- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
One reason I believe Clinton could loyally represent Obama's foreign policy is that I think the differences between them were exaggerated for political reasons during the primary season. He had a political stake in portraying her as a hawk; she had one in portraying him as naive and unready. He was right about Iraq from the get-go and she was wrong, but their positions on how to get out were virtually identical. Despite their debates about how and when to sit down with dictators, I think they'd take much the same approach to dealing with both our enemies and our friends. So it makes sense to me that Obama would seriously consider her for the post.
Once again Walsh cuts through the crap and lays out the smart position. It may be true that Walsh's opinion has been a lagging rather than a leading indicator, but she has the sterling virtue of not buying her own press--so to speak. That is, she understands that both reporters and pundits have personal stakes in inducing histrionics. She therefore understands that the press doesn't "report" the truth--but it does indicates the truth, if you know how to read between the lines.
