Alejandro—Rest your case? You havent made one!

“We cannot impose our values on them…middle east?” Well, that is curious, especially from someone who I assume is supporting an administration who still supports the “war on terror”. Maybe we should just GTF out altogether! Suits me fine…

I dont really give a daamn whether anyone else in the world will “respect a female”—and you shouldnt either. What if a country said they would not respect a man of African heritage? Should we not allow Obama to take the reins of govt, because of what “they” think?

There are plenty of female PMs, Chancellors, etc, in the world. If you dont like Clinton, give some reasons besides her sex. Otherwise , you just look like a machismo b-s-er!

“Condi Rice was a failure because she was a woman”?! What a crock! She is an intelligent, yet ineffective, human being. Whether Hillary Clinton will be better (well, she WILL be better—but who knows by how much)than Rice or not, is a decision Obama has made. If you wish to criticize—why not go to change.gov and complain to him, instead of checking out posts like “DocReality"s up there which accuses Clinton of killing people with voodoo!

US needs to move FORWARD on these gender issues—not back!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

ApprxAm—Problem number one:If you “dont trust them Clintons”, then why would you vote for a Democrat? Do you really think Obama is only appointing her, to “pay off her campaign debt” (How would that work? The Clintons have plenty of money—so do all the Dems—including PE Obama)Time to roll the rationalizations…

This rage at Hillary Clinton (vs Obama whose decision it was to make—cmon!!)seems ill-placed…maybe I would believe it had nothing to do with Clinton , or her gender, if you could refrain from calling her CHICK.

Just take it as an indication of who PE Obama truly is , politically

Hillary is NOT Palin—but she is no better nor worse than PE Obama. Sorry, haters..you know, you should really be telling PE Obama about this…

You know, change.gov?

This Clinton pick is going to bite Obama in the ASS!  The only question left is “which Clinton is more dangerous?”  I can see this CHICK going “Palin” in a about 19-20 months, forcing him to have to defend his administration from within.

The DLC will do to him what they wouldn’t do to the Cheney/Rove Admin. I’d rather them pay off Sen. Clinton’s campaign debt, then to allow her to screw up our need to deal with the rest of the world. I don’t trust those Clintons.

beerdr.—-“turn and face the change, ch-ch-ch-changes…”.

Let the rationalizing begin…

re: KDelphi

Since this thread is about Obama appointments, I would like to provide this link to Jim Cramer’s rant about Obama’s just named Treasury Secretary.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27596615

Arius—Yep. I cant watch then anymore. Not the Clinton bashing so much, as the bullshit Entertianment Tonight” newsstyle. But, there female bashing is becoming legendary.

So, Verizon is spying on Obama? Were they in on that “pardon” he and teh Dems signed for the telecoms?

Bummer…..

This has been a done deal for days. The media, the blogs have been playing havoc with readers, followers for pure enjoyment, ratings, and profit.

Now the revolting MSNBC can spend (more) 24/7 days regurgitating their hate for all things Clinton related.

re:dihey

Please excuse my misquote, what she did say was: “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/dems.election/

Doug Paul—If I am not mistaken, the succession goes, President—VP—Speaker of the House—Pres. of the Senate—Sec of State..

Who the hell cares? The world burns and we fuss over faces.

to:thebeerdoctor

I am not a Hillary fan but I must protest your statement “we will obliterate them” which Hillary did not make.
She said that the Iranians understand that they can be obliterated if they attack another country with nuclear weapons. Saber rattling for sure but also true. How is that different from Obama’s “everything is still on the table” which obviously includes a nuclear attack on Iran?
Perhaps there is little or no difference on Iran between Obama and Clinton? Or on Iraq? Or on Russia? Or on China? Or on The European Union? Or on Cuba? Or on Venezuela? Perhaps that is why he chose her instead of Richardson who wants to get out of Iraq much faster than Obama.

From PE Obama’s AIPAC speech, in June of 2008:

”...This effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to Israel, our strongfest ally in the region and its only established democracy. This has been my starting point and will always be my staring point.And when we see all the growing threats in the region, from Iran to Iraq, to resurgents of Al Qaeda, to the reinvigoration of Hamas, and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.”...

Please explain to me how you thought it was different.

PurpleGirl—You NOW hate the Clintons as much as the neo-cons? From previous posts, it seems that you have for quite awhile. I , for one, was under no delusions about Obama—so I am not disppointesd, nor surprised. I belive that you are also mistaken as to what a “Real Dem” is. The DLC ARE the “Real Dems” and Obama is one.He ran as a Democrat. Hillary Clinton is no better nor worse than most of the rest of them.

Edwards was alot more “liberal”
than Obanma (and of course, Kucincih). The Dems do not want them. They want neo-liberalism and conservatives seem to want neo-conservatism.

Ranting further on Hillary Clinton seems a little misplaced. I sincerely doubt that she did anything to force Obama;s hand—-how about placing blame where it is due? Obama is trying to appeal to the more “conservative” wing of the Dems—teh DLC.

I see PE Obama as just as conservative as those he is appointing. Otherwise, he woudl not appoint them.

Alas, my fellow Truthdiggers, the gig is up. Hats off to the “we will obliterate them” lady, who soon will represent U.S. foreign policy… the sisterhood of the traveling pants suit continues unabated. The Clinton crime family always gets their piece of the action.
But here is a question for President-elect Barry: You say you were against the Iraq war, but are you against the occupation? Come on now BHO, are you really going to abandon those army base cities built over there, complete with bowling alleys and Burger Kings? John McCain was not speaking out of turn when he said that we could be in Iraq for a hundred years.
If Obama is successful, he will talk about how he reduced the number of troops there. But we are not going anywhere, the logistics alone point to this fact.
http://www.alternet.org/story/107992/

I’m already tired of Obama’s self-conscious posturing for a Place in History as Lincoln 2.0—especially since he’s so diligently laid the foundation for becoming Clinton 2.0:  all of the hearty, robust neo-liberal, exceptionalist, militaristic taste, but none of the filling, fattening lechery.

Same Shit, different colors (Two disguises for Corporationists to use to undermine the Economic power of US)
The Neo Cons played the ‘Moral majority’ to elimiate their competition within the Republican party.
The Clintons used the Desperate Dems to get their foot into the Democratic party…Their ‘cliche’ is called the DLC. Ever wonder why some Dems call them ‘Reagan Democrats’, Ever wonder why some Dems have rolled over so easily for this Admin…and have even been extremely helpful..Feinstien, Shummer? Ever wonder Why LIEberman has been given a ‘pass’ since he went ‘independent’...He’s a DLC’er too.
Do you wonder why it was so hard to ‘seal the Deal’ for Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Hillary with the Dem Base? We could smell the Corp Whore Stench a mile away. We voted but had to hold our noses.
What Real Dem would have built such a convenient Bridge to span the time between Reagan & HW and the Next Puppet W? Let’s not foget to give a hand to Bill & Hill for conceding on every Corp interest legislation which crossed his desk…We might as well call those Crumps leading W’s (Cheney’s) Way.
In fact Hindsight indicates HillyBilly have been operatives for CheneyCorp the entire time. Hell of a stratedgy DICK..Work both sides against the middle. Only fools give Turd the credit for this diabloic scheme (he was popping zits when the first edition was published…Clintons apparently have an autographed copy too)
Having Voted for that SOB Twice and been forced to keep up with them for 8 yrs trying to defend them, I’ve been watching them for nearly 2 decades. Hillary’s Senate ‘work’ and her disgraceful Campaign wa the last piece of evidential Crap I need to confirm my suspecions ( Yes I was in Denial for far too long. apologies to all those I Debated in the ‘90’s, YOU were Right…Self Servicing Opportunist)
I Now Hate the Clintons as much as I do the Neo Cons…Go Away!

As Obama continues to appoint former Clintonites to his administration, its becoming painfully obvious that the same pattern of musical chairs will continue.  For everyone who foolishly believed the Democrats were going to really “change” their own dismal past performance as well as somehow be different than their Republican cohorts, here is the proof that this political duopoly will just continue business as usual in order to keep themselves and the corporate elite they work for in power.  In another four or eight years it will simply swing back to a newly reinvented Republican party who also will promise “change” and new direction.  Once elected back into the majority, they too will simply bring back former Bush administration officials and the revolving door pattern from public government to private corporate lobbyists that so many of these politicial/corporate elite enjoy will continue its sickly cycle.  When will the voters learn not to be suckered by the RepubliCrats and get on with demanding real competition and exposure (viable third, fourth and fifth party candidates) from the media conglomerates who fawn over both of these dysfunctional parties and continue to feed us the same old drivel that is just repackaged in slick new public relations campaigns every election cycle.

I think it is interesting to consider this as a choice Hillary has to make between Edward Kennedy and Barack Obama.  Kennedy wants her to take over from him in leading the Senate towards health care reform legislation;  and I see this as connoting her assuming Kennedy’s mantle as “lion of the Senate.”  Obama wants her to shift her attention from the national to the global front.  Personally, I would have preferred her to go with Kennedy for a variety of reasons (one of which is that, since she experienced failure in her previous push for health care reform, she has a better crack at getting it right this time).  There are many good candidates from both parties who could restore the priorities of statecraft to the State Department;  but, if the Senate is going to need a new lion, it is hard to think of a choice better than Hillary.

Wait a minute.  Isn’t this the same Hillary Clinton who showed “very poor judgement”, according to Obama, in voting for the war in Iraq?  Why would he want someone with a lack of good judgement for that job?

There was a good op-ed piece in yesterday’s ny times by historian Stephen Oakes about all the misconceptions concerning Lincoln’s so-called “team of rivals”.  Obama could be setting himself up for disaster.  He is apparently being infulenced by Doris Goodwin’s book on Lincoln by that title.

Bubba says Barry can tap her all he wants, he doesn’t care.

Face it.
Grassroots pressure is futile.

Time to digest this turkey.