Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama seems to be his own greatest enemy when it comes to his grasp of foreign policy.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The First Casualty of Obama is Obama

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media. Posted August 8, 2007.


Obama seems to be his own greatest enemy when it comes to his grasp of foreign policy.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The instant Barack Obama tossed his hat in the presidential ring the big knock against him was that he didn't know a darn thing about foreign policy. And that his greenhorn experience would sooner or later come back to haunt him once he squared off with the big boys and girls in the presidential debates. It has.

A USA Today/Gallup poll shows that Obama has taken a sharp nosedive in the ratings in his overheated tiff with Hillary Clinton too grab the top Democratic spot. That was predictable.

When Obama said that he would talk to America's pariahs, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, the North Koreans and Iranians, it made some sense. After all America's foreign policy would be a pretty pathetic state of affairs if a president, his Secretary of State, and his ambassadors just talked to their friends and ignored their enemies. That's a sure fire prescription for deepening tensions, conflicts, disputes, and triggering cold and even occasionally hot wars.

But unfortunately Obama didn't stop there. He popped off about mounting search and destroy operations in Pakistan, a key U.S. ally. Obama came off as worse than naïve and confused. He came off as a walking foreign policy contradiction. That's the kiss of death for a head of, or potential, head of state. That type of contradiction and the public fears that it stokes has been the death knell for presidential candidates and even presidents.

Remember Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's gaffe in 1964 about nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union. A gleeful Lyndon Johnson jumped all over that and Goldwater spent the rest of the campaign trying to defend the indefensible. Jimmy Carter's botched rescue mission to free American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran effectively sunk his re-election bid. Clinton went straight for the jugular after Obama's seeming slip and slide on foreign policy and she surged in the polls.

Democrats by huge margins say that she's the best qualified to handle the Iraq war, the terrorism fight, and foreign policy issues.

But even if Obama had done and said everything right on foreign policy issues, his slide was inevitable. In fact, there were signs that Obama could hit the wall with voters, and the issue would be his fitness to wear the tag of commander-in-chief. That's not just a political ceremonial title.

The voters want and feel most comfortable with a president that has a firm grasp of how to deal with and head off a crisis when it occurs in a world hot spot. That person must be firm, resolute, understand the strengths and limits of diplomacy, and most importantly understand when to use or not use military force.

The lack of that last quality has been the single biggest cause of the mess that President Bush has made in Iraq. It's why his popularity ratings still wallow at ocean's bottom. He's a sitting president and the public is mercilessly punishing him in the polls for his foreign policy bumbles and stumbles.

It would be worse for Obama if he should by some miracle beat out Clinton or Edwards for the Democratic nomination. His political and foreign policy missteps would make it virtually impossible for him to unhinge one, let alone two states away from the Southern Republican bloc. The Democrats need that to comfortably assure victory.

The solid South -- that is, the South that is mostly white, conservative, male, pro-war and anti-big government -- vehemently opposes any weakness in dealing with America's perceived foreign enemies. The Southern strategy has proved to be a winning formula for GOP presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Southern white males more than any other group have bought the Republican's anti-government, anti-liberal line. Bush bagged more than 60 percent of the white male vote in 2004. The percentage of the white male vote that a white male Republican candidate likely will get won't change much in 2008.

If Obama were the Democrat of choice, that percentage the Republican might get might jump even higher. Colin Powell found that out when he briefly toyed with a presidential run in 1996. Despite his enormous popularity and crossover appeal, he ultimately decided not to run, and one of the reasons was his concern that race would be an issue and a liability. And there were no voter issues with him on his ability to handle foreign policy matters.

In a head to head contest with Obama in the South and America's heartland states Republican presidential nominee Rudy Giuliani or even John McCain would destroy Obama. They wouldn't have to say a word about his foreign policy greenness to scare voters away. Obama has already done that himself.

Now he's forced to spend time and energy trying to do damage control. And this will make look even more wobbly to voters. Though it's still early in the presidential game one thing is clear, Obama is the first casualty of Obama.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, election08

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Let's see....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 9, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
foreign affairs naivete vs. veteran war mongereing neofascist cretins....Hmmmm..exactly how DID that spot with the little daisy petal picking dumplin' wind up ????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nonsense
Posted by: sahmadi on Aug 9, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Hutchinson frames his points around the fact that the other candidates have years of sound judgement and experience. Sound judgement and experience like support for the Iraq war. Mr Hutchinson seems to think that Republicans will be motivated to vote for a Guliani and Romney, because of their position on the social issues. He seems to think that if Hillary wins, then Republicans will surely lose to such a debater. Frankly I don't understand what Mr. Hutchinson believes or thinks he believes. Maybe Mr. Hutchinson fails to understand that the candidates he seems to think will demolish Obama have yet to explain what they believe. They are in agreement with Obama on his supposed gaffe...so what else is the reason. Or is it that Mr. Hutchinson still sees the world in black/white? He doesn't believe that white america will vote for Obama so why try? I simply am amazed by the irrational pessimism on the part of Mr. Hutchinson...almost to the point of resentment. Such a shame.

Obama is really what this country needs. He will bring a new point of view, and I think he will work across party lines to get things accomplished. Hillary will be a disaster. She doesn't even think lobbyists affect Washington...talk about naive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Key Ally" Indeed!
Posted by: newtype_alpha on Aug 10, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Must be hard to be a journalist in the lap of an imperialist power structure. You get conditioned to think of countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as allies, and then in the same breath accept Hugo Chavez as a "pariah."

Barrack Obama isn't the one with the contradiction here. Pakistan is a quasi-fascist military dictatorship with a barely competant government; just because they ALLOW our planes to use their airspace does not make them an ally, especially if they happen to be sheltering Al Qaida's central leadership. Saudi Arabia is an opportunistic monarchy aligned with radical Islamists; that they allow U.S. troops to operate bases on their land does NOT make them allies, especially if they continue to funnel cash to wahabbi groups that support bin Laden, and even look the other way when those same wahabbis cross the border to join Al Qaida in Iraq.

Meanwhile, that "pariah" Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected socialist who nationalized his country's resources in an effort to put an end to the overwhelming poverty in his country (and, he happens to think George Bush is the devil, like about half of all Americans). Venezeula isn't even ambiguously hostile to the United States in any way shape or form; if anything, Obama should be asking Chavez for advice on how to fix OUR social problems.

I suppose Barrack Obama hasn't been in Washington long enough to know who ACTUALLY runs the United States of America; he's under the mistaken impression that this is a democracy, and that the American People, ultimately, are in charge. Good thing we have Mr. Hutchinson to set the record straight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Key Ally" Indeed! Posted by: soft2u47
When will Journalists Raise The Bar?
Posted by: DawudTEG on Aug 12, 2007 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Journalists have to do better than this. At 49:40 of the AFL-CIO debate on MSNBC, Senator Biden indicated that it is the law and a law that he wrote that the U.S. would intervene in Pakistan on actionable intelligence. The lack of acknowledgment by the press that Senator Obama received the support for his foreign policy views regarding Pakistan from senior Senator and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee is yet another example of how the press has and continues to mislead and fail the American public. Further, the the vast majority of elected Presidents have not had prior foreign policy experience, so to suggest that a lack of foreign policy experience is a reason to not vote for a candidate is simply ludicrous. Within the last 50 years, how many Vice-Presidents, Secretaries of State, or diplomats have been elected to office? No need to rush, I'll wait... Comparatively, yes, Obama does not have the foreign policy experience of several of the candidates; but, what experience did Senator JFK have before successfully negotiating the Cuban Missile Crisis as President? How about Governor Carter's experience prior to being elected? And when will journalists acknowledge the mitigating circumstances of Bush Sr.'s engineering of the October Surprise for the benefit of the Republicans during the 1980 Presidential election? What was Governor Ronald Reagan's previous foreign policy experience? What was Governor Clinton's previous foreign policy experience? How about Governor Bush? Recent candidates who have had the greatest foreign policy experience found that their foreign policy experience was irrelevant to voters, particularly Bush Sr. who was Ambassador to China, Ambassador to the UN, Director of CIA and Vice-President. He was elected on Reagan's coattails, but during his re-election campaign he consistently presented his foreign policy credentials and was politely told to go home. I'm not a supporter of Obama. I actually prefer another candidate, but as Senator Biden stated, let's get the facts right and go from there. Obama was improperly chastised for his Pakistan comments and supported in his comments by the Chairman of Foreign Affairs committee. So let the record state...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Hutchinson you make me weep!
Posted by: The Populist on Aug 14, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You should be working for the MsM! Our mafia like foreign policy is exactly why we are hated all over the world. 9/11 was a direct result of our foolish foreign policy. Naive to want to get closer to those so called "enemies"?? Pragmatic I say. And why is Syria our enemy? Because we support the fascist state of Israel. The guys with the nukes, remember?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]