President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden officially announced key members of their national security team today: nominating Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, selecting Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense, nominating Eric Holder as Attorney General, nominating Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, nominating Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations and selecting General Jim Jones, USMC (Ret) as National Security Adviser.
Obama: "To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that."
Submitted by Konamazed (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/01 - 6:35pm.
Well, this is of course why Barack Obama was fifth on my list during the primary. He's a Centrist. And in classic Centrist fashion he has made some seriously anti-progressive appointments. The Center is truly a home for the blind.
Hillary (Obliterate Iran) Clinton as Sr. Diplomat? FAIL (war criminal Henry Kissinger will be happy)
Eric (Chiquita death squad) Holder as AG?
FAIL
Retained Bob Gates? LOL
Unless Gates is willing to supply us with info about Bush Admin war crimes, complete and total FAIL.
Janet Napolitano wouldn't be so bad, unless she was picked to head an agency that is totally useless and should be dissolved. And so she has been.
Still not regretting the vote. He's still better than Bosnia Betty or McLame. But so far Obama is anything but batting 1000.
I hope this kind of nonsense is not an omen of things to come.
Interesting to see the buyer's remorse given all the crap some Democrats took early on when they dared wonder if Obama was The One.
Which is also interesting given that I'm now fully on board with Obama, because he is being way more presidential than I expected (before I saw what a great campaign he ran). Hey, he beat the Clintons. Both of them. That's pretty good political credentials right there.
On Gates, I was actually hoping Obama would do that. We're in two wars. Now is not the time to change horses, especially when we have a sane person in charge of Defense (as compared to Rumsfeld) and troops in the field.
Obama needs Gates, mainly to be a professional who can provide facts and inside analysis so Obama can make informed decisions (tempered by his pretty good bullshit filter), and after that he needs competent and respected leadership to carry out those decisions over the next year or so.
an agency that is totally useless and should be dissolved
On that we totally agree!
P.S. On Clinton, it's pretty hard for a former Clinton supporter to argue she's not qualified to be Sec. of State if she was qualified to be President. On the other hand, you don't expect the CEO to know how to do every job. But on the other other hand, the pick is interesting because it takes her out of the Senate and puts her under Obama's control, and reinforces his claim that he is open to all points of view (notwithstanding the fact that she has admitted her mistake on Iraq that Obama was never officially faced with making.) Bill might have been an even better choice, but whatever.
Submitted by KoNabody (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/01 - 7:49pm.
The Gates thing is a two way street for me. He could have defected and became loyal to Obama. That would make him a great asset.
I also understand that transitioning that office at this time would be potentially disastrous.
Of course, gates has been part of The Lie. Therefore undeserving of trust until earned.
He is not responsible for the Bush/Rumsfeld war crimes. I want to be clear about that.
As for Clinton, well, you know how I feel about them and you've seen their ways.
I feel she will ultimately fail as SoS for either of two reasons:
1) Once a hawk always a hawk. She's just not diplomatic by nature. Nor am I for that matter.
2) Sorry to all the ladies who will ultimately take this wrong, but she's a woman.
Our diplomatic problems lie in the Islamic world and parts of Asia. Those cultures notoriously have little if any respect for femdom.
They'll smile, nod their heads, then dismiss what she says once the meeting is over. Same results Condi got.
Condi is no less educated than Hillary, and obviously has more experience at the job. But she obtained no results. Mostly because of Bush, but also because of the mentality of those she has to deal with.
Don't misunderstand. I don't hope that she fails. It's just that my calculation says she will.
I hope not. There's a lot of lives counting on her.
We're occupying two countries. Calling them wars is buying into the neocon framing and a vote to keep them going. It would be nice to have someone in there who knew the difference and was willing to speak up, but it's going to be hard to find anyone with experience in this when only the kool-aid drinkers have been allowed in the game for the last eight years.
Anyway, I preferred Kucinich's politics (though not Kucinich so much), so I wasn't expecting Obama to be all about the kind of radical change we probably need (but can't stomach).
Submitted by Hayduke on Tue, 2008/12/02 - 12:27am.
Have you read none of George Lakoff? Don't Think of an Elephant, The Political Mind. Of course you're not buying into the neocon agenda, but by using their terminology, you keep the discussion on their turf. The options are limited by the language. With a war you have to 'win' or 'surrender.' If we're talking about an occupation the options are more like "stay" or 'leave.' It's a whole lot easier to convince people we have to continue the debacle if they're convinced that the only other option is to 'lose' and anyone who wants to do that is clearly a cheese-eating surrender monkey.
Submitted by Hayduke on Tue, 2008/12/02 - 10:46am.
I doubt soldiers in harms way are really all that interested in debating the semantics.
If you're still calling it semantics then you still haven't read Lakoff and you're still missing the point. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives is a short book and a quick read, but I guarantee it will change the way you read (and write) about politics.
Submitted by Hayduke on Tue, 2008/12/02 - 12:28pm.
I read the links, but they really serve to demonstrate what Lakoff is talking about. The choice of terms is very important. The whole reason we even have to talk about "defeat" is because we've accepted the "war" meme. Since Obama has almost certainly read Lakoff, when our new government officials start talking about our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan it will signal that they're actually ready to leave.
Still waiting for Obama to appoint some progressives. Maybe I missed one. Hoping for Kennedy at EPA.
Submitted by Hayduke on Tue, 2008/12/02 - 10:48am.
Slate has an interesting take on Jim Jones:
To those who worry that Hillary Clinton will turn Foggy Bottom into a fiefdom devoted to her own agenda and ambition, I have two reassuring words: James Jones.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/12/03 - 8:54am.
Still wish he'd picked someone other than HRC for the SoS spot and still waiting to see who's going to head up the CIA. But overall, this is a solid team. Yeah, it's centrist. But then again, I'm not a progressive and tend to be happy in the middle of the road. So far, no buyer's remorse from me.
Another way to think about this is that it gets her out of the Senate.
Elsewhere: I still say Eliot Spitzer for the SEC. I think it was wrong of him to mess with the prostitute and cheat on his wife, and I also think the whole exposure of the deal was an advance hit on him because the big financial houses/players knew that if they could get him down and beat him, he wouldn't be anywhere near the impending Democratic doom in '08. Wrong. Still hire him. He's put the luster in lustration. That big shiny building next to Union Station needs a complete bastard in charge. He's just the man for the job.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Well, this is of course why Barack Obama was fifth on my list during the primary. He's a Centrist. And in classic Centrist fashion he has made some seriously anti-progressive appointments. The Center is truly a home for the blind.
Hillary (Obliterate Iran) Clinton as Sr. Diplomat? FAIL (war criminal Henry Kissinger will be happy)
Eric (Chiquita death squad) Holder as AG?
FAIL
Retained Bob Gates? LOL
Unless Gates is willing to supply us with info about Bush Admin war crimes, complete and total FAIL.
Janet Napolitano wouldn't be so bad, unless she was picked to head an agency that is totally useless and should be dissolved. And so she has been.
Still not regretting the vote. He's still better than Bosnia Betty or McLame. But so far Obama is anything but batting 1000.
I hope this kind of nonsense is not an omen of things to come.
Interesting to see the buyer's remorse given all the crap some Democrats took early on when they dared wonder if Obama was The One.
Which is also interesting given that I'm now fully on board with Obama, because he is being way more presidential than I expected (before I saw what a great campaign he ran). Hey, he beat the Clintons. Both of them. That's pretty good political credentials right there.
On Gates, I was actually hoping Obama would do that. We're in two wars. Now is not the time to change horses, especially when we have a sane person in charge of Defense (as compared to Rumsfeld) and troops in the field.
Obama needs Gates, mainly to be a professional who can provide facts and inside analysis so Obama can make informed decisions (tempered by his pretty good bullshit filter), and after that he needs competent and respected leadership to carry out those decisions over the next year or so.
an agency that is totally useless and should be dissolved
On that we totally agree!
P.S. On Clinton, it's pretty hard for a former Clinton supporter to argue she's not qualified to be Sec. of State if she was qualified to be President. On the other hand, you don't expect the CEO to know how to do every job. But on the other other hand, the pick is interesting because it takes her out of the Senate and puts her under Obama's control, and reinforces his claim that he is open to all points of view (notwithstanding the fact that she has admitted her mistake on Iraq that Obama was never officially faced with making.) Bill might have been an even better choice, but whatever.
The Gates thing is a two way street for me. He could have defected and became loyal to Obama. That would make him a great asset.
I also understand that transitioning that office at this time would be potentially disastrous.
Of course, gates has been part of The Lie. Therefore undeserving of trust until earned.
He is not responsible for the Bush/Rumsfeld war crimes. I want to be clear about that.
As for Clinton, well, you know how I feel about them and you've seen their ways.
I feel she will ultimately fail as SoS for either of two reasons:
1) Once a hawk always a hawk. She's just not diplomatic by nature. Nor am I for that matter.
2) Sorry to all the ladies who will ultimately take this wrong, but she's a woman.
Our diplomatic problems lie in the Islamic world and parts of Asia. Those cultures notoriously have little if any respect for femdom.
They'll smile, nod their heads, then dismiss what she says once the meeting is over. Same results Condi got.
Condi is no less educated than Hillary, and obviously has more experience at the job. But she obtained no results. Mostly because of Bush, but also because of the mentality of those she has to deal with.
Don't misunderstand. I don't hope that she fails. It's just that my calculation says she will.
I hope not. There's a lot of lives counting on her.
We're in two wars.
We're occupying two countries. Calling them wars is buying into the neocon framing and a vote to keep them going. It would be nice to have someone in there who knew the difference and was willing to speak up, but it's going to be hard to find anyone with experience in this when only the kool-aid drinkers have been allowed in the game for the last eight years.
Anyway, I preferred Kucinich's politics (though not Kucinich so much), so I wasn't expecting Obama to be all about the kind of radical change we probably need (but can't stomach).
Calling them wars is buying into the neocon framing
Yes, you've nailed me. I'm a raging neocon!
Have you read none of George Lakoff? Don't Think of an Elephant, The Political Mind. Of course you're not buying into the neocon agenda, but by using their terminology, you keep the discussion on their turf. The options are limited by the language. With a war you have to 'win' or 'surrender.' If we're talking about an occupation the options are more like "stay" or 'leave.' It's a whole lot easier to convince people we have to continue the debacle if they're convinced that the only other option is to 'lose' and anyone who wants to do that is clearly a cheese-eating surrender monkey.
Lakoff explains it better.
I doubt soldiers in harms way are really all that interested in debating the semantics. But anyway, you are preaching to the choir.
Link...
Link...
Link...
Link...
Back to the topic of this post, you haven't said what you think about Obama's appointments?
I doubt soldiers in harms way are really all that interested in debating the semantics.
If you're still calling it semantics then you still haven't read Lakoff and you're still missing the point. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives is a short book and a quick read, but I guarantee it will change the way you read (and write) about politics.
And I guess you haven't read any of the links I provided and you still have no opinions on Obama's nominations.
Look. I get it. You are on a crusade to correct people's writing on throwaway comments on blogs to end the occupation of Iraq. Mission accomplished.
I read the links, but they really serve to demonstrate what Lakoff is talking about. The choice of terms is very important. The whole reason we even have to talk about "defeat" is because we've accepted the "war" meme. Since Obama has almost certainly read Lakoff, when our new government officials start talking about our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan it will signal that they're actually ready to leave.
Still waiting for Obama to appoint some progressives. Maybe I missed one. Hoping for Kennedy at EPA.
Slate has an interesting take on Jim Jones:
To those who worry that Hillary Clinton will turn Foggy Bottom into a fiefdom devoted to her own agenda and ambition, I have two reassuring words: James Jones.
Still wish he'd picked someone other than HRC for the SoS spot and still waiting to see who's going to head up the CIA. But overall, this is a solid team. Yeah, it's centrist. But then again, I'm not a progressive and tend to be happy in the middle of the road. So far, no buyer's remorse from me.
Another way to think about this is that it gets her out of the Senate.
Elsewhere: I still say Eliot Spitzer for the SEC. I think it was wrong of him to mess with the prostitute and cheat on his wife, and I also think the whole exposure of the deal was an advance hit on him because the big financial houses/players knew that if they could get him down and beat him, he wouldn't be anywhere near the impending Democratic doom in '08. Wrong. Still hire him. He's put the luster in lustration. That big shiny building next to Union Station needs a complete bastard in charge. He's just the man for the job.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Post new comment