bold text mine

What? They have so much respect for us now? :headshake

After the Neo-Com experience, we would do well to see who the advisors are. The only foreign policy advisor I've heard from is the lady (Samantha Powell?) who got fired for speaking her mind about Hillary. Her foreign policy positions were a clean break from the hawks. She had an interview on BBC radio over the weekend. Remember that rumor mongering is old school Clinton and her supporters take their Kool Aid even stronger than the change crowd.

Samantha Powers. I used to like her. She wrote a book a few years ago on the history of genocide that I read. Nothing profound... more depressing than anything else. I'm not sure why Obama would pick her as his foreign policy advisor. She's not that experienced on the grand scale, her niche is human rights. I was surprised to see her make the mistake of calling Hillary a monster and then asking for it to be off the record. She should know better.

But I am a Hillary supporter.

And to think some would say we'd get less respect with her from the Middle East and South America because she's a woman? What about Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi... just to name a few prominent female leaders. I definitely think the US will be taken as seriously wwith her as Pres. What's laughable is to elect someone with as little experience as Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

A list of advisers:

Clinton:

• Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State)
• Sandy Berger (former National Security Adviser)
• Richard Holbrooke (potential Secretary of State)

Obama:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor)
• Anthony Lake (former national security advisor)
• Susan Rice (former assistant Secretary of State)
• Richard Danzig (former navy secretary)
• Joseph Cirincione
• Lawrence Korb (Center for American Progress)
• Richard Clarke (former counterterrorism czar)
• Samantha Power (noted human rights scholar)
• General Merrill McPeak
• Dennis Ross

Here are some articles on the Democrat's advisers.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3...city_linked_us

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.

It appears that we are dealing with two groups of establishment players, with Obama's generally getting the Iraq war right and Hillary's pretty much getting it wrong. That means Hillary is definitely out and how much Obama will be his own man as President continues to be the big question. If he can sell me on the idea that we'll get a less belligerent foreign policy, I may give him a chance.

I think we'll know more once the general election begins.

No, we won't really know until about 2 years into the next president's term.

Or we can learn from history. While three months into the presidency, the foreign minister of Norway warned that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. A short time later, this same administration threatened war with China over a silly spy plane (good thing Powell was there to quash their saber rattling). It did not take long to see what George Jr was made of. That is not the same man presented to America as a companionate conservative.

Every politician is lying about their foreign policy (and telling some truths). We must guess which campaign pledges they will discard when in office. For example, I don't believe for one minute that Obama, Clinton, or McCain will subvert NAFTA. Any pledges to do so are obvious lies for the benefit of people foolish enough to see NAFTA as NAFTA.

Nixon told us he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. His secret plan was to escalate. But then Nixon was always a liar. Just that too many were too tied to their emotions (and religion) to see the man for what he really was - Tricky Dick. What they say on the campaign trail must be tempered by what they really mean. Reading beyond those pledges is an art. Anyone who takes literally what a candidate says is only fooling themselves.

I am really surprised to see Zbigniew Brzezinski on the list of advisors to Obama. He's 80 years old! He's got some interesting theories on the "grand chessboard". He's known as a hawk and realist. Not in line with Obama's politics at all.

I thought it was his son, Mark, thats the advisor - not Zbigniew. Mark served on President Clinton's National Security Council as an expert on Russia and Southeastern Europe.

Out of three paragraphs of ranting by our resident unabomber, this much is true.

Hmmm. Obama has consistently espoused a strong, reality-based defense and foreign policy, so perhaps more in line than you perceive.

Hey thats the lady that ignored Rwanda and the hundreds of thousands got hacked to death, great job there.

Hey thats the guy who continually stole documents from the National Archives, great guy there.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ger.sentenced/

A realist, in politics, "encompasses a variety of theories and approaches, all of which share a belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics. This term is often synonymous with power politics." This is not Obama. Chek out http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/polreal.htm to have a better idea of realism is.

Obama is an idealist, not a realist. And Obama certainly isn't a hawk.

Yeah, I became a Democrat today. :o

Apparently a TON of people did

(I've worked with that Mr. Passarella on election issues, and he is a competent, fair, and hard-working public servant, which is one reason why the media always quotes him.)