Brzezinski Grants
Obama the
"Upper Hand"

Obama has been shaping the "Foreign Policy Debate". He takes the initiative to talk about our true foreign threats and how he will deal with them as President, rational and with common sense. If a terrorist strike did happen between now and next November God forbid, he (Obama) would be best positioned on the issues to deal with the GOP because Obama has good judgment which makes him an effective commander and chief. Aren't we all tired of the old conventional way of thinking!!! Let's turn the page!!!

zbig?;the greatest forgien policy flop in the history of the democratic party and You fools are celebrating ha ha ha ha aha ha ha aha hahha ahahhhhhaha hahah hahah hahah hah oh god are you funny or what, ha haha hah hah hah a this is wet your pants funny. progressive's? how about regressive idiots thats fits ya better, These posters are desperate for obama to be something other than a hanky for a nasal drip and he'll mount to a also ran like Edwards, a footnote on what could have been, keep trying though your getting warm.

This is from a democrat that Zbig foch up royaly,it is his policeys that got Reagun Ronnie elected, Progressives yea ha ha ah ah ah ahhahahh hahahahh ha ha haha.

Barack Obama is the only choice for people who are craving change and (dare I say it) world peace. His positions on foreign policy from the Iraq War to the Cuban embargo reflect a solid, clear-eyed vision for the future that includes America and Americans in the process. Dr. Brzezinski's endorsement only adds solidity to the idea that Senator Obama will be able to change America's role in world politics unlike any other candidate. While I respect Ms. Clinton as a smart and successful politician, her ties to corporate America and her propensity to "play the game" as it has always been played make her a far less attractive choice.

Dr. Brzezinski's endorsement of Senator Obama is significant. In fact, I will now vote for the Senator in the New Jersey primary. I have long admired Dr. Brzezinski. Particularly on the Iraq War he has demonstrated remarkable insight. He rightly predicted the terrible consequences for both the United States and the Iraqi people with this senseless invasion cum occupation. Frankly, I have been very disappointed by Senator Clinton. Can anyone tell me what she actually stands for? It seems to me that Clinton takes her talking points from the Brooking Institute- which has hardly displayed much in the way of insightful analysis when it comes to the Iraq War. Either Clinton is empty inside and has no real core beliefs or she is an establishment hack that follows the elite media and so-called think tanks in DC.

Go, Z-big. You and Daniel Schorr, who is 91 this weekend, are needed voices in the midst of all this darkness.

Hilary Clinton made the gravest mistake by attacking Obama this early in the campaign by saying that he is naïve, irresponsible and inexperienced. The unintended consequence of such ill-digested brinkmanship was to define their two disparate positions as experience versus good judgment or conventional Washington wisdom versus fresh innovative ideas.

The issue of experience is under scrutiny as nothing but fiction. Professor Brzezinski has dealt it a severe blow. Not only that, he classified Hilary clinton's foreign experience as too ordinary and outdated. But a close scrutiny of years in elected position, Senator Obama has more years of experience. Hilary's campaign slogan as "change and ready to lead" is now an empty shell. Hilary's campaign now realizes the import of Prof. Brzezinski's devastating comment had to tuck tail and went deafening silence. Hilary campaign is now like a lion without springs in her legs; a kind of toothless bulldog.

By the way, Brzezinski is to Democrats as what Kissinger is to Republicans. This is a clarion call to power brokers in Democrat's power establishment for a rethink.

i agree with Mr Brzezinski on Obama's foreign-policy experience and not Hilary's foreign-policy experience. She is bad at it and don't like to talk about it because it intimidates her. Sen.Obama is the first democratic presidential candidate that i have heard is bold when it comes to dealing rogue dictaters. Sen.Obama has the best foreign-policy plan ever.

The endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by the highly acclaimed and reputable geostrategist Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is an inestimable coup for Obama negating the potential significance of the criticism emanating from the political class Barack has of late had to endure. The vision of hope and of change he is bringing to the table since 9-11, and the justifiable dismantling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, followed by the unjustified invasion of Iraq cannot but inspire the American people into a new era of a phenomenal change that is bound to sweep across the family of nations as it rids itself of the Bush administration which has all but devoted itself to the elevation of the primacy of military power and its exclusive utility to the center of its Iraqi policy to the detriment of diplomacy and political conciliation. Hence the proliferation of resentment for the United States as well as heightened prospect of asymetrical challenges thereto. Thus it is the understanding of the situation and its dynamics that has decidedly propelled Barack Obama to a new thinking divorced from the business-as-usual mentality characterizing the Washington political class.

In his speech recenty he came close to enunciating a military-diplomatic doctrine encapsulating his thinking with respect to the imperative of striking a proper balance between a diplomatic excercise and a military necessity. Is hardly surprising, then, that Obama's stance on unilateral action in the event of Pakistan's failure to act against terrorists operating within its borders, as well as his non-use of nuclear weapons raised eyebrows within the elitist circles of the foreign policy establishment. For them the U.S. ought to maintain a position of strategic ambiguity regarding its use of nuclear weapons, never mind that its overwhelmingly preponderant nuclear capacity and perceived recklessness with wich it excercises its military superiority have created an incentive for other nations to develop their own countervailing options of deterrent or defence. From Obama's perspective, however, it means breaking away from the current paralysis caused by fear of, and aversion toward America, and coming to grips with the imperative of the reoriantation of the international community to a new environment that proceeds from the presumption that to change the international mindset you've got to change the environment that has spawned the negative view of the U.S. in the first place. In this sense, then, the question as to whether an American president could or could not use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances ceases to be purely a matter of American domestic politics as it evokes broader questions of countervailing response to the U.S.---strategic, or, tactically asymtrical---as well as nuclear proliferation. It goes without saying, then, that Obama's thinking has far-reaching significance consequent to future non-proliferation efforts as much as it potentially has domestic as well as international resonance, not only because it seems to chart a clear-cut and unambuguous repudiation of weapons of mass destruction, and impunity of those bent on harming America, but also because it crystallizes an imperative for viable strategies for the maintanance of both American security and world peace

Since 9-11, and the justifiable dismantling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, followed by the unjustified invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has all but devoted itself to the elevation of the primacy of military power and its exclusive utility to the center of its Iraqi policy to the detriment of diplomacy and political conciliation. Hence the proliferation of resentment for the United States as well as heightened prospect of asymetrical challenges thereto. Thus it is the understanding of the situation and its dynamics that has decidedly propelled Barack Obama to a new thinking divorced from the business-as-usual mentality characterizing the Washington political class.

In his speech recenty he came close to enunciating a military-diplomatic doctrine encapsulating his thinking with respect to the imperative of striking a proper balance between a diplomatic excercise and a military necessity. Is hardly surprising, then, that Obama's stance on unilateral action in the event of Pakistan's failure to act against terrorists operating within its borders, as well as his non-use of nuclear weapons raised eyebrows within the elitist circles of the foreign policy establishment. For them the U.S. ought to maintain a position of strategic ambiguity regarding its use of nuclear weapons, never mind that its overwhelmingly preponderant nuclear capacity and perceived recklessness with wich it excercises its military superiority have created an incentive for other nations to develop their own countervailing options of deterrent or defence. From Obama's perspective, however, it means breaking away from the current paralysis caused by fear of, and aversion toward America, and coming to grips with the imperative of the reoriantation of the international community to a new environment that proceeds from the presumption that to change the international mindset you've got to change the environment that has spawned the negative view of the U.S. in the first place. In this sense, then, the question as to whether an American president could or could not use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances ceases to be purely a matter of American domestic politics as it evokes broader questions of countervailing response to the U.S.---strategic, or, tactically asymtrical---as well as nuclear proliferation. It goes without saying, then, that Obama's thinking has far-reaching significance consequent to future non-proliferation efforts as much as it potentially has domestic as well as international resonance, not only because it seems to chart a clear-cut and unambuguous repudiation of weapons of mass destruction, and impunity of those bent on harming America, but also because it crystallizes an imperative for viable strategies for the maintanance of both American security and world peace

Since 9-11, and the justifiable dismantling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, followed by the unjustified invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has all but devoted itself to the elevation of the primacy of military power and its exclusive utility to the center of its Iraqi policy to the detriment of diplomacy and political conciliation. Hence the proliferation of resentment for the United States as well as heightened prospect of asymetrical challenges thereto. Thus it is the understanding of the situation and its dynamics that has decidedly propelled Barack Obama to a new thinking divorced from the business-as-usual mentality characterizing the Washington political class.

In his speech recenty he came close to enunciating a military-diplomatic doctrine encapsulating his thinking with respect to the imperative of striking a proper balance between a diplomatic excercise and a military necessity. Is hardly surprising, then, that Obama's stance on unilateral action in the event of Pakistan's failure to act against terrorists operating within its borders, as well as his non-use of nuclear weapons raised eyebrows within the elitist circles of the foreign policy establishment. For them the U.S. ought to maintain a position of strategic ambiguity regarding its use of nuclear weapons, never mind that its overwhelmingly preponderant nuclear capacity and perceived recklessness with wich it excercises its military superiority have created an incentive for other nations to develop their own countervailing options of deterrent or defence. From Obama's perspective, however, it means breaking away from the current paralysis caused by fear of, and aversion toward America, and coming to grips with the imperative of the reoriantation of the international community to a new environment that proceeds from the presumption that to change the international mindset you've got to change the environment that has spawned the negative view of the U.S. in the first place. In this sense, then, the question as to whether an American president could or could not use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances ceases to be purely a matter of American domestic politics as it evokes broader questions of countervailing response to the U.S.---strategic, or, tactically asymtrical---as well as nuclear proliferation. It goes without saying, then, that Obama's thinking has far-reaching significance consequent to future non-proliferation efforts as much as it potentially has domestic as well as international resonance, not only because it seems to chart a clear-cut and unambuguous repudiation of weapons of mass destruction, and impunity of those bent on harming America, but also because it crystallizes an imperative for viable strategies for the maintanance of both American security and world peace

This sounds like Fox letting Brzezinski imply that Hillary is against negotiating with foreign rivalries. She clearly stated that she was for aggressive diplomacy, only against committing to a summit before negotiating. It's a simple cart and horse issue. I hope people seriously consider the Jimmy Carter parallels that just keep on coming: the smile, the teeth, the post-Republican implosion election, Presidents polling in the 20's and now Brzezenski himself. Readers should also know that this is the guy who planned the Iranian hostage rescue without considering there just might be a sandstorm.

Obama said we need to talk to all nations. Because its a good idea Hillary had to disagree and make some childish point that she would need to check her schedule first. Did Barack really mean he would sign up for whatever Syria offered? Hillary was wrong and made it worse by her rediculous on stage comeback. Lets concentrate on substance, not political campaign strategy.

I am delighted that Barak Obama is taken seriously by noted individuals I am also delighted that Hillary Clinton is taken seriously by noted individuals. Both are excellent candidates worth supporting; either one would do well in the Oval Office. Aren't we fortunate? Why are we haggling?

The U.S. is in desperate need of new thinking both domestically and abroad. Obama provides it. He is hardly naive and as for experience - no one has experience at being President. Not even Hillary who lived there and only succeeded in making a dreadful hash of health care plan.

In the politically tired discussion of "experience" vs. "new ideas", an article in the Economist magazine put it this way: while many may view Hillary as being the more experienced candidate, people should realize that Obama may possess something far more valuable in determining your support of a candidate - judgement!

Give me sound, common sense reasoning and judgement over so-called experience every day!

While Brzezinski's comments will elevate Obama's foreign policy credentials, they serve more to articulate and validate what we already know. Clearly, Obama represents a new direction for U.S. foreign policy. Clearly, being a president's spouse does not prepare one to be president--the close proximity is not enough. And most clear of all is that Senator Clinton has absolutely no valid claim to having more foreign policy experience than Senator Obama.

At a critical time that leadership was needed leading up to the war, when Senator Byrd and others were pleading for restraint, Senator Clinton voted for a preemptive war based on questionable evidence. She should have demanded that the weapons inspectors be given more time and she should have questioned the Administration's urgency to go to war. That would have shown political courage and leadership. Instead, she voted for war on purely political grounds in order to insulate herself from a conservative challenge in 2008.

this is huge. it opens the floodgates of fresh ideas for Obama!

jknobel, Obama is my senator and he is exactly as he seems. And he has a 75% approval here and has done well by us.
He is no ideolog in sheeps clothing.
The fact that Zbig has endorsed Obama say alot. this is not a man given to fools or easily swayed. He is pragmatic and tough. If he is impressed by Obama that mean that Obama has a great deal to offer.
though Clinton may do admirably in the senate, being first lady is not practical experience. Why should she be allowed that when Obama is denied his 8 years in the state senate which is legit.
The one thing I am happy about the most. All those pundits and talking heads to tsk tsk'd and laughed at Obama and dragged his reputation down with his brave new words and ideas, are going to have some explaining to do. Oh, wait. they never do and they never admit to being wrong. They will still cling to Clinton's old and tired thinking as the right one.
But, to have a man of Zbig stature endorse obama, it will be hard for the to convince people Obama is a rookie and green.

I have a great deal of respect for Zbig, so I take his endorsement of Obama very seriously.

But let's not fall again for a politician's statement that we need a "new" direction or "change" at face value- make him explain exactly what his policies would be. We've been fooled all too often in the past.

Great endorsement - and well deserved.

And it is ridiculous to use Bz's age against him, or to say that he is establishment as a means to discredit this endorsement. Of course many establishment people support Barack. That are not ALL dumbos! And Bz is one of the most respected foreign policy gurus in the country - whether anyone likes it or not.

This endorsement underscores how well Obama is able to reach across the spectrum. He generates enthusiasm everywhere he goes. His political courage and precocious wisdom earn him allies in likely and unlikely quarters.

So, do you think, dear readers, that Brzezinski will be as effective in supporting Obama as he was in serving Jimmy Carter and thwarting the Ayatollah?

My own take is that Brzezinski will be just as successful, and no more. Could Obama stand any more success than that?

It seems to me that Brzezinski makes good points. HRC is undoubtedly a very bright leader. However, her past judgement has been suspect. HRC claims the greatest experience, she has not done her homework on at least one incredibly important, irreversible and tragic vote.. She says she wants to turn the page, but then suggests using failed methods and excluding talking with those who disagree with the US.

Then today, despite saying she will not consider hypotheticals in foreign policy (which is absurd unto itself) and condemns Obama for doing so, she proceeds to lay out a whooper. Not only to she postulate on a terrorist attack prior to the election, she proposes a scenario bound to scare voters. Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson were right to condemn a continuation of the politics of fear.

We need a President that can bring us together. We need a President that can not only be a leader for the US, but also one for a freer, safer and more peaceful world. HRC is not the one for this job despite her many talents.

Thank you Brzezinski! Obama's recent foreign policy addresses have convinced me he's the only one looking for an effective policy to strengthen America. Everyone else seems content to say nothing and accuse Obama of nievete. We need brilliant minds like Brzezinski to keep speaking out about Obama's wisdom.

Note the quote about being first lady is not equal to "the most experienced." I agree with Brzezinski. Clinton is a smart politician, but Obama has the talent and the temperament to be a great leader.

Sorry J.Brooks. You are brooding over a few past failed policies. Tell us which administration had a hundred percent successful policies. Wake up!The world is changing. You need prudent thinking people in the White House not boistrous burnt out personalites.
J.Thomas
Fort Myers, FL

He also negotiated a peace deal between Egypt and Israel that still lasts nearly 30 years later. Hillary is supported by people that told her to vote for the Iraq war. Nothing Jimmy Carter did compares to the BIGGEST mistake in military history(a mistake Hillary voted for).

After telling us about how badly we need to turn the page and adopt a new approach to foreign affairs, Obama lands an endorsement from a seventy-five year-old establishment figure from the Carter Administration. That's right--the foreign policy guru who presided over the Iranian hostage crisis and the Moscow Olympics boycott. And a foreign policy that gave us gasoline rationing and miles long waits at the gas station. Oh yeah. And malaise. Fresh face indeed!

I couldn't agree more! Just as David Ignatius wrote yesterday, Barack Obama has clearly been shaping and winning the foreign affairs debate; the support and endorsement by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a well respected and influencial foreign affairs heavyweight, is a clear vindication of Obama's position that we are entering a new world, one that requires fresh thinking and new approaches. We live in a global economy, with global threats and the best way for America to succeed in this changing world is to start thinking about repairing and building relationships across the world. Barack Obama will not only succeed in unifying this country, but he will also bring new friends and allies that this country so desparately need after the disastarous and isolating policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney over the last seven years.