NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems there's talk of appointing Hillary as Secretary of State. Do you think she'd make a good one? If it is offered to her, should she accept?

I think that she would be better than fair, but not great. With her knowledge of Washington workings and her connections, she's a solid choice. I hope they're serious about offering it to her and, if they do, I hope she accepts.

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/hillary-clinton-mentioned-for-top-post/248016?icid=200100397x1213466989x1200813301

I would prefer Richardson, but I suppose she'd be okay.

No. I want Richardson God damn it. If not for the fact that two minorities on the ticket would probably have hurt Obama, he should have gotten the VP slot. He is qualified, experienced, the right man for the job.

Whereas I recall Clinton being asked about the cabinate, and suggesting she'd rather stay in the Senate. Though that might have just been playing it cool.;)

No. I want Richardson God damn it. If not for the fact that two minorities on the ticket would probably have hurt Obama, he should have gotten the VP slot. He is qualified, experienced, the right man for the job.

Whereas I recall Clinton being asked about the cabinate, and suggesting she'd rather stay in the Senate. Though that might have just been playing it cool.;)

True.

But yeah, Richardson is like the most ridiculously qualified guy in the country. He would be a really good pick for State I think.

I think she'd make a good Secretary of State. She has plenty of credentials. The woman was qualified to be President.

That said, I don't know much about Bill Richardson. Could someone enlighten me as to his credentials? I mean, he's a governor, and without knowing much about them, I'd always pick a senator over a governor for Secretary of State. Now, something like Interior or Education, that would be more appropriate for a governor.

i think she'd make a reasonably good one, though i seriously doubt this is anything more then rumor.
i believe there are most likely better choices for that post,
and that she might do better as u.n. ambassador.

i'd also pick california's former governor and if i'm not mistaken current mayor of oakland, jerry brown, for attourny general, which seems to be a post he'd be happier in then as the great president i believe he would have been.

the rest of my dream team cabinet, i forget at the moment who they are.
i'd nominate amy goodman for secretary of state, but i think we'll continue to need her doing what she does best, managing an alternative media news team, although she might could still do that as white house press secretary. just a thought.

hmmm. maxine waters, now there's someone, someone with her perspective and ideas, i'd like to see as secretary of state, or possibly cynthia mckenney.

I think she'd make a good Secretary of State. She has plenty of credentials. The woman was qualified to be President.

That said, I don't know much about Bill Richardson. Could someone enlighten me as to his credentials? I mean, he's a governor, and without knowing much about them, I'd always pick a senator over a governor for Secretary of State. Now, something like Interior or Education, that would be more appropriate for a governor.

The Wiki spake thusly:

In 1997, Clinton appointed Richardson as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. As ambassador, he represented the United States in UN proceedings regarding the Palestinian National Authority and the State of Israel,[10] the completion of negotiations that strengthened the role and mandate of the United Nations Environment Programme regarding ecologically sustainable development,[11] as well as other duties of an ambassador to the UN. Richardson served there until 1998, when he was appointed U.S. Secretary of Energy, a post that he held for the remainder of the Clinton administration.

He became a member of the Democratic leadership as a deputy majority whip, where he befriended Bill Clinton after they worked closely on several issues.[6] Clinton in turn sent Richardson on various foreign policy missions, including a trip in 1996 in which Richardson traveled to Baghdad with Peter Bourne and engaged in lengthy one-on-one negotiations with Saddam Hussein to secure the release of two American aerospace workers who had been captured by the Iraqis after wandering over the Kuwaiti border. Richardson also visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests and met with Slobodan Milosevic.[6] Due to these missions, Richardson was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times.[6]

On September 7, 2006, Richardson flew to Sudan to meet Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir and successfully negotiated the release of imprisoned journalist Paul Salopek. Salopek had been charged by the Sudanese with espionage on August 26, 2006, while on a National Geographic assignment.

Some basic blurbs. I'm sure someone will come along with more.

For this Id pick Bill Richardson. He already has more of this type of experience.
He hasn't recently threatened to nuke Iran.

and more importantly secretary of state is a dead end position. Hillary should keep her senate seat and prep to run for pres in 8 years.

I think she'd make a good Secretary of State. She has plenty of credentials. The woman was qualified to be President.

That said, I don't know much about Bill Richardson. Could someone enlighten me as to his credentials? I mean, he's a governor, and without knowing much about them, I'd always pick a senator over a governor for Secretary of State. Now, something like Interior or Education, that would be more appropriate for a governor.

Congressman for 14 years, Deputy Majority Whip, sent on foreign policy missions by the Clinton Adminstration to Iraq, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria and the Sudan, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times.

1997, he was made ambassador to the UN.

1998 he became secretary of energy.

2001 Adjunct Professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government

2003 became governor of New Mexico

2007-2008 ran for President of the United States.

In light of this newfound wisdom, I hereby endorse Bill Richardson as Secretary of State.

In light of this newfound wisdom, I hereby endorse Bill Richardson as Secretary of State.

Yeah. He's not president basically because he's not a very charismatic, inspiring speaker. But you look at his resume and you're just like "wow."

Why the frack isn't he our Vice-President elect?

Why the frack isn't he our Vice-President elect?

He's hispanic. As sad a reason as that is, that's it.

I've said before that I'd love to see her as Sec. of Health and Human Services.

As for State, I'd absolutely prefer Richardson.

Bill Richardson also speaks fluent Spanish.

Speaking another language might prove to be a useful skill in a Secretary of State - though to be fair to Condi, I think she has decent Russian (at the very least).

Do either Clinton or Kerry speak another language? Mrs. Kerry presumably speaks Portuguese, but as I know all too well, a spouse's linguistic skills don't necessarily transfer to the other partner.

Bill Richardson also speaks fluent Spanish.

Speaking another language might prove to be a useful skill in a Secretary of State - though to be fair to Condi, I think she has decent Russian (at the very least).

Do either Clinton or Kerry speak another language? Mrs. Kerry presumably speaks Portuguese, but as I know all too well, a spouse's linguistic skills don't necessarily transfer to the other partner.

I recall Kerry being much derided in 2004 for being able to speak French. I don't know about Clinton, but she's quite qualified for the position. But she attacked Obama's foreign policy in the primary.

she would be an excellent sec of state.

so would bill.

obama is blessed with an abundance of good candidates for top jobs.

if mrs clinton took the sec of state job that would be the end of her political career. (not end as a bad thing, end as a "hit the top of her possibilities" thing). she may prefer to continue as senator for a decade instead.

He's hispanic. As sad a reason as that is, that's it.
Got any proof to back that up, or are you just pulling it out of your ass? Maybe Obama just realized that having a cranky, crazy old-man for your VP is the In Thing this century.

Got any proof to back that up, or are you just pulling it out of your ass? Maybe Obama just realized that having a cranky, crazy old-man for your VP is the In Thing this century.

I doubt it would have actually made a difference, but they probably worried about having two minorities on the ticket, as stupid as that sounds. Biden was a more "safe" choice than Richardson.

And yeah, it's basically speculation, but speculation I'm pretty sure of. What do you want, links to party documents that say "We can't have Richardson as VP because he's too Mexican and the voters won't like that"?

Do you have a more plausible reason why someone as qualified as Richardson was not picked for VP?

Sec.State is traditionally considered the gateway to the presidency. So yea, if it's offered she'd take it, it would up her chances of getting another run at the president's office later.

And yeah, it's basically speculation, but speculation I'm pretty sure of. What do you want, links to party documents that say "We can't have Richardson as VP because he's too Mexican and the voters won't like that"?
Documents, yeah. Or polling data that would back up your claim, or anything, really.
Do you have a more plausible reason why someone as qualified as Richardson was not picked for VP?
I just gave it. "Crazy, crank old-men are the In Thing this century."

Sec.State is traditionally considered the gateway to the presidency. So yea, if it's offered she'd take it, it would up her chances of getting another run at the president's office later.

Traditionally yes, but recently, no.

Documents, yeah. Or polling data that would back up your claim, or anything, really.
I'm not someone with access to the DNC's internal documents and polls. Or the Obama campaign's.

I just gave it. "Crazy, crank old-men are the In Thing this century."
That sounds much less plausible to me, sorry. I'm not buying this crazy old man fetish you're suggesting everyone has.

Traditionally yes, but recently, no.

Getting fed up with the system and deciding not to run, like the last half dozen Sec.States, doesn't qualify as a change in tradition. It just means no one wanted to pursue it.

If only Colin Powell ran.

For reasons I can't really express, more gut feeling, I don't think Secretary of State would be good for her. I suspect something like health or environment would be better, more a social issue area.

I actually think she'd be better off in the Senate, I'd like Barack Obama to give her a strong role but I just think it's better he doesn't, working more as a Senate/President partnership and, to that, I'd prefer her to take over from Nancy Pelosi.

I can't remember why but I'm not a great fan of Bill Richardson either, I remember looking at him as a VP candidate and thinking it wasn't for the best.

Any speculation may be testing the waters, I simply believe she should be apart from the presidency both for her and for him, if only for public and media perception.

For reasons I can't really express, more gut feeling, I don't think Secretary of State would be good for her. I suspect something like health or environment would be better, more a social issue area.

I actually think she'd be better off in the Senate, I'd like Barack Obama to give her a strong role but I just think it's better he doesn't, working more as a Senate/President partnership and, to that, I'd prefer her to take over from Nancy Pelosi.

I can't remember why but I'm not a great fan of Bill Richardson either, I remember looking at him as a VP candidate and thinking it wasn't for the best.

Any speculation may be testing the waters, I simply believe she should be apart from the presidency both for her and for him, if only for public and media perception.

Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and a representative from San Francisco, not a Senator.

Questions from an outsider: Who would have responsibility for carrying through Obama's health reforms? Would that be an appropriate position for Hilary?

Bill Richardson also speaks fluent Spanish.

He majored in French at university so I imagine he's speak French well enough too. If he gets the job I can tell the people who bitch at me for having a French degree to fuck off.

Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and a representative from San Francisco, not a Senator.

Ah well, that kind of role at least, I'm not a great fan of Nancy Pelosi either.

Questions from an outsider: Who would have responsibility for carrying through Obama's health reforms? Would that be an appropriate position for Hilary?
probably sec of health and human services

but hilary failed at this job once, it might be unwise to have her try it again.

probably sec of health and human services

but hilary failed at this job once, it might be unwise to have her try it again.

Because of incompetence or because of barriers?

Because of incompetence or because of barriers?

The Clintons forgot that Democrats are not all for social welfare, they're pretty diverse, they didn't properly court the Southern Dems - that may not be their official name, essentially the social conservative side of the Dems.

My main worry with a Hillary Clinton appointment is that it becomes a proxy attack angle for the media - too central to the cabinet and it reflects on the entire administration.

The Clintons forgot that Democrats are not all for social welfare, they're pretty diverse, they didn't properly court the Southern Dems - that may not be their official name, essentially the social conservative side of the Dems.

My main worry with a Hillary Clinton appointment is that it becomes a proxy attack angle for the media - too central to the cabinet and it reflects on the entire administration.

So, would I be reading things correctly if I were to say that Obama has the political opportunity to bring about his healthcare reforms but, if he handed the job to Hilary, he might spoil his chances?

So, would I be reading things correctly if I were to say that Obama has the political opportunity to bring about his healthcare reforms but, if he handed the job to Hilary, he might spoil his chances?

I really couldn't say for sure, it's purely a gut feeling. I liked her as a candidate, I like the Clinton's, it may just be that I myself don't want to see them attacked again and I really don't want to see Barack Obama attacked by proxy because of them.

I think if she took healthcare, it'd be too easy to avoid the actual issues and attack on personal grounds. I think he does have the opportunity to bring reforms but I'm just not sure she should be the figurehead.

She could work better separate but supportive, in my view.

How about a public poll on this question?

Part I: Hillary: She should not tie herself to any administration. This sounds like another slap in the face insult at Hillary. Hillary and Bill should have not campaigned hard for Obama like they did towards the end. Should have stuck too the the not to critical often double talk praise of Mcain Palin. It would have been better for Hillary if McCain had won. That said they probably saw Obama as the probable winner of the election he was and decided to campaign hard for him at the end.

part II: All this talk of considering certain candidates for Secretary of State may just be political talk from the candidate or administration that would never lie to you, lol. Democrat James Carville hinted during the campaign that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson sold Bill and Hillary out in endorsing Obama. For the promise of the Job of Secretary of State. I wonder if Hillary, Bill and Bill have made up yet?

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson of mixed Mexican American descent speaks perfect fluent spanish.

How about a public poll on this question?

Part I: Hillary: She should not tie herself to any administration. This sounds like another slap in the face insult at Hillary. Hillary and Bill should have not campaigned hard for Obama like they did towards the end. Should have stuck too the the not to critical often double talk praise of Mcain Palin. It would have been better for Hillary if McCain had won. That said they probably saw Obama as the probable winner of the election he was and decided to campaign hard for him at the end.

Um, why exactly? The Clintons are ideologically much closer to Obama than they are to McCain. That's why, you know, they're in the same political party.

part II: All this talk of considering certain candidates for Secretary of State may just be political talk from the candidate or administration that would never lie to you, lol. Democrat James Carville hinted during the campaign that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson sold Bill and Hillary out in endorsing Obama. For the promise of the Job of Secretary of State. I wonder if Hillary, Bill and Bill have made up yet?
Baseless speculation. How would he have sold them out? He was running for president himself, you know. And personally, I think he'd be a better choice for State than Hillary would.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson of mixed Mexican American descent speaks perfect fluent spanish.
Yes. He does. So, why is that a bad thing?

Callisdrun, it is harder to run against a president of your own party in 2012 than the opposition party president. The Clintons and James Carville considered Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama as an insult given that they are-were very close friends. And suspected that Bill Richardson had been offered the Secretary of State position in an Obama administration. I cite Richardson's perfect fluent spanish as a plus as Secretary of State.

I would prefer Richardson, but Hillary would be a fine choice. Just don't pick Kerry. Don't do that, and I'll live with whoever Obama picks/

And Miami Shores is right that it's very hard to run against a President of your own party, though certainly not impossible or unheard of. LBJ would have been in a very hard battle for the nomination against McCarthy and RFK if he had run for reelection for instance.

Callisdrun, it is harder to run against a president of your own party in 2012 than the opposition party president. The Clintons and James Carville considered Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama as an insult given that they are-were very close friends. And suspected that Bill Richardson had been offered the Secretary of State position in an Obama administration. I cite Richardson's perfect fluent spanish as a plus as Secretary of State.

Well, you were saying mostly negative things about him, so I assumed. Unwise of me, I know.

It would have been easier to run yes, that is true... but four more years of Republican rule...

I would prefer Richardson, but Hillary would be a fine choice. Just don't pick Kerry. Don't do that, and I'll live with whoever Obama picks/

And Miami Shores is right that it's very hard to run against a President of your own party, though certainly not impossible or unheard of. LBJ would have been in a very hard battle for the nomination against McCarthy and RFK if he had run for reelection for instance.

We are good Callisdrun. Agree with you Vervaria, not Sen John Kerry, and I would add not Sen Christopher Dodd who also happens to speak perfect fluent spanish like Bill Richardson.

WASHINGTON - We may soon be calling Hillary Rodham Clinton "Madame Secretary."

President-elect Barack Obama is considering the New York senator and former first lady for secretary of state

contunues (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142008/news/politics/secretary_hill_138615.htm)


Why? Seriously, just why?

Can the Clintons please just go away along with the Bushes....

contunues (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142008/news/politics/secretary_hill_138615.htm)


Why? Seriously, just why?

Can the Clintons please just go away along with the Bushes....

The Clintons have a track record of success. The Bushes? Not so much. How's about you put aside the talking points and just wait and see what happens, k? I didn't start leaping down W's throat until after Katrina. Four solid years before withdrawing the benefit of the doubt.

Seiously, I could see HHS, but Sec. State?

contunues (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142008/news/politics/secretary_hill_138615.htm)


Why? Seriously, just why?

Can the Clintons please just go away along with the Bushes....

Because combined with the foreign experience she could claim to have, she has a high profile amongst state leaders abroad already - it would seem an ok choice by that rationale alone.

Secondly, from the Democrat perspective it's a good "healing the divisions" move.

well shes hardly the worst person I can think of :confused:

I want to be Secretary of Education. I have a lot to teach. :D

Oh lord, I'd be a better SoS than Hillary.

However, the right wing will surely implode upon her being confirmed as Sec. State, which could be beneficial.

Seiously, I could see HHS, but Sec. State?

This is all anyone who objects seems to be able to say. What are any SPECIFIC objections? If you can't draw any up, I'm forced to believe that it's just "zOMG, I HATE HILLARY!!!!!!111one!!11!"

Oh lord, I'd be a better SoS than Hillary.

However, the right wing will surely implode upon her being confirmed as Sec. State, which could be beneficial.

Same thing here. "zOMG she sux!!!!!!!!" Why, exactly?

Because she's Hillary. Would you rather have John Kerry? *Shudders*

Because combined with the foreign experience she could claim to have, she has a high profile amongst state leaders abroad already - it would seem an ok choice by that rationale alone.

Could claim being the operative there...

Secondly, from the Democrat perspective it's a good "healing the divisions" move.

Ms. Divisivenes and Polarization?

Could claim being the operative there...

Well I know, but I'm not a fly on the wall in the Clinton White House era - I don't know how much access she had on foreign trips or when heads of state visited - I would imagine it wasn't zero.

She's respected around the world as she is a visible remnant of the Clinton years - years that the US was in good stead with the world remember. Doesn't matter if she's not liked at home - it matters is she's liked abroad for that job.

It's a pretty good move if you ask me.


Ms. Divisivenes and Polarization?
I was thinking more along the lines of her supporters who were still super-pissed that she lost. Giving her VP would be a bit insulted and possibly an albatross around Obama's neck against McCain.

This is all anyone who objects seems to be able to say. What are any SPECIFIC objections? If you can't draw any up, I'm forced to believe that it's just "zOMG, I HATE HILLARY!!!!!!111one!!11!"

First off, lket there be no bones about it - I have a very strong dislike of the Clintons. As suggested in the OP, I'd rather see Billary ride off into the sunset. and go on to a Carteresque post politics statesmanship role.

That being said, the biggest specific objection is little FA/diplomatic experience (no, attending firsts lady functions and lying about sniper fire and Ireland don't qualify you to be Sec State).

Because she's Hillary. Would you rather have John Kerry? *Shudders*

Not sure which choice would be worse....

Of the names being thrown out, I dislike Kerry, Clinton and Richardson, but Richardson is the only one who I'd consider holding my nose because his being a racist SOB is outweighed by being a damned good diplodink.

Richardson is the only one who I'd consider holding my nose because his being a racist SOB is outweighed by being a damned good diplodink.

I think being a racist may have an impact on your ability to have friendly relations with other states in the world!

As for experience, valid points - but look at Powell. He didn't have foreign diplomatic experience either and he was pretty much a respected figure (the whole "WMD" thing in the UN I'll chalk up to Tenant/Bush forcing him to state that).

I want to be Secretary of Education. I have a lot to teach. :D

Pie 101? :D

Same thing here. "zOMG she sux!!!!!!!!" Why, exactly?

Did you not see the type of things her campaign brought up about Obama in the campaign? She was willing to do what it takes to win. She is a sell out. She also voted to gave power to the Pres to use force in Iraq. She changed her mind once the war became unpopular.

If anyone should be sec of state, it should be Bill Richardson, as he has a lot of experience in the field, and doesn't base his issues on popularity.

We don't need the type of scum that Hillary and her lot are, in high positions. This election was about change, not giving power to those that are career politicians.

This is all anyone who objects seems to be able to say. What are any SPECIFIC objections? If you can't draw any up, I'm forced to believe that it's just "zOMG, I HATE HILLARY!!!!!!111one!!11!"

What sort of foreign policy experience does she have? The only assignment she's had in the Senate with any sort of reference is as a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Meanwhile, she's served on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions since 2001, including two subcommittees, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, including three subcommittees (including one she is chairwoman of), and the Committee on Armed Services, including three subcommittees. Any of those areas she is clearly more qualified.

Bill Richardson, on the other hand, has an abundance of foreign relations experience, highlighted by his Ambassadorship to the UN.

It's all speculation, it's all up in the air.

The story's 'confirmed' by "[t]wo Democratic officials"; i.e. nobodies.

Obama's camp has been extremely good at keeping information from leaking out. We might as just well wait till Inauguration Day to find out.

Well I know, but I'm not a fly on the wall in the Clinton White House era - I don't know how much access she had on foreign trips or when heads of state visited - I would imagine it wasn't zero.

First ladies don't sit in on delicate negoyiations. Not even Hillary.

She's respected around the world as she is a visible remnant of the Clinton years - years that the US was in good stead with the world remember. Doesn't matter if she's not liked at home - it matters is she's liked abroad for that job.

Actually the dislike of her at home does matter. A continuation of the cultura wars is a bad move in what is now a more important position than ever.

I was thinking more along the lines of her supporters who were still super-pissed that she lost. Giving her VP would be a bit insulted and possibly an albatross around Obama's neck against McCain.

Again, it'd drag the culture wars into what's supposed to be a post-culture war white house...

Actually the dislike of her at home does matter. A continuation of the cultura wars is a bad move in what is now a more important position than ever.


Meh.

Considering we'd be dealing with the Sec. of State more than you - their standing with us should have an impact.... at least don't install a racist.... :tongue:

First off, lket there be no bones about it - I have a very strong dislike of the Clintons. As suggested in the OP, I'd rather see Billary ride off into the sunset. and go on to a Carteresque post politics statesmanship role.

That being said, the biggest specific objection is little FA/diplomatic experience (no, attending firsts lady functions and lying about sniper fire and Ireland don't qualify you to be Sec State).

I'm waiting for you to answer the question, not regurgitate right-wing objections to Hillary. How about you compare Hillary's actual experience to the experience of other candidates for the position?

Did you not see the type of things her campaign brought up about Obama in the campaign? She was willing to do what it takes to win. She is a sell out. She also voted to gave power to the Pres to use force in Iraq. She changed her mind once the war became unpopular.

*sigh* She and every other senator. Nobody is therefore qualified to be SecState. Come on. I said LEGITIMATE concerns, not talking points. Republicans have been willing to do what it takes to win for as long as the Democrats have. Suddenly when it's Hillary it's an undesirable trait? That's really disingenuous.

If anyone should be sec of state, it should be Bill Richardson, as he has a lot of experience in the field, and doesn't base his issues on popularity.

Such as?

We don't need the type of scum that Hillary and her lot are, in high positions. This election was about change, not giving power to those that are career politicians.

More talking points. Anything substantial? Anyone?

I think being a racist may have an impact on your ability to have friendly relations with other states in the world!

Ah, but being an anti-anglo racist is a different kettle of fish. And it's not impacted his fine diplomacy so far.

As for experience, valid points - but look at Powell. He didn't have foreign diplomatic experience either and he was pretty much a respected figure (the whole "WMD" thing in the UN I'll chalk up to Tenant/Bush forcing him to state that).

Err... go back and look at Gulf War 1 and before for Powell's experience...

What sort of foreign policy experience does she have? The only assignment she's had in the Senate with any sort of reference is as a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Meanwhile, she's served on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions since 2001, including two subcommittees, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, including three subcommittees (including one she is chairwoman of), and the Committee on Armed Services, including three subcommittees. Any of those areas she is clearly more qualified.

Bill Richardson, on the other hand, has an abundance of foreign relations experience, highlighted by his Ambassadorship to the UN.

NOW you're talkin'. I agree with you, in fact.

I was just trying to get beyond the visceral learned hatred. Well done.

Err... go back and look at Gulf War 1 and before for Powell's experience...

Military and Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff are not what I would call "good diplomatic skills"!

Mod note - two threads combined under the title that was actually descriptive.


Politio's Mike Allen offers this explanation (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15614.html), which makes a lot of sense:
But some Obama advisers argue that her celebrity and credibility would be a huge asset in his goal of reengaging the United States with allies.

“You can send John Kerry or Chuck Hagel,” said one adviser, mentioning some other candidates for secretary of state, “or you can send Hillary Clinton. That’s totally different.”

Clinton would be most attractive if Obama concludes that he will have to focus his early days in office on the domestic economy, and will have to essentially outsource heavy-duty foreign travel to his secretary of state.

The officials said Clinton becomes even more attractive if Obama retains President Bush’s last secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Some Obama advisers are advocated that course because he would provide cover for drawing down troops in Iraq: Gates has said he believes that is possible, and it would keep Obama out of a fight he can’t afford with Army Gen. David Petraeus, now the head of the U.S. Central Command.
The uncharacteristic leak supposed came from two Obama or Democratic staffers to NBC's Andrea Mitchell. From the way NBC is hedging their story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27713965/), I'm guessing that this came from outside the transition. The famed Obamawall may not have any new cracks in it.

I dont know why shed want it. I mean, she might be forced to land under sniper fire again...

I dont know why shed want it. I mean, she might be forced to land under sniper fire again...

Haha, nice. But what sniper fire? (And I heard that when she was saying this, Wes Clark was there, and he had this "WTF is she on about" look on his face)

More talking points. Anything substantial? Anyone?

Well I have two.

1. There are people out there far more qualified for diplomatic roles. If the Obama administration wants to get a lot of foreign issues resolved through diplomacy, he should be picking the best of the best.

2. Hillary is a well documented ****. That is an extremelly undesirable trait in a diplomat.

Now, if she gets it, I wont be outraged. Ill just think "Thats odd, there are better people for that role, and she would be better suited to another roll," shrug my shoulders, and move on.

Military and Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff are not what I would call "good diplomatic skills"!Generals are politicians, just not real politicians.

If hillary becomes Secretary of State does she get to threaten to nuke Iran some more ?

Huffington Post claims (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/clinton-met-with-obama-ab_n_143810.html) that Hillary was in fact offered the job. Needless to say, the Obamawall remains silent on the topic.

Hillary's comments to the press at an event celebrating investment in New York Transit options:
"I have to start by saying I'm very happy there is so much press attention and interest in transit, especially guesses about my own. But on the off chance that you're not here for this important issue, and are here for some other reason, let me just say that I'm not going to speculate or address anything about the president-elect's incoming administration, and I'm going to respect his process, and any inquiries should be directed to his transition team."

A certain FlyOnTheWall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/flyontnewall/2008/11/of-clinton-and-clintonites.php) has an interesting take on HRC. This may be the real deal ...

But what is in it for Hillary?

Hillary Clinton is now 61 years old, having come to the senate late in life. She's tenth in seniority on Armed Services, seventh on Aging, fifth on Environment, and on HELP - the committee she really cares about - she's ranks a dismal eighth. Just this past week, word surfaced that she'd proposed a new subcommittee on healthcare, which she could chair. The idea was quickly quashed by Kennedy. The Senate accords power to seniority, not talent. At the moment, Clinton chairs a single subcommittee: Superfund and Environmental Health.

Notwithstanding her superb performance in office, the Senate has always been a stepping stone, for Hillary, on her path back to the White House. But that path is now effectively blocked. So she can bide her time in the Senate, slowly accumulating power over the decades ahead. If she's lucky, she may even get a meaningful subcommittee to call her own before she's seventy.

But I suspect that's not enough. She's sipped from the cup of executive power, and won't settle for legislative dregs. She'd rather rank first in the cabinet, fourth-in-line for the Presidency, than return to a body in which she ranks 62nd. She knows that such an appointment won't last forever, but then, neither does the Presidency. Hillary has always wanted to be in charge, to be a power in her own right. If this is as close as she can come, it's what she'll take.

Sec.State is traditionally considered the gateway to the presidency.
Not since 1824.

I'd like to see her given the role of US ambassador to Somalia. After so much sniper fire in Europe failed to hit her, I figure we'd let our African friends have a shot.

Military and Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff are not what I would call "good diplomatic skills"!

Then you don't understand that postition well, do you?

Mod note - two threads combined under the title that was actually descriptive.

Thanks for the title. :D I hadn't realised there was another thread...

If hillary becomes Secretary of State does she get to threaten to nuke Iran some more ?

Among other super adventures.

And Frisbeeteria, thanks for the further posts.


There's been some speculation re Obama's first serious mistake, and it's sounding like this may be it...

Pie 101? :D

Indeed. As well as courses in proper application of wedgies, foodfighting rules of engagement, depantsing etiquette and the sane use of mischief, pranks and locker room antics. *nod*

Then you don't understand that postition well, do you?


Yeeeeah. Way to understate international diplomacy.

Personally, I think that it should be offered to Colin Powell (again)

Personally, I think that it should be offered to Colin Powell (again)

This would be a better idea if Powell hadnt been so utterly discredited. If the Obama president wants to be taken seriously and wants foreign leaders to trust him and be on board with his ideas, Powell would be an awful choice.

I also dont like the idea of Hillary being 4th in line to the presidency. I dont put her offing Obama, Biden, and Pelosi just so she can become president beyond her.

That woman is unethically power hungery bordering on insane. I dont trust her one bit. But I do trust Obama's judgement, and if he picks her...well thats that. Id disagree, but assume he knows more than I do.

It seems there's talk of appointing Hillary as Secretary of State. Do you think she'd make a good one? If it is offered to her, should she accept?

I think that she would be better than fair, but not great. With her knowledge of Washington workings and her connections, she's a solid choice. I hope they're serious about offering it to her and, if they do, I hope she accepts.

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/hillary-clinton-mentioned-for-top-post/248016?icid=200100397x1213466989x1200813301

If it gets her out of the Senate, I'm all for it. I just hope her replacement won't be worse.

This would be a better idea if Powell hadnt been so utterly discredited. If the Obama president wants to be taken seriously and wants foreign leaders to trust him and be on board with his ideas, Powell would be an awful choice.

And my thoughts on it are that he deserves the chance to redeem himself, although you are right, it wouldn't be sending a very good message if he was chosen.

Powell has said that he isn't interested in a government post.

Powell has said that he isn't interested in a government post.

Which just makes him more qualified as far as I am concerned...

I also dont like the idea of Hillary being 4th in line to the presidency. I dont put her offing Obama, Biden, and Pelosi just so she can become president beyond her.

That woman is unethically power hungery bordering on insane. I dont trust her one bit. But I do trust Obama's judgement, and if he picks her...well thats that. Id disagree, but assume he knows more than I do.

Now let's be reasonable. I hate Clinton as much as the next guy, but she'd have to know she wouldn't get away with murder, nor do I think she'd want to try. She's like Bush: quite willing to use sleazy campaigning and underhanded electoral manipulations, but nowhere near taking the step from that to murder of political rivals.

That said, she has entirely to much influence in the party for someone who compared McCain favorably to Obama during the Primary, and almost sunk the Party with her antics before she got smart and rallied behind the winner. And she has no where near Richardson's qualifications. She could be the nicest person in the world, and Richardson would still be better for this job.

Incidentally, Obama's website allows you to submit comments on what you think he should do as President. I suggest everyone here put in a good word for Bill Richardson.

This would be a better idea if Powell hadnt been so utterly discredited. If the Obama president wants to be taken seriously and wants foreign leaders to trust him and be on board with his ideas, Powell would be an awful choice.

I also dont like the idea of Hillary being 4th in line to the presidency. I dont put her offing Obama, Biden, and Pelosi just so she can become president beyond her.

That woman is unethically power hungery bordering on insane. I dont trust her one bit. But I do trust Obama's judgement, and if he picks her...well thats that. Id disagree, but assume he knows more than I do.

"Bordering"? Have you seen the psychotic delusion of entitlement she had, and infused her supporters with, just because she smoked Bill's cigar? The gender card, played at all times by her and her supporters (never forget)... She is insane, outright. Her tactics should land her out of the Democratic Party.

Incidentally, Obama's website allows you to submit comments on what you think he should do as President. I suggest everyone here put in a good word for Bill Richardson.

I'd like a link to where these comments can be made.

I'd like a link to where these comments can be made.

http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision

http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision

Sent it. Hopefully if enough people send it... ;)

This would be a better idea if Powell hadnt been so utterly discredited. If the Obama president wants to be taken seriously and wants foreign leaders to trust him and be on board with his ideas, Powell would be an awful choice.

I also dont like the idea of Hillary being 4th in line to the presidency. I dont put her offing Obama, Biden, and Pelosi just so she can become president beyond her.

That woman is unethically power hungery bordering on insane. I dont trust her one bit. But I do trust Obama's judgement, and if he picks her...well thats that. Id disagree, but assume he knows more than I do.

"Bordering"? Have you seen the psychotic delusion of entitlement she had, and infused her supporters with, just because she smoked Bill's cigar? The gender card, played at all times by her and her supporters (never forget)... She is insane, outright. Her tactics should land her out of the Democratic Party.

Come, now. The primary and the election are over. Get over the pettiness.

Obama won with great support from Senator Clinton -- she went above and beyond what those who have lost the nomination have usually done for the nominee in the past.

Just because a few Clintonistas on these board were unreasonable doesn't make your smearing of a noble and loyal Democratic servant of the people justifiable.

I chose Obama over Clinton. I am glad Obama won the nomination and the election. But I would have been happy with Clinton as well. I think she would make an excellent member of the Cabinet, including at Secretary of State.

Bill Richardson would also be a fine choice, but he doesn't particularly excite me. Other than his resume, what makes him so great?

Other than his resume, what makes him so great?

Re-read this.

Re-read this.

Um. OK. He has a decent resume, but his Presidential campaign went nowhere because he has no charisma and is "blah" on the issues. Don't get me wrong, I think he'd be a fine pick, but he doesn't excite me.

Senator Clinton on the other hand would be a dynamic choice.

EDIT: BTW your continued borderline misogyny doesn't go unnoticed.

EDIT: BTW your continued borderline misogyny doesn't go unnoticed.

AGAIN with this?

Hillary used her vagina as a prop in order to accuse people who didn't vote for her of sexism. McCain did the same with Palin's vagina. I reacted with anger to both doing so, because that's what they deserve. I figure if that bitch will accuse (and get her supporters to accuse) whoever doesn't vote for her of sexism, I might as well behave like this towards her. However, if you will accuse me of misogyny in general, feel free to point out any examples in which I reacted this way to anyone besides Clinton and Palin, who DID, yes, use their genders as props.

Just a tip: "Lipstick on a pig" doesn't count.

I'm not against Hillary Clinton getting anywhere near a position of power because she's a woman; I'm against it because she's Hillary Clinton, a class-A bitch who tried to rape the Democratic Party into ignoring the will of a majority and DID, yes, incite her supporters to pull the exact kind of crap I got thrown at me, here, in this forum.

I'm not against Sarah Palin getting anywhere near a position of power because she's a woman; I'm against it because she's Sarah Palin, an utter moron who would love to legislate her psychotic delusions she likes to call her belief system, ignore the separation of church and state, and force other women just like her to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

I'd gladly vote for Pelosi, for example. Because she's not like HRC nor is she like Sarah Palin.

AGAIN with this?

*sigh*

You are right. There is no reasoning with you when it comes to the subject of Senator Clinton, your "treatment" by one of her supporters, or your blatant sexism in this last election cycle. Despite your continued pattern of making sexist comments about Clinton, I shouldn't have brought the subject up.

*sigh*

You are right. There is no reasoning with you when it comes to the subject of Senator Clinton, your "treatment" by one of her supporters, or your blatant sexism in this last election cycle. Despite your making a sexist comment about Clinton in the prior post, I shouldn't have brought the subject up.

Calling Clinton a bitch doesn't make me sexist. Or you'll try to argue that women who call other women bitches are being sexist? It doesn't work like the N-word. It's a gender-specific insult. Conversely, a woman calling a man a dick isn't being sexist or ultra-feminist. It's a gender-specific insult just the same. NOW that I had to resort to Linguistics 101 will you cut this crap out?

I got called sexist in this forum, by utter morons incited by the bitch, WAY before I finally got fed up and called her a bitch for doing bitchy things (were she a male, I'd call "him" a dick, see?).

*snip*

I already said bringing this up was a mistake, but I'm not going to apologize for or retract accurate statements about you.

Is it possible for you to wipe away the spittle from your lips and address the topic of this thread?

I already said bringing this up was a mistake, but I'm not going to apologize for or retract accurate statements about you.

Is it possible for you to wipe away the spittle from your lips and address the topic of this thread?

I already did, I don't want that non-person anywhere near the Presidency, and that includes Secretary of State. She's not only a bitch, she's an unqualified bitch. Richardson (and I couldn't care less if he went through gender reassignemt surgery tomorrow) is better for the job.

And you seem to be assuming I could care less about your apology; I couldn't.

I already did, I don't want that non-person anywhere near the Presidency, and that includes Secretary of State. She's not only a bitch, she's an unqualified bitch. Richardson (and I couldn't care less if he went through gender reassignemt surgery tomorrow) is better for the job.

Well, who could argue with such eloquent and substantive analysis?

Well, who could argue with such eloquent and substantive analysis?

Given that you have yet to make a point that doesn't involve calling me sexist or shooting yourself on the foot ("What does Richardson have besides a better resumé?") I'm inclined to believe YOU, at least, can't.

Given that you have yet to make a point that doesn't involve calling me sexist or shooting yourself on the foot ("What does Richardson have besides a better resumé?") I'm inclined to believe YOU, at least, can't.

Try getting past your hatred of Clinton and anyone who doesn't hate her as much as you and read what I posted.

I think Richardson is a fine choice, but Clinton would be a better one.

My question was simple: what is so great about Richardson? Your answer seems to be "his resume" and only "his resume." If you cared only about resumes, then you wouldn't have supported Obama for President. (I am NOT saying Obama was not qualified to be President, but that others had "better resumes" but were nonetheless not better choices.)

EDIT: To the extent we are going to talk just about Richardson's resume, what positions exactly impress you? His one year as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations?

Try getting past your hatred of Clinton and anyone who doesn't hate her as much as you and read what I posted.

I think Richardson is a fine choice, but Clinton would be a better one.

My question was simple: what is so great about Richardson? Your answer seems to be "his resume" and only "his resume." If you cared only about resumes, then you wouldn't have supported Obama for President. (I am NOT saying Obama was not qualified to be President, but that others had "better resumes" but were nonetheless not better choices.)

1- She does not have a better resumé than Obama either. Getting jiggy with it with a President doesn't count. And neither does McCain, given WHAT he did with that time. Do you think I care about Obama? I don't. I wanted to see whoever gets the US OUT OF IRAQ, AND KNOWS THAT DAMN BLOODSHED WAS A MISTAKE, in. I figured Obama would have more of a shot than Clinton. And Obama, who voted against the war in the beginning, was elected.

2- It would be rewarding her bad behavior during the campaign.

3- Obama doesn't trust her. He has no reason whatsoever to. Why should he give her such a position under these conditions?

4- There is but one person I truly hate in this forum, who would see me die under an oppressive regime to defend "capitalism". And given his political leanings I don't think he likes Clinton.

I have to go with Richardson on this one. Clinton does have the experience however I think Richardson has a better temperment than Clinton. If Hillary is serious at running for President again I think she would be better served to stay in the Senate.

It seems there's talk of appointing Hillary as Secretary of State. Do you think she'd make a good one? If it is offered to her, should she accept?


She should accept, yea. I still think that she woud be better for something like health, or education.

2- It would be rewarding her bad behavior during the campaign.

3- Obama doesn't trust her. He has no reason whatsoever to. Why should he give her such a position under these conditions?


You seem to foget the tremendous support Clinton provided to Obama at the DNC and after he got the nomination. Whether you like it or not or will admit it or not, she and Bill were important parts of Obama's getting elected.

Of course, she opposed him prior to that. Richardson also ran against him. So what?

EDIT: I assume if Obama truly doesn't trust Clinton, he won't offer her a position in his Cabinet. But he seems to be seriously entertaining the idea. If reality were as you claim, why would this be?

Of course, she opposed him prior to that.

So did Biden. You know why HE got the VP spot and SHE didn't? Because she opposed him in a way that threatened the candidacy of whoever won and caused a big split in the Democratic Party, attacking whoever opposed her as sexist for daring not to think that she was the second coming of Christ, that's why.

So did Biden. You know why HE got the VP spot and SHE didn't? Because she opposed him in a way that threatened the candidacy of whoever won and caused a big split in the Democratic Party, attacking whoever opposed her as sexist for daring not to think that she was the second coming of Christ, that's why.

Bullshit. You may live in an alternate reality where Clinton is the anti-christ, but Biden was picked because he was a better choice for a number of reasons.

Regardless, you keep conveniently ignoring how hard Clinton campaigned for Obama once he got the nomination and worked harder than anyone at healing the alleged split in the Party.

Bullshit. You may live in an alternate reality where Clinton is the anti-christ, but Biden was picked because he was a better choice for a number of reasons.

Regardless, you keep conveniently ignoring how hard Clinton campaigned for Obama once he got the nomination and worked harder than anyone at healing the alleged split in the Party.

1- Had she campaigned decently, I might see her as a decent person.

2- You mean the one that she caused? Do you really want me to give her kudos for cleaning up the mess she made? What is she, an eight-year old?

1- Had she campaigned decently, I might see her as a decent person.

2- You mean the one that she caused? Do you really want me to give her kudos for cleaning up the mess she made? What is she, an eight-year old?

1. She did campaign decently -- your twisted recollection notwithstanding.

2. Caused how? By running a nearly successful campaign? For appealing to voters that Obama originally didn't?

Calling Clinton a bitch doesn't make me sexist. Or you'll try to argue that women who call other women bitches are being sexist? It doesn't work like the N-word. It's a gender-specific insult. Conversely, a woman calling a man a dick isn't being sexist or ultra-feminist. It's a gender-specific insult just the same. NOW that I had to resort to Linguistics 101 will you cut this crap out?

I got called sexist in this forum, by utter morons incited by the bitch, WAY before I finally got fed up and called her a bitch for doing bitchy things (were she a male, I'd call "him" a dick, see?).

So did Biden. You know why HE got the VP spot and SHE didn't? Because she opposed him in a way that threatened the candidacy of whoever won and caused a big split in the Democratic Party, attacking whoever opposed her as sexist for daring not to think that she was the second coming of Christ, that's why.

You know, on second thought, fuck it. You have been a sexist. And the only thing more objectionable than your sexism, is your attempt to claim you've been matyred by those calling you a sexist.

I can't find an example of you ever calling a man a bitch in these forums.

But, as to Clinton, your comments include: "bitch," "crazy, messed up old hag," "slut," "her wrinkled ass being in the President's seat while a male intern is under the table working through 28-year-old cobwebs," repeated comments questioning whether Clinton really has a vagina, "a woman with a fetish for men who don't know the meaning of the word 'is'," and (somewhat contradictorily) accusing others of supporting her solely because she has a vagina.

As to Palin, your comments include: "slut," "naughty librarian", "bimbo," "Prop Vagina," "cute and sexy ... little piece of biscuit [for McCain]," "vagina with a politician around it," multiple discusssions of her as a sex object, multiple discussions of her being nothing more than her looks, and "was picked because she has a vagina and is pretty".

You also made comparisons of Palin's vagina being "better fit for its function that Clinton's ever was."

Come, now. The primary and the election are over. Get over the pettiness.

Speaking only for myself, I'm worried that she's not a good person for the job. The election is over, and its time to move past the whole party, or country, revolving around Hillary Clinton.

Obama won with great support from Senator Clinton -- she went above and beyond what those who have lost the nomination have usually done for the nominee in the past.

Well, what ever her issues with Obama, I'm sure she preffered him to McCain. God knows the Clintons have plenty of reasons to hate the GOP. Besides, it could have sunk her career if it appeared she cost the Democrats the race. Consider how much democrats often hate Nader for Florida 2000.

Just because a few Clintonistas on these board were unreasonable doesn't make your smearing of a noble and loyal Democratic servant of the people justifiable.

She may be a democrat but that doesn't make her democratic. She ran a dishonest, arguably racist campaign. And didn't she want Michigan and Florida's votes for her counted, but not the votes for Obama? One candidate elections are not real elections.

I chose Obama over Clinton. I am glad Obama won the nomination and the election. But I would have been happy with Clinton as well. I think she would make an excellent member of the Cabinet, including at Secretary of State.

She might do ok on the cabinate, but with the mess America's in each post needs to be filled by the best possible person. Especially Secretary of State. I don't care how good Clinton would be, as long as someone else is better.

Bill Richardson would also be a fine choice, but he doesn't particularly excite me. Other than his resume, what makes him so great?

He's demonstrated that he could do the job competantly. What else matters?

1. She did campaign decently -- your twisted recollection notwithstanding.

2. Caused how? By running a nearly successful campaign? For appealing to voters that Obama originally didn't?

1 - Gee, let's see: Sexism allegations, using her supporters to attack whoever supported Obama, claims of what amounted to entitlement, wanting to change the rules mid-game to favor her, saying Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as she knew", making conjectures about an assassination, claiming "white, hard-working" Americans were voting for her, and so on, and so forth.

Yeah. Squeaky clean.

2- Attack ads, dividing the party as much as she could and then some, claiming Obama and his supporters were sexist by daring to oppose her...

Wow, holy shit guys, this thread is definitely not about Clinton's primary campaign.

1 - Gee, let's see: Sexism allegations, using her supporters to attack whoever supported Obama, claims of what amounted to entitlement, wanting to change the rules mid-game to favor her, saying Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as she knew", making conjectures about an assassination, claiming "white, hard-working" Americans were voting for her, and so on, and so forth.

Yeah. Squeaky clean.

2- Attack ads, dividing the party as much as she could and then some, claiming Obama and his supporters were sexist by daring to oppose her...

Some nice allegations. Care to back them up with any proof?

EDIT: For example, your characterization of the "as far as I know" comment is bullshit. Here is what was really said in that interview:

"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

"It's just scurrilous...?" Kroft inquired.

"Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time," Clinton said.

Similarly, Clinton never conjectured about Obama being assassinated. She made some comments about RFK that had nothing to do with Obama, but caused some to react hysterically. Regardless, she apologized for causing any confusion or offense.

You know, on second thought, fuck it. You have been a sexist. And the only thing more objectionable than your sexism, is your attempt to claim you've been matyred by those calling you a sexist.

I can't find an example of you ever calling a man a bitch in these forums.

But, as to Clinton, your comments include: "bitch," "crazy, messed up old hag," "slut," "her wrinkled ass being in the President's seat while a male intern is under the table working through 28-year-old cobwebs," repeated comments questioning whether Clinton really has a vagina, "a woman with a fetish for men who don't know the meaning of the word 'is'," and (somewhat contradictorily) accusing others of supporting her solely because she has a vagina.

As to Palin, your comments include: "slut," "naughty librarian", "bimbo," "Prop Vagina," "cute and sexy ... little piece of biscuit [for McCain]," "vagina with a politician around it," multiple discusssions of her as a sex object, multiple discussions of her being nothing more than her looks, and "was picked because she has a vagina and is pretty".

You also made comparisons of Palin's vagina being "better fit for its function that Clinton's ever was."

I have called men many other things. But if you really need me to teach you about your own language, here it goes again: "Bitch" is a GENDER SPECIFIC WORD.

And once again: I attacked Clinton and Palin, both of which, by their actions, were fair game. Have I attacked any other woman that disagreed with me more than I'd attack a man?

Wow, holy shit guys, this thread is definitely not about Clinton's primary campaign.

Apparently it is. In some minds her alleged campaign tactics disqualify her from Obama's Cabinet and even the Democratic Party.

Nevermind, her strong pro-Obama position at the DNC and ever since then.

Apparently it is. In some minds her alleged campaign tactics disqualify her from Obama's Cabinet and even the Democratic Party.

Nevermind, her strong pro-Obama position at the DNC and ever since then.

Yep. Yep they do. And no, they weren't alleged.

Come, now. The primary and the election are over. Get over the pettiness.

Obama won with great support from Senator Clinton -- she went above and beyond what those who have lost the nomination have usually done for the nominee in the past.

Just because a few Clintonistas on these board were unreasonable doesn't make your smearing of a noble and loyal Democratic servant of the people justifiable.

I chose Obama over Clinton. I am glad Obama won the nomination and the election. But I would have been happy with Clinton as well. I think she would make an excellent member of the Cabinet, including at Secretary of State.

My lack of trust for Mrs. Clinton has nothing to do with the primary. I havent trusted her for years, and I dont plan on starting anytime soon just because everyone keeps telling me I need to. Obama trusts her, that is enough for me. Im not going to rail against his decision. But I dont trust her, and she wouldnt be my first choice.

Regardless, my other point still stands. Its well documented that shes a ****, and rather hard to get along with. That is a very, very undesirable quality in a diplomat.


Bill Richardson would also be a fine choice, but he doesn't particularly excite me. Other than his resume, what makes him so great?

Why do we need something aside from his resume? You dont look for star power in your lead diplomat. You look for the best guy to get the jobs done.


Tell me, youre a legal man. Should a very well qualified, intellegent, lawyer with a very impressive resume be passed up for a set on the bench because hes not "exciting"?

Tell me, youre a legal man. Should a very well qualified, intellegent, lawyer with a very impressive resume be passed up for a set on the bench because hes not "exciting"?

Being a judge and being Secretary of State are very different positions that demand different characteristics.

I'm fine with Richardson, but I'm not any more eager for him to be SoS than I was for him to be President or VP.

Being a judge and being Secretary of State are very different positions that demand different characteristics.

I'm fine with Richardson, but I'm not any more eager for him to be SoS than I was for him to be President or VP.

Indeed, but if someone has a history of diplomatc success and ability to get people on board with the agenda he is supposed to push, IE a successful diplomat, while HRC has a very...questionable...history of success in this field, then why oh why on earth should I be on board with the choice of her over him? Because shes a Clinton? Because shes got star power?


Because it shows that we've all kissed and made up? Fuck that. I want a competent administration that can get the job done. I dont care about that. I care about getting the job done and fixing the fuck ups of the past administration. To do that, we need to rebuild our relations with other countries. We need competency to do that, not a celebrity.

EDIT: Like I said, if Obama trusts her, Im going to trust his judgement. He hasnt let me down so far. But if it turns out Im right, and hes picking her just for her celebrity ability, and is passing up more qualified candidates to do that, I will be very, very disappointed with him.

Bill Richardson would also be a fine choice, but he doesn't particularly excite me. Other than his resume, what makes him so great?

Getting back here a bit, what else besides his resume should there be? He is a seasoned diplomat.

He's been involved in diplomatic negotiations with Muslim nations, first in a negotiation with Saddam Hussein in 1996 to secure the release of two captured American workers, then in 2006 when he met with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashar to negotiate the release of an American journalist arrested and charged with espionage by the Sudanese government. He also negotiated a 60 day cease fire between al-Bashar's government and rebels in Darfur in 2007.

He met with a delegation from North Korea in 2003 to discuss concerns over their nuclear program, and again in 2005 and 2006 for the same reasons.

He was named "Special Envoy for Hemispheric Affairs" for the Secretary General of the Organization of American States in 2006.

Richardson also visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests.

He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times for his diplomatic work.

I'm not sure what more you're searching for from a candidate for the position as the director of foreign policy in the United States.

Getting back here a bit, what else besides his resume should there be? He is a seasoned diplomat.

He's been involved in diplomatic negotiations with Muslim nations, first in a negotiation with Saddam Hussein in 1996 to secure the release of two captured American workers, then in 2006 when he met with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashar to negotiate the release of an American journalist arrested and charged with espionage by the Sudanese government. He also negotiated a 60 day cease fire between al-Bashar's government and rebels in Darfur in 2007.

He met with a delegation from North Korea in 2003 to discuss concerns over their nuclear program, and again in 2005 and 2006 for the same reasons.

He was named "Special Envoy for Hemispheric Affairs" for the Secretary General of the Organization of American States in 2006.

Richardson also visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests.

He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times for his diplomatic work.

I'm not sure what more you're searching for from a candidate for the position as the director of foreign policy in the United States.

Fair point. He does seem rather well-qualified. I've just never been too impressed by him. But you are right that perhaps he is well suited to being SoS.

Fair point. He does seem rather well-qualified. I've just never been too impressed by him. But you are right that perhaps he is well suited to being SoS.
I've been a big fan of Richardson for a long time. In addition to all of Sdaeriji's points, I happen to know via a personal connection that he is considerably more honest than a lot of other US politicians. My mom used to work for the PAC of an insurance holding company. They used to lobby -- read: wine and dine -- any politician they could get their hands on when they came to NYC. They'd hire limos to drive them around town, book them into swank hotels, take them out for dinner, provide them with "entertainment", and all kinds of other illegal things. Richardson was the only one who not only did not ask for things up front, but actually refused such gifts and perks. He even missed his limo ride from the airport. My mom told me of a panicked call from the limo driver who could not find Mr. Richardson, just as Mr. Richardson walked into the office for his meeting with her boss -- he had gotten a taxi. And when he left the meeting, the only thing he promised was to take their requests into consideration.

Richardson is effective, ethical, experienced in foreign diplomacy, and has a clean record/background. That's not nothing.

Looking through the positions and candidates, I think the ideal position for Hillary Clinton is Attorney General, not Sec'y of State.

Looking through the positions and candidates, I think the ideal position for Hillary Clinton is Attorney General, not Sec'y of State.

All I care about is that whoever holds that post will help to undo the partisan, Constitution-shreading, Contempt Of Congress mess that is the Bush Justice Department.

Looking through the positions and candidates, I think the ideal position for Hillary Clinton is Attorney General, not Sec'y of State.

Ideally, she would be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, since that is where an abundance of her Senatorial experience is. But, since that's considered a rather inglorious Cabinet position, and seen as beneath someone of her political clout, that likely won't happen. She does have a tremendous amount of legal experience, though, so I can see the justification for Attorney General.

Yeeeeah. Way to understate international diplomacy.

Way not to understand that military experience, especially at that level, actually brings a lot to the diplomatic table.

Bill Richardson would also be a fine choice, but he doesn't particularly excite me. Other than his resume, what makes him so great?

This little anecdote says alot about why he's a better choice.

In 1998, Bill Richardson, then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, flew to Japan in search of backing for potential military strikes in Iraq.

Landing in Tokyo, he asked how a previous session, conducted by his boss, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, had gone. Not well, Mr. Richardson learned. Dr. Albright’s Japanese counterpart requested permission to smoke, she lectured him on the dangers of tobacco, and things never improved from there.

So Mr. Richardson began his meeting with a question.

“Mind if I smoke?” he asked, pulling out the cigar he had tucked into his jacket a moment before. He left Japan with the assurances for which he had come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/politics/21richardson.html

I don't see Hillary pulling that one off. Note that, as mentioned before, I'm

I've been a big fan of Richardson for a long time. In addition to all of Sdaeriji's points, I happen to know via a personal connection that he is considerably more honest than a lot of other US politicians. My mom used to work for the PAC of an insurance holding company. They used to lobby -- read: wine and dine -- any politician they could get their hands on when they came to NYC. They'd hire limos to drive them around town, book them into swank hotels, take them out for dinner, provide them with "entertainment", and all kinds of other illegal things. Richardson was the only one who not only did not ask for things up front, but actually refused such gifts and perks. He even missed his limo ride from the airport. My mom told me of a panicked call from the limo driver who could not find Mr. Richardson, just as Mr. Richardson walked into the office for his meeting with her boss -- he had gotten a taxi. And when he left the meeting, the only thing he promised was to take their requests into consideration.

Richardson is effective, ethical, experienced in foreign diplomacy, and has a clean record/background. That's not nothing.

Richardson isn't squeaky clean by any means. Check out his connections to one Manny Aragon, recently found guilty of felony conspiracy and mail fraud (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Aragon-pleads-guilty-in-scandal). (And the NMHU tenure scandal as well - Richardson specifically appointed Manny to his position there to promote La Rasa...)

I'm not seeing much in her resume which suggests a role in HHS either; the only time she's had major command of any issue in the healthcare sector was when she fubared the plan to get universal healthcare passed in '93. Nor do I see her being Senate Majority Leader; to do that, people have to, you know, like you and think you can lead, which takes us back to her sterling examples of leadership from her most recent campaign, where three months ago we had reports that people like Rangel were doing everything short of prying her physically out of the Oval Office with a crowbar. She doesn't have seniority, and she hasn't really jumped out on any major issues.

I've got to say that the thing that mystifies me most about Hillary Clinton, and maybe the other main reason why he might bring her into his Cabinet, is how frequently and despite all visible evidence to the contrary, the media keeps insisting that she's a potent, formidable, and well-disciplined leader. If you can't beat a guy with as many advantages as she had coming into the primary campaign, you cannot be any of the three.

The main reason why she looks advantageous in a Cabinet position is entirely political: it's a way of tieing her down where she can't go too far off the reservation and make an independent command for herself to challenge Obama in 2004. His faults become her faults, and she can't try to cut him off at the knees without being disloyal. While I appreciate the political elements of the consideration, I still think, along with many others, that there are so many more qualified people whom he might pick.

Richardson would be a better choice, but Clinton would be a significantly more awesome choice than Kerry, who has been actively "seeking" the post.

Richardson would be a better choice, but Clinton would be a significantly more awesome choice than Kerry, who has been actively "seeking" the post.

I'd be happy with not Kerry. *nods*

He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic work.To be fair, so was President Bush (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp). :p

For the record, I would prefer Clinton over Richardson, and not just because of the former's star power. Her nod as secretary of state would demonstrate to many voters still uncomfortable with Obama (48% said he was insufficiently experienced, according to exit polls) that he is taking significant measures to reach out to people he alienated during the primary campaign. It would also communicate to many who count him weak on foreign policy that he is committed to tough, substantive diplomacy.

Someone mentioned Clinton for attorney general, and I nearly spat Froot Loops all over my screen. With the way she handled the Whitewater mess, no one in their right mind would ever grant her authority over anything even remotely connected to law enforcement.

To be fair, so was President Bush (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp). :p

For the record, I would prefer Clinton over Richardson, and not just because of the former's star power. Her nod as secretary of state would demonstrate to many voters still uncomfortable with Obama (48% said he was insufficiently experienced, according to exit polls) that he is taking significant measures to reach out to people he alienated during the primary campaign. It would also communicate to many who count him weak on foreign policy that he is committed to tough, substantive diplomacy.

Someone mentioned Clinton for attorney general, and I nearly spat Froot Loops all over my screen. With the way she handled the Whitewater mess, no one in their right mind would ever grant her authority over anything even remotely connected to law enforcement.

She wont take it. SoS is a dead end position, and normally gets over shadowed by the DoD anyways. She stays in the Senate she is young enough she can run for president again in 8 years.

He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize ...
So has Bono.

(Had to say that sorry....)

I've nothing against this Richardson fellow, I'm just mildly amused by the vitriolic, knee jerk reaction to even the possibility of someone like Clinton being appointed by some posters on here.

Way not to understand that military experience, especially at that level, actually brings a lot to the diplomatic table.
1) Note I said "understate", not "understand".
2) I will still never equate internal balancing of egos and power politics in a boardroom with delicate negotiations with a country's enemies over nuclear weapons or funding of terrorism. Military experience is dangerous when dealing with International Diplomacy. It leads you to.... well, Bush's foreign policy.

1) Note I said "understate", not "understand".

Fair enough - I did miss that.

2) I will still never equate internal balancing of egos and power politics in a boardroom with delicate negotiations with a country's enemies over nuclear weapons or funding of terrorism.

Military experience is dangerous when dealing with International Diplomacy. It leads you to.... well, Bush's foreign policy.

Note that the deserter-in-chief is not a good example...

Colin Powell is a much better example, even after having disgraced himself...

people he alienated during the primary campaign.

Yeah. HE alienated people. Right. :rolleyes:

At least it's not Biden as Secretary of State. You can keep a VP in the basement. If Biden had been SoS, his penchant for saying random stupid shit would get us in no end of trouble.

At least it's not Biden as Secretary of State. You can keep a VP in the basement. If Biden had been SoS, his penchant for saying random stupid shit would get us in no end of trouble.

As opposed to "Oh, country X only opposes the US because I'm a woman, and they are a bunch of sexist meanies"?

I've nothing against this Richardson fellow, I'm just mildly amused by the vitriolic, knee jerk reaction to even the possibility of someone like Clinton being appointed by some posters on here.

It's not "someone like her", it's HER, and she deserves due punishment for what she did during the primaries.

As opposed to "Oh, country X only opposes the US because I'm a woman, and they are a bunch of sexist meanies"?

Arguably, that's a little less random than Biden.

And I thought the Democrats were going to "save the world". That means taking the message to the rest of the world, and making them see things the Democratic Party way. You know - make everyone go green, yadda yadda.

Have fun pushing equal rights for women on various Islamic countries.

At least it's not Biden as Secretary of State. You can keep a VP in the basement. If Biden had been SoS, his penchant for saying random stupid shit would get us in no end of trouble.
This I actually agree with.

It's not "someone like her", it's HER, and she deserves due punishment for what she did during the primaries.

What, try to win? Yeh, that's a horrible trait to have.

What, try to win? Yeh, that's a horrible trait to have.


You are not permitted to question or challenge "The One".

At least it's not Biden as Secretary of State. You can keep a VP in the basement. If Biden had been SoS, his penchant for saying random stupid shit would get us in no end of trouble.

Maybe, but I like Biden''s "random stupid shit." That he's less guarded in what he says means he's more likely to tell you what is really on his mind. And I value sincerity in a politician.

Perhaps not the best choice for SoS, but please don't bash Biden.

Arguably, that's a little less random than Biden.

And I thought the Democrats were going to "save the world". That means taking the message to the rest of the world, and making them see things the Democratic Party way. You know - make everyone go green, yadda yadda.

Have fun pushing equal rights for women on various Islamic countries.

1- It's arguable that HRC is as much a Democrat as Joe Lieberman.

2- Save the world from Republicans by GETTING THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ, yes. Whoever gets the job will likely not be asked to invade other random countries for the pleasure of murdering people, like Bush did.

3- The Democrats will have to begin at the US itself. Roe v. Wade, for instance. Regardless, once again you're mistaken: I don't care about "pushing for equal rights". That will happen when the populations get more educated. I care about not invading random countries and not having the psychotic fantasy that the US has the right to.

What, try to win? Yeh, that's a horrible trait to have.

No, try to win by attacking opponents as "sexists". Try to win by risking the integrity of the party. Try to win by trying to cheat with Florida and Michigan. THOSE are horrible traits to have.

You are not permitted to question or challenge "The One".

Oh not this "Obamessiah" crap again.:rolleyes:

It doesn't take blind devotion to Obama to see that Clinton has a lot of problems. Any way, what do you care? You are a right-winger if I recall. I'd hate to think bitter right wingers are still resorting to trying to rile up Clintonites against Obama, even once the election is over.

Maybe, but I like Biden''s "random stupid shit." That he's less guarded in what he says means he's more likely to tell you what is really on his mind. And I value sincerity in a politician.

Perhaps not the best choice for SoS, but please don't bash Biden.

What it's likely to tell you is that he's completely uninformed on a subject.

Back when we were negotiating the SALT II treaty, he went over to the USSR as a negotiator.

He told them (and this is from Gorbachev's private KGB files that he kept) that we really didn't give a shit what they did to Jewish dissidents - that we only wanted them to make a token effort at getting them out of the USSR and that then we would sign the SALT II treaty.

The KGB people present could not believe what they were hearing - they thought he was either insane or completely stupid - take your pick.

None of the other negotiators presented that point of view, and corrections of his statements had to be made.

The KGB also wondered how such a fucking idiot could have ever risen to even that level of power in the US government.

You are not permitted to question or challenge "The One".

Again: I don't care about Obama. I wanted to see win a candidate that will GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

Again: I don't care about Obama. I wanted to see win a candidate that will GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

We're already on a negotiated schedule with the government of Iraq.

Negotiated by Bush.

It is very unlikely that Obama will speed that up, since it's pretty close to what he planned.

Oh, and the surge worked, making it all possible.

No, try to win by attacking opponents as "sexists". Try to win by risking the integrity of the party. Try to win by trying to cheat with Florida and Michigan. THOSE are horrible traits to have.

She's a politician. Politicians do that. Obama is a politician too - don't ever forget that.

We're already on a negotiated schedule with the government of Iraq.

Negotiated by Bush.

It is very unlikely that Obama will speed that up, since it's pretty close to what he planned.

Oh, and the surge worked, making it all possible.

You shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. Obama knew that. Bush didn't. The surge be damned.

You shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. Obama knew that. Bush didn't. The surge be damned.

Looks like Obama's pullout is already a fait accompli, via Bush.

She's a politician. Politicians do that. Obama is a politician too - don't ever forget that.

Did Obama do that with his race? No? If he does and I get called racist for disagreeing with him, I'll be saying the same things about him.

As it is, Obama didn't pull that kind of crap. Hillary did.

Looks like Obama's pullout is already a fait accompli, via Bush.

But with Obama, we have a person up there who KNOWS the war was a mistake. That also counts. And Bush started the war. He isn't ending it. He also refuses to admit it was a mistake. Besides, Obama might just pull out EARLIER.

And I seem to recall McCain wanted a indefinite commitment.... And also, I find it amusing that the Republicans called Obama naive for wanting a timetable for Iraq, and for suggesting strikes into Pakistan, but yet we're doing both now....

Looks like Obama's pullout is already a fait accompli, via Bush.

Thus letting the GOP take the credit for his plan, while pinning any failiurs on him. How conveniant.

What it's likely to tell you is that he's completely uninformed on a subject.

Back when we were negotiating the SALT II treaty, he went over to the USSR as a negotiator.

He told them (and this is from Gorbachev's private KGB files that he kept) that we really didn't give a shit what they did to Jewish dissidents - that we only wanted them to make a token effort at getting them out of the USSR and that then we would sign the SALT II treaty.

The KGB people present could not believe what they were hearing - they thought he was either insane or completely stupid - take your pick.

None of the other negotiators presented that point of view, and corrections of his statements had to be made.

The KGB also wondered how such a fucking idiot could have ever risen to even that level of power in the US government.

Source?

Thus letting the GOP take the credit for his plan, while pinning any failiurs on him. How conveniant.

Let's hope the American people are wiser than that.

And I seem to recall McCain wanted a indefinite commitment.... And also, I find it amusing that the Republicans called Obama naive for wanting a timetable for Iraq, and for suggesting strikes into Pakistan, but yet we're doing both now....

How lucky you are to find it amusing. I only find it infuriating.

Regarding Richardson: My one concern is that, from what I have heard, he has a bit of a "zipper" problem. If possible, I'd rather like Obama to avoid having to deal with any of those. They tainted Clinton and the Democratic party for years afterwards.

How lucky you are to find it amusing. I only find it infuriating.

I would probably be infuriated if Obama had lost, but since he won, I can laugh at the irony.

Did Obama do that with his race? No? If he does and I get called racist for disagreeing with him, I'll be saying the same things about him.
He was a politician. He played the nomination is a different way. He didn't play the race card because it had failed before. Doesn't mean he was all sweet and innocent. Just means he was smart. That's what politicians do. He ain't any different.

As it is, Obama didn't pull that kind of crap. Hillary did.
Fantastic. And now that he's the President-elect, we may finally learn where he actually stands on any given issue.

He was a politician. He played the nomination is a different way. He didn't play the race card because it had failed before. Doesn't mean he was all sweet and innocent. Just means he was smart. That's what politicians do. He ain't any different.


Fantastic. And now that he's the President-elect, we may finally learn where he actually stands on any given issue.

So, your defense of Hillary is a speculation of "Obama would also have done it if he thought it worked"? That's yours to prove, and it being a hypothesis, have fun trying!

He did list his stands. And the only one I care about: Getting the hell out of Iraq, and realizing it was a mistake.

Source?

http://www.brookesnews.com/081310bidenkgb.html

Did Obama do that with his race? No? If he does and I get called racist for disagreeing with him, I'll be saying the same things about him.

As it is, Obama didn't pull that kind of crap. Hillary did.

Look. Obama isn't Christ come down from the sky waving the banner of the Democratic Party. He and his also played dirty during the primaries. Yeah, I supported him over Hillary, but you need to understand that Hillary got some terrible press when she fucked up, and Obama repeatedly got a free pass. Hillary isn't Satan. She isn't even some comically drawn cartoon of an imp. The primaries are over, and we need to remember that she's also a good Democrat who stands for many of our party's better platforms.

Look. Obama isn't Christ come down from the sky waving the banner of the Democratic Party. He and his also played dirty during the primaries. Yeah, I supported him over Hillary, but you need to understand that Hillary got some terrible press when she fucked up, and Obama repeatedly got a free pass. Hillary isn't Satan. She isn't even some comically drawn cartoon of an imp. The primaries are over, and we need to remember that she's also a good Democrat who stands for many of our party's better platforms.

1- Why does everyone think I care much about Obama? I don't. I wanted to see a candidate that knew the Iraq War was a mistake. Simple as that.

2- Her dirty tricks involved playing the gender card and essentially threatening to implode the Democratic Party should she not be given the nomination. I doubt Obama did anything half as damaging.

:eek::fluffle:http://www.brookesnews.com/081310bidenkgb.html

Dear Hotwife,
This is my introduction to Brookesnews.com
I am shocked at its barking mad, howling at the moon rantings.

It seems to be made up of Cuban exiles and right-wing conspiracy theorists.

If you'd quoted Fox News, people would be criticising you a quoting half-truths but this......
Brookes News takes us to new universes of La La land:tongue:

Look. Obama isn't Christ come down from the sky waving the banner of the Democratic Party.

Who said he is? One does not have to be Jesus to be better than Clinton.

Strawman burned.

So, your defense of Hillary is a speculation of "Obama would also have done it if he thought it worked"? That's yours to prove, and it being a hypothesis, have fun trying!
I'm not defending anyone, at all.
I'm stating a pretty obvious fact: Clinton is a politician; Obama is a politician.

Politicians are, by their trade, liars and manipulators. Especially when in the high stratosphere of political office.

Stop being critical of Clinton for being a politician, when Obama is one too.

He did list his stands.
Sorry, I couldn't hear them in between the cacophony of rhetoric coming from his camp.

And the only one I care about: Getting the hell out of Iraq, and realizing it was a mistake.
Any Democrat candidate would start withdrawing the troops. That's the party line not specific to any particular candidate.

Clinton, if memory serves, changed her mind about the Iraq War from good to bad. I like someone who has the ability to change opinions based on factual evidence presented in front of them. God knows it's refreshing from the current administration. Sure, I like Obama being against too. Whoopie. That's still not the be all and end all of international relations and events at the moment.

His choice for Sec of State should be (I hope) based on more than just "She's a poopie head".

Stop being critical of Clinton for being a politician, when Obama is one too.

Doesn't that amount to saying its ok to be corrupt because everyone does it?

Obama just happens to be less corrupt, and less foolish. Their are some lines you don't cross in a democracy (like saying votes for you in two critical state should be counted, but those for your opponent should not be).

I'm not defending anyone, at all.
I'm stating a pretty obvious fact: Clinton is a politician; Obama is a politician.

Politicians are, by their trade, liars and manipulators. Especially when in the high stratosphere of political office.

And yet Obama DIDN'T do it and Clinton DID.

Doesn't that amount to saying its ok to be corrupt because everyone does it?
No, I'm saying "stop being hypocritical."

Obama just happens to be less corrupt, and less foolish. Their are some lines you don't cross in a democracy (like saying votes for you in two critical state should be counted, but those for your opponent should not be).
That's the retarded Democrat Party process for you.

And yet Obama DIDN'T do it and Clinton DID.
Obama didn't lie and manipulate people, while Clinton did lie and manipulate people. Is that what you're saying?

2- Her dirty tricks involved playing the gender card and essentially threatening to implode the Democratic Party should she not be given the nomination. I doubt Obama did anything half as damaging.Save maybe repeatedly playing the race card on Hill and Bill (McCain too, while we're at it), and dissing small-towners for getting bitter and clinging to guns and god?

I'm looking for a source on that "threatening to implode the party" business...not finding it...

That's the retarded Democrat Party process for you.

My memory may be a little fuzzy, but if I recall correctly, both candidates agreed to take their names of the ballots. Obama did, she didn't. So wasn't she breaking the rules if anyone was?

In any case, their were lots of solutions proposed that did not involve handing the primary to her on a silver platter. For all her bleating about counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, she only showed she cared about those votes that were cast for her.

Save maybe repeatedly playing the race card on Hill and Bill (McCain too, while we're at it), and dissing small-towners for getting bitter and clinging to guns and god?

I'm looking for a source on that "threatening to implode the party" business...not finding it...

I don't recall Obama ever personally alledging racism, even if some of his supporters did. Though it doesn't count as "playing the race card", if you're calling someone else on their racism.

As for "imploding the party", what would you call the threat of her taking the primary to the convention?

1- Why does everyone think I care much about Obama? I don't. I wanted to see a candidate that knew the Iraq War was a mistake. Simple as that.

Thing is, Obama's not pure either. That's my point. Hillary got shelacked for the stupidity of her surrogates, but did Obama ever get hit for the behavior of his surrogates? No. Hillary did play dirty, but so did he, and I wish folks would stop forgiving him and using the same things to hate her. Be consistent, at least!

2- Her dirty tricks involved playing the gender card and essentially threatening to implode the Democratic Party should she not be given the nomination. I doubt Obama did anything half as damaging.

Oh... that's all. That's nothing compared to the shit that actually went on in the campaign. I'm much more worried about the shit that went down in Nevada and the comments of Geraldine Ferraro than I am by that silly nonsense.

Who said he is? One does not have to be Jesus to be better than Clinton.


My point was that Obama has played dirty, too, and that folks have to stop talking about Clinton's shit without understanding that their guy did a lot of the same.

Don't get me wrong, Obama is a hell of a lot better than Clinton! First off, he's better organized, second off, the people he surrounds himself with aren't the scum of the earth. But he still did some nasty shit during the primaries.

As for "imploding the party", what would you call the threat of her taking the primary to the convention?

Thank you!

Oh... that's all. That's nothing compared to the shit that actually went on in the campaign. I'm much more worried about the shit that went down in Nevada and the comments of Geraldine Ferraro than I am by that silly nonsense.

Namely?

My point was that Obama has played dirty, too, and that folks have to stop talking about Clinton's shit without understanding that their guy did a lot of the same.

Don't get me wrong, Obama is a hell of a lot better than Clinton! First off, he's better organized, second off, the people he surrounds himself with aren't the scum of the earth. But he still did some nasty shit during the primaries.

Nothing that involved a veiled threat to cost the Democrats the election or an attempt to shut down debate by yelling "sexism" (or "racism", in his case).

she only showed she cared about those votes that were cast for her.
......

Well, duh. That's polit.... do people not understand the concept of politics or something!?


As for "imploding the party", what would you call the threat of her taking the primary to the convention?

Before Obama won in a landslide against a Republican candidate, he barely won against Clinton. In football, the term "50/50 ball" applies here - both he and she had the right to go for that nomination - it was that close.
I reiterate: I sincerely hope his selection process isn't based on what happened in the primaries *points to what Biden said* or "She's a poopie head"

Namely?

There was massive manipulation of the caucuses in Nevada by both groups (but, mainly by Clinton, since her people were better organized). Doors were shut early, electioneering was allowed, the lists were manipulated by groups. It was nasty shit. I had friends down their volunteering for Obama who came back mad as hell.

Ferraro, you remember, I assume? Nasty ass, racist white woman who said that Obama wouldn't be where he was if he weren't black? Ran for VP once upon a time?

......

Well, duh. That's polit.... do people not understand the concept of politics or something!?

So, because "that's politics", she gets a free pass to become SoS? "That's politics" can ALSO be used to justify Obama giving her JACK SQUAT for revenge, remember?

Nothing that involved a veiled threat to cost the Democrats the election or an attempt to shut down debate by yelling "sexism" (or "racism", in his case).

Hillary never threatened to throw the election. Her surrogates did, after message-control went out the window in the last month, but she never did. Obama's people certainly did shout racism at times, although normally when it was actually being employed. Normally, so did Clinton's.

......

Well, duh. That's polit.... do people not understand the concept of politics or something!?



Before Obama won in a landslide against a Republican candidate, he barely won against Clinton. In football, the term "50/50 ball" applies here - both he and she had the right to go for that nomination - it was that close.
I reiterate: I sincerely hope his selection process isn't based on what happened in the primaries *points to what Biden said* or "She's a poopie head"

It looked close, but Obama had a slight lead in a lot of states as I recall. So popular vote wise it was close, but in terms of delegates she was sunk for all intents and purposes for weeks.

Much like the general election, where Obama won by like 52 percent but a huge lead in the electoral college.

There was massive manipulation of the caucuses in Nevada by both groups (but, mainly by Clinton, since her people were better organized). Doors were shut early, electioneering was allowed, the lists were manipulated by groups. It was nasty shit. I had friends down their volunteering for Obama who came back mad as hell.

Ferraro, you remember, I assume? Nasty ass, racist white woman who said that Obama wouldn't be where he was if he weren't black? Ran for VP once upon a time?

Yup. Both were shit done by Clinton... o_O

Yup. Both were shit done by Clinton... o_O

Reports were that Obama people were doing similar things at the caucuses on the strip. It was a lot more complex than all that.

Either way, CLINTON didn't do any of it. Her campaign might have, but I rather doubt she nefariously planned this. It's kinda absurd to even think that. Could Mark Penn have done it? Yeah, probably.

So, because "that's politics", she gets a free pass to become SoS?
Yes. That's exactly it. You've hit the nail square on the head. Perfect summation of my point and in fact, this entire thread. You win.

"That's politics" can ALSO be used to justify Obama giving her JACK SQUAT for revenge, remember?
I know, and when did I suggest otherwise? I've reiterated for about the third time now: I hope his selection policy isn't based on "She's a poopie head".

It looked close, but Obama had a slight lead in a lot of states as I recall. So popular vote wise it was close, but in terms of delegates she was sunk for all intents and purposes for weeks.
If I recall correctly, she won so many delegates as to have Obama fall well shy of the nomination without her standing down.

Yes. That's exactly it. You've hit the nail square on the head. Perfect summation of my point and in fact, this entire thread. You win.


I know, and when did I suggest otherwise? I've reiterated for about the third time now: I hope his selection policy isn't based on "She's a poopie head".


If I recall correctly, she won so many delegates as to have Obama fall well shy of the nomination without her standing down.

1- IF she gets a free pass because "that's politics", I can only HOPE Obama gets back at her for the same reason.

2- You DO realize Obama would have won it whether or not the bitch quit?

If I recall correctly, she won so many delegates as to have Obama fall well shy of the nomination without her standing down.

Not exactly. She won enough Pledged Delegates to keep him from winning enough delegates without Superdelegates, but he won without her having to stand down.

Edit: It has to do with the retarded-ass primary system that both parties have (to a certain extent). I really hate the damn system, but every state wants to get theirs, so none of them will change it.

Reports were that Obama people were doing similar things at the caucuses on the strip. It was a lot more complex than all that.

Either way, CLINTON didn't do any of it. Her campaign might have, but I rather doubt she nefariously planned this. It's kinda absurd to even think that. Could Mark Penn have done it? Yeah, probably.

Okay, but her CAMPAIGN was hers to control. And her CAMPAIGN did pull some major shit. That alienated her to many people. I even used to think of her as a person before the campaign.

Not exactly. She won enough Pledged Delegates to keep him from winning enough delegates without Superdelegates, but he won without her having to stand down.

And the Superdelegates would be VERY unlikely to screw with the popular vote.

1- IF she gets a free pass because "that's politics", I can only HOPE Obama gets back at her for the same reason.
Oh dear jesus, please tell me you knew I was being sarcastic for the beginning of my last post?

2- You DO realize Obama would have won it whether or not the bitch quit?
Ah yes. The bitch. Sound arguing there.

-snip-
Ah, thank you for the clarification. Much obliged.

Okay, but her CAMPAIGN was hers to control. And her CAMPAIGN did pull some major shit. That alienated her to many people. I even used to think of her as a person before the campaign.

Her campaign was nasty as fuck, poorly run, and disappointing as hell. I just don't think she had much to do with those factors, except for her poor choice of staff and managers. Is she to blame? Yeah, kinda, but I really think this is more an issue of sins of omission then anything else.

And the Superdelegates would be VERY unlikely to screw with the popular vote.

I wouldn't put it past them... But they didn't this time, so that's what matters.

Oh dear jesus, please tell me you knew I was being sarcastic for the beginning of my last post?


Ah yes. The bitch. Sound arguing there.

1- Nope. Regardless, if she doesn't get a free pass, then she doesn't get SoS either.

2- Yep. The bitch. Because she and her supporters called people like me sexist for daring to oppose her once, and now I call her the bitch. That simple.

Her campaign was nasty as fuck, poorly run, and disappointing as hell. I just don't think she had much to do with those factors, except for her poor choice of staff and managers. Is she to blame? Yeah, kinda, but I really think this is more an issue of sins of omission then anything else.

She did choose to cry sexism...

1- IF she gets a free pass because "that's politics", I can only HOPE Obama gets back at her for the same reason.

Thing is, Obama isn't vindictive. He realizes that there's nothing to be gained by playing that game, and a lot to be lost. That's one of the reasons I like him, he has class.

2- You DO realize Obama would have won it whether or not the bitch quit?

"The Bitch"? Really? That's vile.

1- Nope. Regardless, if she doesn't get a free pass, then she doesn't get SoS either.
Wow. You... just wow. I'm actually at a loss.

2- Yep. The bitch. Because she and her supporters called people like me sexist for daring to oppose her once, and now I call her the bitch. That simple.
Link or source to this?

She did choose to cry sexism...

More often than not when confronted with real sexism. Remember the Hillary nutcrackers? Remember the way people were referring to her? Remember the media's easy willingness to paint her as a cruel, manipulative, bitch because she was a woman with power? There was real, nasty, vile sexism in this campaign. Was Obama guilty of it? Fuck no. Were some Democrats guilty of it? Fuck yes.

Thing is, Obama isn't vindictive. He realizes that there's nothing to be gained by playing that game, and a lot to be lost. That's one of the reasons I like him, he has class.



"The Bitch"? Really? That's vile.

1- Still, the fact remains that Richardson IS better-suited.

2- Well, after I had "sexist" thrown at me by her supporters and, yes, by her - she only stopped short of calling Obama sexist for running against her - I figured I might as well give her a nickname myself.

There was real, nasty, vile sexism in this campaign. Was Obama guilty of it? Fuck no. Were some Democrats guilty of it? Fuck yes.

Most of Obama's supporters, however, weren't. And she and her supporters played that card against US too, nonetheless.

1- Still, the fact remains that Richardson IS better-suited.

I'm not fond of either choice. Clinton would be better suited to the role of Majority Leader (she has more spine than Harry Reid, anyway), and Richardson makes a great governor of New Mexico, where his "zipper problem" won't contaminate the rest of the party.

Wow. You... just wow. I'm actually at a loss.


Link or source to this?

1- When you get back from "a loss", bring me some soda, please.

2- I could easily link to threads here.

I'm not fond of either choice. Clinton would be better suited to the role of Majority Leader (she has more spine than Harry Reid, anyway), and Richardson makes a great governor of New Mexico, where his "zipper problem" won't contaminate the rest of the party.

Well, there are other people...

Most of Obama's supporters, however, weren't. And she and her supporters played that card against US too, nonetheless.

Some of her supporters (The PUMA's and their progenitors, certainly) did. She never accused US of sexism. She targeted the media, mostly. And she was right.

Some of her supporters (The PUMA's and their progenitors, certainly) did. She never accused US of sexism. She targeted the media, mostly. And she was right.

Yeah, well, I can't target her supporters, can I? And she DID do quite a bit to whip up their actions.

1- When you get back from "a loss", bring me some soda, please.
Sure, when you begin to make more intelligent posts.

2- I could easily link to threads here.

Well, I was hoping more for primary sources showing that she stated "People who opposed me are sexist". I can wait though.

Well, there are other people...

Yeah. It's my sincere hope that Obama chooses someone else. Of the two, though, I'd rather have Clinton, since her scandals are all second-hand from Bill, and less likely to play all over the national airwaves with the media's shrill cry of "SEX!!!!!!!!!11111"

Yeah, well, I can't target her supporters, can I? And she DID do quite a bit to whip up their actions.

And if you want to call Geraldine Ferraro and Harriet Crazyassoldlady bitches, please, be my guest. Both were nasty old harridans with vile, racist views. Absolutely. But Clinton doesn't deserve that.

And if you want to call Geraldine Ferraro and Harriet Crazyassoldlady bitches, please, be my guest. Both were nasty old harridans with vile, racist views. Absolutely. But Clinton doesn't deserve that.

Except for the fact that she knew what went on and supported it and did jack squat to curb it.

Except for the fact that she knew what went on and supported it and did jack squat to curb it.

By that point, I don't think that she was in control of her campaign any more. She utterly lost message control in the last few weeks of the primaries. Her people were saying ten different things to different people.

By that point, I don't think that she was in control of her campaign any more. She utterly lost message control in the last few weeks of the primaries. Her people were saying ten different things to different people.

Fair enough, replace "bitch" with "moron". :p

Fair enough, replace "bitch" with "moron". :p

Done. And a fair critique. I remain fairly disappointed with her for her inept handling of her campaign.

Done. And a fair critique. I remain fairly disappointed with her for her inept handling of her campaign.

And I remain furious at her supporters for the crap some of them pulled, but since I can't very well lash out at them, I can only hope her power vanes so I can take pleasure on the fact that they'll be sad about it.

And I remain furious at her supporters for the crap some of them pulled, but since I can't very well lash out at them, I can only hope her power vanes so I can take pleasure on the fact that they'll be sad about it.

It isn't worth the effort. They did some stupid shit, but they lost. They've been beaten, and they know it. That's the best revenge.

It isn't worth the effort. They did some stupid shit, but they lost. They've been beaten, and they know it. That's the best revenge.

You know what they say, "It's not a party until someone's boot is on someone else's face." ;)

You know what they say, "It's not a party until someone's boot is on someone else's face." ;)

Yeah, but being packed in at Obama rallies makes me feel that way without any help.

Clinton would be better suited to the role of Majority Leader

Remember, she's merely a second term Senator. Clinton has no chance of becoming Majority Leader before she turns 80. She's way down the seniority list, and the Senate is all about seniority. I posted her exact rankings somewhere earlier in the thread if you're curious.

She's 61, and probably doesn't want to wait until she's as doddery as Robert Byrd before she gets any real power. Her only chance for a leadership position lies outside the Senate. That's why she's talking to the Obama team at all.

That's why she's talking to the Obama team at all.

Think she's groveling? :)

Remember, she's merely a second term Senator. Clinton has no chance of becoming Majority Leader before she turns 80. She's way down the seniority list, and the Senate is all about seniority. I posted her exact rankings somewhere earlier in the thread if you're curious.

She's 61, and probably doesn't want to wait until she's as doddery as Robert Byrd before she gets any real power. Her only chance for a leadership position lies outside the Senate. That's why she's talking to the Obama team at all.

Yeah, but the majority leader is picked by caucus election, and the endorsement of the President-elect would almost certainly win her the caucus election.

More or less, the seniority system is crap, and gave us Harry Reid, so I kinda hope to see it broken either way.

I don't recall Obama ever personally alledging racism, even if some of his supporters did. Though it doesn't count as "playing the race card", if you're calling someone else on their racism.It is when they're not being racist.

As for "imploding the party", what would you call the threat of her taking the primary to the convention?That's "imploding the party"? It's a "convention," not a coronation. Clinton was more than gracious by conceding and allowing it to become the latter, as usual. Ted Kennedy sure as hell wasn't that classy.

Heikoku, I think you're off base here.

First, let's have no illusions about Hillary Clinton. She and Bill both are politicians of a particular, very old school, in which vicious and manipulative campaigning are considered fair tactics and part of the game. And to pols like them, it IS a game -- by which I mean that, when the campaign is over, so is the fighting and everybody quits their bullshit and gets back working together on real business as one government. Maybe the time for that kind of politicking is passing away, but that is the way the Clintons play the game, it's the way A LOT of politicians play the game and have done for about 200 years, and nobody today is better at it than the Clintons.

Is it nice? No. Is it even ethical? No, not very.

But it is nothing like the ideology-driven attacks of the extreme rightwing, because the difference is that the extreme rightwing are not politicking, bullshitting or playing the game when they do shit like call people "anti-American." They really mean it, and they continue their attacks and their backstabbing even when there is no campaign to run, and they obstruct the proper business of government at every turn. They even go so far as to try to dismantle the government (see what they have done to the Justice Department).

Hillary Clinton IS NOT LIKE THAT, and I do not think it is fair to treat her with the same hostility the extreme rightwing have earned.

I am not a Hillary supporter. Personally, I think her Senate voting record could be better on several issues, I don't like the policy proposals she ran her campaign on, and I don't think she's particularly trustworthy as an individual -- If I had her over for coffee, I would definitely count the silverware before letting her leave. But I also do not think she is working against the best interests of my country, and I do not think she would obstruct the business of the government out of extremist philosophy or personal vendettas. She may be a liar, a petty crook, an ambitious climber, a Machiavellian backstabber, and a hundred other things, but she is NOT an enemy to the US Constitution, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what makes the difference.

Also, "sexist" is not an insult on the order of "anti-American." "Sexist," when applied to people who are obviously not sexist, is just a pathetic attempt at a put-down. "Anti-American," on the other hand, carries a host of negative connotations that are accusatory, belligerent, even potentially threatening. I agree that the way the rightwing went about calling people such things as "anti-American" was despicable and pretty much negates any claim to any kind of respect such people might otherwise have gotten. But the Hillary's sexism tactic was nothing more than that -- a tactic that failed -- and those few of her supporters who cried "sexist!" when they didn't get their way are just laughable.

By giving them the same degree of angry response, you are basically just making yourself seem petty and self-centered, as if the personal insult to you matters more than the reality of a situation.

I also would vastly prefer for Bill Richardson to get the job of Sec of State, and I have to say I am not 100% happy with the number of Clinton-connected people in Obama's transition team. But so far, though I may have chosen differently, Obama has not made any choices that seem off the mark for the jobs he has to fill. Regardless of their prior connections, the people he is tapping for various jobs are clearly qualified to do those jobs (no "Brownies" in this group so far). Even though I prefer Richardson, I have to admit that Clinton is very well qualified to be in charge of State, and if Obama is confident that she will work with him, not against him, then why should he not choose someone of her skills?

If Obama can see past Clinton's tactics in the primaries and consider her qualified for Sec. of State, why can't you? If he can let go of the attacks against him, which were far worse than being called "sexist," then why can't you take a minute and consider whether it's time to let go of that ultimately petty insult against you?

Think she's groveling? :)
No. Her back is too stiff for that. ;)

She's negotiating perks and figuring out what will advance her career the fastest.

Heikoku - The primary is over. Stop whining about how mean Hillary is. Whipe te foam from your mouth and present a valid critism that doesnt have to do with the primaries.

Hotwife -The election is over. We get it. Youre pissy. Cry into your Budweiser somewhere were we dont have to read it.

Snip.

Very well.

A few things can be argued: That if the time for that kind of politics is gone, Clinton and politicians like her should have as little power as possible, mainly.

Furthermore, Obama hasn't made the pick yet - and given some of the things Clinton said I'd actually not put it past her to off three people to become President.

At any rate, your post itself has very good points.

EDIT: As for "Anti-American", trust me, when my IP changes, I'll have my revenge on some people for cheating on the debate against me. ;)

Heikoku - The primary is over. Stop whining about how mean Hillary is.

I'm not whining about how mean she is. I'm clamoring for punishment that makes her suffer for my personal enjoyment. ;)

Remember the way people were referring to her?

I remember the way McCain refered to her...

Remember the media's easy willingness to paint her as a cruel, manipulative, bitch because she was a woman with power?

Of for the love of-

This never happened. At least outside of Fox News it didnt. If Hillary was ever portrayed as a cruel manipulative bitch, its because she is a cruel, manipulative bitch (and this is well documented). It had nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her conduct since Bill was Governer of Arkansaw.

I'm not whining about how mean she is. I'm clamoring for punishment that makes her suffer for my personal enjoyment. ;)

No, youre crying about how mean she is, and demanding she be punished because she dared oppose the guy who ended up winning, in a very Pinochet manner might I add.


For someone who turns every South American thread into a hijack to bitch about the coups, you sure take a page from their play book a lot, at least when it comes to your political enemies.

No, youre crying about how mean she is, and demanding she be punished because she dared oppose the guy who ended up winning in a very Pinochet manner.

Wait: I am crying AND demanding (etc) in a very Pinochet manner, I am, in a very Pinochet manner, demanding she's punished, I'm demanding she's, in a very Pinochet manner, punished, she opposed the guy in a very Pinochet manner or the guy won in a very Pinochet manner? :p

And no, I'd not mind her opposing Obama were it not for the fact that his supporters were called sexist during the primaries for daring to support him.

And no, I'd not mind her opposing Obama were it not for the fact that his supporters were called sexist during the primaries for daring to support him.

All evidence points to the contrary.


Besides, Id still like to know how a few obnoxious, thick headed Hillary supporters justify calling Hillary Clinton a "non-person".

For someone who turns every South American thread into a hijack to bitch about the coups, you sure take a page from their play book a lot, at least when it comes to your political enemies.

Yup. That's what the DOPS did here, you know. They denied people against the regime the position of Secretary of State.

Y'know, between the broom-stick rape and the pulling off of nails.

All evidence points to the contrary.


Besides, Id still like to know how a few obnoxious, thick headed Hillary supporters justify calling Hillary Clinton a "non-person".

1- Hard to discuss a hypothesis, innit?

2- She whipped them up.

Y'know, between the broom-stick rape and the pulling off of nails.

Considering youve wished personal, physical harm on your political enemies, Hillary Clinton included, a number of times...


I dont know, it just makes your calls for human rights seem hollow when you advocate them on one page and then the very next page wish real physical harm on an ideological enemy.

Considering youve wished personal, physical harm on your political enemies, Hillary Clinton included, a number of times...


I dont know, it just makes your calls for human rights seem hollow when you advocate them on one page and then the very next page wish real physical harm on an ideological enemy.

Wait, you spent about ten posts trying to inform me that I'm a hypocrite? My good man, I know that. o_O

1- Hard to discuss a hypothesis, innit?

2- She whipped them up.
Sorry, H, you're off base again. What Palin did was called whipping up a mob. What Hillary did was called exploiting an image. Both failed. The former was way worse than the latter. Try to get some perspective here. And please, do take a wee break from making US politics be all about you, 'k? Thanks. :p

As you pointed out, Obama has not announced the appointment yet, so it might not be Hillary. But let's say it is. What will you do if it turns out she does a good job for Obama and the US as Sec of State? Will you add "I was wrong about Hillary" to the "I was right about Iraq" in your sig? (Hint: If you take a more reasoned approach now, you won't have to.)

Sorry, H, you're off base again. What Palin did was called whipping up a mob. What Hillary did was called exploiting an image. Both failed. The former was way worse than the latter. Try to get some perspective here. And please, do take a wee break from making US politics be all about you, 'k? Thanks. :p

As you pointed out, Obama has not announced the appointment yet, so it might not be Hillary. But let's say it is. What will you do if it turns out she does a good job for Obama and the US as Sec of State? Will you add "I was wrong about Hillary" to the "I was right about Iraq" in your sig? (Hint: If you take a more reasoned approach now, you won't have to.)

1- (On the bolded part) Finally someone that understands me. ;)

2- Oh, that Palin was worse is quite clear. But Hillary was also bad. Keep in mind, also, that had not Hillary run the campaign she did, there might not have been a Palin... (And no, not because I'd have had the piece of mind to invent a time machine and knock on the door when her parents were doing it. >.> By the way, you didn't read this. <.< )

3- I don't think Hillary will SCREW UP BADLY as SoS, especially because Obama will set up the foreign policy, mind you.

It's not "someone like her", it's HER, and she deserves due punishment for what she did during the primaries.

No, try to win by attacking opponents as "sexists". Try to win by risking the integrity of the party. Try to win by trying to cheat with Florida and Michigan. THOSE are horrible traits to have.

Did Obama do that with his race? No? If he does and I get called racist for disagreeing with him, I'll be saying the same things about him.

As it is, Obama didn't pull that kind of crap. Hillary did.

2- Her dirty tricks involved playing the gender card and essentially threatening to implode the Democratic Party should she not be given the nomination. I doubt Obama did anything half as damaging.

Nothing that involved a veiled threat to cost the Democrats the election or an attempt to shut down debate by yelling "sexism" (or "racism", in his case).

Can you give examples of Senator Clinton making "a veiled threat to cost the Democrats the election," "threatening to implode the Democratic Party," and playing the gender card to shut down debate?

Or are you confusing Senator Clinton with some of her followers on these forums?

1- It's arguable that HRC is as much a Democrat as Joe Lieberman.

Senator Clinton IS a Democrat, spoke in support of Obama at the Democratic National Convention, and campaigned very actively for Obama after he won the nomination.

Joe Lieberman officially left the party years ago to become an independent, spoke in support of McCain at the Republican National Convention, and campaigned very actively for McCain.

I'm sure you can spot the differences.

Can you give examples of Senator Clinton making "a veiled threat to cost the Democrats the election," "threatening to implode the Democratic Party," and playing the gender card to shut down debate?

Or are you confusing Senator Clinton with some of her followers on these forums?



Senator Clinton IS a Democrat, spoke in support of Obama at the Democratic National Convention, and campaigned very actively for Obama after he won the nomination.

Joe Lieberman officially left the party years ago to become an independent, spoke in support of McCain at the Republican National Convention, and campaigned very actively for McCain.

I'm sure you can spot the differences.

She wanted to take the fight to the convention at a time in which it would obviously polarize the Party.

She whipped her supporters into calling people opposed to her sexist, and Obama sexist for running against her. Her followers were whipped up by HER.

And again, that she cleaned her own mess only makes her better than an 8-year old.

She whipped her supporters into calling people opposed to her sexist, and Obama sexist for running against her. Her followers were whipped up by HER.


I'm still waiting for actual proof of this one too.

I'm still waiting for actual proof of this one too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014

For instance.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014

For instance.

Ok, from that link here's what she actually said:

Quote: "It's been deeply offensive to millions of women. I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways," Clinton said. "But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press."

Quote: "The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted. It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

She's referencing the press. Are you saying the press didn't go after her because she's woman (ball breaker, nut cracker et al), while at the same time gingerly stepped around Obama being black?

Edit: Further from the article: "Ruccia pointed to examples of pervasive sexism in the media by citing the remarks from three members of the media: Chris Matthews ("the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner, is that her husband messed around"); Mike Barnicle ("when she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court"); and David Shuster (Clinton "pimped out" her daughter, Chelsea, by having her call superdelegates.)"

She wanted to take the fight to the convention at a time in which it would obviously polarize the Party.

She whipped her supporters into calling people opposed to her sexist, and Obama sexist for running against her. Her followers were whipped up by HER.

And again, that she cleaned her own mess only makes her better than an 8-year old.

Reality check. I AM NOT AND WAS NOT A HILLARY SUPPORTER.

Neither were many of the people who asked you to tone down the sexist comments against Senator Clinton during the course of the primaries OR who asked you stop being sexist against St. Palin.

I strongly supported Obama and am very, very glad he won -- both the nomination and the election.

I nonetheless am capable of respecting all that Senator Clinton has done for the U.S. and the Democratic Party. I can't fucking stand Palin.

So you can stop with the "Hillary supporters tried to shut me up by calling me sexist" schtick. Some of your many sexist comments got called sexist, not because they criticized Senator Clinton or Gov. Palin, but because they were fucking sexist.

So you can stop with the "Hillary supporters tried to shut me up by calling me sexist" schtick. Some of your many sexist comments got called sexist, not because they criticized Senator Clinton or Gov. Palin, but because they were fucking sexist.

Such as?

Edit: Actually, you know what? I won't hijack this. Clinton's shticks harmed the feminist cause more than imaginable, SHE was sexist to pretty big points. I stand by what I say and invite you to think of me what you will: I'm not sexist, she is a horrible person.

Such as?

Now you're just trolling. Anyone who has been reading this thread can see multiple examples.

Drop it. NOW.

(Edit: Invitation to end the hijack accepted. Everyone else can drop this too.)

Such as?

You must be fucking kidding me: bitch, slut, whore, hag, Prop Vagina, etc...

But, as to Clinton, your comments include: "bitch," "crazy, messed up old hag," "slut," "her wrinkled ass being in the President's seat while a male intern is under the table working through 28-year-old cobwebs," repeated comments questioning whether Clinton really has a vagina, "a woman with a fetish for men who don't know the meaning of the word 'is'," and (somewhat contradictorily) accusing others of supporting her solely because she has a vagina.

As to Palin, your comments include: "slut," "naughty librarian", "bimbo," "Prop Vagina," "cute and sexy ... little piece of biscuit [for McCain]," "vagina with a politician around it," multiple discusssions of her as a sex object, multiple discussions of her being nothing more than her looks, and "was picked because she has a vagina and is pretty".

You also made comparisons of Palin's vagina being "better fit for its function that Clinton's ever was."

See also, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13967872&postcount=471)

As for others saying your comments are inappropriate: See, e.g., here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13967913&postcount=476), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13967938&postcount=478), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13967840&postcount=467), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13966454&postcount=149), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13966430&postcount=140), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13989071&postcount=1052), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13968138&postcount=484)

Now you're just trolling. Anyone who has been reading this thread can see multiple examples.

Drop it. NOW.

(Edit: Invitation to end the hijack accepted. Everyone else can drop this too.)

Dropping it. Sorry.

1- (On the bolded part) Finally someone that understands me. ;)


I notice, though, that you are ignoring my request for you to take break from the grandstanding.

So...let me know when you feel like discussing something seriously and substantively. Thanks. 'Bye.

EDIT: Invitation to drop was posted while I was typing. I'm only too happy to drop this and see it dropped.

It seems there's talk of appointing Hillary as Secretary of State. Do you think she'd make a good one? If it is offered to her, should she accept?

I think that she would be better than fair, but not great. With her knowledge of Washington workings and her connections, she's a solid choice. I hope they're serious about offering it to her and, if they do, I hope she accepts.

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/hillary-clinton-mentioned-for-top-post/248016?icid=200100397x1213466989x1200813301

Since Hillary has not publicly stated for or against wanting the Secretary of State job. Apparently Hillary seems to want the job since she is being vetted for it. I still say New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson who is also being vetted was promised or strongly implied the job for his endorsement of Obama. An insult to the Clintons" from a personal friend. As the Clinton's made clear through James Carville.

It would be another insult from Obama to Hillary to vett her and not pick her for the Secretary of State job.

The first insult being not picking or offering Hillary the VP position as far as we know or assume.

I still think she should not tie herself to any administration. If things dont go right for President Obama it would be easier to run against him in 2012 for President.

While the Secretary of State position is an awesome job of world status.

According to Wikipedia Hillary was born Oct 26, 1947, and Bill was born Aug 19, 1946. While John McCain ran for president at 72 could the decisions of age be the reasons to accept the Secretary of State position, run for President or not in 2012, in 2016?

Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Bill Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton


Governor BIll Richardson of mixed American Mexican Hispanic descent speaks perfect fluent Spanish.

i thought id post christopher hitchen's opinion of hrc as sec of state just to make heikoku feel better

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/christopher-hitchens-call_n_144465.html

i hope the video works for him.

hitchens called the idea of hrc as sec of state a ludicrous embarrassment.

I want to be Secretary of Education. I have a lot to teach. :D
Like what?

How to play in the mud/make mud cakes?

How to eat tacos & burritos/break wind?

How to comfort the disturbed/disturb the comfortable? :D

Of course, HRC is qualified for the job.....hell she could have been the President elect right now!!

Of course, HRC is qualified for the job.....hell she could have been the President elect right now!!

But she isnt.