Those nervous about Hillary as S.o.S.... you DO realize that Obama has the final say in EVERYTHING?

[scheming daemons]

Hillary will do what Obama wants her to do.... she will be in a position to present him her opinion and to offer up arguments when her opinion differs from his....

...and she may succeed in changing his mind on some things, and not on others.


But the bottom line is this.... the direction of our foreign policy will be set by the President, and ultimately ONLY by the President.


The only excuse to be nervous about the Hillary nomination is if you feel that Obama does not have the courage of his convictions or a strong enough personality to say "No".


I, for one, know that President Obama has a strong enough personality and that the direction of the country will be set by him. Unlike our current President, the buck WILL stop at the oval office.


Relax folks.... Obama knows EXACTLY what he is doing.

[mtnsnake]

1. Lots of other people have already told us she'll lose her job if she acts up

but thanks for the reminder.

[onehandle]

2. How can you say that? Look at the war crazed Clinton years.

oh... wait... Nevermind.

[Whisp]

3. ask the Iraqis how peaceful the Clinton years were...

[Javaman]

13. yeah, iraqi's are so much better now...

:eyes:

[Whisp]

15. your comment makes no sense at all.

just because Bush is killing More Iraqi's, Bill's Iraq program of killing was peaceful compared?

[Javaman]

16. oh lord....

yes, killing is killing but you are perfectly fine with occupying a nation, dropping cluster bombs, using DU as ordinance, destroying the infrastructure, creating a huge rise in water born disease were most of the nations water in is no longer potable, sectarian violence, etc?

so tell me how, no fly zones, which was pretty clear to me was even comparable to what is going on now?

Saddam was contained, period.

it was the UN sanctions mandated that were originally proposed by bush sr. that stopped the shipment of food, meds and other supplies. And this was as a result of saddam invading Kuwait.

I condemn all forms of killing, but to compare and lead to one to believe that Clintons policy was as bad as morons*, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Whisp]

25. yes, everything was all roses and laughter

forget about Iraq, Rawanda, Kosovo. NAFTA and all the other evil shit that helped lead us to the mess we have now - the rich just taking off with the cash and the politicians helping them stuff their pockets.

as long as it peaceful and profitable in your own safe back yard and you don't have to sacrifice anything, then fuck the world, I got my comfort so fuck you.

it's that kind of attitude I think the world is sick of and Obama will change.

[Fire1]

38. HERE, HERE!!!

[HereSince1628]

4. Yeah, Obama is a Rock. A veritable island of personal fortitude

Nothing is going to influence him, cause him to falter or alter his path.

He really doesn't need advisors and counselors, because his is a completely authoritarian personality with all things already crystalized and unchangeable.

Say What?

If Obama really isn't going to be influenced by the people around him, I vote for the wrong guy.
Of course people wonder and worry about the advice and counsel he will recieve.

[EFerrari]

20. Isn't this the usual argument against Hugo Chavez?

:)

[Bad Thoughts]

5. Not nervous, just not impressed

Clinton will grow into the role, I have no doubt of that. I just don't think that her work will be oriented as much to difficult international problems as being the public face of American diplomacy (particularly at home) and working on the organization of the state department after years of neglect. Rather than being the ueber-diplomat, she'll be the "whip" of Foggy Bottom. Perhaps we need her. But she is far from what I wanted.

[RiverStone]

23. Your impression may change over the next 4 years...

I appreciate your perspective, though I believe Pres Elect Obama was combining a variety of interests in naming Hillary SOS.

Call it a unification of quarterbacks on the same team. But in this case, Obama is the quarterback and coach. This also assures us that Hillary will not be out there as a potential alternative voice; President Obama's agenda will be THE AGENDA for the party.

I was not a fan of Hillary during the primaries, and I joined the chorus of frustration and anger at some of her tactics. But when the dust finally settled, she supported Obama and did so graciously.

If it were not for their history, or the knock down drag out primary battle we had, it may be Hillary Clinton would not ever be the SOS. Yet bringing the party under one roof may be worth it.

Hopefully, Hillary will be a surprise enough to you to negate your concerns. Time will tell...

[Bad Thoughts]

24. I hope so, too

I'm not praying for failure.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I have no doubt that he will use his best judgment. He'll listen, but he doesn't

have a history of following advice blindly or of being unsure of himself (especially on foreign policy, where his views helped him win the Presidency)--he'll manage just fine.

[lamp_shade]

7. Yes... he'll have the final say, but I appreciate that Hillary will be providing

him with valuable input.

[peace13]

8. Every time you pick a scab it bleeds.

Didn't you get the memo? Or haven't you seen enough blood around here?

[kevinds13]

9. No one ever talked about

Condi Rice going rogue as much as they have about Clinton. Kinda strange we attack our own.

[karynnj]

18. Every time I saw such a psot - it was immediately responded to

It would not even be in her self interest to "go rogue", that is why some have said that it is a masterstroke to put her in this position. Her energy will be directed in her own interest and Obama's and the country's - because they will all be the same.

[YOY]

10. Can someone point out a thread where people are going into seizures over this?

I am really confused.

[indepat]

11. Iraq, the maybe a million deaths, and the utter meltdown and collapse of

our economy and economic system will define junior's legacy much better than word-smithing by any mortal or group of mortals. :P

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Obama's choices will only be as good as...

the information he is presented with, and the designs of those who surround him. I am seriously unimpressed with those public faces he is surrounding himself with.

[Erin Elizabeth]

29. Thanks for proving we're still allowed to say what you just said.

I was getting worried.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. "I was getting worried."

You and me both! ;) :hi:

[ecstatic]

14. Not only that, but Michelle has his back

She will kick anyone's ass who steps out of line!

[wyldwolf]

17. so that means any criticism of her is now criticism of Obama

[Erin Elizabeth]

27. Are you being serious or sarcastic or what?

If you're being serious, you do know they are two separate people, right?

[Forkboy]

28. Not quite, and that would go both ways.

Criticism of one doesn't equate to criticism of both, depending on said criticism.

[JNelson6563]

21. I know, right?

Doesn't anyone know how this works? Everyone being brouhgt on board no doubt has been made to understand that if they are to fill the position offered their job is to work to achieve President Obama's objectives.

Sad to see so many DUers thinking Obama's a moron.

Julie

[karynnj]

33. Please link to any post calling or even implying that Obama is a moron

I haven't seen any. In any administration only time will tell how good cabinet appointments are - and even then there may be huge differences of opinions. If the President thinks they are not working out - he will make changes.

[JNelson6563]

35. My favorite game!

Skip the jist of it, seize on a less-than-perfect word choice! Yeah that's it!

Puh-leez! Take a look around, there seems to be a lot more unfounded criticism, knee-jerk reaction and the like here at DU than anything else. In fact, DU is the place to go if you're tired of feeling thrilled about the November victory. Plenty of negativity here. It's like we don't know how to act like winners and suprisingly few here seem to have a clue how things actually work between a President and the cabinet.

Pick a word, moron for getting duped into naming (insert cabinet member of choice) to the team or omitting (insert non-cabinet member of choice), he's a sell-out for his cabinet choices or whatever announcement is made....whatever. Bottom line, read enough DU and you can leave convinced the guy is a failure before he's even sworn in.

Damn sad state of affairs if you ask me.

Julie--providing lots of words to parse so main points can be ignore (again)

[karynnj]

36. Rather a lot of distortion there

I see nothing wrong with discussing the relative merits of possible picks. My problem was that many threads were designed to bash Democrats - and not just HRC. The Clinton people made their share of attacks on many other people.

[Erin Elizabeth]

26. I'm not sure this is going to directly address your OP, but I've

read this idea that if you disagree with Obama on this choice, that you think he's a moron. Or a baby. That's quite a leap. I don't think he's a moron at all, I think he's a highly intelligent, capable man. But even highly intelligent capable people occasionally make decisions other people don't agree with. In this case, I don't agree with his decision. But it wasn't up to me. I just hope people aren't going to be expected to rah rah Hillary Clinton's every breath around here for the next however many years she's in the job. Or that every single even mild criticism of her is called "RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS!!!" As I recall, there have been loads of times that DUers have spoken out against Dems. Happens all the time. One of the great things about the Dem party is that we aren't all expected to never question our elected and appointed leaders.

Now, that being said, I'm not really worried about what you wrote about in your OP. I have no doubt if Clinton doesn't work out as SoS, Obama would replace her. I just happened to think there were better choices for that spot. It's OK TO THINK THAT, LOL. Democrats have differences of opinion ALL the time.

I even saw a suggestion in another thread that anyone saying anything critical about Obama's choice of Hillary should be tombstoned. That's ridiculous and that's exactly the attitude I'm talking about.

[karynnj]

32. I agree with what you are saying

One thing that hasn't yet happened is for DU to exist when there is a Democratic President. It likely will take time to know what the rules are when that happens. You speak of some who want to disallow any criticism of HRC and I assume all other cabinet members and I assume the President.

Not only would that make DU pretty boring and discussion of issues rather difficult, it would make us useless. We should be able to argue against proposals or actions we think are wrong. I think that all of us have our own values. There may be times when we either think something should be done or not done. Those things should be discussed - as should legislation that is before Congress. During the last 4 years, we have had no reluctance to saying that Reid or Pelosi were doing things that were wrong. Nor was there reluctance to question any Senator or Congressman. In some ways, there was a stronger reason not to attack the nominee before he won than there is now. I would hope that attacks on President Obama, his VP or cabinet will be fact based and rational, but that has not always been the case with our elected leaders before.

Looking back to when we last had a Democratic President, I think it would would have been warranted if we had lively discussions on NAFTA, welfare changes and actions in Bosnia. Not everyone would have agreed with the President or the cabinet 100%. His SoS spoke of children who died in Iraq due to the sanctions as "collateral damage". I would hope, had DU existed, that we would have reacted with the outrage that we would have had Condi Rice said it. It was and is an incredibly insensitive statement. It would have been right for a group of Democrats to argue that allowing parts to maintain the water treatment plants was not inconsistent with containing Hussein.

It would be nice if the rancor of the primaries became less prevalent. I do think this will happen as the Obama administration takes shape. If Clinton supporters try to re-write history of the primaries - that will push people who were on the other side respond that that was not their version of the truth. For many of us, it may take seeing the Clintons doing good jobs, before our wariness dissolves. (Consider that some Dean 2004 supporters even now are more critical of Kerry, who has over the last 4 years done a huge number of good things, than they are of others doing less - and he ran a campaign that took the high road.)

I have actually wondered if the internet actually SLOWS the process of moving on, because we can self-select into groups where we reinforce each other. Although Usenet existed in 1992, it was nowhere near today's internet. I really don't recall people there continuing to self identify as Brown, Kerrey, Tsongus etc supporters. Clinton was nowhere near my favorite, but there was no group of people that I saw saying that we were holding our noses. By the time of the inauguration, every Democrat I knew was overjoyed that after 3 terms, a Democrat would be in the White House.

[fadedrose]

30. I sure do agree with you...

That's why I have no objections to anyone he has appointed or will appoint (but I do sort of wish he'd find a spot for Howard Dean for us Deaniacs).

[Grateful for Hope]

34. "Relax folks.... Obama knows EXACTLY what he is doing"

I definitely believe he does. I don't think I have had as much confidence in any president in my lifetime as I do in Obama. In fact, I know I haven't.

[Fire1]

37. I have every confidence in his ability, also.

[Generator]

39. I think he even talks directly to God!

Oh wait that's what scares us about the other guys. Nevermind.