Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State?
With truth in advertising, I would not have voted for Hillary Clinton had she been the Democrat candidate but right now Hillary is weighing her options regarding Obama's or Obama's possible tapping her for the position of Secretary of State. "No, HIllary, no!" You have far more power as a Senator, albeit fighting for face time on camera if Chuckie is in the same room, but don't get under Obama's thumb. First of all, Michelle Obama DOES NOT like you. That's all it took for you not to receive the pick as VP in the presidential election. Second, you have a good solid seat in the Senate and God knows, people like Ted Kennedy have been the bain of existence to many a president. Wield your power from the Senate. There you don't have to take orders from anyone. You are your own woman. Third, we are NUTS to send women to be our Secretary of State when dealing with Islamic Imperialist countries like Iran or, soon to be the Islamic Republic of England. It's a no-brainer and a non-starter. Fourth, do you really want to get mired down in that impossible "MIddle East peace" mess between Israel and the PA? Run by Hamas? Come on, you are much smarter than that AND, last but certainly not least or all of the reasons: Fifthe, you cannot run for president against Obama in 2012 IF you are on his Cabinet. Let's see if you are the "smartest woman in the universe?" Stay away from Obama's cabinet. It is not getting off to a good start. Do you really want to be playing "musical cabinet chairs" with some of the guys that have already been chosen. Remember, when they worked for the Clinton Administration, the operable word is "worked". Stay away, Hillary! I say this for two reasons: first, I honestly believe it would put you in a very much weaker position. Anything, anything at all that goes south in the State Department will be blamed on YOU; and second - to be fair - I'd love to see you run for president against Sarah Palin. What fun! For everyone...you, Gov. Sarah, and us too....
<$PostedBy Beach Girlo$> <$AtTimeWithPermalink$>
16 Comments:
BG, I think you are right in your analysis of what the result of Hill for State will do when you say, "I honestly believe it would put you in a very much weaker position. Anything, anything at all that goes south in the State Department will be blamed on YOU;"
But I disagree with you about what she should do. I think these are exactly the reasons I would like to see here take the job. It would get here out of the Senate and thus get one noisy Dem out of the Senate (who knows who would take her place?). As you say, it would noticeably weaken her with respect to Obama, and everything that goes wrong will be her fault. I rather like those ideas -- I really dislike Hill.
If she ever does run against Sarah, all of this would be good to have as preparation for that match up. I think it would just help to lay the right sort of back ground, after she fouls up a few things in foreign affairs, etc.
Dr. D, good points. Yes, one less sqeaky voice of the whining left in the Senate would be nice. And with things as they are in the Middle East and us now potentially sending in our THIRD woman Sec. of State, I would expect no gains in that area.
I wonder that we are using "affirmative action" to select our Secretary of State. If the person were someone of Lady Thatcher's level, maybe, but one more woman to deal with the men controlling the Middle East - groan... To me, this as much as anything else proves we do not appreciate the Islamic hatred of us. I know it is off topic but everytime I think of this latest possibility, I think of seeing San Fran Nan with a silk scarf over her hair - an act of submission.
Well, Hill did foul up the Greatest Health Care program since God created us - a thing she never should have done as she was not elected to anything. And she would foul up foreign policy because she would be doing Obama's bidding as his lackey - so, you have some good points.
In my case, I'd rather fight the devil I know that then one of which I know little. Maybe she'll be offered the "job" and then we can see how smart she is.
Or maybe Obama will slap her in the face again for the second time, the first being not having her as his VP pick. Of course, that was smart on his part but b**ch-slapping her again would really put him on the top of the not-FOB list and that could be BAD for Obama - no that I care how the Liberal Socialist Left students of Saul Alinsky eat their young or each other.
I just read a great post from Blue Star Chronicles - I think - listed under Dumb Ox here at my blog. Yep, Obama is seen as a very weak man and seems other nations and leaders do not have our "politically correct" sensitivities...
Honeymoon is getting short.
I think that the whole world seem Big O as a very weak man. Some people like him for that because it makes him less threatening. Other people like him for that because they are more confident that they can act aggressively and the US will not respond strongly with O as president. We are entering an era in which the US is going to be seen as "cut down to size," something pleasing to everyone (foreign countries) for many different reasons. We are now a weak country because we have elected a weak, corrupt man as president.
Yes, we are a nation other nations love to "hate" but none of them give us our money back.
While they are cutting us "down to size" they may consider who will come to get their fat out of the fires of Islamic terrorists. We can say, "Nada, we are weak, submissive country. Leaders on crack and happy. Take money, take extortion money we pay for you to leave us alone."
That won't work will it? Not since they will have most of our money. I have so much love for America. It took me some time to recognize that my nation and its government were not one in the same.
Signing off now. Have a good night! I enjoy your comments.
I hope that you have a restful sleep, Beach Girl. I have had fitful nights since watching our country rapidly turning into a pile of ordure much like the Moslem-infested nations of Europe.
But then there is always the hope that things will get so fouled up that we will get the much-vaunted CHANGE.
In a democracy, isn't the difference between a nation and its government not that dissimilar?
I'll never forget the time several years ago when I was on vacation in Taos, New Mexico. Madeline Albright, who was Clinton's Secretary of State at the time, was in town for some reason, parading around and mugging for the cameras with all the tourists.
She was wearing a freakish, all-white cowgirl outfit, from the hat to the boots and all parts in between, complete with fringe on the white skirt and the white blouse, and looked like a complete fool.
Perhaps Hillary will do the same if she visits the Southwest. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Pasadena - I love Taos. One time I had the opportunity to be the guest of the Governor of Taos Pueblo - his grandson was a student of mine. I walked from my hotel down the lonely street to the Puelbo and entered, as instructed, through a side gated doorway. The moon was high, at about 4 AM, and dogs barked occasionally along my walk, I was alone, the stars, the moon, the midnight black night, and I, an Anglo, entering the Pueblo against the law. I got to my friend's grandfather's, was greeted by my friend, then his grandmother who presented me with a beautiful turqoise (sp) shawl. I was treated to an early morning race between the men of the two clans and, along with their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, I was welcomed to sit on the ledge abot the raceway and cheer on "my team."
Thank you for reminding me of that every so wonderful experience. My student, a young adult with a wife and a daughter about 4-5 years old. I stayed all day and mostly watched the doings from the Governor's balcony. My student was one of the dancers that day. Thank you so very much for calling up that memory.
I am sorry Hillary is taking that position. But then, she has learned to be submissive to the foibles of men and she will undoubtedly be "set-up" to fail.
Jullian - I have given this some thought over the previous several years and to me there is a difference. As a representative republic - it is true that we elect "representatives" and we are their constituents. But when 80% or 75% of the American people do not support amnesty for illegals for example and the government ignores this and does enforce our laws more vigorously, I see that as a disconnect between the people and the "government". Our government is working mightily to put the North American Union in place - civil servants working away like busy chipmunks - when no vote has been taken and we have had not say on becoming like the EU.
I have not come to this perspective easily because I did see us as ONE but no longer. The American people vote but in this election 42% voted for Socialism. That to me speaks of an uneducated populace or a lazy one, I don't know - at least that 42% which may equal the number of folks who don't pay taxes in the first place.
That leaves 58% of us who do not agree on that form of government. I think the American people, all of us, are greater than the existing implementation of our "government" which I see as far from the U.S. Constitution and our Founding Fathers conceived.
Maybe splitting hairs but I love this nation and its people. I am not overly fond of a government that wishes to enslave us based on "fear" and "confiscation of property."
Your comment deserves more thought...thanks.
Urbanadder, our infestation is yet to begin in full force but it will when we pull out of Iraq and move 2 million folks here to keep them from being killed by their rivals in Iraq.
Just answer me this: why do our elected "leaders" seem to want to destroy the exceptionalism that is America? The EU has destroyed England now on track to become the Islamic Republic of England. I really don't understand it.
I'm not sure 75% doesn't support amnesty for illegals. They answer no when they think the illegals will get some of our socialistic benefits for free--even though many citizens don't pay for the benefits either. I think nobody really cares as long as they pay their fair share of taxes--whatever the term 'fair' means.
As Europeans came over last century they were never welcome by anyone already here, so those polls don't mean anything. The point is that law that isn't enforced isn't really law and they are only coming here to meet the economic demand for them. They'll quit coming once we don't need them.
I don't think people are voting for socialism strictly speaking. Of course, the left wing politicians like the concept of government ownership of the means of production, but what they are giving the masses in exchange for votes is property, or merely the promise of it.
Western Democracies have been reduced to vast orgies over the various types of property that exist.
The Republican party is 20% more protective of property than the Democrats and European governments, but it would be a stretch to attribute any libertarian characteristics to the Republican party as a whole.
I know this is unrelated to the thread but regarding amnesty for illegals, the conservatives are missing the boat--no pun intended.
When people think back around the time women won their right to vote, we like to think as if they won that right for that reason itself, but they really didn't. The pro war factions at the time needed to add to their base of support and so they recruited women to their cause. Women being able to vote was useful for their gaining political power. Similarly, slaves were freed as a byproduct of a war fought for other reasons altogether.
The dems are pushing for amnesty and the right to vote for the illegals in order to expand their power base. Ironically, these illegals who have endured hardships to get here on the whole have a much stronger work ethic than a significant portion of the democratic voter base. They are from conservative cultures because without the experience of a state welfare apparatus, they have always been more reliant on family for security. For this reason they are better candidates for the Republican Party, but the Republicans don't want them.
Again, I am sorry for straying off the topic.
Respectfully..
John - I want to give your comments a bit more attention before responding to them. You are correct - it is all about increasing voter base. With part of the Dems voter base decreasing proportionately to the now leading minority ethnically classified group, the Dems must work to increase their base; however, I believe that will be a mistake for them for the new base they are working to add are very much more conservative in their basic "living life" and "gaining through achievement" attitudes.
Thank you...
John Sullivan - if you have a blog or website, please let me know. Thanks...
I don't have a bog or website. I write in to several under different names though. I know the competing ideologies inside and out and their respective economic and utilitarian consequences, but my greater interest has been in philosophy--such as why are things the way they are? I published a short book called "Notes From The Aboveground" that outlines how societies work. It is essentially a "philosophy of ideology" and is built upon the premise of "psychological egoism"--Hobbes and Mandeville premised their works similarly--man is without education only totalitarian, etc.
I often try to get libertarians to view their ideology from perspectives they aren't accustomed to, or comfortable with.
Lately I have been thinking of writing an essay on a concept of radical individualism that I call in my book "The Right to Lie". I have the ideas that float around in my head but haven't had the time to structure it into a compelling argument.
You can reach me by email at johnshapes@yahoo.com if you want.
Here is an example of ideological contradictions. If the Hispanics coming over have stronger conservative values than fit the model of the Democratic party, and if those values are considered to be good by Republicans, then why are the Hispanic societies not more properous and equitable, and why are they coming here?
The answer is that the conservatism they possess is derived from a more authoritarian ideology than ours. They're used to Statist societies, but because they're so corrupt, they're bereft of wealth and unable to provide a safety net for their people--thus the emphasis on religion and family as a backdrop.
The Hispanics come here to work but their ideological conditioning is to accept authority if it comes with providing security. This means that they might eventually fit nicely into the Democratic camp, although initially the Republicans are the party of religion and family.
This distinction serves to point out that the Republican party today is both a party of individualism as well as a party of tribalism whereby people seek authoritarian guidance from their religious and community values. It is the latter element that is susceptible to undermining individualism because once the religious influence wears off, they will look elsewhere for authority and find that it abounds in Statism.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home