Now there's riveting television. Too bad it'll never happen.

Also, the Clinton folks had to retract that part about her seven years on the Armed Services Committee...because it's not true. Oops!

And a quick question...can anyone explain how Bill Clinton had more foreign policy experience in 1992 than Obama does today? How does being governor of Arkansas play into that?

. Clinton is, at least in public statements, harder line than Obama. She's more enamored with our ability to solve problems militarily, less skittish about the costs of bombing Iran
Ezra, if you're so interested in foreign policy, why haven't you taken the time to read the candidate's position papers in Foreign Affairs. That's the most authoritative public forum in international relations bar none. Kennan published his X article in it. So here's Obama's statement on Iran followed by Clinton's
Candidate One:
Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.

Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.

The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations. This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy. True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
Like Iran, North Korea responded to the Bush administration's effort to isolate it by accelerating its nuclear program, conducting a nuclear test, and building more nuclear weapons. Only since the State Department returned to diplomacy have we been able, belatedly, to make progress.
Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to "rekindle the vision," shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.
To reassert our nonproliferation leadership, I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.

Can you tell any difference? I can't and I've got a University of Chicago MA in political science (which BTW I earned five years before you were born)That Obama has an excellent grasp of foreign policy and large number of able advisers speaks very well of his abilities and his capacity to perform as President. But Clinton also has many good advisers too, many of whom she has intimate knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. This absolutely crucial in formulating and executing an effective, well-coordinated and successful foreign policy. It’s Clinton’s knowledge of people and substance which gives her the edge. After all, she hasn’t suggested making a unilateral attack on terrorist bases inside Pakistan, the one thing even more dangerous than bombing Iran. Or do you think further alienating a large Muslim country which already has nuclear weapons is evidence of a subtle grasp of international relations?

. Clinton is, at least in public statements, harder line than Obama. She's more enamored with our ability to solve problems militarily, less skittish about the costs of bombing Iran
Ezra, if you're so interested in foreign policy, why haven't you taken the time to read the candidate's position papers in Foreign Affairs. That's the most authoritative public forum in international relations bar none. Kennan published his X article in it. So here's Obama's statement on Iran followed by Clinton's

Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.

The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations. This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy. True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
Like Iran, North Korea responded to the Bush administration's effort to isolate it by accelerating its nuclear program, conducting a nuclear test, and building more nuclear weapons. Only since the State Department returned to diplomacy have we been able, belatedly, to make progress.
Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to "rekindle the vision," shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.
To reassert our nonproliferation leadership, I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks.

Can you tell any difference? I can't and I've got a University of Chicago MA in political science (which BTW I earned five years before you were born)That Obama has an excellent grasp of foreign policy and large number of able advisers speaks very well of his abilities and his capacity to perform as President. But Clinton also has many good advisers too, many of whom she has intimate knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. This absolutely crucial in formulating and executing an effective, well-coordinated and successful foreign policy. It’s Clinton’s knowledge of people and substance which gives her the edge. After all, she hasn’t suggested making a unilateral attack on terrorist bases inside Pakistan, the one thing even more dangerous than bombing Iran. Or do you think further alienating a large Muslim country which already has nuclear weapons is evidence of a subtle grasp of international relations?

Ezra --

I'm a pretty pro-Obama guy, and I agree with your basic point, but let me add this caveat.

In 1999 I talked myself into supporting Bush (although I ended up voting for Nader, only because I wanted a third choice) over Gore. Why? Because I believed that Bush would pick smart people and listen to them, so it didn't really matter whether Dubya knew a "Kosovoian" (or whatever gaffe he committed) from a Kurd.

The problem was, he did pick smart people, and he listened to them. All of them. And the result was that he wound up at the center of a massive echochamber reverberating with neocon nuttiness. And thus the Iraq clusterf*ck.

The real question is simple: who has the common sense to understand what advice to listen to, and to ignore? That kind of sense is not in-born, it is earned from experience.

Does Obama have the "experience" that John Kennedy and Harry truman had, the kind that told them to ignore Douglas MacArthur's and Curtis LeMay's urgings to start World War III?

I think Obama has probably picked up that kind of experience in life -- common sense, after all, is more prevalent outside the Beltway than inside -- but I can't discount Hillary's experience either.

I hate to say it, but on matters of war and peace, the only politics that really matter are the office politics within the White House. I can't imagine they are all that different from office politics everywhere else (hence, why I feel Obama can be qualified), but if Hillary didn't learn at least something about that as First Lady, I'd be shocked.

Still, the fact that Hillary has voted for (1) the AUMF and (2) the Iran resolution suggests, disturbingly, that Hillary is listening to the wrong advice. This is really a point Obama has tried to drive home before, I think, but he needs to keep it up.

At any rate, Hillary's campaign's to try to draw contrasts about 'experience" is pretty much nonsense, as I think most people probably understand. "Experience" is a buzz word for Washington Post editorialists more so than it is a description of any real, concrete benefits for the American people. Experience is pretty meaningless by itself, unless it bears the fruit of wisdom, prudence, and judgment.

Count me among those who believes Obama is less likely to start World War III than Hillary, regardless of how many years Hillary has spent in the East Wing.

Cheers to Ezra and Jim D. for highlighting Clinton's reflexive belligerence in response to foreign affairs questions. This is one of the chief reasons she will not get my primary vote under any circumstances.

Jeers to the moron who posted an overlong, rambling pointless comment. Twice.

Brewmn, the point, you illiterate idiot, was to demonstrate that Ezra provides exactly zero evidence of "Clinton's reflexive belligerence." Assertions are no proof. I, on the other hand, show that as stated in the most authoritative organ on foreign policy there is not the slightest difference between Clinton's position and Obama's. Furthermore Obama on record as advocating American attacks on Pakistani territory. If that's not a reckless position, I'll trade in my Phi Beta Kappa Key and my Master's degree.

Brewmn, the point, you illiterate idiot, was to demonstrate that Ezra provides exactly zero evidence of "Clinton's reflexive belligerence." Assertions are no proof. I, on the other hand, show that as stated in the most authoritative organ on foreign policy there is not the slightest difference between Clinton's position and Obama's. Furthermore Obama on record as advocating American attacks on Pakistani territory. If that's not a reckless position, I'll trade in my Phi Beta Kappa Key and my Master's degree.

You're still too stupid to post to this site properly. And I'll see your Master's degree and raise you a doctorate.