During their showdown, he said, "What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no." Now he calls her "an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in her capital and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world."While I agree with pundits who see Obama's appointments as a type of comfort for conservatives since it could have been so much worse, the appointments really do not mean much until it comes time to implement executive policy. Obama claims that he will set the policy, and his staff will apparently dutifully implement his wishes. While that remains to be seen, the one thing we can dependably learn about Obama is through comparison of his rhetoric with his actions.
Sen. Clinton has no real qualifications in terms of foreign policy, as per (campaign) Obama? No problem. Post-campaign Obama will appoint her Secretary of State and express the highest confidence in her abilities.
There is at least one way to reconcile the statements such that Obama isn't reasonably viewed as having a forked silver tongue on a par with Slick Willy's. Sen. Clinton, in spite of her lack of experience, can perform brilliantly in the office of Secretary of State by obeying the string-pulling of Obama.
That reading somewhat ignores Obama's notable lack of foreign policy experience, of course.
We'll see what January holds.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.