and the winner for Sec. of State is............

[mikeylikesit]

It would seem he's not afraid to surround himself with people who aren't subservient to him.

[$tevie]

lafinfil wrote:
Hillary has many deractors from boths side and much of the commentary is insightful but you lost me at Dick Morris ... really

Dick Morris is no fan of Sen. Hillary Clinton, having spent much of the past decade writing and speaking out against her.

http://www.examiner.com/a-540922~Yeas_an...eb__1.html

Morris is a doofus:

» He laid out the political future: “Hillary will be the next president, and she’ll be the worst president we’ve ever seen.” No matter what happens, the situation in Iraq will “assure that the GOP gets massacred in 2008 congressional elections.” In 2010, the Republicans will take back the Congress — “Hillary will give Republicans the same gift she gave them in 1994” — and they’ll win the presidency in 2012, but thanks to demographic shifts favoring Democrats (namely the rising Hispanic and African-American populations), “that will be the last Republican president we’ll ever see.”

[$tevie]

Dakota wrote:
I never understood the choice. Obama does not need her anymore. In fact, his victory meant that he wrestled the party from them. It is an opportunity to "turn the page". Why bring them back in?

I am not sure where this idea has come from that Obama "wrestled the party from" anyone, or that he "upended the Democratic Party" as Morris put it. What exactly did Obama do that every politician running for president does not do? I don't recall him denigrating the Democratic Party. Unless we are supposed to equate the Clintons with the Democratic party, which would probably be a bit of a surprise for Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, et al.

As for "Change", I think it is totally and completely obvious that the change in question is meant to be a change from the Bush years. Why people insist on pretending otherwise is another mystery I cannot solve.

[Mac1337]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
I never understood the choice. Obama does not need her anymore. In fact, his victory meant that he wrestled the party from them. It is an opportunity to "turn the page". Why bring them back in?

I am not sure where this idea has come from that Obama "wrestled the party from" anyone.
There must be a stellar selection of NEW people for this job. Passing them by and selecting her is baffling to me. What is your explanation?

[$tevie]

I don't know if I have an explanation, but if I did, it would not involve anyone wrestling anything away from anybody.

[Mike Sellers]

swampy wrote:
I don't see much there I can disagree with.

I didn't know about Morris' thing on the side. No reflection on his politics, just another "typical male politican". Power on the prowl. Or as my mom use to call it "busted zipper syndrome".

I could care less what Morris does in his private life. The fact that he started trashing the Clintons as soon as their last check cleared is what makes him scum. He has to make a living as a pundit because no one would dare hire him as a political consultant any longer.

[$tevie]

Mike Sellers wrote:
[quote=swampy]
I don't see much there I can disagree with.

I didn't know about Morris' thing on the side. No reflection on his politics, just another "typical male politican". Power on the prowl. Or as my mom use to call it "busted zipper syndrome".

I could care less what Morris does in his private life. The fact that he started trashing the Clintons as soon as their last check cleared is what makes him scum. He has to make a living as a pundit because no one would dare hire him as a political consultant any longer.
I would think not:

To be sure, Mr. Morris, the former chief political strategist for President Clinton, hasn't gotten off scot-free. He was forced to resign in disgrace after the tabloid Star reported that for a year he had retained Sherry Rowlands as a $200-an-hour call girl, allowing her to listen in on phone conversations with the President and to have advance looks at speeches by Vice President Al Gore and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

[kanesa]

$tevie wrote:

As for "Change", I think it is totally and completely obvious that the change in question is meant to be a change from the Bush years. Why people insist on pretending otherwise is another mystery I cannot solve.

I think there is more to Obama's change than a change from Bush/Republicans. I really believe that Obama wants to change the way things are done in Washington.

I have never seen a president-elect invite his opponent to his transition headquarters. If someone else knows another presidential winner who did, please tell me.

I think putting Clinton in his cabinet is genius. He is acknowledging her strengths and abilities and also appeasing all those Hillary backers still frustrated by her loss. I think she will be brilliant in this position.

(Just an aside and tell me if I am wrong but if Senator Clinton becomes SoS and stays for 8 years, a woman will have been SoS for 24 years.)

I think his change is about consensus and inclusion. His now famous logo includes the colors red and blue to indicate both red and blue states. He does want citizen input and participation. Check out the website.

I truly hope that we will see things done differently in Washington.

[$tevie]

I'm with you in your hope that we will see things done differently, kanesa, and I also believe that Obama wants to accomplish that. I was really trying to express, and failing at it, that I am tired of hearing that choosing anyone who has been in DC for longer than three years means there will be no Change.

[mikeylikesit]

:agree: