WNDI 2008 1

Elections DA 3 Week

Elections DA 3 Week
Elections DA 3 Week .....................................................................................................................1
Uniqueness – McCain Win – Polls................................................................................................2
Uniqueness – Obama Lose – Voters ............................................................................................3
Uniqueness – Obama Lose – Terrorism ......................................................................................4
Uniqueness – Obama Win – Polls ................................................................................................5
Obama good – Troop Withdrawal ...............................................................................................6
Troop withdrawal  Decreased spending..................................................................................7
Obama good – Iraqi Civil War.....................................................................................................8
Iraqi Civil War Spills Over ..........................................................................................................9
Obama good – Soft power...........................................................................................................10
Obama good – Hegemony 1/2......................................................................................................11
Obama good – Hegemony ..........................................................................................................12
Obama good – Iran Diplomacy ..................................................................................................13
Obama Good – Iran-Israel Conflict...........................................................................................14
Obama Good – Iran-Israel Conflict...........................................................................................15
Obama good – US-Latin America relations...............................................................................16
Obama good – US-French Relations .........................................................................................17
Obama Good – Nuclear Power...................................................................................................18
Obama bad – Hegemony.............................................................................................................19
Obama bad – Alternative energy................................................................................................20
McCain good – Global Warming...............................................................................................21
McCain Good – Healthcare ........................................................................................................22
McCain Good – Economy...........................................................................................................23
McCain Bad – US-NK Relations................................................................................................24
McCain Bad – Iran Attack..........................................................................................................25
WNDI 2008 2
Elections DA 3 Week

Uniqueness – McCain Win – Polls

Yes McCain – Polls
Lightman, David (staff writer). Kansas City Times “Foreign tour gives Obama no lasting bounce in polls”
July 31st, 2008 < http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/728329.html>
"It's almost like McCain and Obama are generic Republican and Democratic candidates," Newport said.
"American presidential races are pretty well structured," he said, and even in November, most people tend to
vote with the same parties they've backed for years.Third, the Obama trip was a vivid reminder to
Republicans that the Illinois senator is poised to run a strong, energetic campaign, so they had better mobilize
quickly.Gallup's daily polls measure registered voters. But Gallup also reports on the mood of "likely"
voters - generally those who are paying more attention to the race - and last Friday through Sunday,
they gave McCain a 49-45 percent edge.

The Gallup Poll Shows McCain is Ahead

The Economist “The Big Bellwether Battlefield” July 31st, 2008
<http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11848408>
BARACK OBAMA is doing everything he can to make it look as if the election is a mere formality, and
adoring media types are keen to play along. Yet the latest USA Today-Gallup poll puts John McCain four
points ahead, while the RealClearPolitics average of polls gives Mr Obama a meagre two-and-a-half-point
lead. Optimistic Republicans recall that Michael Dukakis was 17 points ahead of George Bush senior in
the summer of 1988, and still lost. So there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this election, like the
previous two, could boil down to a tight race settled by close results in a handful of “swing” states. Ohio is
the quintessential battleground state. Bill Clinton won it by some of the narrowest of his margins for any big
state—just two points in 1992 and six in 1996. In 2004 George Bush won Ohio, with its precious 20 of the
270 electoral college votes needed to secure the presidency, by a mere 118,600 votes. Had 60,000 Ohioans
gone the other way, John Kerry would have been president
WNDI 2008 3
Elections DA 3 Week

Uniqueness – Obama Lose – Voters

Obama Won’t Win – Can’t Appeal to the Average American
Chozick, Amy (staff writer) The Wall Street Journal. “Too fit to be president?” August 1st, 2008.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755336096303089.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox>
Speaking to donors at a San Diego fund-raiser last month, Barack Obama reassured the crowd that he
wouldn't give in to Republican tactics to throw his candidacy off track. "Listen, I'm skinny but I'm tough,"
Sen. Obama said. But in a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is
obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors
and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans
wondering whether he is truly like them. The candidate has been criticized by opponents for appearing
elitist or out of touch with average Americans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in July
shows Sen. Obama still lags behind Republican John McCain among white men and suburban women
who say they can't relate to his background or perceived values. "He's too new ... and he needs to put
some meat on his bones," says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted
for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. "I won't vote for any beanpole guy," another Clinton
supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board. The last overweight president to be elected was
335-pound William Howard Taft in 1908. As for tall and lanky presidents, "you might have to go back to
Abraham Lincoln" in 1860, says presidential historian Stephen Hess. "Most presidents were sort of in the
middle."

No Obama Win – Out of Touch with Working Class Voters

Allen-Mills, Tony & Berman, Nina. (Staff writers). The Sunday Times “How Obama Can Win Over Working
Class Whites” August 3rd, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4428685.ece
Obama went tenpin-bowling in Altoona and later appeared on a farm to feed milk to a calf from a bottle.
These were standard ploys for a Harvard-educated, big-city politician anxious to appear a good ol’ country
boy, yet the opinion polls swerved resolutely in favour of Clinton. At one point Obama ruminated publicly
about the difficulties of attracting the working-class whites who had abandoned the Democrats for Bush. He
said: “It’s not surprising that they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion… or anti-immigrant
sentiment… as a way to explain their frustrations.” He sounded like a Harvard sociologist, and Clinton
leapt on the blunder. Obama was an elitist snob, she suggested, out of touch with working-class
Americans who “don’t cling to religion… they value their faith. You don’t cling to guns, you enjoy hunting
or collecting or sport”. Obama duly tumbled to a heavy defeat in Pennsylvania, although the setback
proved only temporary. Yet the issue is certain to return as he faces John McCain in the autumn, and it’s
clear that Obama aides are still searching for the right tone of voice for a black intellectual candidate to use
when addressing a dim-witted redneck. They even called Bageant for help.
WNDI 2008 4
Elections DA 3 Week

Uniqueness – Obama Lose – Terrorism

No Obama Win- Terrorism Rumors
Fox News “Tennesse Dem Suggests Obama May Be ‘Terrorist Connected” June 13th, 2008
< http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/tennessee-dem-suggests-obama-may-be-terrorist-connected/comment-
page-3/#comments>
Proving just how important Barack Obama’s new rumor-busting Web site could be, a Tennessee Democratic
Party member told a local newspaper that the presumptive nominee of his party “may be terrorist
connected.” The Nashville City Paper quoted Fred Hobbs, identified as an executive committee member of
the state Democratic Party, in an article Friday examining why Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn., was
withholding his endorsement of Obama. Hobbs told the City Paper he understands why Davis is slow to
endorse, because Hobbs said he, too, is “skeptical” of Obama. “Maybe (it’s) the same reason I don’t want to
— I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him,”
Hobbs told the paper. “He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It
sounds kind of like he may be.”The Tennessee Democratic Party later issued a statement saying Hobbs was
“obviously misinformed” and that Tennessee Democrats are united behind Obama. But Hobbs’ statement
was an example of the kind of remarks that apparently led the Obama campaign to launch a new Web
site this week dedicated to fighting rumors about his candidacy.
WNDI 2008 5
Elections DA 3 Week

Uniqueness – Obama Win – Polls

Obama is considerably ahead in the polls
Mooney, Alexander (staff writer). CNN. “Obama’s Trip doesn’t Change Poll Numbers” July 30th, 2008. <
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/campaign.poll/index.html>
According to the survey -- the first national poll conducted entirely after the Democratic presidential
candidate's trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe -- the race for the White House has
remained virtually unchanged since late June, with Obama holding a 51 percent to 44 percent edge over
presumed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.
WNDI 2008 6
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – Troop Withdrawal

Obama’s timetable plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq will end the war in 2009
Farah, Stockman. Staff Writer. 3/8/08. The Boston Globe. Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view;
Senator saw `obligation' in '04 to success of state. Lexis.
WASHINGTON - In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a
group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.
"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science
Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who
have already died. ... It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it
would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."The statements are consistent with
others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US
invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-
ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.Obama spoke out
passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his
thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved. During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping
troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew
increasingly disillusioned. Now, Obama's views about the war have become a campaign issue, as Hillary
Clinton - who voted for the war's authorization - has questioned whether Obama has been consistent in
opposing the war. Her husband, Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a
"fairy tale." And yesterday, news of an Obama adviser's comments that his promise to withdraw troops within
16 months represented only a "best-case scenario" further fanned questions about his Iraq views.Yesterday,
Obama struck back, declaring that Clinton "doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue."
And he added that, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused." In 2004, while supporting the
Democratic presidential nominee, John F. Kerry, Obama endorsed Kerry's view that the United States had too much at stake in Iraq to withdraw at that time.
Since joining the Senate in 2005, Obama has taken incrementally tougher positions on Iraq, even as he sought to hear from a wide variety of voices about
what should be done there, according to aides, advisers, and transcripts of his speeches. In November of 2005, after it had become clear that US troops faced
a raging insurgency, Obama argued in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that the US military should scale down its presence, but
that US troops were "still part of the solution" in Iraq."We have to manage our exit in a responsible way," he told the council, "at the very least taking care
not to plunge the country into an even deeper and perhaps irreparable crisis." In January of 2006, Obama took his first trip to Iraq, staying two days, and
while there he heard conflicting views on whether US troops should stay or go. He expressed frustration with the failure of Iraqi leaders to resolve key
disputes, telling reporters that "if we have not seen significant progress over the next few months, we need to have an honest conversation with Iraqis as to
But 2006 unfolded as a year of sectarian bloodshed, deepening Obama's conviction that the
what our investment is."
US effort was being squandered. He began to call for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. By that
time, the call was far from unusual, however; other senators had called for a phased withdrawal earlier."The
notion that the United States can't be more committed to the future of Iraq than Iraqis became much more of the prominent view" among Democrats and
even some Republicans in 2006, said Rand Beers, a former foreign policy adviser to Kerry.
By November of that year, voters across the nation expressed anger over Iraq, handing control of Congress to Democrats. A month later, the Iraq Study
Group recommended reducing US military support for Iraq's government if its leaders failed to make progress on achieving political agreements.
An author of that report, Benjamin Rhodes, later joined Obama's campaign as a foreign policy adviser, and Obama adopted some of the group's language in
his 2007 bill calling for all combat brigades to be withdrawn by March of 2008. As Obama mulled a presidential run, he began to reach out to a series of
military leaders, including those who did not agree with him on Iraq. When Richard Danzig, a former Navy secretary, organized two meetings for Obama
with retired military officers, Danzig asked whether he should invite officers who opposed Obama's views. The answer was yes, Danzig recalled.
"One of the attractive things about Obama is the desire to get a range of views and process them himself rather than get a homogenized product or exclude
people who aren't in sympathy with him," Danzig said. In a separate meeting, Obama asked General Anthony Zinni, a critic of the war effort, what should
be done in Iraq. Zinni told him: "I don't think you can abandon Iraq. The region is too important." Despite
those views, Obama's foreign
policy advisory team began working on a detailed plan for bringing US troops home and managing the
potential humanitarian crisis that could follow. Obama's campaign set up a working group on Iraq, headed by Colin Kahl, a security
studies professor at Georgetown University. In July 2007, Obama's top advisers and Iraq specialists, including Kahl, produced a memo that shaped Obama's
core Iraq views, made public in a Sept. 12 speech: to bring home one to two combat brigades each month, with all brigades out in 16 months, and keep only
a small number of troops in Iraq to protect US diplomats and launch limited, targeted strikes on Al Qaeda. But this week, Obama adviser Samantha Power
caused a stir when she told BBC's "Hard Talk" that Obama "will revisit" the plan when he becomes president. "You can't make a commitment in March of
2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009," said Power, who resigned from the campaign yesterday over separate comments
insulting Clinton. "He will, of course, not rely upon some plan that he has crafted as a presidential candidate or a US senator. He will rely upon an
operational plan that he pulls together in consultation with people on the ground." Obama insisted yesterday he would stick to his
plan. But Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said voters should expect Obama's views on the war to shift.
WNDI 2008 7
Elections DA 3 Week

Troop withdrawal  Decreased spending

Pulling troops out of Iraq will decrease overall governmental spending
Veronique, de Rugy. Senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.2/6/08. Los
Angeles Times. Billions and billions dig a deeper hole. Lexis.
But it gets worse. Of Bush's $987.6 billion in discretionary spending, more than half -- $515.4 billion --
would go to the Pentagon, but that doesn't include any war funding. To be sure, the president did request
$75.8 billion in emergency funding, of which $70 billion is targeted for the war in Iraq and fighting
terrorism, with the remainder going toward hurricane relief for the Gulf Coast. However, because this
amount received an emergency designation, it is not included in the deficit projections.That war spending
figure is totally inaccurate, by the way. It does not include enough money to fight the wars for more
than a few months in 2009. If recent history is any indication, the war budgeting is off by $70 billion to
$140 billion. In 2007, we spent more than $190 billion on the wars. In 2008, Bush has requested about
$200 billion, of which only $100 billion was appropriated and included in the deficit projections for the
year. It is unlikely that the cost of the war for 2009 will suddenly drop to $70 billion. And that's true even if the
United States withdraws some of its troops from Iraq. After six continuous years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. military equipment is wearing out fast.
The Pentagon is focused on recapitalizing, and these spending requests will be sent to Congress in emergency bills for many years to come, including 2009.
Not to worry, though. The president's projections show the budget running a surplus of $48 billion by fiscal 2012. That fantastical figure includes some rosy
assumptions -- that the Democrats in Congress enact Bush's proposal to trim the growth of Medicare and Medicaid by $195.7 billion over five years; that the
alternative minimum tax is allowed to hit more taxpayers after the 2008 tax year; and that the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not funded beyond fiscal 2009. Even if all that came true, the White House should be
focusing on reducing the size of government, not just reducing overspending. The $3.1-trillion fiscal 2009 budget proposal
represents Bush's last chance to establish his legacy. Unfortunately, it will be one of massive deficit spending that will be paid for by generations to come.
WNDI 2008 8
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – Iraqi Civil War

Obama’s timetable plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq will prevent an Iraqi civil
war
BBC. 3/24/07. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific. Iraqi vice-president in Japan warns against quick US pullout.
Lexis.
Tokyo, March 24 Kyodo - Intensifying discussion by US media and lawmakers on when US troops should
withdraw from Iraq may lead to deterioration of the already troubled situation in the country, visiting
Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi warned Saturday. Speaking in a press conference, al-Hashimi said a
pullout will not come until the Iraqi forces get ready to take over the security jobs, and that an
immediate withdrawal with short notice could only lead to "chaos." "The timetable needed for the
American forces or the British forces to withdraw from Iraq should be...a comprehensive plan needed to
reform our national armed forces," al-Hashimi said at the Japan Press Club. "If this plan needs one year,
two years, (then) within this time limit the American troops and British troops should train...our national
armed forces," he said. He also referred to the need to "amend" the ongoing reconstruction projects in order
to raise truly united, patriotic and well-trained troops in Iraq. "After that, there should be no need for
anybody (foreign forces) to stay" on Iraqi territory, al-Hashimi said, adding, "I'm not asking for an
immediate withdrawal." He said he has been reading US media reports, expressing concerns about some
lawmakers pushing the White House to be quick to withdraw from Iraq. He warned such a move will not
benefit the interests of the United States or other Western countries, nor those of Iraq. An immediate
withdrawal would create a "security vacuum in Iraq," which is "not going to be filled by troops which
are not trained enough," he said. "This could lead to chaos. And this chaos could lead to a civil war. So
we have to be very careful on this."
WNDI 2008 9
Elections DA 3 Week

Iraqi Civil War Spills Over

Iraqi civil war between Sunnis and Shiites produces radicalization of peoples, mass
movements of populations, and regime changes influencing other key Middle Eastern
nations
Stephen Farrell, Nicholas Blanford. 12/9/06. Weekend Australian. War chaos bursts over border. Lexis.
The conflict between Sunni and Shia is bleeding across Iraq's frontiers, report Stephen Farrell and
Nicholas BlanfordTHE language was stark. Iraq's slide towards chaos could spark ''a broader regional
war'', according to the blue-chip panel reporting to US President George W. Bush this week. There was a
risk of ''regional conflagration'', said Robert Gates, the incoming Pentagon chief, the day before.
Yet even as these dire warnings were being delivered in measured tones by Washington's wise men, there are
disturbing signs the Sunni-Shia violence is already bleeding across Iraq's borders.
If the sectarian strife spreads, the Iraq Study Group cautioned, neighbouring countries face instability as
the two Muslim sects vie to protect their spheres of influence. ''Ambassadors from neighbouring
countries told us they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world,'' wrote
the group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. Their alert may have been buried deep in the 100-page
report. But it is page one, paragraph one of neighbouring regimes' concerns, as the report recognised: ''Such
a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems -- including the radicalisation of
peoples, mass movements of populations and regime changes -- that could take decades to play out.''
For Ahmad Mahmoud, it did not take decades. The 20-year-old's face now stares from mourning posters
plastered on his two-storey home in Beirut. A Shi'ite, he lived in the mainly Sunni neighbourhood of Tarek
Jdeide. Mahmoud was shot dead on Sunday during street clashes in the area between Sunnis and Shi'ites.
The sectarian tensions behind Mahmoud's death are being played out across the Middle East, where
broader suspicions and hostilities have led to a riot in Damascus, a knife fight between pupils and cruel barbs
in schools in Amman. In Syria and Jordan -- both Sunni countries -- there is rising anger at the daily
slaughter of their brethren in Iraq, which is beamed into their homes by satellite television. Many blame
Shia Iran for stoking the conflict. Many regimes fear that al-Qa'ida's brand of Sunni militancy will
spread after thousands of young Arabs who fought with the insurgents in Iraq return home, emboldened to
take on their leaders. King Abdullah II of Jordan has talked of a ''Shia crescent'' from Iran to Lebanon, and
last week cautioned that the region could end up with three civil wars: in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.
''Iran is now connected to all the conflicts in the region in Iraq, in Lebanon and in Palestine, and is now
the main address you have to go through for solving all these conflicts,'' a senior Jordanian official said.
Iran ''is operating through its allies in Iraq, and through Hezbollah and Hamas'' in Beirut and
Palestine, he said. ''It is engaging with marginalised Shia communities in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and
Kuwait to turn them into arrows that can challenge their Government's legitimacy and authority.''
There are fears among Sunni regimes that Tehran is distracting US efforts to curb its nuclear ambitions by
using its oil wealth and regional proxies to foster trouble across the region. Another cause for
instability is the more than one million Iraqis who have fled into Syria and Jordan. In June, a fatal
quarrel between a Syrian and an Iraqi refugee triggered rioting in Geramana, an Iraqi-majority suburb south
of Damascus. Since the Iraqi exodus began, Geramana's population has nearly doubled, driving up rents and
prices. Iranian influence is increasingly being felt across Syria. And there is growing tension in Jordan,
where Mustafa Hamid, a 15-year-old Iraqi asylum-seeker, was attacked with a knife in Amman in October. ''I
was going to school when 10 boys came up to me and said 'Come here Iraqi Shia, you helped the Americans
capture Saddam Hussein','' he said. Moderate states such as Jordan are alarmed by the anti-Western alliance
sparked by the Iraq war -- grouping Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and other players. Some fear it is a
bid by a resurgent Shia community inspired by Iran to alter the sectarian balance of power at the expense of
the Sunnis. They are irritated at overtures by the US toward Damascus and Tehran, fearing this will be at the
expense of Washington's traditional regional allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.
WNDI 2008 10
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – Soft power

Obama key to soft power
China Post. 3/6/08. China Post. MCCAIN TO GET THE CONSENT OF TAIWAN SCHOLARS. Lexis.
On the other hand, University of Maryland Professor Thomas Schaller explained that Sen. Barack
Obama could become part of America's new "soft power," as approval of U.S. policies worldwide has
been declining in recent years. "Soft power" is a term used in international relations theory to describe
how an authority, such as a state, could influence the behavior or interests of other political entities through
cultural or ideological means, rather than economic or military ones.

Obama key to sustaining U.S. soft power

Baum, Los Angeles Times 7/16/08 “Europe Awaits Obama with open arms”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-eurovisit16-2008jul16,0,2643448.story,
From prime ministers to college students, Europeans want to cloak Barack Obama in a warm embrace
when he arrives on the continent next week. But they're also aware that anything that looks or smells like
elitist Old Europe could hurt the Democratic contender with voters back home. Obama has yet to finalize his
itinerary for Europe. However, he is already set to skip Brussels, the capital of the modern united continent,
for the traditional symbols of economic and military power: London, Paris and Berlin. All those European
capitals' leaders have expressed a willingness to adapt their schedules to see the American politician
whose sky-high approval ratings in their countries are at least as good as their own. Polls reveal that if
they could vote in the United States, between 53% and 72% of the British, French and German public
would pull the lever for Obama. "If Britons elected American presidents, Barack Obama would have no
worries," began an editorial in the left-wing British newspaper, the Guardian. Yet the editorial also
recognized that his popularity in Europe would not help at home: "To be seen as Europe's pet is the last thing
a presidential candidate needs -- especially one who wants to shed his elitist image with white working-class
American voters."
WNDI 2008 11
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – Hegemony 1/2

Obama will restore US leadership by improving relations with Germany, Indonesia, Egypt,
Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Columbia, and Russia
Kevin, Sullivan. 6/5/08. Washington Post. Overseas, Excitement Over Obama. Lexis.
LONDON, June 4 -- For much of the world, Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic primaries
was a moment to admire the United States at a time when the nation's image abroad has been seriously
damaged. From hundreds of supporters crowded around televisions in rural Kenya, Obama's ancestral homeland, to jubilant Britons
writing "WE DID IT!" on the Brits for Barack discussion board on Facebook, people celebrated what they called an important racial and
generational milestone for the United States. "This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime,"
said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more
American tolerance for people around the world who are different."The primary race generated unprecedented interest outside the
United States, much of it a reflection of a desire for change from the policies of President Bush, who surveys show is deeply unpopular
around the globe. At the same time, many people abroad seemed impressed -- sometimes even shocked -- by the wide-open nature of
U.S. democracy, and the history-making race between a woman and a black man. "The primaries showed that the U.S. is actually the
nation we had believed it to be, a place that is open-minded enough to have a woman or an African American as its president," said
Minoru Morita, a Tokyo political analyst. While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has admirers, especially from her days as first lady,
interviews on four continents suggested that Obama is the candidate who has most captured the world's imagination.
"Obama is the exciting image of what we always hoped America was," said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a British foreign
policy institute. "We have immensely enjoyed the ride and can't wait for the next phase." The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen.
John McCain, who has extensive overseas experience, is known and respected in much of the world. Interviews suggested that McCain
is more popular than Obama in countries such as Israel, where McCain is particularly admired for his hard line against Iran.
"Although no one will admit it, Israeli leaders are worried about Obama," said Eytan Gilboa, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University
in Israel. "The feeling is that this is the time to be tough in foreign policy toward the Middle East, and he's going to be soft."
In China, leaders are widely believed to be wary that a Democratic administration might put up barriers to Chinese exports to the United
States. But elsewhere, people were praising Obama, 46, whose emphasis on using the Internet helped
make him better known in more nations than perhaps any U.S. primary candidate in history.
In Kenya, Obama's victory was greeted with unvarnished glee. In Kisumu, close to the home of Obama's late father, hundreds crowded
around televisions Wednesday morning to watch Obama's victory speech, chanting "Obama tosha!" -- "Obama is enough!"
"I can't express the joy in me," declared Sarah Obama, the senator's grandmother, at her home. "I'm only praying for more success in the
coming days." Sam Onyango, a water vendor in Kisumu, said that "Obama's victory means I might one day get to America and share the
dreams I have always heard about. He will open doors for us there in the spirit of African brotherhood." Obama also has strong
support in Europe, the heartland of anti-Bush sentiment. "Germany is Obama country," said Karsten
Voight, the German government's coordinator for German-North American cooperation. "He seems to
strike a chord with average Germans," who see him as a transformational figure like John F. Kennedy
or Martin Luther King Jr.His father's journey to America as an immigrant resonates with many foreigners
who hope to make the same trip. Many people interviewed said that although the candidate's living in
Indonesia for several years as a child doesn't qualify as foreign policy credentials, it may give him a more
instinctive feel for the plight of the developing world."He's African, he's an immigrant family; he has a
different style. It's just the way he looks -- he seems kind," said Nagy Kayed, 30, a student at the American
University in Cairo. For many, Obama's skin color is deeply symbolic. As the son of an African and a
white woman from Kansas, Obama has the brownish "everyman" skin color shared by hundreds of millions
of people. "He looks like Egyptians. You can walk in the streets and find people who really look like him,"
said Manar el-Shorbagi, a specialist in U.S. political affairs at the Cairo university. In many nations,
Obama's youth and color also represent a welcome generational and stylistic change for America. "It
could help to reduce anti-U.S. sentiment and even turn it around," said Kim Sung-ho, a political science
professor at Yonsei University in Seoul. In terms of foreign policy, Obama's stated willingness to meet
and talk with the leaders of Iran, Syria and other nations largely shunned by Bush has been praised and
criticized overseas. In Israel, Gilboa said, Obama's openness to the meetings has contributed to a sense that his Middle East policies
are too soft. When a leader of Hamas, the Palestinian organization that the United States and Israel call a terrorist group, expressed a
preference for Obama earlier this year, many Israelis were turned off even more. Many people in Israel said they preferred Clinton, who
is well regarded because of her support for the Jewish state in the Senate and her husband's pro-Israel stance during his
presidency.Obama's candidacy has generated suspicion among Palestinians as well. Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at the West Bank's
Bir Zeit University, said that even if Obama appears to be evenhanded in his approach to the Middle East, he would never take on the
pro-Israel lobby in Washington. "The minute that Obama takes office, if he takes office, all his aides in the White House will start
working on his reelection," Jarbawi said. "Do you think Obama would risk his reelection because of us?" In Iraq, views on Obama's
victory were mixed. Salah al-Obaidi, chief spokesman for Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite Muslim cleric who opposes the presence of U.S.
troops in Iraq, said the Sadr movement favors having a Democrat in the White House on grounds that McCain would largely continue
Bush's policies. But in Samarra, a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad, Omar Shakir, 58, a political analyst, said he hoped McCain would
win the election and combat the influence of Shiite-dominated Iran. In Iran, government officials have taken no official
position on the race. But "the majority of Iranians feel that the Democrats support what they want: a
major and drastic change in relations with the U.S. So for them the coming of Obama would be a good
omen," said Davoud Hermidas Bavand, professor of U.S.-Iranian relations at Allameh Tabatabai
WNDI 2008 12
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – Hegemony

continued…University. In Latin America, Obama's recent declaration that he would meet with
Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Raúl Castro of Cuba has been widely welcomed as a break
from Bush policy. Obama, though, has declared that he is not a Chávez admirer. He recently voiced strong support for Colombia
in its fight against its main rebel group, which Colombian officials say receives sanctuary from Chávez. Although Colombian officials
worry that Obama will not support a free trade agreement with their country, Obama strikes a chord with ordinary
Colombians because of deep resentments toward the Bush administration's policies, including the Iraq
war. "My number one wish is that Bush be gone," said Salud Hernández, a popular radio pundit in Bogota.
An Obama presidency, she said, would be "a positive turn because of what Bush represented to the world." Not
everyone has been riveted by the U.S. election. Interviews suggested that the Chinese public, absorbed by the recent
earthquake in Sichuan province and preparations for the Beijing Olympics in August, paid little attention. And Russians
have proved supremely indifferent; one poll earlier this year found that only 5 percent said they were closely watching
the race. Of 40 people approached Wednesday on the streets of Moscow, only five had any opinion on the race or knew
who was running. Still, some Russians hope that a new American president will improve strained
relations between Washington and Moscow. "Barack Obama looks like the candidate that can be
expected to take the greatest strides towards Russia," Konstantin Kosachev, a member of parliament,
wrote in the newspaper Kommersant. "Unlike McCain he's not infected with any Cold War phobias."
WNDI 2008 13
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – Iran Diplomacy

Obama has an open negotiation policy with countries like Iran that pose a threat to the US
ROBERT, FARLEY. Staff Writer. 5/23/08. St. Petersburg Times (Florida). IRAN APEX OF WORD WAR.
Lexis.
HIGHLIGHT: John McCain characterizes Barack Obama's positions accurately - up to a point. If the flurry of
back-and-forth comments between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama is any indication, the issue of whether to meet with the
leaders of rogue governments may shape up to be one of the defining issues of the presidential campaign.
It all started with a question during a CNN/YouTube debate on July 24, 2007. "Would you be willing to meet separately,
without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else,
with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that
divides our countries?" "I would," Obama said. "And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow
not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this
administration - is ridiculous." In recent weeks, McCain has seized on that position to attack Obama as naive and reckless.
We examined McCain's characterization that "Sen. Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his
intention to meet the president of Iran without any preconditions." While Obama has repeatedly said
he would meet with enemy leaders, McCain's comments single out the Iranian president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who is well-known for his anti-America, anti-Israel rhetoric. A top Obama adviser recently
told CNN that Obama only promised he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leadership, not necessarily the
politically toxic Ahmadinejad. We found that in the context of several interviews, Obama clearly did count
Ahmadinejad among those with whom he would meet. We rule McCain's statement to be True. We also
checked a statement in which McCain chastised Obama for minimizing Iran's threat."Sen. Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to
our security is 'tiny' compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union," McCain said before the National Restaurant
Association in Chicago on Monday. "Obviously, Iran isn't a superpower and doesn't possess the military power the Soviet Union had."
He went on to say that Iran "might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything but 'tiny.'" Here's
what Obama did say: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union.
They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were
willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the
planet." While McCain starts off accurately quoting Obama, he takes liberties when he drops the comparison to the Soviet Union and
claims Obama simply characterized Iran as a "tiny" or "insignificant" threat. Obama has consistently called Iran a "grave" threat, as he
did again after McCain made his comments. We rule this McCain statement to be False.In a speech in Billings, Mont., on Monday,
Obama wondered what McCain was afraid of."Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you
meet with them, that's not a strategy; it's just naive, wishful thinking. I'm not afraid that we'll lose
some propaganda fight with a dictator."
WNDI 2008 14
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama Good – Iran-Israel Conflict

Good diplomacy with countries like Iran will ultimately benefit the US and Iran and stop
Iranian threats to Israel, the nuclear issue, and their human rights violations
Trudy, Rubin. Columnist. 3/2/08. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Worldview: Balancing diplomacy and force;
Obama's approach to dictators is off, but his idea is on point. Lexis.
At some point in this presidential campaign we may have a real debate on foreign policy differences between the parties.
That hasn't yet happened. The candidates have sparred about experience. They have clashed on Iraq. But
they're still dancing around the most central question: How do you balance force and diplomacy when trying
to keep America safe? Nothing illustrates the need for clarity more than the jousting over whether
America should talk directly to the likes of Raúl Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a July debate
sponsored by CNN and YouTube, Sen. Barack Obama was asked if he would talk without preconditions
to leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. He famously responded, "I would."
President Bush and Sen. John McCain have taken Obama to task on this one, as has Hilary Rodham Clinton.
I, too, have questioned the smarts of such a gesture. But the real issue isn't whether the next president should
sup with unpleasant leaders. It's whether the United States should talk without preconditions to countries
with which we're at odds. Communing with Castro or Ahmadinejad makes sense only after addressing
grievances at lower levels. Holding summit meetings prematurely can hinder progress by raising false
expectations. "Having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raúl Castro lends . . . the status of our country
to him," President Bush said Thursday. It could also "discourage reformers inside their own country," the
president added. That said, the Bush policy of avoiding diplomacy in favor of military solutions has been a
failure. Late in the day, the president seems to have been convinced that diplomacy is central to dealing with
Iran and North Korea. But in the Iranian case, the diplomacy has been so hedged and halfhearted that it has
gone nowhere. So, while Obama's readiness to meet dictators betrays inexperience, the essence of his
(and Clinton's) position is the right one. America's security, and the U.S. military's new
counterinsurgency theory, will rely heavily on diplomacy and political maneuvers in the future, backed
up by force only if unavoidable. On this most central of issues, Clinton has it right, and Obama grasps the
essence. Bush and McCain have it dead wrong. Take Cuba. The point isn't, or shouldn't be, whether to hold a
meeting with Raúl Castro. It's whether it still makes sense to isolate and sanction Cuba. This policy, long
after the Cold War's end, is dumb, a product of pandering to a segment of Florida voters. If Bush would junk
U.S. sanctions, Americans would flood into Cuba and its people would be exposed to new ideas and
prospects. Bush and McCain support a policy that kept Fidel Castro in power for decades and will keep his
brother in power, too. Or take Iran. Here, too, proposing direct talks with Ahmadinejad is a mistake. The
Iranian president heads the hardest-line faction in Tehran, and shows little interest in better U.S.-Iranian
relations. Iranians would regard such a summit as vindication for his anti-American and anti-Israel policies.
Such a summit would undercut the more pragmatic factions in Iran. The parallel here is not Nixon's going to
China. When Richard Nixon met Chinese leaders, both sides were already committed to renewing relations
as a hedge against Soviet power. In Tehran, there is still an internal power struggle over whether to engage
fully with the Great Satan. So any U.S. diplomacy must be smart. However, Obama was right when he said:
"The notion that not talking to countries is punishment for them, which has been the guiding
diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous." America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have immeasurably strengthened Iran by eliminating its two key enemies, the Afghan Taliban and
Saddam Hussein, and by putting a friendly Shiite government in power in Baghdad. To exit Iraq, the
United States must involve Iran in serious regional negotiations with all of Iraq's neighbors. This won't
happen so long as Iran's top leaders still suspect America wants to topple their regime. The next U.S.
president needs to propose that America and Iran compile an agenda of their key concerns and discuss
them without preconditions. Iran's threats to Israel, the nuclear issue, and Iranian human rights
violations would all be on that agenda. The aim would be to develop a new relationship that met the
interests of both sides. Such a proposal would galvanize the pragmatists in the Iranian government.
"We have key leverage with Iran," says Iran expert Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret
Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, "because Iran recognizes they can't get their legitimate
role in the Middle East without U.S. buy-in." Obama's tactics may betray inexperience, but he - and
Clinton - grasp the need to revamp U.S. policy toward Iran and Cuba. For all their "experience," Bush and
McCain are glued to policies that have failed.
WNDI 2008 15
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama Good – Iran-Israel Conflict

Israeli-Iranian Conflict Would Go Nuclear and Collapse the World Economy
Theo, Caldwell. 7/23/08. National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada). A war no one wants. Lexis.
"Right now I'm fighting two wars. I don't need a third one."- Admiral Michael Mullen, U. S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, July 20,
2008.
This was Admiral Mullen's response to the question of whether Israel or the United States will launch
tactical strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. As the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns continue, it is wise
to demur at the notion of a third conflict, especially when its implications could eclipse those of the other two
combined. With the global economy already showing weakness, and oil at record-high prices, war with
Iran would make these difficult days look like high times. Indeed, the fallout from an Israeli or U. S.
attack would constitute the second-worst-case scenario imaginable. The worst, of course, would be a
nuclear-armed Iran.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often speaks of his intention to wipe
Israel off the map. Now, when a regime or a person spends decades promising to kill you, the prudent
thing is to believe them. Consequently, one of the few conclusions on which Western politicians of all parties agree is that Iran
cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.The question becomes, then, how to prevent this?The world owes Israel a debt for its 1981
strike against Iraq's Osirak reactor, which forever ended Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. As ever, condemnation of Israel's
unilateral and bellicose act poured in from elites and diplomats around the world. But when one considers how differently Saddam's
1990 invasion of Kuwait might have developed if he had nuclear weapons, there can be no doubt the 1981 strike was justified.
Today, if the only fallout from a similar strike on Iran were United Nations gadflies spinning their bow
ties with rage, Israel or the United States could put an end to this right now. Sadly, it is not so simple.
A plausible scenario for such a strike goes something like this: Israel hits Iran's known nuclear weapons
facilities. The Iranians respond by closing the Straits of Hormuz, through which roughly 25% of the
world's daily oil production travels. American military leaders in the region have stated that closing the
Straits would constitute an act of war, and so they would overrun Iranian forces. Assuming a complete,
swift military victory, and that the Israeli strikes took out every single Iranian weapons plant, the world
will still wake up to oil at $250 a barrel and global markets in collapse. And these are fat assumptions we are
making on the plus side. The early years of the Iraq war showed that even conflict with an overmatched enemy can be costly if the right
strategy is not in place. As to taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, they are more numerous, less conspicuous
and better protected than Osirak was. American and Israeli intelligence may have a good handle on where
the sites are located but, as the Iraq war once again instructs, even that sort of information can be tragically
flawed.
WNDI 2008 16
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – US-Latin America relations

Obama key to good US-Latin America relations because of his immigration reform –
comparative evidence
Sara Miller Llana and Sibylla Brodzinsky. Staff Writers. 7/3/08. Christian Science Monitor. McCain
visits a skeptical Latin America. Lexis.
On a three-day visit to Colombia and Mexico, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is seeking to
show that he cares about the same issues as Latin Americans: security, immigration, and trade.
But the tour will likely do little to woo people in the region, analysts say. Even though Mr. McCain enjoys
a better image than President Bush in Latin America, Democratic contestant Barack Obama has an edge
simply because he is the fresher figure, says Michael Shifter, the vice president for policy at the Inter-
American Dialogue in Washington. "[Senator] Obama is seen as someone who could understand a
changing Latin America... one that rejects the 'you are on one side or the other' politics," says Mr.
Shifter. Also, the fact that McCain has chosen to visit the region's most conservative leaders -
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Mexican President Felipe Calderon - could underscore a more
traditional mind set. "It reinforces the sense that he will stand with his friends," says Shifter. "But even
the people in those countries say [US politicians] can't afford to look at the region that way."
McCain's visit to Colombia, where he met with Mr. Uribe on Tuesday, is an attempt to mark a difference with Obama on both trade
issues and counterterrorism, says political commentator Andres Penate. A Colombian free trade deal negotiated between the Bush and
Uribe governments is bogged down in the US Congress amid concerns from many Democrats about human rights, including a long
history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia. McCain praised Colombia in its fight against drug production and leftist rebels.
In doing so, Mr. Penate says McCain seeks to showcase Colombia as a "success story" of Republican foreign policy. The United States
supplies Colombia with about $600 million a year in mostly military aid. Trade and security are expected to dominate meetings in
Mexico, too. Both nominees support the Merida Initiative, a new package passed by Congress to help stem drug violence in Mexico and
Central America. McCain's visit also allows him to emphasize support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Obama has
said should be renegotiated to better address labor and environmental terms. Still, no matter what McCain says, many
Mexicans say the visit does not instill faith that he will have any greater commitment to Latin America than
Bush. Juan Pablo Hurle, a consultant in Mexico City, says that McCain is better than Bush, but he sides
with Obama. "If Obama wins, things will change," he says. "McCain is not interested in Latinos in
Latin America, only those Latinos in the US whose vote matters to him." Some Mexicans say they favor
McCain, but a zeal for Obama, as a minority, is an undertone across Latin America. "Obama will
change everything if he is elected... there will be true immigration reform and not a band-aid because
he has African heritage and understands the plight of immigrants," says Marco Polo Herrera, a student in
Mexico City. "McCain will be more of the same."
WNDI 2008 17
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama good – US-French Relations

Obama is key to increase French Relations; Sarkozy Agrees
Bruce Crumley. Editor of Times Paris. 7-25-2008. Time. “ Obama gets love from Sarkozy”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826759,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
"I wish Barack Obama luck — if it's him, France will be very happy," Sarkozy responded to a
question asking whether his ebullient praise of Obama was an endorsement. Referring to his initial 2006
meeting with Obama in Washington while Sarkozy was preparing his run for the French presidency, the Frenchman recalled,
"There were just the two of us in the room, and one became President. Now it's up to the other to do
likewise.Sure, Sarkozy hedged his bet a bit, qualifying his comments as not "meddling" in the decision of U.S. voters (some of whom
have very little love of the French). He noted that if the White House were won by "another, France will be a friend to the United States"
— a conciliatory move to McCain, his best friend from March. Yet Sarkozy's praise of Obama throughout the press
conference made his admiration of the probable Democratic candidate more than obvious — including
an apparent allusion to the older McCain. "We have the right to be interested in a candidate who is looking to the future,
not backwards at the past," Sarkozy said of Obama's campaign.The gathered international press corps should not have been too surprised
by the virtual endorsement. On Friday morning, the conservative daily Le Figaro printed quotes from Sarkozy in
which he boasts of having been the first European politician to meet and befriend Obama — and to predict
the Illinois Senator's promising future. "Obama, he's my buddy," Le Figaro quoted Sarkozy as he referred to their 2006 meeting.
"Contrary to my diplomatic advisers, I never thought Hillary Clinton had much of a chance. I always knew Obama would win
the candidacy."That enthusiasm for Obama resounded beyond the Elyse, where the Senator's car was briefly blocked by a
multinational crowd of supporters who spilled into the street, chanting his name. The French press and public were infected with the
same Obama-mania that rocked Germany the day before — and that indeed has followed the Democratic candidate throughout his tour
overseas. Sarkozy's evident support of Obama, meanwhile, mirrored the demonstratively warm
reception the American has enjoyed from leaders and publics during his trip — which may help
combat accusations from McCain that he's a virtual stranger to the world of international diplomacy.
That kind of criticism may further be undermined by the manner in which Sarkozy described the converging
views he and Obama exchanged during their t�te-�-t�te before meeting the press. The discussion ranged,
they said, from Iraq to Iran, Afghanistan to Darfur, and issues like global warning to what Sarkozy called the
"moralization of capitalism's financial markets." The men said they also agreed on the need to continue
strengthening transatlantic relations and searching for multilateral solutions to global problems.Meanwhile,
both men urged their respective nations to move beyond the labels and stereotypes that often
complicate relations. "One of the wonderful things about President Sarkozy's presidency has been that
he's broken, he shattered, many of those stereotypes," Obama said of U.S. perceptions of Europeans
who "don't want to get their hands dirty." Conversely, Obama noted, Europeans often defer to America in
dire situations only to criticize their powerful ally once it has taken action. "I think for too long ... Europeans,
I think, have seen Americans just as unilateral and militaristic and have tended to forget the extraordinary
sacrifices that U.S. military but also U.S. taxpayers have made in helping to rebuild Europe."
WNDI 2008 18
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama Good – Nuclear Power

Obama negotiates to increase nuclear power
AFP, 7/7/08 “Nuclear Iran is the world’s biggest thread: Obama advisor”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUfqJRbUw0QnjShus_uoN1O4nbvQ
Democratic White House contender Barack Obama thinks a nuclear-armed Iran is the world's biggest
threat and that Europe should adopt tougher sanctions against Tehran, a top aide of his told the
Financial Times of London. "The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to
10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon," Obama's senior foreign policy
adviser Anthony Lake said in an interview published Monday. "If I were the Europeans I would much rather
put on the table more sanctions, together with bigger carrots, and have that negotiation than I would face that
crisis down the road," he added, suggesting Obama's tack should he be elected in November. European
Union nations last week agreed new sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program, notably banning the
country's largest bank, Bank Melli, from operating in Europe. Existing UN sanctions against Tehran aim
to force it to halt uranium enrichment over fears the process could be used to make a nuclear weapon.
Obama has come under fire during his campaign for saying that if elected president he is willing to
hold unconditional talks with Iran, which is on a US list of state sponsors of terrorism. His Republican
rival John McCain says Obama's proposal is a sign of his inexperience. "Unless you assume that (Iranian
negotiators) have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions for the
privilege of speaking with us. So the question is: what is your strategy for the talks?" Lake told the Financial
Times. "Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do
you believe that you need to have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?" he added. Iran
and the United States have not had diplomatic relations since 1980 after Islamist students stormed the US
mission in Tehran holding diplomats hostage for more than a year. Washington accuses Iran of seeking
nuclear weapon, a charge vehemently denied by Tehran which says its atomic program is solely
intended for generating electricity for its fast-growing population. In early June Obama told a
powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington that he was willing to hold talks with Tehran, though only
after careful preparation. "As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and
principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing," Obama said.
But he also said he would never foreswear the military option to defend the United States or Israel from
Iranian aggression. "Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger
from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."
WNDI 2008 19
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama bad – Hegemony

Obama’s foreign policy will kill US heg
Stuart, Gottlieb. Director the policy studies program at the MacMillan Center for International and Area
Studies at Yale. 7/7/08. Christian Science Monitor. The Democrats' foreign-policy game. Lexis.
The Democratic Party and its presumed presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, have made "restoring
America's image" and "renewing American leadership" cornerstones of their foreign-policy promises
for 2008.Nearly every Democratic foreign-policy speech, press release, or Web link says as much.
This is a powerful message that certainly resonates with American voters and our friends around the world. However,
if we look
just below the surface of the rhetoric and analyze specific policies proposed by Democrats in Congress
and on the campaign trail, we find plans that would only further damage America's international
standing.On two critical issues in particular - trade and the war in Iraq - Democrats have been trying to have
their cake and eat it too: They claim they will restore America's image and leadership and
simultaneously promise unilateralist and irresponsible policies certain to have the opposite effect.
This foreign-policy "house of mirrors" (where what you're told is not necessarily what you get) may have been useful to get through the
primaries. But it risks tying the Democrats up in a Gordian knot in the general election, and, if they win the White House, well beyond.
Regarding trade, Democrats have become unabashedly protectionist to the point where they are willing
to thumb their noses at American friends and allies like South Korea, Colombia, Canada, and Mexico.
In May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shelved a painstakingly negotiated trade pact with Colombia that
would have primarily benefited American exports. If the US is wary of trading with tiny Colombia - a
democratizing neighbor confronting terrorism and drug trafficking - what does that say about
America's capacity for global economic leadership? Ms. Pelosi also recently killed "fast-track" procedures
intended to ease congressional votes on trade agreements, meaning new pacts with South Korea and Panama
are also likely to remain in limbo. And just last month, Democrats in the House and Senate proposed a bill
(containing many of Senator Obama's campaign promises) that would require the president to submit
plans to renegotiate all current trade agreements - including the North American Free Trade Agreement
with Canada and Mexico - before Congress would consider any new agreements. The message Democrats
are sending to the world is clear: You cannot trust America to honor its trade agreements, even with
developing nations struggling to enter the global middle class. This is a far cry from Obama's Lincolnesque
promise in his Democratic nomination victory speech June 3rd to restore "our image as the last, best hope on earth."
On Iraq, Democrats have put themselves in an equally tenuous position. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama and
congressional Democrats remain committed to calling the "surge" a failure. And they are wedded to
promises for immediate troop withdrawals. Every reputable analysis of Iraq - including from the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group - warns that a rapid reduction of US troops would reignite sectarian
violence and threaten the government in Baghdad. Nonetheless, more than 40 Democratic congressional
candidates recently pledged that, if elected, they would legislate an immediate withdrawal of all troops
except those guarding the US Embassy. And Obama maintains his vow to immediately begin removing
"one to two combat brigades each month" - a pace that would represent the most frantic retreat since
Vietnam. To ignore recent hard-won stability in Iraq and withdraw in the face of a certain humanitarian
catastrophe would be viewed across the world as the height of irresponsibility; and it would make a
mockery of Obama's hopes that America will "once again have the courage and conviction to lead the
free world." Perhaps we should not take the Democrats too literally - perhaps this is simply a crafty election year strategy aimed at
placating an antiwar and increasingly protectionist electorate. After all, two of Obama's senior advisers - in unguarded moments -
described his campaign promises on trade and Iraq as mere necessities to win the election; afterward prudence would prevail.
But Democrats may be playing it a bit too clever, possibly hindering their chances in November. Despite
lofty promises, the policies they are most aligning themselves with leave them vulnerable to Republican
charges of "defeatism" - that America cannot compete in a world of open markets and cannot
successfully finish the job in Iraq. Unless Democrats begin matching their policies with their
inspirational rhetoric, they risk losing more than just the election. They risk losing their chance to help
America truly reclaim its mantle of global leadership.
WNDI 2008 20
Elections DA 3 Week

Obama bad – Alternative energy

Obama’s aim to change from oil to alternative energies angers Canada
Morris, Beschloss. Staff Writer. 6/27/08. The Desert Sun. Energy policy hinges on election. Lexis.
With energy development rapidly becoming the presidential campaign's critical issue, there are several happenings bringing the collision
between the environmentalist partisans and the "Energy Now" protagonists to a rapid showdown.
Thursday morning, the OPEC chief minister predicted crude oil per barrel to rise to $170 later this summer. He also added that U.S.
gasoline could rise to $6 per gallon. The crude oil target is $20 more than what I had predicted at the first of the year, along with $125
per barrel by Memorial Day.The Obama campaign's position to forego drilling, in alignment with the "greens"
is sending tremors throughout Canada. Our neighbors to the north are worried the "climactic change
prevention" lobby will convince the Democratic president, if elected, to issue an executive order to
prevent oil derived from tar sands to be cut off from further U.S.-bound delivery.This is due to the high level
of CO2 and greenhouse gases released by this all important energy component, making up an increasingly significant part of shipments
from Canada, our No. 1 energy supplier. I had predicted this a month ago, when Canada demanded a release from
the U.S. Defense Department, which had earmarked a substantial segment of the tar sand-derived oil,
before shipment over the border. With Canada providing the single-most source of supply to alleviate the
U.S. energy shortage, a halt to such deliveries would prove catastrophic. We are told that the
Canadians are already contemplating alternative delivery targets in case Barack Obama is elected.
It's becoming increasingly clearer that the winner of the Nov. 4 presidential election will also determine the nature of America's approach
to energy survival for years to come.
WNDI 2008 21
Elections DA 3 Week

McCain good – Global Warming

McCain takes a stance on Global Warming, Kyoto fails
Joseph Curl, the Washington Times 5/13/08 “McCain takes aim at climate change; parts company with
president on challenges”
Sen. John McCain News, Most Recent 60 Days yesterday split sharply with President Bush News, Most
Recent 60 Days over climate change, saying that as president he would not permit "eight long years" to
pass without taking action.' Targeting an array of Democrats, independents, evangelicals and Christian
conservatives - all of whom place climate change near the top of their priority lists - Mr. McCain, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee, lashed Mr. Bush for his failure to offer an alternative to the
Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases that the Senate rebuffed in July 1997 on a
vote of 95-0. "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight
long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of
failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto," he said in a speech at a wind-power plant in Oregon. "The United
States will lead and will lead with a different approach - an approach that speaks to the interests and
obligations of every nation," he said. Democrats derided Mr. McCain's record, charging that he takes political
contributions from energy lobbyists and has occasionally voted against alternate-energy sources. "Senator
McCain’s campaign rhetoric on the environment means nothing when he's willing to give his donors
sweetheart deals and appoint right-wing judges bent on gutting environmental regulations, which is one more
reason he is the wrong choice for America's future," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean said. Sen. Barack Obamathe leading Democratic presidential candidate, accused the Republican of
double-speak on the issue. "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change
while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy," he said. "In stark
contrast, I've called for a national standard to ensure that we're using more renewable energy, an
expansion of our green energy sector that would create millions of green jobs, and a bipartisan plan to
double our fuel-efficiency standards," Mr. Obama said.

McCain calls for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Maeve Reston, times staff writer 5/13/08 “The Nation; McCain details his plan to attack global warming”
LexisNexis
At a wind turbine manufacturer here, McCain called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by
mid-century and pledged to take the lead in pressing rising economic powers India and China to cut
emissions. "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears," McCain said, alluding to
Bush, who withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to curtail emissions. "I will not
permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges." Referring to melting glaciers
in the Arctic Ocean and the vanishing habitats of polar bears and walruses, the Arizona senator and
presumptive Republican nominee for president said it was time to stop quibbling over the causes of
global warming. He pledged to "deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the
endless troubles that global warming will bring." McCain is emphasizing the environment while he tours
the Pacific Northwest this week, seeking the support of independent voters. Although environmental
groups regard McCain more favorably than most Republicans, some view his record as disappointing. The
League of Conservation Voters has given McCain a lifetime grade of 24% on what it considers crucial
environmental votes, while his Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham
Clinton of New York, scored 86% and 87%, respectively.
WNDI 2008 22
Elections DA 3 Week

McCain Good – Healthcare

McCain solves health care best
Michael D. Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute 3/12/08 “The Costs the
thing” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9266
For some time now, the debate over how best to reform the American health-care system has been
dominated by the question of "universal coverage," how to provide health insurance to those without
it. That remains the battle cry of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who promises to provide "health insurance for every
single American." However, if John McCain and Barack Obama become the candidates for president this fall,
we may see a subtle but useful shift that could actually lead to improving how health care is provided in this
country. Both McCain and Obama recognize that the key question in health-care reform is not coverage, but
cost. Clinton and Obama have clashed over the question of an individual mandate (requiring every American
to purchase insurance). Hillary supports such a mandate, claiming that it's the only way to ensure universal
coverage. Obama opposes one, arguing that "the reason people don't have health insurance is not because
they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." Instead of a mandate, therefore, Obama would focus on a
combination of cost cutting and subsidies to reduce the price of insurance. While he believes that his proposal
would greatly increase the number of Americans with insurance, he admits it will fall short of 100-percent
coverage. John McCain also steers clear of attempts at universal coverage. "Bringing costs under
control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance," McCain says on his website.
A McCain spokesman adds, "You worry about the uninsured, but they are a symptom of a larger
problem. Unless you do something about cost, you are chasing your proverbial tail." Obama and
McCain are reflecting a growing consensus among health-care experts that the continued growth of health-
care spending is unsustainable and that something must be done to bring costs under control. The United
States spends roughly 17 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on health care, far more than any other
country, and that is projected to rise to 20 percent of GDP by 2015. While that spending has undoubtedly
helped buy the highest quality health care in the world, the distribution of costs has clearly made care
unaffordable for many businesses and individuals. Nor should we forget that the skyrocketing cost of
government health-care programs like Medicare and Medicaid is threatening to bury our children under a
mountain of debt and taxes. That is not to say that Obama and McCain agree on how to reduce health-
care costs. Obama would rely much more on the heavy hand of government. Among other things, he
would impose caps on insurance premiums and price controls on drug companies. He would have the
government establish national practice standards for doctors. And, he would create a National Health
Insurance Exchange as a sort of clearinghouse to make it easier for businesses and individuals to shop for the
best insurance. McCain, in contrast, would attempt to promote greater competition among private
health insurers. He would allow people to buy insurance plans across state lines, which will help drive
down rates. And he would try to shift away from our current employment-based insurance system
toward a system where individuals purchase and own their own insurance plans. He would do this by
replacing the current tax break for employer-provided insurance with a refundable $2,500 tax credit for
individuals, and $5,000 for families. The idea is that once people start to buy their own insurance, they'll be
in a position to insist on lower prices and higher quality — just as they do with every other product they buy.
Both Obama and McCain would take other steps as well, including encouraging greater use of generic
drugs, promoting the use of electronic medical records, emphasizing prevention, and providing
incentives for more integrated medicine — treating illnesses rather than symptoms. Studies suggest,
however, that savings from these proposals may be less than either candidate has hoped. Overall, McCain has
the better proposal. Obama's plan, with its heavy reliance on government, leads to the same problems that
bedevil universal healthcare systems all over the world: limited patient choices and rationed care. McCain's
proposal is much more consumer centered and taps into the best aspects of the free market. But regardless of
who becomes president, we can expect major changes for the American health-care system. And it's a good
sign that we're beginning to debate the right things
WNDI 2008 23
Elections DA 3 Week

McCain Good – Economy

McCain solves for the economy best
Adam Nagourney, new York times media group 7/8/08 “U.S. economy demands candidates’ attention”
LexisNexis
Not since at least 1980, when the United States was reeling from the oil shocks, inflation and slow
growth of the previous decade, has the economy been in worse shape heading into the heart of a
presidential campaign. The crush of bad economic news - six consecutive months of job losses, rising
rates of home foreclosure, gasoline prices seemingly headed toward $5 a gallon, or $1.30 a liter - is
increasingly setting the contours of the race between Senators Barack Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking
Barack Obama -Search using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days and John McCain. Enhanced
Coverage Linking John McCain. -Search using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days Both
candidates plan to spend this week focusing almost entirely on the economy. But both face political problems
with the issue. McCain, the Arizona Republican, has been shadowed by his statements earlier in the
campaign that he is not an expert on the economy and by the likelihood that voters will associate him
with the economic policies of the administration of President George W. Bush. Enhanced Coverage
Linking George W. Bush. -Search using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days He has embraced
Bush's stands on central issues like tax cuts and trade policy. Obama, Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama,
-Search using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days Democrat of Illinois, has had difficulty
connecting with working-class voters, and his more ambitious responses to economic problems like
expanding access to health insurance would be paid for in part with tax increases, always a risky proposition
politically. McCain was preparing Monday to pledge once again to balance the budget by the end of his first
term in 2013, his advisers said, reverting to an earlier pledge he had abandoned in April when he proposed a
series of costly tax cuts for corporations and high earners and said it might take two terms to balance the
budget. It is unclear how McCain plans to balance the budget, given that fiscal analysts who have
examined his economic plans say that his calls to extend the Bush tax cuts while cutting corporate and
other taxes would probably increase the deficit. Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama -Search
using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days blamed Washington on Monday for the country's
economic troubles and sought again to link McCain to Bush's policies. ''It hasn't worked, it won't work, and
it's time to try something new,'' Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama -Search using: Biographies Plus
News, Most Recent 60 Days said of the country's current economic policies under a Republican president, in
remarks prepared for delivery later in the day. The two campaigns are retooling strategies and preparing for
what aides said would be months of economic speeches, town-hall-style meetings on the economy and
economic proposals, both new and repackaged - testimony to how the campaigns view the electoral
environment. ''We are going to spend the rest of the summer talking about jobs, energy and health care,'' said
Charlie Black, a senior adviser to McCain. He said McCain would prefer that the campaign focus on national
security, given his credentials in that area, ''but that's just not the way the world works.'' It appears likely that
activity on both sides will involve appearances notable more for their political symbolism - and for attacks
against the other side - than for ideas for dealing with the problems. McCain was set to announce Monday
that 300 economists were endorsing his economic proposals, which include tax cuts, a balanced budget,
expanded trade and a pledge to veto bills with earmarks, or spending inserted by lawmakers to benefit
specific projects. His aides said the endorsements, mostly by conservative economists, would help him
establish his credentials in this area. McCain will spend the week talking about job creation in hard-
pressed battleground states, a contrast with his decision to spend last week in Latin America, which
even some of his allies said risked having him seem unconcerned about problems at home. McCain's
aides said he would talk this week with voters, often in intimate settings, about their economic
problems, hoping to appear more empathetic than Obama. Enhanced Coverage Linking Obama. -Search
using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days He will attack Obama Enhanced Coverage Linking
Obama -Search using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days over the Democrat's support for
increased taxes and opposition to lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling and suspending the gasoline tax for
the summer, positions also highlighted in an advertisement by the Republican National Committee that
started running Sunday in closely contested states.
WNDI 2008 24
Elections DA 3 Week

McCain Bad – US-NK Relations

McCain will create bad US-North Korean relations
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute, July 2008, “Chronicles”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9548
Since the dawn of the 21st century, Senator McCain has been among the most hawkish Republican
political figures. That became evident in 2002 when McCain proposed that the United States openly
threaten to use military force unless Pyongyang capitulates on the nuclear issue. "After first responding
appropriately to North Korean violations of the [1994] agreement and refusing even to discuss with North
Korea its extortion demands," wrote McCain in the January 20, 2003, issue of the Weekly Standard, "the
administration now appears to have embraced, and in some respects exceeded, the style and substance of the
Clinton administration's diplomacy." He was especially perturbed that President Bush and Secretary of
State Colin Powell "publicly ruled out the use of force, although force could eventually prove to be the
only means to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear arsenal."It was also clear that he did not
care much about the views of other countries in East Asia, sneering that they should "spare us the usual
lectures about American unilateralism." Noting that we would "prefer the company of North Korea's
neighbors" in a military campaign, he emphasized that "we will make do without it if we must." The
"neighbors" to which the senator referred include Japan and South Korea — Washington's most prominent
allies in East Asia for more than half a century.Given the possibility of a McCain administration
confronting the still-unresolved North Korean nuclear issue, these allies have ample reason to be
apprehensive, for McCain's views regarding North Korea have not become noticeably less belligerent
since early 2003. He has remained a staunch critic of the six-party talks — the diplomatic process involving
North Korea, the United States, Japan, China, Russia, and South Korea that is attempting to resolve the
nuclear problem through negotiations. Policy toward North Korea is one area in which a McCain
administration would almost certainly be more confrontational than what we have witnessed during
the Bush years.
WNDI 2008 25
Elections DA 3 Week

McCain Bad – Iran Attack

McCain risks Iran attack at expense of neocons
the Sydney morning herald 7/2/08 “Never say die: return of the warriors”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/01/1214678038502.html
At a dinner in London this year, a leading US commentator on foreign policy decided to have some fun at
the expense of America's neoconservatives. The neocons, as they have come to be known, are the
ideologues who successfully advocated the invasion of Iraq. They may have been thoroughly discredited
by that blighted war, but they are now regrouping. At the dinner, Kurt Campbell told his companions that
some people compared the neocons to vampires and werewolves, creatures able to stay alive long after they
should have been dead. But Campbell, a Pentagon official in the Clinton administration and now head
of the Centre for a New American Security, a Washington think tank, wanted to explain that these
metaphors did not quite capture the true nature of the neocon. A silver bullet in the heart could kill a
vampire, but not a neocon; and werewolves went crazy at night, but a neocon did crazy things at any time,
Campbell joked to much laughter, reported Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation in his blog, The
Washington Note.