Say NO to 2020 candidates with no national security expierience!!

[Tavarious Jackson]

Our nation needs an experienced steady hand and not another blow hard know nothing fool. Please.

[ecstatic]

1. Even if s/he doesn't have it, the question is: Can they absorb new information?

Can they learn? Are they intellectually curious? Are they set in their ways and unable to quickly react to changing events?

[karynnj]

17. Add to that, they will have a team

No president, other than Trump, does not have a group of people who are expert on many things, who will help define the alternatives.

[grantcart]

2. That would have eliminated Obama in 2008

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Obama was certainly nobody's fool.

[nycbos]

7. He was on the foreign relations committee in the Senate.

He would have gotten national security briefings by being on the committee.

[grantcart]

20. and more importantly he lived overseas but in 2006, when the campaigns were forming

he would have appeared to be a neophyte in foreign affairs.

Obviously I don't think that Obama should have been considered and he had already established credentials by opposing the Iraq war when he was in the State Senate.

My point is that we shouldn't be establishing arbitrary lines in the sand on "experience" of a candidate when the best candidate may have the intelligence and leadership skills necessary to win the election and lead the country but not fill a particular box.

[JI7]

9. Obama served on foreign relations committee

[delisen]

14. 2020 is not 2008. Conditions are very different.

We also know more about the office of president and how it can be manipulated and compromised.

The democratic party,its leaders, the democratic voters, and the citizenry had the power to prevent the situation we are currently in from happening.

So far many democrats appear to be not yet ready to analyze what brought us to this moment- whether out of a sense of loyalty to the old politics or a desire to play the old politics in order to jockey for advantage for a "favorite son" type candidate heading the executive branch of government.

If we survive as a representative democracy our history is going to be divided by this crisis in the executive branch of government.

We had power as the citizenry; we had power as a party; we laid that power down; the power was picked up by anti-democracy forces-both foreign and domestic-which worked together to defeat us, and is still working to defeat us.

[karynnj]

16. Obama was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the 4 years he was in the Senate

He and Senator Lugar co sponsored Obama Lugar which was the successor of Nunn Lugar which was a bill to help the US reduce the number of nuclear weapons in places like the former Soviet Union. Not to mention, he picked Joe Biden as VP.

I think ANY nominee will need to define their foreign policy. In addition all will likely call on the many respected elder statesmen to help restore our relationships.

[grantcart]

22. To correct the facts on your observation

1) Obama was elected in 2005. At the same point in the election process (i.e. 2 years before the election in December of 2005) he would have been on the committee for 11 months.

2) My point is simply that we should be looking at the candidate, their intellectual skills and their overall ability and not create arbitrary boxes that have to be checked off.

While President Obama didn't have the kind of foreign policy experience that would go on a resume in 2005 he had a) already lived overseas and b) he had staked out the most intelligent position against the Iraq war.

You could argue that the most important foreign policy challenge the US faces is creating a solution to the migration crises from Central America and that the next candidate needs to be fluent in the issues and have experience with countries south of the border. That would eliminate a lot of candidates.

Your position is the candidate needs to "define their foreign policy" which is sensible and I am sure everyone agrees with. The OP is stating that if the candidate doesn't have specific national security work experience that they shouldn't be considered. That would seem to eliminate Warren, Beto, Harris, etc (although Beto has been on the armed service committee in the House for 6 years).

Yours is a sensible position, the OP is a very specific and absolute position. The argument is rather moot though because the people of Iowa, NH, etc are going to use your perspective and not the OP.

[karynnj]

28. Slight correction, Obama was elected in 2004 and at this point, he had 23 months in the Senate.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

In addition, one thing I would look for is that the person knows that there will be many very different foreign policy challenges. They will range from leading in defining a solution to the Central American migration problems, climate change and re-establishing our credibility with our allies. What is clear is that the President will need the ability to lead a team of people who can focus on all of these things. (imagine, John Kerry assigned to represent the President on all international environmental issues - like climate change and anything on protecting the oceans and various diplomats named as special envoys to various regions- as Obama did in his first term.) It may be that vision, judgment, and coommunication skills might be more important than specific knowledge. The ability to absorb information from differing people, assess the alternatives, and make and communicate the choice made.

I do not have a favorite at this point -- other than I would love to support a 20 to 25 year younger John Kerry clone. However, I was pleasantly surprised to read this article on Elizabeth Warren's foreign policy. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/12/19/elizabeth-warren-foreign-policy-democratic-nominee-rich-barlow Surprised, as I had thought (and did not like) that she was on the Sanders' anti trade deal side.

I do think that Iowa and NH will quickly make it obvious if any person running does not have either depth or thoughtfulness on foreign policy.

[grantcart]

31. Warren is much more of institutionalist than many on the left understand

She isn't against the idea of markets but wants them to be fairer and eliminate the abuses.



The OP has responded saying that all he really wants is someone who supports NATO which would include virtually every Democratic elected official in the last 50 years and is a light year from his original position.

[Renew Deal]

25. That eliminates every president in the last 50 years other than Bush Sr.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. "ANOTHER blow hard know nothing fool"... to whom are you referring??

[Tavarious Jackson]

15. No one in particular..

I have no one in mind but for me, I want someone who believes in NATO.

[WarWhatIsItGoodFor]

5. Why?

Barack Obama did not have national security experience and he was a great President. Same with Bill Clinton.

Donald Trump is not unsteady because he does not have national security experience. The Republican Party as a whole (including Bush, McCain, and Reagan) have all been batshit crazy.

[karynnj]

18. Obama had 4 years on SFRC and Biden had over 30 years and was Chair of SFRC

I do think Clinton'S lack of national experience did give him a slower start, but that was more dealing with Congress.

[JCanete]

6. You could be a blowhard fool with national security experience too. What you need

is the sense to surround yourself with capable advisers and to have the capacity to weigh their advice.

[Celerity]

11. Nixon, Cheney, George H.W. Bush (to a lesser degree) for example

[aikoaiko]

8. This sounds like bad advice. Let's see who the primary produces.

[AlexSFCA]

10. NO, that's what advisers are for

Dick Cheyney had plenty of ‘foreign relations’ experience; how did that turn out. We need a visionary who is extremely intelligent to hire the right people.

[BannonsLiver]

12. I say no to litmus tests.

[Scruffy1]

13. Maybe Flynn? He has a lot of experience, n/t.

[R B Garr]

19. Yes! Someone like Biden who has a lengthy foreign policy

resume and the demeanor to signal to the world that the USA is back from the insanity of Trump. He served as Obama's VP and is the perfect person to restore the stability, class and competence that Obama’s administration represented to the world.

[Maeve]

21. No, we need someone who can listen, think and learn

There are plenty with experience who have learned nothing from it, or learned the wrong things. Give me a thoughtful person first and foremost.

[Autumn]

23. A lot of people have a lot of national security experience. People like Bolton, Cheney.

How about we elect a smart, compassionate person who will select capable advisers if need be and will be secure enough to listen to them and make a decision based on what needs to be done.

[Renew Deal]

24. Say no to scare mongering BS like this

[KelsieK]

26. I'll say yes to a candidate that can win.

[Soxfan58]

27. I'm not boxing myself in yet.

National security will be a important issue to examine when I do.

[Miles Archer]

29. NO "REALITY TV" SHOW STARS, PLEASE.

I think we need AT LEAST a two-term break before we snag someone from "Must See TV" again.

My preference would be "NEVER AGAIN," but at minimum, I do not want another "reality TV star" to go nose-to-nose with Trump in 2020.

I want someone with SOME government experience.

We have too many talented people with experience in politics to choose from. We do not need to go channel surfing to find our next president.

[lark]

30. Joe Biden fits that bill perfectly.

We need Joe!!! IMO, of course. Joe as President and Kamala Harris as VP would be my ideal duo.