What’s Different and What’s the Same in Foreign Policy between McCain and Obama

-

cspan mockup steve clemons twn.jpg
I spent a bit more than 40 minutes this morning with Pedro Pedro Echavarria on C-Span’s Washington Journal
You can watch the entire clip at your convenience on line by clicking here.
The discussion focuses on the differences and similarities between John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s foreign policy views.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

11 comments on “What’s Different and What’s the Same in Foreign Policy between McCain and Obama

  1. DonS says:

    the second link in the 4:31 post should have been
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/10/dennis-ross-pre.html
    sorry for the screw up.

    Reply

  2. DonS says:

    Ex Senator Coats and Robb, in Washington Post —
    LET’S ATTACK IRAN !
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203005_pf.html
    Moon of Alabama has some good analysis of why these so-called bipartisan sabre rattlers, their shill in the Obama camp, Dennis Ross, and their so-called bipartisan think tank back up are pushing for MORE WAR:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203005_pf.html
    Are they simply trying to hem in Obama, or doing his bidding?
    Can we please push this to the top and get some discussion about what fools and knaves these very serious bipartisan folks be?

    Reply

  3. Mr.Murder says:

    The macro mention is something that tends to be avoided w/GOP policy. Tax cuts for billionaires, who cares if personal wages for the average worker decline?
    Got stagflation?
    Not only does peak oil put a major strain on commodities, so will climate change.
    The GOP was in denial on global warming. Many Americans felt they were wrong on Schiavo. They also want to see if stem cell research develops new medicine. People don’t care for witch hunts to be applied on women who exercise choice.
    We want jobs and privacy, affordable health care. Too much to ask?
    As for the military increase, it’s already decided upon. No matter who wins. We’ll fight Al Qaeda in the Sudan and Ethiopia, going into central Africa from there. Obama will give it a different and new appearance of legitimacy.
    We cannot get into conflict with Iran, China does not want it and if Cheney had his way it would be done already. The money that tells him what to do says no, or he’d already done so.
    We must engage Iran anyways as a hedge to Putin and Russia. Iran can help us stabilize the region toward the border of Afghanistan, this helps to reduce our own military obligations there. The same with the border of Iraq and Iran. Afghanistan needs to be addressed indirectly through Pakistan as well, instead of the current vis-a-vis we now have that is proven ineffective.
    Iran is a key opportunity and can serve as fulcrum to do some of the heavy lifting. They can provide greater transparency and influence from a perspective of interconnected interests.
    Use the financial conduits of Jordan, Qatar, Dubai, and even Israel to develop greater levels of interconnected fiscal sharing and economic exchange. This should accelerate regional security.
    Iran also opposes Al Qaeda, they were one of the first countries to help us on the eve on Sept.11th because their republic correctly deemed AQ as a threat to stability.
    It is time to turn the tables, and support the greatest regional foes against Al Qaeda in our stead, on their own behalf. This of course would mean we develop a two state solution to Palestine and remove one of their strongest rally points for recruitment and moral sympathizers to taking action in violent measure.
    There’s a greater over reaching opportunity there to develop infrastructure that would capitalize emerging states, and improve what we deem to be second state countries. Turkey is awaiting EU membership, Cyprus may well consider similar measures soon, Lebanon can be part of that regional crux as well. Iraq and Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all ready to develop new inter connective means of exchange and this can pattern accelerated security as well.
    As for the gold standard, we got off of that so countries with large measures of the mineral such as South Africa cannot control our currency and shape our economy to under levels. It’s a simple reason to get off that standard.
    The current currency/credit challenge can be mitigated by expanding the number of countries sharing in the dollar as an exchange means. Iran would be a big player if we put western money there. Our own influence could be bought back into the strategic interests that shape the world’s attention there.
    The best surge results we’ve had were nothing to do with troop levels and everything to do with bribery. Let’s use that example as ways to justify the new model of integrated scale economies. Make it a way for businesses to profit and allow preemptive trade to secure peace, instead of preemptive war fostering extended instability.

    Reply

  4. Vote for Change says:

    Vote for Scott Kleeb, Andrew Rice and Vivian Figures for a better foreign policy.
    http://www.acropolisreview.com/2008/06/2008-democratic-senate-candidate-races.html

    Reply

  5. Bill Cherry says:

    Steve: What is your take on Obama / McCain as to what should be the focus of America’s grand strategy — specifically as to the debate re: whether to prepare more for large or small wars?
    Thanks

    Reply

  6. Steve Clemons says:

    ToddinHB — yes, there are. . .regrettably. I decided to pull a “Sarah Palin” and answer the question that I wanted to get. . . best, steve

    Reply

  7. ToddinHB says:

    Steve – I have to ask, what were you thinking during that question about the Illuminati? Are there really people that believe this hokum?

    Reply

  8. Steve Clemons says:

    C-SpanListener…excellent catch. I appreciate very much your
    further elaboration. At that very point…something went blaring in
    my earpiece, and I actually didn’t hear the entire thing that Pedro
    Echavarria said…so was piecing it together. Thanks again.
    best, steve

    Reply

  9. wrensis, Columbia MD says:

    Again thank you for insightful and direct answers to the callers. The swiftboating of either candidate is not productive. Listening to knowlegable people who do not have an agenda gives the voter much more information to make the decision of who should be the next president. You greatly add to that dimension.
    Thank you

    Reply

  10. C-SpanListener says:

    Steve, I thought you knew this, and am just passing on a friendly amendment to your appearance on Washington Journal. McCain has said repeatedly that he doesn’t think much of “sending 700 billion overseas to people who don’t like us very much”: he is not talking about direct foreign aid (why would you bring up Jordan?). He is alluding to the amount of oil we buy from Middle Eastern sources. The phrase is perhaps a good example of campaign jargon that has completely lost its context, except perhaps to those at McCain events who are ready to chant “Drill, baby, drill” after McCain’s next breath. As Thomas Friedman has been saying, assuming we are going to drill our way out of this dependence on oil is like clinging to the elegance of the selectric typewriter.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *