| 31.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It's fair to say that most Americans were not familiar with the name Sarah Palin prior to John McCain's decision to pick her as his vice presidential candidate. So it's pretty clear that people around the globe – even politically interested ones who follow the campaign closely – had never heard the name Sarah Palin before Saturday's announcement. So it's no surprise that many global media outlets (as did many U.S. outlets) headlined their reports about John McCain's running mate similar to how Berlin's Tagesspiegel did, simply asking "Who is Sarah Palin?" And also not surprisingly many news organizations then spent most of their time answering that question for themselves and their audiences by drawing up a basic biographical sketch of the Alaska Governor. Analysis of what Palin means for McCain, Obama and the world followed only as a third step. Germany's Die Welt argues in an article titled "McCain and his women" that with the selection of Palin, McCain essentially scratched his main argument against Obama - experience. Instead, writes the paper, McCain's goal is to lure Hillary Clinton's 17 million supporters over to the Republican side with the help of Sarah Palin, his wife Cindy and his high profile advisers Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. Italy's La Republica (via Handelsblatt) agrees that by putting Palin on the ticket, McCain hopes to steal votes from the Democrats especially from Hillary supporters. "This is McCain's attempt to trump Obama", comments the paper. Dutch daily De Volkskrant (via Handelsblatt) takes a similiar stance and writes that with the surprising choice of Palin, McCain underscored that he is a more dangerous opponent than Democrats may have thought. Finally, The Australian doesn't mince words: "Palin? For the US, she might be a great vice-president - her reformist agenda is admirable and she has star quality and a fascinating life story. But that's for Americans to debate...Australia, rightly, has no say in the electoral process in the US. We are observers. But this is a poor decision," editorializes the paper and concludes that "as an ally who has fought alongside the US forces in every conflict America has been involved in for the past 100 years, there is reason to be worried. As an ally, we deserved better than this from McCain." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- There’s more out there about Sarah Palin and her foreign policy experience/views Saturday than Friday. Let’s review it, vague though it may be: --On Iraq, she made some remarks about not knowing “what the plan is to ever end the war,” but it’s hard to read too much into that. Thinkprogress.org, though, does have some thoughts on the subject. What’s more, Andrew Sullivan turned up an interview where she expressly said she wasn’t doing much thinking about the war, and said “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.” --It’s true she hasn’t visited Iraq, a subject over which McCain and surrogates were rather critical of Barack Obama. But she has visited nearby Kuwait. Other than that, her travel of the world is very limited – a stop in Ireland and Germany. She didn’t have a passport until 2007, according to the New York Times. --There’s some speculation about whether, as a Pat Buchanan backer, Palin was somehow endorsing Buchanan’s critical point of view toward Israel. So far, though, even the amount of Palin’s backing of Buchanan is in question. And as governor of Alaska, she had signed a basic resolution affirming Alaska’s support of Israel. --She has in the past indicated that she does not think global warming is a manmade phenomenon. At this rate of revelation, it seems fair to guess that we’re not going to get much else on Palin’s foreign policy experience or statements. Her paper trail is very short. Whether that matters or not is inevitably going to vary from voter to voter. P.S. Laura Rozen, an excellent reporter, is publishing her own work on the intelligence records of the two presidential nominees yesterday as well. She took a different approach than I did, zeroing in on one of the more fascinating elements of McCain’s views on spying, and next week will tackle Obama’s record. The first of the two stories is here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- With John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, both presidential candidates have selected vice presidential nominees whose records reflect their exact criticism of their opponents. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War like McCain, despite Obama’s attacks on McCain for that very vote; McCain selected Palin despite his focus of Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience. What has Palin said about foreign policy? Virtually nothing. Foreign Policy’s survey turned up positions only on energy issues, where Palin supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge even though McCain currently does not. At ontheissues.org, she comes up “no issue stance yet recorded” on not only “foreign policy,” but also “war and peace," "immigration" and "free trade." And arguments from some conservatives that she has foreign policy credentials by virtue of Alaska’s proximity to Russia are a bit of a stretch, since it’s hard to find anything she’s ever said about the country. --The Republican platform is now online. It gives surprisingly little attention to foreign policy, with just 13 of its 55 pages devoted to the topic, although it does give it chapter I treatment, unlike the Democratic platform, and it packs a lot into relatively little space, including positions on several continents and major countries from Ireland to India. The Republican document asserts that it is the president’s role to decide on matters of war, leaving no role for Congress to influence matters – which is as much a foreign policy issue as it is a question of the proper role for the branches of government. It classifies immigration as a national security issue, which has ramifications for how legislation might come to fruition. And it gives some attention to intelligence, even suggesting reforms to Congress’ oversight structure, which is in keeping with McCain’s stance – but it’s still interesting to see the party taking a position on the topic. I recently wrote a comparison of McCain and Obama’s intelligence views for Congressional Quarterly here. *I will be in Saint Paul all week covering the Republican National Convention for Congressional Quarterly and filing blog entries for Across the Pond as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Unlike Bill Clinton's convention address, Barack Obama's acceptance speech in Denver was never intended to focus on foreign policy. And it didn't, as the word count of the speech proves. While I can understand criticism that Obama's speech didn't really address the topic, I don't think it is justified. Michael Cognato at Real Clear World has got it right: "Senator Obama's speech did not include anything that indicated his approach to me - it was mostly just politics, which is appropriate for a convention speech anyway. I doubt Senator McCain will say much substantive or interesting in his convention speech either." Addendum: Since many readers are interested in the full transcript of Obama's acceptance speech and other speeches as well, here are some links where to locate them: For a transcript of Obama's acceptance speech, click here. For transcripts of all other speeches at the Democratic convention, click here. For other historical speeches, check out this site. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Bill Clinton's convention address was billed (pun intended) as a foreign policy speech. Well, it wasn't. If one counts generously, then only 336 words of his of 1626 word speech dealt with foreign policy. The former president first presented a laundry list with the perceived failures of the Bush administration in the foreign policy arena, from unilaterialism to energy dependence and global warming to non-proliferation. Later in the strongest part of his speech, Clinton contrasted Bush's perceived failures with a prediction of Barack Obama's handling of the same issues: "He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries... He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort." The foreign policy part of Clinton's speech climaxed in the sentence: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." But even that sentence, didn't really refer to foreign policy but rather to domestic policy differences between Democrats and Republicans such as health care and the economy. In this sentence, foreign policy is only a deduction of America's domestic policy, not a realm of its own. So what was Bill Clinton's speech all about then? It was about one thing only: Party unity. After Clinton not long ago had basically insinuated that Obama was not ready to be president, he used his Denver speech to publicly show that he had come around. One important element of rhetoric is repetition. The former president made heavy use of this element declaring numerous times his newfound conviction that Barack Obama is not only ready to lead, but ready to be president. And since one of the tasks Clinton wrote on Obama's presidential to-do list is to "restore American leadership in the world," the former president's speech in a way was a foreign policy speech after all. Or am I being too generous now? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Via Ben Smith, a statement Barack Obama issued about whether the U.S. still needs a special envoy to Northern Ireland caused a bit of a dust-up recently -- first in the Irish press, then when John McCain came out in favor of the envoy. There are a sizable number of Americans who trace their roots back to Ireland -- about 34 million -- but it's unclear to me how many of them pay attention political issues related to their country of heritage the same way some other immigrant groups do. Fortunately for Obama, the Irish Echo offered a warmer view of his running mate, Joe Biden. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Who creates the most buzz on the internet? Barack Obama or John McCain? The answer to this question depends on which side of the pond you are looking from. In the German-speaking internet, Obama dominates the buzz (user statements in blogs, newssites, etc.) by an overwhelming margin, as German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD) reports. With 78.5 percent of the buzz focusing on the Democratic candidate, his Republican rival McCain garnered only 21.5 percent. According to the FTD, the survey was conducted between June 15 and July 26 by market research firm Ethority. In the English-speaking internet, Obama also lead the buzz, albeit by a much smaller margin. He attracted 54.4 percent of user commentary, while McCain didn't lag too far behind with 45.6 percent of user opinions. The most discussed topic in both the English and German internet was foreign policy, followed by the economy and the political experience of the candidates. And finally an interesting info nugget, as reported by the FTD: The tonality, i.e. the overall rating of both candidates on certain issues such as foreign policy, the economy, etc., was negative for McCain and Obama in the German internet. By contrast, the tonality in the English internet was overwhelmingly positive for both candidates. One explanation for this phenomenon offered in the article is the maturity, relevance and size of the English-speaking blogosphere, and the lack thereof in the German-speaking internet. However, one could also explain the different behavior as a reflection of how Germans and Americans perceive politicians and politics in general. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Hillary Clinton gave the convention speech Tuesday night that tried to answer the question that, no matter how many interviews I read with her supporters, I've never seen anyone really address. That is: If you backed Clinton, but oppose Barack Obama, are you thinking clearly about what would happen if John McCain became president? So many of the answers from Clinton supporters about their distaste for Obama have been of the "Obama never considered Clinton for vice president" variety. Clinton, in arguing that supporting Obama would be supporting the goals she and her supporters believed in, didn't touch much on foreign policy -- fitting, for a convention that looks like it's going to spend almost all of its time on domestic issues. She did say that McCain would mean "more war and less diplomacy" while "we know President Obama will bring the troops home responsibly [from Iraq]... and repair our alliances around the world." A McCain presidency would translate, she said, into "more jobs being shipped overseas," contrasted with what Democrats would do. Perhaps some Democrats bought into the other argument Clinton made against Obama, that she and McCain had the experience to make the right calls in a foreign crisis and Obama was a question mark. But policy-wise, backers of Clinton's views of international affairs have more in common with Obama than they do McCain. Maybe Bill Clinton, whose convention speech is expected to focus on national security (to his rumored dismay), will draw those contrasts more starkly. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In a defiant move, Russia has recognized the independence of Georgia's two rebel regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia. After President Dimitri Medvedev signed decrees to that effect, Russia now considers both regions as independent countries. The decision is a slap in the face for Western leaders who had called on Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and warned Moscow not to take that step. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel just yesterday urged Russia not to recognize the rebel regions. French President and current EU president Nicolas Sarkozy convened a special EU summit to deal with the situation in the Caucasus for September 1. But it seems that aside from symbolic gestures the West doesn't have a concept or the leverage to seriously influence Russia. Sure, in a show of solidarity and support for Georgia, the U.S. will dispatch Vice President Dick Cheney to the former Soviet republics Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan and has increased its navy presence in the region. And yes, President Bush, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others have stepped up their rhetoric against Russia. But the EU wouldn't be the EU if it didn't send out mixed messages: On the same day that Russia said it would recognize Georgia's breakaway provinces, the EU Commission stated its support for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). While it is true that Russia won't be phased much (since its main exports oil and gas are in high demand with or without a WTO membership) if its bid to join the WTO were put on hold, it signals that the West is pretty much at a loss at how to deal with Russia. Since it is unlikely that the Russia question will go away anytime soon, this would be a good time for Barack Obama and John McCain to lay out a comprehensive plan on how the next president and the West should deal with that country. So far both candidates - with McCain taking a tougher stance from the beginning - have sided pretty much with President Bush's stance on the issue: support for the territorial integrity of Georgia and criticism of Russia's behavior. Now that the West's main principle on the issue - territorial integrity of Georgia - has been violated by Russia, the big question for the foreign policy teams of both campaigns is: What can and should the U.S. and the EU do about it besides sending more surrogates like Cindy McCain to Georgia? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If the Republican National Convention appears designed to highlight national security, the Democrats' platform appears designed to de-emphasize it. That's the conclusion reached by the Wall Street Journal here about the Democrats' document, and it's a fair one. The 2004 party platform used 19 of its 39 pages to discuss national security and related foreign policy issues. The 2008 platform, approved Monday, nearly 17 of its 57 pages (not counting the index) are about national security and foreign policy. Party platforms, of course, are usually more important to the party base than the broader public. "But it offers clues to shifting priorities or a rethinking of stances," the Journal writes, and those signs all point to a party emphasis that has changed from national security to domestic concerns. WSJ's piece makes several key points, but leaves out a primary difference between the 2004 platform and this one: Iraq. The 2004 document noted that "people of good will" can disagree on whether the war should have been waged at all; the 2008 document calls it a "strategic blunder." The 2004 document makes no real mention of ending the war; the 2008 document repeats the call to end it "responsibly" several times over. The platform's here, and it addresses foreign policy-related topics as diverse as Iran and immigration. You can compare it to the 2004 platform here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| You rarely see vice presidential candidates speak out against their running mates, but the policy differences between #1 and #2 on the ticket can matter for any number of reasons, most notably that the opposition will use the VP nominee's remarks against the rival presidential candidate. That's sort of what's been happening already with Republican ad campaigns featuring Joe Biden's sometimes-critical remarks of Barack Obama. The focus has been on Biden's comments about Obama's experience level, but soon enough, some of the other differences between the two may come back to haunt the Democratic slate. Here are four areas where Biden and Obama have diverged on foreign policy. Iraq: Biden voted in favor of authorizing military force in Iraq, which Obama opposed. As Michael says, this inconsistency weakens Obama's judgment-based argument against John McCain, but the effect policy-wise is negligible now that they both support removing U.S. troops. They have differed before on voting for continued war funding and Biden's proposal to divide Iraq into three states, although they are now essentially on the same page on the latter. Trade: Biden voted in favor of NAFTA, but since has come around to Obama's position that the deal should be renegotiated. Canada is worried. Biden appears to be trending toward more protectionist sentiments overall, having voted against two recent trade deals. Cuba: Biden has supported the economic embargo. Obama has supported removing some restrictions. Darfur: Biden has gone a little farther than Obama on Sudan; he supports sending U.S. troops, whereas Obama's chief foreign policy adviser has in the past expressed similar thoughts even if Obama himself apparently has not. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama's decision to add Joe Biden to his ticket was received well by European politicians and got a mixed reaction from the international media. German politicos across the spectrum lauded the choice, as did the British politician whose speech the Democratic VP candidate plagiarized earlier. Global media reactions however were more subdued. While the Times of India welcomed Biden's selection as vice presidential candidate, Germany's Welt am Sonntag (this and all other paper excerpts via dradio.de) argues that Biden could threaten the fragile peace that the Obama campaign made with team Clinton. Swiss paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung opines that by choosing Biden, Obama has revealed his own weaknesses. According to Serbian daily Politika, Obama, with the selection of Biden, acknowledged the realities of the election campaign. The decision came not one minute to soon, adds the paper, since McCain just started to jump ahead of Obama in the polls. Finally, Danish paper Berlingske Tidende writes that Obama's decision to nominate Biden - one of his most prominent critics - will not only be used against him by McCain. Obama's decision will also draw cricticism from other Democrats. After all, argues the paper, Biden represents anything but the change that Obama supporters crave for so much. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It's official: Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate. The decision, which doesn't come as a huge surprise, was announced by the Obama campaign today. Obama basically had two options: One, to play it safe and work on his weaknesses. Or two, to raise the ante and play to his strengths as a candidate of change and Washington outsider. Obama chose option one. So what does Biden as Obama's VP choice mean for the campaign? The upside: With the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as his running mate, Obama shores up his major weakness – his inexperience in foreign relations. Biden is a well-known political quantity that can take on John McCain on any international topic that has already come up during the campaign (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia) or others that may still come up (China, Darfur, Simbabwe). Biden as a veteran senator is well respected in international foreign policy circles. Many global leaders will be relieved to hear that Obama picked Biden. While Obama is still pretty much a blank slate for them, Biden isn't. The downside: Biden as a veteran senator and Washington insider doesn't represent the main theme of Obama's campaign: change. And while he is a foreign policy heavyweight he originally voted for the Iraq war as did Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama has been constantly hammering both Clinton and McCain for their lack of judgement on this issue. With Biden as his running mate, he won't be able to make that charge anymore. Biden also doesn't really improve Obama's chances of clinching a major state. The Unknown: How will supporters of Hillary Clinton react to Biden's selection? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Until today I had never heard of Tom D'Antoni. But since he writes for the Huffington Post, the biggest political blog out there, that surely is my fault. Anyway, D'Antoni, in his latest piece for HuffPost, tries to argue that Russia should be the biggest foreign policy issue in this campaign. This is not a very novel insight after two weeks of hostilities between Georgia and Russia. And it is also debatable whether relations with Russia are more important than the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, how to deal with Iran's nuclear plans, or with the political shift that has taken place in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But to simply write, "a few religious nuts in the mountains of Pakistan don't even come close," as an explanation why Russia is supposed to be more important than all other foreign policy topics swirling around is just not good enough. D'Antoni also seems to believe that conclusions based on his mindreading abilities and the use of the f-word make a foreign policy article so much more credible. I disagree. But what irks me, as mentioned on a different occasion, are frivolous Nazi comparisons. D'Antoni, without using the words Nazis or Hitler, compares Russia's push into Georgia with Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland and Russia's recent statements toward Poland to those of the Nazis. That comparison is wrong and ahistorical. There are a plenty of good reasons to critizise Putin and Medvedev. But neither of them is a new Hitler. Comparing them and their actions to Hitler distracts from a serious discussion on how to deal with a resurgent Russia and mitigates the Nazi terror. And what irks me even more than frivolous Nazi comparisons are frivolous Nazi comparisons where the author doesn't even know how to spell the name of the region he is alluding to. The region annexed by the Nazis was called the Sudetenland not Sudatenland as D'Antoni writes. When making baseless comparisons, it helps to adhere to at least one rule: You can call me whatever you like, but spell my name right. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Liberal bloggers have pounced on John McCain's agreement with a town hall participant on a long list of things she said, a list that included her belief the United States should reinstate the national military draft if it wants to catch Osama bin Laden. Marc Ambinder gives McCain the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else. Liberal bloggers say that's typical of the media's kid glove treatment of McCain. My two cents: McCain has, indeed, frequently received the benefit of the doubt from the media. And if you piece together enough of McCain's disparate comments -- his argument that it would take a complete World War III to reinstate the draft, another remark he made about our current proximity to World War III, etc. -- I can kind of see why they would think McCain sincerely wants to restore the draft. But McCain has been fairly consistent in his record of opposing the reinstatement of the military draft. That's where he said he was in 2000. It's where he's said he is in 2008. His answer to the audience member looks more like a careless remark than an actual sincere statement of his policy. If thinkers and activists on the left wants to make a big deal out of what he said, they could try to relate it to McCain's history of gaffes, or his age. They could even argue that, with the degree that he has talked tough against any number of countries and forces, he would have to reinstate the draft to act on any of his threats. But they really have to stretch to make it look like McCain's de facto, unstated policy is that he supports reinstating the draft, and that his recent remarks accidentally revealed his true stance. But the left still has a point that it demands some follow-up. McCain, after all, didn't disagree with his audience member, so a clarification wouldn't hurt. Said Think Progress: "Considering this record, journalists should be inquiring further about McCain’s views on the military draft rather than automatically assuming McCain didn’t mean what he actually said." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain have agreed on three presidential debates. They will take place at the University of Mississippi on September 26, on October 7 at Belmont University and on October 15 at Hofstra University. Both campaigns proudly proclaimed that it is the earliest time an agreement between the Democratic and the Republican candidates was reached in recent history. More interesting, however, is the change of focus of the debates. As the Memphis Commercial Appeal reports, Ole Miss officials were surprised to learn that the first and usually most watched debate to be held in Oxford would deal with foreign policy and national security. Previously they had been told that the focus of the debate would be domestic policy for which they had prepared accordingly. The decision by the campaigns to have McCain and Obama debate foreign policy first is another sign of the ever-increasing significance of the issue as an election topic. The other major topic of this election – the economy – will be discussed in the third and final debate. The second debate won't have a predetermined focus. Why the McCain team wants to debate foreign policy first is obvious, since this is an area where their candidate is perceived to be strong. Why the Obama camp agreed is more interesting. It does convey the message that Obama feels confident enough to go head-to-head with McCain even on his opponent's favorite topic. And that, in turn, could also be interpreted as another indicator that Obama knows that by then he will have shored up his lacking foreign policy experience with outside help: Joe Biden as his running mate. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| You can take a lot of messages from the Republicans' choices of speakers and themes for their national convention, but among them is surely an emphasis on security. I think it once again illustrates a campaign-long dilemma about whether John McCain is going to be focusing on his strengths -- his foreign policy experience -- over what voters say they want to hear about most -- the economy. On Day 1, "Service" is the theme. The idea is to highlight McCain's service to the country, and that will inevitably mean a lot of talk about his record as a Vietnam War veteran and how that is one of his qualifications to be president, not to mention his lengthy Senate tenure, which has been heavily focused on security. Speaking is Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent whose primary ideological affinity for McCain is on topics like the Iraq War, and President Bush and Vice President Cheney, whose two terms have focused heavily on national security. Day 2's theme is "Reform," but that day's biggest-name speaker, and the keynoter for the entire convention, is Rudy Giuliani. Besides Bush, no one is more closely linked in his political identity with the Sept. 11 terror attacks than the former New York City mayor. And Giuliani's speech in 2004 to the convention was very much about security. Day 3 is about "Prosperity," and this should be the biggest day off for national security issues -- unless McCain's running mate, expected to speak that day and not yet named, turns out to be someone whose primary credentials are a background in foreign policy, the military, or something like that. And Day 4's theme is "Peace," which very clearly is about national security. It's in the name. The speakers aren't people clearly affiliated with national security above all -- Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist, for instance -- except for, well, McCain himself. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A few months ago, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers made an ill-advised trip -- strategically-speaking, and perhaps in other ways -- to meet with leaders of Hamas. Wednesday, John McCain's campaign tried to make an issue out of another Obama foreign policy adviser's visit with the president of Syria. The attack, issued via conference call with reporters, didn't have much to it. Unlike with Hamas, Obama has always said he'd be willing to meet with the leader of Syria, so an adviser doing the same thing on his own in what Obama's spokespeople called a non-campaign trip isn't as strange. And the Obama campaign was quick to point out McCain's own visit to meet with Syria's then-president in 1984, among other similar gestures. Questions the McCain campaign raised about side issues -- whether the meeting should have been disclosed, whether Obama has too many foreign policy advisers, etc. -- were maybe more on target, but still, in the end, secondary to the thrust of Wednesday's attack. The attack backfired in at least one other way. The conference call led reporters to question Rudy Giuliani's own business associations with unpopular foreign leaders and Randy Scheunemann's lobbying ties with foreign countries. One aggressive questioner got cut off, and the call ended up being rather short. Whether the attack is substantial may be beside the point. Lynn Sweet makes the case that it was primarily designed to weaken Obama's support among Jewish voters in key states like Florida, and Jewish donors around the country. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If the media are correct in their predictions, than Barack Obama will select the candidate with the biggest foreign policy resume as his running mate: Joseph Biden. With news outlets from the Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times agreeing that Biden's stock has shot up in recent days, and foreign policy becoming an ever more important topic in the campaign, the British Guardian lays out the case for Biden. Newsweek's The Stumper matches speculation with reporting to conclude that Biden will become Obama's vice presidential candidate. Jonathan Cohn at The Plank, as well as Steve Clemons at The Washington Note, agree that all circumstancial evidence points to the Delaware Senator and also agree that Biden wouldn't be the worst choice Obama could make. Just for good measure, let's throw a contrarian view into the mix. It comes via Jim Wooten at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "If there’s a politician in America who matches Obama for arrogance, it’s Joe Biden." But the most useful take on Biden as a potential running mate is provided not by journalists but by a pollster. Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight, to my knowledge, is the only one who has actually tried to figure out how a VP candidate Biden would fare with voters. According to Silver, the veteran senator's favorable/unfavorable ratings are almost even and his strong unfavorables exceed his strong favorables. On the upside, Biden scores with older people, a group of voters where Obama is weak, and could shore up Pennsylvania for the ticket. Silver's verdict: Biden is not "quite as appealing to the electorate as the conventional wisdom seems to hold." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Match the politician and the sentence: "There can be no safehaven for terrorists who threaten the American people." No, it wasn't President George W. Bush. And it wasn't John McCain either. The sentence stems from Democratic candidate Barack Obama. It highlights an interesting foreign policy role reversal. On Russia and its conflict with Georgia, McCain took a much more hardline approach than Obama. But when it comes to Pakistan and its role as an American ally in fighting Islamic terrorism, Barack Obama's rhetoric was considerably more hawkish than that of his Republican rival. To be sure, both presidential candidates welcomed President Pervez Musharraf's decision to step down. And both, Obama and McCain - contrary to the White House - avoided any praise of Musharraf's role as an important ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism. But while McCain didn't say much beyond reiterating the importance of Pakistan, Obama used the opportunity to restate his conviction that instead of Iraq, the U.S. should have focused its fight against terrorism on Pakistan and Afghanistan. In a clear swipe at Musharraf and his inability or unwillingness to fully control Pakistan's security and intelligence, Obama said "U.S. policy must focus on assuring that all elements of Pakistan's government are resolute in shutting down the safe havens for al Qaeda and the Taliban." He added that he had urged earlier "that the U.S. move from a 'Musharraf policy' to a 'Pakistan policy.'" How to explain Obama's hawkishness and McCain's blandness? As Jason Zengerle points out at The Plank, there is a pattern here. McCain until recently had been quite supportive of Pakistan's autocratic ruler, while Obama had taken a tough stance vis-à-vis Musharraf already earlier. For the campaign, the resignation of Pakistan's President means three things: One, Obama can claim that on an important foreign policy topic, he, and not McCain, had the right judgement. Two, next to a resurgent Russia, the next president must also deal with a dramatically changed political landscape in Pakistan. Three, in a mere two weeks, foreign policy has reasserted itself as the major campaign issue next to the economy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With Barack Obama as little as one day away from announcing his vice presidential choice, it's worth revisiting the field vis-a-vis the whole "Obama should pick someone who bolsters him on foreign policy" argument. Two intriguing potential running mates, Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel, have in the past couple days done or said the kind of things that indicate they won't be the choice. Nunn, the former Senate Armed Services chairman whose name is synonymous with ridding the world of one of its greatest threats -- loose nuclear material -- said in an article published yesterday that his finances have not been vetted by the Obama campaign. Hagel, "a leading Republican voice on international affairs and an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq," per CNN, last week said the he would not endorse Obama or John McCain. In the case of Nunn, it's almost impossible for the Obama campaign to vet his finances as quickly as they would need to by this week. In the case of Hagel, it's hard to imagine the Obama camp selecting a VP nominee who wouldn't even endorse him. Among top foreign policy hands on the list of speculative nominees, that leaves, primarily, Joe Biden (respected long-time Senate Foreign Relations' top Democrat) and Bill Richardson (he of the extensive diplomatic resume). Biden, of course, recently visited Georgia as something of a representative for Obama. And Richardson's home state of New Mexico was on Obama's schedule this week. There are some other nominees who could make some kind of foreign policy experience-related claim, but none quite like Nunn, Hagel, Biden or Richardson. For instance, Evan Bayh, one of the top names being mentioned, has focused a good deal on national security during his Senate career, but that career has been rather short, comparatively. And, of course, there's a chance Obama has some seasoned foreign policy hand on his list no one even imagined he did. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Mikhail Saakashvili is receiving lots of visitors these days. From the leaders of Eastern European countries and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – Georgia's President is trying to rally support wherever he can. But not only heads of state and foreign minister are travelling to Tbilisi, McCain and Obama have dispatched their men to Georgia too. For team Obama, Senator Joseph Biden spent the weekend there and is expected back in the U.S. today. McCain's emissaries, Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are scheduled to arrive in Georgia shortly. No word yet what Biden discussed with President Saakashvili, who asked him come to Georgia, or how the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee views the situation on the ground there. Instead, as soon as his trip was announced it immediately became part of the vice presidential picking game equation. Does this increase or decrease his chances to become Obama's running mate? Probably neither. If Obama wants his VP pick to be a foreign policy heavyweight than Biden is his man. If instead he wants his running mate to represent change, than Biden is out of the picture. Senator Biden's trip to Georgia doesn't serve as an indicator for whether he will be on the ticket with Obama or not. It only indicates what everyone knows: That he is a foreign policy heavyweight. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of the lesser-noticed aspects of the Russia/Georgia conflict is how it highlights differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on missile defense. My CQ colleague Josh Rogin broke it down amid a piece he did on how the conflict would affect the congressional debate on the United States' attempts to place missile sites in Europe. McCain appears to believe his more hawkish, pro-missile defense stance could benefit him, because he put out a statement recently praising the U.S.-Poland pact. Since that pact is very related to the Russia/Georgia struggle, it allows McCain to keep his position on the conflict -- which has generated positive coverage for him -- at the forefront. Per CQ, speaking of congressional advocates of the sites: "Leading those advocates is presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., who sees the sites as a badly needed component of the American strategic presence in the region. He is quick to link their necessity to Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture. 'Russia’s objections (to the sites) have never been based on anything more than trying to define a sphere of influence in Europe and on the territory of existing NATO members,' said McCain’s top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, 'Senator McCain believes that is unacceptable — especially in the aftermath of Russia’s brutal invasion of Georgia.'" (Interestingly, here's what McCain said in his Poland statement about Russia: "Threatening attacks against Poland, a NATO ally, is a wholly inappropriate response to an agreement that is not aimed at countering Russia.") Obama's office has, in recent days, remained more skeptical, which is consistent of Obama's record. “Congress will not and should not fund a system until testing has proven that it works, and that testing will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest,” said Wendy Morigi, an Obama spokeswoman. For more on the differences between the candidates on these and related issues, read on here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Now that Barack Obama has returned from his trip to a "foreign" vacation destination, suspense is building over who he will choose as his running mate. With the announcement expected before the Democratic convention, speculation is running high. Judging from the media chatter, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tom Kaine appear to be the frontrunners in the vice presidential picking game. One name seems to have been scratched from the Democratic VP list: Hillary Clinton. Obama's much debated decision to agree to a roll call vote for Clinton at the convention in Denver is one more indicator that she won't get the VP slot. The possibility that Clinton won't be on the presidential ticket has already caused uproar among Democrats – in Sweden. But joke aside, the reaction by the Swedish Democrats raises an important question: How will supporters of Hillary Clinton stomach that their candidate will not be on the presidential ballot in November? Will they and the Clintons be placated by the fact that not only will Clinton get a roll call vote at the convention, but she and Bill will also give speeches there? (Never mind that as Michael Barone contends, because Obama didn't sweep the primaries, he had no choice but to give Hillary ample time at the convention.) It seems unlikely that some of Clinton's most ardent and influential fans like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will switch over easily. According to a recent poll almost 20 percent of women who supported Clinton previously now plan to vote for John McCain. Obama can't afford to let those votes slip away, but if he doesn't do the one thing that would assure their votes – putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket – he can't do much more than make some symbolic gestures at the convention. That means it is up to Clinton to bring her supporters on board for Obama. The big question is: Will she do it? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| When it comes to analysis of the foreign policy positions of the presidential candidates, there are a number of excellent sites around (e.g., FP's Passport, the German Marshall Fund, CFR's The Candidates and the World ). We here at Across the Pond try to contribute our share as well. But sometimes, instead of a detailed analysis, a synopsis of where the candidates stand is good enough. And that's exactly what the Arizona Republic did in publishing a great issue-by-issue comparison of McCain's and Obama's foreign policy stances. It's an updated and brief compilation ranging from Afghanistan to Darfur and Russia. Worth checking out. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Liberals are mocking John McCain and other conservatives for talking up the threat of Russia after not so long ago talking up the threat of Muslim fundamentalists and Iran, but the fact remains that whether McCain or Barack Obama is the next U.S. president, the commander in chief will almost certainly be dealing with a significantly more contentious United States-Russia relationship. And, what's more, that has other ramifications for America's relationship with other parts of the world, like Europe. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| What happens in U.S. presidential races can, theoretically, have an impact on the world. Example: because of the speculative nature of energy prices, there were some who believed Hillary Clinton's remarks about how the United States could "obliterate" Iran had a chance of affecting the cost of gasoline. To my knowledge, that didn't happen. But an adviser to Barack Obama adviser has raised questions in recent days about whether John McCain's early "belligerent" statements about Georgia and Russia exacerbated the conflict. McCain, asked about this at a Wednesday news conference, sidestepped the question by saying now is not the time for partisanship. Into the breach stepped National Review, answering that because a different Obama adviser had said Obama and McCain were basically on the same page after the early reaction, it must be the case that Obama was making the situation worse too, right? Nonetheless, a third Obama adviser raised the possibility that soothing statements might have had more of an impact. Per The Washington Post: "Obama's more nuanced tone may reflect the debate going on among his advisers, who say they must bear in mind the messy geopolitical reality that America relies on Russia on a host of issues, from Iran to nuclear proliferation to energy and climate change. 'Part of the reason we don't have leverage is that we don't have a U.S.-Russian relationship. It has been adrift,' Michael McFaul said. Referring to McCain, he added, 'It's easy to say something belligerent about Russia. I'm no friend of Vladimir Putin, and cheap shots about tough talk are all well and fine. But what are you doing to actually make the situation better?'" A whole different question, more speculative even than the question I'm asking here and that I'll leave to Porch Dog: Might conversations between McCain and members of his camp -- one of whom had very close ties to Georgia and top Bush administration neoconservatives -- and the president of Georgia actually contributed to the escalation? In the end, said one expert, tough talk from neither Obama nor McCain matters. "This type of bluster is fairly counterproductive because it is a bluff, there's nothing we can do about this," Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution told the Washington Post. My own observation: It's hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin cares much what was said by McCain, a possible future president, because so far, he's not given many indications that he cares what anyone thinks. And while McCain has been at the forefront of harsh rhetoric against Russia since the conflict began, pretty much the entire Western world has condemned what Russia's been doing, so what difference can one presidential candidate make by condemning it more? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama's decision to vacation in Hawaii during the campaign has earned him lots of criticism. Even though I don't agree with it, I can understand that the Republicans try to make an issue out of it. But why some journalists feel that Hawaii is too foreign a destination for Obama to travel to, I can't understand. What would have happened if he had decided to relax in Bora Bora or the Seychelles? As a European with six weeks of vacation I am biased, but I don't think Obama or anyone else needs to justify taking a week off. For those who feel differently, Andrew Romano has done exactly that very convincingly. With one exception: How can Obama vacation during the Russia-Georgia conflict, ask some critics. My answer: Neither Obama nor McCain is commander-in-chief yet, George W. Bush still is. While it can be expected of both candidates to react to the crisis, at this point there is no reason or need for them to drop everything else and pretend they are president already. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| For a few days, Michael and I have been trying to forecast how, or if, the Russia/Georgia conflict will have any impact on the presidential race. I think we both raise relevant and important points, but I'm giving up, for now. First off, the situation's too fluid. One of the things I cited in my argument against the conflict making a difference domestically was Russia's stated acceptance of a ceasefire. Of course, that apparently didn't last very long, if Russia ever even ceased fire even for a minute. There are things neither Michael nor I have discussed in detail, such as a John McCain adviser lobbying ties with Georgia, which could lead voters to question his character, or the way McCain said the Christian nature of Georgia warrants U.S. interest, which could bolster his appeal with a very active voter group, the evangelicals, that has been skeptical of him. More things that pop up during the conflict could further affect the race in an unforeseen way. Second off, it's straying too far from what I think political journalism ought to be about. There's nothing inherently wrong with examining polls, or trying to ascertain key moments in a race, or anything like that. But I've spent too much time on it of late, and that preoccupation is where political journalists don't help anyone. It's back to the policy shed for me, starting tomorrow. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| While I agree with Tim that the reactions to the Russia-Georgia conflict won't be a dealbreaker for either John McCain or Barack Obama, I think that as things stand now, it has the potential to help McCain and hurt Obama. First, because on a rational level it re-emphasizes the argument that Obama lacks foreign policy experience through a live international crisis instead of a goofy Obama in Berlin ad. Second, on a more psychological level, in times of crisis people tend to favor experience over change. The McCain campaign will surely frame the Russia-Georgia as a 3 am call situation, asking voters the question who they want to have in the White House when push comes to shove, someone with a foreign policy record or someone without one. Third, McCain can claim that he was right on the issue. After Obama's initially rather neutral reaction to the conflict, the Democratic candidate felt forced to follow McClean's lead and up his rhetoric against Russia in recent days. This has lead to questions even by Obama supporters whether he is tough enough. Fourth, while the situation in Georgia seems to have stabilized recently, it is by no means solved and will probably linger in the background until November, if it doesn't escalate again. Fifth, Russia's push deep into an American ally's territory put the question of how to deal with a resurgent Russia that may use oil and gas as a weapon on the campaign agenda where it wasn't until now. Sixth, the Russia-Georgia conflict will raise again the relevance of foreign policy as an election topic and, in turn, help McCain and hurt Obama. Seventh, there are numerous other geopolitical hotspots just waiting to erupt in the former Soviet Union and in other parts of the world as well. Ukraine could be just one of them. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Answering my own question, it now looks like the candidates' responses to the Georgia/Russia conflict probably won't have much impact on the race. Why not? A few reasons. --One of the best arguments for how the race could end up affecting people in the United States is that there was an oil pipeline in the region, and that gasoline prices could climb. Instead, they fell. --While John McCain got some good press for his early, hawkish reaction toward Russia's aggression -- not to mention his historically hawkish stance toward Russia, which once was viewed by foreign policy experts as overly hostile but now looks prescient -- it really only reinforced his previous pluses. Much as Barack Obama needed, with his overseas trip, to bolster his foreign policy credentials to go along with strong polling on domestic issues, McCain needs to bolster his domestic policy credentials to complement his international affairs advantage. --In the end, the two candidates' stances were mostly indistinguishable. McCain's rhetoric was harsher throughout, while Obama was more cautious to begin with, but their prescriptions for how the problem needed to be fixed were similar by Monday. --With the conflict subsiding at least temporarily, the possibility of U.S. lives being lost diminishes, and therefore voters' interest are probably not likely to be aroused substantially unless that changes. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I'm not disputing that the reaction of the presidential candidates to the Georgia/Russia war has been a positive news story for John McCain. I'm just thinking out loud here: As much as the war has been in the news, are there any voters who really are going to be more inclined to favor one candidate over the other because of how he reacted to a distant conflict that involves, to this point, no American lives? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In what has been described as a 3 am situation - the military conflict between Russia and Georgia - John McCain continues to maintain his hawkish stance toward Russia. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has switched from a more neutral position to a more hardline approach vis-à-vis Russia, since this foreign policy crisis began a few days ago. McCain, who said he had talked to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili again on Saturday, called Russia's military actions "totally, absolutely unacceptable." The Republican presidential candidate advised President George W. Bush to "talk to the American people and talk to the world." "I would be very direct with President Putin that these actions will have consequences long term, in terms of our relationship with Russia, and it is in violation of the norms of international conduct," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press in Las Vegas. In a follow-up-story, the AP confirmed that McCain did indeed mistakenly refer to Vladimir Putin as Russia's President. Since the election of his successor Dimitri Medvedev, Putin is the country's Prime Minister. Barack Obama said he had also talked to Saakashvili and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement, "Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia." He also demanded a neutral mediator other than Russia start a negotiation process. Previously, Obama, similiar to the messages coming from the Bush administration, had called on both sides to end the conflict and avoided naming one party as the agressor. Does the fact that Obama now feels he must join McCain's position in the conflict and step up his rhetoric lend credence to McCain's claim that Obama lacks the requisite experience with foreign policy to be president? That depends on what really has been taking place in this conflict. But as it looks now, and Russia did indeed react in a disproportionate way, than it will boost McCain's stature as the strong foreign policy candidate. And one can bet that the McCain team will make an ad claiming that their candidate had the the right judgment in handling this 3 am phone call while Obama was vacationing in Hawaii. But then again, the Obama camp can hit right back saying that whoever answers that 3 am call should be awake enough to know the correct title of the foreign leader who may be on the line. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There's an indirect foreign policy angle to plenty in this campaign. Gasoline prices may on the surface be a domestic/economic issue, but because it's so closely related to the United States' dependence on overseas oil, it's foreign policy-related whether voters want the candidates to emphasize foreign policy issues or not. (They don't.) In two new ads, the Barack Obama campaign has gone after John McCain on two foreign policy-related issues that are in the backyards of Nevada and Ohio voters. The first attacks McCain in Ohio on an issue Michael blogged about recently, DHL, which involves a German company. The second attacks McCain in Nevada over his stance in favor of opening Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste, which is part of his proposal for reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. I'm guessing most voters -- i.e., those mentioned in the afore-linked poll who say they want the candidates to focus on domestic issues -- aren't thinking about the ways in which domestic and foreign policy are so interrelated. Either way, Obama's brought it to their home states. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With the election date nearing, the McCain and Obama campaigns are stepping up their efforts to get Americans living abroad to vote. A few days ago, U.S. expat Gwyneth Paltrow participated in such an effort. Today the Economist offers a good analysis of the American expat community. It is roughly six million strong, diverse, from soldiers to bankers, and is willing to give: There are more donations by American expats than ever before, with Obama leading the pack. But as the article details, in recent elections very few members of this large expat community actually cast a ballot. Only 5.5 percent of Americans living abroad participated in the 2006 Congressional election. Unfortunately, the Economist doesn't have a go at the big question, so I'd be interested what you think: Will voter turnout by American expats be higher in 2008 than in past years? And if so, why? Could it even be a decisive factor in a close election? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I'll just come straight out with it and issue a correction. Not so long ago, I argued that there was hardly any way that Iraq could be a problem for Barack Obama, since the wide consensus was that the war should never have begun and Obama had some built-in flexibility in his plan. But a new poll shows John McCain has the edge on the topic -- "One in four voters are 'very confident' McCain will make the right decisions on Iraq, while just 14 percent say the same of Obama." Obama gets more people who are "somewhat confident," but he also has higher "not confident" ratings. Why is this? Without any interviewing of the people polled, I would have to guess it's McCain's "commander in chief" credentials and the possibility that even if people don't like the war, they may not want to leave prematurely. Obama and McCain are far more alike in their Iraq positions than when the Obama-Hillary Clinton showdown ended, but McCain favors "conditions on the ground" first over "timetables," and it's the other way around for Obama. The poll has some other fascinating foreign policy figures. Polls, of course, are not predictors, and with how frequently they're taken, they are little more than snapshots of a moment in time. But they can contain valuable information and shape how candidates behave. Among the foreign policy highlights of the full poll: --Sticking with Iraq, only 17 percent of people think it is the most important issue to discuss, second-most behind voters who prefer the candidates discuss the economy, 36 percent. People are growing much more optimistic about how the war is going: 45 percent now, compared to 22 percent about a year ago. Voters' perceptions of the impact of the troop surge surely has helped -- 46 percent say it's making things better, compared to 17 percent about a year ago. Most of this is excellent news for McCain, who was a major backer of the surge. --Domestic issues are blowing away foreign policy issues in the category of "what the candidates should focus on more." Only 8 percent picked foreign policy issues, compared to 77 percent for domestic. With the economy pinching people's wallets, that's only natural. But while most of the poll results on Iraq were good for McCain, the fact that people are so much less interested in Iraq and foreign policy issues in general favors Obama. --That Obama overseas trip did not appear to do the trick, if one of the ideas was bolstering his own "commander in chief" credentials. His numbers actually went down there, compared to before the trip, but then, so did McCain's. Did McCain's negative ad campaign about the trip do damage to both Obama and himself? --Economic growth in China and India isn't a rising tide that lifts all boats, according to those polled. Sixty-two percent said it was hurting the U.S. economy. Like I've written before, this plays to Obama's advantage because of his more skeptical view of free trade. China does better in the poll than I expected -- 64 percent of voters support President Bush going to the opening ceremony, something both McCain and Obama have said they would not have done as president. And 60 percent of voters say China is "friendly, but not an ally." --No surprise that voters want more offshore drilling -- 64 percent of them. But the number of Democrats who support it is slightly surprising -- 49 percent. Obama and McCain have both shifted their positions to varying degrees in the last couple months toward more offshore drilling. --A majority, 46 percent, believe U.S. support for Israel is about right, but that's down from a couple years ago, when it was 54 percent. Hard to say who that helps, if anyone. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 08.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I had written a couple of times that Russia is strangely absent as a foreign policy topic in this presidential campaign. Well, now it looks like the question of how to deal with Russia might insert itself with a vengeance after Russian and Georgian military forces have clashed in a dispute over the breakaway republic of South Ossetia. With Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Georgian President Michail Saakashvili both describing the conflict as a war, a quick resulution of the situation seems more unlikely than a further escalation of events. Barack Obama and John McCain's reaction to the outbreak of hostilities between Russian and Georgian troops were very different. The Republican candidate squarely sided with Georgia on the issue: "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," John McCain said in a statement. He also called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to put pressure on Russia. His Democratic rival, meanwhile, took a more balanced approach: "Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis," Obama said in a statement. With his statement, as Jonathan Martin points out accurately, McCain took a tougher stance on Russia than President George W. Bush. The White House's response was basically in line with Obama's demanding respect for Georgia's territorial integrity while urging restraint from all parties. What's the reason for the different reactions by McCain and Obama? As Martin writes, the McCain camp sees a "commander-in chief opportunity" for their candidate. But, adds Martin, Obama's team also sees an opportunity: To show that McCain is beholden once again to lobbying interests. His foreign policy adviser Randy Scheuneman lobbied for Georgia from 2003 until recently. Justin Login at the Cato blog has an interesting take on the issue as well. He alludes to Scheuneman's various hats and McCain's relationship with Russia, but thinks that Obama gets Russia totally wrong as well. And he is glad that Germany spoiled Georgia's membership in NATO, something both Obama and McCain favor. But what do you think? Who has the better argument on the Russia-Georgia conflict McCain or Obama? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Germany may just become a permanent topic in the 2008 presidential campaign. Barack Obama already paid a visit to the country a few weeks back. And John McCain also has serious business to attend to in Germany, thinks Sherrod Brown. The Senator from Ohio urged the Republican candidate to send his campaign manager overseas to convince the parent company of DHL, Deutsche Post, to keep DHL's air freight hub in Wilmington, Ohio. "Rick Davis earned hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for DHL," Brown, who supports Barack Obama, said. "Now it's time to see if he and John McCain will use their considerable clout to lobby for Ohio families." Brown was refering to the fact that Davis, now McCain's campaign manager and McCain himself had lobbied Deutsche Post and DHL's effort to buy Airborne Express and its hub in Wilmington in 2003, which was detailed first by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Ohio's Republican Senator George Voinovich called upon the German government for help: "We are going to need some involvement by the German government," he said, adding that the involvement of both McCain and Obama indicated it merited global attention. Voinovich didn't elaborate what the involvement by the German government could look like. DHL announced in May that it plans to outsource some of its operations to competitor UPS, which would render the Wilmington hub unnecessary. The move threatens 8,000 jobs in the region. Responding to Brown's criticism, the McCain campaign said DHL's current plans were not foreseeable in 2003 and added that Davis had not lobbied for Bonn-based Deutsche Post since 2005. McCain was scheduled to appear in Wilmington to talk about DHL's plans on Thursday. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics approaching fast, John McCain, in a surprising last minute ad buying coup, relegated Barack Obama to second place. The Republican candidate bought six million dollars worth of airtime during the 2008 Games, outspending his Democratic opponent by one million. It is the first time presidential candidates have purchased national network airtime in 12 years. Obama and McCain both had called on President George W. Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics as a reaction to continued Chinese human rights violations. While the candidates eschew attending the Games, watching them (and the candidates' political ads) is perfectly fine. With his ad coup probably in the works, McCain said so recently: "As a private citizen, I think that the television coverage of it is going to be very excellent." Also timed with the upcoming Olympics, a new study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (via CFR's The Candidates and the World) finds that Americans generally favor engagement over confrontation with China. However, China's rise as an economic competitor is viewed mostly negative. The study shows that Obama and McCain's positions on China are pretty much in line with the perception most Americans have of the country. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In the spirit of equal time, I thought I'd devote a blog entry to John McCain's energy speech Tuesday after spending Monday on Obama's. Unlike Obama, though, McCain offered very little news. So let's review some past thoughts on McCain's energy plan, and touch on what news there is. If Obama's position on offshore drilling -- from "no" to "if it's part of a bigger package" -- is a shift, then McCain's is a shift of an even greater degree -- from "no" to "yes, yes, yes." Marc Ambinder calls Obama's position more of a "gesture," really, aimed at future negotiations. That's a fair enough description. McCain, though, has undertaken a complete reversal. Then there's McCain's call for increased use of nuclear power. As I've written before, this would probably take a rather monumental public relations campaign in the United States, of the kind France conducted. However, it may not, if one recent example is a broader indicator. There has been relatively little protest of a proposed new reactor in Maryland, which some have taken as a sign that rising energy costs may be warming the U.S. public to the idea of nuclear power. Of course, that doesn't mean safety risks won't rear their head amid a serious national push. McCain toured a nuclear facility Tuesday that once had a partial meltdown. And while McCain has boasted of the Navy's record with nuclear-powered submarines, the AP points out that "recent events somewhat undercut that message. Last week, the Navy announced that one of its nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Houston, had leaked minimally radioactive water into harbors since March as the sub traveled around the Pacific." And most believe that McCain's proposals to suspend the gas tax and offer $300 million as an incentive to build breakthrough cars are totally backwards and useless, respectively. If there was any development in today's energy feuding, it was McCain's comeback to Obama that McCain voted against a 2005 energy bill that contained tax breaks for oil companies that Obama supported. And that Obama has decided to greet McCain's mockery with some mockery of his own, stating strongly in response to GOP attacks on his suggestion that people properly inflate their tires, "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." (P.S. Did anyone else find it amusing that McCain gave a speech on energy at that paeon to debaucherous energy consumption, the Sturgis motorcycle rally?) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The thrust of a Bloomberg story citing many experts about Barack Obama's foreign policy is that, despite his "overseas spectacle," the Democratic candidate's positions on many important global topics are still rather vague. While acknowledging that foreign policy issues play a major role in the current election season (a fact we had written about here at Across the Pond earlier), "questions remain" about the details of Obama's policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq, China and many other countries. The observation is correct. Questions also remain about specifics of John McCain's policy toward many countries in the world. Questions also remain about specifics of President George W. Bush's policy toward many countries. And questions also remain about Germany's, France's or Britain's foreign policy agenda. Is there ever a point when there are no more questions about a constantly evolving topic such as relations with other countries in a globalized world? And if there were such a point, would it be a good thing if every detail about a policy toward another country was etched in stone? That is not to deny that many important foreign policy issues don't get enough attention in the campaign. We wrote about the fact that Russia and also Zimbabwe haven't received much attention by the media or the candidates. In the case of Zimbabwe, one could argue that despite its importance as a human rights issue, the country's plight is neither a national security issue nor of direct relevance to American voters. Why a discussion about relations with Russia is largely absent from the campaign, despite a national security nexus and implications for American voters (energy prices), is more perplexing. Sure, it is understandable that each expert pushes his area of interest. In the Bloomberg article, the Pakistan analyst wants Obama to focus on Pakistan while the East Asian expert presses for policy details for that region. And of course every one else demands to know what exactly Obama and McCain intend to do about the more prominent issues Iraq and Afghanistan. But the candidates have to walk a fine line here. They need to have a global policy plan that is specific enough to reveal a international relations blueprint. Yet it also needs to be broad or vague enough to be adapted to changing circumstances or new information without being branded a flip-flopper come January 20, 2009. Still, for everyone interested in foreign policy this election campaign is a boon. Even if some questions remain open. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Set aside, if you can, the frivolous allegations of Republicans "playing the race card" (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Daily Show) or the frivolous personality-based attacks against the Democratic candidate (which came in for some mockery tonight on The Colbert Report). There's some serious talk from the candidates happening on energy... although with a side helping of silliness, of course. Barack Obama on Monday outlined his energy plan. John McCain will outline his Tuesday. Because much of Obama's energy plan had been unveiled before, his proposal to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve got the bulk of the attention. CNNMoney.com, which has done an excellent job covering the substance of this campaign's policy proposals, goes in-depth on whether that would help gas prices, coming up with an answer that I can summarize as "basically, yes." Obama's call amounts to a shift, of sorts, as was his statement recently that he could tolerate some offshore drilling as part of a larger package. As for the silliness: McCain continues to mock Obama for his factual, expert-endorsed suggestion that properly inflated tires could help reduce the impact on motorists' wallets. Porch Dog takes on McCain's war with accurate information here. One hopes voters are smart enough to see through this. Obama may have exaggerated the impact of properly inflated tires, as ABC's fact check discerned, but it is simply undeniable that it would help, and it is false to assert that the tire-inflation suggestion is the sum total of Obama's energy policy. If Republicans had focused on one part of what Obama had said -- specifically, the degree to which properly inflated tires would help -- they would be on safer ground. The race, it seems, has crossed the line it showed the early promise of never doing -- that is, the point where attacks on the other candidate are dominating the headlines. Obama released his first attack ad against McCain on the energy front, after dealing with the first direct attack ads from McCain. At least Obama's ad keeps a little of the focus on issues over personality, but it looks like it only gets worse from here on out. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Finally, after Susan Sarandon, Bryan Adams and Ricky Martin, yet another international celebrity is campaigning for a presidential candidate. This time, it's Gwyneth Paltrow who lives in London with her British husband Chris Martin, singer of the band Coldplay. In a video, the American actress calls upon U.S. expats to vote for Barack Obama. The clip was produced by Democrats Abroad (DA), the official Democratic party organization for U.S. citizens residing abroad. According to DA, there are approximately seven million Americans living abroad. If celebrity endorsements bring out more people to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, more power to them. But I don't think so. Will anybody who didn't plan to do so anyway vote for Obama because Gwyneth Paltrow or Susan Saradon endorses him? Or will anybody who was previously undecided cast his or her ballot for John McCain because country star John Rich or Sylvester 'Rocky' Stallone tell them to? I like what former tennis ace Pete Sampras said recently on the issue: "It's not my place to tell you whom to vote for, to take any political stand, to tell you what religion to believe in. I am an athlete. I can influence certain things, but when I see other athletes and celebrities telling you whom to vote for, I actually get a bit offended." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Bloomberg writes of the warm U.S.-China relationship that President Bush is leaving behind for his successor, be it John McCain or Barack Obama. It's a comprehensive piece, even if it fails to note that Bush has, at times, behaved contrarily to China's wishes, such as his meetings with the Dalai Lama or Chinese dissidents -- not the norm, certainly, but worth a "although Bush has occasionally..." kind of clause. It's fair to say both Obama and McCain have been more critical of China, not that Bush wasn't early on himself. McCain's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama drew some anger from China, and Obama's supportive letter to the religious figure threw a little more fuel on the fire. Obama was quite critical of China on trade issues during the presidential primary, while McCain has advocated keeping China out of the G-8. But both also have been friendly toward China at times. Even though McCain just made a confrontational gesture toward China himself by meeting with the Dalai Lama -- and even though McCain (and Obama) said he wouldn't have gone to the Olympics' opening ceremony in Beijing as president -- the GOP candidate recently urged Bush against being "confrontational" on his China trip. Last year, Obama, who has rejected McCain's viewpoint on China and the G-8, said: "In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A few months back, I wrote about the fact that Russia doesn't really play a role in the U.S. presidential election campaign. Nothing much has changed since then. Interestingly enough, despite soaring energy prices, the question of how to frame future relations with the world's largest gas and second largest oil exporter is pretty much absent from the presidential race. Probably Paul J. Saunders and Brooke Leonard regret the omission of Russia as a campaign topic as much as anybody else. Why? Because in an article for The National Interest, a foreign policy publication with a realist bent, they argue that both Barack Obama and John McCain have an overly simplistic and unrealistic perception of Russia. As an example of how Obama is wrong on Russia, Saunders points to the Democratic candidate's take on the tensions between Russia and Georgia. Saunders agrees with Obama that only a political settlement can end the conflicts in the region. But he calls the rest of the Obama campaign's statement on the issue "a confused combination of superficial and misleading analysis with unrealistic goals, framed by tired liberal sloganeering." Saunders especially takes issue with Obama's characterization of Georgia. According to Saunders, Obama in his statement implies that Georgia is a "helpless victim of someone else's war plans. On the contrary, on several occasions it has been precisely Tbilisi that has threatened armed reintegration of the two territories (and likewise intimidated leaders of another renegade province, Adjara, in 2004)." Saunders also criticizes Obama for his repetition of "tired liberal calls for the 'international community” to become 'more active.'" He asks: "But what is the 'international community' and why should it be unduly concerned about events in Georgia?" Saunders answers his own question by saying that aside from Georgia's neighbors and possibly the EU, no other countries have a reason to get involved. Finally Saunders calls Obama's reasoning that Russia can't be a mediator in the conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia because it is part of the problem naive. Saunders points to the Middle East where the U.S. is a mediator and also an ally of one of the parties namely Israel. And by eliminating Russia as a meditator, Saunders asks, "does he think that any settlement could work without Moscow? This weak analysis betrays the senator’s lack of international experience — and poor advice from his foreign-policy team." Saunders advice for Obama: Temper your hope and your calls for change with a big dose of reality. John McCain, the perceived foreign policy expert, doesn't fare any better in his knowledge and analysis of Russia according to Saunders's colleague Brooke Leonard. To prove this point, Leonard looks at some recent statements McCain made about Russia. McCain's most famous remark on Russia is perhaps his threat to throw the country out of the G8. That, writes Leonard, is an idle threat that no other country supports and Russia doesn't take seriously. Leonard also takes issue with the Republican candidate's statement that Russia is blocking action against Iran in the UN Security Council: "Russia’s record on Iran in the UN Security Council is far more complex than McCain suggests. Moscow has blocked some measures against its longtime partner, but has supported others. The Russians clearly do not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, and have taken a variety of steps to negotiate with the Iranians outside of the Security Council as well." Finally, Leonard thinks McCain gets the leadership situation in Russia wrong by stating that he is confident that former president Vladimir Putin is still in charge. According to Leonard, most Russia experts agree that some sort of powersharing agreement exists between President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. McCain, however, sounds quite certain that he knows something that even the Russians themselves do not, quipps Leonard. So what's Leonard's overall assessment of John McCain's expertise on Russia? "His overly simplistic answers seem to show, in the words of the Senator himself, 'a fundamental lack of understanding.'" While the Saunders and Leonard bash Obama and McCain for what the authors think are unrealistic perceptions of Russia, unfortunately, they don't tell us, which of the two candidates they view as the lesser evil concerning Russia. I guess, they want to leave that up to the readers and voters. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama now says he can live with an increase in offshore drilling, if it's part of a broader energy legislation compromise. It's interesting that he says this is not "really a new position;" it certainly is, by my reading of the record. His other justification for it is far more defensible -- that is, a group of bipartisan senators have included offshore drilling as part of a bigger proposal, and it's better to have something than nothing: "If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy." Here, Obama could have learned something from John McCain, who, asked recently about why he had once voted against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday, simply explained it by saying: "I was wrong." He won applause before a black audience for saying so, which is surely as risky a group to have tried out that approach with as he could have found. Voters probably can live with "flip-flops" if candidates just fess up to them. Of course, Obama was bound to get criticism on this point no matter what. McCain's camp, on the receiving end of a lot of "it's nice to see McCain now views things Obama's way" responses on his conflicting Iraq remarks, now has an opening to say the exact thing back to Obama. Which they have. And it feeds into another line of attack McCain's camp has been pushing, which is that Obama's not as genuine as he makes himself out to be and will say anything to get elected. Politically, just from the standpoint of the polls, Obama's shift might have been a smart move; the GOP has really been pressing the offshore drilling line with voters, given its apparent popularity amid soaring gas prices. But he probably helped McCain walk him into the second line of attack with the way he handled accusations he'd changed his position. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Here's a piece I'm surprised the neoconservatives aren't flipping out about yet. They've been angry about what they've seen as State Department meddling with some of their favorite policies, like completely isolating Iran, that they see as undermining John McCain's presidential campaign. Now, Time magazine quotes a "senior State Department official" who says Foggy Bottom is indeed trying to "push things as far as they can go" with what Time calls "Bush's diplomacy surge." And get this: Condi Rice has been chatting with (gasp) Barack Obama. Ultimately, it's not that surprising that the State Department would be pushing diplomacy. It's really not even that strange for Rice and Obama to have some talks, although the piece makes it sound like the two are friendly. There's plenty of other good, new material in the article, as well as a run-down of all the Obama-like shifts of late from Bush, so I commend you to read it in full. It concludes on this interesting note: "No one expects Rice's diplomatic surge to work in every case--or even to produce visible results before the year's end--but the last-minute moves are already changing the landscape the next President will inherit... It may prove bittersweet to watch as a new President gets credit for policies she and Bush have promoted, but that is the price of embracing diplomacy so late in the game. At least, says the Obama aide, she can expect the phone calls to continue." And here you thought Obama was a one-Rice candidate (senior foreign policy adviser Susan). |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A few weeks ago, Fareed Zakaria argued in a Newsweek piece that according to traditional foreign policy classifications Democrat Barack Obama is a cool conservative while Republican John McCain is an exuberant idealist. Bill Ahlstrom and Theodore Couloumbis take the subject up again in an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer and come to same conclusion: In this campaign, McCain is the idealist, Obama the realist. As models for these categorizations, the authors refer to George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger and George Kennan as typical realists. Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter are considered classical idealists. What then makes McCain an idealist? Ahlstrom and Couloumbis point to his idealist rhetoric that becomes evident in his proposal for a League of Democracies. His stance on the Iraq war – to finish what was started – is also considered to fit the political mold of an idealist. What then makes Obama a realist? According to the authors, the Democratic candidate's foreign policy toolbox - consisting of containment, deliberations and a return to multilateralism – is that of a quintesstial realist. For Ahlstrom and Couloumbis, voters have a clear choice in this election: "We believe that the worldviews of the presumptive presidential candidates do reflect the fundamental idealist-realist split, and suggest the broader outlines of the policies either would follow if elected." So is Obama a realist in the school of Bush Senior and McCain an idealist in the school of Jimmy Carter? What do you think? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Over at the Wall Street Journal, trade advisers to the two presidential candidates are having a moderately interesting debate on free trade. You can read it here (h/t CFR). It offers a little of what Barack Obama did not on his overseas tour. A few points of summary: --On the recently collapsed WTO talks, there is relatively little disagreement between the advisers. The adviser to John McCain, Philip Levy, used McCain's opposition to the farm bill as a way to argue he'd be better equipped on the world stage to lead productive talks, since the U.S. farm bill isn't popular with other countries. The adviser to Obama, Daniel Tarullo, used the apparent domestic unpopularity of free trade against McCain, who's more pro-trade than Obama. The two differed only on whether talks should resume soon. Levy leaned no, Tarullo appeared to lean yes. Then, strangely, on a follow-up question, Tarullo deferred comment. --On whether there's a connection between income inequality and the rise of free trade, both advisers said "maybe, maybe not," with Tarullo leaning "at least a little" and Levy leaning "probably not much." Then they talked about other things, like tax and education policy, that they argued were related to income inequality. --Things got a little snippier on the what to do with NAFTA. Levy argued that barriers to trade needed to be lowered further, while Tarullo made the case for increasing labor and environmental standards under the agreement. Levy got a second rebuttal, for some reason, and used it to argue that Obama's position could lead to increased natural gas prices because Canada may reduce exports in that category, should NAFTA be reopened. Given how much trade was at the forefront of the Democratic primary, it's remarkable that some of the most substantial discussion in the general election on globalization has come via an online debate on a newspaper blog between two non-candidates. Sure, trade is probably a bigger concern for unions that tend to support Democrats than it is for general election voters, and the polls don't show much benefit for McCain in highlighting his position, but it's a big issue that's getting short shrift. |
||||||||
|
||||||||