Skip to content

Tuesday December 7th Public Appointments: SOS Hillary Clinton & Random News

December 7, 2010


10:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Indian Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador S.K. Lambah, at the Department of State.

11:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.

1:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, at the White House.

2:45 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria, at the Department of State.

3:20 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, at the Department of State.

4:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with the Human Rights Leadership Coalition, at the Department of State.

In other news
~This headline caught my eye from Israel’s Haaretz. Provocative? Yes. Unhelpful? Yes. This is just a reminder that discrimination has long been a staple of ALL the major organized religions. No one needs me to tell them that a major social/cultural/political stumbling block to Mideast peace is religion and different people’s perceptions/interpretations of what is their inalienable right to occupy certain land irrespective of modern laws or common sense. Religious interpretation also undermines Hamas’ violent tendencies (and the criminal tendencies of the settlers). While polls show most in the US support a two state solution, when you delve deeper (and when you look at members of Congress’ actual views on Jerusalem) you see that the idea of “two states” often includes unworkable formulations. Most members of Congress that I have heard speak openly about the issue do not want to see Jerusalem divided while at the same time expressing support for two states. Sorry, that’s a total nonstarter and intellectually dishonest in my view- an attempt to have it both ways so-to-speak, without coming across as extreme.

~Then over at the WaPo, conservative shill Jennifer Rubin pulls out every Dick-Morris-inspired talking point to try to suddenly claim Secretary Clinton’s tenure at State has been a failure. I guess her sky-high approval rating just miffs Rubin. Absent from Ms. Rubin’s brief, factually-impaired analysis is any context or acknowledgment that on many issues, the GOP have successfully played obstructionist. She simply trots out over-simplified bumper-sticker rhetoric about Iran, Israel, Honduras, etc. which may sound good to the neoconservative crowd but which has little basis in reality. Rubin of course was a Bush-Cheney apologist and you know how wonderful that administration was in the area of international diplomacy [/snark]. You see, in neocon world you just jump up and down and scream “we’ll f*cking bomb you back into the stone age” while spending billions of dollars on God knows what and generally making the entire world hate us. I personally think the neocons like being hated- gives ’em another reason to lash out and start disastrous wars which lead to other disastrous wars and you know what the byproduct of that is for certain elites- $$cha-ching!$$.

~It’s becoming obvious that some haters are merely trying to pile on after the WikiLeaks incident. Those that are trying to assign blame to Secretary Clinton are really grasping at straws given it was a member of the armed forces who actually stole the data from a classified file-sharing system between the DoD and other agencies. No one has called on anyone in the military to answer for this or the previous WikiLeaks docudump which dealt almost exclusively with military matters- Afghanistan, Iraq- they even contained explosive material (allegations of a military cover-up of the blackhawk incident where unarmed civilians, including a journalist, were killed knowing full well they were unarmed civilians.) Did anyone call for Secretary Gates’ head? No, they didn’t- not that I saw. So, it’s time for politicos and pundits to stop trying to infer that this WikiLeaks debacle somehow was all Hillary’s fault or that she should, for some unknown reason, fall on her sword. That’s ridiculous and it’s not going to happen.

~And then there is Chris Cillizza who has a tendency to open his mouth but not say much of anything.

The end.

24 Comments leave one →
  1. Tovah permalink
    December 7, 2010 10:47 am

    Jennifer Rubin is an idiot. How can that even be considered an article? She doesn’t make any arguments but just repeats talking points. She gets paid for that? Check out her bio. by the way and you get more insight into her mindset, or what she has of one.

  2. December 7, 2010 11:08 am

    I typically avoid blogs like Rubin’s. Blogs in the mainstream press websites usually are written by people who espouse more extreme views than much of the public. They also seem to seek out the negative and appear to be trying to create stories where none exist so they’ll have something to write about. Intellectual laziness. I stick to independent blogs, like Stacy’s!

  3. Steve permalink
    December 7, 2010 11:18 am

    Interesting, this article mentions that Wiki cables discuss Bibi talking to members of Congress about limited Palestinian sovereignty and all the land Israel WONT give up in negotiations. Gee, where’s the NYT on this? Why is the NYT and other media outlets just reporting on cables which, out of context, seem to support Israel’s propaganda about Iran while ignoring the cables that are unflattering and controversial with respect to Israel. Some commenters over the past few months have said they don’t think there is any pro-Israel bias in the media. Please. I just think this bias is so ingrained in us most people just don’t recognize it when they see it.

    http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/the_peace_process_wont_go_away

    Lets be honest, Bibi is totally supported by the Israel Firsters in Congress or else we’d be halfway through negotiations by now. As Stacy said in her news round-up above people support the two state solution on the condition that Israel does’nt have to give anything up and Jerusalem isn’t divided. That skews all the polls.

    I’m writing my members of Congress today and calling them out on this bullshit. It’s a disgrace that certain members of Congress are undermining their own President in favor of a foreign leader. Because of stuff like this all us Jews get tarnished with the label “dual loyalty.” Enough is enough.

  4. Carolyn-Rodham permalink
    December 7, 2010 11:54 am

    As I posted over at WashPo, maybe the neocons realize that if Obama asks Hillary to be his running mate in 2012, Democrats might just hold on to the White House — hence the need to use any pretext to begin denigrating her record. Problem with Rubin’s argument is, as you point out, her approval ratings are still pretty high — even among Republicans and Independents, and Obama’s highest marks at this juncture are for his administration’s handling of foreign policy. Spin that.

  5. Carolyn-Rodham permalink
    December 7, 2010 11:59 am

    Thought I’d pass this along:

    Tell your Representative: Stop this deal — no tax cuts for the rich! http://bit.ly/hW7u9n @Boldprogressive #p2

    • December 7, 2010 12:04 pm

      Thanks for that.

      Obama’s lost his damn mind. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when I was listening to him last night. It almost ruined the Patriots game last night for me. But not quite.😉

      • theprosecutrix permalink
        December 7, 2010 3:59 pm

        To all of the people who voted for Obama and are disappointed with his compromise: cry me a river.

        I voted for the woman with a record for fighting, taking on Republicans, and working with them in a way that still produced beneficial legislation for the American people.

        It struck me when someone said on MSNBC last night that Obama has never faced a Republican majority in his life. He better get used to it pretty quick now.

        Sorry, I know this doesn’t even apply to most or even any of you. It’s just something I wanted to say.

    • December 7, 2010 1:46 pm

      I plan to contact my Rep and Senators to state strong opposition to this tax deal. Obama may perhaps think he is mimicking Bill Clinton’s post-1994 actions. But while I didn’t agree with all of Bill’s actions (e.g., financial svc deregulation, nafta), he moved consistently in the direction of balancing a budget and being fiscally sound.

      The estate tax and income tax cuts for millionaires are bad enough. But I have been reading that this payroll tax holiday could be quite disastrous, too. I’m no expert, but this is what I read. This bill would lower the payroll tax. The Congress would need to later raise it. What are the odds of that happening? Esp if GOP gains more control? If it stays lower, with no significant cuts in govt spending, Social Security would be seriously affected. Is there anything at all Obama is willing to fight for? Other than re-election?

      The whole tax package is criminal.

      • December 7, 2010 2:09 pm

        Bill Clinton stood up to the GOP prior to making any compromises to show them that he wouldn’t be steamrolled by them. I didn’t agree with everything he did but he never came across as weak, not even after the Democrats’ huge loss in Congress. He went toe to toe with Newt and won.

      • PYW permalink
        December 7, 2010 4:24 pm

        One of my Dem co-workers was just saying how fed up he is with Obama. And, yes, it was someone who voted for him over Hillary in the primary.

  6. pondskipper permalink
    December 7, 2010 4:46 pm

    Complain as you may about the Israeli behaviour the reality is simple surely. Until the Palastinians are prepared to accept that Israel has a right to exist the US is going to defend Israel whatever it does. The situation is similar in Europe. We may winge about Israeli behaviour but when push comes to shove we will side with them and always will do until Hamas accepts reality and conceeds Israel’s exsistance.

  7. rachel permalink
    December 7, 2010 5:48 pm

    I know I am going to get railed on, but as much as the press is concentrated on Iran Iran, it seems many people here are just concentrated on Israel Israel. I don’t think anyone is clear on the answer. If Israel stopped the settlements would Hamas stop the bombing? I don’t think so. I guess the U.S is giving up trying to get Israel to stop building and the secruity guarantees they had are off the table too(good). I say we stay out of the whole thing since neither party seems to want to do what in their best interest.

    • Steve permalink
      December 7, 2010 8:19 pm

      @pondskipper-They already have recognized Israel’s right to exist. You can’t conflate all Palestinians with Hamas. Not only does the PA recognize Israel’s right to exist, they work with the IDF and Shin Bet to arrest Palestinian extremists.

      http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/27/fayyad-on-recognizing-israel-as-a-jewish-state/

      Recognizing it as “Jewish” is a distraction- the PA has repeatedly said if Israel wants to consider itself a Jewish state as it’s founding charter states, that’s totally up to Israel.

      Then last weekend the head of Hamas’ political wing said it would accept Israel’s rights and security if it withdrew to the 1967 borders (ie the legal borders) and they would sign a peace treaty with Israel.

  8. December 7, 2010 6:35 pm

    Ok- regarding Israel. The reason I put up links and discuss Israel is because I feel that it’s almost always in the news in one way or another and we all have pet political interests and two of mine (among the various foreign policy issues) are Mideast Peace and Tibetan/Chinese human rights. That’s probably why there is more commentary on that- I used to write quite a bit about China here on this blog and also on other blogs but people seemed disinterested in that topic, so I pretty much stopped. I should probably just stick to videos, transcripts and photos since that’s probably what people come here for anyway.

    With Israel, I’ve tried to put up perspectives that aren’t focused on as much in the US media- more often than not, I link to Israeli media so it’s hardly Israel-bashing and I totally reject the notion that criticism of Israel=lack of support for Israel. And because mainstream media coverage tends to mirror rather narrow, uncontroversial views, I’ve been more willing to promote alternative, more critical views because I believe they are underrepresented in most discussions about the topic. At least that’s my opinion, I know not everyone agrees.

    I know that at times the debate has become divisive in the comments here and I try to reign it in because I want people to feel comfortable espousing differing views, even if they differ from mine. That said, I can’t always control what others do and say. I’ve also always encouraged people to drop links in the comments section even if they were totally off topic from what was being discussed. I always tried to have this blog be about more than just Hillary Clinton’s daily schedule. Perhaps I haven’t been too successful at that or perhaps my focus has been too narrow. I don’t know.

    That said, I understand people’s reaction of late- the feedback I’ve gotten recently (including emails) has made it pretty clear that there’s too much of a focus on Israel so I’ll refrain- I know I’ve said that before and I’ve gone on to continue to discuss it anyway but this time I’ll try to stick by it. So I’ll only put up posts about Israel if Secretary Clinton is discussing it (because I assume she will be doing that quite a bit in the coming two years) but I’ll refrain from commenting on it- I’ll do that on other blogs, like TM etc. I’ve sort of been toying with the idea of starting another blog specifically so I can discuss other political issues without alienating the people who come here just for specific information about Hillary. See, all problems have a solution!

    This isn’t in response to any one comment or person btw and I am not being critical of anyone who has expressed frustrating, it’s just omething that has kind of been on my mind lately so given its come up here today I figure it’s as good a time as any to address it.

    It’s all good.

    • rachel permalink
      December 7, 2010 6:59 pm

      I know you said this wasnt in response to anyone on person, but I will comment any way. I am glad there is more than just Hillary’s daily schedule and at other times more than basic topics. I actually learn a lot. Yes sometimes the discussions get lively but more often than not its fun. I was really just commenting on how I guess that it is easy to focuss on certain things especially when there is a strong opinion about it. I mean a lot of the things the media says in terms of Iran is right and a lot of things said on here about Israel are right. I would enjoy it if you contiued the blog the way it is, I was just really making an observation when watching the news and they are reporting on Iran I keeping thinking to myself If this was stacy’s show I bet she would be saying such and such about Israel. Okay I am done now.

      • December 7, 2010 8:11 pm

        If I had my own show I’d love to talk about Iran because Iran is important and yes, I think Iran is a threat. I believe that after the debacle and the government lies that led to the Iraq War, the American people have a responsibility to ask hard questions of the government. I also might even include actual Iranians in the discussion- like members of the Green Movement. Or maybe nuclear experts. Or people like Chas Freeman who actually knows Saudi Arabia inside and out and who could explain why it’s totally no surprise that Saudi Arabia would love nothing more than for us to level and destroy Iran so they can play both sides like they always do. I’d probably also want to discuss how other nuclear countries impact the Iranian threat and why we are willing to use containment with some nuclear countries without threatening war but take it off the table with Iran.

        I just think the Iran discussion in the media has been dumbed down to the point where I find it to be a total waste of time- the media never provides context or the history of the problem and all of that matters. And yes, after the way the media acted in the run up to the Iraq War, I am not inclined to automatically trust their judgment when it comes to analyzing the next big threat. They tend to oversimplify and fear-monger because that’s much easier to do than having an in-depth discussion that actually informs people. I also think it’s easy to support military actions in far away countries when most of us don’t have to possibly lose our lives. We’ve almost become nonchalant about wars these days.

        So, no, I wouldn’t just focus on Israel. But I don’t think I’ll be getting a show anytime soon, sadly.

        Also, for those of you who would like to discuss other things, I’ve always made it clear that anyone can talk about anything they want in the comments whether it’s Hillary-related or not. You can drop links or do whatever you want.

        Ok, now I’m done.

      • Steve permalink
        December 7, 2010 8:26 pm

        If people want to discuss other things, then why don’t they do that in the comments which is something stacy’s encouraged since the time I first started coming here?

        As someone who drops links in the comments about Israel, I’ll try to stop doing that b/c I don’t want to ruffle feathers.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      December 7, 2010 10:42 pm

      “I should probably just stick to videos, transcripts and photos since that’s probably what people come here for anyway.”

      Don’t be so modest! We also love your clear, eloquent, concise, informed, fair, and balanced commentary.
      P.S. Jets/Pats – that was just about the most painful, humiliating spectacle I’ve ever seen.

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        December 7, 2010 10:47 pm

        …in sports, I mean.

  9. Thain permalink
    December 7, 2010 9:59 pm

    If people disagree with the views that are expressed than they can always discuss their own opposing views here rather than simply delurking to complain that there is too much of a focus on something they don’t agree with. Sheesh.

    I saw an article a while back where the NYT quoted an unnamed diplomat saying Iran probably had enough “atoms” to build a nuclear bomb within two or three years. I’m totally not kidding. Not enough highly enriched uranium, not enough yellow cake or not enough plutonium but enough plain old “atoms.” They actually let that quote go without question despite the fact that we all probably have enough atoms in our bathrooms to build a bomb. Most of us just don’t have the ability to smash them together to make a nuclear reaction. My point being since when do we believe that just because the media becomes obsessed with something that makes it true? Remember Senator Obama? The guy the MSM fell in love with and anointed POTUS? That worked out well. Then of course there’s Iraq which the NYT later admitted it hyped up because it was afraid of being labeled unpatriotic or some nonsense.

    Also, just because something is being or not being discussed in the American media doesn’t mean its not being discussed in the international media and I like that this blog also points out what international media is saying because sometimes it’s like night and day.

    Keep calm and carry on!

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      December 8, 2010 12:41 am

      In case you were wondering, I emailed stacy but it wasn’t to complain about her blogging too much about Israel — it was to apologize for having unwittingly provoked such a rancor — mostly from you, T. I told her I intended to shut up and learn, rather than express opinions based on limited knowledge. She told me I had nothing to apologize for and that she wanted this blog to be a place where people could express dissenting views without fear of being attacked.
      I regret the fact that our “spats” may have contributed to stacy’s decision to shut down her Jerusalem office, so to speak. As others have said, I was learning a lot.

  10. Thain permalink
    December 8, 2010 8:17 am

    Stacy’s discussions are fair and she always allows people to voice different opinions. If people don’t like the opinions then they can present their own. Stacy has discussed Iran on this blog in posts and in comments so I”m not sure why some might think there’s not a focus on that. I think the real issue is that some people just don’t like having their views challenged in any way. People want to run around spouting talking points when they don’t make an effort to actually learn about the issue other than what they are told in talking points on CNN and Fox News w/o any background or history about whats being discussed.

    We should always question why the media focuses on some issues/people/facts at the exclusion of others and I think that’s what goes on with Iran. It’s easy sit here at the keyboard and talk tough about Iran when we know that most of us aren’t going to have to fight any war that might break out.

    As the saying goes you are entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

    @Carolyn- I certainly don’t want you to shut up and I’ll try to be more receptive to differing opinions and not make assumptions.

  11. Thain permalink
    December 8, 2010 8:20 am

    Also- this is a helluva time to stop coverage of Israel because apparently the process is dead in the water and hillary will be making some announcement this week about it. She’ll put a positive spin on it because she has to I understand that. Then I saw on politico that she’s giving a speech on mideast peace at the Saban center at the end of the week and Israeli and Palestinian leaders will also be there giving talks. This issue is ALWAYS in the news it’s silly to pretend it’s not. So stacy should continue to talk about it. A lot.

  12. Lulu permalink
    December 8, 2010 8:44 am

    The person who runs this blog should keep doing what they are doing. It’s not like people are prevented from discussing their own views on things.

    Whenever Israel comes up people always lose their minds and get defensive. That’s why nothing ever changes and the fact that most Americans have no idea what’s actually going on in the mideast is part of the reason there is no support for the administrations efforts to get Israel to tow the line. This thread is the perfect example- the same sorry talking points about Palestinians not recognizing Israel (false) and an apples-oranges comparison between Hamas and settlements despite the fact that settlements are not in Hamas controlled areas and have nothing do with any violence from Hamas other than perhaps to give them a possible reason to justify it.

    If two people are negotiating over a peace of pie and the police determine its illegal for either side to start eating it before the issue of ownership is resolved, what sense does it make for one side to start gobbling it up? Why should the police just turn away and ignore it when they’ve said its illegal to take it? Why then would I want to continue to negotiate about a piece of pie that’s already been grabbed away and is almost gone? It’s a silly comparison but you get my point.

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: