In Search of a Commander-in-Chief: How the Paris Attacks and Terrorism Are Reshaping the 2016 Campaign

Foreign policy is becoming more central to the 2016 campaign in the wake of the Paris attacks and Americans’ growing understanding that terrorism is a threat in the U.S.

Hillary Clinton‘s speech Thursday was an artful effort to address last week’s rampage in Paris and the threat from Islamic State without walking away from President Barack Obama‘s strategies on major issues, such as the deployment of ground forces. She injected more urgency into the fight against ISIS and articulated things more clearly than the White House has. Still, there was a Goldilocks aura around her: not too hot, nor too cold–and no closer to finding the just-right policy.

Democrats face a different, more complex foreign-policy challenge than Republicans, especially if Mrs. Clinton becomes the party’s nominee. She will seek to make the case that in today’s dangerous world, we need a president who knows her way around. Mrs. Clinton is a formidable opponent in any debate. In addition to her common sense and familiarity with an atlas, she has a commanding knowledge of facts and concepts. Can other presidential candidates confidently explain the difference between Sunni, Shiites, and Alawites? With the possible exception of Sen. Marco Rubio, who gives the impression that he’s comfortable and savvy with matters of national security and foreign policy, nobody else really impresses.

But Mrs. Clinton’s experience plays against her, too. Republicans will hammer some of her decisions as secretary of state, particularly her use of a private e-mail server, Benghazi, and not following up on efforts to stabilize a post-Qadhafi Libya. If none of those issues gain traction, opponents will argue that she endorsed Mr. Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and the nuclear deal with Iran. Mrs. Clinton’s gentle steps to distance herself from the president–endorsing a “no-fly zone” in Syria and being tough with Vladimir Putin–hang on whether Republican efforts to portray Mr. Obama as abdicator in chief have already stuck with voters, particularly independents.

Well before Paris, Republicans across the spectrum had seized on what they deem President Obama’s risk-aversion, naivete, lack of leadership, and/or penchant for coddling U.S. enemies and alienating friends. They have sought to paint the president as weak for heading to the exits in Iraq too soon, the vanishing “red line” over use of chemical weapons in Syria, the deep freeze in relations with Israel, and the Iran nuclear deal.That Russia and France appear to be acting more boldly than the U.S. in the wake of the Paris attacks continues to provide ammunition for criticism.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/11/20/search-commander-chief-how-paris-attacks-and-terrorism-are-reshaping-2016-campaign