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
-
Do you have a point?"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley0
-
Hill-dog came within an eyelash of being President of the US so maybe she is qualified to be SOS. Just a thought...10/31/2000 (****)
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!!!)0 -
PJ_Saluki wrote:Do you have a point?
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!
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)
(")_(")0 -
Obama opposed the war?? In 2004 he said there wasn't much difference in Bush's stance and his on the war and theonly difference was who was "in a position to execute" and on the campaign trail he told a conservative radio station the main reason he opposed invading Iraq was because we weren't done in Afghanistan yet
Or this is an 'obama was against the war as he is an agent of change' type thing?'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'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'0 -
RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
Vague you can believe in! "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
You guys crack me up.
The guy is doing a phenomenal job picking extremely qualified and competent people for his Cabinet.
I love the pick.All the rusted signs, we ignore throughout our lives, choosing the shiny ones instead...
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...0 -
"Vague you can believe in" had a much better ring to it for me than McCain's slogan.RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote: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!
"McCain: Old and Angry you can believe in."0 -
I agree. He is assembling quite a diverse, bi-partisan cabinet. That is change possibly attempting to govern from the center instead of the far extreme right. That would be change in and of itself.Don't Know Myself wrote:You guys crack me up.
The guy is doing a phenomenal job picking extremely qualified and competent people for his Cabinet.
I love the pick.0 -
aNiMaL wrote:I agree. He is assembling quite a diverse, bi-partisan cabinet. That is change possibly attempting to govern from the center instead of the far extreme right. That would be change in and of itself.
He spoke of a little more than 'governing from the center' for the past 2 years.'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'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'0 -
aNiMaL wrote:He, and driftin' has a major hard-on for seeing and predicting Obama's failure. It is a special gift, it's called sour grapes.
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?'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'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'0 -
Mutiny! he cried wrote:Obama opposed the war??
-sourceOBAMA'S OWN MOUTH wrote:I don’t oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.
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.
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 was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
Wow. I thought it's only in the Scandinavian countries or Alaska that people get depressed by too little daylight...0
-
never mind0
-
Don't Know Myself wrote:You guys crack me up.
The guy is doing a phenomenal job picking extremely qualified and competent people for his Cabinet.
I love the pick.
Which ones do you love in particular and why?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)
(")_(")0 -
His bipartisan selection shows he is willing to govern from where the majority of this country lives, the middle. And for that, i am pleased thus far.Mutiny! he cried wrote:He spoke of a little more than 'governing from the center' for the past 2 years.0 -
I don't understand your post. Did Obama declare a war?DriftingByTheStorm wrote:-source
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.
:( :(0 -
You mean how we were duped for the last 8 fucking years?DriftingByTheStorm wrote:-source
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.
:( :(
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.0 -
OH, and why don;t you quit spewing bullshit rhetoric that you read from conservative, anti Obama sites and start using your own logical brain for a change?DriftingByTheStorm wrote:-source
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.
:( :(
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.0 -
Kann wrote:I don't understand your post. Did Obama declare a war?
Some of the people he appointed have through their actions.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)
(")_(")0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help