NationStates Jolt Archive

US President-elect Barack Obama has nominated his former rival Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state.

The news follows weeks of speculation as to what role the former first lady would play in the Obama administration.

Mrs Clinton lost out to Mr Obama when the two contested a bitterly fought race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

At a news conference in Chicago, Mr Obama also announced nominations for other key National Security team posts.

Although the two repeatedly clashed during the nomination race, Mrs Clinton went on to campaign for Mr Obama as he took on Republican John McCain in the race for the White House.

Former president Bill Clinton had cleared the way for his wife's appointment by reaching a complicated agreement on his financial arrangements, reports said.

Correspondents said there had been fears her nomination could falter over the appearance of conflicts of interest between her husband's charitable foundation and lucrative speechmaking schedule.

Mr Clinton has agreed to release the list of donors to his foundation by the end of the year, officials overseeing the presidential transition said.

He has also agreed to submit future engagements, speeches and sources of income to the State Department and the White House and to take a more behind-the-scenes role in the daily running of his foundation, sources said.

The current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, praised Mrs Clinton as an "inspiration" who would "bring enormous energy and intellect" to the role.

"And most important I know her to be somebody who has what you need most in this job: which is a deep love of the United States of America."

Announcing his team, President-elect Obama said: "The national security challenges we face are just as great and just as urgent as our economic crisis."

Defence Secretary, Robert Gates will remain in his job, Mr Obama said.

Selecting Mr Gates - who was appointed by President George W Bush two years ago - allows Mr Obama to honour a promise to name at least one Republican cabinet member.

Retired General James Jones - a former top commander of Nato and US forces in Europe - was nominated as National Security Adviser.

He served in the Bush administration as a Middle East adviser.

Other appointments include Eric Holder as Attorney-General, Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations and Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona as Secretary of Homeland Security.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7758673.stm

So, Americans, and the rest of us, how do we feel about this appointment? I'm not to suprised but only time will tell what will occur.

I was expecting Health & Human Services, but what do I know?

she'll do a good job. there are many good candidates but she is a solid choice.

:confused: :headbang: :rolleyes:

Why couldn't it be Bill Richardson?:(

Unsuprising.

On one hand, she does know a lot of foreign leaders and figures personally and is well known on the world stage, meaning she has a lot of diplomatic clout.

On the other hand, it is well documented that shes a ****, which is a rather undesirable trait in a diplomat.

But Ill wait until I see the actual work shes done to judge. I still think there were better qualified people, however.

Unsuprising.

On one hand, she does know a lot of foreign leaders and figures personally and is well known on the world stage, meaning she has a lot of diplomatic clout.

On the other hand, it is well documented that shes a ****, which is a rather undesirable trait in a diplomat.

But Ill wait until I see the actual work shes done to judge. I still think there were better qualified people, however.
i think that being a "strong minded woman" is an excellent attribute in a diplomat. i expect that all the men who have held the job would have received the same insult had they been female.

i think that being a "strong minded woman" is an excellent attribute in a diplomat. i expect that all the men who have held the job would have received the same insult had they been female.

Oh please, dont even try to make this about sexism. It has nothing to do with her being a "strong minded woman" and everything to do with her repulsive personality. One can be strong minded and push an agenda through without being unlikable and adversarial. A diplomat cannot be unpleasent, especially if theyre the head diplomat.

Once, just once, Id like for a critism of Hillary Clinton on this forum to not be met with cries of sexism.

Oh please, dont even try to make this about sexism. It has nothing to do with her being a "strong minded woman" and everything to do with her repulsive personality. One can be strong minded and push an agenda through without being unlikable and adversarial. A diplomat cannot be unpleasent, especially if theyre the head diplomat.

Once, just once, Id like for a critism of Hillary Clinton on this forum to not be met with cries of sexism.
i dont see where you get the idea that she has a more repulsive personality than any other big time politician has.

and if you dont want to be called sexist you probably shouldnt call her a c***

i dont see where you get the idea that she has a more repulsive personality than any other big time politician has.

Does she have a more repuslive personality? Maybe. But if not, others have the ability to hide it better.

Were did I get the idea? Things she has said and done, as well as having met her in person.

and if you dont want to be called sexist you probably shouldnt call her a c***

:rolleyes: I call males cunts too. Get over your sanctimonious victim complex.

This has nothing to do with her being a "strong woman" and me somehow being afraid of that. Thats the same bullshit arguement her drones brought out during the campaign to use against anyone who dared to vote against her. I wish our current SoS was that strong, rather than a blubbering right wing sycophant.

Does she have a more repuslive personality? Maybe. But if not, others have the ability to hide it better.

Were did I get the idea? Things she has said and done, as well as having met her in person.



:rolleyes: I call males cunts too. Get over your sanctimonious victim complex.

This has nothing to do with her being a "strong woman" and me somehow being afraid of that. Thats the same bullshit arguement her drones brought out during the campaign to use against anyone who dared to vote against her. I wish our current SoS was that strong, rather than a blubbering right wing sycophant.
uhhuh

if you want to pretend that c*** (is that what you wrote? why wasnt it **** out in this post?) is an insightful analysis of her unfitness to be secretary of state, you go right ahead.

obama has no reason to give a bad candidate the job. if she was so much more repulsive than other big time politicians he wouldnt have offered her the post.

Once, just once, Id like for a critism of Hillary Clinton on this forum to not be met with cries of sexism.

*Through teeth* Join the club.

I live in the UK, but i saw what she did during her campaign...I'm sure that Obama would agrre with me when i say that she was a good opponent.So, i think that she will be fine with this job ;P

uhhuh

if you want to pretend that c*** (is that what you wrote? why wasnt it **** out in this post?) is an insightful analysis of her unfitness to be secretary of state, you go right ahead.

Considering I justified why I thought it was relevent.


obama has no reason to give a bad candidate the job. if she was so much more repulsive than other big time politicians he wouldnt have offered her the post.

We'll see. Im going to trust his decision, as thus far he has given me no reason not to. I hope I dont regret it.

Since we're engaging in dumb generalizations, can I join in too? http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3717/captd14c2487810f4f9a8d8zh3.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/08/07/hitler460.jpg

I live in the UK, but i saw what she did during her campaign...I'm sure that Obama would agrre with me when i say that she was a good opponent.So, i think that she will be fine with this job ;P

You see, the problem is you don't solve a diplomatic issue by claiming the other side is too unexperienced, too sexist or too BLACK to be President.

Wow. I for one, totally did not see this coming.

You see, the problem is you don't solve a diplomatic issue by claiming the other side is too unexperience, too sexist or too BLACK to be President.

Yeah, cant see her saying that to another leader. How you treat your political opponent is not how youd treat a foreign dignitary.

Ahmenajad: Iran wants to build nuclear power plants for peaceful use.
Clinton: Youre to inexperianced too be president.
Ahmenajad: What?
Clinton: Youre also too sexist.
Ahmenajad: True, but wha-
Clinton: Youre also too black.
Ahmenajad: Thats it. Guards, kill her.

As for Clinton as SoS, yeah! I think she will do a fine job.

As for the "sexism vs. evil" debate, grow up and learn that you don't have to completely villify one's opponents, resort to name-calling, etc. If Clinton was as horrible as some of you claim, Obama wouldn't be nominating her for SoS. Show a little fucking faith in your candidate, a little fucking tolerance for disagreements among general allies, and a little fucking maturity.

And I don't care what gender you apply it to, **** is a sexist term. That several of you automatically resort to such epithets speaks more about you than they do your targets.

Yeah, cant see her saying that to another leader. How you treat your political opponent is not how youd treat a foreign dignitary.

Ahmenajad: Iran wants to build nuclear power plants for peaceful use.
Clinton: Youre to inexperianced too be president.
Ahmenajad: What?
Clinton: Youre also too sexist.
Ahmenajad: True, but wha-
Clinton: Youre also too black.
Ahmenajad: Thats it. Guards, kill her.

*Sigh* I'm aware (but funny dialogue!). My point was that her campaign doesn't make her any more prepared than I to be SoS. Read the post I quoted.

You see, the problem is you don't solve a diplomatic issue by claiming the other side is too unexperienced, too sexist or too BLACK to be President.

Let's see: which of these three things did Senator Clinton ever actually argue? Oh, yeah, only the one that was actually relevant to the election in which she was competing.

Let's see: which of these three things did Senator Clinton ever actually argue? Oh, yeah, only the one that was actually relevant to the election in which she was competing.

Without digging up old campaign wounds, she did float that picture of him in traditional Kenyan dress to scare people.


Interpert that as you will.

As I said (and TCT seems to have ignored), Ill trust Obama's judgement on this for now. Until he gives me a reason to distrust him, I dont see why I shouldnt.

You see, the problem is you don't solve a diplomatic issue by claiming the other side is too unexperienced, too sexist or too BLACK to be President.

not to nitpick or nothing, but she has more experience in government than our current president elect.

If Obama, who, by all measure, is less experienced than Clinton is still qualified to be President of the United States than surely Clinton is qualified for the position as Secretary of State

As for the "sexism vs. evil" debate, grow up and learn that you don't have to completely villify one's opponents, resort to name-calling, etc. If Clinton was as horrible as some of you claim, Obama wouldn't be nominating her for SoS. Show a little fucking faith in your candidate, a little fucking tolerance for disagreements among general allies, and a little fucking maturity.

And I don't care what gender you apply it to, **** is a sexist term. That several of you automatically resort to such epithets speaks more about you than they do your targets.

On the bolded: Dude, have you SEEN how she campaigned? Have you SEEN the actions of people on her behalf, on this very forum and elsewhere? If it had been "disagreements among general allies", odds are I'd still have my old name due to NOT having been called sexist offhand for daring to disagree with her. It was her trying to get Obama down by any and all means and very nearly costing the Democrats the election, it was not a "disagreement". That Obama chose to nominate her speaks of HIS good will, not HERS.

Let's see: which of these three things did Senator Clinton ever actually argue? Oh, yeah, only the one that was actually relevant to the election in which she was competing.

She claimed sexism, she claimed lack of experience, and she doctored photos of him.

On the bolded: Dude, have you SEEN how she campaigned? Have you SEEN the actions of people on her behalf, on this very forum and elsewhere? If it had been "disagreements among general allies", odds are I'd still have my old name due to NOT having been called sexist offhand for daring to disagree with her. It was her trying to get Obama down by any and all means and very nearly costing the Democrats the election, it was not a "disagreement". That Obama chose to nominate her speaks of HIS good will, not HERS.

Are we all really going to have to endure this particular debate again?

On the bolded: Dude, have you SEEN how she campaigned? Have you SEEN the actions of people on her behalf, on this very forum and elsewhere? If it had been "disagreements among general allies", odds are I'd still have my old name due to NOT having been called sexist offhand for daring to disagree with her. It was her trying to get Obama down by any and all means and very nearly costing the Democrats the election, it was not a "disagreement". That Obama chose to nominate her speaks of HIS good will, not HERS.

I know, I know. Mean old Hillary caused your old name to be deleted. You had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Be sure to raise this with the Senate during her confirmation hearings.

not to nitpick or nothing, but she has more experience in government than our current president elect.

If Obama, who, by all measure, is less experienced than Clinton is still qualified to be President of the United States than surely Clinton is qualified for the position as Secretary of State

Neo, read the post I was responding to. The guy was arguing that her campaign meant she was qualified...

Are we all really going to have to endure this particular debate again?

Apparently. :(

She claimed sexism, she claimed lack of experience, and she doctored photos of him.

lack of experience is a perfectly viable argument when you're campaigning for the office of President of the United States.

As for cries of sexism, I don't recall her ever making that argument. Some supporters, yes, but then there were plenty of Obama supporters ready to call racism at any criticism. It was a nasty campaign all around. And I certainly have seen NO evidence that Clinton authorized or dealt with any doctored photographs.

Am I being excessively Machiavellian if I think he is lining her up as a scapegoat for any future problems in Iraq/Afghanistan?

She claimed sexism, she claimed lack of experience, and she doctored photos of him.

When? Of course. When and how?

and if you dont want to be called sexist you probably shouldnt call her a c***

I don't see calling somebody a **** as sexist at all, how is it?

Apparently. :(

I won't discuss this with you any longer. But I still dislike, and, most of all, RESENT the "any criticism of her is sexism" attitude she infused in some people.

Neo, read the post I was responding to. The guy was arguing that her campaign meant she was qualified...

well, a lot of her campaign did highlight her experience, her views, her plan, and such. Perhaps he meant not that the act of campaigning that makes her qualified, but she is qualified based on what he learned of her during the campaign?

Which makes perfect sense given context.

Am I being excessively Machiavellian if I think he is lining her up as a scapegoat for any future problems in Iraq/Afghanistan?

I believe you may be. Whats more likely is he's lining her up to take over as president in 2016.

Whats also more likely is he is trying to get her supporters in his court.

Am I being excessively Machiavellian if I think he is lining her up as a scapegoat for any future problems in Iraq/Afghanistan?

That would be SPLENDID! :D

well, a lot of her campaign did highlight her experience, her views, her plan, and such. Perhaps he meant not that the act of campaigning that makes her qualified, but she is qualified based on what he learned of her during the campaign?

Which makes perfect sense given context.

One works with what's said or clearly implied, Neo, not with what "can be interpreted". IF he meant this, then okay, but my post wasn't wrong in taking what he said at face value.

She claimed sexism, she claimed lack of experience, and she doctored photos of him.

SHE never claimed sexism.

She also never doctered photos of him.

She did, however release actual photos with the intent to scaremonger.

She did, however release actual photos with the intent to scaremonger.

Which, according to some people, makes her a saint, not a b****. :p

I don't see calling somebody a **** as sexist at all, how is it?
apparently the word is far more often used in the UK than it is in the US.

I believe you may be. Whats more likely is he's lining her up to take over as president in 2016.

Whats also more likely is he is trying to get her supporters in his court.
she'll be too old in '16

But I still dislike the "any criticism of her is sexism" attitude she infused in some people.

And I still dislike your "I've been called sexist, so I might as well act sexist" attitude.

Regardless, as an Obama supporter, I have never argued that any criticism of Clinton is sexism. I have argued that obviously sexist arguments against Clinton and Palin were sexist. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I still dislike your "I've been called sexist, so I might as well act sexist" attitude.

Trust me, I was such a better person before taking an interest in American politics...

Regardless, I wasn't acting so when I was called it.

apparently the word is far more often used in the UK than it is in the US.

I'm starting to understand that. It used very frequently over here, it's the defacto word to use when somebody is being c***ish, no other word suffices, really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7758673.stm

So, Americans, and the rest of us, how do we feel about this appointment? I'm not to suprised but only time will tell what will occur.

It gets her the hell out of the Senate, so her appointment can't be all bad. :D

SHE never claimed sexism.

She also never doctered photos of him.

She did, however release actual photos with the intent to scaremonger.

Thank you for setting the record straight on the first two.

As to the third, was it ever actually confirmed that Senator Clinton had anything to do with the circulation of those photos? I honestly don't know.

I'm starting to understand that. It used very frequently over here, it's the defacto word to use when somebody is being c***ish, no other word suffices, really.
and i have no idea what being c***ish means

and i have no idea what being c***ish means

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

You're welcome. ;)

and i have no idea what being c***ish means
Generally "an arsehole", just more so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_campaign

You're welcome. ;)
Oh ffs don't start this off again. It was hard enough watching you and Neo Art kill the whole fucking presidential debate for 10-odd months.

Oh ffs don't start this off again. It was hard enough watching you and Neo Art kill the whole fucking presidential debate for 10-odd months.

HEY!

What did Neo do? o_O

Also, kindly give credit where it is due for some others then?

What redeeming features does she actually have?

Economic policy: Mediocre
Foreign policy: Extremely shitty
Social policy: Also shitty

But more importantly, she is incredibly unpopular. Why would you want someone like her as secretary of state?

Oh ffs don't start this off again. It was hard enough watching you and Neo Art kill the whole fucking presidential debate for 10-odd months.

buh wha? What did I do?

buh wha? What did I do?

I also have this doubt. What DID you do? o_O

and i have no idea what being c***ish means

Okay imagine this:

You are waiting at the bus stop, the bus comes, you get on, the doors close. As you take a seat you notice a young person run up and knock at the door, the bus has yet to start moving into traffic, the driver looks around at the door, ignores it and starts to pull away.

That is the bus driver being a right c***, and you, the youth, and everybody on the bus have just cause to call him one.

As to the third, was it ever actually confirmed that Senator Clinton had anything to do with the circulation of those photos? I honestly don't know.

No, it was never confirmed. It was argued it was her campaign, and they did it without her knowledge. I personally dont buy that one.

However, I dont hold the sins of her campaign against her now that shes nominated. I personally think she'll do ok. As I said, she has a great deal of diplomatic clout and celebrity status around the world. She also has a strong will.

She did her part to mend the wounds of the primary by endorsing Obama very strongly and campaigning for him a lot (even though the media, seeking contraversy for ratings, acted as though she never really backed him). Its only fair that Obama does his part now and throws her a bone, so to speak. She is, also, now set up to run for president in 2016.

My only concern, again, is her off-putting personality. But I trust Obama's judgement. I dont plan on judging her too in depth until shes actually done something.

What redeeming features does she actually have?

Economic policy: Mediocre
Foreign policy: Extremely shitty
Social policy: Also shitty

But more importantly, she is incredibly unpopular. Why would you want someone like her as secretary of state?

Let's see: on Economic, Foreign, and Social policy, she is nigh identical to Obama.

She is so incredibily unpopular that she nearly won the nomination.

What alternate reality do you inhabit?

Okay imagine this:

You are waiting at the bus stop, the bus comes, you get on, the doors close. As you take a seat you notice a young person run up and knock at the door, the bus has yet to start moving into traffic, the driver looks around at the door, ignores it and starts to pull away.

That is the bus driver being a right c***, and you, the youth, and everybody on the bus have just cause to call him one.

I always thought "I hope you suffer your worst nightmares for eternity" had more style.

But, to be fair, it takes a while longer to say.

Okay imagine this:

You are waiting at the bus stop, the bus comes, you get on, the doors close. As you take a seat you notice a young person run up and knock at the door, the bus has yet to start moving into traffic, the driver looks around at the door, ignores it and starts to pull away.

That is the bus driver being a right c***, and you, the youth, and everybody on the bus have just cause to call him one.
i dont see why "asshole" isnt good enough

not that im disputing your example. that would be foolish.

in any case, when you visit the US, dont use the word. not even with someone who has already used it in your presense.

I always thought "I hope you suffer your worst nightmares for eternity" had more style.

It does, but in these sorts of situations, is it your style or your anger that you want to impress upon the bus driver?

It does, but in these sorts of situations, is it your style or your anger that you want to impress upon the bus driver?

True, true. Then there is the "time" issue. Talking isn't a free action in RL.

Foreign policy: Extremely shitty

No.

Social policy: Also shitty

Nearly identical to Obamas.


But more importantly, she is incredibly unpopular. Why would you want someone like her as secretary of state?

Because national popularity doesnt matter for SoS. Also, half the democratic party loves her. Obama is getting them in his court.

i dont see why "asshole" isnt good enough

It's a Linguistics issue. :p

HEY!

What did Neo do? o_O

Also, kindly give credit where it is due for some others then?
buh wha? What did I do?
Eh sorry, thought it was you, Neo. First name that popped into my head in my tired, tired state.

Eh that other one you relentlessly bloody argued with, Heikoku.
What redeeming features does she actually have?

Economic policy: Mediocre
Foreign policy: Extremely shitty
Social policy: Also shitty

But more importantly, she is incredibly unpopular. Why would you want someone like her as secretary of state?
Because she knows people in high places around the world, and due to her being slightly less popular than Obama (although still have a decent base of support to keep her there "because the people demand it") can be used as a political punching bag for when the US fails internationally.

i dont see why "asshole" isnt good enough

not that im disputing your example. that would be foolish.

in any case, when you visit the US, dont use the word. not even with someone who has already used it in your presense.

It's not vitriotic enough, you can call your mate that when he lays down a straigh in poker, beating your two pair.

Now what would you call that same mate if he runs off with your girlfreind?

When you use the word, it's because you want the recipient to fully understand your feelings on the matter. No other word in the English language has the same clout.

Eh sorry, thought it was you, Neo. First name that popped into my head in my tired, tired state.

Eh that other one you relentlessly bloody argued with, Heikoku.


Did you confuse Neo with CH?

Unforgivable.:p

Eh sorry, thought it was you, Neo. First name that popped into my head in my tired, tired state.

Eh that other one you relentlessly bloody argued with, Heikoku.

YOU name the names. If this goes "oh, he's flaming me" I'm NOT going down for this.

Did you confuse Neo with CH?

Unforgivable.:p
*runs*
YOU name the names. If this goes "oh, he's flaming me" I'm NOT going down for this.
Confused Neo with CH, sorry to all involved. But aye, it was incredibly tiresome -_-

Let's see: on Economic, Foreign, and Social policy, she is nigh identical to Obama.


Really? Are you seriously saying they have identical policy? Does Obama concur with Mrs "security is more important than civil liberties" Clinton? Was Obama for the Iraq war? Isn't Clinton also apathetic towards the whole Guantanamo Bay situation?

It's not vitriotic enough, you can call your mate that when he lays down a straigh in poker, beating your two pair.

Now what would you call that same mate if he runs off with your girlfreind?

When you use the word, it's because you want the recipient to fully understand your feelings on the matter. No other word in the English language has the same clout.
one last hijack...

what word in the UK is so vile that you cant call someone that in front of your mother lest she faint dead away?

Does Obama concur with Mrs "security is more important than civil liberties" Clinton?

I dont recall her ever saying that.

Isn't Clinton also apathetic towards the whole Guantanamo Bay situation?

No, however Obama certianly cares more.

Was Obama for the Iraq war?

Impossible to say really. Yes, he’s against it now (but then so is just about everybody) and he claims he was against it the whole time, but the fact is he didn’t have a seat in the Senate at the time of the first vote. Easy to say he would have voted against it, but talk is pretty cheap. The fact is, he didn’t have a vote at the time, and while he is against it now, so are many people who voted for it at the time (Clinton and Kerry spring to mind).

Confused Neo with CH, sorry to all involved. But aye, it was incredibly tiresome -_-

I came out of it invigorated. :D

one last hijack...

what word in the UK is so vile that you cant call someone that in front of your mother lest she faint dead away?
C***.

Although saying anything negative about the reigning monarch can have the same effect.

one last hijack...

what word in the UK is so vile that you cant call someone that in front of your mother lest she faint dead away?

Ummm I don't really know! When I was at school, saying anything derogatry about somebodies mum was pretty bad, in fact even know just the phrase 'Your mum!' can start violence.

Motherf******, don't go down too well over here, well at least in the circles I mix in. *shrug*

C***.

Although saying anything negative about the reigning monarch can have the same effect.
and if you call the queen a c*** is it time to start planning the funeral?

I dont recall her ever saying that.


"BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html

Yes I know she tries to weasel her way out of it...


No, however Obama certianly cares more.

Not identical then.

Impossible to say really. Yes, he’s against it now (but then so is just about everybody) and he claims he was against it the whole time, but the fact is he didn’t have a seat in the Senate at the time of the first vote. Easy to say he would have voted against it, but talk is pretty cheap. The fact is, he didn’t have a vote at the time, and while he is against it now, so are many people who voted for it at the time (Clinton and Kerry spring to mind).

What about this?

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

one last hijack...

what word in the UK is so vile that you cant call someone that in front of your mother lest she faint dead away?

Belgium. :D

and if you call the queen a c*** is it time to start planning the funeral?
You won't have time to, all right-thinking defenders of the Queen's realm will kick your head in.

What about this?

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

what about it? As I said, talk's cheap, and you provide me with more talk. I have no doubt Obama believes his message. I have no doubt he thinks the war is a bad idea.

However, the fact is, he was not in the Senate when the vote went down, and while we know what he SAID about it, it's impossible to say with certainty how he would have respond when it actually came to casting a vote on the issue.

what about it? As I said, talk's cheap, and you provide me with more talk. I have no doubt Obama believes his message. I have no doubt he thinks the war is a bad idea.

However, the fact is, he was not in the Senate when the vote went down, and while we know what he SAID about it, it's impossible to say with certainty how he would have respond when it actually came to casting a vote on the issue.

Well, you may as well give him the benefit of the doubt at least.

Anyway, regardless of whether her policy is identical to Obama's or not, that doesn't mean Hillary was a good choice in itself. Obama has always been a little shaky on foreign policy, I think it would have been better to appoint someone who has less... 'hawkish' tendencies, I'm not saying that Obama is a fully fledged war hawk.

Really? Are you seriously saying they have identical policy? Does Obama concur with Mrs "security is more important than civil liberties" Clinton? Was Obama for the Iraq war? Isn't Clinton also apathetic towards the whole Guantanamo Bay situation?

They have nearly identical policy positions on most issues.

You are taking a single answer out-of-context re importance of security vs. liberty. Senator Clinton emphasized the two are not exclusive.

Senator Clinton may have voted for the early authorization for the Iraq War, but it is simply silly to imply she has supported it since then.

As for Guantanamo, Senator Clinton called for it to be closed down long ago (link (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=273211)) and has consistenly fought for habeas corpus rights for the detainees.

"BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html

Yes I know she tries to weasel her way out of it... .

Context is not weaseling.

BLITZER: What is more important, human rights or national security?

DODD: Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously.

BLITZER: All right. OK.

DODD: Secondly, this doesn't mean -- elections are only one note, as they say, in the tune of democracy. Be careful what you wish for. If there were totally free elections. In many of the countries we're talking about today, the Islamic Jihad or the Islamic Brotherhood would win 85 percent of the vote.

That's not a great outcome for us at this point either.

BLITZER: All right.

DODD: So we need to have a sense of balance about this here. I disagree with those who suggest here that we ought to condition Musharraf's actions regarding some of these issues on aid and assistance here.

There's only one way into Afghanistan. It's through Pakistan. The generals in the military control the nuclear weaponry here. We need to move and remind Musharraf that there are obligations he needs to fulfill.

Be careful here about insisting upon...

BLITZER: All right, you answered the question, Senator.

DODD: No, no, let me finish. Because, literally, then you have to do what you say you're going to do. And if he doesn't do what he's suggesting, then you have to terminate that relationship, and that puts this country in a very, very dangerous position right now.

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.

And there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States. That's what's so tragic about this situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were.

We are now in a bind. And it is partly -- not completely, but partly -- a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration.

So where we are today means that we have to say to President Musharraf, "Look, this is not in your interest either; this is not in the interest of the United States. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive." We have to figure out how we're going to navigate this.

When I was meeting with him earlier this year, I asked him if he would accept a high-level presidential envoy to begin to negotiate some of these issues.

He said yes. I got back, I called the White House, I asked them to send such a high-level envoy -- they did not do it. They're going to send one now.

So, I mean, you've got to stay on top of this and you have to manage it all the time. That requires presidential attention; we haven't had that, and part of the reason is obvious now.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.


Senator Clinton has consistently in other context argued that human rights should be among our highest priorities in pursuing foreign policy.

Anyway, regardless of whether her policy is identical to Obama's or not, that doesn't mean Hillary was a good choice in itself. Obama has always been a little shaky on foreign policy, I think it would have been better to appoint someone who has less... 'hawkish' tendencies, I'm not saying that Obama is a fully fledged war hawk.

LOL.

Obama a "fully fledged war hawk"? The suggestion is silly on its face.

Not quite as silly is regarding Senator Clinton as "hawkish," but it is still pretty absurd.

LOL.

Obama a "fully fledged war hawk"? The suggestion is silly on its face.


Did you read what I said? I said that I'm NOT suggesting that.

Did you read what I said? I said that I'm NOT suggesting that.

Just as I am NOT suggesting that that is what you suggested. :p

Just as I am NOT suggesting that that is what you suggested. :p

So what point were you trying to make? I agree that the suggestion that Obama is a fully fledged war hawk is absurd, but there are some shaky bits about his policy.

So what point were you trying to make? I agree that the suggestion that Obama is a fully fledged war hawk is absurd, but there are some shaky bits about his policy.

Don't they all have sketchy bits to their policies? Its politics after all...:tongue:

Don't they all have sketchy bits to their policies? Its politics after all...:tongue:

If there is no one with a more sensible foreign policy, then that's a worrying situation.

If there is no one with a more sensible foreign policy, then that's a worrying situation.

And what imagined aspects of an Obama/Clinton foreign policy are to you not "sensible" and/or "hawkish"?

And what imagined aspects of an Obama/Clinton foreign policy are to you not "sensible" and/or "hawkish"?

Do you actually want me to do this? Because I'm pretty sure you're aware of her hawkish tendencies, and are just being a drama queen again.

Do you actually want me to do this? Because I'm pretty sure you're aware of her hawkish tendencies, and are just being a drama queen again.

I'll ignore the flame. I seriously don't believe either Obama or Clinton are particularly "hawkish." I am even more convinced that the combination of their wisdom will not be "hawkish."

So, yes, if you are going to argue either of them is a hawk, then be specific.

has the joke about the first female presidential candidate becoming a secretary been made yet?

I'll ignore the flame. I seriously don't believe either Obama or Clinton are particularly "hawkish." I am even more convinced that the combination of their wisdom will not be "hawkish."

So, yes, if you are going to argue either of them is a hawk, then be specific.

Ok well Obama first then (oh and by the way, I still maintain that he is far greater than the Republican neocons at foreign policy, so I'm not too concerned), I may if I can be bothered, actually properly explain my position, but for a start - the fact that he would have no issue with invading Pakistan if they do not co-operate with his efforts to hunt down terrorists is a little worrying, although not terrible, is not particularly sensible either. Also, his seemingly uncompromising position on Isreal is an issue for me. The embargo against Cuba is also complete bullshit but both Clinton and Obama support it.

If there is no one with a more sensible foreign policy, then that's a worrying situation.

I wouldn't worry too much. These policies won't affect us, we don't live in the US.

I'll ignore the flame. I seriously don't believe either Obama or Clinton are particularly "hawkish." I am even more convinced that the combination of their wisdom will not be "hawkish."

So, yes, if you are going to argue either of them is a hawk, then be specific.

I doubt anyone can serious call Clinton wholeheartedly throwing her support behind Shrub's War "dovish" by any non-medicated stretch of the imagination.

No, Clinton gave her vote on the understanding that it was about Bush having better leverage to negotiate. When Bush went to war she denounced that, and has denounced it ever since.

I doubt anyone can serious call Clinton wholeheartedly throwing her support behind Shrub's War "dovish" by any non-medicated stretch of the imagination.

First, when did Clinton "wholeheartedly throw[] her support behind Shrub's War"?

Second, does Clinton's wholehearted opposition to Shrub's War for the past several years count for nothing?

I'll ignore the flame. I seriously don't believe either Obama or Clinton are particularly "hawkish." I am even more convinced that the combination of their wisdom will not be "hawkish."

So, yes, if you are going to argue either of them is a hawk, then be specific.

I would argue that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, which was a strike against her in my book during the primaries. I'm wondering how that battle of wills is going to end up.

Obama was in favor of more direct diplomacy and higher level meetings without preconditions. Is Clinton going to go along with that now that he's president? Or will she fight it from her position as SoS?

I would argue that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, which was a strike against her in my book during the primaries.

I would certainly agree. But being more hawkish than Obama is not particularly hawkish.

I'm wondering how that battle of wills is going to end up.

Obama was in favor of more direct diplomacy and higher level meetings without preconditions. Is Clinton going to go along with that now that he's president? Or will she fight it from her position as SoS?

I assume they have discussed this at length and reached some common ground. No doubt there will still be some friction, but that could actually be a good thing.

I would argue that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, which was a strike against her in my book during the primaries. I'm wondering how that battle of wills is going to end up.

Obama was in favor of more direct diplomacy and higher level meetings without preconditions. Is Clinton going to go along with that now that he's president? Or will she fight it from her position as SoS?
of course she is going to go along with it.

their foreign policy isnt that far apart. if he wants her to meet with "enemies" wihtout getting something from them first, she will.

I assume they have discussed this at length and reached some common ground. No doubt there will still be some friction, but that could actually be a good thing.

This is my guess, too, so I'm not particularly worried about the appointment. Besides, I'd be rather disappointed if he took a page from Bush's playbook and surrounded himself with yes-men.


of course she is going to go along with it.

their foreign policy isnt that far apart. if he wants her to meet with "enemies" wihtout getting something from them first, she will.

I don't know that it's that cut-and-dry. I don't think this is going to be situation where Obama says "Jump," and Clinton says, "How high?" Now, I'm sure they've discussed this issue (given Clinton's characterization of Obama as naive) and come to some agreement on it, but I highly doubt that it was as simple as you make it sound.

i think that obama is strong enough to fire anyone who, after a frank discussion, fails to do what he tells them to do.

Ok well Obama first then (oh and by the way, I still maintain that he is far greater than the Republican neocons at foreign policy, so I'm not too concerned), I may if I can be bothered, actually properly explain my position, but for a start - the fact that he would have no issue with invading Pakistan if they do not co-operate with his efforts to hunt down terrorists is a little worrying, although not terrible, is not particularly sensible either. Also, his seemingly uncompromising position on Isreal is an issue for me. The embargo against Cuba is also complete bullshit but both Clinton and Obama support it.

First, does disagreeing with you = hawkish?

Second, whether deliberately or not, you mischaracterize what Obama said regarding striking against Bin Laden in Pakistan:

The Democratic presidential nominee has raised the prospect of U.S. military activity in Pakistan under three basic criteria: first, Washington possesses credible intelligence about the location of such targets; second, the targets are, as Obama said Friday “top-level lieutenants” to bin Laden or bin Laden himself; and third, the Pakistani government will not or cannot act itself.

“The only thing he’s saying is that, as president, it’s his obligation to defend American lives,” said Wendy Chamberlin, the president of the Middle East Institute who served as U.S. ambassador to Pakistan from 2001 to 2002. Chamberlin is a peripheral adviser to the Obama campaign on South Asia issues, but said she was speaking in her personal capacity. “These are the guys who attacked us in Manhattan, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania,” she said. “If that’s the target he’s going after, it’s his obligation. Nothing Obama has ever said indicates he’d be doing it without the Pakistanis knowing.”
link (http://washingtonindependent.com/9790/ackermanobamaalqaedapakistan-102)

Third, I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding Obama and Israel.

Fourth, I agree the embargo against Cuba is bullshit. I am not sure Obama is as hard-line on this as you may think:

Q: Do you support normalizing relations with Cuba now?

A: As a show of good faith that we're interested in pursuing a new relationship, I've called for a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some progress.

Q: But that's different from your position back in 2003, when you called US policy toward Cuba a miserable failure.

A: I support the eventual normalization. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. During my entire lifetime, Cuba has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms. So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Texas.htm) (linky (http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Foreign_Policy.htm))

Clinton is very cozy with arms manufacterers and defense contracters. That being said, this relationship does not bother me when she is SoS.

As I said in another thread relating to another one of Obama's cabinet picks, I may disagree with some of Clinton's foreign policy, but her boss is on my side. And I dont think Obama will let himself get used.

and if you call the queen a c*** is it time to start planning the funeral?
It's at least time to stop seriously wishing for a knighthood...

I live in the UK, but i saw what she did during her campaign...I'm sure that Obama would agrre with me when i say that she was a good opponent.So, i think that she will be fine with this job ;P

I saw what she did during the campaign too. Its a big part of why I wanted her nowhere near Obama's administration.

It's at least time to stop seriously wishing for a knighthood...

What about if you have just been knighted?

"I accept this with much honor, you c***!" :D

I saw what she did during the campaign too. Its a big part of why I wanted her nowhere near Obama's administration.

Join the club.

What about if you have just been knighted?

"I accept this with much honor, you c***!" :D
At that point, an OAP is holding a sword against your neck, so I'd be careful of moving, less saying anything.

At that point, an OAP is holding a sword against your neck, so I'd be careful of moving, less saying anything.

OAP?

Also, surely it's not a SHARP sword. o_o

OAP?
Old Age Pensioner; an elderly retired person in the UK, over the age of 65, collecting their pension. Except the Queen has a different method of drumming up cash.

Also, surely it's not a SHARP sword. o_o
I wouldn't know, I'm not a 'Sir'.

A conciliatory gesture that's utter transparency can be compared to that of my bedroom window.

I doubt she would have been such a good bet for the position had she not been such an attritional and divisive candidate in the Primaries.

The greatest diplomatic challenge of our time is looming in the East, in the form of a resurgent Iran, and an unpredictable as ever, North Korea.

And in January, the US's top diplomat will be on record as saying that if it were up to her she would, "obliterate them (Iran)", in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

I'm not criticizing her for threatening reciprocal force against a belligerent nation that would attack an ally. To do otherwise would be weakness.

However, someone whose occupation is that of international diplomacy would be incredibly ill-advised to describe such reciprocal force as "obliterating" an entire nation, innocent civilians and all.

I think it may be a matter of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" when he picked Hillary.

If she's working for him, she can't step out of line (can't go back to being a Senator just like that).

In exchange for kissing his ass for 8 years, she'll get that foreign policy experience that she's missing, and maybe, if she's really nice, she'll get a turn at being President.

Unless Michelle thinks it's her turn.

Generally the secretary of state is supposed to be the DOVE and counter balance to the secretary of Defense whose position is by nature a Hawk.
Clinton is more Hawkish then McCain. Obama may find himself placed in corners where it seems war is the only solution.

I know you think Obama is some sort of Christ returned to earth, but he is young he will lean very heavily on his staff for advice especially in foreign policy matters.
And Kennedy was not Different. If he didn't have McNamara as Secretary of Defense (a rare dove in the position) Cuba would have gone down completely different.

Clinton is more Hawkish then McCain.

Bullshit

Bullshit

McCain never ran on the idea of nuking Iran.

McCain never ran on the idea of nuking Iran.

Yeah, but McCain had other crazier ideas.

McCain never ran on the idea of nuking Iran.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I) ring a bell?

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I) ring a bell?

please get a life
love senator McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2v8cuQTVO8&feature=related

please get a life
love senator McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2v8cuQTVO8&feature=related

Love Senator McCain? Are you nuts?! That man's crazy.:eek2:

Love Senator McCain? Are you nuts?! That man's crazy.:eek2:

yes the guy who told his dumb ass followers to pipe down and except Obama as president is crazy.

yes the guy who told his dumb ass followers to pipe down and except Obama as president is crazy.

Interesting. Was that before or after he and Palin all but accused Obama of terrorism in order to create fear resulting in his mobs, er, I mean, supporters, saying, AND I QUOTE, "off with his head" and "kill him", as if they were the Queen of Hearts and the voice inside a schizophrenic's head, respectively? And one has to be pretty disingenuous to assume McCain didn't "mean to" create the precise result his actions elicited.

Are you REALLY trying to convince us to give credit to McCain for trying, poorly I might add, to solve a problem HE DELIBERATELY CREATED?

Please.

yes the guy who told his dumb ass followers to pipe down and accept Obama as president is crazy.

Yes, the man who called his followers my fellow prisoners on a debate. That same man. Yes that man is, indeed, crazy.

A conciliatory gesture that's utter transparency can be compared to that of my bedroom window.

I doubt she would have been such a good bet for the position had she not been such an attritional and divisive candidate in the Primaries.

The greatest diplomatic challenge of our time is looming in the East, in the form of a resurgent Iran, and an unpredictable as ever, North Korea.

And in January, the US's top diplomat will be on record as saying that if it were up to her she would, "obliterate them (Iran)", in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

I'm not criticizing her for threatening reciprocal force against a belligerent nation that would attack an ally. To do otherwise would be weakness.

However, someone whose occupation is that of international diplomacy would be incredibly ill-advised to describe such reciprocal force as "obliterating" an entire nation, innocent civilians and all.

She's hardly alone in this respect. Like it or not, one of the main ideas behind nuclear weapons is the MAD philosophy; Mutually Assured Destruction. That is, if you use nukes on us or our allies we will obliterate you in response.

I'm not saying I consider this an ideal state of affairs by any means, but Clinton is hardly outside the political norm in this respect. Its not like she suggested preemptive nuking of Iran.

I'm not saying I consider this an ideal state of affairs by any means, but Clinton is hardly outside the political norm in this respect. Its not like she suggested preemptive nuking of Iran.

I know this. I did mention that any nuclear attack on Israel by Iran should be met with reciprocal force.

However, a diplomat shouldn't use such crude wording. Describing an American counter-attack under her Presidency as "obliteration (of the Iranian people)" does nothing to help the situation.

*Sigh* I'm aware (but funny dialogue!). My point was that her campaign doesn't make her any more prepared than I to be SoS. Read the post I quoted.
Her campaign doesn't, but her experience as First Lady and Senator should, much as I dislike the woman.

And agreed -- anyone who thinks calling her a **** is not vile and sexist is deluded.

Her campaign doesn't, but her experience as First Lady and Senator should, much as I dislike the woman.

And agreed -- anyone who thinks calling her a **** is not vile and sexist is deluded.

1- True, but I only responded to the post I read there...

2- Never said that. Though I never called her a **** either. Did call her quite a lot of other things, but, then again, I AM a bit vile. ;)

Her campaign doesn't, but her experience as First Lady and Senator should, much as I dislike the woman.

And agreed -- anyone who thinks calling her a **** is not vile and sexist is deluded.
as a new yorker, who do you hope replaces her in the senate?

Whyis anyone surprised by this nomination? The deal was cut when she dropped her run for the nomination. Probably the only person bent out of shape is Richardson, who thought he was going to get it. And he didn't get the UN either!

Virtually all the nominations to date are unsurprising and follow like the choice of Biden, an insider.

Ah! Change!!!

Whyis anyone surprised by this nomination? The deal was cut when she dropped her run for the nomination. Probably the only person bent out of shape is Richardson, who thought he was going to get it. And he didn't get the UN either!

Virtually all the nominations to date are unsurprising and follow like the choice of Biden, an insider.

Ah! Change!!!

Considering that the alternative was a Republican, it's just as well. You make the mistake of assuming all of us care about Obama for the "change". I don't. I have an argument to win back and Obama helps me. Furthermore, Obama can't do worse than the Repubs, and will certainly do better in many aspects.

Considering that the alternative was a Republican, it's just as well. You make the mistake of assuming all of us care about Obama for the change. I don't. I have an argument to win back and Obama helps me. Furthermore, Obama can't do worse than the Repubs.

All discussions of U.S. politics are really discussions about Heikoku.

:eek::rolleyes:

All discussions of U.S. politics are really discussions about Heikoku.

:eek::rolleyes:

I mentioned myself as an example, because, being the self-centered twit I am, I only know mine own. At any rate, I did add quite a few things on the "besides" part.

Whyis anyone surprised by this nomination? The deal was cut when she dropped her run for the nomination. Probably the only person bent out of shape is Richardson, who thought he was going to get it. And he didn't get the UN either!

Virtually all the nominations to date are unsurprising and follow like the choice of Biden, an insider.

Ah! Change!!!

Ok, I'm sick of this shit. Everyone mocks Obama, like he's some big traitor or hipochrit, because OH MY GOD HE PICKED THE WASHINGTON INSIDER! You may think it makes you hip and cool to be a cynic, but its past time for some rationality here.

Look, I'm not happy about Clinton either, but when Obama said "change," nowhere did he sign a contract saying he would never appoint anyone who'd ever worked in Washington before. Change does not equal "I will hirer no one who has any prior political experience at the national level." You don't bring change by ignoring the political establishment. You can do it by working with the establishment to change its direction. Besides, Obama is smart enough to draw on the experience of others while still charting his own course.

As for Biden, he hardly counts as a "Washington insider". He hasn't exactly been in the political spotlight, at least not on the level of the Clintons.

It is a very good way to keep the advice and cousel of our former President. He knew that Al Qaeda was going to strike the U.S. and very little was done to heed his warnings. As a result, we lost the Twin Towers (World Trade Center). She will get her advice firsthand being the former First Lady and wife of the (former) President of the U.S. It does my heart good because I voted for her in the primaries but she lost to President-Elect Obama; now she has shown me that she is still a gracious loser and with luck, she will be able to lead the female moement right back to the forerunning of the Democratic Party as well as to the Presidency. I am a firm believer that she will one day do the same job that her husband did and the two of them will run the office for another eight years. Imagine, all total, the two will have sixteen years of the Presidency under the belts. My words! What a wonderful legacy they are leaving for their only child. She will probably be a powerhouse of a lawyer with that to back her practice up. What's next??? Only the first Black female President of the U.S. She's about sixteen years away from office. Let us pray.

Comments, please ...

Ok, I'm sick of this shit. Everyone mocks Obama, like he's some big traitor or hipochrit, because OH MY GOD HE PICKED THE WASHINGTON INSIDER! You may think it makes you hip and cool to be a cynic, but its past time for some rationality here.

Look, I'm not happy about Clinton either, but when Obama said "change," nowhere did he sign a contract saying he would never appoint anyone who'd ever worked in Washington before. Change does not equal "I will hirer no one who has any prior political experience at the national level." You don't bring change by ignoring the political establishment. You can do it by working with the establishment to change its direction. Besides, Obama is smart enough to draw on the experience of others while still charting his own course.

As for Biden, he hardly counts as a "Washington insider". He hasn't exactly been in the political spotlight, at least not on the level of the Clintons.

TRR, do realize that neocons will throw ANYTHING they can at Obama by now.

It is a very good way to keep the advice and cousel of our former President. He knew that Al Qaeda was going to strike the U.S. and very little was done to heed his warnings. As a result, we lost the Twin Towers (World Trade Center). She will get her advice firsthand being the former First Lady and wife of the (former) President of the U.S. It does my heart good because I voted for her in the primaries but she lost to President-Elect Obama; now she has shown me that she is still a gracious loser and with luck, she will be able to lead the female movement right back to the forerunning of the Democratic Party as well as to the Presidency. I am a firm believer that she will one day do the same job that her husband did and the two of them will run the office for another eight years. Imagine, all total, the two will have sixteen years of the Presidency under the belts. My words! What a wonderful legacy they are leaving for their only child. She will probably be a powerhouse of a lawyer with that to back her practice up. What's next??? Only the first Black female President of the U.S. She's about sixteen years away from office. Let us pray.

Comments, please ...

It is a very good way to keep the advice and cousel of our former President. He knew that Al Qaeda was going to strike the U.S. and very little was done to heed his warnings. As a result, we lost the Twin Towers (World Trade Center). She will get her advice firsthand being the former First Lady and wife of the (former) President of the U.S. It does my heart good because I voted for her in the primaries but she lost to President-Elect Obama; now she has shown me that she is still a gracious loser and with luck, she will be able to lead the female moement right back to the forerunning of the Democratic Party as well as to the Presidency. I am a firm believer that she will one day do the same job that her husband did and the two of them will run the office for another eight years. Imagine, all total, the two will have sixteen years of the Presidency under the belts. My words! What a wonderful legacy they are leaving for their only child. She will probably be a powerhouse of a lawyer with that to back her practice up. What's next??? Only the first Black female President of the U.S. She's about sixteen years away from office. Let us pray.

Comments, please ...

I hate Hillary with a passion, but at least she's not a goddamned Republican. And you don't HAVE to elect all token minorities BECAUSE they are minorities, you know. You could vote someone in regardless of their race and gender.

TRR, do realize that neocons will throw ANYTHING they can at Obama by now.

No doubt. All the more reason for me to do my little bit to mock and discredit them.;)

It is a very good way to keep the advice and cousel of our former President. He knew that Al Qaeda was going to strike the U.S. and very little was done to heed his warnings. As a result, we lost the Twin Towers (World Trade Center). She will get her advice firsthand being the former First Lady and wife of the (former) President of the U.S. It does my heart good because I voted for her in the primaries but she lost to President-Elect Obama; now she has shown me that she is still a gracious loser and with luck, she will be able to lead the female moement right back to the forerunning of the Democratic Party as well as to the Presidency. I am a firm believer that she will one day do the same job that her husband did and the two of them will run the office for another eight years. Imagine, all total, the two will have sixteen years of the Presidency under the belts. My words! What a wonderful legacy they are leaving for their only child. She will probably be a powerhouse of a lawyer with that to back her practice up. What's next??? Only the first Black female President of the U.S. She's about sixteen years away from office. Let us pray.

Comments, please ...
in 8 years she will be too old to run for president.

this was her last chance. im happy that she is gracious enough to accept a job in the new administration rather than being bitter over the loss of what could have been.

Once, just once, Id like for a critism of Hillary Clinton on this forum to not be met with cries of sexism.I think there are many valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton. Calling her names is not one of them. And calling her blatantly sexist names (and yes, it's still sexist if you use it to apply to men, just like all the other misogynist epithets and gay-bashing insults hurled at little boys on the playground) will, indeed, elicit my criticism as sexist.

in 8 years she will be too old to run for president.

this was her last chance. im happy that she is gracious enough to accept a job in the new administration rather than being bitter over the loss of what could have been.

She'll be...68? Not too old is it?

She'll be...68? Not too old is it?

Seeing McCain was what, near 80? No I'd say not.

She'll be...68? Not too old is it?
yes it us

Seeing McCain was what, near 80? No I'd say not.
mccain was too old.

if he had been 62 instead of 72 then his selection of ms palin as running mate would have had no more importance than the selection of dan quayle in '88

yes it us

I disagree.

I wonder what kind of back door deal they cut to get Clinton into an Obama administration. Because as far as I can tell, Clinton is as far as Change as you can get without getting into Republican territory.

I wonder what kind of back door deal they cut to get Clinton into an Obama administration. Because as far as I can tell, Clinton is as far as Change as you can get without getting into Republican territory.

Then "from what you can tell" is wrong. God damnit people. Personality is the main difference, as well as a few key policy differences. But theyre not that far part.

Then "from what you can tell" is wrong. God damnit people. Personality is the main difference, as well as a few key policy differences. But theyre not that far part.

Obama wants to change how this country is run, he wants to change the political process. Clinton, in the primaries did the same ol' song and dance that all other politicians did.

So much for Change I guess.

I disagree.
would it matter if i said she will be 69?

if obama had chosen a younger running mate it would be obvious even to you that clinton will never be president since that running mate would almost certainly be the party nominee in '16. biden will be too old then.

if obama chooses a different vp in '12 (for the good of the party) then hillary is screwed.

even though she will be too old in '16.

would it matter if i said she will be 69?

if obama had chosen a younger running mate it would be obvious even to you that clinton will never be president since that running mate would almost certainly be the party nominee in '16. biden will be too old then.

if obama chooses a different vp in '12 (for the good of the party) then hillary is screwed.

even though she will be too old in '16.



Sh could be 70, as long as she doesnt show signs of senality, Id be ok with her running.

Obama wants to change how this country is run, he wants to change the political process. Clinton, in the primaries did the same ol' song and dance that all other politicians did.

So much for Change I guess.

As a strong Obama supporter, your concerns about him living up to his promise are to be treated with the highest deference.

Oh, wait .... snap.

The primary reason Obama picked Hillary as SoS is because they've been hardcore opponents in the campaign and they disagree with each other on many issues.

Obama has said as much that he wants a team that's capable of thorough debate and analysis and wanted to stay away from the Yes Men Groupthink Politburo that has been pretty much the CPU of the Dubya Administration.

The primary reason Obama picked Hillary as SoS is because they've been hardcore opponents in the campaign and they disagree with each other on many issues.

Obama has said as much that he wants a team that's capable of thorough debate and analysis and wanted to stay away from the Yes Men Groupthink Politburo that has been pretty much the CPU of the Dubya Administration.

See, now that's change.:)

See, now that's change.:)

True. Im glad we wont have a fucking echo chamber in the White House now.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/02/hillary_clinton/

would it matter if i said she will be 69?

Aside from juvenile snickering over that particular number? Probably not.

Aside from juvenile snickering over that particular number? Probably not.

NEVER EVER make me think of a 69 with Clinton EVER AGAIN! >_<