obama and foreign policy
i've been getting a little tired of the "we don't know anything about what obama will really do on foreign policy" argument. of course, this is true in the general sense that we never know what any president will do when faced with the political realities that materialize during their term in office, but we do have more than a small inkling of obama's intentions, approach, and track record. of course, you don't have to take my word for it, here's a recent piece from the associated press.Based on his Senate history, Barack Obama as president would likely push to expand human rights and reduce poverty abroad using cooperation rather than confrontation. If foreign events permit. [...]
Since he took office in 2005, much of Obama's work attracted little, if any, attention because of the nation's focus on the Iraq war. Obama pushed through legislation that condemned violence by the Zimbabwe government, for example. He helped raise awareness about Darfur and called on the administration to do more to reduce global poverty.[...]
The young senator's approach to issues attracted the attention of Lugar, the committee's senior Republican. After their visit to former Soviet states, the two co-sponsored legislation aimed at making it easier to detect and destroy weapons stockpiles. More recently, Lugar signed on as co-sponsor of Obama's anti-poverty proposal.
this also takes care of the myth that some commentators have put forward that obama talks about reaching across the aisle, but doesn't really do so (chief among these nay sayers is the usually reliable cokie roberts, who now never misses a chance to point out this false distinction and to present it as a sad irony). co-authoring and passing anti-nuclear proliferation legislation with dick luger (r-IN) is actually working across the aisle for a principled cause.
it's certainly true that obama has only begun "to cut his teeth" on substantive legislation in the U.S. senate, but only insofar as there's only so much one can do in three years. from a strategic point of view i personally don't think it would have done him any political or much experiential good to have postponed his run for president, as senators with long records almost never get elected president and he was baptized in the fire of the illinois legislature (a notoriously deadlocked, rules-ridden, corrupt and uncooperative legislature) for 8 years. the experience argument may be valid in general (if unpersuasive to those who think that you need to know more than the rule-book in order to lead), but is closer to smear than criticism on this particular front.
of course, it is possible to value HRC's particular record more or to appreciate that her legislative record of working across the aisle (because she actually does too) is longer (she began to serve in 2001, obama in 2005) or somehow more important because she has been in the senate throughout a critical period, but those are different (and much more substantive) arguments on which reasonable people can disagree.
Since he took office in 2005, much of Obama's work attracted little, if any, attention because of the nation's focus on the Iraq war. Obama pushed through legislation that condemned violence by the Zimbabwe government, for example. He helped raise awareness about Darfur and called on the administration to do more to reduce global poverty.[...]
The young senator's approach to issues attracted the attention of Lugar, the committee's senior Republican. After their visit to former Soviet states, the two co-sponsored legislation aimed at making it easier to detect and destroy weapons stockpiles. More recently, Lugar signed on as co-sponsor of Obama's anti-poverty proposal.
this also takes care of the myth that some commentators have put forward that obama talks about reaching across the aisle, but doesn't really do so (chief among these nay sayers is the usually reliable cokie roberts, who now never misses a chance to point out this false distinction and to present it as a sad irony). co-authoring and passing anti-nuclear proliferation legislation with dick luger (r-IN) is actually working across the aisle for a principled cause.
it's certainly true that obama has only begun "to cut his teeth" on substantive legislation in the U.S. senate, but only insofar as there's only so much one can do in three years. from a strategic point of view i personally don't think it would have done him any political or much experiential good to have postponed his run for president, as senators with long records almost never get elected president and he was baptized in the fire of the illinois legislature (a notoriously deadlocked, rules-ridden, corrupt and uncooperative legislature) for 8 years. the experience argument may be valid in general (if unpersuasive to those who think that you need to know more than the rule-book in order to lead), but is closer to smear than criticism on this particular front.
of course, it is possible to value HRC's particular record more or to appreciate that her legislative record of working across the aisle (because she actually does too) is longer (she began to serve in 2001, obama in 2005) or somehow more important because she has been in the senate throughout a critical period, but those are different (and much more substantive) arguments on which reasonable people can disagree.