"Candidate X doesn't have any foreign policy experience."

[trotsky]

I still haven't made up my mind who to support. Truthfully, I like them all, some (Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, CMB, Sharpton) more than others (Lieberman). ;-)

But that particular criticism seems so ridiculous to me.

How much foreign policy experience did Clinton have in 1992?

Reagan in 1980?

Carter in 1976?

etc. etc.

The most notable example, of course, is Clinton. Running against a president whose only "successes" came in the arena of foreign policy. Granted, with the War on Terrorism, conditions in 2004 are vastly different than 12 years ago. But still, I don't see how lack of foreign policy experience should be much concern at all.

[StephNW4Clark]

1. Except that it's a post 9/11 world

...anti-American sentiment abroad directly endangers Americans at home, and familiar alliances have been damaged or broken, possibly beyond compare.

Plus, the economy is highly attuned to any foreign policy "disturbance" so jobs and a recovery is tied to our foreign policy.

And of course there's that small matter of the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan.

[trotsky]

2. But here's the catch.

Remember "Mission Accomplished"? The current (mis)administration cannot call attention to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when they've said they already wrapped those up.

And just a regime change here in the US would undoubtedly repair a LOT of those old alliances, I think.

[Padraig18]

5. "And just a regime change here in the US ..."

I have LOTS of family in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and you are 110% correct; there is still great affection for the US, it's just Shrub they can't stand.

:)

[janx]

6. I'm not going to be fear-mongered into voting for any candidate.

I like Clark, but this kind of reasoning really turns me off.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. You're a Dyed-in-the-Wool Democrat, No?

So don't be scared. But the reality is that the general public sees it this way. Acknowledging electoral reality is not "giving in to fear," it's pragmatism.

DTH

[janx]

11. Actually, I was in independent until recently.

Scared? I registered Dem so that I could participate in the caucuses here in Colorado. That's the point.

And I don't think you can assume that the general public is frightened either. Clark has other good attributes besides being a general, and I think it's about time his campaign emphasized those more.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. Why Do You Assume It's Fear, and Not Legitimate Concern?

All other things being equal, would you prefer a candidate with lots of foreign policy experience, or none, in today's world?

I know my answer.

More importantly, I am able to acknowledge what the answer of a large portion of the electorate will be, come November.

DTH

[Padraig18]

9. Me, too.

:)

[Mz Pip]

3. Saying lack of

foreign policy experience is no big deal when we are in a war seems pretty incredible to me. That's not to say that someone who doesn't have any wouldn't be a whole bunch better than Bush.

My stomach did a thud during the debate where Dean said he has as much foreign policy experience as Bush had when he took office. How is anyone going to see that as a good thing? I can imagine a whole bunch of undecided, not particularly political people thinking do we really want to do this again with someone new.

Unfortunately, we seem to be living in a time where serious knowledge of geopolitics and national security is a big plus.

MzPip
:dem:

[dave29]

13. the General public elects people

they see as strong, whether it be in personality, experience or any combination therein. If you listen to Dean, he is just as strong on foreign policy as General Clark or any of the Washington Democrats he is running against. He clearly grasps the issues. Both he and Clark were against the War (Dean made it clear a little earlier, but that's besides the point), and Dean has a very mainstream view of foreign policy and protecting America. Clark may be a safe choice for people who are scared about running against Bush's foreign policy acumen, or the general public's belief in it - but the fact is, four stars on his uniform don't equate to a difference in policy strength in this arena.

Because Dean wasn't out waging and winning a war does not mean he is unqualified to be President. If you've read any of his foreign policy speeches you would instantly see that. He knows what he is talking about. He knows what areas we need to focus on. I haven't seen too many people come right out and say we need to hold Saudi Arabia accountable - and go after the nuclear stockpiles in Russia. In fact, his willingness to make forceful lines of distinction between his foreign policy views and GWB's shows and has shown he has command of these issues.

Clark may have plenty of military experience, but that doesn't make him more qualified to be President post 9/11 - it just makes him a safer choice for those who think we can't win without a General at the helm.

[Mz Pip]

15. It doens't sound like

you've heard many of Clark's speeches. I would be supporting him even if he was a governor from a small state.

MzPip
:dem:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. We're "At War" Now

Accordingly, there is an enormous difference.

The American voting public will not support a candidate who needs foreign policy training wheels in this dangerous time.

DTH

[janx]

8. Please see #6, DTH.

I find that kind of reasoning insulting. I really do. And I respect Clark very much.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Please See #7, Janx

And I'm sorry you feel insulted, it's not intended that way at all, as I hope you will understand after reading my #7.

DTH

[ramapo]

14. Important today

This was one of the criticisms leveled against GWB and with justification. It's part of the reason we have the mess that we do today.

Yes Clinton and Carter and Reagan learned while on the job. Not always with the best results.

Democrats can select a candidate with experience or be on the defensive for the candidate who has no experience. I choose experience.

[sandnsea]

16. Look at the disasters

Carter did good with Egypt/Israel. But look at Iran.

Reagan, egads.

Clinton. Somalia. Rwanda. Haiti.

We need foreign policy experience. Somebody who has actually negotiated treaties with success. Clark or Kerry are the only ones who stand a chance after 9/11. It's just ridiculous to ignore the importance of foreign policy and national security experience right now.

[BobbyJay]

17. 9/11 changed everything