Amid the mainstream notion that Clinton and Obama are virtually indistinguishable on their foreign policy vision, often concluded from the fact that they have almost the same voting record in the Senate on foreign policy issues and that they emit similar rhetoric, there are actual differences in their predicted foreign policy approach. And the differences are vast.

First and foremost, before even discussing the substance of their foreign policy vision, it’s crucial to establish the criteria by which we ought to judge that substance. It’s easy to agree that the rhetoric they pronounce on their campaign stump speeches, in debates and in interviews is indeed very similar. However, once the surface is scratched, one can find out the world of immense differences hidden underneath the rhetoric and mainstream discussion.

According to an article by Toni Johnson, of Council on Foreign Relations, the real differences between both candidates can be discerned on the basis of their advisers. Secondly, one can glimpse at Hillary Clinton’s voting record prior to Barack Obama’s arrival to the Senate to shed some light on her foreign policy motivations. And lastly, given the fact that Hillary Clinton decided to run her presidential campaign on her 35-year experience, which includes her 8 years in the White House as the first lady, one should therefore examine Bill Clinton’s foreign policy approach during his 8-year tenure to help in foreshadowing Hillary’s approach.

1. Advisers: This is the most important category, since it is the one both candidates share in common and hence can better be examined and scrutinized. According to Stephen Zunes, of Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, the major difference between the two candidates is the different foreign policy philosophies shared by their chief advisers. While the Bush administration dwarfs both Clinton and Obama in terms of militarism and hawkishness, Hillary Clinton’s advisers are by far more hawkish on issues of national security, terrorism, Israel and international law than those of Barack Obama. Some of recycled Clintonite advisers include Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger - all of whom, for all practical purposes, cannot be distinguished from the Neoconservative hawks of the Bush administration in terms of their foreign policy philosophy. The exceptions may perhaps lie in specifics of the strategy and tactics, but overall their ideology is vastly similar. While Barack Obama is no dove, unlike Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel - Democratic candidates which have been effectively marginalized and suppressed by the free and independent media - his set of advisers are more reluctant to engage into military confrontations and/or ratchet up the rhetoric, particularly towards Iran.
The video below captures and further elaborates on some of the candidates’ advisers:

2. Voting record and International Law: While Barack Obama’s record in the Senate is relatively short and uncontroversial and therefore is more difficult to scrutinize, Hillary Clinton’s record is longer, more controversial and is easier to examine. Consider her current record and one everyone is well aware of: she authorized the use of military force in Iraq in 2002, essentially allowing Bush to do what he wanted. Her defense on this matter today is that she “didn’t know what she knows now”. She repeatedly says that were she to know then what she knows now, she would have voted against that infamous bill. Well, let’s examine what it can possibly mean. As an astute lawyer out of Yale Law School, Hillary Clinton is incredibly adept at manipulating language and parsing words - perhaps 2nd only to her husband. Perhaps she is referring to the fact that she didn’t know that there was a massive intelligence failure… or manipulation of it. Perhaps she didn’t even know that aggression against Iraq violated a UN Charter. Or perhaps she didn’t know then that the war would turn out as bad as it did. Should she have known it then, it’s quite plausible she would have voted against it.

Consider the scenario in which the war turned out well (leave aside for the moment what that means). Suppose the violence was very low, population of Iraq was throwing flowers and chocolates at us, as predicted by virtually all the Neo-Cons, and Iraq was forming a government providing basic needs to the people and ensuring stability. The US would be building permanent military bases, monopolizing the oil resources and ensuring a long-lasting hegemony over the region. Is the war then justified? The fact of the matter is, neither Obama not Clinton are willing to admit the obvious - the war was illegal within the framework of international law and UN Charter. However, both Obama and Clinton are willing to go only as far as admitting that it was a geopolitical and strategic blunder. Which misses the entire point. But what of Hillary Clinton’s record towards UN and International Law? Hillary Clinton voted for American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which prevents US from cooperating with the International Criminal Court. More egregiously, the law restricts sending foreign aid to countries who support ICC. Talk about bullying the world… For more, see here.

Hillary Clinton is also a hawk on Israeli-Palestine issues. She doesn’t subscribe to the nearly unanimous and global notion that building settlements in the Occupied Territories is illegal. On the contrary, she voted for a resolution which says that such activities are indeed lawful. The Zionist zealots can rest assured that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t deviate from the Bush’s presidency on this heated issue. For more on this, read this article by Stephen Zunes.

But wait there is more… Although Hillary Clinton doesn’t currently support the war with Iran (to my knowledge, at least), she did vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which labels Revolutionary Guard of Iran a “terrorist organization”. While she maintains that her support of this bill is to supplant Revolutionary Guard’s financial assets, many experts, including her fellow Democratic senators, such as even Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, no doves on foreign policy, that this bill may slowly pave the way towards a war with Iran. Surely Senator Clinton must understand that, given her astute and instinctive lawyerly thinking and her much touted 35-year experience. However, more disappointing is the fact that Barack Obama chose to abstain from this vote, citing inadequate timing due to campaign reasons - which is code for fear of controversy.
For more on this issue, see the video below:

It is true that neither Senator Clinton nor Obama have chosen to talk straight to the American people about their real foreign policy motivations. However, judging from their set of advisers and voting record, a strong conclusion emerges here. Senator Clinton conceals her true foreign policy vision in the fear of losing a Democratic base and Barack Obama hides his foreign policy vision in the fear of losing the Independent, Republican, and some hawkish Democratic voters.