Inconsistent

George Will writes:

Obama has vowed to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."
Steamboats, railroads, airplanes and vaccines were "unproven" until farsighted
people made investments.

A fair (if underdeveloped) point. But then, a mere four paragraphs later:

Obama's rhetorical extravagances are inversely proportional to his details, as
when he promises "nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy" in
order to "end the age of oil." The diminished enthusiasm of some voters hitherto
receptive to his appeals might have something to do with the seepage of reality
from his rhetoric. Voters understand that neither the "transformation" nor the
"end" will or should occur. His dreamy certitude that "alternative" fuels will
quickly become real alternatives is an energy policy akin to an old vaudeville
joke: "If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham."

I love that vaudeville joke (and applying it other timeless combinations: gin and tonic, Gibson and Glover, Swedish bikini teams and Old Milwaukee/Old Milwaukee Light), but how is the second argument any different from the first?