Election 08 will be about many things - economy, healthcare, global warming, judges, no-bid contracts, NAFTA and etc - but it will also be about Iraq War and foreign policy in general, which includes approach towards Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela and etc. So what is the difference between these 2 candidates on the issues?

We know from their rhetoric that they both want the war to end. We also know that they both want to engage their enemies, with Clinton's position being more to the right of Obama, because she expressed the notion that she would require pre-conditions prior to talking to enemies. Barack Obama said he would need "preparation", which is a code word for "pre-condition". The difference may be in the degree and extent of those pre-conditions.

Well, what about their advisers? Hillary Clinton's advisers are more hawkish, recycled Clintonites - the same people that have a history of propping up dictators, supporting the bombing of Iraq in 1998 and subsequent Bush invasion. We also know even from basic rhetoric that Hillary doesn't think the invasion was wrong or that her vote to authorize it was. Although she does repeatedly say that if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted the same way.

In my view, from the research I have done, Clinton's foreign policy positions are no different from Bush and McCain, in terms of ideology, but possibly different in strategy or tactics - which isn't that much different in a bigger scheme of things. And although Obama remains elusive on this issues, given the lack of his record on all matters of foreign policy, his advisers are more dovish and have criticized Clinton on her posturing.

I think the Neo-Con approach hasn't worked, and we need to change direction. Hillary, to me, represents more of the same on foreign policy and that's why I support Barack Obama for president in 08.

For more, see my blog about this topic at:
http://rationalleft.com/