Obama has assembled a really incredible foreign policy team, and I honestly think that it is his strongest platform as a candidate - once he looses the hounds on McCain I think there will be some very sharp foreign policy distinctions put forth by his campaign.

This is from all the way back in November, but it gives you an idea of what an Obama foreign policy could look like:

___________________

quote:

Meet Obama's 'Tenacious,' 'Take Charge' Dr. Rice BY RUSSELL BERMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun January 28, 2008 URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/70254 WASHINGTON — "Our Dr. Rice" is the friendly moniker Democrats in the foreign policy community often bestow on Susan Rice. The reference to the Secretary Rice now running the State Department is usually made in jest, but the comparison could carry significantly more weight if Senator Obama, who on Saturday won the South Carolina primary and today is poised to win the endorsement of Senator Kennedy, becomes America's next president. As a senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, Susan Rice, 43, has taken a leading role in helping to shape the freshman Illinois senator's vision for the world, building on a bond forged in part by their shared — and outspoken — opposition to the war in Iraq. An assistant secretary of state under President Clinton, Ms. Rice also served as a senior adviser on the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004, and she is likely to be on the short list for a top position in an Obama administration, perhaps in the same role Condoleezza Rice served during President Bush's first term: national security adviser. The Rices are not related, but as two prominent African American women in a field long dominated by white men, the comparison is as natural as it is superficial. "We thought our Dr. Rice was a lot more sensible than their Dr. Rice," quipped James Rubin, a former State department spokesman who worked with Susan Rice on the Kerry campaign but who is now an informal adviser to Senator Clinton. Susan Rice said she has seen Secretary Rice occasionally over the years but does not know her well. They share a link to Stanford University — Susan Rice studied there as an undergraduate in the 1980s while Condoleezza Rice taught as a professor. Like Mr. Obama, Ms. Rice has long been a fierce critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy, and she does not look to Secretary Rice as a role model. "I don't select role models on the basis of race and gender," she said in a telephone interview. She praised the two previous secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell, but she said the jury was still out on Secretary Rice's tenure. Susan Rice grew up in Washington, D.C., the daughter of an economist who served as a governor of the Federal Reserve, Emmett Rice, and an education policy scholar, Lois Rice. She won a Rhodes scholarship and later earned a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University after graduating from Stanford in 1986. Ms. Rice joined the Clinton White House in 1993 and rose quickly. Within two years she was a senior director for African affairs on the National Security Council. In 1997, President Clinton appointed her assistant secretary of state for Africa, overseeing more than 40 countries and 5,000 foreign service officials. She first met Mr. Obama when he was a Senate candidate in 2004, and she became a resource and adviser for him the following year when he took a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee. The two discussed a range of issues, from Iraq to nuclear non-proliferation to counterterrorism. "I was attracted to him in the very beginning as someone who was extraordinarily intelligent, thoughtful, and had a remarkably broad and deep grasp of the key foreign policy challenges of the day," she said. Ms. Rice said she was drawn to him in part because of his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. She had also spoken out on the war before the American invasion, and she said she respected Mr. Obama for making "the same unpopular choice I had made," despite what she described as a "huge amount of pressure in Washington to go along with or support the war." Since the end of the Clinton administration, Ms. Rice has written often about a range of issues, and particularly the genocide in Darfur. She has pushed a much more aggressive American position on Sudan, including the possible use of military force in 2005 and 2006. She has backed off that position to some extent, saying efforts should now be focused on beefing up and deploying a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, which the Sudanese government has resisted. "I think the challenge is somewhat different today, and the prescription at the moment is somewhat different," she said. As one of several former Clinton administration officials who have decamped to Mr. Obama, Ms. Rice joins a former national security adviser to President Clinton, Anthony Lake, in the Illinois senator's inner circle of foreign policy advisers. She characterized the move as a relatively easy decision, given the similarity in their policy views and the fact that she had gotten to know him well while she had had little contact with the Clintons in recent years. "Supporting Senator Obama was a clear choice for me," she said, "but it was never a choice against Senator Clinton or President Clinton, whom I have long respected." Still, she has not held back in criticizing Mrs. Clinton during the campaign, and a few of her former colleagues privately seethed at comments she made minimizing the New York senator's role in foreign policy as first lady. In the interview, Ms. Rice said Mr. Obama had offered a more substantive foreign policy platform than Mrs. Clinton, who she said had "revealed relatively little" about her approach to foreign policy and national security during the campaign. Citing Mrs. Clinton's article in the journal Foreign Affairs, she said Mr. Obama's vision was more forward-looking and, in a message that has emerged as a dominant theme in the campaign, that Mrs. Clinton's goal of "restoring" American power was rooted in the past. "If you read that article, it's hard to discern a vision of a new American leadership beyond just getting out from under the Bush years," Ms. Rice said. Associates describe Ms. Rice as hard charging but disciplined, a manager who brings a laser-like focus and blunt-spoken clarity to tasks large and small. "She's a tenacious battler for the policies and principles she believes in," a member of the Obama foreign policy team who worked with Ms. Rice in the Clinton administration, John Prendergast, said. "She really will not quit." Those who have worked with Ms. Rice said her style could occasionally ruffle feathers, but a member of Mr. Obama's foreign policy inner circle, Major General Scott Gration, said that while she was a "take-charge person," she was well-liked. "She accomplishes a task while building a team," General Gration said, adding that she often runs Mr. Obama's foreign policy meetings along with Mr. Lake and Denis McDonough, a former top aide to Senator Daschle. "She's a great administrator," he said. The Obama campaign has at times made use of her as a surrogate spokeswoman; the day of the Iowa caucuses, she appeared on Fox News Channel to speak about the campaign in general, not about specific foreign policy issues. Ms. Rice, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, is married to an ABC News producer, Ian Cameron, with whom she has two young children."My leadership style is one that aims to be inclusive and to mobilize and encourage people to give their best," she said. "I plead guilty as charged to wanting to move and get things done and occasionally being impatient." As for her role under a possible President Obama, she demurs, saying she is focused on getting the senator elected. "I am not focused on what I do thereafter," she said.

___________________

Ron Paul! He had the ultimate Foreign Policy. Why didn't you Obamatards vote for him?

Obama is for "Occupation" in Iraq. For you dipshits who don't know what that means...IT MEANS STAY IN IRAQ. Plus after Iraq he wants to go after other countries nobodies ever heard of before.

Why do they come over here to bomb us? Why is there a threat of terrorism? Occupation! Blowback!

But I guess Obama is the best of the 3. I'm still not voting for anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Ron Paul! He had the ultimate Foreign Policy. Why didn't you Obamatards vote for him?

Because Ron Paul is a nutjob. This has been covered many times before.

quote:

Obama is for "Occupation" in Iraq. For you dipshits who don't know what that means...IT MEANS STAY IN IRAQ. Plus after Iraq he wants to go after other countries nobodies ever heard of before.

Um, where did you read that?

quote:

Why do they come over here to bomb us? Why is there a threat of terrorism? Occupation! Blowback!

Right, which is why Obama wants to scale back military operations and open up more diplomatic channels.

quote:

But I guess Obama is the best of the 3. I'm still not voting for anyone.

Congratulations.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Ron Paul! He had the ultimate Foreign Policy. Why didn't you Obamatards vote for him?

Read a few diaries in the PDD here and find out. It wasn't just us silly Obamatards, but the Bushtards and McCaintards and the Romneytards and the Hillarytards and the, ahh hell, pretty much 95% of the fucking world who realized just how ridiculous Paul's foreign and domestic policies were on the face.

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate his stance with Iraq, to which I agreed with probably more than Obama, but if you Paul junkies want to pick yet another fight on your favorite candidate (albeit a bit moot at this point), I'm sure there's a few folks here that are game.

quote:

Obama is for "Occupation" in Iraq.

Really? I'm curious if you're willing to support your assertion, champ. Please do so.

quote:

For you dipshits who don't know what that means...IT MEANS STAY IN IRAQ. Plus after Iraq he wants to go after other countries nobodies ever heard of before.

Such as?

If you're referring to his discussion about going to Pakistan and actually (GASP!) going after the bastard that attacked us on 9/11 instead of attacking a hapless dictator somewhere else, again I'd be interested to here what you have to say. With verifiable evidence from Obama himself, of course.

quote:

Why do they come over here to bomb us? Why is there a threat of terrorism? Occupation! Blowback!

And can you demonstrate where Obama supports such actions?

quote:

But I guess Obama is the best of the 3. I'm still not voting for anyone.

And the world weeps with your absence.

Now before you reply with some more inflammatory remarks and namecalling, please read this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...7&forumid=66&s=

Lira does not take too kindly to ad hominems and namecalling remarks like you just demonstrated. It's what tends to separate the PDD from the COR, so please keep that in mind before you reply again, sir.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Right, which is why Obama wants to scale back military operations and open up more diplomatic channels.

usually what people say and what people do are two completely different things. trusting a politician before he/she is even elected might be a bit presumptuous don't you agree?

___________________
"The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!" - homer

quote:

Originally posted by Spike usually what people say and what people do are two completely different things. trusting a politician before he/she is even elected might be a bit presumptuous don't you agree?

That tends to beg the question as to why we should ever vote for anyone in the first place then, doesn't it?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That tends to beg the question as to why we should ever vote for anyone in the first place then, doesn't it?

now you're gettin it!

___________________
"The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!" - homer

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That tends to beg the question as to why we should ever vote for anyone in the first place then, doesn't it?

So...why didn't you vote Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel? The ones with a PROVEN record of 30+ years. Ones that don't flip flop, ones that DON'T have anything against them, and ones that will truley change the country for better.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes So...why didn't you vote Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel? The ones with a PROVEN record of 30+ years. Ones that don't flip flop...

1) Flip-flopping is a good thing: why would you persist with an idea or action after encountering facts that demonstrate it is a foolhardy one? Surely it is better to have a president who changes his mind according to available evidence than one who doesn't out of pure stubborness?

2) What issues has Obama flip-flopped on?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by shapes So...why didn't you vote Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel? The ones with a PROVEN record of 30+ years. Ones that don't flip flop, ones that DON'T have anything against them, and ones that will truley change the country for better.

In addition to what Renegade has mentioned, again I would emphasize you to search for some of the previous discussions on Ron Paul here, specifically the arguments brought out by Lebezniatnikov, whom I agreed with regarding Paul's record and stances ~99% of the time. More specifically, Paul's famous libertarianism seemingly halts right at the point of a woman's right to choose, and he also voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell bill:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1092

Whether or not I agree with abortion is not the issue here (I actually tend to be a fence-sitter on this one, one of the few places for me on such issues). What does concern me is his inconsistency with his so-called principles of libertarianism.

His libertarianism also seems to run at odds with his stances to gay rights. The Libertarian party strongly opposes the Defense of America Act:

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9607-marriage.html

Yet Paul supports it, even taking it a step further and supported the Marriage Protection Act:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...08:HR03313:@@@P

which would have barred federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is federal law. Or in 1993 when he equates homosexuality with "sexual deviance":

http://groups.google.com/group/info...fbae4aa7?hl=en&

His stances on Church-State separation are also quite strange, such as co-sponsoring the school-prayer Amendment:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...8:@@@L&summ2=m&

and keeping the 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1091

And he introduced a bill to bar the federal courts from hearing any cases to enforce the Establishment Clause:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:

Indeed, strict constructionism seems to be a very strange standard Paul has created, albeit rather subjectively and arbitrarily.

He's also voted to defund OSHA's ergonomics rules:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1071

voted against increasing mine safety standards:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1092

consistently takes the bullshit GOP stance about the solvency of Social Security and Medicare:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst110804.htm

voted for the bankruptcy bill which gave fun little loopholes for the rich to drive a fucking truck through:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1091

Doesn't give two shits about universal healthcare:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst050304.htm

And has such wonderful fucking things to say about African Americans:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc....8668bd3662b0fa5

And what the fuck is he talking about here with "Clinton's black and white illegitimate children"?:

http://groups.google.com/group/bit....2e1d3d11aa4755b


He also doesn't appear to be much for environmentalism:

http://www.rep.org/2005_scorecard.pdf
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...?sig_id=004046M
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rat...?sig_id=004114M

voting for drilling in the Arctic wildlife:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1091

helped shield oil companies from MBTE lawsuits:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1091

He's against increasing mileage standards:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...H&congress=1091

As for immigration, I don't support his stances as far as he goes, especially in repealing the birthright citizenship:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst100206.htm

His H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: "Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States."

4 Representatives co-sponsored his Amendment, all Republicans of course.

And I didn't even touch on his foreign policies. I'm about out of breath on this guy, but my question is to you - if you were a true progressive liberal like myself, what good fucking reason do I have to actually vote for him? Because he wants us out of Iraq? So fucking what?!?! So does Pat Buchanan. So does David Duke. So does the Phelps family. Does that mean I should support their causes too?

Jesus.

Like Paul, there's some definite qualities and supporting policies that I like in Kucinich as well. However it's also clear that he stands and falls entirely on his rhetoric. While I tend to agree more often than not with his words, he has demonstrated no ability to come to a consensus on anything with anyone who does not agree with his views whatsoever. I think his inability to pass any legislation he's created tends to speak for itself in this regard. IOW, he's a terrific lecturer, but not a worthy candidate for President.

And if you want to know more about why I don't support Kucinich, read this diary by Kos, to which again I found fairly compelling:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/113236/176


More recently, I completely fail to understand his rationale as to why he voted with the Republicans on the latest NSA domestic spying bill, and the SCHIP bill. To me his stances as more or less a puritan really doesn't cut it.

As for Gravel, again there's many things I like about him. I agree with his stance on most issues with the exception of his Fair Tax ideas - his idea of a 23% national sales tax on top of local and state taxes. What's more, I wish I had the link with me, but when he was asked about his proposal in an interview at the YearlyKos presidential forum, he in essence responded, "I won't defend my proposal, but if you disagree with it, don't worry -- you can still vote for me since it won't pass."

That's just downright strange.

Now don't get me wrong, I will happily support a candidate despite whether or not they may be "electable", which was exactly what I did when my support shifted from Edwards to Dodd after Dodd mounted his filibuster on the Senate floor with the NSA domestic spying bill. Dodd was anything but electable, garnering up no more than like 5% of the vote in any state at any time. But my money and support went to him nonetheless. However once he and Edwards was out, it was clear to me that the best candidate at this time will now be Obama.

Does Obama have flaws? Of course - all candidates do. I'd love it if Dodd went all the way. He'd make a great candidate. But now that he's not in the race, does that mean I shouldn't vote for anyone because the "most pure" candidate who lines up with my views the best is no longer there? Umm, no, because the alternative is a candidate on the opposite side of the aisle who's policies are the antithesis on most of the issues to what I want and believe is right for this country.

It's beyond asinine to say or imply that I should not vote for Obama simply because he does not line up with ALL of my views, or that his rhetoric now will likely not match his actions later. Jesus, give me one fucking candidate to which that is true. As a consequence, however, those who do vote for whom they consider the best candidate in their eyes will vote, and their vote may be for the candidate whom I would want as President the least (i.e. McCain). As an American citizen I have a right and I feel an obligation to vote for the BEST candidate out there, not the most PERFECT. That's a standard no one could reach.

And sometimes you have to realize that voting for someone who doesn't ALWAYS agree with you is actually a good thing too. Our system is set up with numerous checks and balances that entail, that pretty much mandate the value of compromise in many instances. A good Presidential candidate in my eyes is not one who wants to force every policy down the throat of Americans whom he believes is the correct one, but one who might be willing to listen to the other side even if he ultimately disagrees with them, and may actually come to a compromise or two with them in order to pass a bill that serves in the best interests of our country overall.

It's not a perfect system, but it wasn't designed to be so.

Now, shapes, I answered you as best as I can. You have made specific allegations against Obama. Are you willing to support your assertions you made against him with verifiable evidence?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...