It's so refreshing, energizing and inspiring to see a presidential candidate (and hopefully soon-to-be president) who looks and sounds like an intelligent, sophisticated and knowledgeable leader.
Barack Obama's news conference today in Amman, Jordan showed us such a leader.
First of all, Obama looks presidential. He appears confident and composed. He has none of the tics of George Bush or the silly grimaces of both Bush and McCain. He maintains a serious demeanor and calls reporters by their actual names, not the silly nicknames Bush uses, yet he is friendly and approachable. He is also respectful of his opponent.
Best of all, he can speak with knowledge and confidence, and can explain things in more than sound bite phrases so commonly used by the current administration. The best response he gave, I believe, was in explaining the difference between his role and that of General Petraeus. Reporters, the McCain campaign, and some liberal bloggers have been going after Obama for some time about what he intends to do in Iraq, with a special focus on whether he will change his mind about withdrawing troops if the generals on the ground don't want him to.
His explanation lifted the discourse regarding Iraq to a new level and offered him an opportunity to educate voters on the complexity of the job of commander in chief. He admitted that General Petraeus does not want a timetable and he does. He did not see this as problematic, however, in that each has a different role. General Petraeus, he said, wants maximum flexibility to do the things he wants to do in Iraq. He said this desire is understandable. However, he added, his role as potential commander in chief will be to assess our role in Iraq in the context of the entire foreign and domestic policy of the United States. He may decide, for instance, that the money currently spent on certain operations in Iraq could be better spent somewhere else, either in another country, or here at home. Petraeus, he said, isn't looking at that broad a picture because that isn't his job.
He rejected the idea that as commander in chief he has a choice either to follow what his commanders on the ground advise him to do, or to reject their advice outright. He said his role is to listen to what they have to say and factor it in, along with other things, in making decisions.
This is a completely different, but totally rational and practical way of looking at things and contrasts completely with Bush and McCain, who are so focused on "victory," and who say they will do whatever the generals advise them to do in Iraq, as if that is the only decision they must make about where to spend our tax dollars and how to employ our military.
He talked with great wisdom and confidence about the need for the next president to move past ideology and political either-or games to find practical and realistic solutions to the very tough foreign policy problems we face as a nation. He said he trusts his ability to use good judgment even as he realizes these are tough problems without perfect answers.
It was a joy to watch.
