The democrat contenders for president debate the issues

when it came to talking about foreign policy, why did only one candidate, [color=darkblue]obama, [/color]mention china? he called china neither a friend nor an enemy, but a ‘competitor’. he did say that japan was an ally.

quote from barackobama.com with someone posting on a blog( matthewyglesias.com/archives … cy_speech/ )trying to pick it apart, looking for clues into obama’s thinking on china, india:

“A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women’s ability to succeed in today’s complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi,
Urdu, or Korean. “

Arabic, Urdu, Korean. Fine.

Mandarin. As Obama correctly notes, languages are useful in a ground war on territory that speaks said language. A war with China would be fought by sea and air to protect Taiwan. Unless Obama plans to invade mainland China.

But that isn’t the most disturbing part: Hindi!? Does Obama forsee a war with India? Does he think that will happen? If so, we deserve to be told why he wants to turn a great power ally into a great power enemy. It seems that the world’s second largest country is relatively important.

[color=darkred]john edwards[/color] did not mention china in the debate, but this is what he said in a speech that is posted on johnedwards.com:

"Your great leader and America’s great friend, Winston Churchill spoke about a “gathering storm” before tyranny took over and launched World War II.
Today, with the new global challenges we face, we have storms gathering too.
These storms are gathering to the east and the west and to our south. Some have already reached America and Europe in the form of terrorism and poverty. But the others that are slowly building strength will hit us like hurricanes. And they will change the way the world looks 20 years from now, and beyond.
It is the job of our leaders — and it is job for all of us — to understand these challenges and to prepare for them.
For example, right now, we see new global players emerging. Some historians refer to the last century as the “American Century.” The 21st century could very well belong to Asia. China and India aim to win a race to the top — not simply to take our low paying jobs.
Some believe that China’s Gross National Product will soon surpass all other countries except America’s. India’s will grow at a similar pace.
China and India’s rise on the global economy — and their emergence as more prominent diplomatic and military powers — will have a profound impact on America, Britain, the European Union, and Transatlantic relations.
I don’t think that we have even begun to understand its consequences…

First, both America and Europe have to do more to prepare for the challenges of globalization. Our place in the world is not preordained. Countries like China and India are not in a race to get our low wage jobs — they are in a race to be on the cutting edge of technology and innovation…
Their (china and India’s) young and men and women are educated as never before. They are studying engineering and sciences. They understand the next wave of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other information technology. They have learned that in order to be an economic power and leader innovation is the ticket…

In my country, we must reform our own education system. Rising tuitions are increasingly putting a college degree out of reach for many families. Fewer and fewer low-income students are attending our universities. We need to reform our student aid programs, cut subsidies flowing to banks, and ensure that every child who works hard can attend their first year of college for free. No one should be shut out in America from an education they need because they can’t afford it…

And it is imperative that our countries get our fiscal houses in order. Living in deficit isn’t good for families, and it isn’t good for governments.
It diminishes our independence and our economic security when we are dependent on other nations like China to buy our debt. Right now, China has purchased nearly $300 billion of America’s debt. These low-interest loans have made the impact of our historic budget deficit minimal — for now.
When China changes its policies, it could have a devastating effect on our economy. Interest rates could rise. Consumer spending could drop. And those high interest rate could mean people can’t afford their homes anymore and bankruptcies."

In a speechh to the council of foreign relations on her website hillaryclinton.com, [color=green]hillary[/color] says very little about china:

“Russia and China pursuing their own interests often at odds with such global imperatives as nuclear non-proliferation and ending genocide in Darfur.”

but if she doesn’t say anymore, i’m going infer her views from what her husband did while president. i’ll post more on that later.

from [color=darkred]joe biden’s[/color] website re china:
“Our top priority should remain integrating China into the community of nations, articulating the rules of the road, and then holding the Chinese government accountable for its actions. The fate of the world is linked to the ability of the United States and China to resolve differences and work in concert to tackle tough global challenges. We must not allow the notion of China as an adversary to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.”

How does Biden propose we hold the Chinese government accountable for their actions? why haven’t we done it yet?

Mike: ) g ravel- also one of the dem candidates. know who he is? I didn’t. pretty impressive guy. he should’ve been treated with more respect. he doesn’t have much on china, but he did say this

PS this is a long post. i could’ve done separate posts for obama, edwards, and clinton, and so made it seem shorter; but i wanted to gather as much info as i could on the dem candidates’ views on china to better help myself decide who to support. i would welcome any info you have as well. how are the americans who post on this site deciding who to support for president?

I like this guy: Mike Gravel

Finally, a Democrat with some cajones! It was great when he lit into Obama, “Tell me, Barack, who do you wannna nuke?”

Sorry, no excerpts regarding his stance on China, though.

Just my quick impressions:

Obama – as usual he has the most interesting, and perhaps the most confusing rhetoric. I expect he was just throwing out some of the more common languages, moreso than trying to imply there would be actual conflict between the U.S. and China or the U.S. and India. Although, I would not that in another recent speech I read he came across as favoring more U.S. intervention abroad. Plus, I still have big questions about his experience, particularly in military/foreign affairs.

Edwards – mostly blowing smoke, he comes back to his supposed strong points: domestic issues, education, employment, and how the government should help us all out. I’ll admit I’m a little biased against Edwards, he just strikes me as somehow being even more fake than your average politician.

Hillary – from what I understand she was the usual, short and to the point, just like a well trained candidate. I’m really not sure what Hillary brings to the table in foreign policy. She of course comes across as more of a domestic issues candidate, but I’m sure she’s picked up a thing or two over the years.

Biden - accurate statements, though as the OP noted, the trick is really actually doing it. He seems like probably the most experienced of the bunch in the foreign policy area.

I’m only now starting to pay attention to the Dem lineup, and read the following here:
edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06 … index.html

I totally agree – I never really liked Clinton.

Continuing on about Obama: [quote]Here’s how he answered a question about making English the official language: “When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.”[/quote]

I think that’s a superb answer. The question itself is unnecessary and divisive.

They’re debating issues?

It’s too bad that the Dems didn’t do the debate on Fox because with the Republicans screaming their heads off about how they think CNN “rigged” tough questions for the GOP debate, it would have been priceless to see what FOX News would have come up with:

  1. What would you bunch of panty-waisted liberals do to resolve the problems with negroes voting?

  2. Which NASCAR driver is your favorite? If you even know what NASCAR is, you (mumbling under breath)…

  3. In what ways would you promote the homosexual agenda to the detriment of average Americans?

  4. Assuming for a moment that you believe in evolution, why is it that you reject the bible?

  5. Given a choice, would you raise taxes by 10% or 20% on average Americans?

  6. What is your plan for losing in Iraq?