Well, well, well!
Just as I feared. Obama is bent on following in President Lincoln’s footsteps – tall order – to include opponents in his Administration. I wrote a few days ago that all Obama needs to make the Lincoln experience complete will be a Civil War. I predicted that with the Hillary Clinton appointment to State, a civil war was coming up.
Just imagine, Obama throws his loyal people under the bus and gives away the store!
Hillary plays hardball – The Independent UK
The first sign of friction in the Obama camp as Mrs Clinton demands – and gets – a purge of her critics before accepting Secretary of State role
Before Hillary Clinton has been formally offered the job as Secretary of State, a purge of Barack Obama’s top foreign policy team has begun.
The advisers who helped trash the former First Lady’s foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail are being brutally shunted aside, as the price of her accepting the job of being the public face of America to the world.
In negotiations with Mr Obama this week before agreeing to take the job, she demanded and received assurances that she alone should appoint staff to the State Department. She also got assurances that she will have direct access to the President and will not have to go through his foreign policy advisers on the National Security Council, which is where many of her critics in the Obama team are expected to end up.
The first victims of Mrs Clinton’s anticipated appointment will be those who defended Mr Obama’s flanks on the campaign trail. By mocking Mrs Clinton’s claims to have landed under sniper fire in Bosnia or pouring scorn on her much-ballyhooed claim to have visited 80 countries as First Lady they successfully deflected the damaging charge that he is a lightweight on international issues.
Foremost among the victims of the purges is her old Yale Law School buddy Greg Craig, a man who more than anyone led the rescue of his presidency starting the very night Kenneth Starr’s lurid report into the squalid details of the former president’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky were published on the internet in 1998. Despite his long and loyal friendship with the Clintons, Mr Craig threw his lot in with Mr Obama at an early stage in the presidential election campaign. As if that betrayal to the cause of the Clinton restoration was not enough, Mr Craig did more to undermine Mrs Clinton’s claims to be a foreign policy expert than anyone else in the some of the ugliest exchanges of the battle for the Democratic nomination.
Until this week he was poised to be the eminence grise of the State Department, organising as total revamp of America’s troubled foreign policies on Mr Obama’s behalf. Its turns out that Mrs Clinton’s delay in accepting the president elect’s offer to be his top foreign policy adviser had much to do with her negotiating the terms of the job and insisting on the right to choose her own state department staff and possibly even some of the plumb Ambassador postings. She wanted guarantees of direct access to the president – without having to go through his national security adviser. Above all she did not want to end up like Colin Powell who was completely out-manoeuvred by the hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney who imposed neo-conservative friends like John Bolton on the State Department and steered the US towards a policy of using torture to achieve its aims.
More
Does Obama not understand the Clintons can’t be trusted; they have no loyalty to anyone — that they have their own agenda and once they’ve used you to achieve personal ends you’re toast?
Is this Hillary vindictiveness not contrary to Obama’s reaching out? It’s Clinton all the time.
Memo to Barack Obama:
Enjoy the disaster of your own making. Whatever made you think you needed Hillary to take your 3:00 AM calls.
What a collapse of confidence!
Dispicable.
OMG. I had several replies to comments made during the week urging me to relax. Obama sets foreign policy. Obama is in charge.
under blackmail, Obama has constructed a divided government. The Clintons will be in charge and not just at State as Bill gets to tag-along.
OY! It’s a coup d’etat. Be prepared for The Clintons third term. They’ve muscled their way right into to the Lincoln bedroom.
After Obama and Biden appeared together in an interview, someone observed, at CounterPunch I think, that it was disquieting how Biden dominated the interview.
It’s beginning to appear that Obama’s “calm” has a related negative aspect: a lack of the zeal needed to be a strong leader. Perhaps an appropriate term for Obama is “phlegmatic”?
Why bother with elections?
Steve Clemons has a:
Kinda give credence to those who think the Illuminati is in charge – same difference Demorats or Republicrats. After Hillary lost the primaries, McCain met with HRC supporter, Lady de Rothschild and Obama attended the Bilderburger meeting.
In 2012 we’ll be lucky to have a 25% voter turnout.
Statusquo.gov
Why bother with elections?
I’m sure you know the answer: to give the appearance that the US is a democracy, when in actuality, it is a plutocracy.
Kevin Phillips has long argued that the US is a plutocracy; the French demographer Emmanuel Todd, who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, describes it as an oligarchy.
Communist states had elections, too. The communists were just less subtle in hiding how it an elite that rules, having had only one party, as opposed to our system, which has two parties in mock opposition to each other. Similarly, our “free press’, controlled by corporations owned by the elite which rules the country, does a better simulation of being “objective” than the state-controlled media of communist states.
ya know idredit, l keep watching these cabinet, and senior advisor appointments, hrh: hrh at state, holder at doj, geithner at treasury and summers as nec director, etal, and l see a return to clinton’s second term; which was to my way of thinking a disaster.
so far, daschle at hhs is the sole appointee with which l agree.
additionally, napolitano at homeland security?… c’mon, gary hart would’ve been a great appointment there, and the real downside is it turns arizona over to the reichwing crazies for two years which will greatly exacerbate an already tense situation down there. add to that the wasting of richardson at commerce…wtf?
smart thinking, working to set up the basis for change?…guess it depends on how you define “change”. anything’s going to look better after 8 years of ButchCo™.
these moves are not precursors of the type of change that needs to be affected. perhaps, the circumstances will dictate a different scenario than what appears to be developing, and these people may, or may not, be able to deliver the goods. however, their collective history, filled with failures, doesn’t instill a great deal of confidence in the direction it’s heading .
there is likely to be a great deal of disappointment among progressives/liberals if these signals are what they appear to be. l guess it’s just too bad the bar’s set so low.
to say “l’m disappointed” is a massive understatement. l truly expected something much different than a return to the 90’s.
on the financial front, imho and from what I’ve read, the next two months will be shocking – the bailouts for auto industry and Citigroup, looking at 2 Trillion for the latter. The worst is yet to come later in 2009. The powers-that-be are in panic – seeing a great depression II – what is being called “deflationary pressures” the worse in 70 years.
Here’s the thing: Obama takes over but Clintonistas are in charge. On January 20, 2009, the GOP will attach the “Clinton Administration, III” label. They’ll also rightly remind, it was the Clinton Administration which laid the foundation for this financial crisis – the repeal in 1999 of Glass-Steagall Act.
Obama won the election for the Clintons.
It’s getting to look more and more as if Obama is just a figurehead for the financial industry, as many had been saying all along.
If he wasn’t, why would he be appointing the economists who pushed and carried out the deregulation which has led to the present crisis?
WABOFW
What a bunch of fucking whiners
The blood is running in the streets. Heads are rolling.
we’ll see you in exactly eight months if not before…. see if you’re of the same mindset.
100 %, that Obama will dissapoint me. So fucking what? He’s just a guy. He’s a smart guy, but he’s gonna fuck up.
And HE IS STILL FUCKING BETTER THAN FUCKING MCCAIN.
WABOFW, is all I can say. We elect the guy we want, and it’s WHINE WHINE WHINE. You guys are pathetic.
And you STILL have not apologized for the H.N. Bit. You’re an asshole for that.
Why do you assume we want McCain?
OK dataguy, there are times when you don’t engage.
Before you jump off the cliff on the HN – house negro – bit, you need to determine what is my background or skintone.
I’m from a multi-racial family, so we have slave ancestors and white grand parents; – out of Africa, Scotland, Portugal, India and Carib “out of many one people” is the motto of the land of my birth — instilled with a great sense of pride and confidence to be whatever or whoever we want to be. Schooled British and American. Eric Holder and Colin Powell (some connection) hails from the Caribbean. We excel..you’ll find us everywhere. We’re a proud people not given to lack of self-esteem. We’re secure in our skins of many hues. Beyond that I’ll keep some privacy.
I won’t indulge in political correctness BS. In our circle, HN means “a token promotion..we’ve been thrown a crumb.” From the days of slavery, house negro has always meant token.
Frankly, in my circle African-American is the greater slur…the intent, whoever coined the term, was to replace the word “negro” and “people of color.” Only in America…caucasians are Americans, real Americans and all others are hyphenated. I suggest you direct your outrage here…work at it. The identity crisis remains.
You wouldn’t think Obama won the election and quite handily at that. Looks like he’s been grabbed and being told what to do…by de Rothschild, Scowcroft, Clinton and McCain! Obama is not the new White House butler. He’s the President-elect.
Where does Hillary Clinton get off telling the President-elect Obama who he can and cannot appoint to his administration? Hillary is not the VP and let’s not forget her and hubby’s multiple use of the race card during the primaries. That should be your outrage.
Thanks for dropping by.
That McCain and Obama planned out the next Cabinet, irrepsective of who “won”?
Wow…
That’s about all the confirmation you’ll ever need to put to bed the lie of “change”.
At least if you’re at once selectively skeptical and selectively credulous.
What’s to be skeptical of? That this collaboration actually happened? Granted, even as someone who foresaw to some degree that Obama is more or less politically androgynous, this depth of collusion among supposed idealogical opposites surprised me. But it goes along way toward explaining his appointments so far. Or at least what he’s said about how he intended to fill positions. At this point I’m less surprised than resigned and silently disgusted.
What’s to be skeptical of?
First, yes, that the discussions occurred. (I’ve noticed that many people are selectively credulous/skeptical toward anonymously-sourced stories.)
Second, that the discussions amounted to collusion on a shared set of mutually-acceptable appointees or anything like that. The story reported — suspect in its own right anyway — does not necessitate any such conclusion.
Third, oh, I could continue if you really want that, but I don’t think you do.
Anybody who claims that any claims of change can now be put to bed MONTHS BEFORE THE FREAKING GUY IS EVEN INAUGURATED and on the basis of such an ambiguous and anonymously-sourced story is so uninterested in evidence that that person should launch a new blog: “Little Green Footballs on the Left”.
Face it, super. I’m sorry to say it, but you’ve become what you hate(d).
Go ahead, now, tell me what a dupe I am.
Face it, super. I’m sorry to say it, but you’ve become what you hate(d).
I hate quitters. So yeah, I quit. There is no point fighting a single entrenched party in this country anymore. I said a long time ago that I was refocusing what energy I have on my family’s survival. The country can go fuck itself for all I care. Same for those who contribute to it’s downfall. I would consider anyone who defends this practice and beyond that, votes to sanction it…you guessed it…a dupe.
Thanks for displaying, yet again, your total contempt for the enterprise of giving/requesting reasons and your preference for passionately expressing your personal emotional state and your (reason-independent, apparently) convictions.
George.
the enterprise of giving/requesting reasons
Is that how you would describe your previous comment to me? Your comment earned the contempt it recieved. My preference for passionate expression is directly tied to the dysfunction and willfull ignorance that I encounter each time I am unfortunate enough to stumble onto anyone such as you.
There is a blogger who is infamous among these parts who while not a personal favorite of mine rarely fails to hit the nail on the head. She said that people should be made to live with their Jesus. Well, you bought it, you own it.
As usual, you do not respond, but merely react.
I m sure that you regard yourself as unfortunate any time you stumble onto someone such as me … someone who asks, “What reason is there to think that?”
That’s my Jesus and I’ve had a good life wid’it!
That’s my Jesus and I’ve had a good life wid’it!
You ain’t seen nothin yet…good times ahead.
I’m done.
I really don’t understand this. Rice and Holder and Craig and a whole bunch of people who worked for the Clinton administration had a golden opportunity to endorse H. Clinton first during the primaries.
THEY. DID. NOT.
THEY. ENDORSED. OBAMA
For the umpteenth flippin’ time: Just because a person worked for Clinton doesn’t mean they necessarily subscribe to Clintonism–it simply means that they worked for a Democratic administration, an opportunity that was denied for to them for 12 years.
Especially with Holder–it seems folks have worked OVERTIME to find something wrong with him. I could understand the reaction if he had selected Jaime Gorelick, but damn. Reagan appointed Holder to the DC Superior Court–and hysteria and wailing has been pronounced. Oh, but he’s bad on the drug war–well shit, there were PLENTY of folks who favored tougher sentences and mandatory minimums, because many of those folks came from communities ravaged by drugs.
And honestly, I’m more concerned about H. Clinton becoming SoS than I am about Gates staying on at DoD. His friend’s son got us into this and he was sent to clean up after Junior’s mess; I say keep him until the job’s done. But if he wants HRC there, fine. There’s something he sees that I don’t, and that’s OK because it’s his decision.
He hasn’t signed the first executive order nor made the first judicial appointment and already he’s a disappointment. WTF?
I’m done trying to make sense of this.
As you’re saying to your interlocutors: Just be patient.
Here’s the thing: I expect there will be something I will disagree with him about. I don’t agree with my hubby 100% of the time, and I LOVE him.
But damn, he just got here. We should all know that things aren’t changing overnight, and there are people with which he will need to deal.
The reaction just seems over-the-top: calling him House Negro and such? Seriously?
The “house negro” slur clearly comes from people who wish to condense their various dissatisfactions into a nifty slur, who lack the imagination to come up with one that actually does the trick, and who lazily settle (as such people will) for a handy stereotype on the assumption that by doing so they will at least cause hurt to the people they’re opposed to since they can’t actually rebut them.
Me, I’m bothered about “Guns at the Border” Napolitano at DHS, who isn’t a Clinton person at all. I agree we should wait a bit to see how it all plays out. But I don’t think that everyone who is disturbed by the announced (albeit unofficial) appointments is just worried about “Clinton cooties” or so ridiculous as to toss out the “H.N.” label here.
H.N. does not stand for “house negro”.
It stands for “house nigger”.
The slur is despicable, unacceptable, and disgusting. Please do not try to soften the slur. Use “nigger” since that is what is meant. “negro” softens the nauseating term.
H.N. does not stand for “house negro”.
It stands for “house nigger”.
if you want to transform “N” to “nigger” – a word used by racists – then by all means take the cyber stage. Unless you’re the Supreme Being, Creator of all things, do not import what was never written.
For decades we’ve use the term house negro to mean token. Nigger is colloquial American with contempt. It’s not a word used among my multi-racial society.
In all kindness, I suggest you dismount and do some research because in 1960s America many used the term “house negro” and still do today. BTW, while we’re interpreting, try Oxford Dictionary: “nigger” is “something that vitiates an apparently good thing”
but you still are using an unacceptable term used by Limbaugh. If you want to use that unacceptable term chosen by our enemies to describe Obama, I strongly suggest that you stop and think, for just a minute, since you are acting and writing like a fucking moron.
Sorry, no excuses exist to call Obama a “house nigger”. And I did not use the term. You did. Stop lying.
ideredit, I’ve only heard the term “House Negro” used by white persons. Black people that I know use the other term that I cannot use but they can. I’m OK with that. I and other members of my ethnic group can use ethnic slurs, but outsiders cannot. It’s the way the world works.
On this topic, I’ve seen a lot of posts accusing people of use H.N. (either version), but haven’t seen anyone actually saying it firsthand.
Interesting take on the notion, from conjectured international point of view.
Real Politics is the art of compromise! This is one fact that most idealistic bloggers fail to understand. Winning the election ONLY get you into the game of national politics. Here is a question. Why is it that Bill Clinton would not open up the books of his foundation when Hillary was being considered for Vice President on the Obama ticket; but he is willing to open these books for his wife’s selection to be the next Secretary of State?
IMHO Bill Clinton is much more interested in having a State Department connection than a VP connection. At this stage of his career, Bill’s political focus is primarily international, so therefore access to the State Department is highly appealing. This also clarifies the reasons behind Hillary’s desire to close the doors of the State Department to any public exposure. She does not want any of Bill’s projects to be uncovered/outed by any dedicated Obama whistle blower.
Further, by insisting that she have a direct line to Barack, Hillary wants to make sure that if any Billary scandal erupts in the State Department, that it will also engulf Obama. Essentially, she wants to remove any layer of protection that would be provided by some buffer staff personnel between her and the President. Obama MUST NOT agree to this!! It is politically dangerous, and if she insists send her packing.
As I said above politics is the art of compromise. In return for Hillary becoming Secretary of State, Bill will muster the critical Congressional support that Barack needs to get his economic programs through Congress. Without Bill Clinton in the picture, Barack will get some emergency legislation passed like the big Stimulus Package in January. But he will not be as successful with the remainder of his legislation without Bill Clinton’s political support behind the scenes. Barack feels so strongly about his program for the American domestic recovery (energy, infrastructure,fixing the housing market), that he is willing to make some extreme political sacrifices in order to get his programs implemented.
Barack must be extremely careful that Billary does not wind up making the State Department a co-executive branch with the Presidency. He must remember that State is still a cabinet post with the Secretary serving at the pleasure of the President and transparency in all operations is a MUST. Anything less than this should reactivate the search for the next Secretary of State for the Obama administration.
Your eyes are wide open.
the Clintons are a very ambitious couple, a heightened ambition that’s hard to subjugate.
like a horror movie that never ends.
ImV (in my view) it’s like building a house: solid foundation, double truss for the roof, reinforced thick walls but one third of the crew has a wrecking ball.
there’s the old adage. you can bring a camel under your tent but there’s no guarantee the camel will do his/her sh*t outside the tent, instead of inside.
And so we may conclude: Hillary at State was Obama’s first mistake. He may make more, but this one is likely to haunt him for years to come.
Obama should read Hitch (h/t Andrew Sullivan)
and anyone in the state department that was a vocal critic of the war would have criticized her, so the only folks that would be left after such a purge would be people who like the war, and her prowar conclusions will not be moderated by the joint chiefs of staff. Why is this worth it?
never was a lefty. Glad as we are that McCain lost, look under the wrapper and see what we actually got instead:
What we did not get: a vice-president promoting global nuclear war as part of God’s Plan.
See: Life is good!
The Coke versus Pepsi primary ensured one thing: we’re all drinking Cola now.
It may all be moot
a repost:
Questionon MSNBC via Ambinder