The Candidates and The World

Transition 2012

A guide to foreign policy and the 2012 U.S. presidential transition.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Midday Update: Dems Vote for Obama, Jerusalem Text Added

by Newsteam Staff
September 6, 2012

Photo of the Day: Delegates at the second session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina September 5, 2012 (Eric Thayer/Courtesy Reuters). Photo of the Day: Delegates at the second session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina September 5, 2012 (Eric Thayer/Courtesy Reuters).

Democrats formally–and unanimously–voted to make President Barack Obama their party’s 2012 presidential candidate Wednesday (TheHill) after former president Bill Clinton’s nomination speech (WashPost).

“In officially nominating Obama, Democrats also continued to make their case that Republicans had veered far to the right, and that the president was the best candidate to protect the middle class,” write Bernie Becker and Jonathan Easley at The Hill.


After two failed voice votes, the Democratic Party’s platform language was changed Wednesday night to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (Politico). President Obama ordered the change, according Politico.

CFR’s Elliott Abrams writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that while a controversial vote to add Jerusalem language back to the platform is better than an outright refusal to do so, the flap may stir new worries about U.S foreign policy.

“Every Democratic platform since 1992 has included language about Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Its initial removal this year follows refusals by the White House and State Department to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the Jewish state’s capital. This seems more like a policy change than mere inadvertence,” Abrams writes.


CFR’s Shannon K. O’Neil looks at the differences between the Democratic and Republican platforms on issues ranging from security, economics, and immigration to the U.S. relationship with Latin America.

“While the political climate, current events, and likely congressional gridlock will constrain the next administration’s policies regardless of party, the platforms provide a sense of where the parties’ cores would like to move the country. With respect to foreign policy toward Latin America (as well as domestic policy toward the region’s descendants), overall the Democrats are more focused on the opportunities that the region provides, rather than its potential threats,” O’Neil says.


President Obama’s national security and foreign policy successes have rebranded Democrats as foreign policy leaders, neutralized the Republican Party’s traditional political advantage on national security, and improved the United States’ standing in the world, writes the Progressive Policy Institute’s Will Marshall at Foreign Policy.

– Gayle S. Putrich, Contributing Editor

Comments are closed.