Benevolent Czar of State

by sodbuster Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:05 am

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/22/america/23hillary.php?page=1

Well it looks like Obama has total confidence in Hillary and she will be given free rein to conduct foreign policy.

That will be a good thing and make the office work smooth.

I look for Hillary to go down in the annals as perhaps the greatest Sec. of State and will no doubt straighten up a lot of the diplomatic mess created by others.

I have to admit I would never have thought of putting her in that position, but it appears to be a stroke of genius.

So I hope all the republicans will put America first and support our new Secretary of State and wish her well instead of all this sniping like they are doing now.

I know it must be hard to lose an election as bad as the republicans lost this time.

But history was against them in that they had been in power for so long; and I think even they would admit things were really screwed up, foreign and domestic.

Plus the far right social conservatives deserted the party..

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:17 am

Contrary to what our DNC kool aid drinking friend would have you believe, Hillary will not set Barrack Obama's foreign policy, she will be the face of his foreign policy.

I think this is one of those keep your friends close, your enemies closer situtations.

By this past Thursday, when Obama reassured Clinton that she would have direct access to him and could select her own staff as secretary of state, the wooing was complete.

"She feels like she's been treated very well in the way she's been asked," said a close associate of Clinton, who like others interviewed asked for anonymity because the nomination will not be formally announced until after Thanksgiving.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:25 pm

sodbuster wrote:http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/22/america/23hillary.php?page=1

Well it looks like Obama has total confidence in Hillary and she will be given free rein to conduct foreign policy.

That will be a good thing and make the office work smooth.

I look for Hillary to go down in the annals as perhaps the greatest Sec. of State and will no doubt straighten up a lot of the diplomatic mess created by others.

I have to admit I would never have thought of putting her in that position, but it appears to be a stroke of genius.

So I hope all the republicans will put America first and support our new Secretary of State and wish her well instead of all this sniping like they are doing now.

I know it must be hard to lose an election as bad as the republicans lost this time.

But history was against them in that they had been in power for so long; and I think even they would admit things were really screwed up, foreign and domestic.

Plus the far right social conservatives deserted the party..

The smartest woman in the world has already been duped by one world leader. She is going to be mess. Any woman who didn't know that her hubby was mentoring a Monica in the pantry is a dufus. Plus, one wonders how many more times she will embellish her shuttle-diplomacy with claims of being under sniper-fire??

by **ohio county** Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:16 pm

"go down in the anals"? What's up with that?

by sodbuster Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:18 pm

Well so much for my wish that the rightwing wackos would put country first.

Not that it cant be done without them I just thought they might like to get on board to do what's best for the country...

by **ohio county** Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:19 pm

So, if I understand you correctly, we have to laud Hillary as Secretary of State. Otherwise, we're obstructionists?

by sodbuster Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:51 pm

ohio county wrote:So, if I understand you correctly, we have to laud Hillary as Secretary of State. Otherwise, we're obstructionists?

Well OC I don't believe that is a reasonable or constructive observation.

Assuming you are serious and not spoofing me.

Healthy dissent and constructive criticism are positive things, imo.

But statements like the following are not:

"Any woman who didn't know that her hubby was mentoring a Monica in the pantry is a dufus. Plus, one wonders how many more times she will embellish her shuttle-diplomacy with claims of being under sniper-fire??"

That kind of comment is not meant to be constructive.

Although I dont expect you to criticize another rightwinger, in your heart you know I'm right (as barry goldwater used to say).

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:55 pm

Well this right wing whacko isn't lauding Hillary for SOS. By the same token, this right wing whacko doesn’t think she will do a bad job either. She's been around enough that this right wing whacko thinks that she will do a fine job of presenting Barrack Obama's foreign policy.

And that was the point of this right wing whacko's post; to state that the left wing whacko was incorrect when he stated Obama was giving Hillary free reign to set foreign policy.

by sodbuster Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:59 pm

Thanks, Aaron.

I appreciate that.

It is ok to disagree, even healthy sometimes.

It looks like to me the same people who were guiding the Clinton foreign policy will be guiding Obama's.

So whether we say the decisions are made by Clinton or Obama are pretty much irrelevant.

The end result will be the same.

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:04 pm

What am I disagreeing about Sherman. I pasted from the article you referenced that said exactly what I'm saying. Foreign policy will be set by Barrack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, who you are saying will set foreign policy.

I do agree with you on Terry H's statement not being constructive. But then I've never seen any post by Terry H that would lead me to believe he would support anyone on the left any more then I've seen a post by you that would suggest you would support anyone on the right. He's a partisan right as you are left.

But as far as Hillary goes, we do not disagree. I am right, you are wrong and that is simply how it is.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:18 pm

This right wing whacko already stated in another thread she wasn't going to raise a fuss about Hillary as SOS. I gave my reasons.

I am, however, simply outraged at some of his other selections. Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary? I'm livid. That jerk-off he's tapping for AG.......I'm incensed. Rahm Emmanuel.....happy days are here again!

I must be an obstructionist.

by sodbuster Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:43 pm

Well Steph in order to solve a problem you first have to admit you have a problem.

So you have won half the battle by admitting you are an obstructionist.

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:02 pm

sodbuster wrote:It looks like to me the same people who were guiding the Clinton foreign policy will be guiding Obama's.

No Sherman, the same people will not be guiding Obama's foreign policy that guided Clinton's.

Barrack Obama will be guiding his very own foreign policy. He will listen to what others have to say, but in the end, all decisions will be made by him, not Hillary. She will merely be a mouth piece for what he says. That is what you do not understand.

On a positive not, I don't think he'll be a coward like Bill was so that can be a good thing, I think.

by Randall Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:40 am

Amazing how going along with Sod's preferred party is synonymous with "putting America first." I thought only Republicans wrapped themselves in the flag.

Also, hearing Sod extoll the virtues of bipartisanship in one thread while he prays for the Dems to get a 60-vote, unstoppable supermajority in the other is pretty funny.

by sodbuster Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:27 am

Well Randall it is a lot easier to be magnanimous and bi-partisan if you have the votes... Very Happy

Plus remember we dont have anyone like Tom Delay to just ram stuff through.

And I can't resist invoking Old Glory since I had to put up with it from the other side for all those years.

Sometimes you guys take me too serious when I am just spoofing you.

It is all just good clean fun.

by TerryRC Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:56 am

Rahm Emmanuel.....happy days are here again!

He has a reputation for pissing off people in BOTH parties.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

by SamCogar Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:48 pm

TerryRC wrote:Rahm Emmanuel.....happy days are here again!

He has a reputation for pissing off people in BOTH parties.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.

But you hate and detest anyone doing that on this Forum, ...... RIGHT.

.

by TerryRC Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:21 am

But you hate and detest anyone doing that on this Forum, ...... RIGHT.

Wrong. Piss me off all you like... with your arguments. Keep the personal attacks out of it, though.

Unfortunately, you don't have any arguments, just insults.

Anyone can scan your posts and see that. Nine out of ten contain nothing but insults.

by bmd Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:15 am

TerryRC wrote:But you hate and detest anyone doing that on this Forum, ...... RIGHT.

Wrong. Piss me off all you like... with your arguments. Keep the personal attacks out of it, though.

Unfortunately, you don't have any arguments, just insults.

Anyone can scan your posts and see that. Nine out of ten contain nothing but insults.

There are 10% with content?

Come on, Terry, quit trying to flatter him.

by Aaron Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:18 am

That would put him 11% above you Dick.

by bmd Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:26 pm

Aaron wrote:That would put him 11% above you Dick.

Who's Dick?

(I thought we fixed this little behavioral problem of Aaron's.)

by Aaron Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:40 pm

bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:That would put him 11% above you Dick.

Who's Dick?

(I thought we fixed this little behavioral problem of Aaron's.)

BMD

Big Mouth Dick.

It's a derivative of your nickname Dick, well within the netiquette you posted so don’t get your panties in a bunch Dick.

by bmd Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:03 pm

O.K., Judy. Have it your way.

(It must be that time of the month)

by Aaron Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:51 pm

And Judy is?

I looked up and down the member list and didn't see any name that Judy could be a derivative of?

What's the matter Dick, can't you follow your own rules or is this another area in which your a hypocrite?

by bmd Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:49 pm

Judith Martin wrote:And Judy is?

I looked up and down the member list and didn't see any name that Judy could be a derivative of?

Now, now, don't get your knickers in a twist, Judy. Your "courteous" manners give you away. We all know that you're really Judith Martin.

I guess that you new name for me just shows your penis envy.

Just to get things straight, bmd is short for biomechdude. Demonstrating you penis envy by attempting to rename me is not the same as deriving another name from my alias. But, since you insist, I will respond to your "courteous" manner by using your real name.

by Sponsored content

Benevolent Czar of State

Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State

Re: Benevolent Czar of State