It was a very interesting profile. That she was involved with microloans before it became validated and accepted points out what a visionary she was.

powerful stuff.  I like her a lot more than McCain's mom.

It seems to most important feature of becoming an expert in foreign policy is to understand through personal experience the meaning of being foreign. I lived in China for 7 years and I guarantee I know a hell of a lot more about China then "experts" who can't speak the language and who have never been there, outside of a quickie tour with English translators. I have also lived in Mexico now for 3 years, and learned a lot more about it here than I could ever from a book. Now if the state department were going to hire someone who should they hire, someone who has never set foot out of the country except as pretty much a tourist,  that only speaks English, or someone who has had years of experience and is multilingual? Should that not also be a consideration for President?

Our policy in Iraq has been such a disaster because no one understood the area, and no one speaks the language. It was all based on wishful thinking and assumptions.

Obama lived in Indonesia during very critical and formative years, Perhaps, just perhaps, it has allowed him to have a broader view of life, and not one based on insularity like Shrub.

Very educational post and Talkbacker stuff too.

Now I see where Obama is coming from.  I lived In Mexico for two years and it changed my life (as a idealistic youth Blackton, not as a teacher and parent like you - my experience was more footloose but so pivotal to my values.  I worked there, I loved there, I lived in the ghetto there.  Every American should be required to live in another country). There is NO way to have learned what I did from a book or classroom or a job.  

This is the single instance I can think of where Obama isn't as clear as he could be on. He has not made his experience as universal as he could have.  It shouldn't be a polemic point that he's making against a foe.  He's as his best as an educator. He should simply describe what living abroad does for someone's understanding of life outside America.

I'm glad the foreign policy and national security discussion has come up about Obama here.   As a democrat and Clinton supporter, i want to be prepared to vote for Obama if he gets the nod.  Yet, I'm troubled by a few things and hope people can give me some insight. Can someone explain to me why senator Obama has missed so many national security votes?  I looked up his voting record at VoteSmart and he has not voted on at least ten national security bills/amendments out of about 20 or so.  Hillary has voted much more often, but has cast a few no votes herself.  Why isn't Obama doing his job?  You would think that since criticizing national security stuff has been so fundamental to his campaign (and success) that he would be gaining this important NS experience by casting votes.   This doesn't look like good judgement to me.  

That's a fair question tammy, I wasn't aware of this - I'm going to look it up myself (thanks for the civilized question and tone!).  

I'm not sure what "missing a national security vote" really means - phrases like that just sound like sound bite manipulation by partisans - no concrete information.  I'm more interested in concrete questions like: why didn't Senator Obama vote on Bill ABC, versus Bill ABC which he did vote for?  Where was he and why?  Has he ever spoken about this vote?  WHat did he say?

Since we're honestly asking about voting records: why did Hillary bring up a flag burning ammendment all on her own, after winning her state by 20%  points?  This wasn't a vote she ws forced to make, she usherd this in all on her own.

Why did she vote for the Republian written and sponsered, written by banking lobbyists "bankrupcy bill "- which would affect mostly poor and middle class people? 80% of bankrupcies are because of unpaid medical bills, surely as the health care expert that she is she knows this more than anyone.  As a Democrat, why hasn't Hillary been doing HER job being an honest advocate for our values?  This doesn't just look like bad judgement to me, but calculating butt kissing to the right at our expense.  

Can you help me out with that?

VoteSmart website said its down for maintenance, couldn't check.  There was no date when it would be back up, will keep checking.

Wanderer (I like that abbreviation of your username, but if you don't, I wont use it again). I don't know the answers to your questions about Hillary's votes, but like you on Obama, I shall try to find out.  There is nothing calculating about my question or the words I use.  This is a genuine question.  The sinister motives and negative character assessments that are attributed to Hillary and her supporters (like me) is unbelievable.  And, it's unacceptable.  This is no way to court me and likely other Hill supporters if your guy wins the GE.  

tammy, look at the dates. Both Obama and Clinton have been missing a lot of votes because they are busy running for President. Clinton was Senator for 6 years before she even started to run for President, Barack a mere 2. If anything, the Democrats have to seriously tighten up how we run for President by shortening the primary season.

It would also be useful if Senators could phone in their votes, this ain't the 18th century where everyone had to be literally on the floor to make sure the vote was legit.

blackton, not that I doubt what you say, but where have you lived in Mexico other than the south? Too many people in the States think that the entirety of Mexico is typified by Tijuana (or Ciudad Juarez). I would guess you have travelled through much of Mexico.

WandreyCer1, I'm also curious where you travelled in Mexico, what you liked, and didn't?

Tammy - I'm not trying to court you. You are no doubt a solid citizen with fine deciphering skills.  I'm not a courter.  Ill vote for Hillary is she's the nominee because my country is more important than my ego and rewarding the Republicans after they've just spent the last 8 years demolishing the country is not an option.  Is it for you? I know we'd be in good hands with Hillary.

I noticed that you seemed to have been offended at my questions on Senator Clinton's voting record - this  after your saying Obama isn't doing his job, didn't vote on national security and has bad judgement - it's OK if you do it I guess.  The website you listed as your source is not functioning.

This is what bugs Obama supporters frankly - the dishing it out but refusing toi take it stuff.  All of your criticisms are manifestly fair while anything going the other way is sinister, mean, sexist (this is the most offensive to me as a woman).  It's not sinister to know why she chose to use her Senate power this way.  It alienated many of us - not her personality, her marriage, whatever - her VOTES.

The complaining and victim playing is very very tired.  Either we can defend the concrete records of our candidates or we''ll just take broad stroked swipes with no specifics and sound like Sean Hannity.  That is pointless to me.  Hillary's heart, her soul, her experience, her marriage mean little to nothing to me - her votes are what matters.

If you can find out why she introduced a flag burning ammendment and voted for a bankrupcy bill that mostly helped wealthy banks and hurt the poor and middle class - let me know.  I'll try to find other sources on Obama's "national security votes."

PS I have never held Hillarys war voter against her.

Hillary also voted to confirm Gonzales as AG and Condi Rice as Sec of State - Obama dinged both of them while he was in the Senate.

Votes matter alot -

don't have much time Tomeg - lived outisde of Puerto Vallarta and traveled basicaly everywhere in that country.  I got married there.  My soul is still there somewhre I think - mas later!

Blackton.  Obama missed more votes than Hill on nat security.  Why? We don't know.  We don't know why Cllinton missed them either.  Wanderer and I are trying to do some background research on our candidates positions. It's kinda lame to me that they can't do the job they have because they are interviewing for another one.  What exacerbates that is a long primary process.   I think your idea about calling in their votes is brilliant and should be implimented.  I'm glad we're talking policy.  Wanderer, got to jett off to class, but I promise to look into that research soon and get back to you.  We agree, votes are important.  BTW, there is negative sentiment on all sides going around.  I don't think my question about Obama not doing his job is a sinister personal attack.  Calling him a monster or a liar would be.  

There's two issues wrt Hillary's war vote:

1) which was the better call (I think almost all think the war authorization was a mistake)

2) what weight to give it.  Here's where Obama and Clinton backers frequently diverge sharply.  Clinton backers think it was a close call: with a respected secretary of state saying Iraq had WMD's and Saddam playing games with Hans Blix even after Resolution1441, was it *that* wrong to be risk-adverse and give even a George W. Bush/Dick Chaney administration the authority to wage war (figuring that ultimately Saddam might back down)?  Obama backers say his opposition is evidence of great judgment and/or courage (though they don't then discuss the political circumstances at the time he put forth his position).  

I don't care about missed votes.  But speaking for foreign policy, I read a LA Times piece today that shows Obama in a warm friendship with a Palestinian scholar at Columbia who has stated that Palestinian killings of Israeli soldiers (but not civilians) is legitimate under international law.  Axelrod defends this as another case of Obama talking with and respecting everyone.  But I remember all the grief Hillary Clinton got for that kiss from Arafat's wife...

OK tammy - I don't call Hillary names and like I said, I know we'd be in good hands with her as President.  

The "monster" name came about right around when the kitchen sink strategy started to be flushed all over Obama after he won Iowa - it didn't come from nowhere.  Saying that only she and John McCain passed the Commander in Chief test didn't help either - thanks Hill, way to make those Republican ads for them, save them money.  How dare she? You have to understand how many people she grossed out and alienated completely with that stunt.

I do know that she is not a  monster and is a fine public servant in many ways.  It is valid to feel let down by and even angry about her votes and the choices she's made though. I've been frustrated with high level Democrats in general for a long time. I do not think we had to simply be rolled over by the Republican madness of the last eight years.  

Much more spine and leadership should have been displayed and wasn't.  It was cowardly with high consequences.  I always wondered at what point was it that we were supposed to stand up for what's right?  To stop being afraid of Rush Limbaugh? We constantly lost anyway and that was with the American public almost always on our side on the issues.  It seems obvious to me that we lost becuase we were spineless and uninspiring, stood for nothing, lead nothing.  

I thought Obama voted bravely several times and I noticed (he called it completely on Al Gonzales).  I also noticed that when Tom Delay called him a Marxist/Leninist, people had stopped listening.  Standing up for what was right worked.  I have a hard time figuring out why a first term Senator would have simply not voted on national security like you say, I wonder how he would have even gotten away with that.  Frankly, I find the charge dubious, but will keep an open mind.

Flag burning ammendments just seemed gratuitous beyond belief.  Don't even get me started on the bankrpucy bill - the most evil bill of all.  I do know Hillary has done great work for vets and for our upstate economy here in New York (why she doesn't brag about her green intiatives with farmers here is beyond me - afraid of being called a tree hugger buy those blue collar Ohio voters?) and I appreciate it.  

I guess I am frustrated when she says only she will really "fight" Republicans.  I can't think of a single instance when she has actually done so as an elected official - Obama has, with his votes. I appreciated her not buckling under Ken Starr and the boys as much as the next person, but that was 15 years ago and simply not relevant to her work as a paid elected official.  

I even agree with Hillary's take on health care ideologically. Single payor is the only way - but I do not think it is politically feasible at this time. I think she will go down in flames again if she tries it, although I sincerely wish her the best.

I think supporters are way too defensive sometimes - valid beefs are morphed in to woman hating  - that's got to stop. I'm a proud feminist who supports Obama and does not hate women - there has been some sexism, but about one tenth as much as claimed and the whining and complaining is not inspiring at all, irritating and grating.  I have a former student who is at Annapolis now, an 18 year old African American girl who weighs maybe 115 pounds.  She is one of the most popular plebes I hear, incapable of complaining and certainly no one''s victim despite the obvius odds stacked against her.  The men in her class love her.  She is who I htink of when I hear Hillary crying sexism when it's not.

I have yet to call an anti-Obama post or poster racist for not supporting him or his views, although I have come close with this faux outrage over the minister nonsense.  Angry black people!  The horror!   When Obama makes a gaff or a misstep, I call it what it is.  

"was it *that* wrong to be risk-adverse and give even a George W. Bush/Dick Chaney administration the authority to wage war (figuring that ultimately Saddam might back down)?"

Lymon,

I don't know if it was "wrong", but it certainly was naive.  Once Bush/Cheney received the green light to mobilize and transport an invasion force to the Middle East, nothing short of regime change would have been acceptable to the Bush Administration.  They weren't going to deploy all those troops just so they could bring them back home again.  Saddam could have thrown open the gates to every government installation in Iraq and it wouldn't have been enough.  That should have been obvious to all the Democrats who voted to authorize force In October, 2002.