Obama: Vietnam was not my bag

In a very thorough interview with the very thorough Fareed Zakaria (this guy is seriously a genius), Sen. Obama pretty much proves Andrew Sullivan's and my theory right.  

Fareed Zakaria centered the interview around foreign policy and the Senator's view on everything from Islam to Vietnam to the importance of Iraq.  

In one enlightening question, Zakaria pinpoints the core reason why Obama will fail to own the definition of 'Liberal' we have come to expect:

ZAKARIA: Why did you major in international affairs?

OBAMA: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked -- was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy -- it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn't formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.

The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.

Some inferences from this answer:

A) Vietnam did not form him like it did the Clintons, McCain, Bush, and Gore.

B) His candidacy is not so much about expertise, but exposure and comprehension of what the world is currently.

C) He is a pragmatist and unifier, who prefers a workable answer that dissatisfies some, rather than a faulty answer that promotes some.

lhp