Why blame Hillary?
In the last two days I heard people using the B word, revisiting her campaign low points, her hawkish FP rhetoric and her kitchen and sink strategy.
Is it Hillary's fault she is being considered for a key position in the White House?
Are you just venting your anger toward her because you're not yet ready to bash Obama? Don't feel comfortable questioning his judgement?
If the transition team were only in consultation and didn't offer Sen.Clinton a key position in the new White House than this will be recorded as the biggest public relations blunder, thus far, by the Obama team. This story has gotten out of hands and Obama team didn't seem to make much effort to step in at any time.
Which is reason enough to believe Sen.Clinton infact was offered the job and now its in her hands.
Old timers know I'm not a big fan of Hillary. Sen. Clinton is not my first choice but I don't have problem with it. If you have a problem, then I ask you to spend time questioning Obama's judgement rather than attacking her. It was his call. .
IMO, six months from now she may not seem such a perfect or imperfect candidate for the job. So all this hyper ventillation seems silly.
It is indeed silly. And it just as silly for you and others to suggest that because the Obama camp hasn't denied the Clinton as S of S stories that it's a done deal.
Obama has made it very clear that neither he nor his camp will comment on any of the gossip passing around the media circle jerk/rub.
Why not let Obama announce his cabinet picks before getting lathered up?
November 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this me or did Sister Souljah come to mind when reading this?
November 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO, it is not. And if people are using the B word around here in reference to Senator Clinton, IMHO they should just drop it. The campaign is over. Barack Obama is our next President. And if people don't trust him to select his own cabinet, then why the hell did they vote for him in the first place? Seriously.
November 15, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: As many people around here know, I was a vicious, ruthless opponent of Senator Clinton during the primary season. But that was war, and like Senator Clinton, I believe in winning. And we won.
For those of you who oppose the choice of Senator Clinton for Secretary of State (and let's not forget that this is all speculation and rumor at this point anyway), I have a question: Who do you want on our side when we get into a serious dispute with Iran or North Korea or Russia? Who do you want speaking for us when we relaunch negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Who do you trust to fly to Tehran or to Caracas and take the measure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez and deliver a clear-eyed assessment to the president? Who do you want delivering President Obama's message for the United States? Some bumbling pussy? Or the person who almost defeated our President Elect?
My first choice would have been Zbigniew Brzezinski, which shows you where I'm coming from. But I wasn't just elected President of the United States. Barack Obama was. And he damn well has the right and the judgment to select his own Secretary of State.
November 15, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Richardson, Bill Richardson, and no, I wouldn't want to see you as SoS and no.
November 15, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Richardson is great as a human being, but he's a bumbler in the language department. He makes too many mistakes. So does John Kerry (who I would personally support if strategy didn't matter.) Hillary is skilled, and she is intelligent, and she has what it takes to be president. She is seriously qualified, and I would be seriously considering her.
November 15, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson has a track record of success dealing with difficult situations and bad actors with their own national interests and agendas. Hillary doesn't.
I would think that if Hillary really wanted to have an affect on a bigger stage than provided by the Senate, she should do her residency as US ambassador to the UN. The UN, btw, is a much more suitable forum for making a difference in addressing women's and children's issues, etc because of it's collective nature and potential for coalition building.
Don't be too influenced by Richardson's public persona; his reputation in NM is for playing serious hardball behind closed doors. I was one of his constiuents when he was a congressman so have a different perspective.
New Mexicans pretty much view him as a cabron. La Politica is where he learned his techniques, after all.
November 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I vote for the current governor of California.
November 15, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That's not a bad idea, actually. Ahnold would be damn good in that post, wouldn't he? Score one for creative, out-of-the-box thinking.
November 15, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow 3 rec's. Most recommended. Where are our standards? Sorry. This seems mighty thin. How many rec's does it take to get "Most Recommended?" 2 or 3?
November 15, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four. Thanks for the reminder.
November 15, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink