Tweet
I am suprise that Obama has not appointed Gov. Bill Richardson a top cabinet position yet. I really hope to see people of all racial group in top key positions because they all when over board for Obama.
-
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
Given the deep crises faced by the country on different fronts, the over-arching consideration should be merit. The thing is: in Richardson, there is a convergence of merit and racial diversity. Only a pity he was passed over for Secretary of State, if the media is to be believed, by someone who doesn't share the president-elect's worldview on the use of American power. In terms of qualification and experience, Richardson towers above the junior senator from NY. It seems the president-elect got steam-rolled by some powerful interests. Or was the 'change' thing just a political ploy?
Anyway, it seems he might be offered Secretary of Commerce, another plum position. -
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given the deep crises faced by the country on different fronts, the over-arching consideration should be merit. The thing is: in Richardson, there is a convergence of merit and racial diversity. Only a pity he was passed over for Secretary of State, if the media is to be believed, by someone who doesn't share the president-elect's worldview on the use of American power. In terms of qualification and experience, Richardson towers above the junior senator from NY. It seems the president-elect got steam-rolled by some powerful interests. Or was the 'change' thing just a political ploy?
Anyway, it seems he might be offered Secretary of Commerce, another plum position. </div></div>I think Senator Clinton is right for the job. There are many jobs around Governor Richardson will get a position. Change also means a change of attitude in dealing with those who you have had differences with in the past. Look at how Bush and Co ran the Country like Nixon, with Hit List + Hit Lists?
Senator Clinton campaigned on his behalf, if change meant avoiding the members of your own Party whom you defeated in a competition for the Nomination then the Clintons and her backers should have been barred from campaigning on his behalf.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
And there are a lot of jobs around for Senator Clinton ..
If Obama offers her the Secretary of State job ..
He is taking a big risk ..
She may go rouge on him ..
She does have a hawkish mentality ..Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sinco01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And there are a lot of jobs around for Senator Clinton ..
If Obama offers her the Secretary of State job ..
He is taking a big risk ..
She may go rouge on him ..
She does have a hawkish mentality .. </div></div>
She's likely to behave modulo a bit of attention whoring. Secretary of State is an appointed position that serves at the pleasure of the president, so if she ever goes rogue he can dismiss her as he pleases, and then she won't even have a senate seat to fall back on.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heretic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sinco01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And there are a lot of jobs around for Senator Clinton ..
If Obama offers her the Secretary of State job ..
He is taking a big risk ..
She may go rouge on him ..
She does have a hawkish mentality .. </div></div>
She's likely to behave modulo a bit of attention whoring. Secretary of State is an appointed position that serves at the pleasure of the president, so if she ever goes rogue he can dismiss her as he pleases, and then she won't even have a senate seat to fall back on.
</div></div>I have said <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">almost, exactly</span> the same thing before. Not only that it is brilliant strategy because Hills Presidential Ambitions are over. The Dems typically do not run rethreads and if she takes the SOS position is very difficult to maintain a Campaign from that position.
If she is successful <span style="font-style: italic">(and I know she will)</span>,her after career will look like Bill's, multi-million Speaking Fees all over the world or she might go to the Supreme Court.
I think most of us have a tendency to fight the last war, the war between Barack and Hillary is over time to MoveOn.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Clinton campaigned on his behalf, if change meant avoiding the members of your own Party whom you defeated in a competition for the Nomination then the Clintons and her backers should have been barred from campaigning on his behalf.</div></div>
True. But the argument against her being SoS is not - in my view - based on past rivalry. It was in her interest to campaign for him and to be seen as doing everything possible to ensure his victory. She had no choice, if she still held ambitions for 2012 - assuming he had lost. But the arguments against her are substantial.
She holds a hawkish, war-mongering (almost neo-con) view of the use of Amerian power in the world. Dominance, empire, 'American exceptionalism' constitute (based on her campaign rhetoric and ideas of her foreign policy advisors) defining principles of a Hillary Clinton foreign policy. This is the opposite of Obama's position - based on mutual respect and international cooperation. She said that Obama was dangerously inexperienced to handle American foreign policy and national security.
On one of the most pressing international issues of our time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm rather pessimistic. This is one of the best times in a long time for some progress on resolving that conflict. Outgoing PM Ehud Olmert has made some significant overtures, and Livni, most likely the next PM, has indicated making signicant concessions. Abbas is the best they can work with on the Palestinian side. There is an opening. Will Clinton seize it, or will she tow the right-wing Likud Party line, consistent with the most rabid pro-Israeli zealots in America and Israel and blow the opportunity. Given her past stances, I am not very hopeful. Go on youtube and find her address to AIPAC ealier this year where she pandered to her anti-peace backers, and compared it to Obama's whose position was more nuanced.
Senator Clinton described Obama's decision to sit down with America's 'enemies' as "naive and dangerous." She ridiculed this idea. And she said she would "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel (of course, Israel is more likely to attack Iran than the other way around). Clinton should have been santioned in the Senate for such a genocidal remark. That's no was to restore America's image in the world. And don't forget that she voted for the Iraq war authorization while not reading the national intelligence estimate (which 22 of her senate colleages read and came to a different conclusion, and who were proven right). Clinton has never apologized for that vote. See, Clinton was thinking about 2008, and how she would have been seen as having the <span style="text-decoration: line-through">balls</span> testicular fortitude to stand up to terrorists. In a cruel irony, that vote would come back to knock her in her cojones, and would help give rise to a relatively unknown state senator from Illinois. To be fair, Biden did vote for the war, but he apologised soon thereafter.
Putting her at State assumes that she will abandoned her hawkish ways and be a team player. I actually don't think she will. With her bringing in all her people at State, she would be running a foreign policy of her own. What you will find is that the progressive voices on US foreign policy will be left out - people like Suzan Rice and Samantha Powers (remember her?).
Is she the most qualified person to be SoS? I don't think so. What academic and foreign policy experience does she have? She wasn't even a member of the presitigious Senate Foreign relations committee. Both Obama and Biden were (Biden being chairman, of course).Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She's likely to behave modulo a bit of attention whoring. Secretary of State is an appointed position that serves at the pleasure of the president, so if she ever goes rogue he can dismiss her as he pleases, and then she won't even have a senate seat to fall back on.</div></div>
Do you think that he can actually fire Clinton even if she goes rogue? I seriously don't think so. And can you afford to hire someone you can't fire?Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senator Clinton campaigned on his behalf, if change meant avoiding the members of your own Party whom you defeated in a competition for the Nomination then the Clintons and her backers should have been barred from campaigning on his behalf.</div></div>
True. But the argument against her being SoS is not - in my view - based on past rivalry. It was in her interest to campaign for him and to be seen as doing everything possible to ensure his victory. She had no choice, if she still held ambitions for 2012 - assuming he had lost. But the arguments against her are substantial.
She holds a hawkish, war-mongering (almost neo-con) view of the use of Amerian power in the world. Dominance, empire, 'American exceptionalism' constitute (based on her campaign rhetoric and ideas of her foreign policy advisors) defining principles of a Hillary Clinton foreign policy. This is the opposite of Obama's position - based on mutual respect and international cooperation. She said that Obama was dangerously inexperienced to handle American foreign policy and national security.</div></div>
Except for the Hawkish Part Barack holds a similarly NeoCon view of the world. Remember true Conservatives hold that the USA should leave the world to its own devices. NeoCons think the USA should go out a spread it Democracy while grabbing bounty. Except for the grabbing bounty part Barack thinks that the USA should spread Democracy. That is a very dangerous view. In any case she will be carrying Barack's Foreign Policy and not her own.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Is she the most qualified person to be SoS? I don't think so. What academic and foreign policy experience does she have? She wasn't even a member of the presitigious Senate Foreign relations committee. Both Obama and Biden were (Biden being chairman, of course). </div></div>She is not the most but she is qualified based on the fact that right now the USA needs a SuperStar to carry it message and repair its image around the world. She is a known brand, she was a highly qualified lawyer and she has traveled to a lot of the countries the USA wants to get back in good graces with.
....and yes she can be fired!Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have said <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">almost, exactly</span> the same thing before. Not only that it is brilliant strategy because Hills Presidential Ambitions are over. The Dems typically do not run rethreads and if she takes the SOS position is very difficult to maintain a Campaign from that position. </div></div>
So you're saying that this is a cynical ploy by Obama to placate his former rival, and neutralize, even render impossible, any challenge in 2012? Now I know Obama is no saint, (he is a Chicagoan) and I for don't put him on a pedestal, but if this this true, what does this say about Obama, and how he will govern? Will he put politics above principle? That's how Bush governed. That wouldn't be very high-minded of Obama. Sounds rather machiavellian to me.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you're saying that this is a cynical ploy by Obama to placate his former rival, and neutralize, even render impossible, any challenge in 2012? Now I know Obama is no saint, (he is a Chicagoan) and I for don't put him on a pedestal, but if this this true, what does this say about Obama, and how he will govern? Will he put politics above principle? That's how Bush governed. That would be very high-minded of Obama. Sound rather machiavellian to me. </div></div>That not the only thing I said, but it would be a foolish leader not to consider the material implications of having a rival here or there. There is nothing wrong with making a politically astute move there is everything wrong with the Permanent Campaign which was Nixon and Bush engaged in....Barack has signaled that this is over....<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Time to MoveOn</span>!Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for the Hawkish Part Barack holds a similarly NeoCon view of the world. Remember true Conservatives hold that the USA should leave the world to its own devices. NeoCons think the USA should go out a spread it Democracy while grabbing bounty. Except for the grabbing bounty part Barack thinks that the USA should spread Democracy. That is a very dangerous view. In any case she will be carrying Barack's Foreign Policy and not her own.
</div></div>
I dont' think Obama thinks democracy should be spread through the barrel of a gun.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except for the Hawkish Part Barack holds a similarly NeoCon view of the world. Remember true Conservatives hold that the USA should leave the world to its own devices. NeoCons think the USA should go out a spread it Democracy while grabbing bounty. Except for the grabbing bounty part Barack thinks that the USA should spread Democracy. That is a very dangerous view. In any case she will be carrying Barack's Foreign Policy and not her own.
</div></div>
I dont' think Obama thinks democracy should be spread through the barrel of a gun. </div></div>....No but he did say he would bomb Al Qaeda in Pakistan on credible evidence.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That not the only thing I said, but it would be a foolish leader not to consider the material implications of having a rival here or there. There is nothing wrong with making a politically astute move there is everything wrong with the Permanent Campaign which was Nixon and Bush engaged in....Barack has signaled that this is over....<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Time to MoveOn</span>! </div></div>
I don't think it is fair to characterize all opposition to Clinton for SoS as settling scores. There are substantial arguments against her there.
James Baker, one of the most effective SoS ever (regardless of whether you agree with him or not) said on Meet the Press this morning that a key to effective diplomacy is a "seemless" relationship between the Prez and the SoS. World leaders can see when a SoS and a Prez are at odds.
My point is that the "team of rivals" paradigm may not be the best for SoS. Obama is reportedly obsessed with the book of the same name by the historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, regarding Lincoln's cabinet. But as Obama will note, the circumstances of the current world, and the degree of complexities of the departments each cabinet member will head, are far different from what existed in the 1860s. Is he taking this "team of rivals" thing too far? We will see.Comment
-
Re: Gov. Bill Richardson and Obama
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think it is fair to characterize all opposition to Clinton for SoS as settling scores. There are substantial arguments against her there.
James Baker, one of the most effective SoS ever (regardless of whether you agree with him or not) said on Meet the Press this morning that a key to effective diplomacy is a "seemless" relationship between the Prez and the SoS. World leaders can see when a SoS and a Prez are at odds.</div></div>
Irrational projection. Hillary and Barack are not at odds now. That was over when she conceded.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point is that the "team of rivals" paradigm may not be the best for SoS. Obama is reportedly obsessed with the book of the same name by the historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, regarding Lincoln's cabinet. But as Obama will note, the circumstances of the current world, and the degree of complexities of the departments each cabinet member will head, are far different from what existed in the 1860s. Is he taking this "team of rivals" thing too far? We will see. </div></div>
Worse the coutry was split in two and was about to enter into a bloody Civil War.Comment
Comment