Obama Rejects Clinton Derangement Syndrome

In all the talk about Hillary at State, I have been remiss in giving President-Elect Obama real credit for performing an incredibly important task for the Democratic Party - his rebuke of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Via Digby (whose post is also a must read), Eric Boehlert wrote a great piece on the matter:

We've said it before, but we fear we're going to have to make this point many more times in the coming weeks. It's now clear that a portion of the opinion press viewed the historic 2008 campaign through the extremely narrow lens of getting rid of the Clintons; of driving them off the national stage and humiliating the highest profile Democrats of the last 15 years. That's what the campaign was about for them. Not politics or policy or the future of the country. It was about them not liking the Clintons. The campaign represented some sort of deliverance from them.

But now that it's becoming clear that the new Obama team does not necessarily share that deep-seated disdain, and now that it's clear that the media's CDS is not being embraced by a new generation of Democratic Party leaders, some afflicted pundits are very, very angry. What was the point of that election, they demand.

(Emphasis supplied.) Full disclosure, Eric is a friend of this blog.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Hillary At State: Done Deal? | Breaking: e = mc2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This has convince me. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    That Obama truly and deeply cares more about the country than being President. I was already leaning that way before the election and with this--appointing someone he's supposed to hate--to State and such a high-profile, respected position, I feel great about him as our leader. 100%.

    I was already convinced (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Melchizedek on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    But I'm hoping this will set a tone for Obama and Clinton supporters alike. Spurning HRC doesn't "get rid of" the Clintons-- it just repeats Gingrichism at the expense of the country. I think the post-Thanksgiving announcement is meant to drain some of the hype and give the announcement the dignity it deserves.

    Obama's being the leader I thought he was, and Clinton will be the great cabinet member I never doubted she could be.


    I guess I'm not sure what this (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by dk on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    says about Obama's leadership abilities.  I mean, I tend not to give too much credit to people for making no-brainer decisions (shouldn't this be the least we should expect of them?), and this seemed like one.  Obama and Hillary are the two leaders of the Democratic party, and therefore it makes sense that both would be at the highest levels of government.

    That said, it's clearaly nice to see that he and his associates have stopped riding the wave of CDS ("she's likeable enough", "kitchen sink", "no tears over Katrina", "she's a monster").  Let's hope he keeps it up.


    That is very uncharitable (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:53:06 AM EST
    No one expected Obama to offer State to Clinton.

    And indeed, I think she should stay in the Senate.


    Well, I don't think I was (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by dk on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    being entirely uncharitable.  I mean, it is reality that she is the other leader of the Democratic party.  She has the 18 million votes to prove it.  Admitting the reality is clearly a nice thing (and we certainly haven't had much of that over the last 8 years), but I guess I just don't think that in and of itself is something that makes a person a great leader.  To me, it is baseline, not impressive.

    Also, given the history of Obama's use of CDS, I think it's fair to put this move in context.  It's a step in the right direction, but maintaining some level of skepticism doesn't seem wrong to me.

    As for whether she should have stayed in the senate, I'm ambivalent.  The cons of her staying there are related to the fact that, besides the media and some hardcore wingnuts, no one has more CDS these days than the congressional leadership within the Democratic party.  I just don't think she would have been allowed to get much done in the senate.  The leadership probably would have set up too many institutional barriers.


    Politics ain't pretty (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:10:55 AM EST
    Obama did what any pol would do, take advantage of the situation.

    In all my writings on CDS, one thing I never did, or would do, is blame a pol for taking a political advantage.

    It ain't beanbag.


    Fair enough. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by dk on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:16:01 AM EST
    But if a pol takes advantage of something like that, they also deserve to be held responsible for the results.  

    Also true (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:16:53 AM EST
    And yet here is Obama addressing the problem.

    As I said, it's a start. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dk on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    I just want to wait and see how much respect she is given in his administration.  

    Sometimes cabinet members end up being figureheads, and sometimes they wield a great deal of influence in shaping policy.  I think it's too early to know which way this will go.


    he is? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    And yet here is Obama addressing the problem.

    i have yet to see him address the problem of his (presumably with his blessing) campaign accusing the clintons of being racists.

    when and if (i ain't holding my breath) he ever publicly apologizes, i'll give some thought to taking him seriously.

    i'll keep a (small) canister of oxygen handy, just in case. i don't expect it to be used.


    dk, the Dem. leadership (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    has CDS to the point that they didn't want her to be president or get in the way of Obama being president.  But they are far, FAR too pragmatic pols to continue to spit in her face.

    Obama tried and failed to destroy the Clintons utterly, I'm convinced, so I do now give him some props for apparently finally realizing that's hopeless and deciding instead to use their skills and popularity for the good of the country.  We used to call this "co-opting" back in the day, and it's a perfect example of it.  He gets her skills and high profile for State while neutralizing her and Bill domestically almost completely.

    And if you read the political press, you'll find that the Dem. leadership is working to create a new position for her in the Senate leadership with some kind of real responsibility in case she decides to stay and Teddy Kennedy has asked her to head up one of his committee task forces on health care.

    Given her lack of seniority, there's only so much she can get.  I haven't seen any signs or read any intimations that the Dem. leadership is in any way trying to squash or block her.  Quite to the contrary.  They may be weak, but they're not total fools.

    Let's not ascribe <heh> the genuine enmity of the pundits and the boy blogs to the congressional leadership.  Pols don't behave that way.

    Hillary's only problem with the Senate is her lack of seniority and Teddy's determination to control health care reform (the general outlines of which, btw, he pretty much agrees with her on).


    Hillary went to Reid and requested a (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM EST
    Subcommittee chairmanship in connection with Health Care and was told no.  Ted wanted direct oversight of the main drive and if he were not able, then Chris Dodd would be next and there were two others ahead of her.

      There was nothing offered, until this week, and I suspect that had more to do with a fall-back position in case Obama couldn't choose her -- Kerry and Richard surrogates were noisily unhappy about Clinton as SOS, and word gets around.

      Also, fundraisers would likely have made it clear to some members of Congress that they were not happy with the treatment of Hillary after she received 18 million votes.

      At any rate, Kennedy offered to make her a "senior member" of one of his three task forces for Health care - put together to come up with ideas of how to proceed.  It wasn't clear whether she'd lead a task force but even then not much that would be done could have her ideas involved. She was to be assigned to the 'insurance' task force.

      Reid, this week, announced in a meeting that he would try to create a "new leadership role" in the Senate -- one that would be meaningful.  But they waited until they were under the gun from all kinds of pressure.  I think they hoped she'd fade away.

      I'm much happier seeing her use all that knowledge and love of detail and problem solving in some real world efforts having to do with peace where possible and having a real effect on things.  I say Kudos to Obama for wanting her to be the person in the 2nd most important position.  I guess he's showing his independence from the advisors who have had a bad case of CDS themselves but who are following his lead.  This is a brilliant bad-cop/good-cop team, and they can switch roles at times too.

      With all the hostilities in the world, I do worry about both of them though, as targets for the crazies.


    Sounds like you have some (none / 0) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    Obama Derangment Syndrome going on.

    Yeah, it's definitely (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    ODS to criticize him or suspect him of operating out of anything but the purest, saintliest, wisest motives.

    Well most of your post is solid (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Faust on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    but this line

    Obama tried and failed to destroy the Clintons utterly


    I mean it totally makes sense, after I try to destroy people "utterly" I usually turn around and offer them high profile coveted political positions.

    A more reasonable interpretation is that like Clinton he played to win, won, and now is respecting a respectable opponent by reaching out with a worthy offer.

    In my opinion narratives that deviate from an Occam's razor interpretations are adding on material that derives from either CDS or ODS.


    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    Let's talk Occam's razor.

    Occam's razor tells me that somebody who repeatedly accuses good Democrats with lifelong anti-discrimination and Civil Rights records, and numerous of their supporters and associates to boot, of racism and race-baiting-- Occam's razor tells me that person is trying to utterly destroy them as political forces within the party.

    There is no worse thing one Democrat can accuse another of.


    Occam's razor says (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    pols run against each other to win. After that, things change.

    My razor is more obvious than yours.


    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:48:32 PM EST
    Must be love.

    Well, then, you get to choose (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    whether Obama is a stinking slimeball with no more morals than Lee Atwater, or he was deliberately trying to destroy the Clintons for, um, the good of the country.

    He was trying to win. So was she. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    I don't get why this particular primary gets people in hyperbolic hysterics.

    I think the Senate might be better for her too (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Melchizedek on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    I wouldn't consider it an insult if she chose to stay in the Senate. Giving up a role on health care is a real sacrifice for her, and she's talented well beyond foreign policy. At the same time, I think of the global reach she could have. Think about the global women's health issues she could influence, for example.

    Here is how I see it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    When the President asks you to serve, then you serve.



    Except in the Army. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    These days.

    Yup (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    It's hard to say no to a President.

    I think staying in the (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST
    senate to push for health care ( a life long ambition for her) would mean that she took her doggedness on this issue as her first priority.  OTOH going to State means that as you say, the world will respond to the US once again in positive and hopeful ways. The later choice is more for the country in its broadest sense, especially since it now looks like Obama is putting some heavy hitters on the health care wagon.  Maybe those were Hillary's request before she would take SOS.

    She'd have more global reach as SOS (none / 0) (#121)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    She can still deal with women's issues in that position too.  We're half the world.

    post-Thanksgiving (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    I'm just worried that waiting until post-Thanksgiving gives the media and the rest of the CDSers more time to spin some innocuous comment from someone vaguely affiliated with the Clintons into some more drama.  We've never seen that before.

    s'wonderful....s'marvelous.... (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by jedimom on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:02:57 AM EST
    Ive said it before and I'll say it again, it is a Come to Jesus moment for me. It gives me such an enormous lift on the future, and gives me a faith I frankly did not have after the bruising primary. when it is official I am going to do a happy happy joy joy snoopy dance to put all others to shame :0)

    This decision really speaks volumes to me about how the new Administration will govern and the message coming from the top, and I am just over the moon about it, I had feared the moderate Clinton wing, like myself, would have nowhere to go and no voice in the future, The press was so happy to dance on our graves..well the dance is on the other feet now..

    or something like that.


    Obama needs to put this in words... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    Imo, BTD's headline is a tad misleading: "Obama Rejects CDS".

    It gives the impression that Obama has made some sort of public remaks denouncing the phenomenon of CDS in the press.

    Of course, Obama's recent appointments suggest that he has risen above CDS. However, the media has NOT followed his lead in this regard.

    It would be helpful if Obama publicly articulated his perspective on this matter. He needs to let the press know that he recognizes, and will not condone, their continued bashing of the Clintons.    


    At least he said on 60 minutes (none / 0) (#122)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    that he needed her advice and guidance.   Something like that.  And he said it very seriously.  Good for him.  

    Did he really say that? (none / 0) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    I was in and out of consciousness, so may have missed that part. I'll take another look.

    I somewhat overstated it, but here is what he said (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by andrys on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:12:23 AM EST
    Kroft: You met with Senator Clinton this week.

    Mr. Obama: I did.

    Kroft: Is she on the short list for a cabinet position?

    Mr. Obama: You know, she is somebody who I needed advice and counsel from. She is one of the most thoughtful public officials that we have. Beyond that, you're not getting anything out of me Steve.

    It didn't seem like the usual perfunctory statement though, if you watch the clip.  


    while mr. boehlert (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    wrote an interesting piece, it's a mere speck of the entire mud ball. this has been going on for 16 years, with the "liberal" (if, by liberal, you mean they don't bathe in the blood of virgins) press attacking every major dem since bill clinton beat poppy bush in '92.

    they savaged gore and kerry, and have continuesly assaulted sen. clinton, since pres. clinton first announced he was going to run for the office.

    maureen dowd, a seriously emotionally disturbed individual, has been one of the main leaders of this pack, creating lies out of thin air, and presenting her delusional fantasies as fact.

    one could almost credit the clintons with being single-handedly responsible for the rise of right-wing talk radio; what the heck would rush, et al, have to talk about, without them?

    and yet, in spite of all this, to the nearly hysterical consternation of the "liberal" media, the clintons survive and thrive.

    obama should be so good.

    Winning in politics is on thing. (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    Governing is completely different.

    George Bush spent eight years campaigning rather than governing.  A lot of people don't even know that governing is more important and lasting than any campaign slogan.

    Obama is more and more striking me as a pragmatist.  I was going to write a thing about the Rise of the Age of Pragmatism a few days ago.  There wasn't much more to say than that there seems to be a rise and I didn't think a big portion of the audience would get it so I didn't bother.  But that's what I see in the appointments Obama is making.  

    One of the big pluses in Senator Clinton's column for me during the primary was the fact that she knows what government used to look like before the Bush era.  Gore had worked very hard on a little known project called the Alliance for Redesigning Government.  Gore and his task force created the most efficient, leanest and most effective government we had had in decades.  A big reason that I had hoped he would run too.

    In any case, there is a lot of rebuilding that will need to be done.  It is my hope that with a brain trust that knows what government used to be like before it became an arm of the RNC political wing Obama will be able to infuse new ideas whilst getting some of the oldies but goodies back into place.

    I am glad to see this team be pragmatic.  I think the Clinton pick shows that Obama has made a realistic assessment of the work load on both the domestic and international fronts.  I don't think Kerry or Richardson would have the gravitas and be accepted as a surrogate for Obama internationally in the way Clinton will be.  I'm guessing they understand that Obama can't be globe trotting while the economy is collapsing.  I think it makes sense and I'm not all that worried about her or Bill going off the ranch.

    Anyhow, we'll see what happens.  At this point, I hope they stick with her.

    I couldn't have said it better myself (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:41:02 AM EST
    the campaign is over, and now it's time to govern. And to govern in a recession/depression. We need the best minds available in all of the positions.

    I was not a big Obama fan... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    ... during the campaign, but he is sending early encouraging signs of being able to take a clear-eyed look at both the Clintonite side of the party and the more progressive/netroots side of the party, and make use of the better parts of both. If he sticks to that he's got a chance to be very successful.

    Oh, was Kos offered a cabinet spot? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    I don't think there's an office... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:16:26 PM EST
    ... of Secretary of Going After Lieberman.

    Ummm, which 'side' is Daschle on? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    Neither, really... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:18:17 PM EST
    I don't happen to consider Daschele one of the better picks Obama has made, but he is an establishment Democrat who was an early Obama supporter, so I can see the wisdom of the appointment from Obama's perspective.

    And he took the time to write a book about (none / 0) (#123)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    health care too.  They just have to get past the work connections of both his wife and himself (he will cease work for Mayo etc.  

      So far, Obama seems to have weighed more heavily the strengths they can bring to the admin while too many of his supporters are unhappy he is not 'rewarding' those who endorsed him early, but that would be old politics.


    Okay, I'm embarassed (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by sj on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    In the reasons I had to support her, this wasn't one of them:

    the fact that she knows what government used to look like before the Bush era.

    And it absolutely should have been.


    Robert Scheer writes regularly in (none / 0) (#81)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    the SF Chronicle as does David Sirota, and others. Their main thesis has been that Bill Clinton caused the collapse of our industrial base with NAFTA and the collapse of the financial house of cards with legislation passed in late '90's, mostly the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.  Now they are moaning like stuck pigs about all of the Clinton leftovers going hat in hand to Obama begging for jobs.  LOL.  They seem to have little faith in Obama's judgement NOW!

    I have/had huge differences with (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's Administration on policy.  I am liberal and that was bound to happen.  But they did do a good job of running an effective government operation.  That counts for something especially when you are watching something like the aftermath of Katrina unfold completely unattended to by anyone in the federal government for days.

    In any case, as a native of DC the changes to the day-to-day government operations under Bush were evident to me even before that event.  Katrina was just an accident waiting to happen the way that Bush managed and changed our government.  The first clue came in 2000-2001 when it became evident that if you weren't a registered Republican true-believer you'd get no government work and the fact that they were handing out huge no bid contracts to their buddies.  That was a train wreck waiting to happen.

    Getting the agencies back in shape is going to be a big job.  Holder is far too conservative for my tastes, but I am willing to live with him because he has most likely been chosen more for his anti-corruption and boy scout reputation than for his ideology.  Cleaning up DOJ after what we know about the politicization of the agency will require a personality like his.  So he's fine as long as no one is planning on writing any big crime bills - then he'll probably manage to annoy me.

    The problem with people like Sirota from my perspective is that they are so focused on people's ideologies that they ignore their purpose at times which doesn't always involve as much ideology as they act like it does.  Obama's not going to just send Clinton out to some foreign leaders meeting and say, "Whatever you think..."  He has an FP team of advisors that he obviously relies on heavily.  He has his own ideas about the world.  The Secretary of State does not have the last word.  To freak out to the extent that some people have has really made them look like they don't have a clue about the fairly well defined roles and responsibilities that each of these cabinet members have.  

    And the folks who will continue to insist that Clinton or someone else not considered to be "changey" enough forced something on Obama no matter how clear it is that he was "The Decider" are just trying to escape the reality that Obama was never the liberal guy they always wanted to believe he was.  


    Begging HIM for jobs? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    No initiative or backbone on his part??



    Coming Attractions (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Frank Burns on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    The Clintagonists have again shown their hand as to how they'll behave. They scandalized the news of her apparent nomination, then complained the Clintons made themselves the cener of attention again. They self-fulfil their fever wishes over and over. Look for more invented palace intrigue coming to a cable network near you. I hope Hllary will do a fine job and be able to ignore them. She's certainly had enough practice over the past year.

    Over the past year? (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by sj on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    She's had to practice ignoring them over past sixteen years.  [sigh]

    Duly Noted (none / 0) (#98)
    by Frank Burns on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM EST
    But the intensity level subsided a bit between 2001-7, with certain temperature spikes during her senate reelection campaign and the ridiculous media drumbeat to get her to run for the dem nomination in '04.

    Obama was against the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    during the primary.  Although the press took  the same anti Clintons attitude you can't tell me that Obama was not anti Clintons when he was campaigning during the primaries.  So if the press took off on their disdain about the Clintons they surely had the green light from Obama to express it.  

    If he is acting different now is because he now knows how wrong he was about the Clintons.  

    I remember right after he got nominated in an interviews he stated that he desperately needed the Clintons to win the GE.

    So far most of his appointments are past Clinton people and now Hilary herself.

    I too agree that she should stay in the senate.  No one knows how well Obama will do.  Being the SOS is nothing but a yes man to the President.   Powell showed that fact very well during the UN when against his nature he was rationalizing why we need to go to Iraq when he knew what he was saying was BS.  He could have been a greater person by resigning the SOS position rather than being the yes man for Bush.

    Of course he was (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:15:01 AM EST
    He was running against Hillary Clinton.

    Yeah but it would have been nice (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by smott on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    ...if he'd run on showing how his ideas were better than Clintons.

    Instead of conflating the Clinton years with the Bush Years, and claiming that Clinton would be a return to the politics of the past and so on.

    ALl the wHile taking the free ride of media sexism against Clinton.


    Politics is what it is (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    Obama was never going to change that.

    As someone who was in Florida for a good deal of the general election, I can tell you that Obama ran the most continuous negative campaign against McCain I have ever seen.

    It was incredible. all day every day for months.


    Got away with it, too (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:13:09 AM EST
    The media love came through.

    I guess. But I see far more hypocricy (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by smott on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    In Obama than I do in Clinton. And pandering, and principles scrapped in favor of expedience.

    I'm just amazed that he could run on a platform of unity.


    But But But! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Faust on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    What about the high road????

    Exactly (none / 0) (#113)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    If Obama ran what many have called a "noble" campaign, then God help us all!

    Yes, of course he took advantage of CDS in the (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    primary. He did it as cunningly as he got rid of the competition (read Alice Palmer) in the Illinois Senate campaign when he first run there.
    That's why I never bought into his "new way of doing things in Washington" at-noxious-refrain.

    Sure, that's how the game of politic goes, fair enough, but, no illusion here: what HRC was accused of (i.e. anything to win) fits Obama perfectly.  

    He figured he needs Hillary at SoS, so he called on her. I guess that if he needed Alice Palmer now he would call on her as well.  What the heck, that's politics.

    As for Hillary future at SoS, I trust that her power of persuasion and influence not only with foreign leaders, but with Obama as well, will work out for her and ultimately produce  illuminated foreign policies.  
    I also think that she would resign before having to do a Colin Powell type of performance at the UN, which would not be a good thing for Obama and the Dems.  So, she is got her own cards in her sleeves and knows when and how to play them. That's politics as usual after all and it goes both ways.  



    There's no doubt that CDS is alive and well (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:34:49 AM EST
    but to a lesser extent ODS is alive and well too.

    I'm glad that Obama and Clinton are free of either Syndrome and seem focused on the greater good.


    ODS is a growing phenomenon (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:36:59 AM EST
    That's what happens when you win the Presidency.

    Personally, I could not be more pleased (except for John Brennan) with President-elect Obama's performance since the Democratic Convention.


    Indeed. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    I am very very happy with him. ODS is just as stupid and just as useless as CDS. Both are cancers upon clear thinking.

    The nature of Secretary of State (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:46:27 PM EST
    Please take a look at the historical Secretary of State (and, for that matter, the Foreign Minister in some allied European nations.) Unlike the Condi Rice/George Bush model, when the Secretary brings in his/her own stature, the result is far from being a yes-person. In this situation, you have a potential merger of true historic personae. The relationship may well be more than the job description simplicity of he says-she does.  The reality is that both need each other to succeed.  I believe that both will act accordingly...and better.  

    On the Domestic Front ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by robrecht on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:23:01 AM EST
    I am sure Hillary will be a great team player in public and a masterful advisor in private.  But I do believe her greatest contribution would be on the domestic front, eg, health care, HOLC, etc, where she has already displayed exceptional policy leadership and newfound energy as the happy warrior populist.  Still think we would be better served with President Hillary and VP Obama.  That's not sour grapes just don't think Hillary is being used where greatest strengths are presently.  Still, this is the ultimate resume builder for Hillary in '12 or '16.  But in the meantime, I think her leadership could be more important in the Senate.

    Evidently Obama and Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    do not agree with you and BTD about where her abilities can be most useful to the country at this time.

    No better choice than Hillary for SoS if Obama is to be the unity president, both domestically and internationally.

    Two birds...one stone:  Hillary


    Evidently! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by robrecht on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    But I wonder if they agree with each other for the same reasons??? In other words, now I can only hope that Obama adopts Hillary's vision for domestic legislation.  Hope he doesn't disappoint.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    It's a shame I am not the President-Elect I think . . .

    You have been (none / 0) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    eyeing the White House all your life haven't you!??! Just like that evil Hillary.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    I think it is well documented that I could not be elected dogcatcher, even if just my family was voting.

    At the risk ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by robrecht on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    ... of damning with faint praise, I would definitely vote for you for dog catcher, especially against Newt or Sarah.

    Too polarizing (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST

    Perhaps with a name change? (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:59:37 AM EST
    And an attitude adjustment, of course!

    Obama, Hillary and I prefer (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    that you stay where you are.

    No point in proving the Peter Principle...


    If you think that, then read this (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    Jeffrey Goldberg's piece for The Atlantic the other day, in which he quoted himself writing in the New Yorker.  The Atlantic article is called "One Reason Hillary Could be Extraordinary at State"

    His The Atlantic description of and then his quote from his New Yorker article:

    "Her understanding of Middle East peacemaking is second-to-none,
    IMHO.  Two years ago, I interviewed the front-runners for the Democratic nomination on a range of foreign policy issues.

    Obama was smart and savvy and reasonable and seemed to have,
    generally speaking, excellent judgment, but he was still
    unsteeped in some of the issues; Edwards was a dope;

    Clinton, however, was something of a wonder: her simultaneous mastery of the smallest details and of the biggest themes was beyond impressive.  Her uncommon understanding of the Middle East could truly revive peacemaking.  Here's a brief excerpt
    from the interview."

      The rest is here and at the New Yorker article link above.


    Does this mean (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    that Obama doesn't think Hillary is the "r" word anymore?

    I think Obama's goal in choosing Hillary was survival in the 2012 election. When the economy is still in the tankers then (which it will likely be), he'll actually need the however-many-Hillary-voters that stayed home last time.

    To imply that somehow this is charitable, or genius or that he didn't have to do it or something? Well, I think it's a stretch to say so.

    The press will love Obama no matter what he does. Even choosing Clinton won't hurt him, especially since the press can now say that Bill got her the job.

    I don't know if I buy that. (none / 0) (#94)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    I think that is more CDS paranoid speculation about the situation.  Besides, if she does become his SoS and ends up doing a brilliant job and if the domestic situation is not great, she'd be in a better position in 2012 than a worse one.  And I still can't for the life of me figure out where their differences on policy were so wildly out of synch that she could be a thorn in his side in the Senate.  If anything, I tend to think he's likely losing a pretty good ally that might have been more useful than not in dealing with that motley crew on the Senate side.

    Excellent comment, Teresa (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    Pragmatists tend to look a few years ahead.

    Not so fast (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by koshembos on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    There is no evidence, and the post does quote Obama, that Obama is given up on CDS. Emanuel, Holder and Napolitano and even Hillary are choices made on the basis of absolute need and lack of creativity (Holder).

    Obama never told the media or his fanatic bloggers, Kos,Josh, Klein etc., to stop CDS and never will. The reality is that Bill Clinton was so good that his people at the different positions are the best and brightest. The gang assembled around Obama are the Clinton refuse can (Daschle); you don't make a government with them and hope to succeed.

    Even with Hillary at SOS, he may have a person to blame easily with full support of the media who lying in wait.

    Your last two diaries are opposing Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    for SoS. I know you don't have CDS, but I really disagree with you.

    The problem with Hillary is more basic, as well as undeniable: on foreign policy she is a hawk (a euphemism for "conservative.") Nominating her would undermine Obama's core message of change and send exactly the wrong message to the world. I don't believe Obama will give her the post. He shouldn't. SOS, indeed.

    I don't see any major differences in her views and his.

    And apparently Obama tends to.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:28:27 AM EST
    ...agree with your view.

    In my piece (none / 0) (#52)
    by david mizner on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    I explain some differences, hawkish views held by Hillary and not Obama.

    That said, you're right, to a degree, Obama has some hawkish tendencies that I think Hillary will re-enforce.

    It's possible (as some have suggested) that Hillary's reputation for toughness will harden O's right-flank and give him cover to deal on Israel and other issues. We'll see.

    And no, I don't dislike Hillary at all, I think she could (or could have) become a hugely influential Senator--putting her mark on health care and education--so I'm a little surprised she seems to be taking the SOS job.


    I will miss her in the Senate too. I guess it's (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    that seniority thing. As far as hardening Obama's right-flank, if I understand you, I think he is a tougher cookie than I thought. Some of his advisers obviously aren't happy about this choice but he is sticking to it and that is a good thing.

    I hope Obama is tougher (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    than I thought.

    I admit that I still think he could be a naive rookie.  Time will tell.

    Of course, anyone coming in after eight years of Bush should be in a sober, pragmatic frame of mind.  There will be no charging ahead with grand visions until some of the mess is cleaned up.  It's not all bad though because any success in fixing the Bush messes will grant credibility.


    I was thinking about that last night. I used (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    to think who in their right mind would want to be President during this mess? But, unless it lasts four years or more, things will get better and Obama will get the credit for it no matter what he does.

    I just hope he takes advantage of the situation and gets some good programs and regulations through. The economy is scaring me.


    Maybe there are ways to do both (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    at the same time. I'm not informed on the details enough to know for sure, but perhaps the new could simply be an organic apart of cleaning up the old.

    I am really thinking about the comment that Hillary - and others Obama is choosing - know what government looked like before Bush.

    This is so important! A lot of the electorate has no idea of even this recent history.

    I think Obama's folks are smart enough to also know what it looked like before Reagan. I hope Obama is getting over his Reagan attachment.

    I hope he begins to grasp that Reagan started this whole thing and that some New Deal and New Society programs are necessary to the common good, a concept that goes well with Obama's rhetoric.

    I hope it gains a lot of currency, since the common good has a clear liberal bent!

    Hope, hope.....


    That Reagan thing still creeps (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:41:19 PM EST
    me out.

    The one thing Reagan was good at was being a snake oil salesman.  Promised people sunshine and good times while he pulled the rug out from under them.

    Why couldn't Obama have found a conservative who actually accomplished great things?


    How kind of you to see her (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    value in the senate.  Ahhh yes, keep her down on the farm.  Health Care you know!!

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    I think that is a function of Obama being adulated as opposed to Clinton not being loathed in those quarters.

    It is pretty amusing (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by david mizner on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    when Hillary hatred meets Obama love.

    Over as Kos there's a commenter who blasted me for criticizing Obama's choice of Hillary, a commenter who during the primary called Hillary a sociopath. Hey, if Obama wants a sociopath to be SOS he must have a good reason.


    How is IBS taking this? (none / 0) (#55)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    Not well but she has it all figured out. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    She knows who is leaking what and why and I think she is still holding out hope it isn't true. She disturbs me like no other poster ever on any blog.

    IBS is Michelle Bernard (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    That's my new conspiracy theory.

    She goes by Edna Howard at Mydd. (none / 0) (#61)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    I remember you from the big (none / 0) (#83)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    orange.  You definitely had CDS as I recall.  

    You recall wrong (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    You mean David Minzer wasn't (none / 0) (#86)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    a regular there?  I could have sworn he was a big John Edwards supporter turned Obama supporter.  Sorry if that isn't true.

    Not true that he wasa CDSer (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    I learned the names of people (none / 0) (#105)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:06:46 PM EST
    whose comments I wouldn't read while I was still over there, and I know that I avoided his like the plague.  My behavior was usually related to someone's virulent anti-Hillary comments.  But it has been over a year now and my memory may be fading.

    wouldn't it be nice... (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by S on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    wouldn't it be nice if it were as simple as...the primary is over...Obama came to realize how important and significant the Clintons are to him, not only as fellow democrats, but as assets on the world stage...that they can all really work together for common purpose...

    wouldn't it be nice to think that Obama, who is now our President-elect, during these most trying and crucial times, could have the maturity to recognize the extraordinary abilities and intelligence of Hillary Clinton...enough to be honored to have her on his team...

    ...obviously I am a Hillary supporter, however I was encouraged to hear Obama say that NEEDS her counsel and respects that she is one of the most thoughtful thinkers in the country...I am heartened to think that Obama recognizes what so much of the world sees in the Clintons and has enough confidence to want to project their goodwill instead of being small and being threatened by it...

    ...I will cautiously hope that our Democratic party can start acting like adults and try to create some real solutions to the mess our country is in...choosing Hillary Clinton as his SOS has given me some hope that Obama intends to execute as an adult...not some partisan reactionary...we'll see...

    Yes, it would be nice (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    Sometimes we as individuals and a a party can be both pragmatic and idealistic. I tend to think that a number of the talked-of selections thus far have both flavors. Especially as regards Hillary Clinton. It all could be quite nice...and, a real form of powersharing in the truest sense of the concept. Real authority can support idealism in the long run.

    I hope you caught this column. If not, (none / 0) (#126)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    here it is - Gail Collins on Clinton as SOS

     (It's definitely one of the better ones.)


    Enough CDS. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by kateNC on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    The media's got that covered.

    What about exposing some serious obstacles in Obama's ability to govern and actually change policies in Washington? For example Daniel Froomkin's blog asserting,

    "So the question we ask ourselves today is: Are Bush and Cheney loyalists entrenching themselves into the federal bureaucracy in order to make it difficult for their successors to roll back their policies?"


    So gyrfalcon tells us: (4.00 / 3) (#92)
    by joel dan walls on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    Obama tried and failed to destroy the Clintons utterly, I'm convinced, so I do now give him some props for apparently finally realizing that's hopeless and deciding instead to use their skills and popularity for the good of the country.  We used to call this "co-opting" back in the day, and it's a perfect example of it.  He gets her skills and high profile for State while neutralizing her and Bill domestically almost completely.


    Occam's razor tells me that somebody who repeatedly accuses good Democrats with lifelong anti-discrimination and Civil Rights records, and numerous of their supporters and associates to boot, of racism and race-baiting-- Occam's razor tells me that person is trying to utterly destroy them as political forces within the party.

    And then there are the folks like me who decided to support Obama last winter and got sick to death of hearing him called an empty suit, and hearing ourselves called Koolaid drinkers and cultists.

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Obama Derangement Syndrome. They're both stupid constructs intended to give the user an excuse to avoid serious engagement. Let them both go. And good gawd, remember that an Obama Administration won't even exist for another two months! Leave the pre-emptive obituaries to the GOP droids.

    Some of us would suggest (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    that it was the folks who got on the Obama train last winter who are the ones who avoided serious engagement.

    Proving in Bill Maher's own words (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM EST
    that the media (Maher included) is dealing with one smart Obama cookie (UGH! Maher, what a dumb cookie he turned out to be and I used to like him so much).

    Wilgorinism (none / 0) (#25)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    How the courtier media has ginned up the Clinton hysteria and then complained about her being a drama queen is certainly a good example of how they operate, but digby's larger point is more important.

    Whitewater may have been an early example, but the same process worked with Wen Ho Lee (the irony being that it was the Clinton Administration that began the heartless persecution of Wen Ho Lee), Judy Miller and WMD.  In the spring of 2004 William Greider wrote a piece for the Nation about how he sarcastically congratulated some of campaign press on their having successfully torpedoed Howard Dean's campaign.  Greider was shocked when these people Greider knew personally acknowledged his congratulations.  They were proud of what they'd done.

    Obama owed Hillary and Bill Clinton.  Both of them, but especially Hillary, were real pros and did yeoman service campaigning for Obama in key swing states.  Obama is certainly justified in appointing Hillary Secretary of State if that's what she wants.  She's certainly as qualified as Madelyn Albright or Warren Christopher were.

    My fear is that the courtier media won't get over it, but will manufacture more "scandal" out of Bill Clinton's post-presidential career.

    It speaks highly of Obama as a political operator that he honors his political debt to the Clintons and refuses to let the MoDos of the press exert a heckler's veto.  This lets the world know that Obama will not sell someone out if they work for him.  

    Whether someone like Lani Guinier would say the same about Bill Clinton remains to be seen.

    Except for Alice Palmer......nt (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    Good point. This should put any notion that Obama has CDS to rest for good, and that he is working for all of us.

    Not all of us squeaky.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    not all of us.

    Well (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    He isn't really working for any of us, yet...

    I am holding out some small hope that 6 years from now if he's still in office, things have settled down, and no re-election in sight, he may even end up helping you kdog.

    No evidence to support this but hope and change though :)


    Really? (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    I do not believe that you have CDS. That is a selective disease, yours is a general condition.

    I think I got.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    GDS...Government Derangement Syndrome:)

    Was just trying to say that if you happen to be in the criminal class or in the military don't expect any work to be done on your behalf.

    But hey, if the country is in better shape in 4-8 years, I'll take it:)



    Oh, I dunno (none / 0) (#29)
    by david mizner on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    On balance there's been a favorable reaction to Hillary becoming SOS, both in the sphere and in the MSM. Jonathan Alter said, "everyone agrees she'd be a great SOS." Everyone? Really?

    Over as DKOS, which was filled with anti-Hillary fervor during the primary, not frontpagers have objected.

    I agree, of course, that CDS exists, but it hasn't been much in evidence during this episode.

    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    See, I read your objections, which were substantive and well stated. I do not share them.

    What I mean by CDS is not actual substantive criticism, but crazy Hitchens-like criticism.

    For example, the people you cite - after saying "Clinton would be a great SOS" - then go on a tirade about how evil the Clintons are.

    To me, that is a manifestation of CDS.


    I see you ignore MoDo (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    like the rest of us should.

    That's what Somerby is for. (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    I only read the Howler interpretation of MoDo.

    It beats reading her straight and wondering if she fell into Rove's "created" reality and never found her way out again.  


    the only way to read (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    ms. dowd's psychotic ravings directly, without the loss of your own sanity, is with the help of some nice pharmaceuticals, and a stiff drink.

    otherwise, you're at risk of falling into her bosch-like alternate reality.


    I did see a DailyKos frontpager yesterday (none / 0) (#125)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    that was still arguing against Clinton for SOS after yesterday morning's announcement.

    Whoooo.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM EST
    ...is IBS?? Or Edna Howard?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    And why would anyone... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    ...name themselves after something as bad as Irratible Bowel Syndrome?

    Well, there goes the blog's rating... (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    right back to high school...

    I wondered how long it would take...


    Just wait until... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:33:40 AM EST
    ...I reach the ideal caffeine concentration  level.  I'm still working on the titration level to find the right balance.  

    At that point I shall be able to meet even your highly pedantic requirements.



    LOL! I have trouble balancing (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:59:06 AM EST
    the perfect level without moving directly to the teeth-grinding level....

    You can call me 'ped' for short! (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    Can't take a joke?

    Can't recognize snark? (none / 0) (#91)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Too much of that lovely Pacific Northwest liquid sunshine, perhaps?

    Riiiight... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    DON'T MOVE HERE!  It rains all the time.  And it blows, too...hard.  Very hard.  Rains and blows a wicked wind here on the peninsula.  White caps on three sides and no sign of stopping.  Ever.

    I love it but most people wouldn't like it at ALL.

    Did I mention you shouldn't move here?

    You can save on sunglasses and tan lotion, tho.


    Your forgot... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:01:10 PM EST
    ...the killer giant slugs that eat pets and small children, the highly toxic mold that grows on everything and living with the constant, paralyzing fear of earthquakes, volcanoes and rabid clams.  

    Clearly not God's Country at all.  Or so I'm told...


    Well, there's a pretty long (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:48 PM EST
    'OMIGAWD list' and I wouldn't want to terrify people unnecessarily.

    We generally save the worst stuff (some of which you mentioned, thanksalot) for the folks who make it this far and engage with an actual realtor or stop at the C of C office for directions.  THEN we get serious and segue into 'confidential whisper mode,' a la red tides and paralytic shellfish poisoning, innocent-appearing swordferns, and the ever-popular tide rip off the point where many an experienced sailor or fisherman couldn't get back 'home' and spent the night on 'the island.'

    Then we show 'em a dogfish (eek!) and explain that fish-and-chips are often made from those disgusting-looking critters rather than from cod.

    There's more (oysters! icky!) and geoducks, octopus and KILLER WHALES.  And if all else fails, I'll take you blackberry picking through a nettle patch.  It takes days to recover from nettles...some people never recover.


    I think you have the sequence of naming (none / 0) (#82)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM EST

    Opossum (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    Although not a Kossack myself, IceBergSlim is one of the more prominent and abnoxious Obama Koolaid drinkers on Kos who I have only read once or twice, but that was more than enough.  (I think there are some obnoxious Hilary folk to to be fair.)

    Edna Howard is her username on MyDD.



    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    obnoxious, not abnoxious in the first sentence.  It's early for me.  LOL