Hillary Clinton fan David Ignatius makes the cae for why Clinton shouldn't be Sec. of State. Short answer: Obama should be front and center for his own foreign policy. Obamamania swepted Europe when he visited. Clinton would become the face of American foreign policy. Obama's natural charisma and intelligence is what the world wants to see. Citizens of the world are Bush-fatigued.
Clinton is more hawkish than Obama. I wonder how that will play itself out in internal Obama administration debates.
Obama has been extremely condescending about Clinton's foreign policy experience.
“It’s ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags ‘I’ve met leaders from eighty countries’–I know what those trips are like! I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then–you go.”
“You do that in eighty countries–you don’t know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa–knowing the leaders is not important–what I know is the people. . . .”
“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college–I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . .”
My impression, during the campaign, is Obama doesn't like Clinton or respect her experience. My guess is Obama is repaying Clinton for campaigning for him.
The case for Clinton is Foggy Bottom needs a strong voice. Condi Rice could not magement and Colin Powell was forced out. That would not happen under Clinton. Africa and the fight against the spread of HIV will receive increased attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment