Obama's Foreign Policy Speech

Watch it here, on CNN. (Click on CNN Live).

No foreign policy or national security speech better reflects Obama's political and personal orientation than the remarks he's delivering today in Iowa. It represents his consensus instincts and the worldview of chief policy advisers like Tony Lake and Samantha Power.

As I'm watching the speech right now, Obama is stressing judgment, urgency and Iraq.

"It's not about debating the past. It's about who got the single most important foreign policy decision [in the past fifty years] right?"

"I am not running for president to conform to Washington's conventional thinking. I'm running to challenge it."

The "nuclear free world" concept is not new; it has gained currency in the very foreign policy establishment that Obama has generally set his candidacy against.Obama believes, as Hillary Clinton does, that a nuclear deterrence is still relevant; he will not unilaterally disarm. The difference, in Obama's mind, is that he has the will and vision to take steps that Hillary Clinton would not. Nuclear diplomacy, in this conception, requires conversations and negotiations with tyrants as well as allies. (Like Reagan did).

"As president, I will say that America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons."

Here are the campaign's bullet points. Obama would "challenge Washington's conventional thinking" by...

-- Ending the war in Iraq

-- Ensuring there is no safe haven for Al Qaeda

-- Securing loose nuclear material and renewing our efforts towards eliminating nuclear weapons and stopping the threat of nuclear terrorism

-- Talking directly to friend and foe

-- Strengthening the State Department to make diplomacy a priority

-- Reversing Washington’s reliance on secrecy by establishing a National Declassification Center

-- Getting politics out of intelligence by giving the Director of National Intelligence a fixed term

-- Uniting America behind a non-partisan foreign policy

Comments

"As president, I will say that America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons."

What, is everyone going to blow up their nukes just because President Obama says so? :)

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | October 2, 2007 1:37 PM

Gotta love the Huckabee fan. Really, does Mike Huckabee support a world WITH nuclear weapons? Does anyone in their right mind?

Obama's speech again shows his sound judgment combined with a positive and confident outlook not only for the United States but for humankind. His message rings true and is so much better than the pessimism and negativity that comes from the right.

I am tired of the politics of fear that the republicans are so good at. Fear will not dictate this election if Obama has anything to say about it and I have a sneaking suspicion he will be a major player in all of this before November of 2008.

Posted by Philly Dog | October 2, 2007 1:57 PM

Obama is a media character who is an ultra-liberal at heart, but is too cowardly to admit it.

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | October 2, 2007 2:25 PM

Why is Obama focusing on this, when what he should be doing is attacking Hillary. If Obama doesn't get moving he is done.

Posted by rssrai | October 2, 2007 2:43 PM

Hey rssrai -

I think you may be missing the point. Obama's game plan is to make this an enlightened and civilly debated primary election. That is what this country needs on so many levels. His commitment to campaigning this way will not change. If it does, he will lose more than he will gain.

Posted by phillydog | October 2, 2007 3:28 PM

It ain't easy to stay a front runner. There's an inevitable backlash, as people get tired of the same story. There could be more wisdom behind the Obama track than is obvious.

This could be really long next three months...

Posted by Peter Nevins | October 2, 2007 3:54 PM

Obama is gaining traction. In reading the new Newsweek poll about Iowa, it was mentioned that Obama's commerical starting airing on September 19th, a week before the poll was conducted. Hillary's began in mid August. So in a week the "I believe" ad moved Obama up by 4 points.
As for NH, the real test will be polling Independents who can vote for either Democrats or Republicans because that will decide if who will win the primary there.

Obama is correct in attacking Hillary on policy points and issues, and not character assasination or direct assaults. It's tricky competing with a woman in politics- you can't look like you are dumping on her. Plus there is Bill on the sidelines doing his fake chivarly thing, like he did about Tim Russerts question on torture.

Let Hillary try to wrangle, dodge, evade or move left on positions Obama has already taken and see the demise of a politican with no core values who will pander to everyone. Good job Obama.

Posted by sonya | October 2, 2007 8:33 PM

I think it is great that Sen. Obama wants to eliminate nuclear weapons. I have been, however, increasingly concerned about his position on nuclear power. Sen. Obama wants to increase our use of nuclear power. Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive, creating radiation and creating plutonium, a deadly poison that doesn't break down for many thousands of years. We need to invest our money into truly clean and renewable energy programs. Visit the website of The Physicians for Social Responisibility to understand the dangers of nuclear power more clearly.

John Edwards is the cnadnidate who truly wants a nuclear free world.

Posted by Lura | October 3, 2007 4:49 PM

Obama said he'd consider every option on the table with regards to energy independence, including nuclear. And while there are good reasons to completely ignore the option of nuclear energy, i would want a president who is going to look at every option and weigh all the pros and cons. You can't just say, we're not gonna look at nuclear because I don't think it's a good idea. You have to say, "well look... there are all these problems with nuclear energy, but let's say we increased production by so much... how does that affect fuel oil usage? how does that reduce the burning of fossil fuels? what are the cost differences? what does this look like over time? what are the health risks, long term environmental dangers, etc? ok, now let's compare this with another proposal. how does that look? etc. etc. etc. etc." Just being open to an idea doesn't mean he's in favor of it. It means he'll consider it, and use the best judgment and advice to make a decision.

Posted by Adam | October 23, 2007 10:24 AM