unconvinced about Obama foreign policy and looking for more facts on Clinton's? Or are you too lazy to read it on their websites? Or are you just baiting?
April 28, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds a little like you are, but I'm just looking for a coherent argument as to how Clinton's better than McCain. I thought I knew the facts about Clinton's foreign policy for a while, until she bait and switched me on Iran. Now, honestly, I'd like to know what sort of foreign policy she stands for.
April 28, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But why the snark in your "brilliant" comment about her nuclear umbrella then??
April 28, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take it as an indication of my position on that particular policy. You can try to convince me on that if you want, or take another one. Just convince me is the point.
April 28, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be pretty convinced already, in that case. I happen to think that deterrence is the best policy. It worked for this country before, better than anything else we ever did. And the reality of everyone else in the region rushing to get their own nukes if there is no deterrence umbrella is the best argument for that policy.
April 28, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fair argument. Except Israel has its own nukes, right? With second strike capacity, and with credibility as to their willingness to use them in case of threat. Doesn't that serve as its own deterrence umbrella? If so, then why do we have to extend our nukes out there in a manner that looks like an imperialistic extension of power into an area that's very prone to anti-American conspiracy theories?
April 28, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Israel has them. Nothing we can do. Iran is trying to get them. Once Iran gets them, everyone who's on Iran's black list will want them. And so on and so forth. And once there is proliferation, then it's a free for all.
So if you get a regional security deal where you provide deterrence in exchange for no local nukes, there is only one button and it's only in our hands. (Israel's button counts as ours too, clearly)
April 28, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. *nodnod* A fair argument. I still feel like this is an overextension of power, but the truth is, that's a good point. I'll do some more research and get back to you. ^_^
April 28, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you just make a serious argument in defense of Senator Clinton's foreign policy ideas, instead of trying to determine whether the questioner is an Obama partisan or not? Clearly, the poster thinks the "obliterating Iran" comments were ill-considered, but I think the person is still open to arguments about the broader picture regarding Clinton's foreign policy.
April 28, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary would be a better choice for you because she is more likely to not think things through before pulling the trigger. You can't trust Obama to ever pull the trigger and a rotten Republican with real world experience (not like picking dinner plate patterns for the WH) like McCain could result in our Nation taking responsible action again. So, you need to pick Hillary.
April 28, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but I really wasn't looking for snark here. -.-
April 28, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help you here. My main concern is for America and my fellow citizens. I want us to be strong at home so we can help abroad . I don't want America to beggar itself to the Global economy and leisure class tax cuts. I want a strong domestic President which we haven't had since LBJ!
April 28, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is possible to be concerned for the situation that America and my fellow citizens will be in if we screw up on the world stage, but I do understand your concerns. I wish that a focus on one didn't have to be taken as lack of concern for the other.
April 28, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested too, your question made me realize I didnt know enough about HRCs FP.
Even though im "in the tank" for BHO I should educate myself to challenge the decision. Epecially since I am a fan of Obama's FP. I thought her FP would be like Bill's and more of the same, but last debate she mentioned "going back to cold war" tactics.
April 28, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Now if I'd only get an answer.
April 28, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Q= Why is Clinton better than McCain?
A= You clearly don't know enough about McCain.
April 28, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I've been telling myself since March.
April 28, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems like a very odd post, and I'm with the others that it feels that you're trying to push buttons, but we can't quite figure it out. I'll ignore that instinct for now, since I can't be bothered to read through everything you've ever posted to get a sense of "you".
That said, I'll say something that perhaps won't come up if you ask this question generally - and that is that while the broad direction of the FP is directed by the President, the details are worked out by the wonks further down the ladder on a day-to-day, hour-by-hour, even on a minute-by-minute basis. These are the folks that work at the State Department, are assigned a little part of the world, and spend years just dealing with it time after time.
With McCain in the White House, NONE of those State Department people will change. None of them. He'll keep them all.
Which means that the direction of US foreign policy, on the most basic, low-lying, local, parochial level, will not change one jot. Not even a teeny bit.
Since the biggest problem with US FP right now is basically the sky-high anti-American sentiment around the world, it seems that the solution is to change the approach we're using on the smallest, most local level. To show that from the top, down - there's an entirely new face and a new set of minds behind America. This means the decision whether or not to fund x school textbooks in Jordan, or y batch of drugs in z region of East Africa. The small details, which after all are what most people form their opinions of us based on, are what count.
With either Democrat, all of those people in State will change. With McCain, they'll all stay. "Staying" is pretty much the word you could use to describe a McCain presidency.
April 28, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Undoubtedly Clinton would bring a different team to State and Defense than McCain would. The fear for many of us is that Clinton's desire to look tough and hawkish would lead her to come dangerously close to where McCain is on foreign policy. Can we accept that her threat to obliterate Iran is just campaign posturing? Maybe, maybe not. As far as Israel/Palestine goes, it seems like you couldn't pass a sheet of paper between McCain and Clinton's positions. Those of us who are struggling with the stomach-turning decision of whether to vote for Clinton or not are probably just looking for affirmation of her superiority over McCain, which in some ways is not as clear as it ought to be.
April 28, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You stated my thoughts exactly, and definitely better than I did in the initial post! Thank you so much!
April 28, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - she's a self-styled hawk, and I doubt there'd be much difference on major issues with McCain. But, if you're looking for the practical differences that would come as a result of having one or the other as President, then I think this is the big (if perhaps the only) one.
April 28, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much. I was just looking for some type of reassurance that there still was a difference. ^_^
April 28, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point too. Thanks. ^_^ I feel reassured.
April 28, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? After her vote on the Iraq AUMF? After her vote on Kyl-Lieberman? After her refusal to vote to ban land mines? After her refusal to vote to ban cluster bombs?
So I can't convince you either. I'm sorry.
What's telling is that the Hillary supporters on this blog (Billy Glad? Desidero? Any of the several others?) haven't been able to point to anything either. And they claim that their candidate is all about the substance.
So I'm waiting with you, clevomon.
April 28, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The banning land mines bothers me, and I actually don't know much of anything about Kyl-Lieberman. I wish I knew more. I don't hold her vote for the Iraq War against her and more than I hold Biden's against him (In case you haven't guessed, he was my first choice ^^). Actually, although I don't like the idea of preemptive action, I do think that military force should be authorized for humanitarian situations. ^^ Odd Democrat, I know.
April 28, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me:
Her stance on the banning of land mines bothers me, but I actually etc, etc.
April 28, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clevo, at 19 years old, it's highly unlikely you're a single-issue voter with respect to FP. Are you staunchly pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian? That could do it, I suppose. But I think you'd be better served by looking at the whole package.
Neither Clinton nor Obama nor McCain has any real FP experience. None has worked in the State Department or served in a leadership role on an FP issue or crisis. So have a look at who seems to possess the best judgment to avoid the mistakes of the last 8 years. Then have a look at all the other areas important in this election, like the economy, racial and gender issues, national security, climate change... the list goes on. There's a great deal at stake in this election. To me, one candidate possesses the kind of judgment, temperament and intelligence I will trust in the oval office, and that's Obama.
So, have you voted in the primaries? Who'd you vote for?
April 28, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Obama in PA. ^_^ Akbarjenkins rephrased what I was thinking a lot better than I could say, but this is also really well thought-out. I prefer Obama wholeheartedly too, but on the off-chance it goes to Clinton, I was having a really hard time seeing the difference between her and McCain, and it was starting to depress me. ...Yeah, I spend too much time at different political sites. ^^
April 28, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain: Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran.
Clinton: Obliterate Iran
Obama: Talk to Iran.
2 candidates want to murder millions of people based on intelligence even our intelligence agencies can't agree on. One candidate wants to initiate a dialogue with all peoples of the region to try and build a sustainable peace.
There's your "differences." 2 candidates are neocons. One is a leader.
April 28, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not a correct summary for ANY of them, fool.
April 28, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK Clintonista, if the candidates words aren't good examples, why don't you give some.
April 29, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, by all means, please continue to reduce candidates' policies to 3 words each---words of your choosing.
I, for my part, will look at their whole policies and make summaries that reflect those policies.
April 29, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll at least partly answer your question, clevomon.
First of all, Clinton (correctly) wants to portray toughness, but she is not hawkish. Some of the chatter above is complete ignorance. Clinton ain't never gonna press the nuclear button.
But there are extremist factions within the Middle East that MIGHT. How does a president stop that from happening? She knows what we all know from the playground: the threat to use force is sometimes valuable even if you never would use it. That is why Clinton, as I understand it, wants to prevent further buildup of a nuclear world by folding in new potential allies under our protection (and the protection of our allies).
How does she plan on creating more/better allies? She has said over and over that she wants to step up diplomacy BIG time, and reconnect to the world. She, like Obama, wants to engage all nations in at least low-level diplomacy. Although she does not share Obama's (naive, I think) willingness to meet with Ahmidinejad, Kim, (Raul) Castro, she would do so after there is some carefully laid groundwork.
In short, she is not interested in using force. She is interested in using diplomacy to build more collective authority, and using that authority to build pressure on Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc. to "play nice".
It's the right policy, and of McCain, Clinton, and Obama, Clinton has struck the best balance I think, with Obama running a close (though slightly naive) second. I did not expect this, and have been really impressed by her in the area of foreign policy.
I want to second the comments above about the kinds of people populating the state department under a Clinton or Obama administration. Both are apt to choose a very wise, thoughtful, peace-oriented Secretary of State. McCain is extremely hawkish. Clinton is a FAR better choice for foreign policy than McCain.
April 28, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In foreign policy terms, McCain is quite simply nuts:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/8074_mccain_bizarre.html
Hillary, as awful a candidate as she would be, only pretends to be nuts for campaign purposes.
But I can't see her becoming the nominee.
Obama will favor diplomacy over military adventurism; he's by far your best choice.
April 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment