July 25, 2007 - 6:34pm
News

Obama right on foreign policy question, Rothman says

The claws came out in the Hillary Clinton camp in the wake of a CNN youtube presidential debate among the Democratic candidates two nights ago.

Clinton called rival Sen. Barack Obama’s willingness to sit down with government leaders who are enemies of the United States "irresponsible and naive."

But U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman disagrees. In fact, the New Jersey Congressman said when he watched that debate he finally decided he was going to support Obama for president, and today he fired off a press release enthusiastically endorsing Obama ‘08.

"Barack’s appearance in the last debate confirmed for me what I’ve believed all along," said Rothman. "It’s new thinking versus old thinking. This notion of Hillary Clinton’s that we should continue down this path of not talking to our enemies is a policy that has proven to be disastrous to our country. These are not the views of someone who professes to be an agent of change."

The only member of New Jersey’s Congressional delegation to endorse Obama, Rothman said the Illinois senator’s public opposition in 2002 to sending 160,000 U.S. troops to Iraq gives him foreign policy cred that Clinton frankly lacks.

"I made the similar vote," the Congressman admitted of his 2002 thumbs up signal authorizing President George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. But he added that he later "declared it to be a mistake."

Clinton, meanwhile, dug in unaplogetically on her Iraq War authorization vote - an error, in Rothman’s judgement.

"I think Barack Obama has a new way of thinking and the intellect that would present to our people and to the world the new face of America," said the Congressman.

Often mentioned as a likely candidate to run for higher office when U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg retires, Rothman now has an edge if the longshot Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. If the New York senator wins the presidential nomination, Clinton backers U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone and U.S. Rep. Bob Andrews would be in a better position to pursue the Senate seat.

"It ain’t over until it’s over," the Congressman said of Obama’s prospects. "It’s a long way to the finish line."

Rothman said either Democratic candidate would be superior to the Republicans.

Max Pizarro is a PolitickerNJ.com Reporter and can be reached via email at max@politicsnj.com.

Comments

Foreign Policy ?


How about the constitution and the seperation of powers. How about the war on Terror ? How about supporting Saddam, Uday etc ? How is he going to protect Israel from the Iranian madman. ? Too many questions and no answers. Foreign policy is knowing the dangers and the ability to carry a big stick and use it. Is he going to stand idly by the next time Johnny Jehad takes out over 3000 people ??

07/25/07 7:07 pm

Rothman says?


Who cares what Rothman says, he is always wrong. Therefore, beware of Saddam Hussein "Barack" Obama.

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good." - Thomas Sowell, (Is Reality Optional? 1993.)

07/26/07 6:44 am

This just proves...


That surprisingly Hillary is the conservative in this primary and that Obama and Edwards are out to lunch on the War on Terror.

Im amazed Ferriero let Rothman do this. What the heck is going on up there?

07/26/07 9:04 am

influence


ferriero has about as much influence over rothman as he does over making hillary clinton the pope... does that sum it up for you? this is a great move by rothman. it proves that he is not letting his judaism cloud his judgment when it comes to the war on terror. good for him.

07/26/07 11:18 am

I think OBAMA was wrong (gasp)


They didn't show the entire question here. The question asked was, would you meet with the head of N. Korea, Iran, Evil Island, etc. without preconcieved conditions. Barak said yes, to which Hillary said no that's stupid! Hillary said she would talk with the leaders and be open to Democracy like Obama, but that she wouldn't herself talk with foreign leaders until there had been an expressed will to compromise brought about by intensive communications by ambassadors.

*duplicate

I do agree with Hillary on this one though. It's ill conceived to think our president could make friends out of enemies by having a sitdown, when our enemies have expressed no intention to change their ways at lower levels. Presidents, on an international level, are responsible for negotiating what we are willing to compromise and what needs to be changed; the office is not responsible for knocking on our enemies doors asking "why can't we get along?" We have ambassador's and undersecrataries for that. Hell Jimmy Carter and Powell did it for Clinton with Haiti in the 90's. The acting President is above that. To sum it up with our nation's past time: The president is the 9th inning closer when it comes to international relations, not the first-pitch-throwing-celebrity.

07/29/07 4:42 pm