What potential "peace candidate" could most effectively advocate for diplomacy with Iran

without being called "naive," weak on defense," "too idealistic," "inexperienced in foreign policy," "a left-wing dove," etc. The question came to my mind after I had posted this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3054361#3054480 on a related thread.

This is a serious question. In fact, in my opinion it may be the most important question as we debate who would best serve the cause of peace as the Democratic nominee and future (electable) President. I welcome contructive comments...but not flames...of any potential candidate.

but during the Christmas recess there were a few Senators (Kerry for one) who did meet with the Syrian President.

Funny...I can't think of a single Republican who could attempt that job.

He has a rare understanding of the world and having his father from a muslim country in Africa and living in Indonesia as a kid gave him a glimpse into the third world. He would know instinctively how to deal with this better than someone who never experienced it.
And I'm sure that leaders like those in Iran would give him more respect and hearing than most.

My question is how would these potential candidates be perceived by voters if they were advocating such diplomcay during the next Presidential campaign. And, may I suggest...

I voted for Kerry, but there are other good Dems as well. Kerry spent the whole first Presidential debate with Bush back in Sept of 04 talking about the need for diplomacy and has been saying that ever since. It was a focus of his remarks this week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq and a real focus of that trip he took back in Dec. Kerry and Chris Dodd were criticized for going to Syria, but you have to go talk to your enemies as well as your friends.

We have many good potential candidates.

I agree, we are very fortunate to have good candidates in this area on this issue. :)

The thing about Primary debates also is that there tends to be so much agreement on issues (not always, but often) it comes down to other factors such as experience, proven leadership, charisma, the potential to appeal to independents and cross-over Republicans in the General election, etc.

It depends on where we are in Iraq. That could reset the board, again and again. We shall see.

Most is a subjective term and not measurable. All Dems have the potential of making the case that we need to talk with our enemies and bringing warring factions to the negotiating table. That does not belong to one candidate exclusively, it can be a Democratic Party priority that would then be more believable for all of our candidates, Presidential and Congressional.

The Democrats do well building a Democratic response that deals in a reaonable approach to diplomacy. This means that whomever the nominee is in '08 has a leg up and has a foundation built that the entire party can honor as the Democratic Platform and the way the whole Democratic Party favors as the way to diplomacy and negotiations. The nominee doesn't do this alone, that is one mistake that Democrats repeatedly make. Any Dem currently thought of as running would assemble a foreign policy team. Now is the time to begin to build that team by building a common base for a team to run on.

Say for instance that Edwards is elected. (Or anyone else. Edwards for the sake or argument.) He would need to select a Secretary of State that agrees with him and then put in place a whole team for NSA, other top jobs at State and so forth. The time to figure out who knows what is not during a hectic transition of 8-12 weeks. It's now.

The best person for the diplomacy is the person who understands that this is not a top-down, do as I say or else job. FP is better conducted as a team. Edwards, for example, would need to bring in a 'Wise One' who knows more FP then he does to head State. (Unless he wants to go the GWB route and appoint someone and then ignore them. I don't advise it.)

IF we get a Dem Pres in '08, virtually every name in your poll would be involved in making FP. Every name mentioned would be a surrogate on the news and talk shows for the nominee in '08 and would be advocating for a Dem view of FP. So, they all need to be credible. They would all have a part of FP after the election, if all went well.

Yes indeed, the more Democrats are united on our approach...the more credibility the "surrogates" lend to the message, the stronger will be the postion of our nominee. Still, I think there is a factor that goes with the nominee themselves...after all, Americans elect a President, not a Party.

He is head and shoulders above the rest of the field when it comes to humanity.

This is not to say that the others are fatally flawed, except for McCain whose name appears on this poll.

Dennis will not win the Democratic nomination, and that's our loss, not his.

themselves and their unique abilities and which resonates with people. I was thinking today that chimpy had no foreign policy experience but, grew up under the man with impeccable creds in that area and his cronies who cut their teeth in that field. So, it's not just a matter of experience. It's who you listen to and surround yourself with. Are they ideologes like Cheney and the neocons. think what it would have been like if he did not go that route and went with people like say, Baker and Scocroft. Realists.

I went to vote for her, but my mouse slipped and landed on Clark as I was pushing the button.

Really, though, is there any doubt that General Clark is currently paving the way in advocating peace over fighting? Diplomacy...who'd of ever thunk it.

i have not heard the right message yet from any candidate or potential candidate ... i hate to say this but i don't expect to ...

many on the list you posted are competent, skillful and in some cases, even inspiring ...

but if we continue to pursue an empire, and there is sadly little sign that even Democrats intend to put an end to it, no candidate will bring the change we need ...

we need radical change in this country; not "politically safe temperate change" ... we need visionary leadership; we need leadership that will not fear the politics; we need the boldness of someone for whom the message and its values are way more important than what the marketing people and pollsters are telling them ... a person who passionately believes in the message may just shatter all the old "political molds" ...

i think the country is craving it; i think they'll know it when they hear it; and yet, our political process grinds down the edges of any that step out of line ... as long as fear and caution and reactive styles temper the message of change we need, the chance for peace in Iran or anywhere else for that matter remains a pipedream ... truly, i hope i am totally wrong about that ...

What are his shortcomings, in your view?

given I picked Kerry. His insights into how best to combat terrorism -- ridiculed in the media. Kerry says terrorism can be reduced to a nuisance--that combating terrorism is most effectively done with police action rather than military action etc. These statements have come to sound correct to even some right-wing pundits.

I picked Kerry for a couple general experiencial perspectives: For one thing he has diligently explored the double-dealings in the mideast money channels during the days of Iran-Contra and the BCCI investigation. He knows the Iranians and all their factions.

Clark has NATO experience that no other American has. His credentials suggest that his background in Economics is deep----IMO understanding of Economics is mandatory and basic in dealing with a country like Iran.

Gary Hart is a name that is not on the list---would be my third choice.   (I recommend "The Shield and the Cloak: The Security of the Commons") It is well-researched and insightful with little political spin

Now all three are broadly termed "Internationalists" This perspective has fallen out of popular liberal favor, but I believe that is due to misunderstanding. General approaches such as "internationalism" and "isolationism" are just general approaches. Ruthless leaders can twist any general approach to fit their desires, so I don't set much store by "......ist" labels. George Bush projected a more isolationist image than Al Gore but it was just that--an image. Kerry's background of "internationalism" developed after Vietnam----There were great hopes to avoid or reduce future war by international commerce and diplomacy.

Come to think of it I can picture Al Gore -- who is as experienced, smart, and decent as any public figure, would be an interesting person to lead. Iran ostensibly is developing it's nuclear industry as a domestic energy source. Gore could work with this.

this damn disgusting war and prevent one with Iran.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.