McCain Staffer Crows At Idea Of Clinton In Cabinet

Over at the Weekly Standard, McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb explains why Republicans should be cheered by the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

Clinton flipped on the war, but as the nomination slipped out of her reach last spring she spoke of the threats this country faces, and of the prescriptions offered by Obama, in language that would warm the hearts of neoconservatives (if we had them). She threatened to "obliterate" Iran in response to unprovoked aggression against Israel, she spoke of unconditional meetings with the leaders of rogue states as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive," and she castigated Obama's transparent saber-rattling on Pakistan ("last summer [Obama] basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take."). On matters of diplomacy, Clinton's views are not so different from those held by John McCain and most Republicans -- and they are certainly well to the right of Obama.

Of course, if Clinton takes the job one expects she'll be loyal to her new boss. Though it would be extremely entertaining, we probably wouldn't see Madame Secretary working to undermine an Obama administration with recalcitrance and rogue diplomacy. But then Colin Powell was a dutiful soldier while inside the Bush administration and that still didn't prevent him from becoming a foil for the administration's opponents. It's not difficult to imagine Clinton performing a similar service for Republicans. She could be held up as the very model of a responsible Democrat, forced against her better judgment to partake in a series of reckless diplomatic escapades pursued by a more ideological president.

Clinton would be a fine Secretary of State, and she is likely to be a nuisance to Obama whether she is inside or outside of his administration, but as our top diplomat she could reprise a role that made Powell a kingmaker in this year's election. And perhaps she could even present the case for war with Iran to an insubordinate United Nations in the event that Obama's personal diplomacy somehow fails to deter the mullahs from their present course.

Read more about Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State prospects.

Comments

[smartaus]

Goldfarb is a Wright-baiting neocon who should not be given any notice at all. He's only interested in making mischief. He's one of McCain's most disgusting supporters.

[majorteddy]

Screw McCain, he didn't win either. Obama , we elected you. Now do what you promised, the heack with Hillary and McCain.

[osage]

While Bush "united" the Republican Party and "alienated" the Democratic Party with iron fists, Obama is trying to create genuine alliances with as many elements in the Democratic and Republican Party as possible in order to achieve an effective legislative majority based on common benefits rather than enforced compliance. Obama wants to be a leader who persuades and convinces as much as possible and dictates and alienates as little as possible. His objective is to make progress through compromise. America is a country of genuinely diverse races, cultures, values, philosophies and self-interests that must be addressed pragmatically if the differences inherent in diversity are to be overcome. The first step in building an America that is capable of compromise is creating a united Democratic Party that is willing to compromise. Bringing Clinton into the fold will unite many more Democrats than it will alienate. With a united Democratic majority that is willing to compromise, Obama has the power to reach out to Republicans like John McCain from a position of strength and offer support in areas where minimal compromise can achieve maximum progress for more/a greater diversity of Americans.

Bush wielded political power like a drunken bully looking for a fight who didn't care if he destroyed everything and everyone in the barroom. Obama will wield it like a mature and tolerant parent who loves all of his well-behaved and recalcitrant children equally, and by constantly reminding them that they are all members of the same family.

[MrPragmatic]

Obama wants HRC as SOS for this reason: It sets up the perfect good cop, bad cop routine. Obama can remain the statesman while HRC serves as a tough attack dog with Iran, Korea, and Russia. It is actually very perfect. This set up plays into both of their images and real or perceived strengths. This is why he doesn't want Richardson­...Richard­son would want to play the statesman and would not be tough enough.

[ahoyhoy]

Your comment has made me re-consider my initial reservations about Hillary as SOS.

Personally, I would love to see her on the Supreme Court. She is very socially liberal, and her views are well established. Also it would tuck her away, but it's not a flashy enough job for a Clinton, I guess. (I am a ClintonS fan, but an Obama voter.)

But I agree Bill Richardson is too soft for the job, at this point in history. Totally qualified. Maybe he can get another post. He is definitely an experienced and wise public servant.

[novowel4me]

This is kind of a no lose choice by Obama, isn't it? If she accepts, I think your comment could apply, if she doesn't she's been given an opportunity commensurate with her prestige and is still in the fold.

[SimonNZ]

Truly frightening. These people never give up their crazy and hugely dangerous schemes.

Thank God Obama won. If he hadn't, the new war with Iran would be be in full swing by now.

[jeanrenoir]

This neocon is simply outing Hillary. Hillary was ALWAYS simply a Democratic neocon, just as much a ventriloquist's dummy for AIPAC as McCain was for Lieberman, and Bush for the neocons who took him and us into the debacle of Iraq. The never-say-die Hillary supporters, hoping right up to the end that something would "happen" to Obama, were rich, bi-coastal Democratic neocons. The Israel Lobby had assumed that they would control either a Democratic White House under Hillary, or a Republican one under McCain. It really didn't matter to AIPAC. Naturally, the neocons in both parties hated Obama, since his fund-raising from the Net gave him the potential to actually act independently as an honest broker in the Middle East, for the first time since the bete noire of the neocons, Carter. Remember how Lady de Rothschild so weirdly jumped from Hillary to McCain, and tried to demagogue the public for McCain with the farcical, incredibly cynical smear, from a Rothschild!, that Obama was "elitist"? Like the other neocons in both parties, Rothschild just wanted to make sure Israel would have SOMEONE in the White House willing to "obliterate" Iran for Israel, the same way the neocons contrived to have Bush "obliterate" Saddam and Co. for Israel. This is why we should all scream to Obama a resounding, "Hell no!" about Hillary. This has NOTHING to do with feminism. It's simply a question of whether you want Hillary encouraging Obama to bomb Iran for Israel.

[polaris12]

Well said.

[Independent voter]

Obama may have won, but he's turing the whole cabinet over to Clinton hacks.

Obama won, but the people lost.

[LeftLeanWing]

McCain Staffer Crowing with a buddy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4jpeD0NWpw

[jward199]

A more idiotic view I have never read! Total B.S.

[izmeister]

I believe that Hillary Clinton's becoming Secretary of State would serve all well:

Clinton could get a much-needed education on foreign affairs, which would make her much-more capable to assume the Presidency should she still desire to run in 2016.

New York could possibly select a native-stater for her U.S. Senate seat who intends to stay put.

We, the U.S. citizens, could have a refreshing­ly-capable and well-liked being representing us to the rest of the world.

I believe that Clinton, in spite of serious mistakes, desires to be a team player and that President Obama will help her be so. I look forward to those days.

[emncaity]

Amazing. We've got eminently qualified people around to take the Secretary of State position, and you think it'd be a good idea to give it to Hillary because she could "get a much-needed education on foreign affairs" so she'd be more capable at her next presidential run?

Great. Let's send that message to the country that progressives consider the head of the State Dept. to be a training ground for people who don't know enough yet--like, we're not serious about governing, we just want to promote people we like, people to whom we feel we owe something, etc.

Jesus.

If this nomination goes through, it is a HUGE mistake. I just hope it's the last big one.

[ThinkCreeps]

Here, here. I'm not suggesting that there's any truth in the claim that HRC isn't suitable for SOS, but if it's being suggested that megalomania is a qualification, and on-the-job training is provided, isn't the governor of Alaska in most dire need of the SOS appointment?

[Dannydel]

It figures, the thing that got Goldfarb excited was bombing Iran.
Morons never learn.

[Jer1957]

The Hillary Clinton campaign trail comment about 'obliterating' Iran should it attack Israel has been standard presidential policy for a generation.

The intention was--and is-- to forestall a "break-away ally" scenario where a right-wing Israeli regime nukes Iran and leaves us to hold the thermonuclear bag.

I do not care for Goldfarb and his leanings--but have no illusions about the new Administration. Rahm Emmanuel's dad was an activist in the right-wing Israeli Irgun and retained dual citizenship.
Rahm is no 'Clintonista' as the leaker of the erroneous 'travel-gate' smear against Hillary.

Peace-loving Obama loyalists ought to be concerned about just how strongly Chief-of-S­taff-desig­nate Emanuel shares his dad's affinity for the Israeli right-wing's agenda.

Who knows Rahm may aspire to be the new Cheney.

[ralph10]

Dems won't have a puppet as a POTUS.

[StillAmused]

"She threatened to "obliterate" Iran in response to unprovoked aggression against Israel..."

Repeat a LIE often enough... and it's still a LIE.

"... asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons... She replied: "[if] they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them"... both she and Obama have said on the campaign trail they would like to begin fresh negotiations with Tehran..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/23/hillaryclinton.iran

Clinton's statement was -- if you can actually read -- a conditional warning of U.S. CAPACITY to retaliate rather than a direct nuclear threat.

... but how would this cretin know? He's as careless with facts as the media clowns who consistently misreport them.

The transcript speaks. Liars lie.

[orangepetal]

Wow, the only truth is buried deep in the comment section. Poor Americans our media does us no favors.

[Anie]

Add that in her supposedly "pro-war" speech while making her vote on the Iraq war resolution, supposedly made to force Saddam to let inspectors in (which he then did), her speech (not exactly pro-war) included:

===

""My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

===

Actually, she and he are quite close in their foreign policy approaches. I think semantics divided their statements more than ideas.

[Anie]

Right. In fact, here is an excerpt from the transcript at
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-considerin.html

[ To Chris Cuomo ]
"
[HRC] Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a -nuclear-
attack on Israel, what would our response be? . . .

Because whatever stage of development they might be in their
nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which
they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we
-would be able to- totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing
to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that.

Because -that, perhaps, will deter them- from doing something
that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.
"
===================

[polaris12]

The question is why would it be our responsibility to obliterate Iran? Israel has one of the largest nuclear arms capabilities in the world. They would be perfectly capable of obliterating Iran on their own. But from what I have been reading in the news, it seems that the leadership of Israel is almost daily calling for an attack on Iran, rather than the other way around. So who is the bigger danger to mid-East peace? The larger question is what allegiance do we as Americans owe to Israel? Are we obligated to put our own security at risk for the sake of Israel? Are we supposed to support Israel no matter what it does? All of our politicians seem slavish in their support for Israel, even at the cost of our own national interests in having a stable Middle East.

[exdubyafan]

Obama's first assignment to Hillary: Meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

[orangepetal]

I hope she will reject the offer, Richardson is the guy.

[polaris12]

I'm with you. During the campaign, he consistently opposed the Iraq war, whereas, Clinton was a latecomer to the realization that Iraq was tearing us down.

[grf67]

Only losing republicans care what McCain staffers and the Weekly Standard think.

[kylie]

I am no Republican and have supported Obama since the past summer 2007.
I am not thrilled with Hillary as Secretary of State.
Am leary of her hidden income, pro-war attitude, and shift to too many Republican pals.(McCa­in, too).
Why not add Palin?Think it's getting too "adversary­-over-driv­e".

[JiminNC]

Goldfarb? Who let that azzho out in public again? I thought he had had enough drubbing.

[KeepMeLearning]

Apparently Rick Sanchez' a$$ kick ing wasn't enough for him...

[poochytown]

I for one hope Hilary doesn't take the job. The Clintons are like Trojan Horses packed with nasty surprises instead of Greeks. Bill in particular is a loose cannon. Why Obama would set himself up for this kind of potential grief I don't know.

[Onfya]

There's a difference between rivals and enemies. Bill and Hill do not like Obama. They don't think he is qualified to be prez. Sometimes people support you out of the goodness of their hearts, like Kerry. He has done the most for Obama--he introduced Obama to the country. Some people support you out of just plain on duty--Hillary Clinton. I love Obama, but he is being stupid. Bill and Hill will act as if they are the presidents. I don't understand this choice, if true.

[CalliDem]

LOL ... if they didn't like BO they would not have busted their as## getting him elected. HRC handed him every single one of her swing states ... w/o the Clintons he would never have been POTUS

[mediamarv]

Why should we care what anyone over at Weekly Standard thinks or says.

There are much more important matters to discuss, so just leave those douchnozzles in their own little world.