Yesterday, I spent most of my working hours listening to the Patreus/Crocker testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As all three presidential nominees are sitting Senators, it was a interesting opportunity to contrast them engaging in political action. I missed McCain's questions and haven't caught up on them yet. From what I've read, he didn't say anything too surprising. Below I've posted Clinton and Obama's questions. It's obvious they have essentially the same position. But there are definite differences in the way they frame the discussion.
They both come off highly competent. What strikes me though is how Obama really cuts to the essence of the issue. There will never be zero Iranian influence in Iraq and AQI will always be a potential threat to security. So we are setting ourselves up for defeat (or at least endlessly delayed defeat) if those are the stated goals. I also prefer the way he interacts with Patreus and Crocker. He takes their answers and incorporates them into his questions. It's as if he's really having a dialogue with them, taking into consideration their view point. Obama is a smart guy and knows that it's more effective to talk with someone than at them. He finds the common ground with the two men and works from there. Rather than brow beat them, he makes good on the opportunity to get their perspective on the situation.
In contrast, Clinton spends most of her time giving something close to a stump speech. Following that, she poses some worthy questions, but I don't find them particularly enlightening. The first seems like an excuse to bring up the legislation she put forward. And the second isn't really relevant to the larger conversation.
For me, the two clips underline the distinction between the candidates well. They have essentially the same policy goals, but I can't help but think that one of them is much more skilled communicator and problem solver.
........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment