@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
I'm just surprised that more Obama *Change* voters aren't upset about this....or maybe they are but they're just keeping quiet about it.
Some are. Most are not. What a lot of people don't understand is that "change" doesn't mean a drastic change in ideology. As Cyclo said, it is more to do with competence and a willingness to find solutions to solve problems regardless of partisan differences in ideology.
Rereading his 2004 convention speech will help you better understand his choices. I never expected his administration to be filled with far left wing progressives. It pleases me a great deal that the wings of both parties are not ecstatic about every staff choice he's made.
My own beef with Hillary had little to do with her. My beef is with her husband and that's why I did not campaign or vote for another opportunity for him to be in the White House. She'd do herself an enormous favor if she were to dump his arse. Her competence in this SoS job just might give her the confidence to do so. The day that happens, I'll be one of the first in line to campaign for her as the next president after Obama's two terms.
Here are some quotes from various group discussion emails I've been receiving today from fellow Obama supporters debating the pros and cons of Obama's choices.
Quote:You can think of it as the smartest way there is to use the Clintons, who have international cred and influence to spare.
You can think of it as sending them both overseas, where not only are the general populations less offended by Bill's indiscretions, but they also have less influence over domestic policy making.
Or you can think of it as a sign Obama himself will be more closely involved with the State Department than, say, the Defense Department, as posited in the Op-Ed linked below, which suggests contrasting a sort of hands-off endorsement of Defense by retaining Gates in comparison to the Clinton appointment. His own vision will shape State's operations and negotiations, his preference for diplomacy is manifest in this decision, since obviously he cannot and will not simply turn a rival loose in such a crucial position. They spent a LOT of time working this out, and it suits the President-elect, who deserves credit for shrewd thinking.
I think it's a win-win.
Quote:Were you expecting Oprah or John Stewart as Sec. State? The other 2 real candidates were Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. I like John Kerry a great deal and have been one of the Clinton's biggest detractors but I have to admit I think Hillary is both the most competent choice and the person who can bring the most to the table in terms of her and Bill's prestige with people in other countries. Obama and Hillary's main differences over foreign policy have been who would bring the Iraq War to a close faster.
...
Our biggest problems are all inner connected and Obama needs the most competent people working together to make it all work. I think Hillary and Bill realize this. Our national security is based on achieving energy independence. (Personally, I think our next head of DOE is going to be more important in terms of foreign policy than Sec. of State. in the long run) We can't achieve energy independence (or clean and cool our environment) without creating new green-collar jobs to do the work. We can't create and keep new jobs in the US without dramatically lowering health care costs. We can't fix our economy without creating new jobs. We need to figure out how to leverage each of these issues to fix them all.
Quote:To me, the real question of trust isn't about either of the Clintons. It's about Obama. Does anyone think he walked into this blind? Does anyone think he hasn't considered the potential negatives? Do we not trust him to take the appropriate precautions with all of his appointments?
Are we suggesting that one or both of the Clintons are superior in some way to Obama? If that were true, he wouldn't have been elected.
Barack Obama is the smartest person in the room. He is neither blind, unaware, nor impulsive.
While I don't always agree with him (FISA), I do trust the way he thinks as well as his judgement. If Hillary Clinton, or indeed anyone else in his administration, gets out of line, I am quite confident he will smack her down.
Full disclosure: I'm not a Hillary fan. I do trust Obama.
Quote:For me, the key is that Obama knows, and has said that he is in charge. He will set the tone, he will make the decisions. If someone wants to play, they have to follow his rules. We know from Samantha Powers, and from Wright, that if he has to, he'll make the tough decision.
Hillary has a strong personality, and she would roll over someone weaker, but Obama has shown that hs is strong enough to work with strong personalities. He showed during the negotiations that he is the one in charge, and that if Hillary wanted to play, she and Bill needed to follow the rules.
I was worried that Hillary was too hawkish, too tough. I think she felt she had to be hawkish, as a woman, to show she could handle herself as commander in chief. That toughness, though, is also an asset. She will be taken seriously, in the cabinet, and around the world. Here again, Obama is in charge, he will be making the decisions, she will be following his goals, his ideals, his tone. I think that Obama wants her voice as SoS, I think he values that tough voice.
She has been his opponent. Can she switch tracks? I think so. She campaigned hard for Obama, and Bill came around too. Hillary has often remade herself, after the healthcare event, she played the role of first lady, rather than cabinet member. In the Senate, she played by the rules, and won accolades from many in the Senate. As a presidential candidate, she changed once again to a fierce opponent who could move many people. She's capable of change to meet the needs of a situation, as long as they suit her needs. The SoS position is her choice, I believe that she wants it to work, because she has spent her life in public service, and she wants good things for this country. So, I believe she will make the changes she needs to make for this new position.
