Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
And the next time Christopher Hitchins plans to appear on TV to trash someone, he should really wait for at least 48 hours to dry out from his binge. He looked disheveled, hair messed up, sloppy, words slurred, like a drunk, frankly, as he trashed a very smart, capable, courageous, accomplished, and sober woman.
Everyone has had an opportunity to see a different kind of woman aspiring for high governmental office. Have they not been able to set a standard from the comparison?
Let's just hope that whomever Mr. Obama appoints as Secretary of State is whomever he thinks is the best person for the job, and not someone who needs to be stifled, muffled, or otherwise shut up.
The job is way too important for that and we all remember what happened with Colin Powell who accepted the position and then tragically betrayed his country in a mistaken show of loyalty to the Executive branch.
I don't really trust Hillary simply because her judgement over Iraq was so poor. If she had led the opposition to the invasion of Iraq, she would almost certainly be the President-in-waiting now. But if Mr. Obama thinks that she is the best person for the job, then so be it.
"But there's one qualification to my belief that she'd be a good choice: I only think so if Barack Obama thinks so. If he believes she can contribute to his foreign policy, but most important, carry it out; that she can represent him well and inform his worldview; that she can improve our standing abroad, well, then, I believe she can, too."
[I am sincerely, deeply tired of people 'trusting Obama' on his choices. He has shown himself to be influenceable, despite his previous profession of good values and viewpoint. Like Roosevelt, who said that people should 'make him' veer in one direction or another, I believe Obama may have said the same. His first instinct, I would guess born of 'Hillary-lovers', those who were disappointed at not having a woman in the White House, just any woman as long as it's a woman, was wrong in this case.]
''If she believes she can ....inform his worldview"???!!!!
Hillary Clinton lied about being 'under sniper fire', threatened to 'obliterate' Iran, signed up to speak at an anti-Iran rally sponsored by AIPAC, called up Bobbie Kennedy's assassination to explain why she didn't want to quit the primary race -- 'because that happened at this time in his campaign'. She aggressively asserted, 'NOTHING is off the table!' implying the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. She threatened to 'obliterate Iran!', for god's sake. She chastised Obama, again and again, for saying he would talk to other world leaders, including those considered 'enemies' (while others praised him for this, among these foreign leaders and knowledgeable experts). Clinton has shown she has 1) little sensitivity to others' needs and feelings, and 2) no ability to think before she speaks. These are not SecState qualities.
Why (!?) would you think that HIllary Clinton would be good at anything remotely connected with negotiating, talking to, getting people together, or doing anything involving diplomatic skills? Have you ever heard of her doing anything other than greeting leaders? My cousin was a top Ambassador; I knew him; Hillary Clinton has no Ambassadorial qualities or leadership qualities. If Obama would appoint her to the Supreme Court I believe she could handle that job and I wouldn't complain -- because she has legal knowledge and has good domestic values. But SECRETARY OF STATE is completely beyond belief!
''If she believes she can ....inform his worldview". (Walsh.) This is what I exactly hope that Clinton would NOT do, any more than I hope Emanuel informs Obama's world view. This man (Obama) has lived abroad and in Hawaii; he has soaked up world view; it is in his veins, as it is in the veins of anyone who has lived in another country for any period of time. Clinton has met world leaders in other countries, entirely surrounded by cocoons of protection from world culture. I sincerely do not hope Clinton thinks she can 'inform Obama's world view' because I doubt he thinks she can.
You mention 'the only reason Clinton is in the media so much (about this) is that 'Clinton-haters' put it there'. I was never a 'Clinton-hater', whatever that is and I think for you to say this is to insult anyone who knows about Clinton's statements (quoted above) and seen the look on her face when she stopped and said, with regard to Iran, 'NOTHING is off the table!', to insult everyone who believes nuclear weaponry should NEVER be used, to insult everyone who heard her threaten to 'obliterate Iran'.
I always cheered her on, from across the country, when she won Senator. I always felt compassion for her during the nightmarish, humiliating impeachment year. But as I watched her during the primaries, watched my actual candidates fall away as well, I became increasingly appalled at what this woman was capable of, what her skills weren't, and at how much violence she has inside her. No, not Clinton for Secretary of State of the United States of America.
[The fact that you (Walsh) convinced Chris Matthews deserves no kudos; he vacillates to extremes and no one can find his center, if he even has one.]
I love Hillary and think she would be great as Secretary of State. She would be representing Obama's foreign policy, setting up diplomacy and terms for negotiation for Obama. The National Security Advisor formulates the foreign policy, Obama reviews, approves, tweaks, signs off, and the SoS carries it to foreign dignataries, establishing relationships, maintaining dialogue, articulating policy, and carries it all back to Obama. Her entire life has been in service to others and she is loyal. Her vote for the Iraq war was not a minority vote; limiting Cabinet appointments to those who opposed the war would leave a precious few. None of them ever guessed the president would LIE to them, not then.
She would also be great in the Senate, even though everyone and their uncle---Kennedy, Daeschle, and Bachus??---have taken her health plan as their own and she has been effectively marginalized out of that issue. They do not reward or aknowledge capable women there, only, convicted 7x felons for whom they shed tears and give 60 sec standing ovations when they leave and turn coat Senators who call their president a terrorist, socialist, and Marxist.
I am torn; I just want her to do what is best for her; she has taken enough smears on behalf of all of us. The media is cartooning her while she is being considered for a high, dignified position by a President-Elect everyone supposedly loves and trusts. I believe he either knows what he is seeking in her and values her---or---as NewYorkNewYork says, he is trying to minimize her and Prez Clinton totally out of the picture....I would be very, very sorry to see that, if that turns out to be the case.
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
