Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is making sure the Illinois Democrat's supporters are armed with information about his foreign policy positions.
The campaign sent the following e-mail to supporters Thursday afternoon, following several weeks of negative headlines about Obama's platform and his challengers jumping on his statements.
Subject: Lee Hamilton, Ted Sorenson, David Ignatius, and Generals Speak out in Support of Obama's Foreign Policy
Good afternoon,
We know that as you go out in the world to talk to people about Senator Obama and the campaign, you get asked questions about his policy positions and we wanted to take a minute to send you some important information and articles that relate to the Senator's foreign policy positions. From Lee Hamilton to Ted Sorenson, people agree that the Senator is "right on foreign policy." (See Ted Sorenson's article "JFK Replay: 'Naive' Obama Right on Foreign Policy" below.)
Please take a minute to read the articles from the Washington Post and Newsweek and share them with others. We have also attached a list of key quotes from people like Lee Hamilton and Samantha Powers for you to share with others.
"Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue." [Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council]
We have also attached the Senator's recent speeches on Iraq and his Strategy to Fight Global Terrorism. Please share the contents of this email with anyone and everyone you think might be interested.
Thanks for your continued support.
Best wishes,
Team Obama
At the end of the note, the campaign attached several documents, including one headlined: "Experts praise Barack Obama stand against terrorism."
It also includes a laudatory Washington Post column where David Ignatius calls Obama "pragmatic" and another from Newsweek's Michael Hirsh, who profiles a retired Air Force major general who voted for George Bush in 2000 but now is "simply bowled over" by Obama.
In the article cited above, former JFK adviser Ted Sorensen praises Obama's "bold call for American action to seize Osama bin Laden in Pakistan."
"Obama is not the first young senator running for president to discomfort the Washington foreign-policy establishment by speaking frankly on a subject displeasing to an American ally," Sorensen writes. "Fifty years ago this summer, a 40-year-old first-term senator, John F. Kennedy, called on the Senate floor for the U.S. government to pressure its French ally into halting its war against Algerian independence. The response from all quarters -- both French and American, both Republican and Democratic -- was swift and overwhelmingly negative."
"Kennedy's critics used words such as 'juvenile' (former Truman Secretary of State Dean Acheson), 'brashly political and damaging' (Vice President Richard Nixon), an 'oversimplification' (President Dwight D. Eisenhower), and 'immature' (a senior congressional ally of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson)," Sorensen recalls. "A New York Times columnist called Kennedy a 'well-intentioned but amateur statesman.'"
Sorensen concludes: "That record -- not the traditional nay-sayers in Washington who copy Bush's "politics of fear" -- represents the proudest past of the Democratic Party. Obama -- though he, too, is called amateur and naive -- represents its future."
An Obama staffer said the campaign believes "It is incumbent upon us to make sure our supporters are equipped with the correct information and our view is that sharing information with the people who are our best ambassadors out there helps dispel incorrect information about Obama's record and his vision for how he would approach the White House."
Comments (5)
The seeming lack of concern, in political
circles, for today's young and black leaders
as they face the most troubling of circumstances.
In the past campaigns "issues of third world
rights and liberties, can in no wise more clearly
viewed, in this ancient of political tresties
of a over-intellecualized consideration of
"human rights". These political or even over
generalized issues have remained for their final
conclusions... not what has appeared today, as
some "jack-ass" claiming he even understands
what had been identified as the "electorial-
college". If as George Bush II, had claimed the
public appears to more attention to the opinions
of the origin of the president, than the obvious
conclusions prior administration have brought
forward to the point we have come. Let's view
what the avarage young person, or his infuried
counter-part feels or says; relating solely on
their own ability to "move forward" in todays'
complex industrialized nations. The understood
conditions of "socialized medicine" or the ink-
ing of the word, have already been accepted
remiedies. Why not accept this position of
a bleak, and immoblie youth or even black
counter-part and "pay-back" those who are too
young to see the light of this day. Get down
on OP you know me; maybe you don't (other people
prop.) sigh its your job and pay good luck
vote... for "America's Youth". 110.mo on a
subsistence income until their...18-21yrs
Posted by bleeding hart liberal | August 25, 2007 2:08 PM
Today's foreign policy environment requires complex well thought out idea's not some historical comparison to previous presidents. Stating that there is no military solution in Iraq and then saying there is one in Pakistan is ambiguous and seems as a political tactic not a foreign policy strategy. Foreign policy is a matter of consensus and compliance in all cases, not consensus in one area and compliance in another. Mr. Obama ideas seem robust, he just needs to synch up the model. It is much better than triangulation or finding legal excuses for not doing anything.
Posted by Larry Stone | August 26, 2007 4:34 AM
I remember John F. Kennedy. Barack Obama is no JFK.
Posted by Dennis | August 26, 2007 10:14 AM
Any time that the United States has utilized a foreign policy which represented a positive change for the people of a region and was followed-through over a period of years by both Democrats and Republicans, it has been well received. The Marshall Plan, the policy of trying to release eastern Europe from Russian domination during the Cold War, and the protection of South Korea and Japan during their periods of economic weakness were all well thought-out and had bipartisan support. The problem with more recent policies is that they represent only special interest groups. Thus we have policies such as our one-sided support of Israel no matter how many settlements they continue to build, the support of unchecked industrialization by China and India at the expense of jobs in the US, and the lack of any Marshall-plan type policy for Mexico to bring up its living standards and to improve rule of law and environmental control issues. When we abandon our own historic principles of allowing unrepresented peoples to seek self-determination, providing economic assistance on a more selfless basis, and staying out of other peoples quarrels unless it is in our own interest to intervene, then we see foreign policy monstrosities like Vietnam and Iraq as the result. What I like about Obama is that he seems to understand this.
Posted by George Robertson | August 27, 2007 12:36 AM
i dont understand this one bit so i think it would be a good idea to change it up a bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by sierra l. barnes | February 12, 2008 9:13 PM