ThinkFast: November 21, 2008
ThinkFast: November 21, 2008
President-elect Obama will reportedly nominate Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state after Thanksgiving and may tap ret. Gen. Jim Jones as his National Security Adviser. Obama is “getting foreign policy advice from an unlikely source: Republican Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser in the first Bush administration.”
Obama will not immediately move to repeal the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which bans openly gay individuals from serving. Obama reportedly “first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress.”
Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed last night while speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual gathering. Mukasey, who spent the night in the hospital for observation, is alert and “in good spirits,” according to a Justice Department spokesperson. An individual who witnessed Mukasey’s collapse said he was “visibly shaking and perhaps slurring his words before he fell to the floor.”
Big Oil is “firing up” its efforts to push for more domestic oil development. The American Petroleum Institute is “preparing a multimillion-dollar campaign” that will include an education program called American’s Energy Forum and “a wide array of advertising and lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.”
The Bush administration is finalizing changes to the Endangered Species Act ensuring that agencies would not have to take global warming into account when assessing risks to plants and animals. John Kostyak of the National Wildlife Federation said the rule, for example, would “block federal officials from considering a carbon cap” to preserve polar bear’s habitat.
A new report by the National Intelligence Council finds that U.S. military, economic, and political dominance will fade over the next few decades. It predicts that China, India and Russia will increasingly gain influence, “the dollar may no longer be the world’s major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.”
Verizon Wireless said last night that a number of its employees have “accessed and viewed” Obama’s personal cellphone account without authorization. The company refused to say how many employees accessed the information, but said that all of them “were immediately put on leave with pay” and are now facing potential disciplinary proceedings.
Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman notes a “disturbing parallel” between 2008 and 1929: “the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis.” With a “standoff” between Congress and the lame-duck administration, Krugman writes, “nothing is happening on the policy front that is remotely commensurate with the scale of the economic crisis. And it’s scary to think how much more can go wrong before Inauguration Day.”
And finally: This week, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) took part in the political tradition of pardoning a Thanksgiving turkey. Palin then gave a press conference at Triple D Farms in Wasilla. However, as she spoke, “just a few feet behind her, one of the men working on the farm proceeded to feed a turkey into a bucket. The man stops periodically to watch the state’s governor speak, all the while the poor turkey jerks around as the machine does its gruesome work.” Watch it here.
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I would just like to point out that the camera people told Palin what was going on in the background and she said that they could go ahead with the shot. This leaves me with two possible thoughts:
1) She is a complete idiot and uncaring jerk, she doesn't care about families who might be watching the evening news together up there in AK and for all the little children who would see thanksgiving meal being killed in front of their eyes.
OR
2) She wanted it the way it was so she would get national press coverage for the interview and be able to spin it like she is a fronteirswoman.
Which do yall think it is?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am"Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed last night while speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual gathering."
There was just too much evil in the room, being that it was the Federalist Society and his weak soul could not stave off the call for "soul juice." He got sucked dry.
Was SCUMLIA in he room? That would explain everything.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:10 amI can't figure out the Clinton appointment. The issue Obama and Clinton were most apart on was foreign policy, and Clinton's hawkishness should disqualify her to be the country's chief diplomat.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:11 am2) She wanted it the way it was so she would get national press coverage for the interview and be able to spin it like she is a fronteirswoman.
I truly believe this is the correct answer. This woman is nothing but an attention seeker. The more, the better even if it is negative attention.
I truly do not like Sarah Palin. There is something that is not right with her.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:15 amShouldn't they be pardoning the humans who slaughter the turkey, rather than the turkey?
WTF???
November 21st, 2008 at 9:17 amWhere is the fake outrage from Faux and the a.m hate radio freaks?!?!!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:19 amBig Oil is “firing up” its efforts to push for more domestic oil development. The American Petroleum Institute is “preparing a multimillion-dollar campaign” that will include an education program called American’s Energy Forum and “a wide array of advertising and lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.”
Place a 99% windfall profits tax on big oil, and then turn around and lend that money to the car industry. The Oil companies have been the ones who have benfitted from the car industry's charade of corporate buisiness practices of making ONLY gas guzzling cars, so the oil comanies should be the ones who pay up. Just like Failin Pailin does in Alaska.
And can anyone tell me why the citizens of Alaska are the ones who "own" the oil which then justifies their indidivual payments from the Alaska windfall profits tax. Do not ALL U.S. citizens own that oil?
Does Texas citizens own their oil? Something is terribly wrong with that setup.
Did you catch Sarah on the Killing the turkey show. GROSS and HILLARIOUS to be so out of touch with what is happening around you.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am(Warning: Content may be disturbing to some)
Dan Abrams on MSNBC said she was asked speciifically if she wanted that as her background, and she said YES, I have no problem with it."
JimboSlice Says:
Which do yall think it is?
She has the self-awareness of a randy moose?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:19 amThe question remains, will there be any Democrats in this administration? (Not counting DINOs like Clinton.)
November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 amA new report by the National Intelligence Council finds that U.S. military, economic, and political dominance will fade over the next few decades. It predicts that China, India and Russia will increasingly gain influence, “the dollar may no longer be the world’s major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.”
"Pffft, what do they know. They said that there were no WMD in Iraq. Stupid idjits."
November 21st, 2008 at 9:23 amGary Kleppe Says:
The question remains, will there be any Democrats in this administration? (Not counting DINOs like Clinton.)
Hey its different, Obama is left handed, so shut up.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:23 amAttorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed last night while speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual gathering....he was “visibly shaking and perhaps slurring his words before he fell to the floor.”
At the Federalist Society?
I hope he puked in the soup!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:23 amThe question remains, will there be any Democrats in this administration? (Not counting DINOs like Clinton.)
The answer:
They don't work for us, they don't respond to us, and they don't care.
They're ALL in it for selfish reasons only.
Are we paying attention YET???
November 21st, 2008 at 9:24 amfrom antiwar.com What the Clinton Appointment Means
And why we won't see any change in American foreign policy
by Justin Raimondo
The American people are sick and tired of the Bush era, and they are counting the days until Barack Obama is inaugurated. The reasons for this are manifold, of course, but the one that concerns us especially here at Antiwar.com is the vital question of war and peace. American foreign policy had become so relentlessly aggressive, and with such disastrous results, that John McCain's alleged national security credentials were moot. Even if the economy hadn't tanked so spectacularly at a crucial point in the election season, I contend that Obama would've won in a landslide anyway. And it surely didn't help when the author of our disastrous foreign policy, Vice President Dick Cheney, was wheeled out to issue his kiss-of-death endorsement: talk about the stab in the back!
In any case, what I really mean to say is that our crazed foreign policy was a major reason why Americans gave Obama such a stunning victory. There's just one problem: our foreign policy is going to remain pretty much the same.
Say whaaaat?!
That's right: you heard me. No change in that department. Why is that, you ask? The reason is because the War Party has a strategy perfectly suited to solving their major problem, which is that they lack any kind of popular support, as the McCain campaign discovered to its horror. So instead of playing the game, they decided to rig it and greet the incoming Obama administration with a fait accompli. The Bush administration is now engaged in the last throes of its torturous negotiations with the Iraqis, who have finally agreed to the terms of a status of forces agreement with the U.S. What this means, in short, is that U.S. troops will be authorized to stay in the country until 2011 – way beyond what Obama promised. Of course, this doesn't mean that they will stay in that long, necessarily, only that the new president has cover now to break his campaign promise, without much of a fuss being made by the Iraqis. As for the Americans, Congress won't mind, and if it comes to a vote the pro-war faction of the Democrats can always line up with the GOP, as they did in the Bush era.
In order to understand how the sellout happened, however, let's rewind the tape. As luck would have it, the economy's collapse occurred just at the high point of the general election campaign. This was a big break for the War Party: it meant, first of all, that the focus was taken off two losing wars – their gift to the new president. It also meant that the incoming president would have his hands full with domestic issues. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and their minds; this is no time to worry about the fate of South Ossetia. Indeed, the problems of the U.S. economy – and the global market – are so overwhelming, that certainly President Obama will have to make them his first and virtually sole concern from the moment he's sworn in.
The necessity of a disciplined division of labor sets the stage, in this scenario, for the Great Concession, as it may deserve to be called. Obama may have won the Democratic nomination, but his victory at the convention and at the polls in November surely did not weld together a united Democratic Party. Indeed, taking the White House just accelerated the ongoing intra-party strife between the Clinton faction and the "new politics" wing led by Obama, because it meant a new struggle over the spoils – and much bitterness on the part of the losers.
Obama, however, being the consummate politician that he is, had a solution: hand foreign policy over to the Clintons. Cede Hillary the international arena – his area of greatest weakness – and use her connections to his own advantage. This would free him to roll up his sleeves and tackle the great problem of how to kick-start America's economic engine.
Obama, of course, is still the president, with the final word on all matters foreign and domestic. Yet by conceding de facto direction of our overseas operations – two wars, and a few more in the making – he could solve his three biggest political problems: (1) The Clintons, who, by their very existence, pose a threat; (2) His own inexperience in the field of foreign affairs, and his lack of personal connections in this rarefied realm; and (3) The very high expectations that demand total concentration on solving the single most important problem facing the country.
Obama's interests, from what I can tell, are primarily domestic: he was a community organizer working with those who fell through the cracks in our economy, and his very real empathy for ordinary people drives him toward his goal of reforming the structure of American society, which he believes promotes inequality and continuing insecurity.
Be that as it may, my longtime readers know I have major problems with Obama's domestic agenda, being a libertarian and all. What they may not catch is that this agenda will have unfortunate global consequences, most immediately in the area of international trade. The protectionist impulses of the Democratic Party and its labor union base are not only bad for America economically, they also promote war hysteria: as a great libertarian economist put it, if goods don't cross borders, then armies soon will.
Aside from that, however, the decision to concede the foreign policy realm to the Clintons – yes, both of them, as I discussed the other day – will have horrific consequences as far as the peace movement is concerned.
Just to give you some idea, Monday night, Peter Beinart was on Hardball, and Chris Matthews was wrinkling his brow with worry that there was something more to this Hillary appointment than met the eye. You could tell he didn't like it, and he had booked Christopher Hitchens to play the devil's advocate. The devil, however, wasn't very forthcoming. Hitchens hates the Clintons, but he seemed too stoned to give any good reasons as to why Obama was doing this, or why it was a bad idea.
Beinart, on the other hand, was ecstatic and said she would be great. Not a very surprising endorsement: a Clintonian foreign policy, the very policy that prepared the way for the invasion of Iraq and ravaged the former Yugoslavia, perfectly reflects the historical stance of the magazine he used to edit.
There is not a single war in modern American history that The New Republic, since its founding in 1914, hasn't enthused over. The magazine made a name for itself immediately by hailing World War I as a grand crusade to make the world safe for democracy. World War II was its heyday, as it screamed abuse at antiwar dissenters and demanded their jailing. Vietnam was, for TNR, another test of American resolve: the editors backed the Hubert Humphrey-Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, while antiwar protesters were beaten in the streets. Iraq War I, Iraq War II, and the much-anticipated attack on Iran that's even now waiting in the wings – the Peter Beinarts of this world live to praise such folly. Beinart's endorsement is the equivalent of the Good War-making Seal of Approval.
It gets worse, however. The culture of corruption that was the leitmotif of the Clinton administration will now be given international scope. If the president and absolute ruler of Kazakhstan wants increased military aid or wants us to overlook the monstrous abuses that take place on his prisons, he has only to make a contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative, and it's done. That's the face of American foreign policy for the next four years, at least.
It's disgusting to contemplate, and a great disappointment to those very sincere voters who saw – and still see – the hope of real change in our foreign policy. Many will resist drawing the appropriate conclusions. Their fallback argument is that Obama is, after all, ultimately at the helm of the ship of state and can be trusted to guide us safely through troubled international waters without starting another major war.
The first part of this argument – that Obama's in charge – is not strictly true, as I discussed above, and to make things clearer: what's happening is very similar to what happened to Rome as it crossed the Rubicon that separates republic from empire. The first and second triumvirates, and, later, the division of the empire into West and East, were responses to the problem of enormous scale. Faced with a crisis where a quicker response was required than the empire was capable of, the Romans were forced to delegate power.
The American empire is responding to a systemic crisis in a similar fashion. By delegating authority over one aspect of the presidency to the Clintons, Obama lifts a great burden from his shoulders, which, added to the weight of the domestic crisis, might have brought him to his knees in the first few months. As it is, he is now free to confront the demons of the economy – and good luck to him with that.
I'll just point out, as Ron Paul has on many occasions, that if we ended our foreign policy of global interventionism, we'd have plenty of money to solve our economic problems, or at least put us on the road to economic solvency. Empires are a costly luxury, in this the age of hard economic realities, and we can hardly afford to maintain this one for much longer. Our economy will pull out of the doldrums once we stop diverting wealth to uneconomic purposes – like wars, for example, or "foreign aid" that winds up in the hands of corrupt government officials. Unfortunately, with the Clintons as Obama's partners in what amounts to a team effort, or a de facto triumvirate, that possibility is just as distant as it ever was.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:24 amObama's being smart. He's surrounding himself with all kinds of people with opposing views. If you surround yourself only with people who agree with you, you limit your discussion, your opportunities to consider alternatives.
He's also not retaliating against the people who ran against him. While I don't like the call, I do understand it. It goes against human nature to "turn the other cheek" but that is what is being done.
Just remember, if Hillary is Secretary of State, she must do Obama's bidding. Pragmatically, it's a good choice.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:26 amkay, please, post a paragraph or two, then a link.
I started scrolling before the halfway point...
We'll read it and get more out of it if WE chose to follow a link.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:26 amDid you catch Sarah on the Killing the turkey show. GROSS and HILLARIOUS to be so out of touch with what is happening around you.
I got the impression that the guy in the background was turning around every once in awhile, looking at Failin' Palin and imagining how enjoyable it would be to pick her up by her feet, stick her head-first in the bucket and hold her there while her wings flapped and she bled out through her neck.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:26 amsorry. I forgot.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:30 amKay, But how will Biden pay into that? Did Obama pu Biden on the ticket to avert the underhandedness of the Clintons? To put a person in closest proximity to him that would always give him a objecive determination OUTSIDE of the State Dept that Hillary will run?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:30 amWhere does is experience and background with the Clintons leave us in this picture?
Sory keyoard ticky
November 21st, 2008 at 9:31 amKay,
And even though Podesta was a big CLintonite, don't you think he LOVES telling Bill and Hillary how it WILL BE.
I think he is loving evey minute of his lording over them, and feels no compunction to let them rule the day.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:33 amI know I know Obama hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. But, it's seems he's morphed from a centrist political figure to a more hawkish figure. Do we really want someone like Hillary for Sec. of State? after she said "let's obliterate Iran" on the campaign trail?
And I must say, in all honesty, Biden wasn't the most inspiring VP coice -- since he was the biggest DEM cheerleader for the Iraq war.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am#22 oops.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 amcoice should be choice
All in all, the cabinet picture seems to be more hawkish, less of new ideas, no labor leaders, a whole lot of Clinton and lot less inspiring than I want.
time will tell.
especially with Emanuel.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:38 amQuoting intelligence sources, Friday's The Times reported that the chances of an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities had significantly increased in the last few weeks.
The British newspaper's report comes a day before Prime Minister Ehud Olmert heads to Washington to part from outgoing President George W. Bush. The two leaders are expected to discuss the Iranian threat in a meeting Monday.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:39 amAs if anyone needed any proof that a pet rock would have been a better VP nominee than Caribou Barbie, there you are.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:39 amKrugman writes, “nothing is happening on the policy front that is remotely commensurate with the scale of the economic crisis. And it’s scary to think how much more can go wrong before Inauguration Day.
Well, when you have a Republican party that is full of petulant children who care more about their hurt feelings than the people in this country, what would you expect.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:40 amThe Bush administration is finalizing changes to the Endangered Species Act...
And just why is he doing these things. Doesn't he know that Obama can undo them as easily as he is doing them?
We really do need to pass some kind of a law that says the only thing an outgoing president can do is to sign or veto legislation. There's just too much room for an outgoing president to do harm on his way out the door.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:42 amI think putting his main political opponent (HRC) in the position of Sec. of State is a shrewd move. She either follows Obama's policy by the letter or she may find herself out of a Washington job. If she plans on having a future in politics she will HAVE to do Obama's bidding. Also, remember that their are many Cabinet posts left to fill. If for example, Obama should tap Bill Richardson as National Security Adviser this would more than balance out Clinton, IMHO. Obama is probably one helluva chess player.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:43 amFunny how people think that when Obama said that he was for change, people are interpreting it as 'change on my terms'.
Obama has always said that he is going to a President for ALL the people of the United States, not just the ones that voted for him, and that means that he is going to have to have access to their viewpoints in make valid judgements.
Give the man some room to get the job done.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:43 amWhich do yall think it is?
Both.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:45 amIn other news, Franken gained another 43 votes on Coleman in the MN vote recount. That leaves the margin at just 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast.
Approximately 40% of the recount is now completed. Go AL!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:48 amIf you "wait and see," then you're left looking at waht it was you waited for, whether you like it or not.
Obama's gonna butt-punk the liberal base no matter what, of course, but if you wait, you run the risk that he won't use any lube...
November 21st, 2008 at 9:48 am>I truly do not like Sarah Palin.
>There is something that is not right with her.
You're probably picking up her bad energy/aura, it literally radiates out from her like some sickly psychic tar...this lady is deeply twisted...i suspect she has a blood and violence fetish, tinged with necrophilia, and is the product of multi-generational heavy methamphetamine absuse, incest, and domestic abuse. I highly suspect her father was alot like the patriarch in "People under the Stairs" if you ever saw that movie. I suppose that means I should feel sorry for her but her soul has been so twisted by this "bred into the bone" lunacy that shes as much of as monster as anyone who might have victimized her. I have to beleive that if human beings have any degree of free will about how thier life shapes them, shes made the wrong choices and should be judged accordingly....
November 21st, 2008 at 9:49 amWOW! CHANGE? What is going on? We did not vote for this crap!
oh PLEASE! what were you doing the last 2 years?
oh yeah, you were fellating the Rightards...
But it has been obvious to anyone with more perspicuity than a sea-urchin that 'change' was merely a handy rhetorical trope with which to bamboozle the rubes...
Obama is now and always has been a creature of the comfortable, corpoRat center. Anything else you took away from the campaign was sheer self-delusion...
November 21st, 2008 at 9:52 amraynman,
Actually, he takes the wind out of the Reichwing sails by doing as you say. But, then again they are lying , scumbag cheats, so the Reichtwing will trash Obama at every turn.
As an aside. I love calling the Reichtwing screetchmachines on the radio, so I called the Bob Grabt show on ABC right after the election to laugh at his ridiculous fears. The next day at work I was asked if that was me on the radio. Alwasy intresting to see who listens to th rightwing radio. I also LOOOVE calling the ultimate nutjob Levin. I am Fred from New Jersey for that show. WHAT a carzy unadulterated whackonutjob. Not even listening, I just like to call to laugh and throw them bombs. It is great.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:54 amraynman Says:
Funny how people think that when Obama said that he was for change, people are interpreting it as ‘change on my terms’.
Obama has always said that he is going to a President for ALL the people of the United States, not just the ones that voted for him, and that means that he is going to have to have access to their viewpoints in make valid judgements.
Give the man some room to get the job done.
Thank you. I am getting really sick and tired of all the naysayers here like Kay, et al, who all know what's best for this country. They don't think that Obama is up to the job because he's not doing it the way they want him to.
I'll be a little less diplomatic here....Why don't you all STFU in till such time as Obama makes a policy decision you disagree with. And that doesn't include the people he chooses to surround himself with.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:54 amI won't STFU.
I pay taxes just like you.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:54 amWe're just changing deckchairs on the Titanic. Everyone Obama has surrounded himself with are just for the Empire.
but with a Smiley Face.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:55 amI think the turkey interview was arranged to have the slaughter in the background. The guy killing the turkeys asked someone for permission to start in the beginning of the interview, then kept grinning back at the camera like that nasty perverted cousin who keeps touching his crotch in the home movies. Sarah definitely has some wires touching.
What? Am I the only one with a cousin like that?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:55 am>Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed last night
The most amusing thing about this story is the response from peple in the room afterward...they started praying..hahahahaha. Ah, gotta love it..I'm agnostic myself, but you gotta figure, if god, in his infinite wisdom, chose to give a bush crony a stroke right when he's explaining how wonderful bush is...maaaybe just maaybe he's not the type of god whose sypathethic to bush in the first place..then again people who genuinely beleive god is on their side arent exactly the first to be prone to rational thought..
November 21st, 2008 at 9:55 amI think I see the political shrewdness of having HRC at SoS.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:58 amI am not pleased with her personal international views, but she will be a representative of Obama in the world and she will not make policy. Obama is surrounding himself with people who have been around a while, they may be more hawkish, so they will present an opposing view to the other advisors of Obama who are less so. In the end, it will be Obama in charge.
She remains an Obama adversary, no matter what kumbaya scene is played on TV; Bill Clinton remains an adversary. They will aid Obama to the extent that it aids them - but they will have the nation and the world watching and evaluating.
If she were a trustworthy ally, she would be better in the Senate working on behalf of the administration, but as it is, it is better to have her in the cabinet and subject to Obama's authority than outside.
Bush surrounded himself with yes men who were all of one mind and he had no thought processes of his own, other than political.
I don't think we will be seeing that in the Obama administration.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3626447,00.html
November 21st, 2008 at 9:59 amOne thing that really p!sses me off about Clinton is that, once again, the news is all Clinton all the time. No other appointment has created the numerous news stories and speculation as this one. It is again, the Clinton's show.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:00 amThey don't seem to be able to leave the stage.
This week, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) took part in the political tradition of pardoning a Thanksgiving turkey. Palin then gave a press conference at Triple D Farms in Wasilla. However, as she spoke, “just a few feet behind her, one of the men working on the farm proceeded to feed a turkey into a bucket. The man stops periodically to watch the state’s governor speak, all the while the poor turkey jerks around as the machine does it’s gruesome work.” Watch it here.
Thanks for the link to TheZoo, TP!! Woo!!
November 21st, 2008 at 10:02 amCredit crisis-still firmly in place
The market cratered yesterday, after Hank Paulson's talk through the rear window of a car careening toward at a cliff.
Fear is back, systemic risk approaches levels seen early in mid September, right before BushCo pushed the panic button.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:03 amKay Says:
quoting ron paul makes you indistinquisable from lushyinterior
If you voice your opinion here, and we all know what it is......then you should expect to catch fire. You know that and you do it any way.
Your opinion is not popular here......
November 21st, 2008 at 10:04 amnanlichi Says:
What? Am I the only one with a cousin like that?
It was like something straight out of the movie Deliverance.
¶ AIO
November 21st, 2008 at 10:06 amtok lib, kay and lushy are not here for rational disscussion. Each of these critters has an agenda and are not interested in our opinions or discussion of them.
They just want to spread hate and fear......seems really evident if you read their posts.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:07 amMarie Says:
"One thing that really p!sses me off about Clinton is that, once again, the news is all Clinton all the time."
This is due to the networks having slews of pundits who want their face time and don't have substantial political news like they did pre-election. The notoriously tight-lipped Obama camp frustrates the pundits due to a lack of juicy leaks. The Clinton camp on the other hand is leaking like a sieve, hence all Clinton all the time.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:07 amAh, Sarah ImPalin, the gift that just cluelessly keeps givin, givin, kinda like a political energizer bunny.
With lipstick. And sharp teeth.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:09 amActually, Extacting Hillary from the NY seat in the Senate is very good for NY. Maybe someone FROM NY will now be put there...Like Tom Suozzi from Nassau County.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:09 amkay... sorry but your new BFF J Raimondo is incoherent
for example:
"
The protectionist impulses of the Democratic Party and its labor union base are not only bad for America economically, they also promote war hysteria: as a great libertarian economist put it, if goods don’t cross borders, then armies soon will."
Did "protectionism" ruin the American economy? No because it wasn't universally applied. IN fact considere the lack of "protectionism" that permitted WalMart to expand, depress wages, eliminate unions and enrich China.
The lack of "protectionism" permitted the off-shoring of jobs.
"...Clintonian foreign policy, the very policy that prepared the way for the invasion of Iraq and ravaged the former Yugoslavia, perfectly reflects the historical stance of the magazine he used to edit."
"Clintonian" foreign policy didn't "ravage Yugoslavia"--Clinton interceded with NATO allies in a genocidal civil war. How the hell was that like invading Iraq on false pretenses, killing its president, establishing military bases and attempting to set up a puppet government?
Libertarians are in essence isolationists, 'protectionists' if you will. The splendid isolation they imagine is so wonderful ended 100 years ago.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:10 amflushinferior is talking in circles, who listens anyway.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:12 amA Patriot Acting Says:
I think putting his main political opponent (HRC) in the position of Sec. of State is a shrewd move. She either follows Obama’s policy by the letter or she may find herself out of a Washington job. If she plans on having a future in politics she will HAVE to do Obama’s bidding. .... Obama is probably one helluva chess player.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:43 am
_________
I truly hope you're right about this, and that the Clintonites he's tapping are part of some big tent strategy.
If what he's aiming for is a Lincoln-style cabinet of people who will debate him and each other as they hash out the details of policy, all the best to him. It'll certainly be better than a cabinet of "loyal Obamie" yes-men who start fixing the facts around the policy. We've had enough of that.
And his transition team does feature a number of progressive voices from academia and the nonprofit sector, who may balance out the more hawkish and conservative DLC types if they're in the final cabinet lineup.
We'll see what happens in January. I'm cautiously optimistic at this point, emphasis on cautiously.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am#Kay Says:
I won’t STFU.
I pay taxes just like you.
Well, feel free to continue to make an a$$ out of yourself. Because that's all you do here any more.
And what does paying taxes have to do with being a jerk?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:13 am#Marie Says:
I think I see the political shrewdness of having HRC at SoS.
I am not pleased with her personal international views, but she will be a representative of Obama in the world and she will not make policy. Obama is surrounding himself with people who have been around a while, they may be more hawkish, so they will present an opposing view to the other advisors of Obama who are less so. In the end, it will be Obama in charge.
Exactly. That's what the naysayers are missing. Obama will be in charge and if the people he hires go rogue on him, he will fire them. If Hillary takes the job as SOS, she will be saying that she is willing to be a team player. She will have to quit her Senatorial seat to take the job and if she goes rogue on Obama and he fires her, she will have no place to go. She can't exactly ask for her Senate seat back.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:16 amAlecto Says:
Actually, Extacting Hillary from the NY seat in the Senate is very good for NY. Maybe someone FROM NY will now be put there…Like Tom Suozzi from Nassau County.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:09 am
_______
A Democrat? From Long Island???
November 21st, 2008 at 10:17 amActually,
November 21st, 2008 at 10:18 amObama gets to control BOTH Clintons, which is a tough thing to do. He has now told Bill who and where he can speak and do business with. THAT is a great step in and of itself.
Mugsy Says:
I can’t figure out the Clinton appointment. The issue Obama and Clinton were most apart on was foreign policy, and Clinton’s hawkishness should disqualify her to be the country’s chief diplomat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The SOS doesnt make policy. She will carry out the Presidents policy. I am sure Obama made that clear when they talked before she took the job. She is well known internationall and the Clinton administration still has residual good relations with the rest of the world so it can be a jump start repairing all the bridges Pres Gump has burned, especially with our allies. Merkel wont have to worry about rogue backrubs from Americans anymore.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:19 amhussein toasterhead Says:
I truly hope you’re right about this, and that the Clintonites he’s tapping are part of some big tent strategy.
Why is it that intelligent people miss the fact that, if Obama wants experienced people around him, he has to hire people who worked for Clinton. And just because someone worked for Clinton does not mean that they are beholden to Clinton or even that they think like Clinton. All it means is that they had a job in the Clinton administration.
Would you rather he hire newbies who don't have a clue how Washington works? Or how about he hire some former Bush employees? I truly think if the state of our union wasn't so dire, Obama would be picking different people for these jobs. But, since it is dire, and he needs to be able to hit the ground running, he really has no choice but to hire experienced people. I for one am glad he is doing it and have faith that Obama's vision will be the one that leads this nation.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:19 amhussein toasterhead Says:
Alecto Says:
Actually, Extacting Hillary from the NY seat in the Senate is very good for NY. Maybe someone FROM NY will now be put there…Like Tom Suozzi from Nassau County.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:09 am
_______
A Democrat? From Long Island???
County Exec since what 2004? After the GOP was put out to pasture (very few of those left here).
November 21st, 2008 at 10:21 amHow hard is it to ignore posts (or posters) you don't agree with?
Kay is posting his/her opinion and information from articles. Readers are responsible for their reactions. Options include:
High positive resonance-support/agreement
No resonance--indifference
High negative resonance--disagreement (many times this resorts to name calling)
This is a progressive website, which supposedly welcomes a wide range of opinions (as long as key words like a-nalysis aren't included). Kay belongs here.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:23 amLushInterior Says:
Why do you waste your time here you dittobot moron? We ALREADY know you are an ignorant braindead loaf. Why would anyone enjoy embarassing yourself so over and over. You are pathetic and an object of pity.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:24 amstateofthedivision Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Well said.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:26 amKay Says:
We’re just changing deckchairs on the Titanic. Everyone Obama has surrounded himself with are just for the Empire.
but with a Smiley Face.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hey I wish we had elected Dennish Kucinich too but really that just wasnt in the cards. Obama was pretty much the most liberal guy America would tolerate NOW. Hopefully he can do a good job THEN we can move a bit farther to the left. Incremental changes ARE changes and mean REAL things to REAL people. NOW is not the time to organize the circular firing squads the left is so famous for. Give the guy a chance when he DOES something I will join you holding his feet to the fire. The left will never keep power long enough to evolve the changes we really want to see if we jump ship on moderates before they can do anything. Take a pill for Gods sake.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:29 amMarie Says: 43
Good job, well thought out, Bravo
November 21st, 2008 at 10:32 amLushInterior Says: 46
My GOD you are an ignorant punk. Isnt that the shortbus honking for you? Go play nice with the other special children and let the adults talk
November 21st, 2008 at 10:33 amstateofthedivision Says:
I have no problem with Kay. I disagree but she is stating an opinion with thoughfulness. Trolls like Flushinterior is nothing but a troll. IT is not giving us its opinion its only agenda is to annoy us and poke at us. Contempt is all it deserves. Along with the trolls that condescendingly tell us they will educate us by giving us a rerun of the Rush Limbaugh show. They dont even TRY for discussion and dont deserve to be treated as if they do
November 21st, 2008 at 10:38 amAll hate and negativity 24/7 is not voicing your opinion, especially when it is accompanied by no alternative whatsoever.......just predicting doom and gloom and failure are not helpful in any way.
kay is entitled but I am entitled to call it what I percieve it to be too....
I find it odd that you defend kay's rebuke of our opinions but attack mine of his.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:39 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Why is it that intelligent people miss the fact that, if Obama wants experienced people around him, he has to hire people who worked for Clinton. And just because someone worked for Clinton does not mean that they are beholden to Clinton or even that they think like Clinton. All it means is that they had a job in the Clinton administration.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:19 am
_________
True, just because they worked for Clinton doesn't mean they're beholden to the DLC. But when the transition team and the nominee list includes people like Hillary Clinton, who threatened to wipe Iran off the map; Madeline Albright, who defended the starvation of a half-million Iraqi children under economic sanctions as "worth it;" Dennis Ross, who wrote Obama's AIPAC speech and was described as "Israel's Lawyer" while serving as chief negotiator, and Richard Holbrooke, who helped facilitate the genocide in East Timor int he 1970s and was a huge cheerleader for the Iraq war, I do have to wonder how exactly the policy decisions are going to flow.
Experience doesn't necessarily make one a good advisor, nor does it make one a good manager - both the roles a Cabinet Secretary must perform. There are plenty of civil service staff in all the agencies who can keep the ship sailing just fine with nobody at the helm, and there are plenty of people in academia or the private sector who know how to play the political game just as well as seasoned Washington insiders.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am#69
November 21st, 2008 at 10:40 am:)
While I understand the people who are concerned about the direction some of Obamas appointments are going, to be honest, I'm just glad there are mature, rational adults running the show..while "we make our own reality" is an interesting thought experiment and not wholly outside the realm of possibility, I think that taking that idea and applying it to political philisophy is an immensesly arrogant tactic...while we may "ceate out own reality", I have to wander what exactly sort of reality is created when you've got large groups of people all "willing" reality in a different direction..
November 21st, 2008 at 10:41 amThe bush regime supporters are simply repeating how they believe a political party should operate: everyone walks in perfect line, and anyone who dissents at all is being traitorous to the party. This is the party first mentality, and the mentality that has been OVERTLY the policy of the GOP for at least the last 8 years. So, it is easy for them to screech out about how the appointments are not in lockstep: it is the policy that they believe in.
That said, the last 8 years HAVE psychologically eroded some thinking to expect this party first mentality. So, when obama selects someone who is not in complete accord with his vision or his policy it seems to be out of place. The GOP worked hard these last years to convince America to become nice obedient fascists, and some of that inevitably seeps into the people's psyche. It is good that people bring it up, so that we can be reminded that submissive agreement with the executive is NOT the free democracy that is America. It helps to remind us of the Bush regime tactics and propoganda that America loudly denounced on Nov 4.
But Obama deserves to be given the opportunity to prove himself. people are trying to call the race and the horses aren't even in the gate yet.
For my part, I gave Bush the first year. One whole year, to prove himself. he failed. I think that obama deserves a full year -- and particularly with the major issues he is being given to deal with (unlike Bush who had it easy when he came into office). I am not suggesting that discourse and disagreement do not occur: by all means, have at. But in the final ana)asis he deserves to be given reasonable time to prove himself.
Just sayin'.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:42 amFred belongs here.
Fred, please show me where I attacked your reply to Kay. What specific words did I post?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:43 amMind you, idiotic trolls are still idiotic trolls, and deserve to be whack-a-trolled by the professional whack-a-trollers.
And spit upon by small children.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:44 amEugeneDebs belongs here.
I never said poster's displayed "thoughtfulness." I only encouraged readers to consider what they can control, their response.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:45 amHowever, as (Palin) spoke, “just a few feet behind her, one of the men working on the farm proceeded to feed a turkey into a bucket.
It looks like Chuck the Plucker.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:47 amWell said CageyCretin. I didn't like Bush long before he stole the first election, something about that Yosemite Sam swagger stirred a disgust in me, but he was my President until My Pet Goat. Obama show signs of being a great leader, one who we desperately need after 8 years of the worst pResident ever, give him a chance.
If he steps on it later, the critics are free to sound off, but criticizing at this point just makes you look stupid or partisan. And we have had our fill of both.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:51 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
She will have to quit her Senatorial seat to take the job and if she goes rogue on Obama and he fires her, she will have no place to go. She can’t exactly ask for her Senate seat back.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:16 am
________
No, but she could challenge him Pat Robertson-style in 2012 for the nomination of a party that could be by then completely fractured if there's a lot of "going rogue" going on in the administration.
This is someone who swift-boated Howard Dean in 2004 so she could run in 2008. If she's capable of that, she's capable of anything...
November 21st, 2008 at 10:52 amstateofthedivision Says:
O. K. I certainly consider MY responses. I try to be thoughtful and give a reasoned an- alysis when THAT is what is called for and deliver trollstabbings when THAT is what is called for. I see no benifit in treating insults to liberals, inane trolling, and endless repitition of long ago debunked talking points as if they DESERVED a thoughtful response. If a Micheal Savage wannabe tells asks me when I stopped beating my wife, so to speak, to me the proper answer isnt a long list of why I dont but SCREW YOU didnt I see YOUR wife in the emergency room last week. Its time for the gloves to come off. I DID my time being respectful and treating every post as if it were serious commentary. I watched the left engage or ignore Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter for a decade and be framed as weak and spineless without principles for taking the high road. You can certainly do what YOU think best but for me when the discussion goes into the mud I am following and taking the fight there. We can beat them in the debate halls because our ideas are better, if THEY want the fight to go down into the alley I say its time we followed and showed we can beat them there too because we are just as comitted. Ceding the exclusive franchise on the low road to the right didnt work out that well for us. I say its time to FIGHT THE FIGHTS THAT NEED FIGHTING. In whatever venue that takes. Troll stabbing is, as far as I am concerned part of that agenda
November 21st, 2008 at 10:55 amGood morning, everyone - and happy Friday!
I've shaken my head over a few of Obama's choices; but I realize that he has taken the job of trying to drive a very, very large vehicle that has wheels pointing *every* direction, and all sorts of knobs, gears and levers that aren't labeled...
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt (just like I gave George Bush all those years ago) and my whole-hearted support (Bush did not get that) and see how he does.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:59 amI know my opinions are not popular here. But to have someone say (STFU) was really uncalled for. I just think the people Obama has surrounded himself with are a lot more hawkish than I would have expected. Obama is a good man. I just don't like the looks of things. Time will tell. There are some pretty scary choices so far. Rahm Emanuel was a bad choice. Larry Summer for for Treasury Secretary should be especially alarming for women for his sexist remarks. His first press conference was very notable for dragging out nobody with any good ideas. All of these people were in part of the problem left over from the Clinton era (deregulation)--We need new blood. New ideas. We definitely do not need someone for Secretary of State willing to kill Iranian babies and grandmothers ("Let's obliterate Iran) -- Hillary
please don't tell me to STFU
November 21st, 2008 at 11:05 amI'm entitled to an opinon albeit unpopular
I know Obama has not nominated Larry Summers (former Harvard president) for Treasury Sec. (jusr rumored) -- it's just an example of old blood, deregulation --
November 21st, 2008 at 11:08 amAnd one more thing Gates has to go.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:12 amKay Says:
Except Rahm Emmanuel was NOT a bad choice for Chief of Staff. He is TOUGH he knows Congress AND how to fight the trench wars. THE COS DOES NOT MAKE POLICY. He will be in charge of getting OBAMA's POLICIES ENACTED and he is very well suited to do just that. This is what you keep missing. The PRESIDENT makes policies. Many of the Clinton appointees might have disagreed with the policies they were pushing during the Clinton administration but IT WASNT THEIR JOB TO MAKE POLICY. Having many opinions in the room isnt a bad thing but only the PRESIDENT decides what direction to go AFTER hearing all the alternatives. This is why I keep saying its not reasonable to attack him for appointements WHEN HE DOES SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE with by all means hold his feet to the fire but you seem to want to organize a circular firing squad before he does ANYTHING. That doesnt make sense.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:14 amKay Says:
please don’t tell me to STFU
I’m entitled to an [opinion] albeit unpopular
What's ironic is that it's coming from those who hated Hillary almost as much as Bush during the primaries.
¶ AIO
November 21st, 2008 at 11:16 amI guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The tone of the admistration so far Pro-Israel, anti- Palestine. More War. More Deregulation. More Blind homage to AIPAC.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:17 amAnd when I hear about Obama getting us entrenched in Afghanistan -- I cringe.
Is he going to listen to the Pentagon Advisory board and scale down military adventures?
We need save our own country. Never mind an empire.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:24 amWhat's up w/ the posters here, today?
I've been watching Democracy Now this last week and they've been discussing the ties of some Obama appointments to PNAC. Why WOULDN'T this concern everyone here?
I mean, yeah, we deserved a period of elation after an 8 year nightmare... and yeah, hope for the best, but don't get complacent. The struggle has not ended.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:30 amI'm not complacent...
November 21st, 2008 at 11:33 amKay Says:
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. The tone of the admistration so far Pro-Israel, anti- Palestine. More War. More Deregulation. More Blind homage to AIPAC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except you cannot POSSIBLY know the tone of the administration yet. They dont HAVE a tone yet they havent even taken office. What part of the FACT the COS DOESNT MAKE POLICY is confusing you? I am second to none in my condemnations of Israeli foriegn policy and demand for Palestinian rights. You cannot imagine the attacks I have taken from progressives on my stances on this issue over the years. For goodness sakes wait until they actually DO something on this issue before going ballistic because of an appointement. They NEED experience. They need smart people who disagree in the room. You just seem determined to be disgruntled because Obama didnt appointe Noam Chomsky as the SOS and Howard Zinn secretar of Labor. I hope far leftys like us will see our day but that day is not this day and the only way to move IN THAT DIRECTION is to give measured support for those who DO have power that ARE to the left of what we have been getting and ON THE ISSUES show our disagreement. Throwing temper tantrums because we dont like the fact Obama isnt Kucinich isnt going to do us any good. WHEN HE DOES SOMETHING then go after him. Appointements are NOT POLICY.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:34 amChomsky and Zinn wouldn't work for me either
November 21st, 2008 at 11:34 amKay, I can tell.
Eugene, All we have to observe is the decisions he is making in appointments, and some have been worrisome based on how wrong their judgment(s) have been in the recent past. What is so wrong about pointing that out? Obama himself has proven that he can handle criticism. Why is everyone walking on eggshells for him?
I personally see value in equating appointments with policy until proven otherwise.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:41 amThank you #93 for your post.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:42 amI think Obama's choices for his cabinet are very telling.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:46 amI think they do set the tone for future policy decisions.
666lattes Says:
What’s up w/ the posters here, today?
I’ve been watching Democracy Now this last week and they’ve been discussing the ties of some Obama appointments to PNAC. Why WOULDN’T this concern everyone here?
Well, for my worthless part, I am not complacent. And I am eager to see the information about these goons. AND at no point did I ever consider Obama to be any kind of great savior or even a great new kind of leader. However, he is head and shoulders (and knees and feet) above anything else that was viably offered. But no one is perfect, and in a mired bureocracy (oh, for the love of chocolate -- how is that spelled?) there are going to be all kinds of strangeness, to include all the neocon bits hidden in dark corners: it would be improbable to assume that Obama could avoid all PNAC people. PNAC will continue to try to influence, and they are DEEPLY entrenched in our political system: it will take some time to weed them out (IF someone takes that on as a challenge. Which should be done for a variety of reasons, some constitutional or legal).
Yet it is also important to understand that not only have these criminals infected the system to an unimaginable degree, they include long time players in the arena who cannot be ignored completely with the system AS IT STANDS. Obama has very difficult choices to make from now until the day his presidency is over. He is not in a position where he can just fly by the seat of his pants: he HAS to make the best choices that he believes he can while intending to address major problems within and without the country, and that may require that he select people for positions based on the value and the qualities that he believes they possess that will be useful to him in dealing with this itemized laundry list of problems.
Again, for my part, I don't say that these things should be ignored, but they should just be watched at this point -- NOT turned into a string of albutrosses to hang around Obama's neck. Not yet. Everyone IS entitled to their opinions, and stupid opinions deserve proper retaliation. But the cabinet is not filled yet, and Obama is not president yet. It may be more prudent to attack the politicians that he chose for their flaws, but not Obama for selecting them. He HAS to pick people that, in his experience, he believes can do something positive in those positions. This isn't even a csae of being partizan or non-partizan: it is simply a case of being what needs to be done to do the best that he can for the country. For my part, i want to still give him that chance, for some time to come. These are not easy decisions. And, again, shopuld we just become the mirror of the repugs and insist that only "like-minded" people be used? That is staying in the Bush/neocon mindset.
That said, the criminals in there NEED to be prosecuted. We need a restoration of LAW and JUSTICE in this country, or it is all for nothing.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am666lattes Says:
Kay, I can tell.
Eugene, All we have to observe is the decisions he is making in appointments, and some have been worrisome based on how wrong their judgment(s) have been in the recent past. What is so wrong about pointing that out? Obama himself has proven that he can handle criticism. Why is everyone walking on eggshells for him?
I personally see value in equating appointments with policy until proven otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because this is a pattern for the left. I have seen it over a long period of time. The perfect can be the enemy of the good and when a lefty DOES good but not good enough the left begins attacking him which is quickly joined by the right and it destroys a leftys ability to govern. I am all for attacking BAD POlICY. Yes the appointments are the only thing there is yet and IT ISNT POLICY. Just because a Rahm Emanueal is COS doesnt mean ANYTHING ABOUT POLICY. One of the reasons the right was able to hold on to power for so long while being so bad is they had discipline. More than we should have but they didnt convene the circular firing squad as soon as their guy did any little thing that looked like there wouldnt be total conformity to their point of view. Appointments are taken from a smaller pool of candidates than you might think IF they are going to be experienced. Emmanueal is a good example HE WONT BE MAKING POLICY but he knows the trench wars and is a GOOD not bad choice because of the way he voted and the policies he espoused. I am all for holding Obamas feet to the fire. He wasnt my first choice but attacking him before he has even done anything is counterproductive. Give the guy a chance he isnt even in office and the left is already all over him BEFORE HE HAS DONE A SINGLE THING. These appointees are not MAKERS OF THE POLICIES. They will carry out OBAMAS POLICY this seems like a simple concept to me.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pmCageyCretin Says:
"... and deserve to be whack-a-trolled by the professional whack-a-trollers."
____________
Ooooooooooo... somebody call fer a li'l Whack-A-Troll™???
Where's the Talking Llama? Hey... you... up ahead... playin' thru!!! Fore!!!
November 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pmWatching the turkey being slaughtered isn't as gruesome as watching Sarah butcher the English language.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm"but they should just be watched at this point — NOT turned into a string of albutrosses to hang around Obama’s neck."
Fair enough.
He's made some good choices too, but what's the fun in pointing those out.
However:
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Jeremy, those are some of the bigger names, but you also name some others that are less well-known. You mention two: Ivo Daalder and Michele Flournoy, both of whom were associated with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, many of these people—I mean, you have, at the top of the list, you have Dennis Ross, who was both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s Middle East envoy, and Martin Indyk. Both of them work very closely with AIPAC, as well as the Project for a New American Century.
Michele Flournoy is one of the people that, down the line, may be tapped as the first female Defense secretary, also working with the Project for a New American Century, and in fact authored a paper that is said to have reframed Obama’s perspective on Iraq, backing him off of the total withdrawal rhetoric and looking more at a sort of residual force, downsized, rebranded occupation.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/20/agents_of_change_or_hawks_clintonites
November 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pmYou guys go ahead and have you a little Obama bashfest. I'll wait to see what happens.
He was elected, he gets the chance to choose his people that he wants to work with.
You can't micromanage his presidency.
When he becomes the war monger/corporate whore that kay predicts that he is I will judge him then.
pre-imptive judgement is nothing more than guessing. The man has been in the oval office one time......for a brief visit.
If you hate the Clintons, think back......I would gladly replace the last 8 years with the Clintons......and despite the war monger references by Kay, et al, Bill Clinton did not invade a country based on lies and cost millions of lives......
November 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pmKay Says:
I think Obama’s choices for his cabinet are very telling.
I think they do set the tone for future policy decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO THEY DONT. They dont say a THING about policy. They MIGHT, when poicies are emerging we will see but appointments ARE NOT POLICY. You get the guys who know congress and the political game and YOU set the policy while THEY go about getting it done. APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT POLICY, the ONLY reason to say they are is you are determined to criticise BEFORE THERE IS ANY REASON TO. John Kennedy picked LBJ to be his vice president. LBJ was such a warhawk he was known in the Senate as the Senator from the Penatagon. Yet when the Cuban missile crisis happened and Johnson was all for direct war and invasion of Cuba Kennedy set his own path.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm666lattes Says:
“but they should just be watched at this point — NOT turned into a string of albutrosses to hang around Obama’s neck.”
Fair enough.
Well, thank you.
He’s made some good choices too, but what’s the fun in pointing those out.
Oh, none whatsoever. I am not against knowing about these people who SEEM to be questionable choices. I just don't think Obama should be crucified for them at this point. Nothing's been done yet. So -- please, keep the cretins informed about each and every one of these questionable politicians, so that we know who we should be keeping a closer eye on. (o.k., bad english. I'm not fixing it. So there. :> )
November 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pmAnd, to repeat what I babbled above: those PNAC people are FIRMLY and DEEPLY entrenched in our government at all levels. That was one of their advatages over the last 8 years: placement and recruitment. One cannot expect a witch hunt of them, becuase, at least on the surface, one cannot arrest them for beloning to or supporting PNAC. Sad, but true. It angers me a bit, though, that they use the law to hide behind, and then they abuse the law to get away with things.
If we do not restore law, justice, and accountability, there will be no real change in our politics. At this time, they are virtually immune to punishment. That must change.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pmChoosing Hillary for Sec. State only makes sense to me from a political standpoint. If she accepts, it basically innoculates Obama from a Clinton primary challenge in 2012. That strikes me as a high price to pay for the inevitable drama the Clintons will bring. I am also very worried that Hillary will be reluctant to travel abroad for fear of imaginary sniper fire...
Why not Bill Richardson, the guy who broke ranks with the Clintons to support Obama when he needed it? If anything, he is more experienced than Hillary and moreover has earned it. What is he going to be offered if not this?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pmKeltoi Says:
There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons. Please spare me the Clinton bashing. I DO think Richardson was shortlisted as SOS. He would be a very good choice. He seems to do his best work under the radar. Perhaps a position a little less high profile would allow him to better serve this administration. I would be suprised if he didnt get a post. If the SOS goes somewhere it is HUGE news. As say national security advisor or undersecretary of state he could travel anonymously, twist arms, make deals WITHOUT the hoopla always accopanying a SOS visit. That would play to his strengths. I would agree he is a very talented statesman.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pmEugeneDebs Says:
There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons.
No? Have we been living in the same country? Hillary may not be a Drama Queen, but it is just not in Bill's DNA to be quiet.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pmKeltoi Says:
EugeneDebs Says:
There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons.
No? Have we been living in the same country? Hillary may not be a Drama Queen, but it is just not in Bill’s DNA to be quiet.
I have been living in this country, but apparently you've remained living with your head up your *ss as usual. Most of the DRAMA has come from Clinton haters - like yourself. Not from the Clintons. But don't let REALITY skew your PERCEPTIONS little "w"...
November 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm>Most of the DRAMA has come from Clinton haters
> - like yourself.
You two...get a room..
November 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
>Most of the DRAMA has come from Clinton haters
> - like yourself.
You two…get a room..
As soon as you get padding for yours...
November 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
>Most of the DRAMA has come from Clinton haters
> - like yourself.
You two…get a room..
Ah the IRONY coming from an OBAMAHEAD!!!
Project much? ROTFL!!
November 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pmRights Groups Have Big Plans for Obama
Posted November 21, 2008
After eight years of President Bush expanding the power of the executive branch to unparalleled levels, President-elect Barack Obama will take office in January with enormous discretion on policy. The Obama campaign’s mantra of change really hit home with a lot of people, and human rights groups are putting forward wish lists for the new administration about significant changes they’d like to see in short order.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken out full page ads urging the Obama Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay on day one. Beyond that they call for him to “reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.”
Amnesty International decided to give the new president a little more time, calling for concrete steps in the first 100 days of his presidency. They want Gitmo closed as well (or at least a plan in place to do so), an executive order banning torture, and an independent commission created to investigate US wartime abuses. Secretary General Irene Khan says “The new Administration must focus on righting some of the wrongs of the Bush Administration and restoring the US as a human rights champion at home and abroad.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has the most ambitious plan, issuing an 11 point briefing of policy recommendations (note: PDF) for the president-elect. Containing much of the same as the plans of the other groups, HRW also wants to see the administration repudiate Justice Department memos on torture, reject preventative detention as an alternative to prosecution, and reject the “global war on terror” as a basis for detentions.
How quickly and how thoroughly an Obama Administration will follow through on any of these changes is unclear. Obama has indeed promised to close the Guantanamo facility, but his aides have said there is no process in place to make any decisions on how to proceed on that matter.
Obama has likewise said “America does not torture,” but since those identical words have been uttered repeatedly by the Bush Administration, it is unclear whether this portends a policy change or rather expresses growing agreement between the outgoing and incoming administrations that the current behavior does not constitute torture. Obama advisers have said that the new administration is unlikely to bring charges against anyone involved in Bush Administration interrogations.
The promise of change is an alluring one indeed, but as the Obama transition team shores up an increasingly hawkish cabinet it seems like the priorities of the new administration are not with significant moves away from Bush-era security policies.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pmKeltoi, I share your opinion of Bill Richardson for SoS, and I was disappointed that he was not selected, but I heard rumors around that the Obama staff was not overly impressed with him. I also like Susan Rice for Security advisor.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pmSusan Rice promoted the myth that Saddam had WMDs. "It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat," she said in 2002. "It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on." (After the invasion, discussing Saddam's alleged possession of WMDs, she said, "I don't think many informed people doubted that.")
November 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm(After the invasion, discussing Saddam’s alleged possession of WMDs, she said, “I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”)
How ironic.
¶ AIO
November 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pmKay Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Rice promoted the myth that Saddam had WMDs. “It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat,” she said in 2002. “It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on.” (After the invasion, discussing Saddam’s alleged possession of WMDs, she said, “I don’t think many informed people doubted that.”)
Well, this would make her a perfect match with SoS
November 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pmClinton(s) since they said pretty much exactly the same thing from both the WH and the floor of the Senate.
Keltoi Says:
EugeneDebs Says:
There is no inevitable drama from the Clintons.
No? Have we been living in the same country? Hillary may not be a Drama Queen, but it is just not in Bill’s DNA to be quiet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I live on Planet Earth and YOU live on Planet Wingnut. We heard this same BS when Hillary was elected Senator and she went about her Senatorial duties in a low key style until it was time to run for President. The Press has a Clinton fixation but he CAN stay out of the limelight and NOTHING is enevitable except death, taxes, and rightwing smears and lies.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pmTaxes aren't inevitable, capital gains could go to zero in the latest "disaster capitalism" move.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pmAt least the voters of Alaska came out on the right side of this one.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 amCheck out this Palin McCain parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv9bvrN1QMU