Expectations Through 2012

The months after the highly anticipated election in 2008 leaves the American people with much to be desired. Slogans of hope, change, and a new tomorrow resounded with voters, but the question still remains whether this presidency will actually translate into a safer and brighter tomorrow. Well, thats for the future and other countries to decide whether they like us again. But an article I read in The Nation  tells us, or reminds us, rather, that some of the "fundamental differences" that strengthened the Obama camp may not be so fundamental. Though not particularly riveting or profound, Nichols does add a bit of pessimism to the "revolutionary" campaign strategy launched by Obama. To begin with, naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State further extends Obama's vision, and does not add any opposing view to our alliance with Israel. It also brings a Clinton, one of the most prominent political families of our time, back into the Whitehouse. And as much of a beloved president as Bill was, is it really in keeping with Obama's theme to introduce some of the pre-Bush diplomacy back into the Whitehouse, and the man at the Oval Office desk? I guess what Clinton voters didn't get in presidency they made up for in the most important position in the cabinet. 

This isn't to say that Clinton was a bad pick, though. The article notes an important message by Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and one of the most "determined opponents of the war in Iraq." Obama and Clinton still haven't staked out distinct opinions on U.S. actions overseas. However, he does point out that Clinton is extremely well researched and well read on almost any issue in foreign policy, and is undoubtedly well known after her husband's tenure as the head of the country. I guess what I'm really saying is that the "fundamental differences" in foreign policy, differences that may have won Obama the Democrat's support, weren't really that fundamental or different after all. But you knew that already.