Obama's Announcements

President Elect Obama is making his announcements. Hilllary, Eric Holder, Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Susan Rice, General James Jones.

Update: Hillary gave a great, short speech. Holder makes me nervous. Napolitano stresses securing the border. Susan Rice also wants to strengthen our security. Biden, who spoke after the nominees, was confident.

I think we did get a welcome change from the Bush Administration -- and in thinking about who these appointees would be had McCain been elected, I'll say we did okay with this team.

Questions: To Obama, "Would India be justified in going after terrorists on Pakistani soil?" No direct answer. Next question is about whether the appointees will be a clash of rivals. [More...]

Obama gave a good answer as to why this won't be the case. He also gave a good put-down to the reporter who brought up his campaign comments about Hillary's foreign travels being to have tea. Both he and Hillary laughed and with good humor he called the reporter out for the childish question as having been asked for self-amusement.

I wonder how different the remarks and questions would be had Mumbai not occurred. It's too bad Obama has to begin his administration on the heels of an international terrorist attack.

To another reporter, Obama said the choice of Hillary was not " a light bulb moment" and that because of their shared values, he has been interested in finding ways to collaborate since the primaries ended. After the election, he thought about how to make that happen and he believed Secretary of State was the best way.

Thoughts? I'm nervous about DOJ and immigration reform with Holder and Napolitano, but the rest of the team seems pretty solid. And I'm very excited about Hillary as SOS. I'm looking forward to be able to listen to a national leader explain what's going on with trust instead of skepticism, and Hillary does that for me.

< Some Good CyberMonday Deals | Planned Parenthood Welcomes Hillary's Nomination for SOS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Awesome. :) (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST

    Going smoothly (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 09:56:46 AM EST
    I like the way Hillary lowered the microphone.

    yes! (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    and love that she asked God to bless Obama and those who work for him, I am so so happy, blub blub

    aww Janet thanking us here in AZ, blubblub


    What do you think of Gov Napolitano (none / 0) (#54)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    I have heard her a couple of times at length talk about Boarder security and immigration and have been impressed, what is your take as somone who lives in Az?

    Napolitano (none / 0) (#66)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    I have been very happy with her in AZ as she gave us universal free Kindergarten, something we reallly needed here and raised teacher salaries,

    I did a write up on her appt here, it links to two great pieces on her, she sometimes is farther right than many may be comfortable with in terms of immigration but we have serious budget issues and she had to balance here in a red state to get things done, as a moderate I love her:


    ps she is very funny and likes Monty Python :0)


    Janet was elected with (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    public finding of campaigns.  More than 10 years ago AZ switched to public funding and Janet was the first woman to get there through this method.  If only other states would do likewise (like CA for example) we would have more Democratic women and minorities in the state houses waiting to move up.

    Python lover? (none / 0) (#100)
    by LogopolisMike on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    and likes Monty Python  

    Well nobody's perfect :)

    Seriously, though, everything else I've read about her since she was being talked about for VP  has really impressed me. I'm glad to see her in this role.


    And surprise, surprise ... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    HRC actually explained in cogent terms why she took the job.

    She never delivers the usual political blather.


    what did she say? (none / 0) (#96)
    by noholib on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:05:02 PM EST
    I wasn't able to watch.  Why did she say she took the job?  

    Transcript from the NY Times (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by LogopolisMike on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:02:03 PM EST
    She does answer your question, but it deserves to be quoted in full.  I've bolded the answer.

    Mr. President-elect, thank you for this honor. If confirmed, I will give this assignment, your administration, and our country my all. I also want to thank my fellow New Yorkers who have, for eight years, given me the joy of a job I love with the opportunity to work on issues I care about deeply in a state that I cherish.

    And you've also helped prepare me well for this new role. After all, New Yorkers aren't afraid to speak their minds and do so in every language. Leaving the Senate is very difficult for me. But during the last few weeks, I thought often of our troops serving bravely under difficult circumstances in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

    I thought of those other Americans in our foreign and civil services working hard to promote and protect our interests around the world. And I thought of the daunting tasks ahead for our country. An economy that is reeling, a climate that is warming. And as we saw with the horrible events in Mumbai, threats that are relentless.

    The fate of our nation and the future of our children will be forged in the crucible of these global challenges. America cannot solve these crises without the world, and the world cannot solve them without America.

    By electing Barack Obama our next president, the American people have demanded not just a new direction at home but a new effort to renew America's standing in the world as a force for positive change. We know our security, our values, and our interests cannot be protected and advanced by force alone nor, indeed, by Americans.

    We must pursue vigorous diplomacy using all the tools we can muster to build a future with more partners and fewer adversaries, more opportunities and fewer dangers for all who seek freedom, peace, and prosperity.

    America is a place founded on the idea that everyone should have the right to live up to his or her God-given potential. And it is that same ideal that must guide America's purpose in the world today. And while we are determined to defend our freedoms and liberties at all costs, we also reach out to the world again seeking common cause and higher ground.

    And so I believe the best way to continue serving my country is to join President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden, the leaders here, and the dedicated public servants of the State Department on behalf of our nation at this defining moment. President Kennedy one said that engaging the world to meet the threats we face was the greatest adventure of our century.

    Well, Mr. President-elect, I am proud to join you on what will be a difficult and exciting adventure in this new century. And may God bless you and all who serve with you and our great country.


    I love Hillary even when she's just breathing (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    in and out. (I'm not snarking BTW.)

    Maybe (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    You should see a doctor. Sounds like you got it bad.

    Wev... (none / 0) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    Holder and Gates... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    In a word....lame.

    yeah (none / 0) (#6)
    by Nasarius on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    At least Gates might leave in a year or two or four, but it looks like we're stuck with Holder.

    Baby baby baby (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    we are never stuck with anybody forever

    Another word sprang to ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    mind and it wasn't "lame."

    Trying to be nice... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    Christmas season is upon us:)

    Not lame, criminal (none / 0) (#106)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    As is war criminal, torture and illegal rendition.
    Bush Renditions Even Uglier Than Imagined and US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships

    Doesn't look like the Rule of Law is anymore popular in this administration than it was in the last one. (Just feeling used and abused, since I worked on the campaign, full time the last month of it).


    Hillary: will give this job and her country, (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by byteb on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    'my all'.

    I got goosebumps.

    She was great up there.

    Totally agree... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by LogopolisMike on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    I've not always been the biggest Hilary fan - especially when it comes to her foreign policy actions (though I more often than not agreed with her words), but being a Senator is quite different than being in charge at State, and the idea of her using her vast skills and abilities serving at the pleasure of the President while still offering her own intelligent opinions and doing what she thinks is best for this country and this world... something about the presentation this morning gave me chills in the best way.

    I might be to optimistic today -- or maybe I've just been too beat down by the idgits in charge over the last four years -- but having adults in charge again -- people who can put political, personal or party differences behind them to work for the greater good -- it's just great news when we need it the most.


    I didn't think Susan Rice was getting the UN (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:04:24 AM EST
    That's a big job.

    yes (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    yes and Obama has restored the role to cabinet level position, Dubyah lowered it, Big Dawg had it at cabinet level also, Bolton of all people said this weekend it wasnt good for UN Amb and SoS to be at same level, okay Bolton go away now say I !

    Jim Jones stumped for McCain, Obama is very very centred on getting a good team regardless of their past positions,

    I am so so happy right now it is like time for a special Hallmark card or something!


    Jim concerns me (none / 0) (#71)
    by Lahdee on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    a little. Sure he's got the military creds, but it's the energy thing. CNN showed his experience as being the CEO of 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    I hope he's not from the drill baby drill wing.

    Understand your concern! When the Chamber of (none / 0) (#123)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    Commerce endorses something,I'm usually opposed to it. Quite honestly though, I know little about the man.

    I'm just climbing out from under the pile of work and personal stuff that could not be put off any longer. Thrilled about Hillary though.


    press CDS (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:15:28 AM EST
    I think we are seeing the media trying to grapple with their former CDS views LIVE as it happens with that question on team of rivals working together..come to grips media! let us all work together now, time for their come to Jesus moment in the press corp now......they must be feeling weird with HRC standing behind Obama and them having to support them together,....

    standing up against the CDS (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    I think Obama is doing a great job outlining how HE is in charge and how he wants strong opinions, and quoted Harry Buck stops here now LOL

    good this is how he can push back on CDS, yay yay


    raises its head again (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    Jake Tapper is asking for what private assurances Obama got from those on stage they will back his views


    she turned over Chelsea as a hostage for good behavior Jake, wth?

    stoopid media!


    That was indeed (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by indy in sc on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    the dumbest question asked.  First of all, why would there need to be "private assurances" and even if there were such assurances, wouldn't the fact that they were "private" preclude one from speaking about them to the press?  Ridiculous.

    And adding "My dear friend" (Hillary) (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by andrys on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:46:44 AM EST
    Why does Obama even find it (none / 0) (#102)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    necessary to tell us he is in charge now. Bless his heart, but enough with his redundant assurances of what should be obvious to all.

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#124)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    Funny how (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    Obama is going on and on about how he and Hillary share a view.  I had heard she was a secret Republian, and he the emissary from a world of progressive idealism!

    Just kind of funny.  

    Right now he is answering some stupid question about his relationship with Hillary.  I doubt he will have to answer these types of questions about Napolitano, Rice...this kind of crap is just pathetic.  Esp. with Hillary standing right there before them.

    The campaign is the campaign (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    Even if some people get emotionally involved in it, the politicians generally don't.

    Yep (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    Listening to this conference, I find myself agreeing with the notion that Obama is anti-CDS.  Esp as they leave the conference together.

    I don't believe he is either (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by smott on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    Anti-CDS or pro-CDS.
    When it helps him, he's for it, as in the primaries.
    When not, he's against, as now.

    Expedience paramount.


    He's a politician first (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM EST
    Too right (none / 0) (#91)
    by smott on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    ...who ran on a platform of moving beyond the politics of old.

    Same old same old.


    A steely gaze from Hil (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    in the direction of that reporter as Obama answers deftly.

    Interesting too, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    that the question was about Mr. Obama's diminishing campaign remarks about Mrs. Clinton's foreign affairs experience--essentially having tea with world leaders, rather than any perceived elbows thrown to Mr. Obama by Mrs. Clinton.  The president-elect handled it very well, just remarking about the "fun "that can be had by re-living the primary compettion (by not, the heated remarks of say, Joe Biden).

    I "share a view" that hillary will save (none / 0) (#103)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    Obama's bacon more times than any in the corporate press will care to count.

    Watch Chris Bowers freak out (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    as Obama mentions "residual forces!" AHHHH.


    He's going to freak too (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    as the ranks within the military begin to swell.  The economy will have something to do with that as Oculus pointed out, but that isn't going to be the whole the story.  The rest of the story is that our military is going to the "right" place now.  I have mixed feelings about it, but on the bright side we may get back some of those more liberal minded and highly trained soldiers that packed up and went home four years years ago in a mass exodus.

    I want them to do something about (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    the evangelical Air Force extremists in Colorado Springs.

    You read too much trout phishing :) (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    To my knowledge that situation has been handled because the military has been born and bred to UNDERSTAND that they are apolitical at work and just check your God at the door too, and folks at the Academy got caught and all sorts of old retired soldiers discovered what was going on and the Academy was made ashamed.  We have commanders here there and everywhere though right now who feel strangely liberated in bringing their religion and their politics to work with them every day at the moment.  Something that didn't happen under Clinton because when you complained to the I.G. about anything like that someone got their a$$ kicked.....quickly.  That was something that I shockingly noticed shortly after Bush took office and cranked up the military......your filed I.G. complaints seemed to have an ability to disappear.  It wasn't anything my family experienced, but a few others we knew and heard about had it happen.  After Obama takes office, if there IS anything that continues to take place like that at the Air Force Academy it will only be going on for about another 20 secs after his inauguration is over.  Commander in Chief means different things to different people but in the military it means "meet the new boss/sheriff/God"

    Hope you're right (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    I don't want that kind of nonsense being paid for by the government. Especially not when we put deadly weapons in their hands.

    Whoa! Hil and Obama walk (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    offstage with their arms around each other!

    so so great!!!!! nt, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:34:13 AM EST
    Uh oh. (5.00 / 11) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    Maybe Bill had to make more concessions than we've heard about?

    Bad! (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:45:39 AM EST
    OK Larry...don't make me call your mom. (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:47:37 AM EST
    Oops. (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    Was I typing out loud?

    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    Keep in mind what Truman Capote said about typing...'it's not writing.'

    Poor Larry.. now you're at least 3rd in line. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    ok, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    so does this mean that sen. clinton starts taking over the world today? or does she have to wait until jan. 20th?

    You Silly.......she started yesterday :) (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    I talked to a guy at the Gym (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    This morning who said something in that regard, though the main evil force was "the new world order" to which Obama and his "tool" Clinton served. I am not making this up.  He even had Youtube evidence that he promised to send me (I questioned why I had never seen it before, the answer obviously, was that the new world order had stopped it).

    Sounds like a fellow Alex Jones fan.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    I too worry about the "new world order", which is just another way of saying increased worldwide tyranny through greater cooperation between governments and international corporations.  Orwell's "jackboot to the face of humanity...forever" vision of the future, which is too eerily coming to fruition.  

    I agree with your loony gym-going friend that Obama, with Clinton at his side, will work to further an agenda of greater tyranny and lesser liberty here and abroad.  

    If you're not at least a little paranoid, you're not paying attention my friend:)


    It seems clear (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    that President-Elect Obama does not have CDS.

    I thought the presser was wonderful.

    Everyone was great.

    Either that. . . (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    President-Elect Obama does not have CDS

    or the Clintons have inserted one of those worm things into his ear that makes him do their bidding.


    SOS Hillary....how perfect! (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Prithimp on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    can't wait to see Chris Mathews/KO's head explode!

    Suddenly I feel inspired (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    Have a good day everyone!

    It is great to see (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton embraced by the party and by Obama.  I think having her as SoS could help the party go far in terms of growing up and focusing on more suitable enemies.  And hopefully the respect granted her will also encourage close-watching Hillary supporters to hold her feet to the fire.

    stupid stupid media on msnbc,,,,, (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    sorry no caps etc broke my arm last week...

    msnbc trying to be snarky about both clintons, what absolute morons, horrid arrogance ,,,,,

    all call powell colin....their buddy apparently.

    no comments about clintons except cds, all about the military guys.

    jeez. wonder what rachel will say....

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by 1040su on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    On the Today Show this morning was attempting to sound unbiased about the HRC choice & the fact that she's married to Bill.  But he used the word "undermine" when talking about Bill & his possible international influence.  Why the word "undermine?"  Why wouldn't Bill's contacts & relationshiops throughout the world be an "asset?" Do they really believe that WJC would undermine the Obama administration & by extension his wife & his country?  They just can't help themselves....

    What has he done that makes them think he (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:22:02 AM EST
    will undermine the country? I would love for some of these talking heads offer up something to validate this absolute crap talking point. The stupidity of it all is amazing.

    The ONLY area where I could (none / 0) (#59)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM EST
    think Bill C. MIGHT be a detriment is in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, since those fell apart under him. I doubt it though.

    Bill actually got close (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    but Arafat blew up the negotiations....

    Yes -- (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by nemo52 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    He got closer than anyone ever has.

    I don't agree with that characterization, (none / 0) (#90)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    and neither do people who are familiar with the Palestinian side, and who know how horrible the final deal was. The few comments I read from Arab figures were not complimentary towards Obama's choice of Hillary.

    exactly right, nt (none / 0) (#108)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    i.e., bill got close (none / 0) (#109)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:40:14 PM EST
    closer than anyonr else.

    Leahy effusive about (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    Obama's selection of Hillary and solid about the unprecedented agreement re Bill's future activities, mentioning that it will cost the Clintons millions in personal income for her to take this job, will cost Bill millions for his library and foundation...

    That scandalous foundation (5.00 / 9) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:46:29 AM EST
    Imagine taking money from rich people and countries to treat AIDS and Malaria, the nerve!

    Meanwhile, Bush Sr made millions in deals in (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by andrys on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    the rest of the world while his son was/is President.

    No one treated him as scum.

    (Ronald Reagan made millions right away but he wasn't
     married to the SOS or the father of the President.)


    Thanks for this. (none / 0) (#148)
    by andrys on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 01:30:16 AM EST
    I hadn't seen this at all and got to this reply 2 weeks later.  Apologies, I often forget to check possible replies to comments.  Sad state of affairs!

    Kinda sick of (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Lil on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    the clash of rivals narrative.

    And "no-drama Obama" too, ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cymro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    ... a phrase that is always used in conjunction with an anti-Clinton slant of some form.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    with regard to the question about India being justified in going after terrorists in Pakistan, we have learned a lesson from the Georgia incident this summer in terms of what happens when we start sanctioning the use of military force.  Perhaps India might be justified, perhaps they might not, depends on the circumstances (we know Obama believes that we are justified in going after terrorists within the territorial borders of Pakistan, after all), but we want everyone to be restrained in their use of military force, which means staying out of the business of issuing permission slips.  So I'm glad Obama gave a non-answer to that question, it seems like the only responsible thing to do.

    Napolitano (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Lahdee on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:44:02 AM EST
    I'm okay with Janet at DHS. I believe that she'll do a first rate job. She is my governor and so it'll be hard to watch her go. We will get a republican replacement; we already have a republican majority legislature, Jon Kyl (a first rate conservative loon) and Mr. (I picked Sarah for her conservative creds) McCain.


    border security (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    well perhaps it is people like Tancredo running as anti immigration peeps that make some of us, me! somewhat defensive about it,

    I know I practically blush whenever I discuss it, I feel guilty somehow wanting border security here in AZ as tho' I were not wanting immigration, which is of course not so..I wouldn;t be here or have bene born without immigration my peeps came from Ireland and Italy

    it is very touchy with some lib DEMS, we NEED border security and we NEED immigration reform and I know we can do both if we don't let business interests scuttle things with H1B visa overloads or total lack of enforcement on business...

    we are a right to work state here also and there is labor competition for youngsters without college degrees here, thus the backlash, like NYC was for my Irish foremothers and fathers when they wanted work....but the economy is low and we are seeing an immediate drop in border crossings...

    did you know Western Union has a law in AZ that you cannot wire into our state more than 500.00 in like a week or something like that? it is a price all of us pay for having high illegal immigration, ridiculous, what's a girl to do when she needs last minute help with tuition from her mom in NYC?!

    Flip side on the crime side, IIRC Tucson has among the highest crime stats in the nation and the border has everything to do with that ....we need immigration reform like yesterday...

    We create a market for sneaking in (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    when we make it way too difficult to get a visa legally.

    Well, we're never going to fix the problem (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    until we look straight into the eyes of people screaming "AMNESTY!!!!!" and say "damn right, and there's nothing you can do about it."

    Keeping people out is, generally speaking, stupid. What's worse is having people live in the shadows.


    AND we allow conditions (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    for workers to enter return to Mexico easily for work. Right now, it's too easy to violate the terms of the work visa and become "illegal". Used to be Mexicans could come into Calif. for the day and return home after work.

    By the way, I agree with you sooo much on what you say here on this issue.


    I saw a Public TV program recently (none / 0) (#76)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    on border security and some ranchers were interviewed.  On man said that years ago they would help some of the people who came across and were in dire straights, but no more.  "You don't know who is coming across anymore" he said. That was pretty powerful.

    Is it yet safe to say... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:10:17 PM EST
    this is the end of the "Nobody could have predicted" Government?

    Favorite Obama effect: (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    It is delightful to watch president-elect Obama "spank" the hockey pucks, dipsticks, & stopped clocks of the press corps who now get their well-earned slapdowns for asking him ridiculously moronic questions.

    It will take a while for the dim bulbs, dull knives, & GOP water carriers of the lame stream media to "dummy up," & it pleases me to imagine the White House press room when Mr. Obama chooses to recognize Helen Thomas & her like-minded, professional journalists for their questions.

    Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

    No more talk please (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:58:18 PM EST
    about how SEXIST Obama is. His appointments today were 50% women...as God intended.

    When he says and does sexist things (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    we'll probably talk about that as sexism. And when he doesn't, we probably won't.

    And when he promotes gender equity? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:54:37 PM EST
    What will you say then?

    As long as they make him look good ;) (2.00 / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:23:02 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#126)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    You are like a reverse Keith Olbermann, you are.

    hee hee.


    Then I will say (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 06:17:38 AM EST
    that he's great on promoting gender equity!

    50% female appointments on a single day, out of 4 appointments, does not necessarily mean he will, at the day's end, have a cabinet that is gender-balanced. But if it is, that will be great.


    ergo: you are quick to criticize (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:39:20 AM EST
    slow to praise.

    Not such a great character trait IMO.


    Neither is bad deductive reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    I only responded to your comment because of it's command to never say Obama is sexist based on 1 day's tally of 4 appointments. For you to deduce from my comments that I am 'quick to critice and slow to praise' has no basis and is simply a bad deduction. I neither praised nor criticized Obama or anyone else.

    So, focus on your own character, thank you very much, if you want to focus on characters at all.


    You and I both know (none / 0) (#125)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    my deduction is not from just one comment, Doc.

    Then go and look at them all (none / 0) (#127)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM EST

    You mean the millions of ones you gave out (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    when you were banned?

    I remember every one, like a tiny paper cut to my beating heart.


    or better yet, really, (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    just realize that your original comment was silly and begging the question - demanding that Obama should never be called sexist again no matter what, on the basis of a single day's appointments. Cuz that's what I replied to cuz it was silly.

    But, never mind, I'm sure this simple deduction is too much.


    Your deductive reasoning is off. Have we met? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    Because if you had noted  other comments of  mine, you would realize that your interpretation of my remark was wayyyy too literal. I would never exempt anyone from being called on sexism...but that is different from one being a terminal sexist and forever being interpreted that way. Get the distinction? Probably not.

    I haven't noticed that the lack of a sense of humor in Biologists is an occupational hazard before.....perhaps I should limit my snark to biology puns, those are always fun. Yet so limiting.

    I must say, however, that giving people the benefit of the doubt IS INDEED part of the point of my original comment, and it is indeed ironic to be having this conversation with someone who has given out more ones than the inventor of IBM.


    yeah, whatever (none / 0) (#130)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    I figured you'd have to resort to that.



    LOL. (none / 0) (#132)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    You're not the only woman around here with a Ph.D.

    huh? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM EST
    You are quite bizarre.

    Speaking of LOL, yes, which women at talkleft have phds is certainly what this is about - um, OK. Whatever. You are a master at deflection, I'll give you that. I don't really care who has a phd.

    Although previously it was about whether biologists are too literal compared to engineers.

    Or whether feminists are 'humorless'.

    Or whether I give out 1 ratings or not.

    Or whether ..... hmmmm, something other distraction?

    Anything other than the actual point, I suppose.

    In any case, you seem really immature so I'll just say 'last word' here since I'm sure you'll have to have it, and I don't care to come back and hear it since it will be another bizarre deflection.


    Well, That last comment, I give you, (none / 0) (#134)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    was off-topic, but the rest were right on the nose.

    THE POINT IS, people deserve credit for appointing 50% women (that's 3 of 6) to high powered, traditionally male roles. To me that's worth many many instances of saying the word "girly" or brushing his shoulder (give me an effing break) because hiring and firing is the real world, and I don't have the luxury (as apparently you do) to sweat the small petty stuff.

    That is the point.


    That may be your point NOW (none / 0) (#135)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    But it was not the point of your original comment. The point of your original comment was to demand that no one call Obama sexist ever again due to the fact that he appointed 50% female appointments as of this date. That is an illogical thing to say and to which I responded.

    This is so funny - you really just can't stop deflecting off the main point because you can't walk back your original silly comment, as you once again demonstrate with your sad accusation of '"sweating the small petty stuff"' like "girly" or "brushing his shoulder" -- neither thing I have ever talked about at all so "bright, shiny object" right back at you!

    Keep trying! It is really amusing.


    That was my point then (none / 0) (#137)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    take it or leave it.

    And remember, you promised me the last word.



    Then you failed to make it coherently (none / 0) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    and then resorted to pathetic blathering and off-topic insults rather than just be honest about failing to make the point you really wanted to make. Oh well! Nothing new about... just a waste of bandwidth. bye bye now.

    That was my point then

    Sorry, but you have a long history of nastiness (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    towards me and that does not go away just 'cause you want it to...especially since my original comment is completely relevant in your petty little case.

    It's been fun finally talking with my favorite "1" fairy.


    Riiiiiiight (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    And you're just a wonderful person filled with integrity and never a nasty comment towards me or anyone.

    Doesn't change anything about the substance just because you can't stop obsessively changing the subject back to personal insults.

    Look in the mirror babe.


    Sexists don't make (none / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    women Secretary of Homeland Security, or SoS, or ambassador to the UN. They don't marry high-powered lawyers.

    your point? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    Once again, an irrelevant comment.

    I didn't say he was a sexist. I said that if he said or did something sexist in the future, I would say so, and if he didn't, I wouldn't. Seems logical. And, guess what? I still say that, in spite of your original command. And no amount of you desperately trying to change the subject, put words in my mouth, hurl personal insults, cry about meanies, or anything else will change that.

    (BTW, your statement above is not necessarily true since sexism has many facets, but god knows I'm not going to get into that discussion with you because you are too dug in to ever listen.)

    And now I really will sign off and give you your cherished last word, because this is truly ludicrous and you are absolutely determined to make this about something it isn't so you can 'win'.


    How can you not get it? (none / 0) (#147)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:04:39 AM EST
    I talk and talk and still...nothing.

    Sure, from now on we'll just shut up like (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    good little girls.

    Good little girly-dogs?



    Oh, aren't you clever. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:52:11 PM EST
    with your hair trigger sensibility expressed with rapier wit.

    I am not sure what you want to accomplish, but I doubt if you will be successful.


    That's right, henceforth Obama will (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:23:12 PM EST
    only revert to sexist stereotypes when he's talking about the White House canine. He's made it clear, the family's not getting any: "little, yappy...girly dog...that sits in your lap and things".

    It's disconcerting that a man with two daughters would use the word "girly" to describe qualities which he views in such a disparaging light. Lots of consciousness-raising to be done there, imo. The girls have their work cut out for them.


    lol!~ (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:41:45 PM EST
    that sits in your lap and things

    I need to introduce him to a few Dalmatians and Pits. They have a tendency to think they're lap dogs, along with many others of the larger, non-"girly" variety of dogs. I also have run into more than my fair share of "girly" dogs that I'm sure he would back away from.

    Clue to Obama! Sterotyping doesn't work, be it dogs or humans.


    this was ironic ribbing from him. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sallywally on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST
    i thought it was fun.

    Yes. That's right (none / 0) (#121)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:43:04 AM EST
    take the measure of someone based on words. That's so stupid, yet so common.

    Right, it's not like Obama and his coterie (none / 0) (#136)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    have ever put any emphasis on his grand eloquent way with WORDS, his magnificent oratory, his soaring rhetoric, etc, etc.

    BTW, Obama gave us his WORD that he was going to bring change to Washington. Didn't people vote for him based on what he SAID he intended to do as President.

    During the campaign, Obama expressly mocked people who said he was all-talk, all-words. Remember he compared his oratory to MLK's speeches and said:

    "I have a dream"; words, just words?

    Of course, Obama borrowed those particular words from a previous speech by MA Governor Deval Patrick (although he didn't acknowledge that fact). So, don't tempt me to say:

    "Girly dog", words, just words?

    He is either a man who says what he means and means what he says; or he is not. You pick.


    This is stupid. (none / 0) (#138)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    Sexists do not post women as head of Homeland Security, SoS, or Ambassador to the UN.

    Sexists do not marry powerful lawyers.

    Non sexists sometimes put their feet in their mouths and say unfortunate things for people like you to jump all over. This happened to Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Hil, and it happens to most of the rest of us too. Luckily, most of us aren't followed around by cameras so we don't have to deal with it.

    I guess most  people just aren't perfect enough for you.


    Agreed, this is all in good humor (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:04:18 PM EST
    But, when poor Obama made the goofy "girly dog" remarks he didn't slip and put his foot in his mouth while he was being:
    followed by cameras...

    He and Michelle were doing a formal, nationally televised, sit-down interview with Barbara Walters.

    BTW, don't mind me. I'm just a non-post-partisan gadfly.


    people put feet in their mouths (none / 0) (#144)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:15:11 PM EST
    on Barbara Wawa too...and they also make jokes that fall flat.

    THat's people for ya.


    happy dance (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    officially doing happy dance now! BOOYAH!!

    (a wee bit sad my GOV is leaving to be DHS Secty, leaving us with our SoS a GOP person as GOV ack!!)(we have no LT GOV here in AZ)

    but hey we are RED anyway and this way Gov Napolitano can address the border and security while keeping a very Democratic view on security :0)

    border security (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jedimom on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    (and by DEM view of security I refer to border security and the need roe enforcement of the border coupled with immigration reform as opposed to GOP view of just blocking the border with a big wall)

    Waiting for the question (none / 0) (#12)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    about 'retreds and change' and Obama's refined answer.

    WRT immigration (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    I think we'll either see comprehensive reform in the next year, or not for a very long time. I'd give a 55% chance of getting it soon.

    I think that's true (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:33:55 AM EST
    of a lot of big legislation (like healthcare).

    Obama can throw his weight around early before the Republicans really dig in for a fight.  After the honeymoon period, really progressive legislation gets harder.


    What do you think the first initiative (none / 0) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    from Hillary's DOS will be?
    Something about India, Pakistan, and the attack in Mumbai?

    Old Europe...outreach... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    multiple fronts abroad will mean multiple efforts all at once.

    But the first initiative will be in the State Dept.  Will be interesting to see who she gets as Deputy Secretary to do administration.


    I believe Obama mentioned exporting (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    cleaner coal technology to China during the campaign.
    Formulating a policy to deal with the environmental impact of Chinese and Indian economic growth is a vital area.

    I read an AP report by Susan Paige (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    writing that Hillary's focus has been on women, children and healthy communities, even while engaging in foreign affairs work for BC.   So far SOS has focused on military and trade agreements, but with Hillary a third leg to the job will be adding the focus on healthy communities.  Now that will be real change!  Apparently in the past Hillary has shown the relationship between the community issues as being pivotal in stable governments.  The other two women SOS's have come out of Academia with their emphasis being military and trade.

    This makes me happy (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    and trade agreements

    am on my iPhone... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Plutonium Page on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    ... so I can't copy-paste stuff, but Jones and his dirty energy ties make me nervous.

    I'm not happy about Gates either, but at least he's more or less tranparent; we know where he's coming from.

    It goes without saying how I feel about Hillary's appointment ;-)

    I'm with you on the Gates thing ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    I find that very, very, very troubling.

    And it doesn't inspire confidence when the MSM goes on and on about what a "wise move this is."

    Obviously, fine with HRC.  The rest "meh" to "quite meh."


    Hear Hear! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:44:07 AM EST
    WSWS: cabinet selections win praise from the right (none / 0) (#64)
    by Andreas on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    The WSWS writes today:

    Prominent voices from the political right have endorsed President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet picks, both for his economic and national security "teams."

    On November 28, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled "Obama's War Cabinet," which lauded President-elect Barack Obama's widely-anticipated decisions to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense and to select retired general James Jones as National Security Adviser, the top two civilian military positions in the federal government. The selections, the editorial notes, mean that Obama intends to carry on the Bush administration's military policy in Iraq and beyond.

    The Journal writes, "These are the Administration posts most critical to the successful conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to possible entanglements with Iran, North Korea and who knows who else. With these personnel picks, Mr. Obama reveals a bias for competence, experience and continuity."

    In other words, the selections define an administration that will not only carry on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--i.e., "continuity,"--but that will be prepared to prosecute future wars.

    Obama's cabinet selections win praise from the right
    By Tom Eley, 1st December 2008

    Considering the mess our country is in (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    now, especially on the economic front, I think Obama is wise to tread water. This doesn't necessarily mean the wars will continue, but probably will wind down rather than stop immediately as the anti-war group was hoping.  I listened to Wes Clark who I think is more progressive than Jones or Gates, say that winding down in Iraq would take at least a year, so I hope that he will be the one to replace Gates and that the dismanteling of our forces will have  already begun.

    Finally (none / 0) (#81)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    The grown ups are back in charge. How refreshing.

    Grown ups? (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    Holder's views on drug laws and prohibition are downright juvenile.

    They can't and don't work..but he keeps on touting a tired and failed model...why are so few calling him on the nonsense he has spewed?  


    On this subject.... (none / 0) (#93)
    by coigue on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    there are no grown ups in power.



    Okay true (none / 0) (#95)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    Okay, so I mainly meant Hillary and the rest. But wasn't Holder's views on drugs the same as Bill Clintons views? I mean Bill's policies weren't exactly lenient with drug users et al.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:30:14 PM EST
    Holder and Bill Clinton hold the same views, as far as I can tell.  Hillary and Obama too...and probably the whole damn new cabinet for that matter.

    That is the problem, Clinton was awful on drug policy...and apparently Obama is following Bill's lead.  Not good, not good at all.  But that kinda "change" was never on the agenda...would do too much good and save too much money I guess.