Joe Biden the other day made very candid, but highly troubling comments about Obama at a fundraiser in Seattle. Here's part of the speech he made there:

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.

The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," (he mentioned the Middle East and Russia as possibilities.) "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, but also with the current economic crisis.

"Gird your loins, we're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than think about it, literally, think about it this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

Biden's comments were frankly frightening. The first part of his comments made sense. Yes, Obama will likely face an international crisis early on, it might be economic in nature. And he might be tested by certain nations, just like the Soviets tested JFK to see how he would react early in his administration.

However, the question that I have is about the part where Biden says that "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right"; this is really the troubling part of his speech. What does he mean by that? Does this mean that Obama is planning to start a new war in some hot spot, perhaps in Pakistan or maybe in the Caucasus? Certainly Obama has never shied away from confrontation, contrary to his public persona which has been defined by his opposition to the Iraq War. Perhaps Obama and Biden are hoping that "the community" will "stand with them" even though their response to this crisis might not be perceived as the right one.

This could mean anything. It could mean that the US won't respond aggressively to another terrorist attack on our soil, it could be that they foresee a war between Israel and Iran and they plan on pursuing a policy of neutrality. It could be something that goes completely against present US policy.

The point is, why is Biden calling on us, during this crisis which he says will show itself during an Obama administration to stand fast with them "despite appearances"? I tend to think that there are going to be plenty of surprises in store for us under Obama, many of them unpleasant ones.

Their response to the economic crisis, if it continues to deepen, might include austerity measures that at least temporarily severely curtail the living standards of most Americans. We know that much because Obama has constantly said that we will need to make sacrifices in the near future. With the US debt spiraling out of control, it is certainly not unforeseeable that we could very well literally default on our debt. Biden is correct--this isn't just a credit crisis, this problem is structural in nature. We will likely be experiencing a debt crisis here in the next few months; being that the US dollar is a world's reserve currency, a worldwide recession might be the likely outcome here. How will Obama handle such a crisis of immense proportions. No President has ever been tested that way before.

Biden's comments definitely aren't reassuring. It really casts a lot of light into what the Obama camp is really thinking about in regards to our international and domestic problems, beyond the usual hyperbole common this late in the campaign season.

He surely didn't want to "negociate" with lil' Bush and his war monging nutcases!

"Negotiate"? Here is a quote from Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction".

Hmmm....

The single stupidest comment by any candidate in 2008, and there have been many. Once you say it, and it's on youtube for anyone to review, it's hard to say, "I didn't say that, I said THIS." Even Biden, among many gaffes in his single "debate" tried to re-state what Obama had clearly said. Obama is an empty suit, with no experience, running away from his clear and undeniable voting record AND speaking record, clearly has no clue how to remedy the American economy and shows no willingness to defend the security of the homeland, his track record is very clear there. Little Barry should never be allowed to visit the Oval Office, let alone preside over it. Jimmy Carter is watching, saying, "Come ON! "

Actually it's "Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far", but maybe that's splitting hairs.

You can't negotiate with terrorists, there is no room for it. Nazi Germany is arguably the closest thing history has to offer to today's terrorist regimes, and we know how well England's negotiations went with them. FDR's idea of negotiating was letting them know he would accept nothing short of total victory.

Bush's policy of not talking to enemy regimes hasn't worked. Five former secretaries of state advise that the next administration should talk to enemy regimes. Teddy Roosevelt said we should talk softly but carry a big stick. I'm in favor of talking softly to enemy regimes while reminding them they should take us seriously because we and our allies are otherwise going to choke them into submission with sanctions, and we just might take our big stick to them. It's wise to let belligerent rulers save face with their populations, even as they're making concessions to us, and that can be done only if we're in negotiations with them.

Terrorists respect strength, not negotiations!

Its HOW Obama would negotiate with terrorist regimes. Jon Jon says all we have to do is "conduct foreign policy in a way that encourages tyrannical regimes to adopt liberal, secular and democratic reforms" (Liberal code for appeasement). The Islamic republic of Iran becoming secular and liberal? Priceless!

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Cold War period will know that America has dealt with a veritable who's who of terrorists and tyrants. Some of whom (such as Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein) have come back to bite them in the arse. Even today America deals cordially with such great bastions of human rights as China and Saudi Arabia because they can provide them with oil and cheap labour. Whether or not Obama negotiates with the nations arbitrarily placed on the "axis of evil" makes no difference. What is important is that he conducts foreign policy in a way that encourages tyrannical regimes to adopt liberal, secular and democratic reforms and fights terrorism (whether from groups or nation states) in an intelligent, pragmatic and effective way. Considering the other two candidates supported the bone-headed misadventure into Iraq that alienated America from the international community and proved an excellent recruiting tool for international terrorism, Obama is certainly no more ill-equipped foreign policy wise than the alternatives.

Is Cuba a terrorists state?...Is any country that has a problem with America a terrorists state?. In my normal opinion, just simply in it's original meaning, the term terrorist is an outlawed renegade within a certain state with unlawful approach to pursue rightful means of solving the problems, and take an option of murdering innocent lives, selling drugs, become highway men, and blow up the buildings, while escaping or still hiding using a fearful way of fighting the enemy. Like my crazy friend Canadasuck misplaced it, third world nation in this political rea aren't the only states that have dictators alone. Simply a dictator could be also in your country, and everywhere, or simply anybody can be a terrorist. I think Obama is trying to relate America with the world again, because he felt that his country is being hated, and his people are being stereotypically, and mistakenly, being lumped into one pail. Russia had a cold war with America, do you called it a terrorists state, or do it's presidents resemble terrorists?. Obama is also trying very hard to make a good peaceful cohesion with Russia, and the EU, and South America; leave Africa as this is the newly mistaken enemy to America these days, though many African states do not look like what is being perceived by few individuals in the west, particularly in the USA today. The term terrorists would fit someone like Bin Laden who is still either at large even in this present moment. Obama is an African blood and could fix a good relationship with many African leaders, and create a good peaceful atmosphere, just like what our good friend Clinton was doing during his administration. Clinton did a good job, and must be a pure neutral US president ever known, and still being respected by the world till now, though unfortunately his wife is less likely to be a president, still some years to come, she may get a good golden chance to acheive her dreams, and connect, reconcile the world with America. To reconcile the world with America doesn't mean that, the world s afraid of America, that America is a super-power, and the world is shrinking with fear..NO..simply NO...America has actually some good leaders who really rush always to some certain situations and help the weak stand on their feet. Simply like THAT.

. . .like we've never before spoken to rogue regimes or third-world dictators. . .grow up, people- don't vote for him if you don't like him but this is cherry-picking of the highest order. When did American foreign policy (and the public's idea of what foreign policy should be) become so f#cking stupid? It's this simple- use negotiation and/or force when necessary- leave the playground antics of words like 'never' to the medieval dogma of the past.

If Obama would agree to restore the realistic foreign recognition policy that existed before Woodrow Wilson, then I would vote for him and work for him. Simply put, the USA recognizes and has diplomatic relations with any regime that has de facto control of a country. This would mean Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria and others.

This would open the ordinary channels of diplomacy and allow information to flow at least to Washington.

Wilson started this moralistic approach not to recognize or to communicate with regimes that he didn't like. It keeps going down hill in every administration since then.

It seems that the Calvinistic particularism and self-righteousness of the USA corresponds with Calvinistic hypocrisy. We won't talk to certain bad regimes, but not ALL bad regimes fit into that category. We can talk to Red China, all the corrupt "Stans" in Central Asia, various fly-blown dictatorships in Africa or more.

Our diplomacy is very stupid and tiresome.

How about the Six Party Talks with North Korea?

Another reviewer states that "American policy has always been not to negotiate with terrorist regimes"

Anybody ever heard of Iran-Contra?

American policy has always been not to negotiate with terrorist regimes. Will Obama change the policy? What would this imply? I am not happy about the prospect.