Cyrena:

“I don’t know if Obama has ever expounded on why the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a stupid war. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him admit that it’s an illegal and immoral action either. At least not directly.”

Actually, he HAS made comments in ALL these regards at various times, though mostly at the beginning of the debacle (he probably felt he needed to “tone down” some of the rhetoric for the campaigns).

Peace.

Re Obama’s appointments, I’m not certain whether this counts as “actively anti-war,” but it looks like Shinseki will be Sec’y of Veterans Affairs.  If you remember, Shinseki was “forced out” of the Pentagon after he disagreed with Rumsfeld on how many troops would be needed going in to Iraq: Shinseki was the one who said “many hundreds of thousands,” while Rummy thought it could be done on the cheap.  At least Shinseki was prescient about the damn war.

~~~

Yes Maani! I DO remember Shinseki, (there have been so many like him)so this too, is a good choice. I don’t know that he counts as part of the anti-war crowd that I was thinking of, and overall, I wouldn’t really think of any military person at his level to be ‘anti-war’, since militaries are organized and maintained for that ugly purpose. (Somebody has to do it)

But this is definitely in line with Obama’s pragmatism about stupid wars. I don’t know if Obama has ever expounded on why the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a stupid war. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him admit that it’s an illegal and immoral action either. At least not directly. I guess it goes without saying that even my toned-down rhetoric is still hyperbole compared to Obama’s no-drama creed.

Doesn’t matter though. We know he’s not just talking for the hell of it. He means what he says, whether we like it all or not.

Anyway, Shinseki is a good choice. These choices don’t need to be ‘bipartisan’ they need to be NONpartisan/apolitical. Now wouldn’t THAT be refreshing?!

Cyrena:

Re Obama’s appointments, I’m not certain whether this counts as “actively anti-war,” but it looks like Shinseki will be Sec’y of Veterans Affairs.  If you remember, Shinseki was “forced out” of the Pentagon after he disagreed with Rumsfeld on how many troops would be needed going in to Iraq: Shinseki was the one who said “many hundreds of thousands,” while Rummy thought it could be done on the cheap.  At least Shinseki was prescient about the damn war.

Peace.

1 of 2
By Blueboy1938, December 5 at 9:56 am

•  “One plus in the selection by President Elect Obama of Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is that her fingerprints will be nowhere on his healthcare proposal.”

Excellent observation Blueboy1938!! That IS one plus. If memory serves me, I think I read that Tom Daschle was being tapped for that position. That would be OK. Would others be better? I dunno.
I do have a twinge of a concern about his so far failure to appoint anyone from the actively anti-war crowd, but there are a few batches of them. For instance, I think he could have (and I know the process is on-going) used Dennis Kucinich at one of these positions. I would have liked to see Barney Frank in his cabinet as well. But hey, we can’t possibly know every detail of every selection or consideration, including the fact that lots of the folks I might like to see involved, don’t necessarily *want * to leave what they are already doing.

Meantime, there are ‘sub-groups’ even within the anti-war movement, making it tricky to even pull from that general group, since not all of them are ‘progressives’. They tend to overlap in some areas like anti-imperialism and support for stronger international institutions, but there are the isolationists who are anti-war and pretty much anti-social as well. (like the Ron Paulies). It can’t be easy to weed through these choices.

It would be equally difficult to pluck unheard of lay people out of the masses, and plug them into these positions smoothly and efficiently, even if they would ultimately be the best choices. (I guess you can tell that I have an enormous respect for the intelligence of a substantial portion of our citizenry.) Besides, even if that was doable, the naysayers would be yelping about that even more, and in many cases legitimately so. I mean, I nearly had a stroke when McCain selected Palin to be his running mate. What a cynical f-u slap in the face THAT was to the intelligent American people of all persuasions.

That’s NOT to say that this eventual ‘conversion’ cannot or will not be accomplished; the replacement of the entire apparatus with much newer models of progressive ideologies. Part of that is a given. People get old and die. That’s how we’ve come this far, though even that is relative. Still, my point is that I don’t see the appointment of a relatively small collection of already established bureaucrats to be some huge impediment to the overall progressive agenda.

In fact, I think that these selections are utilitarian and pragmatic, though I wouldn’t deny the ONE comment by kloe that there is some degree of political payback involved in anything to do with the Clinton’s.  If that was at least in part his reasons for selecting her; so it goes in politics. (we can change the WAY we breathe, but breathing or not isn’t an option. So it goes with politics). Be that as it may, my interpretation is that there is a specific point to each and every selection Obama has made to his developing administration, based on HIS agenda!

So his agenda obviously must include, (for what’s required in carrying it out) at least SOME people who know the ropes, where the bodies are buried, and how to work the coffee pot. What could be more disastrous for any operation than to have ONLY rookies or know-nothings in charge? Well, we’ve had an on-going example of that sort of disaster!! Look at what the current thugs have done to the Justice Department. All of those political appointments to products of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, located at the bottom of the accreditation ranks for education in the legal sector.  Consider the former disgraced AG, and the current one who is just as morally corrupt, even though he does at least know something about the law, to which Gonzo was totally clueless, having NEVER tried a case before any bar in the land!

2 of 2

Anyway, you get my point. Anybody who has ever attempted to run a business, or any other type of operation as an administrator, knows how important it is for at least a portion of the work force to be experienced in the workings of the system. There was a time when the majority of the population accepted this as completely normal…standards of abilities, talents, skills, and experience. In any large (and successful) operation—- or at least one that plans to continue operations indefinitely – there should always be people in training or apprenticeship of sorts, if only because of attrition and similar phenomena. But one CANNOT run a successful operation with ONLY new people, when it means that NOBODY knows what the hell they’re doing!! What an administrative nightmare, to witness the whole operation going down the proverbial tubes.

The Dick Bush Regime is a perfect example of the resultant destruction when nobody knows what the hell is going on, or what they’re doing, and the right hand never knows what the left is up to. So it’s destroyed the government apparatus as well.  That the destruction was intended should be noted as well.

If the current disaster wasn’t already in motion and already hurtling us to oblivion, President-elect Obama might have more time to tweak or otherwise fine-tune his team. I’m sure he’ll continue to do that along the way, but they don’t have a lot of time for that right now, since they need to be in OPERATIVE, hit-the-ground- running mode from the first nanosecond. In other words, one of the few things Hillary may have been right about, is that this isn’t really time for on-the-job training.

Hopefully, when things settle a bit, there will be time. Obama has run a tight ship, and there’s no denying that his campaign was a highly effective and well-oiled operation. So far, there’s been no reason to believe that he doesn’t plan to do exactly what he’s been saying for the past 2 years.

I won’t deny the reality of P.T.’s comment here:

•  “..The worry is that Hillary will want to drop bombs on the world’s women—and men.  Hillary is a cluster bomb liberal.  Anti-imperialists are going to have their work cut out for them…”

I’m NOT worried about what Hillary ‘wants’ to do, because whether she ‘wants’ to drop bombs on people or not isn’t relevant, since she’s clearly NOT the President-elect. (I thought that was already established).  If the US drops cluster bombs on innocent men, women, and children after January 20th, 2009, that will be on Obama, not Hillary Clinton. And, I don’t expect him to have that same fondness for cluster bombing as you’ve attached to her.

Anti-Imperialists however, DO have their work cut out for them, if only in so far as maintaining a voice and a presence that cannot be ignored. I think most of us already know that. Anti-Imperialists have already added to their ranks at the grass roots levels, and that’s where it should happen, because a strong foundation is required to keep anything standing and operating.  When and where the terrain is shaky, (unlike Peter’s Rock, and more like the environs here in my native California, where we’re sort of always just waiting for ‘the big one’) it’s a good idea to have specialty footwear and other navigational tools.

I think we anti-Imperialists will do just fine, since Obama is open for ideas and recommendations.

Kloe:

No, what is REALLY stunning is that you claim to know what goes on in Hillary’s mind, heart and spirit!  Thus, it is your presumption and arrogance that are stunning.

Peace.

Arius,

What is really stunning is that you actually believe Hilary has done something, anything, that was sincerely pursued in the interest of serving people and not for the purpose of pandering to whatever position will keep her safely in power politically or financially enriching herself and the cad she props up as her “husband”.

It is stunning the IGNORANCE by commenters and writers alike about Hillary Clinton. 

The endless life long love of hating her, when in fact, none of you truly know the woman, her life, her history, except for the BS you read from other haters (aka the standard unqualified unprofessional press).

it is truly stunning-  100% of you cannot name the things this woman took on from the time she left high school.  You don’t really care. You just choose to hate her and join the bandwagon of BS.

Truly, truly, stunning.

Steve E, Folktruther, P.T., Conservative Yankee and definitely prole, you could not have said it more succinctly!  Hilary is going to change her pandering, self-indulgent, power grabbing, say and do anything to remain in powerful positions in order to enrich herself and Bill and their friends ways - get real and stop trying to shovel this drivel down our throats. 

Do columunists like Ellen Goodman and the rest of the Clinton and Obama apoligists really believe their own claptrap and hubris?  We’ve all seen several articles by various columnists attempting to whitewash Obama’s right of center Democratic hawks.  Do they really think people are buying into Obama’s staff of rivals when in reality he is paying back the political debt of getting the Presidential spot.  That any of these cabinet choices would suddenly change their spots or re-compose and improvise themselves into entirely different types of policy makers because Obama is at the helm is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.  The entire supposition and insistence by Obama and Clinton apologists that their team will be better than the neoconservative crowd is equivalent to the rabid right-wing nuts that listen to and approve of the message that carnival barkers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spew forth over the airwaves to masses of seemingly stupid people who wish to remain total ignoramuses.  The RepubliCrats have suckered a lot of people once again and those who support them can put all the lipstick they want on these pigs but well you know the rest….

Humm…this gives me a measure of hope. Seriously. I can actually buy into this new version of Hillary, which in many respects, isn’t new at all. Nobody, (including me) has ever accused her of not being a staunch advocate for Womens’ Rights since back in her First Lady days. She was. She didn’t really screw that up until the campaign, because of all the rhetoric and whining about being mistreated because she was a woman. THAT wasn’t the reason.

In short, folks weren’t ragging on Hillary because she was a female, but because she was acting like the proverbial dirty politician and establishment royalty at the same time. That doesn’t take away from her longstanding advocacy for women.

So, this must be at least one place where she can readily carry out Obama’s agenda.

Here’s an excellent piece from Marjorie Cohen on Obama’s call for US ratification of CEDAW. He too has been a strong advocate for women’s rights on the international and domestic level. It was work his own mother did in her career.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COH20081205&articleId=11301

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but…

Another establishment Progressive whitewashing conservative appointments.  the clinton appointment is one only Zionists like Maani can approve.

What a bunch of cynics!  I almost salivate at the prospect that Hillary will prove ALL of you SO wrong about her and her abilities.  Only time will tell, of course.  But I’m betting that you will all be eating an enormous amount of crow within a year.

Peace.

One plus in the selection by President Elect Obama of Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is that her fingerprints will be nowhere on his healthcare proposal.

Zionist expansionist William Kristol has said he looks forward to working with Hillary.

“If Rush, who had famously said America wasn’t ready to see Clinton age in the Oval Office, was ready to see her age at Foggy Bottom, what was I missing?” In a word, plenty! It’s not so surprising that a rabid jingoist like Limbaugh should think it so “brilliant”. He and Hillary share similar class interests, they’re both conniving, self-promoting egotists and they both are imperialist hawks… the list goes on. Obama may be showing his customary cunning by wanting to keep a venomous rival like Clinton, ‘pissing out of the tent, rather than pissing into the tent’. Limbaugh’s praise may also be of a more personal kind; not only acknowledging the similarity of their odious personal traits but worse still, the similarity of their inimical ideological views. They were both after all, avid supporters of Barry Goldwater in their idealistic student days. In a nutshell, it illustrates what’s all wrong with the American political system. A reactionary crank like Limbaugh can be portrayed as an abrasive but nonetheless respectable conservative voice in America.  A ruthless right-of-center opportunist like Hillary can then be painted as a ‘liberal’ or even on the ‘left’ – thereby pushing the American political spectrum so far to the right that any real left vision, or candidate is dismissed out-of-hand.  Even National Review is cautiously optimistic about Hillary, or at least “parts” of her. “So it went with much of the analysis before and after Clinton was chosen for the premier Cabinet post”. The political “story line” was about personal rivalry – not about imperial politics. “The psychological story line” was about personality – not about imperial politics. And the ‘progressive’ story line is about gender – not about imperial politics. “Narratives” that can take a manipulative mandarin like Hillary and turn her into a champion of the wretched of the earth. Instead of struggling against the tentacles of American power they should wait for another flowery speech at a feel-good conference about noblesse oblige from this new Machiavellian Sec. of State.  “One of the lifelong commitments she will bring to her new role is to improve the rights and everyday lives of the world’s women. These issues will not be the “women’s page” in her portfolio, but integral to the way she views the world and, perhaps, to the way America can exercise its power.”  Like the way she improved the lives of so many Iraqi women for instance. Not only was this female Dr.Strangelove an avid supporter of Bush’s latest ‘shock and awe’ invasion but she was complicit with her nominal husband in one of the worst crimes of the century, the genocidal sanctions regime against Iraq in the 90’s which was killing an estimated 5,000 Iraqis a month, most of them children. Hillary’s idea in practice, no doubt, of keeping “women and children free from violence” and allowing families to “flourish”. But that’s not the only “integral” example of “the way she views the world and, perhaps, [of] the way America can exercise its power.” She’s also been one of the biggest AIPAC goons in the Senate (and long before that). All those Palestinian families “flourishing” in Gaza (and West Bank, Lebanon, etc.) owe her a big thank you (along with Ellen Goodman, another big Israel booster). “Part of a life? Or a whole life composed and recomposed?” Well, snot-nosed Hillary has always lived a life “composed” of extreme privilege - like most of her supporters – and those are the only “American values” she’s ever shown any interest in defending. “Hillary regarded Eleanor Roosevelt as a role model. Mrs. Roosevelt’s second or third or perhaps fourth act was to get the world to agree to the first Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was adopted exactly 60 years ago this month. Now it’s Hillary Clinton’s improvisational turn”... to trash it!

Ellen Goodman writes of Hillary Clinton that “one of the lifelong commitments she will bring to her new role is to improve the rights and everyday lives of the world’s women.”

The worry is that Hillary will want to drop bombs on the world’s women—and men.  Hillary is a cluster bomb liberal.  Anti-imperialists are going to have their work cut out for them.