British Prime Minister to Meet with McCain, Clinton, and Obama
By Michael Abramowitz and Kevin Sullivan
The British prime minister is visiting Washington this week, and for the first time in seven years his most important meeting may not occur in the Oval Office: Gordon Brown is planning to meet Thursday with each of the three U.S. presidential candidates, an effort to obtain a first-hand judgment of how U.S. policies -- and the relationship between Britain and the United States -- may change come January.
Brown's own relationship with President Bush has been cordial, but much less close than the ties Bush enjoyed with former prime minister Tony Blair, who bucked British public opinion to remain Washington's chief ally in Iraq and the wider battle against terrorism. With Bush in his final months in office, however, Brown is hoping to lay a foundation for closer relations with the next U.S. president, bolstering both transatlantic links and his own stature, according to analysts in London and Washington.
"Bush is largely irrelevant," said Peter Kellner, president of the YouGov polling firm in Britain. "But if the news comes across that McCain, Clinton and Obama all take this guy seriously, whether it's on the Middle East, climate change or the credit crunch, that would be a success."
Both the White House and British government emphasize that serious business remains on the agenda when Bush and Brown meet at the White House on Thursday afternoon, including Iraq, Afghanistan and the global economy. "The message that Brown wants to get across is that as far as he is concerned, it's still business as usual with Bush until Jan 20," said Nick Allan, the press secretary for the British Embassy here.
One thing the two leaders share is low popularity: Brown's approval ratings are sagging amid growing economic problems and what critics call a lack of direction in his government. A YouGov poll last weekend found that 28 percent of Britons thought Brown was doing a good job, his lowest approval rating since taking office last summer.
With the U.S. election in full swing, the British and other foreign governments are looking beyond the Bush administration and searching for clues on how the next president may shift course. To that end, Brown will sit down for 45 minutes with each of the candidates at the British Embassy on Thursday morning: Both Democratic candidates were interested enough in meeting the prime minister that they will hurry back to Washington from their debate in Philadelphia Wednesday night.
Brown has had a long-time working relationship with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), dating back to the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton, when Brown served as Britain's chancellor of the exchequer. He also conferred with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) when the presumptive GOP nominee traveled to London last month, but he has yet to meet with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
In some ways, any of three candidates would represent a break with Bush in several key areas that would likely please Brown, according to U.S, and British analysts. All three have signaled they would pursue a more aggressive effort to control greenhouse gas emissions and abandon controversial detainee policies that have proved unpopular in Great Britain. The major uncertainty involves Iraq: Clinton and Obama have stressed a desire to begin an expeditious withdrawal, while McCain has indicated he would not do so unless security improves.
Philip H. Gordon, a Brookings Institution expert on Europe who advises the Obama campaign, said that while Bush has moved to accommodate Britain and other European countries during his second term, he believes Brown "is looking for a new kind of American foreign policy after January 2009."
"Bush and the U.S. relationship has been a burden for Brown," Gordon said. "He can really turn the page with a new administration."
Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser, suggested the page could be turned with a Republican administration as well. "Prime Minister Blair and President Bush came from different political backgrounds" but forged a strong alliance, he noted. "I think there's tremendous potential for Brown and McCain."
Philip Cowley, a professor of politics at the University of Nottingham, said the meetings with Clinton, McCain and Obama were important for Brown, yet also a delicate moment in British domestic politics. "There's a strange thing in Britain, we're not sure if we want our leaders to be chummy or distant with America," Cowley said. "On the one hand, it's a superpower, on the other hand, there are plenty of people who think we got too close to Bush and paid the price."
Sullivan reported from London. Special correspondent Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.
Posted at 6:40 PM ET on Apr 15, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama Counters Tough Clinton Spot With Mocking Pa. Ad |
Next: David Broder Talks to Pa. Voters
Get This Widget >>
Comments
Posted by: justadad55 | April 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse
LATEST POLL NUMBER
Question (of Democrats)
"has the better chance of getting elected president in November"
Answer:
Obama: 62%
Clinton: 31%
Washington Post ABC News Poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_041408.html?hpid=topnews
Posted by: Today's Paper | April 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse
.
RE: Obama and Jews
"Obama has been gaining support in the Jewish community, with recent polls suggesting a near split among Jews between the IlIinois senator and Clinton, who once enjoyed a strong lead in the community"
Posted by: David | April 16, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse
The Prime Minister will not endorse anyone, it would be a great diplomatic error if he does so...You never endorse anyone because you might work with the three candidates in the future.
As for Europe's favorite, it's clearly not McCain as Europe is more left leaning than the US. Between Obama and Clinton i would say that in my country (Belgium), however i've seen no polls, Obama should have an important edge...
Posted by: helllo | April 16, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse
mia,
About time!! Imagine if either McCain or Hillary wins this country will be in Iran through the prodding of the Israel lobby that's exactly why we are in Iraq right now. Any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the USA why is that?
Posted by: bigben1986 | April 16, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse
Obama is well liked and all of you that think a foreign prime minister will endorse one candidate over another your are mistaken.
Watch the upcoming debate. And on thursday see the MSM spin it, Clintons to spin it, and then spin the meeting with Brown.
Posted by: susie | April 16, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse
Are Jews the reincarnation of modern day KKK?
The powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President. Senator Obama has offered his assurance to Jews that he is not a foe- yet this does not seem to allay their resistance to his candidacy.
Hillary Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scenes. In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolfe Blitzer, Senator Joseph Lieberman and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews continue to fan the flame of hateful passions against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and pushing the Reverend Wright issue so that it remains in the foreground. The strategy is to convince the voters and the Democratic Super Delegates that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and simultaneously promote Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain- should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.
Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U
Civil Rights and black organizations have dubbed the Jewish Lobby's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain tentative. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly becoming frustrated with Senator Clinton's controversial tactics. They are appalled with her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to the republicans that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some Democrats are even calling the conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. The question is- who is willing to bell the Cat? Thus far, a healthy concern for political reprisal has prevented any of the party leaders from offering any public criticism. The Jewish Lobby for decades has effectively manipulated the holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who oppose are usually labeled anti-Israel or Bigots in order to gain their compliance. In this instance, however, they run the risk of having the tables turned against them if blacks are able to expose hypocrisy in what many view to be a Jewish lynching of Senator Obama.
Posted by: mia | April 16, 2008 5:01 AM | Report abuse
.
The 44th President of the United States
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
.
Posted by: . | April 16, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse
Columbian soldiers are killing farmers, and dressing them in uniforms, and claiming that they're "revolutionaries"
U.S. Congress. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee:
"We've had six years, $5 billion in U.S. aid. More than half of it has gone to the Colombian military, and we find the army is killing more civilians, not less,"
"we find that civilians are just being taken out, executed and then dressed up in uniforms so they can claim body counts of guerrillas killed."
....and this is the government you want to support?
Posted by: for the record | April 16, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR OPPOSING (FREEZING) the Fee Trade Agreement FTA.
FROM LEFT DEMOCRAT UNIONS IN COLOMBIA
As all democrat USA workers and you have rightly sensed Ms. Pelosi, the infamous Colombian "Free Trade Agreement" could be the only impediment to avoid our ideal and idyllic and central proletarian-workers controlled future in our country. The actual very real reason why we the Colombian and American Chavistic democrat unions oppose the FTA is not "the killings of 2.700 unionists in 20 years in Colombia" as this FTA what really affects is not the lowest and unfortunately decreasing number ever organized unions of ours, but 44 million living Colombian citizens.
As Ms Pelosi and democrat unions in America do, THE TRUTH instead is that in all honesty, we really deeply hate all three words: WE HATE FREE as it means that our next future democrat socialistic leader, alter ego of our future Gran Colombian unions unifier President Hugo Chavez will not be able to nationalize, control and direct the economy in favor of our people and against the "free" capitalistic entrepreneurs that pretend to "freely" exploit and "trade" our labor to export "agreed" goods to the Yankees. WE HATE TRADE as it corrupts the mind of our people into capitalistic consumist behaviors of American goods, and WE HATE AGREEMENT because it is the betrayal to all our goals, on behalf of our actual unconditional 110% pro American ally (puppet-server) president Uribe in "agreement" with your evil-republican president Bush.
Therefore, ANY REAL OR MADE UP EXCUSE you Ms Pelosi and USA democrat workers use to please oppose the FTA with Colombia is valid and supports greatly our ideals. Within our context, a leftist revolutionary war now 50 years old, per each 100.000 inhabitants in Colombia only 4 union workers are killed whereas 33 common civilians and 86 policemen die out of our internal revolutionary war. So, although the "2.700 unionists killed in 20 years" have never ever in the history of Colombia been so LOW like now, from 213 in 2001 before Uribe to 26 during this 100% PRO BUSH YANKEE REPUBLICAN URIBE government, and URIBE HIM SELF has made all our own victorious revolutionary terrorism-born paramilitary to demobilize, unarm and in jail, including 30 and more congressmen for the very first time in our 50 revolutionary years, this small fact can easily be media-ticaly ignored, in exactly the way American democrat workers and you Ms Pelosi are doing.
Fortunately, our Army of the People, the glorious FARC has killed and kidnapped (2.000 per year including 3 "free trader"-supporter Americans now for 6 years) and so many more hundred of thousands of civilians and "free trade" entrepreneurs and capitalistic exporters and democratic politicians. In the name of our glorious revolution we proudly count 649 kids and 6.043 adults amputated and killed just by our land mines, so that just this is well over so many more than any "killed of our union workers" in our leftist revolutionary history. So far this proportion is really very satisfactory to us. Any how, for sure our and your strength Ms Pelosi is that one union worker killing is so much more valid and noisy that 44 million "free traders" or hundreds of civilians kidnapped some now for more than ten years, you just can easily inveRt this minor truth for the purpose of disproving that evil republican unfair and forced FTA.
Actually for us workers in Colombia, like in VENEZUELA, our real goal is to diminish and eliminate all private entrepreneurial capitalistic exploitation of man by man. Its our socialistic revolutionary fight against those who "free"ly export and "trade" our labor and raw materials. Our goal is to concentrate all the economy in the hands of a good centralized social liberal democrat workers-only government parallel to that of Hugo Chavez the great democrat-workers-unions-unifier of the world. The revolution source in Venezuela is the oil that the American people suck and pays for, and in Colombia it will be the cocaine that our revolutionary Army of the People FARC protects, control and export and trade for huge revenues to arm and feed our people against any "free" what ever "trade" exporters. Yes Senator Pelosi you are SO right, we do not need any help or "trade" exports nor any "free" industry-entrepreneurs to export any other goods to any other country or market, less so we need yours, and we thank democrat party for opposing them by opposing this FTA.
Peoples approval of our actual capitalistic "democratic" president Uribe by 83% of our 83% politically wrong people is also a factual proof of the above, but don't worry. This never before seen 83% approval after 6 years in power, does not relate to us, the actual REAL FREEDOM fighters killers and kidnapers revolutionaries proud to be and do, democrat unions that oppose Bush consumistic, capitalistic and "free trade" entrepreneurial non governmental controlled FTA.
Opening you markets to our exporters exploitative "free trade" entrepreneurs can be the very worst thing you can do for our democrat ideals CHAVISTIC Unified Latin democrat Unions for centralized economy and social socialistic revolutionary justice. Please do NOT allow that evil president of yours to approve the FTA with our country and against our people and our real goals and ideals. We deeply thank you Ms Pelosi and American democrat worker-union-voters in advance for all your efforts in this regard. The less FTA you give Colombia, the bigger our revolutionary Army of the People FARC will do in agreement with our glorious Gran Colombian democrat workers-union unifier: HUGO CHAVEZ FRIAS.
PS. Admired and respected Ms. Pelosi, we also know you will please certainly succeed in eliminating all the moneys given to the "Plan Colombia" that is so badly hurting our revolutionary forces, and will please abandon as well Irak (come on, WWI and WWII "freedom American heroes" ended also cowardly during and after our glorious revolutionary victory and your humiliated defeat in Vietnam). Your continued support to our socialistic workers unions armed nationalistic anti-global revolution and independence is more than greatly appreciated by our undisputed leader of Latin America HUGO CHAVEZ, in the name of all XXI century socialistic revolution in the world.
THANK YOU ALL DEMOCRAT AMERICA!!!!
COLOMBIAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS
Posted by: Neo Retroprotectionism | April 16, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse
.
The 44th President of the United States
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
.
Posted by: . | April 16, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse
.
...acually, Jacop, that's not true. Obama is widely more popular in Europe than any of the other candidates. If you doubt this, do a google news/web search
"Obama, europe, popularity"
(or the like)
there are too many articles to referrence here. He is by far the most popular candidate...and not just in Europe.
.
Posted by: fact-check | April 16, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse
Perhaps the Prime Minister can discuss with Senator Clinton her role in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord. It would an interesting and very brief conversation (lest Hillary opts for misspeaking on the matter).
Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse
Perhaps the Prime Minister will offer an endorsement: OBAMA for President.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse
I love how everyone here is oversimplifying Europe's opinion of our Presidential Election to, basically, 'everyone else is for Obama, and we should be too.'
The fact is that polling throughout Europe is mixed, and that while there are some countries that seem to prefer Obama, many other nations strongly support Senator Clinton or even Senator McCain.
Let's try not to become too condescending in issuing these sweeping blanket statements about the candidate preference of an entire continent. Europe is quite split on this issue, regardless of whatever else you might read on this board.
Posted by: Jacob | April 16, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse
There have been many artcles re: Obama's popularity in France, Germany, and Great Britain.
Europe intensely dislikes George Bush because of the Iraq War. Obama is popular because he was against the war, and Clinton is unpopular because she voted for the war.
Posted by: Brit | April 15, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse
.
PROPER TITLE FOR THIS ARTICLE:
British Prime Minister to Meet with Obama and McClinton
.
Posted by: . | April 15, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse
I can tell you about Spain. 73% favor Obama, 23% Clinton. You can check it in "El Pais" or "El Mundo" that are completely opposite.
Posted by: pepe | April 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse
We need to remember that the Presidential election on November 4, 2008 is for the next President of the United States. We should not allow Prime Ministers, Chancelors, nor Presidents of other nations in this world to influence our votes in the coming election. Whichever of the three candidates the Prime Minister of Britain give his endorsement of should matter a whit in whom we select as our next President. Neither should we allow the troubles or problems of other countries to influence our votes. We should remember that it is for our benefit and our future that we select the candidate that we choose. The candidates need to stick to the issues that are important to us in the United States of North America. After all we are all Americans. Let the Mexicans and Canadians elect their own leaders. We can and should select our own President.
Posted by: Richard Colonel | April 15, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse
I can answer your question... I read an article talking about the immense international attention on this and that Barack is strongly favored...
I apologize that I don't have the link handy but can post again in the AM with it.
Posted by: jencm | April 15, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse
hey Michael Abramowitz and Kevin Sullivan - would have been nice if you could have added, say, British popular opinion of the three candidates (is any one strongly preferred?) and contrasted to British popular opinion of Pres. Bush.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse
There is nothing new to expect from this meeting except for the fact that Mr Brown wanted to redirect his foreign policy initiatives from dust-bin politics to a better global recognition.To do this,he needs the better expertise of the American political elite which though has been much characterised with American system of dirty propaganda which lacked focus both domestically and internationally as can be recognised in Bush's administration of this past eight years.Or wether to endorse McCain and further drag the British soldiers to Iraq as his predecessor,Mr Bair did to the detriment of his country's later disapproval of the British participation in the Iraq war.
Posted by: Innoma | April 15, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse
Tell the British Prime minister to leave his wallet with his staff when he meets with Hilary.
Posted by: tydicea | April 15, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
You're so right. It is up to the American people only. But respect other views from nations around the world. Sad part is they are beginning to control Assets and jobs in the USA and Canada.
Good Luck, for your change will indeed impact ours.
Respectfully From Canada