The only question I want answered is do you believe in the “unitary” theory of presidential power. What will you do to rein in the damage that Bush has done to our Constitution. No other question, in my humble opinion, matters as much as those two.
Posted by Judith at December 28, 2007 08:05 AMI am much more interested in what the candidate who knows this situation best has to say: Joe Biden.
Posted by Alex at December 28, 2007 08:57 AMForget the easy generalities offered up by Hillary Clinton, along with her recitation of her visits abroad and advice she gave Bush. That does not amount to a policy. There is not one concrete action in any of what she said.
Here's part of what Joe Biden had to say. For the entire speech go here.
"We’ve got to move from a transactional relationship -- the exchange of aid for services -- to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations. We’ve got to move from a policy concentrated on one man – President Musharraf – to a policy centered on an entire people… the people of Pakistan. Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we’ll have to shoulder short term costs. But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.
Here are the four elements of this new strategy.
First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it’s our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.
Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We’re now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth. I’d spend more if we get better returns—and less if we don’t.
Third, help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.” The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.
Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives.
This plan would fundamentally and positively shift the dynamic between the U.S. and Pakistan."
Posted by 2LaneIA at December 28, 2007 09:20 AMWow, Alex, you got an instant answer! Spooky.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 28, 2007 09:31 AMWelcome to The Toobz, coyote.
Posted by 2LaneIA at December 28, 2007 09:57 AMWhat I don't understand is why you left out Biden's remarks on Pakistan?
It was Biden - not Hillary - that has been very vocal about Pakistan throughout the past year.
It was Biden - not Hillary - that Bhutto would call and ask for advice and discuss what was going on in her country.
Maybe it's time for people to step back a little from the msm spin, and take a good look at ALL of the candidates to see which one would be the right person for these times; which candidate is going to be the one that is going to know how to handle the next crisis we are faced with.
No one is more ready to step into the oval office than Joe Biden.
Posted by Jillian at December 28, 2007 10:16 AMI would love for Biden to be taken more seriously as a candidate. He certainly has a lot more to offer than Obama.
Posted by MarkL at December 28, 2007 12:25 PMI agree with others: Biden should have more press attention overall and yet all you ever hear is Clinton and Obama. And even then hardly any scrutiny comes upon the latter, no matter how irresponsible his words (threatening to attack Pakistan) or those of his staffer, Axelrod, may be.
Posted by Nathan at December 28, 2007 04:02 PMBiden has been warning of Pakistan's instability for months - even I got that message when I first heard him refer to it during a debate. Not one other candidate - or the Bush administration - had even mentioned it prior to Biden bringing it up. Even after that, when he reiterated his view, there were no comments until Musharraf declared martial law and tossed out the Supreme Court people he didn't like.
From what I've learned in the past few days, Pakistan is in a precarious position - and that could affect us all. I firmly believe with Biden's knowledge, established dialogue with world leaders, and understanding of the big picture, the U.S. would have been working WITH Pakistan, instead of just issuing threats to cut off funding. I believe with Biden at the helm, our country and Pakistan would have been working toward a solution.
Now, more than ever, during this critical time in the world's history, we need Joe Biden to guide us.
Posted by Mary Ellen at December 28, 2007 05:04 PMIf Biden is so knowledgeable and experienced, why did he vote for the Iraq War? Same with Clinton, Edwards and Dodd.
All have been fooled by George Bush, of all people. What does that say about them?
Have ANY of them opposed the $10 billion we have given Pakistan?
Posted by skeptic at December 28, 2007 08:30 PMI wrote this post to compare and contrast Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton given Sen. Obama's dig at Sen. Clinton's "Washington Establishment" roots. So, if I chose to expand on what Biden said, I would have had to quote what Edwards said and what Richardson said and so on. Rather than reproduce all of it, I provided a link to the statements of every candidate who was asked the question.
For the record, I like Joe Biden and I think any future Democratic administration should have a prominent role for him. But I have some concerns with his voting record and positions in some cases. He also has no chance of becoming the Democratic nominee and I don't have the time or energy to focus on any of the candidates other than the top three.
Posted by eriposte at December 28, 2007 09:37 PM