Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
for what it's worth...
I don't think you're twisted like a pretzel;
you just don't want to get saddled with an Edsel.
Twisted (says twisted moi) can be real good
cuz that means ya wanna look under the hood.
I appreciate the honest frankness of your talk
It's time to take Israel-Palestine and Iran
Into hand as pressing matters for open face to face talk
The more these matters are demonised and isolated
The more bold and bullying becomes the walk
Paul Krugman for Treasury Secretary...I'd go for that.
Just wanted to say...I'm always glad when you're on here contributing to the site. Can I call you brotha even if I'm a pale white mostly-Irish person? :)
Would someone please explain to me what qualifies Hillary for Secretary of State? I was just looking over her committee appointments. She has NOTHING having to do with international affairs.
Considering all the International problems we're facing do you seriously want someone whose only claim to international experience are the PR trips she made as First Lady??
Hillary would be a much better replacement for Harry Reid. She's got the spine he lacks. Obama needs her in the Senate.
One reason I believe Clinton could loyally represent Obama's foreign policy is that I think the differences between them were exaggerated for political reasons during the primary season. He had a political stake in portraying her as a hawk; she had one in portraying him as naive and unready. He was right about Iraq from the get-go and she was wrong, but their positions on how to get out were virtually identical. Despite their debates about how and when to sit down with dictators, I think they'd take much the same approach to dealing with both our enemies and our friends. So it makes sense to me that Obama would seriously consider her for the post.
Once again Walsh cuts through the crap and lays out the smart position. It may be true that Walsh's opinion has been a lagging rather than a leading indicator, but she has the sterling virtue of not buying her own press--so to speak. That is, she understands that both reporters and pundits have personal stakes in inducing histrionics. She therefore understands that the press doesn't "report" the truth--but it does indicates the truth, if you know how to read between the lines.
What international qualifications does Hill have?
Uh..um...duckin' Bosnian bullets in the Balkans?
You made me miss Mario Cuomo!!! Maybe Andrew can carry on the legacy...so far, pretty good.
(Do you happen to remember Mario's speech years back when he delineated the *facts* about welfare? I think I need to do the Google in search of a transcript. The stats would be outdated now, but his premise was sound and I recall thinking that his speech should be mandatory reading for conservative Republicans.)
Cheers!
I don't remember that speech at all, but I'd love if you could find a link.
He was the real thing. And he was a major reason I never liked Bill Clinton out of the gate; next to Cuomo, Clinton seemed like Reagan.
As to Andrew, I've not really followed his career very closely, but I remember years ago being disappointed because he supported capital punishment. (I know, Barack does too, which also disappoints me.)
You are very gracious.
I must point out that the only reason I singled out Ms Clinton was because of Ms Walsh's column.
I find Mr. Obama as frightening on the subject of Iran as I do Ms Clinton, even if his threats have been more veiled.
But I wholeheartedly agree with your point about demonization, even if I would make the point more broadly. I see no value in demonizing any country or any people. I mentioned Iran only because I find it extremely curious how accepting some people are of remarks such as made by Ms Clinton (and I believe, naively, that such remarks should disqualify a person from the position of Secretary of State, at least in any civilized country).
You say "overheated"; I say hateful. I also say that public acceptance of such hateful rhetoric not only perpetuates the demonization you decry, but is often a prelude to death and destruction.
All of which I say with much respect to you.
Well, there's trust and there's trust.
I just mean I trust the man's judgment and powers of deliberation and therefore extend him the benefit of the doubt.
I also trust him to own up to mistakes and make course corrections, so for example if this Clinton thing didn't work out, I don't see him pretending otherwise and avoiding taking action simply to save face.
So yes, I do trust him as far as governing goes. He has earned that trust (with me) and could well lose it again, time will tell.
For now, though, I honestly don't have any serious doubts about his competence in assembling the team he feels will best serve his agenda.
Thank you for reminding us of how masterful Obama was on 60 minutes re energy independence. He simply pointed out that although oil prices are low that we cannot continue our dysfunctional pattern of consumption to the detriment of our environment, our economy, and our national security.
That answer indicates to me the main reason I have come to have a certain grudging -- but growing less grudgeful -- respect for Obama. I was not moved by his pretty speeches, his lackluster early debate performances, or by all the "racism" drama manufactured by some of his supporters concerning Hillary Clinton. I knew she was no racist. However, I cannot deny that he ran the best campaign. Moreover, he thinks strategically. It was so apparent that John McCain thinks tactically and that his tactics should have been an embarrassment to all thinking people.
Now president-elect Obama apparently wants Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. Many of those who supported him for emotional reasons and most of those who supported him for sexist reasons (consciously or not preferring him as a male to the female candidate) are simply wringing their hands and/or clutching their balls over this turn of events.
I am laughing.
I think Obama, as is his way, has selected Clinton for strategic reasons. He will have to deal with an emergency on the economic front. He needs to fulfill his promises on health care and the environment. He must untangle the mess of Guantanamo and has promised to end torture. Right now, Clinton drama actually serves his purpose -- tactically. Moreover, much of this drama is not the Clinton's fault. It is becoming increasingly obvious to the distaste of many that the media/blogosphere itself is creating the drama. They cannot stand the fact that they must wait to be certain of Obama's cabinet decisions. They cannot stand this airless transition period without the 24-7 political news that they have come to depend upon. They are in danger of withdrawal -- so they reach for media-manufactured Clinton drama like a drug.
While they are distracted, Obama can no doubt get a great deal done without their constant (and sometimes destructive) scrutiny of even minute details of his process.
Strategically, Senator Clinton is a great choice. Her 18 million voters -- and women in particular who have been infuriated by media sexism -- will come to appreciate that he considered her and that he seriously vetted her. The job is surely Clinton's to turn down or accept. These folks will be mollified. Moreover, if she accepts the job, she gets the immediate star power cred that other choices would have to earn. Obama knows a thing or two about star power.
Practically speaking, she gives him great cover for people who want to keep on seeing him as Obambi. They can blame her for things. Also, Teddy Roosevelt said that in foreign policy a leader should walk softly and carry a big stick. Hillary is Obama's big stick. She is an immediate signal to Iran not to give him trouble early in his administration.
What are some fellas so upset about? Precisely because they fear Hillary Clinton's power. They don't like it that she is his big stick. They think it emasculates him. Of course these are the very guys (one in four of men) who would never support a woman as president. It is unlikely that they can stand the thought of supporting a woman -- who actually has some clout -- in a position of such power as Secretary of State. They tried to kill Hillary with misogyny. Ha! Ha!
I have to laugh. Rise, Hillary, rise.
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
