Here's some fodder for thought. It seems to be largely taken for granted, both that:- McCain has a lot of credibility on foreign policy.
- That Clinton has more credibility than Obama on foreign policy.
I can't take either of these sentiments seriously. John McCain seems woefully unprepared -- as evidence just check Matthew Yglesias's nearly daily highlights of McCain's continuing cluelessness on Iraq. He doesn't know who is Shiite, who is Sunni, what the difference is, the alliances in the area, who is strong, who is weak, etc., etc.
But he's, um, an expert.
As for the Clinton v. Obama thing, let me just say that I trust both of them way more than John "100 more years" McCain when it comes to foreign policy. But the idea that Obama hasn't passed a Commander-in-Chief test is just bizarre. Look at his endorsements: Bill Richardson, Lee Hamilton, Samantha Power (regardless of her stupid comments on Clinton, definitely a powerful/sharp foreign policy thinker), Larry Korb, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Ivo Daalder.
Hell, Chuck Hagel said he'd consider running on a ticket with Obama.
Frankly, these are all mainstream foreign policy thinkers -- and of the non-crazy realist variety. Mark T probably isn't a huge fan of all of these folks -- they're too focused on U.S. interests for some. But they don't define U.S. interests in the same way that, say, Bill Kristol does. And they're the sort of voices I'd trust in an Administration.
They say Obama's ready to be CinC. He passes my thresholds for showing good judgment. What's the basis for saying he's not ready? |
