Barack Obama Names Hillary Clinton Secretary of State: is that Kool-Aid?
For two weeks now, rumors have circulated that Barack Obama would select Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. With no other credible names on the table it wasn’t really a rumor. It was truth awaiting confirmation via quote. This morning, Barack Obama made it official:
“Hillary’s appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances.. I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of council and a tough campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State. She’s an American of tremendous statue who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world’s leaders, who will command respect in every capitol and who clearly has the ability to advance our interests around the world.. There’s much to do, from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions.
I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda.”
Barack is right.. there is no doubt Hillary Clinton is capable of being Secretary of State, but how will she feel when meeting and talking with foreign leaders without preconditions. ← That was one issue they seriously disagreed on. Like Barack Obama, it seems like Hillary Clinton is willing to put the campaign scuffles behind her and agree to disagree.. or not.
I think she’s been sipping the Kool-Aid.
“President Kennedy once 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.. Leaving the senate is very difficult for me. But during the last few weeks, 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.
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 can not be protected and advanced by force alone. Nor by Americans alone.. 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 Barack Obama.. on behalf our nation at this defining moment.”
Yup, that’s strawberry.
Hey.. can you blame her?
After missing the presidency by this much what was she going to do? Go back to the monotony of the senate? Nope. Where’s the ice?
☼ What's Your Opinion? ☼
It’s so nice to have a well-spoken President for once.
. I agree 100%. But there’s a snag here. And mind you, I mean what I’m about to say to get the wheels coclsruntivety turning and thinking.While you blast (rightfully) the dangerous role of basic economic ignorance and the silly expectations therefrom in the voters’ minds in the realm of democratic elections, the hard fact remains that there are many PhD economists, some with popular blogs and web-influence, who are not only partisan Democrats but also ideologically liberal. Krugman is a notable one. Others with popular blogs are DeLong and Thoma. There are others still. Visit Angry Bear and peruse the links on the right column.IOW, despite their sound grasp of basic economics and markets and beyond, the end result is that these professional economists generally support the same candidates and buy into the same rhetoric as many of the very voters you criticize. I think it’s all fine and good for you, or Caplan in his book (which I’ve read), to make this case about economic biases and ignorance and its effects on democracy and voter mentality. I think it’s great to recommend a book like Hazlitt’s. But this doesn’t tackle the larger problem that needs to be addressed:What does this talk about understanding basic econ and markets mean when many PhD economists who have studied well beyond the basic and fundamental tenets of economic thought support the unkeepable promises of candidates and buy into the unrealistic rhetoric that seduces laymen voters?What would a Krugman-like economist say about Bastiat or Hazlitt and the iron clad notions they put forth that they seemingly ignore through their actions? and WHY?In summary, economists who share your view need to start addressing the conflicts with economists who disagree with you before bemoaning the average voter. The average voter is an easy target. Blasting Joe Six Pack for silly views is easy. What to you say to Krugman? or DeLong? or any number economists who agree with them?That’s a book I would buy.
. I remember one, in which he was tanklig about how the intelligence is manipulated to make us believe the government knows more than it can tell us, and we have to trust it with whatever it’s about to do.This excuse was used over and over again, and almost always the intelligence proved to be false.Silber said the decision-making is never one of hard, cold thinking, but one of judgement. In other words, the government does nothing that the People could not do.But the elite in Washington believes the People is not well-informed, and does not deserve to be listened to. Its will can and in fact must be disregarded.Sir, I did not read your article, but your title reminded me of this.