Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Politics and Media Headlines 11/21/08

Caro's picture

MSNBC's Phill Griffin answers his own question (County Fair, Media Matters for America)
Addressing students at Vassar College, the cabler chief bemoaned "the parlous condition of traditional news media," according to a local newspaper account. Griffin also informed the students that, looking back on the historic 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin ""made this election." We're pretty sure there's a connection between those two points.

The Agony of the Women of 2008 (video, thanks to InsightAnalytical)
Men pontificate on the role of women in the 2008 presidential election.—Caro

Obama calls on his Internet campaign army to march again (McClatchy)
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama's 3 million campaign volunteers got re-enlistment notices this week. Campaign manager David Plouffe, in a mass e-mail sent Wednesday to former workers, asked how much time they can spare for four missions integral to Obama's effort to transform his victory into a broader political movement.. "Obama's building a political machine," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a center-left Washington research group.

Trust Obama on Clinton (by Joan Walsh, Salon)
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. This choice is neither a popularity contest nor a meritocracy; it's all about the person the president believes can best represent his foreign policy and America's interests in the world. He has to deeply trust the man or woman in that role.
Oh, Joan, you are so sweetly naïve. You obviously don’t know anything about Chicago hardball politics. He offered her the Secretary of State position to force her to give up the organization of a million donors and activists that she built during the primary. He wants HIS organization to be the only force to be reckoned with. And it won’t necessarily be tied to the Democratic Party. It might be the Obama Party.—Caro

Clinton set to be nominated secretary of state after Nov. 27
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Hillary Clinton is likely to be nominated for secretary of state after the Nov. 27 U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, according to an aide to President-elect Barack Obama. Potential hurdles related to the financial disclosures of Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been worked out, said the aide, who asked not to be named. The appointment, should the New York Democrat accept the post, would make her Obama's highest-ranking Cabinet official. Backers say the popularity of both Hillary and Bill Clinton overseas would be a boon to the U.S.'s global reputation.
See? By making this announcement he tried to force her to say yes. For those who haven’t noticed the thuggery, it’s time you did. As Booman, who refused to listen to me when I tried to tell him about Chicago politics, said, “People would do well to heed Emanuel's message [about health care], lest they get a fist in the mouth or a dead fish in the mail” (thanks, Lambert).—Caro

And she has decided to accept, I’m sorry to say.
Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say
(New York Time)
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

Click here for more politics and media news headlines.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

0
No votes yet

Comments

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

"If he (Obama) believes that she can contribute.....well, then, I believe she can, too."
AAHHHHH! The complete submission to all things Obama is just too much.
So Joan, if he believed that Hillary wasn't fit to be SOS, would you believe that too? How do you determine what you believe? Whatever he says you should?
I don't understand the worship. I don't understand the blind faith. I don't understand the refusal to recognize anything negative about Obama. This is all way too creepy.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

hasn't it been Obama "aides" all along leaking all that "vetting"/"Bill's the problem"/"dirty money"/etc bs?

if he's really gonna offer it -- and i see no reports that he definitely officially has -- she should turn it down.

(it's true tho she has no real power in the Senate and won't have any for ages bec of seniority--she can run for Governor if she wants power)

Caro's picture
Submitted by Caro on

... until this afternoon were on the Obama side. They were pushing her into it. This afternoon, her aides leaked that she will accept.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--all from her "aides"--that she was torn and didn't know what to do and changing her mind every day, bla bla bla.

and from Obama's "aides"--that it wasn't a done deal--mostly because of vetting, and Bill and his foreign money and his library and that they didn't trust that Bill wouldn't be out of the picture (like they want), bla bla bla.

i'll believe this when i see it for real--and i don't think she should take it anyway.

Caro's picture
Submitted by Caro on

I'd rather see her stay in the Senate and use her activists to pressure the administration and Congress to push for her issues, which are largely MY issues.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

WaPo 4pm today -- "President-elect Barack Obama appeared close today to landing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James Jones as his national security adviser, sources said.

One friend said Clinton is ready to accept the job although the Obama transition team and Clinton's Senate spokesman said nothing has been finalized. But for the first time, her office officially confirmed that she is discussing the job with Obama.

"We're still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature," said Philippe Reines, Clinton's spokesman and senior advisor. ..." -- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tra...

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

"Take the job or ...." Or what? He'd call her bad names? Oh, wait....

The donor list was already turned over to Obama in June, along with Ickes and the other people who created and maintained it. Her millions of supporters? They either voted for Obama already or simply faded away into irrelevance, hardly a worry for Obama or the Democratic Party under any circumstances and completely meaningless now that she's eagerly come on board.

This SoS position is the Clintons' choice to accept or not, and who could have blamed her if she did refuse? Plenty of outs including the one that was handed to her, that Bill would be too much of a distraction. That she's accepted can only mean that it suits her purposes, or that her own ego is so outsized that she truly thinks she is the one and only Bestest Person for the job.

Reality is, there never was more than a dime's difference between her and Obama on any policy matter foreign or domestic. She'll fit right in no problem with a center-right POV administration, same as hers would have been, and apparently be more than happy to be the glamorous jet-setting headline-making oh-so-very-powerful Ambassador to the World rather than just another Senate back-bencher.

Looking back now, I'll lay 10 to 1 this appointment was the agreement worked out at Feinstein's DC house all those months ago; Hillary's price for stepping aside and not causing any trouble at the convention. Someone other than me should put a term to that kind of deal brokering between consenting adults.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

She had to do that anyway and knew it -- or give up any hopes of a political future with real power anywhere in DC -- ever.

It could be that she wanted something with real power and visibility (SoS would be that)--as opposed to VP (which makes Biden the sloppy second)-- but given that the entire media--and blogosphere now too--all are obsessed with her and Bill, giving her any very high-profile spot like SoS is only a plus for him if he wants her to suck all the media attention and oxygen away from himself. I doubt that.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

just like the show--where she was the dullest, and it was everyone else around her who was interesting and funny-- and always stole the show.

does he want that?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

And I fail to see how she benefits in terms of security by shifting from a safe-for-life Senate seat to - goddess help me - serving at the pleasure of the President. She'll be #3 at the White House at best, and further down depending on how the pecking order sorts; Powell was maybe #20, and Condi isn't even on the Power Chart. In the Senate no matter what she said she'd get headlines, and still be able to travel and stick her nose in negotiate with foreign leaders as much as she wanted, no restrictions.

Staying in the Senate, even without any real power, she'd have had a bully pulpit from which to goad/prod/harass Obama if she chose; now, she'll dance to his tune or he'll make her meaningless and then sack her.

You tell me why she made this deal other than she's perfectly comfortable with Obama's objectives. It sure as hell isn't because she was "forced."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

when you're already 60 means you'll never ever get it.

bec acting as goad/prod when both the leadership and Obama's people are all on board with his shitty and tepid policies gets her only terrible publicity -- and continued demonization from the media and hurts her future desires to run again.

bec taking a job where it's obvious you're acting for someone else helps her with the party, and with the media--and takes some heat off her and earns her lots of cred, even tho the media will still be fixated on her.

i don't want her to take it either, but i see the pluses for her. She'll never get real power in Congress -- but acting subserviently in a very high-profile position as SoS helps her become Governor later or at the UN or as head of some Organization or University or whatever--or if she runs herself later.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

if security was her concern she wouldn't have run for Pres, and would have been like Liddy Dole--happy to sit in the Senate til she dropped dead or was defeated.

it's about ambition -- just like Obama, who didn't even wait to finish his first term in the Senate.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Because it served her own ends?

Because that's a far cry from "forced".

I have my reservations about this, but at the same time, I acknowledge her own power and strength. The woman is, in her own words, impervious. Do you honestly believe they could force her into anything? If you do, you are denying her agency in this matter, and revealing that have a very low opinion of her.

I don't, and fully believe she accepted this job, because she believes it is best for herself, her ambitions, and her country. Her plan to get out of Iraq was far superior to Obama's, and I believe that the delay in confirming this, is because she was negotiating for the most autonomy she could get. Obama's attention will be focused mostly on the domestic, leaving Clinton's competent hands to formulate foreign policy and enact it.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it would be because it served her own ends--and because it's far better than being powerless in Congress--which they've pretty much all made clear, no?

not allowing her to lead on healthcare or anything is kinda "forcing" too, no? if you take away all other possible options, you're only left with the administration.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

On healthcare, was they were fairly positive she was going to be otherwise occupied? Being SoS. And after the SoS offer was leaked, they also made sure it was known that an opportunity working on health care was going to be there in the Senate(esp since Kennedy is aging).

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that the healthcare work in Congress offer wasn't serious?

She made it clear ages ago that that was her priority, and ever since she dropped out of the race, she made it more clear--and never got any offers and was not included in any planning or meetings or working groups at all.

that the offer was only made after the SoS stuff came out tells me that it's not serious--and is also probably a face-saving "out" or cover if she declines SoS, so that both she and Obama have a good excuse if it doesn't happen, and he stills gets the credit for seriously considering her.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

To let her do what she wants to do. If she wants SoS, fine. If she wants the Senate, fine. It's win-win.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

the SoS deal was probably decided months ago, pending a victory and some restrictions. Their long term planning wouldn't have her in the Senate.

You want to see an underhanded motive in it, and that's fine. I agree there are probably a few, but there are probably a few concillatory moves, so it's all just wait and see, and screech loud enough to move the Overton window.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

because for months there have only been rebuffs to her on health, and on jumping the seniority line too--she was shut out of both Congress's plans, and the administration's. they wouldn't have to create a task force for her if they never planned on her being in Congress--they just did--why? Why make staying in Congress more attractive if they all planned on her not being there?

if they were really serious about her being in on healthcare, they would have included her earlier---plus they wouldn't put her in charge of a just-created working group on insurers (which means she has to deal with "Harry & Louise" and all those who poured millions back then and millions more now to ensure they profit from whatever happens)--it's a terrible fit for her.

on the overton window--she's to the right of him on many foreign policy things--it was domestic policy where she was better and could move the window, i'd say.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"Democratic leaders in the Senate are prepared to give Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton a still-undefined leadership role there if she does not become Barack Obama’s secretary of state, Democratic officials close to the situation said Thursday.

The discussions about an enhanced position for Mrs. Clinton are factoring into her deliberations over joining the cabinet, the officials said. ..." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/pol...

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

Pretty apropos isn't it. A woman as Secy is much more acceptable by Obama pony machine, I suppose they figured they had to make at least ONE female appt.

Although by now why isn't it Administrative Assistant of State?

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

I thought I was cynical. What are Obama's objectives?

Obama needs all the help he can get. Eighteen million people didn't jump on his bandwagon, btw. And millions of others couldn't even be bothered to vote in the primary or the general.

He doesn't have any sort of mandate, any more than Bush did, except from the freaking media.

Hillary only has to worry about Obama if he fucks it up. There are several ways he could do that. Not listening is one.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he doesn't need any voter for anything anymore. Even if Congress goes GOP in 10, he still gets to ride out his 1st term no matter what.

I'm thinking he wants the same freedom Cheney had--and he can only get that by surrounding himself with media magnets and bright shiny things that will distract them. Rahm and Biden are two of them already doing that job--especially Rahm, so far.

Obama doesn't want the media all over him--especially when he's "sitting at the table" with health insurers and drug cos. and everyone who has money/interests in every issue.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the whole narrative and themes that the media drools for, he will have some luxury---he already has tons that no Democrat has ever had.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

in this country. Healthcare, jobs, education...

Push, push, push for those things.

Bush managed to divert attention with "terrorism." ENOUGH!

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

we all saw how well that narrative thingy worked out for Bush didn't we? That kind of thing only works for so long and the only reason Bush got a pass for long was because of 9/11.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the most carefully packaged/calibrated product launch in politics or out of it since Reagan, i'd say.

Think how many years Reagan got away with it--and how he still does even now.

Think how it was always about style over substance, and about biography and persona--and not about policy.

And also remember that what he's planning to do--and how-- is what the media always calls for and fetishizes. (and that they still have never really told the truth about how Dubya "governed" nor allowed any investigation, let alone punishment.)

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

but Reagan would never have been able to do that today. We have a much larger flow of information. You have to realize that when Reagan was President there were basically three news stations and CNN only started in 1986 iirc.

Once the approval ratings fall, then that's when the media goes in for blood. They're all about telling people what they want to hear. The only reason the Reagan myth lives on is because conservatives have made it their goal to keep that myth alive.

I blame the lack of investigations into Dubya largely on the Dems. They could've done something about that once they took the house and the senate but they failed. Obama isn't going to investigage Dubya either. He's too cowardly and seems to want to continue his policies too.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

That's what I feel. She's one hell of a candidate on her own so he automatically gets a go-to clutch player on the international stage, but she's also dogged by a misogynistic feeding frenzy of rabid hate, which he was most fond of exploiting during the primary to boost and protect himself (or just for the hell of it*). He kills two birds with one stone.

*When he pushed that outrageous RFK smear he had the nomination in the bag (post-RBC) and yet he still did it. It's like he couldn't help himself. It was beyond excessive and I just don't see that disappearing all of a sudden.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

By selecting her for this, I wasn't expecting this, and I'm going to look at this, until further indications prove otherwise, that he is trying to counteract the misogyny he stoked up, by appointing to her to such a prominent position. If he gives her the opportunity, she will do an incredible job, and he made the CDS'ers in his base assplode their little heads.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Listen, she's the best person for the job and these are desperate times. He almost can't afford not to pick her. The fact she's a woman is secondary. She's their to help him out. I can't see him of all people out there trying to seriously counter anti-female bigotry.

Besides, who says just because she's SoS that it'll somehow counter the deeply entrenched hate? Will she stop being dehumanized and demonized somehow? No. Bigotry will run rampant and she'll do her job well. Besides, she won't be breaking any new ground or have her own autonomy (Notice how many people are talking about Obama keeping HRC on a "leash" or "under control"). If she had been elected president that'd be a different story due to the immense power she would have had.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

totally. It's totally subservient and subordinate--and they're praising him to the skies for even considering it--let alone if he does it.

If she takes it, the boyz all over will cheer at MSNBO and elsewhere--she'll be "in her place" --and he'll get the credit for "taming the shrew" -- the demonic Hillary. (she gets stuff out of it too, but it's certainly not countering any misogyny at all in any way)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Based on what? Her extensive attendance at teas and state dinners?

There are a hundred people more qualified and available, starting with Bill Richardson. Her appointment feeds Obama's domestic political issues much more immediately than foreign ones, and a big part of that is to defang the charges of misogyny. If Hillary can accept this position it makes absolutely clear that whatever was said or not said during the primary she is able to overlook it all and move on. Anyone who wants to carry on with the claims against Obama will have to do it not just minus their Poster Woman but with her walking around electively subservient to him.

That "Whoosh" sound you're hearing is all the air leaving what remains of PUMA; another enemy co-opted and another hide on the wall for Obama, who is just a little bit starting to impress me.

Caro's picture
Submitted by Caro on

I didn't know there was anyone at Corrente who bought into that stupid right-wing lie that was promoted by the so-called progressive blogosphere.

Hillary Clinton has won the admiration of everyone who has bothered to meet with her personally.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

That crack about teas and dinners was offered to balance the "best person" canard; must keep the scales at level, somehow.

Oh, and I'm not so much "at" Corrente as "tolerated" here - and that only barely. No fear, I don't speak for the blog.

But seriously, what has she done that makes her qualified for State compared to, say, a Richardson? I don't see it.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

makes Obama even remotely qualified to be President? Nothing that I can see. What makes Daschle qualified to be HHS head? He has no record in that area and has been a lobbyist for the last 4 years. Napolitano at Homeland Security? Nada qualifications for that. The only nominee that seems even remotely qualified for the job that he's being appointed to is Holder and even then Obama is going to have to eat his hat because of his statements about the Marc Rich pardon which Holder was part of I understand.

Apparently, to people like you, only Hillary has to meet some imaginary qualification hump even though she was very much an activist first lady. The Teas at Embassies is one of the most sexist and degrading things that Obama has said. No wonder 60% of women think we have a huge misogyny problem in this country.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Apparently, to people like you, Hillary is above questioning. Is Hillary the only one who can't be challenged? She's the topic in this thread because, well, she IS the topic in this thread. All those other people are not.

And the Mark Rich canard is one maybe you should look into closer before you throw it up. All Holder did was render an opinion on legality of a pardon in advance of conviction, it was a pro forma staff legal task and nothing more.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Hillary for Marc Rich?

Eeek!

Looks like your problem is with Bill.

Hillary is not Bill last I looked.

I never will understand you people.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Read it all again, including the comment I was responding to. I'm very clear that the decision on Rich was Bill's and nobody else's. Do I have a "problem" with Bill? not overwhelmingly, but he was a big disappointment in many ways from my Progressive perspective.

And what is it with the "you people" thing? What kind of "people" do you think I am?

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

she's not above questioning. All during the primaries we questioned her and questioning was allowed but it was never allowed of Obama.

Obama ran a holier than thou campaign with himself as the head of a purist cult who can do no wrong.

The tea thing is one of the most sexist things you can say.

Rendering an opinion on Marc Rich is all that may be needed to kill his nomination.

Let's face something: Obama is a hypocrite. He lied to a ton of people to get them on board and then does an about face.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I know you were a Clinton supporter more out of pragmatism than belief, but even today your attitude towards this appointment seems overly harsh.

You don't feel that Clinton's 8 years of service as an activist First Lady, qualifies as diplomacy?

And, she was onto microloans before they won a Nobel prize. You don't think someone with that kind of intellectual curiousity is a good person to deal with the impending global economic crisis, as our economy begins to collapse.

And if Obama is as smart as you give him credit for, he has to realize that Clinton's Iraqi withdrawal plan was far to superior to his, and he should give her enough autonomy to oversee it herself, freeing him to focus on domestic issues.

I am quite excited about the possibilities, because she is uniquely qualified for this, more so than any others who have been speculated, and certainly better than a Fucking Repub.

I don't think that Obama is setting her up to fail, because he risks alienating many people who like this idea. But as lambert says, Obama has never really missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so we shall see. Right now, he's still getting the benefit of the doubt. Most of what he has done, is what I expected him to do, but this proposal has definitely peaked my interest.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

No, I don't think the pro forma activities of a First Lady qualify as international diplomacy experience.

And harsh? Hardly; I can do harsh, and this isn't it. Hillary is very smart, and I think the choice of a woman sends a very good message about equality - or at least our aspirations towards it - to the most benighted regions of the world, so there are pluses. I don't like her overall foreign policy attitude, which I find too heavy on militarism, but that's my taste. Good old Bill has an ego as big as anyone on the planet, and it is one thing for him to keep it in check with his wife as President and quite another for him to do it with her as SoS in someone else's administration.

I hope it all works out, but I am mildly apprehensive.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

How so? Richardson comes off as a dolt and his history during the Clinton administration wasn't one of superior excellence. I should have my statement by saying that she was the best person realistically available to do the job of SoS (i.e. amongst those being seriously considered: Kerry and Richardson).

With regards to PUMA: All they ever were were a rag-tag group of people who said they weren't going to vote for Obama, not necessarily that they were going to vote for McCain. That has been repeatedly said here and yet people continue to push distortions about "them" (Mind you, they weren't really an organization; it started at Riverdaughter's site as just a way to name the lot of people, like myself, who planned on not voting for Obama, whether it be leaving the top of the ticket blank, staying home, voting for a third party, or even, yes, voting McCain). Why you continue to consider them "the enemy" is beyond me.

And why do you need to mention that whoever still has problems with what was done during the primary (hint: more than just misogynistic and homophobic bigotry) will have to do it with our "Poster Woman" "subservient" to Obama? There's no reason to inject such a misogynistic undertone. It's unnecessary to say the least.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

It is a subservient position, entirely, and one she does not have to take. Her buisiness, her decision, entirely, but it isn't the act of someone harboring deep ill will from having been serially abused. In my view it rather takes the impact out of continued umbrage.

Your opinion of Hillary vs Richardson is one I do not agree with, no more complicated than that. I asked for some justification to support the contention that she is the Best Available for SoS, and am still looking for that. Not suggesting she'll be bad, she's smart and tough and a quick study, but IMHO more than a little too enamored of power and not near enough taken with diplomacy.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I asked for some justification to support the contention that she is the Best Available for SoS, and am still looking for that.

See above

Submitted by hipparchia on

hostage negotiation is a specialized [and useful] skill, applicable to a specialized and finite situation, a situation that's going to have one of only a few possible outcomes.

the figurehead of the department that's all about getting along with the rest of the world? relationship-building is a long-term [never-ending, actually] enterprise, requiring all the skills of a generalist. just the kinds of skills [and relationships] that teas and state dinners are designed to build.

and a woman who's got the ovaries to travel to a large country in the grip of a secretive and brutal and misogynistic regime and tell them to their faces that they've got to treat their women and girls like human beings? dayum. and who still remains widely loved and admired the world? you do know the definition of diplomat, don't you?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Again, in comparison to the likely other candidates, Kerry and Richardson, Hillary Clinton is in a league by herself in terms of global star power. They all qualify in terms of basic competence and experience but Hillary Clinton brings much more than that.

As someone who nearly won the nomination on sheer grit and merit, against a backdrop of all-out media hysteria, bigotry, and DNC manipulation, she has more than proven herself as a political heavyweight in her own right. Neither Kerry nor Richardson come close to her political skills. Also, her unapologetic stand in favor of gender rights in China of all places has afforded her much deserved status as a champion of human rights, particularly for women and girls who very much need someone fighting for them.

Kerry had a similar champion profile (at least, domestically) with regards to the Vietnam war, but that was before he got Swiftboated. Worse than that was his limp response to the smear campaign. One thing you can't accuse Clinton of is being limp when the going gets tough.

Also, the woman is heads and shoulders above the rest, including Obama, when it comes to understanding the economy, which is now a full blown global crisis, having correctly called her shot on the need for urgent action, particularly on mortgages, well over two years ago.

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

Why on earth so many think that entertaining guests doesn't take management, diplomatic, and negotiation skills is beyond me. Just because more women do it doesn't mean it's frivolous.

In fact, it may help prevent many wars and other conflicts, which in my book is a VERY big deal. Get those leaders TALKING instead of fighting.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

It would be nice if he took active steps to counteract the filth that will be unleashed against her in the coming months. But we all know it's coming. She's impervious, and so am I. It will be out there, and we must do what we always do, and that is stand against it, and persevere regardless. She will do this, and so must we. And while the misogyny and the woman hatred will be out there, women can act against this, challenging the culture of oppression and overcoming it.

The opportunity to make this progress is there, we must take it. And I believe putting Clinton into a position of such prominence, can only increase the opportunities.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and given that Obama has made his foreign policy aims clear, it's simply carrying out directives, no?

i'd rather she got a position more in line with her work over the decades, and where you can actually shape new policy and programs, as well as oversee large, existing structures -- HHS -- for a perfect example of a better fit, with more real power. (or HUD or Labor, etc)

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

She probably negotiate autonomy. If Obama was as smart as his supporters credit, he would, it's in his own best interest.

We shall just have to wait and see who's reading it right.

Caro's picture
Submitted by Caro on

... you don't think she kept a copy? What I had hoped she would do is to use that list of supporters to push the party to the left. She's more liberal than Obama, which is why I supported her after Edwards dropped out.

If she doesn't want to do that, or thinks she can do more good as SoS, fine. It's her decision, not mine. I'm not the one trying to push her into anything. I get to say what I wish she would do, and she gets to make her own decision.

If it was decided months ago, then why all the back and forth?

And when have we ever seen before these announcements that someone is going to be offered a position before they've expressed, in private, a willingness to accept it? I've never seen this.

Since Obama and the Illinois Combine now own the Democratic Party, lock, stock, and barrel, he could make her life as difficult as he wants to. A threat doesn't have to be stated.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

if they're talking about her and Bill, they're not really paying attention to the other appointees or even the bailout or any policies---or anything else.

it's dangling a totally irresistible shiny thing in front of the media crib--whatever else is going on is immediately not as important or even covered.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Then they should have installed her as prez. But I doubt Obama won't manage to hog the limelight.

He is, after all, the POTUS.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's like when they say that you should always have friends who aren't good looking--that it makes you look better looking.

It feeds his ego, and the whole narrative--how he wants to be seen--as the "cool, calm, and collected" "nonpartisan" guy not "fighting" or playing "old politics"--when all the people around him are loud and partisan and "hot".

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

And either are millions of others.

He has to have positive results.

It's got to be the scariest job in the world for anyone who takes it seriously.

I couldn't care less about a black president - I wanted the best person for the job (not saying it was even Hillary), but he's got that added pressure.

He's smart, but how strong is he? We'll find out.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Not how I'd have termed it, but....

So you really think that with Hillary "dangled" nobody will notice the black man behind the curtain? That he'll get no scrutiny whatsoever?

I don't think Obama's quite that naïve; I'm real sure Hillary isn't either.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Afraid I don't see that as likely. On some domestic issues she appeared marginally to the Left of Obama; on foreign affairs she is at least as Rightist as was Reagan's team. "More liberal" is a relative term, and in my view not by much if any all told.

C: "If it was decided months ago, then why all the back and forth?

And when have we ever seen before these announcements that someone is going to be offered a position before they've expressed, in private, a willingness to accept it? I've never seen this."

Exactly so, which is why I suggest this deal was settled a long time ago. What's happening now is negotiating the final details and bringing Bill to heel; he was always the problem, not Hillary. They could easily have made an agreement in principle back in June but there was no reason to grind out the fine print until after he won the office. That would be now, and there were details that have been harder to sort than anticipated. One can picture Bill saying "Yeah, sure, whatever" back in June and only now having to come to grips with the need to not take any more big bucks speaking engagements with ruthless brutal bloodthirsty dictators.

I suppose Obama could make her life miserable, although compared to what she's been through from the VRWC and survived I can't imagine anything new being worse. What strikes me is that it will be a hell of a lot easier for him to treat her badly with her reporting directly to him - and being severable without notice or any need for decorum - than it would have been with her in the Senate where he may have needed her votes.

It just won't do to keep portraying Hillary Clinton, of all people, as a victim who is somehow being controlled by others. She, and Bill, are so way past those days it isn't even debatable and can do pretty damn near as they please. What ever they decide, we can be sure they think it is good for them - for them, above all.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Afraid I don't see that as likely. On some domestic issues she appeared marginally to the Left of Obama; on foreign affairs she is at least as Rightist as was Reagan's team

You're, no doubt, comparing the Cold War scary stuff with the terrorism crap now and thinking that it's all the same thing.

Reagan used the Russia of the 1960's to his advantage. Obama is the prez, not Hillary.

So what say you about Obama?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Then or now, it is about the attitude. Hillary has been consistently in favor of projecting American power through force and coercion, while Obama has at least stated he'll take a more nuanced and more diplomacy-oriented approach. We will, to be sure, have to wait and see what he does after he takes office, but what is sure and certain now is that both Obama and Clinton are going to be much more popular than the Bush team world-wide and therein lies perhaps some opportunity to do some things multilaterally.

Oh, and Reagan "used" Russia (sic)? Jeebus. Reagan and his team dithered and spun around in circles, absolutely afraid of taking any of the overtures offered by Yeltsin or Gorbachev, until in the end the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. If Reagan's team hadn't been so full of their own hubris they might have brokered a deal that would have benefited everyone; instead they kept up their hard line and allowed an uncontrolled collapse into a failed state with nuclear weapons. We are damn lucky that Putin is sane - creepy and crooked as all get out, but sane. No thanks to Reagan there, none at all.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

We will, to be sure, have to wait and see what he does after he takes office, but what is sure and certain now is that both Obama and Clinton are going to be much more popular than the Bush team world-wide and therein lies perhaps some opportunity to do some things multilaterally.

Well, duh.

Reagan and his team dithered and spun around in circles, absolutely afraid of taking any of the overtures offered by Yeltsin or Gorbachev

Ah, yes. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Reagan was an idiot, but that's NOT the way he or Russia was portrayed back then, BIO. In fact, Reagan has been credited in the past with singlehandedly defeating communism.

Hilarious.

You need to get over your CDS. It's unbecoming.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Unbecoming. I don't have CDS, or anything close to it. I was a strong Hillary supporter right to the end of the primaries and I don't have anything in particular against her, any more than any other right-of-center Democrat. Failure to fawn is not CDS.

Reagan wasn't an idiot, but he was no whiz either and by the time rubber hit the road with the USSR he was already in the grip of dementia. I know how Reagan was portrayed back then, and I also know just exactly who he was for real, without the filters and the spinmeisters and the fawning media.

His whole senior policy team came out of California, as did he; I knew them all very well and what their agenda was, and I watched in absolute horror as they let one opportunity for real detent and mutual assurance pass by in favor of building fear and posturing and soldifying their hold on domestic politics and power. They truly believed that if they just kept on squeezing the whole USSR edifice would crumble and we would "win" but they thought it would happen like a child views disaster, in the abstract. We. the whole world, came oh so very close to complete chaos and utter destruction. We escaped that by luck, not by the grace of Reagan's planning.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Failure to fawn? I'm trying to figure out just what your priorities/allegiances are.

You seem to like Obama. I have no reason to... yet. So I'm one up on you there.

Reagan was an idiot. He was a B-movie actor who acted in his way into the presidency. The Great Communicator. Bah! I have nothing good to say about the man or his administration. The country suffered economically under him.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

so you get 10 bonus ranking points from me just for your handle.

I'm a bundle of contradictions, so good luck sorting me out. I am an unreconstructed old-fashioned FDR liberal with 60's DFH tastes and union (IWW & Teamsters) membership who believes unalterably in personal responsibility for acts and feelings; I'm completely committed to revolution by peaceful means but I'm far from a pacifist; I am passionate about the Constitution and the rule of law while understanding it is all a façade for dominance by a socioeconomic elite; and I am not in the least judgmental about other people's private lives almost regardless of what they do but I cannot abide sloppy thinking. Otherwise, pretty straightforward and consistent.

I have no more in the way of political allegiances than politicians have concern for me which is to say, precious little to none at all except for a handful that I know personally. I don't "like" Obama, but he's a damn sight better than Bush or any other Republican, better potentially than Bill Clinton was the last six years of his term and probably no worse than Carter; I pray he will not be as much of a disaster in foreign affairs as was LBJ. What I think is that change is coming, ready or not, and in the emerging termoil there will be opportunity. A lot of expectation has been heaped on this young man with the slender resume and centrist tendencies, and unhappiness with him is just around the corner. My wish is that Progressives can get some semblence of priorities in order and when he realizes he's in over his head wrap our arms around him and say "Come here, dear fellow, sit down with us and let us help you."

My true preference is that we would take it to the streets and shut the country down until we get our way, but this approach seems to be gone from the consciousness of the body politic. Pity, that.

[Yes, detente; also, a period after "We" that doesn't belong, should have been a comma. I banged that one out against an RL demand and didn't have time to re-read and edit, deepest apologies.]

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

yeah there were a lot of policy differences between her and Obama and especially on foreign policy when Obama said he would meet dictators without preconditions. Obama continually attacked her from the left in primary in every area except health care which he attacked her from the right.

I'm sure Hillary has worked out something that's beneficial to her or she wouldn't be taking it. And if Obama fails, with the economy being the big elephant in the room, she has no history of supporting his economic agenda with her votes in the Senate.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

and that was especially infuriating. Obama stabs everybody in the back. It's what he does and I certainly can understand your concern.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the only difference is meeting with everyone (which the SoS would do anyway, and which Rice and others at State already were doing, pretty much).

Bush has locked in the Iraq agreement and bases there, and made it so that we must spend billions and billions to replace all equipment--and all the dead/injured/used-up soldiers, etc.

And Obama's plans for Afghanistan have already been happening under Bush--they've increased boots on the ground --and bombings-- and have already been doing the same in Pakistan too. And Petraeus is in charge there now, no?

If he keeps Gates, it's all just more "stay the course" and grow the military (which Obama already said he would do).

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

-- http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid...

"... It demonstrates that Obama has finally learned the political power of magnanimity—or least the perception thereof. It demonstrates strength, whereas selecting her as his running mate would have displayed the opposite (the stories would all have been about how he did it because he had no choice). And it demonstrates a level of self-confidence remarkable even in someone who just won the presidency. One of the cardinal rules of the Beltway is that you never appoint a subordinate who, for all practical purposes, can’t be fired. Colin Powell was very nearly such an appointment, and George W. Bush came to regret it. Hillary Clinton would be another. Obama is wagering that Clinton will do his bidding and not pursue her own agenda because she will see that her future—in electoral politics, in how she’s treated in the history books—will be bound up with his success. ..."

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Obama is in for it. He's the president.

The sycophants are no better now than they were when Bush was sitting in the Oval Office.

They're beyond tiresome.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

I'm having flashbacks to "our fair haired savior George W. Bush" sycophancy of a few years ago. They do never change.

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

I think it is exactly the same, the rabid eyes shining moment of GWB's rise to presidency parallels BO's.

Considering that until BO was able to exploit politics for financial gain he was not able to improve his own financial standing. His wife made her money off of the Health care system. So look forward to speeches of American's should work for the government because that is where all the great jobs are.

errrm......ok....yeah I'm optimistic.

Submitted by scoff on

is the number of Bush's cheerleaders now willingly accepted into the Obama Squad.

Actions speak louder than words.

Submitted by jawbone on

NYTimes article linked to by Amberglow above.

The article was from Thursday and events seem to have moved on from then, making the possibility moot. But still:

A senior Democratic adviser said Mr. Obama had talked with a retired Marine general, James L. Jones, former commander of NATO military forces, about serving as secretary of state or national security adviser.

Reactions?