"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[AGDee]

I don't know how we can attack experience with foreign affairs when all of our recent Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter) were governors. What experience do governors have with foreign affairs?? Zip, Zero Zilch. Anybody who has served any time on the senate has more exposure to foreign affairs than any governor. I find it interesting that all of our remaining candidates this time are senators!

I think it would be an interesting exercise in politics to hear who they would put on their cabinet. The cabinet are supposed to be the experts who do the advising as to what direction the President should take. If we knew who they would consider for these positions, I think we could make better voting decisions.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't know how we can attack experience with foreign affairs when all of our recent Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter) were governors. What experience do governors have with foreign affairs?? Zip, Zero Zilch. Anybody who has served any time on the senate has more exposure to foreign affairs than any governor. I find it interesting that all of our remaining candidates this time are senators!

I think it would be an interesting exercise in politics to hear who they would put on their cabinet. The cabinet are supposed to be the experts who do the advising as to what direction the President should take. If we knew who they would consider for these positions, I think we could make better voting decisions.

Although I don't really disagree that governors are necessarily more qualified with respect to foreign policy, I do think the Bush's would have an argument (regardless of how you feel about their policy). GHWB was director of the CIA and a former UN ambassador. He'd beat out a lot of people with his resume. Similarly, though I don't really give full credit to the "they've been around it" concept, I have no doubt that GWB was surrounded by people who were very capable on foreign policy matters prior to becoming POTUS. Whether you think he used it or not is a different matter, but I certainly think he'd have a slight edge in understanding the executive's role in this arena. I think the same could be said about Hillary, though to a lesser degree. Political dynasties, whether you like them or not, certainly provide some (good or bad, your choice) education and experience in a host of matters.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't know how we can attack experience with foreign affairs when all of our recent Presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter) were governors. What experience do governors have with foreign affairs?? Zip, Zero Zilch. Anybody who has served any time on the senate has more exposure to foreign affairs than any governor. I find it interesting that all of our remaining candidates this time are senators!

I think it would be an interesting exercise in politics to hear who they would put on their cabinet. The cabinet are supposed to be the experts who do the advising as to what direction the President should take. If we knew who they would consider for these positions, I think we could make better voting decisions.

This is a really interesting point, and I think Shinerbock's response is a good one about GHWB and the CIA.

I suspect that when we elected Bush in 2000, we probably weren't as sensitive to foreign policy as a major issue. I think we took a lot of Clinton's international popularity for granted, and I don't think we felt threatened as a country until after 9-11. We were past any Cold War fears, and I don't think a lot of us appreciated how far reaching the Middle Eastern issues were going to be. We were kind of blissful in terms of international relations.

My instinct is to say that only Reagan, of the people AGDee listed, was elected at a time when we would have similar foreign policy fears to what we feel today.(Cold War plus Iran in his case) Sure, Carter would still have been elected when we faced the Soviet Union, but being recently out of Vietnam and glad about it, as well as escaping the taint of Watergate, would have counteracted any desire to elect anyone who might think think about military involvement, it seems to me.

If we're not worried or feeling threatened from the outside as one of our very top concerns, a lack of foreign policy experience really might not be regarded as a problem.

Right now, I think most of us this foreign policy is really important. Either because Bush goofed it up so badly or because we think we're authentically threatened by international terror networks or emerging international issues. Or both.

[AGDee]

Actually, I probably shouldn't include GHWB because he was Vice President for 8 years before he became President. As such, he probably got a lot of foreign experience especially since the Cold War ended, we dealt with Libya, Nicaragua, Iran, etc. So, scratch him from that list.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Actually, I probably shouldn't include GHWB because he was Vice President for 8 years before he became President. As such, he probably got a lot of foreign experience especially since the Cold War ended, we dealt with Libya, Nicaragua, Iran, etc. So, scratch him from that list.

Yeah, and I'm not trying to suggest that my memories are all inclusive, but even having experienced Libya, Nicaragua, Iran etc, many voters, I think, were more concerned about government manipulation, like the Iran Contra affair, than they really felt threatened (although they apparently weren't concerned enough to vote for Dukakis, or maybe they liked the idea of voting for Bush for the reasons we've suggested.)