I am currently arguing with my husband over whether Obama should represent at the imminent economic summit in D.C. My husband says, “Hell, yes!” I think he should have his people there to monitor meetings, etc., but Bush’s administration needs to handle this. There is a sort of chain of evidence, a protocol that should be followed. I understand my husband’s (and, apparently, world leaders’) anxiousness to get Obama into the fray. I am absolutely confident his non-appearance is not avoidance. But let’s stay reasonably calm. We’ve already had eight years of an executive branch continually usurping control and setting precedent with the reasoning of “extraordinary circumstances.” I think we should avoid a situation, however temporary and “extraordinary,” where we have two presidents at once. Your thoughts?
I agree! It’s not appropriate for him to be there…even though he will be taking over soon.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 12, 2008, 12:53 pmwe’re still bickering a bit about this.
Posted by didionsmommy | November 13, 2008, 11:46 amIt’s like his trip abroad over the summer. I wasn’t opposed to him going overseas to educate himself, but when he met with foreign leaders, that’s crossing the line in my book. He should have met with his counterparts in those governments.
Now what i will say is that I think it would be great if he and Bush worked out something resembling a united front before Bush goes. A joint statement released before the meeting that says Bush has Obama’s support in the meeting would be extremely helpful. Of course, this is probably a fantasy…but we can dream.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 13, 2008, 12:04 pm