Thomas Edsall reports on who's in Obama's camp and who's with Clinton and what it means: "The well-publicized contrast between Hillary Clinton's early backing of the Bush administration's war effort and Barack Obama's early opposition, has to a degree been replicated in the less visible network of foreign policy advisers that each candidate has cultivated -- the early war opponents by Obama, and the one-time hawks by Clinton." There's more, including some nuance.
« Clinton on Iraq | Main | The Strategic Thought of George W. Bush, Continued... »
The Advisor Gap
07 Sep 2007 08:27 am
Comments (5)
Does Edsall say anything about the fact that Obama and Clinton have near-identical Senate voting records with regards to Iraq?
Does Edsall say anything about...
Click the link and read the article. It's pretty short. Sound the words out if need be.
Thomas Edsall reports on who's in Obama's camp and who's with Clinton and what it means.
Really? The article actually doesn't tell us much at all about who's who in either camp. Nor does it present any real evidence for the claim that the contrast between the two candidates' early positions "has to a degree been replicated in the less visible network of foreign policy advisers that each candidate has cultivated -- the early war opponents by Obama, and the one-time hawks by Clinton." In fact, it only discusses five figures - Daalder, Indyk, Holbrooke, Albright and Korb - doesn't clearly tell us what role these people play in either of the two campaigns, and then goes on to present a mixed picture summed up by the banal observation that:
Not all the members of Clinton's foreign policy team were pro-war in the lead-up to the conflict. Nor were all of Obama's advisers down-the-line anti-war.
The Edsall piece is just a discussion topic in search of some substance.
Oy, vey, people! It's just not that hard to parse the deal here. Bill's people are with Hill--and, like Bill, were f**ked-up-and-for-the-war in 2003 (with the noble, blessed, always clear-eyed exception of Madame Secretary Albright). It's just a joke that we have to take them seriously on foreign policy today--least of all the astoundlingly arrogant and self-serving (and brilliant) egotist Richard Holbrooke. Or Sandy Berger, Mr. Stuffed-Pants (whatever the hell that was about, he will be a massive propaganda liability vs. GOP ranters).
On Obama's side, you have Daalder's marvellously clear expression of the deep logic of multilateralism (whatever the deal was with that temporary apostasy on the eve of war), and heavy-hitters Korb and Brzezinski, who always knew the swing of the thing and said so--and paid a price in being ignored for several years.
How anyone present and attentive here could fail to feel the pull toward Obama is beyond me....
Comments closed September 21, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Good article.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 7, 2007 8:53 AM