Not really. But keep telling yourself that.
3 Likes
hysteria: an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
True, we definitely need another Republican in the White House. Iâm sure thereâs some random country that needs to be invaded for no reason whatsoever, and if thereâs one thing our country could use right now is another recession, some tax cuts for the rich, and most importantly we need to make sure the gays arenât happy because then Jesus will be angry. GOP 2016!
5 Likes
Because every SoS serves at the wish of the President. Their accomplishments are therefore never entirely, or even half way, their ownâŚthey belong to the President under which they served.
The position only holds value for someone considering a Presidential run because it bolsters foreign policy cred. I.e. you are head of the State Dept, you meet all the world leaders and are consumed with foreign policy matters. And foreign policy, unlike most domestic policy positions, is much more of an on-going arch that goes beyond a single President.
But you have to go back to 1849 to find a President who used to be a Sec of State (James Buchanan was the last) and back to 1928 to find any Cabinet member who went on to become President.(Hoover, Sec. of Commerce).
Iâm relieved that you are able to maintain your fantasies and avoid dealing with reality, which would be a rude shock to what passes for your intellect.
1 Like
As always, youâre unintentionally hilarious.
Andâagain as alwaysâfacts and truth disagree with you completely.
2 Likes
Itâs the classic Rove tactic: donât attack their weaknesses, attack their strengths.
The goal isnât to actually use Clintonâs tenure as Secretary of State as a tool against her, but to take enough of the shine off of it that she cannot effectively use it to promote herself.
They donât even have to win the argument about whether or not she was a good S.o.S.; they just have to turn the question into something people can argue about, even if they lose that argument.
I really think youâre failing to give Karl Rove enough credit. Sure, attacking your opponentâs strengths has become Politics 101 now, after Rove had such success with it, but it was a pretty innovative tactic when he began using it. That Obama incorporated it into his 2012 run doesnât change Roveâs earlier innovation.
And your second paragraph misses what is actually going on in the Rove playbook. He didnât just attack strengths that arenât really strengths; he attacked actual strengths. For instance, in one election, his candidateâs opponent had a long, respected record of advocacy for children and involvement in childrenâs causes, so Rove planted rumors he was a child molester. This episode shows both how the tactic is sleazy, and also how it doesnât depend on the opponentâs strength in the area being unwarranted.
1 Like
Just check the Wikipedia page, itâs not hard to find, but Iâve provided a link if youâre really interested (just donât be selective about what you cite from it. It actually includes some negative material too, but itâs hard to find):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Perhaps the best way to summarize her accomplishments as Secretary of State was to describe her as a healer.
It is not generally a glamorous job description but after the mess she and President Obama inherited from Former President Bush and his minions, the world badly needed a healer.
As for her work as a Senator, just ask my fellow residents of New York State, and her colleagues in the Senate.
5 Likes
To add, just the fact that sheâs maintained solid approval ratings as SoS and is generally perceived as successful in that role is a sizable accomplishment unto itself. It means she hasnât f__ked up massively. Look at Condoleeza Rice. Nobody will remember her accomplishments. Instead sheâs lumped in with the Bush era as just another tool that led us into a decade-long pointless war. The âlist her accomplishmentsâ is just a passing right-wing talking point.
BTW, the GOP is going after Hillary Clinton for something much greater than the equivalent âga-gaâ about the alleged âBridgegateâ involving Christie, a potential presidential runner for the GOP which the Democratic party relentlessly scrutinized for months in a row.
Democrats went nuts about a few lane closing while minimizing the death of 4 Americans one of which was an Ambassador. Talk about double standards here.
Itâs a mixed bag, but Politico cites a poll which shows that most Americans donât believe they were misled about Benghazi:
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-not-mislead-on-benghazi-85308.html
âThe big tell of course is that in both cases the Republicans are complaining that Hillary didnât thump her chest and grunt in the right way, just like a Republican would. Because as we all know, chest thumping is what gets real results in world statescraft.â
If you take polling seriously; and maybe this is a mistake; but, if you do, a recent poll showed that when the public was polled about American foreign policy with respect to the Ukraine, by far the majority of respondents agreed with the actions being taken WHEN THEY WERE ITEMIZED. If the same cohort was asked whether they thought Obama was handling the Ukraine crisis well, the majority disapproved. No doubt some of these folks are Obamaphobes, but I think there is another dynamic at work here that you call âchest thumpingâ. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there is deep public skepticism about military interventionism. But, thereâs also still a strong tendency among the public to believe that other nations should do what we say, just because weâre the USA. Well, American hegemony is pretty much dead right now. But, a good portion of the public and also old white politicians, brought up on the idea of permanent American hegemony blames the President or John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton for what amounts to their vicarious loss of self- esteem.
Of course, we all know what Condoleeza Riceâs accomplishments were during the cheney admin.
1 Like
Condi Rice was uninvited to be the commencement speaker at Rutgers University for which she was going to get $35,000.00. because the students protested so forcefully Thatâs a good thing that happened to someone under bush. P.S. Con dolcezza, âplayed with sweetnessâ is the source of her name. HA!
A week later, Rogin reported that some of top Clinton deputies at State had attempted to stop sanctions on Iran for which she had been taking credit in May 2014.
Of course the GOP (which is feeding the Daily Beast their anti-Clinton grist) strip the Iran sanctions âissueâ totally out of context. Yes the State Department and the White House at the time was opposing the various Congressional bull-in-a-china-shop sanction bills because it just gained acceptance from Iran of the P5+1 agreements in Geneva to halt their uranium enrichment programs and they wanted to give that agreement its 6 month window while it worked out work on a comprehensive agreement on their uranium program.
This set-up, and eventually worked, in that an agreement was reached and the enriched uranium has been degraded and the program suspended.
This is why State, not Congress handles foreign policy and negotiates agreements. The only people trying to make hay out of the successful negotiations by Clinton then Kerry on Iran are either fools who know nothing about the topic at hand, or preening chest-thumping fools on the Hill (a place where chest puffery on Iran, regardless of the merits) has been a near 100% from a bunch of clowns who have, since the Carter administration, found nothing but political brownie points to demagogue in public about the âmad Mullahsâ in Iran.
Thank god State and not Congress is actually in charge of foreign policy and diplomacy (that is when we donât have the âyehawâ idiots from the GOP in power).
Donât get me wrong, there are some real reasons to be cautious about jumping in 100% behind a Clinton bid in 2016. Many are the same reasons that lead me (and Iâm sure many others) to give a serious look at, and eventually back Barack Obama when the villagers and the media et al were fully onboard the âinevitabilityâ meme about her 2008 bid.
But in typical Rovian fashion, trying to attack what are legitimate strengths of Clintonâs record while at State is lame and flys in the face of reality when you look at it in the larger context (both then and now).
2 Likes
I misspoke.
That should have read "President Bush and his handlers.
Whatâs the relative count of Congressional investigations into Benghazi vs Bridgegate?
Everything Iâve read tells me the average voter is sick and tired of the issue of Benghazi. It means almost nothing to them as an issue that affects their own lives, and so are likely to turn away from the increasing shrillness. The Rs wonât touch meaningful policies because they are in disarray on all of them, but on the obscure outpost in North Africa, theyâre positively touchy feely.
1 Like
whizzing into the wind again.
2 Likes