Thread: Ug, not Hillary

Announcing the position of secretary of state over TG weekend. This a strike against Obama in my book. I do not want Hillary meddling in our foreign affairs, hell I don't even want her in the administration.

Originally Posted by Vitiate

Announcing the position of secretary of state over TG weekend. This a strike against Obama in my book. I do not want Hillary meddling in our foreign affairs, hell I don't even want her in the administration.

I have to admit confusion in this matter. Please understand that I am respectfully asking Liberals and Democrats for enlightenment.

Just a few years ago, the Clintons were presented to me by Democrat friends and associates as the salvation of America, paragons of political morality and visionary policy makers.

As I recall, almost any criticism of them was met by their supporters with outrage and disdain. The Lewinsky affair hardly dimmed Bill's star.

Hillary was seen as a shoe-in for the presidency, as her easy election to the Senate illustrated.

I missed something. What changed and when? Now the Clintons seem to be seem by much of the left as manipulative power-grabbers. We on the Right pretty much always saw them that way, but I don't grasped what changed the perception on the left.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I have to admit confusion in this matter. Please understand that I am respectfully asking Liberals and Democrats for enlightenment.

just a few years ago, the Clintons were presented to me by Democrat friends and associates ans the salvation of America, paragons of political morality and visionary policy makers.

As I recall, almost any criticism of them was met by their supporters with outrage and disdain. The Lewinsky affair hardly dimmed Bill's star.

Hillary was seen as a shoe-in for the presidency, as her easy election to the Senate illustrated.

I missed something. What changed and when? now the Clintons seem to be seem by much of the left as manipulative power-grabbers. We on the Right pretty much always saw them that way, but I don't grasped what changed the perception on the left.

I'd suspect it's the difference in behavior both of them exhibit. Bubba is softspoken, more laid-back; the easy to get along with guy. Back when I was politically inept in 2002, I saw him speak here in Phoenix. He's very well versed and has a likeable character.

The disdain for Hillary seems to come from her authoritative nature. She's very outspoken and intimidating and it was only buttressed by her behavior on her campaign trail.

Salvation for America though, certainly not. There were certainly notable positive features in the Clinton administration, and of course more dubious negative aspects that plagued it as well.

Regardless, I think Chelsea is hot and she can sweet talk me anytime.

I'm sure Hillary is going to go along with Obama's phony promise to sit down with Iranian leaders without preconditions. :sarcasm:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I missed something. What changed and when? now the Clintons seem to be seem by much of the left as manipulative power-grabbers. We on the Right pretty much always saw them that way, but I don't grasped what changed the perception on the left.

Yes. You missed something. This was part of a DEAL, right? So, who's usin' who? Consider: Obama, now has one of his "opponents", inside the tent. That effectively neutralizes her as any kinda "antagonistic" voice. And, he's now got the support of all her "people" (all but a rabid few). And, if the "vetting" is part of the deal, now suddenly we have a great deal more transparency into the Clintons, which is what we always wanted, right?

See, so, this all makes perfect sense to me. You've got someone who's very talented but a bit of a weasel perhaps, so, you let 'em know that they can play ball, as long as they adhere to the constraints. That's good team-building, that's making good use of your resources.

And, Obama's got "other" powerful women on the team (Napolitano, as DHS, is every bit as powerful as Clinton at State), so, you pre-empt any kinda "perceptual" problem about who's "first chick" in the White House, that kinda thing.

This all looks pretty good to me, so far. Obama's showin' me he knows how to dance with the elephant. That's a good thing. I predict you'll see him gettin' clever in no time at all.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I have to admit confusion in this matter. Please understand that I am respectfully asking Liberals and Democrats for enlightenment.

Just a few years ago, the Clintons were presented to me by Democrat friends and associates as the salvation of America, paragons of political morality and visionary policy makers.

As I recall, almost any criticism of them was met by their supporters with outrage and disdain. The Lewinsky affair hardly dimmed Bill's star.

Hillary was seen as a shoe-in for the presidency, as her easy election to the Senate illustrated.

I missed something. What changed and when? now the Clintons seem to be seem by much of the left as manipulative power-grabbers. We on the Right pretty much always saw them that way, but I don't grasped what changed the perception on the left.

Obama is black. That changed everything.

Originally Posted by Defensor

I'm sure Hillary is going to go along with Obama's phony promise to sit down with Iranian leaders without preconditions. :sarcasm:

I don't know, I've looked at dates of recessions in the US in the 20th/21st century. Unless I've missed something, war has either come before or after a recession, but has never gone war-recession-back-into-another-war. So I think a war with Iran will be a long ways from now, probably 10-15 years possibly. But that's just me putting it in a theoretical perspective.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Yes. You missed something. This was part of a DEAL, right? So, who's usin' who? Consider: Obama, now has one of his "opponents", inside the tent. That effectively neutralizes her as any kinda "antagonistic" voice. And, he's now got the support of all her "people" (all but a rabid few). And, if the "vetting" is part of the deal, now suddenly we have a great deal more transparency into the Clintons, which is what we always wanted, right?

See, so, this all makes perfect sense to me. You've got someone who's very talented but a bit of a weasel perhaps, so, you let 'em know that they can play ball, as long as they adhere to the constraints. That's good team-building, that's making good use of your resources.

And, Obama's got "other" powerful women on the team (Napolitano, as DHS, is every bit as powerful as Clinton at State), so, you pre-empt any kinda "perceptual" problem about who's "first chick" in the White House, that kinda thing.

This all looks pretty good to me, so far. Obama's showin' me he knows how to dance with the elephant. That's a good thing. I predict you'll see him gettin' clever in no time at all.

As usual, the forum's resident Democrat partisans can find no possible wrong in anything Obama does.

Hillary the über-Neocon is A-OK with you as long as the Obamessiah says so.

Originally Posted by Vitiate

I don't know, I've looked at dates of recessions in the US in the 20th/21st century. Unless I've missed something, war has either come before or after a recession, but has never gone war-recession-back-into-another-war. So I think a war with Iran will be a long ways from now, probably 10-15 years possibly. But that's just me putting it in a theoretical perspective.

War with Iran is a done deal. The fact that one of its biggest cheerleaders is about to become Obama's Secretary of State makes that especially clear.

Antiwar.com: Stop Hillary!

One hardly knows what to say to such a proposal, except to wonder how President Obama intends to implement his own foreign policy platform over the Iron Lady's determined opposition. For Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last – and very encouraging – stance as "naïve" and "dangerous." Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks? Somehow, I don't think so.

With Hillary Clinton as Obama’s secretary of state, and a bevy of war hawks ensconced in key national security posts – just like the neocons in the Bush administration – the War Party will be well-represented in the foreign policy councils of the new administration. It looks like we’re in for a long, agonizingly drawn out drama, which may very well end the same way the last one did.


There’s just one way to preempt this and that is to show, early on, that the voters who gave Obama his victory won’t stand for this kind of betrayal. We don’t want another war – and that means we have to stop Hillary, the War Party’s chief Democratic asset, before she’s officially designated the new Secretary of State. If thousands (upon thousands!) of Americans protest, who knows but maybe we can stop it.
Yes we can!

So call the transition office, if you haven’t already, and say: No Hillary, no way, no how!


Call: 202-540-3000 or use their web form.