It looks obvious

I did not have a lot of expectations from Obama as a president. For the most part I hoped that he will disappoint most of his social coalition by being less radical than his campaign rhetoric; A more moderate Obama presidency, that would disappointment those who hoped for radical change, would be something I will embrace.

But even I get my share of disappointments.

The only area where I hoped that Obama’s administration would make serious change was in the way the US conduct its foreign policy. It was, at least early in the campaign, a corner stone in the Obama rhetoric - a saner, less imposing foreign policy. Obviously I did not hoped for the extreme non-interventionism of Ron Paul, not even the less active - yet brilliant - strategy of Eisenhower. But I hoped for foreign policy that will reduce the US commitments around the world, will end the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan and will stop attempting spreading democracy with the point of a gun. However Obama’s new cabinet appointment - mainly keeping Gates as Secretary of defense and the appointment of Clinton - indicates a continuation of hawkish, interventions strategy. So if I hoped that reduction of US forces, maintaining an unneeded superpower position, will mitigate some of the economical crisis it seems like the opposite might be our only hope - the economy will force some reality into our foreign policy.

And one small remark about Hillary Clinton: One would expect from a person who made the central point of her campaign to “solve” social issues such as health insurance and the inequality to devote herself to such issue and not to run into the glory of department of state. I can understand taking cabinet role, but why not one that can actually effect one of the issues you campaigned for?