It has been almost 18 months that Barack Obama declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination and therefore as many months that we are expecting with an impatient curiosity the slightest sign of an early concrete proposal.
While some assume the blur of his speeches is due to a strategy of the primary, promising a presidential campaign more precise, the last 2 months seem to be at least as vague as the primary which preceded.
The most optimistic are probably still waiting for the official inauguration, which will take place in late August to see a program's taking shape.
Anyway, the lyrical and good intentions of his speeches seem to have been useful, compared to a rigorous, accurate and stubborn Hillary Clinton, who happens to have bored. Her mastery of issues, her experience, her answers to everything, in short all its innumerable qualities, ended up to make her look like a saleswoman teleshopping on return indeed; her Town Hall on the eve of Super-Tuesday, terribly soft, uptight, turning off, is perhaps not even the most pathetic. Not to mention the awkward Bill Clinton's assertions, which failed to denounce the emptyness of Obama's speeches, described as "fairy tale", and succeeded to tire the democrats voters of the the monster "Billary"'s coming back.
But finally, a fairly radical change happened under our eyes in recent weeks, began shortly before Obama's visits to the Middle East and Europe, which have enabled him to clarify.
First, of course, we will have noticed with amusement that he began to study the records. He seems to win slowly through his ignorance of international political issues, at the experience of an harassing effort.
If the inconsistency of his speech in Berlin seemed to prove that he did not know himself what he was doing there, it was an opportunity for him to recite his fresh knowledge of History, Geography, Institutions and Diplomacy of countries, which he didn't suspect the existence so far.
According to the profusion of details about the past of Berlin or the european commitment alongside the USA, we could almost forget the deliciously empty and frightened look of a faltering Obama, during the primary debates, unable to answer to some diplomatic questions, raised by moderators, who remained not insistent with him though. The blunder he made saying he would meet even the Iranian leaders, which the Clintons took as a proof of his inexperience, seems terribly far.
But there is an even tastier change, we can see taking shape in his Op-ed in the New York Times, then in his speech in Berlin and finally during his interview on Meet the press : a clever triangulation, developed by very smart marketing policy advisers. He doesn't only recall he always has been against the war in Iraq, without specifying that he has voted its budgets as senator, he takes a new posture, almost warmonger, to redeploy troops in Afghanistan and to harden its position against Pakistan. He uses the leitmotif of the Republicans on the war against terrorism and turns it against them, underlining their inability to win the wars they have declared. Confirming that he will do a better job on their own areas, while strengthening its position against the war in Iraq, he plays the field, with pacifist Democrats and so-called bellicose Republicans, meanwhile the CIA underscores the links between Pakistan and Al Qaeda: the brightness of the strategy is exquisite.
Even if this trick implies to feed irrational scares of terrorism, which Americans and the West are plagued by, and which we were several, and Madeleine Albright among us, hoping to see a new Presidency overcomes it, its brilliance must surely be irresistible.
The programm of the democratic nominee, which we were still looking for, not so much with curiosity that already with a certain weariness, turns up to be a talented and subtle marketing positioning.
May I ask if that kind of trick is not a trap which will limit the power of the one who will be elected at any price ?
While some assume the blur of his speeches is due to a strategy of the primary, promising a presidential campaign more precise, the last 2 months seem to be at least as vague as the primary which preceded.
The most optimistic are probably still waiting for the official inauguration, which will take place in late August to see a program's taking shape.
Anyway, the lyrical and good intentions of his speeches seem to have been useful, compared to a rigorous, accurate and stubborn Hillary Clinton, who happens to have bored. Her mastery of issues, her experience, her answers to everything, in short all its innumerable qualities, ended up to make her look like a saleswoman teleshopping on return indeed; her Town Hall on the eve of Super-Tuesday, terribly soft, uptight, turning off, is perhaps not even the most pathetic. Not to mention the awkward Bill Clinton's assertions, which failed to denounce the emptyness of Obama's speeches, described as "fairy tale", and succeeded to tire the democrats voters of the the monster "Billary"'s coming back.
But finally, a fairly radical change happened under our eyes in recent weeks, began shortly before Obama's visits to the Middle East and Europe, which have enabled him to clarify.
First, of course, we will have noticed with amusement that he began to study the records. He seems to win slowly through his ignorance of international political issues, at the experience of an harassing effort.
If the inconsistency of his speech in Berlin seemed to prove that he did not know himself what he was doing there, it was an opportunity for him to recite his fresh knowledge of History, Geography, Institutions and Diplomacy of countries, which he didn't suspect the existence so far.
According to the profusion of details about the past of Berlin or the european commitment alongside the USA, we could almost forget the deliciously empty and frightened look of a faltering Obama, during the primary debates, unable to answer to some diplomatic questions, raised by moderators, who remained not insistent with him though. The blunder he made saying he would meet even the Iranian leaders, which the Clintons took as a proof of his inexperience, seems terribly far.
But there is an even tastier change, we can see taking shape in his Op-ed in the New York Times, then in his speech in Berlin and finally during his interview on Meet the press : a clever triangulation, developed by very smart marketing policy advisers. He doesn't only recall he always has been against the war in Iraq, without specifying that he has voted its budgets as senator, he takes a new posture, almost warmonger, to redeploy troops in Afghanistan and to harden its position against Pakistan. He uses the leitmotif of the Republicans on the war against terrorism and turns it against them, underlining their inability to win the wars they have declared. Confirming that he will do a better job on their own areas, while strengthening its position against the war in Iraq, he plays the field, with pacifist Democrats and so-called bellicose Republicans, meanwhile the CIA underscores the links between Pakistan and Al Qaeda: the brightness of the strategy is exquisite.
Even if this trick implies to feed irrational scares of terrorism, which Americans and the West are plagued by, and which we were several, and Madeleine Albright among us, hoping to see a new Presidency overcomes it, its brilliance must surely be irresistible.
The programm of the democratic nominee, which we were still looking for, not so much with curiosity that already with a certain weariness, turns up to be a talented and subtle marketing positioning.
May I ask if that kind of trick is not a trap which will limit the power of the one who will be elected at any price ?
Posts
