There is a difference between not having that international experience (Obama) and not having it but pretending you do (Hillary).

Oops.

Is it just me, or do others perceive also that Obama has surrounded himself with a couple of unbelievably naive and not ready-for-primetime f-p advisors? First young Samantha Power calls for US armed intervention between Israel and the Palestinians, which effectively means giving a shield to the Palestinians and shooting at the IDF, and then disavows it in the Ha'aretz interview by saying her comment "made no sense" and was "weird." Now Obama's other leading f-p advisor repeats his opponent's major line of attack on him.

Do we really want these people guiding the next president as he deals with Ajad, Putin, Pakistan et al?

Hint to BOTH HRC and BHO: avoid f-p. Run on the economy, stupid. It's 1992 all over, only this time we've got stagflation and a dollar in freefall. The WH is ours for the taking if we keep the focus on the economy.

I don't understand how this is a trap that Obama "accidentally" walked into. I saw Susan Rice giving that interview -- she seemed admirably honest and forthright, while still making a case against Hillary's claims to superior foreign policy crisis competence. If Obama can make the argument that neither he or she has had to deal with foreign crises yet, he takes away an advantage that seems to work for her.

It's also a trap for McCain.  Has he negotiated a treaty or handled a crisis?  Has he, unlike the loose nuke legislation Obama worked on with Lugar, even passed any significant legislation on foreign relations issues?  Good questions for McCain-Clinton to answer that will turn the debate from the illusion of experience to judgment, more favorable terrain for Obama.  

First off, good post. Short, direct, and for this author a relative minimum of obnoxious high-horsemanship.

But isn't the point the falsehood of Hillary's claim, not the degree to which that claim is more true of her opponent?

Of course, Hillary does have long experience with "3:00 a.m. moments" -- chiefly, from dealing with her husband's infidelities. She has gotten that call from a close associate saying, "Your husband just did something that could destroy his career" several times. And each time she has sprung into action, saving him from himself. Now, I know that's not the experience she wants anyone to focus on, and her usual responses -- lie, collude, attack -- aren't the responses anyone actually wants in a president. But this is the experience she has that meets the standard she claims in the ad. She's answered that phone, and she's kept a cool head, kicked ass, and gotten the job done.

The Susan Rice quote is priceless. She'll get an office right next to Goolsbee, along with the Oboma election law attorney who made a fool of himself breaking into Howard Wolfson's conference call with the press. As a writer for The Nation (!!!) said on  XM's POTUS, the lawyer's behavior was an indication of the Obama campaign's immaturity and lack of readness for the real world, and that if he were the Clinton campaign he would play it every day for the rest of the contest.

Hilary has travelled the world, she knows leaders (like Bhutto) on a personal basis, she has been learning about the world for years. It is a major advantage, similar to JFK's serious travels in the world before he became President.

Obama's "trap" ia another instance of the Rovian technique of accusing your opponent of exactly what you are weak on. Remember, Obama did'nt try to take Russert's debate question that required you know Medvedev's name. Clinton did. That is because of her greater experience in and knowledge of the world.

It's rich to hear Kirchick talk about "ridiculous pretensions".  

It's not about doing foreign policy but about making contacts, about networking.  I dare say Hillary's contacts with India and China are a hell of a lot more useful than Obama's.

I think, in virtue of being president, any of the candidates will probably develop useful contacts in foreign nations.

If you look at the Ha'aretz interview, tep, you'll see that the remark that Power made was made over five freaking years ago in 2002 and I think she was being both smart and honest in saying that she can't re-interpret the full meaning of that remark in a completely different context today.  The original comment was made in the context of potential major reforms in U.S. policy on the Middle East, and it's not evidence of lack of imagination to say that a real commitment to a peace deal on the part of the U.S. could indeed include some kind of military presence to reassure Palestinians that we don't only recognize one side's worries.

Stop picking out meaningless fragments -- even the Ha'aretz guy wasn't claiming she was advising Obama to do that TODAY, and presumably the man is capable of taking or leaving advice that he hears.  As I've said on more than one occasion -- a point which you tend to ignore while repeating your generally unsupported critique of SP -- not every idea is going to be a good one but we badly need ideas for a new strategic posture in the world, and if we start demonizing ideas we end up with political leaders and administrations that won't risk having any.

The truth is, if there is a real breakthrough in the ME then we are -- no matter what kind of evasive bs is being said today -- going to have to be involved with the security/monitoring structures and the relationship between Israel and Palestine.

pccostello, bhutto is, uh, dead.

It was an idiotic remark then. As her own comments recently make clear, it looks even more idiotic today. Sorry but major-league diplomats-- as opposed to on-the-make young K-schooler semi-academics-- just don't say things like this about such explosive and sensitive matters as the I-P conflict. Regardless of their views on the issue at hand.

roi, she knows Yeltsin, too.

Roid -- we know: David Axelrod blamed Hillary, in-part, for the assasination.

Tep is right -- the only foreign policy item either of them should talk about is what the $5 billion per month we spend in Iraq could be buying.

tep:  Power isn't a major-league diplomat (unlike, for example, John Bolton perhaps?), and to the best of my knowledge doesn't pretend to be.  However, I'm getting to like the way you consistently avoid responding to my point about ideas and imagination.

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia,"  (That was from the age of 6 to 10).

Lymon - I'd shift about 2/3rds of that sum to Afghanistan. Maybe all of it, given how badly that war-- the good war, remember?-- is going.

Irony - OK, here goes. My own view on "ideas and imagination" as regards the middle east clusterf***s is probably the less imaginative, the better. Neither absurd fantasies from the left about transforming the Palestinian leadership into normal negotiating partners who can or will deliver on whatever promises they might, in our dreams, make, nor absurd fantasies about bringing democracy to sunni and shi'a berserkers at the tip of a Bradley. Neither one.

Frankly, speaking of ideals and imagination my own fervent dream is for this country to have as little to do with the middle east as we possibly can, consistent with our needs and our responsibilities to our ally Israel.

Asia (including SW and So. Asia) is the region that really matters to us. What royally disturbs me about the notion of giving huge influence to the likes of Africanists and HR advocates like Power and Rice is what it says about Obama's geostrategic priorities. My priorities would be 1. Asia 2. Asia 3. Asia. Africa and HR promotion wouldn't make the short list.

There you go,

T

Wasn't Bill Clinton's experience in foreign policy even less than BO's in 1992?  So she's implying that Bill was a lousy president in terms of foreign policy by her line of reasoning?  And she derives her experience having had a husband who was president?  You know, I'm just saying....

Roi: she knows leaders (like Bhutto), don't you know among Hillary's fantastic skills is her ability as a medium? Don't you know a lot of her experience is based on channelling the ghost of Richard Nixon?

Tep, I agree, naturally, that Asia is important, but it being important doesn't mean there is much we can do about it. The problems facing China are utterly beyond our control (its deteriorating environment and its sex imbalance).

There is no way any candidate can express what needs to be done in soundbites, and soundbites (not solutions) is what America wants to hear. Hell, isn't Hillary's biggest soundbite "solutions not soundbites?" which makes it about the dumbest thing I have heard from a candidate in a long time.

tep -- terrific -- but I'd include Latin America as at least #3....it's getting really important re several industries...

I kinda gag these days when I hear people/organizations talk about "peace," "justice," "human rights" .... you just know you're about to be hit by know-nothing fuzzy hypocrisy....

thanks tep -- I appreciate your reading of it.  I'd like however to suggest that your ideas (some of which I find make total sense) are simply that -- ideas.  Which is good.  As I say, we need them.  However, ideas about the Middle East (remember what's there:  troops, war, oil, nukes, volatile political changes, and indeed allies, neutrals, and opponents) should be welcome too.  Israel is our aally, but the kind of ritualized and unthinking alignment of American and Israeli interests that brooks no criticism is dangerous for both parties.

Moreover, the problem is that if human rights don't even make the shortlist, what are we offering that makes us different?  Why on earth would anybody go along with any exercise of global leadership on the U.S.'s part if all we do is buy into the local realpolitik of the moment while acting as if we owned some superior moral position?

Indeed, I'd suggest that your Asia Asia Asia! policy may become a problem for us if the only issues we bring to the table are how to get the toothpaste checkers into Gwangdong Province or wherever.  What might distinguish us from, oh I don't know, maybe the rising Chinese superpower, is our belief that there are struggles for human rights and democratic values that we recognize and give encouragement to even if WalMart and Google don't.

One of our big problems at the moment is the yawning gap between the administration's tired and slushy freedom-and-democracy rhetoric and our perceived actions worldwide.  Perhaps a future president might want to deal with that.  Who knows -- even intelligence is possible!

roidowhatever--

I try to be polite here, but you have to try not to be an idiot. we all know bhutto is dead. clinton spoke movingly of knowing her in personal terms, of their children meeting, etc. clinton has that kind of relationship with many world leaders, and one of the reasons her travels count is because she does have these relationships. and she knew bhutto in part because she was active on behalf of women's interest.

70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending. American consumers have negative net worth, which means that someone is furnishing them credit at artificially cheap rates to enable purchases of stuff they don't need and can't afford.

Guess who owns that debt. Guess what happens to the US consumer, hence the US economy, hence global confidence in US hegemony and the ability of the US to sustain the free flow of capital oil goods people & ideas, if the owners of that debt decide it's no longer an attractive investment proposition. Do you see why Asia, Asian trade partners/investors/lenders, Asian perceptions of US hegemony and Asian interstate relations matter so much?

btw, this shift in confidence is just starting to happen. We're in the sh*t now, a lot deeper than our political and journalistic elites care to let on. Assuming they're even aware of this, that is

It's not a zero-sum game.  I don't disagree with your analysis, but f-p is more like assembling a rubik cube in the darkness that it's like have a clear set of choices to concentrate on.

pccostello, having tea with the queen or various Prime Ministers wives (or sometimes husbands) is not the same as high level negotiations. Knowing them personally doesn't really amount to a hill of beans, (hell, the entire European continents royalty used to be related, and that didn't prevent WW1) because countries leaders act first on their own perceived self-interest.

And need I remind you that she has not been first lady for nearly 8 years, there are damn few of the leaders from then still around. So her experience was both superficial and is now out of date.

Papa Bush, on the other hand, had both high level experience and up to date relationships, which is why his FP was so successful.

Please make an effort to learn history please.

OK -- once again, proof read!!  ". . . than it's like having a clear set of choices . . ."

I gotta agree with Blackie: There's not a single G8 member right now who was in office when she was first lady.  The closest potential one would be Brown in the UK (as he held high government office then.  Putin's still around, but probably doesn't give a damn about her first lady experince.  As for the rest, Stephen Harper wasn't even in Parliament 1997-2001, Merkel was a low minister in the 1990s then in the opposition after Kohl fell, Sarkozy was in minor roles and out of power after 1995, Fakuda was in minor roles as well.  Bit players in parliamentary systems don't have high level contact with First Ladies, so her first lady contacts are largely worthless when it comes to the big stage.  

Tep

How much do you know about the work Power's think tank has done? I'm mainly wondering if you're concerned with her public states or disagree with their actual approach. They're different arguments.

Excellent point, crock.  I don't care which one wins, but she drives me nuts with this 35 years business.  It's just nonsense, and Obama should pound her on it often.  Not because he has any (both are deeply unqualified to be President) but that she is soooooo disingenuous about it.  Well, she IS a Clinton.

Tep, this can't be 1992 - then we were on holiday from history and Bill capitalized.  Had there been a Cold War still, Papa Bush would have kept his job.  The Dem won't be allowed to NOT talk about f-p, any more than McCain will be allowed to talk only about f-p.