Where do Clinton and Obama truly differ on foreign policy? In reality, the contrast is far from stark and more a question of character than ideology or philosophy. Obama is bold, intuitive and independent; Clinton is mature, careful and grounded. To succeed in renewing America's engagement with the world, the next president will require all of those characteristics.
In some ways, the results of Bush's foreign policy resemble the results of Bush's post-Katrina policy. He has left both areas in a state of confusion, anger and resentment -- and in need of careful rebuilding. Both need protection from greedy vulture always travelling in Bush's wake.
It's hard not to agree with Joe Conason's assessment of the different but complementary qualities Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would bring to the job. Their suitability depends to some extent on how much importance you place on the need for protection from an unleashed "free market." Some of us believe that, oh well, you can't ever be entirely free of the rapacity which is the dark side of a free market system. Some of us believe that one of our most important tasks in the next decades is to find a way to control rampant capitalism without killing its potential for prosperity and innovation.
Which presidential candidate appears to even acknowledge this aspect of our relationship with the world? Am I right in thinking it's "none of the above"?