home

Obama And Clinton: Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:00:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In answer to counterfactual assertions in the Media and from some bloggers like Matt Yglesias, Plutonium Page and John Issacs demonstrate that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the President-Elect and the Secretary of State designee on foreign policy. Indeed, President-Elect Obama explained:

I think if you look at the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the -- the heat of a campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure and in order to do that we have to combine military power with strengthened diplomacy. And we have to build and forge stronger alliances around the world, so that we're not carrying the burdens and these challenges by ourselves.

I believe that there's no more effective advocate than Hillary Clinton for that well-rounded view of how we advance American interests. She has served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. She knows world leaders around the world. I have had extensive discussions with her both pre-election and post-election about the strategic opportunities that exist out there to strengthen America's posture in the world.

And I think she is going to be a(n) outstanding secretary of State. And if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have offered her the job. And if she didn't believe that I was equipped to lead this nation at such a difficult time, she would not have accepted. Okay?

Okay, Mr. President-Elect.

Speaking for me only

< McCain's Incompetent Campaign | Are 1,000 Spankings Enough to Justify a Child Killing His Abuser? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama And Clinton: Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I just find it terribly ironic that so many (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:48:42 AM EST
    people were more threatened by the Clinton pick than the Gates deal.

    Is there a dimes bit of difference between Obama and Gates?  That's the question I'd be more interested in answering.  Then I'd want to know what the differences and similarities will mean to our approach to defense under this Administration.  Personally, I think "continuity" is over rated when you look at how Iraq and Afghanistan have been going.

    Gates retention is worse (none / 0) (#9)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:04:58 AM EST
    but as a voter impressed with Oabama's stated desire to "change the mindset that got us into this war," Hillary's appointment as SoS is also not encouraging.  

    Gates is a Bush 41 houseboy who was up to his ears in Iran Contra, Panama and the atrocities in Central America.  Hillary is the most hawkish Democrat in the US Senate who has never expressed regret or admitted  any flaw in her decision to support the AUMF.  Her refusal to do so was central to her image as the more "pragmatic, "experienced" candidate.  I defy anyone to name me any one Democrat in the Senate more hawkish than her.

    Far from changing the mindset that got us into Iraq, these appointments reward that mindset and provide it with the President-elect's seal of approval.   Hillary's appointment also puts at risk a senate seat in NY, this is the state that elected and re-elected D'Amato.  

    Parent

    Wha? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:15:27 AM EST
    How about Evan Bayh?  IMO he is much much worse.  See Greenwald here.  

    That both parties at the leadership level -- in terms how they act as collective entities -- are controlled by so many of the same factions and operate by so many of the same "principles" is just undeniable. As the most recent, astonishing piece of evidence, look at House Resolution 362, a resolution sponsored by Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman which spouts every neoconservative accusation against Iran and then demands -- literally -- that the Bush administration order a naval blockade against Iran (see clause 3), an act of war. That Resolution now has over 200 co-sponsors, roughly half of whom are Democrats (including Rep. Ed Towns -- see all of them here). A similar resolution in the Senate -- sponsored by Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh -- now has 32 sponsors, a list that includes, in addition to Joe Lieberman and some of the most extremist GOP warmongers in the Senate, 13 Democrats as well.

    He was in the final 3 of the VP selection.


    Parent

    I mean, if Lugar (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    is going to call you out on being too hawkish... Bayh/The Nation.

    Parent
    Bayh is as bad (none / 0) (#16)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:25:05 AM EST
    but keep in mind he is from Indiana where taking such positions, for whatever unfathomable reason, is arguably important to get elected, People from Indiana generally think that way, as does probably Bayh.  HRC is from NY and has nothing approaching those politcal considerations, her hawkish views are from the heart.

    The VP selected, Biden, is a hawk too.  My posts aren't intended to be anti-Hillary as much as dissapointment in Obama.  Not a single appointment indicates any real intention to deliver on his desire to "change the mindset that got us into this war."

    Parent

    I think that's a very MSM (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM EST
    level of argument.  Bayh has to do it, but Hillary is doing it from the heart!

    I think Bayh is pretty into being a hawk.

    "You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they've threatened us, too."

    Yiiikes...

    Parent

    Bayh is bad (none / 0) (#20)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:39:17 AM EST
    but how does that change my view of HRC foreign policy views?  She has said the same things you quote Bayh as saying.  They are two peas in a pod on foreign policy.

    I'd be just as disappointed if Bayh were named SoS.

    Please do not put me in the position of being an Evan Bayh apologist.

    Parent

    One conmment only to you (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    Did you not believe Barack Obama when he stated his view n foreign policy?

    His are Hillary's. And if you did not know that then you thought Obama was lying to you. that actually he agreed with you instead of Hillary.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    I actually got in a "discussion" with someone who thought that Obama secretly wanted to pull all troops out of Afghanistan...but that he couldn't admit it couse he would sound too "doveish" during the campaign.

    Parent
    There Are Still (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    Secret conversations coming through some commenters teeth regarding Hillary as well. Just sayin'

    Parent
    What a hoot :) (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#43)
    by lessthanpleased on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    I don't think you're being terribly fair, BTD.

    Do Clinton and Obama agree on the larger issues surrounding foreign policy? Yes. They're Democrats who aren't Evan Bayh or from the geographic south.

    The Obama quote you cite explicitly notes this: he discusses the broader issues on which he and Clinton agree, speaking about them only in generalities. The praise he throws Clinton's way is separate from this agreement section, and dwells on her capability to do the job he sets for her, not her agreements with him beyond big-picture stuff.

    But agreeing about the big issues doesn't mean there weren't areas of legitimate disagreement between the two - and to some (but not many) people, those disagreements were important. By and large, these disagreements were of style rather than substance - and by and large, these weren't issues about which many people at all actually care - but they were there.

    I think you are giving Obama's comments far more weight than they actually have - the passage that addresses the Clinton and Obama similarities could be changed to any other generic Democrat and remain factually correct simply because there's a big-picture agreement in the party.

    But to assume these anodyne comments have so much weight that they disprove the fact that there were small differences between the candidates (that in no way made them disagree on big picture goals) is counterfactual - and, more importantly, runs perilously close to the Obamabot position that only sacraments and Truth can come from Dear Leader's mouth.

    Parent

    I am amazed (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    Your comment basically agrees with me and you chastise me for being unfair?

    Unfair to whom pray tell?

    There is not a dime's worth of difference between my assessment and yours.

    Parent

    Perhaps being "unfair" means in this (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    instance that you have hurt someones sensibilities with the truth.  I don't think it was Obamas though and I don't think it was Clintons either.......hmmmmmm?

    Parent
    So Obama is lying? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes I did (none / 0) (#79)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    I believed him when he said "I want to chnage the mindset that got us into this war."

    Hard to see that happening now when he puts those with that mindset in these "national security" positions.

    Parent

    really? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    You fell for that line?

    All you had to do was ask him who he'd like in his cabinet. He wouldn't have choked out one liberal or leftie name.

    I saw no behaviour on his part indicating anything but bland conventional centrism and pandering to the sad lonely anti-war left.

    Parent

    No kidding! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    See I noticed stuff like that, and now I have been pleasantly surprised....not feeling ripped off at all :)

    Parent
    Some of us (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    Were dissappointed early.  And we've managed to move on since then.

    I'll admit I liked Obama more on foreign policy during the primary - I even liked the "no pre-conditions" stuff while it lasted.  But by the time the general was over it was pretty clear where he'd end up.

    Parent

    I don't know what to think right now (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    I realize that we have to deal with extremists in the Afghan area.  I don't pretend to know how best to go about that.  I don't know if everything is going to be alright on the path we seem to be setting our caps for.  I just don't know

    Parent
    Bayh is the new face (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:48:30 AM EST
    of Democratic hawkishness.  I challenge you to show me where Hillary has said it is a darn shame we've been poisoned on the concept of war, cos war with Iran ain't a half bad idea.

    You asked who is worse - I say he is.
    Ex.:

    On substantive policy matters, Evan Bayh has failed to support legislation to shut down Guantanamo, sat on his hands and let legislation to counter the use of child soldiers wither on the vine, passively permitted government databases to balloon out of control without government oversight, blocked stem cell research, refused to support contraceptive distribution, sat on his hands (yet again) and passively (yet again) obstructed greenhouse gas regulation, refused to support the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, continued to support civilian-blasting cluster bombs and resisted action against loan sharks. When it comes to substantive policy, Evan Bayh is no liberal. He is a block of wood.

    Hillary's views just aren't as bad as his.  Concrete example from this paragraph, she is a cosponsor of Feinstein's close Guantanamo bill.  She opposed the Military Commissions Act.  Etc...

    Parent

    note: (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    (my bad): of all the candidates Dodd notably stood up for repealing the act, Obama & Clinton did not.  IIRC...

    Parent
    Um - Clinton's state was the hardest (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    hit on 9/11.  I think there was at least a small - if not quite HUGE - home state consideration where it came to responding after 9/11.  Need I remind you that Chuck Schumer voted in favor of the AUMF as well.  John Kerry ran an entire Presidential campaign in 2004 on not ending the war in Iraq, but "managing it better".  He's from Massachusetts - a pretty lefty liberal state - that was not hit on 9/11.  He's one of Obama's inner circle and has been from the start of that campaign.

    It is time for people to get real here and stop acting like parents who think their kids wouldn't get into trouble if they didn't have exposure to "the bad kids" in school.  Obama's picked these people.  That's all about him and if he makes a decision you don't like, trying to blame that on the other kids isn't really an honest assessment of the situation or his role - unless you think he's nothing but a useless push-over.

    Parent

    I am amazed (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:42:13 AM EST
    that some of you take these comments seriously.

    Parent
    LOL. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    I am amazed at the extent to which CDS can blind people I guess.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:51:05 AM EST
    I became inured and aimed my fire at the "respectable" blogs.

    BTW, did anyone else notice Josh Marshall following all over himself overpraising Joan Walsh's takedown of Christopher Hitchens' typical CDS performance on Hardball?

    I wonder if he now thinks he went a couple of bridges too far.

    Parent

    Or it could just be that we've finally (none / 0) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    found someone that he dislikes even more than Senator Clinton.

    Parent
    And one more thing - back to my (none / 0) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:30:58 AM EST
    orginal comment in this thread - I caught part of Hardball and I thought it ironic then that the in-depth discussion of the appointees was not about Gates.  The Obama communications team is doing a good job keeping the converstation about Gates to a mere mention imo.  They are probably happy that the focus is on Clinton given how a full discussion about Gates could go were it to be had.

    Parent
    I Did (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    First thing I thought was that he was trying to repair his sexist gaffes.

    Parent
    I missed that, but I saw the (none / 0) (#75)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    Hitchens performance last night. I hadn't heard him before, and I thought Joan Walsh could have done better actually....since Hitchen's was practically foaming at the mouth.

    She seemed surprised by his vehemence.

    Parent

    Not to nitpik... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:44:25 AM EST
    I like your post.  But MA was hit.  Not like NY or D.C. - but our airport was hit and there were hundreds of people on those planes.

    Parent
    That's true - in fact we were (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    all hit across the world if you go through the list of victims.  I was just making the point more about the physical dammage with that giant hole in the lower end of Manhattan which was still smoldering at the time of the vote.  I was very disappointed in Senator Clinton's vote for AUMF, but it isn't like I don't  very much understand what the mood of the country was at that time - I was in DC - and most everyone was seeing things through an emotional and wounded lens at the time.  I still thought attacking Iraq made no sense at all, but it was obvious to me why a lot of other people felt the pressure to approve that plan.

    Parent
    I hear ya (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    I was disappointed in Kerry too.  And happy that Kennedy had the courage to put his foot down - but he never had anything to lose.  That being said, I guess I can understand the pressure and concerns at the time.  Kerry might've felt pressure due to the security breach that happened in his backyard.

    Parent
    The security breach - that's the thing (none / 0) (#102)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    that really upset me at the time - and still does - the security breach took place long before that day - the government let those people into the country and certain agencies were aware of both their entering and their shady past.  18 or the 19 terrorists were known quantities who should have never been allowed into this country in the first place.  The fact that at the time, anyone at all was questioning the airport personnel or anyone who had the incredibly bad luck to be exposed directly to those people really upset me - there was no way for them to have known and yet people in our government did know.  The fact that people insisted on NOT blaming Bush and his government was outrageous imo.  Of course, being a DC native my perspective at that time was unique.  I have a greater sense of what the Federal government is capable of and what it is doing.  Pretty much since the day that happened, I've been wanting to know how the government let that happen - because I know they had the information and the ability to prevent it.

    Parent
    This is right out of GOP talking points (none / 0) (#80)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Sure NYC was hardest hit, but do I really need to remind anyone reading this blog that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

    Parent
    You'll need to talk to George Bush (none / 0) (#105)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    and his buddies to discuss why he told this country and our Congress in no uncertain terms that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11 at the time - and continued to insist that that was true for years afterwards.

    It might surprise you that I hold special resentment about Clinton's vote on AUMF primarily because I think she should have been able to see through Bush's ruse, but I see no reason for re-writing history or omitting important considerations such as her responsibility to her state as you seem to think is "okay".  I'll add that as far as I am concerned, there were far too many extremely disappointing performances by Members of Congress around that time.

    If people care even the slightest bit about how to avoid that kind of frenzy in the future, they are going to have to understand what the key drivers were in making it so easy for Bush to convince Congress and a nation that we should engage in the Iraq War.  There are far too many people in the Democratic caucus who supported that war - talking about just one obsessively obscures the larger problems that fact belies.

    Really, I want to know about Gates.  I want to know why the change candidate didn't change that.

    Parent

    Clinton's state (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    which one, Illinois or Arkansas?

    As I recall, in all the polls taken in NY after 9/11 the sentiment was close to overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Though, I 'll grant you that the board of AIPAC was overwhelmingly in favor of it.

    Parent

    Here's the deal - very few Senators (none / 0) (#109)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    and very few Congress-critters had the courage to stand up to Bush at the time.  They were being told that if they didn't do something about Iraq, there would be another attack.  Most of them believed that and were scared to challenge Bush just in case he was right - some just believed everything he said - but either way - the polling had less of an impact as a result - because they were working off of the notion that "if people really knew how scary this is they'd all agree."  I know this because I knew people who were in on the rumor mill at that time and who were so convinced that if they could tell me all the horrible things they knew then I'd definitely agree with the decision to invade Iraq.  The difference between us - I simply did not have any faith in what the Bush Administration was saying - none what-so-ever - they did.  What I learned at that time was that if you tell one group a bunch of really super scary lies and tell them that they are secrets that they cannot divulge to anyone - you've created a very powerful tool and strategy for manipulation - that is difficult for people to get together and reconcile - because they aren't allowed to compare notes or seek out expert counsel on the situation.

    None of my comment is in any way meant to be a defense of Clinton's - or anyone else's yea vote on AUMF - but I think it is really important to remember why Bush was so successful in getting Congress and the majority of the nation to follow him on Iraq.  I knew we were in big trouble when Bush said and Congress accepted that they were not going to be fully briefed about the details of their case against Iraq.  We should never ever allow the Congress to vote on committing our country to war again without a substantial amount of information being distributed to every member and a public discussion that amounts to more than just "trust me".

    Because of what I saw and what I know about the information management and manipulation, I am not at all convinced that Barack Obama would have opposed this war had he been in the Senate at the time.  I happen to believe that the scary stories probably would have had some effect on him too.

    Parent

    Did You Read Obama's Foreign Policy... (none / 0) (#42)
    by santarita on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    statement on his website or his article in the magazine, Foreign Policy?

    His choices for his national security and foreign policy team are consistent with his policy pronouncements.

    Parent

    you are either (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:20:42 AM EST
    seriously misinformed, or just a liar.

    Hillary is the most hawkish Democrat in the US Senate who has never expressed regret or admitted  any flaw in her decision to support the AUMF.

    in fact, she has stated, multiple times, since early 2004, that, had she known then what she knows now, she'd never have voted for the AUMF. this is common knowledge, conveniently ignored, because it would undermine the premise of your entire rant.

    how you come to the conclusion that sen. clinton is the most

    hawkish Democrat in the US Senate
    baffles anyone with half a brain. since you don't bother to cite any evidence of this, it's reasonable to assume you don't have a clue.

    Parent
    If she knew then what she nows now? (none / 0) (#19)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    Seventeen Democrats knew enough in October 2002 to vote against the AUMF (Kennedy, Leahy, Feingold, Wellstone, Bob Graham etc etc).  She has said based on what SHE knew at the time the vote was correct, it wasn't.  Claiming if she voted now she would vote differently is no apology for the vote she cast at the time, Kerry and Edwards apologized outright.  Anyone with a lick of sense knew AT THE TIME W planned to go to war with the AUMF.

    She also told Kerry if he voted against the AUMF it would doom his 2004 campaign.  Ironic since it was his vote FOR the AUMF that twisted him positions so ridiculously in 2004.  She routinely supports astronomic defense appropriations and hard line positions with Iran etc.

    Liar?  I don't think so,  Just someone who had the nerve to question the appointment of St. Hillary as SoS.  She's no saint, none of them are including Obama, they are politicians whose decisions impact life and death across this planet.  

    NO clue?  I challenged you to name a single Democratic senator more hawkish than her, and even with your half a brain you did not.  

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    Folks who think as you do were definitely a critical part of the Obama coalition, that's for sure.  Thanks for providing us all with a reminder of what the operative mentality was.

    Baffling that someone as sensible as Obama would put the most hawkish Democrat in the entire US Senate in charge of foreign policy, but you know, maybe those ruthless Clintons threatened his kids or something.  We all know they'll stop at nothing.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    Absolutely freaking delusional base.  When they wake up about the likely policy that Obama iplements on wars they will go back to sleep or have seizures.

    Parent
    Maybe if you stopped the insults for a minute (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:55:25 AM EST
    you'd take the time to re=read your own comments. You said  "Hillary is the most hawkish Democrat in the US Senate who has never expressed regret..."

    When cpinva pointed out that she said she would vote differently if she knew then what she knows now, you dismissed the comment. Hillary's statement was specifically in response to a question about decisions she regrets. You conveniently morphed your comment into one about her apologizing.

    And what are her hard line positions on Iran that differ from Obama's? I'm asking because I suspect that you are relying on the same skewed readings of her comments (and Obama's actions) that we hear so much from her critics.

    I'm especially interested in your response because you have the unique knowledge of what's in her heart.

    Parent

    that is correct: (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    NO clue?  I challenged you to name a single Democratic senator more hawkish than her, and even with your half a brain you did not.

    you have no clue, none. you asserted that sen. clinton is the most hawkish democrat in congress, it is therefore incumbent upon you to prove it. i made no such assertion, regarding anyone else. i don't have to prove anything.

    just because others didn't vote for the AUMF doesn't, by definition, mean that sen. clinton was wrong to do so, given the information available to her at the time. bad logic.

    you further claimed she'd never expressed any regret for that decision, i've proved you wrong, she has, multiple times.

    you don't like sen. clinton, that's your right. however, it isn't your right to lie about her.

    Parent

    On a legal point (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:07:39 AM EST
    It is his right to state falsehoods about her so long as his false statements are not made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth of falsity of his statements.

    I think his statements fall closer to the opinion side of things than as factual statements.

    The silliness of his opinions is manifest of course.

    I am especially amused that he does not see that if Clinton was the most hawkish Democratic Senator in the Senate (something that surely comes as a surprise to Joe Lieberman for one), then that makes Obama the second most hawkish.

    Parent

    Leiberman??? (none / 0) (#83)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    JOe Leiberman is a Democrat?  News to me

    Parent
    He was in 2002 (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM EST
    Indeed through 2006.

    there, some news for you.

    Parent

    Actually I think Obama's statements (none / 0) (#35)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    as Senator make him slightly more hawkish than Hillary, especially on Iran.

    Parent
    The stuff about Pakistan... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    ...makes me very nervous. The Pakistanis really are the fanatical Muj that we incorrectly imagine the Arabs to be.

    You don't fight these fanatical a-holes lightly.

    Parent

    No. But you shouldn't ignore them either. (none / 0) (#77)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Ignore them how? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    hard to ignore, but what do you mean?

    I reckon the only way they can be eliminated in Afghanistan and India is to go to Pakistan and blast the LeT camps.  That means destroying the Pakistani paramilitary apparatus and maybe swooping down into Saudi to cut off the flow of cash. Good luck on that.  It's an intractable problem. It's not as if the extremist Pakistanis and their Saudi money men will ever stop their Jihad.

    Parent

    how? (none / 0) (#103)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    Like the Bushies have pretended that the Pakistanis are trying really hard to fight Al Qaida. That's a model of how not to deal with them.

    Parent
    facts (none / 0) (#82)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM EST
    She never has apologized for that vote, period.

    Di you listen to her in the debates?  AT every turn she thought it was smart to outflank Obama to the right on all foreign policy and defense positions.  Iran?  She belittled Obama's notion of opening talks with Iran "without preconditions."

    Parent

    She had no reason ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    ...to apologize if Obama is privately planning to keep on men like gates and continue the war in Iraq and escalate the war in Afghanistan.  She was refreshingly un-hypocritical and correctly understood Obama's true views.

    Parent
    If you mean she never pandered to you (none / 0) (#104)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    like Edwards then I say good on her.

    I didn't like her (or his ) vote. But at least she sticks to her guns by honoring the fact that she voted for the AUMF for real thoughtful reasons. She admits the reasons were wrong, but still won't apologize because she really believed in what she was doing then. I think that shows strength and dignity, in contrast to snivelly pandering like Edwards.

    Parent

    Don;t put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#88)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    This blog has many of my comments wherein I express my admiration for both CLintons and agreeemnt on domestic and other issues.  I like her fine, I DISAGREE with her, and apprently Obama's, foreign policy views.

    Would like to discuss the substance but you seem intent on perosnalizing all comments.

    I disagree with her foreign policy positions therefore I do not have the appreciation for her as SoS that I had for her as Senator, First Lady, or as I certainly would have for her on the Supreme Court.

    Parent

    Reminds one just a little (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    of her if-I-knew-then comments vis a vis NAFTA.

    Why is the perrenial (complete and utter b.s) excuse about "bad intelligence" acceptable coming from her but not from Bush, Cheney & co?

    Parent

    Almost everything that Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    ...has done in office suggests he'd have happily gone along with Bush in 2002.  His inner war cabinet is Hawkish.  You also fail to mention Biden, who pro-actively sold the Iraq/Afghan wars to the public, even appearing on Oprah to do so...His performance was Xenophobic, bombastic and offensive to anyone with a liberal or left-wing view. I remember his performance quite clearly.  Clinton never sold it in the shameful way that Biden did. No apology from him is ever going to be forthcoming.

    That Biden can escape the scrutiny, aimed at Clinton, from your sort of mindset beggars belief.

    Parent

    Did you hear what Sen. Clinton (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    sd. during Gen. Petraeus's appearance before the Senate committee?

    Parent
    I guess you see (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:02:36 AM EST
    what you want to see...Yglesias sees a pattern that indicates Clintonian hawkishness.  But doesn't keeping Gates on speak for itself?

    yes it does (none / 0) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:10:24 AM EST
    we have moved from neo-con to good old fashioned hawks.  

    Only W could make people long for the good old days of Central American atrocities, US invasions of Panama, Grenada and Iraq I.  

    Sigh

    Parent

    Puuuuleeeease (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    The sky is not falling but can we be honest and talk about how the Taj is? Do we dare cash in our Good Old Fashioned worn out old baloney I'm a pacifist talk for having to DEAL with reality?

    Parent
    Can you back this up (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lolis on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    What about Gates in the last few years makes you think he is a hawk? From what I've read about his actual actions as Sec of Defense he was not supportive of the surge strategy, he advocated to eliminate costly weapons programs, and he helped prevent strikes on Iran.

    Yes he works for Bush, but nobody ever argues against him on the merits and I just find that lazy.

    Parent

    How has Gates been (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    opposed to the surge?

    I guess I missed the ruckus when Gates opposed Bush on the surge...?

    I think in terms of whatever "message" people wish Obama to send with his appointments, Gates sends a stronger message about what Obama's foreign policy will be and what he wants to do than Clinton does.  

    Parent

    I know that (none / 0) (#53)
    by JThomas on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    Gates authored the part of the Iraq Study Group's report that spoke of a short term surge but then recommended a timeline for troop withdrawal by April,2008. He advocated for the US to get out within 14 months of the report.
    Gates also publically undermined Cheney on attacking Iran.
    He is a pragmatist who fits for a year of winding down Iraq...protects Obama's right flank as that process is completed. Smart pick by Obama as he can now concentrate on getting the economy on track.

    Parent
    And, of course, both Obama and Gates (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    agree U.S. needs to step it up and "win" in Afghanistan.

    Parent
    12 generation of the Raj (none / 0) (#65)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    couldn't win there. Good luck Us Americans in Afghan Kandahar hell!

    Parent
    He's a Hawk (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    My God snap out of it :) He just a good tool right now.  I'm okay with using him until Clark can step in.....God knows he's used me :)

    Parent
    Also a gross distortion of the (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    CDS-infected semi-left.

    What Obama foolishly said in a debate and Hillary correctly pasted him on was that he personally as president would meet with any and all foreign leaders, including Ahmadinejad, face to face with no preconditions.

    That's nonsense, and he knew it as soon as he said it and walked back from it right away.

    She herself said her administration would hold talks with anyone with preparation but not actual preconditions, but that face-to-face summits should be reserved for situations where they were appropriate and meaningful.  That's identical to what Obama has said since his clear unintended gaffe in the debate.

    Obama's gaffe and Hillary's pounce on it has been extended and distorted and blown up into a giant policy difference by a lot of people with questionable motives, and the lie has achieved the status of conventional wisdom among people who are quite happy to overlook the facts and ride the CDS bandwagon.

    Feh.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    This election has been a case study of how distortions are disseminated through the media and bloggers (Somersby has long been beating this drum) to the point that outright falsehoods, such as the idea that Hillary said she would never talk to Iran, get repeated over and over until they become conventional wisdom.

    Another example is the constant repeating of the canard that Hillary said she would "obliterate" Iran.

    Parent

    Let's see if Obama accepts (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    Raul Castro's offer to meet him at Guantanamo.

    Parent
    Are we still obsessed with Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ericinatl on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    Both Obama and Hillary have said some pretty hawkish things (Hillary obliterating Iran and Obama invading Pakistan without notice).  However, both of them have also cleary stated that we need a diplomatic approach to world problems, not just the right of might.  It is that guiding principle which makes both of them not hawks, but doves.  Dialogue and communication and working together to address world problems.

    However, as leader of the free world, any US President (or any Presidential candidate) needs to impress upon the world that the US is not beyond using force if diplomacy fails.  It's just the reality of now.  I think Hillary may have overdone this in the primary because she is a woman, so she (felt she) had to prove that she is tough.  This is the reality of the largely sexist world we still live in.

    My sense is that Hillary and Obama will have a lively dialogue and learn a great deal from one another.  I couldn't be happier with the pick.  As Obama said, we don't have the luxury of ideology right now -- we need a competent government with a pragmatic approach to solving problems.  Hillary is exactly that sort of politician.

    I posted the comment above (none / 0) (#61)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    before reading your comment. I appreciate the support for Hillary, but I would urge you to try and find the quote where Hillary said she would obliterate Iran.

    Parent
    Foreign policy... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:29:07 PM EST
    ...is largely an arbitrary list of one thing after another. So it is essentially reactive and at times feels random.  The American result of the Soviet-Afghan war lead  to the Jihad and 9/11.  That funding of Jihad was a pragmatic response to Soviet aggression. It's very much like the scene in Charlie Wilson's war where the CIA man walks out of the celebration and say:s "let's wait and see."

    Parent
    What the latest Clinton count of appointees? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:07:45 AM EST
    Obama decided to fill his cabinet or his team with past Clinton appointees.  What is the latest count of past president Clinton appointees to include Hilary herself?

    I'm more interested in GOP (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:23:22 AM EST
    contributions.  I can agree, conditionally, with Gates but any other Bush administration appointee better be outstandingly qualified.   Republicans are fine as long as they are qualified.

    Parent
    Are you OK with unqualified Dems? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    Oh wait, Dems don't get into positions of power the same way, do they?

    Nevermind...moot point.

    Parent

    He did call this shot (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:57:26 AM EST
    in the debate last year when he said he looked forward to having Clinton-era advisors, including Hillary.

    I guess the CDS people thought he was kidding, and the Clintonistas thought he was just taunting Hillary.

    Parent

    Your first sentence doesn't parse... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:38:51 AM EST
    very clearly.
    In answer to counterfactual assertions in the Media and from some bloggers... demonstrate

    You say wha'?

    Answering false statements (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:46:34 AM EST
    from the Media and some bloggers like Matt Yglesias.

    Parent
    I got the general idea (none / 0) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM EST
    But your sentence has no subject (in the grammatical sense). You have a long prepositional phrase "In answer to ..." and then your verb, "demonstrate".

    I don't mean to be pedantic, but things like this slow a reader down.

    Parent

    the subject is (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:10:24 AM EST
    the posts of Page and Isaacs.

    You can quibble with the structure, but the subject is in the sentence.

    Parent

    Oh, you mean that ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    Yglesias, Page and Isaacs are answering the counterfactual assertions in the media. I thought you meant they were part of the problem.

    Parent
    I read the sentence wrong, as well, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    and read Plutonim Page's post expecting it to be critical of Clinton. But what BTD wrote was that Plutonium Page and John Isaacs were writing in answer to counterfactual assertions in the Media and from some bloggers like Matt Yglesias. There's no right or wrong here. Commas are funny things.

    Parent
    I think not (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:10:40 AM EST
    The prepositional phrase I start my sentence with requires a comma as a transition. The placement of the comma (a semi colon would be appropriate) makes clear that the SUBJECT is the posts of Isaacs and Page.

    Is the sentence badly constructed? I think that is a a subjective pun intended) judgment.

    Did my sentence contain a SUBJECT (in the grammatical sense)? It clearly did.

    Parent

    It did (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:19:15 AM EST
    I am my office grammar cop, but I find no offense here.

    Parent
    No grammar offense, no (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    But clarity suffers from the construction. Not a biggie, but ideally you don't want your readers to have to stop and diagram your key sentence.


    Parent
    Adding (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    the general point of the post is quite clear, but BTD's specific thoughts on these things are usually so cogent, I like to be sure I'm getting all the angles.


    Parent
    I think the blue highlighting causes (none / 0) (#38)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    the problem, overwhelming the effect of the comma.

    Parent
    Oh, I get it now (none / 0) (#51)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    The comma is ambiguous, you would also need it in the construction:
    bloggers like Matt Yglesias, Plutonium Page and John Issacs

    In effect, what you are saying is:
    Plutonium Page and John Issacs demonstrate, in answer to counterfactual assertions in the Media and from some bloggers like Matt Yglesias, that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the President-Elect and the Secretary of State designee on foreign policy.

    In spoken English what you are saying would be perfectly clear, but I'm not sure how you signal that with punctuation. A semi-colon seems wrong.

    Parent
    Nice editing job. I really get hung (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    up on all the links and sub silentio hat tips for where BTD initially saw the item he is blogging about.  But apparently blogger etiquette requires it.  

    Parent
    Starting with an adverbial phrase (none / 0) (#76)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    Thanks. But starting with an adverbial phrase can be catchy. The only problem here is realizing how to read it. Here's an edit that preserves BTD's word order while erasing the ambiguity:
    In answer to counterfactual assertions in the Media-- and from some bloggers like Matt Yglesias-- Plutonium Page and John Issacs demonstrate that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the President-Elect and the Secretary of State designee on foreign policy.


    Parent
    Now let's discuss the proper (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:18:20 PM EST
    capitilization/hypenation of "President-elect."  

    Parent
    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    this edit I can buy into.

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#58)
    by ChrisO on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    I wasn't agreeing with the assertion that there was no subject. But common sense told me that the sentence could be read either way, since I did, indeed, read it both ways.

    Parent
    Are you trying to (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    raise the grade level of your writing? Come o, admit it!

    If so please don't readability is best at the 5th grade level (and I say that as one who has to read scientific journals as part of her job)

    Parent

    Good hypothesis. Hadn't thought (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    of that.

    Parent
    Please do not analyse the grammar (none / 0) (#73)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    of my last sentence...ugh!

    Parent
    A comma (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:32:49 AM EST
    means something.

    I was taking you seriously on this until now.

    Parent

    A comma means something (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM EST
    It does.  But initially I read the comma as separating elements in a series.

    It makes much more sense when one reads the sentence that way that you intended it.  But it took me a moment to get there.

    Parent

    You would do good (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by coigue on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    to take polite grammatical advice seriously. We all would. This is not a slam, I swear.

    Parent
    You are ...'ing the subject (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    Is that like yada-yada-yada'ing sex?

    Parent
    Well, at least Obama's foreign policy (none / 0) (#7)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 07:58:20 AM EST
    won't be saddled with Clintonista baggage...
    um, never mind.

    You idenitfied (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    if we accept your assessment - a nickel's worth of difference. Not quite a dime's worth.

    The Field (none / 0) (#71)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:41:10 PM EST
    Al Giordano has a nice piece up about the degree of congruence between Clinton and Obama when it comes to Western Hemispheric issues.  Al notes that both Clinton and Obama committed to renegotiating NAFTA within six months of taking office and using the opt-out mechanism as a threat to quit NAFTA if Canada and Mexico refuse to go along with including protections for labor and the environment.  

    I guess we'll get to see how quickly Obama and Clinton get to work at depriving industry of the main reasons it so wanted NAFTA.

    I'm not holding my breath.

    Canada has superior (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    labour laws and the environmental protection is top notch.  They consume very little resources and provide basic medical care to all residents.

    Shame on you for lumping them together.  Mexico OTOH is a toxic dump for human rights workers rights and enviromental protection.

    I wouldn't be surprised if American NAFTA negotiators viewed Canadian single-payer as a government subsidy and demanded they switch to a private system and dismantle social protections.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#106)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    Then Canada should be all for reopening NAFTA to add protections for labor and the environment and will join with Clinton and Obama in threatening to opt out of NAFTA if Mexico refuses to add protections for labor and the environment.

    Parent
    Obama And Clinton: Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment