tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16220268.post1612477663067474639..comments2023-10-10T08:03:04.018-05:00Comments on Secondhand Smoking Jacks: Secretary Clinton's role as "image" managerMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901973780238251138noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16220268.post-31479492203183562662009-02-17T12:50:00.000-06:002009-02-17T12:50:00.000-06:00I can't believe Hillary would allow that to be her...I can't believe Hillary would allow that to be her role. MIght be smart on the president's part, though.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with you that he never and his supporters never wanted a second-tier position. I'm also not sure what he meant by isolationist. I don't see that at all unless we're talking about some protectionist tendencies. I know he took the "buy American" stuff out of the bailout but there were those NAFTA comments during the debates. But, I don't think that is what the author intended.<BR/><BR/>What is interesting to me in the article is this idea of downsizing the military that will almost certainly happen. This is a recurrent theme at Stratfor. The irony is that that is precisely what Rumsfeld intended from the beginning (pre-9/11). Part of Rumsfeld's problem was an inability to divorce himself from that in Iraq.Scooterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00319045516368609297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16220268.post-37479081761389104372009-02-17T12:12:00.000-06:002009-02-17T12:12:00.000-06:00I suppose the piece is reasonable as a whole, but ...I suppose the piece is reasonable as a whole, but passages like this drive me up a tree: "Anticipation of a WEAKER administration created a challenge for Obama from the start. While many of his supporters saw him as the anti-Bush, the new president had no intention of shifting America to a second-tier position or making the United States isolationist."<BR/><BR/>Who was supporting a "second-tier" position or isolationism? Who was expecting a weak administration? The passage implies that "many" of Obama's supporters were in favor of such positions, but I certainly saw no such thing. Just because we were not in favor of military overthrow of a government that wasn't any threat to us, doesn't mean we were in favor of isolationism. Obama's supporters are not against or at odds with a philosophy that a strong military forms the foundation of foreign policy. <BR/><BR/>Also, I think it's too soon to know exactly how the special envoys will work vis a vis Hillary/policy setting. It would surprise me if all Hillary does is wander the globe smiling and shaking hands.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02567967427556481084noreply@blogger.com