<p>Obama majored in political science & international relations at Columbia and has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Committee on Homeland Security, & Committee on Veterans Affairs. Hillary Clinton has been in the US Senate 4 years longer than Obama, but her committee assignments have focused mostly on domestic issues (Budget; Environment; Health & Education; Aging) although she is also on the Armed Services Committee. So Obama would have had more exposure to foreign policy issues in the Senate than Clinton; also he traveled abroad extensively in his connection with his committee assignments. </p>
<p>In any case, Obama showed better judgment than Clinton about the Iraq war, and it is clear that Obama already is immensely popular abroad – so an Obama presidency would have a huge leg up when it comes to diplomacy & foreign relations. </p>
<p>I could see why someone might argue that McCain has more experience than Obama – but their policies and outlook are starkly different. McCain is a strong supporter of the Bush policy – so “experience” doesn’t necessarily equate with good judgment. </p>
<p>Do some of the Hillary supporters favor a prolonged US presence in Iraq? (I suppose Clinton never was all that clear about what she would do in terms of Iraq). I suppose in that case it might make some sense to shift to McCain. But otherwise, to support one relatively “inexperienced” candidate over another doesn’t make much sense.</p>
<p>The “lack of foreign policy experience” argument is specious, in my opinion. First of all, as between Obama and Clinton, what exactly was her “foreign policy experience” – besides ducking sniper fire in Bosnia, that is?</p>
<p>And look what a wonderful job the Bush administration has done with foreign policy. All that experience (not that Bush had any; I doubt he could have properly placed Iraq on a blank map of the Middle East before he became President, and maybe even thereafter) sure didn’t help much.</p>
<p>The whole right wing radio/blogosphere/Faux News Network rumor mill with respect to Obama is disgusting, inexcusable, and unquestionably racist. Pointing out racism where it exists isn’t “playing the race card”; that’s just a feeble attempt to change the subject. I also think the smear campaign (the one that’s ongoing, and what’s still to come) just demonstrates how morally and ethically bankrupt – and devoid of actual ideas – these people are. It’s an effective admission on their part that they know that the only way they can win is to successfully paint Obama as a bogeyman in the eyes of a substantial number of people – the proverbial “Scary Negro,” “Angry Negro,” “Ungrateful Negro,” “Corrupt Negro,” and/or “Incompetent Negro,” as a number of African-American commentators have pointed out. </p>
<p>All garbage, just as the nonsensical birth certificate hysteria turned out to be.</p>
<p>… and anyone that doesn’t believe that just needs to spend a few hours reading foreign newspapers from around the world. </p>
<p>If we elected Obama the world would take notice and people would start taking the US seriously again on the world stage. </p>
<p>If the US elects Obama the world will take notice… if we elect McCain they’ll keep thinking we’re all idiots. </p>
<p>If we elect McCain he’ll just get written off as a continuation of the status quo…</p>
<p>I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around the world in recent years and often the subject of US politics comes up. The general consensus seems to be that people recognize the US made a mistake with Bush, but a lot of folks are waiting to see what happens this time around. A lot of damage has been done, but it’s not too late to turn things around. If we elect McCain, much of the world will just write us off as continuing with the status quo… and that’s the last thing we need right now on the foreign policy front! </p>
<p>Not only has Obama shown better judgment than McCain on foreign policy, Obama will be much more respected around the world than McCain and that would make a HUGE difference.</p>
<p>Oh, but you forget that to the people who hate Obama, respect from the rest of the world is anathema. A sign that you’re practically a traitor. They take pride in the idea of a sovereign America going it alone (except for the coalition of the willing, of course!); anything smacking of internationalism is the devil.</p>
<p>"No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee. </p>
<p>If McCain is elected president, my biggest fear is that he’ll offer Cheney a place in his administration. According to politico.com, here’s what McCain said back in 2006 (I apologize if this has already been posted, but I don’t have time to read all the previous posts):</p>
<p>"So…were those “security Moms” equally “concerned” about GW Bush in 2000? Because he had less “foreign policy” experience than Obama. None at all, actually.</p>
<p>The election of 2000 occurred <em>before</em> 9/11/2001.</p>
<p>The term “security Mom” did not come about until the election of 2004.</p>
<p>So, if you’re a “security mom,” do you think that when our country is attacked, the proper recourse is to react like a wounded pit bull, blindly savaging in a state of panic and rage? That doesn’t sound much like the “home of the brave” I grew up pledging my allegiance to. … Our soldiers are undeniably courageous, but who else is? Certainly not the neocon cowards who launched this infernal war, those men who proudly served not a single day in a combat zone. Not those of us who hole up in the safety of our homes while beating our war drums and dutifully sending the children of other families off to die in a desert on the other side of the world. Certainly not the rest of us, who haven’t been required to make one single sacrifice and who, instead, sit on our rear-ends and yap about the noble cause, while slapping a cheap, plastic “support our troops” sticker on our SUV … and feeling good about it. </p>
<p>Ironically, I consider myself very much a “security mom.” One who would feel secure in the knowledge that her two college-aged kids will not someday be drafted to serve as fodder in Bush/Cheney’s cynical, senseless, unwinnable oil war. And I consider myself a patriot to the very core of my being, the kind who loves her country deeply and who wants the rest of the world to appreciate America as a fine, upstanding member of the international community, rather than as an arrogant, swaggering, militarist renegade. Which is where Bush has squarely and shamefully put us. The war he started in Iraq five years ago and that we are engaging in today and for the foreseeable future, is not the kind that provides “security” in any way, shape, or form. Not in my book. Which is why this very patriotic “security mom” supports Barak Obama with all of her heart. Whatever his flaws, he’s infinitely better than four more years of the unthinkable same.</p>
<p>Bush/Cheney and McCain hate each other due to the 2000 election. Think Hillary and Obama today. Not the best of friends!</p>
<p>McCain will not let the gop tell him what to do. I don’t really like McCain, but I will prefer McCains’s conservative judges over Obama’s liberal judges.</p>
<p>AMom2–I hope you’re right about McCain being his own man. I certainly hold him in far higher esteem than I do GWB, but his war stance is hard for me to go along with. You and I dwell in different political spheres, because McCain’s likelihood of appointing conservative judges worries me very much. I would prefer to see a more balanced court, rather than one leaning far to the right.</p>
So… The “Moms” didn’t care if a President had any foreign policy experience before 9/11, because, after all - the world was perfectly safe until 9/11, and we had no need to pay any attention to whatever might have been going on outside our borders until then, eh? (I don’t think I actually know anyone who is that ignorant, shallow and naive. I must live a sheltered life. Of course “Security Moms” were a myth to begin with, so the fact that I don’t know any probably doesn’t mean much. The fictional “Security Moms” were just conservative white married women, who probably didn’t care about “foreign policy experience” because it wasn’t a soundbite on Fox News.) But now the cutoff for said experience is - well, just above wherever you think Obama’s experience level is? </p>
<p>You know, I think if you move those goalposts just a little bit more to that side, you can improve your odds. Just a suggestion.</p>