In an election when candidates are more likely despised than beloved, Barack Obama seems to stand above the disdain. He is likable, smart and passionate and for a while seemed to walk on water. News was that Obama had more donors for his campaign than fellow Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton gave hope to millions who were ready for a fresh face in the presidency. Oprah tagged him as her guy and things couldn’t get any better.
Then the debates came. Obama came out swinging. He, Edwards and Clinton went at each other with half-playful jabs, but each remained unscathed. Then Obama felt really lucky. The topic was whether the leader of our country should be talking directly to our enemies, i.e. Hamas, Ahmedinajad and the Taliban. Obama said it would be irresponsible for our president to talk to our enemies. Clinton shot him down and chalked his claim up to inexperience. Obama called Clinton “Bush lite.” Foreign policy pundits laughed off his position as foolish. It seemed time for Obama to back down and begin detracting his foot from his mouth.
He has done the opposite. I recently received a newsletter from the Obama camp that included an outline of what Obama plans to achieve regarding his foreign policy if he were elected president. There it was, bullet point 4 out of 8; “Talking directly to friend and foe.” Could it be? Obama heard the criticism and stood by his claim. This action is reminiscent of another strong candidate in 2004 who was praised for sticking by his gut and deflecting critics by the thousands.
Most of his plan was a vast separation from how our foreign policy currently operates, among it the strengthening of the state department so that diplomacy is a top priority. As the talk of military strikes on Iran heat up, a leader who is committed to true diplomacy is needed. There are certain things Iran’s leadership wants that we can offer without compromising our values. As he has proven in the past with his stance against the war in Iraq, Obama will stand firm on the importance to use war only as the last resort.
6 comments:
oops! I meant to say, "it would be irresponsible for our president NOT to talk to our enemies." Oh well
Thanks, I was wondering what was up with that!
Hey,
Who was the 2004 candidate you are referencing?
I am confused as to whether you like or dislike Obama.
I think that this is exactly the kind of foreign policy that we (U.S.A.) need right now. All of the republican candidates (and most of the democrats)
scoff at such a stance. But to refuse to speak to all nations is not a strength, as many would have you believe; rather it is a weakness. And right now, we need to be strong and be led by a strong, progressive president, like Obama. We have been trying Bush's strategy of going it alone for nearly eight years now, and it hasn't worked thus far. Isn't it about time we tried a more logical approach to world politics?
to clarify--the strong candidate was Mr. George Herbert Walker Bush.
Talking to enemies used to be the stance of the Republican party (our Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was an advocate of this for some time, although I'm unsure what his stance is now...), with Reagan's stong anti-communist rhetoric being supported by a behind-the-scenes peace-making discourse with Gorbechav (sp?).
Post a Comment