- #36
StatGuy2000
Education Advisor
- 2,051
- 1,147
russ_watters said:She certainly has some experience, but I don't think republicans and independents will agree that it is good experience. Experience is only a positive if people like the things you did when you got that experience!
Other than getting Bin Laden and implementing an afghan surge despite opposing Bush's Iraq surge (both were quite a while ago), are there any significant foreign policy wins for Obama/Clinton? Is the world a safer/better place than it was 6 years ago?
Yes, I'm aware that traditionally democrats have been seen as weak on foreign policy, so it should be good to get that on her resume, but I'm not sure that just getting her ticket punched is enough if the result of the experience doesn't look good.
I think that's a problem for democrats. Obama won largely because people zealously supported him, and he rode that wave. It's the republicans who win races between boring, old white guys. If Hillary wins it will be because she's Hillary -- a cult-of-personality, not a random/stock candidate (which the Republicans typicall put up). But if she loses, it will probably be because that cult-of-personality isn't fully positive as Obama's was - a lot of people hate her.
The Republican party that is currently in Congress has been increasingly dominated by conservatives of two types: (1) the neo-conservatives of the type represented by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who have frequently taking unilateral actions on the world stage (particularly in military affairs) often showing contempt for and disregard towards multilateral, international diplomacy -- the 2nd Iraq War is a perfect example of this, and (2) the Tea Party activists who have taken an increasingly isolationist stance on foreign affairs.
I don't know about you, but IMO, neo-conservatives within the Republican party have brought a tremendous degree of damage to US standing in world affairs (of which Obama and Clinton have each done their part to try to repair), while the Tea Party have brought nothing to the table on foreign affairs that is of any use. So whatever natural advance on foreign affairs that the Republican party might have had has been squandered. So in that respect, I feel that Clinton's experience on foreign affairs has been positive.
As for significant foreign policy wins for Obama/Clinton? Here are a few I can name: (1) Getting Bin Laden (which you mentioned), (2) Repairing relations with the various European countries after the Bush years, (3) Coordinating with various countries to implement economic measures to prevent further damage caused by the Great Recession, (4) The preliminary deal with Iran (alongside the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China) on the nuclear front, with the intent to prevent their ability to develop a nuclear weapon and imposing a tough inspection regime through the IAEA -- possibly one of the toughest in existence.
OK, (4) took place after Clinton left office as Secretary of State, but it is nonetheless a continuation of previous activity that the Obama administration was involved with of which Clinton had taken an important role.