I find it interesting how Sen Clinton was laughed at for claiming foreign policy experience - having visited 83 countries representing America - when she was running against someone who had spent one night in Europe, two in Iraq/Kuwait and had never been to Pakistan, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Australia, China, Darfur, India and more. Now she "definitely has the experience" and is "well known on the world stage" and "would be a good fit". Then why Biden for VP? I have my own opinion as to why she is in the running that I'll post later. I found these quotes in an article by Townhall's ANNE GEARAN and ROBERT BURNS. (Emphasis added)
James Carafano, a national security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls Clinton a realist on Iraq and other issues. "She's not pollyanna-ish about the world," he said, and could be effective in promoting U.S. interests. "You could do a lot worse. She's obviously well-known, she's got a strong personality, she'd be a good negotiator."She's a grown up and a realist - not a I will sit down with anyone political expedient unknown. Smart and competent - as in she has proven herself. Where were these people when she was getting laughed at for claiming experience?
Likewise, foreign policy hawk Danielle Pletka at the American Enterprise Institute calls Clinton's drive and discipline a good match for the job. "She's a grown-up," Pletka said.
The symbolism of a woman and former rival in one of the most visible jobs in American government is probably the least reason Obama might choose her, and says little about how well she would perform, said Michael O'Hanlon, defense and foreign policy analyst at the center-left Brookings Institution.
"Obama is already a symbol," O'Hanlon said. "The reason to consider her is because she's so darn smart, because she is competent, because he knows her and he believes they can have honest disagreements as well as cooperate on most issues when they do agree."
No comments:
Post a Comment