View Story | 417 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
turning back the clock.
"[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:06:08 PM PDT
For me, the only reason I'd support a Clinton presidency is with Bill Clinton in the psuedo-Secretary of State roll.
x
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:16:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976
by chicago minx on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:17:11 PM PDT
Fred Thompson's following that script perfectly.
More and Better Democrats: Help Build An Obamajority.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:20:00 PM PDT
Fred Thomson has said he'll pick Wes Clark as his Secretary of State? Really?
"There's no idea so asinine that this administration won't give it serious consideration" - Homeland Security Undersecretary Jay Cohen
by jrooth on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:47:55 PM PDT
... the "Southern guy out of public life who seemed like a dream amalagam of Presidential parts, who decided to delay his candidacy until fall, and whose roll-out as a candidate utterly failed to match the level of performance his hype predicted, leaving him to be an also-ran in the field."
by Adam B on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:53:13 PM PDT
with this thread, but OK.
Although the main similarity I see is the late start and the poor performance in Iowa. Other than that, Clark's candidacy was far more energetic and substantive than Thompson's (who seems to be sleepwalking through the whole thing.)
by jrooth on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:00:09 PM PDT
... involving Wes Clark. No apparent explanation, and no apparent relation to his otherwise-sound p.o.v.
The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence
by RonK Seattle on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:55:52 PM PDT
by Dumbo on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:36:43 PM PDT
despite the solid minutia in his c.v., the overt theme that Wes Clark brings is his having been a General
Perceived US foreign policy problems involve many factors. One of the most major is the militaristic nature of our government. Sending forth a General as bearer of the olive branch is a mixed signal.
Wes Clark? National Security Advisor, or, in 2010, Defense Secretary. But not S.o.S. And not Ambassador-at-Large.
Obesa cantavit
by wystler on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:05:43 PM PDT
I notice that Hillary is saying she'd send people like Powell, of both parties, overseas to send a message that bipartisan foreign policy is back.
What is the problem that Geekesque has with this?
Distorting her words to claim that she'd make Powell secretary of state is just plain dishonest!
I'm really disappointed because I thought this was just a positive diary about Obama and I wasn't going to say anything, but I really object to the distortion of Hillary's words and the focus on her that takes up most of it!
on strike.
by daria g on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:14:51 PM PDT
instead of saying the name of one of the people that perhaps could have stopped the war if he had come out publicly against it at the time instead of helping W at the UN? I am sure that your answer will be that sinister forces distorted her words.
Make Hillary a Supreme Court Justice (forget that she failed the DC bar) or let her be the Senate Majority leader but please no more fawning over Colin Powell and telling all of the great unwashed that Colin Powell should be sent into the world because we all know that he is respected. The sad truth is that Powell had his chance to show his courage and sense one more time, as when he counseled against going to Baghdad, but he chose loyalty to a person instead of loyalty to his country
by virginia cynic on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:58:26 PM PDT
by dotster on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:01:01 PM PDT
and independents who haven't decided that Powell was a hypocrite.
She's running her general election campaign, betting the farm that she'll eek it out in the primaries.
I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."
by land of the free on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:54:33 PM PDT
but I really wish Democratic candidates would run primary races and screw the general.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:21:29 PM PDT
on the Republicans and independents that are cool to her. She figures she needs to spend more than a year courting them, helping them realize that she's not nearly as liberal or evil as the rabid right wing has depicted her.
Of course, that turns most of us liberal-minded Democrat loyalists off. She must have made the calculation that she'll have to cater to the independents in order to have a good shot at the primary, and to have a good shot at the general. I don't agree with this strategy - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if she doesn't win the nomination - but her handlers probably figure this is the best strategy. If she doesn't pull of the nomination, it's all a wash anyway. She just wants to make sure that if she does squeak through to get the nomination, she's well positioned to soften the ubiquitous "Hillary is the devil in a pantsuit" image.
by land of the free on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:53:58 PM PDT
that Hillary would make Powell her sec of state? I think the diarist was just repeating what Hillary has supposedly said, that she may use Powell for diplomatic purposes. I have re-read the diary and don't seen anything claiming that Hillary would make Powell sec of state.
The only thing that came close was when the diarist wrote,
You see, Clinton's idea of moving forward and change is to revert to the Secretary of State for George W. Bush during his first term in office.
but still, that doesn't even imply that Powell would be sec of state under Hillary, just that she'd be seeking the services of someone who had been sec of state for George Bush.
by puakev on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:48:08 PM PDT
...just my prediction. I think having received a promise along those lines from Sen. Clinton is one of the main reasons he decided not to run.
by royalscam on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:15:38 PM PDT
I think that there is some requirement that there has to be a lag time for Defense. Not sure though.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:17:50 PM PDT
Gen. Jack Keane (think AEI and the surge) is her military advisor.
Gen. Clark has been assigned to her team that fans out to speak at Veterans homes. Not exactly a high-profile position.
by Donna Z on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:39:31 PM PDT
Mrs. Clinton said, according to a Fox News Web report. "Because I want to send a message heard across the world. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."
Hello, Powell convinced the UN that cowboy diplomacy was the in thing.
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:17:50 PM PDT
Fox News Web report. She is probably gunning for the Neocon vote and I really hope this is just talk.
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:19:52 PM PDT
considering that the NeoCons hate Colin Powell as well. I would actually like to hear Barack's views about Colin Powell...I have no reason to believe that Obama wouldn't 'put him to use' as well
there's this weird, Washington POV which says "Colin Powell's advice was ignored by Bush! He tried to tell him..." and I really wonder where it comes from. i saw that cartoonish presentation at the UN as being the worst of the worst of what came out of BushCo during those days. partly because it was so key in propping up the warmongers' arguments and partly because it was such blatant, obvious bullshit. blech.
Do we have any figures on how scared they are? ~ MPFC's 'Mr. Neutron' episode
by itsbenj on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:27:34 PM PDT
nothing really but Powell's interview on MTP - that Obama respects Powell's achievements. That doesn't mean that Obama respects the cowardice, yes cowardice, that Powell showed by not resigning from the Admn. once it was clear that he was lied to and used as a shill. But I would guess that he respects Powell, and would use him as a resource.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:47:32 PM PDT
pretty correct to me. I'm sure the guy has some valuable experience etc, but I'm just confused as to why everyone gets so excited over him. his main contribution to US policy seems to be the "Powell Doctrine" - which means to invade a country using 'overwhelming force', and all that. and, despite our current idiotic regime's need to prove him correct, I really have to wonder if this is anything beyond mere common sense. of course if you're going to invade a country you should bring enough troops to win! how is that even a 'doctrine'?
by itsbenj on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:05:39 PM PDT
an exit strategy, which we now know there never was.
So while it is commonsensical, apparently it is an oxymoron: "military intelligence"
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:31:01 PM PDT
about the schism in the Admn., the perception is fed by Powell surrogates who say that his advice regarding diplomatic engagement was ignored and marginalized, and in fact he was often purposefully left out of meetings that had to do with these issues. The people who did have sway were Rummy and Cheney and Condi kinda had this weird middle role.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:36:32 PM PDT
Or HRC could send Obama ... but that wouldn't carry the same gravitas.
by RonK Seattle on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:58:19 PM PDT
WTF is the Dem frontrunner doing catering to the wingnuts on Fox?
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:45:57 PM PDT
Cuz Colin's not a cowboy.
... He just carried Olympic-sized swimming pools full of water for a cowboy.
Stick it to Inhofe! Donate to Andrew Rice for Senate!
by droogie6655321 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:19:58 PM PDT
Apologist in chief?
Didn't the DLC-ers scoff when Howard Dean and the DNC put money into Mississippi?
by Bill White on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:24:50 PM PDT
Cats, err, Pooties! for Obama
by PhillyGal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:27:45 PM PDT
and it's not dark, so they are still out with the cowdogs.
Or maybe the whole west is like Montana, where all the cowboys are now real estate agents.
by young montana voter on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:56:05 PM PDT
by PhillyGal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:04:38 PM PDT
for the token Republican last time around ... nothing like re-inforcing the stereotype that only they know how to deal with ferriners.
by OdinsEye2k on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:51:11 PM PDT
change. His time is over. What is needed is an America that can show the world it can hold her own crooks accountable and can exercise justice and enforce and protect civil and human rights and equality and fairness for its own citizens, before she even tries to sell her noble values, she pretends to have, to others.
The world has understood that the US doesn't treat its own citizens well, not to speak of imposing its "will" too often on to other peoples' affairs. Basically the world is saying: "Hey, US, STFU until you have cleaned out your own backyard." Bill Clinton isn't the man who would be able or willing to "shut up" for a while.
The candidate, who has the audacity to bring your home grown crooks to court and makes sure that your justice system is an independent third branch that takes his oversight role of the executive seriously, that candidate will best present the US in the world.
Bill Clinton is a schmoozing talker. No more Kumbaya and phony pardons to your friendly crooks in your neighborhood. Noone trusts that stuff anymore. Over.
I wished to see some Nuremberg-style trials for the "war mongering and christianity-killing liars" of this country to set the record straight. Then you have a new foundation to work from to "present yourself" to the world again.
by mimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:10:38 PM PDT
or did Hillary really say she would send out Colin Powell to represent us in the world? A man who didn't have the judgement to question the lies that Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld were feeding him! How is he to be believed across the world?
by tuckerm on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:17:22 PM PDT
those lies before repeating them to the UN.
by mr crabby on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:54:17 PM PDT
supposedly fool her then what should she have against Powell?
by Zueda on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:39:33 PM PDT
The same way that Colin Powell wouldn't do much by who he is.
Some people absolutely adore America, or at least aspects of American culture or ideals. Some people hate us, and paint us all with one brush. Those people don't matter, for the sake of this discussion.
This is about people on the border... the people who do not endorse terrorism, but think America is generally a negative force in the world. They could stand to see that we're the good guys. Part of that is showing that we don't hate Islam.
I'll grant that electing a black person does a little bit for that, let alone someone who's father was a non-practicing Muslim. But I don't think it does much. Electing a woman sends a message to the Islamic world too, but only slightly more powerful.
Policy is 50 times more important than "who you are".
It's not a campaign. It's a movement. Will you stand up?
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:17:39 PM PDT
change tells me exactly what kind of 'change' in foreign policy we can expect from her, in terms of foreign policy.
Most likely scenario: Hillary Clinton=George H.W. Bush.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:19:52 PM PDT
Clinton really is dusting off the oldie-but-goodies.
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:21:14 PM PDT
and you just may get a STFU from her. Ask her audience.
This Week With Barack Obama. Because you need to stay informed.
by icebergslim on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:22:25 PM PDT
I love how she told the audience to stfu - that said, she is old school. And really, unless she plans on giving concerts for Clinton do I really care if she stumps for her? I mean, c'mon Hilary, that is soooo 90's.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:50:26 PM PDT
Go figure.
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:02:10 PM PDT
racking my brain for 70's female icons and I'm drawing a blank - except for Bridget Bardot and she's French.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:29:01 PM PDT
70's would be Farrah Fawcett. Oh the decline of Western Civ.
by mr crabby on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:57:05 PM PDT
pathetic. I can't even get an icon from the right decade!!!!!
Ok, that's it. I'm going on an icon search.
Oh, oh, I know how about Marcia Mason from "The Goodbye Girl"?
Or Marlo Thomas
Or, here it is...wait for it Mary Tyler Moore.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:20:59 PM PDT
In terms of foreign policy, particularly Iraq.
That said, it was better than George W Bush. At least those two only destroyed Iraq -- they didn't actually try to force a democracy at gunpoint.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:37:42 PM PDT
basically treated like garbage by Lil' Bush and his people(Chaney, Rummy). No one listened to him, but being the soldier that he is, he stayed loyal to his boss. No one here on Kos really believes Colin was in with the Neocons? Do we?
by JustinL on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:48:39 PM PDT
I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan
by arielle on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:51:22 PM PDT
pull your fucking head out of your ass. My god the Clinton supporters have serious cognitive dissonance issues. If all that has happened in Iraq were somehow transformed back to 1945, Colin Powell would most surely be sitting in the dock at Nurnberg. Following orders and being loyal is not an excuse. Clinton is talking about Powell like he is an asset, and you people are trying to spin it as not that bad. Fuck me. I'm over it. I'm an ex-pat anyway. If there really are that many people who think Hillary Clinton is the best thing since sliced bread and that Colin Powell really wasn't "one of them" then America is beyond repair. Just end the goddamn war, that's all I want.
by magurakurin on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:48:35 PM PDT
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:23:26 PM PDT
than that: She named Colin Powell because he is a black man whom much of white American liked; who, before the debacle at the UN was considered a formidable Republican who could attract Democratic votes as well; and last but not least, he is a non-threatening, light-skinned black man.
In other words, he's the closest thing to Obama that she could (possibly) get!!
by LisainNYC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:45:29 PM PDT
McNamara and Dulles aren't available.
Last November, HRC was Inevitably the nominee. So clearly she didn't lose because of pre-judgment or sexism. She lost in the campaign.
by Inland on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:25:30 PM PDT
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:27:03 PM PDT
by chicago minx on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:27:38 PM PDT
.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:41:38 PM PDT
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:47:21 PM PDT
And raise you a Jim Baker and a Dick Armitage.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:51:36 PM PDT
Elliott Abrams.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:53:21 PM PDT
Bud McFarlane's still alive.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:55:22 PM PDT
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:57:05 PM PDT
Do you think George Stephanopoulos loves America as much as you?
by MadAsHellMaddie on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:15:03 PM PDT
by mr crabby on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:58:20 PM PDT
I recall. Sparhawk had a diary on Why is Obama getting "advice" from Colin Powell? from this MTP interview with Powell
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, Newsweek magazine reports that Senator Barack Obama has sought you out for your advice on foreign policy. True? GEN. POWELL: True. I’ve met with Senator Obama twice. I’ve been around this town a long time, and I know everybody who is running for office, and I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me.
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, Newsweek magazine reports that Senator Barack Obama has sought you out for your advice on foreign policy. True?
GEN. POWELL: True. I’ve met with Senator Obama twice. I’ve been around this town a long time, and I know everybody who is running for office, and I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me.
I thought it was not the best course of action for Obama and I don't think it is good strategy for any Democrat to legitimize Powell or other Bush cronies who defended his policies and did not speak up.
I just think the record needs to include this information.
Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:02:28 PM PDT
listening to someone and appointing them.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:13:22 PM PDT
Based on the misleading intro to your diary.
she will ask both Democratic and Republican statesmen to hit the road on her behalf to declare that "bipartisan foreign policy is back"
I'm sorry, where are you getting "appoint Powell" out of any of this, exactly?
by daria g on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:17:39 PM PDT
is exactly the wrong kind of message.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:20:13 PM PDT
Is exactly the wrong kind of message.
Hillary Clinton has announced that she would send Colin Powell out as her representative to the rest of the world.
This is just factually incorrect and I'd like to know the justification for telling people this, please.
She said she'd send out distinguished Americans of both parties. She did not announce she would make Powell her representative.
WTF, why are you lying to people?
by daria g on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:50:02 PM PDT
Hillary herself was quoted in the New York Times as saying that Powell would be someone she'd like to send out.
by Maxlongstreet on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:48:29 PM PDT
she'd send out distinguished Americans of both parties "who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well," Mrs. Clinton said, according to a Fox News Web report. "Because I want to send a message heard across the world. The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."
I think it might be fair to interpret that (if Hillary actually said it) as Hillary saying she would consider having Powell "represent" America to send a message "across the world". Not too much of a stretch to see how the diarist could interpret that as Hillary choosing Powell as a representative of hers to the world.
Where you may have a valid point is from the line about sending "Powell out as her representative" which can possibly be interpreted as suggesting that Powell would be Hillary's main or sole representative.
But I'm not sure whether that's what the diarist meant, given that the quotes the diarist used included that stuff about using members of both parties as representatives, which would imply (assuming that the diarist read the quotes he used) that the diarist knows Powell wouldn't be Hillary's sole or main representative.
by puakev on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:05:42 PM PDT
Powell's credibility isn't what it was before his testimony before the U.N. in 2003. It's also worth noting that Powell's credibility as a spokesman and public figure before 2003 was primarily with our traditional allies -- not amongst ordinary people in the developing world.
There isn't much question that, at least symbolically Obama's election would be extremely significant for the U.S.'s image. Ultimately, it is policy that will change opinions over the long haul -- on this front I also think Obama would be a superb president -- but Obama's back story and history might open the doors in a way that will make policy implementation easier than would be the case with some alternatives.
by NotGeorgeWill on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:49:48 PM PDT
with getting information from a variety of sources and checking that information next to people that you trust, i.e. Samantha Powers. Also, Powell may have unique insight as to how certain governments respond to various types of diplomacy. Just getting information is not a problem, validating that person by sending him out as a "roving Ambassador", a face of the previous administration is just silly.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:40:45 PM PDT
said this about the possibility of an Obama presidency: "Wouldn't it be awesome to have that face representing our country to the world? Wouldn't that just be awesome?" I agree, and what could Clinton be thinking in naming Colin Powell? He was our last hope to save us from war, and he fell in line and failed our country. Why in the world would she want someone so connected to the Bush administration and its needless death and destruction war policy in Iraq? It's time to move away from the past and everyone connected to it and allow President Obama the opportunity to begin to heal the country and repair the world.
by dotster on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:39:50 PM PDT
the Beltway thinking is my read on Clinton's reasoning.
Amongst global leaders and particularly our allies, I think Powell's reputation still has some currency -- even after the U.N. debacle in 2003. The move probably wouldn't reassure our allies over night, but it wouldn't hurt.
However, the Powell selection would do little to win hearts and minds amongst ordinary folks in the developing world. An Obama presidency on the other hand, might be able to bridge the divide. It doesn't hurt that Obama has the policy chops to go with an exceptionally broad background.
by NotGeorgeWill on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:00:10 PM PDT
alienate Democrats, whom she thinks she doesn't have to worry about (gawd forbid we don't come out to vote since we're so demoralized that she's the nominee) - but that's a calculation she's willing to take.
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:26:42 PM PDT
this forever settles the debate as to whether it's fair to criticize hillary as 'bush-lite'... how can she NOT be when she talks about using BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS!?!
unbelievable.
-4.50, -4.92; Obama '08
by RSA TX on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:30:48 PM PDT
is a hero to many democrats, this one included.
I got tased in *The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7*
by blueterp on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 09:14:53 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 417 comments