Armstrong Williams: Hillary Clinton's "antics and brokering of deals ... have signaled the beginnings of a rogue element"
In a Washington Times column, Armstrong Williams claimed that secretary of state nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton's "antics and brokering of deals on how many times she gets to stand with Mr. Obama have signaled the beginnings of a rogue element." Williams then asked: "Does she see her powerful position as some shadow Oval Office when it comes to international diplomacy?" Williams also asserted: "I fear the incoming Obama White House will be forced to engage in hours upon hours of groveling and hand-holding down in Foggy Bottom."
In his December 8 Washington Times column, Armstrong Williams claimed that secretary of state nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton's "antics and brokering of deals on how many times she gets to stand with Mr. Obama have signaled the beginnings of a rogue element." Williams then asked: "Does she see her powerful position as some shadow Oval Office when it comes to international diplomacy?" Williams also asserted: "I fear the incoming Obama White House will be forced to engage in hours upon hours of groveling and hand-holding down in Foggy Bottom."
Media Matters for America previously noted that several media figures similarly speculated that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama's, with at least one pundit speculating that she would attempt to set up a "parallel government" while another claimed that Clinton "[i]s not a team player" and claimed that "Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new 'Clinton Doctrine' of foreign policy."
From Armstrong Williams' December 8 column:
The position of secretary of state is not a consolation prize. Mrs. Clinton certainly won't treat it that way. Her antics and brokering of deals on how many times she gets to stand with Mr. Obama have signaled the beginnings of a rogue element. Does she see her powerful position as some shadow Oval Office when it comes to international diplomacy? I sure hope not. And while we're on the subject, has anyone seen Joe Biden lately? I thought he was the foreign-policy heavyweight on this ticket?
Don't misunderstand; my concerns surrounding this relationship are grounded not in the rapport between the two, but in the shared respect. One side has it, while I fear the other has yet to fully express it. And assuming that a Secretary Clinton will publicly express her support for the president's final decisions when the private exchanges are through, you still have to contend with the bickering at the staff level, and we know how vicious those can get. Similar shenanigans occurred with her own nomination and vetting, and that means it could happen again.
Worried about Bill Clinton? Don't be. After all of his escapades, he understands the importance of letting his better half shine and soak up the limelight. You can bet he'll mind his manners, and probably even enjoy himself on the taxpayer's dime again.
I've said before that Hillary Clinton will be a strong voice for restoring America to its rightful place in the world, as the talking point goes. But in order to elicit that achievement from her camp, I fear the incoming Obama White House will be forced to engage in hours upon hours of groveling and hand-holding down in Foggy Bottom. This is not the Department of Agriculture, where a federal department has sole jurisdiction of an issue (or close to it). America's national security and diplomatic functions are a complex network of multiple layers. Does anyone think for a second that a Secretary Clinton will quietly acquiesce to decisions out of OMB, or the NSA, for that matter? After all, they both play important, if not low-profile, roles in foreign policy.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Maybe Chenny can give her a few tips on how to do this without any media scrutiny.
The spouse of the Secretary of State recieves a wage from the government. Todays funfact, and deffenitly todays journalism at its inane, irrelivent, (possibly) insane, and incontinent best.
The fact that conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh are all giddy about Hillary Clinton being Sec of State makes me very nervous.
Buchanan a Limbaugh by themselves make me nercvous.
Together they make me squeamish.
they make me wanna puke
While it is obvious that the rightwing is going to keep up their bs and hate and lies about all things precieved as liberal, progressive, Democrat(ic), or basically... anything that does any good for all...
Add to that and say what you want about Hillary... she is a rather decent pick for SecState... compared to Condi... its an upgrade to a college graduate, from having a 7th grader!
In other words.... no matter what Obama does (like with Bill Clinton)... the rightwing corporate dogs will (as long as they have their ill gotten money) spend it wildly doing all they can to keep this country from becoming a happy country!
These corporate whores have no love of country... if they did... they would stick to the truth and practice what they preached ---> that we liberals had to defend and back our president (elect) under every and all circumstances.
I won't always defend Condi, but the woman was well educated. She has her PhD in Russian studies, or something like that. And they just don't give out PhDs (take it from a man whose wife is still working on hers after 7 years). I think Condi's big failure, was being too much of a Bush fan, and basically being in "love" with him, and willing to do whatever it is he wanted. I do see her as a smart and reliable woman, but with her loyalties displaced to Bush, instead of the Country at large.
Condi was probably the only Ph.D. in Russian Studies to completely miss and be unaware of the collapse of the Soviet Union. While she was so in bed with Chevron that they named an oil tanker after her, life went on without her, and the subject of her studies left her behind while almost every other Soviet specialist knew what was happening.
This gross ignorance on Rice's part was the main attreaction to W in naming her SoS. To the GOP, government cannot be competent, so incompetents must be hired. After the damage was done, and seen by W's advisors as uncorrectable, then Gates was appointed to be the one who was competent and couldn't fix the problem, hoping the blame would go on Gates and not W the advisors who named him to the post.
wasn't Russian Lacquer that she got he "piled higher and deeper" on?
Condi is a smart women, sister of the segragated south , almost killed as a young girl in the Birmingham bombings. Typical People who hate Bush and spew some of the most senseless hate toward anyone who works for him or may have followed in his polices.
Thankfully President Elect Obama does not agree with most of the haters on the left, after all he is keeing Bush family friend Robert Gates.
Thing is, Gates is a competent SecDef. If Rumsfield were still there, I wouldn't bet on him staying.
Also, some facts about Rice:
Rice was President Bush's National Security Advisor during his first term. Before joining the Bush administration, she was a professor of political science at Stanford University where she served as Provost from 1993 to 1999. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, Rice served as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification.
Rice graduated from St. Mary's Academy in 1970. In 1974, at age 19, Rice earned her BA in political science, Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver. In 1975, she obtained her Master's Degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame. She first worked in the State Department in 1977, during the Carter administration, as an intern in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In 1981, at the age of 26, she received her PhD in Political Science from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at Denver. Her dissertation along with some of her earliest publications, centered on military policy and politics in Czechoslovakia.[8]
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
Mags,
Thanks for the bio.
Hillary is lightening rod for the right. It's as simple as that. As long as she's in public office, she will be fodder for every pundit out there.
Because of who? Is that due to something Hillary did, or is it just an odd obsession of right-wing pundits?
It's because her husband had the audacity to win the presidency and thus end 12 consecutive years of Republican rule. The GOP thought they would be in power indefinitely, and then some Arkansas "hick" comes in and takes away their gravy train.
But I did love it when Hillary removed all the w's on the White House keyboards. Oh wait - that isn't true either. I was really hoping that one unsubstantiated Clinton rumor would turn out to be true!
Odd obsession of all pundits.
Things is, most of the time when I ask some conservatives why they hate her so much, they can't really say why. Normal response is, "Because she's a b****."
Yeah, that's all they've got. Truth is, if they were to look up the facts, she's a lot more like they are, she's a lot more conservative than the smear machine makes out that's for sure. She's a centrist, as was, and as is Bill.
Again, most republicans or conservatives, when asked why don't they like Hillary? They can't say for sure really.
Mags,
Oh come on... Those Republicans had to be Rinos. Funny thing, remember last week's discussion where nobody her could answer my question as to what did Obama do in his Senate career that was significant? Now that was funny!
Unfortunately, the list of Hillary transgressions is so long it isn't even funny. The fact that she covered up for her sexual predator husband, received quid-pro-quo payoffs while in Ark, trumped up charges against career civil servants so cronies could take over the travel office, was an active participant in Whitewater, obstructed investigations into the Rose Law Firm, had her minions rifle through Vince Foster's office after his suicide, oversaw the attempted healthcare reform debacle, has many campaign funding irregularities and scandals, got elected as a carpetbagger Senator from NY only because she was the ex-first Lady, and flip flopped on the Iraq war. That is right off the top of my head. So my guess some or all of these items, among other things, might have something to do with conservative antipathy but that is just a guess on my part. :-)
What was really funny about your "significant" question was that you kept equating "substance" with "experience" or "accomplishments". Then you shifted to it all being about policy, which didn't have anything to do with anything you'd said earlier.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Brab,
If memory serves me, the original point was "looks" over "substance". I argued that people voted for Obama based on "looks". People took issue and conflating Obama's accomplishements with substance. I don't remember shifting the discussion to policy. Oh well, it was an interesting discussion.
Maybe my short term memory is going, but I seem to have a pretty good handle on the long term regarding conservative issues with Hillary. ;-)
Yes, you classified integrity, honesty and intelligence as "looks". I remember.
Go back and check the end of the conversation. I'm quite sure you shifted it to his policies, because I remember asking you about it.
But it was funny, you are right about that.
Brab,
If you remember, those qualities are subjective. I made the point that Tommy perceives Obama to have those qualities, which I explained, is another way of saying, "looks". The whole thing was over a rather small point, but it led to some interesting discussion.
I forget now how it ended. I'll take your word for it.
Except a perception of substance would be people voting on substance. That's the point you never grasped. You can't set up "substance" as objective when it most certainly is not.
Brab,
You are tying yourself in knots. However I agree with your first sentence. I would argue that I was the only one who grasped the distinction between perception and substance. Substance would include anything substantial Obama has done while in the Senate. It is simply a fact that he didn't accomplish anything of substance in his short visit except get himself elected President. Oh yeah, he co-sponsored some minor bills and voted straight party line, but so did many other Senators.
If I recall correctly, nobody replied to my challenge with anything that could be regarded as anything of substance that Obama did while in the Senate. It was all perception about subjective qualities like "honesty" or undistinguishable laundry lists of Obama's voting record or counting his accomplishments at going to Harvard or working being editor of the HLR.
Sheesh.. deja vu all over again. Thanks for the discussion.
Substance would include accomplishments, but that doesn't mean it's limited to them. That was your argument, and it doesn't work. You can't define "substance" with your own narrow meaning and then claim that other people didn't act a certain way because they don't match your own narrow meaning. If people saw qualities in him that are not superficial, qualities that would help him govern, then they voted on substance. That goes against your original point, that it's about "looks".
If you don't like deja vu, then don't bring it up. It mystifies me that you make such a weak argument, then you make the effort to pat yourself on the back for it.
...remember last week's discussion where nobody her could answer my question as to what did Obama do in his Senate career that was significant?(AA)
You were trolling with the childish Sean Hannity game of asking for an accomplishment that you could dismiss. If I remember correctly, you were asked to provide an example of John McCain's significant achievements to get an idea of what you were looking for, and you failed to do so. Several posters put up links which you avoided,and others posted solid answers, which you ignored.
You seem to have a recollection of that discussion that's at odds with reality, as usual.
Is that list right off the top of your head or of Hannity's head? Because it sounds a lot like his daily rant these days.
Mine. However great minds do think alike. :-)
AA is a moron who likes to throw out inflamatory remarks, and doesn't care how many times he makes a fool of himself. :-)
(How nice; I can say whatever I want, and then just put a little smile face at the end.)
Add to AA's traits a definite streak of masochism. Who else would come on a board like this to be manhandled by people far more skilled in the art of rhetorical debate?
Oh...I almost forgot. :-)
AA said:
>>Unfortunately, the list of Hillary transgressions is so long it isn't even funny. The fact that she covered up for her sexual predator husband, received quid-pro-quo payoffs while in Ark, trumped up charges against career civil servants so cronies could take over the travel office, was an active participant in Whitewater, obstructed investigations into the Rose Law Firm, had her minions rifle through Vince Foster's office after his suicide, oversaw the attempted healthcare reform debacle, has many campaign funding irregularities and scandals,
Wow! What a stupid rant. You haven't provided any links to back up your preposerous claims, and freely mix up valid criticism (her stance on Iraq) with lunatic specualtion (trumped up chages! Vince Foster!), along with stupid innuendo (Hillary may have been involved in Whitewater, but the Clintons were never found guilt of wrongdoing).
That's okay, AA. As long as the rest of the lunatic right wing keeps up this nonsense, America will elect Obama with an evern bigger margin in 2012. You see, the adults are running the show right now.
The "covered up for her sexual predator husband" is my favorite. Isn't that a personal matter, which she should be able to handle at her discretion? As if she's obligated to curse him out in public or something.
I liked that one too, Brab. Covering up from who? The Adultery Patrol? the Philandering Squad? Har!
That's why Barney's so endlessly entertaining, his "off the top of the head" wingnut fantasies are funny, but the fact that he expects them to pass them off as convincing support for his arguments is hilarious.
AA really is a delusional simpleton. ;0) <--------- (note smiley face - Just kidding!)
It's the latter. They have the same type of blind hatred for Pelosi.
I'm not a huge critic of Condi Rice, who is certainly one of the brightest members of this terrible administration, but she was not "almost killed in the Birmingham bombings" any more than any other resident of Birmingham in 1963 who did not attend the 16th Street Baptist Church. Condi's father was a Presbyterian minister and, while she attended school with one of the poor girls murdered in that senselees and despicable attack, she was just one of many horrified observers. Bull Connor was a thug and a brute, and Birmingham was unrecognizable as an American community during that time, but Condoleeza Rice was never targeted and her life story, while already remarkable, should not be falsely burnished by the suffering of those familes who were.
What does Rice being from the South or nearly killed in Birmingham have to do with her actions and judgment as an adult? Criticizing somebody's ACTIONS is not spewing hate. Criticizing her for something beyond her control would be spewing hate. Do you honestly think Rice has done a good job as Sec. of State? Why? Why do you think that she was qualified for her position? As NSA she presided over the worst intelligence failure in US history. That's not spewing hate; it's stating a fact. Why, when faced with people being critical of ACTIONS, do neocons accuse liberals of being haters?
Uhhh...the President can always replace her if it doesn't work out. But, perhaps, we should wait a while before passing judgment...like maybe after the President takes office and his administration gets working. Williams' comments tell me that there are right wing elements who would like nothing better than for the Obama administration to fail.
Exactly.
Why do these idiots keep in insisting that Clinton is going to be running the show. If there is one thing they should see about Obama, is that he is most definitely IN charge of things. From what I've seen, to what I've witnessed thus far during the transition, there is no question as to who is making the calls, and who is going to be the defacto leader, and that will be Obama.
Clinton steps out of line, and goes against Obama, don't think he wouldn't think twice about showing her the door.
Mr Williams gets to eat a shoe.
"In a Washington Times column, Armstrong Williams claimed..." Whatever comes after that is always garbage. He lost any remaining credibility when it came out that he was paid $240,000 from the Bush administration's toadies to promote No Child Left Behind. He is a media prostitute.
WTF!? Amstrong Williams is still allowed to write after authoring phony journalism for years??
Do NOT be surprised to see more of this "editorial" content from the right. It is working for them. Notice how they created the theme that the left wing is up in arms over Obama's cabinet picks?
Well, today it is ALL OVER the national media. Polling numbers do not support this and there are no facts to back it up.
But the right has enough media power to make noise and distraction such as this. Now any thing that Clinton says or does will be magnified 1000x by the MSM.
"Now any thing that Clinton says or does will be magnified 1000x by the MSM."
It's not so much the magnification as it is the distortion.
Armstrong Williams, tee hee; Washington Times, tee hee; still owned by the Reverend Moon?, tee hee; Newt and Lush and the naughty Righties like nasty children bangin' on tincans, tee hee. Consider the eight years of TRASH government they have endorsed.
Armstrong Williams completely compromised himself in illegaly taking money from the Bush Administration to pimp NCLB. No legitimate newspaper would carry... oh wait, it was printed in The Washington Times? Never mind.