Hillary as Secretary of State

The Pudits Will Have Plenty of Material to Keep Them Busy

This will give the Rush Limbaughs plenty of ways to miscontrue any decisions that come out of a Hillary Secretary of State. If they can brainwash people into believing Barack is a terrorist just think what they'll conjure up citing donations Bill Clinton has received for various fundraisinng initiates from foreign governments.  

---

by: Donna @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM CST

I thought we voted for change?

More and more, Obama's cabinet is shaping up to be a bunch of DINOs (Democrats In Name Only.) The only ray of sunshine in all this is the certainty that McCain would have been much worse.

Damn it all, but I'm getting mighty tired of the only choice being between "very bad" and "relatively better."

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM CST

It's not a surprise --

Obama and Clinton were the two most conservative Democrats in the primaries.

---

by: M @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As if to say...what?

a Gravel-Kucinich ticket could have beaten the Fake Patriotism ticket?

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's not it --

It's just that anyone who expected Obama to be anything but a Clinton-style corporate-centrist Democrat wasn't paying attention.

---

by: M @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:37:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wasn't.

Same ol' same ol', but we will have better nominees to the Supreme Court.  Take the crumbs, brothers and sisters, or go hungry.

Houston Bridges

---

by: Houston @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 22:03:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Accept only crumbs, and you will die of malnutrition

They may stave off hunger for a short while, but a steady diet of crumbs will kill you all the same.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 23:35:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Change we can believe in, eh?

Sounds to me like we are going to experience another Clintonian presidency even though Obama won.  

I guess it really didn't matter which one of them won the primary - Hillary or Barack.  Either way this would have been an historic first.  I wonder what post he would have had in her administration.

I just hope some of the lunatic Democrat cheerleaders will be honest and seriously consider revolt if the Obama Presidency turns out to be a further re-hash of the last Democratic presidency...promises, back stabs, compromises and hog wash.  

Unlike the last whore in chief, hopefully Barack can resist the blow job.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:22:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Back stabs, indeed

Joe My God is reporting that Obama has put the promised repeal of DADT on the back burner until 2010 and possibly as late as 2012.  I can't wait to hear the waffling we get when those dates come around--doubtless they'll send Barney Frank around to tell us that they'll get to us real soon now, just as soon as they've taken care of everything else they can think of.  Change you can believe in, my ass.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 13:35:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have not heard about this, but I am not at all surprised

I still expect his much-touted "support" of GLBT issues to be all sizzle and no steak.

Would you have a link?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:14:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's on Joe My God's blog

at http://joemygod.blogspot.com/.  There's also a fairly rigorous commentary on 365gay.com.


I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:18:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The source, ultimately, is the Moonie Times

I'm not sure that can be considered a reliable source. Until and unless this is validated by the AP, Reuters, the BBC or someone else with a better reputation, I'm willing to hold out some hope that it is wrong.

Not much hope, though.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 21:04:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

priorities

First of all, Obama is not president yet, so it is pointless to get mad over something that has yet to happen.  That said, with tens of thousands of people losing their jobs (see above post), Obama would be crazy to wade into DADT at the beginning of his administration.  We should hold him to his promise to bring about consensus among military leaders and Congress (who ultimately have the authority on this) to end discrimination in the military.  But to do this at the cost of the extreme economic crisis would torpedo his administration before it even starts.

And before anyone says it, of course he can work on multiple things at once.  But the fact is that as soon as DADT comes up, it is going to be THE issue in the news.  It will overshadow his work on the economy, and we're going to lose.  I don't want a repeat of 1992.  I want a sensible strategy to bring about equality that is actually going to work.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:48:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Baloney

The consensus IS there.  Earlier this week 104 top military commanders advocated repealing DADT--joining a chorus of their colleagues extending back for years.  The public is on board; polls show a majority in favor of striking down the policy.  

This is an old issue.  Granted, Obama's pal Donnie McClurkin will hate the idea, as will all the other fundie ministers he's been palling around with.  He will never get them on board for a repeal.  If we have to wait for that kind of "consensus" on any LGBT issue, we might as well kiss off any idea of progress.

Also earlier this week, Obama published his purported agenda for the LGBT community.  Repealing DADT is right there on the list.  Turns out it was a lie, and it took less than a week for him to go back on his word.  As you point out, he's not even in office yet, and he's already betraying his promises to us.  How can we trust him to keep the rest of them?

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:14:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We can't and shouldn't trust him

The problem is that there are too many wishful thinking Democrats, particularly LGBT Democrats, that refuse to recognize any evidence or past history or draw any logical conclusions about the beloved Democratic Party...it really is sick how gullible and obstinate some people are...no mattter how many bullet holes are in their own feet.

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:22:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ESP

Unless you're psychic and can see into 2009, you don't know that he has betrayed anything.  And the fact is, if he takes advocating to Congress on ANY major piece of legislation prior to economic work, or anything that distracts from legislation on the economy, we can count on him getting nothing done at all for the rest of his term.  Why can't we learn from 1992 and not expect someone to go in guns blazing rather than having a prudent plan to actually win?

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:45:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well put

I wish I could be as concise. It took me several paragraphs to say essentially the same thing

---

by: Margaret @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:59:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you are right about consensus though

Someone once said to me that there is never going to be a "right" time to demand our rights.  I do believe there is a wrong time, though.  A wrong time would be to demand this issue be addressed immediately when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs and being put out on the street.  We'll just look petty, and we won't get economic justice or justice for LGBT people.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:00:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

just don't forget that DADT is about jobs too.

but it's ok not to worry about tens of thousands of americans getting fired for no cause, since they're just queers.  

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 20:25:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's a bit of an exaggeration

There will not be tens of thousands discharged in the next year.  There have been somewhere around 11,000 discharged from 1994-2006.  And that is deplorable, but going in with guns blazing before there is a workable strategy that is going to succeed won't change it.  Y'all need to calm the hell down and let Obama actually get into office before you start calling for his head on a plate.  Geez.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 20:42:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you're right.

11,000 fired.  no biggie.  i don't care if obama never lets the queers get themselves killed for our economic wars.

but seriously, yes of course we need to wait and see what he will actually do, and yes he needs to be deliberate.  however, i think people are rightfully antsy because he has already proven himself to be hollow on lgbt rights.  and lord knows that we know it would be JUST LIKE a dem to promise the moon then say that the moon launch will happen one day after he leaves office.  trust.  that is what this is about.  obama has not earned himself any trust amongst the lgbt's.  at least, not with this particular one.  and it doesn't help that he is smack center-right in a party that has a loooong history on stringing us along just like to gop does with its pro-lifers.  so i'm afraid you're probably going to just learn to put up with some complaints unless/until obama does something meaningful.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 21:04:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

don't put words in my mouth

No biggie?  When the hell did I say that?  Where do you get that out of "that's deplorable"?  That is really offensive of you to say I'm being dismissive of people discharged under DADT.  I think some folks have gotten so used to screwed up governance for the past eight years that they're complaining about it before the new government is even in office because they don't know how else to behave.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 21:15:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was one of those 11,000 fired

and I'm not whining about whatever practical considerations Obama has to take into account. Yeah I want the policy changed but Clinton jumping right in before he had done the proper preperation is what led to DADT in the first place.....16 fucking years ago. I'm willing to wait a bit longer to do the groundwork if the alternative is another 16 years of really bad policy.

---

by: Margaret @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 08:49:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't understand that

as DADT weakens our military by denying us qualified people and forcing the Army to lower standards to take the mentally ill, the violent, felons, and gang members.

How is that strengthening our military?

My son has been disgusted with some of the replacements that some units have been getting.

But, I guess that appearing centrist is far more important than the lives of our soldiers or heavy automatic weapons being stolen and sold to gangs.

Will President Obama explain the policy to the Sergeants and Lieutenants who lose men because the replacements are unfit?

Will he explain the policy to the families of women soldiers murdered by the felons and rapists we are putting into the ranks?

My son deploys this coming week. He is fortunate, his men ae outstanding as is the leadership above him.
The same cannot be said for some units though and the casualties that ensue can be laid at the feet of the people continuing DADT.

How many times did we hear an end to DADT was coming from the Obamaniacs?

And, more worrisome, they told us that ENDA and the Hate Crimes Act would come after DADT was repealed.
Which means...ENDA and Hate Crimes protections in....2011 or 2012? Probably not. The campaign will be under way.

We've been had, hugely...

So, do we mope and whine or do we keep the uprising going til they finally, finally give in?
And, to the HRC---this is the candidate that you endorsed.
Don't even bother to promise us anything; nothing is coming except DADT and that only in 2010 or later.
It looks like we are on our own...let's make it count.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:41:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A plan

Do you not remember 1992 when we went in with guns blazing expecting everything to change right away?  It didn't work.  We need a sensible plan that will succeed.  Add to that the fact that it is now going to take an act of Congress rather than an executive order because of how we and Clinton effed up, and the fact that in the mind of most everyone the economy trumps every issue but national security, and you get an atmosphere where if this is the first thing he advocates for with Congress, he won't win on anything.  It's just a simple political fact.  I don't like it, but it is what it is.  Now, I think ENDA and such could pass in the next year.  They don't need Obama pushing for them, they have support already and just need a president willing to sign them.  And they won't draw nearly the media attention in controversy as DADT will, nor do they also require getting the military on board.  There's no reason the Congressional sponsors of those bills can't push them through this year.

Many blessings to your son.  I have every confidence he will return home to you safely.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 15:34:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Meh

I think there are better candidates out there, but I don't think she'd do a bad job of it.  She knows plenty of world leaders, gets along with them, has an understanding of global politics that's pretty sharp, and she can keep her cool in front of cameras.

Republican scare tactics are becoming irrelevant.  What are they going to do?  Filibuster?  

---

by: joshjasper @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:36:43 AM CST

I called it during the primaries

I think she's good because of her steely personality, high profile, and her absolute difference from that shmatteh Condi Rice who always seemed like the job was something she was doing in her spare time or till something better came along.  She had risen to her level of incompetence and it seems likely she was never taken any more seriously abroad than Harriet Myers would have been had she been appointed to the Supreme Court.

As for people complaining about Obama's picks, especially those that are Clinton-connected in some way, what do you expect?  Our last Democratic president before him was Carter and people of that cadre are too old.  People will likely be associated with one recent administration or another, and I sure don't want any Bush Sr. retreads.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM CST

Why should it be necessary

for Obama to choose people from any previous Democratic administration?  After all, this is a man who got elected on a promise of change.  There are plenty of real progressives (as opposed to the Obama variety) out there who actually could bring real change to the American government.  But I called that one during the primaries:  Obama only talks about change.  When push comes to shove, all we'll get from him is recycled Democratic humbug (with a fair smattering of the Republican kind).

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

competence and effectiveness in working the system? n/t

---

by: chiefscribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:43:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point. Really.

Yeah, only people who have already been part of a Democratic administration could possibly be competent or effective.  Right.  I'm sure the people who've advised Obama to "postpone" (nudge nudge wink wink) the repeal of DADT are just the most stunningly competent and effective folks around.  Change we can believe in, huh?

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 13:40:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nobody's saying they're the only ones

You're overstating his case.  I think the point was that Obama was picking people who he believed could do a good job.

But why rule everyone who had any connection to the Clinton years out? Isn't that a kind of bigotry? What makes people with Clinton connections ipso facto bad?  Rahm Emanuel, for example, seems a great choice as chief of staff for many reasons.

So now Obama will be doubly attacked for picking Clinton as SecState.  Will those Blenders who voted for her in the primaries agree?  Are you turning on Obama, too?  Blenders, speak up.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:05:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bigotry?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

You're overstating his case.

Drastically.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:21:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes

Clinton people seem to be triggering a lot of anger and intolerance, and that's what I read in your posts (and many others). If you'd prefer the word "prejudice," fine.  I'm am reading lots of anti-Clinton sentiment across the progressive blogosphere, and the anger seems out of place.  If someone's good and gets a position in the Obama administration, I don't care if they served under clinton or Bush Sr. or Reagan.
 

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:34:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

drama

One of the reasons I was for Obama rather than Clinton was that I didn't think I could take another 4-8 years of Clinton fuckery again.  They are so skilled, but what is it about them that there is always a big bag of bullshit that comes with having them involved in something?!  Already it has started with all the leaks and such that are completely out of character for Obama's campaign.  I think she would do a great job, but I don't know if the baggage is worth it.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM CST

Leaks

Many leaks come from the Hill as names are being vetted and tested.  It's one thing to run a tight campaign where far fewer people have access to information.  I think this whole "They've spring a leak!" press coverage is just an attempt to find something sexy to pseudo-report.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:10:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

excellent point

That is a very good point.  I think there is more to it than that in this case, though.  There is ALWAYS some kind of hot mess with the Clintons.  It is like being backstage at a drag pageant.  

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:47:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Carnivalesque

Chris Matthews says he always hears the calliope playing when they enter the scene, but his inner life is a bit weird anyway.  He has that man crush on Schwarzenegger to begin with.....

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:30:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ha!

Matthews is nuttier than Chinese chicken salad, but I can't disagree with him on the calliope!  I think she is highly qualified for the job, and was initially thought it was a great choice.  Then all the wacky Clinton drama started, and I just thought, "Oh lawd, here we go again!  What is it with these two?!"  Hopefully they will all chill out and keep it together.  I think Obama is the sort of leader who demands that of his team.  Honestly, I think the problem is more Bill than Hillary.  She seems much more level-headed.

---

by: ChristopherM @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 20:03:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's See.....

The Hillary haters are having kittens over it. The actual announcement, if it happens, might even make a few of them blow a cerebral artery.

Yep. Sounds like a great idea!

---

by: talkstocoyotes @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM CST

Or maybe not

she may legitimize his desire to respond to this pivot point in American history with bold strokes rather than incremental ones.

Yeah, or she may do everything she can to undermine him.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM CST

Senator Clinton has marched with us

when she could have, like so many politicians, sent a staffer with a press release.

During the campaign her daughter campaigned in a gay club.

She is more closely identified with our causes than is the President Elect. She is a great choice.

And while we are at it, could we have Dennis Kicinich in the administration?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM CST

Yes!

I'd love to see him have some role, but I don't know what--what would you suggest?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:09:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Treasury Secretary

With some good financial people as assistant secretaries and  Dennis watching the bailout monies and making sure that it is accounted for, there would be no more private jets or sauna weekends...

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 21:55:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

if it does come about,

then i'd be interested to hear why she passed up becoming the next lion of the senate, which is a life-long gig if she wanted it.  but maybe sos is more interesting a sort of job to her, even if it is of limited duration.  i think she'll be an excellent sos and have no problem with her being there.  just sorry to see her leave the senate.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM CST

Next lion?

Not hardly.  She's a junior senator and has many terms to go before she'd have anything close tot he status she'd have as SOS.  her path is blocked by lots of older man in the Senat, whereas as SOS, she would have her own fiefdom (I love that word).  And she would have a marquee position in the effort to restore American credibility and honor around the world.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:08:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hmmmm

Hillary as Secretary of State. And who could fill her Senate seat? Let me think for a second or 2.......... perhaps Bill Clinton??

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.  

---

by: Dianne @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:07:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How about Madelaine Albright?

Or maybe Janet Reno

Chelsea?

Kenneth Starr?

I've got it - Linda Tripp...lets just LIVE in memory lane, shall we?

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:12:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lots of great possibilities

Actually, I'd love to see Clinton in the Senate inter-acting with shmucks who voted for his impeachment, but I'd prefer someone younger like Andrew Cuomo, Kathleen Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr.--and so would Chuck Schumer who's probably had enough of being upstaged.  :-)

Of course, there's always Joy Behar, who rocks, and has a mouth on her!

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:36:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think

Clinton may be the bad cop to Obama's good cop. Because she is trusted by Pentagon-hugging national security conservatives, she may legitimize his desire to respond to this pivot point in American history with bold strokes rather than incremental ones.... so what say you, blenders?

I think that there's a tendency for people to assume that if Obama does something that appears to be really stupid, it's actually part of some elaborate hidden secret plan that's really brilliant. Sometimes Obama does make really smart moves that at first glance seem counterintuitive. But occasionally he's simply going to make a mistake.

I don't see how to see this as anything other than a mistake. I don't understand how on earth one is supposed to play "good cop bad cop" with the secretary of state, and the idea that Clinton is "trusted by conservatives" seems simply surreal.

If Clinton had been given basically any other cabinet position I'd think this was a politically smart move, but they picked the one position-- foreign policy and diplomacy-- where the ideological distance between Obama and Clinton is greatest, and the one area where I for one think Obama had the greatest potential to do good as President where Clinton couldn't have. We saw in the first Bush term what happens when you have a secretary of state whose vision of how foreign policy works simply isn't the same as the rest of the executive branch-- last time we just wound up with weird factionalism, people working at cross-purposes, traditional secretary of state functions being gradually shifted over to the Defense department or the Vice President's office, and the secretary of state eventually giving up and being booted out in disgrace. What do we expect to happen this time?

---

by: mcc @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM CST

The only reason why this would be a smart move on his part:

He's putting her in a position where she can destroy what little is left of her legacy.  In one move, he's not only taken her out of the Senate (so that she can't do any more harm there), but he's taken her out of politics altogether.

Once she disgraces herself as SOS, there's absolutely no chance of her running for President again, being appointed or elected to any office again, or being a major player in politics again.  She wouldn't even be hired as a pundit.

Either this is his master plan or he simply made a terrible mistake.  I could believe either one.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM CST

SHE TOOK IT!!

OKAY.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:13:13 PM CST

I'm ambivalent but amazed

 My personal opinion is that while she has the contacts certainly and is able to do the job competently, I would have stayed in the Senate if it had been me. It isn't me however so good luck to her if she decides to take it.
 What astonishes me is how many people have this media driven, wholly hysterical hatred of Hillary Clinton. Can anybody even tell me WHY you hate her so very much? Is it because the right wing traditional media hate her so or is it because Kos, Aravosis et al hate her? I haven't heard a rational explanation for all of the Hillary directed venom yet but I sit here with an open mind and a stable attention span waiting to be educated. She voted for the Iraq war and she never should have. Obama said he was against the war and I believe him but he wasn't in a position to go on record so the comparison is not valid. If we expel everybody who voted for the war from the Democratic Party, the Republicans would still be in charge because only a handful of Dems stood up and went on record as opposing it. I call them Progressives. And much as I would like to purge those people who supported Bush's war of revenge from public life and policy positions, it's not going to happen and it's not practical. Her being DLC and having questionable ethics is also not a valid concern as all of that applies equally to Obama and in fact, most politicians of every party.
I am similarly mystified and chagrined by the assumption by some, in face of all of the evidence to the contrary, that Obama is now or ever has been this great progressive. I'm also surprised by the ridicule and baseless criticism coming from the left, (I expect it from the wingers), over what to this point has been no more than a media driven narrative about what he may or may not do, defer, postpone or jettison. He's not the president yet. Hillary Clinton despite, again media driven, rumors has said that she has not been formally offered, nor has she accepted the post.
Maybe we can all dial it down a notch or two. Clinton may be annoyingly establishment DLC but so is Obama. In the very recent political environment, that didn't make them evil or traitorous to progressive policy, it made them pragmatic, much as that may irritate those of us who still despised and distrusted Bush on September 12, 2001. The fact is that throughout history, the public has always been ahead of the curve politically and the politicians follow later. After all, they are supposed to represent US and a mirror cannot reflect anything until there is something there to reflect. Let him get in office before you decide he's a failure or a turncoat.
Reid is weak, Hoyer and Emanuel are Republicans, no matter what they want to call themselves like many others in the Democratic caucus and like it or not, Barack Obama is right at home at the DLC. Trust me, there is nobody here that dislikes Rahm Emanuel more than I do but I'm not screaming about him being chief of staff nor am I despairing over speculation as to how Obama may or may not run the country. I'm hoping that public pressure will change their rightward biases over time as it always does but judging the end result of a process which has not even properly begun is foolish.

---

by: Margaret @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 16:56:59 PM CST

it's the "change" thing, Margaret

There ain't none.  

I'm not surprised.

Others won't see anything but roses when they look into the full toilet bowl of the Democratic Party.

They just keep saying:  "I smell roses!  Let's wait to flush it a little bit longer!!  It's better than sticking our head in like we do with the Republicans, right??"

Good luck!

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 17:44:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Inauguration is still two months away

Your judgement of his presidency is premature to say the least. Give him a chance. If things look as gloomy this time next year, I'll meet you back here and concede that you were right. Until then, it's ridiculous to assert that he's doomed to failure.  

---

by: Margaret @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 18:12:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

doomed to repetition not failure

My judgment at this point in the pre-game show is based on his choices and how they reflect on his mantra of change.

If, as he said during the campaign, that a vote for Clinton wouldn't be a vote for change, then....how is her position as Lead War Monger going to produce change?

You are right, maybe it will and I should just be quiet.

I'm sure you are right.

There is no reason to doubt.

Everything is fine.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.  

---

by: Patrick @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 18:27:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Time has come today"

I see great change already in his pick of Eric Holder for AG.  This is someone who would be the anti-Gonzalez and anti-Mukasey. He's not an ideologue, he's determined to shut down Guantanamo, he's against renditions and torture.  

As for Hillary, she will be serving at the pleasure of the president, enacting his foreign policy, not her own, and her presences is real change because she's not just an empty pants suit like Condi Rice.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:40:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure. Who could bemore effective

in ending the war than someone who voted for it without reservation and defended that vote every chance she's had (up until the moment she started campaigning for president).  How could anyone think she'd be halfhearted at best in carrying out Obama's policies?  Of course, that's assuming her positions differ from his.  When he moves to expand the war into Pakistan and step up the war in Afghanistan, she'll be right on board.  So maybe you're right.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 21:34:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't get it, do you?

Clinton will not be ending the war.

Obama will be ending the war.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:35:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Get Over it, Hillary Haters"

That's the title of an opinion piece by Joe Conason in salon.com which starts thusly:

For a broad array of editorialists, pundits and kibitzers, as well as anybody else still obsessed with old resentments against the Clintons, the weeks since Election Day have inflicted a profound sensation of cognitive dissonance, as Barack Obama kept naming the friends and allies of his former rival to run his transition and his government. Now with reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton will indeed be appointed secretary of state, those feelings may even induce a stroke here or there.

Wasn't Obama the One who would exorcise the Clintonite demons from our midst and cleanse the capital of their sins?

Whatever the merits of any of the president-elect's particular personnel choices, he has hardly betrayed the faith of his supporters -- and in fact has displayed the very character and maturity that they always attributed to him. To say the least, he has showed that he cannot be swayed from exercising his own judgment by the petty backbiting of Washington at its worst.

link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/c...

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:45:48 PM CST

Hillary would make...

...an excellent secretary of state.  She has had many a direct impact on establishing numerous progressive policies in domestic and international affairs for almost two decades. This also fits well within the team-of-rivals realm in which diversity of thought is paramount. Inclusion, not exclusion is the key to true progress anywhere.  I supported Hillary throughout the primary and since then have become a great fan of Barack.  His no-drama-Obama style coupled with his desire to build a diverse and a top notch team of rivals is not only examplary but also inspirational.  Wiser world leaders may likely follow suit with Obama's approach to government.

Peace.

---

by: peacemonger @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 20:00:43 PM CST

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent take...

...on Obama's cabinet appointments thus far. I repeat: I have yet to see any news from any credible source that hasn't been anonymously credited so this whole Hillary thing thing is still a rumor. And, as I expected, No one has even tried to rationally explain their hatred of Hillary. It seems to me that leaves either media driven hysteria, misogyny or some other irrational explanations. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, I supported Obama in the primary here. On the other hand, I don't let the right wing controlled media tell me who to like or dislike and I pretty much reject anything from most of the traditional media, (NYT is often wrong and cheerled for the war, WaPo is also often wrong, cheerled for the war and thinks they should try to be more conservative), Politico, Real Clear Politics, NY Post, Washington Times, WSJ, Newsweek etc, are all organs of the Republican propaganda machine. Before you decide that Obama is doomed to fail or we are doomed to more of the same, try reading something credible and not reading what could very well be the same kind of media driven frenzy that has tried to discredit the Clintons for the last 16 years. They have never gotten over the fact that someone from Arakansas was elected president and neither, apparently have a lot of people from the left.

---

by: Margaret @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 07:58:25 AM CST

Does it not bother you at all

that every single slimy, shameful, race-baiting tactic employed by McCain/Palin was used first by Clinton's primary campaign?

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 09:51:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What part of...

... "I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton...", did you not read?

---

by: Margaret @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:03:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Change/Experience/Clintonphobia

from Jasmison Foser at Media Matters:

....the suggestion that bringing on former Clinton administration officials -- even Clinton herself -- is inconsistent with a desire for change is pure bunk. Asserting such inconsistency requires some deeply flawed assumptions: that everyone who worked in the Clinton administration is alike; that the Clinton and Bush administrations pursued identical policies with identical effectiveness; or that the desire for "change" is simply a desire for change in the types of people who hold government jobs.

People want a change in policy and a change in effectiveness. They want a change from George W. Bush, of whom disapproval is near-universal. The idea that 67 million people voted for Barack Obama because they disliked the Clinton administration is ludicrous. It ignores the wide and deep disgust with the direction Bush has taken the nation and the stunning incompetence with which he has done so. And it overlooks the obvious fact that people voted for Barack Obama because they like him and they like his policy positions.

Full story:

http://mediamatters.org/items/...

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 14:08:22 PM CST

Clitonphobia? Seriously?

So this is being equated with homophobia?  What insulting rubbish.

The idea that 67 million people voted for Barack Obama because they disliked the Clinton administration is ludicrous

Yes, of course it is.  But who ever said that's why they voted for Obama?  Setting up straw arguments only to expose them as "ludicrous" is, well, pretty ludicrous.

The obvious objection a lot of us are raising to the Clntonification of Obama's regime is that Obama will therefore be relying on advice and input from the same people who shaped Clinton's actions and policies.  We're already seeing the effect of that in the emerging flap about DADT.  Obama is already backpeddling on his promise  (not that that surprises those of us who've been critical of Obama all along).  

The Clinton years were not good for the LGBT community.  It wouldn't be too much to say they were disastrous.  Seeing this new administration turn into a retread of that one is more than slightly alarming.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 15:14:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No equation whatsoever

Attaching the word "phobia" to a noun does not remotely, does not in any way shape or form, equate that new phobia with homophobia.  Homophobia was not the ur-phobia, which all other phobias are compared to.

So this is being equated with homophobia?  What insulting rubbish.

 

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:39:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]