CDS: For Some There Is No Cure

Naturally, HuffPo, but my good friend Al Giordano just can not give up on his dreams that Hillary at State is just a big confabulation of the Clinton Court:

Well, not to, ahem, torture any of you with the same message I've been pushing all week, but it does bear repeating: Nothing's a "done deal" until you hear it from the big man himself or his spokesmen speaking on the record.

He's still dreaming. Meanwhile, the NYTimes matter of factly reports:

Mr. Obama’s aides say Mr. Biden has backed the decision to appoint Mrs. Clinton secretary of state. “If he had made an argument against it, it would have carried a lot of weight,” a senior aide to the transition said. “He was totally in support of it.”

At some point, wishful thinking has to give in to reality. Or not.

Speaking for me only

< Report: Gates To Stay At Defense | Lord Conrad Black Phones Home From FPC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Digby explains the rules of the Village (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mogal on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:22:20 PM EST
    Ya think? (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:23:23 PM EST

    Clinging, clinging to antipathy.

    Always good for a column/post on a slow news day.  When you just make it up as you go along, there is reams of material to work with!  The only limits are taste and imagination...so I don't imagine CDS will end any time soon.

    Kind of pathetic, though.

    I do not think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    this takes Brennan's involvement in our moral slide seriously enough:

    Brennan and others probably think it is terribly unfair for him to have been associated with policies he did not, in his words, create. And I'll stipulate that, yes, it's not one hundred percent fair, but appointments should never be a referendum on fairness or sympathy for the potential appointee.

    That perspective on our torture regime needs to be stamped out.  Maybe it was just the few defenses of Brennan I read today that argued what he argued in his letter...maybe they are making me severe.  Trying to figure out exactly who created it - Bush, will no doubt be Tenet's answer - everyone who was there played a part. And my position is that if Brennan were appointed, getting a different answer than that would've been almost impossible...

    BUT, I had not read this before -

    The sources say that Brennan has begun to recruit a team he hopes to bring with him to the agency, and that he has been vetted. Brennan did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

    That was a close one.

    Unfortunately for Giordano it's likely some members of the Obama team are going to look at attacks on Clinton with a jaundiced eye.

    Gawd knows what Al (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:33:12 PM EST
    is thinking these days.

    A deeper explanation for CDS? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    "Not causing a media circus" is now the first requirement for anyone in public life. (It's why people like me would be bad choices even for positions that we're most qualified to do. I accept that. Brennan clearly does too.)

    Al from the comments...

    Not like Barack currently causes a media circus or anything.

    Of all the reasons to oppose Brennan - who according to Al "through no fault of his own Brennan at CIA would cause a media circus of diversion and distrust" - that is the weakest tea.  Plus Brennan never created a media circus - precious little non-editorial media coverage questioned his associations experience or business ties.

    It seems like Brennan is a symbol for Giordano more than anything else.  6 hours ago Brennan was a lot scarier than that.


    Causing.... (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by rghojai on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 03:07:27 AM EST
    What struck me about the circus-causing concept, as articulated well in quantity and quality with specific examples at dailyhowler... is that the media too often rents the land, raises the tent, brings in the clowns and animals, and criticizes the circus--playing innocent bystanders/reporters... on something at least largely of their own making with little or no substance.

    meh (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    he didn't post about it (to my knowledge) until now when he can use it to make his point about Hillary.

    I personally don't understand this interpretation:

    Part of the message is probably directed at bloggers and activists that had raised a fuss over a possible Brennan appointment, simultaneously as both placation and pushback. (It may even be intended to create some backlash and sympathy to pave the way for Brennan's later entrance into the administration.)

    Seperately the "Brennan was a trojan horse for Gates!" argument doesn't make sense either.  He doesn't make it but I've read others worry.


    The Elizabeth Drew article (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:40:05 PM EST
    HuffPo links to is insufferable.  It's like she's reviewing a book she likes:

    People who fret that Emanuel, having served in the Clinton White House and on Capitol Hill, doesn't represent "change" needn't worry. Emanuel is very close to Obama, was an adviser during the campaign, understands what he wants to do--and knows that his role is to serve the President.

    Obama's meetings with Hillary Clinton and John McCain about playing important roles in his presidency indicated his imagination and his shrewdness,

    The wise candidate, the one who sees long, will run the campaign as a preparation for the presidency.

    One could argue that's what Hillary was initially criticized for.


    Clinton, in particular, had kept her constituency intact (through HillPAC) and was planning her own Senate agenda, including her own health care program, no matter what Obama proposed.

    What is the frickin point of being a Senator if you don't have your own plans?  Baucus, come before us, you dared to plan without permission!!!!!!

    Also she's outdated as Hillary was offered a health care task force by Ted Kennedy...but nevermind, nevermind...

    Huffington is a creepy figure. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    It's a bit too much to bear these historically conservative figures telling the left how to act.  

    I recall the docudrama aout Blair and Brown--The Deal.
    Brown muttered something about Blair being a closet conservative with a doubtful socialist provenance...

    "John [Smith], I didn't work in this party since I was 12 to have a Tory take over the Labour party!"

    "Where the hell was Blair in the seventies? Really where was he?"

    "All apologetic Tory that guff about 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'!"  (TLers should appreciate that sentiment.)

    Huffington is like that IMHO.


    Cracks me up how the young (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:49:31 PM EST
    "progressives" love the Arianna and Sullivan types.
    These are sanctimonious hypocrites who LOVED them some Reagan (remember that Union busting, despot supporting, racist code word using hero of the right) and they are aghast and accuse Hillary of being a war monger

    What a joke those people are.
    I challenged Arianna, bringing up her "connections to the Clinton bashing Newt" and, no surprise, my comment is NOT approved there.


    Huffington was a founder of CDS (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by koshembos on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:20:47 AM EST
    A carrier, more likely... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    Stay tuned for (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:20:23 AM EST
    Ms. Huffington's all-encompassing guide to blogging!

    That front-page story is insufferable! (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:43:24 PM EST
    It is clear that CDS is a chronic, relapsing disease that infects the minds of certain Villagers like Arianna.  Since there seems to be no cure, the only effective response is strict isolation CDS sufferers.

    But... but... but! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Plutonium Page on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    She said "obliterate"!!!

    I can't get on board (none / 0) (#68)
    by ps911fan on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    I strongly call BS on the efforts to define anyone who fails to fall into a Clinton lovefest as suffering from CDS.

    My biggest problem with Bill Clinton is simple and clear. When he decided to have his personal dalliance (which was his business and not the worlds), he should have had the foresight to avoid such a problem. Anyone who was under a withering attack from the RW should have known that it could and would be used against him.

    This lead to two WASTED years of his presidency where he was wounded and drained intellectual, political, and leadership capital. After his 96 victory over Newt's bungle to shut down the government and subsequent re-election, Clinton had enough wind behind him to push more of his agenda forward.

    Instead, he let his baser needs cloud him and he became vulnerable and that was used against him in the most wrong way ever.....but it does not excuse him from having wasted two VALUABLE years.

    During this time, he also did not look out for the party by looking to strengthen the DNC, to work with others to build infrastructure. When Clinton left office, the party was in disarray because so much energy had been expended on the table post impeachment.

    It was one of the most foolish actions a brilliant man can take in a time of critical need.
    Imagine what he could have done had he not been so damn foolish to squander a hard fought term in office.

    I have little issue with Hillary except that she proved twice to be a lousy manager (her campaign and the healthcare 93 effort) but she has developed into an effective voice for issues.

    Obama's early victories seemed to have pushed out a statesperson that was not there before or was there but had not blossomed. Her push at the end demonstrated that she could function without Bill's coattails and her "fighter" persona fits her much better.

    A non-jaundiced eye can find flaws easily in the Clinton legacy but one has to accept that some of their problem are self created and they are not vicitims. However, they are strong Democrats who deserve many compliments and some brickbats as well.

    That does not make it CDS as many here seem to buy into without real dissent.

    I hope she will do all she can as SoS to help make this planet safer and


    Drew is an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    and I never have understood why she is thought of well.  Voicing the thoughts of a puppy dog taxed her abilities.

    If you're going to hurl insults at your betters, (3.66 / 3) (#49)
    by Don in Seattle on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 08:32:49 AM EST
    as apparently you are, you might at least put forth the effort to make your insults witty.

    Elizabeth Drew is 73 years old, a graduate of Wellesley, and a pioneer woman in the field of American political journalism.

    Of course you have the Goddess-given right to disagree with anyone you please, but it can be done respectfully. "She disagrees with me -- she's an idiot" doesn't add anything worthwhile to the debate. It is unworthy of you.

    Hey, you think it's so easy? You try voicing the thoughts of a puppy dog. Good luck!


    I happen to have been (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    a journalist, to have read her works, to have met her and followed her journalistic works.  That stuff is not better than a lot of our works.  For example, I also have written books.  How 'bout you, dearie?

    And the pioneering women in journalism, dearie, were in the 19th century.  Many were publishers and editors, not just journalists.  

    So stuff it -- you don't know your stuff at all.

    And since when do we not criticize journalists here?  Jeez, this blog now officially is over the edge to idiocy.  Or just to idiots.


    Nice try, CC. You captured nicely the puppy's (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 09:55:57 AM EST
    spirit of entitlement ("It doesn't matter if I make a mess here. I'm special -- I met Elizabeth Drew! -- so people will excuse me.") But you overlooked one rather obvious point relating to puppy psychology. As a rule, puppies don't boast about how many books they have written. In fact, very few puppies write books at all.

    Seriously, CC. "I happen to have been a journalist," you write, as if that put you beyond the criticism of us mere mortals. But then you contradict yourself: "And since when do we not criticize journalists here?"

    You go on: "That stuff is not better than a lot of our works." "Our" works?? I'm pretty sure we never co-authored anything. Is that the royal we?

    You may be a former journalist and historian. You may be the perfect Renaissance woman -- you may be the reconstituted remains of Ida M. Tarbell herself, for all I know. (On second thought, that last conjecture seems unlikely; Tarbell was in the habit of citing her sources.)

    None of that matters. My comment was about your manners, not your erudition. And the fact remains:  

    You wrote a post that had very little substance except to call Elizabeth Drew "an idiot." That's not criticism -- criticism we can all encourage -- it's just name-calling.

    It's past time you learn the difference.


    Although... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    policing blogs to lecture commenters on their bad manners is another form of bad manners, IMO.

    And some of the sentences in your post above belie the fact that you're going after CC personally, not her manners --- which is definitely bad manners.

    As long as we are on the topic of manners!


    And here I thought I was hiding it so well... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    I  mean, I didn't call her any names. I didn't in so many words tell her she was the idiot, or that she should stuff it... I didn't even call her 'dearie', or bless her heart.

    You're right. I'm afraid I just don't like arrogant bullies. My bad.

    Oops -- did I just break the rules, and call her a name?

    Oh, good. Not in so many words.


    It's no better because you think you're subtle (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:34:21 PM EST
    Emphasis on 'think'.

    So many arrogant bullies, so many ways for them to manifest.


    Touche. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    Must be late stage ODS. Drew notes here why McCain lost her respect. Seems right on to me.

    When Bush, issued a "signing statement" in 2006 on McCain's hard-fought legislation placing prohibitions on torture, saying he would interpret the measure as he chose, McCain barely uttered a peep. And then, in 2006, in one of his most disheartening acts, McCain supported a "compromise" with the administration on trials of Guantanamo detainees, yielding too much of what the administration wanted, and accepted provisions he had originally opposed on principle. Among other things, the bill sharply limited the rights of detainees in military trials, stripped habeas corpus rights from a broad swath of people "suspected" of cooperating with terrorists, and loosened restrictions on the administration's use of torture. (The Supreme Court later ruled portions of this measure unconstitutional.)



    I'm beginning to fear (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by WS on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    for Al Giordano's health. The Clinton as SoS pick is really eating at his soul.  

    Gosh, it must hurt him every time he sees or hears Hillary as SoS.  He should learn to accept it and move on because these types of comments just reek of denial.    

    What idjits. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    The great thing is that this particular strain of CDS does not affect normal people.  These things no longer make me angry.  The idea that a few fringe fools are freaking out because Obama sees how much Hillary is worth just makes me laugh.  They are fools.They are wrong. And they are fast becoming a very small group of non-factors.  

    I just can't get over how high profile it is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Faust on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:10:06 PM EST
    though. They are "fringe" right now in the sense that they are highlighted as crazy via the fact that they are not able to frame the conflict in an electoral setting. But there are some big names behind these crazed narratives.

    No doubt. (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:55:03 PM EST
    But see the pundits' exploding heads are really making me giggle. How the Beltway Media is twisting itself into insanity because of this appointment--they can't blame Obama, they will try to blame Hillary--they simply cannot wrap themselves around WHY Obama would choose her.  Then of course, they call it a drama and the Clintons and their continuous drama--as they are the ones bringing it to dramatic levels!  It's  quite hilarious to watch, actually.   Bizarre.  

    I just love that the media pundit crowd can simply NOT wrap their heads around why Obama would choose Hillary.  He's supposed to hate her! Just like they do!


    I know. It's so wierd. (none / 0) (#36)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 11:32:40 PM EST
    Honestly (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by zvs888 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:55:55 PM EST
    These CDS hold outs in are a box.  They know that a clearly supermajority of Americans support Clinton at SoS, something like 57% or so.

    They're stuck in that 30% who are against it which is composed of people who will oppose anything that Obama does, Bush's mid-20s support, and then themselves.

    It's a sad fact that this very vocal minority is probably outweighed in the numbers by McCain supporters who see it as a good choice.

    She's the most capable for the job; Obama made a good choice in asking her to do it; that's all there is to it.

    Sad that these small minded people keep grabbing at air.

    By the way (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by zvs888 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:58:14 PM EST
    The part which most irks me about this is that Fox News and the Obama opponents seem to be driving this "netroots" outrage storyline without refering to how small a margin these people are.

    I have to believe that these people are roughly the same size as the PUMA anti-Obama vote.  They're negligible in terms of size, but they create great fake drama for the networks.


    She would have been good at (none / 0) (#60)
    by joanneleon on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    just about anything he asked her to do.  That probably gets to them even more.

    you might be on to something there... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM EST

    Some of the suggestions I heard (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Baal on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    for cabinet picks really panicked me.  Regardless of one's ideological bone fides, having some experience running a large agency is absolutely essential, but at some agencies more than others.  Hillary has a very large reservoir of good will around the world, and that is a very good thing in a SOS.  Gates will be able to implement Obama policies with no lag time learning the ropes.  I have the feeling he is not an ideologue and that he knows that Iraq must be ended ASAP.  I like the Daschle pick, but worry that being in the Senate is not necessarily great preparation for running an agency as complex as HHS.  As a working scientist, when I heard about the possibilty of RFK Jr. at Interior or EPA I wanted to puke.  Science deniers are bad when they come from the right AND when the come from the left, so I hope this will not happen.  I would love to see him in Hillary's senate seat instead.    

    Agreed on RFK Jr. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    However, as long as he stays away from medicine, I am Ok with it.

    RFK, Jr. is a dedicated enviornmentalist (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by byteb on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:33:11 PM EST
    and a highly respected environmental attorney. With all due respect to working scientists everywhere, Dept of Interior needs an attorney expert in the endless maze of Environ. law and endless regulations in order to use those laws to protect the land and water supply. Once upon a time, DOJ had an Environmental Enforcement Agency that worked tirelessly and with great dedication to use the law as it was intended...they worked hand and hand with EPA and Interior. We need a person like RFK, JR. to help get us back on tract.
    This is an excellent summary of his career from Pace University Law web page:
    "Professor Kennedy is chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper Fund and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. He directs NRDC's Estuary Enforcement Project. Through these organizations and in conjunction with the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, he has brought successful legal actions prosecuting governments and companies for polluting the Hudson River and Long Island Sound. He has successfully argued cases to expand citizen access to the shoreline and to promote environmental justice. The Clinic has taken a leading role in protecting New York City's water supply and reservoirs. Professor Kennedy has written numerous articles on environmental law and litigation, environmental justice and advocacy. With John Cronin, he wrote The Riverkeepers, published in 1997."

    Dept of Interior


    Absolutely NO NO NO for RFK Jr. (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:38:36 PM EST
    NO, NO, AND NO!!!!!!

    No science denier belongs in a Democratic administration.


    Agree. (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 01:36:52 AM EST
    I'll be pissed if he gets her seat. We have much better options. He should stick with his work and leave the senate to our other options.

    absolutely (none / 0) (#51)
    by Plutonium Page on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    Plz keep him away from the Dems, kthx.

    How is RFK a science (none / 0) (#32)
    by Blowback on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM EST

    I skied with his Dad once. He was fast, crazy, on-the-brink. I can still see Bobby wiping out big time, 10 yards in front of me!


    Look (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST

    I feel icky even linking to that. Here at TL, we can't use the words that I would like to use to describe it.


    Autism/vaccine conspiracy theories. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 03:55:19 AM EST
    There's a group over at dkos who faithfully debunk the inevitable proponents of such theories.

    It's junk science mostly because if you look for good data to support the theory, it just doesn't exist.  If the connection is real, you should be able to prove it up, down, backwards and forwards, but you simply can't.


    Yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    And it is giving him credit to think he actually believes that hogwash. Worse is that he is making out somehow because he is supporting this corrupt bunch of lawyers/scientists

    Andrew Wakefield, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe.

    The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4 million distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists who had been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.

    Critics this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they said created a clear conflict of interest and were the "financial engine" behind a worldwide alarm over the triple measles, mumps and rubella shot.



    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 12:13:00 AM EST
    Al has a point that Clinton will bring ridiculous media attention and drama if she's made Secretary of State.  Al thinks this is bad.  

    While I agree about the ridiculous Clinton 24/7 media circus, I'm not convinced that is a terrible thing for a Secretary of State.  The media attention will give Senator Clinton a stature that should help her when she deals with foreign leaders.

    From a practical perspective, Obama owes Clinton big time and if the payoff is appointing Clinton Secratery of State, that's not a bad place to put her.  It's becoming clear that the economy and domestic policy will be the first and most important focus of Obama's early administration.  Keeping Clinton occupied on foreign policy will get her out of the way on health care and other economic issues.

    Given her stature and the political debts Obama owes her, if Clinton stays in the Senate she would be expected to be given a very important role in generating or passing domestic policy such as health care reform.  Clinton's track record on health care the last time around may not inspire confidence that she would be a good fit to get health care reform actually enacted this time around.

    Brad DeLong worked with Hillary Clinton on reforming health care in the Clinton Administration.  This is what he has to say about her performance:

    Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

    So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate.

    I think Clinton learned a lot from her failure and she is certainly much more experienced now that she was at that time, but, still, I can see how her 1993-94 performance may not raise concerns when it comes to her playing a major role in health care reform.  

    Putting Clinton at State may be just the thing.  She is a strong personality, but then so is Barack Obama.  Many people think that Henry Kissinger ran U.S. foreign policy during the Nixon Administration.  As Rick Pearlstein makes clear in Nixonland, Kissinger may have been a gifted analyst and a strong National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, but it was Nixon who formulated and ran his own foreign policy.  Kissinger was a very able implementer of what Nixon wanted.

    That is not a bad model for a working relationship between Hillary Clinton and President Obama.  Clinton is certainly as smart and hardworking as Kissinger ever was.  She has more experience at diplomacy than Kissinger had when he joined the Nixon Administration.  And Kissinger was at least as big a media whore as Clinton.  Who could forget the Kalb brothers' ridiculous wet kiss, "Super K".  Kissinger's media whoring wasn't much of a liability for Nixon.  It may have made him feel a little jealous and insecure, but the Kissinger media circus did no harm to Nixon's foreign policy.  And, unlike Nixon, "jealous" and "insecure" are not words that come to mind when thinking about Barack Obama.

    Unlike Kissinger, Clinton is neither amoral nor a war criminal.  And Clinton did not have to commit treason to audition for the job.

    If Clinton makes a spectacle of herself and screws things up -- something I doubt very much will happen -- she will be gone and will be prominently blamed for her own demise.  The media's hatred of her will prove useful.  If Clinton succeeds -- which I expect -- the media will certainly take notice and, the media being the media, they will probably award Obama with most of the credit.

    Unlike Al, I don't see much of a downside for Obama in appointing Clinton Secretary of State.

    I had a long exchange with Giordano (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by david mizner on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 05:40:43 AM EST
    Went to your link and made it through about a quarter of that exchange before I felt like dragging out the heavy artillery and banging some heads together (metaphorically speaking, of course).

    With all due respect to BTD's good friendness with him, all I can say is what a freaking doofus!


    .....oy. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    Maybe Al is really the Stupendous Yappi?

    (An X-Files reference to a psychic who might have avoided his fate if he had indeed been able to see the future.)


    Beyond silly. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    Sort of like asking the CEO of General Motors to go 'back on the line.'

    Hey...there's an idea!

    If anyone thinks they can control Bill and pull him off the international scene after the past 8 years I want some of what they're smokin'... Just exactly what would be in it for him that he would even consider such an idiotic idea?

    Segregation forever!!! (1.00 / 7) (#1)
    by koshembos on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:14:59 PM EST
    The hateful Obama monkeys are like their soul mates in the south who wanted to have segregation
    forever. Like their soul mates, they will end despised, racists, backwards and a blemish on humanity.

    this Obama monkey (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:55:19 PM EST
    loves the idea of Hil as SoS. So you can take your over-generalization and shove it.

    Calm down (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ChrisO on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    koshembos said "the hateful Obama monkeys." It certainly didn't seem to address every Obama supporter.

    butt out. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by coigue on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST

    Is there a special need to behave like a jerk? (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by koshembos on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:22:52 AM EST
    You tell me. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    calling people Obama monkeys is beyond the pale.

    Oh, I'm sorry (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ChrisO on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    I didn't realize that when you post a comment on a blog it's actually a private conversation. Get over yourself.

    History of Hate (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by koshembos on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:32:06 AM EST
    The history of hate doesn't allow one to be too easy with haters. There were many millions of human being murdered by haters all over the world and in this country as well.

    The fake left hate for the Clintons is not lighter or more acceptable that any racial hate. It comes from the same sources: irrational need to blame others for things you failed to achieve, for a tough life, for misplaced feeling of superiority and being terribly afraid of the unknown.

    CDS and racial hate are equivalent.


    Not really. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:19:07 AM EST
    what is CDS? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Blowback on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:34:40 PM EST

    Credit default swap (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    or Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    CDS? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:43:38 PM EST
    You think that Paulson gonna offer a cure:  Toxic Affliction Response Program (TARP)  the Treasuries response to curing CDS.  

    Please remember that the first sign of CDS, is some kind of right wing viral material embedded in the brain.  The afflicted persons, keep trying to deny the previous affliction, but the darn thing keeps popping up in the oddest places.  


    Nice (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:13:38 PM EST
    my good friend Al Giordano
    Once you have isolated the disease (CDS) it is easier to remain friends, even when the symptoms are difficult to take.

    Am I alone (none / 0) (#27)
    by free the wm3 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    in not have read The Nation in the last few months?

    Why was she better for the position than Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry or Chris Dodd? Why will the reward be greater than the risk? How does Obama intend to use Bill Clinton and prevent him from becoming a distraction, liability and freelance diplomat? What will a "new" foreign policy look like under old hands?

    I also have (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 01:47:39 AM EST
    not read The Nation in several months.

    My subscription hasn't expired and the unread issues keep piling up.

    After innauguration day I expect that absolutely every issue that's not addressed to their complete satisfaction will be blamed on former Clintonites in the Obama administration.

    That will increase my level of contempt for what was once a useful publication.


    I also have given up on the Nation (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by esmense on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    How would Kerry, Richardson, Hagel, Dodd represent a "new" foreign policy?

    I'm feeling some empathy (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM EST
    for Joe Biden.

    Actually I like the idea. (none / 0) (#39)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 12:20:42 AM EST
    I think it would cut into the mystique of former Presidents if they would get back into politics---just like a former PM being another MP later.

    Kos, lest we forget, former GOP (none / 0) (#61)
    by nulee on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    he is not quiet about it either.

    16 years ago, (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jake Left on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    I remember reading an article about how ticked off the Washington media biggies were at Clinton because so many "ordinary" people got to come to his special inauguration parties. They felt that they were losing their specialness when "common" folk got the same privileges that they had been used to.

    Could that be the source of all this sourness? It has become all personal. It's the self-important, usually former conservative, pundits and parasites who keep this up. The rest of the country just loves the Clintons. Even after 16 years of biased reporting and professionally orchestrated lies, America likes Bill and Hillary. This has just go to be eating them up. CDS is a symptom, not a disease.

    The pundit class (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST
    like Broder have never gotten past that a "bubba", a boy from white trailer trash Arkansas was able to rise above circumstances and occupy the WH.  Even though the media windbags love to push the "anybody can be president" narrative, I do not think they believe it.  Broder and friends resented Bill and covered for "blue blood, privileged" dufus, W.  So when it turns out Clinton was a good president and W was the worst, the more they see of Clintons the more they resent and hate.  Bill made fools of them. So did W but in a different way.

    But they will NEVER ever admit Bill was a decent human being and president and they latched on to the Monica debacle to justify their biases and prejudices.  Had that been W or one of the other "boys from the plutocracy" they would have covered up the mess.


    Covered up indeed. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jake Left on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:39:55 PM EST
    Look at the number of presidents who "strayed" while the press looked away. Had it not been for the determination of the neocons to get Clinton or else, we would have been spared that part of our nation's history.

    It has come to bite them though. Look at the republicans who have been tarred with that brush.