Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I have to quibble that McNamara was SecDef, not SoS, but I agree with your point that we need to pay far more attention to who makes up a President's Cabinet, particularly the major positions, and what qualifications for the office they hold. Like you, I think it's a mistake to say "trust Obama" blindly, though I have a lot of respect for his judgement, as its been exercised thus far. I wouldn't have constructed my argument in the way that Joan has here.
My rationale for being open to the choice of Hillary for the position is that I think she has the necessary level of respect on the international stage, sufficient experience dealing with foriegn leaders in diplomatic settings, and command of foriegn policy issues to be a useful advisor to the President. I am as weary of the constant drama that comes with the Clintons as anyone, but I do not think any Presidential ambitions that she personally holds would negatively impact her ability to be an effective representative for Obama, as helping him be successful is in her personal interest if she does still want to be President. I think she is overly hawkish on Iran, but I think we as a nation are. I cant hold her to a standard that I wouldnt hold any other candidate for the position to.
Would she be my first choice? Personally, no, I'd prefer Richardson or Holbrooke, but ultimately, it's up to the President to set the foriegn policy agenda, not the SoS, and I have enough faith in my own judgement in voting for Obama to respect his confidence that he can work with her. It's not about trusting him so much as trusting that I didnt waste my dadgum vote :).
I think we disagree slightly on this one, but you know you're still my bro!
Chris Kringle
With a small side order
Of shit on a shingle?
Have a holly jolly Christmas...
I must say that "Rambling" is an apt moniker for you. Your anger strikes me as rather extreme and overheated, especially considering that the man hasnt even taken office yet. Just what does he "own" at this point? Take a Valium and chill! Let's at least get to a State of the Union before the audience leaves.
I deign to ask: if both McCain and Obama were such weak candidates, who would have been your choices? Hillary? Even after that "brilliant" campaign that she ran? Edwards? Huckabee? Offer a reasonable alternative to us as to whom would've been the ideal leader for these times before you go bemoanin'.
Cease and desist with the playa hatin'! Jiminy Christmas!
:)
Fair enough.
Your prerogative, of course.
That Iran will be nuked if Iran should attack Israel (what would Iran attack Israel with?) rhetoric or whatever it was that issued out of Hillary Clinton's mouth during the primaries, pretty much put her in McCain territory in my opinion. She has too much to proove, and too much that proovenly, doesn't impress me.
Se can't be trusted and as much as I would like her out of the senate as a New Yorker, I don't think she would serve him well. Band of rivals has no place in the State Dept. Also her sort of husband would be too close to the gov't. They both shoud be put out on the tundra with Palin but that's too much to hope for. I voted for CHANGE, the Clintons are the opposite of change and egotistical and self serving to have her in that position. He should absolute not let her dilute hi effectiveness. They are PARASITES !!!!!!
Yes, I know the term can be used by black people in an occasional tyrannical manner, but no one can deny its insult power.
Sometimes feminists use words like male-identified for women who always take the side of men or opposed the progress of women or who are critical bitches generally to every woman who makes progress against the many obstacles thrown up by misogyny that still bar the way of women.
However, the word bitches is too often used by men for what they see as a variety of female offenses -- everthing from denying them sex to daring to seek the highest office in the land. No, the word bitch just won't do.
May I suggest a simple short hand term for a woman who so hates everything Hillary Clinton represents. Hillary Clinton's threat does not lie merely the fact that she is a woman who acts to achieve power on her own behalf but that she actually has a chance more than any other woman of actually getting it.
Oh dear. ;-)
My suggestion for that shorthand word: Nancianne.
I wish I could be convinced and/or comforted by your arguments Joan but I have to agree with Michelle Bernard who saw behind so much, make that ALL! of the Clinton-antics during the primary campaign ....I also agree with EVERY single word Christopher Hitchens said last night on Larry King Live.....
Many, many of us supported and actually worked to elect Barrack Obama to GET AWAY from the Clintons...we have believed the "Change" promises and understood that meant "No more Washington as usual" as we were told over and over....many of us feel sick at heart and worse, to our stomachs, to have as much nauseating Clinton "news" coverage as the equally sickening Palin coverage of the last two weeks....we fear Obama is being used or "played" and CAN NOT UNDERSTAND IT!
Actually, Joan, the best reason for Obama not picking Hillary for Secretary of State is the two steamer trunks of baggage that come with her husband -- particularly when it comes to the list of donors to The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation.
I get your last post, really do, but I don't get "Nancianne." Where'd that come from? If I'm to consider embracing it, I have to understand it. Sounds like "Nancy-Boy" to me (which is a derogative term of a different sort).
All I'm sayin' with regards to Iran, is that fresh approaches will yield much more rewards than rusty old ones. I mean, is the wet newspaper method workin' out okay?
I have hardly a living memory of the "salad days" of "our" beloved Shah Reza Pahlavi...I saw his lonely mastaba inside the mosque of al-Rifai in Cairo back in '88.
The Shah was such a pariah (and pretty deservedly so) that Anwar Sadat eventually allowed him to be entombed inside one of the city of Cairo's most beautiful mosques.
After the Shah and a revoltion that ensued in Iran, just about all of the words traded between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic have always been stuck on the same old small and limited vocabulary..
The U.S.: "Rogue state," "Terror nation."
Iran replies back "Shaitan kibir" (Great Satan) or "Death to John Travolta" or some such shit...
I used to have a high school girlfriend who was half Iranian and half American back in the early '80's, her name was Aimee Askari..
Aimee had some major mental anguishes having been born on the falt line of a row that just can't seem to let things cool even to this day.
Iranians are a whole hell of a lot less ideological than most Americans imagine.
I have yet to find one who really gives a flyin' fuck about the pious invulnarabilty of the so-called grand Ayatollah.
And as I've said, Mr. Ahamad-I-need-a-job will be looking for work after Iran's soon to be next national elections.
But if anybody needs confirmation that Hill's kind of approach to Tehran could produce promising results, why not check out this brand new proud sponsor on Matt Drudge's Sludge report:
www.againstnucleariran.com
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
