No one would argue that Bush 41, Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney lacked foreign policy experience. But they have committed grievous blunders- Cheney in believing that military force alone could defeat terrorism, Rumsfeld – in preparing poorly for the occupation of Iraq, and Bush 41 in calling on the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq to rise up against Saddam in the first Gulf War, then abandoning them when they did. Reagan had little foreign policy experience as governor of California, yet instinctively knew when US force would result in victory and when it would not.

Perhaps the errors of inexperience are predictable. But what of the errors of experience??

That is an excellent point. I would note, however, its obverse:

Both Cheney and Rummy were also in Bush 1's adminstration…BUT Bush 1 had the experience and gravitas to run his own shop!

Cheney and Rummy could never be elected on their own…but with an inexperienced and incurious President they could run the show.

No one doubts McCain and Clinton will run their own foreign policies. Who will be running Obama's show?

Judgement does not come from nowhere. It comes from experience.

Even if Obama had said nothing about Iraq in 2002, Clinton and McCain’s poor judgment would still be a factor. It’s disingenuous to say, as McCain has, that Obama’s only looking backward. He’s not — but he is pointing out one of the very few measures we can take.

I think this is very well said. Naturally McCain and Clinton don't want anyone to look back.

As for experience, it has been mentioned above that people like Cheney and Rumsfeld had plenty of experience. What really matters is good judgment.

And I agree it's a shame there aren't more examples either way for all three candidates.

Obama, for all his talk of building bridges and such, has nothing in this regard.

As an iconoclast conservative, I don't like any of the candidates really…but I would support one advocating universal healthcare in the US (though that doesn't really affect me, I think it is the mark of a civilized nation)…but I do think experience matters.

I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree. As in any job interview, experience and track records are revealing of how candidates act in the Oval Office:

Bush II had little experience of foreign affairs, and little curiosity. Not surprisingly, he tended to rely on Cheney, Rummy, and Rice…who all played the critical roles in determining how his administration responded.
Clinton had book knowledge of foreign affairs, but lacked the experience to tell the UN and NGOs to piss off on their demands the US re-enter Somalia (where Bush 1 had wisely pulled out of). He got burned…and with the experience of being burned, made sure he stayed out of Rwanda.
Bush 1 had massive foreign policy experience…which revealed itself in his launching a reassessment of Gorbachev, and the pulling together of a massive coalition in Gulf War 1.

I could go on…essentially, I believe experience is revealing of how the leader will respond to crisis. There was no one…in 1939…who had any doubt how Churchill would respond to Hitler.

McCain…there is a track record of decades. Clinton, less of one, but people know how she would deal with crisis.

Obama…it is largely a mystery. We know McCain and Clinton can take a lot of damage and survive. Obama has a history of ducking tough votes, and the legislative achievement he points to in Illinois was apparently the work of his mentor who took bills from others and gave them to Obama to pad his resume.

Here is a fascinating piece on Obama's background — sourced, with Democrats in Ill who will speak on the record (not anonymous blurbs as in a NYT hit piece) – written by a reporter with considerable knowledge of Obama's career.

From “The Houston Press”, by Todd Spivak.

Here is a link:

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/bar...

More important is political experience, but that has a negative component along with the positive. It seems to me that Hillary has framed her campaign very much as a reaction to the political scars she bears, from the past, and the changed mood in the country , at lteast as it applies to the primaries, took her by surprise.

At the same time, Obama's good judgement about the wisdom of invading Iraq is no guarantee that his judgment will be equally wise when the next
decision, of equal importance, has to be made.

Conditions shift and change. and the most important qualtiy in a leader, IMO, is the ability to NOT rely too heavily on past experience or on past judgment calls. Our leaders need to adapt to a changing world and to our changing (read: diminished) role in its management.

Who is best suited to adapt? It's impossible to tell from political speeches and published policy statements. No candidate will be candid about US limitaions during election seadon, (which has turned into a year round affatir)..

McCain relies too much on our military supremacy, which is the opposite of adapting, IMO.
Hillary wafftles between being militarily tough and bowing to the nation's 'get out of Iraq' mood.

Obama does represent a new vision in foreign affairs, What I would like to know ( but don't, yet) is whether or not he recognizes the evoutionary principle of adapting or perishing. Will he continue to adapt as new world events change the international scene further? Will he recognize the signs when his own policies fail to work and are in need of revamping?

That's what concerns me more than any simplistc measure of judgment or experience in the past.

Would this be yet another thing the West Wing picked up from David Axelrod, or did the Obama campaign pick it up from the show?

Polimom, I can't see what difference it would have made had Clinton declared that he would do just what Bush pledged to do in Kosovo.

“I don’t recall campaign questions for Bill Clinton about what his plans were for Kosovo.”

Late that year (1992), U.S. President George Bush warns the Serbs that the United States will use force if the Serbs attack Kosovo. – CNN

I find the 'spite' vote (I don't like X, so I'll vote for his opponent)) extremely troublesome. One might get the candidate who speaks to one's primary concerns, but along with that comes a whole host of other policy positions that will have to be lived with as a consequence. Too much of Obama's support comes from anti-Hillary spite votes, IMO.

At the same time, I really like Obama. That is not to say that I think he is flawless. He is not Superman. I disagree with him on several issues. Before I cast my vote, however, I'll try hard to block out the political hype for and against him, to decide whether or not he is the best hope for the whole country.

This brings me to my final point. I think it is crucially important to consider what is good for the country, for everyone, and not just good to further my particular self interests. I learned my lesson, several times, when I voted on the basis of foreign policy alone and then had to live with the domestic consequences.

From now until November, I'll be calculating and recalculaitng, trying to line up ALL of the ducks in such a way that they point to the candidate I will, finally, vote for. .

Who knew that voting could be such hard work?

I prefer Obama, would campaign hard for Hillary, and would respect and appreciate McCain for many issues important to me. Each puts us on a more enlightened path.

From one point of view they are already working together to accelerate the movement of both parties to the center where cooperation and compromise can flourish.

Now if we can only defeat the legislators who have more allegiance to their party and special interests than the Country.