HRC

[GrayMatterWife]

It appears that Obama is going to offer the Sec of State job to Hillary.

OM word. Biden must be SO PISSED!! Just two days after his comments about how he is going to be a "hands on" VP especially in foreign affairs. Uh, apparently not. HRC would never answer to Biden. Or trust him.

What a win-win for Obama.

Keeps his only real political challenger on his staff (hold your enemies close...). Gets her out of the health care Hill politics, which she utterly bombed at last time. Gets Bill (and his charisma and libido) out of the country, so he's not causing problems and allows Obama to really take the reigns of the party. It will thrill the Europeans (which is a plus only if we care). Avoids the confirmation nightmare that would result from trying to appoint her to the other position everyone has been "claiming" to properly be hers--a Supreme Court nod. Actually, it seems like a pretty brilliant idea for his politic interests.

I can't think of why she would be particularly qualified for this position--other than the fact that she has traveled around as a junior Senator and was, apparently, shot at in Bosnia as First Lady --especially when her creditials are compared to those of Sam Nunn or Chuck Hagel or a half-dozen other people. But from a purely cynical point of view, excellent choice.

[Sheherezade]

Re: HRC

I wasn't sure what qualified her either...but also saw the political advantages. I'd be interested in oceanchild's view....being someone who knows the business. Is it confirmed? I heard that he met with her today and this was rumored. :huh:

I prefer Hagel or Richardson. Not Kerry. (If they ask me, I'm ready with my opinions!)

[PrincessFiona]

Re: HRC

I love it....I'm feeling the bridge being built.....maybe I'll be able to cross it....

[McPants]

Re: HRC

It will thrill the Europeans (which is a plus only if we care).

What an interesting comment. One would hope that Americans realize that Europe is still there even if they close their eyes.

I'm in no way saying that Europe is anything for a red-blooded American to care about, however if your secretary of state is well-liked by foreign countries and representatives thereof, it will make international relations easier, which is a plus even if people don't care about it.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

It will thrill the Europeans (which is a plus only if we care).

What an interesting comment. One would hope that Americans realize that Europe is still there even if they close their eyes.

I'm in no way saying that Europe is anything for a red-blooded American to care about, however if your secretary of state is well-liked by foreign countries and representatives thereof, it will make international relations easier, which is a plus even if people don't care about it.

We love Europe.

But many of us are not interested in providing the "Global President" that Gordon Brown and many other Europeans commentators suggest that Obama should be. He's our President and should act in our interests first. Now, at the G-20 Summit this weekend, Obama is getting questions about whether he will be supportive of a global bailout...and he said he would consider it. Super.

Bill Clinton, and by extension his wife (although she's done nothing on her own of any significance in foreign policy), is/are not universally acclaimed here--and the Europeans' infatuation with him /them is tiring for many of us. Europeans didn't have to be represented by Bill; we did. It isn't just the disgust many of us felt at his commission of felony perjury and being disbarred by our highest court, it's not just about his immorality and utter lack of honesty with the public (and no, the fact that "sex is a personal matter" does not excuse him lying to us, the people who elected him)--these things don't have to matter as much to foreigners, because it wasn't their laws that had been broken, their institutions which had been marred, or their President who had lied to them. This aside, though, many of us, even some of us who don't care about Clinton's domestic misadventures, consider some of Bill Clinton's foreign policy adventures to have been terrible. Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, the Middle East. Failure to properly and proportionately respond to terrorism against our interests overseas. A desire to get involved in every conflict in which we don't have a national interest, yet fail to get involved effectively where we do have an interest. Turning to the UN (sadly, one of the most corrupt and disorganized institutions in the world) to ask permission to do things (thanks, George HW Walker Bush, by the way, for setting that precedent) and waiting around for their endless inaction or misdirected efforts, rather than acting in our own best interests.

Yet Europeans love him/them because...Bill is an eloquent speaker, I guess. More like them and their leaders in presentation style and policy, certainly, than George Bush. OK, but I am not sure that impresses me as a particularly valuable opinion. And I am not sure that merely having a "well-liked" Sec of State will make international relations easier. It won't, if the message the well-liked Sec of State carries is not the welcomed one. However, I suspect that Obama's message as sent through his Sec of State will be more welcomed in Europe than that of Bush, so whoever is our Sec of State will be well-liked. I just have little faith that Obama's policies will actually better serve our country in terms of strengthening our economy or national defense.

Since Hillary rode the coattails of her husband into office and has done very little since then to earn the acclaim she receives, anything she does now is necessarily entwined with her husband. She is understood through his shadow. (Oddly, she's sort of the anti-feminist--utterly reliant on her husband's "legacy.") She's not being considered for the post because she deserves it; she's being considered because Europeans like her husband. So this selection, to many here, causes us to shudder, remembering everything she's associated with--and maybe being a little annoyed with why she is being chosen. To placate the Europeans, who don't like us anyway.

[Sheherezade]

Re: HRC

I thought Obama was not participating in G-20 under the "we have one president at a time" idea. I wasn't even sure he was sending aides. :huh: How have these comments been reported? My G-20 coverage hasn't had these reports. I will have to see what's happened this morning as the conference begins. (I only read Bush's speech from yesterday. No Obama lines. I thought he was in Chicago with Clinton and the transition team....)

I think the opposition to involvement in "global politics" flies in the face of global/free trade/free market economics. We may not want "one world" but economically we have created one world. The clash of single country politics vs. multi-country economics is already playing out in the EU's negotiation of this mess. It is reconcile the two. :huh:

[DCJenn]

Re: HRC

Obama asked Madeline Albright and Congressman Leech to attend the conference.

As for HRC, it's being reported that Richardson is also being interviewed for the position. I think it's great that they're not just handing out positions like party favors. (pun intended)

MSNBC (ah, Keith, how I love you) was saying last night the one of the big questions for HRC and Obama is striking that balance and where Bidne would fit in. Apprently Biden's big focus right now is the economy, etc.

I can see that there are benefits to HRC and to Richardson. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

J.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

The Europeans don't like us because we're assholes who elected some rootin', tootin' cowboy as president for two terms who drove our country into the ground. They want a US president they can respect and one who will make good choices for the USA, because in theory, we've been a long-respected country and like it or not, our choices affect the rest of the world.

I don't think we're assholes--at least, I wouldn't call half of America (the people who voted for him) assholes. I wouldn't call anyone an asshole based on who he/she voted for.

And he may be a cowboy, but at least we haven't been attacked in eight years. Personally, I really respect that. A lot more than I respect the UN.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

As for HRC, it's being reported that Richardson is also being interviewed for the position. I think it's great that they're not just handing out positions like party favors. (pun intended)

Yeah, I saw that this morning, too. I like Richardson better. He has more experience. And he's a less cynical choice. But I hope he keeps the beard. I like the beard.

[Sheherezade]

Re: HRC

So.... obsessed news junkie that I am, I tracked down this G-20 Obama comment. It's from his radio/web address (now available on change.gov in video). Here's the text. Doesn't sound like he's forgetting the U.S. in favor of being a global president. Seems like a single line in bold was cherry-picked to make that point. :huh:

Today, the leaders of the G-20 countries -- a group that includes the world's largest economies -- are gathering in Washington to seek solutions to the ongoing turmoil in our financial markets. I'm glad President Bush has initiated this process -- because our global economic crisis requires a coordinated global response.

And yet, as we act in concert with other nations, we must also act immediately here at home to address America's own economic crisis. This week, amid continued volatility in our markets, we learned that unemployment insurance claims rose to their highest levels since September 11, 2001. We've lost jobs for ten straight months -- nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, many of them in our struggling auto industry. And millions of our fellow citizens lie awake each night wondering how they're going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and save for retirement.

Make no mistake: this is the greatest economic challenge of our time. And while the road ahead will be long, and the work will be hard, I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis -- because here in America we always rise to the moment, no matter how hard. And I am more hopeful than ever before that America will rise once again.

But we must act right now. Next week, Congress will meet to address the spreading impact of the economic crisis. I urge them to pass at least a down-payment on a rescue plan that will create jobs, relieve the squeeze on families, and help get the economy growing again. In particular, we cannot afford to delay providing help for the more than one million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of this year. If Congress does not pass an immediate plan that gives the economy the boost it needs, I will make it my first order of business as President.

Even as we dig ourselves out of this recession, we must also recognize that out of this economic crisis comes an opportunity to create new jobs, strengthen our middle class, and keep our economy competitive in the 21st century.

That starts with the kinds of long-term investments that we've neglected for too long. That means putting two million Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. It means investing $150 billion to build an American green energy economy that will create five million new jobs, while freeing our nation from the tyranny of foreign oil, and saving our planet for our children. It means making health care affordable for anyone who has it, accessible for anyone who wants it, and reducing costs for small businesses. And it also means giving every child the world-class education they need to compete with any worker, anywhere in the world.

Doing all this will require not just new policies, but a new spirit of service and sacrifice, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. If this financial crisis has taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers -- in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. And that is how we will meet the challenges of our time -- together. Thank you.

I also like Richardson -- in fact I liked him for the Democratic candidate but he dropped out early.

Re: HRC

Since Obama didn't pick Richardson as running mate, I hope he selects him as Secretary of State. I'm not sure where HRC fits in. I am boggled by suggestions of her being a supreme court justice. I figured that she would be considered for Health and Human Services since healthcare has been her issue in the past but maybe Obama doesn't want to compete with her on any healthcare reforms. Or she could stay in the Senate. That isn't a shabby job either.

[medpedspouse]

Re: HRC

The Europeans don't like us because we're assholes who elected some rootin', tootin' cowboy as president for two terms who drove our country into the ground.

I am curious - what is a rootin, tootin cowboy? :huh:

[Michele]

Re: HRC

I picture Yosemite Sam when I think of a rootin' tootin' cowboy.



And even though I've been <10 minutes from the Texas border for over 2 years now....it's still how I picture most Texans.

[medpedspouse]

Re: HRC

I picture Yosemite Sam when I think of a rootin' tootin' cowboy.



And even though I've been <10 minutes from the Texas border for over 2 years now....it's still how I picture most Texans.

That is what I was afraid of...BUT before I came up with any wrong ideas - or took it the wrong way, I wanted to ask. Wow. shock:

[McPants]

Re: HRC

We love Europe.

If you say so.

But many of us are not interested in providing the "Global President" that Gordon Brown and many other Europeans commentators suggest that Obama should be. He's our President and should act in our interests first. Now, at the G-20 Summit this weekend, Obama is getting questions about whether he will be supportive of a global bailout...and he said he would consider it. Super.

Well, as long as America's happy, the president will be re-elected, so strictly speaking your interests are what matters and that won't change just because the U.S. may now have an internationally responsible president-elect again. For that matter, Brown and the labour party here backed Clinton, incorrectly believing she had the best chance to win, and he's now desperately jockeying for a good position as first international lapdog. You may have to endure his fawning over Obama a bit longer, I fear.

Bill Clinton, and by extension his wife (although she's done nothing on her own of any significance in foreign policy), is/are not universally acclaimed here--and the Europeans' infatuation with him /them is tiring for many of us. Europeans didn't have to be represented by Bill; we did. It isn't just the disgust many of us felt at his commission of felony perjury and being disbarred by our highest court, it's not just about his immorality and utter lack of honesty with the public (and no, the fact that "sex is a personal matter" does not excuse him lying to us, the people who elected him)--these things don't have to matter as much to foreigners, because it wasn't their laws that had been broken, their institutions which had been marred, or their President who had lied to them.

I don't feel that Hillary Clinton should be held responsible for anything her husband did. Given that, I feel that she's a bit of a dark horse internationally speaking, so I don't hold her in particularly high regard. It may or may not be the case that Europeans are thrilled to see her assume the position as Secretary of State, but I think a lot of countries will wait to see what she does in office before they declare their undying love to her.

For that matter, I find it puzzling that you choose to blame Bill Clinton's wife by association for his acts of infidelity against her. I wonder if this is the way most Americans see it.

This aside, though, many of us, even some of us who don't care about Clinton's domestic misadventures, consider some of Bill Clinton's foreign policy adventures to have been terrible. Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, the Middle East. Failure to properly and proportionately respond to terrorism against our interests overseas. A desire to get involved in every conflict in which we don't have a national interest, yet fail to get involved effectively where we do have an interest.

I'm sorry you feel what Clinton did internationally speaking was so misguided. He's a very important reason why American flags aren't burned in the streets of more countries these days. You do realize that U.S. international behavior has a VERY strong bearing on how easy it is to recruit people willing to commit terrorist acts against the country, right?

Furthermore, what Clinton did to resolve the Northern Irish conflict was invaluable, but I suppose that since it didn't mean that the U.S. got access to more oil, this doesn't represent any value to you. People here in Northern Ireland LOVE Clinton for this, do you not feel there's any value in that? Kosovo was an international peace-keeping mission, in which many countries participated and which saved countless lives, large-scale genocide may have been prevented by the U.N intervention there. How was that wrong? Other countries' presidents and peace-keeping forces do good deeds to benefit the world as a whole, why should the U.S. be different? Maybe there were projects that didn't work out as Clinton hoped, but on the whole he did a lot of good for the world. Even if Clinton didn't reach his goals in some of the conflicts he got involved in, he did something. He tried. A lot of us foreigners welcomed his efforts and we remembered them in association to his country.

Turning to the UN (sadly, one of the most corrupt and disorganized institutions in the world) to ask permission to do things (thanks, George HW Walker Bush, by the way, for setting that precedent) and waiting around for their endless inaction or misdirected efforts, rather than acting in our own best interests.

You're referring to declaring war on other countries here. I don't feel any country should have that right without getting support from the U.N. (corrupt as it may be), but hey, if you're the biggest kid - why shouldn't you have the right to beat others and steal their lunch money? Suffice to say that I don't feel a civilized country should behave that way. Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the U.S., they were attacked and since the U.N. did not support these wars, they remain completely unjustified in my eyes. But since I'm not American, I suppose my views don't matter, right?

Yet Europeans love him/them because...Bill is an eloquent speaker, I guess. More like them and their leaders in presentation style and policy, certainly, than George Bush. OK, but I am not sure that impresses me as a particularly valuable opinion. And I am not sure that merely having a "well-liked" Sec of State will make international relations easier. It won't, if the message the well-liked Sec of State carries is not the welcomed one. However, I suspect that Obama's message as sent through his Sec of State will be more welcomed in Europe than that of Bush, so whoever is our Sec of State will be well-liked. I just have little faith that Obama's policies will actually better serve our country in terms of strengthening our economy or national defense.

Ah yes, Europeans care only about style. That's why we respected Clinton greatly. It had nothing to do with all the things he actually did. You don't have much respect for us, do you? For god's sake, Clinton was internationally responsible. He helped solve national and international conflicts, he took an interest in the world not EXCLUSIVELY when it meant that it benefitted his country. I don't care one bit about his public speaking skills and resent your implication that that's all I'm capable of understanding.

Since Hillary rode the coattails of her husband into office and has done very little since then to earn the acclaim she receives, anything she does now is necessarily entwined with her husband. She is understood through his shadow. (Oddly, she's sort of the anti-feminist--utterly reliant on her husband's "legacy.") She's not being considered for the post because she deserves it; she's being considered because Europeans like her husband. So this selection, to many here, causes us to shudder, remembering everything she's associated with--and maybe being a little annoyed with why she is being chosen. To placate the Europeans, who don't like us anyway.

I'm not much of a fan of Clinton for the reasons you mention, though I feel you're quite a bit harsh on her as she's actually been politically active as an individual for quite a while now.