The zero credibility in foreign affairs thing is a really tired old routine. Presidents surround themselves with people that are experienced and make decisions based on their advice. What's more important is critical thinking skills and intelligence. If you think that a president's foreign affair skills are more important than his motive and intelligence, you're doing it wrong. The unqualified for the presidency thing is a joke and need not be responded to.

People know his views. They're all up on his website in detail to understand. They're electing him because he does represent a very different viewpoint and they don't want more Clinton.

Let me add that Biden is looking like a good nominee for secretary of state for Obama. If you think Biden is unfit, please speak up.

"surround themselves with people that are experienced and make decisions based on their advice."

Like experts in the now defunct U.S.S.R?

Echoic: Let me add that Biden is looking like a good nominee for secretary of state for Obama. If you think Biden is unfit, please speak up.

And make sure to do so clearly and articulately :P

submitter: "Democrats are going to realize they are nominating a candidate who has zero credibility in foreign affairs,

Of the "top three" candidates he mentions for Republicans, 2/3 have less foreign affairs experience than Obama, and he doesn't like McCain...

If Obama has zero credibility in foreign affairs I'd hate to see what you think of Huckabee.

Echoic: They're electing him because he does represent a very different viewpoint and they don't want more Clinton.

Actually, I think they may want Clinton views, policies and prosperity without the Clinton angst.

Republicans are going to realize they are nominating a candidate who has zero credibility in foreign affairs, who is seen as unqualified for the Presidency, and whose views are more right-wing Christian nutjob than any President in history.

There, fixed that for ya.

Great Metal Jesus: If Obama has zero credibility in foreign affairs I'd hate to see what you think of Huckabee.

Or Giuliani. These guys are really scared of an Obama candidacy. That's why they hyped up the "Hillary is inevitable" so much.

We don't need a president experienced in anything political.

We need a president that will lead, not cater to special interest groups and corporate America.

Echoic: Presidents surround themselves with people that are experienced and make decisions based on their advice.

At least you'd hope that's the case, but it hasn't been for the past 7 years.

I love all the talk about inexperienced Democratic candidates, considering how demonstrably inadequate a leader Bush was and still is.

America needs Huckabee to complete our transformation into a Christian theocracy ruled by the laws of God.
When we have surrendered our government to Jesus we will once again be God's promised land. The world will love us. Our economy will prosper. We will all live happily ever after with God at our side.

I believe that a majority of voting Americans want more Jesus in their government.

Echoic


People know his views. They're all up on his website in detail to understand. They're electing him because he does represent a very different viewpoint and they don't want more Clinton.

Obama lists 50 former CLinton advisors in his camp on foreign policy alone. It doesn not seem like much of a change from the old Clinton regime to me.

Echoic: If you think Biden is unfit, please speak up.

Joseph Biden? The guy who can't open his mouth without shoving his entire leg in there? THAT Joseph Biden. He'd be like the Prince Phillip of Foreign Policy.

- Speaking to a driving instructor in Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?"

- When visiting China in 1986, he told a group of British students, "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed".

- In 2002, he asked an Indigenous Australian businessman, "Do you still throw spears at each other?"


I mean, I'd get a real kick out of Sec. of State Biden, but I don't think you want to unleash him upon the world. He knows his way around foreign policy, but he's not exactly a world-class statesman. Retired General Anthony Zinni would be a good choice.

"Democrats are going to realize they are nominating a candidate who has zero credibility in foreign affairs, who is seen as unqualified for the Presidency, and whose views are more liberal than any President in history."

You mean, like John Kennedy? Only without the personal behavior issues?

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Actually, I think they may want Clinton views, policies and prosperity without the Clinton angst.

Do you have any doubt that Bill Clinton will be willing to give advice when asked, no matter who the President doing the asking is?

Psychotropic: I believe that a majority of voting Americans want more Jesus in their government.

Your Troll-Fu is weak; my soda was consumed without incident or hazard to monitor or keyboard.


Myself, I'm hoping that Hillary loses the nomination and goes back to the Senate. Ted Kennedy's losing the nomination and having a cap placed on his ambition was one of the best things to happen to his political career; I think it might do good things for her as well.

abb3w

Ted Kennedy's losing the nomination and having a cap placed on his ambition was one of the best things to happen to his political career

I'd say the only things that capped Teddy's ambition was a liter of Chivas and a dead socialite...

Psychotropic: America needs Huckabee to complete our transformation into a Christian theocracy ruled by the laws of God.
When we have surrendered our government to Jesus we will once again be God's promised land. The world will love us. Our economy will prosper. We will all live happily ever after with God at our side.

I believe that a majority of voting Americans want more Jesus in their government.

More preachin'; less coherence. I need to be able hear the spittle hitting your screen when you type, man!

considering george w. bush got his foreign policy tutelage from prince bandar of saudi arabia in a crash course in crawford right before the '00 election, i think obama'll do just fine.

NewportBarGuy:

I mean, I'd get a real kick out of Sec. of State Biden, but I don't think you want to unleash him upon the world. He knows his way around foreign policy, but he's not exactly a world-class statesman. Retired General Anthony Zinni would be a good choice.

If and only if he isn't working for an administration bent on finding justification for starting wars. Remember last time?

NewportBarGuy: Joseph Biden? The guy who can't open his mouth without shoving his entire leg in there?

He does have a habit of doing that ... remember the debate a few months ago, where he said that the guy who owned the assault weapon was mentally ill (for the mere reason that he owned the rifle)?

Personally, I think Richardson would make a fantastic SoS. He's got the experience, the poise, and he genuinely seems to enjoy diplomatic work.

doyner: If and only if he isn't working for an administration bent on finding justification for starting wars. Remember last time?


Zinni was 100% against the Iraq War. He knew the region, the players, and the consequences better than most. He was fresh off command at CENTCOM. They just ignored him.

He's not my first choice. I'd let Colin Powell have another shot, but that UN thing soured him permanently for most people. It's hard to think of a non-polarizing person for the next Sec. of State. That's going to be a tough slot to fill. They're workload will be enormous. That's why I'm looking at people with military experience and command roles in the Middle East. Perhaps John Abizaid?

I'd be fine with Biden, just don't say I didn't warn you when he says something utterly stupid in jest that gets printed around the globe.

MacEnvy: Personally, I think Richardson would make a fantastic SoS. He's got the experience, the poise, and he genuinely seems to enjoy diplomatic work.

How the hell did I forget about him? OK, retract my previous post. I'd put Richardson at #1. The guy has an impressive diplomatic resume.

The fact that Hugh Hewitt even qualifies as a "pundit" serves as an indictment of us all.

He's like a character out of a William Burroughs novel.

The first two bits are moronic and the last is obvious -- and something we knew already. Some of us might -- GASP! -- think of that as a good thing...

The actual quote, by the way: "But the moment is going to come when the Democrats realize that they are on the road to nominating a candidate who was completely unknown just a few years ago, who has zero credibility in foreign affairs, who is widely seen as unqualified for the Presidency, and whose views, where they are not strictly platitudinous, are more liberal than those of any President in history."

The point being, of course, that the DemonCraps are finished. After all, PowerLine is completely on the level and have never been wrong before.

and whose views are more liberal than any President in history."

Good.

Of course we should take this advice at face value, because everyone knows Republicans want to *help* democrats get elected!

Right.

The author of this blog is slightly to the right of Pinochet, so I'd love to know which Democrat candidates the author would say have credibility in foreign affairs, are qualified for the presidency, and whose views are not as liberal as any President in history.

Dude's not that liberal, honestly. More because of willingness to compromise than his policy starting point, perhaps, but effectively he's very rational about things, which tends to translate to centrist unless you cherrypick the issues to only include the ones you have an irrational attachment to.

As for foreign policy experience, unless he's advocating McCain his argument pretty much applies to everyone in the race, and even McCain's policy-crafting experience is primarily domestic. That's what advisors and ambassadors are for. I'll admit it's something to consider, but it's a point on which we're probably screwed no matter what. Richardson is a maybe, but all his foreign experience is really Mexico-centered, and not necessarily easily translated into dealing with Europe and the remainder of the first world.

Son of God: MacEnvy: He does have a habit of doing that ... remember the debate a few months ago, where he said that the guy who owned the assault weapon was mentally ill (for the mere reason that he owned the rifle)?

Now, let's not exaggerate things. He said the guy was mentally ill because he was fondling the rifle and called it his baby.

Shiat can't people take a joke?

I would think Richardson would be a good SOS but lately he has been trying to gain some headlines by stating some positions a bit too exreme for a SOS to say.

Remember Obama is electable he won by the largest margin of victory in IL senate history..... against Keyes.

I'm going to vote for Obama, so I'm really getting a kick out of all these people telling me that I'm not going to.

Obama teamed up with the foreign policy man in the Senate (Dick Lugar) to craft the Obama-Lugar extension to the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction arrangement. This was in the 109th Congress, by the way, and is one of the few productive things to be passed in that session. He has toured the world with Republican and Democratic legislators inspecting the good, the bad, and the ugly with respect to bioweapons and chemical weapons reduction. He has toured Africa extensively and has gotten well-crafted legislation passed to help alleviate some of the problems of the region, in a way that's different from the usual "throw money at them" idea.

How this translates to "zero credibility in foreign affairs," I would love to have explained to me.

Don't bogart the insanity, bra.

Mars232: f I want to know how to steal trillions from america and destroy everything the constitution stands for I will call you

Why? You're supporting that guy.

/well, one of those guys

Mars232: Who am I supporting thats doing that?

"Doing", present tense? Nobody. "Has stated he wants to do"? Obama.

Though he's hardly alone. Most candidates from both parties fit that criteria.

be afraid repubs, be afraid!

Churchill2004 [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-05 04:20:32 AM
Mars232: Who am I supporting thats doing that?

"Doing", present tense? Nobody. "Has stated he wants to do"? Obama.

Though he's hardly alone. Most candidates from both parties fit that criteria.

Man, you need to support these with quotes or the plebes won't believe you. I'll help you out:

"Upon his victory in Iowa, Obama took the stage to thank his supporters and pave the way toward potential victory in New Hampshire. 'I will steal trillions from america and destroy everything the contitution stands for.' he promised to a raucous throng.'" - New York Times, 1/4/08

The least qualified President in history was probably Abraham Lincoln.

He did pretty well.

abb3w
my soda was consumed without incident or hazard to monitor or keyboard.

I say! Capital, my good fellow! Pip-pip, cheerio!

---

This is what reality has to say about Obama's, or any other non-Kucinich, non-Gravel candidate's, supposed liberal position:



See where you fall, then check which candidate you most resemble.
What's that, you say? None of them are even remotely near you? Well that's just too damn bad!

Larry Mahnken: The least qualified President in history was probably Abraham Lincoln.

He did pretty well.

Outside of killing the most amount of amerikans than any other president, ya he did pretty well.

My problem with Obama is he didn't do much in the Illinois assembly, didn't do much in the Senate and now he wants to be president. And we just had a president who was an unqualified dope.

RanDomino:
This is what reality has to say about Obama's, or any other non-Kucinich, non-Gravel candidate's, supposed liberal position:


Ron Paul, Authoritarian? I, wait what? How exactly do they measure libertarian vs. authoritarian? Because it seems to me that the more right you go, the more authoritarian you get according to your graph.

/Wait, Isn't Ron Paul a Libertarian?

DRTFA

Are they talking about Obama or Clinton?

... I just wished America didn't do the whole:

"Wow, life under person X really sucked! Let's go for person Y, who is the complete opposite!"

(8 years later)

"Oh no, life under person Y sucked! I know, let's go for person Z, who is oddly like person X, but isn't, because person X sucked..."

Hewitt is a farking joke and an enormous shill for Romney. He wrote a book about him, and even went as far as to say that he may be "over-qualified for the white house". Here's a fair and balanced question he recently asked in an interview with Romney:
"HH: Governor Romney, one of the first tasks for a conservative in the White House will be to get control of the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency, that keep turning out these NIE's and leaking things. Do you have the capacity to do that?"

Yeah, maybe the stock market went down because Obama won Iowa. Or maybe, just maybe, because oil is flirting with with $100 dollar mark and recent reports have shown that manufacturing is down and unemployment is up.... But no, it must be the evil democrats!


MorningBreath: Obama lists 50 former CLinton advisors in his camp on foreign policy alone. It doesn not seem like much of a change from the old Clinton regime to me.

To be fair, Bill Clinton's inner circle was far from monolithic in their views. Most of the liberal hawk types from Clinton's years are on board with Hillary, while the doves gravitated towards Obama. They were all once part of Bill's team, but there is a big difference between someone like Richard Holbrooke, who is now working with Hillary, and Susan Rice, who is with Obama.

But the whole issue of having many former Clinton advisors is pretty ridiculous. Clinton was president for 8 years and was able to get the best of the best when it came to democratic policy advisors. It makes perfect sense that the top two candidates would be drawing largely from the same talent pool that Clinton did.


Also, I really don't think the whole "too liberal" smear is going to go over that well with independents in the 2008 election. We've had 7 years of conservative policies, and look at the hole that has dug us into. Hopefully people won't fall for that bullshiat again.

RanDomino

dude, if every candidate from Edwards to Tancredo ranks as "authoritarian, right" I think your scale needs to be re-calibrated.

/vic

//yay Obama! Keep scareing the piss out of the current batch of idiots.
///hell, I'm former NRA, and I can even cope with his half-assed views on guns.

Seems to have missed the part where he's a politician from northern Illinois.

Corruption is the way you pave sidewalks up there.

The Quick and the Dead: RanDomino:
This is what reality has to say about Obama's, or any other non-Kucinich, non-Gravel candidate's, supposed liberal position:


Ron Paul, Authoritarian? I, wait what? How exactly do they measure libertarian vs. authoritarian? Because it seems to me that the more right you go, the more authoritarian you get according to your graph.

/Wait, Isn't Ron Paul a Libertarian?


Ron Paul is libertarian on all conservative issues, and some liberal issues. Anything that bothers the Christian Dominionists though, he jumps to authoritarian, in the name of "states rights."

For example, he doesn't see separation of church and state as a libertarian issue. He thinks that states should have the right to take as much money from its citizens as the state wants, to pay for religion.

So he thinks a state can't limit your access to firearms, but they can lock you up for sodomy.

And how is that worse than Iowa picking a mouthbreather Jesus freak from a backwater flyover state with no foreign policy experience and a desire to create a Christian Taliban?