- ‹ previous
- 2189 of 2822
- next ›
Clintonites
CLINTONITES....Just a quick comment on a common meme: Why is Barack Obama surrounding himself with so many Clinton retreads? That's not change we can believe in!
Sure, sure, but look: anybody who's been active in liberal governance for more than eight years is likely to be a Clintonite. It was the only game in town during the 90s. And anybody who's been active less than eight years probably doesn't have the experience to get a top level position. So there's really no way around this. There are some fresh faces around for Obama to tap, but for the most part, when you're staffing highly visible and responsible positions, you want someone who has at least some experience to fall back on. And since Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to hold the presidency in the past 28 years, that means someone who served in the Clinton administration.
I suppose this doesn't bother me as much as it does some people since I never expected Obama to be a huge left-wing break from Democratic tradition in the first place. He's a little farther to the left than Clinton, but not a lot, and it's only natural that he'd find a fair number of Clintonites who hold views similar to his own. What's more, as his campaign showed, he's obviously a guy who values experience and deep knowledge. He'll do fine, Clintonites or not.
Sadly that article is poor on actually quoting the question, but it's clear enough to demonstrate my point (see esp. "What Obama Really Meant" below) and show you're in fact contributing to the misrepresentation:
Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under Clinton's husband, called Clinton's answer "perfect" ? and strongly implied that Obama was wrong to not recognize the importance of the "diplomatic spade work" that is best performed by lower-level personnel, not the president.
"Having been involved in this myself, I think she showed a very sophisticated and nuanced view of what really happened, and for me, it shows the kind of experience she has," Albright said in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Clinton campaign today.
Though Obama's answer was unequivocal, Obama aides said after the debate that he never meant to suggest that he would definitely personally meet with dictators such as Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro without first initiating in lower-level diplomacy...
Sadly that article is poor on actually quoting the question, but it's clear enough to demonstrate my point (see esp. "What Obama Really Meant" below) and show you're in fact contributing to the misrepresentation:
Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under Clinton's husband, called Clinton's answer "perfect" ? and strongly implied that Obama was wrong to not recognize the importance of the "diplomatic spade work" that is best performed by lower-level personnel, not the president.
"Having been involved in this myself, I think she showed a very sophisticated and nuanced view of what really happened, and for me, it shows the kind of experience she has," Albright said in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Clinton campaign today.
Though Obama's answer was unequivocal, Obama aides said after the debate that he never meant to suggest that he would definitely personally meet with dictators such as Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro without first initiating in lower-level diplomacy...
Yes Kevin, but you're forgetting what we found out during the primaries from Kos and others about the Clintons.
OK so far we have: make up with Hillary (and offer her the most important job), meet with McCain, appease AIPAC (keep Lieberman in the fold).
And not even a bone for "the base".
Hey JS, if you're just going to toss in anti-semitic fear mongering, don't forget Rahm Emanuel and Lawrence Summers.
And David Axelrod!
And the name Baruch!
Jerry, Emanuel and Summers are not AIPAC people. And you are an idiot if you think that believing AIPAC acts as a lobby (and makes phone calls) is anti-semitic.
I see no evidence from you in your comment that Lieberman was kept in to appease AIPAC. I just see your jew-baiting claim flung in there.
So "appease AIPAC" is "anti-semitic fear mongering". Really?
You missed your calling on cable news, jerry!
Up until now, everyone has talked about keeping Lieberman because of the 60 seat filibuster.
I am glad we have you, JS, to let us know it's really to keep the Jews happy. Since that's the case, I thought I would help you beef up your argument a bit and give you some more Jews to jew-bait over.
Must politics in America always be fragmented along pro and anti Israeli lines? I'm not downplaying the importance of our role overall, but I get sick of it being the litmus test or the accusation to shout out when you're in a corner.
For those carping about the number of Clintonites, I urge patience.
Every administration needs a starting point. Would you rather Mr. Obama start from the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure or Mr. Bush's?
As time passes, we'll see new faces emerge and blend into the ongoing effort. Next time around, a new administration will turn to those with experience on the Obama team.
Use your imginations people! Gore and Kerry ran national campaigns without the major Clinton players. Since 2000 scores of new Democrats have won election to governorships and Senate and House seats. Dean ran the DNC expressly as the alternative to a Clinton choice. Were any of them president? No, but they all gave plenty of thought to national issues and national governance. If holding a post in the 1990s Republican accomodationist admin of Bill Clinton is the criterion for leadership under Obama then lets just get this charade over with and elevate Lieberman to chief of staff.
He's a little farther to the left than Clinton, but not a lot
Let's be precise here. Which Clinton and which issue? It's been my gut feeling for a long time that it would be hard to slip a paper between Barak and Bill. That includes most issues, but especially governing style. These two have a gut instinct for dialogue and triangulation. There are a few issues that they are passionate about and this is where I gain my greatest respect for them. With Barak I'll be interested to see where this displays itself.
I think this similarity actually complicates the relationship and the battle of egos.
On domestic issues I think Hillary is to the left and a little more passionate. It doesn't mean she would have been more succesful at driving the country this way but she wouldn't have begun with the structure of triangulation or the firm belief that moderate Republicans are an immobile object defining the playing field.
I know plenty of people who will disagree, but it certainly seems like the old school Clinton DLC folks are winning right now. Howard Dean has been sidelined and we're still waiting to find out which Republicans get into the cabinet.
Mind you, I'm not complaining. I think competence and logic are mostly prevailing and I think that's likely what we need. I also don't think it's really Clinton 2.0. It's Clinton governing with the addition of experience and knowledge concerning where and how to expend political capital.
I see no evidence from you in your comment that Lieberman was kept in to appease AIPAC. I just see your jew-baiting claim flung in there.
I see no evidence from you in your comment that JS said anything anti-Semitic. I just see your inflammatory strawman argument flung in there. So glad we can count on you, Jerry, for disingenuous arguments & juvenile smears to enforce your whacked out thought & speech codes.
Instead of telling us all about me, juney, why don't you and Lucy and JS tell me all about AIPAC and Lieberman and how he is being kept in there NOT for the 60 seat filibuster but to appease Jewish/Israeli voters on the AIPAC issue.
Lucy and JS fell silent. They don't know how to do that.
But juney, go ahead, tell us all how Lieberman's chair has nothing to do with filibusters.
For the rest of us, we recognize that whether we support AIPAC or not, it's a great thing to toss in when you want to gin up some anti-semitism and anti-israeli sentiment just as JS did.
I agree with you Kevin.
The big difference between the Clinton and GWB administrations is that Clinton actually appointed competent folks, while Incurious George, I mean President Cheney, have appointed ideological fellow travelers and hacks, who in most cases have performed incompetently.
Likewise, remember some of the incompetents Carter brought with him from Georgia.
Folks complaining of the appointment of folks who served in the Clinton administration should restrain their jerking knees and give Obama the credit he deserves.
jerry,
I honestly don't see anyone besides yourself equating AIPAC with "the Jews."
Clintonite, shmintonite. Obama will be the President, and they will all report to him. If they didn't want to support his agenda, they wouldn't take the job. If they don't support the agenda, their ID cards will stop working at the gate.
Hey jerry, instead of slinging the cheap hash why don't you explain to me how "AIPAC" and "the Jews" are synonymous, or what makes speculation about Lieberman's ties to AIPAC "anti-semitic fear mongering"?
The Senate Democrats did not impart to me their reasons for embracing the prodigal Joe. Sorry!
I really don't understand people equating Clinton era politics with Bush politics. Going back to Clintonite expertise and realism is change I can sure as hell believe in.
Equating the two was largely a primary campaign gimic focused on the gut feelings of the uniformed.
And the Lieberman thing was a shout out to foreign policy centrists (and hawks) and moderate republicans (no anti-semitism intended).
This is from a cofounder of Air America:
At the risk of being called a self-hating Jew...
While AIPAC is primarily a Jewish organization, I am aware that most liberal Jews hate what they are doing and the tactics that they are using. Since over 70% of American Jews are liberal, I believe that AIPAC is not representing the views of most of the Jewish community...
It is time for AIPAC to understand that the only real help for Israel comes from the peace process and not fascist type tactics. AIPAC does not represent me or most of the views of the Jewish community.
... why don't you and Lucy and JS tell me all about AIPAC and Lieberman and how he is being kept in there NOT for the 60 seat filibuster but to appease Jewish/Israeli voters on the AIPAC issue.
I have a better idea. Why don't you make an honest argument that, for once, doesn't rely on unsupported assertions about the motives of people with whom you disagree? Bogus claims of anti-Semitism, like yours, are not only fundamentally dishonest & shrill; they're nothing more than cheap shots serving as pathetic substitutes for the absence of an argument, and they ultimately diminish legitimate calls against the real thing. But, hey, we understand that crying wolf gives you that sense of smug superiority that you crave. We wouldn't want to get in the way of that.
I really don't understand people equating Clinton era politics with Bush politics...Equating the two was largely a primary campaign gimic focused on the gut feelings of the uniformed.
You nailed it.
"He's a little farther to the left than Clinton"
Well, except on domestic policy, but whatever. Anyway he's shifting to her position on UHC so that does away with their biggest difference.
I have no problem with Obama staffing the Federal government with knowledgable, competent people who believe in running a just, functional government. That some of these people served during the Clinton era of peace and prosperity is to be expected--it is experience, not a disqualification. My only concern with restoring the Clinton years was the prospect of Hillary Clinton and Bubba back in the WH.
On the other hand, anyone who has served during the Bush years should be sent packing. This will be hard to accomplish, however, given Bushco's eight years of purging the non-ideologues. I suspect a generation of foreign service professionals have gone into other lines of work. The justice department and intelligence agencies are also deeply compromised, and I wonder who is left at FEMA, in the energy department and health and human services.
Jftr, can anyone here defend the claim that Lieberman is being allowed to keep his chair to appease AIPAC (which is certain to have greatly lessened influence now the neocons are out of power) and not to keep him in the caucus?
Clintonite, shmintonite. Obama will be the President, and they will all report to him. If they didn't want to support his agenda, they wouldn't take the job.
Zackly. Whatever might be said about Clintonites, in general -- and the Clintons, in particular -- they're nothing, if not very, very serious about policy. I'm not sure with concern is -- that they're going to be working on pet projects like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, instead of Obama's agenda? Puh-lease.
"[Obama is] a little farther to the left than Clinton ..."
Phooey! Baloney! He's to the right, no question.
Quick: name a policy, any policy, where he's to the left.
Nothing! He's to the right on taxes (e.g. lower capital gains rates), to the right on health care (e.g. no mandates), and to the right on church-state (e.g. supports faith-based funding).
It will be interesting to see how "talking to your enemies" works out with Hillary as SecState. Does she reverse herself on this or does Obama? Or do we come up with some new doublespeak to resolve the difficulty?
It's a somewhat important part of what foreign policy will have to be in the next few years, and Hillary's presence would create this additional difficulty that we didn't need to have.
Quick: name a policy, any policy, where he's to the left.
Um, you mean like the decision to go to war? Or his expressed willingness to meet with oppositional world leaders, which she dismissed as Pollyanna-ish, while threatening to "obliterate" Iran? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. And you're right that she's to the left of him on some important domestic issues, not the least of which is health care, but let's not get carried away.
M: lower capital gains rates
Reminds me of what a pinko I am, to think that (to use IRS terminology) earned and unearned income should be taxed at the same rate.
I'm not sure where that puts me with respect to Trotskyite or Maoist thinking, but I know it puts me only slightly to the right of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He thought that capital should be taxed at a higher rate than labor, but he was probably a ComIntern agent.
Clinton was of course on the record for "talking to our enemies" - that whole argument was just Obama misunderstanding a question, giving an answer he got stuck with, then using it as a rhetorical club to hit a misrepresented Clinton stance. Recall what Edwards said at the time. Ahmadinejad won't be showing up at the WH for tea unannounced on Jan 21.
Up until now, everyone has talked about keeping Lieberman because of the 60 seat filibuster.
I am glad we have you, JS, to let us know it's really to keep the Jews happy. Since that's the case, I thought I would help you beef up your argument a bit and give you some more Jews to jew-bait over.
As a Jew, jerry (are *you* Jewish?), I can honestly say that AIPAC does not speak for me, nor does it speak for a lot of Jews.
... that whole argument was just Obama misunderstanding a question, giving an answer he got stuck with, then using it as a rhetorical club to hit a misrepresented Clinton stance.
That's an interesting characterization of the events that actually occurred , but this is all water under the bridge now. Clinton would be an excellent SOS, and I stand by my initial point to M -- that neither Clinton nor Obama is uniformly more right or left than the other. It's more subtle than that.
Sadly that article is poor on actually quoting the question, but it's clear enough to demonstrate my point (see esp. "What Obama Really Meant" below) and show you're in fact contributing to the misrepresentation:
Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under Clinton's husband, called Clinton's answer "perfect" and strongly implied that Obama was wrong to not recognize the importance of the "diplomatic spade work" that is best performed by lower-level personnel, not the president.
"Having been involved in this myself, I think she showed a very sophisticated and nuanced view of what really happened, and for me, it shows the kind of experience she has," Albright said in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Clinton campaign today.
Though Obama's answer was unequivocal, Obama aides said after the debate that he never meant to suggest that he would definitely personally meet with dictators such as Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro without first initiating in lower-level diplomacy...
More water under the bridge, but I wanted to check I hadn't gotten the question (emphasis added) or the Edwards claim wrong:
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
...
EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.
I think the article makes clear that it wasn't Obama who used that incident as a rhetorical club. And it would be a mistake to pretend as if Albright was an impartial observer in the matter. The fact is that during the primary Clinton aggressively positioned herself to the right of Obama on the issue of defense, as these & other issues (3 a.m., anyone?) make clear.
Read to the end of the article - Clinton's stance was clear (it was the one Edwards agreed with, and Biden for that matter), and the Obama camp misrepresented it, as you did above. Clinton was certainly very slightly to the right of Obama on FP (Cuba's a good example) but Obama was clearly to the right of her on domestic policy. And, well, he's put her at State and adopted her health care policy, so obviously the whole left/right Clinton/Obama debate which Kevin Drum continues above (who knows why) was a) stupid and b) a distraction.
Um, you mean like the decision to go to war? Or his expressed willingness to meet with oppositional world leaders, which she dismissed as Pollyanna-ish, while threatening to "obliterate" Iran? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. And you're right that she's to the left of him on some important domestic issues, not the least of which is health care, but let's not get carried away.
I don't mean to get carried away or suggest a radical divide between Obama and Clinton, but I think there's more than enough evidence that, if anything (and if "right vs left" means anything), he's to the right, not left, of Clinton. That's all.
Moreover, if you give any credence at all to media reports, his foreign policy can't be too far from Clinton's, if she's been offered Secretary of State.
"since Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to hold the presidency in the past 28 years"
Him and Jimmy Carter have been the only two Democrats in 40 years. And both of them had the bubba element working, to appeal to the South. LBJ underestimated when he said that the South is lost to the Dems for a generation.
... Clinton's stance was clear (it was the one Edwards agreed with, and Biden for that matter)...
A couple of points. First, her position wasn't so clear that she didn't need campaign staffers to elaborate on her comments the following day (as was the case with Obama). But neither Edwards nor Biden used this as an opportunity to tack to the right of Obama, as Clinton did, and accounts of Albright's comments make this clear:
The Clinton campaign rejoiced over the exchange, putting former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the phone with reporters Tuesday to praise Clinton's approach.
"She knows that being president is about protecting the country and advancing national security interests," Albright said.
Yes, though, this is a stupid distraction. She'd be an excellent SOS, and there would be no rift between them on policy.
"[H]er position wasn't so clear that" Obama, and you above, couldn't plainly distort it. Of course Clinton's position was the simple normal liberal stance, and no different from what Obama really thinks; she didn't run to the right of Obama on this so much as over him. I will admit that Edwards and Biden, while saying that Obama's answer was wrong, didn't put the former Democratic Secretary of State on to say so as well.
Clinton used the issue to refer to Obama as "naïve" and "irresponsible" on national security, yet it's Obama who used the episode as a "rhetorical club" -- and I'm distorting the issue? Good luck with that.
Well, all I can say is that I'm disappointed so far in most of Obama's personnel picks, particularly Clinton as SOS. Perhaps my disappointment is mostly attributable to an article I read (forget where) a couple weeks ago that said Obama's administration would not be full of 'retreads' from the Clinton administration but instead be a group of new, bright faces. It sure doesn't look that way at this point. I understand why it's important to have a staff that's experienced, but I had hoped that the actual cabinet posts would be filled with intelligent new people with expertise that represented a different direction (i.e. LEFT) to policy making. These people have to exist. So why go for the retreads? But I'm still willing to give Obama a chance to prove himself. My optimism about Obama has always been tempered with caution. Time will tell.
"And anybody who's been active less than eight years probably doesn't have the experience to get a top level position."
You mean, sort of like Barack Obama himself?
As others posted, something I found appealing not only about Obama but those whom he had tapped during his campaign was how few of them were Clintonistas but were still strong Dems both politically and ideologically. It isn't that the Clintonista choices are bad ones, just that it's been eight years (a lifetime in political life!) -- surely our choices aren't only those who were previously in power. (Who gave them their first break??) Surely we can do better after demonstrating the power behind many liberal and Democratic ideals. Thus far, Obama hasn't made a significant administration selection outside of that old Clinton circle to demonstrate that sense of up and coming Dems, and I find that rather sad.
I confess to posting this without reading any of the comments above, so my point has probably been made already here.
But I'm amazed how many people in the media and elsewhere have not yet caught on to Obama's theme and meme: reconciliation. It's all about healing wounds and building alliances, about the potential for historic accomplishments. That's the change Obama has in mind and that we'll all be catching on to at one point or another.
Recycling old farts who were living in their past glories didn't work for Bush.
I agree that there's no way around putting alot of clintonites in top positions for all the reasons Kevin cites. Additionally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Why are so many liberals buying into Republican spin that the Clintons and those assoicuated with them are somehow tainted or not really liberal/progressive enough. Certainly Clinton was more centrist than many would like, but its a bit too broad a brush to hold it against someone that they worked in the Clinton administration. And anyway, this is a great opportunity to fill secondary positions with young, freshed faced progressives who will be the Holders and Emanuels of the future. Even four short years from now some new people may move up the ranks into cabinet level positions. I think this Clinton/Clintonite obsession needs to be stamped out, at least among those of us on the democratic side. It just feeds the right wing media bullshit machine.
He's a little farther to the left than Clinton
"He's a little farther to the left than Clinton"
He is much more left then "a little farther to the left", and he proved that by aquaring stakes on GM.
Christian Louboutin
I suppose this doesn't bother me as much as it does some people since I never expected Obama to be a huge left-wing break from Democratic tradition in the first place. UGG boots, uggs shoes, replica designer handbags