Skip to content

TGIF: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Appointments

October 15, 2010

I hope she gets some sleep.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

9:30 a.m. EDT Secretary Clinton meets with Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, at the Department of State.

7:00 p.m. PST Secretary Clinton delivers remarks on innovation and American leadership to the Commonwealth Club, at the San Francisco Marriott Marquis in San Francisco, California.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. PCFS permalink
    October 15, 2010 9:43 am

    WOW!!! Please tell me how she keeps going with hardly any sleep. Now going across US to California today for a commitment at 7PM tonight. I hope she has some down time and spends time with Bill who is on the campaign trail. God Bless Madame Secretary.

  2. Steve permalink
    October 15, 2010 10:26 am

    OT- hey Stace, our friends in Israel are starting new construction in East Jerusalem- you know, the future capital of a Palestinian state. Go team!

    It’s official, Israel prefers land to peace and they should have to live with the consequences. Of course they won’t have to live with any consequences. Instead, they will fully expect the US to solve all their self-imposed problems and security concerns and naturally, we will drop to our knees, open wide and comply.

    Did you see Bill Clinton has been speaking out in unusually critical terms about Israel? Good for him. His criticism is constructive and not the slightest bit mean-spirited but already the Lobby is getting pissed. I hope he keeps speaking out. No one knows what a snake Bibi can be better than Bill Clinton.

    I hope everyone is having a good Friday.

    • October 15, 2010 11:03 am

      Yeah, I saw that. The Palestinian response:

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/arabs-states-may-ask-un-to-recognize-palestinian-state-if-settlements-continue-1.319258

      Of course, the one problem with a unilateral declaration by the UN is that the US would do anything and everything to block it. One of our purposes at the UN is to vote against anything that criticizes Israel or anything that seeks to make them accountable for anything under international law. The Palestinians know this so this will go nowhere.

      Bibi is just waiting for the GOP to take over Congress and then he will hold his nose and hope for a defeat of Obama in 2012.

      • PYW permalink
        October 15, 2010 5:28 pm

        Stacy, This is on another subject, but I don’t know if you saw that Biden said a few days ago that he’s on the ticket for 2012. That’s fine with me. If Hillary wants to run in 2016, not being VP won’t hurt her chances.

  3. October 15, 2010 11:36 am

    Hillary flew over the UK on her way home.
    Did she see the UK and what did she think of her flight in an E4B?
    Pat.

  4. filipino-american4hrc permalink
    October 16, 2010 2:03 am

    Hi, Stacey! I thought I’d share this with you and other friends in this blog: “Hillary would have done better” http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/donsurber/201010150622

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      October 16, 2010 3:00 pm

      filipino, I’m sure your heart’s in the right place, but yikes! Did you read this closely?

      “Hillary Clinton is probably unable to wipe that big fat smile off her face. As a mad preacher famously said right after 9/11, the chickens are coming home to roost.

      No doubt she would like to see a Democratic majority in the House . . . well, not really. I suspect that Clinton would love to see Nancy Pelosi lose her perch as speaker of the House, two heartbeats from that presidency that Clinton may never get. No kitchen ever built was big enough for two women…”

      You don’t know Hillary if you think any of this is true — it smacks of the “she’ll-do-anything-and-destroy-anybody-to-get-power” that we heard in 2008.
      And I’ll pass over in silence the last line.

      “Obama treated his election as if it were a landslide.He took the olive branch and whacked Republicans on their heads with it.”

      Huh? Most of us think he tried to make nice for far too long, way past the point when it was crystal clear the Republican agenda was No, No, and again No.

      “Democrats blew it two years ago. They should have sent a woman to do a man’s job.”

      I agree with the first sentence wholeheartedly, but the second sentence suggests the author completely missed the point of Hillary’s candidacy. The Presidency is not a man’s job or a woman’s job. It’s a job for the most able and experienced candidate, regardless of gender. Hillary was the most able and experienced candidate.

      • filipino-american4hrc permalink
        October 17, 2010 12:06 am

        Carolyn, don’t worry, I caught those loaded para’s. But, personally, what I find interesting about such commentaries is the creation of a particular “narrative” from the right (or moderate right, if there’s such a thing) about Hillary. If I want to put it crassly, it goes like this: “Yes, she’s a b—-ch, yes, she’s ambitious, yes, she wants power, but HELL, she gets the job done!” Compare this kind of commentary about Hillary to those in 2008, and even if the stereotypes are still there, there are also major shifts in how she’s being painted (of course, I don’t include the rightwing nuts like Beck, Hannity etc. in this category). And I find this interesting because there is a large chunk of the American electorate — from Blue Dogs to largely conservative Independents — that in all likelihood subscribe to the essence of what Surber is saying. Consider that apart from self-defined Liberals, polls consistently show that a large majority consider Obama’s policies “extreme” or at least more radical than the respondents’ own preferences. In a news item about Bill Clinton’s electoral foray in Oxford, Mississippi a few days ago, a student was asked for reaction, and he said he was interested in the things Bill said but he’s also tired of the finger-pointing (i.e. partisanship), and both parties are to be blamed.

        In all likelihood, most of the conservative commentators heaping “praises” on Hillary right now (and even Bill) are simply out to divide and rule. But the unintended consequence of that, I think, is that they are also undermining the standard rightwing narrative about the Clintons that they themselves fomented (Whitewater, Cattle-gate, Vince Foster, even Monica Lewinsky).

        That America is shifting to the right I have no doubt, and if Hillary decides to make another run for the presidency, she and her followers will have to create the right kind of narrative, first, in order to neutralize the liberal establishment and other kinds of establishment that collectively beat up on her in 2008, second, to get to her side the independents (that voted for Obama), and to win over a significant section of moderate conservatives that otherwise would vote for an out-and-out conservative candidate. I don’t think we all want a second coming of Ronald Reagan and the conservative revolution, right? I think it’s also important to remember that the kind of Democrats that consistently voted Hillary in 2008 — white working class in conservative states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and, yes, Michigan — were the ones that Nixon took away from the Democrats and were only won back after 20 years by Bill Clinton. This voting bloc is currently vulnerable to rightwing agitation because they are losing their livelihoods; if Hillary runs again, can you imagine the uphill battle she will face making a stand on universal healthcare after what Obama and the current Democrats did? As a candidate, she had already succeeded in turning around the 1994 “Hillarycare” fallout in her favor; but because Obama, Pelosi et.al. bungled the job, Hillary will have to repeat the whole cycle. How she creates the narrative for a do-over would be critical.

        Stacey, I apologize for hijacking this thread.

  5. filipino-american4hrc permalink
    October 16, 2010 4:08 am

    Hi, Stacey! This is off-topic but I’d like to share this analysis by a Filipino leftwing activist and party-list congressman of “the Obama debacle.” Dr. Walden Bello (the author) was a winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize two-three years ago, I think. He’s been a staunch critic of globalization and a self-confessed “Gramscian Marxist.” For my generation of Filipino activists, he’s best known for his mid-1980s book “Development Debacle, the World Bank in the Philippines” — where he traced the World Bank policies and called the results as the Philippines’ “colonization without occupation.” He was my professor in graduate class on political sociology and did his dissertation research for Princeton in one of the shanty towns of Chile in 1972 — when the (in)famous “banging of pots and pans” opposition to Salvador Allende was just heating up. He confirmed that there was indeed a significant opposition to Allende even among the poor and it was not just the middle- and upper-class housewives that mobilized in these “pots and pans” rallies against Allende (all the while I had dismissed these accounts as part of the CIA’s narrative).

    Anyway, I thought of linking the article here to give you an idea what leftists in other parts of the world like Bello now think of Obama’s performance. Needless to say, Bello was no different from American and other leftists who supported and rooted for Obama, thought he was leftist (“social democrat,” says Bello) and sold the same line that “Hillary is a corporatist war-monger.”

    “Lessons of the Obama Debacle” http://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/view/20101016-298051/Lessons-of-the-Obama-Debacle

    • October 16, 2010 11:39 am

      Thanks much, I’ll take a look. Obama really raised expectations not only with the democratic base but with countries in South America, Asia, the Middle East because they thought he would do a 360 turn away from Bush policies but really, Obama hasn’t. Obama had indicated he would improve relations with the Muslim world, try to create a more level playing field in the Mideast peace process, improve relations with South American countries whom we have been traditionally hostile with due to our militarism and free trade policies (Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, etc.) but that hasn’t worked out- our tacit support of the coup in Honduras put leftist countries on notice that Obama was just more of the same.

      I wrote a lot about the Honduras coup on this blog at the time. Not everything is Obama’s fault of course, I do realize that. The GOP has resisted all his attempts at the above, plus I am not really sure that Obama is really all that progressive to begin with. I think he pulled a fast one on his progressive followers.

      What is almost unforgivable to me, even though I didn’t initially support Obama, is how he has not only continued, but expanded some of Bush’s most legally suspect terrorism and “State Secret” policies. We continue to engage in rendition (and thus torture), indefinite detentions and now amazingly, something that even Bush/Cheney didn’t do- extrajudicial assassinations of Americans abroad- all without any oversight.

      I really wish there was a third party because quite frankly, the older I get, ironically, the more progressive I get. I am really tired of being used and abused by the Dems prior to elections only then to be insulted and tossed under the bus once they are in the WH. If Obama thinks lecturing progressives and insulting us is going to get us to the polls, I think he is sorely mistaken. He takes no responsibility for the enthusiasm gap and instead just blames the base for not continuing to drop down and kiss his ring.

  6. October 17, 2010 6:12 am

    FA4HRC- liberal establishment? What liberal establishment? So we fall for the right wing narrative that Obama is some kind of extremist and try to get Hillary to lurch even further to the right?

    Sorry, I’m not down with that. The conservatives are trying to divide and conquer and using a lot of Hillary supporters to do it- and many are all too willing to play that role.

    The idea that Obama is some far left extremist is contradicted by facts. It’s fun for some to call him a socialist but Wall Street is doing wonderfully well, he has turned out to be quite hawkish, taxes are lower than they’ve been in a long time etc.

    If Hillary runs again I hope she doesn’t repeat the mark Penn-inspired mistake of treating the liberal base with cool contempt.

    And I think it’s naive wishful thinking to believe that if Hillary were POTUS right now that the right wouldn’t be fighting her tooth and nail.

    Honestly, this is vilification of liberalism is getting on my last nerve.

    • filipino-american4hrc permalink
      October 17, 2010 11:44 am

      “FA4HRC- liberal establishment? What liberal establishment? ”

      Sorry I wasn’t clear — but I was thinking of what Anglachel in her 2008 blog referred to as the “Stevensonians” — many of whom are affluent and/or influential liberals by virtue of their position in academia, media, blogs, corporate world and government (Congress/Senate as major staff or as political operatives) who rallied around Obama, helped create his image of hope and change while painting Hillary not just as a corporatist war-monger but also as a Republican disguising as Democrat (much like how Rachel Maddow described Bill Clinton as “the most successful Republican president” not too long ago). Remember too that diarists and commenters at blogs like Daily Kos, Open Left etc. repeated right wing BS like “Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster” during the primaries; the nastiness of these influential (and self-proclaimed) ‘liberals’ were downright unbelievable.

      “So we fall for the right wing narrative that Obama is some kind of extremist and try to get Hillary to lurch even further to the right?”

      I don’t. One of the big fights I had with a friend of mine before the Nevada caucus in January 2008 had to do with my statement that I thought Obama was Reagan-lite. . .What I was thinking about had to do with how Hillary can win in an “unthinking” political atmosphere. To begin with, she never defined herself as liberal, she prides herself in being a “national security Democrat,” although I think she’s more socially liberal and more open to “disciplining” the market through regulation; in the primaries, she was the only candidate to propose a stimulus to address the emerging recession and housing crisis (including a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year freeze on mortgage rates). In her final act as Senator, when voted in favor of TARP, she said that she would have wanted the bill to give the govt a say in reorganizing the Board and management of every company that would benefit from the bail out; she actually proposed an amendment to this effect, except Harry Reid and Chris Dodd ignored her.

      “I think it’s naive wishful thinking to believe that if Hillary were POTUS right now that the right wouldn’t be fighting her tooth and nail.”

      I agree. But I also wonder, if she had been elected POTUS, would the vocal liberal activists of the likes I referred to above come to her defense against the right? To this day, many gay activists keep blaming Bill Clinton for DADT, conveniently forgetting or omitting the fact that, before DADT, Clinton and Colin Powell and Joints Chiefs had a major confrontation over the fact that Clinton wanted gays openly serving, and that DADT was passed with Democratic support. And these same gay activists crucified Hillary the candidate for the decisions made in her husband’s presidency. None of those speaking for the anti-war movement gave Hillary a pass for her Iraq vote, but Kerry, Edwards and Biden did. Obama has continued the Bush policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror, but except for Glenn Greenwald, you hardly hear much from the usual critics. If it were Hillary as POTUS now, I bet Code Pink, Move On etc. would be as ferocious in their opposition as they were against Bush.

      If Hillary cannot count on these vocal, organized and well-resourced liberals to support her if she decides to run again in 2012 or 2016 (and I have my doubts that they would treat her differently), how do you encourage her to move leftward rather center-right in an atmosphere that may possibly be dominated by conservatism?

      “this is vilification of liberalism is getting on my last nerve.”

      That was not my intention and I apologize if you felt slighted. I meant “establishment” in the same way that I, as an ordinary activist, would refer to the leaders, organizers and faces of the movements that I belonged to or identify with as “establishment.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: