Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Obama's support of Clinton is well placed. I was an early supporter of Obama and had little enthusiasm for Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations. However, she would clearly be a compelling choice for Secretary of State with gravitas and reputation to set her in good standing throughout the world. I see little evidence that she would be in opposition to Obama and agree with your assertion that the differences in their foreign policy positions are razor thin. She has demonstrated she was a team player during the Denver convention and subsequent campaign events. I fear some of the resistance to Clinton remains a hangover from the bitterly fought primaries. We need to get over that and recognize both Obama and Clinton are committed to moving this country in the right direction. I think the selection of Clinton reinforces Obama's quiet self confidence, and I trust his instincts. In addition to this well written piece, during your lively appearance on yesterday's Hardball, you made strong, well-thought-out arguments in defense of Clinton. Keep up the good work.
Obama ran on change? What a joke! All the old Clinton people are being dragged out of storage, dusted off and propped in place. If they arent' Clintonites, they are hiw friends from Chicago. I don't have much hope of him bringing in new, young, competent people.
I don't "trust" politicians
Even a Barack
Sec of State is a little more consequential
Than a piece 'o the rock....
Two questions:
(1)
Exactly what is it about your experience of American politics over the past few decades that would lead you to conclude that trusting and believing in a politician is a wise or well-considered strategy?
(2)
How is it that someone who blithely mentions obliterating an entire country -- while campaigning, no less -- qualifies for a foreign policy role in your country?
Trust and believe? Unbelievable and monstrous. Your perspective is well and truly warped.
President Pro Tempore is always the longest-serving member of the majority party in the Senate. I dont believe it technically has to be, but it always is. The Vice-President is considered the "President" of the Senate, and the President Pro Tempore is supposed to preside over Senate sessions in the VP's absence. Usually, neither one of them preside over Senatorial sessions, but let less-experienced Senators do it so that they can learn parliamentary procedure.
There's no way that they'd give it to her as the Junior Senator from New York. Frankly, I wish they would give it to someone like Hillary, because right now, it's Robert Byrd, and I do NOT want Byrd running the country at his age, should we reach that point in the succession.
I think that, because of the opportunities to make transformative change in our foriegn policy that will occur during the Obama administration, it would be a great move for her to accept the S.O.S. position. However, if its true that Senator Kennedy will look to her to spearhead the passage of a major health care bill in the Senate, then I would certainly understand if she wanted to focus on that instead, as health care has been a major focus of hers for years.
Or that JFK silver dollars
One fine day
Will mystically
Fall like silvery stands from the sky...
I love your nom de post.
You make excellent points, but let's face it, rhetoric on the campaign trail is often overheated. I dont believe that Hillary, or anyone (sensible, so I dont mean Bush) actually in the position of governing, would be nearly as aggressive as she was on the stump. I was not a Hillary fan during the campaign, and I would like to see far less demonization of Iran and more even-handedness in our brokering of the Israeli-Palestinean conflict from all of our leades, but I would not disqualify Hillary due to some b.s. she spouted out on the trail while trying to show her bona fides as a commander-in-chief. Recall that Obama himself went overboard at the AIPAC meeting when he said that the whole of Jerusalem must remain part of Israel, which is a more extreme stance than even most Israelis would take.
Again, there's too much smack talked about Iran and anyone who deigns to sneeze in Israel's direction from all our our politicians, but I wouldnt single out Hillary here.
Loving your poetry as usual, my man. You, like me, know better than to put complete faith in any politician, even Obama. Having said that, I do believe in him more than most.
I suspect you do, too.
Hope all is well and you're still grooving to some Bowie and Roxy.
Unless and until there's an official announcement of his offer and her acceptance or rejection, and not just a bunch of inconsistent leaks, can we just stop all the mindless speculation and bitching and mudslinging, that is little more than a rehash of the primary battle with slightly different wording?
Jeebus H. Keeryst, people! Cut it out!
Anyway, to Joan's final point about other Cabinet appointments: I really like Daschle for HHS and Napolitano for DHS (although that would mean AZ would get a GOP governor, but ah well.) The woman he's picked for Commerce (whose name escapes me now) sounds interesting too but I know little about her. Holder for AG sounds fine.
Here are two suggestions from me to the Obama transition team:
1) Treasury Secretary: Paul Krugman, hands down. He's a Nobel Prize-winning economist, an excellent writer, and an economic liberal/progressive in the mold of a Keynes or Galbraith. That's what this country needs right now, and not more neoliberal laissez-faire market fundamentalist nonsense. Barack, pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease pick Krugman! I don't care if his selection would piss off Goldman Sachs--in fact, that's all the more reason to do it!
2) Surgeon General: How about Howard Dean? He was a huge success as DNC Chairman and deserves to be rewarded for it, and he's stepping down from the post. He was widely rumored to be interested in HHS Secretary, so this would be a closely related consolation prize. Plus Dean is an M.D. And, with his outgoing, infectious personality and solid public speaking skills, he'd make a great national health spokesman. I could see him being our most active, successful, and memorable SG yet!
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
