Obama goes along to get along. Period. He just wants to be liked so badly.

Not to get psychoanalytic on y’all, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that both his parents seemed to be self centered, flighty idiots for whom poor Barry was always an afterthought. He’s always trying to prove something to himself, it seems.

So many insightful posters on here.

I agree with -jon1979 on November 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM- that Obama’s primary interest is in creating heaven on earth here at home and is happy to leave the tough stuff to the grownups, No matter what else I think of Hillary, she is a grown up and her tenure in New York has conditioned her to have a much more comforting stance on Israel/Iran in particular.

He’s not interested in foreign policy. I personally don’t think that his antiwar stance from back in 2002 that he used in Iowa and in other primaries to bludgeon Hillary was a matter of principle or a profile in courage as his sycophants in the media say it was.

I mean, cmon y’all, the guy doesn’t have any long standing principles. Power is principle to this guy.

I don’t know where you all were in the run up to the war in 2003, but I was living in Philadelphia and the antiwar movement there was very strong. I’m sure their two-bit low life city politicians got up on soapboxes and decried the war too, just as Obama did in Chicago.

It took absolutely NO political courage to speak out against the war in most of America’s major cities. NONE.

Obama is sleeping just fine at night with Hillary at the wheel at Foggy Bottom. He could care less about the differences on the war. He’s in power now. That was the whole endgame.

gippergal1984 on November 18, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Yep.. it took absolutely no courage to do what the Messiah did. In fact, it probably allowed himself to pimp himself on the local news for a few minutes. At the time he was a no name state Senator who was probably polling at about 2% in the Dem. primary for IL’s U.S. Senate seat, so the free publicity was probably welcome.

An act of political courage in Chicago would have been to skip out on the Ayers’ coffees, suggest that Reverand Wright tone down his rhetoric, or call for an investigation of the Daley administration.

Given the free ride he just got from doing drugs on the South side of Chicago, to Harvard, the Illinois Senate, the US Senate, to the White House, Barack could be foregiven for thinking he can do no wrong… remember, the MSM has yet to identify an instance of this occurring in his life to date!

I agree with -jon1979 on November 18, 2008 at 12:47 PM- that Obama’s primary interest is in creating heaven on earth here at home and is happy to leave the tough stuff to the grownups, No matter what else I think of Hillary, she is a grown up and her tenure in New York has conditioned her to have a much more comforting stance on Israel/Iran in particular.

He’s not interested in foreign policy. I personally don’t think that his antiwar stance from back in 2002 that he used in Iowa and in other primaries to bludgeon Hillary was a matter of principle or a profile in courage as his sycophants in the media say it was.

I mean, cmon y’all, the guy doesn’t have any long standing principles. Power is principle to this guy.

I don’t know where you all were in the run up to the war in 2003, but I was living in Philadelphia and the antiwar movement there was very strong. I’m sure their two-bit low life city politicians got up on soapboxes and decried the war too, just as Obama did in Chicago.

It took absolutely NO political courage to speak out against the war in most of America’s major cities. NONE.

Obama is sleeping just fine at night with Hillary at the wheel at Foggy Bottom. He could care less about the differences on the war. He’s in power now. That was the whole endgame.

All a dodge to distract from the fact that Obama can’t make up his mind on any of his cabinet members. (And does Michelle have veto power on any of them?)

The wrong story is being pursued regarding Obama’s cabinet picks.
Somebody check what is the normal timeline for an incoming President naming cabinet members?

I agree with rockmom above in that I also think that it is “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”. Also consider…

…he would be pulling someone out of the Senate who bears a personal grudge against him. Even though she is a Dem, I could see her stalling or preventing bills that he favors just to exact revenge. He might be hoping for a replacement that would act more as a loyal toady.

…he would pull some Clinton supporters over to favoring his administration and cementing his position over the Democratic party (think 4 years from now).

…as someone else noted, he could be setting her up for firing in a few years, and thus harming her reputation and exacting his own revenge, ruining any chance for her to run against him in 2012 if his administration does poorly.

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM

All good theories. All of which benefit Obama. But I don’t see what Hillary gets out of the deal.

…he would be pulling someone out of the Senate who bears a personal grudge against him. Even though she is a Dem, I could see her stalling or preventing bills that he favors just to exact revenge. He might be hoping for a replacement that would act more as a loyal toady.

…he would pull some Clinton supporters over to favoring his administration and cementing his position over the Democratic party (think 4 years from now).

…as someone else noted, he could be setting her up for firing in a few years, and thus harming her reputation and exacting his own revenge, ruining any chance for her to run against him in 2012 if his administration does poorly.

Better Secretary of State than US Supreme Court Judge.

PappaMac on November 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM

You betcha!

But why State?

Could it be that a former community organizer is far more interested in domestic policy changes he can more or less control with a pliant Democratic Congress than in dealing with the non-photo op details of foreign policy, where even if the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela or North Korea might have favored your election over the other guy, they’re not going to roll over on your command the way Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are likely to do?

On a more pragmatic point, Hillary’s really about the toughest Democrat on foreign policy Obama can get it without sparking a revolt among the True Believers on the left, and she may be his attempt (along with Emmanuel and/or Podesta) to show some toughness towards those countries, so they won’t think Obama’s an easy mark. Of course, if Putin, Chavez or Amendinejad call his bluff and create some sort of international crisis, Barack will have to show some backbone on his own in a situation where blaming George W. Bush and/or throwing Hillary under the bus won’t cut it long-term with the majority of the voting public.

Chrissy Matthew vs. Hillary Clinton.
Ooooh!
Everybody luvs a girlfight…

Bruno Strozek on November 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Well, perhaps Hillary can give Chrissy the extra set of balls that she has so he can be a real man.

As for the Hillary at State deal and the Clintonistas in general, it make sense why the Messiah would want them running his administration. Team Clinton is the only one with actual White House experience. It’s actually very practical on his part. T

he Messiah’s deal with Hillary at State is also very Machiavellian and practical. Putting Hillary in his Cabinet is “keeping your enemies closer.” It takes her out of the Senate where she could be a large problem for the Messiah and makes her into a more manageable problem. State was probably offered because it is a high profile position, unlike HHS. The only thing that I don’t get about the deal is why the Clintons would accept it. It seems to me that Hillary could gain more clout by staying in the Senate than she would by carrying Obama’s water for him.

Not sure why she’d do this.

This is going to be a disaster!

Yes!! For Obama!!

LOL LOL LOL

How is Hillary good enough to be his Sec. of State but she wasn’t good enough to be his running mate? Wouldn’t he have been better served by Hillary as a useless, powerless VP and Joe Biden as Sec. of State with all of his experience as chairman of Foreign Relations?

A State appointment would bring back the Tuzla Dash silliness, and keep more experienced candidates — like Richard Holbrooke or Bill Richardson — from hitting the ground running.

I’m sorry but Holbrooke and Richardson but state is far too partisan with Clintonistas and Bush-haters. In that environment even Holbrooke and Richardson are far too partisan for the organization to work effectively. The next SECSTATE needs to be somebody respected by both sides of the aisle and all I keep seeing is Obama’s cheerleaders- most of which have marginal diplomatic experience.

To be taken seriously as a world leader, Bambi needs to find a nominee of unquestioned experience and ability. Richardson and Holbrooke don’t even speak diplomatically when discussing the current administration.

1. As mentioned above on this thread, Obama and his people don’t know what the eff they’re doing. He’s got semi-competents like Susan Rice advising him, and theorists like Samantha Powers inspiring him, and none of them are actually capable of getting things done. Obama wasn’t even allowed to run his own sub-committee hearings, remember. He needs Hillary because she brings instant good will and knows some of these leaders.

2.Obama is setting Hillary up to be taken down by Dodd and Kerry in the Senate Foreign Relations confirmation hearings. Remember how cruel they were to Ashcroft? Remember Sen Tower?