Why Obama's Got "Complete Confidence" In Clinton
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/387020/why_obama_s_got_complete_confidence_in_clinton?rel=sidebox
"So it will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The senator from New York, who lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama because she supported authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq when her rival from Illinois opposed the move, will now be the face of President Obama's foreign policy.
The final detail of the plan to put Clinton in charge of the State Department -- an agreement by former President Bill Clinton to work with the Obama transition team to address potential conflicts of interest arising from his international financial dealings -- has been settled. Obama made the announcement Monday morning in Chicago, at a press conference where he confirmed that he'll retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates and name retired Marine General Jim Jones as his national security adviser, former deputy attorney general Eric Holder as attorney general, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary and Obama campaign foreign-policy aide Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
It was Clinton who stood at Obama's side.
And the President-elect was as enthusiastic about his selection of the woman who tried to block his way to the Oval Office as he has been about any of his selections -- perhaps more so.
Describing Clinton as "an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence," Obama said, "Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda."
Is this "change we can believe in"?
Not by any reasonable measure of the term.
But nor is this the end of the world as we know it -- even if it could be the end of the illusion that some of Obama's more romantic enthusiasts entertained with regard to his global view.
Obama and Clinton have never been radically different players when it comes to foreign affairs. In fact, when they served together in the Senate from January, 2005, until this year, they were precisely parallel players. Even when they were trying to distinguish themselves during the race for their party's presidential nod, they amused serious debate watchers by exchanging "Well, I agree with Hillary" and "I actually agree with Barack" signals. And, of course, they did agree -- to such an extent that, after Clinton poked in one debate at Obama for embracing diplomacy she read the polls, realized that everyone agreed with her rival and came into the next debate as an advocate of, um, diplomacy.
On the morning after their competition completed in June of this year, Obama and Clinton were stumbling over one another to sound alike when they appeared before the annual political vetting session that is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee gathering in Washington. Obama told a somewhat skeptical crowd: "As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency."
Though comment was an appropriate dig not just at President Bush but at former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton followed the man who had defeated her to the podium, echoed his themes and then offered a blessing that carried a good deal of weight in that particular room: "I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here," she said. "It's an honor to call him my friend, and let me be clear--I know Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
That's what makes the whole "Team of Rivals" discussion so comic.
Obama and Clinton were rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination because they both wanted the job. They were never really ideological rivals.
This is why, even as Obama and Clinton battled one another in the early caucuses and primaries, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold -- the Senate's most determined opponent of the war in Iraq, in particular, and the failed Washington consensus with regard to foreign policies, in general -- chose not to make an endorsement.
While the Wisconsin Democrat quietly voted for Obama in his state's February 19 Democratic primary, he did not come forward as an early of enthusiastic supporter of the supposedly anti-war contender. That's because, as Feingold explained in several conversations with this reporter, he saw little real evidence that Obama and Clinton were staking out distinct positions.
Perhaps as significantly, Feingold saw something else.
Though he has long been at odds with Clinton -- especially on campaign finance and ethics issues, but also on foreign policy -- Feingold explains that he came to see the former first lady in a new light when they traveled together (along with Arizona Senator John McCain, Maine Senator Susan Collins and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) on a 2005 Senate fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Tunisia.
"Two things: One, she was incredibly well-prepared and well-informed. She knew the key players and the issues that were heating up in each of the countries we visited," recalled Feingold. "Two, she was very well respected. When we landed in each country, this Senate delegation, she was the one that the generals and the officials were trying to talk to. She was the one they knew and respected."
In a number of conversations we've had about key players in the Democratic party, Feingold, long an essential member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly returned to the point that Clinton is a very smart, very skilled player when it comes to foreign affairs. Even when he does not agree with Clinton, the Wisconsinite says, he recognizes her as someone who is more than ready to represent the United States on the global stage.
Bottom line: What Russ Feingold saw in Clinton was what Barack Obama saw in Clinton.
Obama is not assembling a team of rivals -- at least not with the Clinton pick. He is selecting a fellow senator who he came to respect and even to regard somewhat fondly during the course of a difficult but not particularly destructive primary campaign. More importantly, he is selected someone who agrees with him on almost every significant global issues and who he is certain will be able Secretary of State.
No, the man who spent the past several days consulting by phone with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, is not staking out bold new turf with his selection of a replacement for Rice. This is not fundamental change. But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change."
Change!
"So it will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The senator from New York, who lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama because she supported authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq when her rival from Illinois opposed the move, will now be the face of President Obama's foreign policy.
The final detail of the plan to put Clinton in charge of the State Department -- an agreement by former President Bill Clinton to work with the Obama transition team to address potential conflicts of interest arising from his international financial dealings -- has been settled. Obama made the announcement Monday morning in Chicago, at a press conference where he confirmed that he'll retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates and name retired Marine General Jim Jones as his national security adviser, former deputy attorney general Eric Holder as attorney general, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary and Obama campaign foreign-policy aide Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
It was Clinton who stood at Obama's side.
And the President-elect was as enthusiastic about his selection of the woman who tried to block his way to the Oval Office as he has been about any of his selections -- perhaps more so.
Describing Clinton as "an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence," Obama said, "Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda."
Is this "change we can believe in"?
Not by any reasonable measure of the term.
But nor is this the end of the world as we know it -- even if it could be the end of the illusion that some of Obama's more romantic enthusiasts entertained with regard to his global view.
Obama and Clinton have never been radically different players when it comes to foreign affairs. In fact, when they served together in the Senate from January, 2005, until this year, they were precisely parallel players. Even when they were trying to distinguish themselves during the race for their party's presidential nod, they amused serious debate watchers by exchanging "Well, I agree with Hillary" and "I actually agree with Barack" signals. And, of course, they did agree -- to such an extent that, after Clinton poked in one debate at Obama for embracing diplomacy she read the polls, realized that everyone agreed with her rival and came into the next debate as an advocate of, um, diplomacy.
On the morning after their competition completed in June of this year, Obama and Clinton were stumbling over one another to sound alike when they appeared before the annual political vetting session that is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee gathering in Washington. Obama told a somewhat skeptical crowd: "As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency."
Though comment was an appropriate dig not just at President Bush but at former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton followed the man who had defeated her to the podium, echoed his themes and then offered a blessing that carried a good deal of weight in that particular room: "I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here," she said. "It's an honor to call him my friend, and let me be clear--I know Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
That's what makes the whole "Team of Rivals" discussion so comic.
Obama and Clinton were rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination because they both wanted the job. They were never really ideological rivals.
This is why, even as Obama and Clinton battled one another in the early caucuses and primaries, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold -- the Senate's most determined opponent of the war in Iraq, in particular, and the failed Washington consensus with regard to foreign policies, in general -- chose not to make an endorsement.
While the Wisconsin Democrat quietly voted for Obama in his state's February 19 Democratic primary, he did not come forward as an early of enthusiastic supporter of the supposedly anti-war contender. That's because, as Feingold explained in several conversations with this reporter, he saw little real evidence that Obama and Clinton were staking out distinct positions.
Perhaps as significantly, Feingold saw something else.
Though he has long been at odds with Clinton -- especially on campaign finance and ethics issues, but also on foreign policy -- Feingold explains that he came to see the former first lady in a new light when they traveled together (along with Arizona Senator John McCain, Maine Senator Susan Collins and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) on a 2005 Senate fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Tunisia.
"Two things: One, she was incredibly well-prepared and well-informed. She knew the key players and the issues that were heating up in each of the countries we visited," recalled Feingold. "Two, she was very well respected. When we landed in each country, this Senate delegation, she was the one that the generals and the officials were trying to talk to. She was the one they knew and respected."
In a number of conversations we've had about key players in the Democratic party, Feingold, long an essential member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly returned to the point that Clinton is a very smart, very skilled player when it comes to foreign affairs. Even when he does not agree with Clinton, the Wisconsinite says, he recognizes her as someone who is more than ready to represent the United States on the global stage.
Bottom line: What Russ Feingold saw in Clinton was what Barack Obama saw in Clinton.
Obama is not assembling a team of rivals -- at least not with the Clinton pick. He is selecting a fellow senator who he came to respect and even to regard somewhat fondly during the course of a difficult but not particularly destructive primary campaign. More importantly, he is selected someone who agrees with him on almost every significant global issues and who he is certain will be able Secretary of State.
No, the man who spent the past several days consulting by phone with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, is not staking out bold new turf with his selection of a replacement for Rice. This is not fundamental change. But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change."
Change!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Change you can believe in...er I mean there is no change.. uhm..
err.. umm...ok...well.... Yes we Can! then
one of them has to fit somehow
I'm going to run next year on Vague
Vague you can believe in!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Or this is an 'obama was against the war as he is an agent of change' type thing?
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The guy is doing a phenomenal job picking extremely qualified and competent people for his Cabinet.
I love the pick.
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
"McCain: Old and Angry you can believe in."
He spoke of a little more than 'governing from the center' for the past 2 years.
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Isn't Roland Canadian? How can he have 'sour grapes' then??
Perhaps what you see as sour grapes we see as disagreement (especially considering the past comments and track record of who he's picking) and you shouldn't be so dismissive and arrogant?
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
NO!
YOU DON'T FUCKING SAY.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
This is what this motherfucker RAN on, goddamnit.
This is what got him noticed in the EARLY campaign.
THIS IS WHAT THE WHOLE FUCKING DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS GOT FUCKING ELECTED ON.
And now you fuckers sit around and toss on people like me and roland for giving them shit for it.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Grow a goddamn backbone, wake the fuck up, and challenge your own fucking "leadership" to do the right goddamn thing, and follow their own fucking words and campaign promisses, let alone The Constitution.
These assholes should ALL be brought up on treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, &c &c. Democrats, Republicans, and all.
Quit listening to bullshit rhetoric and empty promises before you get roped out of everything you ever held dear.
Quit playing bullshit partisan politics, and stand up for your fucking country.
Before its gone.
:( :(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Which ones do you love in particular and why?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Obama is not even the leader yet. Your going off the deep end Driftin'.
What are you even talking about? When has Obama ever said that he is 100% opposed to war? I am not, and I don't want a leader who is afraid to go to war. I do however want a leader who knows when it is time and when it is NOT time to go to war. To only use the military powers when all other options have been expended.
You and Roland run around this forum with diarrhea of the keyboard damning any and everything about Obama thus far and I am starting to grow quite tired of it and have grown an incredibly slanted opinion about you personally. I always thought you were smarter and a more logical thinker than this. Boy, was i wrong.
I have never once heard the democrats say they are anti war. I have heard the all say they are anti the Iraq war. But those are two totally different statements. So far, Obama has upheld the constitution as president 1000% more than GW has. Mainly because he hasn't taken the oath of the fucking office yet.
I am tired of you talking down to people here as though you know more than the rest when n reality you are spewing crap to get people to rally against Obama for your own personal reason, reason I can only imagine.
Some of the people he appointed have through their actions.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I remember that the majority of your country gave the thumbs up to Bush to invade Iraq. So forgive me if I don't take much comfort in that... especially since Obama wants to "fiercely prosecute the war on terror."
I can't exactly say that his bipartisan picks are reassuring either. Perhaps it's better to look at their stances and history instead of focusing on which party they are.
naděje umírá poslední
He never does. It's always vitriol without substance, unsubstantiated claims, and when you try to call him out he labels you as brainwashed and a moron for having a different opinion.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
One more fucking time, for the fucking rest of you here.
BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR STARTED, THIS IS WHAT OBAMA HAD TO SAY IN 2002:
And i'm STILL seeing goofballs respond telling me, "i don't remember when the democrats EVER said they were against the war." or "i wouldn't want a president who was totally against war."
HE SAID SPECIFICALLY
"I don’t oppose all wars."
"That’s what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT.
THE GUY SPOKE OUT AGAINST A STUPID FUCKING WAR, BEFORE IT FUCKING STARTED.
HOLD THE MOTHERFUCKER TO THAT SPEECH!
Why does it make me the obnoxious idiot to remind you folks of something that, at ONE point, was a very important part of the Obama campaign, let alone of the entire democratic congress that was put in office LARGELY to end the war.
Denying that makes YOU folks look like the loonies.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
FACT: Your boy was against the war before it started.
FACT: He talked tough on the war during the primaries.
FACT: Many people were turned on to Obama because of his apparent anti-war views.
FACT: Go read his transcript. He was opposed to this war before it started.
FACT: He has very much flip flopped on his opinion of the war.
FACT: Many of his faithful are still in denial over this.
Of COURSE he NEVER said he was 100% opposed to war.
But, go READ HIS SPEECH.
I don’t oppose all wars.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID YOU BELIEVE.
Why would you let him off the hook for reverting his stance 180 on that?
Why do you folks shit on people for bringing that up,
and then WORSE, you DENY that it was ever even true.
"WHEN DID OBAMA EVER SAY HE WAS AGAINST WAR?"
and other such BULLSHIT.
I JUST FUCKING SHOWED YOU. POINT BLANK. NO AVOIDING IT.
HE FUCKING SAID IT.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE BELIEVED IT.
NOW HE TURNS OUT TO BE FULL OF SHIT OVER IT.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Once you wrap your head around the fact that the Iraq war never started as a war on terrorism, the sooner you will be able to grasp what I am talking about.
Just like Obama, I disagree with unjust wars like the one that started in Iraq when the just war on terror fissiled out in Afghanistan.
Obama was against the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. Get that through your head and then we can continue.
I'm sorry, I'm a little slow, I still don't understand (this is honest btw, not an attempt to mock). I get it that Obama said he was against useless wars in 2002, what I don't get is why his supporters should be mad at him and start holding him to his words? What has he done that shows he started a war based on nothing?
I'm not so sure that was face value public vibe.
Not to mention a lot of people think the whole Bush war on terror invention was a joke to begin with.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")