Chicagoist: Obama Names National Security Team

Scott the Jerseyist

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:20:04 -0600

So far his idea of change has been appointing the same people from the past two administrations or just the usual Washington insiders. True, with SoS, you have to pick someone who has been on the inside, but Hilary?!?? She had the least experience of all the names floated, a pick that is purely political. There are Klingons who have been more productive than Bush over the past 8 years, neither they nor Obama have taken office yet. (Michael Dorn for Sec of Def?)

Ingrid

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:53:46 -0600

Why is it that whenever Obama chooses someone for his cabinet you hear the naysayers going on sarcastically about 'change'...I mean, who do you want him to pick? Klingons? Or should he go with people who have absolutely no experience at all, but because they are new, they'd be different and somehow represent the change you are seeking...or are you all just digging for boogers? Does 'change' have to be so literal to you? It looks to me like there is change already...I mean Obama seems to have done more productive work in the last month than Bush has done in 8 years. Now, THAT is change.

Scott the Jerseyist

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:42:22 -0600

This pick should be of no surprise. As soon as Obama picked Biden, a man who has been in the Senate longer than McCain, as his running-mate, everyone should have seen this whole "change" theme for the empty talk that it was.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:50:04 -0600

@Navin: Cenk Uyger, who can be smart and equally unbearable, wrote a very considered piece about the myth of the center right country. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-center-right-myth_b_144074.html In essence, while there have been swings left and right, the trend is progressive.

Spook

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:15:40 -0600

Navin, trust me Hillary is one of us! The problem is when WE live them floating in the wind, they got to come home to some body

Navin

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:09:19 -0600

Perhaps you should feel sorry for Twain, too. Or Orwell. Or Lincoln. All them were pessimists and some would call them cynics, too. I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to weave together here. I'm pretty much a hope for the best, expect the worst kind of guy, thus my criticism of Clinton etc. and Obama's "Change" that so many "pragmatic" hynotized middle of the roaders have latched on to with bullshit detectors fully disabled. "Progressive Democrats"? Uh, who would they be? Dennis Kucinich? Maybe? Who are these others? At least Republicans can claim Ron Paul as one of the few if only who've some kind of progressive agenda at least in regards to foreign policy and such. Certainly not economic. Who are these others that aren't center right and basically equal to classic pre-neocon Republicans? Rahm was one of the main guys behind the push to the right for Democrats, the attempt to appeal to these actually right wing middle of the roaders. It worked real well for Gore and Kerry didn't it? It only took the worst president, two wars, scandals and economic disaster to get a Democrat finally elected.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:44:57 -0600

Science, after all, often shines a light on the base animal nature of humanity, and the apparent determinism of the universe, and other such matters. And a cynic would see us stop there and moulder. Science allows us to transcend the "determinism of the universe" as you put it. Perhaps you should feel sorry for Twain, too. Or Orwell. Or Lincoln. All them were pessimists and some would call them cynics, too. But don't you see, whatever pall you toss over them, they held to notions greater than the simple acceptance of "human nature". Twain's bitter old man bit masked his grief and familial loss. Lincoln appealed to the better angels of our nature as a nation and Orwell satirized as much as he despaired. His essays speak to a common humanity that is far more idealistic than his two, oft-quoted, over-cited novels.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:35:33 -0600

Stop seeing history as a place for moral lessons and begin to see it as a progression. History is hardly a progression, not in the way you imply--some sort of nearly straight line of improvement. If so, the 20th Century would not have been so bloody. And while I share a bright view of science--it is certainly more useful than religion--it is hardly is "idealism writ large." Science, after all, often shines a light on the base animal nature of humanity, and the apparent determinism of the universe, and other such matters. I feel very, very sorry for you Get a life and worry about someone you actually know. Pity is cheaper than hot air. Perhaps you should feel sorry for Twain, too. Or Orwell. Or Lincoln. All them were pessimists and some would call them cynics, too.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:09:52 -0600

And people like you, for all your reading and education and hot air, are simply too wimpy to acknowledge that progress is often an illusion, and that human beings are usually shit, especially when pursuing and exercising power, and that force often is needed and even is the most moral thing to do. I feel very, very sorry for you. Sincerely and truly. Not scoring points of poking holes here. I feel dreadful that you have such a low estimation of humanity. That can't be an easy way to live. But drop another quote on me and prove me wrong. Perhaps Twain will do. After all, he was quite the optimist by 1900. I think your own words speak volumes.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:05:50 -0600

Show me how to overcome human nature. Uncross your arms, stop reveling in fault as proof of your cynical point of view and embrace the possibility that you can change the world. I may be wrong, pie-eyed and just begging for the world to kick the shit out of me, but I'd rather reach high and hard than grumble about how the sweet fruits are never at the top anyway. By the way, technological progress is hardly the same as changing human nature when it comes to power and politics. I disagree. Technology is our attempt to change our nature on the most fundamental level. Humans should not live in many of the climates we find ourselves in. We should not travel the distances we do, with ease. We should not live as long as we do. Technology lets us transcend the "should" of God or evolution. We are bettered by our pursuit of noble invention. Science is idealism writ large. Albany, you really, really need to think more deeply about history and human nature. You have massive amounts of knowledge but little wisdom. Stop seeing history as a place for moral lessons and begin to see it as a progression. History is not there to hold us back or define us. We can live unchained by history, free to set our own path. What wonders we can make.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:48:21 -0600

Listen "pragmatists", you're cynics who are too sissy to commit. Embrace your failure, get in your box and get out of our way. Go ahead, "idealists" and "progressives," show me the way. You've got an progressive president now--well, the most progressive in most of our lifetimes--and a Dem Congress, so you have no excuses anymore. Show me how to overcome human nature. By the way, technological progress is hardly the same as changing human nature when it comes to power and politics. Albany, you really, really need to think more deeply about history and human nature. You have massive amounts of knowledge but little wisdom. Listen "pragmatists", you're cynics who are too sissy to commit. And people like you, for all your reading and education and hot air, are simply too wimpy to acknowledge that progress is often an illusion, and that human beings are usually shit, especially when pursuing and exercising power, and that force often is needed and even is the most moral thing to do. But drop another quote on me and prove me wrong. Perhaps Twain will do. After all, he was quite the optimist by 1900.

Navin

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:42:04 -0600

Listen "pragmatists", you're cynics who are too sissy to commit. QFT

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:41:04 -0600

So we should settle for a permanently right / center-right U.S. despite being far right of all of Western Europe, despite people getting behind Obama and voting with a hope for a more progressive "change"? For one, we are not Western Europe. Get over it. And trust me, while many things are better over there, it is hardly the utopia that some on the left imagine it to be (check out the fiscal problems in some of the semi- and wholly-socialistic states, or the racism, or the class divisions that persist) Second, everyone who voted for Obama has demands on what he should do first. But he is president of the entire country, isn't that what he said, not of any particular group (which is how Bush governed). Thirdly, consider this: One way to get the so-called progressive agenda on track (health care, better transit, etc) is to deal with the realities of the present (that is, include the right-center agenda at some points), build even more goodwill and capital and move from there. In any case, the economic crisis and Iraq are going to dominate the first term (along with Pakistan-Afghanistan-India, I am sure, and some Russia problems), so some progressive things are going to have to wait. That is reality, as bad and evil as it is to some idealists.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:35:11 -0600

So we should settle for a permanently right / center-right U.S. despite being far right of all of Western Europe, despite people getting behind Obama and voting with a hope for a more progressive "change"? Yes. Because of the limits of human nature. Also, man will never fly, everything that can be invented has been and women will never get the vote. Listen "pragmatists", you're cynics who are too sissy to commit. Embrace your failure, get in your box and get out of our way. We can do better than you can ever hope to criticize.

Stealth

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:26:28 -0600

Sadly, it also grooms her for 2016. Sorry, didn't read this line RIGHT UNDERNEATH. Duh...

Stealth

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:25:36 -0600

Obama is picked her to nuetralize her 2012 ambitions, which she was clearly setting herself up for in hopes that Obama screws the pooch in the next four years. This cuts that off. Really? I see it as the opposite: this gives her more "bite" if she decided to run again. Now she'll have REAL foreign policy experience and not just visiting schools as the wife of the president.

Navin

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:22:41 -0600

So we should settle for a permanently right / center-right U.S. despite being far right of all of Western Europe, despite people getting behind Obama and voting with a hope for a more progressive "change"? We should just be resigned to it, after all let's consider the Caesars, the Khans, Persians, Aztecs, Holy Roman Empire, The Pharoahs, Hitler etc. etc. Never mind that we live in 2008 and other more progressive countries are more successful and enjoying a better quality of life. Obama picked a bunch of non-progressive people for his important cabinet positions. Yeah, but would they be to the right of your typical Macedonian King or to the left? Well for what it's worth, let's just say that I do hope that Obama does have some kind of sekrit plan to actually implement some good policies..

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:16:15 -0600

No, I just dislike childish, naive idealism, The difference between childish (which is petulant and self-focused) and child-like (which is questioning and intolerant only of the staid forms) is vast and critical. the kind of idealism that imagines a world that will never be because of the limits of human nature. Human beings are limited only by the barriers we erect. You can either get about setting up more impediments or do you best to break them down. Few things about the human pursuit and exercise of power have changed since civilization began a few thousand years ago. Reductionism at it's worst. You cheapen 10 millenniums of human struggle from the base to the sublime because it suits your cynicism. That's sad Matilda, even for a "pragmatist". That is not cause for despair; in fact, accepting this fact is liberating, in that one knows the limits of human capabilities and can work more realistically within those limits Enjoy your box. You built it all on your own. a truth that leftists, and rightists, and reckless quote mongers seem never to get. Quote monger. I think I have a new handle name in mind.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:04:45 -0600

Perhaps you think that there are no legitimate reasons to be unhappy with Clinton though, of course that's just a difference of opinion. If you had read my post above, you would have seen she was far from my first choice. I think the choice was mediocre, though I can see the potential benefits, and I hope it turns out much better than I expect. God, you're just dead inside aren't you? No, I just dislike childish, naive idealism, the kind of idealism that imagines a world that will never be because of the limits of human nature. Few things about the human pursuit and exercise of power have changed since civilization began a few thousand years ago. That is not cause for despair; in fact, accepting this fact is liberating, in that one knows the limits of human capabilities and can work more realistically within those limits--a truth that leftists, and rightists, and reckless quote mongers seem never to get.

Ward Up

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:04:23 -0600

His picks could have been a lot worse. It looks like Obama is moving to Center, at least on national security matters.

Ward Up

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:04:07 -0600

His picks could have been a lot worse. It looks like Obama is moving to Center, at least on national security matters.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:57:37 -0600

And here comes the all-purpose quote that can be twisted to fit nearly every situation and argument. God, you're just dead inside aren't you? Better specificity. “An idealist is one who helps the other fellow to make a profit”-Henry Ford (Famed anti-semite, war-profiteer and anti-labor leader) I'm sure he and Hillary would have gotten on famously.

Navin

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:54:44 -0600

lol, ok Matilda. Show me where I said people should not work to change things for the better, or for their own interests, some of which exist on a higher level than rank selfishness. I'm not sure how that's relevant. I'll wait while you find those words .... One can accept that people are ugly when they strive for power and still attempt to change how that power is used and distributed, perhaps for the greater good or, at the least, for more efficiency Yeah.......ok... Or one can perhaps think that a person's a poor choice without being told to live in the "real world". Perhaps you think that there are no legitimate reasons to be unhappy with Clinton though, of course that's just a difference of opinion.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:32:07 -0600

Touche, Ingrid.

Ingrid

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:29:14 -0600

"In any case, there is a reason why artists don't rule the world--they never have, and they never will." Well, as an art school grad myself, I've got to say that you've never seen a more cutthroat or shallow bunch than artists (students or professional), so it's not that they're not power hungry that they don't rule the world....maybe they're just not organized enough. But I can tell you that there are plenty of Gordon Geckos in the art world.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:21:33 -0600

"Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." And here comes the all-purpose quote that can be twisted to fit nearly every situation and argument. In any case, there is a reason why artists don't rule the world--they never have, and they never will.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:17:01 -0600

So Matilda, every time you complain about Mayor Daley and apathetic citizens in Chicago are we going to have to tell you to suck it up and live in the world of greedy grown ups? Show me where I said people should not work to change things for the better, or for their own interests, some of which exist on a higher level than rank selfishness. I'll wait while you find those words .... One can accept that people are ugly when they strive for power and still attempt to change how that power is used and distributed, perhaps for the greater good or, at the least, for more efficiency.

Ingrid

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:12:43 -0600

"Don't believe me. Believe the sum of human history, which, despite the progress made in technology, civil rights, food supply and such, shows us a world where humans, no matter how educated or englightened, continue to strive for power and resources." -- That hits the nail right on the head. Look around the world...from the holocausts going on in the Congo and Somalia, to the backstabbing that goes on behind closed doors in the Catholic church, in the hallowed halls of Academia, to any lowly office in Anywhere, USA .... Everywhere you look, it's people hungry for power. That being said, I think that Obama, now, has Hillary where he wants her.

Spook

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:07:56 -0600

"I'd say Edwards was about the only person talking about the poor. Of course he's permanently out of the picture now." Damn Navin, my bad, how did I miss Edwards?

Navin

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:07:21 -0600

So Matilda, every time you complain about Mayor Daley and apathetic citizens in Chicago are we going to have to tell you to suck it up and live in the world of greedy grown ups?

irishman1

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:06:18 -0600

If we had more democrates like Hillary, our country would be better Holy shit!! I just spit my afternoon coffee directly into my computer screen when I read this one. Using "more democrats" and "better" in the same sentence?!?! Hilarious! I'll gladly pay a couple bucks for the amount of entertainment I got from that line.

Spook

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:06:15 -0600

Albany, I'm crying over hear! What Bill and Hillary did to the party? Are you kidding me? The "party" should have done more for them! If we had a party of fighters we would have national health care by now. And Bush would have never been elected in the first place And look what "the party" did to Howard Dean, the best candadite we had since Bill Clinton? Did Clinton tell Al Bore to campaign as a right wing republican? Did Clinton tell Al Bore to appoint that salamander named Joe Lieberman to be his Vice President? Did Clinton tell Al Bore not to fight for the election he actually won? Al Bore lost because he's a coward and a Bore. He became a man, after he lostm when he showed back up with the beard And are you really advocating for a "hawk"? Does saying stuff like "Hawk" make a part of you feel "excepted"? Oh and Hillary isn’t going to run again, because she knows she will be too old. Although Obama is from Chicago, he aint that petty, he knows she will do a great job and help the administration through out the world

Navin

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:04:55 -0600

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:03:41 -0600

We don't need you to point out reality. It's where we all live. Give me George Bernard Shaw over finger-wagging attempts at moralizing any day. "Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not."

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:56:02 -0600

It's a cruel world, if you accept it. Yes, it is a cruel world, and accepting that fact does not mean one has be a sell out, only that one has an more accurate view of the world. Don't believe me. Believe the sum of human history, which, despite the progress made in technology, civil rights, food supply and such, shows us a world where humans, no matter how educated or englightened, continue to strive for power and resources. It's the person who has sacrificed ideals and principles for whatever they can stuff in their pockets. Yeah, because everyone who pointed out the reality of the word did so to get rich. That certainly describes me.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:47:26 -0600

Hillary a hawk? Only if you are a pacifist. Or don't realize that diplomacy without a strong military option is empty talk. Don't believe me, believe the American Conservative. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/mar/27/00007/ Welcome to the real world, ugly and obsessed with power, and, unfortunately, not like anything seen on Sesame Street. Grow up.... You know who the first person to say "Welcome to the real world" and "grow up" is? It's the person who has sacrificed ideals and principles for whatever they can stuff in their pockets. It's a cruel world, if you accept it. The let-down of the 60's radical cum yuppie is the modern archetype. Which makes you an ideal Clinton supporter really. Wag your finger elsewhere.

Spook

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:47:15 -0600

Albany,I think Hillary is a great choice! I mean considering who else Obama has appointed. This is America after all, Hillary( and Bill) are the best of a sorry lot. I think Hillary will also do alot for women who are oppressed throughout the world, including women who get stoned to death after being victims of rape. To call her a bully is like Gen. Beauregard calling Gen. Anderson a bully because he refused to abondon Fort Sumter. Hillary aint perfect, but she "sho" stood up for poor and minorities more so than any other democrat in recent history on a national stage with the exception of Paul Welstone. She is a fighter, who isn't afraid to fight for those left behind, while Rauhm Emmanual fights for the establishment. If we had more democrates like Hillary, our country would be better

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:39:45 -0600

This move is all politics. Politicians acting politically. Imagine that. Even St. Lincoln thought about politics on a fairly regular basis, including for his decision about the Emancipation Proclamation (a brilliant political move, I think, on both the domestic and international levels). So did Churchill and FDR and Kennedy and .... well, you get the point.

matilda

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:35:37 -0600

Hillary a hawk? Only if you are a pacifist. Or don't realize that diplomacy without a strong military option is empty talk. I don't really like naming her to state-Bill Clinton brings a bucket of troubles, and Hillary could have been a great ally in the Senate--but this may---may--turn out to be a smart move. The biggest challenge is making sure that foriegn leaders know that Hillary is speaking for the President, not herself. If that happens--if Obama makes that happen--then we might see a good run for her at State. Remember--and this assumes she has political aspirations in the future--it is in her best interests, resume-wise, to make sure she functions as a damn good SoS. Richardson would have been good. So would Holbrooke (my first choice). Maybe Hagel, too. Hillary's just another bully Welcome to the real world, ugly and obsessed with power, and, unfortunately, not like anything seen on Sesame Street. Grow up and realize that as long as humans run the globe, they will all act like bullies of some sort as they compete for resources and power. Even the Swiss have been known to be assholes from time to time.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:32:28 -0600

This move is all politics. Clinton dove for the Armed services committee when she was elected in 2000 to beef up her lack of policy experience. She's been on the wrong side of every major initiative since 9/11. Obama is picked her to nuetralize her 2012 ambitions, which she was clearly setting herself up for in hopes that Obama screws the pooch in the next four years. This cuts that off. Sadly, it also grooms her for 2016. I have nothing but loathing for what she and Bill did to the democratic party. From start to finish they mired it in their petty Arkansas chickenshit and cost Gore what should have been a piece of cake election. We don't need them. But now we have them. Yay.

cookie66

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:21:24 -0600

plus richardson is just so darn cute, especially with that beard.

tc3

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:15:06 -0600

I also thought Richardson would have been a far better move.

Slaphappy

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:10:29 -0600

I don't understand the pick at all, but I won't condemn it until I have concrete reason to.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:00:20 -0600

Bill Richardson. He's going to be commerce secretary, a good position, but I'd have rather seen him as SoS. Clinton is a big hot mess. Bill's going to be loping around and his foreign entanglements (Jesus, the man has made even that sound dirty) are already an issue. She's a hawk, much to the right of center on foreign policy. Richardson is a true diplomat. Hillary's just another bully.

irishman1

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:58:41 -0600

A "better choice" is not the issue here, sparky. Albanyparkour hit the nail on the head. "Change we can believe in?" Hook, line and sinker. Big time schmuck move.

sparky

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:51:38 -0600

I do not necessarily disagree with you, but who do you think would have been a better choice for the position?

Albanyparkour

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:24:49 -0600

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. What a schmuck move. Letting the Clintons and their bullshit back in the White House? Nothing but bad news.