Libya Update... Our Women Warriors

by: susaninrindge

Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 16:56:55 PM EDT

As Britain and France pushed for a quick U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a no-fly zone, officials said Clinton teamed up with Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in creating the conditions for a resolution with the broadest possible authority and the largest international support.

In Paris Clinton met with her counterparts in town for a meeting of the Group of 8 foreign ministers and with Abdullah bin Zayed, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates.

Rice built support in New York for the resolution. Samantha Power, an adviser to Obama on the National Security Council and a human rights activist, was also urging the president to intervene.

The authority for the President's actions comes, according to my research, from the U.S. Participation Act (in the United Nations).

The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein

It remains to be seen if this intervention proves to be smart,wise, or effective in the short or long term, but it does appear that it is constitutional and therefore would not be impeachable.

This intervention is not technically an act of war.

But getting back to my original reason for writing this, I think it is very interesting, indeed, that it was three extremely smart and effective women that made this happen...three women who are not at the same place on the political spectrum...three women, who, for whatever else you might say, are dedicated to improving people's lives around the world.

I can only hope they have counseled wisely and that the outcome proves worth the risk. This is historic!

HILLARY CLINTON, Superstar

by: kdhalloran

Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 20:48:26 PM EDT

An amazing development took place that NO ONE expected: Obama nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton to be HIS Secretary of State, and even more unbelievably, she resigned her NY Senate seat and accepted.

Hillary has quietly SOARED in this new role even as detractors still launch bullets and missiles at her when her own performance has scored traction and foundation and substance has she solidly takes the reigns as the country's Chief Diplomatic Officer - and without a hitch.

I don't know how many people in New Hampshire read New York Magazine, but I doubt the NH Union Leader or Sean Mahoney's NH Business or my own Yankee Magazine would publish this story, but you have freedom to READ even in this fractious and taciturn GRANITE STATE of MIND so read this about President Obama's new Secrreary of State:

The overall effect of Hillary's efforts has been to bolster her reputation for being smart, effective, and a team player without associating her too strongly with the wrenching policy changes, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Obama has thrust himself far into the spotlight. And the results have been fairly amazing. Clinton's approval ratings have been consistently above 70 percent - higher than Obama's - with majority support even among Republicans. And media coverage has been orgiastic, probably peaking so far with Andrea Mitchell calling Clinton a "foreign-policy superstar" on the Today show. Even Obama probably never imagined how much mileage he and Clinton would be able to get out of their "kiss, make up, and go off to work around the globe" routine.

I am PROUD that New Hampshire Democrats voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton who won the New Hampshire primary, and that President Barack Obama selected her has his Secretary of State in a bold and breathmaking move.  This appointment has been smooth and seamless, broken elbows aside.

READ THE FULL STORIES (2) you won't find anywhere else in New Hampshire media or party press releases:

1) (6-14-2009) - http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2...

2) (10-16-2009) - http://nymag.com/news/politics...

No Umbrella, Please

by: JimC

Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 19:51:06 PM EDT

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ratcheted up bellicose US rhetoric against Iran Wednesday, accusing the country of funding "terrorism" and interfering in the internal affairs of states throughout the Middle East. Her statements coincided with the release of a report by a Washington think tank with ties to the Obama administration suggesting that the US should establish a "nuclear umbrella" over the region.

(snip)

Making it clear that the question of Iran had been central to her talks in Israel, the occupied West Bank and Egypt, Clinton declared, "It is clear that Iran intends to interfere with the internal affairs of all these people and try to continue their efforts to fund terrorism, whether it's Hezbollah or Hamas or other proxies."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...

What was that, Madam Secretary?

Washington has branded as "foreign terrorist organizations" both Hamas, which is the elected government of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and Hezbollah, which is one of the most powerful political organizations in Lebanon and part of the national unity government, because both have resisted Israeli occupations.

There's more. A report issued by a think tank thinks this is a good idea. (I think "pro-Israeli" may be an overstatement, and Obama-linked seems to be a stretch.)
http://www.washingtoninstitute...

The report issued by the Washington Institute on Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli think tank, was billed as the work of a "Presidential Task Force" and was titled, "Preventing a cascade of instability: US engagement to check Iranian nuclear progress."

The 15-member panel that prepared the document included former State Department and National Security Council officials, members of Congress and the former chief of the US Strategic Command.

Also listed as having endorsed an earlier draft of the report was Dennis Ross, who worked at WINEP for seven years before being recently appointed as the Obama administration's special envoy for the Persian Gulf.

The report frames the US confrontation with Iran over the nuclear question as part of a broader struggle for American hegemony throughout the region, including the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By taking strong measures against Iran, it argues, Washington can strengthen its position throughout the Middle East. "Vigorous steps to shore up regional stability could check unfounded perceptions by some that the US star is waning," the report states.

Clearly suggesting that the conflict has been deliberately sought as a means of furthering key strategic objectives, the authors write, "Confronting the Iran nuclear program also offers opportunities to advance US interests... to deepen US relationships with its Middle East friends."

I can't imagine the secretary is freelancing here; she was widely criticized for her "obliterate" comment.

During the course of the 2008 election campaign, then-Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton declared her support for just such an umbrella, vowing that as president she would "obliterate" Iran in the event it attacked Israel.

"An attack on Israel," she said in a Democratic candidates' debate last April, "would trigger massive retaliation. But so would an attack on those countries [she mentioned by name the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait] that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

The WINEP report notes, "The Cold War experience suggests that deployments of weapons and troops are often necessary to make pledges [of deterrence] credible." It likewise indicates that such a nuclear umbrella should be formalized through a congressionally approved treaty.

Obviously, such proposals encompass far more than the US confrontation with Iran. They would have the effect of turning the other oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf and much of the Middle East into a declared American military protectorate. Such an arrangement would have far-reaching strategic implications, above all in the conflict between American imperialism and its rivals in Europe and Asia for control of markets and resources under conditions of the deepening global slump.

That's probably a bit over the top at the end there. But this is serious business. There is a word for the widespread application of military power to secure our interests.

That word is neoconservatism.

It was statements like these, and other hawkish statements by Mark Penn (he was fired for attending a trade hearing, but nothing was said when he appeared at a hearing on behalf of Blackwater) that made me decide, after months of keeping an open mind, that I could not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. (Naturally, I would support her over any Republican.)

Now Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, serving at the pleasure of the more diplomatically inclined President Barack Obama.

I look forward to our vigilant, issue-oriented press asking the president about Secretary Clinton's statement.

Clinton Promotes the Obama Doctrine

by: gradysdad

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:47:31 AM EDT

The speech served to highlight Mrs. Clinton's return to a full public schedule after her elbow surgery and to reassert the United States' role in the world as a concilatory leader of nations with common interests.  The phrase "architecture of global cooperation" was coined to describe the new doctrine.

He [President Obama] has launched a new era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect. Going forward, capitalizing on America's unique strengths, we must advance those interests through partnership, and promote universal values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people. In this way, we can forge the global consensus required to defeat the threats, manage the dangers, and seize the opportunities of the 21st century.

Here is a link to the transcript of her remarks.

Kelly Ayotte's Positives and Negatives

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:29:02 PM EDT

Positives:
1.  She is a personable candidate.  She's easy to talk with, and according to staff members I've talked with she's been good to work with.

2.  She will benefit from the record she has amassed as Attorney General.  That includes her prosecution of two death penalty cases.  Many voters ARE for law-and-order, and like politics, all law and order is local in that it hits home.

3.  "Attorney General" is a mighty good title to precede every description of her in the news media.  "Former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte..." will sound good to the majority of people who don't know her.

4.  She has a "blank slate" on most issues, meaning she can define who she is as she wishes.

5.  She already has a ready network of potential supporters -- much of the law enforcement community knows her personally, and she can outreach personally to them.  Same is true with House and Senate members from throughout the state who have worked with her.

Negatives:
1.  Her positions on choice and the death penalty will make her a tough sell among those large percentages of voters throughout New Hampshire who are pro-choice and/or opposed to the death penalty.  She is solid and enthusiastic in her position on both matters, leaving little room for her to moderate, as some successful Republicans have done in the past.  

2.  She is breaking her promise to serve out her term as Attorney General.  While that might be more of an "insider's issue" where the public won't be so concerned, it will play in with the recent copout of another fellow quitter, Sarah Palin.  I can see the television advertisement in my mind right now.

3.  As just Attorney General -- not to downgrade the importance of that position -- she has done nothing and said little if anything on issues like foreign affairs, the economy, or "Washington, D.C. matters."  That blank slate could play to her advantage since she can also define her views in her terms with no baggage to go with it, but that also allows her eventual Democratic opponent -- and between now and then her Republican opponents -- to define her in their terms.

4.  She is not yet known as a great public speaker.  That doesn't mean she can't become one, and I'm convinced through the years that even more important than public speaking is a candidate with substance and she could develop that.  But she does need some help for speaking on the political stump.  There is time for her to do that, however.  We saw Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton become much better on the stump as their own primary campaigns evolved.  

5.  She is going to face a New Hampshire Democratic Party on the rise, just off of two successful elections in 2006 and 2008.  Even if there is a primary on the Democratic side, it's more than likely that a unified NH Democratic Party will be stronger than the NH Republican Party in November, 2010.

Hillary's Elbow & Healthcare Reform

by: robsprague

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 12:51:32 PM EDT

But for those of us who care at all about healthcare reform - and who do not think 47,000,000 Americans not named Hillary Clinton should be without health insurance - this has been a very difficult and depressing week. The prospects for healthcare reform our are falling apart.  And here's why:

Moderate Democrats - who were always going to be problematic on this issue - are enjoying their moment of having it both ways.  They "want" health reform.  Um...As long as it doesn't cost any money.  So much for a big tent Democratic Party.  Ah, the Moderate Democrats and their Blue Dog Country Cousins: For Progressives, they are the bitter friends, the bosom enemies.

And Business groups, who have previously "supported" healthcare reform, are now openly "changing sides" and planning to spend lots of corporate dollars to oppose any & all reforms. This "change in position" on the part of business groups should not come as a shock to those of us who have tried to work with them in the past. Disingenuous doesn't even begin to describe them.

And here comes the feigned "shock" around the country about the fact that healthcare reform is actually going to cost money.  Americans who already have healthcare are making clucking sounds in their mouths and wondering if we can afford all this "stuff".

Because in the good old USA, this money thing - how we raise it and how we spend it - is a strange animal indeed.  

For instance, when it comes to building massive military might, money doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem.  We "invest" 625 billion annually on guns. And on computer game drones that spit out missiles in Afghanistan.  And jet fighters that we never intend to really use.  $625,000,000,000.00.

But, God forbid that we should invest 100 billion annually on healthcare reform.  Fifteen percent as much as we hand out annually to the Pentagon.  Fifteen.  To be totally accurate, Healthcare Reform would be the waitperson's tip on our annual Pentagon meal. Would anyone care to look at our dessert menu tonight?   How's about one of those new helicopter that can fly upside down! And I'll bring four plates and forks.

But the problem is that leaders in the business community already have health insurance for their families, and politicians already have outstanding healthcare, and most of the good folks in America's middle class and the well-to-do are covered and cared for.  They - all of these fortunate ones - support healthcare care reform 1000%... as long as it does not cause them any particular inconvenience. Or cost them any money.  Or endanger their access.  

If Bill & Hillary Clinton made their healthcare reform strategy mistake by being too "hands-on", top-down and didactic. . .then Mr., Obama  might be making his mistake by trusting that Congressional Leaders could be trusted to take a larger role in the healthcare reform process.  Max Baucus?  Henry Waxman? A fading and much absent Ted Kennedy?  Mr. President, ya shouldn't be betting the family farm on Max Baucus.

And so now, after spending months as a hilarious side show, hosted by the moronic & outrageous Michael Steele, the Republicans (all nicely covered by Federal Health Insurance and sure to be healthy & kicking for the remainder of the Obama Administration) will begin their usual mindless mantra.  And they will repeat it over and over and over again:  "A public option in healthcare...it's...it's...it's socialism."

So, here we go again on healthcare reform.  And it's America-As-Usual for 47 million American citizens not as lucky as Hillary Clinton & her husband, Bill.  

Drip, Drip, Drip...

by: Dean Barker

Mon May 25, 2009 at 21:25:59 PM EDT

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that the partners of gay U.S. diplomats are eligible for many benefits currently denied them and allowed to spouses of heterosexual diplomats, according to lawmakers and others advocating the change.

...The issue achieved prominence in 2007 when a respected ambassador, Michael Guest, resigned after 26 years in the Foreign Service to protest the rules and regulations that he argued gave same-sex partners fewer benefits than family pets. Guest said he was forced to choose "between obligations to my partner, who is my family, and service to my country," which he called "a shame for this institution and our country."

...In the memo, Clinton said: "At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do."

Hillary Kicking Republican A**

by: gradysdad

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 16:33:32 PM EDT

She is taking no prisoners in the answers she is giving to the right wing Republicans on the Committee.  She is making them understand that she is part of the team and wasting no opportunity to promote her boss, President Obama

Secretary of State Clinton takes charge

by: hannah

Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 16:21:08 PM EDT

It's Easier To Preserve Something You've Seen

by: Andrew Sylvia

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 20:03:26 PM EDT

Fortunately, we don't need to talk about penguin owned knick knack shops probably having to close their doors.

However, the intended goal of helping curb the environmental impacts of humanity upon Antarctica may be better served by focusing on more responsible tourism rather than less tourism.

Letters to the Administration

by: Dean Barker

Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:43:55 AM EST

Paul Hodes writes a letter to Tim Geithner on the bailout fiasco:

It is unacceptable that institutions should be giving large bonuses to executives and squandering money on decorations, all while reporting losses, and then potentially subsidizing these bonuses by joining with institutions that are receiving TARP funds.

Carol Shea-Porter writes a letter to Hillary Clinton on the Dover call center layoffs:

I have two major issues about this change.  The first one concerns the subcontractor selection process.  Please review the process that was used to choose Peckham's subcontractor.  Why did the chosen subcontractor win the contract, and what made it a better choice than the other two?    The second issue concerns fulfilling the intention of the AbilityOne program.  I understand and support the AbilityOne program.  However, after a number of contacts with the State Department officials who were involved with this decision, I realized that the subcontractor of Peckham Industries is not required to hire the disabled and will not be monitored by either Peckham Industries or the federal government. Therefore, the very reason for taking a contract away from well trained workers is thwarted, and the State Department is throwing 300 people out of work in the process. Indeed, the local newspaper is blaming the federal government for an irrational move.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 16:39:49 PM EST

What incredible change in just a few months.  Hillary was my first choice for President, but I'm thrilled with Barack Obama.  Hillary Clinton was my choice for Vice President.  But I'm so happy with Joe Biden.  

With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, we have three fantastic leaders.  What strength and intelligence we have at the top.  

Now, hopefully, they'll get us out of Iraq soon, and Afghanistan just as soon.  America's future is getting brighter on these cold January days.  

President-Elect Barack Obama: "...And Gay And Straight..."

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:52:57 AM EST

Bill Clinton's "it takes all of us" message helped make gay equality a dinner table conversation, where many Americans stopped just whispering their support for gays and lesbians and became more open and vocal.  That happened at an important time as AIDS was still spreading throughout our country and discrimination was for a while on the rise.  

I remember talking with some other Presidential candidates throughout the years about "homosexual rights," as we referred to them in the 1970s, and "gay rights" as we later called them.  Most of those were very whispered conversations.  No serious candidate, really, before Bill and Hillary Clinton wanted to be clearly associated with gay equality.  Some would be supportive, but I can't think of one who wanted to take the lead.  

One of the things that impressed me so much about Hillary Clinton was when I first talked with her in 1991 about gay equality, off to one side of a room after she had talked at a public meeting, she didn't just whisper her support.  She nearly yelled her support for equality for all to hear.  She clearly wasn't embarrassed or trying to downplay it.  In 1991, that was political courage.

Today in 2009, supporting gay equality in a nation still divided on this issue still takes political courage.

This morning, President-Elect Barack Obama talked in Philadelphia getting ready to board a train to Washington, and in his speech he talked about wanting to include everyone, and to break down discrimination.  In a strong and loud voice he mentioned "...gay and straight..." as he talked about inclusion.  

I look forward to his Inaugural Address.  I think those words will be in it.    

This man has the potential of being a great President.  He could become our greatest.  Let's hope, for all of us, he is.  

This Inaugural, whether we're on the train with him today, or will be at the Capitol or the Mall or at Inaugural Balls on Tuesday, or watching on television or listening on radio or reading it in the newspapers or the Internet -- this Inaugural is for all of us, and we're each equally included.  

Watch Live Hearings Here - Sen. Clinton's Confirmation Hearings

by: JonnyBBad

Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:56:19 AM EST

Senate to Confirm Sen. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

Afghanistan: It's Like Shoveling Slush

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:31:49 AM EST

I hesitate to upset my Democratic friends.  I'm as pleased as any of us that we're seeing such wonderful change in Washington.  The next two and three  weeks leading up to the Inauguration, and then the afterglow of the beginning of a new Administration, is an exciting time for all of us who have worked long and hard in many different ways for "change."  

But I'm worried that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton have been pushed into a corner concerning Afghanistan, not unlike the way President John Kennedy was pushed into Vietnam.  During the past few years, many elected and prospectively elected Democrats had to come across as willing to "fight the war on terrorism," so our rhetoric since 2003 or so has been that Iraq was a war we had to end, but Afghanistan was a war we are willing to wage.  After all, that's where the Taliban are.

The Taliban?  None of the 19 terrorists who were on the planes attacking the World Trade Center or the Pentagon on September 11th were Taliban.  We decided to attack the Taliban.  We invaded Afghanistan.  We were looking for Osama bin Laden, who somehow hasn't been in the news in recent weeks.  He was once the object of our anger and mind set.  We don't even know he's in Afghanistan, but we're stuck there, as we got stuck in Vietnam looking for communists.  So much for learning History 101.  

Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has been touring Afghanistan this past week, being fed the usual military dribble that American leaders from Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to Tom McIntyre and George Romney had been told during the Vietnam War.

Mark Penn Knows How to Quit Pakistan

by: JimC

Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:42:06 AM EST

Facts are not merely stubborn, they are annoying. I don't want to think this is important, but I do.
http://www.mediabistro.com/prn...

Politico reports that Burson-Marsteller and Penn, Schoen, Berland & Associates, the market research consultancy of B-M CEO Mark Penn, has resigned the account of a two year client, the Pakistan People's Party, which is the ruling party of Pakistan.

(snip)

Techniques outlined by Javors, according to contract terms with the Department of Justice's Foreign Agent Registration Office, include Burson plans to interview, "100 American political journalists and business elites in Washington, DC and New York, as well as elites in the United Kingdom, the European Union and Pakistani expatriates living in the United States."

Hmmm. Message discipline.

Additional techniques included "'an internal brainstorming session,'" authoring 'white papers' by experts and academics, and drafting and seeking placement of op-ed pieces in newspapers. 'Burson-Marsteller will work with the [Pakistan People's Party] to draft and seek placement of op-ed pieces on the issue and will identify appropriate 'authors,' depending on tone and subject...'"

Also, Burson "promised it would promote credible 'third-party' supporters of Pakistan, recruiting such backers from the ranks of 'former U.S. government officials involved with Pakistan during their tenure;' 'Academics and think tank experts;' and 'Pakistani Americans in influential positions.'"

I'm on the edge of fair use here, but I don't feel too badly, because it's really Politico's item that Mediabistro summarized. And again, why do the cool kids diss Politico? This is valuable reporting I haven't seen elsewhere.

Javors hints that the account resignation was planned to coincide with Senator Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State confirmation hearings.

I'll have to glance at that hint later. Meanwhile my knee jerks, as if to say, "No, really?"

"Secretary Of State-Designate Hillary Clinton" -- It Sounds So Good!

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST

I just sounds all so good.  

With Joe Biden and so many other great choices, what incredible future potential there is for America.  

She's Not Gonna Get It

by: Dean Barker

Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 19:26:38 PM EST

President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday will seal their rapprochement when he announces her nomination as his secretary of state, Democrats close to the process said Sunday.

BERNARD: No, they're not going to keep her in line if she's secretary of state. If she's secretary of state --

DONAHUE: Well, that's why she's not gonna get it.

BERNARD: -- she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem.

DONAHUE: I don't believe she'll get it.

MATTHEWS: If he hires her, he cannot fire her.

DONAHUE: She's not gonna get it.

A Role For Al Gore?

by: Rep. Jim Splaine

Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:38:07 AM EST

I think the world may have been so much different than now.  I can't imagine we would have invaded Iraq.  We likely would be in the middle of a smarter war on terrorism.  I bet the economy wouldn't be in crisis.

But, who knows?  The "ifs" of history also are followed by the "then whats," and we are where we are because of circumstances.  If those circumstances had been different we might have ended up where we wouldn't want to be today.  

Al Gore didn't become President.  But he's done so much more, with his vision on Climate Change.  There MUST be a role for him during the next several years.  He's a young man in search of a better future for us.

Imagine, President Barack Obama.  Vice President Joe Biden.  Important roles for Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and Bill Richardson.  The possibilities of a positive future are thrilling.

I think America is going to be quite okay.  

NYT: Clinton to Accept State Position

by: JimC

Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:28:06 PM EST

As you all know, I was behind this from the get-go.

Well, she'll do a good job. But I still say Senator from New York (D-For Life) is a better job.