Thoughts on Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton

Dr. Louis Frayser

As the media continues to fan the controversy between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton over approaches to American foreign policy, the seriousness of foreign policy issues and the sharp differences between the senators requires an in-depth look at these differences. What we find may go a long way in helping us decide which one of the two is, in fact, presidential material.

In the most recent debate between Democratic presidential candidates, the question was asked would they, in their first year in office, talk to heads of states of countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba (the "bad guys"). Senator Obama, without hesitation, said that he would. In words of substance, his view was that we, the United States, and the world at large are living in very dangerous times, the magnitude of which compels full and direst engagement of the world leaders, "good guys and bad guys". The safety and prestige of the United States and its citizens, at home and abroad, dictate the urgent and firm engagement of world leaders at the presidential level.

Senator Clinton stated that she would not talk to the "bad guys" in her first year in office and would do so only after careful study and much caution. Interestingly, a video was subsequently shown in which Sen. Clinton blasted the Bush administration for failing to engage world leaders. She repeated this position in a clip shown on Meet the Press of an interview with Keith Oberman on January 23rd, 2007.

Senator Clinton in the debate, stated that she would not want to expose herself to harmful propaganda and pr. Now the real significance of these differences:

1. Sen. Obama set out his position and the reasons for it in clear, unambiguous terms.
2. He stated precisely what he, as president, should do and would do in order to secure a pathway to international cooperation, restore our international prestige, reduce would tensions and to maintain our safety at home.

Sen. Clinton not only reserved (or abandoned, if you prefer) her previous positions on this subject, but also expressed a willingness to become quagmired in endless ifs, maybes, cautions and then if and when there appeared to be some high probability of success and personal applause. Her views appear to be a carefully crafted non-position designed not to damage the possibility of her winning the Democratic nomination and the presidency. It seems to me at least, that her drive to be elected has obscured her sense of history as well as her view of the world realities surrounding us today.

What all this boils down to is this:

1. On this issue Sen. Obama shows that he has a clear sense of the world as it is today.
2. He shows that he knows what is required of him and us as a nation, if we and the world around us are to be safe.
3. He states his position with confidence and courage, and without regard to political safety:

This is what I think, this is why I think it and this is what I propose to do about it. Judge me accordingly

This is the heart and soul of leadership, it is the meaning of strength and it is in the heart and soul of the Politics of Hope. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, shows ambivalence, a lack of confidence in her own beliefs (?) and a lack of appreciation for the world as it is. Just how many "handlers" would she need for her to successfully ignore reality in a politically approved manner? These are the very same political machinations that got us in Iraq in the first place with no way out. She appears to say, "elect me president and I will figure it out from there".

It is not enough to say we want to work with other countries at some point. There must be a clear and concrete statement from our President of America's intention to engage in order to achieve international cooperation as a pathway to world safety and peace.

Sen. Clinton often boasts of her political expertise as a qualifier for the presidency. Is it? She seems to be impaired by experience, uncertain as to what positions to take, lacking in insight and strength. If this assessment is correct, then her experience is also a liability to us all - as witness her vote to authorize the Iraq war not knowing any way out.

Think America!!! Choose Wisely!!!

Abbreviated Medical Biography
1. M.D. degree, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland OH
2. 27 years, private practice, Internal Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
3. Medical Director, Saint Johns Well Child and Family Centers, a Community Clinic, LA, CA
4. Director, Chronic Disease Management, Saint John's Well Child and Family Centers, Community Clinic, LA, CA

Detailed personal resume available upon request.

My contact information:
Email address: lcfraysermd@comcast.net
Telephone# - 770-731-0004
Fax# - 770-731-0005
Cell# - 770-820-8000

Submit A Response