| 31.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I’m reminded yet again by an ad war in Virginia that foreign policy and national security are sometimes highly-localized issues. I’ve written about this phenomenon before here. In Virginia, the Pentagon is a prominent local employer. As such, the question of who would provide the most defense spending isn’t only about whether we’re safe from foreign enemies; it’s also about jobs. To make their case, Republicans have leaned on retiring Sen. John Warner, who touts McCain. “I'm confident as our next president, he will continue to support and champion the historic role of the state of Virgina in our nation's defense,” Warner says in an advertisement highlighted by Politico’s Jonathan Martin. Warner is a highly-respected voice on defense issues as a recent former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he’s immensely popular in his homestate of Virginia; and he has a reputation as someone who doesn’t make partisan attacks.* All three make the advertisement highly significant in a state where polls show McCain trailing. In his own advertisement highlighted by Martin’s colleague Ben Smith, Obama counters a false attack the McCain campaign has been making that Obama intends to cut defense spending by leaning on one of McCain’s own advisers. “John McCain’s gotten so desperate, he'll say anything. His defense spending attack -- it's a lie.” The ad quotes McCain military adviser Robert Kagan: “Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines to fight terrorism.” It's just the tip of the iceberg of the ad war underway there on this very issue. And in addition to the other examples I provided before, the Obama campaign has recently been running ads in Indiana, which has a heavily manufacturing-based economy, highlighting McCain's pro-free trade stance and claiming it would lead to jobs being shipped overseas. How strange would it be if, in a couple key swing states, foreign policy ended up being the deciding issue in an election ostensibly about the economy? (*Notably, Warner himself refrains from making the false allegation about Obama’s plans for defense spending, instead paraphrasing recent remarks from a prominent House member, Barney Frank. “Barack Obama’s liberal colleagues in Congress announced they will cut defense spending by 25%,” Warner says, although from the remarks it seems Frank was only talking about what he wanted to do, not what he would do or what anyone else would want to do. “Fellow Virginians, cuts in the defense budget will weaken Virginia's economy, weaken national defense.” It’s an upgrade from the false attacks on Obama’s intentions. Why not let voters decide if they’re comfortable with Obama in office if some [or even just one] Democrats want to cut defense spending, instead of making stuff up entirely?) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 31.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Yesterday I wrote that many commentators in the U.S. already focus on what a Barack Obama administration would look like. Well, it's not just American editorialists that read the polls, commentators across the globe do too. So here's a sample of the how the world media projects an Obama presidency and what it means for their particular regions. "Unlike Palin, McCain, or that Action Man doll of contemporary Republican politics, Joe the Plumber, no one in Europe is ever likely to call president Obama a European Socialist," reads the last sentence of Clive Leviev-Sawyer's blog post titled "Could Obama really be a president for Europe" in Bulgaria's Sofia Echo. Another Eastern European take on an Obama presidency stems from Ukraine's Kyiv Post: "There are many ways that Ukraine and the U.S. can improve relations. Unfortunately, we believe both nations are heading into a period in which other priorities will trump bilateral relations. But we also believe that progress can best be made, and needless conflict avoided, by Obama as president." You can read the entire editorial here. "What's next if Obama wins," asks Canada's largest urban weekly, Vancouver's Straight.com, The final paragraph of the longish article trying to answer the question reads like this: "Hopefully, as he tells us, Obama will bring "the change we need" and usher in a new day for the economy, social issues, and international relations. Before that day comes, however, we should probably follow Bette Davis’s famous advice in All About Eve: "Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night." For the extended version click here. Out of Africa comes a sobering prediction what a President Obama will mean for the continent. "Not terribly much. The combination of American interests lying geographically elsewhere for the most part, and a predatory political class that sees control of the state in Africa primarily as a mechanism for personal accumulation, will determine that. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man will not change that stark reality," writes Bill Hansen, who teaches at the American University of Nigeria. You can read his editorial here and find his blog here. The African perspective offered by myjoyonline.com, a leading information portal out of Ghana, is not as bleak as Bill Hansen's: "Evidence from the presidential campaign in the United States has shown that Americans are not looking forward to a black president in the White Hose, only an American president. Similarly, Africans are not expecting an African president of United States to deliver them from the negative aspects of their predicament; they expect an American president who will relate to the people of the continent with dignity, respect, and on merit." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 31.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I’ve written repeatedly in this space – in my very first post back in April and plenty more since the economic crisis began to take root – about the links between the economy and foreign policy on the campaign trail. Per the Washington Post Thursday, John McCain is trying to make more of an argument out of it. The argument, though, was a little muddled. "Raising taxes and unilaterally renegotiating trade agreements as they have promised would make a bad economy even worse, and undermine our national security, even as they slash defense spending," McCain said in a speech. "At least when European nations chose the path of higher taxes and cutting defense, they knew that their security would still be guaranteed by America. But if America takes the same path, who will guarantee our security?" As the Post notes, Barack Obama has not proposed cutting the defense budget. He has proposed cutting specific programs, as has McCain but overall, he’s always made it clear that defense spending would increase somewhat under his administration. But McCain also failed to make an interesting point very explicitly with his remarks – that if the economy suffers, so does the United States’ security. A writer for the National Review did a better job of it recently. McCain has argued before that raising taxes – setting aside the question of whether Obama wants that – would hurt the economy, but just reading that quote, it’s hard to understand why McCain thinks that higher taxes would hurt national security in turn. Additionally, there is an argument McCain could make that Obama’s stance on trade agreements could hurt the country both economically and on the world stage – again, setting aside the question of whether McCain is right – but McCain doesn’t make that case very explicitly. And he doesn’t really elaborate on any of this in his speech. The Post notes that Obama also has tried to link the economy on national security. “We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” he said. That’s a clearer message, more easily understood. Generally, both candidates have been effective at times in making the link between international and economic issues. “Both candidates have also made it clear that economic issues loom large on the international agenda for the next four years,” the Post wrote. “Both pledge to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And although neither has sketched out a detailed plan for dealing with the international economic crisis, one of the early challenges facing a new administration will be how to restructure international economic institutions.” McCain’s latest message is not an example of that, and it may be too little, too late, but I’ve always wondered why McCain didn’t try more often to link domestic issues to what is commonly thought of as his strength on foreign policy issues. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With all the major polls for some time now signaling a lead by Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain, many commentators focus on what an Obama presidency would mean for the U.S. and the world. William Drozdiak is one of them. In a guest editorial for Deutsche Welle, the President of the American Council on Germany sketches the most pressing issues facing an Obama administration, and how the Democrat can go down in the history books as a truly transformational leader. After you read William Drozdiak's piece here, drop us a comment and let us know whether you agree or disagree. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| On Tuesday, GQ’s Robert Draper published a blog post that quoted a top official with John McCain’s campaign amplifying on the defense of Sarah Palin’s international experience -- which is that Alaska is close to Russia -- by saying that Alaska and Russia have had “like, fishing disputes.” It is true that there have been fishing disputes in the region. It’s not a tiny sum at stake: Fishing for Alaskan pollock is a billion dollar industry, and the pollock catches constitute “the largest human-food fishery in the world,” according to the Los Angeles Times. As those fish began to migrate toward Russia, tensions have escalated; the U.S. is worried about Russian poaching of the fish and mafia influence in the fish trade, as well as Russian opposition to U.S. scientists studying the phenomenon. On the other hand, it’s not exactly been World War III, or whichever World War number is in vogue these days. After the broader, non-fishing specific Palin-Russia argument became prominent, a reporter who worked in the region a couple years ago wrote of a trip aboard a Coast Guard vessel: “Every once in a while, a Russian fishing boat would appear on the boat's radar, and the Coasties would have to board and inspect it. At that point, he would be called upon to translate. But this didn't happen very often. I asked him what he did the rest of the time. ‘I lift weights,’ he replied. ‘And play a lot of poker'... I guess the Alaskan-Russian front was more exciting than I remember it being -- I mostly recall seeing a lot of whales.” So even if it was an issue Palin had gotten involved in, it certainly doesn’t suggest Palin had acquired any major international experience in dealing with it. But as it happens, I searched far and wide for any evidence that Palin had gotten involved in the fishing dispute, to no avail. On the contrary, I only found evidence that she had not been. Slate’s Fred Kaplan wrote in September, when the Palin-Russia argument was first being trotted out at length: “There are no issues between the United States and Russia in this region, except for the occasional tussle over fishing rights (in which, even so, Gov. Palin has never involved herself).” The McCain campaign, and conservatives generally, have tested a lot of different messages by way of explaining how Palin has the foreign policy experience necessary. In fact, a conservative strategist apparently unaffiliated with the McCain campaign trotted out the “fishing dispute” argument all the way back in September, but no one took it seriously, except a liberal blog or two that mocked it. They might have been better off just picking one story and sticking to it, because they come in for a fresh round of mockery every time they throw out a new explanation. The reason is because Palin has no substantial foreign policy experience, and it’s just not possible to explain her into having it. And the McCain campaign knows it. Draper also recently wrote that he was sympathetic to a pair of campaign aides who had remained loyal by not “leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me -- namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues.” |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Russia's relations with the West, particularly the U.S., are strained for a whole host of reasons. Russia's military action in Georgia, the Bush administration's plans for missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Russia's use of its huge energy resources as a political power tool are just a few of the issues of disagreement between Washington and Moscow. So one would think that for all these reasons Russians have a keen interest in the American presidential elections and hope that President George W. Bush's successor may want to give Russian-American relations another go. So what do Russians think about the election, and do they favor Barack Obama or John McCain? Surprisingly, at least from my research, there is not all that much information about that topic available. So it's helpful that Deutsche Welle's Moscow correspondent Alexandra van Nahmen wrote about it in her weekly column. "I hope Obama wins," is a sentence one here's a lot in Russia when the topic is the U.S. election, writes van Nahmen. According to her article, Russians, like the rest of the world, also want Obama to be the next president. A recent poll found that 22 percent of Russians would vote for Obama; only six percent would vote for McCain. But the most stunning number is this: The remaining huge majority of those polled said they could not answer the question. Assuming the poll is correct, why do the majority of Russians not have a clear opinion whether they want Obama or McCain in the White House. Unfortunately, since I'm not Russia expert, I can't answer that question. But perhaps some of the knowledgeable Russia bloggers like Robert Amsterdam or Sean's Russia Blog want to take a stab at it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A handful of outlets, since John McCain called for Sen. Ted Stevens to step down following his conviction at his corruption trial, have made mention of the fact that the two have fought over earmarks. That has been the biggest source of animosity between the two, but not the only one, a search of my full-time employer CQ’s records shows. Indeed, a close second are two fights the pair have had over respective pet issues with a national security bent. One of Stevens’ biggest legislative goals has been to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in his home state of Alaska to oil exploration. When Stevens tried to add a provision to that effect to a Pentagon spending bill in 2005, McCain called the maneuver “disgusting.” Likewise, Stevens tried to stand in the way of a McCain provision to ban cruel and inhuman treatment of terror suspects during consideration of the same bill. Stevens wasn’t as vociferous in his language toward McCain’s pet item as McCain was toward his, perhaps because he knew momentum was against him. “I asked him if we could take it out, and he said no,” Stevens said in his role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “It does seem to me that he has the votes.” There have been other conflicts, too. The earmarks feud between the two has sometimes spilled into Pentagon spending. Again in 2005, McCain called earmarks in the Defense spending bill (that Stevens helped negotiate) for non-defense projects like parks and museums “obscene” and “disgraceful.” And after a furor erupted over the award of an Air Force tanker contract that benefited a European company (EADS) instead of U.S.-based Boeing, Democrats tried to pin the blame on McCain, who had fought attempts to steer the contract toward Boeing because, he said, taxpayers deserved an open competition to see who could do the job best with their dollars. Along the way, McCain and Stevens again crossed swords. Wrote CQ’s John Donnelly this year: “McCain led the way in 2004 to block a no-competition contract for 100 Boeing 767 passenger aircraft that were to be modified as military tankers. That proposal was championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who now is preparing legislation that would give Boeing an undefined piece of the new contract.” There have been smaller skirmishes between the men on national security issues, such as how best to free radio spectrum up for the use of first responders like police and firefighters who would need it in the event of a terror attack. And much of their skirmishing died down once Democrats took control of Congress again in 2006; they even have lent support to each others’ reelection campaigns. But that doesn’t mean the relationship has been warm. When it appeared that McCain was on the verge of winning the GOP presidential nomination, CQ’s Kathleen Hunter wrote, Stevens was asked whether conservatives would rally to support McCain. “They’ll have nowhere else to go,” he answered coolly. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Based on the assumption that Barack Obama will win the presidential election, John Vinocur wrote an interesting piece in the International Tribune predicting that "Obama's fans in Europe are in for a big surprise." I had written about the same topic in June. In a nutshell, Vinocur argues that Obama will disappoint his European followers by clearly putting American national interests first. A President Obama would not simply be one multilateral player among other world leaders that Europeans hope for, but instead decide what's in America's interest. Vincocur lists the economic crisis, but also foreign policy issues, such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia as examples where Obama would take a different tack than expected by Europeans. What Obama would handle differently than his predecessor is style, writes Vinocur: "He would be following Bill Clinton, once described by Denis MacShane, then minister for Europe in Tony Blair's cabinet, as "a Social Democrat who put Europe on Valium, who could schmooze Europe, talk European." So what is your take on that? Is a President Obama bound to disappoint Europeans, or will the honeymoon last? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Electronic voting machines used for the U.S. presidential election on November 4 are easy to manipulate and pose major security risks, warns Europe's largest hacker group. "The electronic voting machines by all manufacturers still have major security gaps," Constanze Kurz, spokeswoman for German-based Chaos Computer Club (CCC), told AFP. According to Kurz, paperless voting machines, i.e., systems that don't record the results on paper as well, are especially problematic since neither voters, nor the election commissions have a reliable way of controlling the outcome. It is to be feared that the election result announced in the U.S. "hardly reflects the true intention of voters," Kurz said. The security gaps affect both the hard- and software of voting machines, Kurz, who is writing her Ph.D. thesis on voting machines, told AFP. Memory cards, whose data is distorted when uploaded to the central election computer, are one example of the problems facing electronic voting machines, according to Kurz. The spokeswoman for Chaos Computer Club criticized the manufacturers of voting machines who normally oppose the disclosure of their concepts and thus "give the trade secret a higher priority than the demand for transparent elections." She expressed the hope that electronic election machines could be phased out by the next presidential election in 2012, due to increasing public criticism and a looming lack of trust for politicians. Until then, however, manipulations are possible, said Kurz. One of the goals of the Chaos Computer Club is to expose security risks to the public, not just in Europe, but internationally. Most recently, it has acquired and published the fingerprint of German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to protest against the use of biometric data in German passports. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Couple days late on this, but passing it along in case anyone missed it: Sarah Palin's stylist makes more than John McCain's foreign policy adviser. There's not much to it; sure, one could raise questions about Republican hypocrisy for attacks on John Edwards' expensive haircuts, or questions about whether the McCain campaign values style of substance. It's an amusing diversion at best, any way you cut it. I wouldn't even mention it in this space if it wasn't foreign policy-related. But amusing diversions on the foreign policy front have been few and far between this year. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| And so, in the stretch run, foreign policy is thrust back onto center stage. One of the McCain campaign’s three major messages in the final days of the election will be to highlight the remarks of Joe Biden that Barack Obama will be tested on the international stage early on in his presidency. “We will focus like a laser on those messages in the closing days,” a McCain campaign aide told the Washington Post in a Friday story, with the other two chief messages being that Democratic control of Congress and the White House is dangerous and Obama’s remarks to “Joe the Plumber” about “spread[ing] the wealth.” Biden was supposed to bolster Obama’s foreign policy credentials, but instead he has given John McCain some of his best ammunition to attack Obama on that front. Obama tried to wriggle out of it by saying that Biden was referring to the next president, no matter who it would be. It’s my own estimation that adversaries of the United States would want to test either Obama or McCain early, but it’s also pretty clear from Biden’s original remarks that he was referring explicitly to Obama. He said: “The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” Now, it is true that Biden, despite saying that Obama would need “help,” also has strongly argued that Obama is equipped to pass the test. But it’s ironic that on the subject Biden was meant to strengthen the ticket, he has instead handed weaponry to the opposing campaign to aid their concluding attack. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I’ve written before about how Barack Obama, John McCain and President Bush have been playing a three-way game of tag on foreign policy subjects like Iraq and Iran. In each of those instances, though, at no time was the trio really ever on the same page, and certainly not without a bunch of feudin' and cussin' first. Now they are all magically as one, as of this month -- on the idea of meeting with moderate elements of the Taliban. Says Obama, per Time magazine: “The Sunni awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. It could not have occurred unless there were some contacts and intermediaries to peel off those who are tribal leaders, regional leaders, Sunni nationalists, from a more radical, messianic brand of insurgency. Whether there are those same opportunities in Afghanistan I think should be explored.” Says Gen. David Petreaus, per Reuters: “If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward.” Says McCain, per a McCain campaign source who spoke to Wired’s Danger Room, via Noah Shachtman: “There are differences over timing, strategy, etc. But there is consensus that at some point there will need to be an effort to talk with some of these [Taliban] guys and peel off more moderate elements.” "There are differences?" So maybe this time, they'll all start off on the same page, then end up going opposite directions. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Generally accepted wisdom holds that people across the world would vote for Barack Obama for president, if they could. Not true, says Dominique Moisi, founder of the French Institute for International Relations (Ifri) and professor at the College of Europe in Poland. Moisi argues that while it is correct that Europeans favor Obama, most Asians, especially the elites, prefer John McCain. "The perception that Obama can transform the view that the U.S. and the West have of themselves is an important factor in the emotional gap that may exist between Asia and Europe on the eve of America's presidential election. On that count, Asia tends to be a status quo continent, while Europe is a revisionist one. For many Europeans, a reinvention of America is Europe's last hope." That, in a nutshell, is Moisi's thesis why Europeans favor Obama and Asians root for McCain. You can find an English version of his editorial here, and a German version here. Moisi's thesis is intriguing, but unfortunately not backed up by any evidence. In making his case that Asians, especially Asian elites, lean towards McCain, Moisi mentions five countries: Indonesia, Japan, China, India and Singapore. Indonesia, according to Moisi, is an Asian "anomaly" as it favors Obama, because he lived there briefly as a child. That leaves four other countries: Japanese elites, writes Moisi, "tend to favor continuity over change," prefer American hard power over soft power, and perceive the U.S. mainly as counter-balance to China. "The Chinese, too, may very likely be favoring McCain, for the opposite reason," opines Moisi. "The decline of America's image and influence in the world does not annoy them. As Asia's leading power, China has seized the mantle of "hope" from the U.S. America could regain it under Obama, but not under McCain. Why favor change, when continuity works so well for you?" Indians also favor McCain, argues Moisi, because they have a positive view of the Bush administration, since it helped establish India's international status. Finally, a "very conservative regime" in Singapore "naturally tends to prefer a Republican candidate over a Democrat." Let's look at the individual countries (without Indonesia) that Moisi mentions to make his case: According to a new Gallup poll, two-thirds of Japanese adults surveyed said they "personally rather see" Obama elected than McCain. 15 percent would prefer McCain over Obama, 18 percent had no opinion. Contrary to Moisi's thesis, Gallup finds that "Obama may be tapping into the Japanese public's broader desire for change at a time when the country's politics may be viewed as stagnant and corrupt." Perhaps Moisi is still correct and Japan's elite - whoever that may be - favors McCain, but that would point to a huge disconnect between Japanese citizens and the country's elite. The more likely scenario is that even among Japan's elite - whoever that may be - McCain is not the clear preference that Moisi makes him out to be. Polls surveying exactly how the Chinese feel about Obama and McCain are hard to find. But according to China Daily, an online poll conducted on its website by the U.S. embassy, shows that "Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese." In the same article, the paper quotes a survey by Horizon Research that found that roughly 36 percent Chinese "pay close attention" to the U.S. presidential race. "Even among these people, Obama's supporters exceed McCain's by 17.8 percent." So according to China Daily, a government-controlled paper, the Chinese favor Obama and not, as Moisi argues, McCain. As for India, according to a new Gallup poll, a huge majority (91 percent) of people said they "don't know when they were asked whom did they prefer as the next President of the U.S., or simply refused to give an answer." While this doesn't indicate Indians favor Obama, it certainly also doesn't show a preference for McCain. As far as the elites go of whom Moisi speaks, The Times of India, the country's largest English-language paper, recently published a leader article favoring Obama. And in Singapore, Obama bests McCain by a margin of two to one, finds a new Gallup poll. Moisi is certainly correct that Asians are not as enthusiastic about Obama as Europeans. But to conclude from that that McCain is the favored candidate by Asians or Asian elites is not supported by any facts. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Not so long ago, John McCain jumped all over Barack Obama after a Hamas leader said he would prefer to see Obama win the 2008 election. Now, with the tables turned after the Washington Post reported on Al Qaeda websites cheering for a McCain victory, the McCain camp finds itself in a very peculiar position. The most important thing in all of this is that neither Hamas’ endorsement of Obama based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks Obama would do to aid its cause, nor Al Qaeda’s endorsement of McCain based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks McCain would do to aid the cause, reflects on the candidates themselves. Hamas thinks Palestinians would fare better under an Obama administration in negotiations with Israel. At least some in Al Qaeda think that McCain would continue the policies of President Bush, which would advance Al Qaeda’s aims of keeping the United States in a draw-out war that the U.S. would ultimately lose. But Hamas doesn’t speak for Obama, and Al Qaeda doesn’t speak for McCain. Only Obama and McCain and officials affiliated with their campaigns speak for Obama and McCain. Voters should feel free to consider whether Hamas or Al Qaeda are right about Obama and McCain, but when considering the policies of the two candidates, they’d be better off going straight to the source. That said, the shoe being on the other foot has been an uncomfortable fit for the McCain campaign. Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser, responded in part Wednesday by rejecting the Post story and arguing that the terrorists actually support Obama, not McCain. That argument got no sympathy from the Tribune’s Washington bureau. “I'm not sure Scheunemann win many points from the fair-minded by doing to the Democratic presidential nominee the exact same thing he excoriated the Post for doing to McCain,” wrote The Swamp’s Frank James. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Joe Biden gave Republicans an opening to attack Barack Obama on the foreign policy front recently with his remarks that the world is likely to “test the mettle of this guy” and “he’s gonna need help.” Biden was brought on to the campaign in large part to provide that help, but surely speaking about it in those terms is not what the Obama campaign had in mind. The National Review examines the remarks from one perspective – the right – and Think Progress, from the left, digs up an example of a surrogate for John McCain who said much the same thing. Starting with Think Progress: the organization found a video of Joe Lieberman noting that “our enemies will test the new president early.” But Lieberman doesn’t think McCain would need any help, so the video, while countering some of the Republican arguments, doesn’t counter the fundamental one that McCain is ready if that test comes, and Obama is not. Aside from the question of who’s going to be ready, one thing that is noteworthy here is that there’s recent historical evidence that the next president will indeed be tested, with the last two presidents encountering challenges from Al Qaeda in their first years on the job. And there are older examples of this, too. The National Review elaborates on Biden invoking John F. Kennedy, noting that after his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy admitted, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.” That would be a terrible problem for Obama if other world leaders thought that, too, even if the Think Progress team notes, plausibly, that “showing strength,” excessively, got the United States into Iraq. One suspects that the United States’ enemies would go after any new leader of the country, and maybe Republicans can make a solid argument that with his experience and guts, McCain will be better prepared for it than Obama. The experience side, anyway, suggests an advantage for McCain. It is on the question of whose policies are best that the argument is grayer. (As an aside, one of the most interesting things discussed in the pieces above comes at the beginning of the National Review piece, where the author makes a valid point about how the economic crisis and foreign policy are linked: “Our country’s national security is inextricably linked to our economic vitality — especially in an increasingly interconnected world. In order to project power, we must have the ability to build wealth at home.”) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| What took so long? The attitude of the presidential candidates toward two continents gets some overdue attention from news organizations, with Congressional Quarterly examining the Asia policies of Barack Obama and John McCain and the Voice of America examining their Africa policies. My CQ colleague Josh Rogin finds that the approaches of the two candidates toward Asia breaks down very much along the lines of their overarching foreign policy views. McCain favors “preaching democracy to adversaries in the region while at the same time prioritizing alliances over engagement with competitors in the region,” while Obama “leans toward more pragmatic strategies stressing incremental progress on regional security issues.” The piece focuses on North Korea, China and Japan. VOA concludes that “Washington's foreign policy, whether under a President John McCain or a President Barack Obama would be almost identical to that of President George W. Bush.” Where there is a difference, experts concluded, it is that Obama has shown a tendency to be a little tougher toward Africa over its own problems, such over Darfur. A political science professor from New York does another take here. Meanwhile, McClatchy and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel take a very long look at the candidates’ overarching attitudes toward foreign policy, in particular focusing on the hottest topics in the campaign. McClatchy’s ace team of Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay also go in-depth on McCain and Obama running mate Joe Biden. None of these stories reveal anything particularly surprising. But what they do is condense mountains of material for readers – in the case of the McClatchy and Journal-Sentinel pieces -- or go in-depth for them on subjects that haven’t previously been explored at length – in the case of the CQ and VOA pieces. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If one had to pick the member of the Bush administration that was the least disliked internationally, it would have to be Colin Powell. So obviously the fact that President George W. Bush's former secretary of state went public to endorse Barack Obama didn't go unnoticed across the pond. Here's a selection of how the international media reacted: "Powell's endorsement could prove to be very valuable to Obama," says Dutch paper Trouw (via dradio.de) and elaborates: "It tells voters who wonder whether Obama is too inexperienced in foreign policy that they don't need to worry because even the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces apparently doesn't see that as a problem. This is a alarm signal for Republicans. McCain's fellow party members don't seem to believe he has a chance fof winning, and more and more of them are turning away from him." Germany's stern.de offers this analysis: "Powell's late endorsement is ominous for McCain because, in the worst case, Powell could function as the decisive domino that sets Obama's victory in motion. But even if in the end only a few voters are convinced by Powells arguments, the entry of the former general costs important time for McCain. In the next few days, the U.S. media will concern themselves predominantely with Powell. McCain will probably be hard-pressed to get his message across to the voters. For McCain, this is a harsh blow, because the time for a comeback is slowly running out." "Former secretary of state Powell has endorsed Obama – and his support is more far- reaching than many other statements of support for the Democratic candidate," argues Norway's Dagbladet (via dradio.de). "Powell's endorsement of Obama is not aimed at the Republican candidate McCain: Both are Vietnam veterans and have tremendous respect for one another. Powell also said himself that he doesn't seek political office," writes the paper and adds: "But as secretary of defense in Obama's cabinet, he would face a daunting task. Powell, in that position, would have the responsibilty for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and would thereby help Obama to honor his campaign promise." "Powells support for Obama invalidates the Republican presidential candidate's central argument that Obama is a risky choice," comments Swiss daily Die Südostschweiz. "In any case, McCain's charge of terrorism, and lately also socialism, against Obama appear more and more desperate." And finally, Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent for The Australian, in a blog post with the title "The Powell Bombshell" offers this prediction: "Endorsements often don’t shift many votes, but Powell is one of the most popular centrist figures in the U.S. (80 percent favorability rating), and it will likely help Obama win over some undecided moderates." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The economy may be foremost on the electorate’s mind, but for two voter groups, foreign policy-related issues appear to be heavily influential, and they could be with a third group, too. In turn, those voters can be influential on the entirety of the presidential race. Barack Obama is the favored candidate among Jewish voters by a 30 percent margin, but that margin climbs to 40 percent among Jewish voters who rank Israel “very high” among their priorities in evaluating presidential candidates. Given Obama’s periodic knack for remarks about Israel that have upset some supporters of the country, that is particularly surprising; the Jerusalem Post has the details on both that phenomenon and the poll itself here. Obama has also fared well among Latino Protestants, a group President Bush won over in 2004, and according to a poll that measured that community, increasingly anti-immigration GOP rhetoric and policy stances are partly to blame. Again, this is something of a surprise, considering that McCain’s record on immigration is more moderate than that of the majority of his party’s elected leaders in Washington. Reuters breaks it all down here. And Asian-American voters, some of whom pay close attention to U.S.-Asia relations, “could hold the White House key,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Catering to Asian-American voters’ interests in overseas affairs is complicated, as I wrote about here, but there’s anecdotal evidence that Asian-American voters do pay attention to foreign policy issues that affect the countries from which they trace their heritage. Which may explain why McCain was putting out statements last week on North Korea and Taiwan. “If either campaign is looking for a place to get an extra one or two percentage points, Asian Americans are not a bad place to get it.” Taeku Lee, an associate professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, told the Journal. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The U.S. presidential candidates haven’t spent much time lately talking about Europe, but the continent made a cameo on the campaign trail this weekend. John McCain this weekend compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders across the pond: "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the (Internal Revenue Service) into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," he said. "At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives." But then, isn’t everyone a little less of a pure free marketer these days? Even if that's not the way they want it to be? “John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare,’” answered Obama. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I really didn't want to write about Joe the Plumber (JtP). Not that I have anything against Joe Wurzelbacher. Quite to the contrary, I have grown very fond of his very German-sounding name, which I had actually never come across in Germany. (According to this database, the name Wurzelbacher is listed only eight times in German phone books.) And I wish him all the best for his plumbing career and hope he makes a lot more than the 250,000 dollars that everyone is talking about now. The reason why I didn't want to write about JtP is simply that I think that his life story and plumbing expertise is not really necessary to understand the larger political question at issue between Barack Obama and John McCain: Should the tax cuts that both Obama and McCain envisage include the rich or not, and at what dollar amount should one be considered to be rich? That is a fair enough question for a campaign during a financial crisis, but how can JtP contribute to answering that question? It is understandable that both sides would try to turn Joe into a living example of what McCain or Obama's tax plans or political philosophy would mean for the middle class, the rich, or up-and-coming entrepreneurs. JtP as a pars pro toto for the whole American nation. Again, I just don't think it is necessary. Everyone who is half-way paying attention to the economic aspects of the campaign – its number one topic – will know whether he or she would be hurt or benefit from Obama's tax plans. And everyone will also have a sense from his or her own experience and life experience at what dollar amount the definition of rich should start. People then will make up their minds and vote accordingly. To know what Joe the Plumber (with or without his plumbing license) would or wouldn't do is probably not all that enlightened. So why, you may ask, have I broken my vow not to write about JtP and devoted an entire post to him? Because to my deep disappointment, it is not just Americans who are talking incessantly about Mr. Wurzelbacher. The entire world is: "Joe the Plumber, the star of the internet," writes France's L'Express, "Joe the Plumber bursts into the campain," reads the headline of Spain's daily El Pais and Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet asks "Who is Joe the Plumber?" But the best international story on JtP clearly comes from Germany's Tagesspiegel, which starts its nice tongue-in-cheek article with the English headline "The Wurzelbacher Conspiracy." So there you have it. And since the whole world is fascinated by JtP, we here at Across the Pond simply had to bite the bullet and write about JtP as well. Which we have done now. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Today the Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for president. While the Post's support for Obama isn't necessarily a surprise, the London Times' endorsement of the Democratic candidate is. The Times is owned by Rupert Mudoch's News Corporation and is considered to be a conservative-leaning paper. For the Times, Obama has the potential needed to be president. McCain is an "authentic hero" and "a brave politician," but his time "has gone." The reason: "His campaign has failed to inspire and his eccentric choice of a running-mate was irresponsible," opines the paper. It is still unclear exactly where Obama stands on many issues and how he will deal with them, argues the Times. "The biggest question, for a European, over an Obama presidency is whether he would prove able to face up to the security challenges. It is impossible to be certain. But his words, for instance on Pakistan and Iran, have been reassuring." However, in one crisis situation, the economy, Obama "has been better advised, shown better judgement, and been better at keeping his cool." Therefore, the Times "hopes that the outcome will be an Obama victory." Just a few weeks back, Rupert Murdoch, in an interview with Fox News, called Obama's economic policy "naïve" and stated that "he was very worried." Obama, said Murdoch, "is a very intelligent man. But his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to be — and card checks — are going to do two or three things. It's going to give us a lot of inflation. They're going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world. And they are going to slow down the rest of the world, too. And they're going to make people frightened to add to employment." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| While contemplating ways the financial crisis is affecting foreign policy in this presidential campaign – aside from the fact that the candidates are spending a lot less time on international affairs than they might otherwise – I thought back to something Joe Biden said during his debate with Sarah Palin. Asked what spending programs a Barack Obama administration might set aside because of the financial crisis, Biden remarked: “The one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We'll probably have to slow that down.” Obama had pledged last year to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, “arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home,” according to McClatchy and USA Today. In fact, foreign aid spending would not necessarily increase under John McCain, either. His proposal for an across-the-board spending freeze would exclude some programs – Defense dollars, for example – but McCain did not say foreign aid would be allowed to increase. It’s already going to be hard for the next president to get on the rest of the world’s good side, and the financial crisis hasn’t exactly helped U.S.-world relations, either. But a reduced emphasis on foreign aid spending also means less of a chance to do what Sen. Dick Lugar said the next president needs to do more of, and what Obama’s foreign aid proposal was meant to accomplish: take steps to head off future problems by addressing them at their root now. As it happens, the Council on Foreign Relations was thinking along the same lines, I discovered in researching this proposition. They make some additional points here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| John McCain was really good in the debate, conclude the global media after last night's final presidential debate. But he was bested by Barack Obama. The Democratic contender didn't even need a stellar performance to come out victorious, all he had to do was not make any major mistakes. According to international media, now it's Obama's election to lose. "Want to bet that Obama wins the election," reads the headline of Jan-Kees Emmer's blog post about the debate for Dutch daily De Telegraaf. "One expert thinks that the chance that a meteorite will fall on your head is higher than McCain's chance of winning. Realistically, only a national catastrophe or a war can save McCain." "McCain gained some ground, especially on economic issues," writes Jörg Lau, who blogged about the event for Germany's weekly Die Zeit. "He came across as more concerned, warmer and not so aloof as usual. But then he overdid it with Ayers and he just couldn't stop attacking Obama relentlessly," observes Lau. He points out that Obama scored on the issues of education and abortion, but that he wasn't brilliant. "What was important for him was to get people used to the fact that he could be president soon and that that doesn't seem too bizzare. He achieved that. McCain, on the other hand, at times seemed very tense, which is understandable. Winners don't look like that." The Times of India offers this take on the debate: "In the end, it was body language that appeared to let McCain down more than his debating skills, although he seemed to lose steam as the 90 minute event progressed. As they battled for points, McCain was repeatedly caught on camera grimacing, looking agitated, even angry. He seemed to clench his teeth and at one time rolled his eyes contemptuously at Obama's answer. In contrast, Obama looked cool, calm, and composed, and ignored McCain's interruptions several times." All the odds are now in Obama's favor, argues the paper: "With less than three weeks to go for the elections, Obama now appears to have an insurmountable lead, including in some historically Republican leaning states such as Virginia. Most pundits seem to think it will require a miracle for John McCain to pull off a victory, although no one is putting it past a war veteran who survived for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam." One can almost feel sorry for John McCain, opines Austria's daily Kurier. "He has one of his best campaign performances; he takes his gloves off to attack his opponent and finally during the final TV debate at times shows the quick-wittedness which his followers love about him. But it didn't help him. One could almost have the impression that the 72-year-old senator could have put on the most brilliant performance of his life – the audience would still see it differently. The winner of the evening was once more Obama, and his lead grows and grows." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of the most respected voices on foreign policy in the United States gave some advice to the next president Wednesday, not that much of anyone noticed. And while not everyone agrees with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar on all of his positions, few would dispute he knows of which he speaks. His message, ultimately, was that many of the foreign crises of the last few years and the next few years might be averted by a more forward-looking foreign policy. What few news outlets that covered Lugar’s speech took assorted different messages from it. CQ saw Lugar siding with Barack Obama by “part[ing] ways with his party’s presidential nominee Wednesday by endorsing Democrat Barack Obama’s approach to diplomacy,” although Congressional Quarterly also noted that John McCain “is right to warn that ‘there are times when diplomatic approaches to rogue regimes have little efficacy.’” The Times of Northwest Indiana, Lugar’s home state, wrote that Lugar “called Tuesday for the next U.S. president to be ‘relentless’ in pursuing national energy security by developing wind power, cellulosic ethanol and other renewable energy sources.” Both takes are fundamentally accurate. What I found most interesting about Lugar’s speech was the way he used specific examples of how the United States and a rival, Russia, have laid the groundwork for future success. Lugar singled out the India nuclear deal Congress recently approved as a way in which the United States has ensured continued friendship with an emerging world power that will be fundamental to future U.S. aims in the world. Likewise, he said, “history may record Russia’s unchecked movement toward an energy supply monopoly over our European allies, as one of the most damaging foreign policy developments of the post-Cold War era.” Lugar has some specific remedies worth examining here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In Austria's recent national election, voters gave a big boost to the country's far-right. So it is interesting to note that an online poll finds that the overwhelming majority of Austrians would vote for Barack Obama as president. According to the survey, conducted by market research firm psychonomics and reported by Austrian news agency APA, 79 percent of Austrians favor the Democratic presidential candidate and only seven percent would like to see John McCain in the White House. Asked to rate who they think is better prepared to lead the world out of the financial crisis, 65 percent of Austrians answered Barack Obama, only seven percent said John McCain. The poll finds that Obama doesn't only garner the support of voters of the Social Democratic and Green parties (89 percent) and of the conservative ÖVP party (80 percent), but surprisingly also voters of the far-right parties FPÖ (72 percent) and BZÖ (69 percent). Obama's immense popularity in Europe and the world is well known. But to my knowledge, even Obama's best international ratings have never been anywhere near his performance in Austria's state Vorarlberg: 100 percent. Just for good measure: John McCain polled best in the Austrian state of Carinthia. His take: 19 percent. How to explain the huge difference between the results of the national election and the results of the poll? According to pollster psychonomics, the results of the survey are only representative of Austrian internet users (i.e., 67 percent of all Austrians claim market researcher GFK Austria). And they, says psychonomics, tend to be young and highly educated. Aha, so now we know. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| At the final debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, this exchange is almost certain to happen again: Obama says McCain wants to give tax breaks to oil companies. McCain says Obama already did. Obama says he didn’t want to. This USA Today piece is the best I’ve seen all year about tax policy toward oil companies. It gets into the nitty gritty about how oil companies are taxed now, what a windfall profits tax would do and how this all compares to taxation of other industries. It details the records and proposals of both candidates, so you can come out of the debate knowing for a fact that McCain’s tax plan would give breaks to oil companies, albeit incidentally, and that Obama did indeed vote for tax cuts for oil companies already. The article leaves out that Obama's support of the tax cuts was just as incidental as McCain's, because he voted for the overall bill that contained them, despite his opposition to them. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A topic that hasn't been discussed at all during the presidential campaign is the candidates' stance toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court, based in The Hague, deals with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and was authorized through a treaty signed by 108 countries. The U.S. originally signed the treaty, later unsigned it and has not ratified it, therefore it is not bound by the treaty. The reason: The Bush administration is "concerned that its soldiers and government officials could be subjected to politicized prosecutions." So what are the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on the ICC? Since both candidates haven't addressed the issue in the campaign, the AP asked McCain and Obama about it. While Obama and McCain are in favor of a standing tribunal to deal with war crimes, they share President Bush's anxiety about the potential of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials or soldiers, writes the AP. "They do not share, however, what has been at times Bush's outright hostility to the court." Mark Lippert, a foreign affairs adviser for Obama, acknowledged that the ICC has a lower priority than nonproliferation, Iran and Afghanistan. "But it registers on (Obama's) radar," Lippert told the AP. He added that the Democratic candidate "has a wait-and-see, go-slow approach. The policy is unchanged from where he has been." According to the AP, team McCain did not respond to its request to talk about the ICC, but the Republican candidate has given the following written response to questions from an international legal affairs organization about the matter: "I want us in the ICC, but I'm not satisfied that there are enough safeguards." Judging from those statements, it looks like both Obama and McCain would continue - in substance, if not in style - the position held by the Bush administration. After all, this is an area of foreign policy where there hasn't been much daylight - in substance, if not in style - between the last Democratic president Bill Clinton and his Republican successor. (You can find a comparison of Clinton's and Bush's positions toward the ICC here.) While American participation in the ICC may not be an important topic in the U.S., it is internationally. With the rejection of the Kyoto protocol and the Iraq war, the U.S. stance toward the International Criminal Court was routinely mentioned as a typical example of American unilateralism. So for all those interested whether a new administration would rethink its approach to the ICC, the bipartisan bottom line is this: Don't expect a sudden reversal of Washington's stance toward the ICC from either Barack Obama or John McCain. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| How should the next president deal with Russia and Iran? We have written about the limited options the next administration has for tackling what are generally considered to be the biggest foreign policy challenges facing Barack Obama or John McCain. Now an editorial by Vali Nasr in the Wall Street Journal proposes a novel thesis that could be summed up like this: The U.S. should engage with Iran to confront Russia. According to Nasr, "Washington cannot resist a Russian sphere of influence stretching from the Black Sea to Aral Mountains unless it plays the Iran card to its advantage." In order to do that the U.S. would have to change its position on these issues, writes Nasr: - Drop objection to the flow of Iranian gas to Europe - Engage Iran in talks on security and stability in the Caucasus region - Accept building the planned new pipelines on the back of Iranian gas - "Freeing Europe of Russia's clutches" is more important than "punishing Iran for its nuclear program" Russia's military action in Georgia has altered the way Iranians view the country. As a consequence, says Nasr, Tehran is ready to talk to the U.S. about how to act jointly vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia. Thus, for Nasr, the decision is clear: "Talking to Iran is good Russia policy" because "only by engaging Iran will America draw a wedge between Moscow and Tehran and weaken Russia's hand." Let's assume Nasr's ultra-realist strategy, which sounds like a new version of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," works out and helps contain Russia. That still doesn't answer the question about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program. What's more, Nasr's dichotomy "Freeing Europe from the clutches of Russia" versus "Punishing Iran for its nuclear program" in itself is debatable. First, so far the common goal of the U.S. and the EU wasn't to punish Iran for its nuclear program, but to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which is an important distinction. Second, whether Europe is really in the clutches of Russia is still a point of discussion. And third, whether containing a resurgent Russia has a higher priority than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is equally questionable. So what do you think? Is it a sound strategy for the next president to play off Iran versus Russia? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If you thought Sarah Palin’s steady debate performance would put an end to her foreign policy missteps for good, you were mistaken. After John McCain came out against removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Palin said: “Condoleezza Rice, of course, having worked on this strategy for quite some time—I have faith in her that they're making this wise decision and North Korea, of course, better live up to its end of the bargain there.” The McCain campaign tried to explain away the gulf thusly: “Governor Palin's position is identical to Senator McCain's: the verification steps are not sufficient to date to warrant North Korea's removal for the state sponsors of terror list. ... She believes Secretary Rice and the Bush administration are wise to pursue diplomacy and that is what she meant.” Except McCain’s rejection of Rice’s decision is the very opposite of having faith in Rice’s wise decision. At no point was it apparent from her remarks that Palin was talking generally about diplomacy. This is not her first contradiction of McCain, with that honor going to her repeated contradiction of the presidential candidate on whether to cross over into Pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda. If it's a disagreement on the issues -- such as her stance on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- why not just chalk it up to the "team of mavericks," as she did there? No, this appears to just be a lack of familiarity with her campaign's stance on North Korea. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In an interview with suddeutsche.de, Germany's former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher gave his perspective on the current financial crisis, the future global role of countries like China, India and Brasil, as well as NATO and the West's relations with a resurgent Russia, the conflict in Afghanistan, and why he favors Barack Obama as the next U.S. president. Genscher, a member of the Free Democrats (FDP), who was once called "A Man with a Dream" by the New York Times, was Germany's longest serving Foreign Minister (1974-1992). In the interview, he strongly criticized the Bush administration and expressed his hope that a new administration will mend the ties between the U.S. and Europe. Here are just a few highlights of the interview focusing on the presidential campaign and transatlantic relations. You can read the entire interview (in German) here. When asked whether a new president would bring a new political style to the White House, Genscher said: "One can only hope that the new president understands that no country in the world is and can be so strong as to dominate the rest of the world. That, by the way, is one of the secrets of success of European unity. The success of Europe became possible because there were three big and three small founding countries. They had to learn how to get along and the bigger countries each had to check in their demand to be the biggest at the cloak room. In my opinion, that is Europe's message to the world: We have shown how to do it – not the law of the strongest country is imperative, but the power of the law is imperative." Does Genscher feel that both candidates are equally committed to lead the U.S. away from the old unipolar way of thinking, asked sueddeusche.de. "Both candidates have been very careful in their statements. Barack Obama, in my estimation, is more open for an equal partnership than John McCain. I like what Obama has said about transatlantic cooperation, namely that it should take place on the same eye level. As U.S. president, he could do a lot and bring back the trust that was lost." Genscher added: "Think about what John F. Kennedy said decades ago: The transatlantic partnershift rests on two columns – Europeans and Americans. With the current American administration, one feels that there is one column and and many little columns, i.e., 'old Europe' and 'new Europe.' This is an alarming antagonism to the thinking of the administration of Bush senior and (James) Baker." On the criticism that Obama is inexperienced, especially on foreign policy, Genscher told sueddeutsche.de: "There is a misconceived opinion that the other candidate has been president before. Neither of them has experience as president. When I became foreign minister I also had no experience as foreign minister. There is a first time for everything." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Add another item to the list of world grievances with the United States the next president will have to deal with: Blame for the expanding global economic crisis. Whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, the new president already is going to have to grapple with a severely diminished U.S. reputation abroad. The Bush years, I learn anew every time I travel to another country and talk to people there, have made the rest of the world hostile toward America. Now, the financial crisis has led to yet more resentment. “German Peer Steinbrück, points a sharp finger of blame at the United States, telling parliament recently that it is ‘the source’ and ‘the focus’ of the crisis,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor. “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick to point the finger last week. ‘This problem started in America. They have got to sort it out,’ he said then,” reported ABC News. In many cases, that criticism of the U.S. has turned inward as countries deal with their own unique situations, and there are differing opinions on the degree of blame the United States should shoulder. And yet the fact remains: The next president is inheriting a world standing that has declined in recent weeks from the low, low point it was at, and that’s almost assuredly going to make it harder for the United States to call in favors even from its allies, be it on Afghanistan or any other foreign policy front. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| For the second time this week, the presidential campaign of John McCain has released a statement to reporters about a news development in Asia that the presidential campaign of Barack Obama has not. This time, the country in question is North Korea, as opposed to Taiwan. Responding to reports that the Bush administration is moving forward with the process to take the country off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, McCain said that not only does North Korea deserve that distinction, but the administration did not properly include other Asian countries in its decision. It’s unclear what McCain’s camp hopes to achieve by speaking out on a news story that hasn’t gained major play, and what Obama’s camp hopes to achieve by remaining silent. Is McCain interested in steering the conversation back to an area of strength, foreign policy? Is he trying to work his way into news stories where he can? Is he trying to gain traction with segments of the elusive Asian American voter community? By taking a position that is in one way to the right of the Bush administration (opposing the removal) and in another to the left (favoring additional diplomacy), what message is he sending to whom? Does the McCain campaign merely think this is something he has an obligation to comment upon, as a potential future leader of this country? And why hasn’t Obama weighed in on either of these Asian subjects? Does his camp see little value in distracting attention away from the economic crisis that has driven a rise in his poll standings? UPDATE: Obama weighed in one day after McCain, when the news was announced rather than before it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to provide you with information and perspectives you probably won't get anywhere else. In that effort, we have shared with you not only our German and American takes on international aspects of the presidential election, but also how the campaign is perceived around the world from Switzerland to Brasil, from Hungary to Ireland. One country whose position on the U.S. election we have so far ignored is Luxembourg's. You may ask why would I care how people in the small Grand Duchy feel about Barack Obama and John McCain? And sure, Luxembourg is not an important player on the international political stage. But it is an important actor on the world's financial stage, i.e. the country is the second largest center for investment funds after the U.S. Therefore, it is interesting what the take on the campaign is in Luxembourg, especially in light of the current global financial crisis. And as luck would have it, this is exactly the focus of the main editorial in the country's leading daily, Luxemburger Wort. According to the paper, McCain as an "unconditional supporter of an ultraliberal market economy definitely personifies an economic and social order that has failed and that no one really wants to see continued. In the U.S., the time for a new "New Deal" has come," opines the paper. "Barack Obama - even before the financial crisis - hit a nerve with his interpretation of the "American Dream," which is based on social balance." For the Luxemburger Wort, McCain symbolizes an America that is backwards-looking. McCain would be the oldest president in the history of the country to take office, which the paper calls not really a sign of renewal. A president McCain would also pose a security risk, because his vice president would be Sarah Palin, whose lack of qualification Americans noticed rather quickly, comments the paper. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| This Slate article is more than a week old, but it touches on two recent posts of mine, first about Indian American voters and more recently about the candidates' positions on Taiwan. The point of the Slate piece is that Asian American voters are often neglected by national campaigns. There are logistical reasons for this, such as the diversity of languages spoken and the fractured partisan allegiances among an ethnicity that includes Filipinos, Indians and Chinese. There is the fact that Asians of all kinds are concentrated in non-swing states, a point I raised about the component Indian community. But this is the key portion from the standpoint of substance, similar to the one I raised about what issues matter to Indian voters: "There are also hyperspecific concerns that are not ideal campaign talking points: Chinese care a lot about U.S.-China relations. Taiwanese care about China-Taiwan. Vietnamese favor anti-Communist policies. And Filipinos often vote based on whoever supports benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II. Plus, segments of the Asian-American community often disagree—as Taiwanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans do on Taiwan, for example, or Pakistanis and Indians on Kashmir," writes the author, Christopher Beam. The piece goes on to discuss different ways Asian American voters can enhance their influence -- all, of course, with drawbacks. But it's fascinating to see there's a nascent effort there. If it pays off, maybe in 2012 or 2016 the two presidential candidates will spend more time on their policies on Taiwan. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A win by Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election would be a break with the past, but it wouldn't be the end of racial problems in American society, the Reverend Jesse Jackson told Swiss news agency sda while at the World Policy Conference in Evian, France. Jackson said, Obama - contrary to his opponent John McCain - had run a "disciplined campaign." He added that an Obama victory should be used to open other important doors for African-Americans such as positions as governors or senators. Jackson told sda that African-Americans have been hardest hit by the sub-prime crisis and still have the shortest life expectancy in the U.S. About the situation in Iraq, Jackson said, regardless of the next president's skin color, he should end the war in Iraq. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 08.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama is the winner of Tuesday's second presidential debate, reads the pretty much unanimous verdict of international media outlets, a day after the encounter between Obama and John McCain. The Republican candidate missed his chance, opines German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD). "In his ideal setting, the town hall format, this should have been a great night for John McCain. His chance to stop his sliding poll numbers. But his problem last night was that there was another guy in the room selling himself to voters as someone who understands their problems." And in the end, writes the FTD, according to a CNN poll, people declared Obama the winner. "If the world looked the same as two weeks ago, the audience might even have called the debate a tie. But the downward spiral of collapsing financial markets has increased the desire for change in the White House. A Democrat, who doesn't make a mistake, is automatically the winner on an evening like this." "McCain doesn't seem to care much for fair play," thinks Switzerlands Tages-Anzeiger. He committed a big foul in last night's debate." By refering to Obama as "that one" he violated the rules of etiquette in front of an audience of millions. "While Obama didn't seem rattled by the incident, McCain after the remark appeared to be a little beside himself. The entire evening McCain didn't mention his biggest trump so far, Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, with one word. And at the end of the event, he even refused to shake Obama's hand. Usually only sore losers behave like that," comments the paper. "Obama wins as McCain shows shades of McNasty" reads the headline of Alex Spillius' blog post at Britain's Daily Telegraph. Calling it a "boring day" in the campaign, "Tuesday night's debate was what we expect from politicians: half-answered questions, predictable answers and few specifics. Barack Obama won because he didn't lose. John McCain, trailing in the polls, needed to make a breakthrough, but was unable to take the opportunity in what is his preferred format for campaigning: the town hall meeting." "Obama won the second television debate with McCain on Tuesday," writes Dutch paper De Volkskrant. Independent voters felt that Obama came across as more trustworthy and had better answers on economic issues than his opponent. This despite the fact that "McCain was in his element in the more spontaneous town hall format in Nashville. Walking around with a microphone and answering questions by voters is his speciality, which was clearly visible." But, adds the paper, McCain made the mistake of refering to Obama as 'that one.'" |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 08.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Taiwan hasn’t exactly been a priority for the presidential campaigns, and Taiwanese publications see no major difference between the two candidates – or President Bush – on the country. But where there is a difference, it can be illustrated thusly: John McCain’s campaign sent reporters a statement today calling on President Bush to add additional items to its sale of military goods to Taiwan, and Barack Obama’s campaign sent out no such statement. That jives with the general sentiment that McCain, for whatever reason, is more attentive to Taiwan than is Obama. Not that the Taiwanese population seems to notice, since they resoundingly back Obama, according to a Reader's Digest poll that also found, contrary to most polls here, that the United States favored McCain. Now, that wasn’t the end of the story from the Obama campaign. It apparently responded to a Washington Post request for comment by simply saying that he supported the military agreement, but did not echo McCain’s call to include submarines and aircraft. And then they sent out to reporters that very Washington Post story, which, as it happens, focuses on the fact that a top McCain adviser until a few months ago lobbied on behalf of Taiwan. Neither McCain’s statement on Taiwan or the Obama campaign’s emphasis of his possible motive is liable to have any impact on the campaign whatsoever. But it all falls under our bailiwick here, and it’s not been examined much of anywhere else. More importantly, the candidates’ positions could have ramifications for whichever candidate wins, since the military deal angered China so much that it canceled planned visits from its military officials to the United States. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With the campaign heating up during the last month before the election, John McCain and the Republican National Committee (RNC) charge that Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from foreign donors, which is illegal under U.S. law. After an article by Michael Isikoff about questionable donations, the RNC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Obama of "knowingly accepting excessive contributions and donations from foreign nationals" and calling it "a wide-scale problem." While Isikoff's piece focused on two questionable donations amounting to less than $30,000, the New York Times checked out the RNC charge that the Obama camp has a wide-scale problem with foreign donations. According to the Times, Obama received $3.3 million in contributions in which the donor listed an abbreviation other than that of the 50 U.S. states and territories. That amounts to one percent of the $270 million raised by Obama. John McCain, writes the Times, took in $517,000 from such donors. Just because donations originate outside the U.S. doesn't make them illegal. As the Times points out, as long as the donor is an American or green card holder, donations are legal even if the person resides outside the U.S. So what is the effect of this on the campaign? And is it, as Marc Ambinder suggests, a "directed, political tactic designed to raise questions about Obama's foreign-ness and otherness." As the British Independent points out "accepting money from foreigners is definitely a no-no" and "it is raising a red flag over whether the Obama camp has been doing enough to police where the cash is coming from." But the amount in question is roughly only one percent of Obama's total donations and, as noted by the New York Times and First Read, there probably won't be any action by the FEC until after the election. One more reason why the RNC's complaint probably won't have a big impact on the rest of the campaign is that John McCain has his own issues with questionable donations and has been queried by the FEC. As for Ambinder's suggestion, of course the RNC's complaint is a "tactic" to damage Obama. But that is not really unusual for an election campaign. Whether it was as "directed" and politically motivated as Ambinder seems to insinuate is debatable, as the charge is basically fallout from various news reports rather than a long planned campaign tactic. And to think the RNC launched the charge with the specific and well thought out goal to question Obama's "foreign-ness and otherness" may be giving more credit than is due. The answer may be far simpler: With McCain down in the polls, a festering financial crisis that won't help their candidate, and less than a month to go before the election, the McCain campaign might just take whatever issue it can get, toss it at Obama, and see whether it sticks. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| ‘Tis the season for looking ahead to the challenges the next president will confront, and how John McCain and Barack Obama would approach those challenges. Michael directed you to the National Journal’s series, but everyone’s doing it, including Popular Mechanics, which has taken a look at the candidates’ positions on science and technology issues that includes their views of the Law of the Sea. (And here, they offered some fascinating technology/foreign policy questions for the candidates’ first debate that I missed. Popular Mechanics!) I’m going to shill once more for my daytime employer on this front, because when Congressional Quarterly puts together a package like it did for its magazine this week, people need to see it. The package starts with CQ Weekly’s “11 Issues for the Next President.” The international angle on many of them is obvious: “War,” “U.S. Image,” “Military,” “Energy,” “Immigration” and “Intelligence,” the last of which I wrote and I’ll discuss more in a moment. But the “Infrastructure” piece, for instance, delves into investments in transportation in Europe; the “Deficit” piece explores foreign lending; and the “Economy” piece dips into international trade. The package also has a fun feature at CQPolitics.com: “Cabinet Maker.” CQ reporters culled the best information they could to project possible Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other Cabinet picks for McCain and Obama. The interactive tool makes it enjoyable, but there’s also a helpful explanation of some of the Cabinet candidates’ work experience and past positions. In my piece on intelligence, I explore the status of al Qaeda, the ongoing restructuring of the national security apparatus, what kinds of attacks experts say the United States needs to better defend against and more. I found that national security agencies were undergoing “reform fatigue,” and that while many experts believe the next president should focus less on the proper structure and more on achievable results, those two things are necessarily intertwined. But I recommend reading the entire series under “related content” here, and using the Cabinet Maker feature. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In a series on the presidential election, the National Journal's James Kitfield takes an interesting look at foreign policy issues and how they might affect the next presidency. What to do about Iraq and Afghanistan is not the big foreign policy question for November 4, argues Kitfield. Instead, the key question is how to handle the multitude of potential confrontations that are yet to come. "Put simply, the next commander-in-chief will have to decide whether these confrontations become wars and what exactly is worth fighting for." Russia and Iran, according to Kitfield, fall under the category described above and pose the biggest challenges to the U.S. in the future. Both exemplify the foreign policy shift that has occurred during the campaign. Russia is classified as a long-term challenge by the National Journal, while Iran is termed a short-term threat. Barack Obama and John McCain may have different approachs on dealing with Russia, but no matter which of them becomes president, the next president will have limited options, Stratfor's George Friedman told the magazine. The result is, says Friedman, that "neither Obama nor McCain wants to talk about the issue of Russia in depth because the answers are unpleasant -- either we withdraw some of the security guarantees we've been granting around its borders, or we spend a lot more on defense." If the differences between Obama and McCain on how to treat Russia are clear, they are stark on Iran. "The Republican has hewed closely to the neoconservative policy adopted in the first Bush term and advocated by hardliners such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, writes Kitfield and adds "McCain rejects high-level negotiations outright, for example, and has stated unequivocally that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to acquire the nuclear bomb." Obama also finds Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons "unacceptable," but argues for direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions. "Even if such talks fail, he says, the attempt at diplomacy would make it easier to assemble a tougher international sanctions regime to contain Iran", writes Kitfield. "In so arguing, the Democrat puts himself squarely in the centrist camp of foreign policy experts who say that even a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained." Unfortunately, Kitfield's article doesn't really ask the key question with regard to Iran. Despite the campaign rhetoric, especially from McCain, are the realistic options the next president and the EU have on how to deal with Iran not even more limited than the options vis-à-vis Russia? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Much of the focus on Sarah Palin’s remarks about Barack Obama “palling around with terrorists” has been on whether negative attacks work or not. The answer to that is: Sometimes. They do not appear to be helping Sen. Norm Coleman right now. On the other hand, it’s hard to deny that John McCain’s attacks on Obama, about him being a celebrity and that kind of thing, were having an effect on the polls. Ben Smith says the purpose of the new McCain/Palin attacks on Obama’s associations has more to do with raising broader questions about him than trying to tie him to a controversial figure, and that may be, too. I think a whole ‘nother question, though, is whether the specific “terrorist” attack can work anymore. And that is one element of the Palin remarks. Accusing Democrats of being soft on terror – and it’s harder to be soft on terror than by “palling around” with a practitioner – worked well in 2002 and 2004. But in 2006, Republicans fell short when they accused Democrats of opposing surveillance on terrorists. And that has something to do with the changing nature of voters’ interests. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| So much for the love affair between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown’s government in Great Britain, now that the a memo by U.K.’s ambassador to the United States criticizing the Democratic presidential candidate has been leaked to the Telegraph’s Toby Harnden. That’s probably an overstatement of the original condition; it’s been more an up-and-down thing, as detailed by British newspapers. But this won’t help relations, should Obama win. Much of the coverage of the leaked document has focused on criticisms of Obama’s leadership style, personality and experience, where the ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, also offered some praise of Obama. But there were some substantial passages in the Obama memo detailing how Obama’s policies compare to Brown’s, too. Among them: --Conflict over Iran. "If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin." --Agreement over Iraq. "Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking." --Common ground on climate change and larger security issues. The memo praised Obama’s “progressive position on climate change" as well as his “pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues." --A lack of shared vision on trade and Middle East peace. “Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is ‘unlikely to be a top priority for Obama’ and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has ‘repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade.’” But in the end, Sir Nigel concluded that Obama is still evolving, and his record offers little to suggest where he might end up. “Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The day after the vice-presidential debate, let’s review where the fact-checkers came down on what the candidates had to say on foreign policy. It wasn’t pretty out there. --At Politifact, Sarah Palin gets a “barely true” for claiming Joe Biden had “supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race.” Biden gets a “half-true” for saying “John McCain voted against funding the troops because of . . . a timeline in it to draw down American troops.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on that natural gas pipeline and Biden’s statements about whether Barack Obama was ready to be commander in chief. --At Washington Post’s Fact-Checker, Palin gets downgraded for claiming she was at the forefront of a movement in Alaska to divest in Sudan, when in fact her administration originally opposed legislation to do so; Biden gets downgraded for claimed that the United States and France had “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on Iraq, and Biden’s claims on Hamas. --At Factcheck.org, Palin gets knocked for claiming that violence in Iraq had fallen to “pre-surge” levels, and Biden gets knocked for mis-characterizing McCain’s views about meeting with Spain’s president. Also addressed: Palin and Biden remarks on Afghanistan, Biden’s remarks on clean coal and Palin’s remarks on overseas sources of energy. For more, here’s fact-checking at USA Today, The L.A. Times, and the Associated Press. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Considering her inexperience, compared to her opponent and political veteran Joe Biden, Sarah Palin held her own in the vice presidential debate. That's – in a nutshell – the snap verdict of the international media a day after the debate in St. Louis. Here's a sampling of opinion from Germany, Italy, Denmark, Mexico and Austria: "Contrary to the hopes of the Democrats, Sarah Palin during the debate with Joe Biden didn't faint, call for the bombing of Iran, or demand the taring and feathering of the heads of Wall Street, argues Germany's Die Welt. "She didn't embarrass herself, she held her own." The paper adds: "In the second foreign policy part of the debate, Biden grew increasingly stronger while Palin often appeared to recite what she had previously learned by heart." "The expectations for Sarah Palin were so low that it has to viewed as a victory that she didn't do any further damage to presidential candidate John McCain", opines Danish Berlingske Tidende (via dradio.de). "After the American voters have had some time to think about this first impression they will wonder whether Palin's performance really qualifies her for the post of vice president." Both, Biden and Palin, like to hear themselves talk, says Italy's Corriere della Sera (via dradio.de). "Palin, because she tries to bury under a moutain of words that she is not familiar with relevant issues. Biden, on the other hand, talks a lot because he knows too much and because he is a tad egocentric. He is certainly better qualified than Palin." "The Republican candidate for vice president didn't let her Democratic opponent Joe Biden intimidate her, even though he has far more media experience", argues Mexico's La Cronica de Hoy (via dradio.de). "The political crash course she has received the evening before the debate at John McCain's ranch bore fruit." "After a lackluster start Palin became more secure with every strike she landed against Biden", opines Austria's Wiener Zeitung. "Overall – almost all media concur – Palin did surprisingly good. For this reason John McCain's running mate functioned exactly at the right time, because his popularity - after a brief high - had recently started to diminish again. The good performance by his partner may counteract this trend", writes the paper. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It'll be dissected here and elsewhere in the coming days, but here's my quick, unpolluted, pre-talking head take on Sarah Palin's performance on foreign policy, which we've discussed so much here this week: She sidestepped many questions. In doing so, she delivered several memorable lines -- "white flag of surrender" -- that were better than making a mistake but not as good as answering competently. She also effectively exploited differences between Joe Biden and Barack Obama, on topics like funding for the troops. On that subject, whether Biden was wrong then and right now (my reading of the pertinent facts) is secondary; it undermines the credibility of Biden's current argument for him to have held the opposite position not so long ago. She made some errors, but nothing too shocking. All in all? She did not fail terribly on foreign policy by any standard, let alone the low, low standard of the expectations she had set with some clumsy interviews. That was the least she had to do, and in my estimation, she accomplished that. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The Associated Press just did the most comprehensive digging on Sarah Palin’s record of meeting with foreign officials yet, and came up with… not much. Palin had said in an interview that she had been involved in “trade missions” with Russia, but the AP came up empty on that count. As it turns out, a gubernatorial spokeswoman had previously refused to even answer questions about the Russian “trade missions.” But the AP got a Russian Federation official to speak up, then another official who works for the governor. In fact, the AP only found that she had ever had any substantial negotiations of any kind with one foreign country, that being Alaska’s other neighbor, Canada. Contrast that with Biden’s list, and it’s apparent what a daunting hole Palin will be fighting out of when Thursday night’s debate rolls around. Things beside experience – like judgment – matter when it comes to foreign policy. And yet, it’s hard to deny that Biden gets some kind of advantage from having met and talked with these foreign leaders in a way that Palin never has. The good news here for Palin is that, in the expectations game candidates usually play, it would be hard for her to come in any lower. Maybe she demonstrates previously unrevealed savvy and ends up profiting from looking better than both opponents and advocates fear she might. Maybe, as well, Biden slips up in some way that makes whatever slip-ups she experiences pale in comparison. But, again, she is starting from a stunningly unequal footing with Biden on foreign policy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Because of Barack Obama's rapid political rise, his immense popularity with various groups of people, and his ability to draw thousands of fans to his public speeches in the U.S. and abroad, some conservative commentators have labeled Obama followers a cult and Obama the "messiah." I have always considered these accusations nothing more than a sign of partisan envy. Just because McCain doesn't energize the Republican base and is not able to attract the masses to his speeches, doesn't make a cult out of Obama supporters. But after watching this video featuring children singing about Obama, which has been circulating on the internet and has received media attention since it was linked to via the Drudge Report, I am starting to wonder whether the phenomenon we all have matter-of-factly called Obamamania deserves a closer look. To me it is scary seeing young children praising a political leader in a seemingly professionally choreographed setting. At first, I thought, perhaps as a German I am overly sensitive to things like this. After all, what's wrong with some kids singing about a politician they like? So I am glad that I am not the only one who has a problem with this video. Ben Smith and Mo Rocca have interesting takes on the issue. But beyond its creepiness factor, what are we to deduct from this video? Assuming Obama becomes president, a lot of his supporters with expectations like those expressed in the video are bound to be bitterly disappointed, because those expectations are impossible to be fulfilled by a president. |
||||||||
|
||||||||