WHY OBAMA AND NOT CLINTON

The dust-up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama regarding the latter's comment about his willingness to meet with hostile world leaders like Chavez and Ahmadinejad without preconditions reveals a stark difference in the foreign policy positions of both candidates. This difference is the key reason why I think Obama would be a more effective leader of the free world than Hillary could ever be.

When posed the same question, Hillary saw it as an opportunistic moment to highlight Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, stating that if she were President, she would not meet with those leaders without preconditions, and suggested that anyone who did would be "used for propaganda purposes." A few days later, she followed up by calling Obama "irresponsible" and "naive". Not one to take a licking, Obama responded by labeling her "Bush-Cheney lite."

Obama's approach to dealing with hostile leaders is not unprecedented. Reagan dealt with the Soviets all throughout the era of the Cold War even though there was a possibility of a nuclear war. More recently, the State department, in partnership with Russia, South Korea, China and Japan, successfully negotiated a compromise with North Korea to disable its nuclear facilities. North Korea's concession came in spite of constant threats issued by that nut-case Kim Jong Il.

Hillary speaks in very conventional terms. Her plan for American foreign policy, while admittedly not "Bush-Cheney lite", takes this country back to where it was in 2000. It does not recognize that the world has changed a great deal since then. More importantly, it does not acknowledge that Bush and the neo-cons have screwed this country's relationship with the rest of the world so badly that solutions that were successful in the past may not work going forward. Contrararily, Obama has a acute sense of what is historically relevant and what is not. Hillary’s position on how to engage hostile world leaders is not different from that of Bush and Cheney. In short, it is sheer nonsense and a refutation of intelligent diplomacy.

It has been often said that Hillary's campaign is built on experience while Obama's is built on change. Someone has yet to tell me how and why Hillary qualifies as an experienced candidate, let alone the most experienced candidate in the Democratic field. If elected as President, Hillary would have 8 years of experience in the Senate going into office as compared to 4 years for Obama if he were elected instead. How is the difference of 4 additional years anything to crow about? Hillary's campaign makes a big deal out of her time spent as former First Lady but how in the world does being a former First Lady prepare one to be President?

If it is experience that Democratic primary voters want, then Biden is the unequivocal choice. He has been in the Senate for more than 30 years and has chaired the Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees. It is also not lost on anyone that the 2 areas that progressives want to change the most are foreign policy and the courts, making Biden's case even stronger. (I am bewildered as to why he has not emphasized these points more in his campaign stops. After all, he did prevent Robert Bork from ascending to the Supreme Court).

Most former Presidents in recent times did not have much relevant experience before they took office. Being governors of Arkansas and California did not offer Clinton and Reagan, respectively, much that they could take to the table while talking about rogue states in the Middle East or the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma. What is required, however, is a fundamental grasp of the nature of our era and a profound understanding of what is new today. That is what Obama possesses and what Hillary is lacking.

Obama sees the challenges ahead through a unique set of lenses. He knows that these challenges demand a new sense of direction and a new definition of the role of the US in this world. He understands that a fundamental rethinking of how the US conducts world affairs is needed. He has the courage to alter the nature of America’s relationship with the world. Sadly, all the junior Senator from New York has to offer is more of the same old stuff, even though it might not be “Bush-Cheney lite”.