Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
It all depends on who the alternatives are. If John Kerry and Bill Richardson are the other finalists, HRC would be a fine choice.I still don't think she'll accept.
I would stop just short of "ludicrous embarrassment." Just a plain old embarrassment.That was a great segment, btw, pitting two flavors of Iraq War hawk against each other: the arrogant Brit and the whiny TNR liberal hawk, over the merits of a third (the triangulating opportunist) for SoS.
Doyle is right. Obama needs to appoint Dennis Kucinich.
Bad Haircut, Gap Tooth, Squeaky Voice, Open Shirt Fact-Free TV:Look!Just look it up!Candlepower!Everybody's buzzing!Incredibly hard working! Moved in hard on her husband!Pluff!Into his world!Obama likes talent!Believe you me!Chinese and Indonesian fugitives from justice!Rehash! Relive!
HRC's better than any of Obama's other potential nominees.If Hitchens thinks that she'd be a "ludicrous embarrassment" as Secretary of State, he shouldn't have voted for Obama.He picked his bed -- time to lie in it.
What's the verb Hitchens can't say on TV?
What's the verb Hitchens can't say on TV?Piss.
fivewheels: Hitchens was referring to LBJ's comment on someone being better inside the tent pissing out rather than the reverse....The Clntons made 100 million since the the end of Clinton's Presidency. Dubya Bush made 10 million on a baseball deal with the Rangers. Compare how much has been thought and written about Bush's connections versus the tactful silence regarding the Clintons' current dealings.
Triangulating opportunism = Obama offering the job to her.
Obama needs to appoint Dennis Kucinich.Two words: Mrs. Kucinich.But as much as Iraq War cheerleaders like to think that only one person opposed it at the time, the list is actually quite a bit longer than that. Not everyone is as fucking stupid as you.
Hitchens is such a glorious bastard.
Doyle wrote: But as much as Iraq War cheerleaders like to think that only one person opposed it at the time, the list is actually quite a bit longer than that.Not everyone is as fucking stupid as you.That's right, Meade. You were supposed to list all of them.
Hmmm. Suddenly we all like Christopher Hitchens again. Interesting.
Hitchens is probably tied with Andrew Sullivan for the Overrated Pompous Ass award.
Doyle - I assume you think pacifism is the answer since you obviously hate "warhawks".
chris wren - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or something like that. However, I can't forgive Hitchens mindless bashing of Palin.
Wow, buyers remorse already Hitch? You bought him, you take care of him.Hitch might be a foul-mouth, perpetually drunk Iraq Hawk, but he's still a lefty twat.
"But as much as Iraq War cheerleaders like to think that only one person opposed it at the time, the list is actually quite a bit longer than that.Not everyone is as fucking stupid as you."Speaking of stupid..we won the (Iraq 2)war. The draw-down has already begun. While all the focus has been on the election and Wall Street, the military is finishing up in Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. BO can claim a victory (undeserved) in Iraq and try his luck at catching OBL.
While all the focus has been on the election and Wall Street, the military is finishing up in Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. BO can claim a victory (undeserved) in Iraq and try his luck at catching OBL.We'll dig up his corpse and throw the bones in the river! Just like the Mahdi. Gordon will be avenged.
Whatever else, Hitchens has been a consistent foe of the Clintons. "No One Left to Lie To" was a classic.
I have a few comments:1. Who says Hitchens wasn't anticipating a richer vein of subject matter for him with Obama's crew in than with a warmed over Bush term III (just as Bush's dad was to Reagan)? Seems as plausible as anything else out there, particularly for an opportunistic freelancer like himself.2. That TNR guy is really quite a tweedy pantywaist, isn't he?3. Why is the conclusion out there that the job's been offered by Obama to Hillary? Isn't this all based on rumors, innuendo, and some story in the Guardian UK? Am I the only one who sees as plausible-to-likely that Clinton's people, in furtherance of Bill's and Hil's incandescent hatred of Barry O., floated this story, crescendo'ing with the "She'll accept if the job's offered to her" headlines later yesterday, in order to embarrass Obama, or at least force him into an uncomfortable position? To me, this is more akin to a 90's style shadow-puppet play, Clinton-style, than anything I've seen in Obama's 2 years of disciplined campaign administration. Thus, I'm betting on it being a Clintonian knife-throwing jamboree.Any other takers, or is it just my keister talking?v
Non-romanette v, your keister makes a pretty good argument. She'd be a fool to take the job, but it does show her strength to O and all the Clinton people now going to work for him.
So, out of all of the USA's population, the people Obama is considering for Secretry of State (Krry, Clinton...) are completely unqualified for the job? I don't get it.
Sorry, I got to about 24 seconds then gave up. Like Olbermann, Matthews is a shill for the cause, a propagandist. What he says carries about as much weight as the Talk-too-loud guys on infomercials about food grinders, ladders, and juicemakers.MSNBC, another media outlet for the DNC. Screw 'em. And "candle power?" That's rich.
From his past and current associations, I think Obama wants to be the sanest person in the room, or at least, appear to be.
disciplined campaign administration.There were quite a lot of situations where the Obama campaign sent out conflicting messages. E.g. Obama says we're getting out of Iraq in 16 months, then his adviser, Samantha Power, scoffs at the notion on British TV. Obama says he'll renegotiate NAFTA; his adviser Austan Goolsbee reassures the Canadian government that this won't actually happen. And there were loads of smaller issues -- the usual trivial campaign stuff -- where Obama's typical excuse was that some overeager young staffer had done something or said something, and it wasn't actually representative of his position. If I recall correctly, he had a bit of difficulty with a questionnaire he'd filled out on his political views, back from his state legislature days, and he blamed it on his staff. His campaign was more disciplined than the Clinton campaign or the McCain campaign, but it wasn't exactly a model of discipline.So, out of all of the USA's population, the people Obama is considering for Secretry of State (Krry, Clinton...) are completely unqualified for the job? I don't get it.Gov. Richardson is probably qualified, no? Wasn't he ambassador to the UN? That seems like something that would seem like preparation of a sort for the position, since the ambassador to the UN is generally seen as one of the most senior diplomatic positions (as far as I can tell). It's just no one ever seems to think much of him. Kerry is not particularly, and also does not seem like he would be particularly good at the job. Clinton's qualifications are somewhat lacking, but she at least takes foreign policy seriously. If there are concerns about her skills at bureaucratic infighting, they can be remedied by installing an experienced operator as Deputy Secretary of State. I don't know. Holbrooke or something.
Expanding on both Richardson and Kerry for the moment, I think one problem that each of them has is that it's difficult to imagine them standing up to Obama and telling him NO, when he asks them to do something stupid. It's easy to imagine Clinton doing so. When we have, for our incoming President, a man with no foreign relations experience to speak of, who squandered his plum positions on the Committee on Foreign Relations and the subcommittees on Afghanistan and Europe, making no effort to educate himself on the subject, I think it's important that we have a strong voice in the SecState office, to push back on policy when necessary. Clinton is . . . not, perhaps, the ideal person to do this, since she has little direct experience with foreign policy or diplomacy. But at least she shows up. And takes the issues seriously.
Governor Richardson proved himself a complete dolt during the debates and his disastrous "Meet the Press" session (worse than Palin in interviews!).A flummoxed, sweaty greaseball talking about how easy it would be to just get every American and all their in-theater gear out of Iraq in under a month.A one-year appointment as UN figurehead diplomat made him no smarter or adeptly experienced about "foreign policy" than being Labor Secretary - Elaine Chao (Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's corporate lawyer-wife who focused on utilities litigation) was magically made an expert on labor issues. The Clintons made Richardson a living example of the Peter Principle, promoted well past his level of competence.****************People who make the "foreign policy experience" argument for a position as Secretary of State ignore that the most successful have been proven leaders and battlers in fields well outside "foreign dealings" or being diplomat-soldiers like Marshall.If running an executive dept was all about "experience" then cabinet posts would not be staffed by the President but by employees within choosing the "most experienced internal candidate".
Balfegor - When we have, for our incoming President, a man with no foreign relations experience to speak of, who squandered his plum positions on the Committee on Foreign Relations and the subcommittees on Afghanistan and Europe, making no effort to educate himself on the subject..Why yes, he squandered his time in those plum positions and instead wasted that tremendous opportunity to learn more about Greek tourism and Afghan rituals to run for President.What was the man thinking!All those learning opportunities squandered!
Hey, how about Dr. Dean for sec of state? He wouldn't be any worse than the names mentioned before and he is giving up his post at the DNC...
Hillary would be great at this. She's smart, tough, and diplomatic. I don't know why she'd want it though. I don't think it would help her 2016 run.
What was the man thinking!That it was better to be an incompetent President than a competent Senator. And if you look at the world through the lens of "what's best for Barack Obama", he made the right choice! :)
Either this was negotiated before/or during the convention..but what is getting suspicious is all of the "communicating" via the media.HIllary should co-operate only so far because this is beginning to smell like a dirty laundry hunt-where the "real" effort is to be able to neutralize her in the future.Perhaps to prevent her from pulling a Eugene McCarthy on Obama.Why is it that for the Democrats Hillary was good enough to be President but now in the lesser position-as a member of the cabinet -Secretary of State-she has too much baggage via Bill?
How about Murtha? I'm sure Murtha voted against the Iraq Resolution. He didn't? How about Harry Reid then? Harry Reid even called it when no one else (except for Doyle) realized we had lost the war and it was time to surrender. Harry Reid for Secretary of State. And if not Harry Reid then Doyle.
I gave Bill Richardson's campaign some dough when he came to my old office for a handshake and sit-down. Man, if only he'd spoken first, then taken the checks! I went in thinking, "well, he's from New Mexico, a heartlander... he must have some sensibility." I have never heard anything so rambling, rectal and wrong as his 'rrheic run-on that morning. It was a truly sad day, and I realized then (well before his abominable debate and Sunday show performances) that he was unsuited to any job more expansive than governor of a "quiet" state like NM.
I think everyone is falling for a big charade on this one. There is no way in hell Obama wants Hillary to be his Secretary of State. The highest-profile cabinet post for Hillary? Seriously? Here's what is happening. Obama told her she cannot be in his administration, no way no how. And then either he presented this scenario to her, or he told her to come up with whatever story she wanted, and this is the result: faux consideration of Hillary for State, and eventually she will step aside because (i) Bill has too many conflicts and his work is just too darn important to give up, and/or (ii) Hillary just wants to keep on representing the great people of New York and doing the work she was sent to Washington to do. So Hillary gets to save face, Obama looks gracious and scores a few points with the Hillary devotees (not something he really needs at this point, but it doesn't hurt), and that's that. And in reality, what leverage does Hillary really have here? None. She needed this face-saving measure from Obama far more than he needs anything from her. Come on people, this was so obviously choreographed. After the total discipline and control demonstrated by Obama and his campaign, do you really think they would suddenly fall into this messy public "will she or won't she" drama? No way. He doesn't want Hill or Bill anywhere near his administration.
I don't see how she could be an embarrassment since Secretaries of State don't seem to do anything.
Barney-Yep-that's the other thing-I don't think Obama's ego would allow Bill roaming on the World Stage after all Obama is the first US presidential candidate to campaign in Germany.What's weird about Hitchens is that somehow he thinks he wasn't buying the Democrat brand when he voted for Obama-that somehow he wouldn't get the whole package even though Obama picked Biden as his VP.Now Hitchens is bothered by Hillary's laissez- faire attitude towards Bosnia-yet it didn't bother him one bit when Colin Powell the biggest impediment towards taking action in Bosnia gave his full throated support for Obama.Not one peep from Hitchens on that when it was Colin-Mr. Touch-Me-Not, but when it's Hillary? Hitchens is in full throttle mode.
How about H, Kissinger? He is somewhat creaky but experienced, smart, lends a touch of bipartisanism and would cause Hitchens to lose the power of speech.I say this as a long-time Hitchens fan. Heh...heh.But then there is always Madeleine Korbel Albright to help round out the Clin..errr.. Obama cabinet.
1. Offer her the SoS job.She accepts or doesn't.2. If she says yes, wait a year. Something will go wrong internationally, he'll need a scapegoat, fire her.3. Gloat.But that's not really his style is it?
Post a Comment